Lords Sitting of 20 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.

THE SUEZ CANAL USERS' ASSOCIATION
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in what manner the composition of S.C.U.A. was decided; whether the membership of the State of Israel was considered; what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to such membership; and what action they have taken, or are prepared to take in this matter.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, with the noble Viscount's permission, I will answer together both the Questions standing in his name.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I say, on that matter, that the Government must choose their own way of answering a Question, but different points are raised in the two Questions. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl will not complain if I put supplementary questions to each.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Certainly not. As it was impracticable to include all users of the Canal, the membership of the Suez Canal Users' Association was made up of the principal users of the Canal by tonnage and trade; it was on these criteria that membership was based. The Association has not subsequently laid down any new criteria for membership; this is a question for the Association, not for Her Majesty's Government alone, to decide. Rights under the 1888 Convention are in no way dependent on membership of S.C.U.A.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I asked in the first Question "whether the membership of the State of Israel was considered," and my first supplementary question is: was the membership mentioned or considered; and, if so, what attitude did the Government assume?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if I interpret the supplementary question of the noble Viscount aright, the answer is that there was no consideration at all of any particular member per se, except on possible membership on the tonnage and trade of the shipping of that country which goes through the Canal.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the answer on this point is that they took the tonnage that passed through the. Canal, and they took the highest number of tons. If that is so, why did they exclude Israel, which was not allowed to send a ship at all? I do not think the noble Earl has answered clearly. Does he say that at this meeting settting up S.C.U.A. the matter of the admission of Israel to membership was not mentioned?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that I have not a verbatim script of all that went on at this particular meeting. All I can inform the noble Viscount is that the basis on which nation members of the S.C.U.A. were chosen was by the amount of use, starting from the top, which those particular nations made of the Canal. As I said in my original Answer to the Question, if we had accepted all the countries who use the Canal, it would be quite impossible to make an organisation like S.C.U.A. workable.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for pressing my Question. Was the name of the State of Israel mentioned, and what did our representative say?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I have not got the answer to the noble Viscount's question. I do not think, in fact, that the wording of his original Question calls for that particular answer. If he wishes it, I will do my best to obtain the information.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I can only say that I do wish it, and I do not think that words could be clearer than the Question: was the membership considered; and what was

895
the attitude of the Government? If the noble Earl wants another day to answer the Question, he can have it; but at the same time may I say that the purpose of Questions is that the information asked for should be secured.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I have replied to the noble Viscount perfectly adequately. All countries who use the Canal were, in fact, considered; but it was decided, as I have already said, that a line had to be drawn somewhere. It was not possible to have all countries as members of S.C.U.A., otherwise it would not be a workable proposition. Some form of arbitrary line had to be drawn, and the decision was taken, irrespective of who or what the country was, that the line should be drawn on a definite basis of tonnage and trade.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, am I to understand that answer to mean that the Government, knowing that the State of Israel was, as we think, illegally excluded, decided to adopt a line that was based upon tonnage passing through the Canal?

ISRAEL AND THE SUEZ CANAL
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, inasmuch as S.C.U.A. exists to protect the international right of free passage through the Suez Canal, the connivance of Her Majesty's Government in the exclusion of Israel from S.C.U.A. does not in fact amount to condoning a breach by Egypt of the Convention of 1888.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Viscount, I answered both of his Questions together.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I did not gather what was the answer to this Question. I asked whether, if you exclude Israel, you do not thereby give weight to the opinion that she should not be permitted to go through the Canal: that she had no locus standi in fact. That is the Question. What does the noble Earl say to that?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that I cannot see my way to "arguing the toss" any more. I think I have answered the noble Viscount's Questions adequately.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, there is such a thing as Parliamentary procedure, and if the Answer is that the Government cannot see their way to arguing the matter any more, that is an end to Parliamentary procedure. I venture, therefore, to state that the matter must be raised again. I think it is an abuse of the procedure of Question and Answer, first of all to lump Questions together, and then to give an Answer that is totally irrelevant to the matter at issue.

ELECTRICITY BILL
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Establishment, constitution and functions of Central Electricity Generating Board
(2) The Generating Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such number of other members so appointed, not being less than seven or more than nine, as the Minister may from time to time determine.
(5) Without prejudice to any other functions assigned or transferred to them as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, it shall as from the vesting date be the duty of the Generating Board to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of supply of electricity in bulk for all parts of England and Wales, and for that purpose—

(a) to generate or acquire supplies of electricity; and

(b) to provide bulk supplies of electricity for the Area Boards for distribution by those Boards.

(7) The Generating Board shall have power—
(a) to manufacture anything required by the Generating Board or by any Area Board for purposes of research or development or for the repair or maintenance of their equipment;
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (2):
" of whom not less than five shall he full-time members."
The noble Lord said: Before moving the first Amendment on the Marshalled List, may I preface my remarks by saying how glad I personally am—and I am sure the pleasure is shared by all your Lordships—that we have here the Minister who is head of the Department sponsoring this Bill and not, as is usual in your Lordships' House, a stand-in. So the Minister will not now, in reply to our pleadings for the acceptance of any of our Amend-mews, be able to say that he will have to consult his right honourable friend, which has been said before with monotonous regularity in this Chamber.
Having said that, may I point out that neither the Minister nor the Bill has said at any time how many of the members of the Generating Board—and it is the Generating Board we are dealing with under Clause 2—are to be part-time members, and how many full-time members. I have put down this Amendment to see whether I can persuade the noble Lord that the time has arrived when we have seriously to consider whether we should or should not carry on with the principle which we have laid down in the formation of nationalised boards or boards of nationalised industries of having any substantial number of members of the board as part-time. For myself, I should prefer them all to be full-time members, but I recognise that others may have different opinions, based on sound reasons. The other advantage we possess—at least I have—in having the Minister here is that he and I must speak the same language. We were both brought up in industry, and I do not suppose, having reached our age, we have a great deal to learn of its machinery. I am convinced that the formation of industry in the future, with the huge concerns, must have what I always call "executive directors." I said on Second Reading that in my view the age of guinea pigs and place-men is past.
The noble Lord knows that you will never get real first-class energetic brains unless they are on the young side. You cannot get young members for Boards of this description, with this terrific weight of responsibility, on a part-time basis. Young men cannot afford to be part-time
898
members, and I suggest to the noble Lord that the day has gone when we can afford to run the Board of a great nationalised industry—and an industry that by the noble Lord's own figures is going to spend, by 1965, up to £3,250 million of the taxpayers' money—on a charitable basis. By that, I mean that the-salaries are paid by industry, who allow some of their men to sit upon these nationalised boards for a remuneration that is a positive disgrace. The noble Lord knows that as well as I do. If you want young, virile brains, and if you want to see that the youngsters in a great industry like this have the incentive to work themselves right up to the top, the course to the top must be open to them.
I suggest that one of the ways—I have another way later on—of ensuring this is to have a number of those serving on these boards full-time members, whose life's job it is; who have no distractions of having to serve shareholders in another company, and who do not have to live in fear that, if their principal remuneration payer, private industry, ceases to pay them, they would have to resign. Because what is the part-time salary of the majority of members of these boards?—£500 a year. The noble Lord does not want to fill these posts with pensioners. What he really wants is the finest men he can get in this industry, because the best is only just good enough for the gigantic proposal which the Minister has brought before your Lordships' House and so lucidly explained. There never was development in this country to marry or to match up with the nuclear atomic energy expansion of power stations in this country. I suggest to the noble Lord that he will do himself less than justice unless he sets himself out to do the same thing as if he were in private industry and, instead of the Minister of Power, were the chairman of this great industry of private enterprise. He could not go to his shareholders and argue that anything less than the very best was good enough.
Subsection (2) says that there shall be a chairman and not less than seven or more than nine other members. I suggest in my Amendment the addition of the words "of whom not less than five shall he full-time members", because I am assuming, perhaps erroneously, that the chairmanship of the Generating Board must be a full-time appointment. I want five of the other members, or not

899
less than five, to be full-time members. If the Minister has a better figure I am not wedded to five. But the Bill does not say anything. They can be all full-time members. If the noble Lord tells me in reply that his intention is to appoint all full-time members, I shall be happy. But at least I want the bulk of them to be full-time members, so that their whole time is given to it, and so that they are not taken away with other objectives and other interests. That way, I think, is the only way to constitute this Board.
Amendment No. 2 is really upon the same lines, but I will content myself for the present with what I have already said. I shall return to it once or twice throughout this Committee stage, and I hope the noble Lord, if he docs not accept my numbers, will accept the principle that it should be clearly stated so that the country knows how many are full-time members of these Boards and how many are part-time. I give way on part-time if the noble Lord wants some elbow room. There may be good causes why he might want one or two members part-time—I hope not for the most important posts. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that the sound principle is that the bulk of those should be full-time members. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): I, too, am glad that I am able to attend your Lordships' House to reply in person to the noble Lord. Accepting what he seeks to do, his statement might have been my own reply, although it was much more eloquent than mine could be. I, too, believe that we need the very best men we can get to run these great industries. Our success in getting good men will determine the future success of these industries. On the other hand, we need a certain amount of flexibility, especially in these comparatively early days of these industries. We must still look outside and get men for their qualities, their knowledge and their experience. It would be my hope that the industry will more and more train the men to become thoroughly versed in their industries and thoroughly competent to manage.
900
It would be very inconvenient and difficult for me in my job of choosing the right men for these industries if the noble Lord wished to insert here that there should be a definite number of full-time members and a definite number of part-time members, or that they should be all full-time members. I think we should keep the matter flexible. I will see to it that there is a proper balance in these matters, having only one object in mind; that of securing the best men, in the long term as well as in the short term, for the management of these industries. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has accepted the principle. As he says, he has given your Lordships an assurance that there will be a proper balance between full-time and part-time members. I was always taught in my years in your Lordships' House—now getting on for more than ten—that ministerial intentions are one thing, and their hopes and promises are another. "Put it in the Bill," we were told. That was always impressed upon me by a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Mills—the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. That was his prayer and his one song: "If you are going to do it, put it in the Bill." Will the noble Lord give me an undertaking that between now and the next stage of the Bill he will try to find a form of words that will give expression in the Bill to the principle he has just undertaken to follow?
I am quite happy to leave it to him. I want to give him all the elbow room I can, but under the Bill as drafted he could have all part-time men. That was never the intention, I feel certain, and I do not like these vague expressions in Bills of this sort. So, if the noble Lord can go just a little further and say that between now and the next stage of the Bill he will try to give expression to that principle, I shall be quite happy to withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps he would give me that undertaking.
LORD SALTOUN: I cannot help feeling that it would be a mistake to fetter the discretion of the Minister when the thing is just beginning. It may be very useful to have a principle later on, but just at the moment, on this particular kind of thing, I think that is a mistake.
EARL ATTLEE: I do not think it really ought to be left as wide open as this. We may have great confidence in the present Minister, but Ministers come and go, sometimes with bewildering rapidity, in this country. We do not know who will be next. It seems an extraordinary thing to have no regulation to the effect that there shall be any full-time members. I cannot recall that being done in legislation. With the old Electricity Boards there was always a due proportion of full-time men. There should be a minimum. It should not be entirely left in the hands of part-time men.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord and the noble Earl, I may say there is, of course, precedent for this. The Bill follows most of the nationalisation Acts—the Gas Act, the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, the Air Corporations Act, the Atomic Energy Authority Act and the Electricity Act, 1947. I am much more concerned with what is practical and right. I should hesitate to agree to fix any number of full-time members until I had the opportunity of consulting with the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen when they are apointed to these Boards. After all, they must have a view, and it is proper that they should have a view, I should want to consult with them as to who their colleagues should be, and whether it is desirable or not, in certain circumstances, to appoint part-time members and who they should be. I am sorry, but I do not think it would help me and I do not think it would be right to agree to a fixed number of whole-time men in this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord talks about precedent. I can quote precedent the other way. There is the Transport Act. As a matter of fact there is the Electricity Act, 1947, which even lays down the salaries. I am not trying to fetter the Minister. I want to give him all the elbow-room he likes. I will withdraw this Amendment, but I will put down another Amendment on Report stage. If the noble Lord will look at the top of page 2, he will see the words
" The Generating Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such number of other members so appointed "
902
and so on. I want to get the principle in there. I do not want to fetter the Minister, but surely we have had experience. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, seems to think that this is a new venture. The Generating Board is only a reformed Central Electricity Authority, which had a full-time Chairman and a full-time Deputy Chairman. The Area Boards have full-time chairmen and full-time deputy chairmen, so I am not establishing a precedent. All I want is the principle to be written into the Bill. The noble Lord talks about letting the Minister have a free hand while the new set up gets going. Experience has taught us something. That is what the Herbert Report was for. I will not argue the case any more now. I will withdraw this Amendment, but I shall put down something on Report stage which will embody the principle without tying the Minister's hands to a specific number. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In this Amendment. I have assumed—the Minister has acknowledged that my assumption is correct—that the Minister intends that the Chairman of the Generating Board shall be full-time. My second Amendment seeks to insert the words "full-time". so that Clause 2 (4) would read:
" The Minister shall appoint one or more full-time members of the Generating Board to be deputy chairman or deputy chairmen of the Board."
I do not think it is too much to ask that the deputy chairman or chairmen should again be full-time members. There may be one; there may be two. After all, they will have to deputise for the chairman at any time, and I should think their duties will be onerous. Will the noble Lord accept this Amendment? I need not argue the case. I have already argued it on the first Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11 after (" more ") insert (" full-time ")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: In this case I am impressed with the arguments of the noble Lord, and I will certainly look at the point again, provided that, if it is ultimately accepted, it is not taken as a precedent for other Boards. I think that

903
with this particular Board there are special circumstances which would justify the noble Lord's contention.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. On that assurance, I will leave it to him to put down the necessary Amendment, and I beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.3 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY LORD GRIDLEY moved, in subsection (5) after "Generating Board" to insert: "through the agency of the Area Boards". The noble Lord said: I feel in some difficulty in dealing with my Amendments in their listed order because some of them are paving Amendments to facilitate the major Amendment which follows. I therefore suggest, if it meets with the approval of the Committee, that it might be most helpful if I dealt with the main purpose of the Amendments, after which the Minister would be able to tell us whether or not he is prepared to accept my Amendments, or the principle of them. It may shorten discussion later on. May I take it that I have the assent of noble Lords to proceed in the way I have suggested?
The point of my main Amendment is a simple but nevertheless a fundamental one; I referred to it briefly on Second Reading. Noble Lords who have read the Bill will realise that under it, as it is now drafted, a new Generating Board is to be established with powers to plan and construct power stations, both nuclear and conventional, and to operate them, and to provide Area Boards with supplies in bulk for them to distribute. The change that I am proposing is that the management, operation and maintenance of The power stations should be transferred from the Generating Board to the respective Area Boards. The Area Boards would, in effect, be the lessees of the Generating Board as lessor. This change has long been desired and would, I know, be welcomed by many of the Area Boards. Many of those who desire the change are electrical engineers and managers of long experience in company and municipal undertakings prior to nationalisation, and this is their view. Moreover, one of the objectives of the Herbert Report was to secure greater autonomy of the Area Boards. The transfer of power to station
904
operation would be a necessary step towards more true autonomy.
Your Lordships will remember that when the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor wound up the Second Reading debate on this Bill, he asked me most courteously to consider certain points which he submitted, and of course I have felt it my duty to put myself in the position to reply to those points, I hope as courteously as the Lord Chancellor treated me. The first point which he raised was that the question of the operation of the stations had been considered at great length, and he said that the Herbert Committee were firmly of opinion that generation and distribution should be kept separate. May I refer your Lordships to paragraphs 224, 225 and 226 of the Herbert Report, because the observations there have a most important bearing on the point I am developing?
The Report says, in paragraph 224:
" Under the 1947 Act, the ownership, control and running of all power stations, whether selected stations or not, passed to the Central Authority and through them to the appropriate Generation Division. The distribution undertakings of the authorised undertakers passed to the appropriate Area Boards. This was a major operation involving the division "—
mark this, if you will—
" and to some extent the duplication of staffs, and engineering, administrative and accountancy procedures. It was naturally looked upon with suspicion, or actually resented, by many officers of former authorised undertakings who became members or officers of the Area Boards. They observed with dismay the setting up of two separate organisations to do what had hitherto been done by one. They also showed a natural and human disinclination to part with the generating side of the businesses they had been operating, the side which from the engineering point of view is perhaps more interesting and absorbing than the distribution side which was left to them, a side in which commercial considerations loom more largely than engineering considerations."
Then in paragraph 225 the Report says:
" It is prima facie uneconomical to have two separate organisations operating in any given area, one dealing with generation and the other with distribution. Moreover, there is great force in the argument that the power stations exist merely to supply the Area Boards with the electricity they need to discharge their obligations to consumers, and that if the persons responsible for the commercial side were also responsible for the construction and operation of the power stations, there would at least be a incentive towards economy."
Then in the next paragraph, paragraph 226, they say:
" It is not surprising therefore, that certain Area Board Chairmen, supported by their Boards, have strongly urged upon us the desirability of amalgamating the Divisions and the Area Boards and giving the Area Boards responsibility under the general supervision under the Central Authority for constructing, or at any rate running, the power stations."
There we have the evidence supported by experienced men who have served the industry virtually all their working lives. Noble Lords will no doubt have noticed that in my Amendment I leave the ownership of stations where it is now, with the proposed new Generating Authority; but I give to the Generating Authority some measure of direction which they may give to the Area Boards—a direction which, I hope, it will seldom be necessary to exercise.
The next point of the noble and learned Viscount was that the operation of power stations by Area Boards would be subject to a considerable measure of control by the Generating Board who would retain responsibility for siting power stations in the National Grid, and that this would run counter to the main purpose of the Bill which is to advance the autonomy of the Area Boards, and that it might also impair the autonomy of the Generating Board because some of the most important functions of that Board would be carried out by Area Boards, as agents; so how could the Generating Board be held responsible for making the business pay? I should have thought that transferring responsibility for operations to Area Boards would be to make them more autonomous, which is one of the main objectives of the Herbert Report. No doubt there will have to be simple agreements entered into between Area Boards and the Generating Board, whereby the Area Board will be responsible to the Generating Board for interest and depreciation and other charges on the power stations, whether they are new or old.
The noble Viscount's next point was that it was unlikely that the boundaries of the Generating Division would remain co-terminous with those of the Area Board. He also interposed the observation that the Herbert Committee have pointed out that distribution is primarily a commercial matter while operation is an engineering matter. On the noble and
906
learned Viscount's first observation, I should have thought that new stations could only be sited in the area of one Area Board or another, as the country is, I believe, already completely covered by the twelve existing Area Boards.
The noble and learned Viscount then said he feared that there might be an excess of power station capacity and that one Authority should be responsible for the nuclear programme if it is to be carried through at the required tempo; and also that less efficiency would be achieved if Area Boards operated power stations. Speaking from long experience, I do not think anyone need fear that there will be an excess of power station capacity, for in all the years I have been engaged in the industry, I have never known of that. If anything, we have generally been short of capacity—in some years, seriously short, as we can remember from the power cuts. One must also remember that there exists in many power stations still in operation a good deal of plant which has been there for many years and is not nearly as efficient as new plant, which could replace it, would be. I am also convinced, from experience, that Area Boards could operate power stations just as efficiently as they are being run at present, if not more so, and that some economies in staff could be achieved if the two responsibilities were combined.
The next and last point which the noble and learned Viscount submitted to your Lordships was that the transfer of power stations to Area Boards would adversely affect generating staffs and that, therefore, the Generating Board would be likely to keep their best engineers and to let the Area Boards have the others. If your Lordships will look at page 71 of the Herbert Report, you will see how emphasis is put upon the excessive number of people at present employed in the existing Generating Authority, and that it was thought that economies could be made there. I believe that there are enough men engaged in controlling power stations to enable men to be taken for responsible positions for operating the power stations and that we need have no doubt whatever on that.
I think that deals with the points which the noble and learned Viscount has asked us to consider. I should like to put into the minds of your Lordships the advantages which I see if operation of power

