Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 454: debated on Monday 26 July 1948

House of Commons

Monday, July 26, 1948

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

Italian Parliamentary Delegation (Message)

I have received a telegram, which I propose to read to the House:

"Speaker, House of Commons, Westminster, London.

Leaving your wonderful country, Italian Parliamentary Delegation thanks you and begs you to express to the House of Commons their grateful feelings for the splendid and hearty hospitality, promise, and guarantee renewing British Italian friendship.

Gronchi, President of the Chamber of Deputies."

Gronchi, President of the Chamber of Deputies."

Private Business

Darwen Corporation Bill

EGHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL

ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL

ST. HELENS CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY AND GENERAL POWERS) BILL

WHITSTABLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[ The Deputy—Chairman. ]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ministry of Supply

Jet Aircraft

asked the Minister of Supply how many jet engines and jet propelled aircraft are to be sold to the Spanish Government.

No sale to the Spanish Government is contemplated.

Is the Minister aware that the Spanish Government have been negotiating with an aircraft company for a small number of jet fighters and jet engines? If we do not do business with them they will be able to buy British fighters manufactured in the Argentine under licence, and would it not be wiser, in those circumstances, to reconsider the decision.

So far as I know there has been no inquiry from the Spanish Government. There has been some inquiry from a private Spanish firm.

Apollo Aircraft

asked the Minister of Supply how many Apollo aircraft he has ordered from the Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft Company.

In view of the fact that this Company also spent a great deal of its own money making arrangements for building these prototypes, is the Minister aware that if he could see his way to give a token order it might help them very much in their exports, and that there is quite a large prospect of exports there?

We are not contemplating at the moment giving any token or other production order, but we hope there will be a considerable export demand for these engines.

Commercial Vehicles (Agriculture)

asked the Minister of Supply if he will give details of the arrangements whereby manufacturers of commercial vehicles have undertaken to give preferential delivery to the agriculture industry; and if he will make a statement.

The delivery of commercial vehicles takes place through the normal distributive machinery of the motor industry. The motor industry is, as far as possible, giving preferential attention to the requirements of all essential industries.

Is the Minister aware that this is very difficult to reconcile with his remarks of 7th June, because the trade appears to be completely unaware of any arrangement to give priority to farmers?

The S.M.M.T. have, at our request, circularised a request to all their industry to deliver commercial vehicles to the essential industries, giving them preference, and, of course, agriculture is obviously an essential industry.

Is the Minister aware that he has given us this answer about preference before? As a result of what he has told us in the past I have told a constituent that he should get preference for agricultural cars, but when he has written to a firm, that firm seems to know nothing about any preference which they should give.

I suggest that the individual should write to the Society, because the arrangement quite definitely is that people in all the essential industries should get preference and, so far as I know, that is pretty well being carried out.

In view of the uncertainty which prevails about these arrangements, would the Minister circulate, or have placed in the Library, details of the arrangements entered into with the motorcar manufacturers, so that hon. Members can then judge what the position really is?

Is the Minister aware that the Society themselves, knew of no arrangement when I telephoned them?

In a letter which we sent about a year ago we definitely asked, and they agreed to an arrangement, that preference should be given to the delivery of commercial vehicles to all essential industries.

Strip Steel (Tender Forms)

asked the Minister of Supply how many contractors were sent Form 57,366 W.T.14645–0032 for Tender Numbers 22,635 and 22,964 returnable on or before 15th July, 1948, to the Royal Ordnance Factory, Black burn, for 3½ lbs. and 3 lbs., respectively, of strip steel of value less than 1s. 6d.; and under what conditions they were required to complete it.

Tenders are not normally invited for small quantities, but as it was uncertain where supplies could be obtained, 12 contractors were invited to tender for material costing about 10s. and eight for material costing about 5s. This procedure was not appropriate for the purpose and should not have been used.

Is the Minister aware that on this occasion four forms were enclosed with each of the tenders; that the provisions of the King's Roll had to be observed in each case; that there were 10 conditions and four special conditions which had to be observed; and that the price of steel is controlled?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to this case. I quite agree that the procedure adopted here is inappropriate.

