Sitting of 23 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Ordnance Factory, Radway Green (Output)
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Supply what civilian commodities are now being produced at Radway Green Royal Ordnance factory; what is the current monthly output; and how many men and women are engaged on the work.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): The principal civilian commodities in production at this factory are oil engine components, cookers and brass strip. It is not the practice to give the distribution of employment and details of output at individual factories.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister tell us when it is expected that the factory will be in full production?
    Mr. Wilmot: It all depends on what my hon. Friend means by "full production."
    Mr. William Shepherd: Can the Minister say why the House is denied information on the points mentioned by the Minister in connection with the goods produced for this purpose?
    Mr. Wilmot: It has not been the practice to give this information about individual factories.
    Mr. Shepherd: Why not?
    Mr. Wilmot: There are security reasons for the distribution of the labour force over the Royal Ordnance factories, which it would not be right to give.

    Short Wave Wireless Transmitters
    Mr. Norman Smithasked the Minister of Supply why short wave wireless sets are being destroyed at his Department's Ruddington depot.
    Mr. Wilmot: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to short wave wireless transmitters. It would be contrary to the public interest to sell them to private operators as it might lead to chaos in wireless communications. Some of them were previously destroyed, but they are now dismantled and sold when certain parts have been removed.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that it would not be worth while to set men to work dismantling these parts rather than smashing them up?
    Mr. Wilmot: They are dismantling them and the parts are sold.

    Low Flying Aircraft, Wainfleet
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that aircraft are in the habit of flying at

    3
    low levels over the Wainfleet district on Sundays, and that the noise of these aircraft is a source of annoyance to those attending Divine Service in the area; and what steps he proposes to take to abate this nuisance.
    Mr. Wilmot: Instructions to avoid a repetition of this have now been issued.
    Commander Maitland: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why his Department has become involved in this Question?
    Mr. Wilmot: The flight was in connection with some work done for my Department.

    Surplus Motor Cars (Disposal)
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Supply the number of motor cars, surplus to requirements, disposed of by him either to Government Departments or to Government-sponsored corporations', and how many of these motor cars were of 14h.p. and under.
    Mr. Wilmot: Two hundred and ninety-one surplus motor cars were disposed of to Government Departments and 25 were sold to Government-sponsored corporations. Two hundred and forty-five were of 14h.p. or under.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister say why these vehicles were disposed of to these corporations when there are disabled ex-Service men waiting for such vehicles?
    Mr. Wilmot: The corporations needed the vehicles for their work.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the Minister realise that many of these disabled men need these motor cars in order to get to their place of work and that they cannot get to their work without them?
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Transport will not even accept names from 100 per cent. disabled men so that they can get reconditioned cars, and will he not review the matter?
    Mr. Wilmot: I have reviewed this matter and I have decided that when cars are suitable for disabled ex-Service men they will be given to them.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why these corporations should get preferential treatment in this
    4
    matter when they get priority for new cars as well?
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Supply what arrangements he has made to supply reconditioned ex-Service motor cars to Government corporations; whether these vehicles would otherwise have been offered to the public by auction and whether inquiries are made as to the purpose for which these motor cars are to be used by the corporations.
    Mr. Wilmot: Twenty-five cars, of which three were reconditioned, have been supplied from surplus Government stocks to the Airways corporations. My information is that these cars are being used for the corporations'- official business.
    Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that some of these cars are being used by the employees?
    Mr. Wilmot: I understand that they are being used on official business only.

    Public Health Service Vehicles
    7 and 8. Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Supply (1) if he is aware of the long delay being experienced by local authorities in the delivery of public service vehicles, especially cesspool emptiers; and if he will ensure priority for the production of- such vehicles;
    (2) if he will make readily available to local authorities supplies of spare parts urgently required to maintain in service vehicles used in the interests of public health.
    Mr. Wilmot: Owing to very heavy demand, there is delay in the delivery of all vehicles, but there is no evidence to show that it is greater with these than with other types. There is no Government control either over the manufacture of complete vehicles or over the sale and distribution of spare parts and I do not think that there is a case for asking the industry to give them priority. If, however, my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular case of difficulty, I will see if I can help.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my main interest is in cesspool vehicles for the rural districts, and, therefore, if the Government can do anything to speed up these particular vehicles it will be very helpful in the interests of public health?
    Mr. Wilmot: We are doing so.

    Staff, Hans Mansions (Reductions)
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Minister of Supply what reductions have been made in the staff at Hans Mansions since 31st March, 1947.
    Mr. Wilmot: The staff at Hans Mansions has been reduced by 14 since 31st March, 1947.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some, even within the Department, who consider that there could be a reduction much more speedily without loss of efficiency, and is it intended to have the position specially examined?
    Mr. Wilmot: The staff is being steadily reduced as the disposal work falls off.
    Mr. Williams: But will the Minister have the position specially examined in view of the fact that this is the second occasion on which I have raised the issue with him?
    Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir, I am quite willing to do that

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Requisitioned Premises, Maidstone
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works why 25, Gabriel's Hill, Maidstone, is not now being released, as shops are much needed in the town and he retains large premises but two or three minutes' walk away in Week Street.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): These premises have been specially fitted for use by the Ministry of Food as a Food Advice Centre. The building in Week Street is the local Food Office; it is not large enough to accommodate the Food Advice Centre as well.
    Mr. Bossom: Has not the time arrived when these food offices should be concentrated into one building so that local people may have their own shops again and so that the nation may be saved the cost of having to maintain three places to do one job?
    Mr. Key: Wherever possible we carry out that concentration, but in this case it is not possible.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what special equipment is necessary to give advice about food?
    Mr. Key: That does not fall to my Department.
    Sir William Darling: Does not the Minister agree that the best food advice centre is a well-equipped and well-stocked grocer's shop?
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and with due cooperation and without undue criticism we may obtain such grocers' shops.

    Palace of Westminster (Home Guard and Firewatchers' Equipment)
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Minister of Works whether the equipment provided for use of the Home Guard and firewatchers during the war in the Palace of Westminster has been disposed of, or how much has been retained; and for what purpose.
    Mr. Key: The equipment provided for the use of Home Guards in the Palace of Westminster has been sent to the Territorial Association. Firewatchers' equipment has been stored for re-issue for peace-time purposes, or returned to the appropriate Department for disposal.

    Royal Parks (Litter)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works whether he has seen the litter of paper and food fragments in the Royal Parks on a fine summer day, which diminishes public enjoyment; how many prosecutions there have been on this account; and whether he will consider increasing the number of prosecutions in order to abate this nuisance.
    Mr. Key: I am only too well aware of the amount of litter desposited in the Royal Parks, which is a matter of great concern and expense to my Department. Only one successful prosecution has taken place during the past 12 months, when the offender was fined £2. I will not hesitate to prosecute in all cases where the necessary evidence is available.
    Mr. Keeling: Why cannot evidence be obtained after a few minutes' watching?
    Hon. Members: Snoopers.
    Mr. Key: The labour that is available can be turned to far more profitable uses

    7
    than that suggested by the hon. Member of snooping upon individuals. I am hoping by other means to give some sort of education to the public in preserving the amenities of the Royal Parks.
    Mr. G. Wallace: How does it come about that food fragments are littered in our public parks when we are supposed to be starving?
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister in touch with the Minister of Education in order to educate school children to avoid these practices? Is not the right way of dealing with these matters not that of prosecution, but the training of the habits of the public?
    Mr. Key: I agree entirely with the hon. Member, that this is a matter of public education but, as an ex-schoolmaster, I am not at all convinced that the offenders are the children of our schools.

    Requisitioned Single Properties (Release)
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Works whether any priority in derequisitioning is given to owners of single properties subject to requisition who require the properties for the purpose of their calling and where no suitable alternative accommodation is available.
    Mr. Key: While first priority is given generally to the release of accommodation such as flats and small houses which are urgently needed to meet a public need, efforts are made to meet individual cases of hardship by releasing single properties where possible.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: If I give the Minister information about particular cases which deserve his sympathetic attention, will he give them that attention?
    Mr. Key: Most certainly.

    Building Repairs (Licences)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Works whether, in granting licences for building repairs, consideration is given to the announcement made by representatives of the Ministry of Health to local authorities that the aim was an allocation of licences in the ratio, in terms of value, of 60/40 to the advantage of housing as against non-housing repairs.
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir.

    House of Commons (Division Lobbies, Lighting)
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Minister of Works whether he will introduce more natural and artificial light into the Division Lobbies of the House.
    Mr. Key: I hope by next autumn to have reglazed all Division Lobby windows with glass similar to that in this Chamber, but progress will depend on the rate at which the special glass can be obtained. I am not aware of any general demand for an improvement in the artificial lighting; the amount provided is greater than it was before the war.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that of all the Lobbies, the "Aye" Lobby is by far the gloomier and requires attention more urgently?
    Mr. Key: I quite understand the feeling the hon. Gentleman has on this matter. I dare say he has more often to go into the "Aye" Lobby in support of unnecessary Amendments than into the other Lobby.

  HOUSING

    Repairs, Birmingham (Materials)
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the urgent need of roofing material for the repair of dwelling houses in Birmingham, now suffering injury to their existing structure and furniture and other internal contents; and if he will make arrangements to augment the present limited available supplies.
    Mr. Yatesasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the shortage of slates and other building materials is so acute in Birmingham that builders are experiencing difficulty in carrying out repairs to houses for which statutory orders have been issued by the medical officer of health; and, in view of the large numbers of houses with defective roofs, if he will review the present allocation of materials to enable essential repairs to be carried out.
    Mr. Key: I am not aware of any serious difficulty in meeting these needs, for which special provision has been made in the priority distribution scheme. If the hon. Member opposite would supply me with details of any case he has in mind I should be glad to inquire into it.
    Sir P. Hannon: In view of the particularly sad circumstances in which many of these people live, would the Minister give special attention to fixing his priorities so that they are given preference over ordinary building?
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and with the cooperation of the local authority who have the power of issuing these certificates we shall do that.
    Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that according to the chief sanitary inspector in Birmingham builders are having to take slates from out-houses in order to repair roofs, and that the position is becoming almost intolerable and should be investigated?
    Mr. Key: There is a difficulty with regard to the supply of slates, but my regional officers will assist local authorities in this matter.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the Minister tell us off-hand of any case in which there is no difficulty of supply?
    Mr. Key: If the right hon. Gentleman will look around in his own constituency I think he will find an overwhelming number of cases.

    Cement Supplies
    Mr. Emrys Robertsasked the Minister of Works why the shortage of cement has now become acute; and what steps are proposed to increase supplies for building and repair of houses.
    Mr. Key: Cement production fell sharply because of the fuel shortage, and stocks throughout the country were reduced to an extremely low level. The rate of output now exceeds its former level but it will be some time before stocks are re-established. In the meantime, my regional officers are arranging for as much cement as possible to be supplied for housing.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the Minister aware that quite recently there was no cement available at all in some towns of North Wales, and could some be made available for essential repairs pending such time as output becomes sufficiently normal to meet other demands?
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, I am aware that there have been places in the country without any cement at all. We made efforts to supply them and those supplies
    10
    were sent. At all times my regional officers are prepared to give what assistance they can.
    Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister look into the restrictive practices of the cement manufacturers in order to ensure that greater supplies are available?
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. I have been in consultation with the cement industry and I am perfectly satisfied that the amounts that are being produced will be equal to the needs if we are given the chance of another week.
    Lady Grant: Is the Minister aware that the increased allocation of fuel to the cement manufacturers is equivalent to only 85 per cent. of last year's production, and is it not possible to increase this allocation to a very great extent?
    Mr. Key: I do not accept the statement that the fuel allocation is equal to only 85 per cent. of last year's production. According to my information the amount of fuel that has now been allocated is sufficient to meet the needs at present.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Would the Minister discount the obvious delight of His Majesty's Opposition at these difficulties?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Did not the Minister say last week that the difficulties with regard to cement were due to the failure of distribution, and how does he reconcile last week's statement with this?
    Mr. Key: No, Sir, I did not make that statement last week. What I said was that the difficulty arose from shortage of supplies because of the fuel difficulty, which was added to by the difficulty of distribution because, of course, the pipelines were empty of the material. That is the problem that has to be solved now, and with the stocks increasing, the normal channels of supply will be able to meet the demand.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that contractors in a small way of business are receiving a fair allocation of the available supplies?
    Mr. Key: I am not saying that in some circumstances there are not difficulties with regard to small contractors but, as I have said, in every case which is brought to our notice, my regional officers will do everything they can to meet the need.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister realise that a most abnormal effort must be made with regard to cement, because it is the thing that holds, the houses together?
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, and my people, in co-operation with the industry, are making that abnormal effort.
    Mr. G. Wallace: Has the Minister checked up on the storage capacity of any factory to discover whether it is choked with cement that has not been distributed?
    Mr. Key: I think that my officers in the regions concerned would be able to discover that, and I have received no indication which would lead to that conclusion.
    Mr. D. Marshall: Is not the Minister aware that he gave me an assurance across the Floor of this House last week that cement would be available and supplies normal by the beginning of next month, and what does he mean now by saying "some time"?
    Mr. Key: Exactly what I said last time.
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the present delay in delivering cement and plaster for completing the housing programme in Huntingdonshire; and whether he will take steps to expedite deliveries.
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. During the present temporary shortage of cement, demands cannot be met promptly, but my regional officers are prepared to give assistance in particularly urgent cases. The shortage of plaster is not acute, but similar assistance will be given wherever necessary.
    Mr. D. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that in the towns of Saltash and Liskeard, in my constituency, the housing programme has been held up for some time for lack of cement?
    Mr. Key: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, but I should not be surprised to hear it.
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Works on what basis supplies of cement available for general housing purposes are apportioned between the various local authority housing schemes in any particular locality.
    Mr. Key: Supplies are distributed as fairly as possible by the trade, and the assistance of my regional officers is available to any local authority which has difficulty in meeting urgent requirements.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, owing to the priority laid down as to the use of cement, there is none available for houses; and, in view of the fact that the rebuilding of bombed houses at 142 to 152, Crescent Drive, Petts Wood, Kent, particulars of which have been sent him, is being held up for want of cement, if he will take steps to arrange for immediate deliveries to that site.
    Mr. Key: The shortage of cement follows the fuel difficulties. I am aware of the case mentioned and a small delivery has been made.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is not the Minister aware that the reason for the shortage of cement everywhere is the same as for the shortage of potatoes—Government control? Does he not recall the saying of Kipling's about the good servant who became a bad master?
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, but when the servant is acting on behalf of a master—namely, the people of this country—who is at the present moment endorsing the action of his servant, I am perfectly satisfied so to act.
    Brigadier Rayner: Is the Minister aware that I am building four agricultural cottages in South Devon and that the work has been held up for six weeks owing to the shortage? Will he make abnormal efforts to see that it is dealt with?
    Mr. Key: No, Sir, I was not aware of what the hon. and gallant Member has stated, and I do not see why I should make abnormal efforts in that particular instance. I will make every effort to see that the district generally gets the supplies that it is possible to deliver.

    Prefabricated Bungalows, Kingsbridge
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the numerous complaints which have been made by the occupants of the new prefabricated bungalows erected in the rural district of Kingsbridge, Devon, with regard to the inability to obtain any fencing

    13
    material to make their gardens stockproof; and whether, in view of the urgent need for encouraging food production, he will arrange for the better distribution of fencing material.
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir; my regional officer received a complaint in May, and the material has since been delivered. The supplies of fencing material available for temporary houses are distributed fairly and each site is dealt with, as nearly as possible, in its turn.

    Sewage Disposal, Kingsbridge
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory position with regard to sewage disposal in the vicinity of new housing areas in the rural district of Kingsbridge, Devonshire; and when he anticipates it will be possible to take some action with regard to the complaints which have been passed to him in this connection
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sit; a meeting on the site With the council's officers to investigate the cause of the complaint is due to take place this week.

    Prefabricated Houses (Lighting Plugs)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health what is the sum allowed for the provision of lighting plugs in the smallest type of permanent prefabricated houses; and whether this will provide the number of plugs recommended in the Housing Manual.
    Mr. Snow (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. In the priced bill agreed as the basis of contract, the figure is £27 6s. 3d. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Bossom: Will the representative of the Minister of Health inform him that the majority of houses being built at the present time have not half the number which is recommended in the Housing Manual, and that it will be injurious to the sight of the people concerned? Cannot he have the recommendation properly carried out?
    Mr. Snow: I will see that my right hon. Friend is notified of the hon. Member's allegation.

  GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY (RECEPTIONS, LONDON)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Works the amount of money spent on Government hospitality at receptions held in London hotels and restaurants; and the amount spent in each establishment for the past year.
  Mr. Key: The total expenditure on Government hospitality at receptions held in London hotels and restaurants during the 12 months ended 31st May, 1947, was £4,754 10s. 5d. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the details of this sum in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the details:
  The amount spent in each establishment was as follows:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Claridges Hotel

  1,311

  7

  9

  The Dorchester

  727

  9

  2

  Grosvenor House

  49

  6

  1

  Gunters Restaurant

  201

  11

  0

  The Hyde Park Hotel

  157

  4

  1

  The Savoy Hotel

  2,307

  12

  4

  Total

  £4,754

  10

  5

  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of Works if he will arrange that, in future, all Government hospitality receptions, hotel bookings, etc., are shared out equally amongst those establishments able to provide the necessary accommodation and facilities.
  Mr. Key: Every endeavour is made to share entertainment provided by the Government between those establishments which are able to provide the necessary accommodation and facilities.
  Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister if all the entertainments and the food provided were subject to the ordinary regulations of the Ministry of Food?
  Mr. Key: Certainly, Sir.
  Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister agree that quality in Government hospitality is more important than equality?
  Mr. Key: I think that that is true and we endeavour as far as we can to create a good impression on our foreign visitors.
  Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Works whether when the Government

  15
  hold receptions, etc., m London hotels and restaurants, every opportunity is given by means of competitive tender to each suitable establishment to apply; and whether he will give an assurance that these contracts for receptions are given to establishments that abide by the fair wage and condition clause of Government contracts.
  Mr. Key: As a rule, Government receptions have to be arranged at very short notice and time does not permit of competitive tendering. With regard to the second part of the Question it has not been considered necessary or appropriate to apply the general conditions of Government contracts to the services which are provided by hotels and restaurants in connection with these receptions.

  INDIA

    Statutory Order No. 565
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the date upon which S.R. & O., 1947, No. 565, was made; the date upon which this Order was laid on the Table of the House; and the reason for the delay in such laying.
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The Order in question was made on 14th March, published on 9th April, and laid on the Table of the House on 29th April. My noble Friend very much regrets the delay, which was the result of a Departmental oversight.

    Royal Indian Navy (Pension Code)
    Commander Nobleasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have now reached a decision on the question of applying the new pension code, Cmd. 6754, to officers of the Royal Indian Navy.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has yet come to any conclusion on the application of the new 1945 British pension scales to the Royal Indian Navy.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I am glad to say that the Government of India have now approved in principle the application of the 1945 pension code to the British
    16
    officers of the Royal Indian Navy. Certain questions of detail still remain for consideration.
    Sir W. Smithers: May we take it that the Navy will receive as good treatment as the other Services?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir, I have just indicated so.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Minister tell us what is to happen in regard to the position of the members of the Indian Civil Service?
    Mr. Speaker: That subject does not arise on either of the Questions.

    Government Service (Contracts)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, what is the position, when the transfer of power takes place, of a person who joined the Indian Government service and had a contract with the British Indian Government, with the right of appeal to the Viceroy; and what provision is being made for their future.
    Mr. A. Henderson: As part of the process of the partition of India there will be a division of existing obligations, assets and liabilities and no doubt also of the existing staff of the Government of India. I have no reason to suppose that the new Governments will not observe the contracts of their predecessor. It is, however, intended, when the new authorities have been set up, to negotiate agreements with them in regard to matters arising out of the transfer of power and the position of persons of United Kingdom origin hitherto in the service of the existing Indian Government including the security of their pensions in respect of their past service will be for discussion in these negotiations.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State has used the term "no doubt"? Is he aware that all these loyal people, who so devotedly served India for so many years, are now not at all certain what is to happen to them? They all feel that they are being left high and dry.
    Mr. Henderson: Careful study of my reply will, I think, reveal that their fears are groundless.
    Earl Winterton: Can the Minister give an assurance that this matter will be dealt with in the new Government of India Bill?
    Mr. Henderson: I think we might wait until the new Bill is introduced. I think it will be found to cover the point.
    Earl Winterton: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State is under a legal obligation, by the terms of the former Government of India Act?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. The Secretary of State is not under any statutory obligation, except in regard to what are called the Secretary of State's Services. I think the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter had in mind those people who have contracts with the Government of India, and not the members of the Secretary of State's services.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right of appeal to the Viceroy still to be there?
    Mr. Henderson: As a matter of fact, there never was a right of appeal to the Viceroy in his discretion. Appeal lay to the Governor-General in Council.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Do the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply to Indian civil servants as well as to the Army and Navy?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. My answer covers only those of United Kingdom origin.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: What is intended to be done in the other cases?
    Mr. Henderson: We must leave it to the Government of India and to the various Provincial Governments of India to do the right thing with their own nationals.
    Mr. Nicholson: May we take it that the Government are aware of the anxiety of those who are employed in the un-covenanted services and by Provincial Governments? Although I am not pressing for an authoritative statement on this matter at the moment, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that his Department has this matter constantly in mind?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. As I have said, this is one of the matters which will
    18
    have to be discussed when treaties or agreements are negotiated with the new Governments.
    Mr. Nicholson: I hope I made it clear that I am talking about the uncovenanted services and those who are employed by the Provincial Governments. Does the answer cover that?
    Mr. Henderson: The members of the Secretary of State's Services have already been dealt with in the announcement recently made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The reply I have given today covers the other Government services.

    Armed Forces (Strength)
    Brigadier Lowasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many officers and other ranks, respectively, are at present serving on the Indian
    establishment each of the Royal Indian Navy, the Indian Army and the Royal Indian Air Force.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The Government of India have informed me that it would be contrary to their policy to disclose such information regarding their Armed Forces. I therefore regret that I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member the information for which he has asked.
    Brigadier Low: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to give the information as far as it concerns British officers and other ranks?
    Mr. Henderson: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.

  BURMA (BUDGET DEFICIT)
  Sir Stanley Reedasked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma what proportion of the £12,000,000 contributed by the British Government towards the deficit in Burma's 1946–47 budget is absorbed in the payment of salaries; and what proportion of the £18,375,000 to wards the current year's fiscal rehabilitation projects is being spent on repairing the destruction of British assets wrecked by orders in the denial of their use by the Japanese invaders.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Both

  19
  contributions are being made as general advances towards meeting Burma's budget deficit and the rehabilitation of her economy for the financial year October, 1946, to September, 1947. While I regret that the precise information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available, I would inform the hon. Member that the estimated total expenditure is approximately £33 million, of which approximately £12.5 million is in respect of salaries (exclusive of those for the Frontier Areas) and the estimated revenue is approximately £20 million. As regards the second part of the Question the actual proportion of His Majesty's Government's contribution to the projects to be expended on restoring British-owned assets destroyed by denial measures is not ascertainable, as assets so destroyed have not been dealt with separately from those destroyed by other war operations, and in many cases the assets will be replaced in a different form.
  Sir S. Reed: Is it compatible with the declaration of complete independence for the new Burmese Government that the British taxpayer should pay the whole cost of the salaries of this administration, and would it not be fair that British nationals whose businesses have suffered enormous losses should have some sort of guarantee as to what proportion, if any, will be recouped to them out of this heavy expenditure of £33 million, again at the expense of the British taxpayer?
  Mr. Henderson: As regards the second part of the question, I am not able to give the precise information for which the hon. Gentleman asks, because in the nature of things it is not possible to separate one item from another. As regards the first part of the supplementary question, he will appreciate that the engagements which the Government have entered into with regard to the
  Government of Burma cover the financial year ending September this year. The effect of any constitutional change of the nature to which he has referred upon existing engagements is, of course, an entirely different question.
  Earl Winterton: Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will supply a Command Paper or some other information from which we shall be able to see exactly how this gift—for that is what it really is—has been spent?
  Mr. Henderson: I do not think there is any secret as to the way in which the money has been spent. The difficulty is in breaking down the amounts advanced to cover the deficit as regards
  the items of expenditure by the Burmese Government during the current financial year. I am quite sure we will do our best to supply any information which the noble Lord or any other hon. Member desires.

  RUMANIA

    Military Missions (Withdrawal)
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the military missions of the Allied Powers now in Rumania will be withdrawn simultaneously; and upon what date or dates.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): No arrangements have been made for simultaneous withdrawal. The process must, however, be completed within 90 days of the coming into force of the Treaty, which lays down that all Allied forces must be withdrawn within 90 days, subject to the right of the Soviet Union to keep on Rumanian territory such armed forces as it may need for the maintenance of the lines of communication of the Soviet forces in Austria.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that steps will be taken to ensure the simultaneous withdrawal of the missions?
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. We shall withdraw our mission as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: But not without consultation with the other Governments concerned, I trust?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add to my answer, but we shall withdraw this mission, which will have no duties then, as soon as practicable.

    Arrests
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many people were arrested in Rumania, otherwise than upon criminal charges, between 1st March and 7th May; how many of these have, respectively, been released, charged or brought to trial; and, in so far as these arrests were a breach of the provisions governing our relations with Rumania, what action he is taking in the matter.
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not know the exact number of persons arrested. From reports that have been received I should estimate that there have been well over a thousand arrests. As far as can be ascertained, none of the persons in question have been formally charged or brought to trial, but some have been released after a short period of detention. As regards the last part of the Question, I have not at present anything to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) on 30th April.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That reply having been so exceedingly unsatisfactory, will the Under-Secretary say what further steps he is now taking in order to ascertain this information?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am not in a position to make a statement now but we are considering what is the best course to take.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will the Under-Secretary inform the Rumanian Government that there is a considerable volume of good will in this country towards Rumania, and that funds are being raised to aid starving Rumanian children and so on? Will he point out that behaviour of this kind must militate against that good will?
    Mr. Mayhew: Inevitably, such behaviour does do that.

    Peace Treaty (Ratification)
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the cause of the delay in the ratification of the peace treaty with Rumania; and when this will now take place.
    Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government and the United States Government are now ready to deposit their ratifications and my right hon. Friend is at present in communication with the Soviet and United States Governments in order to fix an early date on which all three ratifications may be deposited, thus bringing the Treaty into force. It is, however, the view of His Majesty's Government that the Rumanian Government should ratify before the three powers whose ratification will bring the treaty into force. My right hon. Friend has accordingly represented to the Rumanian Government the importance of early ratification on their part.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Rumanian Government has not yet ratified the Treaty?
    Mr. Mayhew: I think there are several reasons for the delay in ratification. We have been ready to ratify it for some time past, but other countries have to go through legislative processes before they can ratify it.
    Professor Savory: Are His Majesty's Government not going to be assured that the conditions laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty will be carried out before ratification is granted?
    Mr. Mayhew: We shall certainly ratify this Treaty. What action we shall take with regard to Article 3 is a different question.

  GERMANY

    Private Estates (Ownership)
    Lieut.-Colonel Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what method is contemplated for dealing with the ownership of large private estates in the British zone of Germany.
    Mr. Mayhew: A draft ordinance on Land Reform has just been referred to the German Zonal Advisory Council for advice. While it is not possible, therefore, to give details of the measures which will take effect, it is generally expected that the Ordinance will provide that land in excess of an area to be specified should be expropriated. This step in the view of the Moscow Conference is necessary in the interest of future security.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: In the case of extensive farms which are planned, as many are, for operation as one unit with large central buildings, will the hon. Gentleman consider turning them into State concerns so that they can still be operated as one unit under public ownership since that would be much more efficient than breaking them up into a number of small units?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is perhaps rather a large question for Question time, but where large experimental farms are concerned, it is the intention of the draft ordinance to make special provisions.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Under-Secretary tell us under what principle or under-

    23
    standing of international law this kind of re-allotting of landed property is being done?
    Mr. Mayhew: This is done by the same procedure as other acts of the Control Commission in the British zone, and, of course, the Germans are taken into consultation. This ordinance is at the moment before the Zonal Advisory Council for their advice.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this announcement has caused widespread concern, particularly among the social democrats of Germany? Can he say why the maximum size of an estate under the new law is to be fixed considerably higher in the British zone than it is in the Russian or American zones?
    Mr. Mayhew: The ordinance is, I must repeat, in draft. The actual maximum is now subject to the advice of the Zonal Advisory Council, and I do not think I can make any further comment at this stage.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What is the attitude of the United States on this question of the expropriation of private lands? Have they been consulted now that we are working together in the Western zones?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is another question.

    Hamburg Project
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Hamburg Project has now been abandoned; and how much money has been spent on it to date.
    Mr. Mayhew: No final decision has yet been reached as to the completion of the Hamburg Project. The main work is at present in suspense because it is not possible to allot the necessary priority for the provision of the materials and labour involved. Work is still proceeding to protect the foundations which have been laid. The cost to date is approximately 29,000,000 Reichsmarks.
    Mr. Boothby: Arising out of that, would not the hon. Gentleman think it better to abandon this project finally, instead of wasting any more money ?
    Mr. Mayhew: The final decision has not yet been taken. However, the only work
    24
    going on is to protect the foundations so that eventual completion will make this building of service.

    Iron and Steel Industry (Socialisation)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in whom it is intended to vest the property of the German iron and steel industry when it is socialised in the British zone.
    Mr. Mayhew: No final decision has yet been taken, but my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a statement in the near future.

  ECONOMIC PLANNING AND CONTROL
  Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Prime Minister, if he will issue, as a White Paper or in some other convenient form, a statement giving a description of the existing Governmental machinery of economic planning and control.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The Governmental machinery for economic planning and control has been described from time to time and announcements have already been made about all recent developments. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not think that the issue of a further statement would be appropriate at the present time.
  Mr. Shepherd: Is not the Lord President aware that there is as much confusion in the public mind about this machinery as about what comes out of the machinery, and would it not be a good thing to have a real statement of what actually happens behind the scenes?
  Mr. Morrison: I think the assumption on which the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is put is unfounded.
  Mr. Frank Byers: Might I ask the Lord President to reconsider this, because a considerable number of people would be extremely interested to know exactly what is the planning set-up, and in a democracy surely, they have the right to know? Would he not consider it seriously and favourably?
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is begging the question. I have already

  25
  answered the Question on the Paper which dealt with that very point.

  CENTRAL PLANNING ORGANISATION (CHIEF PUBLICITY OFFICER)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Lord President of the Council what salary is being paid to the chief publicity officer to the Central Planning Organisation.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The salary of the Chief Economic Information Officer, who has been appointed on a temporary basis, is £3,750.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not that salary the equivalent to that paid to the most senior officers of the Civil Service? And is it not substantially higher than that paid to any other public relations officer of any other Government Department?
  Mr. Morrison: This appointment is a temporary appointment. Special qualifications were necessary, and the salary is actually no more than the income which Mr. Leslie was earning before he came to this post.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Can the Lord President say what are the special qualifications ?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I have already answered that Question in a written answer which appeared in HANSARD on Friday, but there is no doubt that his qualifications are outstanding.
  An Hon. Member: What are they?
  Mr. Morrison: I can tell the House, if the House wishes.
  Mr. Speaker: The Question only asks what was the salary paid.

  AGRICULTURE

    Tenancy Notice, Cambridgeshire
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Cambridgeshire A.E.C. have informed Mr. J. T. Cooper that they are generally dissatisfied with his method of farming and that therefore they could not reconsider the notice to quit by next Michael-
    26
    mas based upon quite different grounds; and whether he will cause particulars of the committee's complaint to be sent forthwith to Mr. Cooper.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Yes, Sir, except that I cannot agree that this notice was based on different grounds.
    Mr. Beechman: As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has laryngitis and can scarcely speak, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the county agricultural executive made no complaint about Mr. Cooper's farming methods to his Department until my hon. Friend complained to the agricultural executive committee in Cambridgeshire, and will he take great pains to ensure that no injustice is done in this case?
    Mr. Williams: I have made inquiries and my information is that the real cause for the notice was made transparently clear to Mr. Cooper in discussions with the county agricultural executive committee.

    Milk (Transport Delays)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the thousands of gallons of milk for which payment was refused to the farm dairies throughout the country during the recent hot weather spell, due to delay in transport and long hours standing in the sun after leaving the farm dairies, before delivery, he will take steps to ensure that the transport during hot weather spells is expedited and that farmers are not rendered liable for the loss, which in most cases cannot be attributed to their negligence or lack of efficiency on the farms.
    Mr. T. Williams: Although the hot weather spell coincided with the peak of milk production there is no evidence that delay in transport was the primary cause of the souring of such milk as was rejected. Special arrangements to expedite transport are therefore unnecessary.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much of the milk which has been examined was perfectly good when it left the farm dairies, and will he look into the question of transport, because no milk will keep in. churns if it is exposed to the sun for hours?
    Mr. Williams: I have no information to that effect. As a matter of fact, investigations have shown that milk which is satistorily produced and handled at the start will show little change in keeping quality even if the churns are exposed to the sun for several hours. On the contrary, unsatisfactory milk will sour rapidly in such conditions.
    Mr. De la Bère: Would the right hon. Gentleman have a word with me afterwards. This is a very important matter.

    U.S.A. Tractor Tyres
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Agriculture the dates on which orders were first placed in the U.S.A. for tractor tyres, and the number of tyres which have been ordered.
    Mr. T. Williams: I assume the hon. and gallant Member refers to tractor tyres imported under licence since importation by individual manufacturers was resumed on 1st June, 1946. The first licence for the import of tractor tyres from U.S. was issued in August, 1946, and the total number of tyres covered by this and subsequent licences is 7.575.

    Requisitioned Commons
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Minister of Agriculture when it is proposed to hand back to the commonholders those commons which were requisitioned by the W.A.E.Cs. during the war.
    Mr. T. Williams: In the present serious food situation I can make no promise, but I will give the matter sympathetic consideration as soon as the position eases.
    Mr. Baldwin: May I ask the Minister whether, when the time comes to hand back these commons to the common-holders, he will take the necessary steps to see that the common landlords look after their commons and keep them in food production and not let them revert to the state which they were in previously?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, but that is tomorrow and not today.

    Farm Visit (Departmental Officials)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that 11 employees of 'his Department visited a
    28
    farm belonging to Mr. B. S. White, the chairman of the West Midland Liberal Federation, on a particular day; and what was the purpose of the visit.
    Mr. T. Williams: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the report in a local newspaper of a statement by Mr. White to the effect that II officials of my Department visited his farm on a particular day. From information Mr. White has since supplied it appears that the correct number is two: one was a veterinary officer paying his annual visit, the other was an officer who called to advise on the economic use of tractor oil.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this statement was made partly as an attack on the Civil Service, that the headline of the paper read: "Eleven officials to check farm," and is it not clear from the Minister's answer that nine-elevenths of this type of propaganda must be discounted as wild exaggeration?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he proposes to disallow the proposed alteration in the electoral arrangements in Southern Rhodesia, whereby two out of the 10 new Members of Parliament shall represent native interests and natives be no longer eligible for the common voters' roll, as falling within the category of discriminating legislation.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Bottomley): I understand that a Motion on this subject is at present before the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly, but has not yet been voted on. The question raised by my hon. Friend will not arise unless and until legislation is proposed by the Southern Rhodesia Government.
  Mr. Skinnard: Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the information which has reached this country, including Press reports in Southern Rhodesian newspapers, the proposed alteration of which I have complained has been moved as an Amendment to a Motion by a Private Member, by the Prime Minister and Minister of Native Affairs? Is he

  29
  also aware that great concern is felt all through the Commonwealth at the approximation of Southern Rhodesian native policy to that of South Africa and of the powers of disallowance reserved to His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that proposals in Southern Rhodesia are thoroughly retrogressive, and would he use his influence to see that the franchise is made more consistent with modern democratic principles?

  IRAQ (TRANSIT EMBARGO)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Government of Iraq is refusing to allow goods to pass in transit through Iraq to Palestine; and what steps he proposes to take in order to prevent this clog on international trade.
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is considering what action he will take.
  Mr. Janner: Yes, but in view of the serious nature of this interference, will those steps be taken immediately, and will my hon. Friend see to it that there will be no delay at all?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, we will certainly take them as quickly as we can.

  ARRESTED BRITISH SEAMAN, U.S.A. (TREATMENT)
  Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to give the result of his inquiries into the alleged brutal treatment by the police at Galveston, Texas, U.S.A., of Seaman Alexander Marshall, 90, Garnet Street, Garnet Hill, Glasgow, particulars of which case were forwarded on 19th April last.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend communicated the result of his inquiries to the hon. Member on 20th June.
  Mr. Williams: Does not my hon. Friend consider that the refusal of the chief of police to take action against the officers concerned in this matter is very unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, but we are making inquiries into this question, and into what facilities there are for looking after seamen at Galveston.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Imported Canned Meats
    Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Food whether any long-term contracts have been made for regular supplies of imported canned meats; and why is there such a decline in present and future immediate deliveries.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." Distribution over the next few months will be higher than prewar but below the rate of issue in the past year, when we had the benefit of war surpluses.
    Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Food the amounts of imported canned meats to be allocated to the trade during the present allocation period and in the two following periods.
    Dr. Summerskill: The quantity of imported canned meats to be distributed, apart from canned corned meat which is issued against the meat ration, will be 5,000 tons for the four weeks which began yesterday and 4,000 tons for the four weeks commencing 20th July. The amount for the following four-weekly period has not yet been fixed.
    Mr. Touche: Could I be told the amount for the previous period, as there has been a new period since I put down the Question?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that in the period before this one, which commenced yesterday, the amount was about 9,700 tons.

    Stocks, Isolated Areas
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomesasked the Minister of Food if he will ensure that it shall be made more widely known, by advertisement in the Press and announcement through the B.B.C, that families in isolated areas may secure permits from local food offices to lay in stocks of food by using coupons in advance, so that these facilities may be more fully utilised in time to prevent a recurrence of the hard ships experienced by so many people

    31
    during last winter when communications with sources of supply were cut for long periods owing to heavy snow.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend proposes to give publicity to these arrangements later in the year, when it will be most effective

    Spring Onions (Prices)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that a considerable quantity of spring onions remains on the arms in Norfolk for which there is little demand with the ruling low wholesale prices and the retail prices charged in all parts of the country continues at I0d. Per lb.; and whether he will take steps to reduce retail prices so that consumers can have the benefit of available supplies.
    Dr. Summerskill: There have been difficulties in marketing spring or green onions in some parts of the country and certain districts are faced with surplus supplies. My information is that during the past few weeks the most usual wholesale price at the main markets, has ranged from 3d. to 6½d. per lb. The maximum retail price was reduced on 15th June to 8d. per lb. There is nothing to prevent retailers from selling below this price. Reports I have received show that an increasing number of retailers are selling below the maximum. The maximum retail price will be further reduced next month to 5d. per lb.
    Mr. Dye: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, so far as selling below the maximum price is concerned, that in all the shops I have noticed the maximum price has been charged, and that many of the producers in the Eastern counties are unable to sell their onions at any price?
    Dr. Summerskill: I find it difficult to reconcile the supplementary question of my hon. Friend with the information I have given.

    Bacon, Butter and Cheese (Subsidies)
    Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Food why he has reduced the prices of bacon, butter and cheese to the public at a time when his Department has had to pay more for these commodities; and how this action relates to the expressed policy of the Government to make prices more commensurate with the actual cost of
    32
    foodstuffs and thus reduce the amount of the subsidies.
    Dr. Summerskill: The reductions were made to keep the cost-of-living index stable. For the Government's policy in this matter, I would refer the hon. Member to the Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th April last.

    Independent Buying
    Mr. Sidney Marshallasked the Minister of Food whether he will now allow independent buying of certain food commodities in place of the present bulk buying by his Department in order to permit a greater variety in the food of the people.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The lack of variety in the nation's diet results from the present world shortage of foodstuffs, combined with the difficult balance of payments position of the United Kingdom. For the great majority of essential foods, bulk purchase is the only practicable method to secure the maximum quantities available from abroad and their equitable distribution in this country. In an effort to provide as much variety in the diet as possible, we are already permitting certain private imports of less essential foods, but it would be extremely difficult to maintain the close control of import expenditure which is at present essential if independent buying were permitted-to extend over a wider range of foodstuffs.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are from time to time considerable parcels of foodstuffs which could be purchased outside the bulk buying Commission, and which would add considerably to the variety of diet in this country, without endangering sterling balances, if permission were given for their purchase?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are guided by the decisions of the International Emergency Food Council, and we cannot indulge in what might be considered to be international "under the counter" methods.
    Mr. Marshall: Perfectly incorrect.

  DISTRICT RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING)
  Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the extreme overcrowding which exists

  33
  on District Railway trains between Barking and the City, especially during rush hours; whether he realises the danger to health of this overcrowding; and whether, as a first step, he will improve the ventilation of the railway carriages.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I am aware of the overcrowding that occurs at peak hours, but every available car is in service and no more trains can be run until the new rolling stock on order is delivered. In the meantime, an effective staggering of hours of work in the City and West End would give some relief. Ventilation is more satisfactory in the newer cars and in the cars on order, but the older types must continue to be used for the time being.
  Mr. Hastings: Could not something be done to improve the ventilation in the older cars? It seems to me that something is possible, because the conditions in these cars at the present time are really appalling.
  Mr. Barnes: I think that the London Passenger Transport Board are very well aware of the difficulty. I will have the matter re-examined again, though I feel that everything that can possibly be done has been done.

  COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT)
  82, 83 and 84. Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport (1) what action he proposes to take in regard to the application from the road haulage industry for an increase in the maximum speed limits for commercial vehicles;
  (2) if he will give an assurance that, prior to any change being permitted in the maximum speed limits of commercial vehicles, he will consult with the trades unions concerned to determine the necessary safeguards against the undue physical and nervous strain on the workers in the industry and a deterioration in working conditions that would otherwise result;
  (3) If he will give an assurance that before any change in the maximum speed limits of commercial vehicles is authorised he will require changes in the braking system of the heavy vehicles concerned to ensure the safety of the drivers and the general public.
  Mr. Barnes: I have already consulted the Transport and General Workers'
  34
  Union about this proposal and am awaiting their reply. Any regulations increasing the speed limit for commercial vehicles would require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament before they become operative. The requirements of the Construction and Use Regulations with regard to brakes on heavy vehicles, which are limited at present to 20 miles per hour, are similar to those for goods vehicles, which are limited to 30 miles per hour.
  Mr. Davies: Would my right hon. Friend inform me whether that application to increase the speed limit has already been made and whether he is contemplating any action in the near future?
  Mr. Barnes: I think that my reply indicates that negotiations are taking place between the interested parties. So far as Members of this House are concerned, I have indicated that an affirmative Resolution would be necessary before any changes could become operative.
  Mr. Lipson: Before the Minister comes to a decision in this matter, will he also take into account the necessity of reducing accidents on the roads, and that an increase in the speed limit might have the opposite effect?
  Mr. Barnes: I can assure the hon. Member that no change takes places in these directions without consideration of the problem of the safety of the roads

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Leather (Boot Repairing)
    Mr. Irvingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the increasing cost of boot repairs owing to the poor quality of leather; and if he will take steps to make available better quality leather for this purpose.
    Mr. Collindridge (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply.
    The quality of leather has improved since the war ended, and endeavours are being made to improve it further, but we are not yet able to import the proportion of better class hides we should like.

    Grantham Productions, Limited (Factories)
    Sir John Mellorasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will identify

    35
    the members of the group to whom he allocated the factories recently occupied by Grantham Productions, Limited; and whether production will include motor cars and of what description.
    Mr. Collindridge: Mr. F. Sidney Cotton has represented the purchasers of the assets of Grantham Productions, Limited, for whom the allocation of the factories is to continue. It is not intended to continue production of motor cars at these factories.
    Sir J. MellonWill the Minister say what experience this gentleman has of the manufacture of agricultural tractors, and what financial resources he is prepared to provide for this enterprise?
    Mr. Collindridge: I feel sure that the hon. Member will appreciate the difficulty I am in at the present time. I will make his representations known to the Minister concerned.
    Mr. Dye: Has the attention of the President of the Board of Trade been drawn to the necessity for the models of any tractors being thoroughly tried out on the farms before they are produced at this or any other factory?
    Mr. Collindridge: My hon. Friend can rest assured that the attention of my right hon. Friend will be drawn to the point he has mentioned.

EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION (FOREIGN MINISTER'S CONFERENCE)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): As I informed the House on 19th June, the French Foreign Minister and I proposed to the Soviet Government that a meeting of the British, French and Soviet Foreign Ministers should be held during the week beginning 23rd June in order to discuss European reconstruction and the offer of the United States Government set forth in the speech of the United States Secretary of State at Harvard, on 5th June. Last night I received the following communication from the Soviet Government:
"The Soviet Government has studied the British Government's note of the 19th June regarding the formulation of European Economic Programmes in connection with the declaration of Mr. Marshall at the University of Harvard on the 5th June of this year, which was the subject of bilateral conversations between the British and French Ministers for
36
Foreign Affairs in Paris. The Soviet Government agrees that the primary problem of European countries at the present time is the quickest possible reconstruction and further development of their national economy, which has been destroyed by the war.
It is clear that the solution of this problem could be facilitated if, from the side of the United States of America, whose productive capacity was not only not diminished, but was increased during the war, aid was forthcoming corresponding to the aims set forth above. Although the Soviet Government does not at present have at its disposal data regarding the character and conditions of the possible economic assistance to European countries from the United States of America and also regarding those measures which were the subject of discussion between the British and French Governments during the recent conversations in Paris, nevertheless, the Soviet Government accepts the proposal of the British and French Governments and agrees to take part in a Conference of the three Ministers for Foreign Affairs.
In the opinion of the Soviet Government such a Conference might take place in Paris on 27th June."
I have informed the Soviet Government that the date, and place proposed are convenient to me as, I understand, they are convenient to Monsieur Bidault. Needless to say I welcome this prompt reply. The talks will accordingly commence this Friday in Paris and I trust that good results will follow from them.
Mr. Eden: I am sure the whole House would wish to welcome the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made to us. I would only like to add our good wishes to him and his colleagues in the work which they undertake in Paris. May they now make swift and sure progress.
Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Will it be possible for the deliberations to be held in private at this stage so as both to expedite matters and to avoid various delegations making speeches to their own nationals?
Mr. Bevin: Up to now, in all international conferences, we have not found an efficient plumber that could stop a leak.
Mr. Warbey: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on this result of his initiative in bringing together the three great European Powers, and so marking perhaps a decisive turning point in postwar history, may I ask him if he will continue to bear in mind the importance for this country of securing a balanced economic development of Europe and ensuring that there should be no one-sided

37
Stimulation of the industrial West without a corresponding stimulation of the agrarian East.
Mr. Bevin: We have to keep all these balances in mind. The great and essential thing we have to do is not only to fire the boiler, but to get the engine to run.
Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that difficulties or delays arising in connection with one region will not necessarily prevent the conclusion of agreement with regard to another region: that they will not hold up the whole thing?
Mr. Bevin: I do not think I ought to add to what I have said: I do not think I ought to add to what I said on Thursday. I made my position, and that of His Majesty's Government, quite clear. I will go out on Friday and try to get on with the job.
Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in this connection he intends to press for the utilisation of the European Economic Commission?
Mr. Bevin: All those things have to be worked out. An efficient, quick machine has to be devised if Europe if to be saved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's
Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 87.

Division No. 267.]

AYES.

[3.37 p.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Guy, W. H.

Piratin, P.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Attewell, H. C.

Hall, W. G.

Ranger, J.

Austin, H. Lewis

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Rees-Williams, D. R

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Reeves, J.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Hardy, E. A.

Reid T. (Swindon)

Barton, C.

Harris, H. Wilson

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Battley, J. R.

Harrison, J.

Robens, A,

Bechervaise, A. E

Hestings, Dr. Somerville

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Benson, G.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Berry, H.

Herbison, Miss M.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Beswick, F.

Hicks, G.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Blackburn, A. R.

Hobson, C. R

Royle, C.

Blyton, W. R.

Holman, P

Sargood, R

Bottomley, A. G.

House, G

Scollan, T.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hoy, J.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

Hudson, J. H, (Ealing, W.)

Sharp, Granville

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Bramall, E. A.

Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Brown, George (Belper)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Skeffington, A. M

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Irving, W J

Skeffington-Lodge, T C

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Janner, B.

Skinnard, F. W.

Bruce, Major D. W. T.

Jay, D. P. T.

Smith, C (Colchester)

Burden, T. W.

Jeger, G (Winchester)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Smith, S. H. (Hull S.W.)

Byers, Frank

Jones, D T (Hartlepools)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Chamberlain, R. A

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Soskice, Mai. Sir F.

Champion, A. J.

Keenan, W

Sparks, J A.

Chater, D.

Kendall, W D

Stephen, C.

Chetwynd, G. R

Kinley, J

Stewart, Michael (Fulham E.)

Cluse, W. S.

Lavers, S.

Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N)

Cobb, F. A.

Leonar W

Stross, Dr. B

Cocks, F. S.

Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

Stubbs, A. E.

Collindridge, F

Lewis, J (Bolton)

Summerskill Dr Edit

Colman, Miss G. M

Lipson, D L

Swingler, S.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Symonds, A. L,

Cove, W. G.

Longden, F.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Daggar, G.

McAdam, W.

Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

Daines, P.

McEntee, V. La T

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnat)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

McGhee, H G

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Mack, J. D.

Thomas, I.0. (Wrekin)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

McKay, J (Wallsend)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Maclean, N (Govan)

T hurtle, Ernest

Davies, Hayden (St. Pancras, S.W)

McLeavy, F

Tolley, L.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughten)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Usborne, Henry

Deer, G.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Vernon, Maj. W.F

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Mainwaring, W. H

Viant, S. P.

Diamond, J.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Wadsworth, G

Dodds, N. N.

Mathers, G

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Mayhew, C. P.

Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Mellish, R. J.

Warbey, W. N.

Dye, S.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Weilzman, D.

Edelman, M

Moody, A. S.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

Fernyhough, E.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (L'wish'm, E.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)

Moyle, A.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Foot, M. M.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Wilkes, L.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Ganley, Mrs. C S

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Gibson, C W.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Wills, Mrs. E A

Gilzean, A.

Oldfield, W. H.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

Glanville, J E. (Consett)

Oliver, G. H

Woods, G. S.

Gooch, E. G.

Orbach, M.

Wyatt, W.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Palmer, A. M F.

Yates, V. F.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Parker, J.

Young, Sir R (Newton)

Greenwood, A, W. J (Heywood)

Parkin, B. T

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Grenfell, D. R.

Paton, J (Norwich)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Pearson, A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gunter, R. j

Peart, Thomas F

Mr. Simmons and

Mr. Popplewell.

NOES.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D. P. M.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S (Cirencester)

Astor, Hon. M.

Grant, Lady

Neven-Spcnce, Sir S

Baldwin, A. E.

Gridley, Sir A.

Nicholson G

Beechman, N. A.