907
stations is transferred to Area Boards. First, the new Generating Board would be free to concentrate on the planning and construction of the heavily increased programme of nuclear power stations and larger conventional units. We all know of the tremendously increased power station programme which has been announced by the noble Lord the Minister; and since we last considered this measure I have noted in the Press that plans are now contemplated, if they have not already been decided upon (for evidently they have already gone very far), for the construction of a new coal-fired station to cost £40 million, which is to have in it the largest single unit ever yet constructed in the world. That is to go to the Don Valley. If we put that and other power stations on top of the nuclear programme, surely the Generating Board will have quite enough to tackle, if not more than they can manage.
If, as the noble and learned Viscount fears, the construction work could not be carried out in accordance with the time plan, that, in itself, is a reason for relieving them of responsibility for seeing how power stations are operated. The next advantage is that Area Boards would know at any time exactly what their generating costs were. At present 70 per cent. of their costs are to be paid to the Generating Board for the bulk supply, and if the past procedure is adhered to Area Boards will not know until the end of the year, when the final account for bulk supply is submitted, what their costs per unit have been. As I understand it (the Minister will correct me if I am wrong), Area Boards have never been able to bargain upon the bulk supply accounts rendered to them; they have had to pay them, whatever the figure. Then, again, Area Boards, knowing their costs to the third decimal place, will be in a much better position for negotiating for the business of the high load consumer which every Area Board is anxious to obtain. They will be able to quote close prices, such as are required by firms operating electro-chemical processes, flour mills, cement works and the like.
If I may interpose a personal note here, I may say that it was my experience when I was managing power companies that the only way I could get business of this kind—say from one of the electro
908
chemical works, which was a peak load job, running from January 1 to December, day and night—was to quote them a very low flat rate, with a coal clause included. To get the business of the cement works and flour mills I quoted so many pence per sack covering their electric power. I got that business, which would not have been obtained in any other way. Therefore if Area Boards are to be in that position they must know from day to day what their power costs are.
There is no doubt that economies are possible by combining the staffs of the two undertakings as I suggest. At the moment—as anyone who knows how the operations of power stations and the business of selling energy is conducted will be aware—there is a certain amount of overlapping which it is most desirable to avoid.
Moreover—and this is a point to which I attach outstanding importance—posts in the Area Boards would undoubtedly become more attractive if engineering, selling and combined management experience were acquirable by those already in the industry or those wishing to make it their career. As I mentioned on Second Reading, we in this country claim that, so far as nuclear power station construction is concerned, we are well ahead of any other country in the world. Let us hope that we may retain that position. But if we are to do so, we must give men in the industry not only commercial experience in selling the energy but also generating experience. After all—and this, too, I said on Second Reading—we hope that our manufacturing firms will get nuclear power station contracts in other parts of the world because of the advanced position we shall occupy. And when men are required to conduct the engineering and commercial sides of these new undertakings overseas men from this country who have had all-round experience will be called for. But they will not be forthcoming unless we combine engineering experience with the commercial side.
Those, I think, are some, but not all, of the important advantages that would accrue from the adoption of the Amendments in my name. May I say, finally, that there is no question of Party policy involved. The principle of nationalisation under my proposals remains quite unimpaired. Ownership of power stations would not be interfered with; it would

909
remain where it is. I beg your Lordships to accept my submission that my purpose in trying to get the operation of the power stations transferred to the Area Boards is fully supported by the arguments which I have submitted. They are the result not only of my own long experience in the electrical industry but of the experience of many of those distinguished engineers who have served for many years in pre-and post-nationalisation days. I have therefore felt it my clear duty to use what influence I may have to convince your Lordships that my Amendment should have your support, and I trust the Minister will accept it. I hope that it will not be necessary for us to ask the House to divide. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, after (" Board ") insert (" through the agency of the Area Boards ").—(Lord Gridley.)
3.27 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My noble friend Lord Gridley has suggested that this Amendment marches with his Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. They all relate to the same principle, and I think the noble Lord was right in asking your Lordships to discuss them altogether. We have given the fullest consideration to the arguments which the noble Lord advanced on these matters when he was speaking in the Second Reading debate, and which he has repeated to-day. Coming from one of his experience, and one as conscientious and as level-headed as Lord Gridley, these arguments naturally command great respect. I only wish, for old friendship's sake, that they could command as much agreement.
The principle with which Lord Gridley deals is the fundamental principle of the Bill. It would be discourteous and impertinent for me to describe the principle behind these Amendments as a "wrecking" principle, but I must be allowed to go so far as to say that it is an extremely unsettling, if not a wrecking, principle. Let us look for a moment at what Lord Gridley wants to do. The effect of these Amendments would be to make the Area Boards responsible for generating as well as for distributing electricity and to leave the Generating Board
910
in charge of the construction of generating stations and of inter-area supplies through the national grid. The Generating Board's operating expenses, as well as provision for depreciation and interest on borrowed capital, would be apportioned among the Area Boards. Parts of the 1947 Act dealing with the bulk supply tariff would be repealed.
In his very interesting Second Reading speech, Lord Gridley gave his reasons, in broad, for making these proposals. What he is arguing, if I have followed him correctly—and I have listened to him with careful attention—is that since the Herbert Committee reported, a new situation has been created by the Government's latest nuclear programme, and that the Generating Board, which will have a great deal of work on its hands, should be relieved of the routine duty of operating stations once they have been run in. He argues that by putting Area Boards in charge of generation as well as of distribution. Area Board staff would gain wider experience, and that service under an Area Board would consequently attract better men, which is something we all want to do. As my noble friend Lord Gridley hinted, proposals similar to those which he has just been advancing, with much eloquence and in great detail, were made to the Herbert Committee by some Area Board chairmen. They were considered with great care, but the Committee came to the conclusion that the existing separation of generation and distribution is sound, and I think that your Lordships should bear in mind the reasons which led them to this conclusion.
First, the Committee felt that the full benefits of large-scale organisation would be achieved only if supplies were planned on a country-wide basis. If the siting of generating stations, their design and size, the pattern of transmission and the operation of the whole system were under the control of one Central Authority, the Committee thought that electricity would be cheaper than if the task of generation were parcelled out among the Area Boards. To hand over to the Area Boards either the construction or the operation of the main generating stations would, in the Committee's view, be a retrograde step. I must confess that I think that the Committee were right.
They then considered the next point. It is unlikely that the boundaries of the

911
generating divisions will remain coterminous with those of the Area Distribution Boards. This is what the Committee actually said:
" The advent of larger coal and oil-fired stations, the siting of these stations in relation to fuel and water resources, and their construction, the development of the supergrid and still more the advent of nuclear stations will more and more, as the years go by, result in a national generating and main transmission system bearing little or no relation to the present size and shape of the distribution undertakings of the Area Boards ".
I think that that is a powerful point. Even those Area Board chairmen who favoured the amalgamation of generation and distribution conceded that the siting and operation of power stations must be a national matter, and that if Area Boards were in charge of generation—which is where my noble friend's argument must inevitably lead—they would have to conform to the Central Authority's directions not only about siting and planning but also about load control. The Committee thought that this would lead to an even greater degree of central control than exists to-day.
The distribution of electricity, for which the Area Boards are responsible, is primarily a commercial matter, while the construction and operation of power stations is primarily an engineering matter. In the Committee's view, the Area Boards should be free to concentrate on the commercial distribution of electricity and the Generating Authority on economical generation and supply in bulk. The amalgamation of generating divisions with Area Boards would not result (and I listened carefully to my noble friend's argument) in such economies in manpower as would the amalgamation of generating divisions with one another.
It is clear that the Herbert Committee were against transferring to the Area Boards the operation of main power stations, either with or without the responsibility for construction. The reasons which they gave—and they argued them carefully—have not been invalidated by anything that has happened since, by the increase in the nuclear programme; indeed I would submit to my noble friend that they have been strengthened. If Area Boards were in charge of generating, they would have to put up with a degree of central control which they would certainly find unwelcome, and which would nullify
912
the Bill's object of putting the Boards on their mettle by giving them commercial autonomy. If, on the other hand, the Area Boards succeeded in gaining a large say in the siting of power stations, it is likely that the stations would not always be sited to the best national advantage—a situation which arose in the days of the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board, as my noble friend will remember. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out during the Second Reading debate, if the country's electricity needs are to be met with the utmost economy, and without the installation of more capacity than is necessary, and if the nuclear programme is to proceed at the requisite speed, there must be one body responsible for providing an efficient coordinated and economic system of bulk supply for England and Wales, as laid down in the clause we are discussing. Under my noble friend's proposals, responsibility would be divided, and divided responsibility would make for inefficiency.
As to staff, it may be that engineers transferred to the service of Area Boards would be adversely affected in different degrees, according to whether the area contained many power stations or few. This is problematical, but I think that if they were adversely affected, resentment would undoubtedly result. I believe that it would be quite wrong to split up the engineering staff of the Generating Board. Another point which occurred to me, as I listened to my noble friend, is that, human nature being what it is, the Generating Board would probably retain the best engineers, and let the Area Boards have the others. We have all experienced this attitude in other walks of life. If that happened, the operating efficiency of the industry would suffer and the spread of nuclear experience among generating engineers would be retarded.
I have gone into this matter in some detail, and I apologise to your Lordships for so doing; but it seems to me to be a fundamental point. We discussed it on Second Reading, and my noble friend has now expanded his proposals in a most persuasive speech. Of course there is something in what he says, because anything put forward by the noble Lord, with his experience, must have powerful arguments behind it; but I have drawn up the balance sheet, and I think that

913
what my noble friend proposes would, in the end, be wrong and not at all in the interests which we all have at heart. I hope that he will consider carefully the arguments which I put forward, and about which my noble friend the Minister of Power, after giving the matter careful consideration, feels strongly, and that he will consider that although his arguments contain much which, on the surface, is attractive, the Amendment which he has so persuasively argued would not be fundamentally to the interest of the industry and of the country.
LORD SALTOUN: There is one difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, does not seem to me to face. I may have misapprehended him, and if so he will be able to correct me. The Area Boards are charged with selling, and it seems to me that they cannot sell unless they can quote; and they cannot quote unless they know their costs at every stage of the manufacture. It seems to me that the point of my noble friend Lord Gridley was that divorcing the commercial side of the Area Boards from the generating side, puts a handicap on the salesmanship of the Boards. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to answer that point now. It is one that will have to be considered.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, may I say that I think the machinery which is now provided is quite adequate to deal with that problem. It is envisaged that the Area Boards will be in consultation with the Electricity Council, and so will the Generating Board, so that any proposal to amend the bulk supplies will be immediately known to the Area Boards before it is settled. I do not think that this matter presents any difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun (the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong), that the Area Boards will buy in bulk from the Generating Board, so that the Area Boards will know their buying cost. Then they will have to base their selling price upon their buying cost. In other words, they are the intermediary. It is quite simple.
LORD SALTOUN: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, because it enables me to make my point quite clear. Salesmanship to-day, as I
914
understand it, is based on an intimate knowledge of manufacturing costs. A salesman who knows his job and who is trusted by his firm has a certain degree of responsibility; he can cut prices to certain customers and can often create a market which he would not otherwise have. The fact that this is all to be done in a cast-iron way, supplies being secured at cast-iron prices from headquarters, seems to me to militate against the enthusiasm and responsibility of the members of the Area Boards, because they will become merely negotiators and will cease to be salesmen, or what I call salesmen.
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord will find that in most great businesses which expand and become household words the system of allowing great bargaining latitude has long since died. It is the custom of those firms to have fixed prices, upon which the public may rely, until they announce a general change in price.
LORD GRIDLEY: May I deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, by referring him to page 59 of the Herbert Report? The Report there says:
" Under the present system, Area Boards have to take what the Central Authority give them at the price which the Authority fix."
That price, covering a year's supply in bulk, is not known until the end of the financial year. In those circumstances, how can those responsible for selling—they may have to quote a very cut price, and perhaps take a little risk on it in order to get, say, a 10, 000 h. p. customer—take the risk of quoting a price, when they do not know the ultimate cost they will have to pay for current? In response to the observations made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I was sorry to hear him refer to my Amendment as being in the nature of a "wrecking" Amendment. I feel rather resentful about that, because no one who was in favour of private enterprise and had to accept the nationalisation of this industry has been a stronger supporter of all those who have tried to make a good job of it under nationalisation than I have. I would not make any suggestion that might in any way impair that good understanding.
LORD MANCROFT: I hope my noble friend will forgive me. I went out of my way to say that it was not

915
a wrecking Amendment. I described it—and I have the words here—as "an extremely unsettling Amendment". And that, whether he intended it or not, in my opinion it is.
LORD GRIDLEY: Then I misunderstood the noble Lord and I apologise for not having heard him correctly. This major Amendment of mine, to which the noble Lord has replied, is fundamental only in that it transfers the operation of power stations back to where it was for many years. Under the Central Electricity Authority, the power stations were operated in the areas, and the system all worked fairly smoothly. In fact, the system proposed in this Bill has created unrest in the Area Board organisations which, I warn noble Lords, will be accentuated if the Bill goes through without this alteration. The supply of power outside the areas by one Area Board to another still remains under the control where it now is, and, therefore, that argument goes by the board. I shall be most disappointed if fresh thought is not given to this Amendment. There is such a poor attendance to-day—many noble Lords who would like to know something about this industry are unable to be here—that there is not much encouragement for me to ask the Committee to divide on the Amendment. However, I would solemnly utter this warning: that, unless this change is made, there will remain a great deal of disquiet amongst members of the Area Boards and their principal officers. That will not be good for the future of the industry. It was for that reason, among others, that I was most anxious to have this change made.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.48 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (7) (a), to leave out all words from and including "purposes" and to substitute, "use by the Boards. ". The noble Lord said: This is about the only Amendment on the Marshalled List which, by any stretch of imagination, any noble Lord could say was politically controversial; and although it proved to be so in another place I have put down the Amendment to invite your Lordships to consider it from another angle. I do not intend to stamp over ground so well trodden already, but I cannot understand
916
some of the arguments put up in support of the change of heart of the Government right in the middle of this Bill, to take out the power to manufacture given in the original Bill to the Generating Board and the Area Boards.
I propose to quote the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and I am sure he will not mind my doing so in his absence; I thought he would be here, but even Lord Chancellors may have a holiday sometimes, I suppose. I cannot understand why a Conservative Government should depart from what I have always thought was one of the main planks of Conservative policy; that is to say, competition. I always thought that they wanted a competitive world in which it was "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost"; at least, that is what they have always said. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and I know that that is precisely what they do not want; at least, they act in a completely different way. As one big industrialist said to me many years ago when I inquired why they all "ganged up" in price rings: "My dear fellow, why should we sharpen our swords upon each other when there is the good old British public to sharpen them upon?"
That has been one of the troubles with British industry which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is now hoping—and I am sure we all share his hope—is going to be a thing of the past with the coming into force of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I would not pour cold water on that Act for one moment, because I am an ardent supporter of it. It was once said, "Wait and see"; and I will wait and see what will be the effect. I am also waiting to see what will be the effect of this clause. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack put forward some of the reasons why the right to manufacture had been removed from the Bill. I think noble Lords should get clear in their minds that the right to manufacture and the right to sell are two totally different things. The Central Electricity Authority never had the power to sell. They had the power to manufacture for themselves, which is a totally different thing. If the Generating Board and the Area Boards were going out to manufacture and then sell in competition with private industry I could understand the argument—I might not happen to believe in it because

917
I happen to be a believer in competition, but I would understand it. But the power in this Bill originally—and my Amendment seeks to put it back—was to give them power to manufacture only for, their own requirements.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 203 (No. 61), col. 231]:
" If you give these wide ancillary powers in my view you are going to distract attention from the main activity and in that way lessen its efficiency."
Would the noble Lord say that that has happened in the case of the Central Electricity Authority, who for ten years have had the power to manufacture? They have never exercised it, but it was always there as an insurance, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said on the Second Reading. The noble and learned Viscount went on:
" Competition, should it arise between the nationalised industry and the plant manufacturers, might well be unfair competition, because the nationalised industry can obtain its capital on easier terms."
I suppose the inference there is that it has a Treasury guarantee. But the logical conclusion to this Bill will be that in time the Area Boards will be completely autonomous and raising capital without a Treasury guarantee.
What is going to happen then? I do not suppose the noble Lord himself envisages this, tout there is nothing to stop it. In his Second Reading speech he said that they were to have complete financial autonomy. Two people can use that word and mean completely different things. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor read some extracts from speeches made in another place to controvert my argument of the danger of ultimate financial autonomy. The noble and learned Viscount's words were [Col. 233]:
" I do not want to push the argument too far, but I thought that, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said on this question … he would like me to remind him of that so that he could consider it."
But not one of the quotations the noble and learned Viscount gave, I would dare swear, came from anybody who thought that this Bill could eventually lead to the complete break-up of a nationalised industry. If you are going to allow all the Area Boards complete financial autonomy, and eventually to go to the market and raise their own capital on the best terms they can get in the market,
918
you are going to have twelve industries and not one, because eventually it means the break-up of the Electricity Council and the present conception of a nationalised industry.
I should have thought that you would give these Area Boards and the Generating Board the power, if they want it, to manufacture but not to sell. My Amendment reads, "use by the Boards." I suppose the truth is that you are tightening up the closed shop for the electrical manufacturing industry, so that the largest buyer from that industry will be the Generating Board and the Area Boards. Therefore, the hands of these Boards are tied behind their back, and we are relying upon the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to see that they are not overcharged. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in the same debate said [Col. 231]:
" Fourthly, the manufacturing industry, if it is to succeed in export markets often with small profit margins, must have a secure basis of home demand."
So I suppose really you are ensuring the home demand for the electrical manufacturing industry by prohibiting the Generating Board and the Area Boards from having a self-defensive weapon of manufacture themselves.
I cannot quite understand why that is wanted, because if that is going to be the principle, perhaps in the future we shall have another Bill to reform the British Transport Commission, whereby the British Transport Commission will not be allowed to manufacture its locomotives, wagons or passenger coaches. There is as much logic in that argument as there is in this—that you must preserve the home market for the electrical manufacturing industry by fettering their chief purchaser. I do not think that is good business; I think it is thoroughly bad business. I am not arguing on any political grounds at the present moment. I think it would be a stimulus to have some competition, because, after all, I suppose the whole of the British electrical manufacturing industry, with its cross- capitalisation, is in very few hands.
Other noble Lords may raise other arguments, but that is my argument. In the last analysis, if what the noble Lord said on Second Reading ever comes true, you will have the complete autonomy of the Area Boards. That is a subject I shall discuss a little more fully later on

