Lords Sitting of 28 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers.
The Earl of Stradbroke—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Kinross—Took the Oath.
The Lord Glanusk—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move the first Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will remember that at the time when there was some little difference of opinion as to whether our proposed Standing Orders did or did not offend against the existing legislation, it was suggested that we should appoint a Select Committee to examine the whole matter. Since then, I have fortunately received assistance from many of your Lordships in all quarters of the House, and we thought it desirable to solve this controversy by bringing in amending legislation. Although that legislation has not yet received the Royal Assent, there is every hope of its doing so—it has been passed by both Houses—and, that being so, I beg to move that the Select Committee be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of the House made on the 18th of December last, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Standing Orders proposed to be made relating to the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Order discharged accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now come to the Amendment to Standing Order No. CIV and to the two
1278
proposed new Standing Orders. If I may, I will deal with these three Orders together. The first is a small Amendment to Standing Order No. CIV, which suggests that instead of the words "the Clerk of the Parliaments," we should have "the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments," because it is contemplated that there may be times when the Clerk of the Parliaments may desire a holiday. Whether he should have it is obviously a matter of grave doubt! On the whole, however, I think it is desirable that we should make this change.
The new Standing Order No. CV conforms with the new amending legislation. In view of the fact that this legislation has not yet received the Royal Assent we have no right to speak of it as though it were any part of the law of this country at the present time. I suggest to your Lordships that these Standing Orders should be added to the Standing Orders of the House as soon as the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Bill has received the Royal Assent. If and when it receives the Royal Assent—and not before—these Standing Orders will be operative. In fact, the Bill will be included in the Royal Commission on Friday next. That completes what I want to say on Standing Order No. CV, which carries out the scheme of affairs laid down in the Interpretation Bill.
With regard to Standing Order No. CVI, which deals with the problem that it may be necessary to bring into force a statutory instrument before it has been laid, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, asked rue whether I would consider it altogether satisfactory that the report which, in those circumstances, the Chancellor made to the House should give an explanation merely in the following terms: "The reason why the statutory instrument was not laid, was because Parliament was not sitting." I confess that on the literal construction of the Statute, I think that is sufficient compliance with it, but I also feel that it is not what Parliament intended. I have taken this point up with the Treasury, who are assisting me in this matter, and although I cannot make any promise I hope to be able, if and when I have to make this explanation, to give your Lordships an explanation more in accordance with the spirit of the Statute. I hope to be able to say why it is that there has

1279
been such an urgency to make the instrument, which I think is what your Lordships want. I cannot give any promise at the present time, but I think in that way I shall be carrying out the spirit of the Statute, even though I should be carrying out its letter by saying merely that Parliament was not sitting. I have discussed this matter with the Treasury, and I hope to be able to influence all the Departments to accept my point of view of what is the right and proper thing to do.
I beg to move that the Amendment to Standing Order No. CIV and the new Standing Orders Nos. CV and CVI be approved, to come into force if and when, and only if and when, the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Bill receives the Royal Assent.
Moved, That Standing Orders be amended as follows:
Standing Order No. CIV, line 4, after the second ("the") insert ("Office of the")
After Standing Order No. CIV, insert the following new Standing Orders:—
("13.—Statutory Instruments.
Laying of statutory instruments.
CV.—(1) Where, under any Act of Parliament, a statutory instrument is required to be laid before Parliament, the deposit of a copy of the instrument in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments in accordance with this Order at any time during the existence of a Parliament when the House is not sitting for public business shall constitute the laying of it before the House:
Provided that nothing in this Order shall apply to any statutory instrument being an order which is subject to special parliamentary procedure or to any other instrument which is required to be laid before Parliament for any period before it comes into operation.
(2) For the purposes of this Order, a statutory instrument may be deposited on any day except a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday between Eleven and One of the clock on a Saturday or Eleven and Five of the clock on any other weekday.
(3) The Clerk of the Parliaments shall cause to be published, either in the Minutes of Proceedings or in some other manner, particulars of the deposit of statutory instruments under this Standing Order.
Notifications.
CVI. When any notification has been received by the Lord Chancellor, in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, drawing attention to the fact that copies of any statuory instrument have yet to be laid
1280
before Parliament, and explaining why such copies have not been so laid before the instrument came into operation, the Lord Chancellor shall thereupon acquaint the House therewith.")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, as I have made rather a nuisance of myself on this question, may I be allowed to say in a sentence that I think that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has dealt very fairly indeed with the House upon this matter? I never felt any doubts that, in his heart of hearts, when he read the section, the noble and learned Viscount would feel with me that the intention of Parliament was that if it was necessary to bring into effect a statutory instrument before it was laid, because Parliament was not sitting, we should be given some reason why it was necessary so to do. Such cases may obviously arise. The instance I have given, which is a very good instance, is this. Suppose there arose some entirely novel method of running a black market, it would obviously be right that the necessary statutory instrument should be made to stop that at once, and that there should be no delay in the making of that instrument because Parliament was not sitting.
My own feeling has been, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that, whatever the technical language of the section, the intention of Parliament was that it should be told why it was necessary. It is not thought desirable that new laws should be made without Parliament first being acquainted of them and having a chance of challenging them. Therefore Parliament would know why it is necessary to make a statutory instrument at a time when Parliament is not able to challenge it. I feel that the Lord Chancellor has done everything that one could expect in this matter. I am only sorry to have Caused so much trouble. However, I was sure that he would feel, as he does, that that is the proper course. We shall place the greatest reliance upon the Lord Chancellor to secure that that course is followed, the more so because we are told that the Treasury in this matter take the same view. That being so, I not only do not oppose the new Standing Orders, but I support the proposal of the Lord Chancellor.

1281
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order No. CIV amended accordingly; the said new Orders to be added to the Roll of Standing Orders on the date on which the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Bill receives the Royal Assent, and to be numbered CV and CVI.

NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES.
2.43 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, in asking the question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I have to confess to an error. I desire to ask His Majesty's Government to provide newsprint for at least two additional pages each day.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the importance of the greater provision of news space in British newspapers, they will grant facilities and provide newsprint for at least one additional page each day to all our regular morning papers.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, His Majesty's Government regard it as their objective to increase the size of newspapers as early as possible, and certainly in 1949, if that can be achieved without sacrificing food and raw materials essential to our industrial production, and without involving a further drain on our reserves of gold and dollars. The quantity of Canadian newsprint which can be imported in 1949 cannot yet be determined. The Government hope, however, that an increase in home production and greater imports from Scandinavia will help us in obtaining a five-page daily newspaper, although no increase in consumption can take place at present.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, arising out of that answer, I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us what is done with all the paper that is salvaged. Some information about that would give great satisfaction to those patriotic people who daily salvage newsprint in order, as they hope, before 1949 to be able to read a newspaper of a reasonable size.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord may be satisfied that the paper which is, in fact, salvaged is used for building up the home-produced supplies. I may
1282
inform the noble Lord that home production for newspapers is at present running at the rate of approximately 245,000 tons a year, and it is hoped to step up the home production in 1949 to 280,000 tons.
LORD CALVERLEY: I thank the noble Lord.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STOCKTON-ON-TEES) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHREWSBURY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order), on recommitment of the Bills: Bills reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of July 15), Bills read 3a, and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
BOROUGH OF GOOIE ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF BIGGLESWADE ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF LEDBURY ORDER;
RURAL DISTRICT OF AMPTHILL ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That, the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHEFFIELD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1948.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders, Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to the Amendments made by the Lords.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND PAYMASTER-GENERAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to our Amendments be considered.
Moved, that the Commons Amendments to the Amendments made by the Lords be now considered.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The References are to Bill No. 134.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 33, page 34, line 35, leave out from "not" to "at" in line 36 and insert "by way of supporting or opposing the candidature of any individual as against any other or others "
The Commons proposed to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("by way of") and insert ("with, a view to")
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, all your Lordships' Amendments to this Bill have been agreed upon by the other House with the exception of two, both of which relate to the same point. There was an interchange of observations between the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon and myself. I shared his view that the words "by way of" were not better than the words "with a view to," which were originally accepted in this House. I am glad to say that another place has fallen in with our view. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 33, page 35, line 15, leave out from "it" to end of line 16 and insert "by way of supporting or opposing the candidature of some individual as against some other or others"
The Commons proposed to amend this Amendment as follows:
Leave out ("by way of") and insert ("with, a view to")
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS BILL.
2.51 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendment in lieu of one of the Lords Amendments, and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should be sorry, at the end of a long Session, and on a very warm day, to send anybody hungry away. I observe that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has a number of Amendments on the Paper, and if he moves them in due course I think we shall find that we are able to arrive at some compromise on each of the difficult points involved. I do not think I need say more at this stage—we will consider these Amendments as and when we come to them—except to say that I very much hope we shall all leave this matter feeling that if none of us has been able to get all he wants at least each of us has got something he wants. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS; AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF.
[The references are to Bill No. 108.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 5, line 24, at end insert "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 and".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because the Amendment might fetter the Minister's power to make the most suitable appointments to Area Boards from among persons possessing the necessary general qualifications.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I regret that another place has not been able to accept this Amendment. I regret it all the more because I gather that it would have been more acceptable in another place as I moved it originally than in the form which was ultimately adopted by your Lordships. It shows how foolish it is to make any concession on any subject. I have read, so far as I was able, the full debate in another place, and I confess to a good deal of surprise at the attitude taken up on this matter. On this particular Amendment the main argument appears to have been that it would fetter the Minister in the appointment of these Area Boards to add conditions which it was not desirable to add. I confess that I do not follow that at all. The only conditions are that one or more members of the chosen workers in the district of the Area Board should be appointed. I should not have thought that that would present any difficulty to the Minister.
The second argument was that they should be persons who are well qualified. It was suggested that the courts might question the appointment on the ground that, in their opinion, these people were not well qualified. It is a long time since I had any personal experience in the ways of courts, but I should be very surprised if that were to happen. That was the main argument. The Minister then went on to say (and this is the part of his observations which seems difficult to understand) that this Amendment had a syndicalist odour about it—I forget the exact phrase used. He also said that the Communists would have been very glad of it, which to me is astonishing. I hope we are not coming to a stage when any proposition that is put forward is immediately to be called syndicalist or Communist. That is a form of abuse which, if I may say so, is quite unworthy of a Cabinet Minister. There is nothing at all syndicalist about this. I admit that I am a little vague as to what syndicalism means; I understand that it is derived from a French word, and it appears to have developed in a strange way, under the guidance of Continental intellectuals.
1286
The Amendment deals only with the Area Boards, who do not own the undertaking and who are merely managers of the undertaking. The only purpose of the Amendment which I had the honour to move was to do something to make the workers in these great undertakings more conscious of the value of their work, and more conscious of the fact that they were doing a great public duty in carrying on that work. The real purpose of all these proposals is to give workers an interest in the work in which they are engaged. I believe that is an immensely important thing to do. Nationalisation may be right or wrong, but nationalisation will substitute for small machines of industry one big machine. How that is going to add to the interest of the workman in doing his work, I do not in the least understand. His influence on the management of such undertakings must inevitably be quite infinitesimal.
Anything that will increase the human interest of the worker in his work is a matter of the greatest importance. There is, I admit, little to be done by legislation, but one of the things that can be done is to get the workers in closer personal communication with those who direct their work, and to bring together employers and employees. I do not say-that that will achieve the whole object, but it will increase their interest in the work and will eliminate one of the greatest causes of waste that exists—namely, the failure of those engaged in an industry to give to it their whole energy and interest because they do not think they have anything to do with it except draw their wages. That seems to me the main purpose of this particular Amendment, and I must admit to being greatly mystified as to why the Amendment was opposed.
One observation made in another place was that your Lordships do not understand industrial democracy. What is industrial democracy? It is just a part of democracy as a whole; and democracy, I have always understood, means "government of the people, by the people, for the people" That is the ordinary definition of democracy. Surely, it is a great thing to give the people who are carrying out these tasks an interest in what they are doing. Looking carefully at the whole question, I came to the conclusion that what was in the minds of those who decided to reject our

1287
Amendment was that they regarded trade unions as existing merely as political organisations for putting forward political ideas. That was what democracy meant to them. One speaker said that what the Government really wanted to do was to put an end to every rag of co-partnership—or some phrase of that sort. The phrase was greeted with loud cheers from the ministerial Benches. That is the real purpose behind the rejection of this Amendment; it was rejected not because it was bad for the workers—no one could possibly say that—not because it is likely to increase the power of the employers—that is obviously not true—but simply and solely because it may diminish the political power of the trade union machine; that is really at the bottom of the rejection of this Amendment and one other for which I was responsible.
This is an issue which, though perhaps raised in a small way now, is vitally important to the future of this country. Unless we can find some way of getting rid of the absurd and disgusting prejudices between the various sections of those who are engaged in industry, I do not see how I we can hope for any real revival of our prosperity. For that reason alone, I must utter my feeble but earnestly felt protest against what has been done by the Government in this matter, and my conviction that not only the Government but the trade unions also will ultimately suffer from a policy of this kind.
3.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think it will be possible for your Lordships to take this matter any further, but at the same time I should like to say, with the noble Viscount who I has just spoken, how profoundly I regret the decision of the Government, and also how shocked I was to hear the reason they have given for that decision. I feel that the speech of the Minister in another place showed either a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the Amendment—in which case he ought not to occupy the position he does—or that he was fundamentally dishonest. After referring to the terms of the Amendment, he said that my noble relative was
"prevailed upon by a number of his noble friends, including his noble kinsman the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, to omit the words 'elected by the' so that the
1288
Amendment then read 'not less than two members shall be workers'."
He said a little later:
"The case for the election of workers' representatives is one thing; the case for this Amendment is another.…"
A member of the Government had made a powerful speech against the election of workers' representatives, and for that reason I, myself, had agreed to a modification in my noble relative's proposal, and asked him to accept such a modification. And now, for the Minister to get up and suggest that the Government might have been in favour of the election of workers' representatives, but that this Amendment is a different pair of shoes, seems to me a strange thing to say in Parliament, and I shall take the first opportunity of returning to the point.
As to the remarks to which my noble relative has referred concerning syndicalism, the Minister in another place said:
"The proposal is, I think, faintly syndicalist in character, and possibly also attractive to members of the Communist Party."
I do not know what that means exactly, but I should have thought it was a strange thing for a Labour Minister to lend himself to suggesting that a proposal that representatives of the workers in an industry should be put upon the Area Board should be handed over to the Communist Party, implying that they are the only people who would be in favour of such a proposal. It is astonishing and ridiculous, and I cannot help feeling that the Minister has shown himself to have no conception whatever of the relation between employer and employed. I do not know much about the Minister. From what I have seen of him, he seems an extremely pleasant man, but he really has had nothing whatever to do with the working class himself. He is, I believe, a Wykehamist, and he is of a donnish turn of mind (not that there is anything against that) and apparently does not know much at first-hand about the working class. I regard myself as quite as competent to represent the point of view of the working class as the Minister is.
I think the Government have made a great mistake over this Amendment. They had a great opportunity to show that they believed in bringing working men into contact with those who control industry. It would have been an advantage not only to the working men, but to

