Lords Sitting of 19 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (REDCAR) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWANAGE) BILL.
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROL LEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a according to order and passed.

  LAYING OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE PARLIAMENT (INTERPRETATION) BILL, [H.L.]
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Meaning of references to laying before Parliament]:
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I may perhaps explain
  898
  these Amendments together. I am sorry that I have had to put down any Amendments, but I do so at the request of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. Some question has arisen in regard to Measures passed by the Church Assembly. As I am sure your Lordships know, such. Measures receive the Royal Assent, but it is possible that there might be passed a Measure which receives the Royal Assent and which in itself provides for the laying of subordinate instruments. It is obviously desirable that the code we have for the laying of subordinate instruments under the Act of Parliament should apply equally to the laying of subordinate instruments under a Measure passed by the Church Assembly and approved by this House. That is all there is behind these Amendments, and accordingly I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 1, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("of Parliament or subordinate legislation")
  Page 1, line 6, after ("passed") insert ("or made")
  Page 2, line 5, after ("Act") insert ("or subordinate legislation").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  In the Title:
  Amendment moved—
  After ("Parliament"), where it first occurs, insert ("and subordinate legislation.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 15), Bill reported, with Amendments.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I entirely agree that the Bill should be read a Third time, and I am glad on behalf of myself and my friends to express our support of it. There is one matter which I mentioned privately to a member of the Government and which I would now venture to

  899
  mention publicly. I think that if the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, is examined with the care and skilled knowledge which the Lord Chancellor has at his command, he will be disposed to agree with me that when the proviso is read (if I remember rightly, it begins "provided that if it is essential" a document may be laid when we are not sitting) the intention must be—and I should have thought the proper construction of the proviso was—that, should the Minister find it to be essential to make an order when Parliament is not in Session, the explanation which ought to accompany his notice is an explanation as to why he thinks it essential. I know that another practice has grown up, but I have so much respect for the noble and learned Viscount that I do not think that that would in the least affect his mind. It seems to me that the Statute provides, in the first place, that these subordinate orders should be laid before Parliament; and then, by way of exception, it goes on to provide that in a case where it is essential that the order should be made when Parliament is not sitting, the Departmental Minister shall supply the reason. I respectfully submit that that really means the reason why the order is essential. A practice has grown up recently of saying that all the Minister has to do is to say that the reason is that Parliament is not sitting.
  I do no more now than ask that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack should consider the point, because it may be that when we come to examine the Standing Order—which we have not done yet—we ought to bear it in mind. I apologise for delaying your Lordships, but this is a point which has been rather on my mind for some time, and I thought it was right that I should state it now, in order that it might be considered before the final form of the Standing Order under this new Bill was presented. I think it is a serious point and worthy of consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Viscount is quite right; and the point that he has indicated shall be examined by those who are dealing with the matter.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  GAS BILL.
  2.43 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1:
  Establishment and general functions of Area Boards.
  1.—(1) There shall be established Boards, to be known by the names mentioned in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act and in this Act referred to as "Area Boards," for the areas which are described in general terms in the second column of that Schedule and are to be defined by orders made under this Part of this Act, and it shall be the duty of every Area Board as from the vesting date
  (a) to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of gas supply for their area;
  (2) Every Area Board shall have power to carry on all such activities as it may appear to the Board to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for them to carry on for or in connection with the discharge of their duties under the preceding subsection or with a view to making the best use of any assets vested in them by or under this Act, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision,—
  (e) after consultation with the Gas Council established under the next following section, to manufacture plant required by the Board or any other Area Board and to manufacture gas fittings and coke fittings, except for export.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (1):
  "and to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas within their area"
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I think it meets the desire of the Opposition. I undertook on the Committee stage to move some such Amendment. So far as I can see, the only question between us was the difference between the word "economical" and "economic." Having consulted the Oxford Dictionary, I have definitely come to the conclusion that the word "economical" is the better form, because, according to the Oxford Dictionary, that word has a meaning which the word "economic" does not possess. The word "economical" means "characterised by or tending to economy…opposed to wasteful." A similar definition in the case of "economic" is described as obsolete. I do not think we want a definition which is obsolete, and therefore I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment, which meets the point which I try to make in the Amendment which is down in my name. I am interested to hear the noble and learned Viscount's remarks about the definition of the words "economical" and "economic"—but I suggest there might still be a difference, which might be illustrated by the proverb "Don't spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar." The "spoiling" may be "economical" but perhaps not "economic."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (2):
  "Provided that an Area Board shall not exercise their powers under paragraph (e) hereof unless they are satisfied that the available facilities for obtaining at reasonable prices plant required by them or any other Area Board or gas fittings or coke fittings are or may become inadequate."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. This is to impose a limitation on the powers of Area Boards to manufacture plant and fittings. I undertook to move some such Amendment, and this is the result of that undertaking. I hope it will meet the point raised.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has just moved quite meets, our point. We are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having proposed this Amendment, and we support it.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I have one comment to make on this. Whilst I appreciate the trouble which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has taken to put into effect the undertaking which he gave on Committee stage, I think that this Amendment will be more hampering than it should be. I should have thought that the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would give a little more freedom. The reason for that is that the present Amendment says that under paragraph (e) the manufacture of
  902
  plant, gas fittings and coke fittings must not be undertaken unless the Area Board
  "are satisfied that the available facilities for obtaining at reasonable prices…are or may become inadequate."
  On the other hand, the Amendment standing in the names of Lord Bridgeman and Lord Rochdale excepts from that condition the manufacture of plant. During the Committee stage, I suggested that it was useful—indeed, almost essential—that the Gas Boards should have the power, unfettered and unhindered, to manufacture at any rate small items of plant, thus saving a great deal of trouble and expense. It would be difficult in every case to have the necessary consultations, and it is a pity to restrict the manufacture of those things which are most needed. What is required is the intention that the Gas Boards or the Gas Council shall not go into large-scale manufacture of plant or fittings. In connection with fittings, there are, in the same way, odds and ends of things—such as training apparatus, and so on—which the Boards will have to manufacture, whether they like it or not. Certainly, I think they will have to manufacture small items of plant. In those circumstances, I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will consider whether the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is not perhaps a little more suitable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the present moment, my instructions are that this Amendment is to be preferred to that of the Opposition. If it is not liked, it can be looked at between now and Third Reading.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Establishment and general functions of Gas Council.
  (5) The Gas Council shall have power to do any thing and to enter into any transaction (whether or not involving the expenditure, the borrowing in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the lending of money, the acquisition of any property or rights or the disposal of any property or rights) which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the exercise or performance of any functions conferred or imposed on them by any enactment other than this subsection or is incidental or conducive thereto.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to add to subsection (5):
  "but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as derogating from the powers conferred on Area Boards by this Act."
  The noble Viscount said: In the absence of my noble friends, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Wolverton, who do not appear to be present, I beg formally to move this Amendment. This was a point which the Government undertook to consider before Report stage. In column 470 of Hansard, July 7, Lord Chorley agreed that it was probably desirable that this matter should be clarified. There being no Government Amendment down, we thought that we had better restore the original Amendment to the Marshalled List to give the Government an opportunity of explaining why it was not necessary for them to move an Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is quite right. We did undertake to consider this matter carefully——
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, raised it too.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:—and we have done so. I myself have done so in conjunction with my experts. We do not want to accept it—and for this reason: On going into the matter with great care, we have come to the conclusion there is nothing which can derogate from the powers conferred on Area Boards by the Bill. Since we are clear that there is nothing, we do not want to put in these words, which may have an exactly contrary effect to what is intended. It is a fallacy to regard subsection (5) of Clause 2 as giving any overriding powers. What it does is to give the Gas Council:
  "power to do any thing and to enter into any transaction…which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the exercise or performance of any functions conferred or imposed on them by any enactment other than this subsection or is incidental or conducive thereto."
  There is in this subsection nothing overriding, and indeed the scope is defined by the functions conferred by the other provisions. There are no general powers of control by the Gas Council over Area
  904
  Boards, and me powers which they have are specified in the other provisions and do not derive anything from this subsection.
  Under Clause 4 (2), Area Boards have to submit to the Gas Council programmes for training and education. Under Clause 44 (1) the Gas Council are not to exercise their borrowing powers for the purpose of defraying expenditure incurred by an Area Board in carrying out reorganisation or development unless the Council are satisfied that the reorganisation or development will be in accordance with the general programme settled with the approval of the Minister. Under Clause 46 (6), where an Area Board fail to discharge their obligations on their Gas Stock, or to contribute to the Central Guarantee Fund, the Gas Council, with the approval of the Minister, may give directions to the Area Board with respect to the management or policy of the Board. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is unnecessary and undesirable. It seems to me that the insertion of such words would tend to raise doubts as to the scope of the subsection. Accordingly, we are not prepared to accept this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I think my noble friends may rest assured that what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor says will have effect in the future.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5:
  Constitution of Area Boards and Gas Council.
  5.—(1) Every Area Board and the Gas Council shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain.
  (2) Every Area Board shall be constituted as follows:—
  (a) the chairman and not less than five nor more than seven other members shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply, local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers; and not less than two members shall be workers in the Gas undertakings taken over by the Board; and
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) (a) to omit "The chairman and not less than five nor more than seven

  905
  Other" and insert "Not less than six nor more than eight." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment paves the way for the new subsection (3) to which we shall be coming presently, under which the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman (one of whom is to have had experience of gas supply or related industries) is now provided for. The present Amendment makes no alteration in the total membership of the Boards. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("members") in line 19 and insert ("Not less than six nor more than eight").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  2.57 p.m.
  LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "Minister" to insert:
  "and in making such appointments the Minister shall secure that either the Chairman or the; person appointed under the next succeeding subsection to be Deputy Chairman shall have had practical knowledge of the gas industry and that the other members shall be appointed."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved a similar Amendment in Committee the noble and learned Viscount was good enough to promise that he would put down words to satisfy my point. We have before us his Amendment at page 5, line 39, but I cannot say that it covers the points upon which we are at issue. I cannot quite see the force of the phrase "appearing to the Minister to have had experience of." Either the person appointed has the necessary experience, or he has not, whether or not it appears so to the Minister. So far as I can see, the qualifications in the last three lines of the Amendment might lead to the appointment of almost anybody.
  I refer also to page 2, line 22. As I read it, under the words there, the Minister could appoint anybody who had the handling of by-products, quite apart from any experience of the industry. Presumably, he could appoint a coal merchant who sells coke, or a builder who instals gas pipes in a house. We are out to make a Bill, which we on this side of the House do not like, more workable. We have a great and keen interest in the gas industry which we regard as a public service. So far as I can see, under the Bill there is no guarantee that the industry under the State will serve the public as well as
  906
  it has done in the past. I feel that my Amendment would do something to supply that guarantee, or at any rate a part of it. There is bound to be a good deal of anxiety in the public mind, especially during the take-over period. After all, of all the great industries that serve the public, I suppose the gas industry, with its various by-products, most closely touches the public convenience. What we want, what the public want and what the gas industry certainly want, is that the take-over should go through as smoothly as possible. If the Minister were to appoint from the beginning men—all we ask is for 12 out of the 24—who were most likely to make the take-over easy and smooth, it would be to his advantage and also to the advantage of the whole concern.
  After all, there are to be only twelve Area Boards, which means twenty-four key appointments, and out of those all we ask is that twelve key appointments shall be of men who have a practical knowledge of the industry. During the debate on my Amendment on the Committee stage, the Lord Chancellor said that he was not quite sure what "practical knowledge" meant. In my own mind, what we mean is quite clear—namely, that these men should have had experience on a high level of organisation, management and operation in the manufacture of gas and its by-products; in other words, they should be men who have had wide experience of the gas industry. Surely, there is nothing ambiguous about that. I cannot understand why the Minister should object to this proviso. I hope it is not some underlying political reason—that he wants to have the right of making a clean sweep of the industry. I do not like to chink that, but it is hard to get away from the assumption, because I should have thought that this was a reasonable Amendment, designed entirely to help the organisation from the very start. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will try and get his right honourable colleague to change his mind about the matter.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 19, after ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hampton.)
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. I feel that this Amendment is by no means unreasonable, because it is clear

  907
  that it does not ask that both the chairman and deputy chairman should have knowledge, but merely that either should have it. Throughout the country there are only twelve Area Boards; the territory they cover is considerable, and it is not much to ask that either the head or the deputy should have some real knowledge of the industry which he is controlling. From a very modest knowledge of the industry, I would say that a man who does not understand it is placed at a great disadvantage. It is not easy for him to decide whether one engineer is right as against another. One may decide that certain plant needs renewing, and another may decide that it does not. In regard to the question of extending mains, of pressures and all sorts of technical problems, the man must rely entirely on the advice of his technicians. It is not at all the same as managing a store, or something of that kind, where a general knowledge is adequate. Here a man must know something about the matter with which he is dealing. It would not have been unreasonable, I suggest, to ask that both these officers should have some knowledge; but to ask that one or the other should is, surely, reasonable to the last degree.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess that I had thought and hoped that the Amendment which I put down to page 5, line 39, would have met this point. I am proposing to leave out subsection (3), and to insert these words:
  "The Minister shall appoint two of the members of each of the Area Boards to be chairman and deputy chairman respectively of that Board, and either the chairman or the deputy chairman of each Board shall be a person appearing to the Minister to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply or any of the activities mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (2) of section one of this Act."
  The differences between my Amendment and the Amendment we are now discussing are simply these. First of all, I do not like the words "practical knowledge." The noble Lord who moved the Amendment put his gloss on those words by saying "upon a high level." Instead of the words "practical knowledge," in the later Amendment we have used the phrase "experience of, and shown capacity in." I do not think any of your Lordships can object to that, and I believe
  908
  that that is a more convenient phrase than "practical knowledge" to define what is meant. At any rate, that is what we have tried to do.
  The second point is that we have put in the words "appearing to the Minister." Your Lordships will appreciate the difference between a clause with these words and one without them—namely, if those words are not included it is a question of fact as to whether the man has practical knowledge or experience of, and so on, which could be resolved by the courts. Our Amendment puts the responsibility for this fairly and squarely upon the Minister. He has to settle this matter, and so long as he comes to an honest conclusion that the man "has had experience of, and shown capacity in" the gas industry, then the appointment cannot be questioned. Those are the only two points on which, so far, there is any difference between us. We consider that we ought to extend the provision by saying that the man is required to have had experience of the various matters referred to in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (2). The Board shall have power
  "(a) to manufacture, treat, render saleable, supply or sell—
  (i) coke and other solid fuels obtained by carbonization"
  and the by-products and products made from gas;
  (d) to sell, hire or otherwise supply gas fittings and coke fittings…
  (e)…to manufacture plant required by the Board or any other Area Board.…"
  In the opinion of the Minister, a man who is engaged in these activities should be regarded as qualified and eligible for an appointment, because these industries must have brought him in close touch with the gas industry. It was for those reasons that, after going into the matter with the advisers of the Minister, we thought that the Amendment to which I have just referred (which, if this Amendment should not be pressed, I propose to move) fairly met the requirements of the noble Lord.
  I would add that it is not that I anticipate, or that the Minister anticipates, that there will not be a substantial number of people who have "had experience of, and shown capacity in," the gas industry, in its narrow sense. But here we are setting up a code which has to last as long as this Act lasts, and the Minister considers it very undesirable unnecessarily to

