I beg to move, in page 20, line 25, to leave out "adjusted cost of production," and to insert:

"cost of production adjusted in accordance with the last foregoing paragraph."

This Amendment and those which follow have reference to the method of fixing the price of the electricity sold by the new Board to the Central Electricity Board. The method of fixing the price is very technical, but I think I can give the assurance that there is no alteration in the sense of the Schedule by reason of any of these Amendments.

These words represent an improvement, but for the benefit of those Members of the Committee not familiar with such phrases as "adjusted cost of production," I would like to give a little warning that, however perfect they make this Schedule, a great many people will have a great many headaches on a great many occasions.

I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."

This very long Schedule is the result of our labours in adapting the whole existing electricity code to the circumstances of the new Board, and I think that we have done it as shortly as ingenuity will allow it to be done. I do not profess that it is easy to understand, but I do not think any alternative method of doing it would have been any better or, indeed, as good. I move this Schedule as being the most workmanlike job the circumstances of the case permits.

The proposed Schedule states that Section 14 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall not apply to the Board. Certain local authorities whom I represent do not understand why this Section should not be applied to the Board, as it was to the previous undertaking.

I am afraid I cannot answer that question off-hand. These matters are so technical that I do not happen to remember the reason, but I will look into this point before the Report stage.

I would ask the Committee to look at this amazing Schedule. I have not the slightest doubt that what the Lord Advocate said is true, that this is the best way of doing it, but the time has come to offer a protest against the fact that the Electricity Acts have not been consolidated. If they had been, we should not have been asked to do this perfectly dreadful thing at this moment. It is 10 years since, on the Second Reading of some Electricity Bill, I Dressed for consolidation. I lived with the Electricity Acts for eight years. I thought I knew something about them at first, but by the end of the eighth year I was convinced I knew little, so confused was I. Since we are incorporating so many Electricity Acts, in whole or in part, in this Bill I make a personal protest against the fact that the best of them, the Act of 1936, which I sponsored as a private Member, will have no place in this Bill.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Schedule, in line 151, after "1943" to insert,

"after the word 'undertaking' there shall be inserted the words 'or which have been acquired by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking.'"

The purpose of this insertion can he simply explained. Under the Fifth Schedule, lines 149 to 153, Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1926, are incorporated. This Section relates to the acquisition of land by the Central Electricity Board for which this new Board is substituted. The Sub-section provides that nothing in the Section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition by the Board of land held by the owners or lessees of any railway, canal, navigation dock or harbour, for the purpose of their undertaking, and so on, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, and Section II of the Act of 1922. Under Section 24 of the Act of 1909, it is provided that nothing in the Act shall enable the Electricity Commissioners, by special Order, to authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land belonging to any gas or water undertakers and used by them for the purposes of their undertaking.

The purpose of my Amendment is to bring electricity undertakers under the same provisions as other statutory undertakers. They are subject under statute to limitations as to the land they may acquire, and, therefore, it would create an extraordinary position if the Board were enabled to override the powers given to such undertakers. Surely there can be no justification for differentiating between electricity undertakings and gas and water undertakings, or the other public services referred to. If it will strengthen the Government's hands to have precedents in support of my Amendment, I would refer them to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, Section 3, and the Local Government Act, 1933 Section 179 (3).

In drafting this Bill we have gone as far as possible on the lines of not altering general statutory provisions, so as to make a difference between the Highlands area and the rest of the country. We have made alterations only where we thought there was good reason for them. We have been unable to find any sufficiently good reason to justify putting statutory undertakers in the North of Scotland in a different position from those in the rest of Great Britain. What is the injury which my hon. Friend apprehends? It can only arise out of a constructional scheme, because what he wants to prevent is the acquisition of land or an interest in land belonging to a statutory authority, and that can only be done by the new Board under a constructional scheme. Therefore, any undertaking which feels aggrieved by any proposal of the new Board to take any part of its land has the fullest opportunity of making objections, having an inquiry, if necessary, and raising the matter through any hon. Member in the House who chooses to raise it on the scheme when it lies on the Table. Is there any reason why there should be a complete prohibition of the Board taking any part of a statutory undertaker's land, however useful that land may be, however little harm it may be doing to the undertaking and however much good it may be doing to the Board? There would be a pretty heavy onus to discharge by anyone who sought to take possession of the land of an undertaker, but the door should not be closed entirely and if circumstances arise in which it is obviously the best thing for some small piece of land to be taken away from an undertaker and handed to the Board, it is permissible under the existing law, and I do not think there is so much harm in it that we Should alter it.

The Lord Advocate has not explained why the protection which is granted to existing undertakers, and which prohibits the Commissioners from acquiring such land, is not to be granted here.

I think I am right in saying that undertakers in the position which my hon. Friend has in mind, if they are in the South of Scotland or in England, do not have the protection which he seeks. If they, had his Amendment would have taken the form of incorporating some existing statutory provision, whereas it proposes to introduce some quite new words. That shows that there is no statutory provision under the electricity code at the moment which covers his case.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Schedule, in line 185, after "authority," to insert:

"Fourth Schedule—For the words 'on an annual salary' in the Proviso there shall be substituted the words in the performance of administrative professional clerical supervisory or technical duties not being a person employed by way of manual labour on a weekly or less than a weekly Wage"

This Amendment deals with the assessment of compensation to officers and servants of undertakings who may be deprived of their employment by the amalgamation or transfer of undertakings under this Bill. The Amendment calls for a few words of explanation. The method of assessment of compensation in these cases is partly laid down in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1926. The Committee will observe that my Amendment proposes that the Fourth Schedule of that Act shall apply to this Bill subject to two modifications. With the leave of the Committee I propose to move those two modifications separately. First, I move that the Fourth Schedule should have application to this Bill subject to the modification that for the words "on an annual salary" there shall be substituted the words:

"In the performance of administrative, professional, clerical, supervisory or technical duties not being a person employed by way of manual labour at a weekly wage."