Grirmston, R. V.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Birch, Nigel

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Pickthorn, K.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells,

Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)

Prescott, Stanley

Boothby, R.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Raikes, H. V.

Bossom, A. C.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bower, N.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Rayner, Brig. R.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Hope, Lord J.

Ross Sir R D (Londonderry)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Savory, Prof. D. L

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clark (E'b'gh, W)

Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

Channon, H.

Keeling, E. H.

Spearman, A. C. M

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Stanley, Rt. Hon O

Clifton-Brown, Lt -Col. G

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Low, Brig A R. W.

Sutcliffe, H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S;

Crowder, Capt, John E.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Touche, G. C.

De la Bère, R.

McKie, J. H (Galloway)

Walker-Smith, D.

Digby, S. W.

MacLeod, J.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Wheatley, Colonel M J

Duthie, W. S.

Marsden, Capt. A

Willoughby do Eresby, Lore

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marshall, D (Bodmin)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Meller, Sir J

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Moore, Lt Col Sir T.

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme

ELECTRICITY BILL
Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SHINWELL:
"That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 14, page 19, line 47; Clause 14, page 20, line 2; Clause 14, page 20, line 8; Clause 14, page 20, line 13; Clause 14, page 20, line 37; Clause 14, page 20, line 38; Clause 14, page 21, line 8; Clause 14, page 2i, line n; Clause 14, page 21, line 15; Clause 14, page 21, line 20; Clause 14, page 21, line 26; Clause 19, page 28, line 32; Clause 20, page 30, line 9; Clause 20, page 30, line 16; Clause 26, page 39, line 40; Clause 30, page 44, line 34 Clause 34, page 47, line 33; Clause 35, page 48, line I9; Clause 37, page 49, line 21; and of the new Clause (Further compensation to local authorities in respect of severance), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Shinwell."
3.45 P.m.
Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I made a short statement about the reason for not calling this Motion. Hon. Members will be aware that some new Clauses came on the Order Paper on Friday morning, and the Opposition complained that they had not time to put down Amendments before the discussion today. Therefore, there were some con-
42
sultations, I understand, and it was suggested that we might have a recommittal of these Clauses at the end of the Report stage. Then, this morning, it was again put to me that it would probably be more convenient, instead of having two recommittal stages, to have one recommittal at the end of the Report stage. That is the course which I propose to adopt, and I hope it will be for the convenience of the House. I am informed that it will not necessarily hamper debate on the Amendments which are already down on the Order Paper and which will not be recommitted. I should like to add that this is rather a new procedure, and I hope we will not have to adopt it again, because I think it is more convenient to take the recommittal at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill as amended.
Mr. Eden: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, we are very much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken to try to meet the convenience of the House. As far as one can see, although we cannot tell until we actually begin our discussions, the proposal which you make would seem to be the best in the circumstances, but I must say to the Leader of the House and to the Minister in charge of this Bill, that the House ought not to be placed in this position again. There is absolutely no precedent for the House being treated like this, and I must remind the Minister in charge of the Bill

43
that upstairs, before the end of April, he appealed to the Committee—quite rightly, and I make no complaint about it—to finish the Committee stage before Whit-sun, so that he could get the Amendments down for the Report stage in good time for the convenience of the House. Yet, here we are, faced with these Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman put down only last Friday, and, what is even more extraordinary, an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, which only reached us at 2.30 this afternoon. That is not the way in which business should be done in this House, and I ask the Government to give us an assurance that we shall not have a repetition of this proceeding.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): Naturally, we are anxious to suit the convenience of the House, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the suggestion which has been made. I must avail myself of the opportunity, in view of what was said by the acting Leader of the Opposition, to point out that every effort was made, in consultation with hon. Members of the Opposition, to place the new Clauses which are the subject of contention on the Order Paper as soon as possible. In fact, we have been in the closest touch with hon. Members of the Opposition about matters that arise on the Report stage, and I confess to being completely bewildered by the suggestion that our action in putting down the new Clauses was belated. Early last week, and during the previous week, I myself and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were in consultation with the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), and I was given the impression that everything was proceeding harmoniously. Therefore, I was all the more surprised that reference was made to the matter last Thursday afternoon. It is perfectly true—and I am seeking no alibi in the matter—that, in reference to one of the two new Clauses, difficulty was experienced in arranging matters with representative bodies which were concerned with the provisions of this Bill before we were able to reach a conclusion, but I am not aware of any inhibitions on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary or myself in respect of the consultations with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about the Report stage. Indeed, on the Committee stage, we worked very harmoniously together, and I
44
expressed myself to that effect at the end of the Committee stage. I can assure the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that, if there has been any fault at all, it has not been with us.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, the effect is the same—that we have been deprived of proper time in which to consider the new Clauses and to put down Amendments. As far as the two Clauses for recommittal are concerned, it is perfectly true that, seeing them for the first time on Friday, we did ask if it was possible to have them postponed until the end. I accept the responsibility for that. But, as regards the other Clauses, some of which only appeared on Tuesday, we did not ask for recommittal. I understand that, owing to their belated appearance on the Order Paper, it was only today that their examination by the officials of the House could be carried out, and that they decided that these Clauses should be, recommitted. I was informed of that only a few minutes ago, and, as far as I know, that is the position. Considering that it was as long ago as the end of April that the right hon. Gentleman knew all about these Clauses and what we were asking, it really seems intolerable that he should delay either their appearance on the Order Paper or that, after they had appeared, we should have such a short interval before the Report stage. It is not treating the Opposition with the fairness to which they are entitled. It is unprecedented in my memory of the House that an occurrence of this sort has had to be gone through. Individual cases of recommittal, yes, but to have to recommit the whole of the Government's new Clauses at this late stage is absolutely intolerable.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister rather surprised me. As I understand it, his reason was that negotiations were going on between himself and the Opposition in Committee. But there were other Members of the Committee. Therefore, they were entitled to see these new Clauses and to put down Amendments if they wished. To exclude other hon. Members of the Committee is to exclude the rights of the House.
Mr. Shinwell: There was no intention on my part to exclude the rights of any hon.

45
Member. But it is the common form of this House to seek consultation with the official Opposition in order to expedite the passage of a Bill, and I sought to do that. Having endeavoured to do that, I am now being criticised for seeking consultation. At any rate, it does not seem that there is any value in pursuing this matter further. All I can say is that certainly no disrespect was intended, either to the Opposition or to any other hon. Member.
Mr. Stephen: I want to be clear abut this new procedure, Mr. Speaker. Will there be a second Report stage with regard to the recommitted Clauses? I take it that will be the case.
Mr. Speaker: Three days are allotted. Of course, the new Clauses do not come up for discussion on the Report stage unless Amendments are put down. If Amendments are put down, then they have to be called. Therefore, there will be a Report stage again.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: You said three allotted days, Mr. Speaker, but there has been no allotment. The Government have merely stated that that is all they propose to allow. It does not follow that, in the changed circumstances, we shall get through the Business in three days.
Mr. Shinwell: I must enter a caveat because the right hon. Gentleman explicitly agreed with me, when we suggested three days, that that would be acceptable.
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I must point out that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor my right hon. Friend has any authority to allot the time of this House. That can only be done by Resolution of the House. No such Resolution has been carried, and, therefore, I would respectfully submit, the word allotment" is out of place.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we can now get on with the Business.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

ELECTRICITY BILL

  NEW CLAUSE.—(central Authority to inform the Royal Fine Art Commission of sites of new generating stations.)
  It shall be the duty of the Central Authority to inform the Royal Fine Art Com-
  46
  mission at the earliest possible date of the site of any proposed new generating station—[Mr. Keeling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  In Committee the Minister gave satisfactory assurances that the Fine Art Commission would be consulted on the elevations of any new power station, but he raised objections to their being consulted about the site. Under the Royal Warrant which set them up, the Royal Fine Art Commission are charged with the guardianship of public amenities, and the wrong siting of a power station is just as much an offence against amenities as is bad design, because it may do irreparable harm to the surroundings. Only recently, I understand, the Fine Art Commission, who happened to know about a proposal to use a particular site for a power station, withheld approval because it was part of the green belt. A site can be wrong either because it is in the wrong place in the country or because it is in the wrong part of a town. On this latter point, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—and I cannot better his words—said:
  "There may be designed the most beautiful power station in the world, a gem among power stations, but if it happened to be wedged up against a totally different building of totally different function, the mixture might be disastrous to both."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E.20th May 1947; c. 1101.]
  I do not suggest that the Commission should have the last word on the subject, but they should have the right to put forward their views so that they will not be faced with a site already decided upon when they are asked to make their recommendations about the design.
  The Minister pointed out in Committee that under their charter the Fine Art Commission have the right to take the initiative, and can even, if they think fit, send for the Minister or for one of his officials and question him about it. But, as was stressed on this side of the Committee, they cannot take the initiative unless they know what is brewing. My Amendment merely casts upon the central authority the duty to inform the Fine Art Commission, as soon as they can, of any proposal to use a particular site. In Com-

  47
  mittee. the Minister said that it may be very desirable for an authority which may have to acquire land to exercise great caution in disclosing its intentions. That is perfectly true, but there is no reason why they should not consult the Fine Art Commission in confidence. After all, the Commission are just as capable of keeping a secret as a Government Department. I would point out also that not only will Government Departments know about the proposal to use a particular site, but the central authority is under a statutory obligation to inform the local authority in whose area the proposed power station is to be erected. Therefore, if the local authority can be consulted, and has to be c6nsulted, I cannot see any reason why the Fine Art Commission should not also be consulted.
  This Amendment is not academic. In one of their reports, the Fine Art Commission stated that they were consulted too late about the erection of a power station near Lincoln Cathedral, and were, therefore, unable to give an opinion before the scheme went forward. Only recently a power station sprang up in Kingston before anybody knew about it, except the people of Kingston. Of course, this was not a question of putting up a power station near a cathedral, but merely a question of using a charming river front. I hope the reasonableness of this new Clause will commend itself to the House and the Minister
  4.0 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to second the Motion.
  We discussed this question very fully in Committee. The Minister was quite forthcoming on the question of elevations and materials, but he jibbed about the introduction of the word "site" for the reason which my hon. Friend has given. This is a reasonable case. We do not ask that the Royal Fine Art Commission should be the final arbiter, but merely that they should be informed so that they could consider for themselves the question of public amenity and make what representations they think proper. The Minister of Town and Country Planning might be regarded as a proper person to be consulted in this matter, and it might be that the central authority should consult him and his Department, although I do not think that would be adequate. Those who have
  48
  knowledge of these public amenity questions, of which I have a little, have gone into this matter with some thoroughness, and they feel that this long established public institution, the Royal Fine Art Commission, should have foreknowledge of what is intended. There is no suggestion, as the Minister well knows, that they should delay the matter, but they should be able to express their point of view.
  Mr. Shinwell: I give unqualified support to the suggestion that in the provision of new electricity stations due regard shall be had to the matter of amenities. So far as is practicable, there shall be no disturbance of amenities, and that is the view which I expressed on the Committee stage. But nothing that hon. Members opposite have said has convinced me that we should accept a new Clause in this form. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) said, the Royal Fine Art Commission can take the initiative in a matter of this sort. They can approach the responsible authority, whether it be the Ministry or the contemplated British Electricity Authority, and express an opinion about the proposed siting of a station. Therefore, there appears to be no valid point in providing for information on this matter to be furnished to the Royal Fine Art Commission.
  Mr. Keeling: May I interrupt? I pointed out that at Kingston a power station was already half way up before the Royal Fine Art Commission or anybody else outside Kingston knew that it was proposed to put a power station there. The sole point of this new Clause is to enable the Royal Fine Art Commission to know what is proposed.
  Mr. Shinwell: I do not know the circumstances of the case which the hon. Member has in mind but the power station may have been constructed before the Royal Fine Art Commission were vested with extended terms of reference.
  Mr. Keeling: No, not at all.
  Mr. Shinwell: Well, I do not know the circumstances, and I cannot speak about them.
  Mr. Keeling: Might not the same thing happen again?
  Mr. Shinwell: I cannot see that happening. According to the terms of reference of the Royal Fine Art Commission, they have to be consulted in the

  49
  matter of design, and clearly if they had to be consulted in the matter of design about a proposed electricity station they would be made aware of the fact that a station was about to be constructed, and then they could take the initiative in ascertaining where the site was to be. There is another reason why I think it undesirable that we should accept this new Clause. We have to be cautious in the acquisition of land for an electricity station site, because if there is much publicity it may have the effect—I do not say it will, but it may—of increasing the cost of the land to be acquired. While the hon. Member for Twickenham is of opinion that the Royal Fine Art Commission can maintain secrecy, we have to exercise the greatest caution in a matter of this sort.
  Finally, we must pay due regard not only to the question of design or amenities but to the very important and vital question of strategy. It may be undesirable, for a strategical reason, to acquaint any outside body with the Government's intention with respect to a proposed site for an electricity station. It seems to me that we have gone as far as we can possibly go. I can give hon. Members this assurance that, having taken note of the proceedings on the Committee stage, and of what has been said by the two hon. Members opposite, the Ministry will take all reasonable measures to ensure that the Royal Fine Art Commission, wherever practicable—I must use those cautionary words—will be made aware of their intentions. Having given that assurance and indicated the reasons why I am unable to accept the new Clause, I hope the House will agree to allow the matter to pass.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's reasons were very compelling. He said, first of all, that the Royal Fine Art Commission would have the chance of taking the initiative when the design and elevation were submitted to them, but the point of the new Clause is to ensure that the Royal Fine Art Commission should be informed of the proposed site at the earliest possible date. They do not want to be told, "We have decided that an electricity station shall be sited at X; here is a suggested elevation." It might well happen that the Royal Fine Art Commission rightly hold the view that there ought
  50
  not to be an electricity station at all in that particular spot whatever its elevation may be, whether good, bad or indifferent. They do not want to be put in the position of being told that the question of the site has already been decided and that all they have to do is to say what would be the least offensive elevation. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's answer does not cover the point made by my hon. Friend.
  The second reason the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that if information got about that an electricity station was to be erected, there might be a substantial increase in the cost of land. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, or should know, the Government have ample powers to prevent that happening. They will have still greater powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, and there is no shadow of substance in that argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that wherever practicable, the Royal Fine Art Commission would be acquainted with the Ministry's intention. There can be no reason why the Royal Fine Art Commission, a body of responsible persons, should not be told during the very early planning stages when it is proposed to settle the site. It may be that they would have objections, and they may be overruled, but at least they should have a chance of expressing an opinion whether this or that site is the more desirable. The right hon. Gentleman has not even attempted to meet the argument.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has really faced the point. He told the House just now, as he told the Committee upstairs, that the Fine Art Commission had the right to take the initiative. That is perfectly true. But how can the Fine Art Commission take the initiative when the scheme is at the formative stage and entirely unknown to the Commission and to the public? The power to take the initiative is valueless unless one has the information upon which that initiative is based. Really, the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, being a little obstinate in denying to this responsible public body the information necessary to the performance of its functions. His argument as to strategy is one of the most extraordinary arguments heard in this House. After all, the strategic value of

  51
  a power station before it is built is precisely nil. So soon as it has been started all the people concerned in building it and everybody in the neighbourhood know that the power station is being built. At the stage we are concerned with it has no strategic value. So soon as it has been started there is no possibility of keeping the information private. The right hon. Gentleman has not faced up to the question of site, which is every bit as important in the case of a power station as is the question of design; and the Royal Fine Art Commission is abso-
  lutely hamstrung on the question of site unless it is given the information which this new Clause would give it. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman sees fit to oppose this new Clause, does, I think, make it perfectly clear that the Royal Fine Art Commission will not get this information at the only stage when its initiative on the subject of site can be of the slightest value to anybody.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 178.

  Division No. 268.]

  AYES.

  [4.13 p.m

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Nicholson, G.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Grant, Lady

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Beechman, N. A.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Birch, Nigel '

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Raikes, H. V.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bower, N.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'h'rgh W.)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G T.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Bullock, Capt. M

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

  Byers, Frank

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Channon, H.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. 6. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col RAF

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  MacLeod, J.

  Touche, G. C.

  Digby, S. W.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Wadsworth, G

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Marsdan, Capt. A.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Colman, Mist G. M.

  Guy, W. H.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Haire, John E (Wycombe)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hall, W. G.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Daggar, G.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Barton, C.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Harrison, J.

  Battley, J. R.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Bechervaise, A.

  Deer, G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Benson, G.

  Diamond, J;

  Herbison, Miss M

  Berry, H.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hicks G

  Beswick, F.

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Hobson, C R

  Blyton, W. R.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Holman, P

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Dye, S.

  House, G

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Edelman, M.

  Hoy, J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Farthing, W. J-

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Foot, M. M.

  Janner, B.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Caitskell, H T. N

  Jay, D. P. T

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Gibson, C. W.

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Champion, A J

  Gilzean, A.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Chater, D.

  Glanville, J. E. (Contett)

  Keenan, W.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Gooch, E. G.

  Kendall, W D

  Cluse, W. S.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Kinley, J.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Layers, S.

  Cocks, F. S

  Griffiths, JO. (Rother Valley)

  Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)

  Collindridge, F.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M

  Longden, F.

  Popplewell, E.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  McAdam, W.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Ranger, J.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Mack, J. D.

  Reeves, J.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  McLeavy, F.

  Robens, A.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvenshire)

  Tolley, L.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Usborne, Henry

  Mallalieu, J. P W

  Royle, C.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Mathers, G.

  Sargood, R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Walkden, E.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sharp, Granville

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Shinwell Rt. Hon. E.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

  Moyle, A.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Wilkes, L.

  Nichol. Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Sparks, J. A

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Orbach, M.

  Stephen, C.

  Woods, G. S

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wyatt, W.

  Parkin, B. T

  Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Young, Sir R (Newton)

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Swingler, S.

  Piratin, P

  Symonds, A L

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Daines.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Alteration of pressure or system.)
  (i) Before an Area Board gives a supply of electricity to any new consumer, the Board shall declare to that consumer—

  (a)the type of current, whether direct or alternating, which they propose to supply;

  (b)) in the case of alternating current, the number of phases and also the constant frequency at which they propose to deliver the electricity to the supply terminals; and

  (c) the constant voltage at which they propose to deliver the electricity to the supply terminals.

  (2) The type of current, the number of phases and the frequency in the case of alternating current and the voltage declared as aforesaid shall be constantly maintained subject as respects the frequency to a permissible variation not exceeding two-and-a-half per cent. above or below the declared frequency and as respects the voltage to a permissible variation not exceeding six per cent. above or below the declared voltage, and shall not be altered or departed from nor shall the aforesaid permissible variations be exceeded except with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners and subject to such terms and conditions as they may impose.

  (3) Public notice in such manner and for such period as the Electricity Commissioners may approve or require shall be given by the Area Board of any application made by them for the consent of the Electricity Commissioners to an alteration of the declared type of current, or the number of phases or the frequency in the case of alternating current, or the voltage, as the case may be, or of the aforesaid permissible limits of variation in respect of frequency or voltage.

  (4) If any Area Board shall make any alteration of the declared type of current, or the number of phases or the frequency in the case of alternating current, or the voltage, as the
  54
  case may be, all such modifications to, or replacements of, any electrical fittings of any consumer as shall be necessary to place such consumer in substantially the same position as before the making of such alteration shall be carried out by the Board, unless the Board shall pay to such consumer such sum as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by arbitration to be the reasonable cost to the consumer of and incidental to such alteration, and the Board shall, in any event, pay to the consumer compensation for any loss or damage suffered by him in consequence of the alteration.

  Provided that unless otherwise agreed no liability shall attach to the Board in respect of any electrical fittings acquired or first connected by a consumer after notice has been served by the Board in pursuance of the next following Subsection hereof.

  (5) A notice of their intention to carry out any such alteration as aforesaid, together with a copy of this Section, shall be served by the Board on every consumer who will be affected by such alteration; and the said notice shall be served on the consumer not less than one month and not more than six months before the Board carry out the alteration in relation to the supply to him.

  (6) Any question that may arise between a consumer and any Area Board under Subsections (4) and (5) of this Section shall be determined by an Arbitrator appointed on the application of either party by the Minister.—[Sir A. Gridley.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  We have put down this new Clause because it is essential to provide these safeguards for consumers. The Clause is in line with the existing Regulation 34 of

  55
  the Electricity Commissioners, who were empowered to make regulations from time to time. This new Clause provides for the area boards to declare to their consumers
  "the type of current, whether direct or alternating,…the number of phases and also the constant frequency"—
  of alternating current—
  "and the constant voltage at which they propose to deliver the electricity to the supply terminals."
  Subsection (2) merely provides for the usual variations in voltages, and so on. Subsection (3) deals with the manner in which public notices are to be given. Subsection (4) provides that where the consumers, as a result of changes in the system of supply, have to provide new apparatus to replace that which becomes unsuitable, the cost of so doing must be carried out by the board; or, alternatively, the reasonable cost to the consumer of changing his fittings and suchlike must be paid by the board. There is a safeguard so that the board cannot be caught if, after the notice has been served, the consumer foolishly spends money on fittings which become unsuitable.
  It is important that the Government should accept this new Clause, for the following reason among others. For the purpose of my argument I shall assume that, once these undertakings are taken over by the State and the area boards got to work, the amount of standardisation which has yet to be done will proceed more quickly perhaps than it has done in the past, although, as we know, that process has been very seriously retarded by the war years. It would have proceeded much further, and would, in fact, have been completed before now but for the intervention of the war. In the past the companies—and I assume the local authorities too—where there have been changes in the system of supply, have paid their consumers the cost of the necessary changes involved in the apparatus in the house, office, or wherever it may be. This is an essential safeguard for the consumers in the country. I would remind the House that when the Bill was originally drafted there was practically nothing in it, from beginning to end, to safeguard consumers. As a result of the work in Standing Committee certain safeguards for consumers now appear. This one does not appear.
  56
  Although under Clause 52 the Minister may vary existing regulations, we do not want this regulation varied. It is already written into our Statutes, and we do not want the Minister to vary it. We think that this should be written into the Bill, and not be subject to any regulation which the Minister might make hereafter.
  Mr. Raikes: I beg to second the Motion.
  My hon. Friend has framed the argument for this new Clause in the most moderate and, I think, persuasive language. I support it because, apart from anything else, I am anxious that the Minister should not be unduly tempted to lean towards the financial success of his boards rather than the protection of the consumers. Indeed, it seems that there is a danger, unless one has safeguards of this sort, that that might very well occur. I am sure the Minister would agree that, broadly speaking, the claim put forward by my hon. Friend, to ensure that where equipment is replaced or modified it should be done at the expense of the undertakers and not at the expense of the consumers, is a fair and reasonable one to put forward in the consumers' interests. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has certain powers under Clause 52 to vary the existing regulations. However, I think the House should realise clearly at this time that today we are not dealing with the Electricity Commissioners themselves, who, in the past, were the guardians of the public as against the undertakings. They have disappeared, and instead we are dealing with the Minister, and all the power of the courts which lies behind a Minister as against the consumer.
  There is already a good deal of evidence that the interests of the consumer are not always to be regarded as of paramount importance. For example, at an earlier stage, in dealing with the non-inclusion of non-statutory undertakings, the Parliamentary Secretary made it quite plain that they were not to be taken over mainly because taking them over would be of no value to the new Board, and would not be in their interest. It is true that in that particular case, so far as the non-statutory undertakings were concerned, probably their consumers were less well supplied. But that type of argument provides no answer. If the financial success of the Board is to be the main issue—and there

  57
  is a temptation that it should be, as I well know myself—rather than the protection of the consumers, we are justified in putting forward a case on the lines contained in this new Clause. Its acceptance would be no derogation from the duty of the Minister, but would show quite plainly that he was desirous of working on the common basis of protection for the consumer in all fairness, and at all possible times.
  Mr. Shinwell: I can assure the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) that the primary object of the contemplated British Electricity Authority is not to conserve its financial position—although that cannot be ignored—but to protect the interests of consumers. That is my view, as it must be the view of every hon. Member. The words contained in the new Clause are quite suitable; I take no exception to them, nor to the substance of Clause. But that does not mean we could embody those words in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) said, these words are copied from the Electricity Supply Regulations; indeed, they are taken almost verbatim from those regulations. I can give the hon. Member for Stockport and other hon. Members an assurance that they will be reproduced in the Regulations we are empowered to provide under Clause 52.
  4.30 p.m.
  May I direct the attention of hon. Members to what appears in that Clause? It states:
  "The Minister may make such regulations as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that any supply of electricity furnished to any consumer by an Electricity Board is regular and efficient, and that the public is so far as practicable protected from any personal injury, fire or other dangers arising from the use of electricity so furnished."
  Within those powers—the powers vested in the Authority and the Ministry—I give the assurance that we will continue the substance of the wording contained in the existing regulations. That being so,
  it appears to me to be unnecessary to embody the words contained in the Clause. Obviously, it was always intended that provision of this kind was more appropriate to regulations than to the Bill. Having given the assurance that they will be continued—perhaps with some-slight modifications not affecting the substance—perhaps the hon. Member for Stockport will withdraw his Motion.
  Mr. Pickthorn: This seems to me to be rather unusually bad taste in the technique of giving assurances. The Minister tells us that there may be no doubt whatever that every Member of the House agrees with the objects of the new Clause. He tells us that there is no objection to the wording or to the substance of the Clause, and, having said these three things, he then says that it is impossible to give them statutory effect. I should like to ask a question, and here I apologise for ignorance. I expect that the Minister is right, and that his point about Clause 52 is technically a fair one, but I do not think it is arguably decisive.
  On looking at the wording again, I feel some doubt about the legal position. I am sorry that we have no legal advice available at the moment, but perhaps the Minister would turn to page 64. line 27, which states that the supply to any consumer must be "regular and efficient." That is what the regulations must deal with—there is no question of safety concerned here. The question I should like answered is this: Is it legally asserted that what is being asked for in this new Clause—the assurance that the change of equipment made necessary by the action of the supplier shall not be at the cost of the consumer—comes under these words "regular and efficient"? Has there been specific consultations of the legal advisers upon that point? If there has, I do not think it necessarily makes the Minister right, but if there has not been legal consultations, it seems to me that it clearly makes the Minister wrong, and that the House ought to pass this Clause.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Minister has said that he accepts the general idea of this Clause, and that he wishes to see it embodied in the regulations which he undertakes to make under Clause 52. I do not know whether he has noticed—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) referred to it —that Subsection (3) makes specific reference to the Electricity Commissioners. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to abolish the Electricity Commissioners, but who is he going to put in their place? Does he intend putting himself in their place? What is to appear in the regulations to replace them? It will probably be the Minister himself. Is that the same safeguard to the consumer as would be pro-

  59
  vided by an appointed body such as the Electricity Commissioners? The Minister may argue that he is a safeguard in the matter, but that is not the view we take. This Clause was put down to make certain that there should not be changes made at the arbitrary will of the Central Authority, backed up by the Minister. We put in these words because we wanted the consumer adequately safeguarded. If the Minister could tell us who is to succeed the Electricity Commissioners, it might help in the matter.
  Mr. Shinwell: The position is that it does not affect the Electricity Commissioners' status or continuance. What I have said is that the words contained in the Clause have been taken bodily from the existing regulations which were drafted by the Electricity Commissioners. The Electricity Commissioners, with the consent of the House, will pass away, and the British Electricity Authority will take their place. The Minister, under Clause 52, is empowered to make regulations, and I give the assurance that the substance of the Clause will be embodied in the regulations to be drafted by me.
  Colonel Clarke: I hope that I shall be in Order in referring to Clause 52, in view of the fact that the Clause we are proposing is largely an alternative to it. I suggest that the first part of Clause 52 is a much weaker instrument than what we are suggesting. It begins by saying:
  "The Minister may make such Regulations as he thinks fit"
  And goes on to say:
  "…that the public is so far as practicable protected."
  It is hedged about with a number of inhibitions which are not found in the Clause we are suggesting. It gives the impression that the interests of the consumer are not as well protected as they should be, nor as well protected as they would be if this Clause were substituted.
  Sir A. Gridley: While I am a little disappointed that the Minister has not seen his way to agree to our proposal that this Clause should be written into the Bill, he has given what I call a most "definite assurance" that the substance of the new Clause will be embodied in the regulations. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Area Boards to provide constant supply.)
  From the time when any Area Board commence to supply electricity through any distributing main, they shall maintain a supply of electricity sufficient for the use of all consumers for the time being entitled to be supplied from that distributing main; and that supply shall be constantly maintained without change of polarity in the case of direct current and without change of the neutral conductor in the case of alternating current:
  Provided that for the purposes of testing or for any other purposes connected with the efficient working of their undertaking, the supply of energy may be discontinued by the Board for such period as may be necessary subject (except in cases of emergency) to not less than twenty-four hours' notice being given by the Board to all consumers likely to be affected by such discontinuance; and, in the event of any such consumer objecting, the supply of energy shall not be discontinued (other than in cases of emergency) except with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners and subject to such conditions as they may impose:
  Provided also that the polarity in the case of direct current and the neutral conductor in the case of alternating current may be changed with the like consent.—[Sir A. Gridley.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause has an important provision which we are anxious to see embodied in the Bill. This provision is contained in one of the Electricity Com missioners' regulations. The Clause pro: vides that supplies shall be constantly maintained, subject, of course, to the King's enemies, acts of God, and all the rest of it. It provides that supplies shall be constant and delivered at the right voltage, which is of vital importance to many of our industries. Continuity of supply is of first importance in the case of all electro-chemical processes. I would mention the industry which I mentioned in Committee; the electrolytic production of sodium. For this industry there must be a steady supply of electricity, because there must not be the most minute variation in the operation of the needle of the voltmeter. If there was, the whole process would be spoilt. Then there are electric furnaces, which require a constant supply of electricity, and it is almost unnecessary to mention foundries. If the electricity supply is cut off in a foundry it means that a good deal of metal

  61
  is completely spoilt. It is also important to have a constant supply of electricity to pumps in pits and for winders. In the case of an accident in a pit it might be fatal if there were an interruption in the supply of power to the electric winder. Very important is the question of a constant supply of electricity to a hospital where operations are carried on.
  It has been my experience for many years in this industry that in all important power industrial agreements there has been an obligation to maintain a constant supply of electricity, subject to an act of God, or the King's enemies, and such like. There is a definite obligation in the agreement, and that obligation can only be terminated to enable repairs to be carried out. That is invariably done by arrangement between the supplier and consumer. If this provision is not included in the Bill there is the risk that supplies for a certain area might be thought to be sufficient if given by means of a spur line. Where important consumers are concerned they are usually fed by ring main. If the supply breaks down in one part it can be maintained by another route. Safeguards of that kind are absolutely essential. We do not want to see risks run as they were in the early days of the industry, when capital was difficult to raise, and there had to be economy in outlay.
  Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. Shinwell: As a result of the technical knowledge I have managed to acquire from the proceedings in Standing Committee, I agree with all the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has said, but I repeat the answer given on the previous Clause. This is a matter more appropriate to regulations, and I understand that the words contained in the new Clause are in the existing regulations. There may be some slight modifications here and there, but the substance of the words contained in the new Clause will be retained. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will not find it necessary to press his Motion.
  Sir A. Gridley: Once again, I thank the Minister for giving us a very definite assurance. I shall rely on that, and, in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.— [Service lines into consumers' premises.]
  Any service line of any Area Board which is taken into the premises of a consumer at a point below the level of the ground shall be taken into the premises in such manner as to prevent any influx of gas at the point of entry.—[Sir A. Gridley.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.45 P.m.
  Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This new Clause seeks to give statutory effect to yet another regulation. I have told my friends in the gas industry that theirs is a much more dangerous industry than the electricity supply industry, because they are dealing with a poisonous substance which people frequently make use of to put an end to their troubles. We have to safeguard the consumers of electricity, and we have endeavoured to do so as a result of an inquiry made by a Parliamentary Committee into deaths caused by gas poisoning. It is, therefore, desirable that this provision should be retained in the Bill.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. Shinwell: For obvious reasons, the words of this new Clause must be retained in the regulations we shall provide under Clause 52. We must protect the consumer in a matter of this sort, and I can give the hon. Member the assurance he requires. He has referred to my "definite assurances," and I can say that we give such an assurance on this matter because the facts are inescapable.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: While we are grateful for the Minister's assurances, I hope the House and the public outside will not be deluded by them and by the fact that we are withdrawing these new Clauses in the belief that the Minister will provide the statutory protection which the consumer has hitherto enjoyed. The fact remains that the statutory protection of the consumer is being repealed by later Clauses, and all the consumer is left with now is the doubtful protection of the Minister. We cannot foresee today all the circumstances that will arise, and we have done our best by putting down new Clauses. We have extracted assur-

  63
  ances from the Minister, but, thus far, they are only a poor alternative to the restoration of the consumers' statutory protection.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I would like to know whether the draft regulations will be seen by Members or will be formally laid before Parliament before this Bill becomes law? The Minister mentioned that only slight modifications were involved, and if the regulations are in being now, it would not be difficult to get them out. Perhaps we could see the regulations in draft before we part with the Bill, so that we would know whether the Minister's words had been carried into effect.
  Mr. Shinwell: In reply to the noble Lord, it is not customary to present such regulations to the House, but regulations when they are laid before the House are subject to a negative Resolution by hon. Members if they so desire. There is an adequate safeguard here. First of all, the existing regulations continue after the vesting date until the new regulations are drafted, so that the consumer will be adequately safeguarded under them. Then we shall promote regulations along the lines of the existing regulations, and take into account the substance of the words contained in the new Clause. That appears to me to be a satisfactory safeguard.
  The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) doubted whether the assurances as given by me, would be an adequate substitute for words embodied in the Statute. He is quite right to doubt whether anything said by a Minister would be an adequate substitute for words embodied in a Statute, but it does not depend so much on what the Minister says as on the taking of a commonsense point of view in matters of this sort. As I have said previously, the facts are inescapable. The consumers must be protected and, inasmuch as the Electricity Commissioners thought fit to protect them under the existing regulations, it is extremely unlikely that the new dispensation would seek to escape from the provisions of those regulations. That is as far as I can go. No matter who succeeded me, he would be compelled by virtue of the need for such regulations to continue along the same lines. It seems to me that that should be an adequate safeguard to the consumer. I doubt
  64
  whether there is any scepticism on the part of the electricity consumers in these matters. They are well protected now, and the protection will continue.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Particulars in accounts as to loans to members or officers of Boards, and emoluments of members.)
  (1) The accounts of every Electricity Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, contain particulars showing—

  (a)the amount of any loans which, during the period to which the accounts relate, have been made either by the Board or by any other person under a guarantee from, or on a security provided by the Board to any member or officer of the Board, including any such loans which were repaid during the said period; and

  (b) the amount of any loans made in manner aforesaid to any member or officer at any time before the period aforesaid and outstanding at the expiration thereof; and

  (c) the total of the amount paid to each of the members as remuneration for his services, inclusive of all fees, percentages, or other emoluments, paid to or receivable by him by or from the Board.

  (2) If, in the case of any such accounts as aforesaid, the requirements of this Section are not complied with, it shall be the duty of the auditors of the Board by whom the accounts are examined to include in their report, so far as they are reasonably able to do so, a statement giving the required particulars.
  (3) In this Section the expression "emoluments" includes fees, percentages and other payments made or consideration given, directly or indirectly, to a member as such, and the money value of any allowances or perquisites belonging to his office.—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Clause 41 of the Bill lays down that these accounts shall be laid in conformity with the best commercial standards. We are fortunate in having had recently put through the House a Bill prescribing high commercial standards, but we do not wish to enjoin too strict regulations upon these new bodies and, therefore, we should be content with the provisions of Section 45 of the Companies Act, 1929, which is, in fact, the Section we have embodied in this new Clause. That Section was found necessary in order
  to ensure disclosure of borrowings by directors and officials from a company's funds, and it also required the disclosure in the accounts of all emoluments paid to directors. I think that the

  65
  Minister will have no objection to accepting this Clause, which merely sets out in the Statute the more general phrases which he himself has laid down in Clause 41.
  It is obviously desirable, from every point of view, that these things should be explicitly set down in the Statute when we have Statutes to refer to, and not left to subsequent consolidating legislation in which they would, no doubt, be embodied. When we have an opportunity of doing that, it should be done here and now, and perhaps the Minister will not desire, on this occasion, to ask us to rely on his assurances from the view that common sense is bound to prescribe a course of procedure such as that which we now enjoin upon him. The many-sidedness of truth may be paralleled in the future with the many-sidedness of common sense; therefore, let us seize this opportunity when we have it and when we are all agreed, and let us have in the words of the Statute the provisions which I now beg to move.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Motion.
  The first two Subsections deal with loans, new and outstanding. As my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, the Companies Bill now before the House goes very much further than this proposal. I would ask the Minister to look at the Cohen Report—page 49, paragraph 94, which states:
  "We consider it undesirable that directors should borrow from their companies. If the director can offer good security, it is no hardship to him to borrow from other sources. If he cannot offer good security, it is undesirable that he should obtain from the company credit which he would not be able to obtain elsewhere."
  As a result of that, Clause 33 of the Companies Bill makes it impossible for any director to borrow from his company except within very narrow limits. We have not gone as far as that, chiefly because, I think, the Companies Bill has not been through all its stages, and its final form is not known for certain. We have taken Sections 45 and 128 of the 1929 Act and slightly modified them to bring them, as nearly as possible, into conformity with the recommendations of the Cohen Committee. In launching a new venture of this sort, a practice should not be allowed to commence which is condemned by an impartial Committee—
  66
  and a very good Committee—for the whole of private industry. It is obviously unsound for any member, particularly when dealing with public money, to be in a position to borrow it, except subject to complete control. We have tried in this new Clause to see that every protection is given and that any loan granted to a member of the board shall be safeguarded as much as possible.
  With regard to remuneration, we would ask the Minister to bring the proposed new boards into conformity with what is to be done in private industry. I admit that we have not here exactly the same words as are applied to private industry, but hon. Members on this side are not wedded to the actual phraseology, and any Amendment necessary to bring it strictly into line with the Cohen Report would be acceptable to us. The Cohen Committee have made it very clear in Sections 89 and 90 that in private industry it is essential that if the shareholders are to have a true representation of what is happening in their company, the amounts of emoluments paid to the directors should be disclosed. If the consumer is to be safeguarded, any remuneration paid to members of the boards should also be disclosed. Unless this is done, the people who will ultimately have to pay cannot get a proper understanding of the accounts. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will accept this Clause. It is designed to bring the accounts as near as we can to the best commercial standards which he himself lays down later in the Bill. By accepting the Clause he can do no harm to the Bill, but it will maintain the safeguards to the consumer by showing every one the true and fair value of what is happening.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: As hon. Members have just said, it is my intention to provide in the Bill, in Clause 41, that the accounts shall conform to the best commercial standards. Those words were framed after considerable discussion in the Standing Committee which dealt with the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act, and they were adopted for the purpose of enabling the National Coal Board to present its accounts in a prescribed and satisfactory form. It does not appear to me to be necessary that the additional requirement in respect of loans to mem-

  67
  bers of the new boards should be included in this Bill, and I will tell hon. Members why. I am not fully acquainted with the practice of commercial concerns, but I gather from what the hon. and gallant Member has just said that it is, or was, customary for members of boards of directors or boards of management to receive pecuniary assistance on occasions, apart from their fees, in the form of loans, and the Companies Bill is designed to provide that that custom shall be abandoned.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not using the right word. He talks about this practice being customary; the fact is that it was not prohibited, but it does not follow that it was customary.
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member is quite right; it was not habitual either with the directors or with the undertakings, but it occasionally happened.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The 1929 Act said that any such loan must be shown in the balance sheet; the present Bill prohibits it.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am not making any accusation against company directors; I acquitted myself at the beginning of any profound knowledge of this subject, but I listened to hon. Members opposite and, as they indicated that these things sometimes occurred, I accepted what they said, and there it is. Let us now consider the position in respect of anationalised undertaking. I say at once that if the intention of hon. Members in promoting this new Clause is to secure that surreptitious financial assistance should be provided on occasions to members of the electricity boards, whether national or regional, I would regard such a practice with the utmost distaste, and indeed I would expect that nothing of the sort would happen. There is provision in the Bill—or will be, with the consent of hon. Members—to safeguard the public against practices of that sort, and the position is that I as Minister—or whoever happens to be Minister—-can give directions to the boards. It would seem to me that a distasteful and wholly disagreeable practice of this kind would be inimical to the public wellbeing, and, therefore, the Minister
  68
  could intervene. That being so, it is unnecessary to make provision in the Bill for this safeguard.
  The position will be this. The Minister appoints the members of the Central Authority. Under the provisions of the Bill he also appoints the members of the regional authorities, and because he has the power vested in him to make such appointments, he will fix their remuneration. That is distinct from the position which has developed in connection with the mining industry. There I appointed the members of the National Board, but I did not appoint the members of the divisional boards, and in appointing the members of the National Board, I fixed their salaries. I would remind hon. Members that their salaries were announced in the House, and, therefore, there was nothing surreptitious about it; nor was it necessary to provide safeguards about stating those matters in the annual accounts. The pronouncement was made in the House about the salaries of the members of the National Coal Board, but I did not make any announcement about the salaries of the divisional boards because I was not responsible for the appointments.
  Those are the facts; there can be no dispute about them. In the electricity industry under this Bill, I shall be empowered to appoint the members of the National Board, and I shall state their salaries, and I shall also state, if need be, the global amount, and, if necessary, in the accounts I can provide a statement in detail of their expenses. I shall also fix the salaries and any other emoluments of the members of the regional boards, and therefore I shall
  be called upon by the House, quite naturally and rightly, to make a statement of what has been done. If that is so, surely hon Members cannot expect any more
  Finally, the contemplated British Electricity Authority, gathering up the financial activities of the various regional boards with its own financial activities, will present accounts to the Minister, and the Minister must present those accounts to Parliament. Those accounts, as I have indicated, must be presented in such a way as to conform with the best commercial standards. They will be detailed accounts, and the House will expect nothing less than that. No self-respecting or responsible Minister, whoever he might

  69
  be, would allow any nationalised undertaking to escape its obligations in that regard. The House and the public are entitled to full information about matters of that sort in the measure that the Minister is directly responsible. If the Minister is not directly responsible, clearly the House is not entitled to ask for details which are within the purview of the board itself. That being so, and having ascertained as far as I could the intentions of hon. Members opposite in promoting this Clause, it does not appear to me that it is necessary to include these words in the Bill.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman's arguments, of which he told us he had a number, really amount to saying that he believes that this Clause is unnecessary. I am bound to say that, with regard to the point he made about emoluments being published, as long as he carries out his promise it does go some way to meet us. But he has not met the point about loans. He objects to the practice of granting loans to members or officers of the boards. Incidentally there are no regional boards, as far as I know, although the Minister referred to them. They are area boards. I think he objects to these loans; and so do we, and I cannot see why he objects to a specific provision being made in the Bill. It would be better to accept the first part of our new Clause regarding loans, even if he thinks he cannot accept the second part regarding emoluments. If the Minister persists in his refusal to accept the principle, he cannot complain if the public at large and we on this side of the House remain suspicious, not necessarily about what he will do, but what it thinks some of his successors may do. Either the thing is right or it is wrong; if it is wrong, let us specifically prohibit it in the Bill and then there can be no question that the public will be reassured.
  Commander Galbraith: I do not quite understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in his brief remarks. He seemed to make a difference between what was his responsibility and what might not be his responsibility, and he said that the House would not be entitled to have details. If the House is not entitled to details, then presumably no one is entitled to them. That is rather an important point. Surely, the Minister must be responsible for the whole of this new machinery, and the
  70
  House must be entitled, in the public interest, to ask him for information on any points on which they may have doubts. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will clear up the point I am putting to him, but I put it to him seriously and not merely to raise some side issue.
  Mr. Shin well: I am not making any complaint, for this is quite a proper question to put to me, but I think I answered it on a previous occasion. I will endeavour to simplify the matter. When I appoint a number of persons to a nationalised board, I fix their salaries and their emoluments Inasmuch as that is my obligation, I must on the appropriate occasion inform Parliament of my activities. When appointments are made, not by the Minister, but by the board itself, it is asking too much to say that I should acquaint the House with the details of salaries and expenses of officers of the board and indeed with every minute detail of expense incurred. The House is entitled to information on the global figures, but just as on Supply Day the House is entitled to ask for details of Government expenditure, so it would be entitled to ask similar questions on the accounts of a nationalised undertaking when they were presented to the House. There is a distinction between information furnished to the House by the Minister in respect of appointments for which he is directly responsible, and information on matters for which he is not directly responsible.
  5.15 p.m.
  It appears to me that the point made by hon. Members opposite is really irrelevant to the substance of the new Clause, which, as I indicated, is a question of loans made to directors. There are no directors in a nationalised undertaking. They are members of the board, and they are paid salaries. They are not paid fees as in the case of a director of a commercial undertaking. They may be paid £100 a year. £500 a year or £1,000 a year, or fees for attendance at each meeting. Such a? person, finding himself in financial difficulty, might approach the secretary of the board and ask for a little financial assistance but one cannot conceive of the chairman of the Electricity Board or the chairman of the National Coal Board going to the Secretary and asking for a loan of £5, £500, or £1,000. If anything

  71
  of the sort happened, I imagine the secretary would say, "It is time you were off the board."
  Colonel Clarke: Surely, the sort of case we are considering is that in which some official of the board says, for instance, that his wife has had a serious operation and he would like a little advance of salary. Another case could be where an employee is moved from one town to another and is unable to get a house; and asks for a sum of money in order to put down the deposit on a house.
  Mr. Shinwell: Now we are getting down to brass tacks. If that is what hon. Members have in mind, it is quite unnecessary to have any provision of this sort in the Bill. If there is provision in the Bill for the welfare of officers in the undertakings, and if, unfortunately, the wife of an official of the board met with a mishap of some kind and he found himself financially embarrassed as a result, and wanted some assistance, one would expect that he would apply to the welfare and benevolent fund raised by the members of the staff in order to assist one another. That is all that is necessary, I would deprecate any kind of arrangement within a nationalised board whereby either a member of the board, or an officer or an employee of the board, apart from salaries and expenses to which he was justly entitled, would receive any temporary financial assistance. A nationalised undertaking is not a money-lending institution. [Interruption.]The right hon. Gentleman must not be so childish. The point at issue is not one of great substance; it is as unsubstantial as the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) has now described. Surely, we do not require a provision in the Bill to meet contingencies of that kind. It is much better to leave it to the common sense and intelli-
  gence of the members responsible for the running of the undertaking.
  Sir A. Gridley: May I say that in all my experience as a director I have never known any board to be asked by a director for a loan or for any financial assistance, and I say that after many years' experience. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about loans to directors or members of the area boards being distasteful. Would it be equally distasteful to him if area boards decided they would buy a house for a member of the board? Assistance may be given in more ways than one. It may not be by loans or other financial help; it may be from some source which could be quite right in the circumstances.
  Mr. Shinwell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that if there is a contractual obligation which the board must accept, in the normal way they must provide a house if that is part of the obligation. On the other hand, if there is no contractual obligation when an employee is moved from one district to another and he has told the board that he must have accommodation and asked them to assist him to find that accommodation, I would not regard that so much as a loan as assistance which was essential for the proper conduct of the undertaking. In any event, those are matters which might be arranged as between the board and some building society. There was a slight irrelevance in the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). We are speaking here of financial assistance of a temporary kind. I beg hon. Members not to imagine that we shall countenance proceedings of that kind.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes 90; Noes, 198.

  Division No. 269]

  AYES.

  [5.22 p.m.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G.T

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Bullock, Capt. M

  Elliot, Rt. Hon Walte

  Baldwin, A. E

  Byers, Frank

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Challen, C.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Channon, H.

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D

  Beechman, N. A.

  Clarke, Col R. S.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Birch, Nigel

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Grant, Lady

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E

  Gridley, Sir A

  Boothby, R.

  Darling, Sir W Y

  Grimston, R. V

  Bower, N.

  Digby, S. W.

  Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Dodds-Parker, D D

  Headlam, Lieut- Col Rt Hon Sir c

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Drewe, C

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J, G

  Duthie, W S

  Hope, Lord J

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Marshall, O. (Bodmin)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Keeling, E. H

  Mellor, Sir J

  Stanley Rt. Hon. O

  Kendall, W. D.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Studholme, H G.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Morrison, Rt Hon W S (Cirencester)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Nicholson G.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A F

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Touche, G. C.

  Lipson, D L

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Wadsworth, G

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Pickthorn, K

  Walker-Smith, D

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Mackeson, Brig. H R

  Raikes, H. V.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lore

  McKie, J H (Galloway)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  MacLeod, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Ross Sir R D. (Londonderry)

  Major Conant and

  Major Ramsay.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Parkin, B. T

  Alpass, J. H.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gunter, R. J

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Austin, H Lewis

  Guy, W. H.

  Piratin, P

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hale, Leslie

  Popplewell, E

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Hall, W G.

  Randall, H E

  Barstow, P. G

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Ranger, J.

  Barton, C

  Hannan, W. (Marvhill).

  Rees-Williams, D. H

  Battley, J. R

  Hardy, E A.

  Reeves, J.

  Bechervaise. A. E

  Harrison, J.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Berry, H.

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Robens, A.

  Beswick, F.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Blackburn, A. R

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Rogers, G. H. R

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hicks, G.

  Royle, C.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Sargood. R

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Holman, P.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth

  Shackleton, E, A

  Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

  House, G

  Sharp, Granville

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Hoy, J.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

  Bramall, E. A

  Hudson, J. H, (Ealing, W)

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Simmons, C J.

  Brown, T. J (Ince)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C

  Bruce. Maj. D W T

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Skinnard, F W.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Atterctiffe)

  Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

  Janner, B.

  Smith. S H. (Hud S.W)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Sorensen, R W.

  Champion, A J.

  Jones, D, T (Hartlepools)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Chafer, D.

  Keenan, W

  Sparks, J. A

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Kinley, J.

  Stamford, W

  Cluse, W S.

  Lavers, S

  Stephen, C.

  Cobb, F A

  Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham E.)

  Cocks, F S

  Lipton, Lt -Col. M

  Strauss, G R. (Lambeth N.)

  Collindridge, F.

  Longden, F

  Stress, Dr B

  Colman, Miss G. M

  McAdam, W.

  Stubbs, A. E

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  McEntee, V. La T

  Swingler, S.

  Cove, W. G.

  McGhee, H. G

  Sylvester, G. G

  Daggar, G

  Mack, J D.

  Symonds, A. L

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Taylor, H B (Mansfield

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mackay, R W G. (Hull, N.W)

  Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

  Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

  Davies, Hayden (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  McLeavy, F

  Thomas, D E (Aberdare)

  Davies, R J (Westhoughton)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

  Deer, G

  Mainwaring, W H

  Thorneycroft Harry (Clayton)

  Diamond, J

  Mallalieu J P W

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dodds, N N

  Martin,. H

  Titterington, M F

  Donovan, T

  Mathers, G

  Toliey, L.

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Medland, H. M

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Dumpleton, C W

  Mellisn R. J

  Vernon, Mai W F

  Dye, S

  Mikardo. Ian

  Viant, S. P.