  909
  fetter himself and his successors. No doubt in the vast majority of cases both chairman and deputy chairman would have "shown capacity"; but they might not. The Minister is anxious that he should not impose a fetter on himself or his successors, as Ministers, in regard to this matter. There is nothing sinister behind this. As I say, I had hoped that my Amendment would have met the noble Lord's requirements. I have gone as far as I can, and I am not prepared to accept this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I add one word on the question of construction? I am not quite sure that ray noble friend on the Woolsack has appreciated exactly the limits of his own Amendment, because under his Amendment the person appointed must "have had experience of and shown capacity in," first of all, gas supply. This alone would not be so bad, but it adds the words "or any of the activities mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (2) of section one" That means that if the person to be appointed has had any experience in any of the things mentioned on page 2 of the Bill—for instance, supposing he has supplied gas fittings for a few months—he becomes qualified under this proposed new clause to be either the chairman or deputy chairman of a Board. That, I think, is the vice of this proposed subsection—namely, that all the Minister has to do is to pick one of the various activities mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) and say, "Well, my candidate has that particular requirement." I can quite understand why my noble friends Lord Hampton and Lord O'Hagan do not quite like it. I do not think the Lord Chancellor intends that, because that would be wholly illusory. Accordingly, I would suggest that something a little more stringent should guide the Minister in appointing this person, who may have to perform duties of a most important character.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am afraid that the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is wholly unsatisfactory to us. With regard to the suggestion about "practical experience" I think we should be happy to accept the words which the Lord Chancellor has mentioned. For my own part, I should not have thought there was any difficulty in accepting
  910
  the words "practical experience." I think everyone knows when they encounter someone who has practical experience. They also know when they encounter someone who has no practical experience—as, alas, one so often does to-day in the case of these businesses. I should not have thought that it was a highly difficult technical test to say whether a person was or was not one who had had "practical experience." But if the Lord Chancellor prefers (I have consulted my noble friends upon this and they agree) we would be perfectly willing to accept in moving our Amendment instead of the words "practical knowledge of the gas industry" the words which he has suggested—namely, that:
  "either the chairman or the deputy chairman of each Board shall be a person appearing to the Minister to have had experience of, and shown capacity in gas supply."
  That really is a matter of wording. But that is not the issue between us.
  The issue between us is a fundamental one. It arises in this way. Here are these Boards which were to consist of from five to seven persons, in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman, and which now are to consist of from six to eight persons. We are making what I regard as a very modest request—that the chairman or the deputy chairman shall be a man who has practical knowledge of the gas industry. The Heyworth Committee were very strong on this line of thought and practice. Indeed, they recommended that the chairman (and I am not sure that they did not recommend that the same should apply to the deputy chairman) should be a whole-time officer. We have compromised on that, and propose that one or other of them should be. But what we do insist upon is that either the chairman or the deputy chairman—the people who are to be responsible for running these amalgamated industries in the whole area—should be a person with knowledge of the industry which the Boards are to run.
  Can it be said that that is an unreasonable request to make? The Lord Chancellor says: "Ah, but the Minister is sure to appoint the right kind of man." He may—but he has not always done so. I am not putting any point here about corruption or "jobs for the boys," but certainly some of the appointments which
  we have seen to Boards are neither

  911
  of people with any practical knowledge of the industry concerned, or any other industry, nor people with a very practical knowledge of how a Board, which should devolve their functions, should operate. The very fact that we are legislating here for all time—at least we are legislating for as much time as we can see ahead—imposes on us the duty to make sure that these all-embracing monopolies, if we have to accept them, shall be run by people who know their jobs. We leave it to the Minister to select these people, but I think we should say to him: "When you are making your selection of chairman or deputy-chairman of a Board, you must appoint a man who knows his job; that is, a man who has practical knowledge of the gas industry." Surely that would be an encouragement to the people who are coming up in the industry. I hate importing a lot of people from outside, if it is not obligatory to do so. I am all for promotion entirely by merit. There ought to be a career open to employees in the industry—a ladder up which people can climb. If you want to make your nationalised industries a success you must say that advancement shall be by results; that promotion shall be entirely by merit and not simply for the man who plays for safety. You must let it be known that you wish to give a chance to the men who are now, as it were, in the regiment.
  The Lord Chancellor says, "I am really meeting you very reasonably. You say that a man ought to know about the gas industry." I think that that is pretty reasonable for, after all, that is what he has to make and sell to us—gas and its by-products. Where these great undertakings have been a success both in their commercial management and in their labour relations it is generally because men have come up with great experience of the gas industry. The Lord Chancellor says, further: "You ought to be quite satisfied if we go outside for people. The man to be appointed need not be concerned with gas; it will be all right if he has had experience of: 'manufacturing, treating, rendering saleable or supplying or selling coke.'" So the man may have been merely a coke merchant, and yet be eligible for one of these appointments. The man might have been a coal merchant and never have made a therm of gas in his life.
  912
  Further, according to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, the person in question may be one who has had experience of
  "any by-products obtained in the process of manufacturing gas, coke, or any such other solid fuels as aforesaid."
  Again he may be one who has had experience in a business which is concerned
  "to sell, hire, or otherwise supply gas fittings and coke fittings and to install, repair, maintain, or remove gas fittings and coke fittings and plant required by the Board.…"
  He need know nothing about gas. Now a man may make most admirable appliances. The lovely candelabra which hang from the roofs of this place are an example. A gentleman may be extremely competent and artistic in the design and manufacture of such articles. He may even be an expert at hanging them; but he need not know anything about gas. If he has had experience of selling, hiring, or otherwise supplying gas fittings and coke fittings he can come in. Not only that, but he may come in if he has had experience in the manufacture of plant required by the Board or any other Area Board and the manufacture of gas fittings and coke fittings except for export. If a man has been engaged in selling coke or making gas brackets, he must have had some contact with the gas industry. We all have contact with the gas industry. We use gas, we burn our fingers with it, we pay for it in ever-increasing gas bills as the industry becomes nationalised. All your Lordships therefore are qualified.
  Really, with great respect to the Lord Chancellor this is trifling with us. Here is a perfectly plain issue. Should a man who is to be appointed to do this work be required to be a man with practical knowledge of the primary function of these Boards—which is to produce gas? We say that he should. The Lord Chancellor, on the instructions of the Minister, says that he should not. That is the issue between us.
  3.20 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I really do not think that there is anything between us here. I do not mind in the least if your Lordships think it better to leave out all words in my Amendment after "gas supply." I do not want to have a coal merchant or a coke merchant appointed to one of these posts—if indeed my Amendment would

  913
  permit it. That would clearly be ridiculous. If my words would allow anything of that sort, I am willing that they should be cut down. I think it might be useful to bring in, for instance, someone who has been associated with one of the great contracting firms making gas fittings; or gas containers. Such a person, I imagine, would know a great deal about the industry. But if noble Lords opposite feel that some qualification of this sort is undesirable and would like my Amendment to stop at the words "gas supply," I do not mind. If the noble Viscount wishes me to do so, I will make two offers. If he withdraws this Amendment, I will stop my Amendment at "gas supply"; or alternatively, I will consider some modification of the later words about paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), so that whilst we exclude altogether coal merchants, coke merchants and people like that, we do not necessarily shut out a class of men I should have thought useful. I will do whatever is required.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. He has certainly made a great and valuable concession here. I would like to point out that there are to be six, seven or eight members of the Board, besides the chairman and deputy chairman, and if the Minister wants to appoint to one of those posts a gentleman who has been competent in manufacturing gas appliances, there is nothing to stop it. He will have half a dozen posts at his disposal. We would certainly like to accept the proposal the Lord Chancellor made in the very definite form of stopping at the words "gas supply." That is wholly satisfactory to us. That means that we shall accept the words of the Lord Chancellor that, in the judgment of the Minister, either the chairman or the deputy chairman shall be a person who has had experience and shown capacity in what we want—gas supply. If the Amendment is moved in that form, we will certainly accept it.
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved in subsection 2 (a), to leave out "and not less than two members shall be workers in the Gas undertakings taken over by the Board; and," and to insert:
  914
  "at least one member shall be a person who is employed in the gas industry and has been so employed for a substantial period."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was not moved in Committee because it arises out of an Amendment put in the Bill during Committee stage. We had a long and interesting debate on this subject, and since then I have been reading through the report of it and think-over over what was said and what was the intention behind the adoption of this Amendment. I suggest the words I have put down here because I believe they will carry out in a more practicable manner the intention of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. I hope to be able to persuade your Lordships that the alternative I propose will achieve the effect in a better way.
  The first comment I would make is not on the general principle about the qualifications or designations of people to be appointed to the Area Boards, but on the question of numbers. In my Amendment I have said "at least one." I put that down, thinking that on a board of five and the chairman, as it was then, where either the chairman or the deputy chairman was to be a person in the gas industry and experienced in it, we should have one more member experienced in the industry. I think that on a Board of six, two specialists are probably enough, whereas I would readily agree that in other cases possible under this clause, where the Area Board would be as many as eight, an additional one would probably be perfectly reasonable. The Bill arranges for the appointment as members of these Boards of people who have experience outside the gas industry itself. The important thing is to get a proper balance between people from within the industry and people who have general commercial experience and a wider view of things altogether. In earlier clauses the Bill defines the categories of people who may be appointed. I think it has been the experience in the industry so far, in the appointment of people on boards of companies, that it is a great help to get people from outside, with knowledge of the conditions in other trades and undertakings. At the same time, I fully recognise the necessity of having people actually from within the industry—persons who know it thoroughly. I would have liked to say in my

  915
  Amendment "in the case of a Board of six not less than one, and in the case of a Board of eight at least two." That is a clumsy way of putting it. I believe if it were put as I propose, it would be easy for the Minister to decide on which Boards the number should be one and on which it should be two, or perhaps even three.
  So much for the numbers; now as to the main question—the people to be appointed. I think there would be an incidental difficulty in the clause as it now stands. It says that "not less than two members shall be workers in the Gas undertakings taken over by the Board." I suggest that in future appointments would not be made on that basis, because after a number of years there would be no people who were "workers in gas undertakings taken over." I think it is a minor matter of drafting, but it is something to remember. To me it points to the difficulty which will arise if the Bill is left exactly as it now stands. For one thing, it means that people are to be appointed as under the co-partnership scheme, with the intention of perpetuating that scheme. It is common knowledge that this provision about co-partnership schemes applies to only one or two undertakings at the present time. In making arrangements for perpetuating the idea of co-partnership we have to take care that all the people who are employed by undertakings, municipal or others, who have not got such schemes, are placed in exactly the same category. That is why I feel it is important to phrase the words, "employed in the industry."
  The other point I would like to make is on the actual wording. The Bill says:
  "Workers in the Gas undertakings taken over by the Board."
  In my Amendment, I propose
  "a person who is employed in the gas industry."
  A "worker" might be anybody who works for a company in any capacity. Members of co-partnership schemes are all employees, whether manual, clerical, technical or otherwise, and that is clearly what it should be. But the difficulty of using the words in the Bill is that in many cases the word "worker" is used for a person who is a manual worker. I do not think it is right, nor is it the intention of the noble Lord who moved the original
  916
  Amendment, that manual workers only should be considered in this category. I think the Amendment suggests what really falls in with the general arrangement of co-partnership schemes throughout the industry.
  I do not want to repeat all the arguments used in the debate on this Amendment, but clearly we must make a distinction between whether a person appointed as here proposed is working under the direction of the Board or whether he has become one of the Board who do the directing. I am quite clear in my own mind on that point. I do not believe it is possible for a person to undertake both of these responsibilities at the same time in an undertaking of the size and scope, such as will be operated by the Area Boards. I agree with the noble Lord who moved the original Amendment, and with other noble Lords who supported it, that people who are employed in the industry, at every stage and at every level, should be given the opportunity to qualify themselves, by experience and training, to become fitted to take part in the management of the concern. That is my conception of industrial democracy.
  I would like to make one other point clear. During the debate in Committee, we discussed the question of the size of the industry and the closeness of contact between the management and workers in all categories. I think there was a general feeling that people who are appointed to the Boards under this provision would be there in a dual capacity, to represent all classes of workers on the one hand, and to function as part of the direction or management on the other hand. That intention is one with which I entirely agree, although I do not believe that this is the method which will achieve the desired result. The intention is to see that at every point, whether it be on wages and conditions of employment—which are generally and almost universally negotiated between employers and trade unions—on questions of amenities, on minor subjects, or on the question of explaining the policy of the industry to the workers, matters will be dealt with by the machinery of consultation between the management, on the one side, and the employees' representatives on the other. That is a most important and necessary function. I do not think

  917
  it is possible for a person who is doing that to be, as it were, in both camps.
  I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer than I can help on this point, but I hope to persuade you that the Amendment which I am moving will bring into effect the general idea which was behind the mover and the supporters of the Amendment which was moved in Committee, and will do it in such a manner that it will not put difficulties in the way of appointments and will not place people in the position of not knowing which side they are on and to whom they are responsible. I think it is an Amendment which will be helpful to the constitution of the Board. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 24, leave out from ("and") to ("and") in line 26 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am afraid that I am opposed to a good deal of this Amendment. I think its effect was disclosed by an observation that fell from the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment at the end of his speech. He said that he desired to maintain two camps—namely, the camp of the employed and the camp of the employer—and that it was impossible to arrange anything by which those two camps should be merged into one. I believe that to be a most dangerous doctrine in the organisation of industry in this country. It is absolutely essential, if we are to get the best results, that everybody engaged in the industry, whether employed or employers, shall work for the industry and not for their own particular advantage. People should all see how well they can make the industry work, and not how much they can get out of it. That is an essential feature which we should bear in mind in discussing this Amendment and the considerations with which I have ventured to trouble the House, both on Second Reading and on other occasions.
  With regard to the detail of this Amendment, I do not mind whether you say it must be "at least one one member," or whether you say that it shall be two members. That is not a matter of great principle, and if it is felt that one member is better, I should not mind. But coming to the next point, I strongly object to the phrase, "employed in the gas industry." To begin with, it cuts out the
  918
  conception that those who are actually working in the undertakings should be the persons who ought to be on the Area Board. You can take them from the north of Scotland, if you like, but so long as they are engaged in the gas industry they will still be within that wording. Whatever phrase is used, it is essential that they should be employed in the gas undertakings taken over by the Area Board. I should be unable to vote for any Amendment which omitted that consideration. Then there are the words at the end of the Amendment, "employed for a substantial period." Again, I do not think it very much matters whether those words are in or not. But I certainly think that, if they are designed to include those who have long been in the industry, and to exclude all others, they are misconceived. You should put in not only those who are most able to speak for their fellow workers but those who will give their fellow workers confidence that they really are working for the industry itself, and not for any minor consideration.
  Those are the broad reasons why I should prefer the Bill to stand as it is. But if it would promote agreement, I am ready to accept the words, "at least one member," instead of two members. I should certainly like to see omitted the words, "has been so employed for a substantial period." I cannot believe that that is a necessary chattel to be put on the discretion of the Minister when he is selecting the members of the Area Board. I feel that some words, such as "gas workers," indicating workers in the undertakings which are being taken over, are essential. I have never concealed from your Lordships that in putting forward these views I am not speaking as an expert in the gas industry. I am one who has by accident, been closely connected with the actual administration of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. Everybody admits that that has been an extremely successful company, and it has been most successful in the fact that it has drawn all those engaged in the company into one camp, and not into two camps; they are all working for the success of the industry. That has always seemed to me—and it still seems to me—a very fine example, which ought to be followed, at least in some degree, whenever you deal with questions affecting the gas industry. I