919
when we come to another Amendment. I think this is a retrograde step. I will not blame the Minister, because I believe the seeds of fright were sown in the Department before he ever arrived there, so I will absolve him from all responsibility for this, but I think that this was purely a political decision. It was not arrived at on any of the grounds that have been stated. It was purely that the Department and the then Minister were frightened by the pressure put on them. I think that on good, sound, commercial grounds your Lordships should accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out from (" for ") to the end of line 38 and insert (" use by the Boards.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.1 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. This is really a very practical matter. Everybody knows that the electricity industry is highly integrated. I can recall that many years ago, when I was largely responsible for an undertaking, we were constantly met by rings of manufacturers. Cables were always squeezed. As soon as one asked for tenders, by some miracle one got some eleven tenders, all precisely the same. We were sometimes driven to go abroad for machinery, because of this pressure. I should have thought that, if we wanted a cheap and abundant supply of electricity, in the interests not only of consumers but of business, we would see that the generating part of the industry was not made a milch cow of private interests—because that is all it amounts to.
It is said: "But you have the monopoly of the business." That is all right but that is closing the door after the horse has been stolen. The essence of this provision is preventive; you have a weapon kept in reserve. I am amazed at the suggestion that we must allow home consumers, whether industrial or domestic, to be exploited in order to gain markets overseas. That argument can be carried a very long way. You can put up the prices at home, but that will not help you with competition overseas. The fact of the matter is that in the Committee stage in another place perfectly sound arguments were put up by Ministers against this provision in the Bill, and then
920
we had an abject surrender at the next stage. I wish that they could still have had the first Lord Hailsham, whom I can remember having to withstand these vested interests, instead of the present Ministers, who have caved in, as so often happens in this Parliament, to vested interests.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to absolve me from any responsibility for this decision but I am not really in need of his absolution nor do I deserve it, because I took the decision. He mentioned the case of the railways. I have had bitter experience of the way in which this power to manufacture operated when certain of our industries were seriously affected by its wrong use. Coming to the supply industry, I think it is quite impossible to envisage the supply industry, which is definitely a technical job of a different kind, going in for the manufacture of electrical plant, and so on.
In fact, the noble Lord goes further in his proposal. The Electricity Act, 1947, gives power to manufacture electrical plant and electrical fittings. The noble Lord now proposes that they should have power to manufacture anything required by the Generating Board or the Area Boards, which is even wider. The noble Lord has acknowledged that this was a power which was never used. I do not think that there was ever any need to use it, because to use a power of this kind meant an enormous undertaking, and there were other means to their hand. In fact, the Central Electricity Authority put other people into the business in order properly to protect their interests. And now this Government has added the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, under which price agreements between manufacturers may be reviewed by the Restrictive Practices Court and annulled so far as they are found to be against the public interest. I suggest that that provides adequate protection for the nationalised industry.
The noble Lord has mentioned other reasons why it would be unfortunate if a nationalised industry ever went in for this manufacture. The home industry needs the orders of the electrical supply industry here, and it should have them. It is our duty to see that the business is on fair and proper terms. I did not find that this power meant anything at all. I felt it was unnecessary, and, therefore,

921
it is proposed to withdraw it. I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord mind enlightening the Committee? I think he used the words (hat one of the weapons which the Central Electricity Authority had was that they "put other people into the business ". Would he mind enlarging on that and saying how that worked?
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord would find that they came to the conclusion that in the boiler field, for example, there was not enough competition for capacity, and they introduced fresh boiler-makers, or they got people to take up boiler-making, so that they had another source of supply.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has really made our case, as I thought he would when I asked him the question, but at this stage of the proceedings I do not think it is worth while dividing the Committee upon this matter. We have stated our case frankly and I think it should be stated that what the Central Electricity Authority has done, the Generating Board may do in the future. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that; and we trust, with the noble Lord, that that power, allied to the Restrictive Practices Act, will bear out his good wishes and hopes. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Establishment, constitution and functions of Electricity Council
(2) The Electricity Council shall be constituted as follows:—

(a) the Minister shall appoint a person to be the chairman of the Council, and shall appoint two other persons to be deputy chairmen of the Council, and may (in addition to the members so appointed) appoint as members of the Council such number of other persons, not exceeding three, as he may from time to time determine;

(b) three other members shall be the person for the time being holding office as chairman of the Generating Board, and such other members of that Board as may be designated by that Board: and

(4) Without prejudice to any other functions assigned or transferred to the Electricity Council as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section,
922
it shall as from the vesting date be the duty of that Council—

(a) to advise the Minister on questions affecting the electricity supply industry and matters relating thereto; and

(b) to promote and assist the maintenance and development by Electricity Boards in England and Wales of an efficient, coordinated and economical system of electricity supply.

4.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a):
" one of whom shall be a person having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, the organisation of workers; ".
The noble Lord said: Here is an Amendment which I hope sincerely the noble Lord will accept. If your Lordships will look at Clause 11, you will see that one of the strange things is that it deals with
" Machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment ".
The duty of setting up the joint consultation machinery is vested in the Electricity Council. The Electricity Council is the only electricity body which need not have included in its number
" a person having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, the organisation of workers."
I cannot understand why that is, because it has the responsibility of doing that very thing where first-class advice is required. The Generating Board must have one of its number so qualified—it is so specified. I think I am right in saying that under the 1947 Act the Area Boards must have one of their members in this category. Yet the Electricity Council, which has the main job of national wage negotiations and the setting up of a conciliatory machinery need not. That is my simple argument. My case for providing that one of the number should have the qualifications referred to in my Amendment is, I think, a strong one, and I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.11 p.m.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, although I do not accept his proposal, I should not like him to think that I am at all out of accord with the spirit

923
behind it. I think that, in connection with appointments to this Council we should always consider the representatives of organised workers and those who have shown capacity in the organisation of workers. Under the 1947 Act, members of the Central Authority and the Area Boards have to be appointed from persons with experience in such fields as electrical matters, industry, commerce, finance or the organisation of workers. But I think it would be a mistake to try to specify that there must be a particular number with particular qualifications, because I do not know where that would lead. Other branches of equal competence would claim that they also had a right to representation on these Boards. I would much rather rely upon the general statement that the members should be chosen from certain categories of people, rather than that a particular appointment must be from a particular category. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that reply.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the argument of the noble Lord is valid, why does he not apply it to subsection (3), which says:
" All the members of the Generating Board shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, the generation or supply of electricity, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers."
Why put those words there, when the Generating Board is relieved by the Electricity Council of all those overall responsibilities for wage negotiation, and the Electricity Council is not to have the same advantage as the Generating Board? If the Minister says, "Well, I do not want to specify the qualifications of all the members of the Electricity Council," he may have right upon his side. But one of the Council's main tasks is the national negotiation of wages and conditions of employment. That is not a task of the Generating Board. The Generating Board has an expressly specified individual in the organisation of workers, and the Electricity Council has not. Surely there cannot be logic in this argument. Will the noble Lord think again about it?
LORD MILLS: This is rather a complicated subject. It does not always follow that a particular category is the
924
right category to adopt in dealing with a specific subject. As I said earlier, in answer to another question by the noble Lord, so much depends upon what people the chairman himself thinks he needs to deal with a particular problem. I should be quite willing, however, to think further upon the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am most grateful. I hope the noble Lord will. There are no Party politics in this matter. If the Generating Board, which has not to deal with labour problems, must include a member specified as having experience of the organisation of workers, when the Electricity Council is to be denied it, I am afraid that the logic of it escapes me. However, as the noble Lord is to look at it again, I will, for the time being, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) to insert:
" (b) the chairman, deputy chairmen and at least one of the other persons shall be full-time members; "
The noble Lord said: Once again we have a point about the Electricity Council and its composition. The Council, amongst other things, has the responsibility of arranging for the raising of all finance. According to this clause, it is to consist of twenty-one members. It is to have a chairman, two deputy chairmen, and three other members appointed by the Minister. Sitting on it, there is to be the chairman of the Generating Board. There are to be two other members from the Generating Board designated by the Board—which is significant—and it is to include also the twelve chairmen of the Area Boards. That makes a total of twenty-one people. In my Amendment I suggest that the chairman and the deputy chairmen, and at least one of the other members shall be full-time members.
I do not want to go over all the arguments again that I raised when we discussed the virtues of full-time membership. Might I ask the noble Lord this question: does he intend, without putting it in the Bill, that the chairman of the Electricity Council shall be a full-time member?
LORD MILLS: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I leave that out: I agree with that. Will he also give consideration to saying that the deputy chairmen also shall be full-time members? I think they should be; and we should say so in this Bill. In my view, we should certainly specify in the Bill that there should be a proportion of full-time members. I am quite willing to leave to the noble Lord what is the proportion. I have another Amendment down to stipulate that the Area Board chairmen shall be full-time members. If we go on in the way that this Bill is worded at present, they will all be part-time amateurs. I do not want to see this great industry with all its chief Boards—the Generating Board, the Electricity Council or Area Boards—run by part-time amateurs; because they must of necessity be very old to be able to afford to be part-time.
When the recent appointments of the lay members of the Restrictive Trade Practices Courts were announced, amazement was publicly expressed that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could find only one under sixty-five. What a sad commentary! Although to the noble Lord and myself, sixty-five is not very old, many people think it is. It may be that to sit in a semi-judicial post on a Restrictive Trade Practices Court one must have reached a very mature age, so as to have acquired knowledge of all the vices of industry; but that does not hold in regard to the active and virile men we want on these Boards. I should like them to contain a majority of men under fifty, with the 100 per cent. virility of youth—men who have not yet got to their peak, and who do not look upon jobs like this as a nice pastime in the declining years of their life, to save them the trouble of making the newspapers last till lunchtime. Dynamic energy is what is needed in all these posts. I suppose the noble Lord and I would agree that one of the tragedies of life is that it is not until one has reached an age when energy flags that one acquires the wisdom and experience necessary to do a job properly. But that is a slight digression. I want to see in this. Bill, and in this particular clause, a provision that the chairman and deputy chairmen shall be full-time members. I am willing to withdraw this Amendment if the noble Lord will think about it as he is going to think about the others;
926
but I hope he will concede the point that both deputy chairmen should be full-time members.
4.26 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I raise a point upon this clause? In the past, for his final advice on electricity matters, the Minister has looked to bodies which have been either independent or expert, or, in most cases, both. Now he is going to rely upon an Electricity Council to supervise the industry generally, and the composition of that Council is left extraordinarily vague. I quite agree with the noble Lord the Minister that, on the whole, one gets the best result by not fettering a Minister's discretion too far, and by assuming that when he comes to make appointments he will be under the criticism of Parliament and will make proper appointments because he will get into far too much trouble otherwise. The Electricity Council, however, is composed in a somewhat puzzling way, and, so far as voting is concerned, can be dominated by the chairmen of the Area Boards. The function of the Council ought to be to take a quite independent and also, I should have thought, an expert view on the way the Boards were discharging their functions. From that point of view, the Council does not seem to me altogether ideally composed. Perhaps that lends point to the argument that the chairman and deputy chairmen, who will not be members of either the Generating Board or the Area Boards, should at any rate be people of great standing, and whole-time, so that they may exert that degree of supervision which the Council is supposed to exercise. Perhaps the Minister would bear in mind those considerations, among other points, before finally deciding what he does.
LORD MILLS: I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, something of my plans, in order that he may appreciate my difficulty. He generalised (that is always rather dangerous) in saying that if we have part-time men we shall get only old men who are finished and who want a part-time occupation. That is not always so. In this particular case. I wanted as deputy chairman a young and virile part-time man who, would eventually, I hoped, qualify for the position of chairman.

927
He could not come at the moment as a deputy chairman, because the pay would not be as much as he is getting now. That illustrates some of the problems with which one is faced, and how inoperative one would be rendered if one were fettered in the way proposed by the noble Lord. I will certainly think about this proposal, as I will think about all these problems, but I dislike it because I do not like its rigidity. I have gone to the trouble of giving a precise case to illustrate the difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and thank him for taking the Committee into his confidence. The only fear I have is that by the time this promising "star" qualifies to receive a salary commensurate with what he is now getting, he will be so old that he will have lost all his virility. But I shall enlarge on that in a later Amendment. I am delighted with the noble Lord's suggestion. I do not want to tie his hands, but I believe that the fears of many of us have been well voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. We do want men who are going to give the whole of their time to this most important industry. If the noble Lord can fit his desire—which is also mine—that he shall have elbow room with my desire that some provision shall go into this Bill stipulating that these shall be full-time appointments, I shall be happy, on the noble Lord's kind undertaking to reconsider the matter, to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.29 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (b):
" including the extension of suppliers to rural areas."
The noble Lord: I have put this Amendment down because I want to tempt the noble Lord, if I can, to inform us on the future policy of the supply of electricity to rural areas. I voiced my fears on Second Reading and I am not going to make another Second Reading speech. The reserve funds which were originated to equalise tariffs have been used to help the electrification of farms. I believe I am right in saying that the electrification of farms qualifies for a 30 per cent. or
928
35 per cent. grant from the Ministry of Agriculture. But I must confess that I am not thinking altogether of farms and farmers; I am thinking of others who live in the rural areas. I tell the noble Lord quite frankly that in my opinion the charges made by the Central Electricity Authority for the electrification of houses in the rural districts have been scandalously high. If we are going to make it so expensive to enjoy the amenities of civilisation in rural areas, what we shall do will be to drive people to herd in towns. I could quote a number of cases which have been given to me as the result of inquiries which I have made as to the cost of running a supply of electrical energy to private houses and to small holdings. In these cases, the cost, in my opinion, has been perfectly scandalous.
I think we should have equalisation in this matter. I want to know what is the attitude of the noble Lord. Does he express agreement with me? Does he, too, feel that the cost of the electrification of the countryside should be spread over all concerned, and not be put practically 100 per cent. upon the individual who has the supply? I have previously cited the case of the Post Office. I can also cite the case of the telephone. If a telephone subscriber had to pay the whole of the cost of running the telephone wire a mile and then had to give a guarantee that he would pay so much a year in charges for telephone calls, the Post Office would not install very many telephones. One of our great troubles to-day arises from the cost of transport in the rural areas. That is why the British Transport Commission has—to use the old Scots phrase—to "make the fat fry the lean". In other words, a lot of the fares in rural areas are subsidised from the fares paid in the big towns. If one had to pay to British Railways the real cost of being transported on a branch line it would sometimes be as much as 3s. or 4s. a mile.
If the noble Lord does not agree with the principle of sharing the load nationally, perhaps he will tell us. I think that it should be shared nationally here. But we have gone away from that principle, and now we have areas. I shall be happy to hear something from the noble Lord as to what is his policy in this connection at the present time. In my view, the cost of electrifying the

929
dwelling of the individual who does not happen to be a farmer and who lives in a rural district is terrific and out of all proportion to what it should be. If this sort of thing is continued we shall not get these amenities provided in the countryside, and I take it that one of the principal policies of Her Majesty's Government is that the amenities of the rural areas should be increased so as to discourage people from flocking into the towns where they get the cheapest prices because of mass distribution. Those are the reasons for which I have put down this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Wise may like to say something upon it purely from the point of view of the farmer. I have put it down in the interests of the ordinary rural dweller. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us what his policy in this relation is to be in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.34 p.m.
LORD WISE: I should like to occupy a few moments in supporting this Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I may do it from another point of view altogether. My chief anxiety is that in this Bill there should be some definite reference to the electrification of the rural areas. So far as I can see, the Bill makes little reference to rural England. In one clause there is mention of the exploration of land for the purpose of putting up either generating stations or electricity supply lines. There is also a reference to agriculture in regard to the Consultative Committee representation. So far as I can see, those two are the only references to the question of supply to rural areas. Therefore, although the rural areas may be covered by the expression "England and Wales" in this clause, if it is intended that recommending some quicker method of bringing electricity to the country villages should be one of the main purposes of the Consultative Committee, I hope that it will definitely be put into the Bill that such is the case.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has referred to various difficulties and to charges. He has mentioned the telephone. I can refer to a case which I think is really worse than the one he cited on Second Reading. Some years ago I had occasion to ask for my telephone
930
to be moved from my office in town to my residence in the country. The Post Office charged me 25s. for that transfer. I asked the electricity supply people at that time to bring me a supply of electricity from the village to my house—about two miles distant. The estimated charge for that was £1,200. This was ridiculous, and I have put in my own supply.
During last year—and this has a bearing on my reference to the quickening of the provision of supplies to rural Britain—I had occasion to ask the Electricity Board (I need not mention the area) to supply me with electricity. Very kindly, the official concerned said: "You do not want any extra facilities or prior facilities as compared with anyone else?" I replied that I did not. I was then told that it would be five years before I could hope for a supply of electricity in my residence. The outcome was that the electricity supply eventually came from my own land. There was a transformer at another house which I owned about half a mile away. So, in order to bring electricity to my own residence, I undertook the work myself. I cut poles in my own woods because I could not get any from the Electricity Board or the Post Office. I put in my own poles and I put in my own supply of electricity—I mean, of course, that I did it by contract. I saved myself, I should say, quite £200 in that job of bringing a supply of electricity half a mile across the countryside.
As recently as Saturday last I attended a conference of agricultural workers, and there was a proposal concerning this matter on the agenda for consideration by the workers (I was not present myself when the matter came up). The paragraph on the agenda expressed the workers' desire that the provision of electricity to the various villages around them would be speeded up and that the process should be extended throughout the country. I know that the Electricity Board has brought electricity to many thousands of farms and I pay tribute to it for so doing. There are other people in the countryside, in addition to the farmers, and I hope that there will be a directive to the authority concerned that particular attention should be paid to the rural districts. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to the Amendment

