I beg to move, in page 54, line 27, at the end, to insert:

"but so however that taking one year with another the terms and conditions shall be such as will not result in a financial loss to the Central Authority or the Area Board as the case may be."

This Clause deals with the supply of electric current to railways which, we understand, are about to be nationalised, and I would like, first, to point out what is the present position. Under Section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1935, which, of course, is to be repealed by this Bill, it is required that while bulk supplies of electricity from the Central Electricity Board to the railways may be given at special rates, such arrangements must comply with a rule, and that rule is that they must not result in financial loss to the Central Electricity Board. This Amendment will ensure that that rule remains in force, even though the law is repealed. We feel that in future, in transactions between a nationalised electricity supply and a nationalised railway system, there may be temptation for an unsuccessful transport system to get a hidden subsidy from a successful electricity board. It is essential that the financial success or otherwise of all these nationalised undertakings should be clear to the country. It is not a matter of party politics. Under private enterprise, if a -company fails to act with financial prudence, and if it incurs financial losses, sooner or later it becomes bankrupt. That will not happen with a national monopoly. There is a danger that there will be continual internal financial bleeding, if I may so call it, which will result in the slow debility of the economic state of the country. The principle of this Amendment is already laid down in Section 4 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1935, which forbids the Central Electricity Board contracting a supply to any railway company unless they satisfy the electricity commissioners that such supply will not result in financial loss to the Board. I believe this Amendment is' necessary and will be helpful.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am unable to find any point of difference between the Opposition and myself on this issue. As I said during the Committee proceedings, it is not our intention to provide for subsidies, whether concealed or otherwise, but I thought this matter might be arranged by regulation rather than by making a specific stipulation in the Bill. However, as there appears to be no objection to the principle embodied in this Amendment and the succeeding Amendment, if hon. Members will leave the matter with me I will see whether I can find a suitable form of words and arrange the matter in another place. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) will observe how anxious I am to make concessions at this early stage in our proceedings today, and no doubt he will respond by assisting me to expedite the proceedings.

We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think he can complain about the expedition with which we concluded our proceedings in the early hours of this morning. There is one question I would like to ask. There are three Amendments which, to some extent, overlap. They are, the Amendment which we are at present considering, and the Amendments in page 54, line 30, to leave out from "used," to end of line 34, and insert:

"also for the lighting of vehicles, but shall not be used for any other purpose:

Provided that, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, and subject to such limitations and conditions, if any, as they may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, the electricity supplied under this Section to a railway company at any point may be used partly for such purposes as aforesaid and partly for other purposes of the undertaking of the owners of the railway, being purposes for which such owners are entitled to use electricity, but the Electricity Commissioners shall not in any case give any such consent until notice of the application for the consent has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as the Electricity Commissioners may direct, and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Minister to be affected of making representations thereon";

and in page 55, line 11, at end, insert:

"(7) In exercising their functions under this Section the Minister and the Secretary of State shall ensure that Electricity Boards shall not supply electricity to any railway undertaking otherwise than upon terms and conditions designed to ensure that, taking one year with another, such supply shall not have the effect of subsidising the railway undertakings at the expense of other consumers, nor result in a financial loss to any Electricity Board."

I think they all cover a variation of the same idea. I would like to know whether the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has just given covers all three Amendments, or whether he would prefer to have a short discussion on the other two.

What I said related to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and the Amendment to page 55, line 11. The other Amendment, to page 54, line 30, is not so covered

In view of the Minister's statement that his remarks apply also to the Amendment in Page 55'line11 I feel constrained to make one or two observations. I do not think it is sufficiently realised that while railway companies possess power stations which are not statutory undertakings, regulations have been made by the Electricity Commissioners with regard to the provision and financing of new turbine sets, whereby the frequency has been standardised at 50 cycles as against 33⅓ cycles, and a situation may arise whereby the railway companies can, and do, feed back to the grid. Therefore, it would appear that it might be of advantage to the area boards to give a specially reduced tariff in a given area in order to have a similar agreement with a railway generating station in another area. It is one of the difficulties which are bound to arise, because under the Bill we have excluded all statutory undertakings, irrespective of the fact that they are standardising with regard to frequency. Therefore, I think the Minister is limiting and committing himself to an agreement which, in certain circumstances, will be disadvantageous to the electricity consumer.

In view of the satisfactory assurance that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 54, line 30, to leave out from "used," to the end of line 34, and to insert:

"also for the lighting of vehicles, but shall not be used for any other purpose:

Provided that, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, and subject to such limitations and conditions, if any, as they may prescribe either generally or in any particular case, the electricity supplied under this section to a railway company at any point may be used partly for such purposes as aforesaid and partly for other purposes of the undertaking of the owners of the railway, being purposes for which such owners are entitled to use electricity, but the Electricity Commissioners shall not in any case give any such consent until notice of the application for the consent has been given by advertisement or otherwise in such manner as the Electricity Commissioners may direct, and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Minister to be affected of making representations thereon."

Subsection (3) applies to electricity supplied to any railway undertaking for the purpose of haulage or traction, and it states that a supply may be provided on the same' terms and conditions for any other purpose. I wish to call attention to the width of those words

"any other purpose."

In the Standing Committee I pointed out this matter, but I was incorrectly reported in HANSARD as saying that the current might be supplied for 4d. per unit instead of 4d. The difference was in one of those "damned dots" that a famous statesman referred to, and that are capable of creating a great deal of misunderstanding. That price may be satisfactory for traction and haulage purposes, but if the railway undertakers are allowed to use electricity at the same price in their hotels, those hotels will be put into a position of undue preference in competition with thousands of other hotels in this country. That would be most unfair.

It may be said that, under the existing regulations which permit the railways to use the supply for certain purposes, they already have power to use it in their hotels, but we are now dealing with a state of affairs which may shortly result in a great acceleration of railway electrification. We all hope that it might do so and that before many years are past most of the railways will be electrically operated. There will be a far greater number of railway hotels in that case which might be given an unduly cheap supply of electricity, if the provisions of the Subsection were allowed to stand. For that reason the first part of the Amendment proposes to leave out certain words. In order not to make the Subsection too restrictive we add a proviso which widens the possible use of the Clause. The wording of the proviso is precisely similar to the existing provisions of the Clause regarding railway supplies.

I do not consider that the proviso is unreasonable in saying that if supplies are given by the Area Board at 4d. or 5d. per unit, that supply should be allowed to be used in such places as railway workshops, locomotive shops and shunting yards. I would not like to see any restriction of that kind, but that must be left for the suppliers of the current to agree about with the Central Board. In the absence of the Electricity Commission we have worded the proviso so as to leave the position very much as it is to-day. If the Commission are to go, there ought to be some other means of referring provisions to some body which would be able to settle any difference of view as to the terms and conditions upon which electricity would be supplied for traction purposes, and for any other purpose.

When the hon. Gentleman was referring to the report of his speech in HANSARD, I think he talked about some Labour leader who had spoken about "damned dots."

I think my hon. Friend said "an English statesman."

I thought he said a Labour statesman.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Amendment would make the situation worse than it is at the moment for traction and lighting. What about the current required for heating and the compressing of brakes? Is it to be measured? Are we to have regulations on such matters as that? When the hon. Member was dealing with special tariff for hotels he qualified it in relation to the provision of electrical energy for railway workshops. Railways already have current there on similar terms as for traction. If we are to make regulations every time, those who profess an abhorrence for regulations, will find the industry saddled with a lot of red tape. So far as special terms are concerned, they are common at all times. It is unfair to read into the Bill that railway hotels are to have some kind of preferential tariff.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the proviso, which leaves it open for the current to be used partly

"for such purposes as aforesaid"

and partly

"for other purposes of the undertaking."

In view of the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave a few moments ago I think the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will agree that some, at any rate, of the point of the Amendment is taken away. What remains really is that he would seek to substitute by the Amendment, and in particular by the proviso, the consent of the Electricity Commissioners for the consent of the Central Authority. If the supply is to be used for any other purpose than haulage and traction Subsection (3) lays down that it must be with the approval of the Central Authority. The hon. Gentleman would say that for "central authority" must be substituted "Electricity Commissioners." That is the effect of the proviso. I agree that it also sets up certain machinery. The long and the short of it is that the hon. Gentleman seeks to change one consenting authority for another. I would join issue with him on that proposal, but before I give reasons for doing so I would say that we think that the words

"on the same terms and conditions"

should be reconsidered. Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, impliedly in what they said, pointed out the restrictive character of those words. We want to look at those words to see whether we cannot give the Central Authority some more discretion with regard to the terms and conditions which it authorises. That, I think, would meet the point made by my hon. Friend.

With regard to the question whether it should be the Central Authority or the Electricity Commissioners, we feel that we must adhere to the position we have taken up. After all, what are the circumstances? The circumstances are that the Central Authority has imposed upon it, under Clause I (1, c) the duty of coordinating the distribution of electricity by area boards, and exercising a general control. Surely, this matter is one which falls plumb within the scope of that duty? Secondly, it is also under a duty, by Clause 1 (6, c), of avoiding any undue preference. My right hon. Friend has said that he does not intend that there should be anything in the nature of a secret subsidy to railways. In addition to that, then, the Central Authority is under a specific duty to see that there is no undue preference shown to any particular type of consumer. Railway companies using current for purposes other than haulage and traction would come within the scope of that provision. Therefore, we think that the appropriate authority in whom to vest the power of giving or refusing consent, or specifying the terms upon which the current may be used for other than haulage or traction purposes, should be, as it is now under the Bill, the Central Authority.

It is, I think, relevant to remember what has been said earlier in cur discussions on this Bill on the question of financing. We are no longer dealing, or will no longer be dealing when this Bill becomes law, with the position in which one has a number of separate undertakers, each watching out, quite naturally, in order to preserve its own area. We have substituted the area boards; and we have substituted for the principle of individual undertakers the overriding principle that what we are really striving at is to improve the sufficiency of supply to consumers. That is a change; and that does, of course, take away a good deal of the reason for the provisions which the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has embodied in this Amendment, and which previously found their place in Section 4 {2) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1935. I would say, in passing, that the hon Member for Stockport was not quite accurate in saying that the wording of that Section was identical with the wording of this Amendment. There is a noticeable difference. Section 4 of that Act prescribed the Minister of Transport as the person who should give consent. The hon. Member has substituted the Electricity Commissioners. However, that is by the way.