Is any disciplinary action to be taken against the people who initiated this farce? I suppose they will be promoted?

Calgarth Depot, Windermere (Employees)

asked the Minister of Supply how many men and women are employed at the Calgarth factory, Winder mere, on what duties, and at what cost.

Fifty-seven men and three women are employed at this depot on duties connected with the storage of machine tools and textiles. The depot costs £350 a week to run.

As I understand that the machine tools have been sold and only a few bales of textiles are now stored there, is not this an extremely wasteful method of storage?

Surplus Machine Tools (Auction Sales)

asked the Minister of Supply how many further auction sales of surplus machine tools he contemplates; and at what places.

Two sales will take place in September, at Birmingham and Glasgow, and plans are being made to hold nine other sales during October and November. Further sales will depend on the stock position.

Will the Minister give preferential treatment to the Polish Purchasing Commission to buy machine tools for their war industries at these sales?

The hon. Member has been completely misinformed. Preferential treatment is not given to any purchaser.

Will there be any war potential machine tools available at these sales?

I have not the remotest idea what machine tools will come up for sale at these nine sales.

Are we to understand from that reply that the Minister does not exercise any control over the disposal of machine tools which might be a valuable potential to war production?

That is an entirely different question. These surplus machine tools are now—as they have been for a long time—put up for disposal by auction, when they go to the highest bidder, or they are sold by private treaty, if that seems better.

asked the Minister of Supply if he will publish a list of machine tools supplied to the Poles following a private agreement at the recent Ministry of Supply auction sales.

The agreement made between the Polish and the United States authorities merely removed in their favour the embargo on the export of Lend-Lease machine tools. Sales at Ministry of Supply auctions are not subject to private agreements and the first condition of sale in the catalogues states that the purchaser is in all cases the highest bidder. At the machine tool auctions the Poles have bought 211 tools, and I will send the hon. Member details as soon as these have been compiled.

As I have already got not only the catalogue but also the details of exactly what the Poles bought—amounting to an enormous sum of money, as no doubt the Minister knows—does he still say to the House, as he did last Monday, that no rifling machines were bought by the Poles and that no machine tools, suitable and specially designed for armaments, were bought by the Poles? If he does, I can give him abundant evidence from many people who will swear in a court of law that he is wrong.

In view of that statement, will the Minister publish a list in HANSARD together with the prices paid for these machine tools?

I am only loth to do that because it would mean such a very long list which would take up several pages of HANSARD. There are 211 of these tools, and I really do hot think that the publication of a list would be justified.

Is the Minister aware that I have here a catalogue of the sale and a sworn statement from many responsible people who were present at the sale who swear, and are prepared to swear in a court of law, that rifling machines and armament machines of a machine tool character were sold to these Poles? What has he to say about that accusation?

Before the Minister answers, would he agree that, as any working engineer will say, there is not a machine in engineering which cannot be used for armament work, and that all this is so much poppycock?

I say again that I inquired into this and that no special machine for making war weapons has been sold to the Poles either at this auction or at any previous sale.

Does the Minister specifically deny the allegation about the rifling machines?

Yes, Sir. My information is definitely that, although five were sold, none was sold to a Polish purchaser.

I beg to give notice that not only in view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, but in view of the inaccurate statements of the Minister, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Surplus Aviation War Materials

asked the Minister of Supply what is the Government's policy regarding the continual disposal of surplus aviation war materials.

The Ministry of Supply disposes only of such materials as are handed over to them by the Service Departments as surplus to their requirements.

While that may have been so, does the Minister consider it right that tens of thousands of serviceable aircraft instruments should be sold every week for scrap? Does he think that is prudent at this time?

That Question ought to be addressed to the Service Departments concerned. We only handle those surplus goods which they hand over to us.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many aeroplanes—including Austers—his Department sold to the Jewish authorities in Palestine?