931
and see that some reference is inserted in the Bill to help those who live in rural England.
EARL BATHURST: I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I assure the noble Lord that the cases which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has mentioned, are widespread all over the country, and I believe that if this innocuous but important Amendment can be accepted, it will be a directive to the somewhat nebulous Council, which has been set up to direct the electricity industry, to make sure that the Council consider the rural users of electric light. I think that if the Amendment could be accepted, it would also be an example of Parliament moving in some measure to control the destinies of, and to give a policy lead to, a nationalised industry. Speaking on behalf not only of farmers but also of those who have small country houses, and of those who hope to set up their homes in the country, I hope that the Council will consider it their duty to supply electricity at a cheap cost to rural users. Therefore, I beg to support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MILLS: I am sure that we are all in sympathy with what this proposal is trying to achieve. Under the Bill, the Electricity Council have a duty to
" promote and assist the maintenance and development by Electricity Boards in England and Wales of an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply ".
There is nothing in Clause 3 to prevent the Electricity Council from promoting rural electrification, which clearly must be an element in an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply. The rural load, as your Lordships know, has different characteristics from the urban and industrial loads. It thus promotes a more economical use of generating capacity and so tends to reduce the maximum demand charge which the Area Boards pay for electricity in bulk. Moreover, the Boards are required under the 1947 Act to secure as far as practicable the extension of rural electrification.
Their programme, with its target of 85 per cent. of farms to be connected by 1963 (by 1968 in the South Wales, South Western and Merseyside and North
932
Wales Areas) is ahead of schedule, as I have already informed your Lordships. The remaining 15 per cent. of farms after the target has been reached will represent a problem to be solved when it arises, but there is no reason to expect any slowing-down of the programme when the Boards become financially autonomous. Rural electrification is a problem to which the Electricity Council will give their attention from time to time. Among other things, they will have to make recommendations to the Minister, under paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule to the Bill, for distributing the central reserve fund among the Generating Board and the Area Boards, and the Minister has agreed that they should be asked to give consideration to any Board who can make out a case for special treatment because it is faced with special problems, including rural electrification.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me if I was in agreement with the idea of a universal charge. I have already assured the noble Lord on a previous occasion that I agree in principle that this is an end to which the Boards should work, and that it is a desirable end which should be attained as soon as possible. If I accepted this Amendment, I am afraid that it would be interpreted, or could be interpreted, as requiring the Electricity Council to attach more importance to rural electrification than to other equally pressing problems, such as system reinforcement. For that reason, I consider that the Amendment is not a suitable one. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, will be content with what I have said in regard to rural electrification, and that noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wish I could say that the noble Lord has given a satisfactory answer. It may be satisfactory to his advisers, but I cannot say that it is satisfactory when I take into consideration that there is no more pressing problem in this country than the supply of electrical energy to rural areas. When the noble Lord says that if he accepts this Amendment, that might give colour to the suspicion that the Boards would have to give preference to rural electrification over any other question, my reply is that that is what I want.

933
What is the object of putting an atomic power station in Somerset—to send electricity to the industrial north? After thinking of one or two reasons, the Government now say that they want to put these stations in places that are short of coal. To give electricity to the rural areas?—surely that is one of the reasons.
What I want the noble Lord to do is to impress on the Electricity Council that it is no good generating electricity and then, as my noble friend Lord Wise instanced, charging £1,200 to run an electricity supply to some point. My noble friend may be a wealthy man, but I could not afford to pay £1,000. My Area Board thought that I was going to pay £100 to run a supply line 100 yards, but they had two or three different opinions about that later on. We want to help the un-subsidised individual, the man who is not a farmer and getting 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. back. Perhaps for the first time in history, if my memory serves me aright, the noble Lord has the chance of putting in a nationalisation Bill specific directions to the Area Boards about how they shall spend their reserve funds, to build up which they have a statutory duty. Would the noble Lord care to give me an undertaking that one of the first directions he will give to the Area Boards is that the, cases mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wise and by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and thousands of others, will be absorbed in the all-over price structure, with the principle of which the noble Lord has just said he agrees? I can assure him that he will be hunted on this question for quite a long time, because this is one of the crying disgraces of the electrical supply of this country. To get a cheap and efficient electrical supply you have to live in the very centre of an urban district; and out into the countryside the shortage of electricity is almost as bad as the shortage of water in some of our villages and hamlets.
I was hoping that the noble Lord would accept this Amendment as an indication to the Electricity Council that their duty shall be
" to promote and assist the maintenance and development by Electricity Boards in England and Wales of an efficient, co-ordinated "—
that is the important word—
" and economical system of electricity supply including the extension of supplies to rural areas."
934
I think the noble Lord would earn a lot of kudos (and he has a lot of leeway to make up in kudos over the electrical supply of the country) in the rural areas by accepting this Amendment. May I ask him if he would like to think about it again between now and the next stage of the Bill?
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, I should not like to think about it; again. I think anyone reading what I had to say about it would appreciate how much the proper extension to rural areas is in the minds of all concerned with the electrical supply industry. Nor would I accept that they have not done a good job in that direction. They have made continual progress. I am sure that if the noble Lord had been advocating anything else, such as system reinforcement or maintenance, he would have been just as vehement that that was the thing that really mattered. I accept the importance of rural electrification, but I cannot include it as an item without specifying everything else of importance, which is quite impossible, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I refuse to consider the question further.
4.53 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: If what the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said when he moved his Amendment which was rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is right, it would seem that this Bill may mean that the new Authority will lose all support from the highest grades of men working in the Electricity Authority. By rejecting, or agreeing only to consider further, the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has moved with regard to the organisation of labour, possibly this measure will be completely unpopular with the lower grades. And if, further, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, rejects this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, it would appear that all support for this measure will be lost from the people who are going to use electricity. If the situation continues—and there is no reason why it should not—whereby electricity cannot be laid on to rural areas, apart from farms (the percentage of farms laid on has nothing to do with it; it is the mile or two beyond the farm buildings in which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and many noble Lords who are not here and, I think, subjects of Her Majesty all

935
over the country are interested), then I think people will go for small generating plants of their own and will not use the new developments in electricity that would appear to be forthcoming round the corner. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to consider this Amendment further, in order that some part of this Bill may be popular with some people in the country. I should still support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in any measure he cares to take in regard to his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Mills, can have it his way if he likes, but we shall return to this point on many occasions. I would not for one moment detract from the praise, if praise is necessary, of the Central Electricity Authority for electrifying thousands and thousands of farms; but what I would impress on the noble Lord is that every one of those schemes was subsidised, and the Government paid over one-third of the cost. If every one of those thousands of farms electrified under a subsidised scheme had had to be paid for at the full price, I wonder how many would have been electrified. When the noble Lord talks about setting up a privileged class, I suppose that in your Lordships' House I should be very unpopular if I hinted that a 35 per cent. subsidy is not an under-privilege. However, I shall not ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment, because, after the strong expressions we have heard, I am sure we shall return to the matter again. Perhaps we shall be able to persuade the Consultative Committees in some of the rural areas to do something about it, although my hope is not very great. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.57 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
". The Area Boards shall consist of a chairman, deputy chairman and not less than four or more than six other members. The chairman, deputy chairman and not less than three of the other members shall be full-time members."
The noble Lord said: This is the last Amendment on the question of full-time members of the Boards, and here we
936
come to Area Boards. I want written into the Bill the established practice that:
" Area Boards shall consist of a chairman, deputy chairman and not less than four or more than six other members."
That is the present constitution of an Area Board under the 1947 Act, and I have put this Amendment down for the sole purpose of adding to that:
" The chairman, deputy chairman and not less than three of the other members shall be full-time members."
The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the chairman and deputy chairman of the Area Boards are the only full-time members appointed at present. Think of the huge job the Area Boards have to do in the future if this autonomy comes about. They will be gigantic concerns. I should have thought that it was more necessary than ever to strengthen those Area Boards by having a proportion of full-time members other than the chairman and deputy chairman. I do not want to waste time by going over the arguments, but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether he would be good enough to garner this into the bag of points he is going to reconsider, and then I am willing to see the results of the reconsideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: I will give further consideration to this Amendment, because it is in line with the other matters we have been discussing, although I should not like to hold out much hope, as the proposal still has the fundamental objection that it is too rigid. It fetters the Minister far too much in making the best appointments he can to these Boards.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It does not fetter the Minister if he accepts it in the spirit in which I present it to your Lordships, because at the present time the chairman and deputy chairman are full-time members, and I am quite willing not to specify any particular number of other members. I am perfectly willing to say, "And the other members shall be part- or full-time as appointed by the Minister". So long as I can get the principle of full-time members in, I am satisfied. I do not think I shall be quite so badly off by leaving it to the noble Lord. He has not given me much

937
this afternoon, but perhaps he will as we go on. I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.1 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
" .The terms and conditions of the appointment of all members of the Generating Board, Electricity Council and Area Boards shall conform to good industrial and commercial standards."
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether I ought to say much in my advocacy for this new clause, because the Minister made my case for me just now, when he told us the story about wanting to appoint an up-and-rising young man as the deputy chairman of one of the Boards, but who could be only a part-time official because they could not pay him a sufficiently high salary for him to leave his present job. Here we come to a fundamental which I think Parliament and this country must face up to. Our nationalised industries are suffering acutely because, for some reason best known to the Government and the Treasury, we are trying to get the best men—I was almost going to say on the worst remuneration.
As I said in moving my opening Amendment, the electricity supply industry in the next six or eight years will prove to be the greatest industrial development this country has even known. It will spend £3,250 million of the taxpayers' money revolutionising our power system. What have we been arguing about nearly all this afternoon? The Minister is a man of wide experience in industry, who knows that he must have the best men for this job; and he is being handicapped because he cannot pay them a competitive price. The Minister knows quite well that large-scale industry does not pay its top men high rates of remuneration because it likes the colour of their hair or the "cut of their jib": it is because they have the intelligence, the brains and the drive. I am going to say this to the noble Lord—and I have said it before in your Lordships' House in various ways. Among the industries of this country it is those where the high executives—the chairman, the directors, and the high executive directors—are paid the highest salaries, that the labour employed is the most contented. I could
938
name three—I.C.I., Unilever, and The Imperial Tobacco Company. When was the last labour trouble they had? And their top executives are among the highest paid in this country. I think that is because the top executive, who earns a high rate himself, knows the value of paying a high rate to whose who work under him. Again, the noble Lord has admitted—and the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said the same thing—that what we have to do is to see that good youngsters come into these industries. If I may use a phrase which was once used by an ornament of the Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House many years ago, the "glittering prizes" have got to be there.
What is happening in our nationalised industries to-day? The top-level Boards are "stuffed" with half-retired nominees. Most of these Boards have been in existence for ten years, and I know of very few where some bright executive has at last found his way to the top. That will never happen unless you pay them what I like to think is the rate for the job. I think it is about time that we wrote into one of these Bills at least the principle, as I have tried to do, in these terms:
" The terms and conditions of the appointment of all members of the Generating Board, Electricity Council and Area Boards shall conform to good industrial and commercial standards ".
I am going to move this Amendment because I do not know what grounds the noble Lord will be able to find for resisting an Amendment which lays down a principle which I should think everyone of us, whether we have had experience in industry or not, would agree with happily. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: I do not look upon this as a Party matter, nor do I disagree with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, had a good deal to say on this subject in your Lordships' House a few days ago. I think it has been recognised by Parliament that public Boards should be run on business lines, rather than as Civil Service Departments; they were to be free to fix the terms and conditions of their staffs, but the terms and conditions of the appointment of Board members were to be fixed by the Minister with the

939
approval of the Treasury. It has always been regarded as the responsibility of the Government to see that Board members' terms and conditions are such as to ensure that suitable men are appointed to the Boards. This is a matter which has my constant consideration and attention.
Having said that, I think it would be wrong for a provision such as this to be included in the Bill. The clause, by its very nature, must be expressed in imprecise terms. There could, for instance, be much argument as to what were "good industrial and commercial standards." They vary a great deal. They vary a great deal between individual firms, and I should find it difficult to know what my mandate was with this form of words in the Bill. I do not think the Amendment is appropriate but, as I have told the noble Lord, I thoroughly agree with his sentiments.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not agree with the noble Lord. He said that he would have a job to define this expression, "good industrial and commercial standards". He has had to do that thousands of times in his business life, as I have. What is the job worth? What shall we pay this man? How many managers and high executives have we employed, and in each case had to make up our minds what we would pay? What is a good standard? What is the decent standard prevailing in industry for that man or this man—engineers, accountants, scientists, or anyone else? If the noble Lord is going to find himself in a difficulty in defining what is a good industrial or commercial standard may I ask him to turn to paragraph 1 in the First Schedule? In the new sub-paragraph 2A, he will see this qualification for members of a Consultative Council:
In the appointment of any person under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall have particular regard to his ability to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on the matters to be dealt with by the Council generally…"
If the noble Lord can find a correct answer to that, I am sure he is going to find a correct answer to the problem: What is a good standard?
I do not want to take away the power of the Minister. The power of the Minister to appoint men, and to pay them, must remain, but I think we shall never get anywhere until we lay it down as a principle. The noble and learned
940
Viscount on the Woolsack, when he wound up the Second Reading debate (I quote from Column 239 of the OFFICIAL REPORT on April 30, 1957), quoted what Mr. Aubrey Jones, who was at the time the Minister of Power, said on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place:
" One of the reasons for the weakness, as the Herbert Committee said, and as the Fleck Committee said at an earlier point of time, is the great disparity in rewards at the top of a nationalised industry compared with those at the top of private industry."
Mr. Aubrey Jones went on to say:
" I very much regret that the financial and economic situation does not make it possible for the Government to act on this now; but, I would add, the Government are giving very serious thought to this matter and recognise and appreciate the force of the comments made by both Committees. More than that I cannot at the moment say."
My interjection, as the noble Lord will remember, was that that was rather a foolish statement, because it is not whether we can afford to do this. We cannot afford not to do it. One of the reasons why our nationalised industries are falling down in manpower and brainpower, why they are losing men and why they cannot get them, is that they cannot pay a comparable rate for the job. The comparable rate is not being paid and so the attractions not there. I feel very strongly about this, so, if the noble Lord cannot accept my Amendment, I shall ask your Lordships to express in the Division Lobby your opinion on whether this is a proper principle to be adopted.
5.13 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: I feel on this occasion rather inclined to support the Amendment of the noble Lord Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I hope the Minister will be able to say something more before we decide whether or not to divide, because I was very much impressed by a leading article in The Times towards the end of last year which, referring to this industry, said this:
" But the industry will not stand or fall by structure alone. It will depend still more vitally on the men who run it. Of the Herbert Committee recommendations about which nothing is done at this stage, two are especially important. One concerned prices. The other was that good men had to be retained and found, that they would not be unless they were paid for, and that consequently levels of remuneration should be urgently reconsidered. The new proposals may mean something of

941
an unheaval in the board memberships. It will be an opportunity to tackle the human side of this industry in a bold way."
I would only say that, if the Minister can assure me that what I have read out is strictly in accordance with his policy and the steps he proposes to take, I shall be satisfied. I think it is important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for having raised this point, which is vital to the future of many in the industry.
EARL BATHURST: I, too, rise to support the Amendment which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has put before your Lordships. I am quite sure that there is something that is wrong in our nationalised industries, and I believe that this Bill and the Amendment would give Her Majesty's Minister a chance to remedy this ill in the industries. I know a great many of the men who actually put up the power lines and do the maintenance, right at the bottom, and also those fairly high up in the tree of the electricity industry. I am quite certain that there is nothing wrong there. Where there is something wrong is in the chain of command, somewhere in the middle. I believe that, if the noble Lord who is to reply can accept this Amendment, there will be a chance for Her Majesty's Government to put new drive and new zest and interest into the nationalised industries, and, first, the electricity industry.
If this Amendment can be accepted, possibly the man to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred as being in search of the glittering prize may come along to take charge as Chairman of this Board. Under the terms of the Bill, I do not see either the Chairman or the deputy chairmen, being anything more than an arbiter or a settler of disputes between wrangling Area Board Chairmen who seem to have the majority placings on this Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has referred. If the noble Lord's Amendment can be accepted, I believe that it will give a beginning for a new spirit, a new leadership, to come into this vital industry which in the years to come will be in charge of the very prosperity of our country. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD MILLS: I said at the outset that I did not think there was any difference of opinion between us on this matter; I, too, want to see proper remuneration paid to Board members. I feel that this Amendment is not a very appropriate one, but I am quite prepared to think it over again, because we want to arrive at the same conclusion.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I feel very strongly on this matter. I agree with every word the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said, and with every word The Times said. I am not against the Minister, I am behind the Minister. I am playing the part of his political wife who is kicking him along.
LORD MANCROFT: What?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I want to give him all the help I can to make this a success. I know he will not make it a success unless, as The Times said, it is men, not machines. As I said before, he is going to spend £3,250 million on materials. Surely he has got to pay something for men. I am not tying his hands. I do not want to write this in specific terms that they shall be paid £X, £Y, £Z. What I want to say is that I am trying to help the Conservative Party and the Minister.
LORD MANCROFT: By kicking him along?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, by trying to persuade him to do something to advance what the Conservative Party call the "Opportunity State", something which they talk such a lot about and do nothing to achieve. Now I am giving them the first chance in a nationalised industry to give some of the opportunities to the younger men in this industry—and the noble Lord says that it is not appropriate. I accept the noble Lord's offer and perhaps he can think of better wording that I can. So long as we agree on the principle, and it is in this Bill, he and I and your Lordships will have done something for the nationalised industries which is crying out for remedy. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Consultative Councils]:
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord to give me a little information about these Consultative Councils? I am not happy about them. I did not put down an Amendment here because I wanted to ask the advice of the noble Lord before I did so on another stage of the Bill. Clause 4 sets up the Consultative Councils. Let me be frank: I have never had any great amount of time for Consultative Councils. I think they are useful bodies for large-scale industry, but I have always looked upon them as being "feather-beds" between a Department and a nationalised industry and the ordinary members of the British public.
I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Lord. I am not talking about any membership; I am coming to membership in an Amendment that I shall move when we come to the First Schedule. I am talking about the great areas that these Councils have to cover. By and large, a Consultative Council takes its area formation from the Area Board. I have gone into the question in Oxfordshire, which is a good example. The Consultative Council for the Southern Area, in which Oxfordshire is situated, comprises the County of Oxfordshire, or most of it, the counties of Berkshire, Hampshire with the Isle of Wight, Wiltshire, parts of Buckinghamshire, Dorset-shire, Gloucestershire, Middlesex, Somerset, Surrey and Sussex. That is the area of the Southern Area Consultative Council.
This Bill rather makes a point of the representation which individual consumers can make to the Consultative Council. Might I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the farm labourer in the Isle of Wight, or the smallholder in Chipping Norton, or somebody from a place nearly a hundred miles away from the place where the Consultative Council meets—and in the case of the Southern Area Consultative Council, which includes Oxfordshire and all those counties I have just mentioned, it is Maidenhead—even if he is paid his travelling expenses and if he is paid his loss of earning time, is going to attend? Those are
944
the people that I want to have the benefit of the Consultative Council. I am sure that the noble Lord also wants that. It is the common man whom we were talking about just now, who lives in the rural areas and is charged pounds for having an electricity supply run to his cottage. It may cost £1,200 a mile, as my noble friend Lord Wise said, but at £100 for 100 yards it is £1 per yard. Is the poor individual from the Isle of Wight to go all the way to Maidenhead to make his case in person? Is he going to sit down and write a letter? Of course he is not. He is going to suffer, but not in silence; he is going to "grouse" and "grouse" as he does now.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether he will consider—and this is the only way I can think of in order to get over this problem—that these Consultative Councils should be broken down into small area committees, so as to give the ordinary man a reasonable chance of meeting them. For the sake of argument, would the noble Lord consider that in every county within an area—and England and Wales are to comprise only twelve areas, which is a wide expanse of country—there should be a consultative committee composed of members of the council in every county town? That would mean that, by and large, it might be necessary to have two in Yorkshire or Lancashire and places like that; but it would also mean that the village inhabitant could go to see his council, probably by bus. In my view that would be a proper and democratic way of making the Consultative Councils work.
I can assure the noble Lord that they do not work to-day. They do with large-scale industry or where somebody of importance has a "grouse." But it is not the important people we are thinking of; we are thinking of the rural areas. We are not thinking of industries who complain to Consultative Councils on bulk tariffs and matters such as that; we are thinking of the small people. There was the case about which I wrote to the noble Lord personally and which I am much indebted to him for rectifying so quickly, which concerned a person who was asked to pay what I thought was an exorbitant charge for having a line diverted. I take the opportunity of raising this point under the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part, because I want to know