  919
  therefore hope that the Amendment will not be agreed to, at any rate in the form in which it stands.
  3.40 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Amendment. We have all listened with the greatest care to what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. But what struck me about the noble Viscount's speech, and the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, to which also we have listened with great care, is that there is a considerable gulf between the two points of view which they represent. Lord Ridley, who we all know has exactly the same objective in view that we all have—that is to say, good relations in industry—wants the Board to include technical experts; to him what is important is that, if a man has been employed in the gas industry and comes on to the Board, he should be there as a man who knows all about the subject and, therefore, will be a useful member of the Board. I hope I am not misinterpreting the noble Viscount. I think that that is a position which is very defensible. Clearly if a man has spent his life in the gas industry he is likely, to some extent at any rate, to be a technical expert. But the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, means something more than that. To the noble Viscount, and to some of us, the value of having these workers on the board is that in some sense they represent a link between the employers and the employed. They blur the line of division between capital and labour.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, assumes that there must be this line of division. I took down some words he used in his speech. He said that he hoped the result of his Amendment would not be that any such men appointed would be put in the embarrassing position of not knowing which side they were on, or to whom they were responsible. He assumes that this line must exist, that these unhappy worker members of the Board would be responsible both to the workmen in the firm and to their fellow members of the Board, and that that must be a dual and an incompatible responsibility. As I understand it, the whole purpose of the doctrine of co-partnership—and the doctrine of partnership, to use a wider word—is that gradually that line should
  920
  be eliminated. That would be done by having upon the Board men who would—whether they were elected by their fellows or appointed by the Minister—be the representatives of those who invested their labour, just as other members of the Board might be representatives of those who invested their money—in this case the community at large.
  That is the difference of view. Personally, I share the view of my noble relative. The ideal at which he is aiming is an important one for this country, and may ultimately prove to be the solution of the industrial difficulties which all of us, in whatever part of the House we sit, are out to eliminate. Therefore, to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the purpose of which is to obtain a number of admirable technical experts on the Board, would be a move away from the aim we have in view rather than towards it. I suggest that the existing words should remain. I see the very valid point which the noble Viscount made in his speech—that the words, as they exist, might appear to be for only a limited period: that is to say, that these two members (or "not more than one," whatever the final wording is) must be "workers in the gas undertakings taken over by the Board," and that when the workers so taken over die out, then the obligation would die out with them. That would be a danger. I would be prepared to take the risk, however, because I believe that once this system has been set up, it will endure. I should be prepared to accept the wording as it exists, even though it is not watertight.
  This is not a Party issue; it is an issue which cuts across all Party lines. I would urge noble Lords in all parts of the House to allow the wording which the House has put into the Bill to stand. Whether you have two members of the Board or whether it is "at least one" I do not think very much matters; that is a matter of detail. If the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, felt that it was more practical to say "not more than one," then I should be prepared to accept that modification. But I would urge that we should not again change these words—which, to my mind, represent a reaching-out after a great ideal—for wording which, in fact, does away with that ideal altogether.
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I would like to support this Amendment

  921
  moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and I do so with considerable embarrassment in view of what my noble Leader has just said. It seems to me that the wording, as it now stands in this clause, it too narrow. It conveys to me, as my noble friend Lord Ridley said, that there must always be two manual workers on the Area Board. It seems to me that this Amendment does not by any means prevent there being two such members. This wording, however, seems much wider and, in point of fact, more likely to achieve what I believe all noble Lords want, which is some arrangement whereby the dividing line between management on the one hand, and the employees on the other is done away with. It seems to me that we need three separate things. First, we want a carefully thought out and comprehensive piece of machinery to ensure that all essential information of all kinds, technical administration, welfare and so on, can pass from the top of the industry to the bottom. On the other hand, we want a second piece of machinery whereby there is every opportunity for ideas—new inventions, suggestions and so on—to be brought forward, from whatever low level, to be considered at various levels and thus have an opportunity of getting right to the top and possibly put into effect. Of course, that involves consultation, but consultation is a very different thing from management.
  Superimposed on the whole of that is something which, to my mind, is absolutely essential; and that is, easy opportunity for everyone who has the real ability, whatever his job, who has the energy and enthusiasm to make use of that ability, to secure promotion and to go from the bottom to the very top. To my mind, that is far more likely to achieve what we want than to take a man straight out of a manual job, or any other job, and planting him right away to the Area Board. I can conceive that it is only one man in a million who would, be able to be so transferred from a manual job and be able to hold his own at the level of these very large Area Board undertakings. On the other hand, I can conceive that within the industry there may be masses of people who, with opportunities for climbing up the various rungs of the ladder, will ultimately be able to prove themselves of value on the Area Boards, and certainly on the Council
  922
  itself. If we proceed with the other way, of taking people straight out of some lower grade and putting them at the top, I am sure that it will not work, except in comparatively small undertakings. Even then, I believe that it will work only in the case of a relatively restricted number of topics which may be under consideration.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It has worked perfectly in the South Metropolitan Gas Company, which is one of the largest gas undertakings in the country.
  LORD ROCHDALE: With great respect to the noble Viscount, I suggest that in an undertaking much larger than the South Metropolitan Gas Company it will not work satisfactorily. I am afraid that such representatives will feel unsettled and unhappy. I am afraid that it will be all too obvious that, without training and experience before they are appointed to the Board, the members of the Board will not all be bearing an even load. That, of course, will mean lack of harmony and of the team spirit in the Area Board; questions are bound to arise of lack of frankness in discussions, and suspicions will creep in. I am quite sure that many of your Lordships will have had instances, in one form of activity or another, where a man who is absolutely first-class in his job has been promoted to a higher grade which he has not ultimately been able to hold. Consequently, he loses the job. But in the intervening period he has lost grip on his previous job, and has gone much further back than the point at which he started, thus causing considerable unhappiness. That is what I am afraid may happen if we proceed with the words as they are now in the Bill. What we want is a harmonious industry, with no dividing line between management and employees, all of whom should be pulling together. I feel strongly that the wording of the Amendment which we have before us is most calculated to achieve that end.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may be allowed to butt in on this quarrel, which is really none of mine, I should like to say that the position is this. As the result of a Division on a previous occasion there were imposed upon me two lines of this Bill—lines 24 and 25 on page 5. I told your

  923
  Lordships at the time that I had no instructions about accepting the matter, and I asked you not to press the matter to a Division. However, your Lordships decided otherwise, and did press the matter to a Division. I have since consulted the Minister, and I understand that he is opposed to the insertion of these words. That being so, I can hardly be expected to wax eloquent in favour of retaining these two lines in the Bill. But it must be for those who are responsible for their insertion to say whether or not they want them to remain. If the noble Lord were to divide the House on the question of leaving out those words I should support him. In view of what has been said, however, he may think fit to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Now I come to the noble Viscount's Amendment as it is. He seeks to substitute for the word "worker" the phrase "a person who is employed in the gas industry." Under such words, someone who has been working and has learnt his job in the North of Scotland might come to an Area Board in Southern England. I should not like that. I do not see why this Amendment is necessary, in view of an Amendment which I am going to move shortly to page 5, line 39, to leave out subsection (3) and insert these words:
  "The Minister shall appoint two of the members of each of the Area Boards to be chairman and deputy chairman respectively of that Board, and either the chairman or the deputy chairman of each Board shall be a person appearing to the Minister to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply.…"
  So there is very little between my Amendment and this. This Amendment concerns a person who is employed in the gas industry and my Amendment—on which we virtually agreed in advance—says that the chairman or deputy chairman must "have had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply." I do not know how the noble Viscount's Amendment would read, having regard to the one to which I have just referred, and which I am going to move. My Amendment would result in the insertion in the Bill of the substance of what the noble Viscount wants. That is the position which the Government take up in the matter. I apologise for intervening.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, in the attempt to bridge this gap I do
  924
  not know whether it would help if words which I am about to suggest were adopted. I suggest that we retain the word "workers" and add at an appropriate place in the clause the words
  "who by skill and experience have shown themselves qualified for the post."
  I am afraid the noble Viscount may feel that that does not bridge the gap. At any rate, I think it does remove a rather grave objection. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, points out, a man might be chosen who was not in fact suited for the task of serving on the Area Board at all, and might indeed be very unhappy in that position. There have, in fact, been quite a number of cases of men, not necessarily in the gas industry, who have been promoted to boards but have not been altogether happy; they were not suited for the task. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, may nevertheless feel that the qualifying words I have suggested do give enough support to his case to make it possible for him to accept them. At any rate they may provide a way out of the difficulty.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, there is one point I should like to make. The Minister has taken power to appoint the Board which, apart from the chairman and the deputy chairman, may be anything between six and eight members. If it is to be only six, I think that to have two worker directors would be excessive; it would alter the balance: but if, on the other hand, it is to be eight, that figure of two would seem to me to be reasonable. Therefore I hope my noble friend will accept that part of the Amendment. Then we come to the characteristics of the people to be appointed, and I am bound to say that I think there is one fundamental objection to the Amendment in the form in which the noble Viscount has moved it, which I had not appreciated when we discussed the matter together. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, proposed that these persons should have been in the industry in the particular area for which the Area Board sits. I do not think that that is challenged in any quarter of the House. This Amendment in the form the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has drafted it would, as the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, enable the Minister to appoint to a Board in Cornwall a man from Northern Scotland. I do not think any of us want that, and we want to safeguard the position. Merely

  925
  to say "a person who had been employed in the industry" might be taken to mean a person who had been employed in the industry thirty years ago and was not up-to-date with it now. I should have thought that the ideal would be to adopt the words "at least one," and then take the words suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Cecil of Chelwood would agree that we want people with a good knowledge of this industry and who have been highly competent as workers. If we adopted only the word "worker" the clause would provide merely that at least one member shall be a worker. I want it to provide also that he shall be a worker in the area.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That is the point.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that would be provided by the words:
  "shall be a worker in the gas undertakings taken over by the Board who, by skill and experience, has shown himself qualified for the post."
  4.1 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, if I may be allowed to say one word at this juncture, I shall be quite content with wording of that kind. The point is that they must be workers in the gas undertakings—that is to say, in the gas business that is carried on in that area. As it stands, I think that the wording is probably sufficient to meet that point. Of course, I have no objection to saying that they shall be qualified for the job, but I should have thought it was not necessary to add words to that effect. The Minister is the person who is to appoint them and he would scarcely appoint a worker who was not qualified. However, if it is thought necessary to have those words in, I should not object.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if the noble Viscount does not move an Amendment to that effect we shall have to come back on the Third Reading. The form of the Amendment should be:
  "not less than one member shall be a worker in the Gas undertakings taken over by the Board who by skill and experience has shown himself qualified for the post."
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I should have no objection to that.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is unwilling to move it in that form, then we shall have to obtain the general consensus of the House on what is the most practicable form in which to get in the principle advocated by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I think that the House wishes to support him in this matter.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, ought we not to put in words to show that this is a temporary provision? After ninety years it will not be possible to get people of this sort. We can have it only for a temporary period. Moreover, there will come a time when nobody will be deemed to be capable of exercising skill and experience (whatever it may be) because of old age, which does affect people after a time. Perhaps it would be better if the last sentence in paragraph (a) were introduced by the words
  "and the Minister will use his best endeavours to appoint"
  such a person as is mentioned in the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. If we leave it as it is, I am afraid we shall be laughed at.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am bound to agree with the noble Marquess, but there is a difference of opinion here between certain noble Lords and myself. It is not a difference as to the object which we wish to achieve, for we are all agreed about that; it is a difference as to the method of achieving it. I appreciate the suggestions which have been made, that I should bring this Amendment into line with the points raised, but I do not think it can be combined quite so easily in so many words. I put this Amendment down knowing that there was also on the Marshalled List the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount is to move in a short time, saying that the chairman shall be a qualified person. I interpreted the meaning of the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, to be that he wanted rather more than that. I thought it would be reasonable to say that, taking the chairman as one qualified person and somebody in this category as the second, there would be two qualified people. That

  927
  would be reasonable. I am not worried about the person appointed being skilled and qualified because I think that the Minister can be considered as one able to judge in such a matter. We are often criticising the Minister for his powers of direction, but I think we should be prepared to leave this decision to him. I do not feel that we can really arrive at the same point, and I do not want to alter the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, it is very difficult to follow these points, particularly if one is, as I am, a little deaf. However, as I understand it, I am quite prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. However, that is a proposal which is entirely different from that of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, which I could not accept.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  4.7 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "(3) Not less than three members of the Board, including the chairman and deputy chairman or one of them shall be required to render whole-time service to the Board."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This is a modified form of the Amendment which was moved on Committee stage. On the Committee stage of this Bill, we had proposed that there should be four whole-time members, one of whom should be the chairman or deputy chairman. In the course of debate, we understood that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would look favourably upon a modified Amendment such as has now been put down on the Marshalled List. This modified Amendment reduces the minimum number to three, and it also substitutes words from Section 1 (2) of the Transport Act for the words "devote the whole of their service."
  If your Lordships refer back to the Committee stage, you will see that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said:
  "We shall have to consider words"—
  this was when we got to what I thought was important—
  "in order to get that in, but I will accept this and will insert something on Report."
  928
  I make no complaint at all. Naturally, the noble and learned Viscount has tried to meet us, but he himself has not the final word; there is the Minister responsible for the Department. I make no complaint about that. Nevertheless, we still feel strongly that this Amendment is necessary. The Minister may have some objections, on the grounds that he intends to do what this Amendment proposes, but does not wish to be fettered, as he would term it, by putting such an Amendment into the Bill. I noted some words which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor used in connection with another Amendment some minutes ago. He said: "We are setting up a code which is to last as long as this Act, and we feel it important that this Bill should contain provisions to ensure that this industry cannot be run on a part-time basis." I am quite sure that the Minister has no such intention at the moment, but as we have said before in this House, and as has been said in another place, while Ministers come and Ministers go, this Act will remain on the Statute Book until it is altered by Parliament.
  Therefore, we feel that the position must be safeguarded and that certain members of the Board must give their whole-time service. There is no need for me to repeat the argument which we put forward on Committee stage as to the admitted necessity of whole-time members of these Boards for an industry which is at any rate decentralised to a greater extent than electricity, and where the Area Boards will have continuous and great responsibility. We are also reinforced by the recommendations of the Heyworth Committee, with which this Amendment is in accord. I cannot see any possible objection to the Government's accepting this Amendment, and I feel it must be an oversight on the part of the Minister that he did not himself put it down on Standing Committee in another place. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I feel rather embarrassed about this matter. The noble Lord has been very kind in the way he put it; he did not blame me at all. But the fact is—and it should be plainly recognized—that

  929
  I said I should be in a position to accept this Amendment; and I need hardly say that at that time I thought that was true. But having discussed it with the Minister, I am not in this case able to make good my promise. Therefore all I can do is to stand before your Lordships, express my contrition and sorrow, and say that I will try to behave better in future. If your Lordships want these words, as I understand may be the case, your Lordships must insert them; I cannot accept them. I will tell your Lordships why I think the Minister is not willing to have these words in. It is not because he does not expect that he will do this. If I may quote from what the Minister said in Standing Committee on March 16:
  "It is certainly our view that the chairman and deputy chairman will have to be full-time members… It may well be, in the case of the Gas Area Boards, in contrast with the electricity administration, that there should be at least one, or perhaps more, additional full-time members."
  It was that statement made by the Minister which made me say I could accept this Amendment. On reflection, however, the Minister feels that although this is a matter which in practice, so far as he can see, he will always carry out, he does not want this to be an absolute obligation upon himself and his successors. He does not feel that this matter may be necessarily right for the indefinite future. He calls attention to the electricity industry, as the nearest analogy to this, where the boards have at present only two full-time members—namely, the chairman and deputy chairman. And experience may show that this, after all, is the most appropriate arrangement.
  There is another difficulty about this. Suppose that you get a really good man who has another appointment which he cannot get out of, which occupies him on the first Monday in the month, and he has then to be away. Are you to lose him because he cannot stay whole time? There is great force in the Minister's objection. After all, we are going to learn by experience. In the future it may be proved that there is much to be said for the part-time people. As a rule, I believe there is. I am rather a believer in the part-time method and, if you want to encourage the independence of the Area Boards, I believe you will do it far better if you have part-time people rather than whole-time. Anyhow, it is worth considering. Are your Lordships now pre-
  930
  pared to say that you pledge yourselves, here and now, in the light of the very limited experience which we have had, to the proposition that so long as this Act lasts, you must have this number of members? The Minister is not prepared to take such a line. He says, quite frankly, that at the present time, so far as he can see, he would act in the way laid down by this Amendment but that, in the future, as a result of experience, he might do something else. That being so he does not want to enter into an absolute statutory obligation to do this at the present time.
  That is a conclusion to which he has come after thinking the matter over again. It is not the conclusion he announced to the Standing Committee in another place, and it is not the decision which I announced to your Lordships when we discussed this on the Committee stage, but I do feel that there may be some substance in that objection. I can understand your Lordships may want to have the certainty which comes from putting it into the Bill, but I would ask you not to tie the Minister in this way, in view of the fact that we are going to profit by experience—and experience, I hope, will teach us to develop along the right lines. Therefore, having made my apologies to the noble Lord, I regret to say I am unable to accept his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sure none of us would hold it against the Lord Chancellor that he addressed us last time with the frankness which he did. Certainly I am sure we debate much more effectively in this House, by being able to say exactly what is in our minds; and if, in the light of further research or whatever it may be, we come to change our minds, we car say so. I am sure the best form of debating is to think aloud and to convert and be capable of being converted. Therefore, no one will reproach the noble and learned Viscount, and I hope he will treat us with the same frankness that he always does; and we shall do the same by him. This may be a matter about which two opinions can be expressed, but I prefer—and I think the majority of your Lordships will prefer—the Minister's first opinion and the Lord Chancellor's opinion, as expressed to us last time, to the second thoughts of the Minister which are now disclosed to us.