Motor Spare Parts (Steel Allocation)

asked the Minister of Supply if he will increase the allocation of steel for the manufacture of spare parts for motor vehicles, so as to prevent the dislocation and inconvenience which now result from vehicles being immobilised for lengthy periods through lack of spares.

My Department is aware of the difficulties in the supply of spares, but I regret that it is not possible to increase the allocation of steel within the supplies available for the motor industry.

Will the Minister continue to watch the position carefully, because there seems to be a certain fear of possible unemployment in the motor repair trade?

Ministry of Works

Catering, Royal Parks

asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the food offered to the public at the restaurant in Regent's Park is often stale and unappetising; and if he will endeavour to raise the standard of the catering at this and other restaurants controlled by his Department.

I am not aware of any general criticism of the catering in the Royal Parks, but I recognise the difficulties of open air catering at popular prices, arising for instance from uncertainty as to the numbers to be served. The improvement of the standard of catering will continue to be the constant concern of my Department.

While appreciating all the difficulties, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that, especially when large numbers of foreign visitors are in London, it is desirable that people should be able to get something to eat in these parks which, without being sumptuous, is at least freshly prepared and decently prepared?

Is the Minister aware that he would be aware of the staleness and unappetising nature of the cakes and other foods supplies in Regent's Park if he cared to visit the park?

Cement Supplies, Durham

asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that builders' merchants in Durham City are unable to obtain an adequate supply of cement, while there is no difficulty in obtaining supplies of cement in the Wisbech Area, Cambridgeshire; and whether he will look into this matter, with a view to improving the supply to the wholesalers in Durham.

Most deliveries in Durham City are being made direct to site, and I am not aware that any essential work is being held up in that area.

Is the Minister aware that wholesale merchants in the Durham City area cannot get cement for small jobbing repairs and they cannot understand why there should be this unusual shortage? Would he do something to equalise the position with that which exists in the Cambridge area where plenty of cement is available?

Yes, Sir. In the third quarter, rather more cement has been allocated to the Northern Region and rather less to Cambridgeshire.

Workers' Houses, Calgarth

asked the Minister of Works how many of the 243 dwellings on the Calgarth Estate, Windermere, are occupied by workers at the Calgarth factory; and how many by the families of former workers who are now working elsewhere.

Royal Marines Memorial (Re-erection)

asked the Minister of Works what has happened to the memorial to the Royal Marines who lost their lives in the South African War and Boxer Rebellion and which used to stand outside the Admiralty.

Work is about to start on the re-erection of this memorial on a site in the Mall opposite the statue of Captain Cook. I hope that the memorial will be in position by the end of October.

Is the Minister aware that this statue is unique in that, at the request of the British Marines concerned, there is a representation of an American Marine on that part of the statue connected with the Boxer Rebellion?

Architects (Employment)

asked the Minister of Works if, in consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, he will apportion and distribute among practising architects such architectural work as is now in hand or contemplated instead of confining it as at present to officials of Ministries, county councils and municipal bodies.

It is not the case that the architectural work of my Department is confined to officials, and it will continue to be my policy to entrust important schemes to independent architects where practicable. I have no control over the arrangements of other Government Departments or local authorities in this matter.

If the Minister has no control, would he at least have the courtesy to consult the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and is he aware that I have received complaints that many architects, members of a most important profession, are being put out of business by this State control by the Minister?

No, Sir; I am not aware of it. I have had an interview with the Architects' Association, and I have agreed with them that I will endeavour to get the local authorities to take in hand as many schemes as possible, in view of the possibilities of building at a greater pace in future, and I have recently communicated with the local authorities on that point.

Can the Minister say whether the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission is obtained?

The Royal Fine Art Commission are always consulted by the Government Departments in this matter.

Richard Cœur de Lion Statue

asked the Minister of Works why the sword in the Richard Cœur de Lion statue is being straightened.

The sword has been repaired and straightened because it was in danger of breaking.

Is the Minister aware that this statue was hit during the Battle of Britain? Did whoever decided to straighten it consider whether it would not be better to leave it as it was, with any necessary strengthening, as a symbol that Britain, under air attack, though battered and bent, could never be broken?