1289
the industry as a whole. It would have given the workers a chance to understand the real difficulties encountered by those who have to manage a concern of this kind. We gave the Government this opportunity, and I think that that was an example of the detached attitude which your Lordships' House takes. We looked at these matters not from any Party point of view, but with a real anxiety to find a way out of these difficulties. The Government have had the opportunity to accept it, but they have rejected it. We cannot make them, take that opportunity. We regret their action. We cannot believe that it will be to their advantage or to the advantage of the country.
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will not draw the inference that all compromise is to be avoided. You must be a little selective in your compromises. I am bound to say that the actual phraseology of this clause was gravely defective. I am not going to accuse the noble Viscount of being either a Communist or a Syndicalist; he does not look in the least like either of them! But I must point out to the noble Viscount that the suggestion that this Amendment was syndicalist in character came, in the first place, from the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Brendan Bracken. We regret that Mr. Brendan Bracken was not able to be present at the recent debates when these Amendments were considered. The discussions were in consequence a good deal duller and less fiery than they otherwise would have been. They were also a good deal shorter. Mr. Brendan Bracken said first that this was a syndicalist matter. I would remind your Lordships that there was no Division in another place upon this question. Nobody supported this Amendment by a Division at all. I am certainly keen to have workers on the boards of industry, but that can be secured under Clause 5 of this Bill, which gives the Minister power to appoint to his board people of that kind. Take, for instance, the late Lord Dukeston. If he had still been alive, can you imagine anybody who would have been more fitted than he to do a job like this? And yet I do not suppose that he would technically have come within the description of the words "in the gas industry." He had given his
1290
life to the trade union organisation of this industry, and he would have been a fine representative.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? The fact is that he might not have been one of the "two" or "more than one," but he could very well have been on the Board.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He could have been one of the others but, under Clause 5 of this Bill, power is conferred to appoint to the Board persons who have:
"had experience of, and shown capacity in, gas supply, local government, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of worker."
That was the method by which we sough, to get together a Board which would be a happy and contented Board and one I which would pull together. That is why the Government were unable to accept this Amendment. I think it was such a consideration as that which led to no one in another place dividing in favour of this provision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 5, page 5, line 36, at end insert—
"(3) Not less than three members of the Board, including the Chairman and Deputy Chairman or one of then shall be required to render whole-time service to the Board."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason—
Because a statutory requirement as to the number of whole-time members of Aiea Boards might unduly restrict the constitution of those Boards in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this is an Amendment in which we asked that there should be three whole-time members of the Board. This has rather a curious history. The Minister himself does not at all deny that this provision is right; in fact, he was good enough to say that he found himself personally in entire agreement with the arguments which I had advanced, and with the kind of Board which I thought would be tie right kind of Board; and that he had

1291
every intention of appointing in accordance with these principles. The Heyworth Report was still more emphatically in favour of it. Therefore, the only point between us is this: Ought this provision to go into the Bill or ought it not? Frankly, there are no politics in this question at all. I should have thought that, where the great consensus of opinion in both Houses of Parliament was that this was the right thing to do, and where the great body of commercial opinion on the Heyworth Committee, who had examined the whole industry, was in favour, it would have been a wise thing for Parliament to give a general directive of that nature in the Bill.
I should have thought that that is what the Bill is for—to lay down the general principles while leaving a pretty wide latitude. We understand that the Minister will follow what we all agree is the right course when making the first appointments to the Board, but I am bound to say that I think it extremely improbable that he, or any other member of his Party, will be in a position to make the second set of appointments to this Board when the time comes round. I think it is a pity that we do not set out in the Bill a course which apparently not only the better opinion but practically the unanimous opinion in both Houses of Parliament seems to support. But it is not a principle for which I would ask your Lordships to die in the last ditch.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 25, page 29, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) In the case of any class of securities of a company being a statutory or non-statutory undertaker or a gas holding company, the value of securities of that class for the purposes of this section shall be deemed to be the amount of the reasonably maintainable annual income which could have been expected from those securities, if this Act had not been passed, multiplied by such number of years purchase as may be appropriate in order to secure the payment of fair compensation to the holders of those securities. The amount of the reasonably maintainable annual income and the number of years purchase shall be such as may be agreed between the Minister and the stockholders' representative or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by arbitration under this Act."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment and to ten others for the following Reason—
1292
Because the Bill provides a fairer and more expeditious method of assessing the compensation payable to stockholders than the Amendments.
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON had given Notice that he would move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment in page 29, line 14, but do propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: page 29, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert:
"Provided that a quotation appearing in any of the said lists shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section unless business is recorded in that list as having been done at any time during the three months immediately before the date of that list."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I accepted the invitation of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and said a word or two about the Amendment upon which we are not asked to insist, and then go on to the alternative Amendments in lieu, which I have put down on the Marshalled List and which I understand the Government are prepared to accept. The Amendment on Clause 26 is consequential; there is no dispute about that clause. I would rather not deal with Clause 26 now, because, when we come to it, certainly we shall accept the reinsertion of that clause. I have, however, one or two Amendments to suggest upon that clause which I do not think will be found to be contentious.
Your Lordships will remember that Clause 25 deals with the whole basis of compensation. The clause, as now restored, or as proposed to be restored to the Bill by another place, says that this is to be on Stock Exchange values or the nearest possible equivalent—I paraphrase. In the reasons which are given to your Lordships, they reject "a net maintainable revenue" on the grounds that the Amendment they propose is "fairer and more expeditious." I certainly do not think that it is fairer; nor do I think that the Government have presented a more expeditious method. Before the Bill came here, the Minister himself (and this is why some of your Lordships were very hopeful that a different principle would be adopted) did not dissent from the proposition that net maintainable revenue was in fact a much fairer basis of compensation than Stock Exchange values, or certainly than a

1293
hypothetical equivalent of a Stock Exchange value where it did not exist. We were greatly fortified in our contention by the fact that the Trades Union Congress, after having considered this matter for ten years, which was an adequate period of gestation, finally made a report (I think, in 1945) in which they said that they had come to the conclusion that Stock Exchange values were not the right basis for compensation, and the fairest and right basis to take over property was on the net maintainable revenue.
I observe that the Minister, in rejecting that proposal, did not in fairness deny what he had said (and he would not do so unless he was convinced he was wrong) and he certainly did not seek to repudiate the recommendations of the Trades Union Congress—that would have been more than his place was worth. He would have been supplanted by one of Dr. Dalton's young Etonians and not by one of Sir Stafford Cripps' young men. But I thought he was rather unkind to the T.U.C. He said that the reason the T.U.C. had decided against Stock Exchange quotations was because those values might give somebody too much. It may be that in some cases a speculative boom or lack of information has led to a particular share being priced on the Stock Exchange above its real value. I am just as much against giving people more than a fair value by way of compensation as I am against giving them less than a fair value. But it seems to me that that is not the alternative before us at all. Surely we have to find a middle way, which in this case happens to be the right way and the fair way.
There can be no doubt that the Stock Exchange value sometimes tends to give too low a price to those concerns which have been most conservatively managed, which have ploughed back profits into their businesses and have been most conservative in their dividend policy. There is no possible question, therefore, but that the fair value is not the Stock Exchange value, but is the real value; and of course that argument must apply much more forcibly in certain cases where the great bulk of shares are not quoted. You are dealing with certainly a couple of thousand undertakings where there is no Stock Exchange quotation at all, and I am bound to say I very much doubt
1294
whether the Government's method is more expeditious. In a matter of compensation, undoubtedly it is our duty, as, I recently suggested, to point out to the other place where we think they have gone wrong and where we think justice and equity lie. In this House we deal with the matter so far as possible in an impartial manner, and we really try to arrive at a right decision. If the other place dissents from us on what is largely a financial matter, it is not a case in which I think we ought to insist on our view, although certainly in the world at large it may well be considered that our view is more in touch with reality and with equity.
But if we have to accept the principle of Stock Exchange values or their equivalent, we should certainly want to make that principle work as fairly as possible. That should be common ground between us. It is for that reason that I have suggested the two Amendments which stand in my name in lieu of the restored clause, and I am glad to hear that the Lord Chancellor will look with favour upon these proposals. They are the first two Amendments on page 3 of the Order Paper. Perhaps it would be convenient if I dealt quickly with them. The first one relates to the question of quotations. It is to insert these words:
"Provided that a quotation appearing in any of the said lists"—
I accept the Stock Exchange quotation for this purpose—
"shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section unless business is recorded in that list as having been done at any time during the three mouths immediately before the date of that list."
I think that is obviously reasonable, because, as your Lordships are well aware, the list, whether it is the official list or the old unofficial list which was prepared during the war, gives a number of quotations merely in order to keep the shares in their place in the queue. There may not have been dealings in them for a long time—indeed in some cases for several years—but because the Stock Exchange Committee have giver a quotation to that security it keeps its place in the list, just as some noble Lords keep their place in our official list, although their attendance here is not unduly frequent. The official list, while giving a quotation which may go back for even a year or two or three

