Lords Sitting of 12 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL.
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to issue to the Public Works Loan Board for local loans an amount of up to £500,000,000 until the passing of the next Act. It also provides that the Board may incur commitments within a comprehensive limit of £680,000,000. As your Lordships will observe, the Bill follows the pattern of its predecessors, and the need for it arises from the possibility of the powers under the existing Act being exhausted during the coming autumn. The current Act, passed last December, limited cash advances to £250,000,000, and the total of cash advances and commitments to £400,000,000. At the beginning of this month, the amount actually advanced under the current Act had reached £159,000,000. The great bulk of this amount was for housing purposes—it is impossible to estimate the precise figure, but three-quarters would probably be about the right proportion—while outstanding commitments stood at just over £181,000,000. The margin available to the Board is thus only just under £60,000,000 and there is a serious risk that this will not last beyond the early autumn.
  690
  As your Lordships will realise, precise estimation in this field is never possible. It is difficult to say with any degree of certainty how long the new powers are likely to last; but the Government expect that they should suffice until late in 1949, or perhaps a few months longer. I am assuming, as the Government assume, that future advances and powers will be roughly in line with those of recent times. Your Lordships are aware, too, that when it comes to a particular loan, the local authority have to secure the consent of the Government Department concerned and also under the Capital Issues Control, the agreement of the Treasury. Under the Act of 1945, and until the end of 1950, local authorities are obliged, subject to certain exemptions, to borrow from the Board. That, of course, is in order to avoid competition between the central Exchequer and the local authority. This Bill is a simple and necessary part of the machinery for ensuring that the money required by local authorities for housing and other essential purposes is made available without delay. I will do my best to answer any question that may be raised on the Bill. I beg to move that it now be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord pakenham.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, possibly it is because I have had to move a similar Bill in another place, in other years, that I have been asked to make a few brief remarks on this occasion. As the noble Lord said, it is a piece of necessary machinery. We might, perhaps, observe that the Bill is somewhat early in time, because the present provision is net yet exhausted and might have lasted at any rate until the early autumn Session. We shall not quarrel about that, however; we do not want to have too much extraneous business during that special Session. The Act of 1945 concentrated borrowing on the part of local authorities through the Public Works Loans Commissioners, and there are critics of that procedure. There are some who would prefer the old method. Perhaps it is too early to say how this new procedure is going to work. I see the merit of avoiding unnecessary competition between local authorities when they are seeking money and possibly the noble Lord may have some views as to how the system is working. I should like

  691
  to pay tribute to the twelve unpaid Commissioners—men of high ability—and to express the hope that the Treasury will regard them as an independent body and not just as a "rubber stamp." Possibly the calibre of the Commissioners is the best guarantee that that will be so.
  This total of £500,000,000 cash and £680,000,000 including commitments is a considerable sum, and it is being spent by the local authorities of this country on social services arising from a code which is not the work of one Party. The social services code has been built up by all Parties, and we are anxious to see that it should be fully implemented; and I note that housing accounts for about three quarters of the requirements of the local authorities. Looking to the future, those of us who sit on these Benches are anxious, because capital does not fall like manna from heaven; it has to be produced, saved or earned. We see one industry after another subjected to the great experiment of nationalisation (I will not be contentious), and a new range of individuals whose incomes for this year are extinguished and whose savings are trenched upon. We therefore feel some anxiety as to whether, in the future, capital will be available for the social services as it has been in the past. However, that is a story for another day, and I leave it there. I have no further comment to make on this necessary measure.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  GAS BILL.
  2.42 p.m.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  [THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clause 58 [Co-partnership schemes]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 7, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to add to the clause:
  "(4) No regulations made under this section shall authorise the distribution or transfer of any assets, otherwise than in accordance with the consent of a meeting of the persons entitled to benefits from, or in connection with, those assets, duly convened in accordance with the scheme."
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to safeguard the interests of co-partnership schemes. As many of your Lordships know, in certain cases the assets of these co-partnership schemes are considerable. Clause 58 (3) says that the
  "regulations shall make provision for the distribution of any assets"—
  of co-partnerships schemes which are
  "held for the purposes of the scheme to the persons beneficially entitled thereto, not being assets transferred and held for the benefit of persons…"
  provided for under the new arrangements. The Amendment that I am moving merely requires that the assets shall not be disposed of except as approved by the co-partnership meeting of the persons entitled to share in those assets. When this matter was discussed in another place, the Solicitor-General made the point that, whilst in spirit he was agreeable to the proposals contained in my Amendment, in fact it was difficult to put such a provision into the Bill because there was no provision for the wishes of the members of co-partnership schemes to be expressed in the ordinary way through duly convened meetings. If I may just quote, the Solicitor-General said:
  "There is no procedure for constituting a duly convened meeting but, if that were done and the wishes of the meeting were conveyed to the Minister, he would have regard to them."
  It is not quite correct to say that there is no provision for members of co-partnership schemes to have meetings. This Amendment tries to put into effect the intention as expressed by the Solicitor-General. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Like the Solicitor-General, I too am in sympathy with the idea underlying this Amendment. I can easily satisfy the noble Lord.

  693
  This Amendment goes too far. The Solicitor-General said—and if he had not said it, I would have said it—that the Minister should obviously have regard, and the very greatest regard, to the wishes of co-partners as expressed at a properly convened meeting. But it is one thing to say: "You shall have regard to these matters," and quite a different thing to give co-partners what the Poles used to call liberum veto—the absolute right of veto. That would mean that any majority of co-partners, or possibly a minority, would have the right to say "No." One of the difficulties which we have in this Bill and which has always been familiar to us—particularly those of your Lordships who listened to the discussions on Clauses 56 and 58—is the difficulty of squaring the old co-partnership arrangements, which had much to commend them, with the new set-up of nationalisation. It involves the departure of the small scheme and the merging of the various small departments into one very much larger unit.
  In these circumstances, it is obvious that difficult questions may arise as to what is to be done to wind up co-partner-ship schemes. To say that you are to listen to, and so far as you can to give effect to, the wishes of the co-partners is to say something which, from my point of view, is entirely self-evident. But to say that the Minister is to have no power to act at all unless he has the consent of the co-partners is to put him into an impossible position. I do not say that any set of men is ever unreasonable; I will not say co-partners are unreasonable. So we must consider the possibility of some people not being willing to enter into the spirit of the new system, and I think it would be an impossible position if those people were in a position to hold up the whole scheme. Therefore I cannot assent to a proposition which would allow the co-partners to hold up the distribution of assets for ever unless the Minister complied with their requirements, whatever they might be and however impossible it might be for the Minister to comply with them. I think that is asking too much. I hope no one will interpret what I have said as meaning that the Minister should not have regard to the wishes of the copartners. Of course he should; and he should give effect to them as far as possible. But I am not prepared to put the Minister in a position where he can be
  694
  completely overridden and deprived of his powers by a majority of the co-partners.
  Incidentally, if there are a majority and a minority of co-partners, I think the Minister ought to have regard to the minority, to see that the majority are not overriding the minority and to try to do justice as between the two. The regulations which we contemplate could—and probably will—provide for an existing co-partner opting out of any new arrangement, in which case, of course, he would receive his appropriate share of the accumulated funds. There is the further difficulty that not a few of these co-partnership schemes do not provide for the holding of "duly convened meetings", and in such cases as that the Amendment would seem to be of no effect. In short, I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. Although I do not say it would, it could be used for preventing the winding-up of schemes; it could be used for prejudicing the wishes of minorities, and to take from the Minister the power to do that which, as a matter of good business and good sense, he ought to be able to do—namely, to see that the old arrangements dovetail into the new.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. He said that he was sympathetic to the intention, and then he gave several powerful reasons why it was impossible to do anything. I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount (because I think we have one purpose in this) whether he would consider giving an undertaking that, at a later stage in the Bill, or if not in the Bill in the regulations, that he will try to introduce some appropriate words. I took down the purport of his words, to the effect "that the Minister shall have regard to, and endeavour to give effect to, the wishes of the members of a co-partnership scheme." If he could build a bridge between is on those lines, I think we should feel that his main points were met and, at the same time, that our point was also met.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not in a position to give my undertaking now, but it is possible that in the regulations we might have some sort of phrase on those lines. Whether or not that should be so, I do not know; but I can assure the noble Lord—and it is quite obvious—that the desire of the Minister would be

  695
  to carry with him the majority of the co-partners in any arrangement that he might find it necessary to make.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thank the Lord Chancellor for the undertaking he has given. Perhaps at a later stage we may hear whether such a course as he has mentioned is possible. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 59:
  Compensation to officers.
  59.—(1) The Minister shall by regulations require every Area Board and the Gas Council to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to officers of any undertaker some or all of whose property, rights, liabilities and obligations vest by virtue of this Act in the Board or Council and officers employed whole-time for the purpose of administering undertakings or parts of undertakings of undertakers to whom Part II of this Act applies, being officers who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of the vesting, or in consequence of the subsequent transfer from one Area Board to another or from the Gas Council to an Area Board or the subsequent disposal in any other manner, of any such property, rights, liabilities or obligations, or in consequence of anything done under the last preceding section.
  (5) Regulations made under this section—
  (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, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor or, where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, after consultation with the Secretary of State;
  2.56 p.m.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), to omit "in such cases and." The noble Viscount said: I am afraid I have been rather late in tabling this Amendment but it seemed to me opportune that we should compare this clause with the sections contained in the Electricity Act and the Transport Act of last year, and the results that followed from them. What I propose to do is to move that the words
  696
  "in such cases and" should be removed. As I read the clause, it says that the Minister may decide which cases should be paid compensation for loss of office. That seems to raise some difficulty, and I think there is a doubt in many minds as to which classes of people may be left out. We discussed this matter at some length last year, both on the Electricity Bill and on the Transport Bill, and Amendments were moved to remove these words. Finally, however, the words were left in. The reason why I raise the matter again—and once more I apologise for not having given earlier notice of the Amendment—is because I have just come across the regulations for compensation which have been recently issued under the Transport Act. There are one or two points about those regulations which are scarcely what one would like to see followed in this Bill.
  This matter also arises on the Town and Country Planning Act regulations for the same purpose, which were laid before Parliament and approved recently and are now in operation. A certain amount of difficulty is caused by the fact that the regulations in the case of the Town and Country Planning Act state that, in order to be qualified for compensation for loss of employment, diminution of emoluments or worsening of conditions, an officer must have been employed for eight years in the service of the local authority. It is true that the regulations allow for people being away on war service—and various kinds of war service at that. There is no complaint on that score. But there are certainly people who have come into both transport and electricity (and we have not yet seen the regulations for those industries), and there will be people who are employed in the gas industry but who have not been in that industry for eight years—people must start at some time. Therefore a man who has worked well for seven years may be unlucky. Owing to force of circumstance, he may be displaced by the rearrangements consequent on the nationalisation of the industry, and he ought to receive some consideration.
  It would seem reasonable that the amount payable by way of compensation should be related to the number of years that the officer has served; but the regulation says that below eight years' service he gets nothing. It may not be a matter of great magnitude in itself, but