  931
  After all, it is said that we learn in the light of experience, and that there ought to be a good deal of latitude. That may mean having no rules laid down at all; but I think this is a matter on which one ought to lay down a rule. Certainly Sir Geoffrey Heyworth and his colleagues thought so. They were quite positive about it, and in paragraph 252 of the Report they said there should be a full-time chairman and six directors, three of whom should be full-time and working directors. My noble friend has given much more latitude than that. Under the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has moved, and the House has accepted, there can, as I understand it, be eight directors besides the chairman and deputy-chairman, making ten in all; and out of that ten, Lord Balfour suggests, a minimum of three——
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is eight in all.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg your pardon. Then it is eight as against seven. Sir Geoffrey Heyworth having examined this matter very closely, said that if there were seven directors four of them, the chairman and three others, ought to be full-time. Here we are to have eight directors, and we ask only that three of them should be full-time. I believe that, particularly in the case of this industry, that is a wise provision to lay down. Speaking with some experience, I consider that it is right to have the senior executives on the board. For my part, I like a mixed board, a board on which the majority are people who are entirely occupied in the business but with one or two outside directors who bring to bear general knowledge. But when it comes to the question of these executive directors, they are not the sort of people
  who would want to take on outside directorships. As a matter of fact, they are people who are employed whole-time in the business.
  In saying that, of course, I would make it clear that if a man wished to go away on some special mission (if, for instance, he were asked by the Government to advise them in some capacity or other, or, if he wished to go away to do some particular job at a particular time) he would not be debarred from doing so. After all, His Majesty's Judges are employed whole-time, but they may be taken off their ordinary duties—as indeed, they frequently are—with the Lord Chancellor's permission, and commissioned to do all sort of odd jobs. By whole-time job we mean an appointment for which the man is paid. Apart from any question of his being called upon to do special tasks outside, with the agreement of the Chairman of the Board, that man is to devote the whole of his time to the work of the Board. Sir Geoffrey Heyworth—and one could not have a man with wider business experience—applying his own business knowledge to this, with his colleagues, and after an exhaustive examination of the gas industry, was firmly of opinion that it should be laid down that four out of the seven members of the Board should be full-time. We debated this very fully last time and I think your Lordships will want to say that as a minimum we ought to have three out of the eight members of these Boards as full-time members. Therefore, I think we must divide on this Amendment.
  On Question, Whether the proposed new subsection shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-contents, 22.

  CONTENTS

  Exeter, M.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Falmouth, V.

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

  Townshend, M. [Teller.]

  FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

  Long, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Maugham, V.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Fortescue, E.[Teller.]

  Ridley, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Simon, V.

  Greville, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Swinton, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Altrincham, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Llewellin, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Sinha, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Waleran, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Jowitt, V. (Lord Chancellor.)

  Amwell, L.

  Holden, L.

  Addison, V. (Lord Privy Seal.)

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Crook, L.

  Marley, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Darwen, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Denman, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Hall, V.

  Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Henderson, L.

  Walkden, L. [Teller.]

  Ammon, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  4.30 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in this Amendment I am leaving out the words which appeared in the Marshalled List after "gas supply." We had a discussion on this matter earlier. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  ("(3) The Minister shall appoint two of the members of each of the Area Boards to be chairman and deputy chairman respectively of that Board, and either the chairman or the deputy chairman of each Board shall be a person appearing to the Minister to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Clause 9:
  Consultative Councils.
  9.—(1) A Council, to be known as a Gas Consultative Council, shall be established for the purposes mentioned in this section for the area of every Area Board.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "shall" to insert "not later, than six months after the vesting date." The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, moved an Amendment similar to this, but laying down a period of three months, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said we would be glad to look at the matter. I see that the noble Lords, Lord Wolverton and Lord Lloyd, have an Amendment down providing for a period of six months. This is the shortest period in which the business of getting members of the Consultative Council together can possibly be carried through. Various outside bodies, are concerned, and, so that there will be as little delay
  934
  as possible, my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power proposes to approach the various organisations required under the Bill to nominate representatives for appointment to the Consultative Council. It is hoped that they will respond as promptly as they can. The associations will correspond very closely with those who have already been asked for recommendations to the Electricity Consultative Council, and therefore the bodies appointed should be able to get on with both jobs at the same time. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 7, after ("shall") insert ("not later than six months after the vesting date").—(Lord Chorley.)
  Clause 10 [Annual reports of Area Boards and Gas Council]:
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (4), after "possible" to insert "and in any case not later than three months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to carry out the assurance which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who moved a similar Amendment on Committee stage. I am sure that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 9, alter ("possible") insert ("and in any case not later than three months").—(Lord Charley.)
  Clause 11 [Compulsory purchase of land]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the first paragraph of subsection (2):
  "Provided that an Area Board shall not be authorised under this section to purchase compulsorily a right to place a gas pipe above

  935
  ground unless the Minister is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to place it below ground."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is to carry out an undertaking I gave. I hope it meets the position. I think it does. My words are almost precisely those which the noble Lords, Viscount Bridgeman and Lord Hawke, have put down. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount is exactly the same as the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Hawke, with one exception, that the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment contains the words "under this section." I take it that has no real effect on what is intended, and in that case we support the Amendment and I shall not move the Amendment following.
  Clause 22:
  Disclaimer of agreements and leases.
  22.—(1) Where there are vested in any Area Board or in the Gas Council the rights, liabilities and obligations of any undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies, being rights, liabilities and obligations under an agreement made or varied on or after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and the Board or Council are of opinion that the making or the variation of that agreement was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of the activities of the said undertaker or that the agreement was made or varied with an unreasonable lack of prudence on the part of the said undertaker, the Board or Council may, by notice in writing given to the other parties to the agreement before the expiration of three months from the vesting date, disclaim the agreement:
  Provided that any of the said parties may, within the prescribed period from the date on which the notice is served, refer to arbitration under this Act the question whether or not the agreement or variation thereof was reasonably necessary as aforesaid, or was made or varied with unreasonable lack of prudence, and, on such arbitration, the arbitration tribunal, if satisfied that the agreement or variation was not reasonably necessary as aforesaid or was made or varied with unreasonable lack of prudence, shall confirm the notice and if not so satisfied shall revoke it.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1) after the first "varied" to insert "as
  936
  respects an agreement for the rendering of personal service." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there are a series of Amendments on the Paper dealing with this difficult question of the re-opening of contracts, which we discussed fully last time. We were very near to agreement, but our difficulty was in finding how to deal with the matter. Everybody wanted to deal with what I might call a mala fides contract, and nobody wanted to interfere with what was an ordinary business contract which had turned out unfortunately after the event, but which was not entered into in bad faith. I ventured to suggest that we might have one date for contracts of personal service, because those are the kind that might have been varied when people saw that nationalisation was coming, and a much later date for commercial contracts. On the other hand, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that whether a contract was a personal one or an ordinary commercial contract, what we ought to do (and I think his was a more practicable proposal), was to see whether there was evidence that that contract had been entered into to get round the anticipated nationalisation Bill, or whether it was an ordinary business contract, which might be good or bad business, but in any case was entered into in the ordinary course. If the latter, nobody wants to stop it; if the former, there ought to be the right to revoke it. I have had two "shots" at proposing alternatives in these five Amendments. The noble and learned Viscount has just shown me a manuscript Amendment, which I think is better than mine, and which the noble and learned Viscount will move later. On that understanding, I will not move any of the Amendments which stand in my name to this clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of reading out the manuscript Amendments I am going to put later. I am sorry I have not managed to get them on the Order Paper. They are:
  Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("agreement") to ("on") in line 6 and insert ("ought to be disclaimed. (2)")
  Page 26, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Provided that, if the arbitration tribunal are satisfied that the agreement or variation thereof was made in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act or with any

  937
  anticipation of the making of any such provision, the tribunal shall revoke the notice.")
  I think my Amendment deals with the matter in a satisfactory manner. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, agrees, and I am grateful to him for saying that he will not press his Amendments.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I was wondering whether the words "was in no way connected with" may not go a little too far. Speaking for myself as as lawyer, I would like to think over that point. I am thinking of a case where, as the result of nationalising the industry, something is obviously necessary, and the agreement might in some way be connected with that. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will see that I am thinking of something rather technical, and I am doing so in an endeavour to get the language perfect. Would not the right sort of phrase be,
  "and was in no way connected with any provision intended to defeat the provisions of this Act,"
  or something of that sort? Because of some particular thing, a particular industry comes to an end, and there may well be some agreement to say what shall be done with certain assets, or what steps shall be taken to close down. The agreement may thus be connected with this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will consider that point.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If the noble and learned Viscount will consider that, I am content with the idea which rests behind the Amendment, which, as my noble friend Lord Swinton has said, is probably an improvement on the Amendment which stands in his name.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the manuscript Amendment to page 26, line 4, to leave out from "agreement" to "on" in line 6, and insert "ought to be disclaimed." The effect of that will be that the clause will now read as follows:
  "Provided that any of the said parties may, within the prescribed period from the date on which the notice is served, refer to arbitration under this Act the question whether or not the agreement ought to be disclaimed."
  I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("agreement") to ("on") in line 6, and insert ("ought to be disclaimed").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is the manuscript Amendment to page 26, line 10. I move the Amendment without prejudice to what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has just said. When we see it on paper we will consider whether it needs any embellishment between now and Third Reading.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 10, at end insert ("Provided that, if the arbitration tribunal are satisfied that the agreement or variation thereof was made in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act or with any anticipation of the making of any such provision, the tribunal shall revoke the notice.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  4.41 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 8, leave out ("or varied").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Clause 25 [Compensation to holders of securities]:
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved in subsection (1) (a) after "than" to insert "a composite company." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the unhappy and complex Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said was one which was not easily understood.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Viscount forgive me for interrupting? If he will content himself with formally moving the Amendment, I will accept it.
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. He has saved me much toil and tribulation. I beg formally to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 2, after ("than") insert ("a composite company").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To encourage the noble Viscount, Lord Buck-master, and to commend myself for the brevity of his speech, I will accept the Amendment.
  Clause 33:
  Control of dividends, interest and other payments.
  (2) The payments of interest or dividend permitted under this section are as follows:

  (a) in the case of securities in respect of which rates of interest are fixed, payments at those rates;

  (b) in the case of preference stock, payments at the preferential rates; or

  (c) in the case of any other class of securities, payments of dividend at a rate not exceeding four per cent, per annum or the rate, calculated as a rate per annum, paid on that class of securities in respect of the last complete financial year in respect of which a final dividend was paid before the said twenty-third day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, whichever is the higher;