  Edelman, M.

  Moody, A. S

  Walkden, E.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Morley, R

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Evans E. (Lowestoft)

  Morris, P (Swansea, W)

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow. E.)

  Farthing, W. J

  Moyle, A.

  Warbey, W N.

  Fernyhough, E

  Naylor, T. E

  Wells, P L. (Faversham)

  Follick, M.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Wells, W T (Walsall)

  Foot, M M

  Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford)

  West wood, Rt. Hon J

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

  Whiteley, Rt Hon w

  Ganley, Mrs. C S

  Noel-Baker, Capt F E. (Brentford)

  Wigg, Col G E

  Gibson, C W.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Wilkes, L.

  Gilzean, A.

  Oldfield, W H

  Wilkins, W A

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Orbach, M.

  Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

  Goodrich, H E.

  Palmer, A. M F

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Gordon-Walker, P C

  Parker, J.

  Williams, W R. (Heston)

  74

  75

  Williamson, T.

  Wyatt, W.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Willis, E

  Yates, V. F

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Young, Sir Ft (Newton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Woods, G S

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Daines.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Valuation of assets.)
  (1) For the purpose of providing a proper and uniform basis of accounts, every Electricity Board shall, within twelve months after the vesting date, carry out a valuation of all the capital assets vested in the Board by or under this Act.
  (2) The Minister shall, by regulations made before the vesting date, prescribe the principles upon which the valuations required by the last foregoing subsection are to be carried out.
  (3) The regulations made in accordance with the last foregoing subsection shall prescribe rates of depreciation to be applied to the capital assets of every Electricity Board, and may prescribe different rates for assets of different classes.—[Mr. R. S. Hudson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  On various occasions in the Standing Committee, and upon a later occasion to which it would be out of Order now to refer in detail, the Minister has, in effect, accepted the principle that the accounts of the new Central Authority and of its area boards should be presented in accordance with the best industrial and commercial practice. This new Clause is an attempt to complete the picture. We believe that if the public and Members of this House—and of future Houses, for that matter—are to carry out their duties intelligently and are to be able to assess properly the results not only from year to year but over a period of years—which is perhaps equally important—of the working of the experiment embodied in this legislation, the first essential is that we should know the value of the assets which are taken over by the authority when it starts. We should also know that proper arrangements are made for annual depreciation. A great many undertakings, especially those of local authorities, proceed by means of a sinking fund to pay off their loan charges. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is about to agree that it would be much more satisfactory if proper scales of depreciation were laid down and prescribed by the Ministry. We believe it is a sound idea that the assets should be valued. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that this would be a very long and never-ending job.
  76
  We have received the report of a committee which inquired into the gas industry, an analogous case. I have heard hon. Members opposite, when it has suited their purposes, quoting from this document. If the Parliamentary Secretary has read and digested it, he will remember that it made definite recommendations on the need for capital expenditure accounts being set out upon a uniform basis. It also went into the question whether or not valuations should be made at the commencement of the operation of a gas authority and the contributory area boards, and whether the valuation of those assets would be a very long job. The answer of that committee is:
  "Inventories will require to be in considerable detail, but this is not a difficulty, since the only method of making the valuations is to work from the detail upwards to the total figure. The completion of these records is not such a monumental task as is sometimes supposed, and an established technique is available."
  Fortified, therefore, with this definite opinion, we have put down the proposed new Clause. We earnestly hope that the Minister will see his way to accept it.
  Mr. Nigel Birch: I support my right hon. Friend in his plea to the Government. This is a very big question. It is of vital importance not only that the accounts of nationalised undertakings should tell the truth, but that they should be known to have told the truth, and that people should know exactly on what basis the accounts are compiled. Any one with experience of compiling company accounts will know that a perfectly honest accountant, conforming to the best commercial standards, can make the accounts of a company look very different if he makes different assumptions when he values the assets, or applies different rates of depreciation.
  All companies in this matter have different practices. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, certain rates of depreciation are allowed for Income Tax purposes, but it is unusual for a company in its published accounts to depreciate exactly at that rate. Most companies hold that the allowances given by the Income Tax Acts are not sufficient. They depreciate at a rate more than the

  77
  allowances given, under those Acts. Some companies obviously have depreciated more than others. Therefore, the Electricity Authority will be faced with the situation that they will take over assets of precisely equal intrinsic value which are valued in different balance sheets upon quite different bases. It is perfectly correct by the best commercial standards to depreciate at a greater rate than one is allowed under the Income Tax Acts. Many companies would have gone "bust" if they had not done so.
  As I understand it, in the case of municipal electricity undertakings, rates of depreciation are laid down by the
  Minister of Health, different rates being laid down according to the precise
  thing that is being depreciated. We are anxious that the assets taken over shall be valued upon a uniform basis and that that basis shall be generally known, that annual rates of depreciation shall be laid down at appropriate rates, and that those rates shall be known. Everyone in the country will then be able to find out how the accounts are drawn up and will know that the truth is being told—or at any rate they will know on what basis the accounts are drawn up. If that is not done, there will be great variation between the rates of earnings shown by some boards, as some of them will take over assets at a lower valuation than others. We shall have no true comparison between the boards.
  I do not believe that to secure this uniform basis will be an intolerable task. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the Heyworth Report, and particularly to paragraph 282, where stress is laid upon the necessity for capital expenditure accounts being set out on a uniform basis. That can be done only if there is a valuation of the capital assets. It is particularly important that earnings shall be given upon a uniform basis; that can be done only if depreciation is on a uniform basis.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) rightly quoted my right hon. Friend as having declared himself strongly in favour of the clearest possible presentation of accounts. Indeed, full provision for that is made in the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We go rather further than the
  78
  mere presentation of accounts, because there is laid down in Clause 40 in some detail—perhaps not as great detail as some hon. Members would like—the practice which is to be pursued in the matter of charges to revenue account. The proposed new Clause is not concerned simply with proper presentation. It proposes three things: that within 12 months of the vesting date every electricity board shall carry out a valuation of its capital assets; that the principles of such valuation are to be laid down by the Minister in regulations made before the vesting date; and that those regulations shall prescribe the rates of depreciation to be applied to the capital assets of the board, though not necessarily the same rates for all of them.
  The question we have to consider is whether this new Clause is necessary and practicable. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has a charming way of saying, when he knows one is going to argue something, that he hopes one will not do so. He is quite entitled to do that, but I am bound to say in all seriousness that the task of a complete physical valuation of all the assets in this industry is far more formidable than the right hon. Gentleman and his friends seem to appreciate. In my view it is quite out of the question that any valuation of this kind could possibly be done within a year. If one is to judge by our experience in the transfer of the coal industry assets, certainly it is a far longer job than that. I do not imagine that the Opposition would be satisfied—no one would be—with merely accepting the book value of the assets as they stand in the existing balance sheets. Obviously that would be very little guide in the matter. If one went further and called in outside experts to place precise values on everything in the industry or to adopt some standard rate of depreciation and apply it to the cost of the assets, it would mean a most formidable task. It would mean researches into the original cost of everything and into what was spent on it. That would happen in connection with every little item in every undertaking. There can be no doubt that this would involve a most tremendous use of manpower. At the end of it should we really have gained a great deal?
  I concede to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) that it is desirable that

  79
  the position of the different area boards in relation to one another should be made as clear as possible. I do not think there is any quarrel between us about the desirability of introducing in due course standard rates of depreciation to be applied by the area boards. That is probably a desirable thing, but I am bound to say that I do not see that it is necessary to have this tremendous elaboration of assets in order that we may have the proper comparison which has been mentioned. If the hon. Member was thinking in terms of comparison with the final financial position of the different area boards, one has obviously to take into account not only the extent to which they depreciate their assets but also, for instance, the amount which they are expected to pay to the Central Authority by way of a contribution to servicing of stock which will have been issued by way of compensation and by way of meeting the local authority loans.
  I do not feel that there is really any necessity for anything as elaborate as this. I am advised—we do not decide these matters without expert advice—that there is no need for this elaborate valuation at once of the capital assets in order that the accounts may be properly kept. In any case, I do not see how we can possibly decide precisely what policy to adopt in this matter, at least until after the vesting date. It would be extremely difficult for us to make regulations at this stage when we do not know precisely what all the practices are in this industry which would be satisfactory. This is essentially a matter—I put it in all seriousness to the Opposition—which must be left until after the vesting date and which should be left not to the Minister—this is a case where I feel my right hon. Friend had better be kept in the background—but to the Central Authority to decide when they know what the practices are—there are many different practices—and let them lay down, if they wish, the principles which the various area boards should follow.
  5.45 P.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is like when he is being funny, but he has just told us that he is "in all seriousness." What does the hon. Gentleman mean by his last two or three sentences. He is assured by the
  80
  experts. He says that there is no need for this. What are they experts in? Are they experts in law or in the production of electricity, or what is it that they are experts in?
  Mr. Gaitskell: In accountancy.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Experts in accountancy are not really relevant to the main point here. The main point here is that we are engaged in what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen continually tell us is a great social and Socialist experiment. That experiment is quite worthless unless one knows early before one begins the experiment what one has to pay for the crucible. Of course, it is going to be easy enough for anybody in two or three years' time to say, "Look, how well we are running this"—whatever "this" is. In the case of electricity it is easy to see that if one starts off with assets which are down on one's books at a price only half what they are really worth, the whole experiment will be quite worthless. One really must know what the values of the assets are on the vesting date. How he can tell us in all seriousness that though this ought to be done, it certainly ought not to be done before the vesting date, I really cannot understand. The whole experiment ceases to have any value unless it is before the vesting date that we find out what are the things and what are the money values of the things that have been taken over by the new concern.
  That is what the new Clause asks for. Nothing the hon. Gentleman said has any relevance to that request. It is all very well to say that the task of valuation is far more formidable than was suggested from this side of the House, but unless the task of valuation is possible, the experiment cannot have any meaning at all. No doubt the task is formidable—the hon. Gentleman said it would take a year—and perhaps the most formidable thing about it would be guessing the value of the Dalton £as the year went on. I did not understand at all—here I apologise; when I say that I did not understand, I do not mean anything ironic—what was meant by saying that this could not be done until we had been in the concern a long time and fully understood the practices. I think the hon. Gentleman meant the practices of various electricity producing and supplying companies about depreciation. I do

  81
  not see how that is necessary preliminary knowledge to what we are asking here. One does not have to know at what rate things have been depreciated in the previous five years in order to value what things are worth now and to decide at what rate they shall be valued in the next five years. I agree that it would be a simple matter of arithmetic to value if depreciation had been uniform and if all the prices were known. One would only have to work out what it cost to buy things and it would be a simple arithmetical sum. But nobody from this side of the House has suggested that. Therefore the argument that it cannot be done until hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in the industry a long time and learnt the practices does not seem to have any relevance at all.
  The main point with which I began and with which I will now finish is this. Surely it has to be reasonable, and nobody would think it was reasonable for anybody else except the State to start on a great producing and trading venture without making them get quite clear to themselves and to those to whom they have to be responsible at the beginning what are the assets they start with and what is the value of those assets. Nobody would for a moment suggest that any other organisation should start off without that and, so far, we have really had no serious argument why the State should be given this privileged position.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Parliamentary Secretary made out that, this valuation would be a formidable affair and if it were to start a year after the vesting date, it might be, but what happens on the vesting date? The Authority takes over these statutory undertakings. They are listed in the new Schedule which the right hon. Gentleman introduced. They are all known companies, they have all operated electricity undertakings for a great number of years, and they have all kept books. Nobody has ever suggested that any of them are irresponsible and do not know the value of their assets. What is easier than to take over the books of those concerns, as they are taken over, and make a summation of the whole thing over the course of the succeeding year, writing down where necessary on a proper rate of depreciation, to achieve the result asked for in this new Clause, namely, the valuation
  82
  of assets a year from the vesting date? There is no formidable task in that. The accounts are there, and valuations are all made, and every item of equipment, which the hon. Gentleman said will have to be looked up by the Electricity Authority to see where it came from, is already in the accounts. I should not think there was six weeks' work in it. Why not look at it from that point of view? It is a perfectly reasonable new Clause, and the Government ought to examine it afresh.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Of the many speeches I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, I have never heard one which seemed to me to go so completely outside any reasonable argument. In the first instance, he more or less admitted to this House, in refusing to accept this Clause, that the Government have no idea of what assets they are taking over. They have no idea of the value or the extent of them, and all they could offer was that they would be able to tell us in two or three years' time what they had bought. If any arguments could be produced to show the folly of trying to take over an industry like this on Stock Exchange values, the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon demonstrates it beyond all possible cavil. Here he is telling this House that, just because of this method of breaking all traditional commercial practice, he has now to admit that some £700 million of our money is to be spent on acquiring assets of which the Government have no definite knowledge whatever. If that is a creditable statement to make to this House, I do not know what is a discreditable one.
  If the Minister is serious that accounts will be kept in the best commercial standards, how can he do that unless he knows what he owns? How is it possible for him to present any accounts to this House which will bear five minutes investigation if he says, "These are all based on the assumption that something I have is worth what I may be able to confirm to you in several years' time, but, for the moment, this is the best we can do." Is that the way in which to treat these millions of pounds of public capital to be invested in electricity?
  The Parliamentary Secretary went on to mention Clause 40 of the Bill and to say that at least, as far as the revenue

  83
  account was concerned, a great many extra stipulations beyond what we demand, were made. Can he tell me one of those which is possible to undertake unless the capital value of the assets taken over is known? I would draw his attention to lines 31 and 32 of page 51 of the Bill which say:
  "for depreciation and obsolescence of assets or renewal of assets."
  How can any board make proper provision for obsolescence or depreciation unless it knows the value of the assets? On the face of it, it is a clear contradiction in terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said that many companies adopted different practices. That is true, depending on their expansion programme and on many other things. It will be found, when the Government come to take over these companies, that there are many different standards. Assets in one company and another will bear no relation to each other simply because of the conditions of the particular company. How will any area board correlate those assets and get a standard rate of depreciation and obsolescence? Unless some such Clause as this is put in the Bill it makes an absolute mockery of what the Minister has said on Clause 41, that accounts will be laid in accordance with the best commercial standards, and above all, it makes an absolute mockery of the whole of this Bill, because the Government are simply saying, "We are spending several hundred millions. We do not know what we are buying but we will let you know in three years' time." If that is what is happening, the sooner we put in a Clause like this, the better.
  Sir A. Gridley: Perhaps i may intervene, having had some experience of electrical supply companies. I cannot help thinking that the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion has not been well advised. After all, the accounts of most of the authorised undertakings of this country are subject to two audits—one by their own appointed chartered accountants, and the second by auditors appointed by the Minister. The Electricity Commissioners for years past have had a standard schedule of rates of depreciation with which the undertakings have been supposed to comply. If they have complied with those depreciation rates, then the book value of the assets in their
  84
  accounts today is beyond reproach. On the other hand, if the sum set aside for depreciation is not equal to the Commissioners' schedule, then presumably that figure is down and the balance not provided for can be written off the assets. Those are the facts, and I should have thought that of all the undertakings in the country, electricity supply undertakings were about the easiest of all to take over for the reasons I have given.
  The difficulties that may arise appear to be these. Take the cost of Battersea and the Barking Power Station, and compare them with what Bankside will cost. There will be in three or four years' time perhaps 200,000 kilowatts in each of those two stations built at a most of £20 a kilowatt and, at Bankside, perhaps costing £50 a kilowatt. They will have very wide valuations for the same amount of current capacity, and if you were to replace today the generating set in any one of the existing power stations, say Manchester, with one of larger capacity, the new set might be installed at more than twice the capital cost of the old one. That is one difficulty about valuations: what is the replacement value of the existing stations today? There is a second difficulty, as I see it, which is this: under the terms of acquisition the State may be acquiring one undertaking for which it is going to pay in electricity stock, we will say, £4 million. Its written-down value in the books on the basis I have described may be £6 million.
  6.0 p.m.
  How are those assets to be valued? There might be another case in which electricity stock has amounted to £4 million, but the assets may have been written down to £3 million. How are they to be valued? Those are the difficulties, not the difficulty which the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out. It is "as easy as pie," if I may use a vulgar expression, to value the assets held by an electricity undertaking today. There is no difficulty whatever in doing so. I would undertake, if the books were presented to me, to present a valuation of all the electricity undertakings in the country in the next six weeks. If I were asked to say what is the true present day value of those undertakings, that is quite another story. We come back to this matter in the later Clauses of the Bill, but I say to the Parliamentary Secretary

  85
  that we must have a better explanation of the difficulties in arriving at an earlier valuation than he has given us this afternoon. I say that to him, with great respect.
  Commander Galbraith: I am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) on the question of the valuation of the assets. I do not think that there will be a great deal of trouble there, nor need it take a long time. So far as the power companies are concerned, it should be quite simple; the records are very full. I really cannot understand how we are to proceed with proper accounts unless we know the value of the assets we are taking over. What figure is to be taken? Is it to be the price that was paid to the particular undertaking, or is it to be the value appearing in the books at the time they were taken over? It is necessary to be able to calculate what depreciation is, and that cannot be done unless the starting point is known. The only way is to have a complete valuation, as suggested in the new Clause. Otherwise how is it to be ascertained whether the particular undertaking or area is being run profitably or not? It cannot be done unless the valuation of the assets at the start is known.
  Again, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, there is the question of replacement. Unless the assets are valued at the vesting date, there will be a terrific jump in charges sometime later, and that will not be a very happy position for anyone to be in. I cannot imagine how any reasonable accounts are to be prepared unless there is this valuation. I would come back to the question I asked previously: What figure is to be taken? There has to be some figure. What figure have the Government in mind? I hope that the Government will not dodge this issue, because if they do, a very obvious conclusion will be drawn from that. The Government are taking over these undertakings at Stock Exchange prices. We know very well they are getting a very good bargain, and an even better bargain out of the municipalities. Unless the Government are prepared to face this issue, the country will know, without anything more having to be said, that not only have the shareholders and the stockholders of the power companies been swindled, but that so also have the municipalities.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes. 215.

  Division No. 270.]

  AYES.

  [0.5 p.m.

  Amory, D Heathcoat

  Grimston, R. V.

  Nicholson, G

  Astor, Hon. M

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Noble, Comdr A H. P.

  Baldwin, A E

  Hare, Hon. J H (Woodbridge)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Baxter, A. B.

  Headlam, Lieut-Col Rt Hon Sir C

  Peake, Rt Hon O

  Beechman, N A.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peto, Brig C H M

  Birch, Nigel

  hope, Lord J

  Pickthorn, K

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Walls)

  Hudson, Rt Hon R S. (Southport)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Boothby, R

  Hutchison, Lt -Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Raikes. H V

  Bower, N

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Ramsay Maj S

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W

  Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

  Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan

  Keeling, E. H

  Robinson Wing Comdr Roland

  Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Ross St. R D (Londonderry)

  Buchan-Hepburn P. G T

  Lambert, Hon G

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Byers, Frank

  Lancaster, Col C. G

  Shepherd, W S. ()

  Challen, C

  Lindsay, M (Solihull)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Channon, H

  Lipson, D L.

  Smith E P (Ashferd)

  Clarke, Col.

  Lucas, Major Sir

  Spearman, A. C M

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Stanley, Rt Hon O

  Conant, Maj. R J. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O

  Stoddart-Scott, Col M

  Corbett, Lieut -Col U (Ludlow)

  McCallum, Maj. D

  Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

  Crosthwaite.Eyre, Col O E

  Macdonald Sir P (I of Wight)

  Sutcliffe, H

  Crowder, Capt John E

  Mackeson, Brig. H R

  Taylor. Vice Adm E A (P'dd'l'n. S.)

  Darling, Sir W Y

  McKie I H (Galloway)

  Thorp, LI -Col (A F

  Digby, S W

  MacLeod, J

  Touche, G ii

  Dodds-Parker, A D

  Macmillan, Rt Hon Harold (Bromley)

  Wadsworth, G

  Duthie. W S

  Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

  Walker-Smith, D

  Eiliot, Rt Hon Walter

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Fraser H C P (Stone)

  Marples, A. E

  Wheatley Colonel M o

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Marshall, D (Bodmin)

  Willoughby de Eresby Lore

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mellor, Sir J

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant, Lady

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

  Gridley, Sir A

  Neven-Spence. Sir B

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Alpass, J. H

  Hamson, J

  Regers, G H S

  Attewell, H. C

  Hasting, Dr Somervillt

  Royle, C.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

  Herbison, Miss M

  Sargood, R

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Hicks G

  Scollan, T

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Hobson, C R

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Holman, P

  Stackleton, E. A. A

  Barstow, P. G.

  Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

  Sharp, Granville

  Barton, C.

  House, G.

  Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

  Bcchervaise A.

  Hoy, J

  Skinwell Rt Hon E

  Berry, H.

  Hudson, J H. (Ealing W.)

  Shurmer P

  Beswick, F

  Hughes, Hector (Aterdeen, N.)

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Hughes, H D (Wolverhampton, W)

  Simmons, C. J

  Blackburn, A. R

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Skeffington-Lodge, T G

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)

  Skinnard, F W

  Blyton, W R.

  Janner, B.

  Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Jay, DPT

  Smith, S H. (Hall, SW.)

  Bowden, Flg.Offr. H. W

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, SE)

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A C (Shipley)

  Sorensen, R. W

  Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

  Jones, D T (Hartlepools)

  Soskice Maj. Sir

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Keenan, W

  Sparks, J A

  Stamford, W

  Bramall, E. A.

  Kinley, J.

  Stephen, C.

  Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)

  Laver, S.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Leonard, W

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Leslie, J R.

  Stubbs, A E.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

  Lewis, A. W J (Upton)

  Summerskill, Dr Edith

  Burden, T W

  Lindgren, G. S

  Swingler, S.

  Butler. H W. (Hackney, S)

  Lipton, Lt. Col M

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Longden, F.

  Symonds, A L.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  McAdam, W.

  Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

  Champion, A. J.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Taylor, R J. (Morpath)

  Chater, D.

  McGhee, H G

  Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Mack, J D.

  Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)

  Cobb, F. A.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, I O (Wrekin)

  Cocks, F S

  Mackay, R W G (Hull, N W)

  Thorneycroft, Harrty (Clayton)

  Collindridge, F.

  McLeavy, F

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Colman, Miss G M

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Titterington M

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Mainwaring, W H

  Tolley, L

  Daggar, G

  Mallalieu, J P. W

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Daines, P

  Martin, J H.

  Usborne, Henry

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield;

  Mathers, S.

  Vernon, Maj W. F

  Davies. Harold (Leek)

  Medland, H. M

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W)

  Mellish, R. J

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)

  Messer, F

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E)

  Deer, G

  Middleton, Mrs.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Diamond, J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Weitzman, D

  Dodds, N. N

  Mitchison, G. R

  Wells P L. (Faversham)

  Donovan, T

  Moody, A S

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwieh')

  Morrison, Rt Hon H (Lewisham. E)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J

  Dumpleton C W

  Moyle, A

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  Dye S.

  Neal, H (Claycross)

  Wigg, Col G. E.

  Edelman, M

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt C A. B

  Edwards, A (Middlesbrough E)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Wilkes, L.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Noel-Baker, Capt. E (Brentford)

  Wilkins, W A.

  Edwards, M (Caerphilly)

  Noel-Buxton, Lad

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Evans, E (Lowestoft)

  Oldfield, W H

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Ewart, R.

  Orbach, M.

  Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)

  Fanhing, W. J

  Palmer, A M f

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Follick, M.

  Parker, J.

  Williamson, T

  Fcot, M M

  Parkin, B T

  Willis, E.

  Gaitskell, H T. N

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Pearson, A.

  Woodburn, A

  Gilzean, A.

  Peart, Thomas F

  Woods, G. S

  Glanville, J E. (Censett)

  Piralin, P

  Wyatt, W

  Goodrich, H E.

  Popplewell, E

  Yates, V. F

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Pritt, D N

  Young Sir R (Newton)

  Grierson, E

  Pursey, Cmdr H.

  Younger, Hon Kennett

  Guest, Dr. L. Hader

  Randall. H E

  Zilliacus, K

  Gunter, R. J

  Ranger, J

  Guy W H.

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hale, Leslie

  Reeves, J

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Hall, W G.

  Ridealgh, Mrs M

  Mr. Hannan.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

  Robens. A.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of tax-free payments to members of Boards.)
  It shall not be lawful for an Electricity Board to pay to any member thereof remuneration free of income tax or of income tax other than surtax, or otherwise calcu-
  lated by reference to or varying with the amount of his income tax or his income tax other than surtax, or to or with the rate or standard rate of income tax.—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  We now return to the subject of emoluments after a short excursion, no doubt due to the hurry with which the Amendments had to be placed upon the Order Paper and the inefficiency of their marshalling. We come back to a subject upon which the Minister addressed us at some length at an earlier stage. This new Clause seeks to ensure the best commercial practice and is in conformity with Clause 32 of the Companies Bill. When we were arguing the previous new Clause, the Minister indicated that the provisions which we sought to insert were unnecessary. He said that no nationalised company would do anything of the kind which was being suggested; no director existed and even a member of the board could not be supposed to receive any loan or consideration from the board, as might have been done in the evil days of commercial companies. I do not suppose that he will claim that in this case. This is a practice which is not only well known in Government circles but which is growing in Government circles. We had for a moment or two the honour of the presence of the Prime Minister here. I am sorry that he is not present when we are discussing a practice under which, quite rightly, he has greatly benefited by the payment of a great proportion of his remuneration tax free.
  6.15 p.m.
  It is, of course, inevitable that such things must take place because nowadays, under the penal scale of taxation adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is impossible for a company or an enterprise to remunerate its high officers sufficiently. Therefore, by one means or another, attempts are made to get round the difficulty. In the case of Ministers, motor cars are provided, flats are given. The Minister of Fuel and Power looks a little annoyed because, of course, we know that he does not have a flat. But that does not apply to the Foreign Secretary or the holders of other tied houses of one kind or another under the Government. It is clear, therefore, that all should be on the same footing here. If it is prohibited in the case of companies, it must also be prohibited in the case of members of boards. I take it that the Minister will have no objection
  90
  to accepting this proposal, nor will the learned Solicitor-General if he is going to reply, because it is one which, first, is in accordance with best commercial principles; second, the practice is a growing danger; and, third, it is being increasingly pressed upon the attention of commercial and Government circles owing to the trend of present taxation.
  It is a proposal which must be dealt with by statute and not by assurances such as the Minister was willing to give, I do not know whether he will try to give us assurances in this case but, if he does, clearly his assurances would carry less weight on this occasion because this is a practice with which he and his colleagues are familiar. Therefore, I hope very much that it will be possible for the Minister to shorten our discussion on this occasion by allowing that what is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander, and that such payments should be prohibited not merely in the case of companies but in the case of members of boards such as he is about to set up under this Bill.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): This new Clause simply seeks to prevent what is quite often sealed in various agreements for payment of remuneration, namely such agreements as provide for payment of such a sum as, after deduction of tax, shall represent a particular figure. That is not an uncommon form of agreement. One has seen it quite often. It has absolutely nothing to do with providing flats or motor cars. That is not paying remuneration. The new Clause is designed to exclude agreements with members of the boards in the form which I have indicated, and nothing else. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman sought to justify it by referring to the analogy of the Companies Bill. Really, that is no analogy at all. Here we are dealing with a limited number of persons, the members of the boards. When one is talking of the Companies Bill, one is talking of all directors, that is to say, the great number of directors who are appointed to the boards of companies. The object of the Clause in the Companies Bill is to protect shareholders who will not know what directors are being paid, because they will not know the gross sum of the directors' income and, therefore, will not be able to tell what is represented by a sum which is

  91
  such and such a figure after payment of Income Tax.
  Those circumstances do not obtain in this case. We are talking about members of boards. They are a limited number appointed, subject to the exceptions laid down in the Clauses of the Bill, by the Minister himself. The Minister will state the salary that he proposes to pay them. He has no intention of paying them salaries in the form which I indicated a moment ago. He has no intention of paying them under the terms of an agreement whereby they are to receive so much as represents a particular sum after payment of tax. He has no intention of engaging them upon those terms. He will state the salaries which he proposes to offer. There is no general body of shareholders to protect; this is simply a case of a limited number of people. I am not talking about the directors of companies. I am talking about a limited number of persons appointed by the Minister, who is responsible for their salaries, and he will, as he said, declare what their salaries will be, and they will not be salaries free of payment of taxation. There is no need for the new Clause. One may have all sorts of provisions in a Bill which are not essential to it, even if they are germane indirectly to its general purpose, but it really is not necessary to have this provision, which would make it obligatory upon the Minister to do something which, in fact, he intended to do.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The last three new Clauses have more or less tended, in various aspects, to raise doubt whether the Minister means anything at all by the words "the best commercial practice." It is now made quite apparent that that phrase as used by him is nonsense. The learned Solicitor-General drew a distinction between members of the boards and the directors of companies, saying that the members of the boards would be limited, whereas on the other hand, there are a great number of directors. Surely, that argument is completely fallacious? The argument should be whether these people are equivalent, in the sense that one is in private enterprise and one under public ownership, and both are doing the same thing. That this is true I do not think anybody in the House will deny, BO far as their efforts and status are
  92
  concerned. The two cases are exactly analogous, and if a director is to be treated in one way, a member of a board should be treated in exactly the same way. Should there be any difference, the only effect would be that someone in a job under public ownership would be in a privileged position against those serving in private industry and, were that to be the case, I am sure that the colleagues of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Bench would be the first to disagree.
  The Minister said that there are no shareholders concerned, but surely if we are to produce a Bill for the public ownership of this industry, we are in duty bound to protect the whole of the public. It is true we have no limited responsibility regarding a number of shareholders who have taken some greater or lesser risk in putting their money into the venture concerned, but we have to take into account every single consumer of electricity in this country, and I submit, that, if we are responsible to them, we must have this necessary safeguard. The learned Solicitor-General did not refer to the Cohen Report but, if he looks at it, he will see how strongly the Cohen Committee deprecated this practice of paying salaries free of tax. I would call his attention to paragraph 88, which says:
  "The principal objection to this practice is that it creates a class of person who is immune from any increase in taxation."
  Is it the intention of this House to create such a class in industries under public ownership who are to be free from taxation as against the rest of the community? That is what rejection of the Clause will mean. Again
  "If the remuneration were free of Surtax…it would be difficult for the shareholder, even if he were able to obtain information as to the amount of the tax-free payment, to estimate the total amount of remuneration.…"
  In most cases, where this will arise, the recipient will be paying no taxation. How, therefore, is the consumer to know what the services of a member of the board are costing? Supposing the Minister says, "I will give So-and-so £5,000 a year free of tax"? How is the consumer to know what that really represents in actual earnings? If we agree to such a proposition, we should be betraying our trust. If this Clause is not accepted, it is a clear indication, first, that the Minister has no intention whatever of conforming to commercial

  93
  practice when he puts this Bill into operation and, second, that it is his intention to create, within these publicly-owned corporations, groups of people who are immune from the incidence of taxation and who will benefit at the expense of the rest of the community. He is creating a new privileged class.
  Colonel Lancaster: It seemed to me that the learned Solicitor-General, in his reply, really did his case no service. I do not think members of the board should be paid on this tax-free basis, although I think that the Solicitor-General put the matter to the House in such a way that it might easily be adduced that that was so. Where the Solicitor-General was wrong, and where the Government are also wrong, is that they will create a condition in which the members of these boards will be different from the rest of the public. The mere fact that they are appointed by the Minister and are only a limited number, means that, in the eyes of the general public, they will be in a privileged position, because we shall be creating a situation where they will have the right to be treated differently from their opposite numbers who are serving on public companies. Surely that is the weakness of the case which the Solicitor-General put before us. I do not agree that they should be placed in a privileged position so far as remuneration is concerned. The doubt in my mind is lest they be given a number of benefits in regard to privileges by way of motor cars or residences, or whatever it may be. In dealing with that aspect of the matter, the Solicitor-General seemed to me to be wholly wrong in suggesting that members of the boards are in any way to be considered or treated differently from those who have been fully covered in the new Companies Bill and to whom the Cohen Report made special reference, or, indeed, in deprecating any suspicion in the minds of hon. Members that the general mass of the people would not be protected as much as shareholders of a company under the Companies Bill.
  Mr. Pickthorn: The learned Solicitor-General let fall one remark which I think, perhaps, he ought to correct or clarify. He said that flats and motor cars are not remuneration. I am not an expert on Income Tax law, but, surely, that proposition, stated so generally, may mislead people? Is it not possible for employers
  94
  to give motor cars and provide flats as part of remuneration? The main argument of the learned Solicitor-General was that this Clause was not necessary because he said that here there were no shareholders to protect. Surely, that is the reason why it ought to be done here more than in another case, because shareholders have some chance of protecting themselves, and can go to the general meetings and ask questions? They can even sell out. If the citizens of this country, however, wish to protect themselves against this, they cannot come here and ask questions—
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member can.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: They are not even allowed to sell out, and they are not allowed to remove their capital, and, if the argument is that people should be protected against persons who are placed in the position of directors of electrical concerns in this country, that argument is surely very much stronger in the private consumer's interest. The two short points are surely these. First, everybody today employed directly or indirectly by the State, or under statutory powers from the State, ought to be paid an amount which shall be simply and easily comparable with other payments made outside that service. That is the first point which, surely, is clear. The second point is that this House should never give a Minister power to do something which the Minister says it would be undesirable to do, and which he has no intention of doing. Then why should he want the power. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General told us, and the Minister wagged his head and muttered in apparent agreement off and on, that there was no intention whatever to make any tax-free payment. All we are asking is that it should be made statutorily impossible to do so. What possible answer can there be to that?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Solicitor-General's argument against this new Clause, as I understand it, was that it would prohibit by law what the Minister, at any rate, never intends to do. That argument would be a valid and an impressive one if the present Minister of Fuel and Power were always going to be the Minister of Fuel and Power to the end of time. But the outlook is nothing like as black as that. Some day

  95
  Mr. Horner will change his mind, and there will be another Minister of Fuel and Power. Therefore, I put this point to the Solicitor-General. As I understand it, we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, that it is a bad thing for this remuneration to be tax free. It is also agreed that the present Minister will not allow it. Why not put this provision into the Bill, and prevent future Ministers from doing what everybody agrees is a bad thing?
  Sir William Darling: I am a little disappointed with the Minister, who has so far shown a high degree of sweet reasonableness in these discussions. I should have thought that he would have embraced very readily the opportunity to show that, under the new Electricity Bill, there is not to be created any privileged classes such as existed in the bad old days, and that the practice of limited liability companies and other corporations, which gave unfair and unduly privileged positions to their directors, is one that is not to be continued. I should also have thought that, owing to the deliberate way in which these views have been put forward, the Minister would have welcomed the opportunity to say this, and to accept this new Clause and thereby create a greater measure of pub". confidence. If he were to do that, he would get that new psychological impression which he thinks is necessary in other quarters among the citizens, that this legislation is a better and fairer thing than the state of affairs that existed in days gone by. If he would do that—maybe he is one of the few Ministers who does not require to do it—he would add to that measure of public confidence.
  If we are to have a really self-confident administration of industry under nationalisation schemes, we must treat the public with as much confidence as limited liability companies in the past treated their shareholders. We must have willing co-operators as well as willing agents. The new Clause is not of major importance, but it would give what is considered so important in other spheres—psychological encouragement. It would make people feel that, in the arrangements that are being made for electricity, each and all are shareholders, and each and all have rights, as we had under the limited liability company, and that none
  96
  will have, as they did in the bad old days, privileges such as this new Clause seeks to make impossible.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The Solicitor-General said that the reason it is proposed in the Companies Bill specifically to debar this practice is to enable shareholders to learn what is the gross remuneration of the directors. I think that was the effect of what he said.
  The Solicitor-General: That is one of the main reasons.
  Mr. Hudson: It is precisely because the present administration are showing signs of wishing to prevent the public from realising what is the gross remuneration paid to various people that we think this new Clause is more than ever necessary. I do not want to go into personalities, but the attitude of the Solicitor-General and his words force me to do so. I shall quote only two recent instances of what we feel were attempts to conceal the gross remuneration being paid to individuals. Take, first, His Majesty's Ministers of Cabinet rank. When there was a discussion in the House on the proposal to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament, the Ministers said that they were not going to propose any increase in their own salaries, and they took a good deal of public credit for the fact. As a side issue, it was announced that they were to continue to have the benefit of public motor cars. No one on this side of the House questions the desirability of Ministers having that facility. What we criticise is the fact that they did not announce, as would have been necessary by analogy in the case of a member of a board, were this new Clause passed, that Ministers were proposing to put their salaries up to £8,000, instead of £5,000, in order to pay for such a motor car, because, as I understand it, the cost of running the motor car, taking Surtax and everything into account, is equivalent to something of the order of £3,000. That would have been the honest way of dealing with it. I doubt whether the ordinary man in the street realises that Ministers are being paid the equivalent of that extra salary.
  Let me quote next the case of the Prime Minister. Everyone readily realises that, as a result of the incidence of taxation and the general increase in the cost of living, the Prime Minister is subjected to an almost intolerable burden if he is

  97
  to carry out his duties satisfactorily. Therefore, it has been announced recently that part of his salary is to be paid tax free. No one objects to the Prime Minister being paid enough money, one way or another, to fulfil his public duties, any more than one would object to members of the board being paid adequate sums in order to attract the people we want. All we say is that if we are to do that, the taxpayers—the equivalent to the shareholders—have a right to be told frankly and bluntly, without any camouflage, what it means. To the Prime Minister it means a salary of over £100,000 a year. Why not say frankly that we think the Prime Minister's salary ought to be raised to £100,000 a year, instead of saying that we are going to pay him the ordinary salary with £4,000 of it tax free? It is because we object to this system that we put forward this Clause.
  If the Government refuse to accept the Clause, what they will do is to establish a privileged class in the community. There is no question about the fact that the functions of a board of directors and the functions of the members of the new boards of the Central Authority are, broadly speaking, the same. In both cases, they are to be responsible for the successful, economic, efficient conduct of an enterprise, in the one case, a company, and, in the other, the whole of the electricity undertakings of the country. The director of a private company, when the Companies Bill becomes law, will be prohibited by Statute from getting tax free remuneration. If the Government refuse to accept this Clause, when this Bill becomes law members of the boards will be in a privileged position and will be able to accept it. It is useless for the Solicitor-General to shake his head or for the Minister to say, "We do not intend to pay men on that basis." The fact remains that they can so pay men. The effect of refusing this Clause is by comparison with the private director—after the Companies Bill becomes law—to set up a privileged body of men to whom the Minister if he so chooses—and that is the essence of privilege—can pay salaries in this form to which we take objection. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and the Government will think again, and will accept a statutory prohibition from doing something which they themselves say they do not want to do.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am bound to say that it is, to say the least, disgraceful that the right hon. Gentleman should make reference, obviously for the purpose of malicious propaganda, to a decision reached some time ago on the Prime Minister's salary. If hon. Members opposite are concerned about the position of Cabinet Ministers and the use of cars, they ought to have the courage to challenge the Government on that issue instead of bringing it in on a side issue, and if they do so, we on this side of the House will meet them. We are certainly not afraid of anything from hon. Members opposite. I am not in the least discouraged by some of the speeches to which we have listened. It is evidence of repentance that the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and hon. Members opposite are seeking to protect the public from the predatory instincts of the privileged people of the country. That is something novel for them. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are seeking to create a privileged class. On the contrary, we are seeking to prevent privileged people from getting away with the swag, which is quite a different thing. I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman: what earthly reason would the Government or the British Electricity Authority or an area board have for paying substantial salaries—and substantial salaries must be paid to people with the right qualifications —without deduction of Income Tax? There is no reason.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Then put it in the Bill.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Put it in the Bill. "On that assumption, we should put everything in the Bill, whether it is relevant or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that what hon. Members opposite are doing is to create a large number of bogys of which they pretend they are frightened. In fact, they are not frightened of them. They are anxious to inhibit the British Electricity Authority in every possible fashion now that the passing of this Bill appears to be inevitable. That is the situation. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that if we fail to embody this provision in the Bill, the public will be sceptical of our good faith and intentions in respect of providing adequate safeguards for the Electricity Commission.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not think I said that.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: That is what the right hon. Gentleman implied. His speech was full of implication and had very little substance. But the facts are simple. The Minister is responsible for the appointment of certain members of the boards, and when he makes those appointments he will announce the salaries to the House. When he does so, it will be open to hon. Members opposite to ask whether those salaries are free of Income Tax. Obviously, if the Minister said salaries are free of Income Tax, I imagine hon. Members opposite would have a great deal to say. But they will not require to have a great deal to say, because no responsible Minister will suggest that when salaries are fixed they should not be subject to Income Tax deductions. The hon. Member for King-ston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that it was not possible to accept the assurances of the Minister of Fuel and Power, because there might be another Minister of Fuel and Power.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Oh!
  Mr. Shinwell: Well, if he did not say it, he meant it. He has said it on many occasions in the past. No doubt, he believes it, but there are some hon. Members who believe anything. It may well be that another Member of the House will occupy the position which I fill at the present moment, but that has nothing to do with the principle. After all, the principle, and the application of the principle, rests with the House and with nobody else. Be it noted that when the annual accounts are presented there can be a detailed investigation by the House into those accounts, and if it should be discovered that the electricity board or the Minister, in respect of appointments, remuneration and emoluments, had "been guilty of acts which the House regarded as iniquitous, clearly a change would take place. Therefore, in the circumstances, there is no point in accepting this new Clause. Nor is there any reason to doubt the good intentions of the Government, although I am bound to confess that nothing that I or anybody else on this side of the House could say would prevent hon. Members opposite from being sceptical of the Government's intentions.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has given an adequate answer to the argument that has been put forcibly from this side of the House. Why the Minister will not accept this new Clause is beyond my understanding. It would assist him in difficult days ahead if taxation were to go spiralling up again, and I can see no justification for his refusal to accept the Clause. I will not address the House on finance, because it is a subject of which I know very little. The fact is that the Minister is, like Brunhilde, protected by sacred fire at the moment. [Interruption.] It was not produced by the miners, but by the immortals. However, I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he should remember Brunhilde's ending. She ended in the flames of Valhalla, because Valhalla could handle the coal situation better than the present Government can. There is one point I would like to emphasise, namely, that the present occupants of the Front Bench are honest men. On the law of averages they must be honest men—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—because they have nothing else to commend them. At present there is developing in this country a rising degree of patronage which makes Irish politicians in New York and Tammany weep with envy. Here is a Clause which will enable the honest men, under pressure, to remain honest, and it may also be a curb against a growing corruption which has happened in every other country where patronage has reached the point that it has reached here. Therefore, I claim that if we on these benches prepare a book called "Your M.P." on the basis that the Socialists did, and if in it we state that the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept this Clause, which would have assisted him in every way, it will be a bad day for the Socialists.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I rise only to put a point which I think the Solicitor-General would advise the Minister is a point of some substance, and is a point which has not been met. I wished to hear what was the answer of the Government to the proposal in the new Clause; and I took it, before the hon. and learned Solicitor-General spoke, that they would say, if they resisted the new Clause, that the practice we sought to make impossible was a practice which they considered might be necessary. When they said that

  101
  it was a practice which they regarded as wholly undesirable, the question immediately arose, Why would they not put the new Clause in the Bill. To that we got no answer from the Solicitor-General. I think we did get an answer—but, I suggest, a mistaken answer—from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and. Power. The Minister of Fuel and Power said, "Why should we put into the Bill a prohibition of an undesirable practice, which, I assure the House, will not be indulged in?"
  I will tell the House a very good reason, and it is this: the implication of the statute, if the right hon. Gentleman does not put this new Clause in—and I suggest that he will get confirmation of this view from his legal advisers, if he asks them—will be, that there is nothing wrong about the practice; because lawyers will at once draw a contrast between this Measure and the Companies Bill, when it becomes an Act, which says that this practice is an undesirable and illegal practice for directors of ordinary companies. But if no such provision is inserted in this contemporary statute, the implication of the inclusion of such a Clause in one statute and its omission from another will be that a deliberate difference is intended, and that what is sought to be made illegal in the one case is deliberately left legal and,
  therefore, shown to be not undesirable in the other. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, before he rejects that argument, at least to take legal advice from the learned Solicitor-General, who is sitting next to him, and to ascertain whether he does not agree that the implication I have suggested will in fact result.
  I have only one other point to make, for I do not wish to repeat what other hon. Members have said. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power in his speech said that there would be some sort of remedy by Parliamentary inquiry after the mischief had been done —of course, he said it would not be done —and, therefore, why put the prohibition in the legislation? What, however, is the point of legislation? The object of efficient legislation is to prevent things from being done that would otherwise have to be remedied after they had been done. Really, in the interest of efficient legislation I suggest that the Government are bound to accept this new Clause on the argument that I have put before them, unless their own legal advisers say that my point is a bad one.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes. 231

  Division No. 271]

  AYES.

  [6.54 p.m.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Astor, Hon. M,

  Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Pickthorn, K.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E

  Beechman, N A

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hope, Lord J

  Raikes, H V.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells

  Howard, Hon. A

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bower, N

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hutchison, LI.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr Rolano

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Byers, Frank

  Lancaster, Cot. C. G

  Sanderson, Sir F

  Challen, C.

  Lipson, D L.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Channon, H

  Low, Brig. A R. W

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Clarke, Col. R. S

  Lucas, Major Sir J

  Smith, E P. (Ashford)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Spearman, A. C M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Stoddart-Scott, COL M

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Macdonald Sir P (I of Wight)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  McKie, J H (Galloway)

  Studholme, H. G

  Darling, Sir W Y

  MacLeod, J.

  Sutcliffe, H

  Digby, S. W

  Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

  Duthie, W S

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walt

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Touche, G. C.

  Fletcher, W (Bury)

  Marples, A E

  Wadsworth, G

  Foster, J. G (Northwich)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Fraser, H C. P (Stone)

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Ward, Hon. G R.

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  George, Lady M Lloy (Anglesey)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Loro

  Grant, Lady

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grimston, R. V

  Nicholson, G

  Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.

  NOES.

  Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Pursey, Cmdr H

  Allighan, Garry

  Harrison, J

  Randall, H E

  Alpass, J. H.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Ranger, J.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Hobson, C. R

  Rees-Williams. D R

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Holman, P.

  Reeves, J.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

  Rhodes, H.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

  House, G

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Barstow, P G.

  Hoy, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Barton, C.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Rogers, G H. R.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Benson, G

  Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Royle, C

  Berry, H.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Sargood, R

  Beswick, F.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Scollan, T

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Irving, W J.

  Shackleton, E. A A

  Blackburn, A. R

  Janner, B.

  Sharp, Granville

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Jay, D. P T

  Shinwell Rt Hon F.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C (Shipley)

  Shurmer, P

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Jones, D T (Hartlepools)

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

  Bourdon, Flg.-Ofrr. H W

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Simmons, C J.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Keenan, W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pt. Exch'ge)

  Kenyon, C

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Kinley, J.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Lang, G.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Brooks, T J (Rothwell)

  Lavers, S.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Leonard, W

  Smith, S. H. (Hull S.W.)

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Snow, Capt J. W

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T

  Lever, N. H.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Burden, T W.

  Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

  Soskice. Maj Sir F

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sparks, J A.

  Castle, Mrs B. A.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Stamford, W.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Longden, F

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Champion, A. J

  McAdam, W.

  Stress, Dr. B.

  Chater, D.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Stubbs, A E.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  McGhee, H G.,

  Summerskill, Dr Edith

  Cobb, F. A.

  Mack, J. D.

  Swingler, S.

  Cocks, F S.

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Sylvester, G O.

  Collindridge, F.

  McLeavy, F

  Symonds, A L.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)

  Comyns, Dr. L

  Mainwaring, W H

  Taylor, Dr S. (Barnel)

  Daggar, G

  Mallalieu, J P. W

  Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)

  Daines, P.

  Marquand, H A.

  Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

  Davies, Edward (Barslem)

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Davies Ernest (Enfield)

  Martin, J. H.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mathers, G.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Titterington M. F

  Deer, G.

  Medhand, H. M

  Tolley, L.

  Diamond, J

  Mellish, R. J.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Dodds, N. N

  Messer, F.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Donovan, T

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Viant, S. P.

  Driberg T. E. N

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Dumpleton C. W

  Mitchison, G. R

  Warbey, W. N.

  Dye, S

  Moody. A S

  Watkins, T. E

  Edelman, M.

  Morgan, Dr H. B.

  Weitzman, D.

  Edwards, A (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Wells P L. (Faversham)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, E)

  Wells, W T (Walsall)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Moyle, A.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Ewart, R.

  Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)

  Wigg, Col. G E.

  Farthing, W

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Wilkes, L.

  Follick, M.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)

  Wilkins, W A.

  Foot, M M

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J (Derby)

  Willey. F. T (Sunderland)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Oldfield, W H

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Gibson, C. W

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

  Gilzean, A.

  Orbach, M.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Paget, R. T

  Willis, E.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Palmer, A M F.

  Woodburn, A

  Grenfell, D R.

  Parker, J

  Woods, G S

  Grierson E

  Parkin, B. T.

  Yates, V. F

  Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

  Paton, J (Norwich)

  Young, Sir R (Newton)

  Guest, Dr L. Haden

  Pearson, A.

  Younger, Hon Kennet

  Gunter, R. J

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Zilliacus. K

  Guy, W H

  Platts-Mitls, J F. F

  Hall, W G

  Popplewell, E

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Mr. Hannan.