As has already been said during our Debates, it is not necessarily thought that the area boards should run, year in and year out, without' any loss, so long as the overall undertaking which is under the control of the Central Authority, taking an overall view of it, balances its budget. Therefore, a good deel of the reason which made it necessary, under Section 4 of the 1935 Act, to set up the rather elaborate machinery which was there set up, has gone. In substituting the Central Authority, charged with the duties in Clause I to which I have referred—that is to say, the duty of exercising an overall co-ordinating control, and the duty of seeing that there is no undue preference extended to any particular consumer—as the authority which is to have the power of giving or refusing consent to the supply of current being used for other than haulage and traction purposes, we feel we have taken the right course.

Therefore, in so far as the Amendment seeks to substitute the Electricity Commissioners for that Authority, we must ask the House to reject the Amendment. But, as I said earlier, we might be able to reconsider the words "on the same terms and conditions," to meet partly the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport and partly the point made by my hon. Friend, that there should perhaps be some more flexibility, more scope for discretion in the terms upon which the Central Authority could give or withhold its consent to the user by railway companies of current for other than haulage and traction purposes. That is, however, set against the background that my right hon. Friend has said, which has to be considered, that there must be no hidden subsidy veiled in the terms upon which railway companies are allowed to avail themselves of electricity.

With the consent of the House, perhaps I might put a question to the learned Solicitor-General. I did not, of course, pretend that the Central Authority should decide the terms upon which the railway companies should get their current. If I understand Clause 43(I) correctly, is it not the fact that the Central Authority itself has the duty of providing these supplies to railway undertakings? If that be so—and I think it is—they are to be the suppliers. Surely, they cannot then state the terms of the supply? If there should be any difference between them and the railway undertakings there must be some means of referring the difference to arbitration. It is quite true that in Subsection (2) the terms and conditions for haulage and traction purposes are to be determined by regulations made by the Minister and the Minister of Transport jointly. But, with all respect to those two Ministers, I doubt very much whether they know a sufficient amount about the cost of producing and distributing electricity to be able to decide what are the proper terms to be agreed between them, and I should be very sorry if the two Ministers differed because of that. The point of my question is: Is it not the fact that the Central Authority is responsible for supplying current to railways? That being so, surely they should not be able to decide what the terms should be.

rose—

The hon. and gallant Member cannot now speak. He has forfeited his right by seconding the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 55, line 40, after "manner," to insert:

"and subject to 'the like provisions and restrictions."

This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It makes clear that in using power to provide heat from generating stations to be used for buildings, and so on, the boards are to be subject to the same limitations in the exercise of their power as they are for the supply of electricity. For example, they would be bound, as a result of this Amendment, by the provisions of Section 14 of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, which, provides for certain notices to be given to the Postmaster-General when streets are broken up.

I beg to move, in page 56, line 22, at the end, to insert:

"(2) The powers conferred by this Section shall be exercisable in like manner and subject to the like provisions and restrictions as they are exercisable by the Board concerned for the purpose of the supply of electricity in the area or District of the Board."

This does almost exactly the same as the last Amendment, except that it relates to the case where a board is providing a supply of electricity outside its area. It is to be bound in relation to its activities outside its area in exactly the same way as it would be bound in relation to its activities inside the area.

I beg to move, in page 57, line 6, at the end, to insert:

"(2) In carrying out their duties under the last preceding Subsection, the Central Authority shall not refuse to consult with any organisation appearing to represent an appreciable proportion of persons employed by Electricity Boards, or of any class of such persons."

This Amendment seeks to add a new Subsection to Clause 47, which deals generally with the relations between the electricity authorities and their staffs. As the Bill stands, it is laid down, in Subsection (1), that

"it shall be the duty of the Central Authority to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between the Authority and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable."

That is extraordinarily little, because unless an organisation appears to the Central Authority to be appropriate, there is no obligation of any kind upon the Authority to enter into negotiations with them. This Amendment seeks to provide that where an appreciable proportion of persons employed by the boards, or an appreciable proportion of a class of persons employed by the boards, are organised in any particular organisation, it shall be the duty of the Central Authority to discuss and negotiate with them on wages and conditions, and so forth. This is considered desirable because of the situations which have developed in other nationalised and semi-nationalised industries. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), the day before yesterday, took the line, on an Amendment moved from this side of the House, that it was unnecessary because it sought to deal with a danger which had not yet arisen. That cannot be urged against this Amendment, because this Amendment is designed to prevent the Central Electricity Authority following the example of the Coal Board, by refusing to negotiate with organisations among its employees.

In the case of the Coal Board, as the right hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, he has had, until this morning, a strike on his hands, solely by reason of the refusal of the Coal Board to recognise and discuss conditions with the Administrative and Clerical Workers' Union. The right hon. Gentleman is also well aware of the potentially dangerous situation which is developing by reason of the Coal Board's refusal to recognise and negotiate with the British Association of Colliery Officials and Staff. It is precisely to prevent that same sort of situation developing in this industry that this Amendment has been brought forward. Not only has this situation arisen in the coal industry, but the potentialities of it arising in the electricity industry are even greater.

Can the hon. Member name one organisation of workers or tech- nicians that has not been recognised by the conciliation machinery which already exists in the electricity undertakings?

The hon. Member is dealing with the present position when the industry is under private enterprise. This Amendment is not designed to deal with that situation, which this Bill seeks to bring to an end. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member that the situation has not become so bad under private enterprise to warrant this precaution being taken. The object of this Amendment is to deal with the situation when the Central Electricity Authority and its satellite boards are set up. A fair standard to apply is not that of private enterprise, but that of the public monopolies, and, in particular, the public monopoly which comes directly under the responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to follow what he did in the case of the coal industry, by putting on this authority representatives associated with the major unions. If he does, he will appreciate that, with the best will in the world, a man who has spent the whole of his life in building up a particular union is not likely to regard the claims of another union very sympathetically. That has certainly been the experience of those unions which are rivals to the National Union of Mine-workers, when having to deal with Mr. Ebby Edwards of the National Coal Board. If it is the intention of the Minister to direct the Central Electricity Authority to continue the happy state of affairs which has existed in the industry under private enterprise, he can have no conceivable objection to accepting this Amendment, because it will only write into the Bill what are precisely his intentions. It is only if that state of affairs, which the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) has so rightly praised, is brought to an end, that the provisions of this Amendment will take effect. If the hon. Member wants this state of affairs to continue, he can safeguard that by supporting this Amendment.

This Amendment seeks to prevent what is unfortunately happening in the coal industry. It is not a case of any vague or general apprehensions, but a case of very precise apprehensions, based on what has happened in a neighbouring industry. In the case of electricity, it is even more important to provide this safeguard, owing to the wide variety of unions involved. For example, this Bill provides for the taking over of local authority undertakings. As the hon. Member for North Wembley knows perfectly well, many of the staffs of the local authority undertakings are members of a union connected with local government, rather than of a union connected with the industry. This includes members of the National Association of Local Government Officers, who are very apprehensive about their position in the industry. It lies within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to quieten these apprehensions by accepting this Amendment, and it lies within his power to start off this great experiment in an atmosphere of suspicion and intrigue by refusing to accept it, in which case he will leave us in the unfortunate position of having a repetition of the coal scandal.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Hon. Members who keep harking back to the labour relations as they have been., should remember that an entirely new principle of nationalisation is being introduced. This is a State monopoly of labour, and where there is a State monopoly of labour the position is entirely different and it is the duty of this House to safeguard all sections. We remember that during the coal Debate this same point was put to the Minister on two or three occasions, but he steadfastly refused to meet us. We are now seeing some of the consequences in other industries. If he persists in his attitude, it will only lead to troubles arising in this industry as in the coal industry.

If the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) knew anything about the subject of trade union organisation he would never have made a speech to which we have just listened. But, as we know,

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

and that is well illustrated by the hon. Gentleman's speech. The fact is that there is a recognised practice for the purpose of negotiation in the electricity supply industry. What is more, it works very well.

It works very well today.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), whose knowledge of electricity supply exceeds by far that possessed by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, has just said that it works very well today. Well, if that is so, why disturb it by allowing the creation of a large number of splinter organisations, some of which may be promoted by malicious persons with sinister designs on the new electricity dispensation? The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said that he was a little surprised—not for the first time, I should imagine—by the words in the Clause, "appear to them," meaning to the Central Authority. I do not know to whom else it would appear, but the body responsible for conducting negotiations on one side. Certainly, it would be highly improper to leave the matter with whom the Central Authority should negotiate to an outside body. That would make confusion worse confounded. What is proposed in the Amendment? It is that we should follow the line laid down in the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act, with the exception of the insertion of the word "appreciable" in place of "substantial." That makes a world of difference. I would like someone to define for me what is meant by "appreciable." It might represent a company organisation, or half a dozen persons employed in the industry who decided suddenly, out of the void, for a reason that could not be explained, to create an organisation and then present an ultimatum to the Central Authority. We could not have sabotage of that kind operating under nationalisation, and I do not intend that it should.

Let me summarise the nature of the organisations which prevail in the industry. About 95 per cent. of the technical and manual workers are covered by the following trade unions, which are representative bodies. There is the Electrical Power Engineers' Association, a body which represents the technicians, and rightly so. Their point of view must be considered. There is the Electrical Trades Union. What is wrong with that? It is a recognised organisation. Then there are the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the National Union of Enginemen and Firemen, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, and the Transport and General Workers Union. All these are well known and representative trade union organisations. Is it necessary to promote any other kind of organisation than these representative bodies, which are operating on behalf of employees in the industry? I think not. There is, of course, the position of the clerical workers, and that will have to be the subject of negotiation between the parties concerned, including N.A.L.G.O. I would not exclude representations from a representative body of that kind, which is, indeed, a bona fide organisation. That makes a substantial difference.