  Provided that:
  LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) to leave out all words from "made" to "nineteen" and insert: "on or before the thirteenth day of February." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would first ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he is prepared to accept this Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am told that if I am strongly pressed I may accept it. I must be strongly pressed in a very few words.
  LORD HAWKE: I shall be very strong, and my words will be brief. The Bill was published on January 23. Clause 33 (1) provides that where companies after that date pay a dividend beyond the limit provided by the Bill the directors can be surcharged. But there is a proviso that the date in question might be taken to be the date of the resolution of the directors resulting in that payment, rather than the actual date of payment. We propose that three weeks grace should be allowed, because there are 600 to 700 or more companies in this country, and nobody knows quite what they have been doing. Quite definitely some of them are unlikely to have known of the provisions of the Bill by the due date. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 7, leave out from ("made") to ("nineteen") in line 9 and insert ("on or before the thirteenth day of February").—(Lord Hawke.)
  VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) to insert:
  "(c) in the case of any class of securities which are subject to any local enactment whereby the rate of dividend which may be paid on those securities is restricted by reference to the price of gas, payments of dividend at a rate not exceeding four per cent, per annum, or the rate permitted by such local enactment, whichever is the higher; or"
  The noble Viscount said: The Amendment which follows this, in the name of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, effects the purpose which my Amendment had in view—and, if he will allow me to say so, effects it in a better way than the words which I have chosen. I am obliged to him for having agreed to this principle on the Committee stage, and I shall not move my Amendment.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) after "provided that" to insert:
  "(i) where any local enactment applicable to any such company provides for regulating dividends payable by the company by reference to a basic price or standard price and the relationship thereto of the prices charged, or the highest price charged, by the company for gas supplied by the company, paragraph (c) hereof shall not apply to that company and, in the case of any securities of a class mentioned in that paragraph, the payments of dividend that the company is entitled to make apart from this Act shall be deemed to be the payments of dividend permitted under this section, and if the company has made, at any time after the said day and before the nineteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, any payments of dividend which were less than the payments aforesaid, the amount of the deficiency may, notwithstanding any local enactment, be declared and paid by way of dividend at any time before the vesting date."
  The noble Lord said: As the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has intimated that he will accept this Amendment, and the two consequential Amendments, I need not waste your Lordships' time in going through a long dissertation on it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 25, at end, insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 27, after ("company") insert ("other than such an enactment as aforesaid").—(Lord Lucas.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 33, at end insert ("in the case of any securities of the company of a class mentioned in that paragraph").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LOUD CHORLEY: My Lords, in most parts of the Bill the word "tribunal" is treated as a plural noun, but there are a few places where it appears as singular. As your Lordships will remember, we had a certain amount of discussion on this on the Committee stage. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor felt that it would be a very big job to put them all into the plural, but it appears that there are not so many as was at first thought. Therefore, we propose to put them in the plural. There are about ten of them, and I propose to refer to them as "the plural Amendments" when they come up, and to move them on that basis. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 39, line 39, leave out ("decides") and insert ("decide").
  Page 39, line 40, leave out ("it") and insert ("the tribunal").
  Page 39, line 42, leave out ("it thinks") and insert ("the tribunal think").—(Lord Chorley.)
  Clause 36 [Re-opening of transactions resulting in dissipation of assets]:
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the five consequential Amendments to Clause 36.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 46, line 19, leave out ("directs") and insert ("direct").
  Page 46, line 22, leave out ("it is") and insert ("they art;").
  Page 46, line 30, leave out ("it thinks") and insert ("the tribunal think").
  Page 46, line 31, leave out ("they") and insert ("the parties").
  Page 46, line 35, leave out ("thinks") and insert ("think").—(Lord Chorley.)
  Clause 38 [Provisions as to foreign investments]:
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, these are more of the plural Amendments.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 48, line 8, leave out ("directs") and insert ("direct")
  Page 48, line 9, leave out ("decides") and insert ("decide")
  Page 48, line 10, leave out ("it") and insert ("the tribunal")
  Page 48, line 12, leave out ("it thinks") and insert ("the tribunal think").—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I will not more the next Amendment which stands in my name, as it is covered by an Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor.
  Clause 40 [Modification of enactments in relation to undertakers pending transfer]:
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to insert at the commencement of the clause:
  "(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and forty-nine of the Companies Act, 1948, and the Eighth Schedule to that Act, the accounts to be laid before a company in general meeting may, in the case of an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act but not section eighteen thereof applies, be in the same form as the last accounts of the company so laid before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage a new clause was moved to relax the obligations relating to the preparation of group accounts imposed, as your Lordships remember, by the Companies Act, 1948. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, then suggested that it would be sensible to have a similar relaxation from the obligations relating to the accounts of other gas companies imposed by Section 149 of the new Act, which deals with the balance sheet and profit and loss account. My noble and learned friend agreed to look into this matter. It has been looked into, and we agree with the noble Viscount that such a relaxation is reasonable and sensible. This Amendment has been tabled to provide accordingly. The concession, however, does not apply to companies falling under Clause 18 of the Bill, which relates to composite companies and ancillary undertakers. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 49, line 39, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I would like to say how grateful he is for this Amendment.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment and the next three follow upon what I was saying a minute or two ago, in that it is not intended that the relaxation as to obligations for accounts shall apply to these composite companies and ancillary undertakers. These Amendments are designed to make that clear. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 49, line 43, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 45 and insert ("an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act but not section eighteen thereof applies").—(Lord Chorley.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 49, line 46, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("this Part").—(Lord Chorley.)
  Amendment moved—
  Page 50, line 1, leave out from ("is") to the end of line 3 and insert ("an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act but not section eighteen thereof applies").—(Lord Chorley.)
  Amendment moved:—
  Page 50, line 7, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("this Part").—(Lord Chorley.)
  Clause 47 [Reserve funds of Area Boards and Gas Council]:
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd I beg to move this Amendment. I am not very wise about it, but I am informed that it is purely drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 56, line 22, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Hampton.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. It does not matter much which way it goes, but if the noble Lord likes to have it, I am quite content to give it to him.
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 56, line 24, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").—(Lord Hampton.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is an Amendment which we cannot accept. The Gas Council has to maintain a general reserve fund in certain circumstances only, but only one reserve fund in any event. A reference to "any reserve fund" would be wrong. It is not only unnecessary, but it is positively misleading. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD HAMPTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 52:
  Provisions as to supply of gas by persons other than Area Boards.
  (3) The Area Board in whose area gas is manufactured by any such person as aforesaid, may require that person to sell to the Board all or part of the gas manufactured by him which he does not require for his own use, and the said person shall comply with that requirement.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of a discussion on another Amendment to the same clause, which was moved on the Committee stage. An undertaking was given by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the matter would be looked into. I believe that there was rather a misunderstanding as to the intention of subsection (3) of Clause 52. I still feel that it contradicts subsection (1). The noble Lord said that the point of subsection (3) was that it was necessary for the rationalisation of the gas industry. But it seems to me that that is inconsistent with subsection (7), which says that a person or a company may go on selling gas to a subsidiary. For the purpose of rationalisation it seems to me that a distinction should be drawn between whether or not the gas is being sold to a subsidiary company and whether it is being economically used. As that is not stated in subsection (3), I think that that subsection should be left out and any action with regard to emergencies should be taken under emergency legislation.
  This is a matter which was gone into at some length on the Committee stage. It is possible under subsection (1) of Clause 52 for the Area Board to allow a person to supply gas to some other concern; and then, a short time later, under subsection (3) the Board would be able to say to that person, "You shall no longer be able to supply that gas." It looks as though that power could be used in circumstances which would be difficult for the people who are undertaking to supply this gas. I do not think that there are many people supplying gas in this way, but those there are have made arrangements, and if they are given permission in the future under subsection (1) they will enter into contracts and agreements. Under subsection (3), however, the Area Board could make it impossible for them to fulfil their agreements. I suggest that unless there is inserted somewhere in subsection (3) some reason why they should require the supplier to sell to the Board, subsection (3) had better be deleted. If there were attached to it a provision that the Area Boards should require this gas to be sold to them only if they could demonstrate that it was not being efficiently and economically used, I think that would make the matter perfectly clear. After the discussion we had in Committee, I can only see that as the reason for subsection (3). It may be that I have not yet understood it clearly, and perhaps the noble Lord can explain it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 60, line 15, leave out subsection (3).—(Viscount Ridley.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we cannot accept this Amendment. There is not much that I can add to what I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on the Committee stage when he raised this matter. I cannot agree that there is any contradiction between subsection (3) and subsection (1). Subsection (1), as your Lordships will remember, provides that a person who was supplying gas shall not afterwards supply to anybody except those to whom he was supplying it already, except with the consent of the Area Board. That is to say, if he had already made arrangements with a commercial user he could continue to supply. Subsection (3) is, in effect, an escape clause, which enables the Area Board to break such an arrangement, and it is only contradictory in the
  946
  sense that any provision for enabling arrangements to be broken could be so described. The noble Viscount is a little worried, I think, lest the breaking provision should be inequitably used; he made that point clearly during the Committee stage. It was one with which we had sympathy, and we have tabled an Amendment which makes it clear that the power to break under subsection (3) will be used only for the carrying out of the main duty of the Area Board, which is set out in Clause 1, subsection (1) (a). In order that the Area Board may look at this question of a break under subsection (3) in the light of their main duty, we have tabled an Amendment which will put that duty fairly and squarely upon them; it will not then be possible for the Area Board to break under subsection (3) for some subsidiary motive, but only if they are quite satisfied that the object is to carry out the main duty imposed upon them by Clause 1 (1).
  When I said that this kind of action might be necessary under war conditions, I was, of course, just giving an illustration; and at a later stage during the discussion I think I made it perfectly clear that subsection (3) is not in any sense limited to war conditions; it might have to be used for the purpose of rationalising the supply of gas in a particular district—for example, where a grid had been introduced, and it might be necessary to bring some supplier of this kind into the grid. Obviously it would not happen frequently, but it might happen occasionally, and we regard it as necessary that we should have this power under subsection (3). Therefore, I am not able to accept the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I think there is some force in what the noble Lord. Lord Chorley says in that the Amendment immediately following on the Marshalled List goes some way to meet the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has made. I wonder whether it goes all the way, however, and I should like to put this point. Suppose that a person is supplying gas before the vesting date to some third party, under a contract which existed between the person and the third party. That is a perfectly possible situation. Now suppose that the Area Board, by virtue of subsection (3) as it stands in the Bill, come along and exercise their powers in such a way that

  947
  the person who was supplying gas to the third party is now no longer able to fulfil his contract. It seems to me that in that situation there would be a very real danger, which would not be removed by the operation of the next Amendment on the Marshalled List. As this clause stands—unless I am wrong—and I may be—the Area Board have power to override a contract in peace time between the person supplying the gas and the third party—without, so far as I can see, the gas supplier being able to claim any compensation from the Area Board for having had that contract overridden. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether I am right or wrong in that.
  LORD CHORLEY: So far as I can see, that particular point is not specifically covered. But I imagine that in that particular type of case the matter would be enforced in a reasonable and common-sense way by the Area Board, with due regard to any existing contract—not terminating it at twenty-four hours' notice, but giving such necessary notice as would be reasonable in order to enable the contract to be brought to an end. I shall be glad to have the point about compensation looked at; it is obviously one that is important.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may add just a word. Your Lordships will see how this works out if you look at page 60, line 20. It says there:
  "Where the Area Board makes such a requirement as aforesaid, the rights and obligations, if any, of the person upon whom it is made which relate to the supply of gas after the date on which the requirement takes effect shall be transferred to the Area Board, and any agreement relating to such supply shall have effect accordingly."
  That is to say, if you have a man who is supplying Smith at the present time, and he is told to stop supplying Smith, then Smith does not need any compensation, because in future he will be an obligation of the Area Board; they will supply him. In that way, I think, the difficulty is surmounted.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is the Amendment to which I referred a moment ago, when we were discussing the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I think what I have already said sufficiently describes it, and
  948
  it will not be necessary for me to take up any more of your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 60, line 16, after ("may") insert ("if it appears to them to be necessary for the proper performance of their duties under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act").—(Lord Chorley.)
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am bound to say that this Amendment goes a good part of the way. I should really apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I did not mention it when I moved my Amendment a moment ago. I intended to do so. Subsection (3) is said to be justified on the grounds that it is necessary for carrying out the duties of the Area Boards themselves; but I would prefer a rather wider reason, that would cover not only the duties of the Board but the general duty or obligation of everybody to make the most efficient use of fuel supplies possible. It may be that it helps the Board in their duties to have this clause; but the third party referred to may be put in the position of having to use fuel which is not efficient for its purpose and is therefore uneconomical. I think the Amendment is rather narrow in its interpretation of the proper use of fuel. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation of the contract position. This Amendment certainly goes some part of the way.
  Clause 58 [Provisions as to pension rights]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 70, line 34, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("under").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is little more than a drafting Amendment. It is obviously desirable that all regulations should be capable of having a retrospective effect, but it is doubtful whether the words "any amending regulations" cover all the regulations other than the original regulations. For instance, what would be said of regulations made for the purposes of consolidation? Are they original or amending regulations? Therefore it is proper, I think, in place of

  949
  the existing words, to insert "any regulations made under this section." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 70, line 36, leave out ("the original regulations and any amending regulations") and insert ("any regulations made under this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved to add to the clause:
  "(9) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection the expression 'original regulations' means all regulations made under this section and not being amending regulations."
  The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wolverton I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name and mine on the Marshalled List. This is consequential upon the two Amendments that have already been made in Committee. Those two Amendments required that the original regulations should be made within twelve months after the vesting date. Under the Electricity Acts, the
  only regulations which have been made have the effect of authorising a temporary continuation of the existing schemes. It will be clear to the House that that was not the intention when the words "original regulations" were inserted in the Bill. Those regulations, a copy of which I have here, merely continue the existing arrangements. They do nothing else. It is a temporary continuation of the existing arrangements. It might be that similar regulations in the case of gas were the original ones, and that nothing further need be done within the first twelve months of the vesting date. The Amendment provides that that should not be the case in dealing with gas.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 70, line 44, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an exceedingly complicated matter. I do not know whether the noble Lord understands it plainly, but I have found it difficult. By virtue of the Amendment accepted on the Committee stage, the original regulations under Clause 58 have to be made within twelve months after the vesting date and, of course, the original regulations and any amending regulations may be made so as to have retrospective effect; that is subsection (8). The proposed subsection (9) defines the
  950
  original regulations referred to in subsection (8) as being all regulations ether than amending regulations. This we find to be unacceptable. In the first place, there may be regulations dealing with the continuance, amendment, repeal or revocation of an existing pensions scheme, the need for which, may appear later than twelve months from the vesting date. These regulations might well be more conveniently dealt with by separate regulations than by amending the main set. Secondly—and here, I think, we are on firmer ground—the definition would prevent consolidation of the pensions regulations, which might well be desirable after five or six sets of Amendments. That is precisely what I am so anxious to bring about. For those reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 59:
  Co-partnership Schemes.
  59.—(1) Where any scheme in force immediately before the vesting date provides for enabling persons employed by any undertaker to whom Part II of this Act applies, other than an undertaker to whom section eighteen of this Act applies, or any class of persons so employed, to participate in the profits of the undertaking, provision shall be made by regulations for continuing the scheme for such period alter the vesting date as may be specified in the regulations, with such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient.
  The regulations made under this subsection shall be made not less than one month before the vesting date but without prejudice to such variation of any of those regulations as may subsequently appear to the Minister to be necessary.
  5.15 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "undertaking" to insert
  "or to take part in any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed,"
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a question which we discussed at length on Committee stage, when I had the honour of moving an Amendment suggesting that any scheme that affected the management—that was the actual word I used—should be held up in the way proposed by what was then Cause 58 and what is now Clause 59, pending the further settlement by agreement which was contemplated in the

  951
  clause and the succeeding clause. Your Lordships will remember that in that discussion there was a strong feeling from every quarter of the House that it was going too far to insist upon a management being included in such a scheme as that. I withdrew the Amendment on a promise from the Lord Chancellor, which he has amply fulfilled and for which I am profoundly grateful, to consider the matter and see whether anything could be proposed.
  My present proposal is to take the clause as far as it provides that, where there is a scheme for profit-sharing by the employees or any part of them, then the scheme is to be continued pending other arrangements. That applies only to profit-sharing. I have a strong feeling, which I hope your Lordships share, that profit-sharing is only a first step towards what is desirable—namely, the identification of the interests of all employers and employed in the industry. That was the reason why I proposed to add words to it. I agree that the words that I proposed were not satisfactory and would have led to some considerable difficulties if they had been adopted. I propose now to add a much simpler phrase saying that, where the profit-sharing exists, the employees are to take part in it
  "or to take part in any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed."
  I venture to submit that those are the exact words to describe what we want to do—namely, to keep alive all the efforts which are being made, and which in some cases (as I have constantly told the House) have met with great success, for identifying the interests of employers and employed. Therefore, I suggest that schemes promoted with that object should also be prolonged in the same way that it is proposed to prolong the agreement for profit-sharing alone.
  I think that under the Rules of your Lordships' House, I may be allowed to refer to the fact that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has down an Amendment designed, as I gratefully acknowledge, to meet the kind of case that I tried to put forward. He suggests a scheme of profit-sharing
  "including any provisions of the scheme relating to welfare or amenities or the management of the scheme."
  952
  I am not quite sure whether I know exactly what is meant by "the management of
  the scheme," but it is quite clear what "welfare or amenities" mean. The important words are "industrial co-operation." "Welfare or amenities" may be a useful effort to produce that industrial co-operation, but if the House is of the opinion that we ought to encourage industrial co-operation it seems to me that it would be better to say so plainly.
  At present, I do not see that such a course is open to any serious objection. I have in mind the kind of thing that does go on in many industries, not only in the gas industry, where there are meetings of representatives of the workers and representatives of the directors or management (whatever it may be) who discuss all sorts of subjects, with a view to avoiding disputes and explaining to both sides (if we are to talk of sides) the real issue that has been raised at the particular discussion. I should be sorry to see those things abolished, whether they included profit-sharing or not. If I may say so with great respect, profit-sharing does not seem to me to be the main thing. Profit-sharing is only a way to the end, which is industrial co-operation. I cannot make it any clearer by repeating myself. Therefore, I content myself with moving the Amendment as it stands on the Marshalled List.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 2, after ("undertaking") insert ("or to take part in any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the recognition he made of such services as I was able to render. I make no secret of the fact that I took great pains to see exactly how far I could go along the lines which the noble Viscount wants me to go; I am quite sure that I have gone as far as I can, and I think that I have been able to go a fairly substantial way. May I remind those of your Lordships who have not taken the extreme interest which the noble Viscount has taken what the scheme is? I would start with this statement. We have always to remember that the old companies cease to exist and become merged in a much larger area; for instance, the South Metropolitan Company, to which we have been referring as the pioneer in this sort of work, will cease

  953
  to exist and will become part of whatever is the appropriate Area Board, which will embrace of course the South Metropolitan and dozens of other gas undertakings. Therefore, they lose their identity, and I can see at once that one of the arguments against this whole scheme is that they sacrifice part of the personal touch and personal elements, and become all part of a large scheme.
  The idea underlying the Bill is this. I think it is Clause 57 of the Bill which provides that the Gas Council, unless they are satisfied that everything is there already, are to start upon seeing that, appropriate arrangements are made for the running of the industry, for welfare and for consultation, and all that sort of thing. This clause which we are now considering provides that until such new arrangements are made—they may never be made—the existing schemes are to continue, with such modifications of course as are necessitated by reason of the fact that the identity of the company has been merged. The proviso is to continue the existing schemes until such time, if it ever arrives, when there is brought out a new scheme under Clause 57. That is the provision of the scheme, and (if I may anticipate for a moment) by an Amendment which I have put down I anticipate that the existing schemes may go on, with these modifications, into the indefinite future, and will not necessarily merely be temporary.
  As the noble Viscount has referred to it, perhaps I may say this. I am moving to put in some words to try and show the extent of what I feel I can do, but the noble Viscount wants to put in the words "for promoting industrial co-operation." He thought my words were vague; I confess that I think his words are more vague. I do not know what "industrial co-operation" means in practice. I understand the spirit and the point of view, which I agree is all-important. But if we are to seek to define what are the limits of industrial co-operation, I say, frankly, that I should have great difficulty, because I think it is the spirit of the whole thing which matters more than anything else. We came to the conclusion that the words proposed by the noble Viscount were too indefinite, too difficult to construe, and therefore we thought we would use words such as "the scheme relating to welfare
  954
  or amenities or the management of the scheme." That word "scheme," of course, refers to the same ward "scheme" which comes earlier, in line 3 of page 71. We say that provision shall be made by regulations for continuing the scheme and for the managing of the scheme; and that is the same scheme that we are going to continue, the scheme of profit-sharing. That is what we have done, and that I am afraid is the best I have been able to do. I do not pretend I have been able to go quite so far as the noble Viscount would have liked me to go, but all I can tell him is that I have no encouragement from either whip or spur. I have done the best I can; and I can do no more. I hope the noble Viscount will rest content that, although he has not won a complete victory, he has gone a considerable way towards doing so. I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, it is not that I think the Lord Chancellor does not go far enough, but that he does not go in quite the right direction. With regard to the words "industrial co-operation," that will be a matter for decision by the regulations which it is proposed should be made, and if it is something which is outside industrial co-operation then it will not arise. I should have thought it was sufficiently clear, having regard to what the Lord Chancellor referred to on a previous occasion as being the practices of companies which exist all over the country; where such practices exist, it seems a thousand pities to tear them up or postpone them altogether before putting anything in their place. That is the whole thing. I do not think by merely providing amenities you deal with the question. I do not know what view the House will take, but from the point of view which noble Lords all desire to pursue, I think it would be much more satisfactory to say exactly what is meant by industrial co-operation. Why not say it? That is the whole case.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I agree with the Amendment because I am bound to say I think it is a perfectly practical and straightforward arrangement. The co-partnership schemes are, I believe, used to play the part of works councils or joint committees, when