  NEW CLAUSE (Prevention of victimisation.)
  (1) There shall be no victimisation of any person who has before the passing of this Act assisted to oppose the passing thereof or expressed opposition thereto or criticism of the intention, provisions or effect thereof.
  (2) It shall not be lawful for the Minister or the Electricity Commissioners or any Electricity Board or any member or officer of any such Board or any other person, at any time or in any way to discriminate against, or to do anything to the prejudice of any person by reason of any such act as is mentioned in the preceding subsection.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House will be aware that this Bill has been the subject of considerable discussion and controversy outside; and that in
  that controversy a number of people who have been, and will be after the passage of the Bill, connected with the industry, have taken part. I am perfectly certain that no hon. Member would dispute the right of any citizen of this country to express his opinion upon a matter of such public interest and public importance. Nor, I think, can it be disputed that the contributions to these discussions of those who have an intimate knowledge of this industry can be anything but helpful in clarifying the matters under discussion. The object of this new Clause is to provide protection for people who, in the course of that controversy, have expressed opinions sometimes adverse to particular parts or, indeed, to the whole of this Bill.
  I ask the House to note that the new Clause provides that protection only for persons expressing those opinions prior to the passing of this Bill. It is not intended to, and will not, in fact, provide protection for anybody who seeks to dispute this Measure once it has become an Act and this House and another place have expressed their will, however misguided, upon it. It merely provides protection for people who seek to express their opinions during the period before this House and another place make up their respective minds. It is the fact—and I do not think any hon. Member can dispute it—that among such people there is some apprehension about what their personal positions may be after this Bill be-
  106
  comes an Act, if it ever does become an Act. This new Clause is designed to reassure them.
  I do not want to enter into any personal controversy with the Minister, but I am bound to say that certain of his speeches outside have not led—if I may put it this way—to any diminution of that apprehension. I am not certain whether this was the "two hoots" or the "tinker's cuss," but the right hon. Gentleman did signify a certain degree of dislike towards persons in the electricity industry who had opposed his proposals. If this Bill becomes an Act and the electricity industry becomes a great national monopoly, whose senior officials are appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, with all other officials appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's own appointees, it is quite obvious that the position of people who, for whatever reason, have incurred the right hon. Gentleman's disfavour will inevitably be precarious, and they will feel—it may be rightly or it may be wrongly—that they will be prejudiced by the action that they took in the controversy on this Bill.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will give any indication of his attitude in the matter, but I would remind him that apprehensions of this sort have often been expressed—and have been met in precisely the same way in which this new Clause seeks to meet them—in other controversies in the past. Hon. Members opposite with trade union experience—and I see a number present-know that it is almost a commonplace in the agreement at the end of an industrial dispute to provide that there should be no victimisation of those who have taken part in it. By this new Clause it is sought to provide for people who have taken part in this dispute similar protection to that which those who have guided trade unions in recent years have thought it necessary to provide for their members when they have taken part in a dispute. I understand that the phraseology used in this new Clause is—allowing for the greater precision required in legislation—substantially that which is embodied in a number of industrial settlements. Therefore, I ask hon. Members opposite to concede that what is asked for in this Clause is nothing new and unprecedented. All that is asked for is for protection, which has often been

  107
  asked for and often been granted m the past in the settlement of disputes.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this principle has ever been embodied in legislation? He says it has been embodied in agreements, but has it any precedent in legislation ?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I had hoped that the hon. and learned Member had given to my arguments some closer attention than that intervention would appear to suggest. I thought I made it clear—and I believe I fell into the sin of repetition —that the provision contained in this new Clause had often been contained in agreements concluded at the end of industrial disputes; and I went on to say—the hon. and learned Member may have heard me —that the only difference, as I understood it, between the terms of those agreements and the terms of this new Clause was the variation required by the more specific requirements of legislative phraseology.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Member not agree that this new Clause would be an entirely novel one in legislation?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate, that to an hon. Member on the Socialist Benches, the fact that a Clause embodies an innovation is a conclusive argument against it. I hope that other hon. Members will not adopt the reactionery attitude that they are not prepared to do a thing because it has never been done before. It is certainly a novel attitude on the part of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), who, I understand, was elected to produce the Socialist commonwealth of Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will not seek to evade the issue simply by saying, with his usual geniality, that he does not intend to indulge in victimisation. I hope that he does not wish to indulge in victimisation, but perhaps I may not be considered discourteous if I say that a provision of this sort in a Bill of this sort is worth twenty Ministerial assurances. If the right hon. Gentleman puts himself into the shoes of someone who has to get his living for the rest of his life in this industry, whose only asset is his technical skill and knowledge of the industry, he would surely prefer to be supported, in the protection of his livelihood, by a provision in an Act of Parliament than by the assurance of any Minister.
  108
  There is one very valid distinction between the two safeguards. No one can go to a court of law and seek protection because a Ministerial assurance has been violated, but it is still possible for a citizen to go to a court of law and seek protection when the plain terms of an Act of Parliament have not been complied with. What is sought to
  be provided, for a considerable number of people involved, is that they should be given statutory protection to prevent them suffering from victimisation because of some action they have taken. If the right
  hon. Gentleman, in the face of this demand, is not prepared to accept this Clause, or is not prepared to agree to the insertion of some similar provision in the Bill, he will leave in the minds of people outside the suspicion that some degree of victimisation is intended. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members opposite are good enough to say "rubbish." If they really believed in their own felicitous phrase that it is rubbish to suggest that there would be victimisation, then will they not show their sincerity in that belief by supporting a Clause which will make such victimisation legally impossible? That would be worth twenty interventions of "rubbish."
  I repeat, that unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept some statutory provision for protection, rightly or wrongly, he will leave, in the minds of those intimately concerned in this great industry, the feeling that the possibility of victimisation exists. If he wants this "great experiment," as he calls it, to succeed, he will require for its success the willing co-operation of everyone in the industry, and he will require it to be given without fear or favour, and without toadying or apprehension. He will have a much better chance of getting that, if he is prepared to provide that those who continue to serve him shall do so in the secure knowledge that they are not to be victimised because they have had the courage in the past to express their opinion.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Raikes: I beg to second the Motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has moved this new Clause with moderation and lucidity, and there is not much more for me to say because he has covered the ground

  109
  so fully. This appears to me to be a Clause which ought to appeal to hon. Members opposite. I see many Members opposite who have played a full and vigorous part in the trade union movement, and I see many hon. Members who have protested against any form of victimisation over a considerable number of years.
  Mr. Blyton: We have never succeeded in stopping it.
  Mr. Raikes: That shows a degree of inefficiency, particularly for these days, and I should be ashamed of it. Be that as it may, they have protested against any form of victimisation. They have demanded two things; first, that the man who has taken part in a strike should not be penalised for having done so, and, second, that no one ought to be victimised because he happened to express views repugnant to his employer We are endeavouring, by this Clause, to do exactly the same for certain elements of the population as has been demanded for the workers in the past. The case of these people is rather stronger, because if they were victimised by their new bosses, there would be no opportunity for them to find work of the same character elsewhere, as their boss is the only boss of their particular job.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in his various public utterances, always shows a healthy dislike for those whose views do-not entirely coincide with his. It may be that his bark is worse than his bite, but only the Parliamentary Secretary knows that. I confess that if I were in the unfortunate position of being a critic of a Minister, and if my future depended on the Minister, I should be a little nervous about my next job. It may be that the Minister will say, "He is an awfully nice fellow and is awfully efficient, therefore we must appoint him," but I would rather have something more than a Minister's assurance behind me. In these circumstances, could this Clause do the slightest harm? If there is no chance of victimisation, it will do no harm for hon. Members who have boasted of the action they have taken against victimisation in the past, to say that when they become the bosses, victimisation will not take place.
  I am not suggesting that it is the desire of the Minister to be unfair to those who are to be called on to work in this undertaking but I am convinced that if this
  110
  Clause were put into the Bill it would give confidence to those honest men who have done what they have done, believing that there might be risks in daring to say what they believed even though it appeared to be at the risk of their own position and future.
  Mr. Shinwell: There is not the least evidence from any quarter in the electricity industry, municipal or private, or from any of the organisations associated with the industry whether on the manual or technical side, to indicate any apprehension whatever about victimisation. For some time we have been in the closest consultation with the organisation of employees in the industry, and the point raised by this Clause has never been mentioned on any occasion. Suppose we accepted this Clause, what would it mean? What is meant by victimisation? Is it that, irrespective of qualifications for a particular post, the person must be employed? Is that what it means?
  Mr. Raikes: Is the right hon. Gentleman challenging me?
  Mr. Shinwell: No I am putting the point to the House. I am trying to clarify what Members opposite mean when they speak of victimisation. Does it mean that the political opinions of a person in the industry will predominate over the qualifications possessed by that person, and that because of those opinions his services will not be required? If Members opposite have in mind the latter suggestion, that we should take account of political opinions, or the fact that the person concerned has opposed the provisions of this Bill, I can assure them that nothing of the sort could possibly occur. It could not occur because the employees in the industry would not allow it. But who have hon. Members in mind? Have they in mind the chairman of the board of an existing supply company who has attacked this Bill, who has declared that its provisions are dangerous and fatal to the future of electricity supply in the country? If they have in mind such a person, I say quite frankly that, whatever hon. Members may think about it, if I have to appoint electricity boards it would be quite improper to appoint to such boards a person who was definitely opposed to the nationalisation of the industry.
  We shall not inquire, nor shall we allow any boards to inquire, into the political opinions of any person employed in the

  111
  industry. I want to make that perfectly clear. I can well understand hon. Members opposite being a little concerned about this question of victimisation if I interpret it as they do, because private ownership indulged in victimisation over the years. Hon. Members opposite rarely protested against it then. [HON MEMBERS: "Never."] I did not say, "Never," as I want to be generous to Members opposite, despite what they have said about me. I am not giving them an assurance at all. I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the respective organisations in the industry, and they will be foolish indeed if they allow an electricity board to victimise any of their members because they have opposed the nationalisation of electricity.
  On the other hand, it may well be that a person who has opposed the nationalisation of electricity has not the necessary qualifications for a particular post. If he is transferred to another post, if his position is worsened as a result of that transfer, he is protected by the
  provisions of the Bill. If the board cannot find room for his services at all, then his dismissal will be attributable, so I expect, not to the fact that he has opposed nationalisation, but to the fact he does not possess the necessary qualifications. I intend to work on this principle, as I did with the National Coal Board. I shall appoint the person with the highest qualifications, irrespective of his political views. I do not ask for political views. Sometimes I know the person's political views, and it may be that they are opposed to mine, but if he possesses the necessary technical and administrative qualifications, I am unconcerned about his political opinions. If Members opposite, when they were in power, had adopted the same principle there would have been more equity in the country.
  The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has indulged, in
  his usual courteous fashion, in a tirade about my public speeches. He seemed to detect from what I have said that I would victimise, maliciously and deliberately, certain persons in the electricity supply industry because they were opposed to nationalisation. A score of times in the past few weeks I have tried to make clear beyond doubt what was in my mind. I say this now because it has a reference to the matter under review.
  112
  I respect everybody who performs a social service of any kind, whether it is in a manual, technical, administrative, domestic, or educational capacity. I have no regard for those persons who perform no social service at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] There are such people in this country, and we have no use for them because they have no services to offer. They have been described as parasites, drones, idlers and rentiers. I do not care very much about these people, and I do not intend to appoint them to any of the boards for which I am responsible. That is quite clear. That is all that I mean.
  7.30 p.m.
  I certainly will not insert these provisions in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite can divide the House if they care to do so. I am concerned about the attitude of the public to this Bill and its provisions, and I assure the public that we intend to provide electricity at the lowest cost, efficiently and effectively. We want to satisfy their needs; but I do not believe that the public are very much concerned about a provision of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not believe that hon. Members opposite are concerned about it. They may be concerned about a few company directors. I would say this about company directors: if there are company directors, that is to say, directors or chairmen of boards of existing private electricity supply companies, who possess the necessary technical and administrative qualifications, they will have an opportunity of serving in the industry under nationalisation irrespective of their political views, and irrespective of any opposition they have displayed towards nationalisation. That does not mean that I shall appoint them to boards of management. That is quite a different proposition. We must be certain, even if there is a difference of political opinion among the members of the electricity boards, that at any rate they are concerned about promoting nationalisation with due regard to the public interest. How is it possible to appoint a person, who has declared over and over again that he is against nationalisation and that it is going to prove a failure, to a board of management?
  Mr. McKie: There is the technician.
  Mr. Shinwell: A technician will be employed by the boards as a technician, but to allow a person who is against the proposition, to run the industry—well, we are heading for trouble if we do. I do not intend to head for trouble. I want to see the nationalisation of electricity a success. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept this new Clause, and I ask the House to reject it.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think it is perfectly clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that hon. Members must be convinced that this Clause is essential. The right hon. Gentleman, in effect, has announced his intention to practise victimisation. He called it by another name. He said quite clearly—it will be within the recollection of the House—that if he did not want to appoint a man to a particular job, the excuse for not appointing him would be on the grounds that he did not possess the necessary qualifications. That is merely victimisation under another name. When the right hon. Gentleman said, talking of the higher ranks of people in this industry, that, of course, he would be guided exclusively in his appointments by questions of efficiency, no one would gainsay that. We may have certain views and certain doubts as to whether some of his recent appointments, and some of the appointments foreshadowed when this Bill becomes an Act, really carry that out. We shall have a chance to see that.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why do hon. Members not express them?
  Mr. Hudson: What has come to our notice, and one of the reasons why we put down this Clause, is that it has been intimated fairly clearly to a number of people that if they in future were to cooperate, instead of expressing opposition, their future under the boards would be more rosy than it is likely to be.
  Mr. Shinwell: Who said that? May I challenge the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Hudson: It is quite clear that the intention of the people to whom this veiled threat—if you like to call it that—or perhaps deferred promise of employment, has been made may be regarded as people likely to be in the running for jobs. The fact that this attitude is current has proved in our view the need for a Clause of this nature. The right hon. Gentleman took exception to an
  114
  hon Member behind me talking about his public speeches, and he went out of his way, in rebuttal, to say that he intended, so far as technicians were concerned, to have no regard whatsoever to their politics and not even to ask them what are their politics. We can only hope that he will carry that out. We were delighted to hear him say so, but he will agree that it hardly tallies with the speeches which he has made on public platforms, for example, at Durham, when he talked about the impertinence of a colliery official standing in the Tory interests. The general impression which he gave was that he regarded it as a piece of impertinence for anyone to hold views other than he expresses. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend that there shall be any victimisation in the ordinary sense of the word, I cannot see why he cannot accept this Clause. There is nothing in his argument that the Clause would prevent anyone from being appointed to a job purely on his merits, or anyone failing to get a job on his demerits. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late stage, will think again and agree to accept the Clause, otherwise we shall be bound to press it to a Division.
  Mr. Blyton: I do not wish to detain the House, but I would like to reply to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes). When was it common not to have victimisation? Their memories must be very short, because there was colossal victimisation in the mining community after the 1926 strike.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that, unlike the Minister, the hon. Gentleman has given way. The point I made was not that there was not victimisation, but it was the usual practice, particularly in the case of trade unions who knew their job, to insert a no victimisation Clause in the final settlement.
  Mr. Blyton: Those who know anything about trade union life will know whether a victimisation Clause is put in. No employer would ever admit that there was victimisation in any way. I say quite frankly to the hon. Member that there were thousands of trade unionists and Socialists who were refused employment after the 1926 strike, and their only crime

  115
  was that they had supported the strike, against the Tory party and the coal owners, to prevent a reduction in their standard of life. Therefore, when I saw this Amendment I thought that there had been a remarkable change of outlook on the Tory benches. Not only that, but when through the miners' Members of Parliament we raised protest after protest in the House against our men being pushed out of the collieries, and losing all their social life, no support was given to us by hon. Members opposite. The irony of it is that today we are pleading with these men to go back into the pits to help us to get coal in our present economic position.
  There is no evidence that there will any victimisation under the National Electricity Board. In fact, the only example we have is that of the National Coal Board, and I know of no victimisation there. Every Tory agent I ever met has got a first-class job; if I had been Minister some of them would never have got the jobs, because they were some of the most cruel and hard-faced men that I ever met across a table to deal with wages and conditions, and I say even now that their presence is not helpful to the maintenance of order in the industry. I rose only to challenge the Opposition on their newfound outlook on victimisation, because surely the only purpose of the Clause is to protect the interests of those Tory-minded people who are employed in the electrical undertakings. I see no reason why they should not have a job. I have met Tory technicians in municipal undertakings switchboard attendants, consumers' engineers and so on, but not one has expressed a fear of being victimised because they may have expressed the view that electricity would be better under private enterprise. If this new Clause were carried, the Minister would be placed in an impossible position, because every man who did not get the job he thought he ought to have would complain that he was being victimised under this Clause because he had expressed an opinion against the Bill at some given time. The Clause says that there shall be no discrimination. I have seen no evidence anywhere that there will be any. There has been none under the National Coal Board, and I see no reason why there should be any apprehension among those now employed in the industry that in the
  116
  future, under nationalisation, they will be worse off than they have been in the past.
  Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House used much more restrained language than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, but I cannot agree with him that to go back into past history and endeavour there to find reasons for resisting this Clause is a very satisfactory process. What, in effect, was the hon. Gentleman's argument? That the bosses—he did not use that word, but he obviously wanted to—in the past had resisted any effort to incorporate in industrial settlements what we are seeking to introduce into this Bill by this new Clause. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that under this Bill, which he is so eagerly supporting, he and all those who sit on the Government Benches behind the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power are seeking for the first time to set up a great new boss, about whose qualities we do not know very much and about whose possible qualities we on this side of the House have, and I think rightly have, many, apprehensions?
  Now I come to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and he did nothing whatever, so far as I am concerned, to dispel my apprehensions. What was the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's submission? He assured us, on the one hand, that there was to be no victimisation—I hope I am quoting the gist of his words, for I do not desire to do the right hon. Gentleman any injustice. He said that no apprehensions
  had been expressed up to the present by employees or any other people connected with electrical undertakings as to their future position. It is quite possible that they may not have thought of it. The right hon. Gentleman himself has sat long enough on the Opposition benches to agree that it is the duty of an Opposition to be vigilant in protecting people who may not, perhaps, up to the present have realised just what their future position and status may be if this new Clause is not accepted. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments have left me, and I think everybody on this side of the House, completely in the dark, or at best guessing, as to where he stands. The right hon. Gentleman indeed spoke with two voices. On the one hand, he said

  117
  nobody would be debarred simply because of his political opinion if his opinion as a technician was worth having, and, on the other hand, he said that he would not employ anybody, particularly a company director, who had expressed himself as being root and branch opposed to this Bill.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: I certainly did not say I would refuse to employ anybody because he had expressed himself in a hostile manner towards nationalisation. What I said was that I would not appoint somebody to a board, to one of the electricity boards in a representative capacity, if he had expressed himself as being against the provisions of the Bill and had declared that nationalisation was bound to prove a failure. That, I said, would lead me along the wrong road, and I was not going to take a chance.
  Mr. McKie: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has elucidated the point; perhaps I was not expressing his opinion quite accurately. That is entirely an understandable point of view. I can quite understand the aversion of the right hon. Gentleman, and possibly of any successor of his, to having such persons on the boards, but I did not rise to express apprehensions just about that rather limited class of individuals. I am thinking of the humbler and much more numerous class of people, including the experts in the electrical engineering industry, who may, not perhaps quite so loudly, have expressed views hostile to this Bill, particularly to the inclusion of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a good deal of opposition to this Bill extending to the very large part of Scotland which Clause 1 envisages. I am not anticipating the next Amendment in saying that, if we are not successful in incorporating that Amendment in Clause 1 to delete a large part of Scotland from this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will have in his clutches, if he so desires, quite a large number of people who may have expressed hostile views.
  Mr. Shinwell Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.
  Mr. McKie: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; he is entitled to his view and I am entitled to mine. He will have in his clutches quite a large number of
  118
  people who may have expressed themselves as hostile to the Bill. I think I am entitled to say this, because I have in my constituency a very large hydro-electrical undertaking which was one of the first to be set up in Scotland. It received legislative sanction in this House in the concluding stages of the 1924 Parliament, was finished in April or May, 1929, and has been productive of very great good ever since. Suppose I take as an illustration somebody connected with that undertaking whose advice as a technician was very well worth having but who had expressed himself as opposed to nationalisation as envisaged by this Bill and opposed to the inclusion of Scotland. I should imagine that he would at once fall a ready victim, if the right hon. Gentleman or his successor wished it, to the kind of thing we wish to safeguard against. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) objected to this new Clause on the ground that it would be a novel departure in legislation.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I did not object on the ground that it was a novelty. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was saying that a Clause such as this was in certain industrial settlements, and implied that it was therefore in various Statutes; I challenged him to cite any industrial settlement or Statute in which it had appeared, and he failed to do so.
  Mr. McKie: For the benefit of the hon. and learned Member let me come at once to the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who said no such thing. When the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that it would be a novelty, my hon. Friend at once agreed with him, but my hon. Friend cannot accept, as I cannot accept, the argument of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen that that is a valid reason for the Government now refusing to accept this Clause. We on this side are very apprehensive about this possible victimisation. I very much hope that we may have some further elucidation by the right hon. Gentleman, or perhaps by the Secretary of State for Scotland, since I have mentioned the possibilities in that country. On the other hand, if we do not have such further elucidation, I shall certainly have great pleasure in supporting my right hon.

  119
  Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in the Lobby in an endeavour to have this Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. Palmer: I feel that I should make a few brief remarks before we dispose of this Clause because I have taken some part in these controversies on electricity nationalisation. I have been an advocate of nationalisation, and I should not like to think that anyone who held views opposed to mine in this matter would be made to suffer on that account. Nevertheless this proposed Clause is an extremely interesting one. I think that some people are probably becoming worried about the actions of certain directors of companies who not only turn their annual meetings into forums of the Tory Party, but have gone further and, in some cases, have exerted almost improper pressure upon the employees to get them to oppose nationalisation.
  Colonel Clarke: Can the hon. Member give a definite case to support that accusation?
  Mr. Palmer: Yes, the County of London Company, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants another example, I believe it was the South Wales Power Company who tried to press their engineers and their outdoor canvassers and representatives to argue against nationalisation, irrespective of their own political opinions, when dealing with electricity consumers. I should like to say also that victimisation of another type has not been unknown in the past among professional and technical men in the electricity supply, and other industries for that matter. Some years ago it was extremely dangerous for men who held Socialist opinions, and who had responsible jobs in the electricity supply industry, to express those opinions, and I have known men who were members, for instance, of such a mild body as the Fabian Society to be anxious to conceal their membership of that society because of their fear of what might happen to them since they knew of the Conservative politics of their employers. That has been the case in the past and it is, therefore, most interesting to see this conversion of the Tory Party to the principles of liberty of opinion. I am glad to see it, and I hope we shall see more of it.
  120
  Whilst I am in complete sympathy with the intentions of this Clause—and, taking the view that we should not do as the Tories have done in the past I am glad that we have had this discussion—I am nevertheless convinced that if an attempt were made to turn it into legislation an impossible situation would result. Mr. Smith, who is perhaps no good at his job, might be refused a certain post to which he thought he was entitled, and might then allege that it was because he had held Conservative opinions and had argued against nationalisation. As I say, that would be an impossible situation, and I hope that the House will reject the Clause.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am glad that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) is glad that we have had this discussion. I am not so sure that the Minister will continue always to be glad that we have had it. His speech was internally inconsistent and, in considerable passages of it, very difficult to understand.
  Mr. Diamond: indicated dissent.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I. challenge the hon. Gentleman behind him who rattles his head at me to—
  Mr. Diamond: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that for it to rattle it would need to have something inside it?
  Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think even that is necessary. The thing I believe can be done aero-dynamically. I would challenge the hon. Gentleman to look at the speech tomorrow and then to construe some of the right hon. Gentleman's rhetorical questions and, assuming that HANSARD has them down verbatim and that there is no correction made, I would, if it were in order, make a considerable bet that he would find some quite impossible to construe. I do think, nevertheless, that the upshot of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was fairly clear; and I hope that it will be clear to the Lord President of the Council, because I think it might give him something to say to the right hon. Gentleman, and that would be agreeable for all parties. The upshot of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I think, very clearly was the same as of some of his earlier speeches, only in a language at once more chaste and appropriately more involved, more ambiguous

  121
  —"All the people I need worry about can be protected by their trade unions, and for the rest, about them I need not worry."[Interruption.]That really was the upshot of the speech. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech consisting almost entirely of rhetorical questions and would not give way once. Now I think he had better keep quiet while the rest of us speak.
  Now for the hon. Member for Wimbledon: he claimed that he had always been in favour of socialisation. I congratulate him on the consistency of that, although we are told that consistency is the foible of little minds, but at the same time I must say that it is impossible to congratulate him on his clarity as a writer, and if he will look back at some of his earlier works he will not wonder that some of us have been in doubt on the point. And incidentally I would say this to him, with respect to his and his right hon. Friend's contention that the electricity trade unions can do enough in this matter of victimisation. I have seen letters from trade union branches expressing extreme disagreement with the hon. Member's commendation of this Bill, particularly from the point of the position of employees, and even—if I may say so without gross immodesty—expressing preference for my own remarks and even my own arguments on the same point. [Interruption.] I still cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman and I still do not want to.
  When it was suggested from this side of the House that people really cared about the question of justice involved here, there were confused shouts of "rubbish" and so on from the other side and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) made a speech with which I have a good deal of sympathy. He spoke, as he always does, first of all as one who does know something about mines, and second, as he always does, as if he meant it; but I would ask him and other hon. Gentlemen opposite to begin—[Interruption.]You cannot put me off my speech by talking. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am extremely reluctant to hold up these proceedings, but if it is made difficult to put a fair and continuous argument shortly I shall do my best to put it at such length that there can be no doubt about it.
  122
  8.0 p.m.
  I would ask the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring really to think it possible that it is not a party question whether people sincerely approve or disapprove fairness and justice, or victimisation. I am quite clear that he must feel—and in the main rightly feel—that he and his political friends have had more sympathy for the miners and sensitivity about their sufferings and injustices, than in the main I or my political friends have had. It may be that we had some want of imagination and some want of sympathy and that we have been guilty sometime of not being as conscious as we ought to have been of injustices inflicted upon the miners. But I would ask hon. Members opposite not to go on thinking that indifference to injustice is some peculiar weakness of the half, or nearly, of the population which even at the worst of times votes for this side of the House; and when we say we are trying to get fairness and remove victimisation let them try to think that we may be honestly meaning now what we are asking. It is not fair for hon. Members opposite merely to shout "rubbish" on this point.
  Let me put it another way. If there is a risk of victimisation in the matter I higher appointments there is also the risk that there may be excessive promotions; if persons are not to be promoted, as the Minister has informed us, because of the political opinions which they hold—
  Mr. Shinwell: I never said anything of the sort.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Certainly. The right hon. Gentleman said that from boards of management people would be excluded who expressed the belief that Socialism would not succeed. He said it twice over.
  Mr. Shinwell: I never said that.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I appeal to HANSARD and the memory of the House. If that is so, and if some of the persons excluded are persons who would otherwise be competent for those jobs, that will ease the pressure for the jobs, and some other people, who have had the right prejudice, are more likely to get the jobs. I noticed a red flower come into the House during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and as he continued to speak gradually it

  123
  turned white in its wearer's button-hole. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to assure us that there are going to be no appointments to the boards which in any way are due to a known favourable opinion about nationalisation. He ought to be able to give us that assurance. He ought to be able to make this quite plain. And hon. Gentlemen who are friends of his and who are themselves members of boards of directors, if they believe that individualism and capitalist arrangements are bound not to succeed, clearly ought to resign their directorships, and if they do not, I hope will be turned out by the shareholders. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite think it right that men should be dismissed from directorships or managerial positions because they had adopted the opinion that the capitalist system, or private enterprise, was not going to succeed? The Minister told us twice ?
  Mr. Shinwell: Shall I get up now and answer that?
  Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman can get up in a minute or two at the end of my paragraph. Nobody is to be appointed to a board of management who in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposes Socialism and particularly so in the case of people whose opinion was that Socialism was not going to succeed. [Interruption.]I would not for the world appeal to the Chair for protection, but I should like to put on record in HANSARD the school boy trickery of the right hon. Gentleman, who refused to give way for anyone on this side of the House and now asks me whether I will give way for him, and then plays that kind of practical joke. Does he really think that this is consistent with his dignity or that it will really increase the admiration even of the sycophants behind him?
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to wonder at there being disquiet on this point. They have asked questions suggesting that nobody ought to be employed by a Socialist Government, for instance in the higher administrative service and in the foreign service, who does not hold Socialist opinions. Why then should we be regarded as talking wildly or creating unnecessary suspicion if we ask for some guarantee against victimisation in connec-
  124
  tion with this industry? Nor should hon. Gentlemen opposite complain if directors or chairmen of companies have said things in public speeches, even at annual meetings, of which they politically disapprove. I myself am no very strong champion of avoidable politics on such an occasion. But it is not fair for them to complain. Trade unions were not always political institutions, but only gradually did they turn political. The Co-ops were not always politically intended. It is not for hon. Gentlemen opposite to complain excessively if people find it difficult to keep politics out of business nowadays, and it is not fair to reproach us on this side of the House with false suspicions or with having unnecessary fears if we ask for the guarantee suggested by this Clause.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the speech to which we have just listened and the difficulty which hon. Members opposite apparently have in understanding the speech of the Minister, I rise to make one point. The Minister made it perfectly clear in his speech that there was a distinction in the two types of people who would be engaged in the working of the electricity boards. On the one hand, there would be directors, and the Minister made it perfectly plain that if a person had expressed disagreement and disapproval of the Electricity Bill and the view that the procedure under it would be impossible and would result in failure, such a person would not be appointed a director. That seems to me a perfectly sound and sensible view. It would be ridiculous to appoint persons to manage a concern which they did not believe could possibly be a success.
  On the other hand, the Minister distinguished clearly between them and the technicians. He said that technicians would be judged on their merits as technicians, whatever view they might have expressed as to the merits or otherwise of this Bill and the procedure under it. That would have no weight with him in their appointment. They would be appointed purely as technicians and on no other basis. Those who have spoken in support of this new Clause have attempted to mix up and confuse those two things. They have attempted to argue that there would be victimisation of technicians, which is unwarranted, and, in my submission, is an improper anticipation of

  125
  turpitude on the part of a public authority. It implies deliberate intention to victimise political opponents. This Clause is a confusing Clause. It does not define what is meant by victimisation. It is an unworkmanlike Clause, and on every ground I hope that it will be rejected.
  Mr. John Foster: Anybody who listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) would have thought that they were speaking in favour of this Clause. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring pointed out that there had been a lot of victimisation in the past, and he was using that apparently as an argument against the Clause.
  Mr. Blyton: The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) should understand I was answering the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) when I said that it was common ground that trade unions had suffered victimisation.
  Mr. Foster: Everything that the hon. Member said must obviously be an argument in favour of the Clause. He described the victimization
  which the miners may have suffered in certain cases in the past. I agree that it must have been very wrong, but that is the very reason it should be put a stop to now. Any impartial person listening to his argument and hearing that there had been that amount of victimisation would have said: "If that has been so in the past, we must of course, stop it in the future." Yet the result of his arguing is that he votes against the Clause. Then, the hon. Member for Wimbledon—I am sorry he has left the Chamber—said that certain members of the electrical industries were worried about the implications of their actions. Presumably that is because they are afraid of victimisation. There is the reason in favour of the Clause, as given from the mouth of the hon. Member for Wimbledon.
  There is evidence in the Bill of a vindictive attitude against directors. That was brought out in Committee. Where there is a vindictive attitude there is a danger of victimisation. The Clauses about the liabilities of directors shows there is a vindictive attitude. In his speech, the Minister said that if somebody had opposed nationalisation he would not
  126
  be appointed to the board. I ask the Minister whether he has ever heard of the aftermath of the South African war. What would have happened to the birth and growth of that great Dominion if we, the winning side in the South African war had said that we would not appoint anybody to the new Government of South Africa who had been opposed to England or who had showed that they considered a victory for England would be the end of South Africa?
  Mr. Shinwell: I really must intervene at this stage. I really cannot allow it to pass that I said that if a company director of an existing privately-owned undertaking had opposed nationalisation he could not be appointed to a board. I went much further than that. I said, not that he had opposed nationalisation, but that he had declared that nationalisation would prove a disaster and was bound to fail. If a person believes that, obviously he is not fit to be entrusted with the task of administering nationalisation.
  Mr. Foster: I would like to point out to the Minister the wisdom of giving way. When he was making his speech he did not give way once to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dumpleton: Surely the hon. Member was not here when his right hon. Friend the Member for South-port made a very serious allegation that there was evidence justifying a fair apprehension of victimisation? When he was challenged by the Minister, he refused to give way.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister never gave way at all.
  Mr. Foster: That was after the Minister had refused to give way. It shows the danger of victimisation again. Let me take up the right hon. Gentleman on his own ground. I suggest that although a man suggested that he considered nationalisation to be a disaster, if he shows aptitude for running the business the Minister should take him in.
  Mr. John Lewis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way to me. If he were a director of a company which had in mind to appoint, or had already appointed another director, would the hon. Member agree to appoint

  127
  a man who had told him beforehand that it was not possible to make such a business a success? I suggest that he certainly would not do so, but would appoint somebody whose activities would be in the interests of the concern.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Foster: I do not think the situation is at all comparable. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I dare say that the hon. Gentleman has a particular person in mind in referring to this hypothetical director, but I do not know. That person has expressed a political view and he has expressed a view that nationalisation is tending to disaster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Will lead to disaster."]—or will lead to disaster. If he is the best man, he is probably the best man to stop that disaster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is absolutely logical because on his own showing nationalisation may have some difficulties and problems. If he is the best man, he is the man to deal with them. The hon. Gentleman ignores the whole trend of English history and the fact that give-and-take between persons of different political convictions does work for the best interests of the country. The assumption in the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that this hypothetical man would try to sabotage the electrical industry.
  Mr. Mikardo: One can take this give-and-take argument a shade too far. Surely, the hon. Gentleman would not appoint to the managing directorship of a whisky distillery a gentleman who was the most brilliant administrator in the world but who was also a passionate advocate of temperance?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): This giving way is also being taken too far.
  Mr. Foster: I must answer that last intervention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would like to make an announcement that I am the director of a small whisky company and a teetotaler. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I did not appoint myself. Evidently my co-directors appointed me to the whisky company directorship when they knew that I was a teetotaler—
  Mr. Shinwell: That is why it is a small whisky company.
  Mr. Foster: We hope to make it grow.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really cannot appreciate that what the hon. Gentleman is saying has anything to do with victimisation on the Electricity Bill.
  Mr. Foster: But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the evidence in the Bill itself of the vindictiveness of which I spoke shows that there is a danger of victimisation, and surely it cannot be an argument for the right hon. Gentleman to say that all the trade organisations—the unions—protect these people ? Who is protecting the people who are not unionised and are not in trade organisations? The right hon. Gentleman did not meet the point that if there is any apprehension in any quarter of victimisation, there can be no harm in the Clause. Victimisation is a very evil thing. If a Clause is put in to stop an evil thing, what harm can there be? The fears that it cannot give people an opportunity of saying that they have been victimised because they have been sacked, or that it would mean that a man who was incompetent would have to be given a job, are quite illusory. Victimisation has a meaning which can be given to it in the courts and under the law.
  If a man is not given a job because he is incompetent, that is not victimisation. He is not touched by the Clause. It is quite feasible for an honest man to administer the Measure and to administer a Clause like this and not to victimise people, but, on the other hand, to reject those who are incompetent. I ask the House seriously to reconsider this Clause in the light of the principle, which I entirely accept from the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, that victimisation should be stopped and that if it occurred in the past, it should have been prevented; but that cannot be an argument against a Clause which seeks to prevent it in the future.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I do not want to delay the proceedings, but I have this small claim to take part in the Debate, that my views on it are founded entirely on what has passed in this Debate. I was not in the councils of my hon. and right hon. Friends who framed this Clause, I was not on the Standing Committee to which this Bill was committed, and I saw this Clause for the first time on the marshalled list of Amendments shortly before coming into the House. So my view on this matter is founded on what has taken place in the

  129
  Debate, and I am free to confess that at first sight, seeing the title "Prevention of victimisation" I thought that my right hon. and hon. Friends would have some difficulty perhaps in making out their case. In so thinking, however, I reckoned with out their powerful auxiliary in the shape of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power. The right hon. Gentleman has an uncanny flair in his speeches—and I think he will agree with this now—for provoking the most lively apprehensions, most of which turn out to be fully justified before very long. I am bound to say that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has run entirely true to form. He has provoked in my neutral breast—[Laughter.]I was explaining to the House that I came here without any predetermined view, with the certain feeling that my hon. Friends would have a difficult case to make out.
  Therefore, I say that the right hon. Gentleman has provoked just those apprehensions in my neutral breast. He has founded his case on two main propositions: first, he says that so far as the manual element is concerned, no legislative restriction is necessary to prevent victimisation because it would be folly on the part of the organisations themselves to allow it. I hope that case is well founded and indeed it may be, but the only comment I would make on that part of his case is to say that it may be that these organisations might be a little less sensitive in respect of people who have opposed nationalisation in general and this Bill in particular than on some other scores. I think it may not be so, but it may be so, and as long as there is any possibility of that, then it might be better that we should have a statutory provision to prevent even the possibility of such victimisation.
  The second proposition was in regard to managerial boards, and here the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little ambiguous but he had the advantage, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) of the interpretative skill of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), and now we are reason ably certain that what the Minister said is that he will not put on to any board, irrespective of their qualifications, any body who has prophesied that nationalisation of the industry may lead to disaster. Is that a proper point of view or not?
  130
  Until this Bill becomes law, there is an alternative—the alternative of a nationalised electricity industry and the alternative of a non-nationalised electricity industry. While those alternatives exist, surely it is not only the right but the duty of informed citizens to express a view as to which of those they think is the better alternative.
  Mr. Palmer Mr. Palmer indicated assent
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad I carry the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) thus far at any rate. We have an exact parallel in time of peace. In time of peace we have an alternative between peace and war. Because a man says, "I think it would be better to pursue a system of peace; I think that if we go to war it will be undeniably costly and detrimental, and very likely to lead to disaster"—because a man says that in time of peace, are we to prevent him, when we have actually got into a state of war, from doing his best for the community, merely because he has deprecated going to war at all?
  Mr. Mikardo: But we do not make him a field-marshal.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) does not like these rather abstract and general arguments. I accept his implied challenge I will make the comparison a little more personal. Supposing that one was an industrial consultant, and by a peculiar coincidence, when I look at "Dod," I find that the hon. Member for Reading. 'S an industrial consultant.
  Mr. Mikardo: A very good one.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member says he is a good consultant. Surely, in his case we have the exact converse of this situation. The hon. Member for Reading is not exclusively a consultant to nationalised concerns, I imagine, perhaps not at all to nationalised concerns. Perhaps he practises a personal policy of the "closed shop," perhaps he restricts his advice to private enterprise concerns. What does he begin by telling them? He tells them that capitalism is doomed to failure and decay, that no good can come out of it, but still they are broadminded enough to seek his services as an industrial consultant. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to be more narrow and archaic in his approach than

  131
  these private enterprise concerns, which are apparently generous and broadminded enough to seek the advice of the hon. Member for Reading as an industrial consultant. I believe that these people, if they have sufficient qualifications, are more likely, because they see the dangers of nationalisation, to be able to give advice that will avert the gravest of those dangers than, shall we say, second-rate "Yes men," who have applauded the principle of nationalisation, and whose advice is likely to make a certainty of that disaster which more prescient people have prophesied.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am extremely glad to have given the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) the occasion for making what was obviously a carefully and elaborately prepared gibe. I do not propose to deal with that, but to make two serious points as a contribution to this discussion, the first of which is, I think, if I may say so without being immodest, a complete answer to what was said by the hon. Member for Hertford. One must distinguish, in all occupations, whether in public or private enterprise, between the situation in which one has, as a part of one's responsibility, the duty of making and interpreting policy, and other occupations in which one simply has to carry out policy which is made and interpreted by other people. Those are the two main and quite distinct types of occupation in the structure of management. They are distinguished by whether one can or cannot do one's job irrespective of whether one agrees with the policy which has been laid down.
  8.30 p.m.
  If I may revert to the example of the distillery, it is quite as easy for a temperance advocate who is a cost accountant to be a good cost accountant in a distillery as to be a good cost accountant in any other enterprise, but it would be impossible for such a person to take a share in making a policy of increasing the distribution of whisky. It is exactly the same in the electricity industry. If a man's vocation is that of studying what is the best way to insulate electric wires, clearly his competence to do this is quite unaffected by whether he believes that the industry should be nationalised or not. But if his vocation is that of top management, of development, and of working out policy, then I say that an honest man will not want to work in a nationalised
  132
  industry if he believes that nationalisation of the industry would break down.
  Mr. E. P.Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of a poacher turning gamekeeper?
  Mr. Mikardo: Certainly, but I thought that we were talking about honest men. I thought that the people in the industry for whom hon. Gentlemen opposite were pleading were honest men. The second point I wish to make is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have drawn a comparison between this proposed new Clause and the arrangement which is sometimes reached at the end of an industrial dispute to include a provision that there should be no victimisation of those who had taken part in the dispute. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who made that point, I am sure in complete good faith, overlooked a very important fact. That provision was not included in the terms of settlement of the first industrial disputes. It was included only after the settlements which had not included such a provision had been followed by wicked victimisation.
  To introduce a personal note, I would say that perhaps this is one subject on which I can claim to speak with more authority than the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Hertford. I spent part of today trying to prevent victimisation of trade unionists by employers. That is not ancient history. I am working in this field as a practical man. What happened was that the provision quoted by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was put in after it was found to be necessary in practice and by bitter experience. It was not put in the first time because when the first settlement was made it was anticipated that honourable employers would not victimise. It was not considered to be necessary. Up to now we have nationalised three industries. We have had these settlements, if we may use that term, already in three cases—in the case of the Bank of England, civil aviation, and mining—and in not one of those has there been a suggestion that the Minister has exercised discrimination against persons who were politically opposed to nationalisation. The first time we have such discrimination and the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames moves the inclusion of a Clause such as this, I will

  133
  be with him in the Lobby; but so long as there is no evidence that it is necessary, it seems to me he is casting a slur both upon the Minister and upon other people by moving such a Clause as this.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman only advocate shutting the stable doors after the horses have been stolen?
  Mr. Mikardo: That is an over simplification. No doubt the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is a hospitable gentleman who entertains a lot of friends at home, but he does not go around ostentatiously locking up the silver every time.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I fail to see what connection that has with the subject under discussion.
  Mr. Mikardo: I had come to an end when the hon. Gentleman intervened. If we ostentatiously put in safeguards against a thing, we put the idea into peoples' minds that that thing is likely to happen when there is no evidence that it would have done and when all history of nationalisation goes to show that it does not happen.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 258.

  Division No. 272.]

  AYES.

  [8.35 p.m.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Hogg, Hon Q

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Pickthorn, K

  Beechman, N A

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Ponsonby, Col. C E

  Birch, Nigel

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bower, N.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

  Lambert, Hon G

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

  Lancaster, Col C. G

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Challen, C.

  Lindsay, HI. (Solihull)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Linstead, H N

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Upson, D. L

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lucas-Tooth. Sir H

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Darling, Sir W. Y

  McKie, J H (Galloway)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Digby, S. W

  MacLeod, J.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Drewe, C.

  Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Waite

  Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

  Foster, J. G (Northwich)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

  Gage, C.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Touche, G. C.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Marples, A. E

  Wadsworth, G

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Wheatley, Colonel M,J

  Grant, Lady

  Medlicott, F.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Willoughby de Eresby. Lord

  Grimston, R V.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  York, C

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Morris-Jones, Sir H

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S (Cirencester)

  Mr. Studholme and

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp,

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nicholson, G

  NOES.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton.)

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Alpass, J. H.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

  Cove, W. G.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Crawley, A

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Bra mall, E. A

  Daggar, G.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Daines, P.

  Bacon, Miss A

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Baird, J.

  Brown, T. J (Ince)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Barstow, P. G

  Burden, T. W.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Barton, C.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Batlley, J. R

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Deer, G.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Benson, G

  Champion, A. J

  Delargy, H J

  Berry, H.

  Chater, D.

  Diamond, J

  Beswick, F.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Dodds, N. N

  Blackburn, A. R

  Cobb, F. A.

  Donovan, T.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Cocks, F. S

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Blyton, W. R.

  Collindridge, F.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Dumpleton, C W

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N W)

  Dve S

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Edelman, M.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Simmons, C J.

  Edwards, A (Middlesbrough E.)

  Lindgren, G. S

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  McAdam, W.

  Skeffington-Lodge. T C

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Skinnard, F. W

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  McGhee, H G

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mack, J D

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Ewart, R,

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Smith, S. H. (Huli S.W.)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Sorenser., R. W

  Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E)

  McLeavy, F

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Follick, M.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Sparks, J. A

  Foot, M. M.

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Stamford, W

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Mallalieu. J P. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Strachey, J

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Mathers,

  Strauss, G R (Lambeth, N.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mayhrw, C. P.

  Stross, Dr B

  Gilzean, A.

  Medland, H. M

  Stubbs, A. E

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Messer, F.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Swingler, S.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Sylvester, G. O

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Symonds, A L

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Moody, A S

  Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

  Grey, C. F.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)

  Grierson, E.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Griffiths, D, (Rother Valley)

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Murray, J. D

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Gunter, R. J

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Guy, W. H

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hall, W G.

  Nichol, Mrs M E. (Bradford, N.)

  Thorneycroft, Harry Clayton)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col, R.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Tnurtle, Ernest

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Titterington, M. r-

  Hardy, E. A.

  Oldfield, W H.

  Tolley, L.

  Harrison, J

  Oliver, G H.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Paget, R T

  Turner-Samuels, V

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Usborne, Henry

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Palmer, A M F

  Vernon, Maj W- F

  Hewitson, Capt M

  Parker, J.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hobson, C. R

  Parkin, B T

  Wallace, G. O. (Chislehurst)

  Holman, P.

  Paton, J (Norwich)

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

  Pearson, A.

  Warbey, W. N.

  House, G

  Peart, Thomas F

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hoy, J

  Platts-Mills, J F. F.

  Weitzman, D

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing W.)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Llehfield)

  Wells P. L (Faversham)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Prill, D. N.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  White, H. (Derbyshire N.E)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attereliffe)

  Pursey, Cmdr H.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Irving, W. J.

  Randall H E

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Janner, B.

  Ranger, J

  Wilkes. L

  Jay, D P.

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Reeves, J.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Reid T (Swindon)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Jones, D T (Hartlepools)

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Reberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Williamson, T

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Willis, E.

  Keenan, W.

  Royle, C

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Kendall, W. D

  Sargood, R.

  Woodburn, A

  Kenyon, C

  Scollan, T.

  Woods, G. S-

  Kinley, J

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Wyatt, W.

  Lang, G.

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  vates, V F.

  Lavers, S.

  Sharp, Granville

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Shawcross C. N. (Widnes)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helen.)