It certainly would have been wrong not to have dealt with it when it was reported to me to be in danger of breaking. It is thought better to let it remain as a work of art, rather than as a distorted thing.

Olympic Games (Floodlighting)

asked the Minister of Works if he will order the floodlighting of the principal public buildings, Trafalgar Square, the lake in St. James's Park, etc., for at least a brief period from dusk each night during the Olympic Games.

I should not feel justified in diverting the labour and materials necessary to carry out the suggested scheme of floodlighting at the present time.

Have there not been a number of national occasions in the last year or two on which this expenditure was considered justified, and are not the Olympic Games at least an occasion of sufficient importance?

Building Licence, Pinner

asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the licence granted to Mr. R. Peck to convert a stable into a bungalow at Barrow Point Lane, Pinner, was rescinded some 18 months ago on the ground that the conditions of the licence had been infringed, although no prosecution was ever instituted; that the building has remained three parts completed since that date; that only £800 now requires to be spent in order to complete it; that the Harrow Council has now refused to consider reissuing the licence unless a priced bill of quantities is supplied, although a full estimate of the cost was furnished to them as recently as 19th April last; and whether in these circumstances and in order that the labour and materials comprised in the unfinished building may no longer be wasted, he will cause the licence to be re-issued forthwith.

The Licensing Officer of the Harrow Council has asked for a priced bill of quantities in order that he may be satisfied that the work can be carried out at the cost stated in the application, and I see no reason to question this action. A decision will be given as soon as the particulars are supplied.

Is the Minister aware that it is practically impossible to get any quantity surveyor at present to prepare a bill of quantities for such small amounts, and that this procedure is likely to lead to endless further delay?

Germany

"Parliamentary Affairs" (Circulation)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider circulating widely in Germany, in German translation, copies of "Parliamentary Affairs," the quarterly periodical of the HANSARD SOCIETY.

Copies of the English version of "Parliamentary Affairs" have been sent recently to information centres, libraries and Universities in the British zone. It is too early to assess the probable demand for a German version, but my right hon. Friend will consider the proposal in the light of the information received.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, when I was in Berlin a week or two ago, I found that, at the Information Centre, the very greatest interest was expressed by Germans in "Parliamentary Affairs," and is it not worth while considering translation into German?

We are considering that. Interest shown in the English version will have some bearing on it.

Currency Reform

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the currency reform in Germany, which reduced wages by 90 per cent, from 1st June, operates harshly on the miners whose wages are normally payable on the 25th of each month and who consequently have lost 90 per cent. of wages earned prior to 1st June; and whether he will take immediate steps to rectify this anomaly in view of the effects on coal production.

The currency reform in Western Germany has not reduced wages. The Conversion Law provided that all wages which became due after 20th June were to be paid in full in the new currency, provided that they related to work done after 1st June. Thus miners, who are normally paid in arrear on about the 25th of each month, received four-fifths of their pay in new currency converted at the rate of one Deutschmark for each Reichsmark due, and only one-fifth, earned in May, converted at the rate of one for ten. As regards the second part of the Question, there has been no falling-off in coal production since the introduction of currency reform.

When the Minister says that there has been no reduction in wages as a result of currency reform, is he not aware that to give one new mark for every 10 old marks is, in effect, a reduction of wages when this applies to those wages payable before 1st June, which were not, in fact, paid until 25th June; and that the German authorities are being asked to inquire into the legal aspect of the matter, but as, quite clearly, whatever the legal aspect, it must be the case that these wages have been subject to a reduction, will he make special inquiries in order to put this anomaly right?

On the legal point, I could not answer without notice, but the net effect is that the purchasing power of wage-earners has certainly not lessened.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the misleading and harmful statement made by a former Minister is the sort of statement which we should wish to have included in a German translation of HANSARD?

May I point out that it is not misleading, but that these are the facts, and that they are the subject of inquiry at the present time? Is the Minister aware that, whilst the general effect of currency reform has not been to reduce wages of workers generally, miners are in a very special case because of the incidence of wages about 25th June?