Reference was made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to little difficulties which have developed in the mining industry. These are no new difficulties. They have existed as long back as I can remember. Groups of persons came together, promoted an organisation, and then sought recognition. While I agree that the minority interest cannot be ignored, either in industry or elsewhere—and to prevent any misunderstanding I say that we have done that by making concessions in this Bill— yet, at the same time, a body which is responsible, for the administration of a great industry or service must have regard to the existence of the largest organisations in the industry which can lay greater claim to speak on behalf of employees than little splinter, infinitesimal, and maybe pettifogging organisations. If difficulties should emerge, and some may from time to time, I leave them to the good sense and high intelligence of the persons I shall appoint after consultation with representative bodies of the organisations in the industry. I have a feeling that they will make a far better job of it than the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames would do if we entrusted the task to him. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal earlier today for us to co-operate in expediting procedure on this Bill. He will not expedite procedure if he continues to make speeches of the type he has just made.

The right hon. Gentleman's side wants to make them all, but take none from this side.

If the Minister trails his coat as he did just now he will get it trodden on, and more time will be taken up in discussing Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman's speech is a typical example of the way in which his mind works. He professes respect for democracy and for the rights of minorities, yet he clearly shows that his idea of free speech is free speech for the majority and prevention of the minority for making its view heard, excepting in so far as he chooses to allow it. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the way in which the Government had respected the rights of minorities in this House. We have had last week and this week, quite apart from the proceedings on other Bills, an example of the way in which he translates that into practice. The Leader of the House admitted, in his absence, that the way the Minister treated this House over the Report stage of this Bill, through his delay in putting down Clauses, was a gross discourtesy not only to the Opposition, but to the House itself, and to you, Mr. Speaker.

I take the strongest exception to the right hon. Gentleman getting up in the middle of a discussion on an Amendment which was being argued reasonably from these benches, and talking in the way he did. Why should the right hon. Gentleman arrogate to himself the right to say, in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that

"A little learning is a dangerous thing?"

During the proceedings on this Bill, both here and upstairs, who has displayed an absence of knowledge of these matters more than the right hon. Gentleman? Look at the number of mistakes in the Bill as originally presented which, as a result of scrutiny by us, with our limited resources, the right hon. Gentleman has had to come to the House to put right. More are to be discussed today. The right hon. Gentleman has Clauses on the Order Paper, which we are to discuss later, which show that he had not the foggiest idea of the complications and problems which would arise when this Bill was originally presented. It is not going to expedite proceedings when the right hon. Gentleman talks in this way, and I would recommend him to mend his ways and exercise a little more courtesy.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister. I think that for the purposes of our discussion one may assume that in his knowledge of these matters he is intellectually superior to the hon. Members who have addressed the House. One may even assume a kind of apostolic succession by means of which those whom he is to call into being—those whom he says "I shall appoint "—will have the same preeminent intellectual powers and knowledge that he has. But the matter really goes rather deeper than the Minister would lead us to think. My knowledge of these matters would not in any way approach that of the Minister, but it was my privilege for several years to be chairman of a joint industrial council in the West Midlands. The trade union side was pretty well represented, but one had the problem that a number of employees desired to be represented by another union. There was a great deal of ill-feeling. That compelled me to think the matter out, and to realise that joint boards, like everything else in human life, may become rigid and ossified.

4.45 p.m.

I came to two conclusions: First that the fundamental right of negotiation on the part of man and his master carries with it the corollary that men must be free to choose their own representatives. Secondly, I came to the conclusion that not without grave impertinence on the part of the employers could they dictate to the other side who should represent them on the J.I.C. Thirdly, I urged the employees' side of the council to enlarge their representation, so that it might fully represent all the employees. I am pleased to say that they met the matter in that broadminded way. It meant criticism and ill-feeling between different unions, but the smaller unions obtained representation, and have gone along very happily since. It is all very well to speak about unions being promoted for sinister reasons—petty little unions, and so forth. That is always the language of the large concerns—the vested interest; the language of the large unions against the small ones. I have heard it many times. When I find an Amendment moved which is designed to ensure that the employing authority shall negotiate with all the people who can have any reasonable claims to negotiate, I deny that it should be dealt with in the manner in which the Minister is attempting to deal with it this afternoon

I should like to remind the Minister of another analogy, which I think he might not unreasonably take into account. The difficulties and mischief which are feared on this side of the House are not something hypothetical or something that has never happened before. They do occur where you get Governmental influence or control over all or most of a particular kind of activity; it does occur—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Ministry of Education will confirm mc on consultation that it does occur there—that for want of representation of some associations there are discontents and that arises from a machinery necessarily exclusive where excessive deference is paid to the administrative convenience of dealing, if possible, with

I beg to move, in page 58, line 4, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 14, and to insert:

"(2) In the case of persons, whether taken into the employment of an Electricity Board or not, who have been members of the Central Electricity Board or were before the vesting date regularly employed in or about any undertaking or part of an undertaking or other business vested in any Electricity Board by or under this Act, the regulations to be made for the purposes of the preceding Subsection shall be so framed as to secure that where either—

(a) a right to or expectation of accruer (whether as of right or under customary practice) of, any particular benefits in favour or in respect of any such person ceases or is prejudiced by reason of hisce asing in consequence of the passing of this Act to be employed by his previous employer, or

(b) any such person has retired from employment as aforesaid before the vesting date and he or another person by reference to his employment has been in receipt of benefits granted in respect of his employment whether as of right or under customary practice,

the same benefits or substituted benefits not less advantageous shall be provided for under the regulations."

This is the first of our compensation Amendments, and it seems reasonable to us that the safeguards they provide should be inserted. The whole position of persons who have been taken into employment or whose employment is altered under the conditions of this Bill is rather obscure. The action of the Minister is to sweep away the previous safeguards and replace them by undertakings. We think it is desirable to extend the scope of the Clause to cover all persons who have a right to or an expectation of a pension and persons who were regularly employed in the undertakings which are taken over. The Bill, as I understand it, covers only those who were employed full time. We had this discussion last night on a different set of individuals —the directors—but I should, not think the Minister will desire to extend the principle which he asserted in the case of directors to cover part-time employees who have also lost their employment or have been otherwise affected by law through the action of this House. It seems reasonable that they should be compensated.

I have had experience of this in many spheres before in Bills which this House has put through, mostly dealing with public employment of one kind or another, and this House has always accepted the principle that where a person is deprived by Statute of employment, whole-time or part-time, or even the prospect of employment, he has a right to have his case considered. I do not know whether the Minister is able to give us any indication that he can meet us on this point. It seems not, judging from his hostile gestures. There is more than one Minister on the Front Bench, and the learned Solicitor-General seems to be moving his head from left to right in the way which is taken to indicate a negative.

He did not agree with the right hon. and gallant Member.

I thought he did not agree that he would be able to meet us. I would be only too glad to cut short the discussion. I was trying to get some indication from the Minister whether he might meet us on this point, and I have gathered from the gestures of the Solicitor-General that he would not be able to do so. I find it rather difficult to see why it is thought desirable by the Minister to expand the point to the House, because frankly the Amendment is self-explanatory. I do not think that I could add to it and I do not wish to dilate upon it. The simple proposition set out in our Amendment is reasonable and is well in accord with previous precedents established in the House.

I should like to support the Amendment proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and before we have a reply from the Solicitor-General I should like to concentrate particularly on local government officers who are employed on a whole-time basis by a local authority. As part of their duties they have had large responsibilities in the running of local municipal electrical undertakings. These duties as a result of the Government's action in introducing this Bill are taken away from this particular class of person, and it is almost inevitable that the salaries of local government officers such as town clerks or treasurers in the particular municipality will be reduced. It is perfectly right for the local authority to do this. But it seems to us quite wrong that the unfortunate individual, as a result of the action of His Majesty's Government, should lose that part of his salary which is being taken away from him through no fault of his own.

I should like to point out to the Minister that, in fact, this principle of compensation to these wholly employed local authority officials is accepted in the National Health Service Act. Section 68 (1, a) states that local authority officers who have been connected with joint hospital boards are, in fact, to be compensated under that Act for positions lost, and all that we are asking this afternoon is that the same procedure should apply to local government officials, who will lose a portion of their salaries as a result of the municipal undertaking being removed from the control of the local authority. That is a reasonable case to put forward, and I do not believe that His Majesty' Government desire to impose any hardship on a worthy section of the Civil Service. I hope, therefore that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I have one further word to say before I sit down. It should be made quite clear that in Committee the Minister said that it was up to the local authority to compensate such officials for any loss of salary that they may suffer. That is obviously not a statement of fact, because I think the Minister must agree with me that no local authority has a right to give compensation unless it receives statutory power from Parliament to do so. I support the Amendment.

This particular Amendment does not directly raise the question of part-time employees, but of whole-time employees. It is true that it substitutes regular employment for whole-time employment, and one criticism I have to make of the terms of the Amendment is that it is very difficult to say what is meant by "regular employment," but that is a question of principle apart Leaving aside that principle, which is raised more directly on subsequent Amendments, we come directly to the issues dealt with by this Amendment and what it seems to do. My answer to it would be this—in point of fact it adds nothing to what is already in the Bill; and I will endevour to explain why I say that.

Clause 48 (1, a), covers both persons in the employ of boards and persons who have been in the employ of bodies which have been taken over by the boards as well as persons who have retired from those bodies, and, therefore, have not been taken over by the boards. So the same range of people who are covered by the Clause as it stands are covered by the Amendment. How are they treated? If hon. Members will look at the concluding words of the Subsection, they will see that in making regulations the Minister has to frame them in such a way that people having pension rights are not in any worse position by reason of the alteration than they were before. If hon. Members will turn to page 70, they will see that pension rights include the cases purported to be covered by the Amendment, for the Amendment includes rights to which the person concerned is not strictly entitled by law If hon. Members look at line 12 on page 70, they will see that the definition of "pension rights" includes:

"any expectation of the accruer of a pension to or in respect of that person under any customary practice."

The Amendment does no more than is already done by the Bill.

Surely the term "whole-time" is the governing word both as to employment and as to the expectation. The object of our Amendment was to expand that to cover those who have not been in full-time employment and who have both employment and expectations.

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. I had endeavoured to deal with it by pointing out that the question of principle arises on the subsequent Amendments on the Order Paper, and I was confining myself to what was the basic object of this Amendment. I am not really clear as to what is meant by the words "regular employment." It might be said that those words mean the same as whole-time employment, but whether they do or do not, the principle arises on the later Amendment.

On a point of Order. I understand that the later Amendment is not to be called.

I ask for the guidance of the Chair on that matter.