  697
  it seems to be not what one would have hoped for, and that it is something one does not want to see repeated in the regulations for the gas industry which are to be made under this clause. If the words were removed, some compensation however slight, would have to be given to people who have not been in the industry long, and who, of course, would not deserve and would not have earned as much as those with longer service. If these words were removed, I think it would still give the Minister plenty of power to vary the compensation regulations as much as he wanted to. The words now in the Bill are:
  "to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations."
  I consider that that gives him complete freedom. I do not think it right that any category of officers should be deprived of compensation. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 30, leave out ("in such cases and").—(Viscount Ridley.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Viscount has himself reminded the Committee, this discussion is reminiscent of the discussions which we had on the Electricity Bill. The Minister, speaking on the Electricity Bill, said this:
  "The only reason why the words in such cases' occur in the Bill is because they will be necessary in the regulations to specify the conditions that have to be fulfilled before a man is entitled to claim compensation for redundancy. For example it would obviously be necessary to lay down some qualifying period of service, If a man has only been employed a week or two with an electricity undertaking which is taken over, I think none of us would say that he had a reasonable claim for compensation if he lost his job as redundant a fortnight after the vesting date."
  After a brief discussion, Sir Arnold Gridley, who is recognised as a great authority on this matter, said:
  "I think on the whole the Minister's explanation is reasonable and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."
  In the Committee on this Bill, however, the Opposition were not altogether satisfied by the same explanation, which was given both by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Solicitor-General. I do not think anyone disputed that there must be some minimum qualifying period, but they asked that the minimum qualifying period should be put in the Bill. I think it would be very difficult to do that. We are dealing with all sorts and conditions of service here, and I conceive that
  698
  rather an elaborate code would be necessary to attempt to do as the Opposition asked. I think the best assurance I can give to your Lordships is this—that all these matters will be discussed, and so far as possible agreed, with the trade unions. It may be objected that the trade unions do not necessarily cover the higher grades of employees. In answer to that, I will give this further assurance—that the Minister will consult also with those organisations which represent the higher grades. Thus we have given assurances to the National Joint Council for Gas Staffs, and also to the Gas Engineers' National Guild. And, generally, I may say that in making our regulations we will confer with the appropriate organisations covering all grades, from the highest to the lowest, in order to see that we evolve an appropriate set of regulations.
  I think that that is much better than even attempting to insert an elaborate code in the Bill at the present time, before these consultations have taken place. It is necessary here, as it was in the case of the Electricity Act, that it should not be assumed as a matter of course that every person is entitled, even though he has not served for the minimum qualifying period, to receive compensation. The whole matter should be considered on its own merits, after either the trade unions or the appropriate organisations of the senior grades have been consulted, in order that in that way we may thresh out a set of regulations which may be deemed fair by everyone concerned.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am sure the noble and learned Viscount has made out a good case, and I am grateful to him for stating that he will undertake that there shall be consultation with all these organisations, including the organisations representing the higher grades. On that basis, I think the arrangement will be an excellent one.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I believe the noble and learned Viscount has gone a good deal further in the assurance that he has just given than he was able to go in dealing with the Bills before us last year, and I am very grateful to him. I would like to say, however, without being in any way critical, that I hope the Minister will not only consult with the parties to whom the noble and learned Viscount has referred but will also obtain substantial

  699
  agreement to the regulations before they are issued. I cannot, of course, ask whether or not it is intended that the regulations shall have the same qualifying period as is laid down in the Transport Regulations. I very much hope that they will not. I have a copy of the Transport Regulations here and they say that a person, to qualify, must have been employed since January, 1940—that is, for eight years. A similar requirement, I think, is also to be seen in the Town and Country Planning Regulations—I believe in Regulation 16.
  It rather looks, therefore, as if it is Government policy that eight years' employment is the minimum that will qualify a man for compensation. I hope that that is not going to be the standard, for I can conceive cases where that would not operate fairly. I know of one or two cases in the transport industry where it would not have been fair. The men concerned have less than eight years service. It is true they have not been displaced, but they might have been; and if they had been it would not have been right that they should be left out of the compensation arrangements. I gladly accept the noble and learned Viscount's undertaking that these consultations—which I hope will lead to agreement with the bodies concerned—will take place. And I trust that this question of a qualifying period of eight years, if it comes up, will be considered and that some agreement will be reached with regard to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that the Minister will do his best to secure agreement, but, clearly, I cannot give an assurance that he will obtain agreement. The organisations concerned might conceivably prove unreasonable—though I trust that they will not; and, indeed, that is not a prospect which I contemplate.
  LORD HAWKE: Would the noble and learned Viscount go a little further, and say that the Minister would be prepared to consider representations made by the stockholders' representative? He is the only representative left of the former employers. I should have thought that in weighing up the merits of displaced redundant employees for compensation, the opinion of the previous employers should have some consideration given to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no doubt that the Minister will pay regard to what the representative says, but obviously, I cannot give any undertaking.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (1), after "rights" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert "or whose position is worsened." The noble Lord said: This Amendment also deals with compensation to officers of undertakings liable to be compensated, who may suffer not loss of employment or diminution of emoluments, but worsening of their position. One could give a number of instances of the sort of worsening which may be expected, but generally one can put them all together by describing them as all those additional expenses which a man may have to incur owing to a new appointment. It might be that he would have to go elsewhere to work, which would mean extra travelling expense. It might be that he would have to make a change of residence and go into lodgings elsewhere, leaving his family behind in the house in which they have all been living together. One can think of many similar cases. This Amendment seeks to safeguard individuals who may be so affected.
  The case of such people is one which has certainly been covered in a number of similar Acts—not merely the Acts which we have heard mentioned so often in this debate. It is certainly so with the Transport Act and the Electricity Act, but it goes back much further; it goes back to the Electricity Supply Act of 1919 and the London Passenger Transport Act of 1933. They all included a section giving compensation for the worsening of the position of officers who had been taken over. This matter was discussed in another place in Committee, and I think it was regarded sympathetically by the spokesman of the Government. It was said, however, that they expected that the Gas Council, the Area Boards and the trade unions would deal with hard cases. That is all very well but, as the noble and learned Viscount said on the previous Amendment, these individuals may not all be members of trade unions and it may be that those who work in the industry now look with

  701
  a certain amount of apprehension to their future, after vesting has taken place. It would give a considerable amount of additional confidence if there were an assurance in the Bill that cases of the type with which I am dealing will be eligible for consideration for compensation. That confidence instilled into the men and women working in the industry will do a great deal to ensure the efficiency and success of the industry in the future. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 38, after ("rights") insert ("or whose position is worsened").—(Lord Rochdale.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Superficially there is a good deal to be said for this Amendment, if only by reason of the fact that in the electricity industry and in the transport industry there is such a provision. The reason for that is historic. In the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, to which the noble Lord referred, and in the London Passenger Transport Act—those (comparatively speaking) old and respectable Statutes—there is provision for those whose position is worsened. Whether it has been altogether a success, I am doubtful. Of course we want to help a man where his condition is worsened, but we find that all sorts of people say their condition is worsened. For instance, if a man is moved from one garage to another, and the new garage is not quite so convenient as the old, he complains that his conditions are worsened; and a great deal of trouble and litigation has been caused. On the other hand, the gas industry, which has been in the forefront of those having suitable conditions and happy relations between employers and workers, has never had such a provision—a provision which, as I have said, has undoubtedly led to many rather doubtful claims. Our view is that in all these industries we had better keep to the established practice. It is our considered view that it would be undesirable to depart from the existing system in the gas industry. That does not mean that this is not a matter which should be discussed by the various organisations. If the trade unions do not embrace all the workers, then by all means have consultations with the organisations which can speak for all of them.
  702
  The phrase which we have in this subsection, "loss or diminution of emoluments," is a wide one. I do not pretend that it goes the whole way. Suppose, for instance, that we had a case of a worker who under the new dispensation was ordered to work at some place a mile farther away than the place where he had been working. Under the Bill, he could not claim compensation for that; and he would tend to be fastened to one place, and not to adapt himself to new conditions. That is the type of case which should be the subject of negotiations between the bodies concerned, to see whether they are satisfied about the new conditions. It is of the utmost importance that the Gas Council and the Area Boards should gain the reputation of being good employers. They should be obviously in the van so far as good conditions are concerned, but I suggest that it would be a mistake to insert the words now proposed. They have never hitherto applied to the gas industry, and there was no agitation in the old days for such a provision. Moreover, I think it would tend to limit that mobility of labour which is so necessary in modern conditions. I ask your Lordships to leave it in this way. Let us apply to the gas industry the code it has always had. Do not let us borrow from other and (may I add?) less happy industries the code which they have. Leave it to the Gas Council and the Area Boards who, as I have said, will act as good employers in this matter, to make an amicable arrangement with the trade unions and other organisations concerned to see that the men are not made to suffer by reason of the fact that we have a new organisation.
  LORD HAWKE: We have heard with interest the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount. There is great force in what he says. I do not think his argument that, because the gas industry has never had this, we must not include it now, is necessarily sound. Road transport had no such provision, but it was included in the Road Transport Act. Moreover, the conditions are going to be very different. In the olden days there was no possibility of such movement of staff—and particularly of administrative staff—as will be presented under the new order. I think this Amendment is more likely to concern the administrative and technical than the weekly-paid staff.

  703
  There seems to be a possibility that a man might be put to severe loss by being moved, even from one Area to another. The mobility of labour is something we all like to foster, but it will not make for willingness to be mobile if there is no provision for compensation for what one might call terminal expenses. With taxation at its present levels, and so on, there is no margin if a man has to get rid of a house in one part of the country and set up an establishment in another. It is cases of that kind which I feel the Area Boards should consider sympathetically if they want to preserve this freedom to move, rather than to have an unfortunate propensity to "dig in," which will be the alternative.
  3.20 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I must say that I am not entirely happy about letting this Amendment pass by, particularly after hearing the points made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I think his general proposition in resisting this Amendment was that we should keep to established practice. That is all right as a general proposition, if it is applied all through the Bill. But in various other directions, and particularly in co-partnership—which, after all, is an old tradition of the gas industry—we depart from that proposition. When we come to co-partnership, we depart from established practice and say that that must give way to new circumstances. I do not think it is a good argument to say that we must keep to established practice in this case, when in previous cases in the Bill we have departed from established practice. With respect, one cannot use that argument for one's own convenience on particular Amendments.
  The second proposition of the Lord Chancellor was that the gas industry had never had this practice. That is quite true. But up till now the gas industry has never had to function in the circumstances in which it will have to function in the future. Consideration of the circumstances in which it will function in the future, it seems to me, provides a much better basis on which to work, and one more parallel to the conditions existing in the transport and electricity industries, than consideration of the custom in past years. In the past the gas industry was localised and
  704
  that is one of the reasons why it did not have this practice. The industry was largely a series of small units, whereas now it is going to be, to a very large degree, centralised. I grant that it will not be as much centralised as our other nationalised industries, but it will be centralised to a very large extent, as compared with its condition in past years. Such a safeguard as is now proposed would undoubtedly give much satisfaction to employees who are affected. With great respect, I do not think the arguments put forward by the Lord Chancellor in support of his suggestion that we should pass this Amendment by are convincing. I would ask him—if the point I put to your Lordships is a fair one, and carries the support of your Lordships—to reconsider the matter between now and Report stage to see whether he cannot meet us.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do that, so long as I am not taken as giving a promise. I will certainly look at the matter and discuss it with my advisers, in the light of what the noble Lord has said.
  LORD ROCHDALE: Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, I was somewhat disturbed at the reply of the Lord Chancellor, and more particularly when he referred to previous cases where, owing to the presence of these words in the Act, it had been open to all sorts of individuals to make (as I gathered him to suggest) frivolous claims. Is that strictly correct? Surely, this clause deals only with cases where the Minister by regulation shall allow people to make such claims in such cases as may be specified in the regulations. In view of the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount that he will look into the matter again, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment; but there is that point which makes me feel that there is more substance in this Amendment than might at first sight appear.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.25 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
  "(4) 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

  705
  officer of his previous employer he was required to perform; or

  (b) the services of any existing officer are dispensed with by an Area Board or the Gas Council 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 on the ground that his duties have been diminished,