  Lever, N H

  Shinwell Rt. Hon. E

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Levy, B W

  Shurmer, P.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Main functions of Electricity Boards.)
  8.45 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page I, line 13, to leave out "the North of Scotland District," and to insert "Scotland."
  This is the first Amendment on the Bill proper, and, although the words are few, they raise an issue of great magnitude. The proposal in the Bill is to
  136
  divide the historic unity of Scotland, and to have a frontier across that country in its midst, between Forth and Clyde. The onus is on those who desire this change to show the necessity for it. It has been discussed on more than one occasion, and the argument of hon. Members opposite, if I may summarise it as fairly as I can, is first, the particular argument that the North of Scotland Board has particular duties to perform in

  137
  promoting in the Highlands social welfare which might be injured if it were brought into an all-Scotland Board; and secondly, that the development of electricity in the past has been on a United Kingdom basis. I think it is fair to hon. Members opposite to say that they attach a great deal more importance to the second of these arguments than to the first. It is clear that all of us desire to preserve the social functions of a North of Scotland Board, and whatever steps are taken, these functions should be preserved.
  The other point is of greater importance. It is said that the Central Electricity authority has always been a United Kingdom body, and that the United Kingdom should be left in the position in which it is now. That seems to us to be unconvincing for two reasons. First of all, to pursue that argument to its logical conclusion, the North of Scotland Board should certainly be wiped out, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite have preserved that Board and, indeed, they have done more. They have extended it. They have amended the Act which is only newly on the Statute Book, whereby a particular area which was designated in order to be developed under the North of Scotland Board, was extended into highly developed regions in the south, to which the special arguments which led to the North of Scotland Board being set up no donger apply. Therefore, the original argument will no longer hold water. They have extended that area for the reason of good administration, and it is for that reason of good administration that we say that the frontier of that board should be extended to coincide with the normal, natural and ancient frontier between the two Kingdoms, and that this artificial and synthetic frontier between the two parts of Scotland should not be set up.
  One has only to look at any industrial map to see that the proposed frontier is about to run through a most inconvenient part—through a highly developed industrial region. There is at present a perfectly good frontier in which the difficulties of cross-communication are reduced to a minimum, and where only at the two extreme ends—Carlisle and Newcastle—does any trouble arise. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland commended this Bill to the House on the ground that it preserved the North of
  138
  Scotland Board. We agree with him on that, but why should he quarrel with us when we say that the sway of this beneficent organisation should not be curtailed? It should extend not merely down to the Forth as he suggested, but down to the Cheviots. I have not heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland any valid argument against that. Then it was defended by the Minister of Fuel and Power who claimed that there
  was no support in Scotland for this proposal. We referred to the ancient and historic capital of the country, but it was dismissed because it had a Conservative majority on the town council.
  Having heard how he regards the opinions of those who do not agree with him, I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has dismissed the capital of Scotland But I still think that the views of Edinburgh should have weight. It is true that he said there is not sufficient technical opinion to support this. That was an argument brought against us on the other side by back bench Members as well. But that does not square with the Minister's own contention to the Committee upstairs. He said, when we asked if the North of Scotland Board had been consulted:
  "The North of Scotland Board and myself met many months ago We took them into consultation, as we have taken so many other bodies into consultation, on this matter We have not proceeded without guidance We have collected the voices, even the voices with which the hon Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) is so directly associated."
  Then comes a very characteristic comment of the Minister:
  "Their voices were strident but unavailing"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Commit tee E,27th February, 1947, c. 73]
  That is an old, familiar phrase of the right hon. Gentleman—the "tinker's cuss" translated into more Parliamentary language. But the fact is that the Minister as we know, is very apt to brush aside opinion which is not his opinion as opinion which should not be attended to. We cannot share with him those views. I speak as one who has had the responsible position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, a post now held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Westwood). An administrative unit which does not take
  into account all the natural limits of the northern kingdom has artificial administrative limits which no good fortune attends. Even in the case of land

  139
  legislation there was a certain division between the Northern and Southern parts of the country; but they are both under the Secretary of State for Scotland; they are administered in the normal way which the people of the country understand.
  The suggestion that what are called the South-Eastern and South-Western provinces administered from Whitehall would be an advantage to Scotland is a contention we utterly reject, because in the successive Clauses of the Bill we find that representative institutions are swept away. The control that was previously exercised by the great corporations in Scotland is removed. Glasgow, Edinburgh,
  Aberdeen, historic cities that have great
  electrical undertakings, are being removed, and they are being substituted by consultative councils. So, too, the great industrial companies, the Clyde Valley and other large companies, which, whatever one may say, were Scottish bodies domiciled in Scotland, where it was possible to meet and discuss things with responsible people —not consultative councils. All these things under the Bill are being swept away. Therefore, we say that if there is to be nationalised electricity it should have an administrative and executive head for the whole country in the capital of the country.
  This is an issue which will arise more and more as time goes on. He who says "nationalise" says "nation." The increasing emphasis now being laid upon nationalisation is inevitably producing, and is bound to increase the increasing emphasis on nationalism. Nor is there any escape from that. The difficulty here, that the increased centralisation which this
  Bill proposes is centralisation in London, is an urgent danger not merely to the industrial future of Scotland but to the very working of the scheme itself. This scheme must work, as far as possible, for decentralisation; and when a natural unit exists in which decentralisation has always been practised, when that unit exists, where the administrative machine already is in being, set up only within the last few years, and set up, certainly, by no Tory plot, presided over as it is by a distinguished Socialist ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, we say the case for decentralisation becomes overwhelming. There is no reason whatever for the proposal in the Bill that the
  140
  two Lowland thirds could be best administered from Whitehall while the remaining third should be administered in some synthetic area, which is actually being enlarged by the Bill.
  The dangers before us are pretty great. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has given examples, and will give examples again, of the fact that Scotland is in a different position from England here, as being a country at present with a cheaper production of electricity, and probably in the position of being an exporting country for electricity. The advantages of Scotland in the way of its supply of electricity must be set against the disadvantages from which that supply of electricity arise. When Sir Walter Scott wrote of the
  "Land of the mountain and the flood",
  he was speaking of some very real facts. But it is very hard if the mountain and the flood are to be capitalised, and the whole of their advantage exported to sunnier and more clement climes. We are accustomed to the rough weather of Scotland. It fills the lakes; it causes the rivers to overflow; and from time to time it produces great disasters such as the disasters from which we have just suffered, which have led to the loss of many hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of our hill sheep. But these are the things that fill the hydro-electric reservoirs from which the supply of cheap electricity is derived, and we certainly say that these should be administered in Scotland, by a Scottish board, responsible to the Scottish people, supervised by the Secretary of State for Scotland, utilising those advantages to set against the other disadvantages for the benefit of the people of Scotland as a whole.
  We have argued this case before and we are prepared to argue it again. There are many more hon. and right hon. Friends who wish to speak, so I will not detain the House longer. But I do not speak shortly because I do not feel strongly; I feel most strongly on this matter. I feel that disaster is impending for Scotland if this partition and this export of one of its main economic assets are written into the Bill tonight. For these reasons I move the Amendment so that we omit Scotland from this Bill, later Scotland can proceed to organise her own

  141
  electrical resources as seems best for the good of the country.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated the case for the creation of an electricity entity for the whole of Scotland with his usual force and lucidity. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I detected much fallacious reasoning in his argument. Let us, first of all, ascertain what it is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends are asking. Is it that they seek to provide for Scotland in the sphere of electricity supply a greater measure of decentralisation? That is to say, instead of creating, as we propose to do, three area boards in Scotland—the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board under the provisions of the 1943 Act, with an area board in the South-West and one in the South-East, two of which, and only two of which, are directed, let it be noted, only on matters of policy by the British Electricity Authority, and apart from that direction, which may or may not be used, depending upon the circumstances, completely autonomous in character, with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board itself autonomous in character and fully integrated, operating in an integrated form, with the necessary and inevitable consultation—are we to have a Scottish Electricity Board, charged with the duty of generating and distributing electricity in Scotland, without regard to the conditions existing on the other side of the Border? That is the issue before the House
  9.0 p.m.
  I am wholly in accord with the right hon. Gentleman in seeking to promote sound economic development in Scotland. We are fully aware of the economic position across the Border, and at the same time we recognise the potentialities of Scotland in the sphere of electricity. We know what a valuable contribution electricity supply in Scotland can make to economic development. There is no dispute between us under that head. The question is what is best for Scotland in the long run—a Scottish Electricity Board, completely divorced from the English Electricity Board, and presumably a demand would be made for a Welsh Electricity Board, which we could not resist in the circumstances; or are we to have an integrated British Electricity Authority, basing its policy not on what
  142
  is suitable to a particular area, but on what is essential to the interests of every part of the country? I have no hesitation in saying that the proposals we have made, which have been referred to over and over again in the course of the proceedings in Standing Committee, are far more valuable, from the standpoint of Scottish economic and industrial development, than the proposals of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is proposing is the thin edge of the wedge of nationalism, or perhaps I ought to say the thick edge of the wedge, because it is a very large chunk of nationalism. Whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman likes it or not, I distinguish between nationalism and nationalisation; I am not so sure that nationalisation is not superior to nationalism, because we can have pseudo-nationalism without regard to the basic elements, without which it is of no value at all.
  Let me deal with some of the arguments adduced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. First of all, he said that there was over-production in Scotland. It is perfectly true that some of the undertakings, in particular—and I ask the House to note it—the Dumfrieshire county council electricity undertaking which sell electricity at a much lower rate than many other parts of the country. All
  the more credit to a municipal undertaking. But there are parts of Scotland where electricity costs are very high. It is expected that, when the hydro-electric scheme is fully developed and makes its contribution to the grid system throughout the country, electricity generation in Scotland will be much cheaper than is to be found elsewhere. But that, again, depends on conditions. For instance, if we do not have a heavy rainfall in Scotland we may find that costs of electricity generation may rise. As I am not responsible for creating weather conditions, contrary to the general impression, I can give no assurance on that score.
  We have heard a great deal about the cost of electricity generation in hydroelectric schemes in Italy and Switzerland. According to the information in my possession, hydro-electric costs in Switzerland are sometimes very high—higher than in countries where electricity is generated by steam. That is because there can be no guarantee about the water supply. We are not in a position

  143
  to say whether hydro-electric scheme costs in Scotland will be on a lower scale than the costs of generating electricity in other parts of Britain, but we are hoping for the best. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that it was proposed to integrate with municipal undertakings in North Scotland—not hydro-electric. We contribute to the value of the hydroelectric scheme by bringing in municipal and private undertakings, and extending the range of activities of the North of Scotland hydro-electric scheme.
  What was the purpose of that scheme? It was not so much to make a general overall contribution to electricity supply in Scotland as to promote the economic, social, and industrial development of the Highlands of Scotland. No one can say that by promoting a centralised scheme in Scotland, having one board instead of three area boards, it would make a contribution to the well-being of the Highlands of Scotland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite omitted to outline some of the arguments against nationalisation, and I am not surprised. He spoke about the decision of the Edinburgh Town Council, and said that the Minister of Fuel and Power in characteristic fashion disregarded those who expressed opinions contrary to his own. What was the opinion expressed by that town council? It was not that they wanted a Scottish Board; they merely expressed hostility to nationalisation. Indeed, having expressed some opposition to it, they obviously could not ask for an integrated national scheme for the whole of Scotland. It was the only local authority, so far as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are aware, which expressed hostility to nationalisation.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It was not simply an objection to nationalisation. I would like to quote paragraph 4, which says:
  "If the Government, however, determine to proceed with the Bill the provisions for the formation of area electricity boards for South-East Scotland and South-West Scotland, responsible to the Minister instead of the Secretary of State for Scotland, should be deleted, as they are not in the best interests of Scotland. There should be established one central authority for Scotland, responsible to the Secretary of State."
  Mr. Shinwell: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But clearly the hostility was directed against nationalisa-
  144
  tion. Obviously, if they had succeeded in their case against nationalisation, as the result of which the nationalisation scheme was abandoned, there would have been no occasion to create this Central Authority for Scotland. Another factor, which cannot be ignored, is that these boards in Scotland are to have full autonomy. The North of Scotland board, for example, is completely autonomous. There is no financial control by the Central Authority over the North of Scotland Board. Moreover, the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board will have a permanent place on the Central Authority. That is of great value. It promotes an association between the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board and the Central Authority that must, in the long run, prove of great value to both bodies.
  As regards the other bodies which I have mentioned, they are to be fully autonomous. Will anyone in the South-West of Scotland say that that area is likely to lose either in the sphere of electricity supply or in economic development because the whole of Scotland is not integrated? It is a compact area, just as is the South-East of Scotland, and we shall appoint people in that area to run the industry of that area. There will be no question of bringing aliens in from across the Border to tell the Scottish technician how to run his industry. They will continue to run the industry in a more integrated form, and I am satisfied that that will be to the advantage of Scotland generally.
  I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a question. He is very interested in promoting the economic development of Scotland, and he is interested in certain aspects of Scottish nationalisation. He has mentioned this himself more than once. He is fully acquainted with the needs of Scotland, but, strange as it may seem, when the Central Electricity Board was created—and the Central Electricity Board operates in Scotland as in England—there was no suggestion by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or by the Conservative Party, either in Scotland or elsewhere—and I say particularly in Scotland—that the Central Electricity Board should not operate in Scotland, but should confine itself to England and there should be set up a Central Electricity Board for across

  145
  the Border. There was no suggestion of that kind. Indeed, in all the schemes which have been promoted that are in any way associated with nationalisation, there has been no suggestion that there should be a line of demarcation economically or industrially, at any rate, as between Scotland and the rest of the country.
  My final point is this: We are hoping that, as a result of the integration of the whole country in the field of electricity supply and distribution, we can cheapen electricity, particularly in the rural areas. Frankly, if we were to accept a scheme of this kind, we might be compelled to abandon our conception of regional division South of the Border. What reason would there be for having several area boards in England if we had only one board in Scotland? If such a claim were met, I am satisfied that it would lead to greater centralisation than was ever intended. I am all in favour of decentralisation, and that is why I have suggested over and over again in the course of our proceedings in the Committee stage that these boards, so far as practicable, should be fully autonomous. I would make it quite clear to the House that this is not an attack on Scottish interests; on the contrary, in our judgment, it is all to the advantage of Scottish interests. I repeat, if there had been strong feeling in Scotland on this issue, we should have heard of it. The people of Scotland are not backward in voicing their opinion if they have an opinion to voice. Sometimes they are much more vocal, much more clamant, much more strident, if I may use the expression which the right hon. Gentleman credited me with, than people on this side of the Border. They are not at all backward in coming forward, and they would have been exceedingly vocal indeed. It is a very strange fact that only Edinburgh Town Council expressed any opinion on the subject at all. Glasgow was entirely in favour of nationalisation.
  9.15 p.m.
  Finally, it there had been any strong expression of opinion in Scotland about a Central Authority across the Border, we should have heard something from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Thomas Johnston, an ex-Secretary of
  146
  State who knows a great deal about these matters and who is chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. As I told hon. Members in Committee, I consulted the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and asked them to express opinions to guide me in these matters. They never expressed one single opinion about the integration of Scottish electricity, and they ought to know. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to summon Sir Walter Scott to his aid and speak of the mountain and the flood, but we have to be practical; we are not dealing with romance, we have passed through the romantic period to the days when we are dealing with practical issues, and I suggest that the scheme, which we have ventured to adumbrate at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, with the full consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, will redound much more to the advantage of Scotland than will indulging in pettifogging conceptions along the lines of nationalism.
  Sir W. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Fuel and Power at one time in his history was the Member of Parliament for West Lothian. He would not have made the speech we have heard tonight when he was Member for West Lothian: he would not have dared to make it. He has offered us a speech which may convince the English and Welsh Members present, but I know that the five Labour Members opposite will not have been greatly impressed by his observations. To suggest that this Measure is acceptable to Scottish public opinion is to show how much out of touch the right hon. Gentleman, who is the Member for Seaham, is with Scottish public opinion. Scottish public opinion, whether it is the Corporation of Glasgow or the Corporation of Edinburgh, resents this interference with its liberty. The municipalisation of electricity supplies in Scotland has been one of the prides of the country, and to tell this House that Scotland wants her municipal enterprises torn from her and placed under the centralised authority of Whitehall is to tell what is obviously and demonstrably plain frank falsehood.
  Scotland has not given up her liberty at any time recently, and she is not prepared to give up these rights as easily as the right hon. Gentleman, once the Member for West Lothian, professes.

  147
  This House should know something about Scotland, but too little is known by the House of Commons about that not unimportant part of Great Britain. There are in Scotland, and I frequently repeat it in this House, 165 persons to the square mile. There are in England 714 to the square mile, and there is a density of intelligence as well as a density of population. It is to that density of intelligence that I address myself in the observation I wish to make. I want to tell this House what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham Harbour, lately the Member for West Lothian, has not told them —that Scotland, in the matter of electricity and power, is an exporting country. England exports little enough; Wales used to export coal, she now exports none; but Scotland is an exporting country. We export 20 per cent. of our electric power for consumption in England. We export a considerable portion of our coal for use in England. In this matter, the Minister of that disintegrated body, Fuel and Power, has not told the House all the facts of the situation. This is not a suppliant Scotland asking for a favour from the House of Commons, but a sovereign country which asks it. We have a case—
  Mr. Speaker: Is this a Debate on Scottish Home Rule?
  Sir W. Darling: I am glad you reminded me Sir that I am addressing myself to the Amendment in "Page 1, line 13, to leave out 'the North of Scotland District,' and to insert 'Scotland '." I think that it will be your view, as well as that of the most loyal servant of His Majesty's Government, that to refer to "the North of Scotland district" is an unintentional but nevertheless insulting phrase, and I submit that it should be "Scotland" and not "the North of Scotland District." In order to justify that view, I have modestly put forward the argument which I have adumbrated. This argument suggests that "the North of Scotland District" is not a petty appendage of this country, but a sovereign authority, and entitled to all the rights of such a sovereign authority. It is wrong for the Minister of Fuel and Power to suggest that Scotland is anything but a sovereign authority in relation to the larger part of this island.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Macpherson.
  Sir W. Darling: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was replying to you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: It the Hon. Member thought I was going to reply to his point of Order, I can tell him that I am quite unconvinced.
  Sir W. Darling: Further to that point of Order. If I had the misfortune to fail to convince you on a point of Order, am I now debarred from continuing my observations?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not know that it was a point of Order. I thought it was an argument.
  Sir W. Darling: With very great respect, I should like to continue to develop further and specifically my case against the Clause before us. The House must be aware of the Act which sets up the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and that it was with Scottish finance that they set up this Board which, under the leadership of Thomas Johnston, has done so much.
  Mr. Speaker: I really think the hon. Member is going far beyond the Clause. We are really discussing whether the North of Scotland should be included or not; and whether it was set up by Scottish finance or not, has nothing to do with it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may say so with great respect, we are not so much discussing whether the North of Scotland should be included or not, but whether all Scotland should be excluded from the operation of the Bill, because the substitution of the word "Scotland" means Scotland should be excluded from this Clause.
  Mr. Scollan: Might I point out that the reference to "the North of Scotland District" is no reference to Scotland as a whole, and the point of Order raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir. W. Darling) was entirely wrong?
  Mr. Speaker: My submission is that the North of Scotland district is one which is set up by an Act of Parliament which is entirely separate from the present Bill.
  Sir W. Darling: Under your direction and guidance, Sir, I wish to follow the argument of the Minister, which was that

  149
  there is justification for the division of Scotland and the placing of the southern part of that country under a general central British electricity board rather than under an autonomous Scottish board. The view I submit is that both from a geographical and conveniently economic point of view there are considerable advantages in grouping the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Aberdeen and Perth into one unit, and the proposal before the House is to dismember that natural corporate body into three separate parts. The Minister's case is that there is an advantage in having a centralised electricity authority for the whole of Great Britain except that part now covered by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I submit for the consideration of the House and of the Minister that there has been for many centuries both an economic and an industrial organisation which is geographically and constitutionally described as Scotland, and nothing that the Minister has said and nothing that is in the Bill has convinced me that anything would be gained by dismembering that arrangement and detaching the southern part of Scotland and adding it to the North of England, for that to me seems to be illogical. The more natural way is to attach the southern part of Scotland to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric district and thereby continue the association which is justified by centuries of custom.
  There is something to be said for my suggestion from the organisational point of view. The natural centre for the Highlands is Inverness; the natural centre of the South-East of Scotland is Edinburgh, and the natural centre for the South-West of Scotland is Glasgow. The proposals of this Bill will dislocate and destroy that unity which might be justifiable if these
  were undeveloped areas or areas which had no experience in electricity production or distribution, but the most important electrical producing unit in Scotland is that of the Corporation of Glasgow. That unit is to go into, not an adjacent Scottish area, but it is to be dismembered and placed under a body of a homogeneous character rather than of a Scottish character. If that is true of Glasgow, it is more so of Edinburgh. Edinburgh has protested against nationalisation. It has protested against the major evil, but it also would protest, if allowed to do so, against the minor evil, which is
  150
  to place it under an associate hydroelectric organisation situated in England, which has close affiliation with a place like Newcastle-on-Tyne to which Edinburgh today is selling electricity.
  These are points which, I submit to the House, are worthy of consideration. I do not speak as a Scottish Nationalist, but because I believe there is a certain economic and practical unity in the longstanding arrangements which have been centralised under the leadership of successive Secretaries of State for Scotland. There is a long-standing unity recognised by the House of Commons. We admit that Scottish agriculture should be centralised under the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have admitted for a generation that Scottish education should not be under the Minister of Education in Whitehall but under the Secretary of State for Scotland in St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Scollan: Does the hon. Gentleman want a Scottish Army?
  Sir W. Darling: We have submitted that health and housing should not be under the Minister of Health in Whitehall but under the care of the Secretary of State for Scotland at St. Andrew's House.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Macpherson.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: Having been fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I want to address one or two remarks to the questions arising out of the speech by the Minister of Fuel and Power. The Minister seemed to draw one or two red herrings across the trail. In the first place, he suggested that this Amendment is intended to set up a board for Scotland, and that by so doing we would necessarily destroy the advantages that are reserved for Highland development. That, of course, does not in any way follow. It is perfectly open to Scottish interests to make such reservations in the Highland interests as they think fit. Let me carry that further. Surely the Minister in this Bill has to a large extent broken down those very advantages by extending the Highland development area, and he is including areas which are totally different from those which originally the Act in the first place was intended to cover.
  The Minister referred to the new area boards proposed to be set up in the South

  151
  of Scotland as autonomous in character. Consultative councils, of which there are to be two in the South of Scotland, can make representations to the area boards, and, if dissatisfied, may then go to the Central Council. That appeal will be over the area board to the Central Council, which is in England. Thus the autonomy is shown to be entirely illusory. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that if a board were to be created in Scotland, there would be a danger of that board generating electricity without regard to conditions South of the Border. That contention cannot be maintained for an instant. When the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke on the Second Reading about the desirability of having a separate board for the North of Scotland he said:
  "It is, of course, essential that there should be the closest co-operation between the North of Scotland Board and the Central Authority, and that the work and policy of the two Boards should be properly integrated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd February, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1460.]
  What would prevent a similar integration between a Scottish Board and the Central Authority? The argument goes completely by the board.
  Several arguments have been adduced opposite to show that a board is not necessary for Scotland. The fact is that Scotland is, to a large extent at any rate, an economic entity and to that extent we are asking that it should be made into an entity for electricity. We are not demanding that it should be utterly separated but that there should be cooperation with interests within Scotland arising out of combination of electricity interests, so as to give the best results for Scotland. All minds in Scotland should be thinking along the lines of the best possible use of electricity for Scotland as a whole. In order to promote that, I commend the Amendment, but not simply on grounds of nationalist spirit. I commend it on grounds of expediency. In that way we shall get the very best results for the United Kingdom as a whole.
  We are not suggesting that all electricity produced in Scotland should be used in Scotland and that we should interrupt all communication between the two countries. Whereas in Scotland the cost of production of electricity is lower than
  152
  in the rest of the country, and many other commodities can only be produced there much more expensively, there should be some give and take. We should have the benefit of that cheap production, and be able to live on equal terms with the rest of the kingdom.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. We should like your guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) was, as I understood, in possession of the House. Then I understood he made a reference to Scottish health and housing, at which point you rose. With great respect for the Chair, my hon. Friend resumed his seat. I understand that he had not concluded his remarks and that somewhat to his surprise he heard the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) called. My hon. Friend had not concluded his remarks. I humbly submit, with every respect, that he has a right now to do so.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I had not risen. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh, seeing that I was watching him fairly closely, and obviously aware that I
  had con sidered him very irrelevant in his remarks, sat down. As he sat down, I called the next hon. Member. As the hon. Member for South Edinburgh had resumed his seat, he had no right to resume.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may say so, with the utmost respect, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh is a new Member of this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He is a new Member of this House. Desirous as he always is of behaving with the utmost deference in respect of the Chair, thinking you were rising, Mr. Speaker, he resumed his seat. If he erred from the utmost deference to you and had no intention whatever of concluding hi? remarks, and as that was a genuine misunderstanding, I suggest that it would be possible for my hon. Friend, who I am sure would naturally not desire to detain the House, to conclude his remarks Mr.
  Speaker: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has exhausted his right to speak. The hon. Member, I think, understands the Rules of the House quite well. He resumed his seat, and therefore I called another hon.

  153
  Member. After all, he must obey the Rules of the House.
  Sir W. Darling: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to amplify what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said. I saw that you were, as you indicated, displaying—if I may say so with great respect—great restiveness. I was over-apprehensive in interpreting that as the premonitory gesture to my being out of Order, and I was perhaps over-eager to follow your behest. I hope that in future that will not count against me. I shall endeavour to arm myself against mistaking mere restiveness for a final indication that I am out of Order I am grateful to the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker: May I say that I appreciate the maximum modesty of the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Scollan: The intention of this Amendment is obviously to get one central electricity board for the whole of Scotland. I do not know why, if that was considered advisable, steps were not taken by the Opposition when the North of Scotland Electricity Board was set up because it is perfectly obvious that if this Amendment is carried there will be no need at all for the North of Scotland Electricity Board any more than there would be for one in the South-west and the South-east. I am at a loss to know what line of reasoning has been taken that can define that even a central electricity board for Scotland would be of any advantage to the North of Scotland and the Highland districts where the North of Scotland Hydro-electric scheme was put into operation for the purpose of developing the Highlands.
  Let me remind the Opposition that the North of Scotland was very largely neglected owing to the apathy of Central and Southern Scotland. Nothing was ever done to my knowledge by the big cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh—now opposed to the present scheme. They never lifted their voices against the depopulation of the Highlands and the development of the Highlands for industry.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker; if we are now going to discuss the depopulation of the Highlands, I would suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh
  154
  (Sir W. Darling) was well within the bounds of Order in the remarks he addressed to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. Scollan: My point—and I think the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) knows it perfectly well—is that the development of the Highlands industries was wrapped up in the hydro-electric scheme, and that was the reason for (he North of Scotland Electricity Board. Now hon. Members opposite want to put it into the hands of a Central Scottish Board. The whole history of the centre of Scotland has been one of neglect; consequently the whole object of the North of Scotland Hydro-electric scheme will be defeated. Therefore, under the circumstances I do not see how anyone who claims to speak on behalf of Scotland can undo the good work that was done when the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board was set up.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that that is exactly what this Bill is doing? Is he not aware that under the new boundaries of the North of Scotland district, the proportion of the urban to the rural population is 6 to 4?
  Mr. Scollan: Yes, I am well aware of that, and it is not caused by this. Bill. It has been due to the fact that the development of that part of the country was neglected owing to the people being concentrated in the centre of Scotland, in the Lowlands and in the South of Scotland. As a matter of fact, Glasgow has one of the finest electricity Undertakings in Scotland and they are in favour of this. Why? Because they know that the object of the North of Scotland Hydro Electric scheme was to promote industry in the North and to keep the people in the North instead of driving them out of it.
  Sir W. Darling: We exported 20 per cent.
  Mr. Scollan: Of course, we did. As a matter of fact England exported the hon. Gentleman to Scotland and he was no asset. However, I will leave that side of the argument and get on to the. administration of electricity. We find in the South-East and in the South-West that they will

  155
  be able to do as well and very much better in decentralisation with three boards than with one central board for Scotland. Consequently, I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite will consider withdrawing this Amendment.
  Commander Galbraith: The purpose of this Amendment, as the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) rightly said, is to set up a Central Electricity Board for Scotland, that board to have all the power and to be charged with all the duties which were granted to the North of Scotland Board in the year 1943. In other words, what really happens is that the North of Scotland Board becomes the electricity authority for Scotland. It means that the whole of Scotland will be treated as one unit, both as regards the generation and the distribution of electricity. It will not alter one little bit the arrangements that now exist by which the North of Scotland Board exports its surplus electricity; nor will it interfere in any way with the social and economic development of the Highlands and Islands, which were the particular responsibility of the North of Scotland Board. That has already been explained to the House by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot).
  9.45 P.m.
  The Minister has suggested that our purpose here is to do something in the way of Scottish nationalism. I want to make it clear that I do not believe in Scottish nationalism or in an independent legislature. I believe that the interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom are best served under the present set-up and that it should continue. However, I support this Amendment on quite different grounds altogether. I support it on three grounds. From the administrative and technical points of view, and also from the economic point of view, I submit this Amendment would bring about a proper solution of the electricity problem, not only for Scotland but also so far as England is concerned. When Parliament recognised that the North of Scotland Board should be set up, it recognised that the conditions in Scotland differed from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. I submit that those differences not only apply to that part of Scotland over
  156
  which the North of Scotland Board has jurisdiction, and that had there been no other consideration to take into account, it would have been quite possible, when that Bill was going through Parliament, for a case to be made very much to extend the jurisdiction of the North of Scotland Board. The Government are here sweeping all these considerations away. They have decided, wrongly, in my opinion, to nationalise the electricity industry, and in those circumstances the whole position is completely altered. There are other areas in Scotland as sparsely populated as the North of Scotland—in Galloway, in Wigtownshire, in parts of the uplands of Lanarkshire and the uplands of Ayrshire.
  Why we should divide the country into these three areas, I do not understand. We have never had any explanation as to why these particular areas have been chosen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has said, Scotland is an economic entity. It is separated from England by a practically uninhabitated belt of land. It has its own laws, customs and weather, and it has conditions that differ very much from those in the South. The Minister tried to say that the weather might fail us in Scotland. We wish it would. We would prefer less rain and more sun, but I have never yet known it depart from the usual rainy weather. I do not see that there is any ground for anxiety about hydro-electricity failing because of lack of rainfall. In the North of Scotland Board we have in being a body with its own staff and organisation, which has studied and understands the particular conditions of Scotland. In spite of that, we are to hand over control of the whole of southern Scotland to what is in fact a foreign body, with no knowledge of conditions whatever.
  Those two southern areas of Scotland are to be administered from London. The Minister says that they are to have independent bodies. If he maintains that, he cannot have read his own Bill. At every point the Central Authority interferes with the various area boards. Not even the Central Electricity Board, which had very much smaller responsibilities than those of the Central Authority, understand Scottish conditions. In fact, it could not understand why we required heavier pylons in the Highlands of Scotland than were needed in the South of England If

  157
  we take the example of the National Coal Board, they have already had difficulties in regard to Scottish legal terms. This Central Authority will fall into similar difficulties. The Central Authority has too great a responsibility, and the area it controls is too large for efficiency. When we have, in Scotland, an area which is self-contained, which is linked to England, so far as electricity is concerned, by only two lines, one on the east coast and one on the west, when there is an economic entity and an organisation in being, I suggest that to insert an outside body is unnecessary, undesirable, uneconomic, and, in fact, stupid.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that the argument used by the Lord Advocate and by the Secretary of State, and which was repeated by the Minister in resisting
  this Amendment, was that hitherto we had been content with one single authority, with a single Electricity Commissioner, and with a single Central Electricity Board. I believe that those considerations are quite irrelevant to these discussions at the present moment. There is no possible connection between the scope and responsibilities of those bodies and the responsibilities now being put upon the Central Authority. The Central Electricity Board was responsible only for seeing that sufficient generating plant was in being, and for the main distribution line. The Commissioners' main duty was to protect the public. This new body is to be responsible for the generation and distribution of electricity, and indeed for the whole supply of electricity to the whole country. So far as administration is concerned, I submit that there is a very strong case indeed for Scotland being controlled by an entirely separate body.
  To deal as shortly as possible with the technical points, I would say that there is no logic in the present division of the country into these three areas. In the First Schedule to the Bill, hon. Gentlemen will find that there are different parts of Stirlingshire, Dunbartonshire and Roxburghshire, some of them in the southeast area and some of them in the southwest area. But wherever one may attempt to draw the dividing line it will be found that there will be people on one side who could be supplied more easily with electricity from the adjoining area. That is true of all these areas and
  158
  particularly true of the line which divides the northern area from the other two. The whole division is quite unrealistic and unnatural. I would like the House to consider for a moment the traffic from east to west across Scotland. I have said that the natural dividing line is the Border. There is no east and west traffic there, but in the divisions which have been made there is constant east and west traffic with all the difficulties which that involves.
  Then there is the question of the diversity of load. It is necessary that there should be a proper balance between industrial and domestic load. There is no such balance in the present division, certainly not in the northern area or the south-east areas. I submit that from the technical point of view Scotland again should be treated as a whole. The third point I wish to stress is in regard to the economic side of the matter and the desirability that Scotland should be left as a self-contained unit. I have said before, and I repeat, that the prosperity of Scotland hitherto has depended upon cheap coal. The industrial belt was built up on cheap and abundant coal from Lanarkshire. That is becoming exhausted. The effects of that were very easily seen in the interwar years. Unless we are to have similar distress in the future, some new source of cheap power must be forthcoming. My submission is that it is to be found in hydro-electricity. The House knows the very great difference in the cost of electricity in England and Scotland. We also know that we can supply half the maximum demand of Southern Scotland from present, or contemplated, hydro-electric installations. If that is made available to Southern Scotland, there can be a reduction in present charges of from 7 to 8 per cent.
  It is recognised that there must be redistribution of industry. That cannot be obtained unless there is some inducement, and I submit that the inducement is to be found in cheap electricity. The Minister has said previously that there would be no uniformity of charge at the beginning.
  That being so, presumably Scotland will enjoy cheap electricity for some little
  time to come. But for how long can one authority have different charges in different parts of the country? The advantage of cheap electricity from the one authority cannot long continue. If

  159
  that is the case, then the light industries will not move into Scotland, and again we shall become a depressed area and have to rely upon the rest of the country providing us with a subsidy. From every point of view, administratively, technically, and economically, I submit that
  Scotland should be separate, not only in its own interest, but in the interests of the United Kingdom.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 94.

  Division No. 273.]

  AYES.

  9.55 p.m.

  Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Mecland, H. M

  Alpass, J. H.

  Ganley, Mrs C. S

  Mellish, R. J

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven

  Gibson, C. W

  Messer, F.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gilzean, A

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Awbery, S. S.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Bacon, Miss A

  Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)

  Moody, A S

  Baird, J.

  Grenfell, D. R

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Grey, C F

  Morley, R.

  Barstow, P. G

  Grierson, E

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W)

  Barton, C.

  Griffiths, D (Rothor Valley)

  Murray, J. D.

  Battley, J. R.

  Grest, Dr. L Hade'

  Naylor, T. E.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Ganter, R. J

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J

  Guy, W H

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford. N)

  Benson G

  Hall, W C.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Berry, H.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Neel-Buxton, Lads

  Beswick, F

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Blenkinsop, A

  Hardy, E. A

  Oliver, G. H.

  Blyton, W R.

  Harrison, J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr H W

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Braddock, Mrs E M (L'pl. Exch'ge)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Braddock T (Mitcham)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pargiter, G. A

  Bramall, E. A

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Parker, J.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hobson, C. R

  Parkin, B. T.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Holman, P.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

  Pearson, A.

  Bruce, Maj. D W T

  House, G

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Burden T W

  Hoy, J.

  Platts-Mills, J, F, F.

  Butler, H. W (Hackney, S)

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Poole. Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Castle, Mrs B. A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Proctor, W. T

  Champion, A. I

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Chater, D

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Randall, H F

  Chetwynd, G

  Irving, W J

  Ranger, J

  Cobb, F. A

  Janner, B

  Rankin, J.

  Cccks, F. S

  Jay, O P. I

  Reeves, J.

  Collindridge, F.

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Reid T (Swindon

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Jeger, Dr S W (St Pancras, S.E)

  Rhodes, H

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N W)

  Jones Rt Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Jones, D. 7 (Hartlepools)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Crawley, A

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Daggar G

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Ross, William (Kilvarnock)

  Daines, P

  Keenan, W

  Royle, C

  Dalton, Rt. Hon.

  Kendall, W D

  Sargood, R

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kinley, J

  Scollan, T.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield,

  Leng, G

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lavers, S.

  Shackleton, E. A A

  Davies, Hadyn (St Pancras, S W.)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Sharp, Granville

  Deer, G

  Leslie, J R.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Delargy, H J

  Levy, B W

  Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (Sr Helens)

  Diamond, J

  Lewis, A W J (Upton)

  Shinwell Rt. Hon E

  Dodds, N N

  Lewis. J (Bolton)

  Shurmer. P

  Donovan, T

  Lindgren, G. S

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Diberg, T. E. N.

  Lipson, D L.

  Simmons, C. J

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M

  Skeffington, A. M

  Dumpleton, C W

  Longden, F

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C

  Dye, S

  McAdam, W

  Skinnard, F W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. O

  McEntee, V, La T

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Edalman, M.

  McGhee, H G

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft:

  Mack, J. D

  Smith, S. H. (Hull S.W.)

  Evans, John (Ogmore

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Sorensen, R. W

  Ewart, R.

  Maclean, N (Govan)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir t

  Farthing, W

  McLeavy, F

  Sparks, J A.

  Fernyhough, E

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Stamford, W.

  Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E)

  Mallalieu, J P. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Follick, M.

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Strachey, J.

  Foot, M. M

  Marshall, F (Brightside)

  Strauss. G R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Mathers, G

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Stubbs, A. E

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Wilkes, L

  Summerskill, Dr Edit

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Swingler, S.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Usborne, Henry

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Vernon, Maj W. F

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Viant, S P.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Williamson, T

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E)

  Willis, E.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Watkins, T. E

  Wills, Mrs E ?

  Thomas, Ivor (Keignley)

  Weilzman, D.

  Woodburn, A

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Wells P. L (Faversham)

  Woods, G. S

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wells, W T (Walsall)

  Wyatt, W.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

  Yates, V. F

  Thurtle, Ernest

  White, H. (Derbyshire N.E)

  Young, Sir R (Newton)

  Titterington M

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Tolley, L

  Wigg, Col G E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Snow and Mr Popplewell.

  NOES.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C

  J'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Hogg, Hon. Q

  Pickthorn, K

  Birch, Nigel

  Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

  Ponsonby Col. C E

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. Wells

  Hope, Lord J

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Bower, N.

  Howard, Hon. A

  Raikes, H V.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon R S (Southport)

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hurd, A.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J, S C. (Hillhead)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

  Hutchison, Lt -Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

  Challen, C

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Ropner, Col. L,

  Clarke, Col. R S

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G

  Lancaster, Col C. G

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Low, Brig A. R. W

  Shepherd, W S (Backlow)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Lucas, Major Sir J

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Stanley, Rt. Hon O

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  McCallum, Maj. D

  Stoddart-Scott, Col V.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macdonald. Sir P. (I. oft Wight)

  Studholme, H G

  Darling, Sir W Y

  Mackeson, Brig. H R

  Sutcliffe, H

  Digby, S. W.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E, A, (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Dower, Lt-Col A. G (Penrith)

  Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

  Thorneycroft, G, E P (Monmouth)

  Drewe, C

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C N

  Elliot, Rt Hon. Walte

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Wadsworth, G

  Gage, C.

  Marples, A. E.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Medlicott, F.

  Willoughby de Eresby Lord

  Grant, Lady

  Mellor, Sir J.

  York, C.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S (Cirencester)

  Major Ramsay and

  Hare, Hon J H. (Woodbridge)

  Neven-Spence. Sir B

  Lieut-Colonel Thorp.

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre A. V

  Nicholson, G

  Question put, and agreed to.

  It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]

WAYS AND MEANS

  PURCHASE TAX (ROAD VEHICLES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  "That, as from the eighteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and subject to any subsequent order under Section twenty of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, purchase tax shall be charged at an intermediate rate, equal to two-thirds of the value of the goods, in respect of mechanically propelled passenger road vehicles of a retail value of more than one
  162
  thousand two hundred and eighty pounds a vehicle, the retail value of a vehicle and the articles to be treated as forming part thereof being ascertained in such manner as may be provided by or under any Act of the present Session relating to Finance and so as to include value attributable to payment of tax at the basic rate.
  In this Resolution the expression "passenger road vehicles" means road vehicles constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers, or having, to the rear of the driver's seat, roofed accommodation lit by side windows and fitted with, or constructed or adapted for the fitting of, seating for passengers."—[Mr Dalton.]
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: I put in a word of warning about this Motion. As far as I and many of my hon. Friends are concerned, we think the most convenient time to discuss this matter will be when we have the Clause before us. I presume it will have to go through a Committee stage and subsequently a

  163
  Report stage, and it is then that we propose to discuss the matter. I only want to make this point, that because we let the matter pass now, in view of the fact that there will be a more convenient opportunity in the future, it must not be presumed that we necessarily agree with these proposals and that we shall not be prepared to criticise or, indeed, to oppose them when the time comes.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's position is extremely reasonable. This and the following Motion on the Order Paper merely carry out the indication, which I gave last week, of what the Government now propose to do in this matter. We had some debate last week, but, no doubt, reflection may lead to further comment and argument in all parts of the Committee. I hope that we might not have a long Debate tonight. I think it would be more workmanlike to take the main discussion on the Committee stage. The Finance Bill will have to be recommitted, and there will be a Committee stage on these Resolutions, and I think it would be more convenient if I were to await the further development of argument on that occasion before saying anything further. I would just repeat that these two Resolutions carry out the proposals which I made on the previous occasion, and I hope the Committee will not think it discourteous if I abstain from saying anything further tonight, although, of course, I will say anything which is necessary to say on the later stage.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, Southern): May I call the attention of the Chancellor to the fact that the Opposition are being extremely reasonable tonight? Later this Session, or early in the next Session, the Government propose sweeping changes in Budget procedure, and I would just remind the right hon. Gentleman that we on these benches are being very reasonable on this occasion.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare): J wish to support the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol- (Mr. Stanley). I would ask the Chancellor not to close his mind entirely especially on one issue, and that is on the effect of the double Purchase Tax on certain high grades of motor car. I cannot help feeling that a great deal of
  164
  evidence can be, or should be, provided with regard to the exact effect of this tax, so far as it can be foreseen. With that proviso, I agree it would be most unreasonable to discuss the matter now because I do not think anybody has had time to look into the matter properly.

  EXCISE (MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES)
  Resolved:
  "That, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, the duties of excise chargeable under section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, in respect of mechanically propelled -vehicles chargeable with such duties under paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to that Act, other than electrically propelled vehicles, shall, in the case of such a vehicle registered under the Roads Act, 1920, for the first time on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, be charged at the rate of ten pounds for the vehicle."—[Mr. Dalton.]
  To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

MACKEREL, PRICE
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: I rise to make a plea to the Minister either to alter the maximum price of mackerel or to decontrol the price altogether. The House will, no doubt, remember that a short time ago, on 9th June, I put a Question to the Minister asking him to consider this matter in view of the very great rise in the price of gear. The Minister gave me an answer. When I put a supplementary, I thought his reply was unreasonable, as he used the expression, "If and when." Secondly, he rather gave the impression that his views were primarily advanced because someone had suggested a rise in the cost of mackerel. I should like here and now once more to put in front of the Minister the fact that I feel quite satisfied that no one in this country wishes the fishermen to catch fish at completely uneconomic prices. It is with the intention of putting before the Minister to-

165
night the cost of catching the mackerel that I have raised this matter on the Adjournment.
First, I should like to take this opportunity of reminding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry that she received a delegation not a very long time ago at which these points were placed in front of her and her Department; and I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Parliamentary Secretary and the permanent officials for the courtesy which we received upon that day. In fact, I myself came away with the view that she had fully realised how high these costs were. I should like to bring the attention of the House to the fact that I spoke in my maiden speech on the Inshore Fishing Bill, on the question of the vital importance of our fishing fleet. I pointed out that in Cornwall it had so depleted that, whereas at the beginning of the 1914–18 war 2,000 men were available for the R.N.R., at the beginning of the last war there were only 200 men available; and I said that it is a vital necessity to keep these ports alive, the small shipyards alive—and the men who man them.
At the present moment, the maximum controlled price of mackerel is 3s. 7d. a stone. I want to remind the Minister of this fact, that the maximum price does not necessarily mean that the fish will not, in fact, fetch a price lower than the maximum price. I do hope that I have made that perfectly clear—that because we fix a maximum price at a certain price it does not mean the fish will not fetch a price lower still. Now the price-is 3s. 7d.a stone. No doubt, the Minister is aware that, in a stone, one gets approximately 30 mackerel, and she can calculate very easily herself what that runs out at a mackerel apiece. It may interest the Minister to know that in 1768, according to the "Annual Register" it was stated:
"Fine large mackerel were sold in London at three halfpence each. A premium set on foot by Sir S. T. Janssen, Chamberlain of London, for encouraging the mackerel boats to bring their fish to market, has greatly contributed to reduce the price, and that reduction has had the effect upon the price of meat, which is likewise fallen a penny in the pound."
That was in 1768—and the price was the same as it is today. It may well be that the Minister will retort to me that that was probably at a date when prices of other things were very different. But if we look
166
further at the "Annual Register" we shall see that there was a man renting a small room over a stable in South Audley Street at £5 per annum. I refer to the point because it proves the value of money at that time.
Now, the Minister, according to the "Fish Trades Gazette" on 10th May, said:
"It is our policy in the Ministry of Food to remove controls as soon as conditions permit."
She then sent me a letter—a letter that I was delighted to receive—round about the same date, and in that letter she used these words:
"Our fishermen deserve all the help we can give them. The last of the hunters, they are also among the finest of our navigators."
She went on to say:
"Food harvested in such conditions should be valued by all of us. When it is such good food as fish brought in by our own fishermen at a time when many other foods are scarce it is doubly welcome."
In answer to that letter I wrote her a personal letter thanking her for her consideration, and stated that if at any time I had any difficulties I felt quite satisfied that she would remember the words she had used.
Coming to the actual cost the fishermen have to bear today, the chairman of the Looe Fishermen's Committee wrote to me, and I hope the House will forgive me if I read a passage from his letter, because he puts it so clearly:
"There are two kinds of fish we consider should be better priced; that is, mackerel and ray, considering the cost of catching, which I presume should have some bearing on the decided price. The mackerel is the most damaging fish we catch in a drift net. They are very hard to unmesh and tear a lot of holes, although they swim hard and very often nets are lost when they strike. The cost of a net now is £26 10s. before it is cured and put on the rope for fishing, which means that it costs at least £30 to put a net in the water ready for fishing."
I checked this up during the weekend, and these nets have gone up from £26 10s. to £28 10s.; so the rise is still going on. One of the chief questions in regard to mackerel is in relation to bait. It is used for bait; which means to say that if the mackerel is not obtained the fishermen are short of bait for catching other forms of fish.
For a moment I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the rise in everything which is concerned with gear. Take the question of hooks, now 4s. 6d.

167
and 5s. 6d. per 100 against is. 6d. in 1939; cotton, 5s. per lb. against is. 6d. per lb. in 1939; rope is three times as much; oil has increased considerably; coal is now 91s. 6d. a ton. All these matters are of great weight. Fitting out the type of boat in which we fish in Looe and Polperro at the present moment will cost £360 in gear alone. Also, nets are lost due to the ferociousness of the mackerel caught. The West Cornwall Fishermen's Council have written to me, and the letter puts it extremely well:
"I feel that, without being presumptuous, the present policy is a short-sighted one, besides being extremely unfair to the fishermen. To my mind, a policy of penalising one producer of food and rewarding another is utterly wrong; and further I feel that if prices are to be regulated in an inverse ratio to the cost of production, the only result must be a disaster in the industry."
These are only some of the points; in fact, there are many others. I received another letter from a similar source, which says:
"In addition, the increased costs of production and the general increase in wages and the cost of living do not seem to have been taken into account. Mackerel fishing, to be started again and made to pay, can only be done by an increase of price to about 6s. per stone."
They go on to say—and here is where I wish to stress the question of bait—
"In the old days, when the East Coast drifters used to come to Cornwall for the spring mackerel fishing, there was no lack of bait. These East Coast men cannot and will not come unless the price of mackerel is from 5s. to 6s. per stone."
I feel I have really made out a case tonight on a purely economic basis. The Minister knows full well that the major part of the food we eat in this country is subsidised, but mackerel is not. When we come to fish of this description, we have to make up our minds on two things: Do we want the mackerel; and do we want it for bait? It will mean more food for this country. Either put up the maximum control price or decontrol it altogether. It will mean more food for the country, both from the question of bait and from the point of view of giving mackerel to the housewives. Frankly, the amount for which I am asking is comparatively small, when it is remembered that across the Floor of the House not long ago I asked the Minister why Grade II salmon had gone up from is. 9d. to 2s. 9d., and I received no reply, other than it had gone up in price.
168
Because of this quibble about price the people are not getting the mackerel. I will conclude, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) wishes to speak. I feel that I am speaking for the small ships the "Our Daddys," the "Our Girls," and all the others in Looe, Polperro and all the other fishing ports on the coast of Devon and Cornwall, as well as for those people in our country who would like to be able to eat mackerel.
10.21 p.m.
Mr. Beechman: The case put forward with so much cogency by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) concerns not only the fishermen, but the whole of the community. I wish to make it plain to the Minister that the mackerel are there—I was assured of that by talking to those concerned in the industry at Newlyn this weekend. I can also assure the Minister that the demand is there, in London and in the other great centres. The people are not getting mackerel, a fish which is so interesting from the point of view of variety in diet. It is absurd that the people cannot get the supplies they demand. It may be said of this fish that it is so full of fat that it can pretty well fry itself. It provides a form of food of the most useful type. I sometimes hear it said that mackerel do not travel. That is a superstition. It happens that in May they are full of spawn so that the fish sometimes split when travelling, but even during the month of May there was a demand for them.
If matters were put right, mackerel would be available from now until September. It is fantastic that the price to the fishermen is only 3s. 7d. a stone, whereas before the war it was between 5s. and 6s. a stone. It is fantastic, when we consider that the cost of all matters affecting the fishermen have trebled and quadrupled, that they should be getting less than they got before the war. In 1920, we landed at Newlyn, £208,000 of mackerel, whereas in 1946, which is a date comparable to 1920 in relation to the second war, only £200 worth of mackerel were landed. The reason the fishermen do not catch these fish is because it is impossible for them to catch them It is not that they would not make enough, but simply that it is not possible for them to take mackerel from the sea at the present

169
prices People are clamouring for this fish, and it would be of great benefit to them if only they could obtain them.
10.24 p.m
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I confess I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) should have thought fit to bring this matter up tonight, in view of the fact that quite recently, as he reminded the House, I received a deputation consisting of him and another hon. Member interested in the subject, when we had an exhaustive discussion. Every point he has raised tonight was considered, and I undertook that the Ministry would do what they could to help inshore fishermen engaged on mackerel fishing That was only a few weeks ago. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those promises were not empty ones. In fact, already I have arranged for a survey to take place of the inshore fishing industry so that we shall be able to obtain certain information which we have not in our possession.
The hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the mackerel is a fish calculated to destroy nets very quickly. We do not deny that that is so. We recognise that the cost of gear to the inshore fisherman is very high in proportion to the return he gets for his fish, and that nets are very often fouled by wreckage of ships or aircraft We are anxious to find out exactly the conditions which obtain in different parts of the coast, so that, when the time comes perhaps to make some readjustment in prices, we can assess them fairly. The survey is about to take place. I hope, therefore, to gain very considerable information. Furthermore, I have already told the hon. Member why we feel that we cannot adjust prices at this moment. Soon we shall have the peak period of the Scottish herring fishing. We feel that it would be a little unfair to the herring fishermen, whose welfare we have at heart, just as we have at heart the welfare of the mackerel fishermen. They might naturally experience some little resentment because of the fact that herring prices remain the same when we had adjusted the mackerel prices.
Mr. D. Marshall: Of course, the Minister does realise that it is not a question of being able to catch mackerel or not. It is not economic to catch them. What the Minister is saying at the moment is deny-
170
ing to the country more mackerel, and iherefore more food
Or. Summerskill: the iron. Gentleman was just as emphatic when he was at the Ministry. I think he will agree that I listened to him very courteously and that not for one moment did I ask him to desist We discussed this matter, as I have already said, exhaustively. We quite agree with what the deputation said about the food value of mackerel. What I said in the letter which the hon. Gentleman has quoted I mean. We recognise that the inshore fisherman has had rather a difficult time and, in the autumn, we shall be prepared to look at these price-again. I am stating a sound case when I say that this is not the time to do it, just before the peak period of the Scottish herring fishing. When the peak period is over, we shall be prepared to look at those prices. We are having a survey of all fish prices in the autumn, and I hope that, as a result of it, the hon. Member for Bodmin will be more satisfied with the treatment which we afford to the inshore fishermen.
I must remind the House that these fishermen have been given certain considerations in the past. We have in the past re-adjusted the maximum price schedule in order that they should have a higher price for the wings of ray and skate than for the whole skate. That has been very helpful to them. Last winter we increased by 7d. a stone the first hand price of soles, turbot and brill. Furthermore, mackerel is always given the most favourable rate of transport levy, enabling catchers to have increased prices during the winter. I need not remind the hon. Member about pilchards; I have always felt that he has pilchards written on his heart. I think he must have discussed pilchards with me during the last two years on at least a dozen occasions. We have released from control pilchards, sprats, and red and grey mullet. This has enabled inshore fishermen to reap the benefit of occasional increases when market conditions were not in their favour and this has helped them when prices have been much lower. Furthermore, we have released from control shell-fish par ticularly high-grade crabs and lobsters which now fetch prices more appropriate to their quality. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that the Ministry of Food has at heart the welfare of the in-

171
shore fisherman, and in the autumn when we readjust our prices, we are going to give them further consideration.
But, finally, I do not believe that this will solve their problem—this readjustment of prices. They have to compete, one must remember, with the more efficient fleets of trawlers and the modern methods of distribution and preservation, and I think they will survive in the
172
future only by co-operative organisation; they will survive only if they learn that they must co-operate both on sales and purchases, and I will welcome the hon. Member if he cares to come to the Ministry again, and I will teach him the principles of co-operation.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Steel Allocation (Agricultural Machinery)
  Steel Allocation (Agricultural Machinery)
  Surplus Equipment (Local Authorities)
  Surplus Equipment (Local Authorities)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Cement Supplies
  Cement Supplies
  Playing Fields, Salford (Release)
  Playing Fields, Salford (Release)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (HIGH COMMISSIONER'S DUTIES)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (HIGH COMMISSIONER'S DUTIES)
  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  MIDDLE EAST (IRRIGATION SCHEMES)
  MIDDLE EAST (IRRIGATION SCHEMES)
  GERMANY (TEXTBOOKS)
  GERMANY (TEXTBOOKS)
  MR. RACZKIEWICZ'S FUNERAL (POLISH PROTEST)
  MR. RACZKIEWICZ'S FUNERAL (POLISH PROTEST)
AGRICULTURE
  Harvest Camps
  Harvest Camps
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Soil Fertility (Inorganic Manures)
  Soil Fertility (Inorganic Manures)
  Shooting Incident, Itchen Stoke
  Shooting Incident, Itchen Stoke
  Civil Servant (Political Controversy)
  Civil Servant (Political Controversy)
  SPAIN (PROTESTANT CHURCH)
  SPAIN (PROTESTANT CHURCH)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Rice
  Rice
  Depots
  Depots
  Wastage
  Wastage
  Canned Oysters
  Canned Oysters
  Queues (Elderly People)
  Queues (Elderly People)
  Pea and Pie Shop, Pudsey
  Pea and Pie Shop, Pudsey
  Potato Shortage
  Potato Shortage
ROADS
  Classified Expenditure (Estimates)
  Classified Expenditure (Estimates)
  Maintenance Grants
  Maintenance Grants
  Safety Device
  Safety Device
RAILWAYS
  Smooth-Running Track (Tests)
  Smooth-Running Track (Tests)
SHIPPING
  South Wales Ports (Coal Imports)
  South Wales Ports (Coal Imports)
  Cargo Discharges, Penryn
  Cargo Discharges, Penryn
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Furniture Auctions (Price Control)
  Furniture Auctions (Price Control)
  Shirts
  Shirts
  New Industries, North Staffordshire
  New Industries, North Staffordshire
  Business Visit to Germany
  Business Visit to Germany
  INDICTABLE OFFENCES (TRIALS)
  INDICTABLE OFFENCES (TRIALS)
  BOILER FUEL SUPPLIES
  BOILER FUEL SUPPLIES
  HORSE BREEDING (GRANTS)
  HORSE BREEDING (GRANTS)
  COAL/OIL CONVERSION SCHEMES
  COAL/OIL CONVERSION SCHEMES
  BASIC PETROL RATION
  BASIC PETROL RATION
EDUCATION
  Retired Teachers (Superannuation Allowances)
  Retired Teachers (Superannuation Allowances)
  Pupils (Statistics)
  Pupils (Statistics)
  Newly Appointed Teachers
  Newly Appointed Teachers
  Training Colleges (Statistics)
  Training Colleges (Statistics)
  Emergency Training Courses (Statistics)
  Emergency Training Courses (Statistics)
  ROYAL NAVY (WAR MEDAL, 1939–45)
  ROYAL NAVY (WAR MEDAL, 1939–45)