Mr. Speaker has decided not to call the next four Amendments. The first is the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in page 59, line 25, to leave out from "officers," to "being," in line 29, and insert:

"who have been regularly employed in or about the whole or any part of any undertaking or business vested in or transferred by or under this Act."

It is also not proposed to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), in page 59, line 27, after "whole-time" to insert "or part-time." The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden)—in page 59, line 35, at end, insert:

"(2) The Minister as respects the Central Authority and any Area Board, and the Secretary of State as respects the North of Scotland Board, shall by regulations require the Authority or Board to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to persons who, immediately before the vesting date,—

(a) devoted the whole of their time to employment by authorised undertakers; and

(b) were employed for at least part of their time for the purposes of any functions which are transferred from the authorised undertakers in consequence of this Act.

and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the passing of this Act."—

is not being called; nor is the Amendment on page 59, line 41, at end, insert:

"(c) Persons who were on the tenth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and immediately before the vesting date, directors of any company to which Part II of this Act applies."

Is it the intention to call the next Amendment, in page 59, line 46, at end, insert:

"(3) If within five years after the vesting date—

(a)any existing officer relinquishes his employment on the ground that he has been required to perform duties which are not reasonably comparable to or are an unreasonable addition to those which as an officer of his previous employer he was required to perform; or

(b)the services of any existing officer are dispensed with by an Electricity Board because his services are not required and not on account of misconduct or incapacity to perform such duties as immediately before the vesting date he was performing or might reasonably have been required to perform; or

(c) the emoluments of any existing office: are reduced,

that officer shall unless the contrary be proved be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section to have suffered loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments by reason of the vesting

For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'existing officer' means any person who was on the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and immediately before the vesting date such an officer as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section and whose services are transferred to an Electricity Board by reason of the passing of this Act"?

Yes, it is proposed to call that one.

Having disposed of the other facets of the Amendment in so far as part-time employees are concerned, the Government's case is that one has to draw the line somewhere and one feels when one is endeavouring to do justice in this matter that these employees give the whole of their time to the body by which they were employed. There is not really very much one can add upon that. The scheme of this Clause and of the regulations to be made under it are designed to ensure that at any rate those who can be said to have been engaged in the whole-time employ of these bodies are to be entitled. After all, that is a very substantial right of considerable value. They are entitled to be placed in that position not only with regard to those rights which they had as legally enforceable claims, but also in respect of those customary accruals, if I may so call them, to which they would expect to look forward in the normal course at the termination of their service.

That is where we have sought to draw the line. If one goes beyond it and says, "We think that that is too stringent a restriction on the benefit rights," one gets into a very uncharted sea. How far is one to go? Who is to count as a part-time employee? What is to be the minimum qualification which is to rank for pension rights? We feel that it would be very difficult in practice to draw any line which could really work and which would be practicable. For this reason, in imposing the duly on the Minister to give the same pension rights, not only in respect of legally enforceable claims, but also in respect of customary expectations, we have thought that those valuable rights should be confined to persons with regard to whom it can be said that they are or were whole-time employees of the bodies, or are whole-time employees of the boards which have taken over the undertakings of those bodies. We feel, therefore, that we cannot accept this Amendment even if— which is questionable—the expression "regularly employed" is an apt expression to cover part-time employees. If it is an apt expression, I would only say that it is extremely difficult from the wording to know which part-time employees could be said to be regularly employed and which not. Would it apply to a person who works only on Mondays, for example, or would it mean a person working three days a week? Would a person who does actual work come within the expression? If not, why is there to be any intelligible distinction made between a person who does not work regularly but does perhaps much more in the service of the body concerned than a person who works three days a week? There is no definable line of demarcation you can make if you go beyond the category of employees who have been full-time employees.

I want to clear up what was, I think, a misconception on the part of some hon. Members opposite last night concerning the position of directors. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-port (Mr. R. S. Hudson) on a point about certain part-time directors, said in Standing Committee:

"I am advised that directors who have some specific…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c.1027.]

What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying would not appear to have any relation to the Amendment at present before the House. He may not now seek to clear up something which happened last night, unless he can relate it to the present Amendment.

I think you will find, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is relevant to the Amendment in page 59, line 41, which, I understood you to say, might be referred to during the present discussion.

I am sorry but the Amendment has not been selected and is, therefore, not open to discussion.

I understand that I shall be in Order if I refer during the discussion of the Amendment now before the House, to the principle of the Amendment to page 59, line 27, which stands in my name. I trust that we have not heard the last word yet from the Solicitor-General on the subject of part-time employees. I am aware that the majority of the employees concerned are only partly engaged on the work of an electricity undertaking, but at the same time it must not be forgotten that there are others who are still employed but who spend only part of their time doing work in connection with the authorised undertakings. In my constituency there is an undertaking known as the First Garden City, Limited. This company, which was established over 40 years ago, is in fact the owner of the garden city of Letch-worth and, besides being the ground landlord of the whole of that garden city and carrying on a number of other undertakings, it is also the authorised undertaker for the electricity works.

This company is proposing to take advantage of a Clause, which I understand the Minister is to move later today, whereby this electricity undertaking may be separated from the First Garden City, Limited, and established as a new, separate undertaking. At present the situation is that in the offices of the First Garden City, Limited, 26 persons are employed, none of whom is fully occupied on the work of the electricity undertaking, although many of them are employed on it for part of their time. It is obvious, for example, that in the accountants' branch, to mention only one, the receipts from the electricity undertaking are dealt with together with those from the various other enterprises in which this company is engaged. I am informed that of those 26 employees five only have nothing to do with electricity; four of them spend three-quarters of their time on electricity and the remainder on other work; five of them spend two-thirds of their time on electricity work, eight of them half their time, and three one-third of their time. When this undertaking is separated from the First Garden City, Limited, there will be two alternatives open to the firm — either to transfer some of these officials to that separate undertaking and to separate their work from the rest, which will give rise to a certain amount of waste, or to maintain the arrangement under which all the employees remain servants of the First Garden City, Limited, but are employed only part-time on the work in question. It is easy to see that some of these men and women will suffer as the result of the change. Adjustments in duties will be made and, in the words of the Bill, they will undoubtedly

"suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights."

I do not imagine that these arguments apply to many people in this country, but they do to some. It is not confined just to that particular company. I imagine that there will be employees of local authorities also who will be adversely affected if the matter is allowed to stand as at present.

I am grateful that the Solicitor-General should have given assurances in regard to the matter of pensionable rights, but I should like to deal briefly with this matter of part-time employment. I understand that it is giving rise to a good deal of concern and it is a very real question which requires clarifying. I understand that some undertakings have been in the habit of sharing certain types of minor artisan for their particular technical requirements. Such people as chemists who are employed on test work, and men of that kind, were shared between one or two, or possibly more, undertakings, and, therefore, cannot claim to come under the requirements of the Clause as it is at present drafted, although they have nevertheless been spending the whole of their time employed in the electricity industry as such. As the Clause is drafted, these men would not benefit. I am sure that that is an unjust situation, particularly as a man might have been taken on quite recently. He might have worked no more than a month or so. Nevertheless, he can claim that he has been employed whole-time. As the Solicitor-General said, it might be difficult to find a form of words to cover the cases which in no sense can claim to have been employed whole-time in the industry as a whole. That does not seem to be a real reason why the matter should not be fully considered, or why some formula should not be devised to cover those who might properly claim to have been employed full-time within the industry as a whole, although only part-time in some particular part of it.

I support the point of view which has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones). The present provisions of the Clause do not fulfil what I feel is the genuine intention, that people who are employed in undertakings, whether whole-time or part-time, shall not suffer either in their employment or otherwise when the undertakings are transferred. There is a danger that many people employed part-time will definitely suffer. We have had a lucid explanation from the Solicitor-General, but I feel that this has only made the position of part-time employees even more obscure. I do not accept the plea which has been put forward that part-time employees in municipal undertakings are likely to be covered by the Severance Clause which is to be proposed later today. Undoubtedly many of those people are employed in a part-time capacity and may become redundant or have their employment affected. It does not seem that their position will be covered by any over-all provision for compensation. There is undoubtedly considerable uneasiness among those people. We cannot afford to run the risk that they may not be provided for. We cannot afford to let them have less than justice, and they may get less than justice unless there is a suitable Amendment or a form of words to cover their cases.

It is all very well for my hon. Friend to say that it should be comparatively simple to find a form of words to cover what are called part-time employees. It is a matter we find exceedingly difficult. We had an illustration given to us, in connection with electrical composite undertakings, of how difficult it is. There are many variations among part-time workers. We must make a distinction between the apparent part-time worker who is an officer of a local authority and who, as a result of severance of the main electricity undertaking, may lose emoluments. That matter can be easily adjusted. In any event, his position is covered by the provisions relating to the statutory rights of local officers.

The remainder of the cases must be very difficult. I heard of a few cases connected with the Letchworth garden city composite undertaking. A person may be employed in a composite undertaking for an hour each day as a part-time worker. That is the kind of person with whom we are concerned. As a result of severance, he presumably loses what he would normally receive for the hours worked per day. I should imagine that the part of the undertaking that is left might easily adjust that matter, which should present no difficulty. If we are to be compelled to consider the cases of these part-time workers, we shall find ourselves in a position of great difficulty. All sorts of people will be coming along and saying: "As a result of the severance, I have lost this or that." Burdens will be imposed upon the new Central Authority, but they will have to be borne, not by that authority, but by electricity consumers themselves. We have to safeguard ourselves against a position of that kind.

We have taken every precaution that I can see in order to ensure that persons generally employed, and who are regarded as employees of an electricity undertaking, should have their statutory rights preserved, and that pension, superannuation and the like should be providd for them under regulations, which it is my duty to promote when the Bill becomes an Act. That seems to be as far as I can go. I am satisfied that if I proceeded further than that it would create a position of great complexity. It may be that in severance of these composite undertakings some kind of financial adjustment can be made. I imagine that the Central Authority can deal with a matter of that sort without any provision being made in the Bill. It is a consenting financial authority. If certain adjustments were required to be made, that could be done. To ask me to provide legislation to protect these part-time workers who are employed very little of their time in the undertaking seems to me to be a new idea in legislation which might be very injurious. I must ask the hon. Gentleman opposite not to press the proposal. In the case of the Amendment to page 15, line 4, which was dealt with so lucidly by the Solicitor-General, I should like to point out the great difficulty of finding a definition for regularly employed persons, although we know what is meant by that expression.