I shall move the second modification separately. With regard to the proposed first modification, the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1926 provides that the compensation which shall be payable to an employee who is employed on an annual salary shall be assessed in a certain way. The expression "on an annual salary" has been found to give rise to difficulty in certain cases, and therefore my Amendment proposes to substitute words which will make clear who the persons are to whom that part of the Fourth Schedule applies.

The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. It is unfortunately the fact that somewhat unexpected meaning was attached to "on an annual salary" in a certain case, and it is therefore very desirable that any such difficulties should be avoided in the future. Therefore, with some reluctance, we feel justified in agreeing to put in four lines in place of four wards.

I have not given this matter the thought that I might have done, but a point that at once rises to my mind is that this is a concession for a chap on an annual wage, called in ordinary parlance "a staff employee," which is not being given to a man who is not on the staff. In the event of employees becoming redundant owing to amalgamation, the benefits of this Amendment would be confined to the salaried staff.

My hon. Friend will find the full provisions for the payment of compensation in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1926. The Schedule deals with other classes of persons who are entitled to be paid compensation for loss of office, but their compensation is assessed in a manner which is slightly different from the manner in which the compensation is assessed for a person engaged on an annual salary. Both classes are entitled to be paid compensation for loss of their employment.

My point is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has put down an Amendment which seeks to safeguard the rights of salaried people but makes no mention of the rights of those who are non-salaried employees. What is the reason for an Amendment which seems to strengthen the rights of the salaried workers while leaving out the others? The hon. and learned Gentleman has given an answer which I cannot follow. I was a Member at the time the Act of 1926 was passed, and I remember the Debates upon it. The hon. and learned Member tells me the rights are safeguarded by the Act of 1926. If that be true, the rights of the salaried people are safeguarded, and so why have an Amendment only for the salaried workers?

I have before me the Act of 1926, and I think the matter is quite simple once you have the Act in front of you. There is a general provision that compensation shall be such as the referee or the Board of referees may award, and then there is a proviso that where loss of employment is involved the compensation in the case of an officer employed at an annual salary shall be on a different basis, namely, on the basis of what was the rule in the Civil Service at a certain date. Accordingly, under the Act of 1926 there are two different scales operating, according to whether a man was on an annual salary or was not. As my hon. and learned Friend has said in moving his Amendment, a somewhat curious meaning was attached to "an annual salary," and accordingly the division between the two types of compensation did not fall where it had been expected to fall. Some people who ought to have been on one side of the line turned out to be on the other side. The purpose of the Amendment is to restore the dividing line between the two types of compensation to where it was always intended it should be, but from which it was displaced by an interpretation of the courts in a particular case.

What we are doing is to restore what was thought to be the compensation under the Act of 1926 for those covered by this Bill while leaving people covered by the Act of 1926 in the position in which we did not intend them to be. The Act of 1926 is not being amended. It seems to me that if an amendment has to be made this is the wrong way to do it. The amendment ought not to be made on the side issue of a hydro-electric Bill. If the wording in the Act of 1926 is wrong, according to an interpretation given in the courts, the way to put it right is by an alteration of the Act of 1926. We ought not to foist the alteration on to a hydro-electric Bill. That is my view, and I think it should be the Lord Advocate's view. I do not think this is quite the fair method of doing it.

Generally speaking, I think, the hon. Member is quite right, but, as I said a few minutes ago, we did decide to alter the general law where there was a strong case for it. We tried to keep the Amendments of the general law as few as possible, but we thought that this point had a strong case for it. Accordingly, in the interests of this class of people, I think we were right to do so.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Schedule, after the words last inserted, to insert:

"There shall be inserted after the words 'during the war' in the Proviso the words 'of 1914 to 1918 or during the period beginning with the first day of September, 1939, and ending with such day as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency) Powers Act, 1939, came to an end.'"

This is the second part of my Amendment, and it calls for some brief explanation. The Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1926 provides that officers or servants who were absent from their employment during the war might, in an assessment as to compensation, include their period of service during the war as though it had been service in the undertaking. The expression "during the war" applies and is restricted to the war of 1914–18. The purpose of my Amendment is to extend that provision to the present war so that a person deprived of employment in consequence of an amalgamation or transfer under the Bill who has been absent from his employment on service during this war, will be entitled to count his years of service as part of the service in respect of which he is entitled to compensation under the Bill.

I regret to say that the same considerations do not apply here as in the other case. We think there is no sufficient case for accepting this Amendment. It is clear that the position of those who have gone on war service in regard to superannuation will have to be cleared up in some general way at the end of the war. We agreed to accept the last Amendment because it was not clear that this position would be cleared up in any reasonable time, but the present case is so outstanding that it is unthinkable that the problem will not be promptly tackled after the end of the war. We do not want to establish a precedent in a small Bill of this kind which might be a little embarrassing when the general problem comes to be considered.

I appreciate the reason which has led to the rejection of the Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend has not given an assurance, and it is not possible that he could, that this matter will be dealt with. No doubt it will. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.