945
whether the noble Lord will give it consideration between now and the next stage of the Bill. If he will, then either he or I can put down an Amendment to see whether we can bring these Councils closer to the people who live in the rural areas, to give them a real chance to state their case.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me his views on the work of the Consultative Councils. They already have power under the 1947 Act to set up local consultative committees, but I will certainly look into the problem. My information so far has been that they are doing a very good job—in fact, I have been asked on more than one occasion to congratulate them on the work they do. I think it is for the Consultative Councils to see that they are available to all the people in the area they cover. I will certainly look into the point made by the noble Lord.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Powers of Minister in relation to Electricity Council and Electricity Boards]:
5.27 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the Board from time to time after consultation with". The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment to eliminate certain words in Clause 7 (4). May I read out that subsection? It says:
" In carrying out such measures of reorganisation or such works of development as involve substantial outlay on capital account, each of the Electricity Boards in England and Wales shall act in accordance with a general programme settled by "—
then there occur these words:
" the Board from time to time after consultation with … ".
I want to remove those words so that the relevant part of the subsection will read as follows:
" … a general programme settled by the Electricity Council and approved by the Minister."
In other words, I want the opportunity of asking the noble Lord whether he can tell us what is the financial policy to be followed. I find myself genuinely mystified. As we read this clause, it places upon the Electricity Council the
946
responsibility of raising all the money required for the Area Boards and the Generating Board, either by the issue of Stock or by loans from the Treasury. That is the position until we get to Clause 14 (4), which says:
" The Generating Board or any Area Board, after consultation with the Electricity Council, and with the consent of the Minister and the approval of the Treasury, may borrow money by the issue of stock, for all or any of the following purposes … ."
That is the policy of financial autonomy.
I want to place the whole financial responsibility on the Electricity Council. I should have thought that that would be the proper way to do it—for the Area Boards or the Generating Board to make their application and to put their thoughts and proposals to the Council, and for the Council to go to the Minister. Though that can happen under one clause of the Bill, under another clause responsibility for raising money passes to the Area Boards. I must confess that, with the best will in the world, I cannot see how this financial policy is going to work out.
As I said on a previous Amendment, two people can talk of autonomy and mean two different things. If it is meant that the Boards are to have absolute financial autonomy and can issue prospectuses and raise capital in the open market without consultation with anybody, then that is autonomy. Autonomy, if it means anything, means complete self-government. Can the Boards do that? This clause appears to say that they can. Clause 14 (4) appears to pass the matter back to the Area Boards and Clause 15 goes on:
" The Electricity Council may create and issue any stock required for the purpose of exercising their powers under the last preceding section; "
Everybody can raise money at any time. What is the financial policy? I wish the noble Lord could tell us, for I have read practically every word that has been spoken on this subject and yet I do not know.
I visualise that the ultimate aim of Her Majesty's Government is that the twelve Area Boards shall be completely autonomous—I am not talking about functions, of course, but about the raising of capital. As I said on Second Reading, they are in a monopoly position and can put up their prices to inflate their profits so as to attract capital. That is being completely autonomous. Are they always to be

947
subject to the jurisdiction of the Electricity Council? While this is a nationalised industry and the Treasury, on behalf of the taxpayer, guarantee the principal and interest, I can see that the Minister must have the final word and I would do nothing to derogate from that. But then the Boards cannot have autonomy, and the use of the word there is a misuse of language.
If the Boards are to have autonomy, then what the noble Lord envisages at some future date is the break-up of the nationalised industry. That must surely be so; and with twelve bodies with powers such as they have we may revert back to the bad old system, although of course we shall not have the 500 different electricity undertakings that we had at one time. To ease my mind and the minds of other people, could the noble Lord tell us what is the policy? Does he think that the financial structure is right? Have Her Majesty's Government, in their eagerness to give autonomy to the Boards, not gone too far? I would agree with the noble Lord; I am not a centraliser, and up to a point I am all for decentralisation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said on Second Reading, that can be carried too far. I suggest that it can be carried too far in finance, especially where Treasury money—the taxpayers' money—is being used.
If you are going to break up nationalisation entirely, say so and do away with Treasury guarantees. Let the Boards go into the money market. If that is the idea, then at some future date the Electricity Board must fade out, with the Minister. I have put down this Amendment in order to try to elucidate some clear statement of financial policy, because the noble Lord will appreciate the mystification that surrounds it at the present time.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out from (" by ") to (" the ") in line 33.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.32 p.m.
LORD MILLS: The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, have gone a lot further than this Amendment, but I will try to deal with them. Clause 7 (4), to which we are referring, requires the Minister's approval to the Boards' capital programme: and the proposal in the Bill is that the Electricity Board shall consult with the Electricity
948
Council and then get the approval of the Minister to their programme. The Amendment would seek to make the Electricity Council responsible for drawing up the programme and getting it approved. Clause 4 of the Bill as it stands carries out the Government's intention, which is to use the Council in an advisory way and get the Board to put forward their programme, consult with the Council and then get the approval of the Minister.
On finance, which we have discussed in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion, the intention is that the Electricity Council shall be responsible for raising funds because it is recognised that as the industry stands to-day that is the only way that it can be done; and that a Treasury guarantee will be necessary. Clause 17 gives the Electricity Council the duty of finding out the Boards' requirements for borrowing by the issue of stock and of allocating to them the final responsibility for servicing. The noble Lord has referred to the power taken in the Bill whereby the Boards, with the consent of the Minister and the Treasury, are empowered to raise stock themselves without a Treasury guarantee. It was felt advisable to make that provision in the Bill, but there is, of course, no question of ending the nationalisation of this industry. I think everyone is convinced that the nationalisation of this industry has come to stay: and what we want to do is to improve the industry in every possible way. Therefore it is inevitable that we should make suitable provision for any contingency.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Lord this question while he is on that point? Does he envisage that one Area Board might be given permission to raise capital on the market without the Treasury guarantee, while other Boards carried on with subventions from the Treasury and with the Treasury guarantee?
LORD MILLS: I do not envisage anything of the sort. The Minister and the Treasury have both to come into it and they would take care that nothing was done which the noble Lord would not find right and proper. So I do not envisage anything of the sort.
As I was saying, this is a general power to cover an emergency that might arise.

949
To return to the noble Lord's Amendment, I should prefer that we pursued the course laid down in the original wording of the clause. It is simple and I think it is right. The Minister wants to be in touch with the Board. He wants the Board to put their programme to him, but he wants them first to have discussed it and gone into it and to have taken the advice of the central Council because that is one of their functions. The Minister would feel greatly fortified to have the arguments both of the Board and the Council before him when he is dealing with such an important matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I confess that I look upon the matter with grave apprehension, but I cannot hope at this stage to reorganise the whole financial set-up of the Bill, and I am not going to try. But many people in the country share my apprehension, and I put the Amendment down with a view to ascertaining whether the noble Lord could say something that would allay their fears. I do not know whether he has done that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, put the matter in a nutshell when speaking on Second Reading. While many of us believe in decentralisation for functional purposes, I am afraid that we cannot help thinking that this autonomy can be carried too far and be very expensive. As I see it, the logical conclusion of the financial policy outlined in this Bill will be to break up the nationalisation of one of the great public utility services. I do not think that that is what the noble Lord wishes to do, but I think it will be the result. If the present trend goes on—complete financial autonomy for twelve separate entities—I think you will find that, as the old and very true adage says, "The man who pays the piper calls the tune". With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment]:
5.44 p.m.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Electricity Board" and insert "of the Scottish Electricity Board". The noble Lord said: Clause 11 deals
950
with labour relations. This is a drafting Amendment consequent on the changes made in the clause on Report in another place. Negotiating machinery for safety, health and welfare is not to be, as originally intended, partly the responsibility of the Generating and Area Boards, but the responsibility of the Electricity Council and the Scottish Boards only, in the same way as machinery for negotiating terms and conditions of employment. Hence only the Council and the Scottish Boards will be parties to agreements with the unions for this purpose, and therefore the Council and the Scottish Boards only should be required to send copies of the agreements to the Minister of Power, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Minister of Labour and National Service. This is the object of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, leave out (" Electricity Board ") and insert (" of the Scottish Electricity Boards ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Tariffs and special agreements
(2) In subsection (3) of the said section thirty-seven (which relates to the prices to be charged by Area Boards), the following words shall be substituted for the words from the beginning of the subsection to the words "fixed from time to time by them":—
" Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to railways, the prices to be charged by Area Boards for the supply of electricity by them shall be in accordance with such tariffs as may be fixed from time to time by them after consultation with the Electricity Council ".
LORD MILLS: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take this Amendment and Amendment No. 38 together. Both these Amendments are consequential on the repeal of Section 49 of the 1947 Act (which relates to the supply of electricity to the railways), and on the insertion of new provisions for the same purpose by Clause 27 of the Bill. The fixing of retail tariffs (a) by Area Boards under Section 37 (3) of the 1947 Act as amended by Clause 13 (2) of the Bill and (b) by the Scottish Boards under Clause 10A (1) of the 1943 Act are in either case to be subject to the special

951
provisions for supplying electricity to railways. But the railway provisions referred to in the retail tariff sections are the provisions of the 1947 Act. Since those provisions are to be replaced by new railway provisions in Clause 27 of the Bill the references to the railway provisions of the 1947 Act must be replaced by references to the railway provisions of the Bill. That is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 26, leave out (" this Act ") and insert (" The Electricity Act. 1957 ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.48 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (2), after "consultation with" to insert:
"the appropriate consultative council and with the approval of"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Milverton on the Marshalled List. This is quite a simple Amendment and it brings the consumers into the picture. As I read the clause as it stands, the approval of any proposal to increase or vary charges by an Area Board must be submitted to the Electricity Council and agreed to by that body. But on the Electricity Council, if my arithmetic is correct, there will be a majority of chairmen. I suggest that on the submission of any proposal to vary charges or tariffs to that body, the protection of the general public will obviously be very illusory. I would further submit that, in a great concern like this, the consumers who have to pay at least have a right to have their representatives brought into the picture when there is any proposal to vary the charges or tariffs. That is not to say that I am satisfied with the proposed constitution of the Consumers' Council. Be that as it may, I suggest that it would be a very good thing if the public were given a measure of protection and brought into the picture as the Amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, after (" with ") insert (" the appropriate consultative council and with the approval of ").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MANCROFT: There are two separate ideas wrapped up in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton,
952
which the noble Lord, Lord Burden has just moved for him. I see what the noble Lord is getting at, and I think that I can probably set his mind at rest. His Amendment would require Area Board retail tariffs to be fixed after consultation with the Consultative Council and with the approval of the Electricity Council. These are two separate things; let us consider them separately for a moment. To take the first, the interests of the Consultative Council can be represented, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, probably appreciates, at all stages in the evolution of new retail tariffs, because under the 1947 Act the Consultative Council chairman is a member of the Area Board. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is as much as the Statute could provide for in practice. There are also fairly close contacts between the Area Board and the Consultative Council on tariff questions, and I think that the noble Lord can rest assured that on important tariff questions this practice will continue when the Area Boards become financially autonomous. I do not feel that it would be suitable to provide in the Bill for formal consultation with the Consultative Councils in addition to consultation with the Electricity Council. That would make the procedure unduly cumbersome.
The second point embodied in the Amendment is not one which I favour. It is inconsistent with the responsibility on Area Boards to pay their way individually. I would submit this point to the noble Lord for his consideration. I do not think that an Area Board can be answerable for running its own affairs if it cannot fix tariffs without the approval of another body. Consultation with the Electricity Council before an Area Board fixes its tariff is reasonable in order to ensure that the Board's ideas on tariff policy are discussed in the forum of the industry as a whole, but I think that that is about as much as is required in a decentralised organisation. I have sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to do. We are trying to do the same thing, but I think that the Amendment goes too far and gets the procedure involved in too much consultation and too much detail, which would defeat our aims. The existing procedure and the proposals contained in the Bill will meet the noble Lord's requirements and will, in practice, go

953
some way to coping with the difficulties that he has put forward. I do not think that we can go much further than that.
LORD BURDEN: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I am afraid that I am not quite satisfied. I am prepared to meet the noble Lord half-way. If we took out the words "and with the approval of", and it were provided that there should be consultation with the Consumers' Council in the area, I should be prepared to accept that. I do not think that that is asking too much. After all, we know how a Council like the Electricity Council will work, having, as it will have, the chairmen of the separate Area Boards in the majority. "Dog does not eat dog." If a proposal comes up from one Area Board to increase its tariff, obviously that will go through the Council almost formally.
I agree that the noble Lord made a substantial point when he said that the responsibility would be placed upon each Area Board to pay its way, and if a Consultative Council agree to veto any proposal for variation of tariffs, they would have the power without responsibility. I agree that that is a substantial point, but I feel that the presence of the chairman of the appropriate Consultative Council is not quite enough, and I think that the noble Lord could concede that there should be consultation between the Consultative Council and the Area Board.
LORD MANCROFT: One thing that is worse than drafting on one's feet is accepting the drafting of someone else who is drafting on his feet. At first sight, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has a substantial point here, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not accept it at once. If he would like to put it down on Report stage, I will have it carefully considered.
LORD BURDEN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and will do as he suggests. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Transfer of assets and liabilities of Central Authority]:
LORD MANCROFT: The 1947 Act provided that, subject to any pension regulations made by the Minister, the
954
customary obligations of former undertakers in respect of pensions should be transferred to the Electricity Boards, although they were not legal obligations. A number of the former undertakings, particularly company undertakings, had no pension schemes until just before nationalisation, and their customary practice had been to sanction pensions as an act of grace in individual cases. It is necessary to make sure that obligations of this kind inherited by the Central Authority in 1948 should be among the liabilities and obligations to be apportioned between the Generating Board and the Electricity Council under Clause 24 of the Bill. I do not think that that will give rise to any objection. Amendment No. 23 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, at end insert—
(" (6) In this and the next following section "obligation" includes any such customary obligation as is referred to in subsection (5) of section fifty-four of the principal Act (which relates to certain customary obligations in respect of pensions). ")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
5.59 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
For protection of amenities
".—(1) The Generating Board, the Electricity Council and the Area Boards in the exercise of their functions under this Act and the principal Act generally shall have due regard to the preservation of natural beauty and to landscape amenity.
(2) The power of the Minister to give general and specific directions as to the application of any moneys comprised in any general reserve fund which the Electricity Boards are required to establish and maintain under section nineteen of this Act shall include power to direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to pay due regard to the preservation of natural beauty, to landscape amenity and the setting or amenities of any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order under section twenty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, notwithstanding that compliance with such direction involves a reduction in the net income accruing to any such Board and in particular the Minister may direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to seek the advice of a landscape consultant in connection with the carrying out of a work of development the effect of which on natural beauty and landscape amenity will be important and with the settling of a general programme in accordance with subsection (4) of section seven of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of Amendments in which other noble Lords and I invite your Lordships to do something in this Bill towards the preservation of the amenities of this country. There is no doubt that they are in great danger. I do not deny that we must have electrical energy. I have told the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that nobody disputes that. But there are some of us—I think the large majority of the people of this country—who are afraid of the devastating effect of this development upon the countryside. Your Lordships have ever been conscious of the need to preserve it. The statement in the first subsection of the new clause I am moving is one with which I do not think any noble Lord will dissent. It has precedent. There are many injunctions of that kind in many Acts of Parliament. Subsection (2) in essence invites the Minister to take the initiative in this matter of preservation. Clause 19 of the Bill is most interesting, in that it sets up reserve funds and provides that the reserve funds that are at present held shall be transferred to the new bodies. The funds are there primarily for the equalisation of tariffs and such things. But, to my mind, the significant part is that it gives to the Minister for the first time power to give to all the Electricity Boards specific directions as to what they shall spend their money on. That is a marked step forward. I admit that the draftsman has not got as much confidence in the noble Lord as I have, because the Bill then goes on to hedge him around with all the usual paraphernalia that he cannot do it without the consent of the Treasury.
I think the subsection in the proposed new clause is self-explanatory. What it says is:
" The power of the Minister to give general and specific directions as to the application of any moneys comprised in any general reserve fund which the Electricity Boards are required to establish and maintain under section nineteen of this Act shall include power to direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to pay due regard to the preservation of natural beauty to landscape amenity and the setting or amenities of any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order under section twenty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, "—
then come these significant words—
" notwithstanding that compliance with such direction involves a reduction in the net income accruing to any such Board and in
956
particular the Minister may direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to seek the advice "—
and so on. That is put in specifically so that if the Minister can now, as I understand from this clause he can, for the first time, give specific directions that a line shall be put underground—as I understand it, the law up to now has always been that, while the Minister can say that the line shall not go overground, he cannot say that the line shall go underground—and if there is any extra cost, it shall be met out of the reserve fund, and the cost shall be spread over the entire price structure of the area. That means that the consumers, as a whole, will then be responsible for payment, and not, as has been in the past, the few people who are going to benefit directly by the line going underground.
The noble Lord will remember that on many occasions in the past, opponents to overhead lines on amenity grounds have been frightened off by the fact that if the line were put underground their electricity would cost much more money, otherwise they might not get it at all. There was a celebrated case, I think, in Langdale, Westmorland, that went on for years and years because the Central Electricity Authority would not put the line underground and if they could not put it overground they would not put a line there at all. As I have said, I think this Amendment is self-explanatory. The Minister has power under Clause 19 of the Bill to give specific directions as to:

" (a) any matter relating to the establishment or management of a fund which the Board are required to maintain under this section, or

(b) the making of contributions to such a fund, or

(c) the application of any moneys comprised in such a fund."