It seems to me that it is a perfectly fair comment, but my hon. Friend is misinformed, and my answer applies to that.

When my hon. Friend says that this does not indicate a 90 per cent. reduction in wages, can he tell us what in his opinion is the amount of reduction in wages?

There is no reduction, and I think that a study of my reply will make that clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that concurrently with the currency reform in Germany, which reduces the value of wages by 90 per cent., price controls have been abolished from a large number of essential commodities, resulting in price increases of up to 208 per cent.; and whether he will take immediate steps to restore these price controls or alternatively remove the prohibition on wage increases of more than 15 per cent. over 1938 levels.

As I have already informed my hon. Friend in reply to his previous question, the currency reform in Western Germany has not reduced wages. They remain, in fact, unchanged, except that they are now paid in the new Deutsch-mark instead of the old and far less valuable Reichsmark. Control of prices is a matter for the German Bizonal Economic Council who have retained some price controls, including those on essential foodstuffs, and have abolished others. The general effect of currency reform has been to increase the purchasing power of the wage-earner.

While it is true that price controls are a matter for the German Economic Council, will the Minister explain why it was that, as a result of action by the Allied Military Government, they were authorised at the same time as the currency reform was introduced to raise these prices, while wages are still frozen as the result of our administration?

I think that, if my hon. Friend will study my two replies, he will see the position clearly. The principle effect of abolishing control has been to diminish the black market enormously.

Is the Minister aware that, if the hon. Gentleman opposite had had the wisdom to introduce currency reform two years ago—

Soviet Newspaper (Statement)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the official Soviet newspaper, "Taegliche Rundschau," has demanded the capitulation of Western Berlin in order to spare the German people suffering; and as this statement is not in accordance with previous Soviet statements that communications have been severed for technical reasons, what action has been taken to make known to the German population of Berlin the true intentions of His Majesty's Government.

I am not aware that such a demand has appeared in the "Taegliche Rundschau," although it contains many propaganda statements of one kind or another. Full publicity in the Press and radio of the Western sectors of Berlin has been given to official statements of His Majesty's Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that statements of this kind were produced in the American Press, particularly the "New York Herald-Tribune," and, if he can find that such statements have been made, will he contradict them, in order to make it plain to the people of Berlin that we stand behind them in this matter?

I am not aware that this statement was made, and I think it would be a mistake if hon. Members paid more attention to this Communist propaganda than almost all the Berliners do.

Would it not be much better if hon. Members of this House showed more concern for the people of this country, and particularly the people of the Highlands, and less concern for the people of Western Germany?

Ruhr Steel Industry (Shares)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what conditions non-German nationals can acquire shares or make investments in Ruhr steel undertakings.

It has not been possible, since August, 1946, for anyone, German or non-German, to acquire shares in Ruhr steel undertakings.

May I ask my hon. Friend if he is aware that United States investors are endeavouring to acquire more steel mills, and whether the present arrangements make it impossible for private capitalists, whether German or non-German, to acquire any section of the Ruhr steel undertakings?

The answer to the first part of the question is, "No, Sir,": and to the second part, "Yes, Sir."

Berlin (Soviet Supplies)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Potsdam agreement provided for supplies for Berlin and West Germany from the U.S.S.R., the Soviet zone and other Eastern European countries, he will instruct the military Governor not to refuse Soviet offers of food, coal, electricity and raw materials for Berlin provided their distribution is administered by the appropriate sector authorities.

No offer of supplies for distribution by the authorities in the Western sectors of Berlin has as yet been received. If any such offer is made, its terms will be carefully considered.

War Damage, Philippines (British Claims)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he anticipates that compensation for war damage sustained in the Philippines by British concerns and provided for by Act of Congress will be paid.

The United States Government are not yet prepared to extend to British subjects and legal persons the benefits of the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of 1946, and the matter is still under discussion. In the circumstances, I cannot forecast when compensation will be paid.

Is the Minister aware that a rather similar answer was given to me two years ago, and will he not institute active discussions to try to get some answer from the United States on this matter?