  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 21st day of October, 1947, 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 Area Board or the Gas Council by reason of the passing of this Act."
  The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to enable officers who accept employment under the Gas Council or the Area Boards to claim compensation if within five years after the vesting date they consider that the employment offered by the Gas Council or Area Board is less advantageous than their employment under the undertaking before nationalisation. The Amendment specifies in some detail the directions in which we think that a man's employment might be worsened. If noble Lords will look at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Amendment, they will relieve me of the necessity of explaining in any detail the proposals contained therein. With great respect, I would commend this Amendment to the Government, because I feel it is a fair and reasonable proposition. We have specified the time of five years. If the Government feel that is unduly restrictive, we will, of course, accept an Amendment to increase that five years to six or seven years. Equally, if the Government feel that five years is too long, we would not look unfavourably on some small reduction. But we do feel that there should be a specified time limit within which a man should have certain rights should his position be worsened by virtue of his new employment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 74, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think—and I rather suspect the noble Lord will
  706
  think too—that this Amendment will not do. The broad policy in our nationalisation Bills is to deal with the details of the personal compensation code in each industry by regulations, and not in the Bill. That I justify completely (although I am always in favour of putting things in the Bill rather than dealing with them by regulations) because the regulations are, in the nature of things, much more flexible, and because we must have time work out these regulations in the light of discussions with the representative organisations of the persons affected. We have not possibly time to do that now. I would point out to your Lordships that the regulations require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This particular Amendment is obviously borrowed from the Local Government Act, 1933. It is not exactly the same but it is largely based on it. That code has never been applied in the past to employees generally of gas undertakings; and I do not think—though I am not sure about this—that it has ever been applied to the employees even of local authority gas undertakings. Whether that be so or not, as I said on the last Amendment, broadly speaking we think it better to try to continue in each industry the conditions to which that industry has become accustomed—to which, indeed, I think I may say it has become attached.
  In any case, the second paragraph would be quite unacceptable. Your Lordships will see that paragraph (a), read with the part that comes after it—namely,
  "that officer shall, unless the contrary be proved"
  makes the mere assertion of an officer prima facie evidence of the truth of the assertion, which is to hold unless and until the contrary is proved. I suggest to your Lordships that that is almost an implied invitation for people of this kind to make these claims, some of which might be quite unreasonable. What we have to do in these cases is to try and hold a careful balance between the employees and the public, who have ultimately to pay for all these things.
  Whilst we must certainly see that the employees have a scrupulously fair deal, as one would expect from the Gas Council and the Area Boards, who must qualify themselves and win the reputation of being good employers, I do not think that we (representing as we do the consumer

  707
  of gas, who, in the last resort, has to pay for all these wonderful things we do) should accept these Amendments, such as that a man has merely to make a claim and it will be prima facie evidence of the truth of the claim which he makes. That, to my mind, is unreasonable. I suggest again, that this matter ought to be provided for in regulations, after they have been threshed out with the representatives of everybody concerned, be it the lower paid or the higher paid workers—regulations which will come before your Lordships' House and will require affirmative Resolution after the matter has been threshed out. I believe it is very much better to do it in that way than to attempt to put into this Bill an obligatory provision which has never applied before to gas employees and which, on the face of it, requires a great deal of consideration in regard to matters of onus of proof.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: This Amendment possibly does go too far, and I do not press it. The Lord Chancellor mentioned that these personnel problems are better dealt with by regulations. That encourages me to withdraw this Amendment, because the next one deals with that point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (5) to insert as a new paragraph (a):
  "(a) shall be made not less than one month before the vesting date."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment accepts the principle which the Lord Chancellor has just laid down, that personnel problems should be dealt with by regulations. Its purpose is to say that the regulations shall be made not less than one month before the vesting date. In the case of the Electricity Act, the regulations as to the compensation of officers have, I understand, not yet been published, although the vesting date was April 1, 1948. Your Lordships will appreciate the necessity for an Amendment such as this in order to avoid the sort of position which exists under the Electricity Act. The delay in publishing those regulations is a matter of considerable hardship to many men in different grades of employment. Officers may be displaced on the vesting date without
  708
  knowing what compensation they are to receive. I repeat that, in the case of electricity, those officers who may have been displaced do not yet know what compensation they are to receive. In speaking on the last Amendment, the Lord Chancellor said that a great deal of discussion has still to take place with the various representative bodies. Of course, But if there is a special urge, such as is given by inserting in an Act of Parliament a provision that something must be done, the Executive will do that work in the time. In doing so by one month before the vesting date, they will relieve the minds and, indeed, the hearts of many employees, and will prevent something which many of us on this side of the House deeply regret was not done with the Electricity Act. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 74, line 40, at end insert ("(a) shall be made not less than one month before the vesting date").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should certainly like to see these regulations made one month before the vesting date, but with these matters, the more haste the less speed. They have to be discussed with all the interests concerned, or with representatives of the interests concerned. I can imagine nothing worse than having a fixed time saying that it must be done by a stated date. If your Lordships have taken part in these discussions—as many have—you will know that they are apt to be lengthy. When you have finished your discussions, you date the matter back; so that no one is the worse off. At any rate, I entirely agree that it is desirable to have these regulations as soon as possible, in order that everybody will know where he stands. I am not an advocate of one moment's unnecessary delay. Everybody will be happier when these things are over, but is not this proposal a little unreasonable?
  Would your Lordships look at the Amendment which was put down with regard to pensions? Your Lordships will remember that at page 72, line 34, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, moved an Amendment, which I accepted—namely, that the regulations should be made twelve months before the vesting date.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The original regulations?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. Now with regard to these matters, the noble Lord wants the regulations made one month before the vesting date. I should like to be able to comply with his request; it would be ideal if we could. The noble Lord, however, would be the last person in the world to want to cut short those negotiations. Is it suggested that I should say to these people, "I am very sorry, you must not talk any more; I have no time"? If it could be guaranteed that my opponents would cut down their observations to a fixed limit of time, I would be inclined to agree. But my experience in life is that it is impossible to make any such assertion. The great thing, when you are making any regulations, is to be certain that everybody has had an opportunity of saying what he wants to say. You do a very great deal of good—even if you are not going to concede anything—if you sit down and listen quietly, and let him pour out his heart to you and say everything he wants to say, That is my experience of life, and I am sure that a great many of your Lordships will agree. Therefore, to fix arbitrarily some limit of time, and to say that, in regard to matters which I have to discuss with all sorts of organisations, representing both the lower and higher grade organisations, regulations shall be made one month before the vesting date, is quite impracticable. I know that it is eminently desirable to do it at the earliest possible moment. If I can do it one month before the vesting date, I will do so, because it is desirable that people should know where they stand.
  It is true that these regulations date back, but that is no reason why we should not try to give people certainty and happiness at the earliest possible moment. I need no convincing on that point, but I say that it seems to me impracticable to do it within this time, consistent with giving all due care and attention to all the observations which people want to make. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the hard and fast limit of time. I am prepared to say that I will do my utmost—and, speaking on behalf of the Minister, that he will do his utmost—to see that these negotiations are carried through at the earliest possible moment, so that the regulations can be promulgated for your Lordships' approval at the earliest possible date. More than that, I
  710
  cannot do, and more than that it would be unwise for your Lordships to ask me to do.
  LORD LLOYD: I have taken some interest in this matter before, and although I agree that it would be most unfortunate to carry on these discussions in any haphazard or too rapid a manner, yet I cannot help feeling that the urgency with which the discussions on the Electricity Act were carried out was not very great. I feel it very unsatisfactory that what happened on the Electricity Act should be allowed to happen again. It seems to me that the objections raised by the noble and learned Viscount could be disposed of quite easily. After all, there is not such a terrific hurry—certainly not from noble Lords on these Benches—for the vesting date, and it seems to me perfectly simple, if the noble and learned Viscount has not completed his discussions in time, for the vesting date to be postponed for a month or two. I do not see why there is any hurry while the discussions about these unfortunate men are still in the air. It seems to me that what we have proposed is the correct solution, and I cannot see why our Amendment cannot be accepted.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said—I paraphrase his words—that if he were certain that his opponent would delay matters and he wanted to get a settlement he would not mind a time limit. But—if you are talking about opponents—the weapon of indefinite delay is a very powerful one if it is possessed by one side in an argument. The noble and learned Viscount puts the Committee in some difficulty. We are now asked to let the matter go, with the assurance that regulations will be made as soon as possible but without any indication as to whether the Department—who are, after all, a much overworked Department—will, in fact, be able to do it within a reasonable period. That Department have not yet been able to get out the regulations in respect of the Electricity Act. To ask us to hand ourselves over to that Department for an indefinite period when we have before us the example of what they have done—or rather have failed to do—in the case of the Electricity Act, is not, I think, quite fair. Could not the noble and learned Viscount tell us, perhaps at a later stage, whether the regulations could

  711
  not be prepared, say, even two months or one month before or after vesting date, but that they will be made then and negotiations—unless there is some absolute difference in principle between the two Parties, in which case the Government would make a statement to that effect—terminated? What we do not want is to leave the matter where it is now, for the wheels of the Department to grind all too slowly and for these men to suffer accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly see what can be done about this. I am sorry that I used the word "opponent" just now. It was an inappropriate word to use. I meant a person with whom you are arguing, a person who has advanced a case. It is essential that these regulations should be drafted on sound lines. For better or worse, they will govern the rights of people for many years to come; and once they are made—although I know that theoretically it is possible that they can be altered—they will probably tend to hold the field. It may easily be a case of more haste, less speed. They must be very carefully prepared, and they will date back to the earliest possible date so that no one suffers any loss. I do not believe you will be doing any kindness to these people if you try to bring about a condition in which these regulations would be made in a "slap-dash" manner. I hope that a good deal of the work which has been done on the Electricity regulations (which, incidentally, have proved very difficult) will also be fruitful in this field. Between now and the Report stage, I will certainly see whether we cannot work out an embryonic time-table. But I warn your Lordships that I know from my experience in electricity that that is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. There are many people to consult, and there is, as I say, a danger that the regulations may go out in a "slap-dash" way. In the long run, it may be better to take a little longer, rather than rush at the matter and put forward regulations which are not satisfactory. However, I will consult my advisers and see whether it is possible to give any further indication about the time which they expect it will take to decide this matter.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thank the Lord Chancellor for having
  712
  tried to meet us on this matter. If the Ministry of Fuel and Power were personified by the noble and learned Viscount, I am sure we should have no differences at all, because his spirit is willing and his determination is great. On the undertaking that he will see whether something can be done in the way of an embryonic time-table, in order that these people shall not be left in midair, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.47 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (5) (b), to leave out "may in particular" and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to make it a duty, instead of a power, of the Minister to provide the right of appeal by an employee if a claim for compensation for redundancy has been rejected by the Area Board. The Bill as now drafted follows the principle of the Transport and Electricity Acts by saying that provision for leave to appeal may be made. The Amendment suggests that provision must be made. There was a right in the other Acts to appeal to a referee appointed by the Ministry of Labour, and it seems to us fair and reasonable that such a right should be given to employees under this Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 75, line 1, leave out ("may in particular") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must object to the noble Lord's Amendment, on grounds of drafting. It is inappropriate to use the word "shall" when you follow it with the words "in such cases and subject to such conditions," because you cannot say that anyone must do a thing if you go on to say that you wish to specify the conditions under which he does it. That would be wrong. This is a revolutionary proposal and I am astounded that such a proposal should come from so respectable a member of our society. I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I admit defeat and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 59 agreed to.
  Clauses 60 to 64 agreed to.
  LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved, after Clause 64, to insert the following new clause:
  Consumers' freedom of choice.
  " . Nothing in this Act or in any regulations made, or direction given thereunder, shall limit the right of any person to choose such available source of fuel or power of different kinds as he considers most suitable to his needs."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the addition of this new clause after Clause 64. I think this is the right place in which such a clause should be inserted, if it is inserted at all. It is a clause of general application, as your Lordships will see, and I think it requires very little explanation. The principle underlying the clause was referred to in speeches made on the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and myself. It seeks to make it clear that the consumer of power and heat shall have the option to choose the form of fuel which he or she wishes to use. The idea underlying this additional clause is not new. In point of fact, it arose many years ago when in the areas of certain council authorities attempts were made to put pressure on the tenants and occupiers of premises concerning the type of fuel or power which they should use. That was probably due to certain predilections or interests of the local authorities in electricity supply rather than in gas supply. The matter was eventually corrected, and the freedom of choice which this Amendment proposes was sanctified in the Gas Undertakings Act, 1934. That is one of the Acts which this Bill seeks to repeal.
  The principle that we all have in mind is that, wherever possible—and the Amendment refers only to circumstances where there is a possibility of choice; in other words, it refers to "such available source of fuel or power"—the consumer shall have absolute freedom of choice. That need not be elaborated. There are personal predilections about gas and electricity. There are certain purposes for which one is more suitable than the other. It is a question of individual judgment. Where both are available and both are accessible, I think it would be generally agreed that there is no reason why the choice should not be open to the consumer. If that is not explicity stated, however, there is a danger that, with
  714
  the concentration of the use of fuel under the Minister of Fuel and Power, he may be tempted from time to time, possibly in order to show that one industry is not doing so badly as it appears to be doing, or in order to stimulate it, to impose a limitation of choice upon areas in order to increase sales or consumption.
  If one were mischievously minded, one could conceive that an Area Board or the Gas Council might recommend the institution of a new gas works and, in order to show results, would seek by indirect means to put pressure upon the general public to use gas rather than electricity in a certain area. One can well conceive the reasons which would lead to their doing so. But one can also have in mind (and this is perhaps less mischievous) cases where people, for one reason or another—I cannot quite explain why—have a bias in favour of one form of fuel. Your Lordships will all have known cases in the course of years where people have said: "Oh, the gas industry is dead; it cannot possibly survive in competition with electricity." That type of personal bias, which is often unreasonable, may lead to restrictions if those biases are held by responsible persons. That would lead to great inconvenience. Incidentally, it might lead to great persona losses. One can visualise cases where gas ceases to be used to such an extent as to make it impossible to go on using certain forms of appliances. One can also see—indeed. I think there are examples present to your Lordships' minds—where, with new housing developments, an entirely new form of district heating derived from other sources may be held to be a good development, and indeed it may be a good development, but it should not be developed at the expense of existing installations or existing systems provided they remain up to date.
  I trust that the noble Lord who is to reply upon this Amendment will see the justice of this claim which, as I venture to submit, is quite beyond criticism. The Amendment states it as a general case, and in a form which imposes no obligation to supply a source of fuel or power which it is obviously impracticable to supply. For instance, nobody would require, or could require, or would support a clause which made it mandatory upon, the Minister or the Gas Council to supply gas in remote country districts where the cost