The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to direct in any specific case that the amenities shall be preserved, how they shall be preserved, and how the cost shall be met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD HURCOMB: I added my name in support of this Amendment at the request of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, a responsible and reasonable body to whose vigilance all

957
lovers of the countryside owe a great deal. I do not intend, especially so late in the afternoon, to embark on any discussion about the detailed machinery which is embodied in this Amendment. I believe that the Minister's Department has had some opportunity of considering it, but that it may need further consideration, as may the actual wording and drafting of the Amendment. However, there is a clear and broad important principle on which I would earnestly submit to your Lordships you should give an expression of view.
There is no doubt that we are facing the possibility of alterations in the landscape and the familiar appearance of our country which may transcend what happened in the early days of the nineteenth century. As I have ventured to say to your Lordships before, the recent generation has been quick to blame the nineteenth century and those who were responsible for the industrialisation of that century for doing a great deal of social and other damage which they ought to have avoided. I feel that, whatever degree of blame attaches to the men of that time, they acted largely in ignorance, without full realisation of the consequences of what they did. That cannot be said now: we know full well what is likely to happen; we know the ways in which a great deal of the damage can be avoided, and all we have to do is to face some degree of expense.
That brings me to the root of this matter. In the past, many of the electricity undertakings, and certainly the Central Authority since nationalisation, have not taken an altogether unenlightened view of these matters. Indeed, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board took a very enlightened view of many questions connected with the preservation of the natural amenities of the Scottish landscape and its natural life, to such an extent that when many distinguished foreign naturalists visited Scotland last year they were very much struck with the care that had been taken. I feel that that practice should be general, and that it should be accepted as part of public policy that, in carrying out all these works and developments, reasonable regard should be had to the preservation of amenities and the natural features of the landscape.
958
There is a tendency on the part of an undertaking and its engineers who are charged with a specific duty, which in my time used to be to promote a cheap and abundant supply of electricity, to say that that was all that they had to do, and that anything which added even fractionally to the cost was no concern of theirs. I do not believe that that was ever a correct view; I do not think it followed in any way from the Statutes themselves. But I do think that it is very important, at a time like this, when we are facing great new developments, that it should be declared as part of public policy that regard should be had by this great national undertaking to these important considerations. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of this Amendment whatever he may wish to say about the details, and that he will write it into the Bill. I am quite sure that he will be profuse, and quite genuinely profuse, in his sympathy, but that is not enough. One or two good decisions and a statutory declaration which has the backing of your Lordships' House behind it will be worth a large amount of expressions of sympathy. I feel, therefore, that this is a point on which the Minister, who has not been unreasonably pressed hitherto in this debate, should be pressed to be quite categorical and to say that he accepts this principle; that he will give it some statutory expression.
I am sure that the cumulative cost of doing something to prevent what has happened so widely, not only in this country but all over the world, in damage to natural landscape, is going to prove to be very little indeed. In any event, that cost is a reasonable part of the price which those who enjoy the great benefits of the development of electricity should pay. I do not think it is a case for public subsidy or for throwing direct burdens upon the Exchequer, although I notice that in The Times this morning Dr. Julian Huxley suggested that the cost of underground lines should be met out of the Land Fund. I myself feel that it is not unreasonable that a great industry which has a monopoly, and is given privileges and rights over other people's property, should carry the cost of doing as little harm as they can, along with their other necessary expenses. Where it is necessary and reasonable to put a line underground or to re-route a line,

959
the cost should be treated as a normal part of the capital cost of the improvement. But there may well be cases where the amount is substantial and could be conveniently borne out of the reserves, as this Amendment proposes.
I hope that I have made my general point of view clear to your Lordships. Now is the moment when, if your Lordships are so disposed, you can do something, beyond mere expressions of sympathy, to see that the future appearance of our country and the enjoyment of future generations are safeguarded. I do not wish to tie the Minister in any way to the exact wording of this Amendment. There may be means of improving it. There may be snags about it which have not been foreseen by those who drafted it. But the Minister should accept the principle wholeheartedly, and agree to give it statutory expression. That is a reasonable request, and I press it on him with all the earnestness I can command.
6.15 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I do not wish to delay the Committee for a long time, but I think it is appropriate that an Amendment which has been moved from the Opposition Benches and supported from the Cross Benches should also be supported most strongly from the Government Benches. This Amendment is as completely non-Party as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England itself. I am quite certain that some such provision as is here embodied is required in this measure. When the Bill becomes law, it should be plain on the face of it that there is a duty to consider these questions of amenity. We know that the noble Lord, the Minister of Power, himself does care for these things, and pressing this Amendment does not mean any doubt whatever of his good intentions. But we are, after all, working to create an Act of Parliament, and the need to consider the amenities ought to be clear on the face of the Statute.
It should also be quite clear that, if necessary, funds can be used, should the Minister so decide, in order to protect amenity. I do not agree that in all cases expenditure of any money will be necessary. Sometimes amenities can be protected by the mere avoidance of stupidity, and many of us who have
960
worked in these causes for many years could give examples—indeed, examples have been given in other debates. But where there is a question of money being required, it may be an extremely cheap investment in the national interest to save and not to destroy the beauty of the country.
The second part of the Amendment merely makes it clear that the Minister, if he is so disposed, can give appropriate directions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I do not suggest that the wording of this Amendment is incapable of being improved. In particular, I can think of one matter in which I should like to see it improved. Nothing whatsoever is said about the protection of architectural amenity except the reference to:
" … any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order … "
That applies to very few cases, even in some of the places that are most valuable from the point of view of architecture; so I think the wording of that part of the new clause could certainly be improved. I hope very much that the Minister will not say either that some such Amendment as that for which we plead is impossible, or that it is unnecessary. I do not believe that either of those two pleas can be sustained. It is possible to accept an Amendment of this kind, and I do not believe that anybody who cares for amenity, both amenity of the countryside and architectural amenity, will be content that we should pass this Statute without any reference to the preservation of these values to which so many of us, in all quarters both of this House and of another place, attach great importance. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to this Amendment. Surely the provisions in it are sound. We all want the preservation of natural beauty—of course, within reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has stated, what is set out in this Amendment is a clear and important principle. As we all know, amenities are being destroyed by such things as new oil refineries and all kinds of industrial expansion which, I am quite sure, could be better placed if greater thought were given to it. I am sure we should be careful not to destroy our heritage, and I fully support this Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I, too, beg to support the noble Lord opposite in his Amendment. The noble Lord who is to reply is a business man, and he knows full well the importance of good will in his business. If the noble Lord can, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, sympathetically consider the sentiments that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has expressed in his Amendment, it will receive throughout the country the enormous good will not only of his customers as electricity users but of people in all walks of life. Not only those in the countryside but those who take their pleasures in motor cars or coaches or on push bicycles will appreciate it if the noble Lord can accept the sentiments expressed in this Amendment. I beg to support the noble Lord opposite.
6.21 p.m.
LORD MILLS: I am greatly impressed with the weight of opinion on this matter in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the noble Lords for what they have said. I unreservedly accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and accept the principle set out in the first subsection of this proposed Amendment. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the object of the Amendment, and I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to go again over ground which we discussed when we went into the general question of amenities on March 13 on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. But I should like to re-emphasise that I am as anxious as everyone else is that, in carrying out this power programme, which we must carry out if we are to maintain and improve our standards of living, we shall do our best to ensure that the amenities of the countryside are preserved.
There are, however, some difficulties in this Amendment as it is drafted which I am sure your Lordships will appreciate. I am advised that the second subsection of the Amendment might lay the Boards open to serious obstruction or even litigation in carrying forward the power programme, which they must do and for which they must have our support. In any event, I can assure your Lordships that the Boards will be given orders to pay the greatest possible attention to the protection of amenities which I know, and your Lordships know, will become all the more necessary as the programme
962
advances. On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, the Central Authority have appointed three distinguished architects to ensure that power stations are not incongruous to the countryside. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me, having said that I accept the principle unreservedly, to look at the matter again.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sure the whole Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Frankly, I did not expect him to say anything else. The noble Lord has given plenty of evidence of his desire to meet your Lordships on this question of amenity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that the draftsmanship is not as good as it might be. It never is, because Treasury counsel did not draft it. But, if the Minister is going now to let his expert advisers draft it, we shall look with great interest at what is produced.
I hope the noble Lord is not going to be quite satisfied with only the first subsection of this Amendment. I hope he takes it to heart very seriously that the Committee will expect him to redraft subsection (2). I do not want the noble Lord to be under any illusion about that. He has accepted the principle. We want this principle written in concrete terms into this Bill. I am not a lawyer, and I therefore should not quarrel with his statement that his legal advisers think that this might engage the Area Boards in litigation, but I do not see how it possibly can, because it is within the power of the Minister to give specific directions. If the Minister gives specific directions, then I do not see what harm can come to any Area Board. However, that is a matter for the noble Lord and his expert advisers. He has one legal adviser close to him and another has just arrived, but I do not suppose that they would care to venture any opinion on this now.
May I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hurcomb, Lord Conesford and Lord Teynham, and also the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for their strong support? This, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, is an Amendment which we were asked by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to support. I am sure it is a cause which we all have at heart, and we have now enlisted Lord

963
Mills as an active propagandist in the cause. I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment and await the result of the noble Lord's deliberations.
LORD HURCOMB: Before the noble Lord actually withdraws his Amendment, may I point out that I do not think the noble Lord the Minister actually said, though he implied, that he would on the next stage write into the Bill the principle contained in the first subsection of this Amendment, but I hope that I shall be right in drawing the inference that that is what he undertakes to do. If that be so, then I would venture to suggest that on the wording of the second part, or on any detailed points, he might consult with the organisation which is interested in seeing this done. As for legal difficulties, none could arise from a general statement that it shall be the duty of these various Boards to have regard to these particular things. The Statute Book is surely full of statutory directions of that kind to organisations of this type. If it were relevant, I would say that not only in this country but in the United States and in some European countries, such as Switzerland, the Legislatures have found no difficulty in giving similar instructions.
LORD MERTHYR: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I point out one thing, and that is in regard to what the Minister said about the possibility of embarrassment or litigation being caused by subsection (2) of this Amendment. This subsection only gives the Minister power to act; it does not in any way compel him to do anything whatever. That being so, I find it difficult to fit in that fact with the fear of the Minister that litigation or embarrassment might result.
LORD CONESFORD: Further to that point which has just been made by my noble friend, the Minister will see that subsection (2) of this proposed new clause says:
" The power of the Minister … shall include power to direct … "
No doubt his advisers may have discovered something in this clause which could be used in the way he suggests, but nothing is more likely to promote litigation and delay than a doubt whether the Minister's powers do, or do not, include what it is here said they shall include. I would strongly support
964
what has been said by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, that we regard the Minister's undertaking, I know with justice, as not merely an unqualified acceptance of the principle of the first subsection but a promise to do something effective also about the second subsection.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful for the support of two eminent lawyers. I hope the noble Lord will weigh that up with the legal advice that he has received. I think I am within the recollection of the Committee that it is the wish—and I think the Minister has acceded to it—that we shall have the second subsection in the Bill, as modified by the noble Lord to suit the wishes of the draftsman.
LORD MILLS: May I make myself clear? I accepted the principle which Lord Hurcomb invited me to do, and I said I would agree that something went into the Bill to give effect to that principle. I asked permission to reconsider the whole matter. I pointed out some of the dangers which I am advised lay in the second part. I did not say that I rejected the second part; I said I would reconsider the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, Parliamentary draftsmen are there to get over dangers. With the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Maximum charges for reselling electricity, supplied by Electricity Boards]:
LORD MILLS: There is an incorrect reference in subsection (5) of this clause to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, as the Act with which the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, is incorporated. The Amendment substitutes the correct reference, which is to the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 9, leave out (" Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, ") and insert (" Electric Lighting Act, 1882, ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
6.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 29 to insert the following new clause:
Procedure on application for consent to erect new power stations, transmission lines, etc.
(". —(1) No development, within the meaning of section twelve of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as amended or of a kind which but for the provisions of section thirty-five of the said Act would otherwise require the permission of a local planning authority under the provisions of the said Act, shall be carried out by the Generating Board or by any Area Board without an order made by the Minister authorising the same in accordance with the provisions of this section and of any regulations made by the Minister here-under.
(2) Before applying for an order by the Minister authorising development or incurring any substantial expenditure upon surveys or the preparation of plans in connection with any proposed development the Generating Board or any Area Board concerned shall consult generally about the proposals—

(i) with the local planning authority or authorities and with the owners and occupiers of any land or building likely to be affected by the carrying out of such proposals; and

(ii) whenever the proposals are likely to affect any area designated as of special landscape value in any development plan approved in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or with the setting or amenities of any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order under section twenty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, also with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Trust, the National Parks Commission and the Royal Fine Arts Commission and, in the case of building as aforesaid, with the Council for Historic Buildings.

(3) Provision may be made by Regulation under this Act with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with any application for an order by the Minister authorising any proposed development by the Generating Board or by any Area Board and such regulations shall in particular make provision for securing—

(a) that adequate notice shall be given to any body or person entitled to be consulted under Section 2 of this section of the application to the Minister for an order authorising the proposed development and of the right to object or to make representations in relation thereto;

(b) that adequate notice shall be given by advertisement in at least one newspaper circulating in the area or areas concerned of the application to the Minister for an order authorising the proposed development and of the right to object or make representations in regard thereto;

(c) that copies of the plans and details of such proposed development shall be available for public inspection at a convenient place or places within the area affected;

966

(d) that objections or representations in regard to the proposed development may be made in writing to the Minister by any body or person likely to be affected thereby.

(4) The Minister may in any case where an order by him authorising development is required under this Act and shall in the event of any objection or representation in regard to the proposed development being made in accordance with the regulations made under subsection three of this section cause a public local inquiry to be held by an independent and competent person appointed at the Minister's request by the Lord Chancellor. The person conducting such a local inquiry shall be required to hear and consider the proposals for development made by the Generating Board or by an Area Board and any objections or representations with regard to the proposals which have not been withdrawn, and which may be made either orally or in writing.
(5) After receiving and considering the report of a public local inquiry from the person conduting the same and any recommendations such person may make the Minister shall cause the same to be published and to be laid before Parliament. The Minister shall at the same time lay before Parliament a draft of the order, if any, authorising development which, he proposes to make.
(6) If at any time within forty days after the report, recommendations and the draft order have been laid before Parliament either House resolves that the proposed order shall not be made or that it shall be made only as modified in a way specified in such resolution the Minister shall not make the order or shall make it only as modified as the case may be. ")
The noble Lord said: This is the second Amendment which primarily affects the amenity question. Let: me be quite frank with the Committee. I found the drafting of this most difficult, and as for that, nobody is responsible but myself. The Electricity Statutes go back seventy-five years and have never been consolidated, and to fight one's way through them is the work of a Trojan. Therefore I do not put forward the drafting of this Amendment as immaculate. Another thing about which I can be frank is that it seeks to set up an entirely new code, which I should think, if I may use such an expression, is pretty "strong meat" for Her Majesty's Government. However, in my view something like this will have to be done at some time in the future to satisfy the needs of the future.
What this Amendment really seeks to do is to remove from the Statute the deemed planning permission given to the Electricity Boards by the Minister, and to bring the erection of new power stations and transmission lines more under Parliamentary control. Two or three times to-day I have said that we are embarking upon the most outstanding project in the industrial

967
history of this country, and I think that the erection of these new nuclear power stations and super-grids will have to come more under Parliamentary control than it is to-day—by that, I mean the expenditure, erection, the siting and everything. That is what subsection (1) of the new Clause attempts to do. There is no doubt whatever that the Minister of Power is all-powerful in this direction.
I have gone to the trouble of going through the Statutes, such as Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and the circulars that have been issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. There was a circular, to which noble Lords may like to be referred, Circular No. 63/51, and accompanying it was a document called Development by Local Planning Authorities, Other Local Authorities and Statutory Undertakers. It was issued in 1951. That was a document in which authority to give deemed planning permission was given to the Minister of Power in respect of the erection of power stations and transmission lines. The only other Minister to have that outstanding power in this country is the Minister of Agriculture in relation to drainage works of river boards and catchment boards. What does this mean? It means that a statutory undertaker—here the Central Electricity Authority—can go to the Minister and apply to him for deemed planning permission for any project they want. It is obligatory then for them to consult a planning authority. If the planning authority objects, and takes its objection to the Minister, the Minister can order a public inquiry. The public inquiry reports, but the Minister need not heed any advice that is given him. The consultation with the planning authority is, to put it in quite plain language, purely complimentary. Then the Minister has a public inquiry, presided over by one of his own officials, inquiring into the action of a statutory undertaker to which he has given deemed planning permission before the inquiry starts.
I know that the Minister will absolve me from any wish to be critical of him personally. But how can the inquiry be anything other than a façade when it is held by an official of the Minister's own Department and, if I may say so without
968
being critical of an individual—I do not know them personally—one not very high up in the hierarchy of the Civil Service, one who is about halfway between the rank of a Permanent Secretary and the lowest order in the Ministry (that is what my researches have disclosed) and one who must at least, shall I say, to use everyday language, "keep in with" the departmental chiefs and with the statutory undertakers with whom he has to live? When I have questioned the noble Lord upon this matter on many occasions he has said that side by side with his own inspector there is an inspector from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Then I have said, more or less by way of a joke, "Yes, I suppose just to lend respectability to the proceedings." The Minister does not have to listen to one word from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is his responsibility alone.
To make the farce even worse, the first public inquiry, held at the behest of a planning authority, is into the line that it is proposed to take with one of these transmission cables. The Minister then receives a report. It is never published; we do not know what is in it. Then the Minister makes a decision and the course of the line is decided. Then, when the wayleave department comes along and wants to negotiate wayleaves over private property, the owner of the private property can have another inquiry—into what? The line has already been settled by the first inquiry, so that the second inquiry is a bigger farce than the first. The proposal I make in my Amendment is that, first, everybody who is affected—planning authorities and ordinary property owners—shall be acquainted with the proposals before any principle is accepted: in other words, before the official view has become a vested interest, and entrenched so that it has to be defended. That means that the wayleave inquiry and the line inquiry should be held at the same time. Also—and this is very important—that the inquiry should be held by an independent person.
If the noble Lord is to be the last arbiter, and I would not seek to take that position away from him, if he has to give a quasi judicial, independent verdict, then he must have a report from an independent person. I say that that independent person should be appointed by