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD AMMON on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

FELIXSTOWE PIER BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 2a and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
FELIXSTOWE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL PROVI SIONAL ORDER BILL.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
4.5 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON) moved, That Standing Order No. XXXII be amended by leaving out the words "and the doors shall be locked after the lapse of four minutes as indicated by the sand glass, or after such shorter time as the Tellers appointed on both sides may agree to." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I was informed last week that some inconvenience had arisen in our crowded Divisions by reason of the fact that doors were unnecessarily closed. In order to facilitate the opening of a door, I think at the end of the Chamber, it is necessary for me to move this Amendment of the Standing Order, though I understand that the main door which is behind these Benches will require still to remain closed. I believe that this Motion is for the general convenience of your Lordships, and I hope therefore that it will be agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. He is making everything as agreeable as possible for us, which is his usual practice. I am grateful to him, and agree.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

TRANSPORT BILL.
4.7 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 65:
Schemes as to harbours.
(6) No provision of any scheme made under this section shall apply to any private dock undertaking, oil dock undertaking, coal dock undertaking or drydock undertaking, unless either the person carrying on the undertaking consents to the application thereof or the undertaking is carried on in pursuance of some private Act or some order having the effect of an Act.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (6), at the end, to insert:
"Provided that a person carrying on a private dock undertaking shall not unreasonably withhold his consent to the application of any provision of a scheme (other than provisions relating to the matters specified in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (3) of this section) to any part of the undertaking the activities whereof consist of the provision of port facilities for hire or reward, not being activities which were carried on by that person before the operation of the scheme."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the withholding of consent by a private dock undertaking to a scheme under the clause. I understand the terms of it have been agreed by all the interests concerned, so I need not go into it any further. It has been submitted to the Ministry of Transport. It seems to be reasonable, and I hope the Government will accept it. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 82, line 11, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD MORRISON: I am sorry that my information does not corroborate what the noble Lord has said, that this is the result of an agreement. I am advised that it is true that in theory there is a possibility of some evasion of the principles upon which a scheme can be based. In the view of the Government,
4
however, the practical possibilities of such evasion are negligible. To establish a private dock requires a great deal of capital expenditure in the provision of under-water works, quite apart from the capital expenditure involved in the manufacturing plant which the private dock is designed to serve. The Minister realizes that where docks are concerned, with the vast amount of capital which their construction involves and the differing types of circumstance affecting different localities, a clear distinction between work for hire and reward and work for other purposes cannot be drawn, and he feels that it would be unwise to attempt in this Bill to draw an absolute distinction, which in practice would often be unsatisfactory. If a private dock undertaking is excluded from the scope of a scheme by reason of its character, and subsequently it engages in hire and reward work it would lose its character of a private dock. I am advised that the only agreement which was reached was such a pale compromise that it would be scarcely worth putting into the Bill, and in those circumstances perhaps the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I frankly did not understand very much of what this was about, but I should have thought, with great respect in view of the explanation that has been given, that it would be very unwise to add clauses of this kind to the Bill. The Commission have a complete power and duty to review all the docks and to make schemes. As I read the Bill, they have as much power in the matter of what is called a private dock as in that of any other dock, and if that is so it seems to me to be a pity, whether there is an agreement or not, to go and complicate it by provisions of this kind.
LORD ADDINGTON: In view of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 65, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:
LORD SALTOUN: Before this clause is finally passed, I would like to ask the Government two questions. Clause 65 (1) sets out that:
"The harbours to which this section applies … are all harbours in Great Britain which are, or form part of, or abut

5
on, harbours not normally used only by pleasure steamers, yachts, fishing vessels, and vessels not required to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1940."
It seems to me that there may be some confusion about the words "abut on." For instance I do not think, at the moment, that the little port of Dunoon would be considered as abutting on either Glasgow or Rothesay. But I am wondering whether some words like "abut on the works of the harbours" instead of merely "abut on" are not called for here, because at a later period someone taking a vast view might think that almost anything abutted on the harbour with which he was concerned.
The other point is in regard to accepted harbours, which are defined as "harbours not normally used only by pleasure steamers, yachts, fishing vessels, and vessels not required to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1940." While the principal Act, of course, does contain a definition which I think will cover that, some people who know a great deal more about this than I do, have suggested that that would bring in what are mere piers. As I understand it, it seems to be clear that harbours normally used for the fishing trade are not brought into the Bill, and I should be very glad if the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill could give me a reply on those two points, and perhaps an assurance.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly have both points looked into and will inform the noble Lord as to the result. For my own part, I should have thought that the words "abut on" would be open to what might be called "commonsense interpretation" and would not be difficult to define, although I admit that I should be sorry to have to define them myself.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: There are three words or phrases which are often used in this connexion. One is "adjacent," another is "adjoining" and a third is "contiguous to." Perhaps one of those three might suit better than the words "abut on."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will make inquiries into these points, and if any alteration is necessary I will inform the noble Lord.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very much obliged.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
Clause 66:
Power to license provision of port facilities.
(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, any such licence may be granted by the licensing authority for such period and subject to such conditions (including conditions as to the charges to be made by the holder of the licence) as the licensing authority think fit, and may at any time be revoked by the licensing authority:
Provided that the licensing authority shall not refuse or revoke a licence under this section or impose any conditions thereon, unless, in their opinion, it is expedient so to do with a view to securing the better use of the harbour in the national interest or the economical improvement, maintenance or management thereof.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out "refuse or revoke a licence under this section or impose any conditions thereon." The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee may I suggest that the two Amendments standing in my name and the name of my noble friend, Viscount Swinton, on the marshalled list should be taken together, as the second one is really consequential upon the first. The object of the Amendments is to panicle for a minimum period of seven years for a licence to be granted under this clause for the carrying on of port facilities. As I understand that the Amendments are going to be accepted, I will not say anything further now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 37, delete from ("not") by ("unless") in line 39.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MORRISON: It may also be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that this Amendment and the following one will be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 42, at end insert:
("either—

(i) or revoke a licence under this section or impose any conditions thereon; or

(ii) without the consent of the applicant grant any licence for a period of less than seven years.")—(Lord Teynham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67:
Right to require acquisition of undertakings providing port facilities.
(3) Any such order shall apply to the transfer, with such exceptions and subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, the provisions of this Act relating to transfers of undertakings or parts of undertakings under Part III of this Act, including provisions as to compensation:
Provided that before making the order the Minister shall give the body specified in the declaration and the appellant an opportunity of being heard before a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose, and shall consider the report of the person so appointed.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), after "Provided that," to insert:
"(a) where the transfer is, in the opinion of the Minister, not comparable in the material respects with the form of transfer of the whole or part of an undertaking under Part III of this Act, the Order may provide—

(i) in the case of a transfer which, in the opinion of the Minister is comparable with the form of transfer of the whole or part of an undertaking effected under Part II of this Act, for compensation on a basis reasonably comparable, in his opinion, with that of the compensation provided under this Act in respect of that form of transfer; or

(ii) in any other case, for compensation in respect of the transfer, which in his opinion is proper compensation; and

(b)"
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 67 provides that where the tribunal are satisfied that their refusal to grant a licence for port facilities will involve a substantial interference with an ancillary activity the tribunal, on application by the appellant, may declare that the undertaking of the appellant, or some part of it, is to be transferred to the licensing authority or some other body. The object of this Amendment is to give the Minister power in appropriate cases to apply the same basis of compensation as has been laid down in Part III. The wording of this Amendment corresponds with the wording of Clause 36 which relates to the acquisition of carriers' undertakings. I understand that this Amendment may be accepted, and therefore I will not add anything further.
LORD MORRISON: The Amendment, I am pleased to say, will be accepted subject to the qualification that it may be necessary to review the wording slightly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are very much obliged. I think we all mean the same thing. We want compensation to be fair and reasonable and to be as analogous as possible to the compensation to be paid under other Parts of the Bill. But you might easily get a case which had something to do with a part taken over but which was not strictly analogous to a railway or road transport or anything else in the Bill. Then, I suppose, the only way of doing simple justice is to give the Minister discretion to apply what the lawyers call cy près. I think that is a very good arrangement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
Advisory Committee as to coastal skipping.
70.—(1) The Minister shall establish a Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee for the purpose of considering and from time to time reporting to the Minister on all matters which may jointly affect the interests of the Commission and those of persons engaged in coastal shipping.
(2) The said Committee shall consist—

(a) of such number of members representing the interests of persons engaged in coastal shipping as the Minister thinks fit, to be appointed by him after consultation with such body or bodies as he thinks fit, being a body or bodies who appear to him to be representative of those persons; and

(b) such number of representatives of the Commission as the Minister may determine, to be nominated by the Commission, of whom one at least shall be a member of the Commission;

Provided that the number of members of the Committee representing the interests of persons engaged in coastal shipping shall not be less than the number of representatives of the Commission on the said Committee.
(3) The Committee shall appoint their own chairman from among their own members and their procedure, including their quorum, shall be such as they may determine.
(4) If the Committee make a report to the Minister with respect to any matter, the Minister may give to the Commission such directions as he thinks fit as to the exercise of the Commission's powers with respect to that matter (being directions which, in his opinion, it is necessary that he should give for securing that efficient coastal shipping services are maintained to the extent which he considers is required in the national interest), and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
4.18 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (1), at the end, to insert:
"including in particular such matters arising during the preparation of drafts of charges

9
schemes by the Commission under Section seventy-five of this Act or on the consideration by the Commission of any alteration or review of charges schemes promoted under Sections seventy-eight and seventy-nine of this Act."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roche and myself I beg to move this Amendment which stands in our joint names. This clause deals with the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee which is set up in order to consider and report on all matters which may jointly affect coastal shipping, and the interests of the Commission. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to particularize and make quite certain that the matters that are to be considered and reported upon include the preparation, confirmation and review of charges schemes which are likely to affect coastal shipping. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 44, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This Amendment is akin to one which appears on the opposite page. That Amendment is an Amendment: to Clause 75 at page 89, line 22. The Committee will see that these are Amendments which are akin, and I am advised that they are completely unnecessary. If you will look at the wording of Clause 70 (1), which appears at the bottom of page 85, you will see that the Minister is to establish a Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee
"for the purpose of considering and from time to time reporting to the Minister on all matters which may jointly affect the interests of the Commission and those of persons engaged in coastal shipping."
I ask the Committee particularly to note the words "on all matters." I am sure that all the matters referred to in the noble Lord's Amendment would be matters that affected both sets of parties. The Amendment, therefore, is completely unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
LORD ROCHDALE: If the noble Viscount will give an assurance that the point raised in my Amendment is covered I will withdraw.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have given that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "persons," to insert "provided that each branch of coastal
10
shipping shall be represented on the Committee." The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee is to advise the Minister on matters jointly affecting the interests of the Commission and persons engaged in coastal shipping. Clause 123, the interpretation clause, indicates certain well-defined branches of coastal shipping—tramp, tanker, Irish Cross Channel—and the relation of each of these branches within sea transport varies considerably. It is of great importance that their views should be represented, and the purpose of the Amendment is to see that every branch should be represented on the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 7, after ("persons") insert ("provided that each branch of coastal shipping shall be represented on the Committee").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MORRISON: I am advised that the difficulty about accepting this Amendment is that it might give rise to endless arguments as to what are the branches. There might be, I am told, a cross between tankers and liners, and possibly sailing barge owners might claim to be included as well as passenger liners if they developed. The Minister responsible for general overseas shipping, including coastal shipping, will take steps to see that all main branches of coastal shipping are given adequate and proper representation, and if the noble Lord cares not to press his Amendment I can give an undertaking to that effect.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the assurance I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (4), after "Committee," to insert "or a majority of the members of the Committee representing the interests of persons engaged in coastal shipping." The noble Lord said: Under subsection (4) of this clause, the Minister cannot exercise his power of giving directions to the Commission for securing that efficient coastal shipping services are maintained unless he receives reports from the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee to be set up under the clause and then only in relation to matters on which a report is asked. It is important that

11
the Minister should be kept aware of the views of the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee and to ensure that a majority of members of the Committee representing coastal shipping should be able to make their Report to the Minister apart from the Committee as a whole. I am aware that in another place it was laid down that 50 per cent. of the Committee should be representative of coastal shipping. This does not go quite far enough. It would still be possible for representatives of the Commission on the Committee to prevent views of coastal shipping interests from reaching the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 19, after ("Committee") insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MORRISON: I hope the noble Lord will not see fit to pursue this Amendment. It seems to me to visualize a somewhat undesirable practice, with some members of the Committee having more power than others. Already 50 per cent. of the Committee will be representative of coastwise shipping, as the noble Lord said; and in addition the Committee has power to appoint its own Chairman. It seems to me that the picture the noble Lord has in his mind of the proceedings of this Committee is not what we all hope it will be. The Committee will be a body of sensible men who will reach sensible solutions on matters which may be in dispute between them. I am advised that in the opinion of the Government if a few of them should exercise more power than the others this might make difficulties in getting a good working Committee together. In these circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not persist.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Nobody wants to do anything which will in any way discourage the Committee from working as a harmonious team. On the other hand, the position is not quite what the Minister has stated it to be. Supposing you have two sides with no relations to the Minister, 50 per cent. on one side and 50 per cent. on the other, then his argument would be quite sound, that if you gave one 50 per cent. a chance of representing their views to the Minister and not the other, you would be putting the first 50 per cent. in a special position. But your Lordships will observe that the constitution of this Committee is not two lots of equal num-
12
bers, both independent of the Minister, or enjoying the same relations with him, but one is the shipowners who are outside, and the other is the Commission, who are responsible to the Minister and in daily touch with him, and would be in a position to represent their views to the Minister.
I do not want to encourage difficulties on this Committee, but it may be equally important to give to both sides a sense that they are going to be able to have their views fully represented. If the Commission always had the opportunity of presenting their views, where they differ, even in a matter about which the shipowners were unanimously in favour and the shipowners had not an opportunity of getting to the Minister, there might easily be a sense of unfairness, and I am not sure there would not be unfairness. What happens when the representatives of the Commission take one view and the shipowners collectively take a different view and you have fifty-fifty? It is true you have a Chairman appointed by the Committee. It may be wise to leave that to the Committee. The Committee could either appoint one of their number or have an entirely independent chairman.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, it must be from their own members, if the noble Viscount will look; but they can determine their own procedure.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Again we are in a rather funny position—unless this is put in. If a shipowner representative is chosen as chairman, under the ordinary procedure of committees if there is a tie the chairman has the casting vote. But if the chairman voted for the shipowners the representation would go to the Minister, and if he voted anti-shipowner the representation could never go to the Minister. The chairman may be in an invidious position. It may be putting an invidious duty on the chairman, and also putting rather a premium on either side getting the chairmanship. I am not trying to make dialectical difficulties, but I have had so much to do with working committees. I am not saying this is exactly how to do it but if the noble Viscount would like to consider the matter further perhaps my noble friend might reconsider his Amendment. I would not like to leave it as it is.
LORD MORRISON: I wonder whether the noble Viscount has envisaged the position that the Committee have powers to arrange their own business and might try having an alternate chairman for each meeting representing both sides. That is quite a practical method.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is quite common. They do it in U.N.O.
LORD MORRISON: I know also that the noble Viscount has no faith in what he calls Parliamentary assurances, but I can give an assurance that the Minister would not swamp the Committee with representatives of the Commission.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He could not do that under the Bill; they have to be fifty-fifty. Believe me, I am not accusing the Minister of anything. Anyway, if he wanted to do the wrong thing he could not do it—it has got to be fifty-fifty. I do not know whether he or the Commission appoint their people—I think he does —but they have to be fifty-fifty. I do not want to waste time over this, but I really would like it looked at between now and the Report stage in order to see whether some assurance can be given. If there is a perfectly genuine conflict of opinion, where the whole of the Commission's representatives take one view and the shipowners another view, it would be rather an important issue. It would be upon an issue where the coastwise shipping thought that something the Commission were proposing to do was inimical to coastwise shipping. I am quite sure the coastwise shipping people ought not to have the decision, and I am equally certain that the Commission ought not to have the decision. It is not just an issue between two people with conflicting interests, for the whole interests of the country are bound up with coastwise shipping. I think there is a genuine difficulty to be met here. I am quite content if it goes to the Minister—I am not quarrelling with that at all. I do think that in a conflict of opinion of this kind everything ought to get to the Minister, otherwise he would have only the Commission's view before him.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would like to add just a word, if I may. It seems to me that this clause does need a little amending, because it does obviously lead to the possibility that if the Commission and the members who represent the coast-
14
wise shipping take different views on arty subject, there may be a deadlock. The clause is important because the Minister is only given these directions under subsection (4) if the Committee make a report to the Minister. But suppose they cannot make a report because they are divided. Suppose one of the representatives of coastwise shipping takes a view which is not that of the majority. In that case they can never get their views before the Minister within the terms of the Bill, and it seems to me very desirable that those deadlocks should be avoided by some further Amendment to this clause.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We all want the thing to get to the Minister on an issue like this, because otherwise nothing may happen at all and that would be very unsatisfactory. I am quite content that the Minister should exercise all his functions. Suppose there is a complete divergence of opinion. I do not think it ought to rest with the chairman to give a casting vote. It might be very embarrassing for him whether he was permanent chairman or not. I think if words could be considered to say that where there was a fifty-fifty division of opinion—and for that reason there could not be a report to the Minister—there should be a report setting out both conflicting views and leaving it to the Minister; that would meet the point.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We will certainly consider that point. Of course the fifty-fifty point mentioned by the noble Viscount would not necessarily arise under this Amendment. I cannot imagine myself that any sensible Committee, making a report to the Minister, would not report the divergence of views. However, we will look at it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I rather agree. This seems to me to be the obvious thing in a rather peculiar position.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the fact that the Government are willing to consider a rewording on the Report stage, I do not propose to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We will consider whether we think a rewording is necessary, but we are not pledging ourselves to a rewording.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill:
EARL HOWE: On the question whether Clause 70 be agreed to, I want to ask His Majesty's Government a question. As your Lordships probably know, there are a certain number of foreign ships engaged in coastal shipping. What I want to find out is what will be the position of the foreign ships in the coastal shipping traffic. Will, for instance, those responsible for British coastal shipping be regulated, co-ordinated, directed, and all the rest, while the foreigners will be left free?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I cannot imagine that happening at all. I am quite sure that what applies to coastal shipping would apply to coastal shipping generally. I will certainly look into the point and obtain an assurance for the noble Earl, but I am quite sure that would be the case.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Renaming of, and other provisions as to, Railway Rates Tribunal]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I understand that in order to widen the scope of the tribunal so as to include persons who may be users, it is necessary that the words proposed in the next Amendment should be inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 2, at end, insert ("the words 'upon the railways' shall be omitted and").—(Viscount Addison.)—
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73:
Transfer of jurisdiction of High Court, etc.
(2) On any such application the tribunal may make such order as may be just, and, save as expressly provided by this Act, no other court shall have jurisdiction in the case of any such contravention as aforesaid.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (2)—namely, after "jurisdiction," to insert "save by way of appeal under Section seventeen of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as applied by Section twenty-six of the Railways Act, 1921."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: In the absence of the noble Viscount, may I make a statement here? I consulted the noble Viscount about this and, of course, without presuming to commit him, I think he agreed with me that if you look at
16
page 145, paragraph (5), it is almost in the same words and the point is really covered.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This is a highly complicated legal point, and I think we had better leave it for the present.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
4.38 p.m.
Clause 75:
Charges schemes.
75. The Commission shall from time to time prepare, and submit to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation, drafts of schemes (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "charges schemes") for determining, as respects the services and facilities provided by the Commission to which the schemes respectively relate—

(a) the charges which are to be made by the Commission; and

(b) where it is necessary or expedient so to do, the other terms and conditions which are to be applicable to the provision of those services and facilities, including, in particular, terms and conditions as to the liability of the Commission for loss or damage,

and it shall be the duty of the Commission, within two years from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow, to prepare and submit the draft of a scheme or, as the case may be, drafts of a series of schemes, relating or together relating to all the services and facilities provided by the Commission which the Commission are of opinion should be dealt with by charges schemes or which the Minister may direct to be so dealt with.
LORD BEVERIDGE: The Amendment standing in my name on page 89, line 20, to leave out certain words at the end of the clause, has its effect fully covered and, if I may say so, much better covered by the Amendment which follows immediately on the Paper standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Therefore I do not move my Amendment. I shall support their Amendment when it is moved.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out "which," where that word occurs a fourth time ["which the Commission"] and insert: "under paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of Section two of this Act and such other of the services and facilities provided by the Commission as." The noble Lord said: I confess that I had hoped the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, would have explained

17
the purpose of the Amendment, but unfortunately he has left it to me. Clause 75 is rather complicated to my way of thinking, although I have no doubt it is quite clear to the legal brain. I do find it rather difficult to understand because it begins by saying,
"The Commission shall from time to time prepare, and submit to the Transport Tribunal for confirmation, drafts of schemes … for determining … the charges"
Then it goes on to say that they shall prepare a draft, and later on it says:
"and it shall be the duty of the Commission, within two years … to prepare and submit the draft of a scheme …"
What the Amendment in the name of my noble friend and myself seeks to procure is to lay the duty upon the Commission to prepare charges schemes within two years in respect of (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 2 of the Bill.
If your Lordships will just look at Clause 2, your Lordships will see that that is the clause which gives the Commission power, in subsection 1 (a), "to carry goods and passengers by rail, road and inland waterway"; in (b), "to provide, within Great Britain, port facilities and facilities for traffic by inland waterway"; and in (c), "to store goods within Great Britain …" The remaining paragraphs (d) (e) and (f) deal with ancillary matters. I must confess that since this Amendment was put upon the Paper I have had some doubts whether it is really in the best form, because it seems to me, quite frankly, to give the Commission a duty to do certain things, and if we leave the words in it gives them a complete freedom whether they will do those things or not. I am not entirely satisfied with the wording, but I think it best to move the Amendment in this form and see what the Minister has to say about it. I rather hope something of the kind will appeal to the Government, because I think they want these charges schemes prepared within two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 20, leave out ("which") and insert ("under paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of Section two of this Act and such other of the services and facilities provided by the Commission as").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Subject to possible modifications in the wording, we are prepared to accept the two Amendments of the noble Lord, which really hang
18
together. We have a little doubt whether paragraph (c), which deals with storage, is applicable, as a vast number of people in all kinds of ways might be affected by storage. With that reservation, and subject to consultation with the noble Lord if any alteration is necessary, we are prepared to accept the two Amendments.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would the noble Viscount prefer that I withdraw the Amendment now?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No. We are prepared to accept them, subject to the reservations which I have mentioned.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg to move the next Amendment, which I understand to be included in the acceptance of the noble Viscount.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 21 leave out from ("schemes") to end of clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 agreed to.
4.44 p.m.
Clause 77:
Confirmation of charges schemes.
(2) An objection to a draft scheme or any other representation with respect thereto may be lodged by any of the following bodies, that is to say—

(a) any body representative of any class of persons using the services or facilities to which the scheme will relate;

(b) any body constituted for the purposes of any scheme for the carrying on, under national ownership or control, of any industry or part of an industry or of any undertaking, being a body using the said services or facilities.

(4) Any scheme confirmed by the tribunal shall be published in such manner as may be specified by the tribunal in confirming the scheme and shall come into force on such date or dates as may be so specified; and the scheme shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any statutory provision.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD: moved, in subsection (2) (a), after the first "any," to insert: "persons or class of persons or any." The noble Lord said: In moving

19
this Amendment, which stands in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Selkirk and Lord Rothes, and myself, I should like, first of all, to say that it is one of a series of Amendments dealing more or less with the same subject. Perhaps it would be convenient to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill if I mention the other Amendments at the same time, so that he will know to which I refer. They include the one immediately following, page 90, line 38. There is also an Amendment being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, which is slightly wider but covers rather the same subject. Then there is an Amendment to Clause 78, page 91, line 31, and there are two to Clause 79, page 92, line 44, and page 93, line 5. If I could say a word about all those Amendments together, I think it would save the time of the Committee.
The general purpose of these Amendments is to give the independent operator a reasonable right to make representations about charges schemes to the Transport Tribunal; that is to say, in regard to fares charged by the Commission, or any body set up under Clause 63, in respect of passenger road transport services which affect another operator. If the independent operator does not have this right, I think he might well be unfairly treated, in that there might be different fares charged, or unfair competition, along the same route or in the same area. At the present time the Commission have the right to appeal to the Traffic Commissioners against the fares being charged by the independent operator, but the independent operator has no right to appeal to the Transport Tribunal in respect of fares charged by the Commission. We feel that the best answer would be that all fares should be subject to the Traffic Commission, but I do not think I need argue that now, as a great deal has already been said upon it. But I think it is only right, in fairness to the independent operator, that this Amendment should be accepted, as it puts both the Commission and the independent operator in a position to appeal if they think there is anything in the fares being charged which is against their interests.
I feel sure the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill desires to give the independent operator as fair a deal as possible, and I hope that he will feel able to accept
20
this Amendment. I would like to say that if the noble Viscount feels that the particular Amendment which I am moving is drawn rather widely, the Amendment immediately following, or the second one, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, would meet the case. We would prefer that this Amendment should be accepted, but if not, perhaps the noble Viscount will consider the following Amendment, so far as the road transport is concerned, or the noble Lord, Lord Teynham's Amendment with regard to its application to other people beside the road transport operator. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 31, after the first ("any") insert ("persons or class of persons or any").—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Might I perhaps ask the Committee if they would be willing to consider this group of Amendments together? I think there are no fewer than ten relating to the same kind of question of appeal to the Transport Tribunal; then there is a group which relates to a class of persons; there is another Amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, to Clause 78, which deals substantially with the same point; and there is a further Amendment by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, in the same words, but relating to Clause 79, page 92, line 44. All those Amendments deal substantially with the same point relating to "person" or "persons." There is also another group, three in number, dealing with persons providing passenger road transport services, whose interests will be affected. There is the one moved by the noble Lord himself—on page 90, line 38. Another in the same words, relating to Clause 78, deals with alterations; and a third relating to Clause 79, and dealing with review, is in exactly the same words. And there is a further Amendment, also in the name of the noble Lord opposite, which is somewhat wider still. I suggest that it would be convenient that we should discuss the whole of these at once.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that would be most convenient. We had better deal with the whole three, and decide what we should do with them. I fully accept that suggestion.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We have given a great deal of thought to these Amendments and we are very anxious to be fair and at the same time not to cumber up the Tribunal with an impossible number of applications or objections which might delay its findings, not for months merely, but for years. We have to be careful about that. I understand, for instance, that the Railway Rates Tribunal need something like two years before they can wade through all the various applications. Therefore, so far as persons are concerned, I do not think it would he reasonable to insert an Amendment of that kind, because if the word "persons" is there anybody might come who might have had trouble over a parcel on the railway or something of that sort, and an unimaginable complexity of complaints and appeals would arise. Therefore, I think in any case, whatever we contemplate, it ought to be limited to a body which is the bona fide representative of an interest, rather than open to individual persons, which would make the proceedings of the Tribunal impossible. It should be a responsible body representing a group of persons.
As the case is at present, as the noble Lord justly said, representations are confined—Clause 77, subsection (2)—to a body representative of any class of persons using a service. Then, in paragragh (b), there are the words "any body constituted for the purposes of army scheme for the carrying on under national ownership or control … being a body using the said services … "Therefore, it does not, as it stands, cover the kind of case which I gather is in the minds of noble Lords opposite. I understand that what they are thinking of is that where the Commission provide a scheme to take over road passenger services by which another person or body of persons is affected, those persons might say "this body is putting the fares too low and we should have an opportunity of being heard."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Or too high.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Or too high. But that is not so easy to imagine, and surely it would enhance their profits.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Or drive the users all on to the railways.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: As the noble Lord says, it may make a difference as between road and railway. But the point we are now considering is that noble
22
Lords are wishful that persons who are carrying on transport, whose interests would be prejudiced by the scheme of the Tribunal, should be given arm opportunity of being heard. That is really what, it comes to. I think we have to avoid any repetition of the endless proceedings which I understand took place before we had the Railway Rates Tribunals. I think that any body of persons prejudicially affected, or thinking they are so, must be represented by a responsible body. There cannot be casual or accidental appeals, otherwise the Commission would be inundated. I think the point is a fair one, but we have to meet it sensibly, and not to make the proceedings of the Tribunal impossible.
If a man says this scheme is going to put him out of business, before the scheme is adopted he is entitled to have his say. I think that could be accepted as a general principle of fairness. We are anxious to see what we can devise, and to meet what is really the essential point covered by these Amendments. I have had a provisional statement drafted out since we discussed the matter earlier in the day, and we might perhaps consider this: that representative bodies of providers of transport, other than the Commission—that is the point—shall have the right to apply to the Tribunal for a locus to be heard in regard to charges schemes relating to the services with which they have to compete, on the ground that charges are unduly low; and that representative bodies of users of services of the Commission other than those to which the particular charge scheme applies shall have the right to apply to the Tribunal to be heard on a review. That is in Section 79. It would be only on the ground of a charges scheme being unduly low, as a result of which traders using other services might pay too much. That is the suggestion which I make, to try to meet the point in fairness without making the proceedings of the Tribunal impossible. I hope that noble Lords will be willing to consider it.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am sure we on this side are very grateful for the noble Lord's statement. This group of Amendments is really very complicated. The Amendments raise a vast subject, and I think it will be to the greater convenience of your Lordships if I deal with the three Amendments—one on Clause 77, one on

23
Clause 78, and one on Clause 79. As the Bill is drawn, the Commission could make charges for services and facilities at the railway and canal ports, but they might not put these charges at a proper economic level to attract traffic to these ports. It is quite obvious that the rates and charges which are on an official basis might have the most serious effect on independent ports. I think that the port under the control of the Commission should make their rates relate to the others. At the present time, the docks and harbour undertakings are not controlled by the railways. They have the right to make representations to the Railways and Canal Commission. The Railways and Canal Commission now becomes the Transport Tribunal, and they have been able to make representation on the subject of adequate charges by the railway companies for competitive services. Under this Bill there is no provision at all for independent docks and harbour undertakings to make representations to the Transport Tribunal, which of course is to replace the Railway Rates Tribunal.
The object of the Amendment is to give independent docks and harbour undertakings the right to appear before the Tribunal if they wish to object to a charges scheme, but I should like to point out again to you that Clause 77 and the two following Clauses, 78 and 79, are all confined to the right of appearance before the Transport Tribunal of users of the services or facilities which are the subject of a charges scheme. That would give no right to persons providing competitive facilities such as canal carriers, warehouse keepers, lightermen and barge owners irrespective of the fact that such persons and organizations may be adversely affected by the contents of a charges scheme. This Amendment is devised to cover those interests as well as docks and harbour undertakings. If we go a little further and take the case of the canal carriers, they will be unable to appear before the Transport Tribunal unless this Amendment is accepted, although a charges scheme might affect their operation and might even drive them out of business. It is true that an Amendment was agreed to in another place to Clause 36 whereby, if a licence were refused to canal undertakings, they could apply to be taken over by the Commission, but this is no safeguard for a carrier driven
24
out of business by an unfair charges scheme which may have no relation at all to the economic level of the operation. It is only fair that a canal carrier should have the right to appear before the Transport Tribunal to argue his case.
There is also the case of the warehouse-keeper to be considered. Under Clause 2, subsection (1) (c), the Commission are given power to store goods, and in fact will be able to operate an extensive warehousing business. It would be possible, if not probable, for the Commission to make charges which are not necessarily related to the economic level but perhaps on a cut-price basis to attract business. Therefore, warehouse-keepers should also have the right to make representations to the Transport Tribunal on any matters affecting warehouse charges and services embodied in a charges scheme. Lighter-men are affected by this clause, and they might find themselves in the same position in relation to the Commission as the canal carriers; they should also have the same right to appear before the Transport Tribunal. But, apart from these matters they might be directly concerned with the quotation of a through rate in a charges scheme to and from a port which might be proposed by the Commission. This through rate would be partly met by charges to lighterage services provided by the Commission at a rate which did not represent the true values of the economic level of the services; therefore, this is an additional reason I think for lightermen and barge-owners to have the right to appear before the Transport Tribunal.
I should like to point out that the words "or similar to or comparable with services or facilities which are ancillary or subsidiary to the services or facilities to which the scheme will relate," which were adopted in the Amendment, have been included to cover cases where a through rate embodied in the charges scheme is partly made up of the charges for services and the facilities for a dock controlled by the Commission, like the railway docks, and will enable an independent dock authority to object to the Transport Tribunal on the grounds that part of the through rate charged by the Commission and controlled by them was unduly low and could not be justified as an economic level. The point of all these things is the basis of economic level. Under Clause 76, subsection (1) (d), there is a provision that in special cases persons affording services

25
or facilities, in competition with the Commission are able to make representations to the Transport Tribunal, but I should like to point out that, in addition to the reservation for special cases, the right of appeal would be dependent on the discretion of the Commission and there is no machinery that I can see in the Bill whereby an interested person can appeal against an order of the Tribunal which does not recognize this right of representation. The Amendment has been widely drawn in order to be of general application and to prevent any suggestion that certain interests are being considered or preferred. It is merely to ensure what is right and equitable and that interests affected by a charges scheme should not be denied the right of appearance before the Tribunal. I am afraid this is a very complicated set of Amendments but I hope that I have made my points clear.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like also to thank the Government for this very genuine effort to get the right solution of what we all agree is a problem that must be solved. I should say at once that, as regards the user, there ought to be a representation for the user and that you cannot have every user in the country going to the Tribunal. I do not think that ought to be a difficult thing to arrange. It was difficult to follow when it was read out, but there was one point on which I ventured to interrupt the Leader of the House on the reading of his suggested words. He seems to think that the only objection that would be likely to be taken would be taken if the fares were too low. The user would not be likely to take objection if the fares were too low—no, but I think it is just as likely that the provider of alternative transport might easily object, and have a right and duty to object, if he thinks the fares are too high.
After all, what is the purpose of this? You are now in this large combine going to assemble the whole of the railways and a very large part of the passenger road transport and road haulage transport in this country. One of the objects very clearly in this plan is that under the name of "co-ordination" a great deal of traffic may be put back on to the railways; in fact the railways have got to be made to pay. That can be done in one of two ways under this combination. It can be done by taking a large part of the profit which
26
is made by the Commission's road haulage and paying that in to reduce or or eliminate the deficit upon the railways. On the other hand, in the rates which are proposed to the Tribunal, it may easily be that the Commission will propose that the road rates shall be put deliberately high in order to attract the traffic back to the railways and that a rate may be imposed which is far higher than the permitted independent operator could quote.
The duty of the Tribunal is to hear all these objections and to come to a conclusion. I venture to dwell on that because I am sure the noble Lord will agree that that is indeed a contingency to be guarded against, although not to be prejudged. I am not seeking to pre-judge anything, but I suggest that certainly the Tribunal should have all this before it, and should have before it proper representation of the people who are affected, be they the suppliers of the transport or the users of the transport. Therefore, I am sure when we come to settle words we must not limit ourselves to objections to charges on the ground that they are too low; we must be equally able to object to charges which are too high. All these kinds of people, I think, who are dealt with in this Amendment are to-day entitled —are they not?—to appear before the Railway Rates Tribunal.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yet I would have thought that certainly prima facie anybody who is to-day entitled to appear before the Railway Rates Tribunal ought to be able to appear before the Transport Tribunal, unless the Government can show that such right of representation has been abused. But, there again, the right way of dealing with that is not to cut out the kind of person who has had the right to appear, but to vest in the Tribunal the right to refuse to hear frivolous applications. There may be a body which ought to be heard, and there may be other people whose application might be too frivolous because they were undoubtedly small. Therefore, I would say that prima facie anybody who has had a standing before the Railway Rates Tribunal ought to have a standing before the Transport Tribunal. That may not carry us the whole way because, whereas the Railway Rates Tribunal has had jurisdiction only over railway rates, this Transport

27
Tribunal is going to have a complete jurisdiction over not only railway rates, but over road haulage and all road passenger transport which the Commission thinks it right to put before the Transport Tribunal in its general structure of rates.
I am not at all sure that the thing does not, as it now stands, expand and go a great deal further. It may go to all these storage charges, it may also, directly or indirectly, greatly affect dock charges as well. Obviously, provided you get the people who are to have a standing before this tribunal—solid, substantial, representative people—then quite clearly there ought to be a standing for every class of person who is likely to be affected, or can be adversely affected by this plan. Provided these matters are all taken into consideration—and I think we really mean the same thing on this—then I do not think it ought to be difficult for us to find a right form of words.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I am sure the Committee ought to be grateful to the Leader of the House for taking these Amendments together. I am satisfied with his answer in regard to my Amendment, and when the time comes I shall not move that Amendment. I am sure we all agree that it ought to be possible for any user who has a real interest to find a body to represent him. While I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in, my name, I would like to support the argument that has been made from the Front Opposition Bench for making it quite certain that all the different types of transport undertakings which will be in competition with one another and with the Commission have a fair opportunity of going before the Transport Tribunal. That was, in fact, the object of the Amendment which has just been accepted, requiring charges schemes to be made more general, because it is only when there is a charges scheme that the Transport Tribunal comes in. That was the object of the Amendment which was accepted on Clause 75. So far as I am concerned, provided that the Government realize, as I think they do, the necessity of giving confidence that there is going to be fair treatment and fair opportunity before the Tribunal for all the different forms of transport undertakings which compete with the Commission, I personally would leave it
28
to them to find the appropriate words for securing this. At any rate, I shall not move my own Amendment. I hope they will find words which do give complete confidence that there is going to be a fair and equal opportunity both for getting high enough rates and for getting low enough rates for all the different forms of transport before the Transport Tribunal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Viscount has been so reasonable in meeting this matter that I hope he will not mind my making this suggestion. I do feel, however, that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was making it a little too narrow in confining it to competing for too low a fare. There are one or two other considerations that arise, and probably others that one can think of. First of all, we are going to have the country divided up into fifty-mile circles, or twenty-five mile circles, as was originally stated in the Bill. All the people in those circles are going to be dependent upon transport. They are, therefore, not competing, but they are extremely interested in the fares at which goods and passengers are delivered. If I may take an obvious example, take Inverness. There is only one way of getting there, substantially, and that is by rail. There is a considerable tourist interest there, and it may be that with the development of hydro-electric power there may be an industrial centre there. They are quite interested in the cost at which deliveries are made.
In Clause 76 (1) (e) there are the words "in all or any cases, leave to the Commission the determination of the charges." That means to say that the charges can be determined over a very wide area by the Commission without reference to the Tribunal. No doubt that will meet the point of congestion of work. Under the schemes which arise under Clauses 62 and 63, there are a great variety of methods to be employed. I do not think anyone knows yet what the plan of the executive is going to be, but may I take the case, for instance, of a local authority? A local authority may very well be asked to carry on its own transport. Is that local authority not going to have proper access to the Transport Tribunal which will ultimately govern its rates? It surely is interested both in regard to high and low rates, and I think definitely that such

29
an organization should be given an opportunity of appearance and representation before the Tribunal.
There is one other point which I would like to refer to, if I may, on the same lines, and that is in Clause 64 which says that the Commission may provide a service "under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act or otherwise." The noble Viscount did not recognize the word "otherwise"; but it is there and it means to say that a scheme can be provided or transport permitted under almost any scheme under any system in the world, and I think that anyone in that position should be allowed to have access to the Tribunal.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am grateful for the way in which my suggestion, which was made in the very best faith, has been received. Of course, we have to remember that the Commission have got to make their scheme a scheme that will pay. They cannot deliberately make it uneconomic. Another consideration which we must have in mind is that a scheme must not be made such that the tribunal's proceedings will be so encumbered with all manner of representations that it will become virtually impossible for them to conclude those proceedings within any reasonable time. I understand with regard to the Railway Rates Tribunal that an altogether unreasonable time has been taken up in dealing with a number of appeals, many of which were not really necessary for consideration. We have to frame a scheme which will make this at all events workable. With that proviso, I say that I am quite sure that I am at one with the noble Lords opposite in my desire to try to secure that a body of responsible people, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, shall have a chance of stating their case when they think that a scheme prejudicially affects them. I do not wish to be tied down legally to a form of words but that is what I mean.
I am not quite sure whether the objection of the noble Viscount as to a charge being low is really very valid. If a scheme of charges were fixed which was too high as regards rates for road transport versus rail, it would be their scheme of charges. If any other contractor was able to operate on those roads, then he could make his own charges, provided he was not in the scheme. It would be open for those not
30
in the scheme to benefit by the charges if these were too high. I cannot see how they would be prejudiced. I am willing to have this matter looked at fairly, but I must say that the only case I can imagine where people would be prejudiced is where the charges were fixed too low. I cannot imagine their being prejudiced otherwise. I will have this looked at with the best of good will. I am not to be tied to these particular words, as I say, but I cannot see where that sort of case is likely to arise. I will consult with noble Lords opposite and others as to a suitable alternative form of words a long time before we get to the Report stage. There will be no immediate hurry about this. But we are sympathetic and wishful that responsible persons who feel that they may be prejudiced by the scheme of charges, should be given a chance of stating their case. With the co-operation of noble Lords opposite I will try to do as I have stated.
LORD GIFFORD: In common with other noble Lords responsible for the Amendment at present before the Committee, I should like to express with great sincerity our thanks to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for having so readily accepted in principle that it was fair that the other road transport operators should have an opportunity of making representations before the Transport Tribunal.
There are just a few other points I would like to make before withdrawing the Amendment. The first is this. The noble Viscount, I think, said that sometimes a case is before the Railway Rates Tribunal for as long as two years. With all due respect, I do not think that anything like that would be the case with regard to road transport affairs. The issues would be far more simple, and would be of a character which could be decided fairly quickly. As to my second point, I should like to give one instance as to how I think the question of objection to high fares might arise. On several roads in the vicinity of big towns, road transport operators at present often have a minimum fare, in order, sometimes, to protect the municipal vehicles operating in the same area. Supposing, under a scheme, the Commission took over a certain route, ran, say, three-quarters of the vehicles on that route, and the Commission decided to put on a minimum fare

31
on that route in order to protect, we will say, a suburban railway covering the same distance. That minimum fare might easily drive a very large number of passengers away from the independent operator. So, if I might suggest it, perhaps the noble Viscount would agree that instead of using the word "low" we might use some such form of words as "not unreasonable fares."
Just one other point also. The noble Viscount said, there will be nothing to prevent the independent operator charging a different fare if he likes. I do not think that the Traffic Commissioner would agree to the independent operator charging a different fare over the same route. Indeed, I am sure of that. So the independent operator would be affected as well as the Commission. With those few words, and in view of the assurance which the noble Viscount has given us we may be able to get together upon this whole series of Amendments, and after consideration produce some concrete Amendment between now and the Report stage, I now beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (4), at the end to insert "relating to the subject matter of the scheme."
The noble Lord said: This really deals with another point than that concerned in the general discussion which we have just had. I understand that the noble Viscount is going to accept this Amendment, so I will not take up the time of the Committee by speaking upon it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 9, at end insert ("relating to the subject matter of the scheme").—(Lord Rochdale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
5.28 p.m.
Clause 78 [Alteration of charges scheme]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendments are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 9, leave out ("as is mentioned") and insert ("or other persons as are specified").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 13, leave out ("as is mentioned") and insert ("or other persons as are specified.")—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 18, after ("body") insert ("or other person.")—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79:
Review of charges schemes.
(3) Representations may be lodged with the tribunal under this section by the following bodies, that is to say—

(a) any body representative of any class of persons making use of the services or facilities to which the scheme relates; or

LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (3) (a), after "persons" to insert "not being themselves providers of transport for hire or reward". The noble Lord said: The two Amendments that stand in the names of my noble Friend, Viscount Falmouth, and myself, are, I think, outside the general discussion which we have just had. That discussion as I understood it, dealt only with representations of providers of transport. These two deal with users of transport. I think that perhaps I can best explain my Amendment, and save time, by giving a simple instance. As the clause now stands, a user who carries his goods, shall we say, between point A and point B by rail can make representation when questions of confirmation of schemes that affect his trade come up, when they relate also to that particular form of transport—namely, rail transport. But if schemes come up for confirmation, whether they relate to road or to canal transport, between the same two places and which may indirectly affect the same trader, he has no right of representation. The first Amendment is really consequential on the second amendment, which was covered by the large series of Amendments which we have just been discussing.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 44, after ("persons") insert ("not being themselves providers of transport for hire or reward").—(Lord Rochdale.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that the point in the first Amendment is covered by the arrangement already come to. With regard to the second Amendment, to insert the words "or affected by" after the words "making use of," in line 45, we are disposed to accept that in principle, but I do not like the words "affected by." They are rather too wide in scope. Would the noble Lord be willing to withdraw his Amendment and allow us to consider alternative words in consultation with him?
LORD ROCHDALE: I would like to explain that the first Amendment was inserted for the very reason he himself objected to the second one—because it was too wide. I thank the noble Viscount and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80:
Locus standi of local authorities as regards charges schemes.
80. Any reference in this Part of this Act to any body representative of any class of persons using services or facilities shall, in relation to passenger transport services provided by the Commission, include a reference to any local authority within whose area any persons using those services are resident.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved to leave out "in relation to passenger transport services provided by the Commission." The noble Lord said: My Amendment seeks to leave out words that limit the right of local authorities to make representation in regard to passenger services only. As the clause stands, local authorities have no right to make representations about the charges in so far as they relate to goods transport, which is left entirely to associations representing traders. Local authorities have the right, under the present law, to make representations regarding both passenger and goods services under Section 78 of the Railways Act, 1921, and in view of the discussions we recently had it seemed to be agreed that all rights of representation should be preserved under this Bill. I contend that these local authorities are in a better position than any other body to represent the consumers, because the consumers, whether passenger or trader, are ratepayers of one or other local authority. It is to the local authority the ordinary man and woman in the street
34
naturally go to represent their interests. This Amendment is designed to retain for local authorities the right to be heard on all charges, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 24, leave out from ("shall") to ("include") in line 25. —(Lord Addington.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry we cannot accept the Amendment as moved. It would mean in every case including representatives of local authorities. There must be many cases in which local authorities would not be concerned at all, and I should point out to the noble Lord that the local authorities, so far as they ate users of any form of transport, are already fully provided for in the clause we have just passed, which provides for a body representative of users. There is also a special statutory provision that they are required to be consulted, in regard to passenger conveyance. These words go too far and would involve the local authorities in everything, which is not desired by anybody—not even by the local authorities.
LORD ADDINGTON: The point is that the ordinary man in the street who has a case about excessive charges has nobody but the local authority to represent him, and it is as the representative of ordinary persons that the local authorities ought to be able to make representation. They have this right at present under the Railway Rates Tribunal. You are taking away their present rights in regard to goods charges. But I will not press my point, although it is one to which the Minister might give more consideration before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after Clause 80, to insert the following new clause:
".Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act the fares to be charged by:

(a) the Commission in respect of passenger road transport services provided by them otherwise than under Part II of this Act, and

(b) any person other than the Commission in respect of passenger road transport services provided by him under a scheme under Section sixty-two of this Act,

35
shall be approved by the appropriate licensing authority for public service vehicles, and sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, shall apply accordingly:
Provided that the licensing authority shall so far as may be give effect to any relevant charges scheme made under Part V of this Act and relating to such fares, and in respect of operators of passenger road transport services other than the Commission or such person as aforesaid shall have regard to such charges scheme in exercising its powers under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of Section seventy-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and the Licensing Authority shall likewise give effect to the provisions of any scheme made under Sections 62 and 63 of this Act in so far as such provisions are relevant in exercising its powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1930."
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this new clause in the form in which it appears in the Supplementary List. I sent it down very early in the morning, but the clerks were even earlier than I was and the Marshalled List was out. That was a very creditable performance. Your Lordships will remember that the House has already decided that the local licensing authorities, which have the jurisdiction they have hitherto possessed as regional licensing authorities, both in regard to passenger road transport and goods road transport, shall have that jurisdiction over both Commission and independent undertakings. I explained to the House that the rates and fares may be dealt with under a rates scheme submitted by the Commission to the Transport Tribunal and approved by that Tribunal, which will act under the clauses we have just been discussing. When asking the House to accept the proposal, I said that while the licensing authorities should maintain and secure jurisdiction over both Commission and independent operators, I thought it would be right and proper that they should be bound to give effect to any charges scheme which was in operation and approved by the Transport Tribunal.
We also discussed the effect upon the proposals which the Committee passed with regard to passenger road transport schemes. These are schemes of a different kind from those under the clause we have passed. I suggested then that such a scheme having been approved by Parliament should be binding upon the local licensing authorities in so far as it affects them. It would be likely to affect them only in general directives, because I think
36
everybody agrees that it would be quite impossible for a scheme to embrace every bus service that was to run on every route, and every variant of it. But in so far as the scheme does affect the area, then the local licensing authorities ought to be subject to that scheme. Therefore, your Lordships will see that the proposed new clause, as it now stands, reads:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary … the fares to be charged by (a) the Commission … and (b) any person other than the Commission … shall be approved by the appropriate licensing authority for public service vehicles."
That is entirely consequential upon what your Lordships have already passed. Then there comes the dual proviso:
"Provided that the licensing authority shall so far as may be give effect to any relevant charges scheme made under Part V of this Act and relating to such fares"—
those are the clauses we have just been discussing—
"and in respect of operators of passenger road transport services other than the Commission or such person as aforesaid shall have regard to such charges scheme."
Then, two lines further on it says:
"and the Licensing Authority shall likewise give effect to the provisions of any scheme made under sections 62 and 63 of this Act in so far as such provisions are relevant in exercising its powers under the Road Traffic Act 1930."
This is consequential in its first part, and I think it carries out the two undertakings I ventured to offer to the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 80, insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD GIFFORD: In supporting this Amendment, which appears jointly in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself, I should like to say that we have endeavoured, in its wording, to meet what has been said by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, earlier in this debate. I think it is true to say that it in no way restricts the general direction of the Commission with regard to fares or charges schemes made by the Transport Tribunal set up by the Commission. For instance, if the Commission decide to give a general direction that all fares should be raised 10 per cent., then such a direction can be given effect to under this clause. Perhaps I may comment on five words which may not be quite clear to the noble Viscount opposite. They are