The term "regularly employed" is frequently used in connection with the Electricity Act, 1919. It is not a new term, but it is new in this connection.

We have covered that point by providing as good a definition as we can get. It is covered by a provision which hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to delete from the Clause. It is in Clause 48 (2). I should have thought the position eminently satisfactory. I do not suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite see any objection to that. As regards the Amendment, I cannot see how it is possible to make provision in any specific fashion. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

One of my hon. Friends referred to a case in which men were employed by a number of electricity undertakers. They could not say that they were employed full-time by any one of them. Nevertheless, their full time was spent in electricity undertakings. The right hon. Gentleman did say "generally employed." Will he explain whether those words cover such persons as I have indicated?

I am giving an offhand reply, but I think I can say that if a person is employed whole-time in a number of undertakings, he would come within the provisions of the Clause. He could not possibly be excluded, because he is employed in the electricity industry whole-time.

It is clear that the House is not happy about the position in which it finds itself. Comments have come from both sides on this point. Indeed, it is not unnatural, because it arises out of the definite pledge which the Minister gave on the point. On that pledge, an Amendment was withdrawn in Committee. The Minister of Fuel and Power said:

"Some reference is made in some Amendments to part-time employees. I doubt very much whether it would be possible to bring them within the scope of this provision, but we will do our best to find a suitable form of words, and perhaps that will meet the point."

My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) said:

"In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c. 1018.]

That is a very definite undertaking by the Minister. It is true that in earlier stages of the discussion the Minister—

I am sorry, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot get away with this.

The Minister must restrain himself for a minute.

There is not much point in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman quoting me without doing so adequately.

Believe me I have no intention whatever of misrepresenting the Minister of Fuel and Power. It will be seen in HANSARD. I was just about to say that while it is true that in an earlier stage the Minister had shown himself adverse to the position of part-time employees—and I was about to quote what he said—he said earlier in the same column:

"It may be that the term 'full-time' is not adequate for the purpose, but 'regularly employed' would open the door to all sorts of categories of a part-time character, which might create difficulties…"

Then he went on to say:

"I want to make it quite clear that we could not, so far as I can foresee, agree to provide for part-time employees, whatever that may mean."

Then he said, in these concluding words which I have quoted:

"Some reference is made in some Amendments to part-time employees. I doubt very much whether it would be possible to bring them within the scope of this provision, but we will do our best to find a suitable form of words, and perhaps that will meet the point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th May, 1947; c. 1018.]

I contend that I am not in any way misrepresenting the Minister. At an earlier stage of his speech he turned his face against the part-time employees but seemed to modify, his opinion as his speech proceeded, and when, in his concluding words, he gives an undertaking to try to meet a certain point and the Amendment is withdrawn, then unless the Minister specifically demurs at that point, it is generally taken that it is in the nature of, I do not say a Parliamentary bargain, but an undertaking to give attention to this point.

The desirability of it has been shown both by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), as well as by hon. Members on this side. The Minister says it will be difficult to do that, but the Minister, in taking power to draw a regu- lation, should not think it impossible for him to ensure that such cases could be considered. He himself says that the number of cases would be small; therefore, that disposes of his other argument that undue burdens might be thrown upon the electricity undertakings by the liability which the House, without distinction of party, seeks to lay upon his shoulders. The fact that only a few people have to be considered is not an argument against taking action. All of us know in our capacity of Members of Parliament that the most irritating thing in the world is to find some person with a perfectly legitimate grievance in our constituency which cannot be remedied because of some Section in an Act of Parliament. The person in question nearly always thinks it is due to the malice aforethought of the Member with whom he or she happens to be in correspondence that the grievance cannot be rectified.

We are only trying to see that this small class of case should not arise. Indeed, the Minister himself says that he has heard of cases in the Welwyn area. It is not a great point, but it is one which other Ministers have to meet. I have had to meet it myself as a Minister framing legislation. An hon. Member behind me said that it has had to be met in this administration by Ministers framing the Health Service Acts. This is not infrequent; it is a puzzling, troublesome and a tedious matter to put it straight, but for all that it is the business of Parliament to put these things straight. If they are not, it is impossible for the Minister to deal with it afterwards by regulations. The Minister has debarred himself from taking any action to meet a class of case which all of us can foresee by the use of the word "whole-time." We suggest that he should not leave that word in the statute and that, if he leaves it in, he, the Minister, and we, the Members, will suffer inconvenience and trouble and, still worse, the lieges for whom we are legislating will suffer. It seems to us, therefore, that a reasonable case has been made out and pressed upon the attention of the Minister from both sides of the House, and it is reasonable that the Minister should correct it now, or should undertake, in the terms of his words upstairs, to give further attention to it between the time when the Bill leaves here and the time when it is under consideration in another place.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that Members are very worried about this Subsection. I am seriously worried about it and I ask the Minister to consider carefully what he is doing. It says:

"The Minister and the Secretary of State jointly shall by regulations require every Electricity Board to pay…compensation to officers, employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers, being officers who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments…"

Why should the Minister put that in a Bill? What we have always stood for when there has been loss of employment or emolument is work or full maintenance until work is provided. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will recollect that, when the parish councils were taken over, those officers who lost their employment were compensated in the form of a pension of £300, £400 or £500 a year—£6, £8, or £10 a week. Nobody can dispute that. Any of these men may have got employment and, at the present time, be employed by an electricity undertaking. Now they will lose their employment with that electricity undertaking and their emoluments—does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman question that?

I was engaged in trying to restrain hon. Friends of mine from engaging in altercation. I am most anxious that the hon. Gentleman should conclude his argument undisturbed.

None of them can question the fact that compensation was paid, and that the people now have pensions of £6, £8, or £10 a week; and there is nothing in connection with the pension to prevent them from taking a full-time or a part-time job with an electricity or any other undertaking. If they lose their employment with an electricity undertaking, are they to get another pension of £300, £400 or £500 per annum? I ask the Minister if we are to be put in that position?

As regards what my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, there is no intention of providing substantial pensions for persons who are transferred and who will occupy positions in the nationalised industry with high salaries, but we have to preserve the statutory rights of every individual concerned. That is an obligation which we cannot set aside. I have looked again, at Clause 48 and I imagine that provided—and I must emphasise this— provided a suitable formula could be arranged within the regulations—because it is impossible to do it in any other fashion—then Subsection (1, a) of this Clause might enable us to do so. It reads:

"for providing pensions to or in respect of persons who are or have been in the employment of an Electricity Board or a Consultative Council, or persons who have been members of the Central Electricity Board"—

I direct attention to these words—

"or have been employed by any body to which Part11I of this Act applies or have been employed whole-time for the purpose of administering the undertaking or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers, but who have not been taken into the employment of an Electricity Board as aforesaid;"

Let me take the case of a composite undertaking. Part II applies to the transfer of the electricity section of a composite undertaking, and, therefore, an employee of such an undertaking would come within the scope of this provision. That is clear. The remaining question is whether we could find a suitable formula which would cover a person who, while he had been in the employment of an undertaking covered by Part II, had already been partly employed in the other section of the composite undertaking. I am not certain whether it is possible to find such a formula, but we shall do what we can so that no injustice shall be done to anybody. On the other hand, we must not be unjust to the Central Authority. I do not think it is possible to go beyond that, and I am afraid that is my final word

It seems that there was a little misunderstanding about the Minister's previous remarks, so I would like to be quite sure that there is no misunderstanding now. I hope there is no misunderstanding that the right hon. Gentleman is now giving an undertaking that he will look into this.

No, I am certainly not.

It is desirable that we should get this clear, for nothing could be worse than a suggestion that some misunderstanding which has arisen has not been cleared up. I understood from the Solicitor-General that he considered that no case of part-time employees could be dealt with under this Bill. Indeed, I understood that from the Minister's remark when he demurred to his final pledge being queried, and stood by his earlier remarks upstairs. Now I understand that the Minister, on examining the Clause, has said that he thinks the case quoted by an hon. Member could be covered under the terms of Subsection (1, a)of Clause 48. Do I carry him with me so far?

Yes.

He thinks he can do something here by means of regulations, but repeats his caution that he may not find it possible to do anything in the way of regulations? Do I understand that the Minister is now willing to try to do something by regulations in respect of the class of cases which he had previously indicated he could not do anything about; that the Minister is moved in this respect, and is now giving an undertaking to the House that he will try to meet by regulations the class of case pressed upon him by the House which previously he could not deal with? If that is the understanding, then we are all at one.

In my first speech i indicated how difficult it would be to find a formula. That was my sole difficulty. I have looked at this, and while I still think it would be difficult to find a formula, I will make the attempt when I am dealing with the regulations.

I feel sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut-Colonel Elliot) who showed such laudable concern to protect the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), will allow me to say that I felt concerned when I heard that hon. Member speaking so earnestly to the Minister—

There is another provision which deals with pension rights. We are all in favour of pension rights being maintained.

:I thank the hon. Member for what he has said, but it does not do away with what I felt he tried to impart into the "discussion. In my con- stituency there is a very large hydroelectric undertaking and I cannot think there is a possibility of cases existing such as the hon. Member for West Fife quoted in connection with the parish councils— which were done away with as long ago as 1929—in which emoluments of £6 a week would be drawn. I was very glad to hear the Minister, if I may use the expression, almost giving the lie direct to what the hon. Member for West Fife said about cases like this, which must be very few and far between, and if the hon. Member does not accept my assurance I hope he will accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.

On behalf of people in my constituency and many employed in such undertakings I join in hoping that the Minister will be as good as his words, and although he rejects the Amendment I hope he will see what he can do under Subsection (1, a) of Clause 48 by way of regulation to assure the future position of these people. We are not trying to make party capital out of this. I do not think those who have been employed part-time so far, when they read the Debate—and there are a larger number of people than ever who read HANSARD now—will be pleased with what the Minister has said. I feel sure they will be impressed by what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said and they will feel that we are concerned, even including the lone voice of the hon. Member for West Fife, although he succeeded in imparting political prejudice into his speech.

In view of the assurance given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The hon. and gallant Member did not move the Amendment and, therefore, cannot ask leave of the House to withdraw it.