Treaties (United Kingdom Commitments)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will list the commitments or agreements entered into by which this country could be involved in war on behalf of any single country other than obligations incurred by membership of the United Nations.

The following treaties and agreements to which His Majesty's Government are a party contain obligations of assistance:

I thank my hon. Friend for that very comprehensive reply. Will he please note that it will be with great satisfaction that many people in this country will now realise that we are under no treaty obligation to go to war with the United States against the Soviet Union, because it was feared that there was some such treaty?

Could the Minister tell us whether the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 20 years' friendship with the U.S.S.R. still exists?

German Information (United Kingdom)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that the exhibition known as "Germany Under Control" is closed, he will provide alternative means by which developments in Germany can be interpreted to the public of this country

Yes, Sir. There is a German Information Room and Library on the ground floor of Norfolk House in St. James's Square, to which hon. Members, representatives of the Press and other students of German affairs will be welcome. The room contains a good and up-to-date collection of charts and pictorial statistics dealing with a wide variety of aspects of German life. Supplementary information for those who seek it is to be found in the pamphlets and books of the adjoining library.

Palestine

Holy Places, Jerusalem

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent reports he has received on the present condition of the Holy Places in Jerusalem; and if he is satisfied that appropriate measures have been adopted by the United Nations organisation to safeguard the future of the Holy Places representative of all religious denominations.

As the answer is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in point of fact, the Foreign Office is keeping observation—in the absence of the United Nations organisation—in relation to the Holy Places?

Yes, Sir.

Following is the answer:

Apart from occasional firing, the Old City of Jerusalem has suffered substantial damage on two occasions. The first was in May when the Jewish quarter within the walls was largely destroyed in the course of a battle between Arab and Jewish forces. The second was on the night of the 17th-18th July, when at least 500 Jewish shells or mortar bombs are estimated to have fallen in the Old City. Apart from the destruction of Jewish synagogues during the battle I have mentioned, damage has been reported to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and to the Moslem Dome of the Rock. The dome of the former was partially penetrated on 7th June by a Jewish mortar bomb which caused superficial damage. The Dome of the Rock was penetrated on 17th July by a Jewish mortar bomb, which caused damage to the ceiling and to stained glass windows. Other Moslem Holy Places have been slightly damaged. The resolution adopted by the Security Council on 15th July provides for the demilitarisation of the City of Jerusalem without prejudice to its future political status. The Mediator is taking measures to this end.

Kidnapped British Subjects

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action, after reference to the Security Council, he is now taking to secure the immediate release of the five Britons who were kidnapped by Irgun Zvai Leumi and are now in the hands of Haganah.

Unfortunately, the Security Council did not meet last week, but the question will be raised there tomorrow. After the meeting of the Security Council, His Majesty's Government will consider whether any further action is necessary.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that it is nearly three weeks since these men were kidnapped and over two weeks since his right hon. Friend told the House that the matter would be referred to the Security Council at once; and are not His Majesty's Government responsible, even in these days of the United Nations, for looking after the affairs of British subjects in a rather more expeditious fashion than this?

It was unfortunate that the Security Council did not meet last week, but I can assure the House that we shall raise it strongly tomorrow.

Can we be told, first, what action by the Security Council is hoped for by His Majesty's Government, and, secondly, what will be the immediate action of His Majesty's Government in default of such hopes?

We expect that the Security Council will insist on the surrender of these persons to the Truce Commission, but, until a decision is taken by the Council, I do not want to make a statement about any further measures which we may have to take.

Egypt (British Subjects)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to help British subjects in Egypt, whose position has become precarious owing to recent developments there, to find employment or emigrate.

My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the difficulties with which British subjects in Egypt are faced, and we are studying a number of proposals for rendering practical assistance in repatriation or finding employment; there are, however, many difficulties to be overcome before they can be put into effect.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this country is under a strong moral obligation to help these people, and that their plight is such that urgent help is required; and will he, therefore, do everything possible to expedite the steps he has mentioned?