  955
  different matters are discussed between management and the people engaged in the industry. It seems a great pity that they should not continue to go on doing so. This Amendment does not say that such a discussion can take place only through the members of a co-partnership scheme; it does not say that other means of consultation cannot go on as well. It does, however, permit the established arrangements to continue. The Lord Chancellor said that it was a different thing now that the industry was becoming larger, and that small arrangements would have to be changed; but matters such as joint consultations do in fact apply to small units. It is much more likely that such negotiations or talks should be conducted on the basis of one works rather than on the basis of all the employees of a Gas Area Board, and I think it is only practical that it should be used further in Clause 57, which has been referred to.
  The duties of the Gas Council are there described—namely, to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate, and so on, in regard to the question of health, training and safety measures. These are not what we understand is to be covered by this Amendment. Certainly the expression "industrial co-operation" may be a difficult one to which to attach a legal meaning, but I think it is colloquially understood to mean joint consultation and discussion, which is very useful and which is widely used throughout the industry now—and, indeed, is becoming more used. I must agree that there is nothing else in the Bill to provide for such machinery being set up and I think it is a pity not to give those who are now engaged in the industry the opportunity to continue in the way that they are doing. It would be perfectly practicable for other undertakings on becoming part of any Area Board who have such machinery, to set up their own works committee to work parallel with those here proposed. I hope the Lord Chancellor will see whether he can agree to this proposal.
  5.20 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not heard the whole of this discussion. I must say I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor could
  956
  go a little further—or rather, I will not say "go a little further," but could go some way on this subject. The two things are quite different. Lord Cecil's Amendment, deals with industrial co-operation, while the Lord Chancellor's Amendment deals with welfare schemes and the management of those schemes. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, have previously differed over what was practicable, but here they are entirely at one. I think I am right in saying that it is not as if Lord Cecil were asking to impose something entirely new or which, it may be, has worked somewhere else. The whole object of this Amendment is to continue, under the regulations, something which is now in force. As I understood it, the purpose of the Government was expressed in this way. They said, in effect: "We may not be able to continue to carry out the whole of the co-partnership arrangements, because in relation to a matter like profit-sharing if you alter the structure of the industry completely and have no system of profits on a sliding-scale, in which prices and dividends and profits to the worker partners are all interlinked and interlocked, then by the nature of the action which you are taking, you are making it impossible to carry on that scheme."
  I thought the Government said: "Whatever we can carry on, whatever we are not precluded from carrying on in this connection by the new structure, we want to carry on." I thought that we were all at one on that. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, spoke with great enthusiasm of the relations which have existed in the industry. He described them as very happy relations, and I understood him to say that we were all at one (I am, of course, paraphrasing what he said) and the House need have no anxiety as the Government would not want to do otherwise than to carry on with something which has proved so satisfactory in the past, and develop it in the future. That, as I understand it, is what Lord Cecil is asking the House to do. If your Lordships will look at Clause 59, you will see that it states:
  "Where any scheme in force immediately before the vesting date provides for enabling persons employed by any undertaker to whom Part II of this Act applies, other than an undertaker to whom section eighteen of this Act applies, or any class of persons so employed,"—

  957
  not the whole, your Lordships will note, but "any class of persons"—
  "to participate in the profits of the undertaking, provision shall be made by regulations for continuing the scheme for such period after the vesting date as may be specified in the regulations, with such adaptations and modification; as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient."
  It gives the Minister pretty wide latitude, does it not? If it is laid down that, subject to any adaptations and modifications which the Minister may think he ought to introduce, the regulations are to provide for the continuation of participation in profits and (as the Lord Chancellor now wants to add, and I think quite rightly) participation in the management of any welfare scheme that is in operation, what is the harm in saying that where a system at present in force provides that the workers, or some of them, shall take part in machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed, it should be continued by the regulations, subject to such adaptations and modifications as the Minister may think it necessary to adopt? As I say, I thought we were all at one on this matter. It seems now, however, that the object which the Government had in mind was not to carry on these relationships which have subsisted in the industry, but to substitute something else for them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will the noble Viscount forgive me if I correct him on this point? He should have said: "carry them on until something is substituted for them." The dilemma, as the noble Viscount will see, lies in this: that the old companies will have lost their identity, and will be merged in something much bigger. In those circumstances it is inevitable that these things should have to be radically altered.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not wish to make any false point. I do not want to ask for something which the new structure of the industry—little as I like it—makes impossible. But I do not think it does make impossible what we are asking for. I know that these schemes are to go on until something else is substituted for them. They are to go on subject to such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister to be necessary and expedient. Surely, if it is
  958
  possible to continue a welfare scheme which is limited in its application, it is possible to continue—if you will, for a limited period of time—the right to participate in profits. All that Lord Cecil is asking—and, as I think, most reasonably—is, will the Government please also continue any machinery which is in existence for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed until they substitute something else? We say: "If It is working as well as it is, we do not think you will want to substitute anything else." In view of this proviso about being subject to the adaptations and modifications of the Minister, perhaps it would meet the Lord Chancellor (though I should have thought the words were unnecessary) if the wording were, something to this effect:
  "to carry on any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed, so far as practicable."
  That would make it plain.
  The Lord Chancellor has said rightly on more than one occasion that it is necessary to be careful about putting in a number of things which you are to do, because by so doing you exclude other things. I think that if Lord Cecil's Amendment were not carried, the clause, by its construction, would provide that in your regulations, which are interim regulations, if you will, you shall continue any profit-sharing which is practicable, you shall continue the welfare schemes and the management of the welfare schemes, but you shall not continue the existing machinery for industrial co-operation between employers and employed. If that is the meaning of this clause in the form in which we are asked to pass it, then I do not think we ought to do so; I think we ought to support the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like if I may, to make one more appeal to the Government to consider whether they cannot accept this Amendment. I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion, and therefore I now speak with great diffidence. I should have thought that the whole matter was; covered by the last words in the first paragraph of Cause 59 (1):
  "with such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient."

  959
  Clearly, if you amalgamate a number of private companies in one Area Board, the various schemes as originally envisaged are not applicable. We would all agree about that I am sure, for we are not anxious to do something which is not practicable; therefore we say that this proviso about "such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient" has been put in quite rightly. I should have thought that with that proviso, the proposition of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, was perfectly practicable. It would be open to the Minister to make any such amendments and alterations as he thought necessary. If that is not so, then the Lord Chancellor's argument applies equally against his own Amendment.
  The noble and learned Viscount's own Amendment says:
  "including any provisions of the scheme relating to welfare or amenities or the management of the scheme."
  If it is impossible to adapt the machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed, it is equally impossible to adapt the machinery relating to welfare or amenities. The Government have themselves put down an Amendment to make that possible, and it seems to me that their attitude with regard to the noble Viscount's Amendment is completely illogical. I suggest to them that they are safeguarded. I understand that the Minister may be anxious lest he should be put into a position of being pledged to do something he cannot do; but he is safeguarded by the proviso. What he is asked, in principle, is to do what he can to continue the machinery for
  promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employees. Surely the Government do not want to turn that down? Look at the position into which they put themselves in the country. They are saying, "No, no; we cannot have that." I know the Government do not mean that. I do not want to misrepresent them—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess must realise that Clause 57 deals with the case, because the employer is now the Area Board, and under Clause 57 we contemplate works committees and so on. This Government, like any sensible Government, desires industrial co-operation, but I do not think we can get it by having regard to the particular co-partnership arrangements of companies which have ceased to exist.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am ready to agree that it may be impossible to do it in exactly their original form, but the Government are not asked to do that. It seems to me that Clauses 59 and 57 could be properly wedded together for this purpose. I do not think the two are alternative; they are two means of achieving the same object. I do not wish to go on, because the House has heard quite enough on this matter. The Government will put themselves in a very false position if they do not accept this Amendment, with the carefully worded safeguarding provision which already exists in the Bill.
  On Question, Whether the proposed new words shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 17.

  CONTENTS

  Exeter, M.

  Ridley, V.

  Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Simon, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Swinton, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Templewood, V.

  Jessel, L.

  Beatty, E.

  Llewellin, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Merthyr, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Munster, E.

  Butler of Mount Juliet (E. Carrick.)

  O'Hagan, L.

  Remnant, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Rochdale, L.

  Buckmaster, V.

  Selsdon, L.

  Cecil of Chelwood, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Courtauld-Thomson, L

  Teynham, L.

  Long, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Waleran, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (Lord Chancellor.)

  Ammon, L.

  Holden, L.

  Addison, V. (Lord Privy Seal.)

  Amwell, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Morrison, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Crook, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Darwen, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Maugham, V.

  Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Walkden, L. [Teller.]

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not quite certain about it, but I think I had better move this Amendment. Perhaps it may be desirable to have both these sets of words, in case one falls by the wayside. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 3, after ("scheme") insert ("(including any provisions of the scheme relating to welfare or amenities or the management of the scheme)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to add to the first paragraph of subsection (1):
  "due regard being had to the wishes of the persons entitled under the scheme to participate in the profits of the undertaking."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a matter which was discussed on Committee stage, concerning the consultation with members of the co-partnership scheme as regards the distribution of the assets of that scheme. The Lord Chancellor was then good enough to say that he would see whether some such words as, "The Minister shall have regard to, and endeavour to give effect to, the wishes of the members of the co-partnership scheme" could be inserted in the regulations to be issued later. On the Committee stage we said that perhaps at a later stage we might hear whether such a course as was proposed was a possible course. The reason for putting down this Amendment is mainly to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he can tell us now that in due course the regulations will contain some such words. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to respond to the noble Lord. I should not mind accepting these words in the Bill, were it not for this difficulty.
  962
  If you say, "due regard being had to the wishes of the persons," I think chat must mean, "all the persons." You might get somebody travelling to the North Pole, or something of that sort, and it might be said that you cannot do anything because you had not ascertained his views. That obviously would be ridiculous. We propose by regulations to cover the point which the noble Lord has in mind, with which I am in sympathy.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 15, after ("aforesaid") insert ("or arrangements for continuing any such scheme with modifications and adaptations").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 17, after ("particular") insert ("in the case of arrangements made in place of any such scheme").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Clause; 60:
  Compensation to officers.
  60.—(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

  963
  other manner, of any such property, rights, liabilities or obligations, or in consequence of anything done under the last preceding section.
  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: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of compensation in the case of the worsening of an employee's position. I moved a similar Amendment on the Committee stage, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, undertook to consider the matter before the Report stage, although he could not give any promise. I will endeavour not to go all over the ground again, but I would like to remind your Lordships of one or two points, particularly in regard to what the noble and learned Viscount said when I moved the Amendment on Committee stage. He admitted that this provision had been included in the Electricity Bill and in the Transport Bill, but he said:
  "…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."
  He went on to say:
  "…we had better keep to the established practice."
  The only point I would like to make in that respect is that established practice, surely, has arisen as a result of the confidence that has grown up with the existing management. The established practice, so far as management is concerned, is now being altered altogether. Therefore, I do not think the argument on the lines of established practice meets my point at all.
  I can quite visualise a member of the industry looking at the Electricity Act and at the Transport Act, and seeing that, whereas "worsening" is in those two Acts, it does not come in this Bill which affects their livelihood. They may even read the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House, and they will find that the noble and learned Viscount said:
  "…but we find"—
  referring, I think, to the experience with the two Acts I have already mentioned—
  "that all sorts of people say their condition is worsened."
  I think the natural inference of those in the gas industry will be that the experience in the previous cases has been that
  964
  the Government feel that they have been too generous and, therefore, that those in the gas industry are now to be penalised. I cannot help feeling that that will create considerable uneasiness, and will not contribute towards the happy relationships within the industry and the success of the new organisation. I hope, however, that after looking into this matter again the Lord Chancellor came round to the point if view as outlined in this Amendment, and that he will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 38, after ("rights") insert ("or whose position is worsened").—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend on this Amendment, because I feel it is a matter of considerable hardship. "Established practice" is the only excuse that has been brought forward, so far as I can see, for not embodying this in regard to gas. But it is not established practice to take up the gas industry, throw it around and turn it into twelve areas. That very fact produces enormous possibilities of hardship which never existed in the gas industry before. This is a time when hardship can be particularly rife. If His Majesty's Government had built enough houses, and if Parliament, instead of producing new legislation, had consolidated and revised all the legislation regarding rents, the chaotic conditions of housing would not have persisted to-day. It is perfectly possible for a man to be ordered by his Area Board to take up a job in another district, and he may suffer the most crippling pecuniary loss, because he happens to be on favourable terms as regards his present house but in the new district either cannot get a house or has to take one at a very much higher cost. After all, we are not making this compulsory; we are saying only that the Area Boards should be required to pay compensation, in so far as the Minister may direct. Surely, the Minister could put in his regulations that where an employee has to move, and is put to great pecuniary loss as a result of that move, he should receive compensation. Without some sort of provision of that kind in the Bill, I cannot help feeling that grave injustice will be done.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry, but we cannot accept

  965
  this Amendment. We regard it as being a matter of principle. I have gone into it again, and I now understand quite clearly what is the point. The general policy
  which we think we ought to adopt for personal compensation in the nationalisation measures is that the basis of compensation for loss consequential on nationalisation should not be better than the statutory or customary basis which has obtained in the past in the particular industry. If you compare one industry with another you will find, in some respects, that the customary basis is better in one than in another. In some respects, no doubt, you would find gas better than transport and better than electricity; and in other respects you would find electricity better than gas. It is absolutely wrong, in our view, to pick out of these various codes all the best things. After all, we have to try to hold the scales fairly between the gas worker and the taxpayer, who has to pay. We believe that the best way we can do that is by adhering to the existing basis of compensation and, of course, standing, as we hope to do, as a good employer should. I would point out to your Lordships that the words which are here used are that compensation is payable to officers "who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.…" When we come to the definition clause, at page 81 of the Bill, your Lordships will see:
  "'emoluments' includes any allowances, privileges or benefits whether obtaining legally or by customary practice."
  Anybody who suffers loss of emolument is entitled to compensation. We do not think it right, in this particular industry, to pick out from some other code something which has never applied in this industry. It would be a means of getting a little cheap popularity representing, as we do, the taxpayer who has to pay; but we do not propose to adopt this course.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  6.2 p.m.
  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: My Lords, this Amendment and the following Amendment in the name of the Lord Chancellor deal with the same subject, and if it is within the Rules of Order, for the con-
  966
  venience of the House and the speed of business I would like, in dealing with my Amendment, to deal with the proposals of the Lord Chancellor. We had a discussion at some length on the Committee stage as to the need for not repeating the condition which his arisen under the Electricity Act, where through the long delay in the issue of regulations men have been kept in ignorance of the basis of their compensation. The noble and learned Viscount made a strong point that it would be wrong and unwise to issue regulations in a hurry as they might be bad regulations, and that we should issue regulations which are good regulations after due consideration. Nevertheless, he did promise to meet the point of the Amendment which was then moved—that there should be some time limit, and that the matter should not be left quite indefinite as to when regulations would be laid. We therefore put down this Amendment, providing that the regulations "shall be made not less than one month before the vesting date." Let me say at once that the Amendment is technically wrong, in that it should be "regulations laid," because the Executive cannot make regulations; they can only lay them, and it is for the Legislature to sanction their proposals.
  The Lord Chancellor has put down an Amendment that the regulations shall be laid not later than six months after the vesting date. I calculate that that gives fourteen months as a minimum. The vesting date cannot be before April 1 next, and the regulations would be six months after that. There are, therefore, eight months, plus six months, making fourteen months. Although I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for trying to meet us, it seems to me that fourteen months is too long to expect these people to wait before knowing where they stand in regard to compensation, a matter which affects their own lives and the lives of their families. I would ask the Lord Chancellor if he would consider amending his Amendment so as to leave out the words "six months after." It would then read:
  "regulations proposed to be made under this section shall be laid before Parliament not later than the vesting date."
  That would give eight months, which does not seem an unreasonable period of time in which, to get the matter cleared up. I shall certainly not press my Amendment in its present form, but in his reply I hope