  715
  of laying mains would be quite prohibitive. In a case of that sort, if someone were offered electricity but asked for gas, the words "such available source of fuel or power" would cover refusal. Having regard to the breadth of this Amendment, I cannot see how any objection can be taken to it. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 64, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rennell.)
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The manuscript Amendment which I tabled to this Amendment was intended to go a little further, but I feel I have not worded it quite rightly. It is intended to be an addition to this Amendment rather than an Amendment to it. It would really stand by itself, quite apart from discussion upon the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord. I think that my Amendment is upon a slightly different subject, and so it would perhaps be better to move it after this Amendment has been discussed.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I do not think that His Majesty's Government can quarrel over this Amendment, unless they admit perhaps that the main reason for introducing the Bill at all is to enable a form of juggling to take place within the industry of fuel and power whereby one fuel can be played up or played down against another, perhaps because of pressure from a particular trade union interested or to cover up bad administration by one of the Boards of Fuel and Power. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has said that the Minister might be tempted to do such things for various reasons. It would, of course, be possible for the Minister to give a direction which would provide that the owners or occupiers of any particular premises would have to use a specified form of fuel either in toto or for particular purposes. This Amendment has been set down to protect the public from such a provision and to ensure that any person shall have a full right to choose the fuel which he prefers, whether coal, electricity or gas.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I wish to support this Amendment which I think is
  716
  a very important and essential one. I know of one case where, before the nationalisation of electricity took place, a certain composite company was concerned with both electricity and gas. It often happened that the particular point referred to in my noble friend's Amendment came up. The company's direction decided that where the consumer wished to have gas he would have gas, and where he wished to have electricity he would have electricity; and that was notwithstanding the fact that the gas consumption was so much lower than the electricity consumption that each year the gas was what is called "in the red" and there was a deficit. I feel that under nationalisation the same rights ought to persist as far as the consumer is concerned. We were told that nationalisation was going to bring us a great many benefits. I do not wish to recount them now. But we were not told that the consumer would or might be deprived of the right to choose the fuel which he desired to use.
  I think this is a very important Amendment. I can quite imagine that the Lord Chancellor will say, "We are reasonable people and the Minister of Fuel and Power will be a reasonable person and will do all he can to see that the consumer has the fuel which he desires." I have no faith in those assurances at all—I refer not to the personal assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, but to the assurance of the Government on these points. We had an assurance on the Electricity Bill that regulations would be passed within a short time of the vesting of the concerns. This afternoon we have had another assurance that the same thing is going to happen with regard to the gas regulations. With my noble friend, I believe that the right contained in this Amendment is so important that it should be embodied in the Bill, and it would not be fair to the consumers, either of gas or of electricity, that it should be omitted. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting my noble friend's Amendment.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to support this Amendment, but in doing so I would put forward one or two slightly different reasons from those advocated by noble Lords who have so far spoken. We have been discussing the position of the domestic consumer and his needs for heat,

  717
  light and power; but one must remember that quite a lot of gas is supplied for industrial purposes. There is one large company which I know from which 35 to 40 per cent. of the gas sold is used in industry; so this question is of great importance to industry. There is one reason why I think it is as well that this clause should be clearly stated and should be in the Bill—namely, that during the last few years we have become accustomed to emergency regulations and defence regulations, and so on, operated by Ministers of various Departments which have necessarily had to prevent the use of one fuel or another, or to insist on the substitution of one fuel for another. Those are things which are necessary during periods of war and shortage, and during periods of disturbance such as we are undergoing now. But it should be clearly stated, I think, that they could not be done under this Bill, either by the Area Boards, by the Gas Council or by direction to either of them by the Minister.
  One example that I think will be fairly well known to your Lordships is the difficulty that has arisen in the last two years about requests to industry to use oil instead of coal for the purpose of supplying heat for various processes. A great deal of persuasion was used by the Government at the time of the great shortage of coal the winter before last, and on the assurance that oil would be available, a number of firms were persuaded to convert their apparatus to oil-burning. But when the time came, oil was not available for many of the schemes which had been started, and a number of them had to be dropped. That is something which, in these times, is almost bound to happen, but it is not a thing of which one wants to see any possibility under a Bill like this. It should be made clear that the object of the gas industry should be to develop itself, and to supply its customers so far as possible. I do not think there should be any need for the Minister to restrict the expansion of the business.
  There is one thing which calls for a clause of this sort. In the provisions relating to the obligations to supply gas, paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule deals with the obligation to supply industrial consumers. It says, quite rightly, that any large amounts of gas which require special installation of mains and equipment must
  718
  be the subject of consultation and bargaining between the proposed consumer and the Area Board. That is obvious, but I would emphasise the point that on considerations of that sort—namely, as to whether the consumer is prepared to take the gas over a longish period, whether he is prepared to meet his share of the cost of installation of the mains, and conditions of that sort, which ought to determine the amount of bargaining that is made and how it is made—that sort of bargain should not be subject to possible direction which might be given on quite different grounds. It is very important that any industrial process which depends on heat should have that heat available in the cheapest and most economical form. It is the more important, because the cost of coal has increased so much lately; the less heat that can be used which is derived from coal, the greater saving there is. I think your Lordships will agree that the one thing of which we really are certain is that we must run our productive industries as economically and efficiently as possible; therefore, the cheapest and most efficient supply of heat must be made available.
  There is another point which has some bearing on this—namely, the discussions that we had last week on Clause 51, which concerns the appropriation by the Area Boards of surplus gas from industry. Unless there is a clear statement of limitation, such as is proposed in this new clause, there is a possibility that considerations other than those of a purely economic nature may be at work in the arrangements between the outside producer, as he is there, and the Area Boards. Possibilities of that kind make me feel that it would be wise to say, that there will be no question of action by Area Boards, by the Gas Council or by the Minister depriving the consumer of the right to choose the heat which he thinks will suit him best. As I have said, if it is necessary to impose some other longer condition, it must be only because of a national emergency or shortage, or something like that, which can be, is being and has been dealt with under emergency regulations and defence regulations. On the subject of domestic consumers, I support what has been said by other noble Lords, but it does not seem to me to be so likely that it would be the Minister, by direction, or the Area Boards themselves who would be the people to

  719
  refuse the supply of gas. It may be other agencies who would make the choice difficult. But I feel that this new clause would be of great benefit, and I would like to support the Amendment.
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope to persuade noble Lords that this Amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. First of all, there is nothing in the Bill to restrict consumers' freedom to choose whatever available fuel is most appropriate to their needs. There is no intention that there should be any such restriction, but it may not be desirable in the general economic interest and on general economic grounds that gas as well as electricity should be developed in remote rural areas. For that reason, the Minister might want to issue directions to the gas industry which would result in one of the fuels—gas—not being available to consumers in particular areas. Acceptance of the proposed new clause might make it difficult for the Minister to issue such directions although it would be in the public interest that they should be issued.
  May I put forward a hypothetical case? At the present time there may be a small local gas works supplying a remote rural area, and with the electrification of rural areas this small local gas works might become absolutely redundant. Now under this clause the supply of gas from that works is, at the present time, available. It is available, and this clause reads:
  "Nothing in this Act or in any regulations made, or direction given thereunder, shall limit the right of any person to choose such available source of fuel or power of different kinds as he considers most suitable for his needs."
  In other words, the Minister would be prohibited from issuing any regulation which would do away with the redundant gas undertaking because it is providing a gas supply which is at present available. That is how it could be interpreted.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask what the noble Lord means by "a redundant gas works"? Will he kindly explain?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes; a redundant gas works is one which is redundant having regard to the general economic welfare of the district.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: But is still being employed?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It may become redundant by reason of the electrification of that particular area, and it may not be in the national economic interest to run electricity and gas supplies at the same time. That is quite conceivable. That is why I said that the gas works might conceivably be considered redundant. But, under this clause, the Minister would have no power to withdraw availability because, at the present time, it is available, and this clause prohibits him from issuing any regulation under this Bill to make it non-available. Therefore, on those grounds, the Amendment is unacceptable. Lord Rennell rather complicated the issue by bringing in the Gas Undertakings Act of 1934. I take it that the manuscript Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is putting forward is intended to reintroduce into this Bill the principle of that particular Act. But these two Amendments conflict with each other, and before we come to consider the noble Viscount's Amendment I am afraid that I shall have to tell the Committee that we cannot accept this one as it is at present drafted.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure that we should all wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on his most well deserved transfer from the "heights of Montmartre" to the lower but more lucrative position which he now occupies. I sincerely regret that on the first occasion when he has spoken in this capacity and has acquitted himself verbally so well, I should have to challenge the far less worthy merits of what he has said. He certainly vies with the Lord Chancellor in being able to state a thoroughly bad case in an ingenious and persuasive manner. And this is a thoroughly bad case. Indeed, the noble Lord has given us some very sound reasons why we should pass the Amendment. He said, in effect: "Why should the public have the freedom of choice? It may be in the national interest that they should not. It may be in the national interest that this should be developed here and that that should be developed there." This grandmotherly, or perhaps one should say great-grandmotherly, universal interference with the way in which we do our business, let alone with the way in which we occupy ourselves in our houses, is really—well, it has long ceased to be

