GAS BILL. (Hansard, 21 July 1948)

§ VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER
My Lords, the purpose of the first Amendment is plain, and there is no need for me to 1097 explain it. The question has been fully debated on more than one occasion, and this Amendment is an effort to amalgamate the conflicting views which have been expressed. With the noble and learned Viscount's permission, I would like to alter the word "undertaking" in the fourth line to "undertakings" I think the word as printed is a misprint. The Amendment has been modified to incorporate the point made by the noble Viscount. Other noble Lords who took part in the discussions have been good enough to say that they would accept the Amendment as now drafted, believing that it incorporates not only their views but also, I trust, the views of the noble and learned Viscount. I beg to move.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)
My Lords, the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment has asked me to say what I think of it. I think the best praise I can give it is to say that perhaps it is slightly better than the Amendment which was moved in Committee. I do not pretend that I like either of them very much; nor do I pretend that I think they will work. In fact, as head of the Judiciary I must shake a minatory finger at the noble Viscount, and ask him whether he has given sufficient attention to this Amendment, because it is an Amendment to a clause which already contains this provision: not less than six nor more than eight members shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst persons appearing to him"— that is, the Minister, who is the judge— to be qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply"— and so on. It is now proposed that at the end of the clause we should add these words: not less than one member shall be a worker, who has been employed in the gas industry, in the area covered by the undertakings taken over by the Area Board, and who by skill and experience has shown himself qualified for the post"— the post being membership of the Area Board.
1098 It is not this time a question of the opinion of the Minister; it is an absolute standard that is laid down. You could go to the courts and, by obtaining a writ of quo warranto, say that the Area Board were not properly constituted because there had been appointed somebody who had not had skill and experience showing himself qualified for that post. Consider what is the result. I have to appoint His Majesty's Judges. I cannot say that the persons I appoint have shown skill and experience for the post. I select the most eminent members of the Bar who I believe will show experience and skill; but unless and until they are appointed, who knows? The effect of this Amendment is remarkable. How can you say that a man has shown that he is skilled and experienced for a position of membership of the Area Board when he has never been a member of an Area Board? Therefore, it seems to me that this Amendment has that obvious defect.
On the other hand, I say quite frankly that I thought the Amendment which it supplants had obvious defects. The one which it supplants hid obvious defects in that the time would come when people who had worked for many years in the service of an Area Board would never have worked for one of the undertakings taken over by the Area Board. But this Amendment provides for one member as opposed to two, and therefore, on the whole, in the choice of two evils, I feel that I prefer this Amendment to the other. If your Lordships would rather have this one, then I shall say nothing to oppose it, on the plain understanding that your Lordships realise that neither Amendment proves really acceptable.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My Lords, I could wish only—in common, I think, with most of your Lordships—that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor had devoted as much of the undoubted strength of his critical faculty to the clause which he commended to us yesterday as he has in denouncing the Amendment which is now proposed. Most of us have supported Lord Cecil's efforts to continue co-partnership in this Bill. The co-partnership system worked in practice, and it is the letter that kills the spirit that makes alive.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY
My Lords, as I was responsible for a certain amount of 1099 time being devoted to this on the Committee stage, perhaps I should say that it seems to me that the intention of this Amendment does meet the point of view of many of us who were discussing the subject. I must differ from the noble and learned Viscount as to his views on its workability, but there will be an opportunity elsewhere for it to be modified. I regard this Amendment as an improvement on the original, but I feel that the two lines at the beginning could well have been left out. I can only apologise to the noble Viscount who has moved it, that I was not quick enough to express my support for it in Committee. I did not quite appreciate what the implication would be. It seems that this Amendment meets the general feeling about this matter.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the insertion of the new Clause 62. It may well be more suitable that the property of the bodies covered by the clause, which on the vesting date will vest in the Gas Council, should continue to be held by the Gas Council instead of being transferred to an Area Board. Clause 24, as drafted, would require the transfer of such property to an Area Board. The Amendment enables the property to continue to be held by the Gas Council, though it may, of course, be transferred by agreement at any time. I beg to move.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, the first and the second of these Amendments are preparatory to the Amendment which deletes the existing paragraph 36 and proposes to insert another. It will be, I think, for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal with all the Amendments at once. They are put down to meet the strong arguments 1100 and requests put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and powerfully reinforced by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that occupied property should receive the same treatment as unoccupied property in every respect. I took this matter back and re-examined it, with the result that is reflected in the paragraph that now stands in the Marshalled List. I did this in consultation with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. I believe that I am correct in saying that the new paragraph meets with their complete approval, so it only remains for me to acknowledge my indebtedness to the noble Viscount and to the noble Lord for the great help they gave me in coming to this amicable settlement of a very difficult matter. I beg to move the first of the Amendments.

LORD TEYNHAM
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Lloyd, who is unfortunately unable to be present, I beg to tender his thanks to the noble Lord and to say that this Amendment fully meets our wishes.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is purely consequential. I beg to move.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Those of your Lordships who are statistically minded might like to know that we have made in the Committee and the Report stages, in the course of 18½ hours, 118 Amendments, which averages 9 minutes per Amendment, as compared with the House of Commons who made 250 Amendments in 151 hours, giving an average time of 36 minutes per Amendment. So, on an average, the House of Commons took four times as long as your Lordships did with each Amendment. What other conclusions may result from that I do not know. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.