1295
years, always has a mark against the name of the security to show whether there have in fact been any dealings.
Therefore, what I am proposing in my Amendment is that we should disregard the so-called official quotation where there have not been dealings for a reasonable time. The Minister admitted there was a case to be dealt with, and he met it, but he met it only partially, because in the form in which the Bill reached us it excluded quotations which were in the daily supplementary list on the 1945 quotation dates and also those not dealt in during the period February 15 to July 15, 1945. On consideration I am sure the Government will agree that that does not meet the case. I do not think it meets it with regard to the 1945 quotation, and of course it does not meet it with regard to quotations in 1947 (which is the other alternative set of dates), because those quotations are not included at all. I am advised that the 1947 list (where, of course, there is the official list in all its completeness to deal with) would include quite a number of securities which were given a formal quotation but which have not in fact been dealt in for several years. I am sure the Government want to make this fair. I have an open mind as to whether three months is the right date. If the Government consider that six months is a fair period to take, I should think that was a reasonable compromise.
My other proposal is this. As your Lordships will see from the Bill, the arbitrator, in default of agreement, has to assess what is the value of all these kinds of unquoted stocks. My suggestion here—and I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor agrees—also represents I think the general intention. In default of agreement, the arbitrator will have to deal with an infinite variety of companies. The only thing that is common between them is that they all deal in gas; but the circumstances of each company, its past, its present, and its prospects, must all vary a great deal. It is obviously intended that he should give a fair decision, and clearly if he is to do so he must have regard to the varying factors, including, of course, as the Government propose, so far as may be, the relevant quotations. As, in fact, the arbitrator will have to consider all these matters, it seems to me
1296
that it is right to put into the Act of Parliament a direction to him that that is what he is to do, and is indeed what he must do. Therefore, I am proposing, as an alternative Amendment, at page 31, line 29, to leave out "as far as may be to" and to insert "to all relevant factors including as far as may be." I think it was for the convenience of the House that the Lord Chancellor suggested that I should add to my more destructive remarks my constructive suggestions as to what might be done to make the Government clause better. I do not seek to induce your Lordships to reject the clause which it is proposed to restore to the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is proposing a convenient course. I am prepared to accept his Amendment at page 29, to leave out lines 40 to 46, and to insert the words which he has read out, provided he is willing to insert the word "six" in place of "three," in the fourth line of the Amendment. That particular part of the Amendment will then read:
"unless business is recorded in that list as having been done at any time during the six months immediately before the date of that list."
If that meets with the convenience of your Lordships, I think it will be desirable that the noble Viscount should now move the Motion standing in his name at the head of page 3 on the list of Amendments.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
Page 29, leave out lines 40 to 46, and insert: ("Provided that a quotation appearing in any of the said lists shall be disregarded for the purpose of this section unless business is recorded in that list as having been done at any time during the six months immediately before the date of that list.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 25, page 30, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.
Clause 25, page 30, line 42, leave out "subsection (2), (3) and (5)" and insert "subsection (2)."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can now deal with these Amendments which are consequential. I beg to move that the House do not insist on the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 25, page 31, leave out lines 3 and 4;
Clause 25, page 31, leave out line 5, leave out "either of";
Clause 25, page 31, leave out "to";
Clause 25, page 31, line 6, leave out "subsections" and insert "subjection."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist upon these Amendments.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 25, page 31, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 46.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to move that we do not insist on this Amendment, but propose an alternative.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment but do propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 31, line 29, leave out ("as far as may be to") and insert ("to all relevant factors including as far as may be").—(Viscount Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 25, page 32, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 32, line 30, leave out Clause 26 and insert new Clause "A"—
As to loss of income from war causes.
"A. In agreeing or determining under the last preceding section of this Act the amount of the reasonably maintainable annual income
1298
which could have been expected from any class of securities an allowance shall be made to offset any loss or diminution of income arising from any war damage (within the meaning of section two of the War Damage Act, 1943) suffered by the undertaker of any subsidiary of the gas holding company concerned or by reason of any transfer of population, industry, trade or business from any part of the area supplied by the undertaker or any subsidiary of the gas holding company concerned caused by circumstances arising out of the war."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason—
Because the Bill provides a fairer and more expeditious method of assessing the compensation payable to stockholders than the Amendment.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON had given Notice that he would move that this House do not insist on their Amendment in page 32, line 30, but do propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof—
Page 32, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
("(a) the total sales of gas by the company in the year nineteen hundred and forty three or in either of the two succeeding years as shown in the")
Page 32, line 44, after ("population") insert ("industry, trade or business").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we are all agreed, I think, that we should restore the old Clause 26, to which we had made only a consequential Amendment. As your Lordships will remember, it contains the provision that if a gas company suffered during the war a diminution of sales, either by reason of the population or the industry of the country having been dispersed or concentrated, or had suffered damage by bombing or other enemy action, then that should be taken into account in assessing what was the real value.
It is common ground that we want to protect the company which has suffered by enemy action or by the dispersal of the population. But the Bill, as it has been restored to us, will not do this. I leave for the moment the question of dispersal of population and will deal simply with bombing—though, of course, the same thing applies. The Bill as it now stands would protect in the case of bombing early in the war, but not in the case of bombing later in the war because it takes an aggregate of years. Clearly, we want to

1299
cover the case of the gas works which was hit by a V1 or V2 in the later part of the war, just as we want to protect the gasworks which was hit by an earlier bomb in 1940 or 1941. In order to meet that, I am proposing to leave out from the beginning of line 33, to the end of line 35, and to insert:
("(a) the total sales of gas by the company in the year nineteen hundred and forty three or in either of the two succeeding years as shown in the").
I think we shall be in complete agreement about that.
But then, there is a point about which I would like the advice of the Lord Chancellor. The Bill seeks to meet not only the case of an undertaking which has suffered because it was bombed, but the case of an undertaking which has also suffered because of the dispersal of population, the dispersal of the industry of the country, or because of the concentration of particular industries in particular places in the national interest—which in a sense has the same effect, or a like effect, as if an undertaking had been bombed. The Government very fairly have sought to meet that, but they have sought to meet it by words which refer to the distribution of population. They appear on page 32 at line 43:
"by reason of any transfer of population from any part of the area supplied by the company caused by circumstances arising out of the war…"
I raised the question last time that, apart from the transfer of population, there might be a transfer of industries. And noble Lords will appreciate that we did transpose our industries, taking them away from vulnerable points and putting them down at other points. I think, no doubt, that that also involved transfer of population. I am afraid that I put my point to the Lord Chancellor rather on the spur of the moment. But I asked him whether the words "transfer of population" covered this point. I am sure we all want them to cover transfer of industry, as well as transfer of population. The noble and learned Viscount then told me that he thought they did, and that the additional words were unnecessary. There was no difference of opinion between us on the merits. I have thought it wise to put this down again, because I felt that when the noble and learned Lord Chancellor had had an
1300
opportunity of considering this fully, he could advise us whether or not these words ought to be inserted. On that I would take the answer of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof—
Page 32, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
("(a) the total sales of gas by the company in the year nineteen hundred and forty-three or in either of the two succeeding years as shown in the")
Page 32, line 44, after ("population") insert ("industry, trade or business.")—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. On the last occasion I answered on the spur of the moment. I have had an opportunity of looking into the matter now and I am satisfied that the word "population" is wide enough for the purpose. Therefore I can give him the assurance for which he asks. In regard to the rest, I will accept his Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 72, page 86, line 18, leave out from "corporate" to "and" in line 23.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment we moved in dealing with the definition clause. I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 25, page 31, line 16, leave out "six" and insert "three"
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof—
Page 31, line 16, leave out "six" and insert "seven"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is rather a chapter of accidents. There were originally six subsections. Three were struck out by your Lordships and one put in. The three original subsections struck out have been put in by another place and we now have