969
the Lord Chancellor. I do not mind who he is. With all the good will in the world, the noble Lord's inspector who will hold the inquiry is an engineer. He works with a slide-rule. He has no interest in amenity. He has an interest to see that the project is carried out, because his was the Department which authorised it. The second thing for which I believe justice and the public weal calls no less is that the report of the inspector should be published. If justice is going to be done, let it be made apparent that it is going to be done. Then, and only then, can the Minister make the order. My Amendment then says that the order shall be laid before Parliament, to be prayed against if necessary by Negative Resolution.
That, in essence, is what this Amendment proposes, and those are the bones of it. There is one thing in this Amendment about which I am unhappy. As it is worded, this procedure would have to be put into motion for practically every overhead line, which includes any service line. But when I tried to find a definition of a transmission line that was not a service line I could not do so. A service line can be anything from a yard to two to three miles long. I do not want to set this procedure in motion for every service line that runs from a pole to a house: but public anxiety about these super-grid transmission lines is such that we can no longer allow these things to go forward by the stroke of the adminstrator's pen.
I happened to read in The Times of May 15 the report of the public inquiry into the atomic power station project at Hinkley Point. The deputy chairman of the Central Electricity Authority, quite "out of the blue", talked about duplication; there are very likely going to be two power stations—not one. And according to the report in The Times another official—I believe it was the development engineer of the Central Electricity Authority—said that out of this power station, which is already practically decided upon, two huge super-grids are to sprawl their way eastward across the country; and that when there is another power station there will be four such lines.
All this may be necessary; I am not going to question that. But I do question the propriety of these lines going out, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying
970
so, by a stroke of the administrator's pen, with Parliament powerless to say anything. I have asked the noble Lord before where Parliamentary authority comes from for the spending of all this money; and surely Parliament should have the right to question whether or not there should be an alteration.
During the discussions on this Bill we have talked about administrative powers to put lines underground. The noble Lord will see from my Amendment that I say definitely, in subsection (6):
" If at any time within forty days after the report, recommendations and the draft order have been laid before Parliament either House resolves that the proposed order shall not be made or that it shall be made only as modified in a way specified in such resolution the Minister shall not make the order or shall make it only as modified as the case may be."
It may be that Parliament in its wisdom may say: "This line shall go here," or "That line shall go underground." But I hope the noble Lord will accept it from me that I do not want to take away ministerial authority. The Minister makes the order, but Parliament should have the final word. If the noble Lord realises the disquiet and resentment that exists over the present procedure, I believe he will understand that all I am trying to do is to see that public opinion is properly mollified and that three great principles are observed. The first is that all those who are to have their rights and amenities affected shall be acquainted with the proposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, there is compulsory wayleave to go over the property of anybody in this country, and any Government Department or any Minister who holds that power owes it to the British people to see that they shall have; every opportunity of safeguarding their rights; and they should be given that opportunity before these things are cut and dried. That is the first principle: that all affected parties shall be notified when the preliminary consultation is opened.
The second is that the public inquiry should be held by an independent person; and the third that the report to the Minister shall be published and that the matter cannot proceed without an order which shall be laid before Parliament and be subject to Negative Resolution. That is the simple intention of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support for this Amendment. I believe it is a very important one. I am j quite sure that Parliament should have more control over these matters, though, like the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, I am not sure that it is drafted as it should be. The noble Lord will remember that only a short time ago I moved in this House a Motion dealing with a very similar point about having an independent person in public inquiries in connection with the proposed establishment of a new oil refinery at Hook, opposite Fawley. I feel that it is essential that we should have an independent, competent person appointed, at the Minister's request, by the Lord Chancellor; and I hope the noble Lord will look into this point.
6.50 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: May I say a word in support of the very eloquent plea of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth? It is nearly twenty-eight years since the late Lord Hewart startled the country with his story of The New Despotism. If the public were then scourged with whips, they are today being scourged with scorpions. The ever-increasing power of the bureaucracy is causing tremendous feeling throughout the country. My noble friend has put an absolutely unanswerable case. If the beauties of England are going to be preserved for those who come after us, or if we are going down before the Managerial State, let us know where we are going. If the Philistines are not to have their way, and if we are to have something of beauty left in this country, then I say: "Please accept this Amendment or something like it."
EARL BATHURST: I beg to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I speak as one who has been aggrieved by measures of just the kind he has described. I can confirm to your Lordships that the machinery of these inquiries does operate in the ponderous and "steamroller" manner he has described. I assure your Lordships that what I have to say is not on my own behalf. I am thinking of the small man, of men and women property owners—or maybe
972
tenants—whoever they may be, throughout the country, who will be aggrieved by measures that are taken under the enormous powers we are granting to the Minister with regard to these pylons and stations which will supply electricity.
Great nationalised industries are with us to stay—I say "great" because of their size and the amount of capital concerned. How great the effect of these industries will be on the national prosperity only the future can show. But great though they may be in size, should they be thwarted in their desires they behave just exactly as any spoilt child behaves. A spoilt child goes shouting straight away that he will "tell Daddy" "Daddy" duly appears with a large leather belt—in this case in the shape of the Minister with a compulsory wayleave order or, worse still, a compulsory purchase order, which he is able to enforce by statutory enactment. Even so, as many of your Lordships will remember, an agile child has many a card up his sleeve to play against "Daddy," never mind how heavy that leather strap may be.
The best card to play, of course, is to find another Minister or Ministry or statutory undertaking to fight the particular Ministry which has aggrieved one. Where the Electricity Authority is concerned, that is not always possible. In my own case, we had to use a little more guile. I was lucky enough to find an adviser who pointed out to me that this great statutory undertaking had forgotten to take the precaution of seeing that they had acquired a wayleave across what is marked on a one-inch ordnance map as a disused canal—it is no larger than the distance across the Woolsack. By this means, we held up the entire proceedings on this line for a year. I do not take any great honour to myself for doing that. I can assure your Lordships that had justice been done to small owners at the other end of the line, and had an inquiry been promised at the time when we found this error in the authority's calculations, that delay would not have happened.
But I am afraid that if we do not check in some way the power of these authorities it will become a national sport to bait these great nationalised industries. One of the most recent and typical instances of this was the case of Mr. Bryn Jones, who with one stroke of a sledgehammer capsized one of these pylons.

973
Overnight, in the popular Press and on television he became a hero. I think that when he was summarily fined he got away with a very small punishment indeed, considering the seriousness of the sabotage—for it was no less—which he had carried out.
I am certain that in these inquiries, as the noble Lord has said, the private individual does not get a fair deal. Whatever the Minister may say from his brief, supplied by the Department, the individual does not get a fair hearing. At the inquiry which was held into the proposal in connection with a super grid at Cheltenham over five years ago, there was an engineer on behalf of the Minister and there was a very skilled and well-spoken lawyer whose job it was to travel the entire countryside putting the point of view of the Electricity Authority. The engineer carefully explained to us that not for a generation would we see atomic power as a practical means of producing electricity. Within a fortnight, the United States had launched the first atomic submarine, and another one was launched only yesterday. Of course we now know of Calder Hall. At that date, five years ago, the principles of the Calder Hall project had already been expounded in a newspaper in Sydney, Australia. Could the engineer understand that possibly atomic power would take the place of coal? That was impossible for us, as laymen, to put over at that inquiry.
I beg that the Minister will consider setting up a really independent inquiry when such vital issues are at stake. As a suggestion, a most humble one, may I submit that noble Lords who have been appointed for services they have rendered in Her Majesty's Forces and who sit on the Cross-Benches might possibly be suitable members to be appointed to sit on such inquiries. They are men who have the confidence of the public. As the inquiries are constituted to-day (and the electricity industry is only one industry which needs such inquiries; there will be projects for trunk roads and many other things soon) they cannot possibly have the confidence or the good will of the public. I know that what the noble Lord the Minister needs in his great industry is the good will of the public to see that his measures go through and to advance the prosperity of the country. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: So far as I am aware, I have no personal interest in any matter of this kind, but I have on more than one occasion been made painfully aware of the impact of a projected public enterprise on the people whose property it is designed to make use of. Rumours spread. Word goes round that the enterprise is coming. Everyone is uneasy. They do not know where or how to voice any objections which they may have. There may not be a public inquiry at all; or, if it is held, it may not take proper account of their objections. These people are often quite small people. Some of them, perhaps, are working enterprises which may be completely ruined by the great public enterprise which in the national interest is going across their property, or is even to take possession of it. They may be in personal financial difficulties; they may wish to realise their enterprise. But they cannot do it because it is under a threat, and they do not know even how they can resolve the threat. They do not know how or where they can represent their case. For those reasons, of which I am dreadfully conscious—as are many of my neighbours and friends, of all ranks of society—I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this Amendment favourably.
7.0 p.m.
LORD MILLS: I hope that in what I said about the new clause after Clause 26 I have already made it plain that I have every sympathy with the motive which has prompted the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to put down this new clause. I am at one with him in the need to ensure that damage to landscape amenities is reduced to the minimum, but I am also responsible—and I would emphasise that your Lordships, too, share my responsibility—for seeing that this country gets the power supply which is vital to its interests. On the one hand, we have a beautiful country, and if we could avoid it, none of us would like to see power stations or lines. On the other hand, power stations and lines are evidence of the fact that we are advancing the happiness of our people, even at some cost to the amenities of the countryside. Our job is to see that that interference with amenities is kept down to the lowest possible extent.
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said that I should be reading from a brief

975
supplied to me by my Department. Perhaps he will forgive me if I point out to him that the job of a Minister is to receive a brief from his Department, and the job of a Minister is to tear up the brief if he does not like it and have it re-written in the way he wishes. I have given effect to all those parts of my duties. I should like to put one or two things straight. Deemed planning permission is not given before a public inquiry. It follows after the Minister gives his consent under the Electricity Supply Act. I must dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said about the engineering inspector being a prejudiced person. The project has to be approved before the inquiry is held, and these inspectors are men of long experience in this problem and are instructed in what they have to take into account.
On March 13, I explained to your Lordships fairly fully the procedure which is followed at present by the Boards, and I am sure that you would not wish me at this point to go into that again. But this new clause presents serious difficulties. By laying down in detail every step in the process of consultations which have to be carried out, there is a danger that the Boards themselves will be deprived of their initiative and discretion. After all, they are responsible bodies, and the advantage of leaving detailed compliance with the Statutes to administrative arrangements is that action can be suited and modelled to the particular circumstances which the interests of individuals and of the public might require. I see a real danger that, if Boards are to be restricted by being told everything they may or may not do, they might tend to stand on the letter of the law, and I think that that would be a bad thing.
I am not at all happy about subsections (5) and (6). Any order which the Minister proposed to make on the report of a public inquiry would have to be laid before Parliament in draft, subject to rejection or alteration, for a period of forty days. This procedure would be obligatory in every case where there was a single objector. The Minister would not be permitted to dispose of any case unless it was completely uncontested. In other words, the Minister's statutory responsibility for ensuring that the Electricity Board's plans are in the best
976
interests of the community would be largely taken away from him and given to Parliament instead. I suggest to your Lordships that, apart from the delay—which is important—this procedure would be extremely cumbersome.
I recognise, however, the strength of feeling among noble Lords and among members of the public about the need to make certain that all legitimate interests are taken account of before consents are given. At the same time, I think we must see that the procedure is not too elaborate and costly for the cases with which we have to deal. I can assure your Lordships that in every case where the local planning authority object to a project I will order a public inquiry. This, with other assurances I have given with regard to the proposed new clause after Clause 26, should, I think, assure your Lordships that great attention will be paid to this question of amenities. On procedure, I am already in the middle of an examination to see what can be done to ensure that interests are consulted at the first possible moment and not later on, when a project might have been formulated. I hope that this will go a long way to meet the apprehensions of noble Lords, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask one point? I took the point of people who suffer financial embarrassment and possibly are ruined through a great public project taking possession of their property. These things are often rumoured long in advance. If some procedure could be devised, whereby people would be able to object to a scheme, by taking the matter up by a letter to the Minister or something of that kind, that would help, because I know only too well how these long-deferred projects, which sometimes are carried out and sometimes not, cause tremendous embarrassment to people whose business might be affected. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could do something to help that position.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am not at all happy about the noble Lord's explanation about the man from the Ministry being in charge of the inquiry. That is like a man being judge and jury. Surely that cannot be right. I wish that the noble Lord would look at this point again. I

977
feel that it is essential that the inquiry should be conducted by an independent and competent person, apart from the Ministry altogether. We have had this argument on other Bills, I admit, but it is a very important point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for what he has said; but, frankly, I do not think that under the procedure set out in the Amendment there would be nearly the delay that occurs to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, gave a graphic illustration of the delay that occurs when people's backs are put up. What happens, times without number, is that they go to a lawyer, the shrewdest and "slickest" lawyer they can find. Their attitude is: how can we humbug these people about? The noble Lord should know that that is what happens. The reason for this is that the general public are not satisfied that they are getting a square deal. If only the noble Lord would realise it, that is the whole crux of the matter. I am willing to accept his assurance that all proper people will be consulted first. It is no good consulting the poor fellow the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has in mind, when the first inquiry has decided that the line shall go through his property. The crux of the matter is whether the noble Lord will give us an assurance that in future an independent individual will hold the inquiry and that the inspector's report to him will be published.
EARL BATHURST: Perhaps I may interrupt to say that the Minutes, also, might be available to the public. At present it costs £25 to get hold of a copy, if it can be found.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the report is the report of an independent inspector, the noble Lord will suffer no embarrassment. Here we have the Report of the Herbert Committee, but the noble Lord has not felt obliged to accept every one of the recommendations of that Committee; and he has said precisely why. I am going to say, frankly, that it is asking too much of human nature for a member of a Government Department to be impartial in these matters. The inspector is a civil servant who, as I say, is not at the top. I have done a good deal of research, and I find that his salary bracket is half way down the hierarchy of the Civil Service. Is it in human nature
978
that that man is going to present the Minister with a report which is directly contrary to the Minister's instructions to the Central Electricity Authority? If you had an independent inspector—I have put in "appointed by the Lord Chancellor", because that is the usual procedure in these matters—then the public would be satisfied that they were getting a square deal; and if, then, someone had a pylon put up outside his back door, at least he would have the satisfaction of knowing that Parliament had decided to do it.
I think this procedure, with an independent inquiry, the publication of a report, and a draft order, in the last analysis would be far quicker than this continual battling between the Central Electricity Authority, the planning authorities and the private individual. It is a war that goes on and gets more embittered as time goes on; and it is losing the most admirable project of the noble Lord a lot of good will. I am convinced that he understands the point, and that he will tie up the ends and the administrative part of it. But let him make it apparent to the British public that they are getting a square deal. They are convinced that it is the most hole-and-corner business that ever was. I have had correspondence from eminent people who have attended these so-called public inquiries to say that what they heard made them sick at heart. It is the biggest farce ever; everybody goes away knowing the decision is cut-and-dried before ever the inquiry is held. If the noble Lord would agree to the procedure I suggest, he would earn the gratitude of all those who are trying to be helpful on this matter.
LORD MILLS: I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that, as I informed your Lordships, I have been busily engaged in looking into this problem of procedure to see that the earliest possible notice can be given to everyone affected. I should like to get this matter into its proper perspective. I know the importance of it. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, one would think that every pylon that was put up gave offence and was contested. Out of 857 miles of super-grid 835 miles were agreed to voluntarily. That may help to put the matter in its proper perspective. Nor do I accept that, because an engineering inspector is not of the

979
high rank to which the noble Lord referred, he is not capable of making up his mind. I have been at these inquiries and listened to them, and I have found, as I find throughout the Civil Service, that there are many men not of high rank who are shouldering enormous jobs and doing them conscientiously and well, in the public interest, and not in a prejudicial departmental way. That is what, I suggest, takes place at these inquiries.
Noble Lords will appreciate that on these questions of whether there should be what I would call an independent inspector, and whether his report should be published, other Departments of State, as well as my Ministry, are concerned. Therefore, all I can say is that I will consider the arguments put forward by noble Lords and go into the matter. I have been quite busily engaged in going into all aspects of this amenity question, because I realise the public concern; and, as I said earlier this afternoon, I realise that the further we go on with this power development, which we must do, as it is vital to every man and woman in this country, the more we shall come up against this problem of amenities. Therefore I am just as convinced as noble Lords that it is important that what we do should be right and above suspicion.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I feel that we have won his support considerably on this matter. I would repeat that I do not contest the noble Lord's good will. I know that he is disturbed about this matter and will do everything possible administratively. I know, also, that for him to stand up at that Dispatch Box and agree with me that we should have independent inquiries, with publication of reports, is a big step to take. However, I am certain that that is the only way the noble Lord will carry good will. That is why the courts of justice in this country are so highly honoured and revered by everybody, and why what they say is not questioned. I want what the independent inspector says to the Minister to be published, and then the Minister must, as I am sure he will, be prepared to accept the responsibility of agreeing or disagreeing; and he can then answer to Parliament, which I know will be his wish. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying
980
that he will take this back and consider the whole problem, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Placing of service lines above ground]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out Clause 30. The noble Lord said: I have delved into Statutes back to 1899, and this clause, if it means anything at all, means that service lines shall now go overground—I am not at all certain about this and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—and shall be deemed to have planning permission. This is what the noble Lord seeks to do. Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 10 of the Schedule of 1899 reads thus:
" The Undertakers shall not without the express consent or authorisation of the Minister and the express consent of the local authority also, place any electric line above ground except within premises in the sole occupation or control of the Undertakers and except so much of any service line as is necessarily so placed for the purpose of supply."
The noble Lord wishes to place, "other than a service line" after the words "electric line", and omit the words "and except so much of any service line as is necessarily so placed for the purpose of supply". That means that every service line shall go over ground, whether it is a yard or a mile long and whether it is low voltage or high voltage. The definition of "service line" is one that supplies a single user.
For what purpose has the noble Lord removed this protection to amenity that has lasted now for fifty years? I cannot understand it. I do not know why he wants to do it. At the present time, planning permission for a service line is given automatically by the planning authority unless there is a serious case, when it goes through the normal procedure. But a service line a hundred yards long can be just as objectionable from an amenity point of view as a 275-kilovolt pylon. I do not know why the noble Lord wants it. Why cannot he allow the matter to stand where it is today? The law is perfectly clear and there is no objection to it. I would hesitate to say that this clause has to be removed to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the Frankenstein monster, but I cannot see any useful purpose. I hope the noble Lord will agree