  721
  a joke and it has now become an all-pervading menace.
  I was glad that the noble Lord did not seek to reject my noble friend's proposal as being unnecessary; that he did not say that there was no intention under the Bill to deprive people of the right to choose, and, therefore, it would be all right, as the road which the Government follow is "paved with good intentions"—we all know where that leads to and the sooner they get to the end of the journey the better it will be for all of us. To do the noble Lord justice, he did not pretend that at all. He said, in effect: "We have the power and we mean to exercise it." It seems to me that that really is a very bad point. There is no doubt at all that this power exists—Lord Lucas has said quite frankly that it does. Under the clause conferring power to give general directions, there is not the least doubt that the Minister could say: "We are going to develop gas here, electricity there, and neither somewhere else because people can use coal—or an admixture of coal and slate," and generally teach us all our business. There is a proverb about "teaching grandmothers," but this is a case apparently of a grandmother who is always prepared to teach us. That seems to me to be thoroughly unsound. If in a great national emergency it is necessary for the Government to do something, I am certain they have power in one of the Emergency Powers Acts, under which there are innumerable regulations. I am sure that there is power to deal with a special emergency. If there is not the Government must go to Parliament. But this claim that they should dictate to us in the running of our business, in our houses, in our work, in what is left to us of our play, and in deciding exactly what kind of fuel we are to use, is really quite intolerable.
  I do not base myself merely on my own view about that matter, though I think it is a view which is shared by nearly everyone in the House. This Bill, as we have heard, is founded on the Heyworth Report, though it departs from it in many particulars. What do the Heyworth Committee say about this point? If your Lordships will look at paragraph 277 of the Heyworth Report you will find these words:
  "One further cost consideration seems relevant. Competition between the fuel industries is the main stimulus towards efficiency
  722
  on which these proposals depend. This is important for the gas consumer, but it is equally important in the national interest that the other fuel industries—electricity and solid fuel in particular—should be stimulated to the maximum extent by competition from gas."
  That is exactly the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said. He says, in effect, "Get rid of competition, bring in co-ordination"—"co-ordination"; that is the blessed word. As a matter of fact, that is the way stagnation lies. You say, "Develop gas here and electricity there." The Heyworth Report is quite right in saying that it is only by the competition between these industries in their monopolistic spheres that you will get a really efficient gas industry, a really efficient electricity industry, the use of coal properly developed, and, what is more, the sale to the consumers of the kind of coal they want to have. That is doubly, trebly, important when you have all the three industries in one hand, because, of course, the controller-general of all these is the Minister of Fuel and Power.
  I should have thought that the one thing which everybody would accept was that in the manifold different forms of manufacture in this country, the men who conduct the industries are the men who know what kind of fuel they can most economically use. We are passing out of a sellers' market into a buyers' market. It is extremely important that all our industries should be on their toes to produce their best both in cost and quality. Everybody knows that to achieve that, what is important is to have the cheapest and most suitable fuel for the purpose. All that is denied by this proposition. For these reasons, I sincerely hope my noble friend will persist with his Amendment. On the question of a proviso for a case where—in some small place, for example—a gas works is genuinely redundant, I have an open mind. If an Amendment to the main proposition is moved on the Report stage, we will consider it on its merits. But here is a great question of principle—namely, that consumers, industrial and domestic, should have the choice of fuel to suit their needs. I sincerely hope your Lordships will divide on this.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can add nothing to what has been so well said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—except perhaps this. I am not in favour

  723
  of departing from that principle of the Heyworth Report which said that there ought to be competition. I say frankly that I believe in competition between the nationalised gas industry and the nationalised electricity industry. I believe that will be for the good of both. But there may be cases in which it is undesirable. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has given an illustration of the sort of case. Therefore, for my own part, I am not prepared to accept this Amendment, which applies an absolutely universal rule. This rule may apply to some little place where it is obviously undesirable that we should have both. I need hardly point out what difficulties this country is in, and how careful we have to be about the capital expenditure we undertake. If it is to be said that, at great public cost, we are to run electric mains to all the little villages where there is already a gas works, and I come and propound such a proposition to your Lordships in times to come, your Lordships will be estopped from criticising these vast sums incurred——
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think that comes under the Amendment, which proposes to give to any person the right "to choose such available source of fuel or power."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If you are to keep this little "one-horse" gas works, it is obviously impossible, as is now proposed, to turn to electricity. There is that odd case. I am not opposing the general principle of competition between the two; but to accept as the general principle that, wherever there is an available gas supply you must go on with that too, is too much. If your Lordships want it in the Bill, you must insert it as a result of a Division.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In regard to the answer generally on the question of redundant gas works, I was very shocked to hear that it was intended that the Minister should use his powers of direction to terminate the supply of gas in an area where there has been one. I thought the Bill intended to increase and extend the supply of gas all over the country. The use of the words "redundant gas works" is not quite proper. The term means an obsolete works which it is no longer economic to run. The practice of the industry is to modernise such a works
  724
  or to supply gas to it by other means. I have had recent experience of a small gas works, typical of the case we are now talking about, where a high-pressure main was laid for thirty miles to supply this small works from a larger centre. It is possible to consider an even smaller works where compressed gas may be supplied in some way. In small places, that is a feasible process. I regret the attitude of mind which adopts the view that under the new nationalised system it is not worth making an effort to keep as good a supply of light and power as was previously supplied in these areas.
  It is true that there are a number of small works which are becoming out of date, and which will have to be rebuilt or connected to supplies from a distance. But surely that is the very thing which is a justification of the integration of the gas industry into large areas. On the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, about bringing electricity into a village possessing gas, I would tell him this. I have been connected with the electricity and gas industries in the same area—and a very wide area at that—and I have no experience of any place, large or small, where, if the mains could be obtained, there was not plenty of business for both. I understood the proposition was that if a gas works existed in a small place, particularly in the country, then we should not be able to bring in electricity. I can assure the noble Lord that that is not so. People want electricity for lighting, and though many prefer electricity for cooking, there are many who prefer gas. I do not think that anything under this Bill, or any other nationalisation Bill, should give the Minister, or any Board under his control, the power to reduce the availability of fuels to any individuals for domestic purposes.
  LORD RENNELL: May I add my own personal congratulations to those of the noble Viscount? I would like to say how glad we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, here; I hope the refreshing independence of mind he has shown in the past will continue in the future. I hope the noble Lord will not hold it against me when I say that the remarks which he made have only confirmed me in the necessity for this Amendment. The example he used was precisely

  725
  one of the examples I have had in mind myself. Of course, I am well aware of the large number of small gas works in the country districts which are not very efficient and which should be replaced. But to say that because they are inefficient, they shall be closed down, and electricity shall be used instead——
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: "May be."
  LORD RENNELL: Or may be, but when the Minister " may direct " that they shall be closed down, it is very near " shall "—that the people shall have only electricity. This is producing precisely the situation to which I referred. To say that because such a small place has an obsolete gasworks it is not an economic proposition for them to have electricity too, is a proposition with which few of your Lordships will agree.
  If the reason for resisting this Amendment fundamentally is that the Minister wishes to have the power to say that such-and-such a district shall use gas and not electricity, or shall use electricity and not gas, or, having had gas, shall no longer
  have it because of the cost of putting electricity in the places that had not get it, then I would point out that that is precisely the situation with which this Amendment seeks to deal. For those reasons, if for no other—indeed, for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I could not agree to withdraw this Amendment without the insertion of an Amendment which would substantially cover the same principle. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said at the end of his remarks, that he was unable to accept the Amendment in this form. If the noble Lord could give me some indication of the form which he could accept, it might save me asking your Lordships to divide on this matter. As the noble Lord apparently cannot suggest any alternative form, I have no alternative but to maintain my Amendment, and to ask for a decision from your Lordships.
  On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents 51; Not-Contents, 14.

  CONTENTS

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Ridley, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Swinton, V.

  Harris, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Trenchard, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Willingdon, M.

  Kenilworth, L.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Llewellin, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Barnby, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Monson, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

  Moyne, L.

  Munster, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Rothes, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Rea, L.

  Rennell, L. [Teller.]

  Bridgeman, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Courtauld-Thomson, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Cobham, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Elibank, V.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Templemore, L.

  FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

  Greville, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Monsell, V.

  Hacking, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (Lord Chancellor.)

  Amwell, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Addison, V. (Lord Privy Seal.)

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Marley, L.

  Darwen, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Walkden, L. [Teller.]

  St. Davids, V.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

  4.40 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved to insert the following new clause:
  Use of heat from gasworks.
  " .—(1) It shall be the duty of the Gas Council to investigate methods by which heat obtained from or in connection with the manufacture of gas may be used for the heating of buildings in neighbouring localities, or for any other useful purpose, and the Council may accordingly conduct or assist others (including Area Boards) in conducting research into any matters relating to such methods of using heat.
  (2) Any Area Board may themselves provide, or assist other persons to provide, for the heating of buildings by such methods as aforesaid or otherwise for the use of heat obtained as aforesaid.
  (3) Any Area Board may, in accordance with a scheme submitted by them to the Minister and approved by order of the Minister, exercise for the purposes mentioned in the last preceding subsection any powers of that Board under this Act or any local enactment, being powers relating to the breaking up of streets, railways and tramways, in like manner and subject to the like provisions and restrictions as they are exercisable for the purposes of the supply of gas, subject to such adaptations as may be prescribed by the Order.
  (4) Any order made under this section shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure."
  The noble Lord said: The new clause which I am moving deals with the question of efficiency in gas producing plants and, in particular, it is an endeavour to make quite sure that the thermal efficiency of these plants shall be as big as possible by utilising what would otherwise be waste heat for the purpose of central heating of housing estates nearby or, as the new clause says, "for any other useful purpose," which can, of course, include the provision of additional power for any purposes where it might be advantageous. Of course, there is nothing new in the principle that, in any plant where heat is produced, engineers should do their utmost to make the thermal efficiency as high as possible. That has been going on ever since plants of such a nature were in use at all. Nor is there anything really new in having a clause of this nature in an Act. Section 50 of the Electricity Act lays down something very similar to this, though I admit that perhaps there is more cause for it there owing to the fact that the thermal efficiency of electrical generating plants is usually lower than that of gas producing plants. Be that as it may, the Amendment was put up in Standing Committee
  728
  in another place and discussed at some length. In point of fact, it received very sympathetic hearing from the Government. May I have your Lordships' permission to read what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry said? His words were:
  "However, I can say that not only have I an interest in this matter but the Minister and those in this Department are also interested, because we are anxious, as I have said, to ensure that the best use is made of the fuel supplies of the country."
  But he went on to say:
  "I would like to have an opportunity of looking into this matter further, and particularly the problem I have indicated of the power to break up streets."
  In the subsequent stages of the Bill in another place I can find no further reference to this matter, and that, to my mind, is sufficiently good reason to introduce this new clause. It is important, and we want to make quite sure that there are adequate powers in the Bill, both as regards research and also as regards putting any schemes into operation as, for instance, the power to dig up streets for the laying of hot water mains and so forth. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretary in another place seemed to have some doubt as to whether that power did exist. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 64, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I first of all acknowledge with gratitude the charming personal things which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said in the warmth of his welcome, which I hope will be sustained, and also the very pleasant compliment paid me by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell.
  Whilst I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, that His Majesty's Government are wholly sympathetic with the principle of this Amendment, I hope to persuade him—with more success this time than I had last time—that the clause is unnecessary. With regard to research, if the noble Lord will turn to Clause 3 of the Bill, I think he will agree that that matter is adequately covered, and that that clause gives the Area Board all the powers they require to carry on all the research that is necessary. The noble Lord said something which is quite true, which is that there is a marked difference between the thermal efficiency in the