1301
seven. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 33, page 40, line 8, leave out from "made" to "nineteen" in line 10 and insert "on or before the thirteenth day of February."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason—
Because the Amendment is unnecessary and would in some cases be unduly restrictive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I accepted at the request of your Lordships, thinking that it would afford the protection your Lordships desired. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the words your Lordships moved in are not sufficient to afford that protection. Consequently, I think we shall all agree that we ought not to insist on the Amendment which we inserted in this House. I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 45, page 57, line 46, leave out from "in" to end of subsection, and insert "Trustee Securities."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason—
Because it is desirable that the moneys in the central guarantee funds should be invested in Government securities or securities guaranteed by the Treasury.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist
on the said Amendment.—(The Lord
Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not think this is a big point in the amount involved, because the whole of this fund cannot exceed £5,000,000. On the other hand, it seems to me an unfortunate principle to put into the Bill. We are asked to put back the provision which
1302
takes away from the Gas Council the power to invest this reserve fund in whatever trustee securities are best suited to their purposes and which compels them to invest in Government securities. I think in principle that is wrong. After all, the Gas Council should be the judges of what are the best trustee securities in which to invest. It may be that they can get Corporation securities of just the right kind of date they want. It is a great pity that they should not be given that latitude of choice. It seems that the only reason why the Council are to be forced by the Government, either by Treasury control or by Act of Parliament, to buy Government securities is to bolster up artificially the price of Government securities. I must say that the Minister gave the most explicit undertaking in another place that nothing would induce him to invest in "Daltons." He went out of his way to say it would be a most unwise investment and that we must rest assured that this fund would be invested in short-term securities which would not depreciate in value. I am glad to know that, unlike some of the funds which have been used for that purpose, this fund will not be used to bolster up these timeless, depreciating investments. If I may paraphrase the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who, when we have done rightly, hopes "that this will not be treated as a precedent," I would say that if I invite your Lordships to give way (which I think is wrong) because it is a little matter, I hope that will not be treated as a precedent on other occasions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 58, page 73, line 2, after "under-taking" insert "or to take part in any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed,"
The Commons disagreed, to the above Amendment for the following Reason—
Because the Bill already provides appropriate machinery for securing co-operation between employers and employed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords., in order to provide the basis for a discussion, I formally move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord, Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I very much hope that even at the last moment the Government will relent about this matter. There does not appear to me a shadow of a case for the attitude they have taken up. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in discussing a previous Amendment, said that nobody in the House of Commons had defended the conclusions to which your Lordships had arrived on that Amendment. If he will allow me to say so, I think he exaggerated the fact a little. In this case nobody defended the action of the Government except Mr. Robens, who is the subordinate Minister of Fuel. Not a single member rose to defend the proposal of the Government to strike out these words. Mr. Robens was good enough to say at the beginning of his speech that the words ought to be struck out for several reasons; but, so far as I was able to observe, he omitted to give any reasons save one—namely, that the words were unnecessary because their object was already provided for by the provisions of the Bill. I have looked as carefully as I can into the provisions and I cannot sec that it is provided for at all.
May I remind your Lordships of the scheme of the Bill so far as this matter is concerned? By Clause 56 it is provided that the Gas Council, in one case, and the Area Boards, in other cases, shall enter into negotiations with any organisation which they shall approve to deal with various things that may require to be dealt with. Nothing is said there about any special matter, except—let me be perfectly accurate—that it is said that they shall be
"for the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed by the Board or Council and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Board or Council and such persons, including efficiency in the operation of the services of the Board or Council."
What the last phrase means, I do not know, but it does not really matter. There is under that provision, no doubt, ample power to enter into negotiations for an agreement on practically any matter of general interest.
There is this difficulty however: that there exist in many of the companies certain agreements and machinery for dealing with profits and with matters of industrial co-operation. With regard to profits, it is said that there should be a
1304
power to prolong the operation of any agreement until an opportunity is afforded for a definite and final agreement. But I can find no provision there for dealing with anything except the sharing of profits. There is no provision for dealing with the important machinery and admirable agreements for promoting discussion on matters between employers and employed that exist, as I know, in a good many of the companies—not only the company that I have so often referred to before in this House, but in other companies.
The only effect of the Amendment which your Lordships passed would be to say that those agreements, if they exist, shall be prolonged in the same way as agreements about profit sharing, until there is an opportunity for dealing with them by a definite agreement between the parties concerned. Even that is only to be by regulation of the Minister, who is expressly authorised to make in those agreements any modification which he thinks necessary or desirable, in view of the changed aspect of affairs in the gas industry. I can conceive of no harm that could arise from that. I believe the sole reason—not mentioned by Mr. Robens—is simply the silly, pernicious hostility of certain trade union leaders, operating on an old trade union tradition against anything that was connected with co-partnership. To my mind, there is absolutely nothing else in it at all. I think it is a very great misfortune that these words—which, if they do nothing I else, call the attention of the public to the desirability of agreement for facilitating industrial co-osperation—should be struck out of the Bill. I cannot but hope that, even at the last minute, your Lordships will feel it necessary to insist on this I Amendment, which cannot possibly do any harm, and may be of considerable value on future occasions, both actually and as a matter of declaration of principle.
I would add two further observations. First, I say that the effect of nationalisation so far has not been to get rid of these difficulties. That is now admitted on all sides. The difficulties persist in the coal industry, and they persist in other industries. It may be hoped that ultimately they will disappear; but so far they are going on. And they will continue in the gas industry. Surely, it is

1305
common sense to keep alive any agreements which deal with these particular difficulties until they can be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner. The second thing I would say is not something which directly affects your Lordships, although it affects this question generally. There has recently been a county council by-election in the district of Greenwich. In that district live a great many of the gas workers who are affected by the co-partnership agreements. I am assured by those who took part in that contest that the question of co-partnership played a not inconsiderable part in the discussions. The result was that, whereas in the General Election the majority for the Labour Party was upwards of 10,000, in this by-election it had shrunk to a little over 200. I think that is a matter which ought to be considered by your Lordships, and certainly by the other House. I venture to hope that your Lordships will not assent to this proposal, and that in this case you will insist on the insertion of the words "industrial co-operation."
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I would venture to echo and reinforce the appeal which has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. This proposal raises none of the contentious or difficult issues of the Amendment we disposed of earlier. There may be views about syndicalism, whether we should have workmen on the Board, how they should be appointed to the Board or how the team should be best constituted to work. I do not want to go back over that; I gave all my views on that matter before. I regret that the compromise (I should not call it a compromise, because I think it is the highest common factor) did not find favour in the other place, although it was readily accepted here. But this is quite different. To my mind, this Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, raises the whole principle and spirit of co-partnership. Co-partnership is not at all confined to profit sharing; indeed, I would say that the least part of co-partnership was the profit sharing. That lesser part, the profit sharing, is in fact preserved under this clause.
If your Lordships look at page 72 of the Bill you will see that it says:
1306
"Where any scheme in force immediately before the vesting date provides for enabling persons employed by any undertaker"—
I leave out words which do not apply—
"to participate in the profits of the undertaking, provision shall be made by regulations for continuing the scheme for such period"
as may appear to the Minister to be suitable; and subject, I think, to certain adaptations and modifications. Therefore, that part of it, at least, is to be preserved temporarily. When we insert words to say that is to be preserved then, unless we also insert words to say that the machinery which is in existence for promoting industrial co-operation is to be preserved, the natural implication (and, I believe, the legal implication) is that we are to preserve the much less important material side of this matter but not the much more important side, the spirit of partnership and co-operation through the whole of the undertaking, a spirit which is evidenced by the machinery for conciliation that now exists. To say that the words are unnecessary is a matter of argument. I would not argue with lawyers about that. I am not concerned to say that the right place for these words, if at all, is in Clause 56 and not in Clause 58. If the right place was in Clause 56 and not in Clause 58, then the Government ought to have put them in Clause 56. In fact, if they have put the other part of the co-partnership arrangement into Clause 58, it cannot be wrong to put this provision in here.
What troubles me greatly is the intention behind this attitude. We have had great tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and by the First Lord of the Admiralty;—who has an even longer knowledge of industrial relations—to the admirable relations which have existed in this industry. They have been largely due to this co-partnership spirit, coming after trouble many years ago in some of these companies. From the eulogy pronounced by the First Lord upon the way in which this industry had been conducted, I certainly understood, that all that was best in it was to be carried on, and was to be brought into and developed in the new endeavour. We all applauded that. But that is not the position now, as I understand it, and before we part with this Bill we ought to be told by the Government what are their intentions.