  967
  the Lord Chancellor will see if he can meet us on this point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 72, 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: My Lords, the noble Lord has taken the convenient course of discussing this Amendment and the next Amendment together. I think his Amendment is manifestly impossible. I would remind him that on Clause 58 (8), dealing with pensions, I accepted an Amendment providing that the pension regulations shall be made twelve months after the vesting date, and that indicated that your Lordships realised how exceedingly complicated this matter is. I went to the Ministry, and I wanted the Ministry to do the best they could to enable me to meet the noble Lord. I do not want your Lordships to think, by this Amendment, that we shall not be able to do it earlier than the date mentioned, because I hope very much that we shall. But I have to consider everything which arises out of a statutory obligation that it must be done by a certain time. There may be all sorts of unforeseen difficulties. That being so, I have to play for safety and select a date which I am certain to be able to make good. I very much hope that it will be earlier, and, if all goes well and it does not prove very difficult, I do not see why It should not be. The noble Lord said—I am not sure whether he was quoting me—that in this case it was desirable that these regulations should be carefully drawn and not be "slap-dash" things. The worst of having a date to which you have to work is that, at the last, in the middle of your difficulties, you put in anything. I assure the noble Lord that I have pressed to see what was the best date I could get, but as I have said before, it does not mean that the regulations will not be laid before that date. It means that I must play for safety and select a date by which I am quite satisfied, beyond all argument, I shall be able to carry out this duty.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I have already made my observations on this Amendment, I think I need merely move it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 16, at end insert ("and a draft of the first regulations proposed to be made under this section shall be laid before Parliament not later than six months after the vesting date.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  6.8 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 61 to insert the following new clause:
  Gas and coke associations.
  " .—(1) All property, rights, liabilities and obligations which immediately before the vesting date were property, rights, liabilities and obligations of any of the following bodies, that is to say—

  (a) the British Gas Council;

  (b) the Federation of Gas Employers;

  (c) the National Federation of Gas Coke Associations, and every constituent Association of that Federation; and

  (d) the Association of Gas Corporations,

  shall on the vesting date vest by virtue of this Act and without further assurance in the Gas Council.
  (2) Subsections (3) to (8) of section seventeen, section twenty-two, section fifty-eight and section sixty of this Act shall, so far as applicable, apply in relation to every such body as aforesaid as if that body were an undertaker to whom Part II of this Act applies, and the said section sixty shall, in its application to any such body, have effect as if for the words 'in consequence of the vesting' there were substituted the words' in consequence of the passing of this Act'."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, said when he withdrew his Amendment, the Amendment which I now propose covers the undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor when he accepted the noble Lord's Amendment in principle on the Committee stage. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said this:
  "I think the noble Lord has a point here and I believe I can meet him. I will accept this Amendment in principle but I must consider the drafting, which is not quite right. In particular, we shall have to have some provision equivalent to a disclaimer of contracts applying here as in other cases."
  The Amendment which is upon the Marshalled List is now practically exactly the same as the noble Lord's, with the exception that there is inserted in subsection (2) of the new clause a reference to Section 22, which affects disclaimers. Without wearying your Lordships I

  969
  should make it quite clear that the clause as at present drafted affects only whole-time officers. That should be made quite clear, because it is consistent with the reference in Clause 58 (1) (a) and Clause 60 (1) to—
  "Officers employed whole-time for the purposes of administering undertakings or parts of undertakings."
  I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 61, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we are grateful for this clause, which substantially meets our point and is drafted in the correct way—which mine was not.
  Clause 66 [Consumers' freedom of choice]:
  6.12 p.m.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to add to the clause:
  "(2) It shall not be lawful after the passing of this Act for any person in or in connection with the sale or letting of any premises which he owns or in which he has any interest to impose any term or condition or do any act or thing restrictive of the right of any owner or occupier of the premises to take therein a supply of gas from an Area Board if he so desires."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of the discussion on the Committee stage and concerns the principle of the consumer's freedom of choice. The new Clause 66, of which it would form part, says in general terms that Area Boards and Gas Councils may not interfere with the freedom of choice of fuel on the part of the consumer. So far as it goes, that is very good; but it does not say that anybody else may not interfere. There is another Amendment later, in the Third Schedule, which gives in certain circumstances the right of entry by an Area Board to premises in which the occupier has demanded a supply; and what I propose to do here is to seek to ensure that the occupier is not prevented by anybody else from demanding a supply.
  The obligation to supply has been laid on gas and electricity undertakings—on gas undertakings for a long time. The corollary is that they have the right to sell their gas where they can. That is part of the conditions under which
  970
  statutory companies have operated for a considerable time and, in general, I think it is the framework within which this Bill proposes that the gas industry should continue to operate. Further, I think there is considerable support for the theory that the consumer has a freedom of choice of the fuel he uses. In this connection I think that what is left out of Clause 66 as it stands is the right of the domestic consumer to his own free choice. I think the industrial consumer is more or less covered by the clause as it is. Freedom of choice implies free and complete competition between electricity and gas, coal and coke, and whatever sources of heat or light are available. In practice, there is really no competition in the matter so far as domestic lighting is concerned; but in the matter of heat, particularly cooking, there has been for a number of years a good deal of competition; and I would remind your Lordships that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said on this question during the Second Reading debate:
  "I say frankly that I believe in competition between the nationalised gas industry and the nationalised electricity industry."
  It is that competition which I want to see ensured.
  As to the general policy adopted by this Government and by people at large in this matter, there was a series of Government-appointed committees who studied the question of the heating of houses and matters connected with it. There was first the Egerton Committee on Heating and Ventilation, who made a long Report in which they paid particular attention to the choice of methods of heating. They said:
  "In order that the consumer may have reasonable freedom of choice, it is suggested that living rooms and kitchens, and possibly one bedroom, should be provided with flues suitable for solid-fuel appliances…"
  In order that gas fires might be used if desired, the committee emphasised the necessity of the individual having the choice of whatever kind of heating he wanted.
  Then there was the Fuel and Power Advisory Council. They issued a Report on Domestic Fuel Policy, which became known as the "Simon Report," after the name of its chairman, then Sir Ernest Simon. I was a member of that Advisory Council when the Report was made, and

  971
  I felt at the time that they were a little too severe in their comments on the methods of heating which had been adopted. Although I agreed with the general suggestions in their Report, I am bound to say that I should not like to see any general policy adopted which would prevent any individual from having a coal fire in his house—if he could get the coal. I thought that the Report had the effect of limiting individuals too much. But even that Council said:
  "Free competition should continue between gas and electricity for domestic heating, subject to the condition that the prices charged should be appropriately related to costs."
  Later they said:
  "A flue suitable for a solid-fuel appliance should be provided in the living room and the means for heating one bedroom by gas or electricity should further be provided."
  Later still they said:
  "Electric points should be provided in the main rooms; gas connections in the rooms with flues and in other rooms where gas is likely to be used."
  That was a Report of a body set up to study the most efficient use of fuel for domestic heating.
  Later on, there was a circular issued by the Ministry of Health to local authorities. This was sent out in June, 1946. It referred to the intention of Parliament to nationalise the gas and electricity industries and it said:
  "That decision of the Government places upon them"—
  that is, to say, the local authorities—
  "the responsibility of ensuring that no steps are taken which will prejudice the future of either of these industries pending the decision of Parliament."
  Lower down it said:
  "…a decision to service a housing estate with only one of these two fuels to the complete exclusion of the other is prejudicial to the co-ordinated development of both industries and deprives the consumer of the freedom of choice to which he should be entitled…"
  That is a statement of policy circulated by the Ministry of Health to local authorities. I feel that in moving this Amendment I am in line with what was announced to be Government policy and, indeed, has been the general policy of Parliament for a long time. I would point out that it is not so emphatic as the earlier provisions in the 1934 Act which is being repealed
  972
  by this Bill. Section 27 of that Act was very strict. In actual fact it applied only to local authorities. There were all sort of conditions attached to the failure to provide gas, and there were certain arrangements about making contracts null and void, and so forth.
  What I am here proposing is, in much more general terms, to establish the principle that where a man wants gas he shall have it. Of course, within a certain distance he has the right to have it from the gas undertaking, for there is an obligation to supply. All being well, the owner of the house, the gas undertaking, and even the tenant himself can make mutual arrangements for the cost of installation. I think it is clear that on that point it is, and always has been, considered to be in the interests of the gas undertaking to get gas used as much as possible for cooking and heating. I think that it would not be contradicted that it is even a matter of economy for them. It would pay them to help instal a gas supply for the purpose of cooking only. I am not seeking in this Amendment to impose any restriction so severe as was imposed upon the local authorities by the Act of 1934. It makes a general condition that no owner of a house or private person or local authority shall say to the tenant: "You must not instal gas in it." I do not think that that is hampering the owner of the house. It does not say that the owner has to pay for the installation. I do not think that what it says is putting a great hardship upon any owner of a house.
  There has in the past been difficulty because local authorities who were electricity authorities and were building houses did not want to have gas installed, and they raised various objections. They are no longer the authorities for electricity, so that there is no genuine reason why they should feel that what I am proposing would hamper them in any way. Therefore, I feel confident that my Amendment will not make house-building more difficult. It will not put up the cost, and therefore it will not interfere with the finances of a housing scheme. As to cost, it is customary for a council that is building houses to undertake to pay part of the cost of putting gas into a house and to deal with electricity in the same way. This proposal does not force them to do so. They can do so if they wish. The

  973
  tenant shall have the right, as he goes in, to say that he wants gas. He can make his arrangements with the Area Gas Board and, if they are within twenty-five yards, they have to give a supply, and they can go shares with him in the cost of installation.
  I know it has been said that there is a practical difficulty in certain cases in connection with district heating. A number of councils have had schemes for supplying housing estates, new flats and so on, with district heating from a central source. It is hoped that that will be an efficient way of heating. I do not know what progress has been made in that direction, but I can quite appreciate that in the case of a scheme of that sort, if it is worked out on a basis of so many houses, so many occupiers and so many tenants, the scheme will collapse financially if a number of people do not enter it. If such a scheme is in operation, I cannot see that it is unreasonable that the occupier of a house should be expected to take the central heating from the district source and to pay his share of it. That does not give him heat for cooking. The usual conception of a heating scheme is what is known nowadays as "background heating"; it keeps the house at a certain moderate temperature, and you have "topped-up heating" for warming up a room when you are actually in it. For the purposes of extra heat and cooking, it is possible to choose between electricity and gas. Whichever you use, you must pay for. You can use solid fuel for cooking if you want to. I do not see that what I am proposing would in any degree hamper any central heating scheme that came to fruition. As I say, the Amendment is in general terms. While it may be said that it has no sanctions attached to it, I think it would at least have the benefit of showing the intention of Parliament that there should be continuous freedom of choice. It continues the old principle that freedom of choice has always been available to the tenant. I think it does so without hampering any of the other parties involved. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 77, line 45, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Ridley.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, for reasons which
  974
  I hope to convince your Lordships are completely adequate. As the noble Viscount has said, in effect, this wording has been borrowed from Section 27 of the old Act of 1934.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It is very different wording from that.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Viscount will agree that the substance is the same. That Act contained a section prohibiting local authorities who might be interested in electricity undertakings from preventing tenants; of housing estates in their area from having gas. The noble Viscount wants to give this principle a larger effect, but he immediately finds himself upon the horns of this dilemma. Once he wants to give the prospective tenant of a privately owned house freedom of choice, he has to rob the landlord or the owner of the house of the freedom of saying what shall be done and what shall not be done to his private property. May I address this argument to the noble Viscount? Let us assume that a landlord has a house of some architectural merit. Surely he has the right to say that that house shall not be "carcased"—I believe that is the technical expression—for gas. That would do irreparable damage to the architectural merit. The noble Viscount may think that the whole relationship between landlord and tenant is due for revision and requires much alteration, but I would submit to him that a Gas Bill is an inappropriate instrument by which to bring that about. I differ from nothing the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor
  said, and which was quoted by the noble Viscount, upon the value of competition. But there must be some inhibitions, and I do suggest to your Lordships that to accept this Amendment would be dangerous and would irreparably damage the right of a landlord to insert any restrictive clause in a lease for the letting of a property where he thinks that the installation of gas would be harmful. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 67 [Power to make safety regulations]:
  6.30 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved to omit "may make such regulations as he thinks fit" and to insert:

  975
  "shall within twelve months after the vesting date make provisional regulations."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment which deals with regulations for safety purposes. An Amendment similar to this was moved on Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who was replying, then said that he would look into it but pointed out that twelve months from the vesting date was little time for complete regulations to be made covering all the safety questions. I therefore suggested to him that I would insert the word "provisional" to see whether that might meet the case. My noble friend Lord Balfour, speaking to an earlier Amendment, has already mentioned that there are probably eight months between now and the vesting date, so that means, with this Amendment, that something like twenty months will elapse before provisional regulations will have to be made. However, I see the noble Lord has not put down any counter Amendment to cover this point, and I am inclined to doubt whether he will accept it. Therefore, I would ask him this further question: Assuming that he does not accept it, what provision is there in the Bill to make quite sure that until these ultimate regulations for safety are issued, any local enactments or local regulations for safety purposes can remain in force? I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 78, line 1, leave out from ("Minister") to ("for") in line 2 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord has anticipated the reply which I have to give him—namely, that we cannot accept his Amendment. We have looked at the question, whether the addition of the word "provisional" would assist, and it would not. To start with, the word "provisional" is objectionable in itself, because it would need definition. Quite apart from that, taking the broad conception which the noble Lord has in mind, I am sure he will agree with me that regulations of this kind which will involve, or might involve, considerable expense, must be very carefully thought out; it would not be at all satisfactory to have temporary regulations which might have to be changed. People might be put to considerable expense and
  976
  the regulations might be altered; the people might then have to take other precautions. As I pointed out on the Committee stage, there are, up and down the country, very differing types of regulation in existence under various local by-laws. All those have to be brought under review, and the time which the noble Lord has allowed would not be adequate to work out a satisfactory scheme.
  He then asks me what will be the position in respect of these local by-laws. In regard to that, I would ask him to look at the next Amendment which stands in the name of my noble and learned friend, which has been tabled with the purpose of carrying out more effectively an Amendment which is in the name of the noble Lord and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. He will there see, that:
  "any local enactment which, is inconsistent with or rendered redundant by any regulations made under this section shall cease to have effect as from the date on which those regulations come into operation."
  From that, he will see that it is perfectly clear that those enactments retain their substantive effect until the regulations come into force, and therefore locally they will be effective to make the provision of gas as safe as possible within the ambit which they have at present. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there seems to be one point that neither of the noble Lords has dealt with—namely, what I believe to be the suspense in which the manufacturers of gas fittings and so on will I be left by this positive refusal to name a date for these orders or regulations. All these fittings have to conform to various safety regulations, and if the manufacturer has no date when the new regulations or the consolidated regulations are to come out, he cannot possibly plan his production. Will the noble Lord give some thought to that now?
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to the clause:
  "(2) Any local enactment which is inconsistent with or rendered redundant by any regulations made under this section shall cease to have effect as from the date on which those regulations come into operation."