981
to the deletion of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 30.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.23 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I think the clause as it stands must be wrong, because surely you do not wish to give block protection for all service lines to be placed overhead without the possibility of any question being raised by anybody. I do not wish to go into the immense complications of Statutes or General Development Orders and many other things, but I think the clause as it stands could have ludicrous consequences. I think I am right—I do not claim to be certain—that, if you had a main line which ran underground along a village street of beauty and distinction or in one of our beautiful country towns, every connection into every house could under this clause, if I rightly understand it, be placed overground. The very amenity of the street or the architectural distinction of the street which led you to take great trouble about the main line could be ruined under this clause, if it became law, by every individual house being connected by a line overground. At this late hour I certainly do not wish to labour the point, but it seems to me that the clause as it stands must go too far, and I suggest that the best course for the Minister might be to agree to this Amendment to delete the clause and to restore any part of it which he thinks necessary for his purpose by an Amendment on Report. I beg to support the noble Lord in moving the deletion of the clause.
LORD MILLS: Clause 30, which this Amendment seeks to eliminate, is intended to remove an ambiguity in paragraph 10 (b) of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1889, under which the Minister consents to the erection of overhead lines. Under paragraph 10 (b) of that Schedule, read with Section 21 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, Electricity Boards may not, without the express consent of the Minister—in Scotland, the Secretary of State—place any electric line above ground except within the Board's own premises "and except so much of any service line"—that is, a line connecting a consumer's premises with the main—" as is necessarily so placed for the purposes of
982
supply. "To place the line overhead may well be the only suitable course because, for example, of expense. But it still may be practicable to place it underground. Hence, strictly speaking, the Minister's consent would be required. However, under the General Development Order, 1950, made under the Town and Country Planning Act, the erection of service lines above ground is permitted development and does not require planning permission in individual cases.
The interests of owners and occupiers of land are safeguarded by Section 22 (1) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919. If an Electricity Board wants a wayleave for any electric line, the owners and occupiers of the land must be served with notice. If any of them object, the way-leave cannot be obtained without the consent of the Minister or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State, who may order an inquiry. This provision applies to service lines, as it does to other lines. I think the purpose of this Amendment is merely to remove an ambiguity which has arisen and its intention is; not to compel service lines to go overground.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not doubt for one moment that that was the Minister's purpose. But my advice is precisely the same as Lord Conesford's, which is that every service line will go overground. Would the noble Lord look at it again? It is a technical point. The noble Lord does not want to disfigure the countryside by putting every service line overhead. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who is far more learned in the law than I am, could give his view about it.
LORD MILLS: It is a technical point, and I will gladly look at it again.
LORD CONESFORD: I am most obliged, and I may have got it wrong. I do not go so far as the noble Lord in saying that every service line will henceforth go overground. What I do say, if my reading of the clause is correct—it may be incorrect, and I will study most carefully what the Minister has said—is that if it does go overground nobody, however legitimate his objection may be, will have any means of making that objection prevail.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was rather jumping to conclusions. If

983
they are not forced to go underground they will go overground, because it is far cheaper. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Expedition of highway procedure in connection with electricity works]:
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "thirty days" and insert "eight weeks". The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the period during which members of the public may, first of all, inspect and examine and, secondly, lodge an objection to a draft order for the closure of highways. I am going to admit at once that the existing period of three months is too long as a minimum, and nobody suggests that it should be retained at as long a period as that. On the other hand, the period of one month which appears in the Bill is, in the opinion of a number of people, too short. We have to remember that the people who examine these orders are largely voluntary workers, unpaid people, not officials, and it may take some time to go round and see people. People may be on holiday, if it happens to be in the middle of the summer. I can only add that this point has been examined by a number of people interested in the question of the closure of highways and, whilst it may be, as I have said, that three months is unnecessarily long, it is strongly submitted that one month is unnecessarily short. Therefore, would the Minister meet us by agreeing to eight weeks? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 20, leave out (" thirty days ") and insert (" eight weeks ").—(Lord Merthyr)
LORD MILLS: It is, of course, a question of opinion as to what is the proper length of time. I maintain that the period of thirty days should give ample opportunity to interested parties for lodging objections, because before the notice is
984
published the consent procedure for the construction of the generating station will already have been completed. I explained in detail to the House on March 13 what this procedure involves.
Before formal application for consent is made at all, the Central Authority consult all Government Departments likely to be interested, and other appropriate bodies such as the local planning authority, local authorities, the National Parks Commission, the Royal Fine Art Commission, river boards and statutory water undertakings, as well as the Nature Conservancy, where they are concerned. When formal application is received from the Central Authority, notification is given, as required by Section 2 of the Act of 1909, to the owners and lessees of land within 300 yards of the site, and arrangements are made for making plans and papers available for public inspection locally. Frequently, there are objections necessitating a local hearing or a pubic inquiry; and, on an average, as I explained to your Lordships before, about nine months elapse between the date of formal application and the date of consent. When all this has gone before, surely thirty days' notice should suffice for lodging objections to any consequential order for stopping up or diverting a highway. I might mention that this clause was not opposed in another place, and my right honourable friend, the Postmaster-General was told by the Opposition that he was quite right
" in abbreviating what is really an unnecessarily long time in this context."
I hope noble Lords will accept the proposal that the time should be reduced to thirty days.
LORD MERTHYR: Of course, this is only a question of degree. I am afraid that nothing that the Minister has said has altered my opinion that thirty days is on the short side, but I do not want to dispute further about it to-night. I wonder if the noble Lord would consider lengthening it somewhat, perhaps to six weeks, if he could again split the difference. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 38 agreed to.
First Schedule [Consultative Councils in England and Wales—Amendments of Section 7 of Electricity Act, 1947]:
7.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 1, in the proposed new subsection (2) to leave out "so appointed". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 31 together. They all hang together.
LORD MANCROFT: And Amendment No. 30?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No. Amendment No. 30 is a bit different. On reflection, yes—I suppose Amendment No. 30 does come into it as well. I was keeping Amendment No. 30 "up my sleeve" to "do a deal" with the noble Lord about it. This is a simple point. The new subsection (2), which gives the machinery for setting up the Consultative Councils and their composition reads like this:
" Each of the said Councils shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and of not less than twenty or more than thirty other persons so appointed of whom—
(a) not less than two-fifths or more than three-fifths shall be appointed from a panel of persons nominated by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent local authorities in the area … ."
I want the Minister to agree that the local authorities concerned in the area shall nominate the representatives, not put forward a panel from which the Minister can make a selection. There is a feeling that local authorities, which are democratically-elected bodies, should elect the folk to go on the Consultative Councils as representatives of the people, and it should be their responsibility to propose people for them. It should not be for the Minister to select them from a panel. He cannot be expected to do every housemaid's job in the Ministry, and so the selection is eventually made by the Department, and perhaps they have an eye on somebody who will not be quite so unreasonable as somebody else. There is a feeling among local authorities that, as they are democratically-elected bodies and the Minister desires the representatives of the democratically-elected bodies on his Consultative Councils, they should agree amongst themselves who should be the representatives to be put on the Consultative Councils. That is all that these three Amendments boil down to.
986
The first four lines of subsection (2A), which I propose should be omitted, are the lines that I read out to the Minister earlier on. I seek to omit them because I thought to myself, "They are really a useless bit of jargon, and the Minister thought that one of my Amendments was a bit of jargon." I was going to see if I could "do a deal" with him; that, if I did not press him to take those words out, he might help me by agreeing to my Amendment. I did not see how anybody within the Ministry—and there are some very clever men in the Ministry; we found that out this evening—was going to advise the Minister on the lines of subsection (2A), which says:
" In the appointment of any person under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection the Minister shall have particular regard to his ability to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on the matters to be dealt with by the Council generally "—
those are the words which, by my Amendment No. 30, I seek to omit. The result of accepting these Amendments would mean that the Bill would read:
" not less than two-fifths or more than three-fifths shall be appointed by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent local authorities in the area."
The other consequential Amendments of drafting tie up with that. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to agree with that. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, leave out (" so appointed ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.40 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I must make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I cannot be party to any "shady" deal between him and my noble friend Lord Mills. I propose to deal with this Amendment and any other Amendments on their merits. That there are merits one would concede. What the noble Lord wants to do is to improve and strengthen the Consultative Councils. We, too, should like to do that, but I think I can show the noble Lord that if we do what he has set out to do here we run into considerable practical difficulty.
What he is trying to do is this. His Amendments would take out of the Minister's hands the appointment of local authority representatives to Consultative

987
Councils and give the power to the local authority associations. Members appointed by the associations would not necessarily have to be selected with due regard to their ability to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on matters to be dealt with by the Council generally. Here is where we run into trouble. In almost every area account has to be taken of some four local authority associations. There is the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which the noble Lord, Lord Burden and I were Vice-Presidents for some years, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association. Of course, in London there would be more.
The appointment of 12 to 18 members by the associations themselves would in practice be very difficult. I will tell the noble Lord why. First, not all local authorities in an area can be given representation. There are some 57 local authorities in the London area, and in the north-western area, for example, there are some 40 boroughs and county boroughs alone, apart from county, urban and rural authorities. These will be competing for the limited vacancies, 12 to 18 in all, allotted to local authority representation on the Consultative Council. The noble Lord's Amendment leaves in the air the question of who is to decide between the competing claims. In giving this task to the Minister, the Bill puts it in the hands of the person in the best position to view the composition of the Consultative Council as a whole.
There is another point which I should like the noble Lord to consider. It is necessary, as I think he will agree, to have a proper geographical spread of representation which should not be weighted unduly in favour of some local authorities rather than others. If appointments to the Consultative Council were made in each area by several associations I can see great difficulty in getting the proper geographical balance. The Herbert Committee commended the practice of Ministers in trying to secure that some of the members appointed represented a second and outside interest, as, for example, the retail trade in addition to the local authority. The balance of interests which is aimed at in making local authority appointments as well as
988
in making other appointments could not be achieved if the appointments were in the hands of several associations.
Periods of appointment could not be effectively co-ordinated. It is usual to appoint a member for a fairly short period to begin with, to see how work in a Consultative Council suits him. It does not suit everyone, even though he may be a good local councillor. If all the local authority representatives were appointed by the associations, they would no doubt be appointed for the maximum period of five years and the general quality of representation would probably suffer. In short, if Consultative Councils are to be well balanced, both in the geographical and in the occupational distribution of their members, and if the proportion of useful members is not to decline, all appointments must be in the hands of a single appointing authority, and this should continue to be the Minister.
The Herbert Committee also stated (and this is an important point):
" We have heard that the quality of local authority representation on the Councils is not always of the same standard as that of the representation of ' other interests ' … "
The Committee recommended that selection of local authority representatives should, like the selection of members to represent special interests, have regard to candidates able to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on matters to be dealt with by- the Council generally. The Government accepted this recommendation as tending to improve the standard of representation, and included it in the new paragraph (2) (a) of the First Schedule of the Bill. Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Amendment would remove it, so that local authority representatives need not be capable of exercising a wide and impartial judgment. The chance of effecting an improvement in this category of representation would, I suppose, be lost.
I appreciate what the noble Lord wants to do, and I wish we could help him; but it seems that the Amendments taken together would not enable the Bill to strengthen the position of the Consultative Councils. I am afraid that in the long run, for the reasons I have given at some length—because they are matters of detail—the procedure might well weaken them as the instrument for protecting consumers' interests. Perhaps the

989
noble Lord will consult with some of his friends who have local government experience. Perhaps they will agree that there is a fair amount of strength in the argument which I have put forward about the complexity of the various conflicting interests. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at the matter again and consider it, and in the meantime let the matter rest.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his careful reply. He has put forward quite valid reasons which I appreciate. Of course, the difficulty is to equate the sum amongst a number of local authorities. The only thing I have to say, with reservation, is that perhaps the local authorities would far sooner settle their own differences than let the Minister settle them. I am not going to press this matter because I quite see the difficulties. Before I withdraw the Amendment perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will agree to look again at the matter of these Consultative Councils. I was interested in the Minister's statement that the Consultative Councils have power to subdivide their activities. That would meet my case to a large extent, because that would mean some progress. I hope he will issue instructions for them to do it. I do not know of a case where they do it.
Also I think that the names of the local authority representatives upon the Consultative Committee, when the Minister eventually chooses them, should receive the widest publicity in the areas from which they come. After all, they are the people that the local folk should get at; that is what they are on local authorities for. Then the Council can bring their local complaint from the ordinary consumer to the main body at more frequent intervals than is the case now. I will look at this matter and carefully read what the noble Lord has said. I am not disposed to press these Amendments. I will willingly withdraw them, because I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: After all that we have had to say this afternoon, I should think the noble Lord might let this Amendment go by "on the nod ", so to speak. The new subsection (2) (b) says:
990
" the remainder shall be appointed, after consultation with such bodies as the Minister thinks fit, to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour, and the general interests of consumers of electricity and other persons or organisations interested in the development of electricity in the area."
I seek to insert at the end
" and in the preservation of the natural beauty of the area."
If the noble Lord can accept that, I shall be most grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 22, after (" area ") insert (" and in the preservation of the natural beauty of the area. ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: I appreciate the noble Lord's anxiety and his willingness to do anything to have this question of amenities properly looked after, but I think that here he has chosen the wrong vehicle. Even if the language of Section 7 (4) of the 1947 Act were to be repealed to permit the inclusion of landscape amenities in the terms of reference of Consultative Councils (which, I am advised, it does not), I suggest that their inclusion would be unsuitable. The function of the Consultative Councils is to look after the interests of those who use or require electricity from the public supply. The consultations and inquiries which take place before the project of an Electricity Board finally receives consent ensure that organisations and persons specially concerned with landscape amenities are heard; but to appoint such members as members of Consultative Councils—if we could do it—would be to introduce into the discussions of the Councils a source of conflict which might well be detrimental to their efficiency. I trust the noble Lord will have further thoughts on this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have already had further thoughts and I agree with the noble Lord. As this is my last Amendment, before I withdraw it I hope the noble Lord the Minister will accept my grateful thanks for the kindness, courtesy and good humour with which he has treated this rather protracted Committee stage; for the way in which he has listened to my arguments; and for his promises to give our case his sympathetic consideration. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 20 which your Lordships have already approved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 46, at end insert—
("(3) In this paragraph ' obligation ' has the same meaning as in section twenty-four of this Act. ")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Amendment and Adaptation of Enactments]:
LORD MILLS: Before I move this Amendment I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I have been very impressed by his earnestness and sincerity, and his desire to help, and I have accepted everything which he has said in that way. The noble Lord is of the greatest use to me in enabling me to form such judgments as fall to me to form. This Amendment excludes subsection (4) of Section 3 of the 1947 Act (which disqualifies Members of Parliament from membership of the Central Authority and Area Boards) from the Adaptation Schedule of the Bill. This subsection has just been repealed by the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, which itself provides for the disqualification in another way and is to be amended by the Bill so as to cover the members of the Electricity Council and the Generating Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out (" (4) ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.52 p.m.
LORD MILLS: The reason for this Amendment is that under Section 21 of the 1947 Act a stockholder's representative was appointed for each undertaking at nationalisation, to represent stockholders entitled to compensation. Under subsection (3) the remuneration, allowances and expenses of stockholders' representatives are payable by the Minister and recoverable from the Central Authority. As all possible claims have not been exhausted, it is necessary to retain this provision and to make the payments recoverable from the Electricity Council. Similarly, Section 33 (4) of the
992
1947 Act provides for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses of the Electricity Arbitration Tribunal set up under Section 31 of the 1947 Act to determine disputes arising from the nationalisation of undertakings. Payment is made in the first instance by the Minister and recouped by him from the Central Authority. There are some matters still outstanding between the Central Authority and local authorities for which arbitration may be necessary, and if the arbitration tribunal has to be reconvened for this purpose the Electricity Council will be the proper body to reimburse the Minister for the Tribunal's expenses in place of the Central Authority. The Amendment effects the necessary change. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 28, at end insert—

(" Section 21.

In subsection (3), for the words ' Central Authority' there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Council '.

Section 33.

In subsection (4). for the words ' Central Authority ' there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Council '. ")—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The Third Schedule of the Electricity Act, 1947, deals with the issue of compensation stock at nationalisation. There is, I understand, still a small amount of compensation stock which has not been allocated because the persons entitled to it have not been identified. Adaptations are required in that Schedule for the purpose of transferring to the Electricity Council certain functions of the Central Authority regarding compensation stock. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—
(" Third In paragraph 5 of Part I, and in Schedule paragraph 2, and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5, of Part II for the words ' Central Authority ', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Council '; and in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of Part II, the words ' by the Central Authority ' shall be omitted, and after the words ' in respect of any securities' there shall be inserted the words ' whether by the Central Authority or by the Electricity Council'.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 40, at end insert—
(" The Electric Lighting Act, 1882
In the provisions of section eighteen of the Gaswork Clauses Act, 1847, incorporated with the said Act of 1882 by virtue of section twelve thereof, the words from ' or shall supply any other person ' to the words ' by the Undertakers ', and the words ' or such supply furnished ', shall be omitted. ")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 43, at end insert (" and, in the Appendix, the provisions of section eighteen of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, therein set out shall be modified in accordance with the last preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment, again, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 11, at end insert—
(" In section ten A, in subsection (1), for the words' Electricity Act, 1947', there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Act, 1957 ' ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The remaining Amendments are matters of machinery only. They contain no point of controversy of any kind, and unless your Lordships want me to deal with any point individually it may be convenient at this hour if I ask the Lord Chairman to put them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 7, at end insert—
(" In section ninety-seven, in subsection (1), after the words ' British Electricity Authority ', there shall be inserted the words ' or the Electricity Council' ")
Page 50, line 21, at end insert—
(" The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954
In section one, for the words ' the said Acts ', there shall be substituted the words ' that Act ")
Page 50, line 21, at end insert—
(" The Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954
In section twelve, in subsection (1), after the words ' transfer; and ' there shall be inserted
994
the words ' subject to the next following subsection ' and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection—
'(1A) Where any regulations made under subsection (1) of this section provide for appeals to be brought as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of the said section fifty-five, the referee or board of referees on any such appeal may, and if so directed by the Court of Session shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the proceedings. ' ")
Page 50, line 25, at end insert—
(" The Rating and Valuation Act, 1957
In section two, after the words ' Central Electricity Authority', in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words ' or the Electricity Council '; and any reference in that section to any provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, shall be construed as a reference to those provisions as amended by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD MANCROFT: The same applies to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 35, at end insert—

(" 2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c. 52.

The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954.

In section one, the words ' the British Electricity Authority and Area Electricity Boards, and of', and paragraph (a).")

—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MARINE SOCIETY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.