1307
It may be that this matter will come back to us in regulations. At any rate, we ought to know what is the spirit and the intention in which these regulations are to be made. I ask the Government to be frank about it and tell us now. If they disbelieve in co-partnership, and if they disbelieve in the spirit behind it, well, let them say so, and then we shall know where we are. We shall know that, at a time when they are calling for the best in industry, they are casting aside something which has succeeded very well. Let us know if that is the intention. If that is not the intention, then I cannot see why these words are not accepted. Let us be told whether, by directions or by regulations, the Government will, so far as physically possible, include all that co-partnership stands for to-day.
4.3 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I add a few words on this particular clause, coming to it, I confess, rather new, as I was not able to attend the earlier stages of this Bill? I am struck by the inclusion of one particular aspect of the relations between employers and employed, and the exclusion of the other. Here is a clause which admits the principle of participation in profit-sharing as an element of the relations between employers and employed. The Government have been asked by this House to insert a parallel for the recognition of co-partnership arrangements between employers and employed. One is preserved, and the other is rejected. It may be that it is merely for brevity of expression, but it is a little notable that whereas the words in the clause are:
"…to take part in any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed…",
the reason set out on this Paper for disagreeing with the Amendment is:
"because the Bill already provides appropriate machinery for securing co-operation between employers and employed."
That might well mean the arrangement of such things as a Whitley Council, and have no reference in the world to the specific problem which is now being considered, which is really whether the principle of industrial co-operation between employers and employed in this particular industry has the Government's blessing, or whether it has not.
1308
The question has been raised as to I whether this provision is appropriate in I this clause or in another clause, but I do not think it is necessary to discuss that point at great length. If it be the actual legal view that what is desired is already covered in one clause, it does no harm to include the specific words in another clause. It does not override or I repeal the first; it merely makes clear the I Government's intention to acknowledge that it is one of two courses open for the improvement of relations between employers and employed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether the Government feel in a position to indicate their view any further. They have been strongly pressed this afternoon, and I think the case which has been made out by my noble relative, my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, is a strong one. After all, so far as I understand it, the Government have indicated that it would be possible for them to continue, in exactly similar circumstances, schemes of profit-sharing; that is to say, those schemes would be continued by regulations, with necessary amendments and modifications, even though the original concerns were in fact amalgamated in a larger unit, such as Regional Boards, and so on.
Then there was the question of welfare, which came up on the Committee stage. I think the noble and learned Viscount said that with regard to welfare it would be possible to continue the schemes with such modifications as were necessary. Now we come to schemes for the industrial co-operation of the employers and employed, and quite a different view is taken. There is no question of modifications; it is said that it is just impossible to do it. I cannot see the rhyme or reason in that, and I am driven to the same conclusion as my noble relative—that it is a question of principle. The Government do not like co-partnership, and therefore they will not agree to it in any circumstances. They do not like it, I am sure, not because they have any dislike of schemes for co-operation between employers and employed, but because they have come to an agreement with the trade unions, who do not want it. That has not been denied and, whether it is true in that crude form or not, it seems extremely probable.

1309
In the debate in another place on the Amendment which we sent clown from this House, a quotation was made from the speech of Mr. Tom Williamson—mentioned by name in Hansard—in which he said:
"I suggest that in many instances these co-partnership schemes have militated against the trade union organisation."
No doubt that is the view held, not by all trade unions—some have been very co-operative—but by particular organisations who are dependent for their existence upon the division between employer and employed. You have an organisation with employers on one side, and you have an organisation with the employed on the other. There is an alternative if you want to get them all working together, and that is to return to the old type of trade union. Unless we get better reasons, I cannot help believing that it is something of that kind which is in the mind of the Government.
If that is so, beg the Government to reconsider the matter a little further, even at this late hour. It is a dreadful outlook if we are to go forward into the far future on the basis of an inevitable difference of opinion between one side of industry and the other. That can apply equally when the employer is the State, or when the employer is a private person. That is a very melancholy outlook. I do not think industrial co-operation would be satisfactory to a type of man like the Minister of Health, the breath of whose being is antagonism. It is not a sound antagonism; it is not a safe antagonism in the times in which we live. We are asking here only that these schemes should go on for just so long as the Minister should give regulations and so far and with such modification as is then practicable. I beg the Government to give that very moderate proposal further consideration.
4.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must confess that I think the arguments against accepting these words are overwhelming. I do not start with any preconceived idea against co-partnership at all. I can well conceive that co-partnership, like any other good idea, may be abused; and, of course, if it is abused there will be antagonism towards the idea. Equally, I know from my own knowledge that there are many instances
1310
of co-partnership having done a great deal of good—and I know the noble Viscount would not support co-partnership with the ardour he does unless he also were satisfied that there are many such instances. Therefore I do not base any reason whatever for the rejection of this Amendment on a general dislike of co-partnership; and when the noble Marquess says that the objection was based on an objection to co-partnership I think he attempts to prove too much. When I speak of a co-partnership scheme, I mean a scheme involving a share of profits.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You can have a sharing of profits without any sharing of control, or any representation of the workers in the control of the industry. Often the two go together, and they are apt to be confused one with another. They are, in fact, entirely different things.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree that they are quite different, but at the same time I define co-partnership, as understand it, as a scheme for the sharing of profits. There are grate many schemes to promote industrial co-operation which I should have thought could not by the wildest stretch of imagination be called co-partnership schemes. There is hardly a well-conducted business in the country that has not its own arrangements for promoting industrial co-operation. I do not know any responsible and respectable business that has not such a scheme, and it is an excellent thing that there should be such schemes. But are we to commit ourselves to the proposition that all these schemes are co-partnership schemes? If so, it is an abuse of language. Where exactly co-partnership ends and incentive payments begin, for instance, is a difficult point to define. I should have thought it was obvious that the mere fact that there is in and incentive a scheme for industrial. Co-operation does not make that industry a co-partnership industry.
What is this clause going to do? It provides that we are t a take these undertakings over from the existing undertakers and they are to be merged in one much larger undertaking; and the Area Board are to incorporate a great number of separate undertakings. There are two clauses concerned; there is the clause which was Clause 56 and is now, in the