  977
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already said something about this Amendment. It is rather wider in its terms than the one which succeeds it, and we think that it is more satisfactory. I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 78, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Charley.)
  Clause 74 [Interpretation]:
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to add to the definition of "enactment":
  "or any order made under a regulation made under any Act."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage you will remember we raised a doubt as to whether the clause as drafted covered orders made not directly under the Act but by virtue of Defence Regulations. There was certainly some doubt in my mind as to whether that was so, and this Amendment was put down in order that we might have an opportunity of clarifying the position. Perhaps we could be told whether or not these orders made under Defence Regulations are
  legally covered by the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 81, line 46, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, on the Committee stage I tentatively assured the noble Viscount that his fears were groundless. I am glad to say that I have been advised that my answer was correct, and that this is in fact covered.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, and to thank the noble Lord opposite.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to give effect to an undertaking given on the Committee stage. I think the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, which he has tabled again, had been inserted at the wrong line, and that gave rise to some confusion. I was not altogether clear about the position and agreed to look into it. I am now glad to say that the noble Lord has proved to be right. Therefore, we have tabled this Amendment, which is slightly different
  978
  from that which he has put down, and rather better placed, I believe. I hope that he will think his object has been achieved. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 83, line 22, after ("nine") insert ("and section seventy-three").—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. The mistake on the last occasion was an unfortunate one. I endeavoured to correct it in Committee, but I think it led to considerable confusion.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the acceptance on the Committee stage of an Amendment in the name of Lord Rochdale. Lord Rochdale himself had down an Amendment in regard to the definition of this expression "metallurgical coke." The Amendment which we have tabled is very much in the same terms as his, but there are some words in his Amendment which are regarded as unnecessary. This is more succinct, and I think carries out the object more satisfactorily.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 83, line 30, at end insert—
  ("'metallurgical coke' means coke produced in coke ovens and of a quality primarily and customarily used for the smelting, melting, or refining of ores or metals").—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment. It meets my point, and I shall not move my Amendment.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I think it is perfectly clear, but I hope this Amendment will not stop the Area Gas Boards from making metallurgical coke, because it may be very necessary that they should do so. I understand it means that the Board will not have the duty of organising the whole of the sale of it, but I think it would be a disaster to stop them making it.
  LORD CHORLEY: I think that is so.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 84, line 25, at end insert ("'private company' has the same meaning as in the Companies Act, 1948").—(Lord Chorley.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the last time this Amendment was moved I was not here, and the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government, told the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who moved it in my place that he was quite wrong. On further consideration being given to this point it has been found that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was quite right. So, being here now, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 84, line 29, leave out from ("corporate") to ("and") in line 34.—(Viscount Swinton.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I cannot remember whether I was or was not here when I made the remark which the noble Viscount has attributed to the Government. I am glad to be here now, and to be able to say that we accept this Amendment—on the basis, of course, of the previous discussion.
  Second Schedule [Issue of British Gas Stock in satisfaction of compensation]:
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, the Amendment which I now move is closely related to the Amendment to Clause 25. Your Lordships will remember that that Amendment for which my noble friends Lord Buckmaster and Lord Swinton were responsible was accepted earlier in to-day's proceedings. Though this Amendment does not strictly follow upon that one, it is analogous to what was done in regard to that. The earlier Amendment deals with a case where the whole of the financial interest in a gas undertaking is held by a
  composite company in their capacity as gas undertakers. This Amendment deals with the case where only part of the financial interest is held in that capacity. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 88, line 42, after ("than") insert ("a composite company or").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, we accept this Amendment. What the noble Lord has said is quite correct.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment moved during the Committee stage, to which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, drew your Lordship's attention. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 37, leave out ("amount") and insert ("respective amounts").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD O'HAGAN: I thank the noble Lord.
  Third Schedule [Code of provisions relating to gas supply]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this and the next Amendment bring into operation the understanding which was arrived at with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. During the Committee stage, I came to a compromise with him whereby it was agreed that the relevant period, instead of being either three days or fourteen should be seven days. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 91, line 25, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I think that this compromise will meet with the approval of everyone. I understand that the period of seven days' notice in respect of the taking up of streets will be in the Bill which is now in draft. I consider it is just as well that all references to digging up of streets in legislation should be in line one with another. I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 91, line 38, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in paragraph 8 (1), after the first "gas" to insert "to ordinary consumers." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the moving of this Amendment really continues a discussion which we had on this clause during the Committee stage. The words

  981
  which I have put clown do not, I am afraid, make sense, but I really put down this Amendment in order to obtain satisfaction on one point—that is, whether a consumer whose premises were within twenty-five yards of a main which had gas in at that was not saleable would be entitled to apply for a supply of gas from that main. In the actual wording I have put down, I have been wrong. The term "ordinary consumer" has a particular meaning in the gas industry, which is not what I intend in this case. I wish to ask whether it is clear that the Area Boards will be protected by the proviso from supplying gas which is not in a fit state to be sold. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 93, line 35, after ("gas") insert ("to ordinary consumers").—(Viscount Ridley)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can give the noble Viscount the assurance for which he asks.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is the first of a series of Amendments which have been tabled to deal with the point which was raised during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. He took the view—and I think he was right—that the words "authority by whom the lamps are maintained" were not really adequate, because public lamps are frequently maintained by gas undertakers. On the other hand the expression which he used: "lighting authority," was also not satisfactory, because a lighting authority do not always contract direct with the gas undertakers or pay for the lighting. For example, a rural district council may be the "lighting authority" for the whole of their district, but a parish council may be the authority contracting with the gas undertakers to supply within the parish. We propose to get over this difficulty by using the words "lighting authority" so as to give them a rather wider definition. This will be done by the Amendment at the end of this series—the Amendment at page 104, line 16. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that in effect these and the next four Amendments are drafting
  982
  Amendments preparatory to the definition Amendment at page 104, line 16. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 46, leave out ("authority by whom the lamps are maintained") and insert ("lighting authority").—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the next four Amendments.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 98, line 2, leave out ("authority by whom the lamps are maintained") and insert ("lighting authority")
  Page 98, line 9, after ("any") insert ("lighting")
  Page 98, line 18, leave out from ("lamps") to the second ("authority") in line 19 and insert ("the lighting")
  Page 98, line 25, at beginning insert ("lighting").—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 99, line 12, leave out ("on") and insert ("after").—(Lord Chorley)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is substantially a drafting Amendment also. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 99, line 31, after the second ("pressure") insert ("any such engine, compressor, or apparatus being").—(Lord Charley.)
  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: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I moved during the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, after some discussion, said then that he would like to look into it again. The Amendment really deals with two points. The first relates to the question of installing and it is again a question of freedom of choice. In this connection the Amendment aims to make it impossible, where an occupier tenant seeks a supply of gas for the landlord, to prevent the Area Board's officers going over his land to get to the house for which an installation is being asked. The second

  983
  point is with regard to fixing, repairing, renewing or replacing any gas fittings. There again, I want to make quite sure that power is provided in the Bill to ensure that the landlord cannot prevent these services being provided for the occupier or tenant, if he requires them. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 102, line 7, after ("supplied") insert ("or (at the request of the occupier) installing, fixing, repairing, renewing or replacing any gas fittings").—(Lord Rochdale.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord on Committee stage to give me an opportunity of looking at this Amendment, because I wanted to make sure whether I understood his object. It seemed to me hardly possible to believe he was proposing to alter the whole law of landlord and tenant. If it were carried, the Amendment would prevent the owner of a house from inserting a term in the lease under which the tenant could not have gas brought in. I am surprised that the noble Lord should persist in this Amendment. He has really been answered by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when, in reply to an Amendment to an earlier clause moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, he pointed out that this was not the place at which to introduce such substantial interferences with the rights of owners of land and property. It may well be that something of this kind may have to happen, but this is not the Bill in which it should be done. It would also be necessary to "hedge about" a limitation such as this with other limitations. There might be a house with valuable panelling, or exquisite moulding on the ceilings, which would be destroyed by a tenant introducing gas pipes, as he would be entitled to do if the noble Lord's Amendment were passed. I think the noble Lord will see that his Amendment is rather more radical than he had himself thought, and perhaps, on reflection, he will withdraw it.
  LORD ROCHDALE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his further explanation and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment paves the way to the Amendment I shall propose, to insert
  984
  a new paragraph 36, the wording of which appears at the end of page 12 in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 102, leave out lines 43 to 48.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment falls into the same category as the one I have just moved. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 6, leave out from ("work") to end of line 8.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after paragraph 35 to insert:
  Unoccupied premises to be left secure.
  "36. Where, in pursuance of any powers conferred by this Schedule, entry is made by an officer authorised by an Area Board on any unoccupied premises, 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 in making the premises secure."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down following an undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Chorley in Committee. It deals with the same subject as the Amendment which follows in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. When my noble friend Lord Chorley indicated that this matter would be looked into, he said that the Government's Amendment would cover only entry on unoccupied premises. The Amendment put down by the noble Lord on Committee stage covered entry on any premises, whether occupied or not. I submit to your Lordships that the Amendment I am now moving fulfils completely the undertaking given by my noble friend. Of course, there was justification for requiring an Area Board, which exercises under the Schedule the right to enter occupied premises, to leave the premises no less secure than when they enter, or to make good or pay compensation for damage caused by entry or by making the premises secure. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 8, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this Amendment is devised to meet the Amendment which I put

  985
  down on Committee stage. It is an important point, because it affects every home in the country. We all know the saying that "An Englishman's home is his castle," but I am afraid that in these hard times the castles of a good number of your Lordships are no longer your homes. I am grateful to the noble Lord for implementing, up to a point, the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think it goes all the way. In the first place it relates to unoccupied premises only. Obviously a good deal hangs on the definition of unoccupied premises. One can conceive of a case where people are at the seaside. The Area Board want to get in, there is nobody there, and though they would be technically occupied, the Area Board would get in and the premises would have to be left secure. This Amendment is in one respect worse than the provision contained in the Bill. It requires only that the expenses of making secure the premises should be covered, whereas in the Bill the cost of damage of entry is also covered. It is covered in two places, on page 102 and on page 103. The Amendment the noble Lord proposes, although better in one respect, is worse in another. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider putting in the following words in his Amendment, to save me the trouble of moving mine. They would cover the situation as I see it. If he would insert in the last line of his Amendment after "caused" the words "by entry or," that would cover damage caused both by making secure and by entering. That seems to me to be reasonable. I wonder if the noble Lord could make any advance towards that proposition.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to make a good job of this, it seems a little unreasonable that the difficulty should be whether a house is occupied or not. I believe the present custom varies. Some companies allow compensation automatically, while others have to be sued. Surely if the Board go into a house and do damage, compensation ought to be paid.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Viscount is on exactly the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. Lord Lloyd wants to cover the cost of damage of entry into unoccupied premises.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I want to take out the word "unoccupied." I should, like this provision to apply to all premises. The word "unoccupied" is too vague a definition. Premises are apparently unoccupied because people are away on holiday. Where it is necessary for an Area Board to go into premises, and damage is done, that ought to be put right. The second point is that, as the noble Lord's Amendment stands, all the Area Board are liable to do is to pay compensation for any damage caused in making the premises secure. That seems to me illogical. They go and knock down the door, and they put something across the door to stop people from getting in, but they do not cover any of the incidental damage. I feel that they should cover entry, as well as making the premises secure. It would involve not only the words I have mentioned, but also the taking out of the word "unoccupied."
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: To my simple mind, the terms "occupied" and "unoccupied" are easy to define. If you go to a house and after making all reasonable demands for entry nobody answers the door, then I would say that that house was unoccupied. When the people are away, the house is physically unoccupied.
  LORD LLOYD: Does the noble Lord suggest that if he goes away to Brighton for a month, and the Area Board during that time knock at his front door and find him out, he will accept the definition that his house is unoccupied?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may be the difference between the simple and the tortuous mind. I am bound to say that I should regard the house as occupied if the gentleman had his furniture there and had merely gone down to Brighton. May I point out to your Lordships that, so far as this is concerned, it seems to be dealt with on page 102. In paragraph 35, line 20, it sets out three cases (a), (b) and (c); and at line 36, it says that where you go in you have to repair "all damage caused by the entry or removal." Equally, if you think gas is escaping, then you can go in and deal with that situation on the same conditions; that is to say, you are under an obligation to repair "all damage caused by the entry or removal." It

  987
  seems to me that occupied premises are very thoroughly dealt with.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is an Amendment to the paragraph in the Third Schedule providing penalties for obstruction of officers of Area Boards. As the Schedule is drafted, the penalty is attached only to obstruction of an officer entering premises in pursuance of powers under paragraphs 34 and 35. The Amendment extends the penalties to obstruction of an officer exercising any other power of entry empowered by the Schedule—for example, paragraph 1 (3) (b) which deals with entry into a private building to replace gas pipes; or paragraph 27 (7), concerning entry to premises supplied with gas to ensure that provisions relating to compressors are being complied with. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 10, after ("paragraphs") insert ("or any other power of entry conferred by this Schedule").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, after paragraph 41 to insert:
  "42. Where an entry is made by an Area Board on any premises which could not lawfully have been so made but for the provisions of this Act, the premises shall be left not less secure than they were immediately before the entry was made, and the Board shall make good, or pay compensation for, any damage caused to the premises by the entry or by making the premises secure."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak on this Amendment only because I would like guidance from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack on what he has just said. He pointed out two cases where this power of entry is covered. But, so far as I can make out, there are many other places in the Schedule where it is not covered. Our object in putting down this Amendment is, as I think I said on the Committee stage, to provide a sort of omnibus clause which would apply the same provisions to all powers of entry throughout the Schedules. Although I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that these specific cases on pages 102 and 103 are covered, I think he will find (I may be wrong, and if I am I will gladly withdraw) that there are other cases which are not covered.
  988
  That is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 44 at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lloyd.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, for the reasons given before by myself and the noble and learned Viscount, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask this? As I understand it, the intention, where entry is made on occupied premises, is to treat them in the way the Lord Chancellor pointed out to us; that is to say, the occupier is safeguarded under paragraph 35. Where the premises are unoccupied, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already moved an Amendment of a general character. That is exactly what my noble friend Lord Lloyd wants for the occupied premises. He includes all powers of entry on unoccupied premises—we have accepted that as reasonable—and says that certain results shall follow. I should have thought that the natural way of dealing with occupied premises was that, wherever the Bill gives power of entry into occupied premises, you ought to deal with them in whatever is the right way. Perhaps it is difficult for the Lord Chancellor to deal with it on the last Amendment but one. If I am right in thinking that the intention is that we want to give some kind of protection—as there is in paragraph 35 where there is entry into occupied premises—then perhaps the Lord Chancellor would look into it further before Third Reading, and see whether there ought not to be a "sweeping up" clause to deal with occupied as well as unoccupied premises.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there is one point that has not been cleared up to the satisfaction of a second simple mind; that is to say, compensation for damages caused by entry into the unoccupied premises. You pay compensation for damages caused for making the premises secure, and you make good—I do not know whether there should be a comma after "make good." But if you do not make good there does not seem to be provision for compensation for the mess you have made in getting in.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is not my part of the Bill,

  989
  but my understanding is that, wherever you enter, if you have to enter, you have to make good the damage. If the noble Lord will communicate to me his list of exceptions, I will gladly look at them and, if necessary, discuss them with him. I make that suggestion on the assumption that there is a reasonable time to discuss it between now and Third Reading.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the Third Reading is on Wednesday.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I think the noble Lord had better be put in touch with my experts, and he can discuss it with them to see if they can satisfy his misgivings.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Whatever Amendments are put down on Third Reading must be put down to-morrow, and must appear on the Order Paper on Wednesday.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his offer, and I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is the definition of the expression "lighting authority," to which I referred on moving the earlier Amendment at page 95, line 46. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 104, line 16, at end insert ("the expression lighting authority, in relation to any public lamps, means the public or local authority by or for whom the lamps are maintained").—(Lord Charley.)

  NURSERIES AND CHILD-MINDERS REGULATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL, [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.

  PEABODY DONATION FUND BILL, [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.