37
"so far as may be" at the beginning of the last paragraph on the first sheet of the Amendment. I think those words are commonly used in a Bill of this kind to indicate that you must have an exact penny or halfpenny. If there is a direction that the fares can be raised 10 per cent., the answer may come out to 2⅔d., or something of that sort, and in this case it would be to the nearest halfpenny. Those words are put in to cover that point.
I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this clause, because it does not in any way hamstring the Commission but, under the general umbrella of the Commission and the Transport Tribunal, it does allow fares to be settled locally by the Traffic Commissioners. As has been said before, no large independent road transport undertaking would attempt to settle fares in London or centrally—it must be done locally. The Traffic Commission control the existing operators as regards the fares, and I think they should control the Commission in that respect as well. Of course, the public have effective redress, even in the smallest towns, because the twelve area Traffic Commissioners, in a way, go on circuit, so that everybody has a fair chance of stating their case. Finally, I would like to make this cardinal point. Whereas rail fares are uniform, passenger road transport fares really must be settled locally. In same parts it is as low as a half-penny a mile, and in other parts it is very much higher. I think this clause really meets the general scheme, and also enables local fares to be settled locally, as should be done.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I regret that I have not seen the noble Viscount's printed slip until just now.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is exactly the same except for the last four lines. The only new part is the part which begins, "and the licensing authority shall likewise give effect."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Your Lordships are aware—and we made it abundantly clear when an Amendment was carried against us the other day—that we cannot accept the position that the scheme, made by the Commission and ultimately embodied in an order approved by Parliament, shall be subject to alteration by the licensing authorities. I do not know whether that is fully covered by the
38
words which the noble Viscount has added.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope it is, but if it is not, then clearly, so far as we are concerned, it would be quite unacceptable. The Tribunal is charged to prepare schemes covering the whole area. It is really quite unthinkable that you might have a scheme altering one route, and not altering another one. It would cease to be an economical self-supporting scheme. If that kind of thing were done, it seems to cause a completely impossible situation. It may be that the noble Viscount's words rule that out. I have seen them only in the last five minutes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: They have been circulated.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have them on the Order Paper, of course, and I have studied them very carefully. So far as we understand them, it would leave the way open for divergence by licensing authorities which would upset the scheme of the Commission altogether. In any case, we cannot accept the position that the Endings of the Commission, embodied in orders approved by Parliament shall be subjected to local licensing authorities at all. I am afraid that we may perhaps differ fundamentally. All I can say is that, on the general principle, so far as I understand it, and if the schemes are accepted, I cannot quite see what the noble Viscount is getting at or what there is left to deal with. I cannot understand what there is left about which the noble Viscount is concerned. Further, I would suggest that as your Lordships carried the other Amendment contrary to our wishes, if this is introduced in this way we shall simply say "Not content" and not divide. It must be subject to review. It is no good repeating our discussion.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount has made it necessary for me to say a word or two, because it would be most unfortunate if we were not all quite clear, first of all, upon what we have already decided, and secondly, upon what I am asking the Committee to decide on this. The draft has been carefully prepared. I put the further Amendment in last Friday, and it has been in the possession of your Lordships since Saturday morning, so that there is no

39
reason why it should not have been studied. What your Lordships decided —and it was a very important issue—was that the Commission and the other permitted undertakers should both be subject to the same law. The contention of the Government was that the Commission should be above and outside the law, and that the permitted undertakers should be subject to the law. That was not acceptable to your Lordships. The decision of the Committee was that, in so far as the licensing authority were to have jurisdiction at all, there should be equal law for all, that they should exercise an equal jurisdiction over the Commission—the nationalized undertaking —and over the permitted undertakers; and, that in so far as there was freedom, there should be equal freedom for the nationalized Government Commission and for the permitted undertakers. That was the simple issue on which a Division was challenged, and the Committee divided—that there should be the same law for all. I cannot myself understand how so simple and elementary a principle of British justice and British practice could ever be challenged.
We then came to the consideration of two things. There are two ways in which an overriding decision can be taken which would fetter the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. The first is in the matter of charges under a charges scheme, with which we have recently dealt in the last three or four clauses. When a charges scheme has been presented by the Commission to the Transport Tribunal and, in whatever form the Transport Tribunal approve, has been promulgated by the Transport Tribunal, that is binding and it is going to be binding upon the Commission and upon the other permitted undertakers. The first proviso to this new clause says that the licensing authority, whether they are dealing with the Commission or with the other permitted undertakers, shall not in any way go counter to any provision of a charges scheme which affects it. That is the first point. The second point concerns an approved transport scheme, which is quite a different thing. The second part of the proviso says that the licensing authority shall be equally bound by an approved scheme. Again there was the simple contention that there should be the same law
40
for both, and the answer of your Lordships to that was "Yes."
The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House—I must correct him on this—said to-day: "I cannot conceive what jurisdiction the licensing authority could have." I can conceive every jurisdiction that the licensing authority should have, and must have. To start with, it is quite inconceivable that the scheme is going to lay down every bus and every time it shall run, and all the things which the licensing authority deals with. It is absolutely bound, under any scheme which can work, to leave a great deal to be settled by the licensing authority. There was the further point which the Committee decided last time. If we had not made the Amendment we did, it would have been possible for the Commission to put on any number of lorries or buses it liked, and the permitted undertaker would only be allowed to put on such as the licensing authority allowed him to put on. The Committee considered that that would be grossly unjust, and decided that both should have a fair field and no favour should be shown to the Commission. That is fully implemented and carried out in this new clause, as I say, subject to the double proviso that the regional licensing authority must conform to the charges scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal, and must conform to any regional road transport scheme which has been duly approved by the Minister, which has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and has not been objected to by either House, and which, consequently, has become effective.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I want to make the point quite clear that, in our view, a scheme embodied in an Order approved by Parliament has the force of law. We cannot agree to any Amendment in the Bill which would have the effect of allowing that subsequently to be altered or reviewed by the local licensing authority which has received the authority of Parliament. We contend that it should not be subject to review by this minor authority, important as it is. I can only repeat that we shall simply say "Not-Content," and we are not committed to it in any way whatever if we are advised that it transgresses the principles which I did my best to uphold the other day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.56 p.m.
Clause 81:
Power to exempt Commission from certain enactments.
81. The Minister may by regulations provide that, as from such dates as may be specified in the regulations, any statutory provisions relating to charges, or to the avoidance of undue preference or to similar matters, and any other statutory provisions which in the opinion of the Minister are, having regard to the provisions of this Act or to the coming into force of a charges scheme, unnecessary in whole or in part in relation to the Commission or the services or facilities provided by them, shall, either generally or to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, cease to apply in relation to the Commission or to the services or facilities provided by the Commission:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the application to the Commission of so much of section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as relates to the giving of reasonable facilities.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If I may intervene at this stage, I think I shall be saving the time of your Lordships. I will begin by saying that we propose to accept the Amendment on page 7 in the names of the noble Viscounts, Lord Simon and Lord Swinton, to leave out Clause 81. Therefore, I am quite sure your Lordships will not wish to discuss the Amendments to that clause. There are, however, a number of matters which I understand need to be tidied up. On the whole, instead of the Minister making regulations, as the clause provides, we agree that it would be better that it should be dealt with by a codifying Act in due course, in the light of experience. For that reason, we are agreeable to leaving out Clause 81.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am very glad that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has been able to make that announcement, and that he is able to accept the Amendment down in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself, to omit the clause altogether. The only regret that I have is that it removes from the Bill what would have been one of its major curiosities. For me, there could not be a dearer example of Hitlerism in practice than the provisions of the clause which the noble Viscount now—I think very wisely—agrees to omit. As it stands at present, the clause contains some astounding provisions, and makes one almost think that the Government or the draftsman has got tired of fitting the new proposal to the existing law, and has
42
taken the simpler course and provided that the Minister might make regulations which would have the result in regard to existing statutory provisions on a number of matters, or any other statutory provisions, that they should not apply to the Commission. That is the essence of Hitlerism: "You have got a law, but I am the Minister, and, without telling you what I am going to do, I am going to tell you that the law will not apply to me." I am very glad that the clause is to be withdrawn, and I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 81.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Transitional provisions as to charges]:
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(2) Before making any regulations under this section the Minister shall submit a draft to the Transport Tribunal and Sections seventy-seven and seventy-eight of this Act shall apply in relation to such draft as if in those sections there were substituted for the Commission the Minister and as if for the draft of a charges scheme there were substituted the draft regulations."
The noble Viscount said: This is another clause of great importance. Your Lordships have passed the clause which deals with the making of a charges scheme, and the Bill hedges that round with very great precautions. As your Lordships will have seen, the Commission are to have two years, or such longer period—and it may be much longer—as the Minister provides, in which to present a charges scheme to the Tribunal. Then, when the charges scheme is presented to the Tribunal, it has to be published, and those who feel they are adversely affected by it will have the opportunity to object. The Leader of the House has, very rightly, if I may say so, just announced his decision to extend considerably the area of those who are to be entitled to make objections, provided they are solid and substantial people with a right and proper standing.
These precautions in the framing of a charges scheme are most right and proper, because a charges scheme does not merely affect the transport undertakers of the country; it affects every user of transport in the country. When you come

43
to the heavy industries, I do not know how they can plan their reconstruction and how they are to conduct their operations unless they know what the scale and system of transport charges are to be. But we must accept the fact that this is a difficult matter; and it is very important that the Commission should be right in their original proposals.
Parliament has always insisted that in these great charges schemes there shall be an independent tribunal—it has been the Railway Rates Tribunal up to the present time—and that the decisions of the schemes shall rest with this judicial authority, after hearing the claimants or other proper people. There is going to be an interim period after the Bill is passed and before the Commission can present their full, considered scheme. What is to happen in the meantime? If your Lordships will look at Clause 82 you will see that the most strange thing is going to happen. Apparently the Minister is going to have the power to alter any or all of the rates in any way he pleases, certainly as regards the railways; I am not quite sure that it goes beyond the railways. I do not think it touches road rates. Even so, it is a pretty alarming power. The clause says:
"The Minister may at any time, if he thinks it expedient so to do with a view to ensuring a sufficient revenue to the Commission, to any of the bodies specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, to any railway company to which a schedule of charges is applied under the Railways Act, 1921, or to any light railway company to which subsection (2) of Section seventy-two of that Act applies, by regulations authorize the Commission, the body or the company to make, in respect of any services or facilities provided by them the charges for which are regulated by any statutory provision, charges additional to those in operation under that provision:
Provided that this Section shall not apply—

(a) to any services or facilities in respect to which a charges scheme is in force; or

(b) in the case of a body specified in the Third Schedule to this Act who are a local authority to any services or facilities provided by that authority otherwise than in connexion with the undertaking of that authority which is to vest in the Commission."

That one frankly rather beats me. I am not quite sure what is this limitation imposed on the Minister, but I do not think it is a very big one. But, subject
44
to that very tiny limitation about the local authority, am I not right in the way I read this: that the Minister can increase any charge on any railway or any canal by any amount he pleases; he can triple the rates for carrying coal or steel—these charges which to-day a railway company, whether the increase is a permanent or an interim one, has to publish, have to go to the Railway Rates Tribunal? It cannot be charged until then. Under the Government's own plan, when the Commission get to work the rates structure has got to be published, every objector is heard, and it only comes into force when the judicial tribunal has approved it, with or without modifications.
Yet for the next three or it may be four years the Minister is to have an absolute power to enforce on the railways and on the canals any rates he pleases. So extraordinary is this proposal that I felt I must have read the clause wrongly and that it could not mean that. But I have read it again and have taken advice, and I am told that that is what it does mean. I do not know whether this is one of the clauses which came under the guillotine in another place and was never discussed. I am inclined to think it is. Certainly it should receive very careful discussion here. It is inconceivable that Parliament will wish to give to the Minister this power. A wholly different set of rules and regulations is to apply to the rates structure.
Observe what would happen if the Minister is to have this absolute power. He can put up these railway rates 25, 50, 100 or 200 per cent. By the time the poor Commission present their rates structure to the Tribunal the ground is all cut from under their feet. Surely the common sense of this is that what is right for the Commission in propounding a permanent rates structure is right for the Minister in propounding an interim increase. What has been right for the railway companies in the past should surely be right for those who are going to carry on the monopoly of transport in the future, in the interests of all users of transport in this country. I beg the Government to assent to the proposition that the Minister shall consider his own Commission and proceed in this way: that if he wants to increase railway rates he should publish them, and the Tribunal should hear objections and then finally

45
the right rates should be propounded. I beg to move.
Amendment move—
Page 94, line 20, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I should like strongly to support this Amendment. It is considered vitally important by all the traders of this country, and particularly, as the noble Viscount has said, by the heavy industries. I am not going to travel over the ground which he has covered so well, but I should like to point out one matter that may have escaped your Lordships' attention. This clause is headed: "Transitional provisions as to charges," which may make one think that the transitional period is only a short one. Yet it may be several years before the charges scheme is prepared by the Commission, because, if your Lordships win look at Clause 75, lines 15 to 18, you will see that the charges scheme shall be prepared "within two years from the passing of this Act or such longer period as the Minister may allow …" This transitional period therefore may go on for a very long time, and it really is quite iniquitous that the Minister should now proceed on a war-time footing when there is no longer any emergency, that he should have overriding powers for several years to raise railway rates as he thinks fit without a public inquiry of any sort, and without traders being able to give their views. I beg to support the Amendment which I hope your Lordships will press strongly.
LORD HAWKE: Speaking as one who has some connexion with railways outside this country, these powers about which we are talking now simply make my mouth water. They are the answer to every rail operator's prayer: the power to increase charges without any inquiry of any sort or kind to cover an unlimited period by a perfectly legal subterfuge. These powers are, I think, an inducement to postpone the preparation of a charges scheme, and as such no Minister should be given that temptation. I submit that it would be only right and proper and kind of this House to remove such a temptation from any Minister. If he were to succumb—and it might be very easy for him to succumb—he would have the opportunity of taking the easy path of rate increases instead of the much more
46
difficult one of any necessary economy-pruning. I beg to support the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: With regard to the remark which fell from the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, this is one of the clauses which were never discussed in that other place owing to the misuse of Parliamentary procedure by His Majesty's Government.
LORD WALKDEN: I agree it was not discussed in another place for the simple reason that they spent all their time on the earlier Parts of the Bill. If they had kept on discussing it, they would have gone on talking for about two and a half years. I can quite understand a certain difficulty which has arisen in the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton's, mind, respecting the qualifying provisos (a) and (b), about municipal corporations. There is a reference actually to the City of Nottingham, as owners of a canal, which ensures that any increases to charges on the canal shall not be so general that they can spread it over all their municipal services. This clause will prevent them from doing it.
On the general merits of the Amendment I have to say that we can lot possibly accept it in our present circumstances, because the Minister has a tremendous responsibility now to keep the thing balanced, and to carry on during the interim period. It is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, has said, that there may be a couple of years before the Commission and the Rates Tribunal get the new scheme settled, but somebody has got to look after things in the interval. I certainly do not believe it will be anything like three years; there would be a great outcry if it were so lengthy. I agree that there is a possibility of it running two years, and during that period the Minister and the Government and Parliament, have got to see that these things are so carried on that there will not be ghastly losses, losses which would have to be borne by the taxpayer.
It is true that attention has been drawn to the fact that this Clause 82 simply makes transitional provisions. That is all it makes, only transitional provisions. When the scheme is firmly running on its own foundation, this will not arise at all. All rates questions will be dealt with by the Commission and the Tribunal. The Minister is only seeking to continue the

47
powers which he already possesses, and which he has exercised to a very considerable extent, in the face of a serious financial situation. Traffic went up beyond all records during the war, and the net profit was so great, that, by the law of increasing returns, there was a great surplus; but since the war has been over, it is down. At this moment it is sliding right down. Whereas there was £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 of net profit, the estimates now are that it will slide down to between £9,000,000 and £11,000,000 at the end of this year, and it may be less. The Government is under an agreement with the Railway companies to make up the deficiency between the £9,000,000 and £11,000,000 and the £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 from the Exchequer. We cannot have that going on and on and down and down; that will not do at all.
Therefore, the Minister seeks to continue the powers which he has already exercised. He exercises them with careful consultation with responsible people—in one case it was the Dock Harbour Co-Ordinating Committee, consisting of people who use those services. Then he also has a Charges Consultative Committee in being and he consults them. He has exercised this power with very great moderation. Testimony was given as to that by the noble Viscount, Lord Portal, when speaking on the railway position generally. He said how small had been the increases in railway charges compared with the increases in the general level of prices. They had been very moderate indeed. But that is not enough. That was done last year, in 1946. Those moderate increases were put on, and now, in 1947, we are in a worse position. The cost of coal, the cost of steel, the cost of timber for sleepers and the costs of labour are all rising, and traffic is not rising. The law of decreasing returns is in operation, which is very serious. Therefore, the Minister must continue to have power to order increases of charges to help towards balancing the liability for works expenses, including interest on the capital that has been invested. That must be done.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does the Minister not, in fact, go to the Tribunal to-day for advice before he exercises those powers?
LORD WALKDEN: No, he did not last year. He does not have to go through that elaborate procedure. It is explained very carefully and thoroughly. The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, also amplified it; it is a very extensive procedure.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I would like to remind the noble Lord, that in his Second Reading speech, I think, or earlier in the Committee stage, he went to elaborate pains to complain that under the present system of railways, there was a lack of consultation; that was one of his chief complaints. Now he is advocating something which is a far greater lack of consultation than has ever been known here before.
LORD WALKDEN: I was speaking about the Consultative Committee, the like of which traffic consumers have never had before. But here and now this financial hiatus, this terrible loss of revenue, cannot go to consultative committees. There is no time to go before the Tribunal or Commission. It must be done, and he is now considering a further increase in charges because it is essential. The plan is that this set-up shall pay its way, that income shall meet expenses, and that it shall not be open to rob the Exchequer. Therefore, this clause is necessary.
It is only an interim provision. You need not be afraid of it. The Minister acts under the Government, and the Minister and the Government are under the High Court of Parliament. These matters can be discussed here. There is full public control over what he does. I am sure he has not been unreasonable in the past, and he has got to be reasonable now. He has got, for instance, the whole co-operative movement to deal with. They would raise a great outcry if he was unreasonable; naturally they would. It would be the same with my own various friends. But your Lordships know that the general level of prices and costings is increasing very seriously indeed. It is a matter of great urgency, and it is not suitable for reference to a Tribunal which will take anything up to two years. It must be done here and now in the interim period. Therefore, I beg your Lordships not to press the Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Is it a really serious estimate that these Tribunals are going to take two years, because, if so, quite clearly

49
their constitution will have to be amended in some ways, since this is not the only thing that will come before them. Unless we can get some constitution that will allow them to give decisions in some reasonable time, they are useless.
LORD WALKDEN: The Government are all for speeding up. I do not think that it will take two years, but I do know of my own knowledge that all the great railway revisions of long ago—and some of your Lordships will remember them probably—took a long time. You must have time to consider these things. But the Minister would only order percentage additions in certain charges, and he would not treble the rate on coal because the Transport Commission and the railways use more coal than anything else. He would not do that, therefore, and of course he would not put it on iron or steel or primary products. He has got to make his adjustment so that it can be borne as easily as may be, but he must make it, and this is the simplest and quickest way of doing it.
VISCOUNT PORTAL: The noble Lord mentioned the question of the Minister not raising the price against coal. What I wish to point out is that the drop in the railway receipts is nearly entirely due to the coal crisis that we had in this country. It is only fair to say on behalf of the railway companies that the drop in railway receipts would not have been anything like the amount it is now if we had not, had to take off so many trains.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I would like to ask whether it is not possible that the Minister will be forced to be unreasonable by unreasonable demands from employees of the railways. That is the danger and that is why it is desirable that he should have somebody to stiffen his back; because if the Traffic Commission and the employees are going to negotiate in definite ways about an increase, and then the Minister is going to have to come along to raise the rates, as he can do with his unlimited powers, I am not sure that this Amendment is a remedy. But I think it is clear that the Minister may be forced to be unreasonable.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I would like to say a word on this matter. Notwithstanding the explanation which has been given with his usual charm by the noble Lord
50
opposite, I do not think anybody listening to this discussion and reading this clause can doubt that it does involve the prospect of a very serious state of things. It is to be observed that the power is put absolutely in the hands of the Minister. Nobody else as far as this clause is concerned has anything to say in it at all. If he thinks that an addition in rates is needed with a view to ensuring a sufficient revenue to the Commission during this transitional period, there is no limit whatever on the additions which he may make. I know something about the increases of railway charges on coal because years ago I was one of the counsel principally concerned in appearing for the railway companies when there was an increase of four per cent. put on the charge of coal coming from the north of England down to London on any of the railways. I agree that it was an extreme measure; but the point here is, not that the Commission may do it, or it may be done on their recommendations, but that does not say that anybody has to be consulted.
The noble Lord spoke about the Minister's admirable practice when he made consultation with, I think, two different bodies. There is nothing in the clause about this—nothing more nor less than saying that the Minister is an individual who is going to have unlimited powers to increase the rates as long as the transitional provisions go on. Am I wrong in saying that there is no actual provision in this Bill as to when the transitional provisions are to end? There is nothing to say that they must end in such-and-such a time. I quite understand the noble Lord's hope, and I am sure he is quite genuine in that hope, that it will not be more than a few years. Am I wrong about that?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There is no question of time, but if there is a scheme they will not apply.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I took it to be in cases where there was a scheme which had a limited application. I do not understand why, when a scheme is in force, the period when it is in force should be described as a transitional period. I thought when it was in force the thing was done. I thought that had been inserted in case there had been a scheme about something, but not about

51
everything. My point is this. This is what Parliament is doing. Members of another place never had a single moment in which to consider it. This is the only part of Parliament which can consider it. Let us just see what it is. It is a provision which does not say that the Minister should consult anybody, that he has to do it simply and entirely as an authority put upon him. No doubt he will be in consultation with his officials, as has just been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Beveridge. Let us turn back for a moment to page 6 of this Bill. There you see, at the beginning of line 16, that the whole conception is that it shall be the levying of
"such fares, rates, tolls, dues, and other charges as to secure that the revenue of the Commission"—
Your Lordships will notice the same word "revenue"—
"is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another."
Suppose that the Minister is put under great pressure to increase railway workers' wages. There is a simple way of doing it. All he has to do is to say: "The Government think that that would be a suitable thing to do. Of course, it is true that more revenue has to be produced to meet the extra expenditure; but I, the Minister, have unlimited power to increase the charges on the railways as much as I like, and Parliament—or at least such part of it as has been articulate on the subject—has passed this clause with that result."
I will next read to the Committee what is set out at the beginning of Clause 82:
"The Minister may at any time, if he thinks it expedient so to do with a view to ensuring a sufficient revenue to the Commission, to any of the bodies specified…"
and there follow a number of other bodies—
"by regulations authorise the Commission, the body or the company to make, in respect of any services or facilities provided by them the charges for which are regulated by any statutory provision, charges additional to those in operation under that provision:"
The plain English of that is that the Minister, on his own judgment, in a period now coming, to which there is no statutory end, may increase railway charges as and when he likes and as much as he likes.
52
I notice that in Clause 83 a somewhat similar provision is made, not about railway charges—which are defined in a Schedule—but about exceptional charges which in many cases are much the more important of the two for the trader. Clause 83 (2) reads:
"The Commission may at any time increase any exceptional rate which under the provisions of Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, is in operation on the date of transfer in respect of any traffic up to sixty per cent. of the standard rate for the time being in operation under the said Act …"
There is not a limit there. With great respect to the noble Lord, I would call the attention of the Committee to the extreme character of this provision, which really means that when this Bill is passed we are, for what is no doubt a transitional period but none the less is an indefinite time, to give to a Minister, whoever he may be, without ever putting upon him any duty to consult anybody on earth, the right to say: "Strike that charge out, and make it so much more."
The Commission are to exist before January 1 next year. They are to be chosen and appointed. And some of these Executives are to be appointed. The Commission are to include someone chosen because he has some special qualification of financial knowledge or something of that kind. But when it comes to this, you simply say that the Minister, without any sort of responsibility or consultation with anyone at all, is to have the unlimited power of doing this, and doing it until the moment comes when he himself decides that the transitionary provisions may be ended. I cannot think, if this matter were considered impartially, that it would be regarded as one which would pass through another place without a word being said, and that we should now be expected to swallow it without making a protest in the name of the ordinary trader. This is putting infinitely too much power in the hands of a single person—no doubt a very honourable person but a politician with his own views. I suggest that it is not right that the traders of this country should, for an unlimited and undefined period of years, have this hanging over them, seeing that we were given to understand that this Bill was to produce changes of great value for the trade of the country.
The Committee will observe that the Minister has no power to reduce charges. Nobody contemplates that when the Bill

53
is passed, the occasion will be one that will reduce charges. It is not even thought to be worth while providing for that. However, could anybody who has a fair view of what is going on suppose that a result of nationalization would be a diminution of charges? The only thing that needs to be provided for, apparently is that the Minister should be enabled to increase charges. I ask noble Lords to reflect whether the wording of that provision in this form is one that really can be regarded as acceptable and right.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I should like to say a few words in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Walkden. In regard to the Minister's present powers it is true that under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, the Minister has powers at the present time—a noble Lord has mentioned this—and has used them, if my memory serves me aright, on two occasions. On those occasions he submitted to a public inquiry a proposal for increased charges; and such action is what we are asking for now. Everyone had a chance of stating his views at that inquiry. That is all we ask for now. On one occasion—or perhaps two occasions—the Minister did not do that, and that is what we object to. I would like to point out that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act was an emergency Act, passed at a time of national emergency; there is no reason to have it in force any longer. All we are saying is that during this future transitional period the Minister should act in the way in which he acted on two occasions during the emergency, when it was proposed to raise the charges. On that ground I would like to make one final appeal to the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have had an extremely valuable and interesting discussion, and I feel that it is perhaps some justification of the existence of the Second Chamber that this point, which was not discussed at all in another place, owing to pressure of business, has had it first ventilation here. Whatever conclusion we come to, I think from the point of view of the country as a whole this discussion has been useful. The situation disclosed by the discussion is undoubtedly anomalous, and I think that probably it is perhaps a little worrying to noble Lords opposite, as well as to noble Lords on this side of the House. For
54
what is the situation that clearly exists under the Bill? First of all, the Bill sets up a statutory body, the Transport Tribunal, to deal with rates and charges, and then there is this new provision which enables the Minister, purely for the purpose of raising revenue, to fix, on his own responsibility, new rates and charges additional to those which are regulated by the statutory provisions of the Bill. It appears that there is an overlapping—possibly a rather dangerous overlapping—and apparently, he can do this without any consultation with the Transport Tribunal. I admit that it is only for the interim period, but, as everybody knows, this is an experiment, and nobody knows how long the interim period may last.
This certainly seems to be a considerable lacuna in the Bill. You appoint a Tribunal with certain duties, and then give the Minister power not only to override the Tribunal but to do so without any consultation at all. I cannot believe that the Government really meant the machinery to work in that way. After all, it is said to be for purposes of raising revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Walkden, said that the Government might need revenue at very short notice. They may indeed; they may need revenue at short notice for various purposes—because the ordinary transport revenue was going down or because there might be an extra call on the revenue. Or again, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, there might be an immense demand for, say, an increase in wages which would call for increased revenue suddenly to be produced. There might be very heavy political pressure on any Government—I do not mean especially a Labour Government but any Government in power at the time—and there is apparently to be no check by some outside body, representing the interests of the population, the traders and travellers and everyone who uses the railways, on this very dangerous political pressure.
I do not wish to put it too strongly but that might easily give rise to a dangerous situation. The Commission must use this machinery of the Tribunal and the Minister need not use it. That is the position disclosed. I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, that it would be impossible for the Minister to use it because it would involve such lengthy procedure—perhaps taking weeks and months. That is a depressing thought,

55
because this machinery is to be used by the Commission and if it is to take such a long time for the Tribunal to express their views on proposals put forward by the Minister it would take just as long with proposals put forward by the Commission. It sounds like an extremely unwieldy body, if that is to be the length of their deliberations. We do not want to set up machinery too difficult and unwieldy, and I have a modified suggestion to make which I would like to put forward for the consideration of your Lordships. It is that at any rate there should be some statutory duty on the Minister to ask the views of the Tribunal. That is not going so far as to have a statutory duty to abide by the conclusions of the Tribunal, but I think he should obtain the expert informed views of the people devoted to this question. After all, we have to carry on afterwards. I suggest that the Government should not turn down quite flat, on Committee stage, a proposal of that kind; they should consider the matter further, and perhaps by the Report stage put in something that would strengthen the Bill, strengthen the position of the Minister, and lead to less opposition on this question.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I welcome the suggestion of the noble Marquess; we would be perfectly willing to consider his proposal or a suitable practical alternative. A fact which it may be of interest to mention is that in July, 1946, the Minister was faced with the prospect of a heavy deficit on the Railway Control Account which would have had to be met by the Exchequer, and accordingly he made an order increasing railway charges. At that time he asked the Railway Rates Tribunal, sitting as the Charges Consultative Committee, to advise him on charges. That kind of emergency power is absolutely necessary in the interval. If the House will accept it, we will consult on the suggestion made by the noble Viscount and I hope he will not press the matter further.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In view of that undertaking I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 agreed to.
6.42 p.m.
Clause 83:
Transitional provisions as to exceptional rates and fares of the Commission.
83.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect as respects charges made otherwise than under a charges scheme.
(2) The Commission may at any time increase any exceptional rate which under the provisions of Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, is in operation on the date of transfer in respect of any traffic up to sixty per cent. of the standard rate for the time being in operation under the said Act, and section thirty-eight of the said Act (which prescribes the procedure to be followed as to alterations of exceptional rates) shall not have effect in relation to such an increase.
(3) So much of sections thirty-seven, thirty-eight and forty-one of the said Act as requires the granting or reduction of exceptional rates or the charging of exceptional fares to be reported to the Minister or enables the Minister to refer any such matter to the Transport Tribunal shall not apply to rates and fares of the Commission …
(5) In its application to the Commission, section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which relates to agreed charges and exceptional rates competing with coastal shipping) shall have effect as if—

(a) in subsection (2) for the words "If at any time a representation is made to the Minister" there were substituted the words "A representation may at any time be made to the tribunal", and the words from "the Minister shall consult" to the end of the subsection were omitted;

LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "The Commission may at any time increase," and insert: "(2) Where in the opinion of the Commission." The noble Lord said: The Amendments on page 94, at line 23, and line 26, in the name of the Earl of Selkirk and myself, and at line 30 in the name of Viscount Falmouth and myself, deal with the matter under discussion here, and with the approval of the Committee I would like to take them together. The clause deals with exceptional rates and gives the Commission authority to raise exceptional rates that are below standard, up to sixty per cent. of the standard rate, without any traders having the right to have their case heard if they felt that raising the rates would be to their disadvantage. I believe the reason for the sixty per cent. arose as the result of the representation made some time ago, I think in August, 1946, by shipping interests because they felt that coastwise shipping was being adversely affected by exceptional rates. No doubt they had a good case, but I

57
cannot see why these rates should be raised without any right of representation, however good the case against might be. There are many exceptional rates that have nothing to do with coastwise shipping. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible for representation to be made before any of these exceptional rates below sixty per cent. are raised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 23, leave out from the beginning to the second ("any") and insert "(2) Where in the opinion of the Commission."—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD MORRISON: It might save time if I say immediately that we propose to accept this Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am most grateful. Can the noble Lord make it quite clear whether the application of the ruling that the rate should not be raised goes back to the time when it was raised or to the time when the ruling was given?
LORD MORRISON: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question, but I will get an answer and let the noble Lord know.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHDALE: I beg to move the second Amendment to which I have just referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 26, leave out ("up to") and insert: ("is unduly low by reason of the competition of road haulage undertakers, canal carriers or persons engaged in coastal shipping, the Commission may at any time increase that rate up to not more than").—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "not." The noble Viscount said: I had hoped this was to be accepted too, and that we would do the hat trick. Under the Emergency Powers Act, the Minister has powers, which Clause 82 makes sure he goes on exercising, to raise all the revenue he wants. This is giving new powers, not to the Minister but to the Commission, who are to have the power to put up the exceptional rates. To-day, if the railways want to after the exceptional rates they are subject to the provisions of the Act of 1921. When the Minister has all these
58
powers under the Emergency Powers Act, and the railways are subject to the Act of 1921 in altering the exceptional rate, why is it necessary to say that the Commission shall not be bound by what is already binding on the railways? If we can have some explanation, we may know better what to do.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 29, leave out ("not").—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I understand the position is that under the Railway Rates Tribunal the railways have power to increase rates in certain cases. This is to give the Commission power to have a wider option, but we have limited that option by accepting the Amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Rochdale, the Earl of Selkirk and Viscount Falmouth. It is necessary that the Commission should have the power during the transitional period, and not be limited so strictly as the railway companies are under the existing Act.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The exceptional rate is, as a rule, lower.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That may easily be so.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The standard rate is the ceiling above which you cannot go. It often happens that the railway company have an exceptional rate which is lower. I understand this to be for the transitional period, and to give the Commission power, once the transitional period is over, to deal with an exceptional rate without having to go through the full procedure which is provided in the earlier part of the Bill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I think my next Amendment has been agreed to in a previous discussion.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 30, at end insert: ("Provided that, if any trader is aggrieved by the raising of any exceptional rate under this subsection, he may appeal to the Transport Tribunal, and if the Tribunal are satisfied that the Commission were not justified in raising the rate under this subsection, they may order the lower rate to be restored and the Commission shall give effect to that order.")—(Viscount Falmouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON had given notice that he would move to leave out from the first "shall" in subsection (3) to the end of subsection (4), and insert "have effect in relation to rates and fares of the Commission." The noble Viscount said: I should like a little guidance on this. Having withdrawn the previous Amendment standing in my name, I think I ought not to proceed with this now.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is right.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope I shall be generously treated on the next Amendment.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Overriding provisions as to exercise by Commission and Transport Tribunal of their powers as to charges]:
VISCOUNT SIMON: It seems to me that it would hardly be consistent with what we arranged a little earlier to-day if I now moved and pressed my Amendment to leave out certain words. The idea was to cut out from Clause 85 of the Bill:
"or which in their opinion will prevent the Commission from giving effect to any direction of the Minister under any provisions of this Act"—
and so on. It seems to me that that refers back to Clause 82, and as there is a prospect of finding some adjustment in that clause, I think it would be better for me not to move this Amendment now. I understand that my noble friend Lord Rochdale agrees with me on this.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Provisions as to railway freight rebates]:
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"and all sums payable by the Commission for interest or repayment of principal or into any sinking fund for repayment of principal in respect of the Rebates Stock shall be paid out of the revenue of the Commission and shall have the same priority as payment of rates over other payments thereout to the extent of any relief from rates provided for by any Act."
The noble Marquess said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Rennell I beg to move this Amendment. I think it is consequential upon an Amendment to Clause 38, and will be accepted by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 14, at end, insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Marquess is quite correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
Clause 88:
Borrowing powers of the Commission.
88.—(1) The Commission may, with the consent of the Minister, or in accordance with the terms of any general authority given by him, borrow temporarily, by way of overdraft or otherwise, such sums as the Commission may require for meeting their obligations or discharging their functions under this Act:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved in subsection (1), to leave out "with the consent of the Minister, or in accordance with the terms of any general authority given by him." The noble Lord said: The point in respect of which this Amendment has been put on the Paper is a very simple one, and will not take a moment to explain to your Lordships. Subsection (1) of the clause gives the Commission permission for temporary borrowing, and I seek to strike out the words "with the consent of the Minister, or in accordance with the terms of any general authority given by him." This applies only to temporary borrowing. There is a limit of £25,000,000, and it is quite separate from the big borrowing powers which come later on in the clause, and which go up to £250,000,000. It is really ridiculous that the Commission should have to go to the Minister to borrow the smallest sum, and if the Minister is going to give a general overriding authority—as he probably will—there does not seem to be any need to have that limitation in the clause. The Commission are in a very big way of business, and quite obviously must have temporary borrowing powers. Clearly, they ought to be able to borrow of their own volition, and not be compelled to go to the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 17, leave out ("may") to ("borrow") in line 19.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD NATHAN: As the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has said, this clause provides for temporary borrowing powers up to the figure of £25,000,000. It must be borne in mind that the Treasury is guaranteeing the stock to be issued by the Commission, and is therefore in effect guaranteeing the capital of the Commission. In those circumstances, the not unusual course is provided for in this clause of restricting the Commission from exercising borrowing powers without the assent of the guarantor. But the noble Lord may take it that the power to give a general authority will be exercised as occasion may arise, and that there is no intention on the part of the Minister to use his powers under this prohibition for exercising any close or day-to-day control over the operations of the Commission. Whilst a general power may be given, the Minister will require to have the power in a particular instance. It may be for the authorizing of a particular transaction so that he may exercise a general superintendence upon that aspect of the financial affairs, bearing in mind that the Treasury is the guarantor. In those circumstances, I am unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the Minister's reply is a very weak one, because it is not the Minister who is guaranteeing the stock. It says expressly in subsection (2) that the Commission may "with the consent of the Minister and the approval of the Treasury, borrow money." That refers to the big borrowing of £250,000,000. It is quite off the point, if I may say so respectfully, for the Minister to say that there is any need for approval here in those terms, because it is only the consent of the Minister, and not the consent of the Treasury. However, the point is not really a point of great substance. I think the Bill is badly drafted in this respect, as in other respects, but in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clause 89:
British transport stock.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section and of the said Fifth Schedule, British transport stock shall be issued, transferred, dealt
62
with and redeemed upon such terms and in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, and any such regulations may, in relation to any British transport stock, apply with or without modifications arty provision of the Local Loans Act, 1875, or of any enactments relating to stock issued by a local authority.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert:
"provided that nothing in any such regulations shall impose any restrictions as to the disposal of such stock."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to move this Amendment. It is really only a drafting Amendment, and I think there is nothing between the Government and those of us who have submitted it. Clause 89 gives the Commission various powers to grade stock, and then there are various provisos in regard to the terms under which the stock shall be issued, transferred, dealt with, redeemed and so on. But the provisos say nothing in regard to restrictions as to the disposal of such stock. I am quite certain that the Government do not intend that there should be any restrictions as to the disposal of the stock, but we feel that it should be said that there are no such restrictions. The provisos should be strengthened by the addition of this Amendment, which I hope the Government will see fit to accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
LORD NATHAN: The Minister and other Government spokesmen have repeatedly said in another place, and it has been stated in the course of these debates, and I now reaffirm on behalf of the Government, that there is no intention of putting restrictions on the disposal of the stock. It is true that restrictions were imposed in connexion with coal, but so important and unusual did the Government conceive that provision to be that they were scrupulous to insert the appropriate provision in the text of the legislation itself. It is quite unthinkable that the Government should impose by administrative action restrictions on the disposal of the stock in this case, in the face of the fact that in the case of coal the restriction was given legislative force, and that I have reaffirmed on behalf of the Government that there is no such intention. The regulations which apply to the

63
transfer of stock are purely procedural and of a quite normal character, familiar to the public at large and to the Stock Exchange—such, for instance, as the requirement of producing a stock certificate with the transfer, and matters of that kind. No regulations affecting the rights of the stockholders as stockholders would be made. I reaffirm once more the assurance that the apprehensions of the noble Earl are wholly unfounded.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has made a number of affirmations, from which I do not dissent. He has said that it is not the intention of the Minister to impose restrictions of this kind and that all he wants to do is some procedural business. The point of an Act of Parliament is that it should provide what the Government intend. May I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor what the position is? The matter is really important. Apart from what people intend to do when they get a regulation, as the Lord Chancellor has said over and over again, an Act of Parliament should do that which it is intended it should do. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said it is intended that in no case should the Minister be able by any regulation to restrict the transfer of stock. May I ask the Lord Chancellor or someone else who will give an authoritative legal answer for the Government, does this Bill as now drafted, or does it not, give the Minister power to make a regulation to do that which he says he has no intention or desire to do? If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor tells me that under the Bill he has no such power, I accept that from him at once, as the highest judicial authority in the land. If he says the Minister does have the power and the Minister has no intention of using it, I say that that power ought not to be in the Bill.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on this question, which is really one of some importance? The material words are these: "British transport stock shall be issued, transferred, dealt with and redeemed upon such terms … as may be prescribed by regulations". I shall listen of course with deference to what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, may think, but I confess that my opinion is that the words "transferred upon such terms as may be prescribed"
64
means that the Minister may, for instance, say that stock is not to be transferred before a particular date. I think he could say one of the terms or conditions of the transfer of this stock is that the stock shall not be transferred—I am assuming now a very reasonable provision—say, for one year after the vesting date. But, in my opinion, it might also, as a matter of law, justify a very different and much more serious regulation, which the Government have told us again and again they do not intend to exercise, in the event of there being no proviso put here. For my part I would suggest that some proviso is necessary.
I am not quite sure that the present promise by the Government extends so far that there is nothing in it of the nature of prohibition upon transfer of stock for a limited time. Therefore not only do I think the proviso is all that could be desired but I also think, as my noble friend Viscount Swinton has just stated, that in dealing with vast sums of money like this, it is right that the public should know, irrespective of any pledge by a Government (which may, after all, be only of a transient kind), that in these regulations no prohibition will be made which would interfere with the right to dispose of these stocks in such way as the owner for the time being may think fit.
EARL HOWE: The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has reaffirmed that it is not the intention of this Minister to do anything of the sort. If it is not the intention of the Minister to do anything of the sort, why not accept the Amendment? What is there against it? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the country goes mad again in 1950 and again elects a Socialist administration with all that that involves, and that that administration goes back on what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said. Nothing that he has said can bind a succeeding administration. Surely it is much better to have it in an Act of Parliament as suggested in the Amendment? What is there actually against it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Since I have been appealed to, may I say this: I do not pretend to have a very expert knowledge of this part of the Bill, but I will look at the question which I have been asked, and advise the noble Earl as to what the appropriate answer should be. May I add this? I rather object to

65
unnecessary provisos being put in a Bill because you very often find they have exactly the opposite effect to that intended. If you put in a proviso saying "You shall not do this"—which nobody considers doing for the moment—that has, on the true construction, the effect that you may do all sorts of other things. It is not desirable to put in unnecessary provisos, but if you will give me time, I will look into it and see if this particular proviso is or is not necessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for that answer. On the other hand, he will equally agree that here is not a minor but an important point of substance: if the Bill would empower the Minister to do what his Front Bench says the Minister ought in no circumstances to do, we ought to make it perfectly clear in the Bill that the Minister cannot do that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount, when he is considering this question so far as this Bill is concerned, to remember that the same point will come up very shortly in connexion with the Electricity Bill? It is important that there should be stability so far as this sort of stock is concerned—that is to say, stock which is negotiable at any lime that it finds its own level. It would be very wrong indeed if any step were taken which did not enable those who receive this stock to be able, if they wished to do so, to negotiate it at once. That will apply to the Electricity Bill as well as to this Bill before your Lordships' House at the present moment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: This Amendment was clearly tabled only with a view to strengthening the Bill, and in the light of the noble and learned Viscount's assurance that the matter will be looked into between now and the Report stage—for which I am grateful to him—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 89, to insert the following new clause:
Issue of British Transport Terminable Annuities.
"—(1) Each of the persons who, immediately before the date of transfer, were the holders of any securities mentioned in Parts I
66
and II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall be entitled to receive, in addition to the British Transport Stock issuable to him under the provisions of Section 89 and of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, a British Transport Terminable Annuity.
(2) The amount of the said Annuity payable to each such person shall be equivalent to one per centum of the amount of his claim for compensation under the provisions of this Act.
(3) Each such Annuity shall be payable for a period of ten years ending on the 31st day of December, 1957, and shall be paid to the holder thereof by equal half-yearly payments on the 30th day of June and the 31st day of December in every year.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, British Transport Terminable Annuities shall be issued, transferred and dealt with upon such terms and in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury, and any such regulations may, in relation to any British Transport Terminable Annuity, apply with or without modification any provision of the Local Loans Act, 1875, or of any enactments relating to stock issued by a local authority.
(5) Any British Transport Terminable Annuity in which no person is interested except the Commission shall be cancelled."
The noble Lord said: It is not my intention on this occasion to address to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, any of those rather awkward questions which on previous stages of the Bill it has been my duty to put to him and his duty so diplomatically and so courteously to refrain from answering. The merits or the demerits of the Government's proposals, and particularly the compensation proposals, have been discussed very fully on a previous clause, and I therefore do not intend to go all over the ground again in relation to merits on this occasion, except in so far as I have to touch upon them to establish the case which I hope to make, that there is being inflicted in this measure a degree both of hardship and of injustice. My object in putting this Amendment on the paper is to enable me to make to the noble Viscount what is quite frankly an appeal ad misericordiam that he will see whether something can be done to mitigate the great hardship which is going to be imposed by this Bill on a large number of people, a large section of the population of this country, belonging to every different rank of society. We all know that the noble Viscount is an honourable, just and humane man, and this matter which I am about to put before your Lordships is one in which honour, justice, and humanity are all involved.
Let me explain in one word what would be the effect of the Amendment which stands in my name, if it were put in the Bill. The effect would be to entitle every existing holder of railway stocks whose present security is convertible into British Transport Stock to receive, in addition to the compensation provided by the Bill, a ten year annuity calculated on one per cent. of the nominal amount of the present compensation. I wish to say from the very outset that I have no intention of pressing this matter or asking your Lordships to divide upon it. But the class of people for whom I am venturing to appeal to the noble Viscount are particularly those who are dependent on income from trust funds, and particularly in cases where the trustees are bound by the strict trustee clauses. It is in that particular class of case that we have perhaps the strongest evidence of what I venture o say is the injustice which is to be inflicted under this Bill. These beneficiaries of trusts are people whose income is derived very largely from these prior lien irredeemable stocks. I think there is an incontrovertible element of injustice in a forced conversion from an irredeemable stock carrying anything from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. to a British Government stock carrying 2½per cent. I do not think it can be claimed that the fact that there is a Government guarantee on the 2½ per cent. stock is in any way compensation for the loss of the irredeemable character of the stocks which are being given up.
There is another very definite evidence of injustice, and that is in the anomalies which exist in the prices of these different stocks. The most notable case is the debenture stock of the Great Western Railway. There are both 2½ per cent. and 5 per cent. debenture stocks, and circumstances with which the Committee are familiar have had the effect of bringing about a quite inequitable difference in the prices of these two stocks which does not at all correspond with the respective rates of interest. Another point to which I would like to refer is that prospective holders of this Government stock do not know yet what it is they are going to get. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given certain information, but it is not yet complete, for the reason that the precise terms, I understand, are not to be settled except in relation to the level of
68
prices at the time the conversion takes place. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said: "I accept the argument that it should not be irredeemable stock but that it should be dated," and in reply to a question as to whether the date would be within the century the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: "I would expect it to be within the century." One hopes, in fact one anticipates, that that means that it will in fact be what the City knows as a "dated stock." Your Lordships know, of course, that the Treasury 2½ per cent. stock, 1975 or later, has a date, but it is a date which is at the option of the Government, and it is therefore not a dated stock. That stock was issued a few months ago at par, and it now stands, I think, at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 94. In fact, I have heard it suggested that a Government security of that kind would be more accurately described as a "Government insecurity." It is, of course, very much to be hoped that there will be a date at not too distant a term for the stock which is going to be issued.
Now the people that I have in mind, as I have already said, constitute a large section of the community. First and foremost, I would like to refer to the effect which this forced conversion will have upon the financial position of the Churches and the religious communities generally. The religious communities, and the Churches, represented their case by way of a deputation, which was led by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That deputation represented the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church in Wales, the Roman Catholic Church, the Free Churches and also the Jewish community. The deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer as long ago, I think, as January 8 of this year. That was certainly before the Bill had gone into Committee in another place. The position was explained clearly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody knows what it is.
Everybody is aware that the income of the Churches is declining and while salaries and wages generally have gone up, in most cases ministers' stipends have not gone up at all. It is no exaggeration to say that many ministers of different religious communities have a stipend which compares unfavourably with the

69
wages of unskilled or semi-skilled workers. The position of pensioners too is very serious. In particular, I have been informed that the Aged and Infirm Ministers' Fund of the Church of Scotland is going to suffer. The already very inadequate allowances paid under that fund are in danger of diminishing, and this is also the case with the Widows' and Orphans' Fund. This is happening at the very moment when the Churches are to have put upon them enormous new responsibilities. The satellite towns springing up need a great number of Churches and church halls.
It is doubly unfortunate because this severe cut—I do not give figures because no doubt they vary in every case—is very severe indeed. The deputation had a very sympathetic hearing from the Chancellor, who promised consideration for the special proposal which they made and, in fact, in the course of his reply, which was given on January 8, the Chancellor said that the matter was not urgent, in the sense that an immediate decision was not required, since the Transport Bill would take some time to pass through Standing Committee and the date on which railway stocks were vested in the Government was not until January 1, 1948. The Chancellor had to leave the meeting, but before the deputation left an assurance was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that a decision on the proposal of the Churches would be given by the Chancellor before the compensation clauses of the Bill came before the Standing Committee of another place. There were delays and it is a fact that the reply of the Chancellor to the Churches was not received until May 8, by which time the Bill had not only passed through Standing Committee but had had its Third Reading.
It is only fair to the Churches that the case should be stated fully to your Lordships because there was no opportunity to have the case stated in another place. I desire to make it perfectly clear that I am not casting any aspersions whatsoever on the good faith of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will read a portion of the letter sent to the most reverend Primate:
"I have since received your letter of 29th April in which you ask whether my answer may be expected in May. Please do not think that your case has been overlooked in the interval. On the contrary, it has been most closely and sympathetically studied. I have
70
myself given it the most anxious consideration. I could not give you an earlier answer, as it has raised issues that could not be lightly or hurriedly decided. But my decision has now been reached, and I am sorry to tell you that the Government cannot see its way to offer the Churches any exceptional financial relief.
"I have taken this decision with very great regret, for I fully appreciate the spiritual and social value of the work that is financed by the endowment income of the churches, and the difficulties that will arise where continuing commitments have been incurred….
"… I fully recognize the value of the services which the Churches are financing out of their endowment income, and the loss which the community would suffer if those services had to be curtailed."
And it is not only the Churches we have to remember. There are numerous other funds. I have a further copy of a letter sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the secretary of the Indian Civil Service Family Pension Fund. That is another fund in which the pensioners, almost all belong to the fixed income class, which has already suffered so severely from rises in taxation and the decline in the purchasing power of money, and it is quite clear that this conversion must tend to reduce their pensions. The secretary does not state definitely that it will reduce the pensions, but I am informed that if this measure is followed by the Electricity Bill that result will be quite inevitable. The income of the widows and of dependent children will inevitably be reduced.
I would mention to your Lordships just one individual case. It is not a case selected specially by me, but one which came into my hands, purely by chance, only a day or two ago. It aptly illustrates the hardship which will be caused by this forced conversion. It is the case of a British officer, aged twenty-nine, who was killed in action in Holland in 1944. He left a young widow and two orphaned children, aged four and two. The widow was granted a gross pension of £140 as year—that is £140 a year, less tax. The children are granted a net sum of £18 a year until they are seventeen years of age. That is free of tax, but it ceases when they are seventeen. It is within my knowledge that the means of this widow, apart from that pension, are almost nonexistent. It so happens that there was settled on those children a trust fund of £5,000 in L.M.S. 4 per cent. guaranteed stock. The income from that is £200 a year, but under this Bill it will be cut

71
to £125 a year That fall of £75 a year is going hit that widow and those two small children very severely. The young officer who was killed was articled to a well-known firm of City solicitors, and he had a very good career in prospect. The tragedy which that represents to that particular family can hardly be considered without a good deal of emotion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested that people who suffer loss of income as a result of these compensation terms can restore their income by buying Government annuities. That course may be open to a few elderly people. It is certainly not open to Churches and charities; and it is not open, of course, to people who have dependants who for some reason will never be able to earn their own living. When we were discussing the Coal Act of 1938 the noble Viscount who now leads the House was sitting on the far Benches. He had no reason to be particularly sympathetic to the royalty owners, but I well remember his saying, on one occasion, with a burst of frankness: "It does seem to me that in some respects these people have had a raw deal." I was on the other side, and I always have thought it was extremely generous of the noble Viscount—it indicates his humane character, to which I have already referred—that he was prepared to be sorry for the royalty owners. If the noble Viscount was sorry for the royalty owners, as I know he was, I think we need have no doubt that he will view with even greater sympathy the case which I am now putting before him.
I would like, quite briefly, to indicate a rather interesting comparison between the position of the three sets of people—if I may put it that way—who are concerned with the railways. There are the users of the railways, whose charges have gone up only by a proportion, some 25 per cent., and others 33 per cent.; and there are the railway staffs, who, with the increased cost of living, have received an increased remuneration of 60 per cent.—of course, there is a claim now being considered, which is sub judice, and cannot, therefore, be discussed. But the stockholder, the third party in the matter of the railways, has had no relief whatever, either in respect of the increased cost of living, or of increased taxation. I know the Government justify their price by saying that they took the only available
72
rough measure of the railway undertakings; I know they claim that it does rough justice. All I can say is, that when justice gets as rough as that it ceases to be justice at all. I will just take, if I may, the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who summed it up like this, and it could not be put better:
"If it is not a fraudulent offer, it is an offer which no business man would accept, and which no trustee would be justified in accepting in the discharge of his trust."
I would like to glance at this matter from just one more angle. I do not know if it has occurred to your Lordships, but there are four different classes of people whose property is being expropriated by this Bill. They are the private owners of railway waggons, the local authorities, the road haulage undertakings and the railway stockholders. Just consider for a moment what has happened to each of those sets of people. The owners of private railway waggons were dealt with before the Bill had even left another place. The terms were so unsatisfactory that the Government entered into conversations and substantially improved the terms in time to put the amended compensation into the Bill before ever it came to your Lordships' House. The local authorities have also had better terms conceded to them. Since the Bill has been in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount, or one of the other noble Lords on the Front Bench, has moved Amendments which I believe improve their compensation by £2,500,000. The prospects of the road haulage undertakings have been improved by Amendments moved by the Government since the Bill came into this House. There remain only the poor stockholders, for whom nobody on the Government side has so far had any compassion at all.
The Government may ask: "But where is the money to come from?" I remember that there was an expression used that if something were done it would have to come out of the Government's own pocket. The concessions which have already been made indicate that there must be some source from which extra money can come, and I suggest to your Lordships that in the case of the stockholders the source is even more obvious than any other case, Consider for a moment the £17,250,000 which the Government are saving by reason of the terms which they are giving. I will just read

73
to your Lordships what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about that. He said:
"The stockholders of the big four railways will have a total drop in income. The drop will be from £40,000,000 to £22,750,000 a year. That means that he"—
that is the Minister of Transport—
"will have to pay out to the holders of the Compensation Stock £17,250,000 a year less than is now being paid to railway stockholders, and that sum will be available for the improvement of our services to give us a better and more efficient transport system."
It is true that that sum will not go direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it will be divided between the users of transport and the railway staffs, in proportions which remain to be ascertained.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, will see that his friends he looks after so well will receive their fair share of it. But where does it come from? That £17,250,000 comes out of the pockets of these same stockholders. It is in fact a reverse subsidy. It is a subsidy to the Government out of the pockets of the stockholders. Even if that does not go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, let him cast his mind back to the controlled period, because there remains a surplus in the control account of something like £80,000,000—in spite of one had year which they have had, owing to the failure to raise charges. I do not want to go back on the merits of the case, but many of the stockholders think they have a good right to part, if not all, of that money. I do not want to labour the matter, but the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, did use one sentence which I venture to repeat to your Lordships.
In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan said:
"The noble Viscount may safely leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to have a sense of propriety and justice in carrying out the provisions set out in the Statute."
I earnestly hope that that is so; and the request I address to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is that he will repeat to us that pledge, and will give us an assurance that between now and Report stage he will have some consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I appreciate that this is a matter for Government decision—and see whether they cannot hold out some hope that something may be
74
done for the benefit of these unfortunate stockholders.
It is said that Providence tempers the wind to the shorn lamb. There are plenty of shorn lambs about en this occasion. It is open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to play the role of Providence if he wants to. He can enter the stage; the wool from the shorn lambs is all there, baled and packed, much of it going into the warehouses of the Chancellor; and even this season's crop—I think "crop" is the right word—is producing £17,750,000. I think we have reason to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give the unhappy stockholders another thought. Chancellors of the Exchequer are notoriously hardhearted and of course the Chancellor may harden his heart. Pharaoh, I remember, hardened his heart on nine or ten occasions, and the result was the plagues of Egypt. If I remember aright, various unpleasant things happened to Pharaoh when he hardened his heart. The frogs, the flies, and the lice, were I think the least of the troubles which visited him. We have no Moses available on this occasion to play the rôle of calling down the plagues on Pharaoh. Fortified by the machine majority in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to do exactly what he likes; he is master of the situation. In these circumstances, there remains only one plea we can make, and that I address to the noble Viscount. It is: "O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 89 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before the noble Lord replies I should like to add a few words from this side in support of the spirit and the substance of this Amendment. This is another clause and another subject which, for the first time, I understand, has its opportunity of discussion in your Lordships' House—and surely it is worth discussion. I hope the Government will consider it without prejudice. The Leader of the House is a humane man and a just man, and I hope we shall not have to say to him that in a cause which is even more deserving than that of the royalty owners, he is going to play the part of the Walrus or the Carpenter. The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has made it very wide in character.