  729
  electrical generating industry and the thermal efficiency in the gas industry. If I may use the expression, where there is heat waste in gas production it represents only a small percentage in regard to utilisation. If the noble Lord will turn to Clause 1 (2) he will see there that it is the duty of the Area Boards to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of gas supply. I would be tempted to argue that it is impossible to develop an economical system of gas supply unless all the by-products are utilised to the fullest extent.
  On the question that the noble Lord raises in subsection (3) of his Amendment, I would ask him to turn to page 95, paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule, where he will see that the Area Boards have adequate powers to break up roads and replace, repair and relay pipes. I hope I have said sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord that, whilst, as I say, we are wholly sympathetic to the spirit of his Amendment, it is fully covered in the Bill as it stands, and therefore I would ask him if he will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord give me the reference on page 95? This Amendment was intended to be helpful, and we did not feel that the breaking-up powers would apply to district heating.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord will look at the eighth line, he will see these words:
  "…and for any other purpose connected with the exercise and performance of the functions of the Board…"
  The utilisation of waste heat would be one of the functions of the Board.
  LORD ROCHDALE: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply. The one point about which I was in doubt, and about which the Parliamentary Secretary also seemed to be in doubt, was this question of breaking up streets. I agree with the noble Lord that that is covered and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 65:
  Power to make safety regulations
  65. The Minister may make such regulations as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that the public is so far as practicable protected from any personal injury, fire, explosion or other dangers arising from the distribution of gas by an Area Board or the use of gas supplied by an Area Board.
  4.48 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved to omit "may" and insert. "shall within twelve months after the vesting date." The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment. This clause deals with the power to make safety regulations in the various gas-producing plants. The Amendment says that these regulations shall be made within twelve months after the vesting date. A good deal has been said during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House in relation to delays which have taken place in the production of regulations in other nationalisation Bills, and it seems to me important that, where these regulations are concerned with a question of public safety, there should be a definite time limit within which initial regulations at least should be made. I imagine that the sort of regulations that would be included are already in existence throughout the country, and I cannot see that any delay would be likely in making these regulations as there might be in some of the other regulations dealing with compensation, and so forth, where delay has in fact occurred. Reading my Amendment again, I am not sure that I have not made the period too long, but in order to make quite sure that His Majesty's Government accept the very definite need for urgency in these safety regulations, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 79, line 40, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall within twelve months after the vesting date").—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I am sorry that we cannot accept this Amendment either. I am afraid the noble Lord who moved it does not appreciate that there are substantial difficulties in the way of getting out a code of regulations on this matter. I am sure the noble Lord understands that his Amendment would make it mandatory on the Minister to get this code of safety regulations out within twelve months. In the past there has been no power vested in any Minister to make general safety regulations for the gas industry. Here and there, there have been certain by-laws which have laid down rules, which differ very much indeed from one part of the country to another, and I am assured that the job of sorting them all out and working out a completely new code will be a fairly substantial business—much more so than the noble Lord apparently has in mind.

  731
  There is another reason why this Amendment is unacceptable: it would prevent the Minister from varying any regulations which he had made within this period. I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord will agree with me that there should be opportunity for periodical revision of any regulations laid down, especially in the light of what I have told him as to the absence of any uniform scheme in the past. When a uniform scheme has been promulgated it will be necessary to watch it in operation, but the course which the noble Lord is suggesting would not enable the Minister to do that. It is not an Amendment which should be accepted and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, thinks again on this matter, I should like to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. One agrees that there should be power to vary regulations; but when we come to the arguments which the noble Lord used against having the regulations brought out within a certain period of the vesting date, I think we are subjected to a little special pleading. Under Clause 17, subsection (1), the Minister can decide:
  "…immediately before such date as may be appointed by order of the Minister (in this Act referred to as 'the vesting date').…"
  That means that the Minister can decide the vesting date. As I see it, in order that there should not be too great a difference in time between the regulations which we are talking about and the vesting date, and in order that there should be some relation between them, my noble friend has put down his Amendment. What we urge is that the Minister should not appoint a vesting date which is out of all tune with the possibility of making the regulations which are necessary round about that date, but that the two should be in harmony, so that we do not have regulations coming out which dislocate the whole gas industry because they are not in relationship with the vesting date.
  LORD ROCHDALE: I am very disappointed with the attitude which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has taken up in regard to this Amendment. I fully appreciate how difficult it would be to make a final code of regulations within
  732
  even twelve months, but to make a provisional code seems to me to be perfectly possible. I agree with the noble Lord that any code will be subject, and will have to be subject, to variations. I do not think I have ever seen any Government publication that had not to be frequently amended. And I see every reason to suppose that this one—and even the ultimate one of which the noble Lord speaks—will have to be amended from time to time. Before I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, I would ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared to consider whether somehow the word "provisionally" could be introduced. It would mean some slight redrafting which could perhaps be done before the Report stage.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am always glad to look at any suggestion made by the noble Lord, or by any other noble Lord, on these matters. While I cannot give him any sort of undertaking I will certainly have that matter looked at.
  LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and on that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved to add to the clause:
  "(2) Nothing in any local enactment or in any order or bye-law made thereunder which is directed to any purpose specified in the last preceding subsection shall be construed as applying to any gas fitting which conforms with the provisions of any regulations directed to the like purpose and made under that subsection."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment also deals with regulations for safety precautions. All it seeks to do is to ensure that where any regulations made under this clause specify a standard for fittings that may be used, that shall be the standard which shall be employed, and not a standard which may have been laid down in any existing enactment or in any order or by-law made thereunder. In other words, so long as these fittings comply with the particular regulations made under this clause, then those fittings shall be allowed to be used. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 79, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I am obliged to the noble Lord for the principle of this

  733
  Amendment, and I am glad to accept that principle. I do not think the wording which the noble Lord has chosen is sufficiently wide, because it refers to gas fittings; that is, things in the nature of cookers, gas fires and appliances of that kind. Our view is that it would be better if it covered gas distribution, and we should like to consider gas distribution systems in an Amendment which would cover also what is in the noble Lord's mind. If he will withdraw his Amendment on that basis, we will put something down at a later stage to cover the whole matter.
  LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that undertaking, and in the light of it I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 65 agreed to.
  Clause 66 agreed to.
  Clause 67 [Provisions as to prosecutions and as to offences by corporations]:
  4.58 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (2):
  "In this subsection, the expression 'director', in relation to any Area Board or the Gas Council or any other body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, being a body corporate whose affairs are managed by the members thereof, means a member of that Board, Council or body corporate."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes it clear that Clause 67, subsection (2), which is the usual provision making directors and officers of a body corporate liable for various offences of the body corporate, shall also cover members of the Area Boards and of the Gas Council; and also—and I would draw your Lordships' attention particularly to this—members of the board of any other nationalised industry. Your Lordships will remember that this matter was raised by some noble Lords opposite very pertinently and cogently during the discussion on the Motor Spirit Regulation Bill, and it was then agreed in principle that this ought to be done. In another place an Amendment was put down but was not called at Report stage. We feel, however, that it is necessary that there should be something of the kind, and we have indeed gone rather further with
  734
  our Amendment in that we are, as I have said, including members of the boards of other nationalised industries. I am sure this Amendment will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 80, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am sure that my noble friends on these Benches are most grateful to the noble Lord for the Amendment which he has just moved. So grateful are we that we feel that it ought to be passed at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, there will be only a very short speech from me. There is no doubt that the Bill is improved by this Amendment. There is no doubt that the Amendment as drafted is a better Amendment than the one which stands in my name immediately after it on the Marshalled List. For that reason, I shall not move the Amendment following which stands in my name.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 68 to 71 agreed to.
  Clause 72:
  Interpretation.
  72.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—
  "enactment" means any provision of a public general Act, of a local, private or personal Act, of a provisional order confirmed by an Act or of any regulation or order made under an Act;
  "local authority" means the council of a county borough, county district or metropolitan borough, and the common council of the City of London, and includes, in section nine of this Act, the council of a county, and also includes in any other provision of this Act except the said section nine any joint board of local authorities having functions as statutory undertakers and also other functions;
  LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment of a similar character to others which have preceded it and which my noble and learned friend has already explained. It is because of the fact that the Companies Consolidation Act has now been passed. Therefore, it is merely drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 83, line 23, leave out ("1929") and insert ("1948").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.2 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to add to the definition of "enactment":
  "or any order made under a regulation made under an Act"
  The noble Viscount said: I hope that the noble Lord opposite will agree that this Amendment is likewise little more than a drafting Amendment. As the Bill now stands,
  "'enactment' means any provision…of a provisional order confirmed by an Act or of any regulation or order made under an Act."
  So far so good. But what the Bill does not do is to cover certain orders which are not directly made under an Act but which are authorised, as I understand it, by Defence of the Realm Regulations. Those Defence of the Realm Regulations are made under an Act. Therefore, we want this definition to cover the Acts themselves, the "sons" of the Acts (which are covered now), and also the "grandsons" of the Acts (which are not covered). I hope I have made the matter as clear as I can. It is important because certain undertakings have been authorised to pay dividends greater than would have been permitted by their private Acts and orders, by virtue of an order which is called the Gas (Maximum and Standard Prices) Order, 1942. That is an order which is made in pursuance of Section 56 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, 1939. It seems quite plain that this definition should cover everything which has the force of law. We think that it does not do so at present, and we are anxious that it should. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 83, line 37, at end insert ("or any order made under a regulation made under an Act").—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I quite agree with the noble Viscount who has just moved this Amendment. It is purely a drafting point, so far as I can see. I am instructed that it is really quite unnecessary. An order of the kind referred to in the Amendment undoubtedly derives force from the main Act, even though there is an intervening instrument. Further, I am instructed that it is the invariable drafting practice in matters of this kind to rely upon
  736
  the phrase "under an Act" as covering such subordinate instruments, and that therefore the noble Viscount has moved an Amendment which is really misconceived and unnecessary.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I take it from the noble Lord's reply that the case I instanced—namely, that of orders made under Section 56 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, 1939—is covered.
  LORD CHORLEY: I have not actually a case in mind; my instructions are of a somewhat general character. As the noble Lord has mentioned that point, I will have it specifically looked at. If, contrary to my expectations, it should turn out that he is right, I will have the matter dealt with at Report stage.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am much obliged for the noble Lord's reply. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: This is another of the "Companies Act" Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 84, line 43, leave out ("1947") and insert ("1948").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved in the definition of "local authority," after "section nine" to insert "and section seventy-one." The noble Lord said: There is a misprint in the Amendment as it appears in the Marshalled List. The line to which it is proposed is line 12, not line 14. Your Lordships will observe that in Clause 71 there are two provisos. The first is that
  "no local authority shall be ordered to pay costs under subsection (4)…unless they are a party"
  to the inquiry that has been set up. The second proviso in that clause has the same effect in regard to Scotland. Therefore, I think it probably correct to say that this Amendment deals with what would appear to be an oversight; it will bring in the county councils to obtain the benefits given to other local authorities under the two provisos to which I have already alluded. It is a technical Amendment. I think it was put down in another place, but the discussion that took place upon it did not appear to me to be directed to the point that I have endeavoured to make

  737
  here. The intention of the Amendment is to correct what seems to me to be an oversight. I trust that His Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 85, line 12, after ("nine") insert ("and section seventy-one").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD CHORLEY: The point which the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has in mind has already been considered in the light of his Amendment. The view taken is that the matter is already covered, and that therefore there is no need expressly to exclude these joint boards. In effect, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it would be surplusage. There would be no harm in it, but it would not, in fact, make any difference.
  LORD O'HAGAN: I would inquire from the noble Lord whether that means that the county councils do come under it and are subject to the provisos in Clause 71 that were alluded to. If that is so, then I will not press the matter.
  LORD CHORLEY: That is the view that is taken. It is entirely a matter of construction. The provisos to Clause 71 can only affect local authorities within the meaning of the respective Acts referred to in that clause. As a result of that, it is not regarded as necessary expressly to exclude these bodies.
  LORD HAWKE: Is the noble Lord quite certain that the Amendment with which he is dealing is the Amendment, as amended by my noble friend, which was put down on the Marshalled List? When I first studied the Amendment on the Marshalled List, I had grave difficulty in following what it meant. It was only when I heard that it had been put down in the wrong line that it became simple.
  LORD CHORLEY: That point has been looked at, and I am informed that it does not make any difference. However, as the noble Lords are doubtful about it, I shall be glad to have the matter looked at again, and if those who instruct me feel that, in the light of information received, enlightened by the discussion that they have listened to, there is need to deal with this matter, I shall be glad to give an assurance that we will put it down and deal with it.
  LORD O'HAGAN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think there is a misapprehension here. However, in view of the assurance he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROCHDALE: This Amendment goes with an Amendment which was agreed to in Clause I. When the noble and learned Viscount accepted that Amendment, however, he said that when we came to this, which merely amplifies the previous one, he might have to consider the wording of it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 85, line 20, at end insert—
  "'Metallurgical coke' means coke produced in coke ovens where the main object of such coke ovens is not the production of gas for sale and where it is of quality primarily and customarily used for the smelting, melting, or refining of ores or metals."—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord is quite right. The noble and learned Viscount did give that undertaking, and if the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment, the principle will be considered at the same time as the Amendment which he had accepted in principle in Clause 1.
  LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD TEYNHAM: In moving the next Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I would like to suggest one alteration in the drafting—namely, after the word "body" to insert the word "corporate." I think this Amendment does not intend to bring in all corporations and I think it may do so unless this word "corporate" is inserted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 86, line 19, leave out from ("body") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("corporate").—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of course, the alteration which the noble Lord has made to the Amendment makes a fundamental difference. This is not now the same Amendment as it was before, because the case could be argued on the ground that debentures are very widely dealt with on the Stock Exchange, and,