1311
new copy of the Bill, Clause 57; and Clause 58 which in the new copy of the Bill is 59. Clause 56 (now 57) starts with these words:
"Except so far as they are satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purposes of this section.…"
If the Gas Council are satisfied that there is adequate machinery for achieving the purposes of this clause, they need not operate under this clause. If, on the other hand, they are not satisfied that there is such machinery, what have they to do? They have to consult with the various organisations which seem to be appropriate, to hammer out machinery for dealing with all industrial questions. They are the new employers.
Then, in Clause 58, now Clause 59——
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It is Clause 58 in the copy of the Bill which was handed to us as we came into the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What used to be Clause 58 has now become Clause 59; they both mean the same thing. Consider the position, my Lords. If there is a scheme for co-partnership in what I may call the strict sense, the only sense in which I understand the term—the sharing of profits—the scheme is always, so far as I know, set out on paper. It is more or less formed; it is elaborate. Frequently there are added to it many other provisions, about industrial co-operation, about welfare and so forth. The noble Marquess will say that those things are additional to a co-partnership scheme. Where I am dealing with a genuine co-partnership scheme, I have not the least objection to using such words as will take in all the matters with which that scheme deals. What I object to is the application of the formula to something which is much less definite than a co-partnership scheme, something which often is not on paper at all, and may be arrived at from mere usage.
Take the example of a gas works where you have no co-partnership scheme, in the sense in which I use the word, but where you have an arrangement whereby the foremen meet the management once a week, say on Friday morning, to discuss various questions which have arisen in connection with the work. That is a scheme, I should apprehend, in
1312
force immediately before the vesting date, and it constitutes machinery for promoting industrial co-operation. I do not know whether or not it would come within the words of the Amendment:
"or to take part in any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed."
To my mind the words are very vague; and you are trying to provide here that these schemes must be temporarily continued. I believe that to be absolutely impracticable.
Or take the case where there is a simple weekly meeting between representatives of the proprietors and representatives of the workers, for the purpose of dealing with difficulties. Is such a scheme to be continued? Is it a scheme? If it is a scheme, and one which has to be continued, has it to be continued in spite of the fact that the new owners have nothing to do with the old owner? Do your Lordships really think you will promote harmony in the functions of the Area Board and the works if you have wholly unrelated schemes, whereby the workers in Works A get a concession, the workers in Works B do not, and the workers in Works C get something more? What sort of hope have you? Surely the right thing to do is to provide, as we do in the earlier of the two clauses, that the Gas Council shall get busy and try to work out new machinery and a new scheme which will apply throughout the whole area. By all means continue something until that is done, but let that something be at least definite and clear.
If there is to be a co-partnership scheme, by all means let us continue everything that is therein included. That is why I moved an Amendment to insert the words:
"including any provisions of the scheme relating to welfare or amenities or the management of the scheme."
By all means let us take the scheme as a whole. If you are out of the realm of co-partnership and are saying that a scheme for promoting industrial co-operation is to be continued, I have not the least idea what I am continuing; and, if I continue these schemes altogether apart from co-partnership, in the proper sense of the word, I shall be differentiating between one works and another. It is not that we object to co-partnership as such. I do not. Indeed, I am willing

1313
to continue co-partnership schemes absolutely with everything attached to them, but what I am not willing to continue is schemes just in the abstract, which are not co-partnership schemes but which are schemes for promoting industrial co-operation at a time when the entity of the employer is altering. That seems to me to presuppose arrangements being made not covering the whole area but covering sectional works.
I have gone into the matter; I have taken instructions and I have considered it most carefully, because I confess I should have liked very much to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. In the various Amendments which I have moved, I have tried to go some way along the road towards doing that, but I feel that we cannot accept this. I think that we should be letting our hearts control our heads to an undue extent if we said that we were willing to continue schemes which are not co-partnership schemes but are any schemes for industrial co-operation, notwithstanding the fact that the entity of the old employer is now being merged into the Area Board. I regret that the most I can do is to continue co-partnership schemes with all their associations. I am quite satisfied that the sensible course for us to adopt is to remind ourselves of the provisions of the earlier clause. I attach not the slightest importance to whether these words are in one clause or another. We should remind ourselves of the provisions of the earlier clause. Where these schemes are not sufficient to-day, we must expect the Gas Council to get into touch immediately with all the organisations and to hammer out suitable machinery which will extend and apply over the whole area of the Area Board.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just used a device which is very unusual. He has not stated fairly the position under the Bill. The Bill is quite clear. As he has just said, it contemplates an agreement being made, first by the Gas Council and then by the Area Boards, for continuing all these schemes or for making fresh arrangements. Then we have this special clause which amounts simply and solely to this: that a period must intervene between the taking over of these undertakings and the beginning of these schemes. So far as that
1314
deals with profit sharing, there is a power given by regulation to continue a scheme of profit sharing. All we are asking is that there should be a similar power to continue industrial co-operation schemes, leaving it frankly and entirely in the hands of the Minister to decide what he will do. There is nothing about co-partnership in any part of the clause or in the Bill. The Government would not venture to soil their mouths by using such a word as "co-partnership;" but they do recognise profit sharing and they do recognise other consultations with a view to dealing with various questions in the industry as they arise.
It is surely perfectly obvious that there ought to be such provision as may already exist, dealing with industrial co-operation. It seems to me astonishing that you should say that, whatever happens, schemes for industrial co-operation are coming to an end. No power is to be allowed to continue them until agreement is reached but, if that takes a long time, there will be nothing left for industrial co-operation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may interrupt, may I point out one mistake that the noble Viscount is making? He seems to think that the first subsection of this clause confers powers upon the Minister. It is mandatory. The Minister "must."
VISCOUNT CECIL OE CHELWOOD: He "may."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; he "must."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: He "may" by regulation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 58 (1) says:
"Where any scheme in force immediately before the vesting date provides for enabling persons employed by my undertaker… other than an undertaker to whom section eighteen of this Act applies… provision shall be made by regulations for continuing the scheme…"—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes; but regulations may make——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It expressly says:
"with such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister to be necessary…"
So he may make any alterations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I know that I may speak again only with the permission of this House, but I would like to say a few words upon this point. I think it is necessary perhaps for the guidance of the House that I should say something. I think there are a great many noble Lords who have not been convinced by what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who spoke of a very new device. It was an ingenious speech. In effect, what he really says is this—I have no doubt that this will appear in the columns of Hansard, and it will be a great convenience to the Government that it should be so—that they are in favour of the principle of co-partnership and are including support of that in this Bill. The noble and learned Viscount was able to do that by giving to the word "co-partnership" a meaning which it does not possess. He said that the only form of co-partnership which he recognised was profit-sharing. That is not what co-partnership means.
I would refer the noble and learned Viscount to the remarks of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, when he said that he made words mean anything he wished them to mean and, if he wished them to mean something extra, he made them double. That is what the Government are doing here. If the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to finish my remarks, there is no doubt that you would have to read in a special meaning of the word "co-partnership," because it does not mean profit sharing. Mr. Aneurin Williams wrote a book on the subject, the title of which is Co-partnership and Profit-Sharing. I suggest that if "co-partnership" and "profit-sharing" were the same thing, that would not have been the title of the book. If we say that "co-partnership" does not mean what it is supposed to mean but means "profit-sharing," and that, as the Government have put "profit-sharing" into the Bill, they are therefore in favour of that, then no doubt the noble and learned Viscount is right. But, if that is not what the word means—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept a great deal from the noble Marquess, but I do not accept that the noble Marquess is a greater authority on the English
1316
language than I am or than anyone else in this House is. I do not accept that. I should be interested to know whether the noble Marquess can give me a definition of what he thinks "co-partnership" means.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have always taken co-partnership to mean that there is a definite partnership between employer and employed in the firm; it does not necessarily mean a share in the profits of the industry. I do not want to go into a long and elaborate argument, but, as everybody knows, there is at all times a share in the takings of the industry. When the miner receives his weekly wages, they are, in fact, coming out of the gross takings. In any of the great basic industries of this country, at least 80 per cent. of the gross takings goes in wages, and what comes afterwards is divided between the shareholders.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Some wages are paid out of losses.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They get a priority in the takings of the industry. Broadly speaking, it is true that co-partnership means a worker's share in the control of a firm or industry. Profit-sharing is entirely confined to a share in the profits, and you may have a profit-sharing scheme without any co-partnership at all. Such things do, in fact, exist. I do not want to go into a long and elaborate argument on this point, and I certainly do not set myself up as a greater authority on the English language than the noble and learned Viscount, who has a wide experience and a command of the language which I do not pretend to possess. I am stating only what is the recognised view in textbooks on the subject which are written by experts far greater than myself. Having said that, I say that from the point of view of the House, I do not think we should carry this matter any further. We have done our best, and I do not think it is possible for us now to continue in our difference with the other place. Therefore, I am afraid, we must leave things as they are. But I regret what has happened and I only hope that the Government at an early date may see their way to modify their decision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 64, page 79, line 39, at end insert as a new clause—
Consumers' freedom of choice.
"Nothing in this Act or in any regulations made, or direction given thereunder, shall limit the right of any person to choose such available source of fuel or power of different kinds as he considers most suitable to his needs."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason—
Because the Amendment is unnecessary and would have no effect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am not going to ask the House to insist on this Amendment, but I do think that before we part with this subject we are entitled to have a little clarification. I attached great importance to this Amendment when it was moved by my noble friend, Lord Rennell, because I thought that without this new clause it would be possible for the Minister, by reason of his general powers of direction under the Bill, to deprive people of the use of one kind of fuel and tell them to use another. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with great frankness, said that that was so; that the Minister ought to have that power, that it might well be that gas ought not to be supplied in an area where gas is now supplied by a small undertaking, that it might be much more in the national interest, as he put it, to develop electricity, and that therefore the people were to be given electricity instead of gas. That statement left us in a state of uncertainty in regard to the powers of the Minister and as to whether people should be deprived of gas, which might be much better and much cheaper for their purpose. Of course, when we turn to industry, we know that the kind of fuel it receives is a vital thing, and nobody other than the people in the industry knows what the fuel should be. So dangerous did your Lordships consider this power of the Minister to interfere with the domestic and industrial life of the country by directing everybody as to what fuel they were to use, and depriving them of another, that your Lordships divided upon it. On the
1318
whole, I think the Lord Chancellor agreed that Lord Lucas's rendering was right, although I am not quite sure. Then the clause went down to another place. Your Lordships will be interested to know that the Solicitor-General—from whose remarks I am going to quote because it was a pronouncement of Government policy and intention—took an entirely different line. He said: "Really, you need not be afraid or bothered by this clause. It is wholly unnecessary because the Minister has no power whatsoever to do the things which this clause directs him not to do." In column 1051 of Hansard of July 26 the Solicitor-General said:
"My reasons for inviting the House to disagree with this Amendment, are, in brief, that it does nothing at all."
Lord Lucas told us that the Bill gave a chance for making the most colossal reforms, but the Solicitor-General says, "It does nothing at all." I am delighted to find now that they are adopting the admirable aphorism of Lord Melbourne—namely, "I wish they, would leave it alone."
The Solicitor-General went on to say:
"Under the Bill, once there is an available source of fuel or power, then, so far as the Minister is concerned, the consumer's rights of access to it are governed by the express terms of the Third Schedule, and the Minister cannot interfere with his rights to that available source."
Assuming that the Solicitor-General is right, I am delighted to hear that the Minister cannot do all the things that Lord Lucas said he had the right to do, and was going to do. I am leaving out a few sentences, but the Solicitor-General went on to say that so long as there is a gas main within twenty-five yards, the consumer is entitled to have his premises connected up, and nobody can stop him. Then he says:
"All the clause would do is to say that the Minister cannot interfere with something with which, in any case, he cannot interfere, and, therefore, is would be completely otiose."
The Minister cannot do these things, according to the Solicitor-General, who then goes on to say:
"If there is, pursuant to the discharge of their duty"—
that is, the duty of each Area Board to give a supply of gas—
"made available a source of gas supply,"—
and of course there will be, because they are taking over all the existing sources of supply—