75
He has asked, and I dare say he is right, for justice for all and 10 per cent. all round. I suppose he would say, in the language of the railway undertakings, that he did not feel he ought to give an undue preference to anybody.
I can see the Government's difficulty in increasing everything by 10 per cent., though frankly, if they had approached this business in the ordinary recognized way in which compensation has always been settled for one hundred years—namely, what is a fair price for a going concern?—I think they would have had to pay at least 10 per cent. and possibly a good deal more than 10 per cent. more for the whole of these undertakings. But I am going to put in to-night a special plea to the Government for people who, I am quite certain, have a special claim. The Government may say that in some cases the ordinary shareholder is getting enough, and, of course, like all skilful advocates, if a general case is put they naturally ride off on what is the most defensible, or at any rate, the least indefensible count in the charge. I am going to ask them to answer the specific case of people who had every reason to suppose that they had a fixed income as long as they lived, and afterwards. This is a very modest plea for a terminable annuity of one per cent. for ten years. Is that too much to ask for people who had every reason to believe that they had an interminable annuity for an indefinite period?
Take the case of the holder of a perpetual debenture, or a high ranking, well-secured, prior lien stock. There might be some rich, heavily taxed man, looking for a capital appreciation—that was not the kind of stock that he would go into. These people go for an equity in which they see a probable chance of appreciation. I would venture to bet, on pretty long odds, that if you took the lists of shareholders and stockholders of these irredeemable debentures and irredeemable well-secured preference shares, you would find very few big capitalists among them, and you would find no speculators at all. You would not find the people who go in for a capital rise. You would find two sorts of people: one class would be the people who had saved their money, who were drawing to the close of their lives, who wanted to put something aside for
76
their children, and perhaps for the education of their children, on which they knew they could rely. The other class you would find would be the great charitable institutions of this country—the Churches, the schools and the colleges. I wager that perhaps 90 per cent. of the whole of that type of security is held by that type of person.
Let me give the noble Lord an example drawn from my own knowledge. I am the chairman of a diocesan board of finance. I have only recently taken that on, and so I can speak of how well it has been done without claiming any credit for myself. The finances of that diocese have been admirably managed for a long term of years. We have been careful to invest in irredeemable stock, if possible, but, at any rate, in very long-dated securities which were safe but which gave us a steady income. It is not one of the greatest dioceses in this land, but we are very large holders of exactly the kind of irredeemable stocks you are seeking to confiscate under this Bill. We had a plan to increase all the livings in our diocese up to a living wage. Well, it is not a rich diocese, and we have made a special effort. We raised, on a special appeal, something which today is very little short of £200,000, in order that we might be able to go ahead with the new work, that we might give a living wage to our priests, that we might be able to establish the new churches and the new livings in new towns as they developed. I asked for an estimate. So far as I can see the whole of the interest on that £200,000 or more will be required to make up the loss of income we shall suffer as a result of what is taken from us under this Bill. We have lost the income on that just at a time when we thought we were going to expand our work.
It is that kind of appeal that I venture to make to noble Lords. I hope we shall not get a dialectic answer or a final answer to-night, because, no doubt, whoever has to speak will speak on instruction; but I do hope this matter will be reconsidered, and not reconsidered simply by the Minister of Transport, but by the Government as a whole. You have always stood for the underdog; that is your plea. You have always stood for social advancement, and you would be the last to deny that these great Christian institutions of every denomination have

77
played at least as great a part in the social advancement of the country as your Party, or my Party, or any Party in this State. I do ask you to reconsider this, for surely this schedule of expropriation—I would almost say, in the case of these prior lien stocks, "this schedule of confiscation," although I know you call it conversion—is not the kind of "conversion" which our common Christianity inculcates.
9.22p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I briefly support the appeal that has been so eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Viscount who has just sat down? I am not going to trouble you with numbers of individual stories. Anybody who has any imagination at all, anybody who has any letters at all or any post at all, knows that when you are reducing the income of hundreds of thousands of people from £40,000,000 to £22,750,000, you must be creating appalling hardship in many individual cases. I can give such cases to the Minister or anyone who wants them from those I have in my letter bag. We know that above all it is hurting the trustees who are doing such good work, the old people who have saved a little money to live on, the people who have left a little money for their widows and children. It is in the undoubted power of the Government to inflict this hardship, and I know that we in this House, however much we may feel that this is a ghastly hardship, cannot in such a matter vote, and it would be no good for us to vote. This matter rests with another place; but, of course, just because you have the power to inflict this hardship that is no reason for doing so. Rather is it a reason for avoiding doing it, if you can possibly avoid it consistently with the discharge of your duty to the rest of the country.
In other words, surely you should not cut down compensation to this small sum unless it is the maximum that can fairly be justified. If there is a doubt, you should not give the benefit of it in favour of the rest of community against these individuals, but rather to these people—these stockholders. In fact you can justify this only if you say that the railways are in such a position now that they could not expect to earn more than £22,750,000 a year: that they are to that extent already a bankrupt concern. But
78
suppose that were so, that they would not be able to go on doing as they have been doing, paying £40,000,000 a year, and that it were the case that these people had lost their income already. That would have been their misfortune. But you are forcing misfortune on them.
I have already suggested a number of reasons why the compensation proposed is not fair. It is not fair to take the basis of the Stock Exchange prices and use them in the way in which the Government propose to use them in calculating the compensation. Then British transport stock is not the fair equivalent of cash, Further, may I remind the Committee of a figure that was given to me when I was proposing to raise the compensation by 20 per cent? The noble Lord who replied said that that would cost us another £200,000,000. I think it is probable that in the properties we shall be taking over from the stockholders there is something like a sum of £200,000,000—partly money set aside, and partly a claim for special depreciation meant to restore the earning capacity of the railways. There is, I believe, something like £40,000,000 to £150,000,000 in a Reserve Fund, kept away from the stockholders and earmarked for building up the earning power of the railways. There is also a claim of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 for the special damage done to the railways during the war. Can one imagine that these factors are taken into account and allowed for in the fixing of the prices as they stand on the Stock Exchange to-day?
I do not wish to speak for more than a few moments, but surely this is not a question of principle for the Government. To make a change in this matter would not wreck the Bill or affect the substance of the Bill at all. It would in fact do a great deal to commend the Bill to public opinion as going nearer to doing justice. Several of us here have made attempts in various ways to get something better for the railway stack-holders. I made one proposal, and I made another proposal; others have made different proposals. I do not think that any of us who want more done for the stockholders are particular as to the way in which it should be done, but I do hope that the Government as a whole will seriously try to find a way out of the cruelty which otherwise they will be inflicting.
9.30 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, deployed his arguments with moderation and persuasiveness, matched by the impressiveness and earnestness of the speeches made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and Lord Beveridge. This is a subject, especially put before the House as it has been, which needs to be considered and dealt with by me, on behalf of the Government, with a like sense of seriousness. The proposal of the noble Lord, though framed in the form of an annuity, is intrinsically nearly akin to the proposal, discussed earlier in our debates, by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. It is, in fact, a proposal for an increase of the compensation by £100,000,000 payable in ten annual instalments of £10,000, 000 each. That is what the proposal is—for an addition to the capital of the compensation.
In answering the Amendment put before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I attempted to indicate the reasons why on a number of grounds the Government were unable to accept that proposal. We now come to the suggestion contained in the Amendment before your Lordships. Let me say that I and all my colleagues are fully conscious of the fact that there are large numbers of persons, investors in railway stocks, or beneficiaries under trusts or charities, who feel that their income is being unfairly diminished by reason of this compensation proposal. Noble Lords opposite may rest assured that before these proposals were put into legislative form the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other members of the Government were fully conscious of the fact that that argument might be adduced against them, and they would not, of course, gratuitously seek the unpopularity which it might be expected would arise from a proposal which meant that large numbers of people felt that their income was being unfairly reduced. The Government, however, felt that the proper course to take, irrespective of any unpopularity which might arise—
LORD WOOLTON: We raised the question of justice, not popularity.
LORD NATHAN: The proper course that seemed to them right was to do justice as between the public at large and
80
the holders of these particular classes of securities. Let us see how the argument goes. The fact of the matter is that very large numbers of holders of these securities are charities. Churches are very largely interested, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has indicated, and as he pointed out to your Lordships, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself gave the most meticulous consideration to the points placed before him by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others representing the various denominations. It was only after lengthy consideration and much reflection that he came to the conclusion—indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—in the letter in which he replied to the most reverend Primate. The basis of that decision was that it was impossible to segregate one group of stockholders from another, and to treat one group differently from other groups.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What does the noble Lord mean by that? It is very important that we should know what the explanation is. Does the noble Lord mean that you could not differentiate a stockholder who is an ecclesiastical beneficiary, who is a holder of a debenture, from another holder of the same class of debenture? Or does he mean that you could not differentiate between holders of irredeemable well secured stocks and holders of ordinary stock?
LORD NATHAN: What I intend to suggest is that it is not possible, in the view of the Government, to differentiate between one group of holders in securities of a certain class and other holders of securities in that class. When I say "in that class," I mean railway stocks taken as a whole. Much has been said by all noble Lords who have spoken, not only in this discussion but on an earlier occasion—but particularly this evening—on the hardship, as it is alleged, which is inflicted by these proposals upon those who are dependent, to a greater or lesser degree, upon income from railway stocks. It is important to face fairly, but also to face fully, what are the facts in this connexion. Prior to the war, I think the net maintainable income of the railways, in the years 1935 to 1937, was an average of £36,000,000.
LORD HAWKE: In the money of that era.
LORD NATHAN: £36,000,000. The guarantee given by His Majesty's Government under the control agreement at the outbreak of the war was £38,000,000; and the revenue of the railway companies during the period that has since elapsed has been £40,000,000, or thereabouts—of which £38,000,000 has been derivable from the Government, and the balance from ether sources of income in the hands of the railway companies. It is not unnatural that during the period that has elapsed throughout the war until now, all those who have been receiving that income, guaranteed as regards £38,000,000 by the Government, should have felt that that income represented a permanent income—or, if you like, a perpetual annuity. But any such idea—which I feel prevailed in many quarters—is certainly a wholly ill-founded illusion. Indeed, as events have shown, the position now is that the revenue of the railways is far less than £38,000,000; it is far less than £36,000,000, and it is far less than the £22,750,000 which has been mentioned.
VISCOUNT PORTAL: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment—
LORD NATHAN: I am aware that it has been suggested—I heard the noble Viscount say so in another connexion this afternoon—that that has been due to the coal crisis.
VISCOUNT PORTAL: Will the noble Lord excuse me? In regard to the reduction of revenue, in the ordinary course of events we should have been allowed, like other industries, to put our rates up. The Ministry of Transport put their rates up 25 per cent. and 33 per cent., and they are now waiting to put them up further. The stockholders would have received a bigger income or revenue than that which you say is continually descending. That is the point I wanted to make.
LORD NATHAN: I have not said that it was continually descending. What I said was that it was reduced from £38,000,000, below £38,000,000, below £36,000,000 and below £22,750,000. The position at the moment is that, but for the Government's guarantee, the revenue of the railways would be between £8,000,000 to £10,000,000—and nearer £8,000,000. If it were not for the guarantee it would be upon that sum alone that the stockholders in railways would have to look, in
82
their various degrees, for their income from their holdings. The £22,750,000 is more than twice as much as the railways by themselves are able to produce for their stockholders of various classes to-day. It is very important—
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Lord does realize—?
LORD NATHAN: It is important that those facts should be clearly realized. It is very important that those shareholders should no longer be allowed to remain under the illusion that the income they enjoyed during the war, which was guaranteed by the State, is an income upon which they are entitled to rely indefinitely. With regard to the Churches—whose situation in this respect I fully realize—and large numbers of charities, and also in regard to widows and orphans who have been mentioned, I believe it to be true to say that hid the Government not come forward with this scheme at this time, with these arrangements for compensations, they would have fared a peat deal worse in regard to income than they will fare under these arrangements. I say that deliberately; I say that on due reflection.
The noble Viscount, Lord Portal, who speaks with a vast experience in matters relating to railways, has said that the railway companies could increase their charges. That is, within limits, true, and what I have said is subject to these qualifications. The charges might be increased, and it would achieve some amelioration of the situation—if they could be increased to a point that would cover increased costs of every kind, if the increased charges did not meet with sales resistance on the part of those who wished to travel or send goods, and if the range and volume of traffic were not only maintained but vastly increased. Unless those conditions are fulfilled there is nothing to be hoped for from an increase in rates. The plain truth of the matter is that, as matters stand, and as it appears they will continue, it looks as if this income, reduced though it will be below what the guarantee of the Government has made possible in the past, will be a great deal more than the stockholders could expect to receive if they were left to look to the revenues of the railways alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. said he did not intend to press

83
this Amendment to a Division. Had he not said so, I should have had to state that I could not accept it and must resist it; but I do not wish to discuss this matter from the standpoint of this Amendment. I desire to discuss it as a practical matter of business, so that the investors in the railways may know what I believe the fact to be: that as a result of this arrangement, doubtless inflicting hardship and reduction of income at the moment, far less hardship will be inflicted upon them than if there were no such scheme.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Does the noble Lord who has just spoken attach no importance at all to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who estimated that after allowing for the £22,750,000 which is to be paid out there will then be a surplus of £17,000,000, and contemplated its being quite easy to keep up this maintainable revenue? And does that not mean that the Government realize that you can make maintainable revenue what you like, within limits, by raising charges? Secondly, does the noble Lord really think that any importance whatever attaches to what the railways may be earning at this particular moment, when all the items on the one side of the account, the expenses of wages and everything else, have been allowed to go up without any regulation?
LORD WOOLTON: I wonder if the noble Lord would mind telling us just how much the Government have paid as a result of their guarantee to the stockholders?
LORD NATHAN: As regards the questions put to me by Lord Beveridge, it is certainly the fact that when this Bill was introduced into Parliament a good many months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of the opinion that he would have a sum of money over and above the £22,750,000, as he stated in another place when speaking on compensation; but that hope has been dissipated so far as this year is concerned because the curve goes relentlessly down.
LORD BEVERIDGE: The other question was whether you attach any real importance to what is happening now when you let all the items on one side of the account go up and prevented those on the other side going up.
LORD NATHAN: The curve goes down and the situation could only be retrieved if the charges could be increased to a point sufficient to cover all the increases in cost upon various items, and if there were no sales resistance to existing traffic, and if the existing traffic were vastly to increase. Otherwise increases of the charges would not effect the object which the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD WOOLTON: Is that the purpose of the clauses we have just been discussing?
LORD NATHAN: With regard to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, I am speaking, as he will understand, across the Table, without the opportunity of reference to anything, but I am, I know, correct in saying that this year the amount payable under the guarantee will be between £30,000,000 and £32,000,000.
LORD WOOLTON: Will the noble Lord be good enough to answer my question? How much has the Government paid on that guarantee since it started—since the war began?
LORD NATHAN: My belief is that hitherto, with the inflation created by the Government traffic and the war situation, happily the Government has so far not been called upon to pay.
LORD WOOLTON: How much profit have they made out of this?
LORD NATHAN: But now the business created and furnished by the Government has come to an end, the Government has been called upon to pay heavily.
LORD WOOLTON: I do not want to be rude, but the noble Lord did make a speech. I know a little about railway finances and, as I listened to the noble Lord, it seemed to me that he was talking about something entirely different from anything I had ever heard as regards finances. I believe that unintentionally the noble Lord mislead the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not intend to intervene at this stage and I only propose to say a very few words now because, after all, this is not one of those questions in which your Lordships can, with any usefulness, proceed to a Division under the Constitutional arrangements that at present exist. It is clear that any

85
action we could take would be the least effective, and all we can do is to express our views, as it is our duty to do. I must confess that as I listened to the Government's reply—I hope they will forgive me—I thought it was one of oleaginous hypocrisy. The noble Lord who spoke just now began by saying, almost with tears in his eyes, that the Government have been conscious of the fact that the argument could be used against them that unhappy people were being cruelly used. I suppose he would say that that was a factor to be taken into account, and he went on to say that "justice to the community as a whole must be weighed against justice to any individuals." That is an argument which could be used to justify any injustice against an individual.
This is an argument which was used by Hitler justify the injustices against the Jews and Socialists in Germany—that it is an injustice, but is necessary in the interests of the community as a whole. This is an argument that has been all too familiar during the last twenty years, I am sorry to say. I am afraid, and it is the honest truth, that there was a character of this sort in Plato's Republic, who said that justice was the interest of the stronger. I am afraid that is the explanation. I am afraid that that is the explanation for these unhappy people for whom we are pleading—I know quite hopelessly, but we do our best. They are not strong; they are the weakest members of the community. They are the underdogs of to-day. It is not the great powerful communities who support the Government who are suffering under existing circumstances, it is the unorganized people—the clergy, the widows, the orphans and the people who have no organization; those are the people who will suffer under this proposal.
The Government claim, and claim—I do not want to do them any injustice—with a certain amount of justice, credit for the improvement in social services. They say that they are the people who stood entirely for the working sections of the community. But this provision will inflict an injury on countless numbers of utterly helpless and innocent people. We cannot do anything about it except to plead with the Government. I know that the Leader of the House is a humane man. He must know, in his heart of hearts, the suffering which will be inflicted by these
86
compensation provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said there was nothing to be hoped for, that it would not be any good increasing the rates, or improving the position, so that more compensation could be paid to these people; but we have had an Amendment moved to-night on which there was a lot of discussion. We put forward the Amendment so that we should have advice upon it. It was said that there would be a rise of rates immediately, without any consultation with anybody, merely for the purpose of getting revenue. If the Minister can do that, why should he not raise the rates to get revenue and do justice to these unhappy people who will suffer under this proposal?
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said in the last words that he spoke that the stockholders would have done worse without this scheme. That is a matter of opinion; no doubt the Government hold one opinion, and a great many people hold another; but the fact remains that almost to a man the stockholders would have preferred not to have this stockholders scheme and to remain in the position they were before.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is because of the propaganda they have been subjected to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure the noble Lord cannot really believe that; these people have been subjected to a great deal of Government propaganda on the other side, but they have not been convinced by it. It is not for me to try and overstate the case, but we all know of cases where people will suffer. If the Government cannot do what is proposed in this Amendment, cannot they do something for them? That is all we ask of them. Cannot they talk over the matter further with their colleagues and try and get something done for these unhappy people? If they can do that, they will well deserve and will receive the thanks of their grateful countrymen. We will certainly not try to make any capital out of the matter, and we shall give any support we can. We do feel genuinely unhappy about this. We are not trying to make it difficult, and we do hope that even at this late hour in the Bill the Government will go once more to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

87
and see if he can do something to help. That is all I want to say upon this. I beg the Government to consider it.
10.2 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before I withdraw this Amendment, may I say just one or two words. First, I wish to say that I must admit I was dismayed to hear the enthusiasm with which the noble Lord cast himself for the part of Pharaoh. As to the point that railway revenue is falling, it did occur to me to wonder, if it continued to fall to this alarming extent, what the Government were going to do when they had to pay the wages. I suppose that they will find it necessary to pay wages, and in order to do so I imagine that they will find means of putting charges up. The noble Lord said, in answer to my plea that the railway stockholder was hard hit, that the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were conscious of the arguments that could be used about that before the Bill was introduced. Were they not equally conscious of the arguments that might be used on behalf of the owners of railway waggons, of the arguments that might be used on behalf of local authorities, of the arguments that might be used on behalf of the road hauliers? If they were conscious of all these arguments before the Bill was introduced, why was it necessary to mitigate the terms during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons and your Lordships' House?
It seems that it must be possible for the Government to mitigate the terms to the stockholders if they really want to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, that he could not concede a special security. I am inclined to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right; it would be very difficult to distinguish between one holder of a security and another. But that does not in the least alter the case, that they have it in their power, if they wish, to so alter this so as to temper the wind to the shorn lamb; and that is what we beg them to do their best to bring about. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 90 to 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue]
LORD NATHAN: This is really an Amendment for the purpose of clarification. Under the clause as drawn, it was feared that it might read as requiring duplicate provision to be made out of revenue for the wasting of assets—once by means of a provision for renewal, and once by means of a charge for obsolescence. It is intended to make only a single provision, and that is what the Amendment is designed to achieve.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 9, leave out from the first ("for") to the second ("and") in line so and insert ("depreciation or renewal of assets and proper provision for redemption of capital").—[Lord Nathan.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94:
Accounts.
94.—(1) The Commission

(a) shall cause proper accounts and other records in relation thereto to be kept; and

(b) shall prepare an annual statement of accounts in such form and containing such particulars, compiled in such manner, as the Minister may from time to time direct with the approval of the Treasury.

(2) The said annual statement shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission, and the Ministry and the Treasury shall exercise their powers under subsection (1) of this section accordingly.
(3) The accounts of the Commission shall be audited by an auditor or auditors to be appointed annually by the Minister and in accordance with a scheme of audit approved by him and, if the Minister so directs, the accounts of the Commission as respects any part of their undertaking specified in the direction shall be separately audited by an auditor or auditors so appointed as aforesaid.
LORD NATHAN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, moves his Amendment, may I suggest that it might perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee (I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee), of the noble Viscount opposite, and of Lord Balfour of Burleigh that the next two Amendments, in the names of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and of Viscount Swinton, should be taken together? They are not the same, but they touch on the same subject matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think it would be at all convenient. They relate to entirely different matters. The

89
Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, requests that certain operational statistics shall be given on the lines on which they are now regularly given by the railway companies. An entirely different subject is dealt with in the other Amendment standing in the name of Viscount Simon and myself—namely, the form of accounts to be rendered by these different kinds of undertakings. I do not see why we should concertina these Amendments. The noble Lord is trying to browbeat the House. We are getting accustomed to his spreading himself over it. He really must not do so. This is a subject which was not even discussed in another place, and now the noble Lord, not content with creating a monopoly of every transport undertaking in the country, is trying to amalgamate all the Amendments together.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure the noble Viscount will allow me to enter a modest caveat. My noble friend was not trying to browbeat anybody. These two Amendments deal with accounts, so he suggested that they be taken together. I am sure he would be the last to oppose the noble Viscount, and if he wishes them to be taken separately, let it be so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (1), at the end, to insert:
" and

(c) Shall prepare and publish such annual returns and statistics in respect of each of the principal activities of the Commission as shall be comparable with the returns and statistics required to be kept or made under the several Acts mentioned in Subsection (5) of this section by Railway and Canal Companies in such form as the Minister may from time to time direct."

The noble Lord said: My Amendment does not deal with accounts at all. It has to do with annual returns and statistics.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Not the accounts?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: They are the operational statistics, which at present it is the duty of the railways and the canal companies to issue, but under this Bill they will not be available any longer. Under the Railway Company Accounts and Returns Act, 1911, the companies had to provide them, and if they failed to prepare and forward returns they could, on summary conviction,
90
be fined five pounds for each day on which the default occurred. The Commission are not to be exposed to penalties of that sort, and it is very important that proper operational statistics should be available. I have in my hand the sot of returns made—miles run in relation to the company's total traffic receipts, miles run in relation to total expenditure, and that sort of thing. It provides a way of judging the efficiency of a system. At present the railways have to secure from the Tribunal a certificate of efficiency. There is no provision of that kind in the Bill and it is important there should be a gauge to judge the efficiency of operation in the future, compared not only to operation in the past but to other railway companies in other civilized parts of the world. I think it a very reasonable Amendment and beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 24, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD NATHAN: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that a measuring gauge such as he indicated is needed, but I would add that the returns and statistics issued in the past were very sensitive indices of the trade and prosperity of the country at any particular moment compared with the past and with other countries. I can assure the noble Lord that it is certainly the intention to continue all useful statistics hitherto issued and to add to them. Hitherto they related for the most part to railways and to a very minor extent to canals, and we hope to extend them to all the varied forms of transport and to amplify them. It is my right honourable friend's firm intention to ensure that statistical information shall be compiled in such a way that traders and the Transport Tribunal clay have some real measure of the operational efficiency of the Commission's undertaking, and that others may also from those statistics be able to form an opinion. I do not want a stereotyped form of those which are now in existence. The industry is growing; new activities are being allied to the railways, and for just those reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has mentioned, I want the statistics and the returns to be extensive and informative, and to cover the various fields of activity. The noble Lord may be assured of the fullest sympathy with the objects which he has in view, and of

91
the Minister's intention and determination to ensure that they are made available.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: A little earlier the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor advised us that we had better be careful about putting in Amendments, because when we express one thing it tended to suggest that we were excluding another. This clause says that the Commission are to keep proper accounts and to prepare an annual statement; and then it goes on to say certain things which are to be in the annual statement. But there is not a word about producing these operational statistics. Therefore, on the advice which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Chancellor, gave, we surely ought not to put in that they are to keep accounts and that they are to produce certain statements, if we do not also include this. We really ought to insert this paragraph. The noble Lord said that he did not want statistics to be stereotyped. I wish he would read the Amendment which he is criticizing. The words of the Amendment are—and anything less stereotyped it would be difficult to find—
"Shall prepare and publish such annual returns and statistics in respect of each of the principal activities of the Commission as shall be comparable with the returns and statistics required to be kept or made under the …"
existing Acts. That is to indicate the kind of things there are. But observe how the Amendment goes on—how very moderate and amenable by noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is. It says:
"… in such form as the Minister may from time to time direct."
Who can say that this is stereotyped? I understand the noble Lord is a lawyer by profession. He must not mislead the House in this way.
We have made great progress to-day, and noble Lords find it difficult to read, much less to understand, the language of all these Amendments as we canter, indeed, gallop, through the detail of this Bill. We look to the Government for an accurate exposition of these matters, and particularly to the legal- members of the Government. I believe it is a function of solicitors even to instruct the higher branches of the law. I hope they give a little more accurate instruction, otherwise they may receive something which was sometimes called "instruction"
92
when I was at school, but it took a firm form. This really is a very reasonable Amendment, and, seriously, we ought to have it in the Bill, or something like it. If the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, I was a Minister for a very long time —perhaps I shall never be one again—and I learnt in the course of that long ministerial career not to say to either House of Parliament: "You really do not need this. I will give you an undertaking of what I am going to do" or "of what my right honourable friend is going, to do." No undertaking lasts going longer, at any rate, than the lifetime of a Parliament—that is quite certain—or of a Ministry. It has, of course, no binding force.
Now I am quite certain that the Minister must have instructed the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, to say that he proposes to do this kind of thing. I am quite sure that so long as he is there he will do this kind of thing. But how long is he going to be there? We do not know. I believe he has a safe seat, but we do not know that he will not be the first chairman of the Commission. It may well he that he will not be there, and then where does this undertaking take us? Quite seriously, it is not the right way to do it. This matter is very important. I had a good deal of sympathy with an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the Companies Bill. He wanted to get out for every trade in the country very careful returns and statistics of turnover which would enable one to compare every company in the country with every other. The Government thought he went a little too far, and my position was betwixt and between. I did not think it was very easy to compare the sort of beautiful Cartier detailed work with the work of the cheap jeweller who sells people like myself engagement rings. But I had great sympathy with that Amendment, and it is something we are always looking for. Parliament in its wisdom has laid it down—and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, or one of the railway experts will tell me if I am wrong here—that the railways had to make operational returns. I think it is in the Act of 1921 or in one of the Acts of Parliament.
VISCOUNT SIMON: In the Schedules.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If it has been thought right to have all these returns set

93
out in detailed from while was still an amount of competition among the railways, why on earth could it not be done to-day? You are going to set up a monopoly which eats and consumes everything and it is really essential that we should have a standard of comparison. We may have such a monopoly in this country that we cannot compare it with anything in this country, but we can compare it with things which happen outside. The Americans produce the most careful statistics. The noble Lord said he had never seen greater inconsistencies than this. He has produced a series of Aviation Bills, though he has not produced many aircraft. In the Bills he has laid down under penalty that everybody has to produce the most detailed statistics, as has that great international body sitting in Montreal, to which we subscribe a great deal of money. I am all for that body, because I was party to its being set up, but it could work a little more quickly.
One of the things which was laid down there (and a similar provision is also laid down in the noble Lord's Act in regard to this country) is that all these operational statistics have to be obtained month by month, from all the operating air companies in the world, so that like may be compared with like and so that each may learn from the other. It is done in that way; and if, it is done by Act of Parliament for the existing railways, why on earth should we not have it in this Bill? That is all that this Amendments asks. It shows the broad form of returns which are wanted, but it leaves the Minister from time to time to settle the form in which the returns should be; and surely it is only good sense that that should be done.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word to what the noble Viscount has said, unless the noble Lord is prepared to give in to this suggestion? I will not waste time if the Government are going to assent. There are two things which clearly are not provided for in the Bill as it stands. It is just as well that we should be quite clear what they are. One thing is this: there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to require annual accounts or statistics, and so on, to be made in respect of each of the principal activities of the Commission. Under the Bill as it stands these things could be lumped together as a whole and the total results given to us;
94
but that is not what the Amendment is aimed at. The other thing is still clearer and still more important: there is nothing in the Bill about publication of annual returns and statistics. Of course, the Commission have to keep accounts, and that is all provided for in the clause to which this is an Amendment, except as regards the division to which I have already referred; but nothing is said about publication.
This Amendment does two things. It says there must be publication of such annual returns and statistics in respect of each of the principal activities of the Commission as shall be comparable with the provisions in subsection (5) of this clause, by railway and canal companies, in such form as the Minister shall from time to time direct. The very clause we are amending, in subsection (5), refers to these things. But it does not refer to the separation I have mentioned, or to the publication, which would be of great interest to the public.
LORD NATHAN: Your Lordships lave been so persuasive that I am now able to accept this Amendment, subject of course, as noble Lords will understand, to having a look at the language in which it is framed.
EARL HOWE: I must confess to being extremely nervous with regard to this Amendment, while I support it entirely in principle on the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has indicated. But the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, went further; he said we are to have a vast extension of these statistics. Surely that means a vast extension of staff, and if we have another extension to our already enormous Civil Service it will cost a great deal of money. If you are going to increase the Civil Service very largely you will undoubtedly have to spend a great deal more money on this scheme than you thought you would. It will not be a very good advertisement for the Commission to have to raise railway rates to pay the wages of extra civil servants employed on statistics.
LORD RALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Having heard the noble Lord on the desirability of not stereotyping statistics. I am glad to find how well my Amendment fitted the Bill. I am indeed staggered at my own moderation. I am very much

95
obliged to the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment.
LORD NATHAN: The Amendment can go in on the footing that I am going to look at the language of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in Subsection (2), to leave out "provide, as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission" and insert:
"conform with the best commercial standards and distinguish between the provision of transport for the carriage of goods and passengers by rail, the provision of transport for the carriage of goods by road, the provision of transport for the carriage of passengers by road, the provision of transport for the carriage of goods by inland waterways, the provision of port facilities and the provision of hotels, hostels and other living accommodation and places for refreshment. And show separately the results of each such activity and include a trading and profit and loss account and a balance sheet in relation to each such activity."
The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord opposite who is for the moment taking charge of the Bill felt that this Amendment and the one we have just agreed to were very much alike. They are alike, and I hope that he will accept this proposal also. The difference between them is this: the Amendment to which he has just in principle agreed is one that deals with statistics—with figures of course, but figures which do not involve the working out in money terms whether some particular portion of the undertaking is making a profit or a loss. This Amendment, on the other hand, deals entirely with accounts. Accounts necessarily involve figures, and nearly always in railway matters they involve setting the figure of receipts or profits on the one hand against the money figure of expenditure on the other. It is of great importance that in this vast consolidated undertaking, this monopoly which this monopoly which is being created by the Bill, a division should be made in the most clear form between different kinds of accounts. Even when we are concerned with only one railway company, it annually produces a number of accounts which are very informative and are of interest to others. Here we are dealing with a vast conglomeration of matters.
I quite recognize that there is already some
96
I quite that there is already some general clause in the Bill dealing with this subject, There is a provision in the Bill at present that: "The Commission shall prepare an annual statement of accounts in such form… as the Minister may… direct with the approval of the Treasury," and there is a further provision that: "The said annual statement"—that is, an annual statement of accounts—"shall be so framed as to provide as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission." The question is whether, in the circumstances, those words are sufficiently precise. They do go some way, but I would like the noble Lord to consider whether it is not very reasonable to put in the Bill provisions which are more specific. The provisions which we seek to put in the Bill are of this sort: that that annual statement shall be so framed as to
"conform with the best commercial standards and distinguish between the provision of transport for the carriage of goods and passengers by rail, the provision of transport for the carriage of goods by road, the provision of transport for the carriage of passengers by road, the provision of transport for the carriage of goods by inland waterways, the provision of port facilities and the provision of hotels, hostels and other living accommodation and places for refreshment. And show separately the results of each such activity and include a trading and profit and loss account and a balance sheet in relation to each such activity."
Assuming that any one of these activities was going to continue to be carried on by its present proprietors, I do not think there is any doubt at all that those undertakers would provide accounts such as are there described. The provision that it shall give "the best commercial standards" is one with which we are not unfamiliar, and surely it is important for everybody, both those who believe that the scheme is going to be a success and those who are anxious about it, to realize from the beginning that this distinction ought to be made in the accounts. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred to it in an earlier speech before he admitted himself convinced by the Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and he assured us all, as a message from the Minister, that the Minister intended that "there shall be the most extensive and informative accounts"—I think those were the words.
I do not want to tie anybody down to too much detail. Whether he wants to

97
go further than this, whether he wants to show how different parts of the country have fared, whether he wants to show now the railway system in Scotland has worked out in the matter of accounts and distinguish it from the railway systems elsewhere, or whether he wants to divide it into regions—that is entirely within his discretion. But in view of this being an amalgamation of undertakings—hotels, canals, railway docks, railways and roads—we say that in the interests of everybody and in particular of the public whom we all are trying to serve, there ought to be in the Bill a statement that the accounts mentioned in this Amendment are really presented separately. One most important point to ascertain, and a matter which the public would be most interested to know and which doubtless will receive the closest attention from the Minister of Transport, is this: How does the carrying on of the business of road goods transport compare, from the point of view of profit or loss, with the carrying on of railway transport? It may become most important to know that. We shall then see whether the difference is very considerable, and whether it is likely to diminish or otherwise.
We shall see—I am not speaking as a critic, but as public-spirited men and women would speak who want to understand the affairs of their country so far as they are in the hands of their Government—whether or not the way in which the road transport is managed by the Government produces profit or loss, and we shall be able to compare that with the way in which they handle passenger transport. Nobody can doubt that these things are all separately dealt with in the accounts of these various undertakings to-day. It is so because that is the proper commercial practice. In an important company you never find perfectly different operations all interlocked so that you have no means of knowing which of them is the one which is making money, and which is the one which is not, When these undertakings are all put together, so that it becomes one of the greatest single enterprises in the world, my suggestion to the noble Lord is that it really would be right to make a more precise statutory direction than exists in the Bill at present, whilst I should myself be entirely opposed to carrying the statutory
98
language into such detail as really to leave no discretion to the Minister at all.
I cannot help thinking, with great respect, that if the noble Lord or I were advising people who were about to take charge of an immensely complicated thing of this sort, we should certainly say ah out each of the big departments: "This really is a department about which there ought to be separate accounts." It may be that it will prove to be a justification for the scheme; but, whether it is a justification or whether it shows a weakness in the handling of the scheme, it is essential that the country should know. There is no sense in putting together every sort of enterprise covered here and saying: "I will give you the accounts. That is as much as I think I can do." There is no legislative provision that we should separate, let us say, the accounts for the transport of the carriage of goods by road from the accounts for the transport of passengers by rail. I am sure that every enterprise that undertakes to do that sort of thing at present does makes such a separation.
I do not think there is any business man who would suggest that this was not a proper separation. I see very good business heads opposite me. I am not asking for anything unreasonable, but I do urge on the noble Lord, with great respect, that we ought really to show on the face of this Bill what is the minimum sub-division it would be proper to make, I realize that there may be cases where a particular item has to be split. You may conceivably have a garage which is used partly for passenger and partly for goods traffic by road; that is possible. No one is more familiar than the noble Lord opposite with the way these things are handled. There is a splitting of the accounts which is indicated on the face of it. There is nothing more common. You ask your chartered accountant: "How much of this common work should I put under one head, and how much under another?" That is my suggestion, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it is not an unreasonable one. I have not endeavoured to make a great example of it, but I am concerned and I think we are all concerned, that the separation of these accounts should be adequate. Having said that, though not endowed with all the powers of persuasion which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh so

99
happily exercises, and without casting any spell on the noble Lord, I hope none the less that the argument which I have put forward is one which may receive his favourable attention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 25, leave out from the end of the line to the first ("and") in line 27, and insert the said new words.—[Viscount Simon.]
LORD NATHAN: I have been familiar with the powers of persuasion of the noble and learned Viscount over a great number of years, and in a variety of different capacities; but although I may not at this moment admit that his persuasiveness has reached the degree of that of Lord Balfour of Burleigh it has achieved sufficient, at all events, to justify me in saying that I will certainly have this Amendment carefully looked at with a view to seeing whether we cannot go some distance with the noble and learned Viscount; and, if so, how far. But, as the noble and learned Viscount will understand, I must, as a safeguard, say that I am not committing myself. As I am not committing myself, I think that I ought perhaps to say a word or two about the Amendment.
The term "best commercial standards" has crept into a number of statutes where it is, I think, a very apt form of words. But I am not quite certain that it would be a very apt form of words in this Transport Bill. I am inclined to think that rather than "best commercial standards," a suitable phrase would be "most modern transport practice," because transport is a highly specialized industry. What is much more to the point is that transport accounting is a highly specialized form of accounting, which has developed over a long period of years, and to a great extent under statutory provision. I can certainly say that the Minister would wish to draw upon the long experience which I think has resulted, on the whole, in the development of a pretty satisfactory system of railway accounting. My right honourable friend certainly has no intention of abandoning any of the valuable principles that have been established over so long a period of years, but what he rather feels is that he ought to have a free hand to improve and develop the type of information which the existing Acts require, so that the information placed before the public may he even greater than that
100
which has hitherto been published. I do not know how far the noble and learned Viscount is familiar with the kind of information and accounts that have hitherto been published. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has been for more than one period of office President of the Board of Trade and he is doubtless familiar with this document, the Return of Capital, Traffic Receipts and Working Expenditure of the Railway Companies which extends over 142 pages for the year 1939—the last year for which it was available. This gives every kind of information, and is complete with a series of graphs in the appendix.
Then there is the form of accounts and statistical return under the Railway Act of 1921 extending to some ninety odd pages. The information given at present is therefore pretty extensive, and my right honourable friend is now confronted with the task of applying that kind of analysis which has hitherto prevailed in regard to railway companies to the various kinds of transport. As regards showing the different kinds of activities, the noble Viscount will realize—indeed I think he pointed it out —that in subsection (2) of the clause provision is made that the annual statement of accounts is to be so presented "as to provide, as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission." In existing railway returns separate receipts and expenditure accounts are shown in respect of railways, canals, collection and delivery of goods and parcels, road transport, clocks, steamboats, hotels and refreshment rooms.
That may be taken as an indication of what will be and should be provided by the Minister in future, on the assumption that circumstances remain the same. But of course one cannot say exactly how the detailed boundaries of each category of activity will shape themselves, and it is difficult to give any final view in terms of concrete definition in respect of various categories. Let me assure noble Lords, however, that the Minister will aim at continuity, and it is very necessary to have continuity to compare the present with the past. I think probably that I have said sufficient, in view of my prefatory observations, to satisfy the noble and learned Viscount, and the noble Viscount whose name is also attached to this Amendment, that the matters to which this Amendment relates have been carefully

101
considered and that there is little or nothing between us as to the substance of what is desired. And I will, as I have said, take an opportunity between now and Report stage of consulting with my right honourable friend as to whether, and if so how far, I would be able to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord; I think this is not a subject which should be at all rushed. This is another clause which was not debated in another place. No words were said, much less a Division taken, on the whole of this subject. I agree about not stereotyping. You want the best practice in this kind of accountancy; a form of words if we mean the same thing is easily found, but we attach enormous importance to the fact—which was definitely conceded in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act—that there should be a separation between the different activities. Under Section 31 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, returns must conform to the best commercial standard, and we might look together at the Companies Bill and see if there is a form of words there. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act goes on, "for all distinct colliery activities and each of the main and ancillary activities of the Board". We want to be very careful about words. The Transport Bill says
"The said annual statement shall be framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information as respects the principal activities of the Commission."
Frankly, what we want is a separate balance sheet and accounts. What we want to know is, are we making a profit or loss on each of these transactions?
That is a perfectly simple issue. I am not saying it is wrong to subsidize a loss on your railways out of your roads. I suppose that is the whole purpose of jumbling all this business up together. Nobody has been a sterner critic in the past than the Labour Party, in what they allege that businesses have done. I am not sure that businesses have always been as guilty as they have said—and anyhow we have been careful in the Companies Bill to particularize this. What we say is that you must not have a concealed subsidy and you must not bring in the profit on road transport to make up surreptitiously the losses on rail transport. We therefore want to know exactly what is the profit and loss made on each of these different
102
activities. I venture to emphasize that because the noble Lord said that—though I gather we are pretty well at one over this—the boundaries might vary. I am a little anxious about that. I am not trying to dictate how the Commission should run this business. As a matter of fact, as the noble Lord knows, I want to dictate to the Commission much less than he does; in fact my idea was that the Commission should be allowed to set up the kind of Executives they wanted. whether they were regional or not.
It may well be—I think it will be—that when the Commission get into their stride on these parallel lines, it is quite likely they will work through regional boards, which will embrace all the activities of the Commission. But because for the purposes of administration and local convenience you delegate everything except the major questions of policy to the regional boards—you give the broad directions, and the regional boards carry out the application—I do not want it to be said that we have blurred the lines and that all these things are mixed up together. I only wart to emphasize that we do know what is to be taken over— the railways, the roods, the canals, the passengers and the goods; there may be some more, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. And for each of these we want to know whether a profit or loss is being made, and how much on each of the transactions.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Distinguishing between goods and passengers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Distinguishing between goods and passengers. If we are substantially at one about that, I do not think there will be much difficulty in drafting what we want, and I hope that we shall arrive at a happy and agreed solution, as we did on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which we have discussed.
LORD BARNBY: Before we leave consideration of this clause may I remind the Committee that at an earlier stage in consideration of the Bill I raised this point, which clearly should be raised at this time. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has clearly set out what is the danger if this clause is not inserted, and the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, has emphasized his readiness to make sure that this safeguard

103
is included in the Bill. An essential point, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, is that we want to see that the accounts show whether profits are being made in each department. The manner in which this can be achieved is provided for, I suppose, differently under each of these Bills which provide for nationalization—we have recently had Cable and Wireless and Civil Aviation. The point I wish to raise is the manner in which this aim can be achieved.
I raised the question of the auditors and audits. Since the Electricity (Supply) Act of 1926, which established the Central Electricity Board, this is really the first large-scale national action of transferring a commercial undertaking to a centralized authority, which is tantamount to a monopoly. This transfer of activities to a central authority requires accounting of a character which permits the comparison of operating costs with the other operating activities. I take the opportunity, before we leave this clause, of asking the noble Lord, in considering how this is to be achieved, to draw the noble Lord's attention to the words at line 33: "in accordance with a scheme of audit approved by him", (that is, the Minister). I wanted only to take this opportunity of pointing out that the words I have just quoted do not give any assurance that the Minister will employ civilian accountants.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the next Amendment which stands in my name and that of Viscount Simon is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 33, after ("him") insert ("such scheme to conform with the best commercial usage").—[Viscount Swinton.]
LORD NATHAN: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then we had better adjourn and take it to-morrow. I thought it was purely consequential.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will it not in fact come up in the discussions before the Report stage on the first Amendment?
LORD NATHAN: I am quite ready that it should.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending section one of the Act to the

City and County of Kingston-upon-Hull;

County Borough of Darlington;

County Borough of Ipswich;

Borough of Bridgnorth;

Rural District of Blackwell;

Rural District of Mildenhall:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.