In that case I will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in consideration of the assurance the Minister has given, although it was of a rather more tenuous nature than I. would like on this occasion, but we are glad that he showed himself so reasonable.

I beg to move, in page 59, line 46, at the end, to insert:

"3) If within five years after the vesting date—

(a)any existing officer relinquishes his employment on the ground that he has been required to perform duties which are not reasonably comparable to or are an unreasonable addition to those which as an officer of his previous employer he was required to perform; or

(b) the services of any existing officer are dispensed with by an Electricity Board because his services are not required and not on account of misconduct or incapacity to perform such duties as immediately before the vesting date he was performing or might reasonably have been required to perform; or

(c)the emoluments of any existing officer are reduced,

that officer shall unless the contrary be proved be deemed for the purposes of Subsection (1) of this Section to have suffered loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments by reason of the vesting.

For the purposes of this Subsection the expression 'existing officer' means any person who was on the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and immediately before the vesting date such an officer as is referred to in Subsection (i) of this Section and whose services are transferred to an Electricity Board by reason of the passing of this Act."

This straightforward and simple Amendment is a simplified substitute for the provisions of the existing law. It will give employees who may be found to be redundant in the first five years after the vesting date, some right of compensation. Although at the beginning of the five years there would not be many cases, as time went on they would be likely to increase. At first there will be a good deal of work in organising these new bodies, but, as time goes on, fewer employees will be needed. Similar provision to this is made in Section 77 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1\938. Whereas today a redundant employee in the electricity industry can get a job with an alternative company, when the whole industry is nationalised there will be no other possible employment for him, and he will be out of work.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so particularly because it puts the onus of proof away from the employee who may be taken out of employment. I particularly draw the attention of the Minister to the words:

"that officer shall, unless the contrary be proved…"

Here we are dealing with the monopoly of labour. It is happening in the nationalisation of the coal industry, although I know the Minister does not like it, and I do not think responsible members of the Coal Board like it. Men are being asked to take lesser jobs, and when they demur, they are asked over the telephone, "You are not going to fight the Coal Board, are you?" When there is a monopoly of labour these temptations occur. The Amendment is designed to provide that when the man says, "I will not take that job on" he gets his rights, unless the contrary can be proved. It is a safeguard to the employee.

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment in its existing form, although in principle I take no exception to what is here presented. There are exceptions. For example, I could not tie myself down to a qualifying date or period of service. The principal reason why I cannot accept the Amendment in this form is because I think these provisions are more appropriate to be dealt with by regulations, and provision is made for regulations for this purpose. So I agree, with certain modifications and adjustments which are appropriate to the particular circumstances of this industry, to provide regulations which will cover substantially the proposals contained in the Amendment.

Does that also covet the point of onus of proof, which I mentioned?

I would not like to say offhand. I would like to look at that, but it appears to me to be quite reasonable.

May we take it the regulations will substantially meet the points which have been made? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not like the words "five years," and did not want to tie himself to that particular period. May we take it that the regulations which he will issue will substantially carry out the terms of this Amendment? The Minister knows better than any one else that when it comes to a matter of regulations, all we shall be able to do, presumably, will be to move a negative Resolution. We shall not be able to amend them. It is quite conceivable that when the regulations are presented to the House they will, in fact, be generally acceptable but for some one particular item, such as the length of time. I am sure that the Minister would agree that if my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws his Amendment on this understanding, we should have some general idea of what the Minister intends to do, broadly speaking, to carry out the terms of our proposals. I am not asking him to tell us in detail.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is quite impossible for me to provide at once an alternative form of words. I have said, and I repeat that substantially I accept this proposal. There may require to be modifications. The regulations may be a little better or slightly worse than this, but the principle is accepted.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept what I think is'the most important part of this Amendment, the transfer of the onus of proof? I do not want to tie him down to any particular details, but I think we are entitled to have an answer to the general question, that an unfortunate person, faced with this great monopoly, shall know that he will not have to establish his case, but that the onus is the other way round

I have replied to another hon. Member that it is very difficult for me, off-hand, to express an opinion on that. I said that I thought it was reasonable.

I am concerned with the question of compensation for loss of status. I am in agreement with the aim of the Amendment so far as the preservation of salaries is concerned, but I hope that the question of reduction of status is not to be a ground involving compensation. Surely the passing of this Measure does not mean that all the chief engineers will continue to be chief engineers. There is to be some rationalisation, particularly where areas are very small, and there are many small undertakings. I hope that the Minister will not consider that loss of status, the fact that a man is not to be chief of a particular area, is to be a prima facie case for compensation. I am in agreement with hon. Members opposite so far as preserving the salary and conditions of employment are concerned, but status is a different matter.

The only assurance I can give is that we shall not go beyond what is reasonable. If there are persons in the industry who have been transferred for one reason or another, and there is a moderate loss of status, provided that the salary remains the same and the person concerned is not worse off financially, that would not appear to me to call for any additional compensation. We expect that the regulations will be framed in a reasonable fashion, and that is what I am prepared to do.

In view of the assurance given by the Minister, particularly that he will go into the question of onus of proof, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 60, line 21, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."

This is moved in order to make the provision mandatory instead of permissive. We had some discussion in the Committee, and I decided accordingly.

I beg to move, in page 60, line 47, at the end, to insert:

"(7) Regulations made under this Section shall be so framed as to secure that no person shall be in any worse position under the regulation than he would have been if the relevant provisions of the Acts repealed by this Act had been re-enacted with any necessary adaptations."

This is a suggested final Subsection to Clause 49. In view of what the Minister said in regard to our previous Amendment, he may favourably consider this one. This is a sort of sweeping-up Clause, based partly on Clause 48 (2). That Subsection begins:

"Where provision is made by any such regulations for the amendment, repeal or revocation of any existing pension scheme or of any enactment relating thereto…regulations shall be so framed as to secure that persons having pension rights are not placed in any worse position by reason of the amendment, repeal, revocation, transfer, extinguishment or winding up."

There is today a mass of legislation on this subject, rather long and rather complicated, but it ensures that employees who become redundant today are compensated, and are not prejudiced, on any reorganisation of electricity undertakings, in regard to their pensions and matters of that sort. I suggest that the words that we are proposing are more definite and more favourable than those in Clause 49.

What is about to happen in the industry? It would be an understatement to call it a reorganisation. It is such a complete upheaval that there is a greater risk of hardship in this direction than previously. A certain clearing up of the legislation is required. Many electricity companies have extremely good pension schemes for their employees at present, and it will be rather hard if, when they came into national employment, they should be worse off than they are at present under private employment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that hon. Members will not press me to accept this Amendment. As I have indicated, regulations will be provided, but there must be certain modifications of the old practice relating to compensation. We have provisions contained in the London Passenger Transport Board Act, and there are other Acts of Parliament which prescribe what shall be done in cases of this sort when compensation is created thereby. We have to modify these practices in the light of modern conditions, and there has been a change in conditions, for example, full employment, which it is hoped will continue. There are also other factors which must be taken into account.

The best I can do is to say that we take note of this proposal. It is not our desire that the position of any person should be worsened, and, inasmuch as the position of any employee is worsened, that is a factor which will no doubt be taken into account alongside other factors. But the other factors certainly must enter into the calculations of those who are responsible for making the regulations. Therefore, I am afraid that this is an Amendment which takes us rather too far along the road at this stage. Indeed, it is a little premature, because we may have the discussions with appropriate and representative organisations who are concerned in such matters before we decide definitely on the terms and provisions of the regulations.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that, although conditions may have changed, and no one could deny that, the fact remains that over a long period of years a code of compensation practice has been built up. The Minister said a change had come about as a result of full employment. In the case of the younger members of the: staffs, no doubt that is true, but I think anybody who has had any experience of the last year or so will agree that one of the tragedies of the present day situation is that, although there may be nominally full employment and there may be nominally a shortage of manpower to fill the potential jobs, the fact remains that the number of jobs available for the older people, especially for people over 40, definitely is on the decline. I imagine that there is hardly an hon. Member of this House who has not had the experience which I have had of people writing to me and saying that the Ministry of Labour Appointments Bureau have done the best they can but, being over 40, they receive the reply to all the applications they make to firms whose names have been given to them by the local exchange, "The vacancy is not available for people of this age because of difficulties with pensions schemes and so forth."

No one would deny that at present there is a substantial body of people who have served during the major portion of their early and middle age who today are finding it impossible to get a job. To that extent the situation has, if anything, deteriorated compared with what it was 10 or 15 years ago. Therefore, we are concerned about these older people who, while private enterprise and local authority under takings were in existence in large numbers, might have stood a chance of finding some alternative employment in the job for which they were educated and trained and in which they, have spent the major portion of their working lives. Those people will find it even more difficult than it was before to find jobs as a result of the amalgamation and reorganisation that is to take place.

In all the amalgamations which took place after the 1914–18 war, when large shipping firms and other organisations amalgamated, was it not people of this age who suffered in exactly the same way?

I agree that they suffered, but I do not think that they suffered quite to the extent which the evidence that reaches all of us in all parts of the House leads us to believe today. I suggest that successive Parliaments for the last 30 or 40 years have been impressed with the difficulties. That was increasingly the case during the period which the hon. Member mentioned. Parliament has been at particular pains during all these years to build up a code of compensation practice. The Minister may say he is justified. We will not argue that for the moment. Hon. Members will admit that there is no question but that Clause 49 as drafted is substantially less favourable than the alternative code. We are anxious to see that in any regulations the Minister may make the terms shall be at least as favour able as the code. The mere fact that it is difficult to provide that ought not, in our view, to be a reason for depriving these people of the compensation which, if it had been a matter of the amalgamation of private companies or local authorities, they would have enjoyed. I hope that the Minister will remember that and not ride off with the excuse that conditions have changed.

The right hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that these regulations which will have to be drawn up and published, will have to form the subject of discussions with the associations or bodies, whoever they may be, who may be taken to represent the interests of the persons concerned. There is not an hon. Member in any part of the House, still less any hon. Member opposite, who would deny the proposition that these bodies would feel themselves in a very much better negotiating position if they had been fortified with the existence of some Clause such as we suggest, than if they are merely left to the tender mercies of the right hon. Gentleman, however tender some hon. Gentlemen may think they are likely to be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind when he comes to negotiating with the persons concerned.