1319
"then the Minister cannot interfere at all. The consumer, if he finds himself within the three corners of the Third Schedule, can insist, as a matter of statutory right, on being furnished with a supply from that available source. I do not think that I can advance the matter further by repeating what I have said by way of argument."
When the Solicitor-General goes down to the other place, both sides of the House treat him, quite rightly, as giving a considered view of what is the law. We expect a statement of law. We sometimes get arguments from the Attorney-General which are useful on our week-end platforms. But here the Law Officers were confining themselves to their proper, or their wise, sphere, which is the law. The Solicitor-General said:
"I do not think that I can advance the matter by repeating what I have said by way of argument, and that is that this clause does precisely nothing, and simply says that the Minister cannot interfere with the access to an available supply. He cannot do that now."
My Lords, I am delighted to hear, on the authority of the Solicitor-General, that all that Lord Lucas told us last time was entirely wrong, and that all these great plans which the Minister has in mind for telling us what fuel we should or should not use, and how he is going to control our family life and our manufacture are, to use the Solicitor-General's happy phrase "completely otiose," because he will not be able to do it. However, I would like an assurance that the Solicitor-General is right and that Lord Lucas is wrong.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I, too, would like an assurance on this point. I am somewhat worried about this clause. I have tried hard to understand it, but I must say that I do not understand it at all. I have read with interest what the Solicitor-General said, and have heard what he said. I was unable to be present on the day, during the Committee stage, when Lord Lucas made the speech which has been referred to, but I read with interest the report of what he said. The reason given for the Commons disagreement to this Amendment is that "the Amendment is unnecessary and would have no effect."
The Third Schedule says that:
"An Area Board shall, upon being required to do so by the owner or occupier of any premises situated within the Board's area of supply and within twenty-five yards from any main of the Board give and continue to give"—
1320
those are the important words—
"a supply of gas to those premises…"
Clause 55, if I may read what is stated at the beginning, says:
"As from the vesting date, the Third Schedule to this Act (which contains a code of provisions relating to gas, supply) shall apply to Area Boards:
Provided that, if it appears to the Minister, as respects any obligation imposed by the said Schedule, that it is not reasonably practicable to require an Area Board to fulfil that obligation in relation to any part of the area of the Board as respects which the obligation was not imposed on the undertaker supplying gas in that part before the vesting date, he may by order provide for relieving the Area Board from that obligation, in relation to that part of their area, for such period not extending beyond five years from the vesting date as may be specified in the order, on such conditions as may be so specified."
Again, under Clause 7, the Minister may give such directions of a general character as may appear to him necessary in the national interest. If I read it correctly, Clause 55 can overrule the provision in the Third Schedule, which lays down what the domestic consumer should have a right to have and continue to have. That is why I should like further clarification of this important point.
In 1936, I sat on a Joint Select Committee on behalf of this House to consider the question of freedom of choice with regard to gas and electricity. A body—I think it was the West Ham Corporation—who were authorised undertakers of electricity and also a housing authority, objected to tenants having freedom of choice. The Gas Light and Coke Company opposed this. I think we sat for eight days, and the unanimous opinion of both Houses was that, within the Act, all consumers, where practicable, should have freedom of choice. As a result, a Bill promoted in 1936 by the Gas Light and Coke Company was passed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am in, a very embarrassing position if I have, as it were, to act as arbitrator between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the Solicitor-General. Of course, I am biased in favour of the Solicitor-General, because the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said he was pleased to read what the Solicitor-General had said. If I tell the noble Viscount that Lord Lucas was right, he will be disappointed. That, of course, leads me to say that I naturally incline to do what

1321
I can to cheer up the noble Viscount at this stage of the day. I think the explanation of the whole matter is this. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with extreme ingenuity, endeavoured to discover a set of circumstances to which the clause might apply, and the Solicitor-General has said there is no set of circumstances to which it might apply. That, I believe, is what it all comes to.
Look at the words of the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed:
"Nothing in this Act… shall limit the right of any person to choose such available source of fuel or power of different kinds as he considers most suitable to his needs."
That presupposes that a person has a right to choose from various sources, they being all available. Where do you find that right in the Bill? If you find that expressed in the Bill, then he has got that right, and there is nothing that can take it away. You certainly cannot by regulations deprive a man of some right which he has under the Bill. Therefore, it
1322
seemed to the Solicitor-General that this clause was meaningless, notwithstanding the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—who will find some meaning for almost anything if he applies his mind to it. I think we had better let the mater rest with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, being happy and the Solicitor-General being right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before five o'clock.