  739
  logically, they should be compensated on the same principle. The Amendment as it stood before was not quite clear. This makes it a little more clear, but I am afraid I cannot accept it.
  LORD TEYNHAM: The Amendment is really nothing more than a consequential Amendment to one made on Clause 25.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If what the noble Lord has said is right, I will take it back and get instructions on it, but I have no information about that.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Certainly. We would very much like it to be looked into, and on the assurance of the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is consequential upon the passing of the Companies Act, 1948. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 86, line 33, leave out ("1947") and insert ("1948").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  First Schedule, agreed to.
  Second Schedule:
  Issue of British Gas Stock in satisfaction of compensation.

  PART I.
  5. Where the holder of any securities becomes, under this Part of this Schedule, instead the holder of British Gas Stock, he shall hold that stock in the same right and on the same trusts and subject to the same powers, privileges, charges, restraints and liabilities as those in, on or subject to which he held those securities, and any provision of any deed, will, disposition or other instrument, and any statutory provision as to what is to be done by the holder of the securities or the redemption moneys thereof, shall, with any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to the said stock or the redemption moneys thereof as it would have had effect in relation to the securities or the redemption moneys thereof if they had not been extinguished:
  Provided that—
  (a) any beneficial interest of any undertaker to whom Part II of this Act applies, other than an ancillary gas undertaker or an undertaker who is not a body corporate, in any of the said securities shall be treated as having passed to the appropriate Board and the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall have effect accordingly;
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "amount" and insert "the respective amounts". The noble Lord said: I hope that the noble Lord opposite will agree that this is really an obvious drafting Amendment. Paragraph 2 of Part I says:
  "The holders of any securities to which this Part of this Schedule applies…"
  will be holders of the amount of Gas Stock to which they are entitled. I think the case is pretty clear. I hope that I am right in saying that. If this Amendment is made I should point out that an Amendment in the same words would follow in the corresponding provisions on page 91, line 33. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 90, line 13, leave out ("amount") and insert ("the respective amounts").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am advised that the present wording is to be preferred to that which has been put forward by the noble Lord, but as he appears to consider it a matter of substance I will gladly accept it.
  LORD O'HAGAN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in paragraph 5, after "securities" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
  "(not being a power exercisable by such holder against the person creating the securities)."
  The noble Lord said: Paragraph 5 deals with the privileges, charges, restraints and liabilities, which might have existed in respect of the holding of a gas company's stock, which is now replaced by British Gas Stock. It rightly makes it possible for the same wills, trusts and so on, to prevail, but in our view it goes a little further and possibly confers on people who held debentures and had them exchanged for Gas Stock the same powers as they held as debenture holders of the original gas undertaking. The debenture holders, of course, have various powers. They can put in Receivers, they can make demands for redemption and so on, and failure to deal with that point is, in our view, an oversight in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 90, line 32, after ("securities") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hawke.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule provides for British Gas Stock issued to trustees, being held on the same trust as the securities for which it is issued, and for any reference in the wills and other instruments to those securities to have effect as a reference to British Gas Stock. I think the noble Lord fears that the provision in line 31 that British Gas Stock is to be held subject to the same powers, privileges, charges, restraints and liabilities, would cover powers flowing from the security itself—that is, voting rights in regard to ordinary stock or powers to appoint a Receiver in the case of debentures. I think the noble Lord will agree that the Amendment is unnecessary, since the scope of the paragraph is clearly limited to the purposes specified above, and it is inconceivable that the rights of the holders of the undertakers' securities, such as voting rights and rights to appoint Receivers mentioned above, should attach to the single type of British Gas Stock to be issued for all those securities. On those grounds I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  LORD HAWKE: If the noble Lord considers that the Gas Council will sleep easily in their beds with the Bill as it now stands, I am willing to accept his view. I was only attempting to improve the Bill for their purposes. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Third Schedule:
  Code of Provisions relating to Gas Supply.
  2. Before an Area Board proceed to open or break up any street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel, they shall give to the person under whose control or management it may be, or to his clerk, surveyor or other officer, notice in writing of the Board's intention, not less than fourteen clear days before beginning the work, except in cases of emergency arising from defects in any pipes or other works, and then as soon as possible after the occurrence of the emergency.
  5. When an Area Board open or break up any street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel, they shall with all convenient speed complete the work, fill in the ground, and reinstate or make good the street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel, and carry away the rubbish occasioned thereby, and shall at all times, while any
  742
  street or bridge is so opened or broken up, cause it to be fenced or guarded, and cause a light sufficient for the warning of passengers to be set up and maintained at night against or near the street or bridge, and keep the street or bridge in good repair for three months after making it good, and for such further time, if any, not being more than twelve months altogether, as the soil broken up continues to subside.
  35.…
  (2) The notice required to be given by the last preceding sub-paragraph may, in the case of unoccupied premises, the owner or lessee of which is unknown to the Area Board and cannot be ascertained after diligent inquiry, be given by affixing it upon a conspicuous part of the premises not less than forty-eight hours before the premises are entered:
  Provided that, where an entry is made on the premises which could not lawfully have been made but for the provisions of this subparagraph the premises shall be left no less secure than they were immediately before they were entered, and the Board shall make good or pay compensation for any damage caused to the premises by the exercise of powers under this sub-paragraph.
  5.20 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Amendments were put down on the Report stage in another place which sought to provide first, that an Area Board should give fourteen days' notice before entry, but secondly, that in cases of emergency an Area Board should enter without notice. This Amendment is simply intended to fulfil in undertaking which was given and it is really consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 93, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
  "(b) an Area Board may, after giving notice in writing to the owners and occupiers of the land or building not less than fourteen clear days before the entry, enter upon any land (not being a street to which proviso (a) to this sub-paragraph applies) or building for the purpose of placing a new pipe in the place of an existing pipe, which has already been lawfully placed or of repairing or altering any pipe lawfully placed, so, however, that entry may be made without such notice in cases of emergency arising from defects in any pipes, but notice shall then be given as soon as possible after the occurrence of the emergency."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: We quite agree with the drafting of the Amendment which has just been proposed by the noble Lord opposite, with the exception of one

  743
  point—that is the period of fourteen days. Your Lordships will notice that I have an Amendment down immediately following this one, to leave out the word "fourteen" which appears in the Bill as originally drafted and insert "three." Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I made my point on that now in discussing the Amendment which has just been moved. Frankly, we have all been a good deal puzzled by the sudden decision to go up to fourteen days as the period for giving notice, because three days is the period of notice which is in the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, and so far as one can tell it has worked perfectly smoothly, for a hundred years. In the original Bill, I think, the period of three days was to be found; then, suddenly, in Committee in another place, the Minister came along and asked for fourteen days to be substituted. Now fourteen days is a very long time and I do not think that any explanation has been given as to why it has suddenly proved necessary to provide for a much longer period of notice. It is not merely a question of emergency. I know quite well that in case of emergency gas pipes can be taken up without having to give fourteen days' notice. But, surely, the Gas Department wishes to give good and prompt service to the consumer. Why on earth, therefore, should we suddenly have a provision made whereby there will be a delay of fourteen days, when, for the last hundred years, we have got on quite nicely with three days?
  And that is not quite all the story, according to my information. I believe that consideration has now been given to the introduction of a Bill called the Breaking Up of Streets Bill which, I gather, is to deal with all matters in respect of which it is necessary to break up streets for any given purpose. Furthermore, I understand that in the discussions which have taken place up to now, the period of notice which has been discussed has been not fourteen days but seven days. For that reason, it appears to me to be "curiouser and curiouser" that the period of fourteen days should suddenly have been chosen for insertion here. I would have thought that there was no real reason why the old statutory period of three days should not be used. But, as I say, in the light of the discussions which I have
  744
  heard, the use of the period fourteen days as opposed to that of seven days seems very strange. I shall be grateful to the noble Lord opposite if he can give us some enlightenment as to what is really afoot in this connection.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I agree with the noble Viscount that this does seem strange. I gather that he is now dealing with the subject of the next Amendment which stands in the joint names of himself and Lord Lloyd. If it is convenient to the Committee perhaps I may deal with that Amendment now.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Amendment was to the clause as orginally drafted.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: When the Bill was first published, three days was the period which was inserted, but representations were received from local authorities, who protested that under modern conditions three days was far too short a period. A compromise was arrived at, and an Amendment to insert fourteen days was moved as a Government Amendment in another place. The noble Viscount will be interested, I am sure, to learn that this was appreciated to a marked extent, and Mr. Brendan Bracken said:
  "Certainly fourteen is better than three, and that is all I have to say."
  The Government have no very firm ideas on this point and are willing to accept the noble Viscount's suggestion—or perhaps it might be deemed better to arrive at a compromise half-way between the two and make the period seven days. If seven days is agreeable to the noble Viscount, I can assure him that it is equally agreeable to me.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Lord has met my point very fairly. I think, and I hope that he will agree with me, that it is better to have the same sauce for the goose as for the gander—that is, to have the same period, whatever it may be, in the Breaking Up of Streets Bill, as we have in any other Act which affects the breaking up of streets. I do not know what would suit the noble Lord best. Possibly he would prefer that I should not move my Amendment, on the understanding that the matter can be discussed between now and the Report stage.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I agree to that, on the understanding that seven days is the agreed period.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I suggest that the matter might well he discussed between now and Report stage and that the period of seven days appears to have certain merits. On that understanding, I will not move my Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in paragraph 5, after "guarded" to insert: "make arrangements, where necessary, for the control of traffic." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is a simple one. It is to ensure that when a highway may be obstructed, perhaps by the operations of an Area Board carrying out works in connection with gas and so on, they shall be responsible for making arrangements, where necessary, for the control of traffic. I think the Bill, as drawn, merely repeats the road opening provisions of the Gasworks Clauses Act of 1847. Of course, since that date traffic on the roads has greatly increased. I think that some responsibility should be given to Area Boards to make provision for the control of traffic. In recent years, road opening in connection with these bulk supply gas mains has become much more extensive. I understand that similar provisions were put into the Water Act of 1945. They appear, I believe, in Section 26 (2). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There is considerable point in what the noble Lord says, but it is doubtful whether control of traffic is a matter for which Area Boards should take any responsibility or whether it is within their province to make any such arrangements. The point will have to be looked into. If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake to have the matter looked into between now and the Report stage to see if something can be done to meet his point.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer and, in the circumstances, I willingly withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 94, line 42, after ("3") insert ("paragraph 4").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in paragraph 8 (1), after "Board" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert "through which the Board are for the time being distributing gas." The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment. As the Bill is now drafted, any occupied premises within twenty-five yards of a main is entitled to claim a supply of gas. I understand there are "dead" mains, mains which have become redundant because new ones have been laid along a different course. The Amendment seeks to make certain that this right to claim a supply of gas applies only where the main is being used at present. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 22, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment, as it removes what might be an embarrassing position for the Area Boards. I accept it.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYThe noble Lord's views on redundant gas mains are different from his views on redundant gas works.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved in paragraph 8 (2) after "occupier" (where that word, occurs a second time) to insert "not being dedicated to public use." The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the payment by the consumer for service pipes. As the Bill is drawn, the consumer is liable to pay for the cost of all service pipes on his land, including land up to the centre of the highway which may run near his house. It has been the practice for private companies not to make the consumer pay for that part of the pipe under the road from the centre line, and only for that part where it entered the consumer's premises. I understand that one of the municipal corporations did insist on payment for pipes laid under the road from the centre line, and I suppose that under the strict interpretation of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, they are so entitled. This Amendment will have the effect of