I beg to move, in page 63, line I, to leave out from "Where" to "the," in line 2.

This and the next Amendment go together, and I hope I may be allowed to explain both at the same time. This is a slightly technical Amendment. I think I can summarise it most easily by saying that during the Committee stage criticism was directed against Subsection (6) of Clause 50 on the ground that it was extremely obscure in that it did not say what sort of notice was referred to in the first line of the Subsection. We have sought to meet that simply by excluding reference to the notice. It is not really necessary in the form the Bill now takes, and it makes it clear. It provides that where an undertaking does exist, those enactments which previously applied to it shall not cease to apply to it by virtue of the foregoing Subsection.

I appreciate that the learned Solicitor-General has tried to improve this Clause. I am advised that it would be improved still more if, in line 8 on page 63, instead of the words:

"cease to apply to the undertaking"

the words

"cease to apply to any undertaking."

were inserted. I confess I am not sufficiently well versed in the law to appreciate that fully, but that is what I am advised. If the Solicitor-General can see his way, perhaps in another place, to have the further slight alteration made, it would improve even more the concession for which we are most grateful.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion which I would like to consider further.

Mr. Foster.

On a point of Order. Am I to understand that my Amendment dealing with decentralisation is not being called?

The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member is not being called.

May I ask the assistance of the Chair as to whether it would be in Order, on recommittal, to bring up this question, as it has the support of very nearly 95 per cent, of the local authorities in this country, and was not discussed on the Committee stage?

No, it will not be in Order.

Further to that point of Order. When we come to the recommittal, a point will arise. I do not want to get involved in the argument now, because I shall be able to discuss it with whoever is in the Chair at the time. Mr. Speaker told us, I think yesterday or on Monday, that we should have to have a second Report stage in respect of the Clauses and the Amendments that have been recommitted. I merely enter this caveat. We want to know in what position we shall be in regard to our manuscript Amendments, because we have had no opportunity of putting any Amendments for the Report stage on the Order Paper. Presumably, the second Report stage will follow immediately upon recommittal, and the question really arises whether it would be in Order to put down this Amendment as a new Clause, assuming that it is not in Order to move it now, and assuming also that my hon. and gallant Friend desires to move it then. This does raise an important question of principle, which has been put forward by the overwhelming mass of the local authorities.

The right hon. Gentleman has put to me a question which he knows is difficult to answer. The Ruling was that this Amendment has not been selected by Mr. Speaker, and therefore cannot be discussed. With regard to the other question asked by the right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that he will find another opportunity later on of putting that question.

I only mentioned it, because I thought it would be for the convenience both of the Chair and the House. We realise that we shall have an opportunity to raise the point later on.

I beg to move, in page 65, line 14, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:

"(2) Where an offence under the last foregoing section or any regulation made under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any negligence on the part of any director manager or secretary or other officer of the body corporate he as well as the body corporate shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

The Clause deals with the prosecution of directors who were members of a body corporate which had been found to have committed an offence, and the Clause, as it stands, puts a very severe burden of proof on the directors. It states:

"(2) Where an offence…has been committed by a body corporate, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions."

That is a very severe burden of proof, and the object of the Amendment is to make the Clause more in accordance with the ordinary rules of the criminal law and of the law of the land, by making the prosecution prove that the directors acted without due diligence and that they consented or connived. I submit that this would not prevent the proof of offences in those cases where offences had been committed, but it would avoid Injustices where the burden of proof placed on the directors is too high.

As I understand it, the learned Solicitor-General, when moving Clause 54, said that the Clause has precedents in other Statutes besides the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. I do not know of any, and I would be obliged to him if he would point out to me where this Clause has any precedents. Even if it has precedents in addition to the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, my submission is still good that it places too great a burden of proof on the directors—and also on officials of the company, because the Clause mentions the general manager, secretary or other similar officer—to prove affirmatively that the company acted without their consent and connivance. It is very difficult to prove a negative, and very difficult to prove affirmatively the degree of diligence which they should have used.

Whatever case there may be about authority for this Clause, the House will recollect that the exact wording of this Amendment is to be found in the two Insurance Acts passed last year by this House and sponsored by the Government. The exact terms of this Amendment were introduced into both those Acts. I would therefore ask the learned Solicitor-General to point out why it is necessary in this Bill to cast this very severe burden of proof on directors and officials of the company, when it was not done in the two Insurance Acts. I would also ask the Solicitor-General, in view of what has been said by the Minister in connection with the burden of proof, to accept the principle of this Amendment, even if he finds that the wording is not quite correct, though, in my submission, it is correct, because it follows the other Acts of Parliament. I hope he may accept the principle with regard to the onus of proof, and have the matter considered.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment asked for a precedent, and also asked why we should place such a severe burden upon directors and upon other officials of the same standing in the same company. In the first place, there is ample precedent, and in the second place, I do not accept that the burden is a severe burden. On the contrary, it is a comparatively light burden. May I take each of those points in turn? There is a whole series of Acts in which, in one form or another, the burden of proof is placed upon the directors to exculpate themselves. Apart from the point about directors, the hon. Gentleman referred to the system of our law. I might mention to him that the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, Section (2) places a burden upon them to show that they were not guilty. That is a most important Act, but there are other cases in the criminal law in which a defendant is required to show that he is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so that it is quite inaccurate to say that it is anything like the universal rule of law that the onus of proof rests upon the prosecution.

May I interrupt? I should be very glad, if there is a whole series, of Statutes, as the learned Solicitor-General says, to hear what they are, so that I may look them up at my leisure. I have my doubts.

The hon. Gentleman is really unduly suspicious of me. Had he allowed me a few more minutes, I would have stated each and every one on which I rely. I intend to do so now. I have mentioned the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and I will now give a list of the others in sequence. The first one is the Representation of the People Act, 1918. I am taking a series spread over 30 years. Section 34 (4) of that Act as amended by the Representation of the People (No. 2) Act, 1922, says:

"Where the person guilty of an offence against this Section is a body of persons corporate or unincorporate, every director or officer of that body shall, unless he proves that the act constituting the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, be guilty of the like offence."

There are similar provisions in the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920, Section 13, (2, c)as amended by the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1932. If the hon. Gentleman would like to verify that I am telling the truth, he should look up that Act. The next one is the Dentists Act, 1921, Section 5 (2). The next, the Treaties of Washington Act, 1922, Section 2 (2). Then comes the Theatrical Employers' Registration Act, 1925, Section 6 (3). There is the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, Section 29; the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, Section 248 (2); the Public Health Act, 1936, Section 195; the Building Societies Act, 1939, Section 15 (1); Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, Section 5; Prices of Goods Act, 1939, Section 18, and then we get to the Coal Act, which was referred to. I am sure the most impartial listener will concede that that is an impressive list.

It is very difficult to follow this list. Could the hon. and learned Solicitor-General now give us the time period covered, first, the earliest date, and, second, the Section in the Prevention of Corruption Act which was the first to which he referred?

The earliest time covered was the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, Section 2. The first one after that was 1918, and then I gave a selection spread over many years of administration and ending up in 1939, and then we followed on in 1946. So there is ample precedent. For example in the Prices of Goods Act, the words are:

"Unless he proves that the contravention was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the contravention as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions as a director or officer of that body and to all the circumstances."

There we have almost an exact precedent for this particular Clause. Is it fair or is it accurate to say that this places a severe burden on directors? It does not really do so at all. Suppose a director in a large company is charged with one particular type of function in the company's life and is concerned with only one particular phase of it. He can perfectly well exculpate himself, supposing an offence is committed which is within the province of other employees or directors of the company. He is let out in the concluding words of the Clause if he can prove that it was committed without his consent or connivance.

Then he has to prove that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the offence, having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and all the circumstances. If he can show that he was justified, that other people were doing his job and that he should not have been expected to meddle in the work of his colleagues and other employees of the company, then he escapes the liability of conviction. Therefore, it is really not true to say that it is a severe burden. The hon. Gentleman asked why we put directors under this responsibility. It is because we think that a director who assumes the responsibility which attaches to his appointment should be placed under a certain measure of responsibility to see that the company complies with the law.

Is he not under that responsibility already?

Not unless he is placed under it by virtue of a Clause drafted in this form. In general, we say that it is not sufficient that the company alone should be liable to prosecution, and that directors responsible for its activities should be under some measure of responsibility. But we have so phrased the Clause that if they can show that they have behaved reasonably in the matter—and I think that is a fair summary of what the Clause does—they can escape liability. I submit that it is perfectly fair. It is no less and no more than fair. Therefore, I ask the House to reject this Amendment.

I am sure the House is very interested in the list of Acts containing a similar provision which the researches of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General have brought to light. It would be equally possible to bring out a long list of Acts in which no such provision has been contained. I do not think it is particularly helpful to debate the matter purely on the basis of two conflicting lists. Surely, the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will agree that the onus of establishing innocence should not be placed upon an accused person unless there is some really substantial public necessity for doing so. It is up to any Government putting forward such a proposal to show that the public need really requires some such provision.

In the few minutes since the hon. and learned Solicitor-General gave us the benefit of his researches, I have not had the opportunity to go into the details of the Acts to which he referred, but it is apparent from the names of them that the great majority are Acts dealing with offences which are particularly difficult to prove. That is certainly so in the case of the Prevention of Corruption Act, because there, as the hon. and learned Solicitor-General I am sure will agree, one is dealing with matters the truth of which it is peculiarly difficult to establish. Therefore this House, in 1916, thought fit to transfer the onus of proof. If the basis is that this ought not be done unless compelling reason is shown for doing it, I think the House is entitled to hear a little about what that reason is. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General will recollect that in Committee this matter was discussed. He discussed it, rather on the lines he has done today, on the basis, "Well, it has been done frequently before; therefore, let us do it again." In the twenty-second days proceedings of the Committee, he said:

"With regard to the second point, the hon. Member asked for a justification of putting the onus on the directors and persons in the position of directors It is the same justification which has been accepted by the House, for example, in the case of the Coal Act, and in other Statutes It is not a modern invention at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, Thursday, 15th May, 1947; c. 1044.]

