HL Deb 28 July 1948 vol 157 cc1297-300

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 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 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 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 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.