  747
  protecting the consumer against demands for such payments and will continue the practice of the private gas companies. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 32, after ("occupier") insert ("not being dedicated to public use").—(Lord Teynham.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Again I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving such a helpful Amendment, which I shall be pleased to accept if he would make one slight alteration, which is really a matter of grammar. Would the noble Lord be prepared to insert the word "property" between the word "being" and "dedicated," so that the Amendment would read, "not being property dedicated to public use"? I think that is what the noble Lord really means.
  LORD TEYNHAM: Certainly. I will withdraw my Amendment and move it as now worded.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 32, after ("occupier") insert ("not being property dedicated to public use").—(Lord Teynham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved in paragraph 8, after sub-paragraph (2) to insert:
  "(3) The Area Board shall carry out any necessary work of maintenance, repair or renewal of any such pipe which is provided and laid at the cost of the owner or occupier of any premises, and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the owner or occupier of the premises.
  (4) Nothing in the last two preceding subparagraphs shall be taken as affecting any rights or obligations as between the owner and occupier of the premises in relation to any such pipe as aforesaid."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been framed in order to meet the point made in the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke and the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. We are grateful to them for the point in their Amendment, which deals with the maintenance and payment for such maintenance of pipes laid at the request of a property owner. The difficulty about the Amendment, as tabled by the noble Lords, was that the expression "any such pipe" was a little ambiguous, and therefore we have inserted the words which your Lordships see in order to
  748
  make clear what was meant. Further, the Government Amendment is drafted in such a way as to leave it open to Area Boards to recover the expenses from either owner or occupier, as may be appropriate. I am sure your Lordships will think that these are useful improvements on the original Amendment and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 35, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, in paragraph 11, to leave out "by whom the lamps are maintained" and insert:
  "who are the lighting authority for the street in which the lamps are placed."
  The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wolverton I beg to move the Amendment standing in our joint names. This is practically a drafting Amendment. The Bill does no more than blindly copy the out-of-date wording contained in previous Acts. It refers to the public authority as "the authority by whom the lamps are maintained." That is wrong, because it is well-known—except to the Government, perhaps—that a great many public lamps are owned and maintained by gas undertakings and not by local authorities or other public lighting authorities. Therefore, in these cases, the Bill refers to the gas undertakers when it seeks to refer to the lighting authorities. In other words, the Amendment makes the Bill say what it means. I think the noble Lord will agree that is an eminently desirable object, if we can in any way attain it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 22, leave out from ("authority") to ("may") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hampton.)
  LORD CHORLEY: As the noble Lord has said, this is purely a drafting Amendment. My instructions, again, are that it is not really necessary, and that the words in the clause are sufficient to cover the case—namely, where the maintenance is carried out by independent workmen, either of the local authority or employed under contract by the undertakers. If that is so, it does not seem that the noble Lord's Amendment is really necessary.
  LORD HAMPTON: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, he did not sound very certain as to whether, in fact, it was covered. I do not know whether he would look into it again, before I withdraw my Amendment, and make absolutely certain that it is covered.
  LORD CHORLEY: I will be glad to look into it again if the noble Lord wishes me to, especially on a somewhat difficult point of drafting. It is an advantage to those who advise me to have heard the point exactly put by the noble Lord, and I shall be glad to have it looked into.
  LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.39 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved in paragraph 14 (3) after "inspect" to insert "overhaul." The noble Lord said: This is another attempt from this side of the House to assist the Government in their drafting. It is really no more than a drafting Amendment. The Bill, at page 65, empowers the Minister to make regulations for meters to be overhauled and here, at page 98, the Area Boards are given the right to "remove, inspect, and replace any meter"—that includes meters belonging to consumers—but there is no mention of overhauling them. I imagine that sometimes they might want to overhaul meters without removing them but, as the Bill now stands, this clause does not give them that power; indeed, by implication it might exclude it. I feel that His Majesty's Government may like to have this word inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 98, line 5, after ("inspect") insert ("overhaul").—(Lord Lloyd.)
  LORD CHORLEY: I am obliged for the intention of the noble Lord, which is obviously meant to be helpful, but in this case I am clear that his suggestion is not the right one. If he looks again at the words which he has quoted, "remove, inspect and replace," he will see that they are concerned with a quite different type of operation from "overhaul," which is not dealt with in this context at all. If it were necessary to overhaul the meter, it would be taken away and dealt with by a different process. Paragraph 14 (3) of
  750
  the Third Schedule gives the right to remove, and afterwards to overhaul. I think the noble Lord will agree that the word "overhaul" inappropriate to be inserted among these other words in this context, and I hope he will not press the Amendment.
  LORD LLOYD: As I said, the Amendment is moved entirely with the object of assisting the Government. If the noble Lord is satisfied that he has all the powers he needs in this case, far be it from me to give him any more. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to omit paragraph 17, and insert:
  Maximum charges for re-selling gas supplied by Area Boards.
  "17.—(1) Every Area Board shall, as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, fix maximum prices at which gas supplied by them may be resold, and may from time to time vary any prices so fixed, and shall publish the prices so fixed and any variation thereof in such manner as in their opinion will secure adequate publicity therefor.
  (2) Different prices may be fixed under this paragraph in different classes of cases which may be defined by reference to areas, tariffs applicable to gas supplied by the Area Board in question, or any other relevant circumstances.
  (3) If any person resells any gas supplied by an Area Board at a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under this paragraph and applicable thereto, the amount of the excess shall, if it does not exceed twenty pounds, be recoverable summarily as a civil debt by the person to whom the gas was resold and, in any case, shall be recoverable by him in any court of competent jurisdiction."
  The noble Lord said: I am sure your Lordships will agree with the usefulness of this Amendment. It is intended to deal essentially with an abuse which, unfortunately, is rather widespread, according to the information in my possession—namely, the abuse of overcharging by landlords; some people would say that overcharging by landladies was even more common, and even more of an abuse. They obtain gas in bulk from the gas undertakers, and they pass it on to the tenants, really giving nothing but taking a great deal by way of extra charges. A large number of complaints have been coming to the Ministry, especially in connection with the provision of slot meters, which are set in such a way as to register excessive and quite unjustifiable charges. I am sure your Lordships will agree that

  751
  this is an abuse which needs to be dealt with, and I hope you think that this Amendment is one which deals with it effectively. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 99, line 1, leave out paragraph 17, and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved in paragraph 34 (1) after "supplied" to insert
  "or (at the request of the occupier) installing fixing repairing renewing or replacing any gas fittings."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is merely to safeguard an occupier tenant who wants a supply of gas but whose landlord, for some particular reason, may want to restrict his use. As the clause stands, it would be possible for such a landlord to prevent the servants of the Area Board from entering in, in order to provide that supply of gas or to repair the existing fittings. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 23, after ("supplied") insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD CHORLEY: It is rather difficult to see why the particular words should be required. The sort of case which the noble Lord has in mind, as I understand him, is one where the occupier wishes to have some work done on the premises. Obviously, in that case the workmen will come at his invitation. It seems unnecessary to have these words. The clause itself deals with a case where the Area Board's workpeople need to enter for the purpose of carrying out some work which is essential from the point of view of the Area Board. I cannot see why the noble Lord has moved this Amendment.
  LORD ROCHDALE: Perhaps the noble Lord has not quite grasped the point. As I understand it, as the Bill is at present drafted it would be possible for a landlord through whose land the supply of gas went to the premises under discussion to prevent the servants of the Area Board from going across that land to do the work. Therefore, the occupier who was applying for a supply of gas would not get his gas or would not get his repairs done. My Amendment seeks to safeguard such an occupier.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think it also applies to the case of an owner of a house who does not want his tenant to have gas. This Amendment says that he cannot prevent the agent or the servant of the Area Board coming in to instal the gas fittings if the occupier wants it done. It is part of the important principle of freedom of choice which we discussed this afternoon. I hope to move an Amendment on that principle when we come to the Report stage. The Amendment means that if a tenant of the house wants gas, and asks for it, the landlord cannot say (I believe there have been a few cases like this) "I will not have gas put into the house."
  LORD CHORLEY: I am obliged to both noble Lords for the further explanation. If the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, will withdraw the Amendment now, perhaps we can have a word on it between now and Report stage.
  LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to look into the matter further, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in paragraph 35, to omit the proviso to sub-paragraph (2). The noble Lord said: It will probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if this Amendment, and those at page 104, line 22, and page 105, line 8, are taken together. They all deal with the same point of forcible entry into premises. As your Lordships will see on page 104, in one particular case it is entry for the purpose of removing pipes on discontinuance of supply. There is a proviso that all damage caused by such an entry shall be made good, and that the premises shall be left as secure as they were when the entry was made. There is a similar proviso at line 11—or rather an attempted provison—to cover the powers of entry in paragraph 35 (1), although in point of fact I am advised that, owing to the use of the word "sub-paragraph," that particular proviso does not work.
  The object of this Amendment is to extend the necessity for leaving the premises as secure as when they were entered, and for making good damage, for reasons which I will now explain. These two instances of the right to enter

  753
  premises are by no means the only instances in this Bill. There are, I think, eight different places in this Schedule where that right is given. I will not weary the House by quoting them all, although I have a note of them if the noble Lord wants details. In none of those eight cases is there any proviso, so far as I can see, that in such a case of entry the damage shall be made good and the premises left secure. Indeed, the fact that there is a specific proviso in the two cases which I have mentioned may mean, by implication, that there is no duty to make good damage and to leave the premises secure in the other cases. I feel that this is a very important proviso, from the point of view of the ordinary individual whose premises may be entered. What these three Amendments seek to do is to leave out these specific provisos where they occur on page 104, and put them in on page 105—an omnibus proviso, which will make any Area Board entering premises responsible to repair any damage and to leave those premises secure. I cannot help feeling that this is a reasonable Amendment and, from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, a very important Amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 104, line 11, leave out from beginning to the end of line 16.—(Lord Lloyd.)
  LORD CHORLEY: It may be that there is a slight gap here which needs to be covered. The point, of course, is that this concerns a case where unoccupied premises have been entered, and it is obviously necessary that in those cases they should be left secure. I am quite sure that, if there are any cases which are not covered, we would want to put that right. The noble Lord has suggested that it may well be that there are some cases. I shall be glad to have it looked at and, if it is found that that is so, to give the necessary protection for which he is asking.
  LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I can show him a number of cases which, I am advised, are not covered, and perhaps we could get together between now and the
  754
  Report stage. On his assurance, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 104, line 24, at end insert—
  Penalty for obstruction.
  ("36. If any person obstructs any officer exercising powers under either of the two last preceding paragraphs, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
  LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is in the way of a drafting Amendment. There is a small mistake in the Repeals Schedule. The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 was actually repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, and, therefore, the provision in this Act is quite unnecessary. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 106, line 40, column 3, leave out from beginning of line 40 to.("in") in line 41.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
  AGRICULTURE WAGES BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  FACTORIES BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment to be printed.
  VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

  WHITSTABLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on June 28 and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  House adjourned at six o'clock.