I submit that that is not good enough. If we are to be asked, for good and compelling public reasons, to transfer the onus, we are entitled to be told what those reasons are. The fact that it has been put into 20 other Acts is no reason for putting it into this Bill. We have not so far been told why it is necessary. The only approach to some such argument came in the concluding passages of the Solicitor-General's speech this afternoon. He said —and I think there was great force in it —that directors have considerable general responsibilities towards their companies from which they should not be allowed easily to escape. That argument might apply if the Clause, as it stands, dealt solely with directors, but it does not. The hon. and learned Gentleman kept referring to directors, but, in fact, the Clause refers to

"a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer."

Therefore, if the Solicitor-General's argument on that point has weight, it has weight only with reference to directors, and it has not anything like the same weight with reference to general managers, still less to secretaries, and even less to similar officers, whoever they may be. The Solicitor-General brushed aside the burden which this Clause puts upon an accused person. The House will appreciate that the accused person must do two things. Once it has been proved that a company has committed an offence, he must prove:

"that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances."

I ask the Solicitor-General, from his considerable experience in the courts, to appreciate that that is a heavy burden to discharge, that it may involve technical difficulties of proof which may be very hard to discharge, and it is not any light burden that he proposes to put upon these people. We have not been given any reason for this provision, except that it has been done before. When a man is brought up on a charge of housebreaking, it is no defence to prove 20 previous offences.

The answer advanced by the Solicitor-General to the proposed Amendment was twofold. He said, first, that there was ample precedent for this sort of Clause, and secondly, that the burden on the accused is not very strict. I wish to say a few words in answer to each of those points. First, as to precedent, my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) made it clear that there is ample precedent the other way, and that in many Statutes the onus rests upon the prosecution to prove that a director, or manager, or secretary is guilty of acting knowingly. The Solicitor-General has cited other enactments in which the onus is the other way. Let us, therefore, forget precedents.

With regard to the Solicitor-General's point that the burden is not very strict, I suggest he is disregarding the real question of principle which is here involved. The position, as I understand it, is that if the Clause goes unamended, where a body corporate has committed an offence the secretary may at once be proceeded against, and he is then called upon to prove himself innocent of the offence. That offends against the primary rule in our criminal courts. It is no exaggeration to say that any reputation which our system has throughout the world, has among its first bases this rule, that no man may be convicted unless the prosecution prove that he is guilty. Every time this House invades that general principle, it does something very serious so far as the liberty of the subject is concerned. In this case 1 agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that no real reasons have been shown why there should be any departure from that vital rule of law which is largely responsible for the reputation which our system of justice possesses.

I am sorry the Solicitor-General should think that I am unduly suspicious or that I am challenging his accuracy. Nothing of the kind. My object in asking for a list is this. One has not only to look at a list of Statutes, but to look very carefully into the wording of every Statute to ascertain the reasons which induced Parliament from time to time to frame them in that way. If one looks at the Prevention of Corruption Act, one finds that unless there was a re-enacting Statute the initial reference was wrong. The date of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not 1916 but 1906, and it is notable that it was a very long time before that precedent was followed. Let us hope that the caution which was observed a generation ago will now be repeated.

I have studied very carefully the wording of the Clause. I am speaking as an ordinary director of an ordinary company. The hypothetical board meeting to which the Solicitor-General referred does not fit in with my experience of the way in which business is conducted, and if there were trouble or difficulty in my company I would much prefer to have to answer under the proposed new Subsection than the one which it is sought to delete. Today the handling of affairs is very complicated and difficult. Owing to the requirements of the law, directors are called upon to sign many documents, and the only way in which that can be done is by trusting somebody whose business it is to peruse them beforehand. One has to sign them entirely on the trust which one has in one's secretary or legal advisers. It would be much more just if we had the proposed new Subsection.

I would remind the House of a story of a man who had to sign a great many documents. He was let down badly by one of his clerks who said, "I will get the old man to sign a document agreeing to shoot himself within a week," and he did. When a director has to sign a document he says to his secretary whom he has trusted for years. "Is this all right?" and if the secretary says, "Yes," the director signs it. Later on the director may be asked, "Did you sign a document agreeing to do all these things without having read it?" But I can assure the House that if a director were to read all the documents which are put in front of him to sign, he would never do anything else. Therefore, the proposed new Subsection fits in with the practical way in which affairs are carried on more than does the Subsection in the Bill. I support the Amendment because I believe justice would be more likely to be done if it were accepted and that injustice would easily happen under the present Subsection.

I hope that even now the Solicitor-General may think it possible to advise his right hon. Friend to think again about this Amendment. I do not claim to be a lawyer but I have looked hastily at the first of the precedents the Solicitor-General gave us, and I will begin by saying that this surely is precisely the sort of point where a lawyer ought not to rely upon precedent. Where a principle is so strong and so long-established as the principle about the onus of proof in criminal cases, there surely, precedent ought not to be allowed to have any but the very slightest weight, we should surely on each new proposal approach that proposal with a strong prejudice in our minds against it. That is the first point I would raise.

Secondly, with regard to the precedents the Solicitor-General quoted; for all his youth, I should have thought it was not fair for him to tell us that "there is nothing modern about it," and then to adduce precedents none of which go back before 1916. That is not very ancient history. We were already then in the epoch when war and socialism were uncontrollably producing each other and thus whittling down our civil liberties Incidentally, I would not for a moment compete in learning against him but I think there was an older precedent than his oldest. I have a faint recollection of my studies of criminal law and I thought there was a statutory provision shifting the onus of proof against persons found in possession of house-breaking tools after dark—in London and Birmingham, I think; I do not know why Birmingham I think that was the case. I do not quote it, as conclusive, but I hope to show that it is relevant to the argument. Now to come to the first instance which the Solicitor-General quoted, that is, the statute of 1916—and there, he said, was an exact precedent. But the precedent is extremely inexact.

I did not say it was a precedent for this Clause 1 quoted that as an instance of an invasion of what has been described by the hon. Gentleman as a chief principle of English law, that the onus was on the prosecution. It is an exception to that principle. The other cases I quoted were precedents, in one form or another for this Bill.

I apologise for any inaccuracy, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will do me the justice of believing that I had no intention of over stressing what he said. What he says now is, I think, sufficient for my argument. What he says is that the Statute of 1916 is a precedent, and if not exact at least persuasively close—a precedent for the reversal of onus of proof. That is what he says. I would submit that that is mistaken. It is not at all a close analogy: in Section 2 of the Statute of 1916 a condition precedent is provided to the reversal of the onus, is that there shall have been proof that money has been paid to an employee of the Government by some one seeking a contract. That has to be proved first; the reversal of the onus of proof in that case is on the point whether the purpose was or was not corrupt. But, first of all before that reversal takes place it is necessary for it to be proved, under the Act of 1916 it is necessary for it to be proved, that somebody is seeking a contract with a Government Department and has given money or money's worth to somebody employed in that Government or public body

Now, that is a very different thing from anything that has been suggested here, where the thing to be proved first is a breach by a company of multifarious ministerial regulations, and I do say with proper respect for the Solicitor-General and for his advisers, that it really is not fair to the House that he should have quoted this Section as an analogy without full exposition and warning of the distinction being given to us. It is not only accidental or insignificant that there is a difference. I could not do more than look up one of the Statutes the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted. I think I have fairly given the gist of that one. But if we take the list of the other cases he quoted, I think it would not require very much imagination to guess why this kind of reversal of proof was permitted in connection with these kinds of subjects. Dangerous drugs, for instance were in the list he gave. First of all, nobody deals with dangerous drugs without knowing he is doing something special, that in dealing with dangerous drugs he has a particular responsibility, above what he feels most days. Drugs are things which people are aware have a close potential relation with acts of moral obliquity; and the fact that they are in the possession of A or B, or pass from A to B is strong circumstantial evidence. I am sorry that this argument is long, but I must do my best to make it clear, because I think the matter is of immense importance, and if I cannot make a clear exposition short, I must put it fully. Drugs are a kind of special category. The same thing is true in the case of theatrical employers, and in the case of betting establishments, and I believe it true also in the case of the earlier Statute, and true of all the cases quoted, that we must be put on extreme caution by the nature of the act or material itself; these are cases where a very strong degree of presumption can be drawn from the circumstances.

If, as in the earliest case, if my learning was right about the house-breaking tools —we find a man at three o'clock in the morning in a back street in Birmingham with a sack full of burglar's tools—there is a strong degree of presumption, and I believe that that has been generally true for each of these reversals of the onus hitherto. I do ask the House—and I should have hardly thought it necessary to ask any lawyer—to agree that even in these cases where the things concerned, where moral obliquity, actual or apprehensible, or where circumstantial evidence elements are strong, even in such cases the House ought to be extremely reluctant o extend this practice. Here we are being asked to extend this transfer of the burden where there is no characterisation by the elements which I have ventured to indicate. It is not only for breaches of the Clause preceding that now before the House that the onus of proof is being shifted, but it is in connection with any kind of delinquency against ministerial regulations under this Bill; and I make bold to say that not many Members of the House realise how immensely wide that category of punishable actions that may be. I do beg the House to believe that unless it can be proved that this is absolutely necessary for the administration of this system, we should insist that it really is an interference with the principles of the English law, and the ordinary liberties of Englishmen, which the House has no justification whatever in permitting to the Government.

Although this discussion has gone on for some time, I feel I ought to take a few moments to say something about this matter, because we are faced with a principle of the utmost moment. Those of us who have taken examinations in criminal law will remember—I am afraid that, as far as I am concerned, it was some little time ago —and I have no doubt at all that the learned Solicitor-General will well remember, that one of the stock questions to be expected or feared, was, "Name the cases in which the defendant is divested of the protection of the onus of proof in a prosecution." I can recollect that one went on to list, if one had studied one's books, the case of the house-breaking act to which my hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has referred; and another to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has not referred, the case in which there is a prosecution of somebody for serving liquor to a young person.

These instances were all an innovation quite recently, and they were brought into our law for special protection of the community, so we were taught, in cases where the crime was a very serious one, and where there was a special measure of responsibility; and, finally and most importantly, where it was very difficult for the prosecution to make out its case. Thus, in the case of serving drink to a person under age, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to show that the person serving the drink knew the age of the person who took the drink; and it was very necessary to protect young people from having liquor. In these circumstances I say that the precedents which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has cited are no precedents at all. They are simply instances of well known exceptions which should not be