Greek Children (Removal)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Greek children have been reported by the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Balkan Committee to His Majesty's Government to have been removed; how many of these cases were without the consent of their parents; and how many parents have made application for the return of their children.

The United Kingdom delegate has not reported separately to His Majesty's Government on this subject. The United Nations Special Committee has stated its inability to verify, by the means available to it, the precise number of children removed or the numbers in each of the categories mentioned by the hon. Member. The Committee's report points out that while some parents have consented or at least failed to object to the removal of their children by the guerillas, evidence is available to show that some parents have agreed under duress to the removal of their children, and that other children have in fact been forcibly removed.

In connection with the very last point which the hon. Gentleman made, can he say how many parents have objected because that will be an indication as to the real position in Greece? The facts prove that most parents gave their consent quite willingly.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to publish the report of the Committee, and, if so, when?

Is there any way of explaining to Communists that parents do not like having their children removed?

Falkland Islands Dependencies

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has referred the question of disputed sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies, to the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

No, Sir. The legal position as regards reference of the territorial dispute in the Falkland Islands Dependencies to the International Court remains as set out in my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 25th February last.

Is the Minister aware that the Minister of State told me on 10th May that it was the policy of His Majesty's Government to take the action to which I have referred?

That may be so, but since neither of the other parties to the dispute has signed the optional Clause, it is possible for them to decline to take the matter to the courts.

Is it not a fact that Argentinians and Chileans are trespassing on our territory, and, that being so, what steps have we in mind for bringing this trespass to an end?

We are certainly not content to let things rest where they are, but I am not in a position to make a statement on policy now.

Would it not be possible to send that cruiser back and let it stay there until those brigands are out?

Arab League (Meetings)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representatives of His Majesty's Government have attended meetings of the Arab League in the capacity of observers during the last six months; and who have been nominated for this purpose.

The Arab League, as its name implies, is a League of Arab States. Consequently its meetings are not attended by representatives of His Majesty's Government in any capacity. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Is my hon. Friend able to state whether any request has been made by His Majesty's Government or by the Arab League for an official observer to be appointed?

Brussels Treaty (U.S.A. and Canada)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the U.S.A. and Canada have now agreed to join the Permanent Military Committee of Western Union; and under what conditions and arrangements.

No, Sir. United States and Canadian military experts are in London to participate, as non-members, in the work of the Military Committee set up under the Treaty of Brussels.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the very great danger of slipping into a military alliance, and will he also remember that whereas defensive measures between Western nations can be good and right things, a full-blooded military alliance will inevitably only lead to war?

I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the implications of this decision.

Can my hon. Friend assure me that these discussions will not lead to the type of thing described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), namely, a commitment to fight alongside the United States if the latter is involved in a war with the Soviet Union?

Food Supplies

Norwegian Canned Fish

asked the Minister of Food how much Norwegian canned brisling and sild he has arranged to purchase for delivery in 1948; at what prices it has been purchased; and whether there are any special conditions relating to supply without wrappers or keys for the tins.

A minimum of 25,000 cases of brisling and 200,000 cases of sild, each containing 100 quarter tins of 3¾ ounces nett weight. It is not my right hon. Friend's practice to disclose prices. The tins will be supplied with a paper label, but not otherwise wrapped, and without keys.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the supply of these tins without keys involves the saving of only one-fifth of a penny per tin and that their supply without keys will mean an additional burden on the housewives?

It will mean a saving of 1s. 6d. per case. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that sardines are supplied today without keys and that the housewife is accustomed to using an opener for them.

Parcels (Germany)

asked the Minister of Food whether he will now relax the rules as to the nature of foodstuffs that may be contained in parcels sent to Germany particularly by German civilian workers in this country to their relatives.

I regret that the present food supply position will not allow of the relaxation which the hon. Member suggests.

If these rules were relaxed would it really affect the position of this country materially on the question of food; and, further, now that German workers are being allowed to earn money in this country and to be employed like anybody else, surely they can be allowed to purchase unrationed foodstuffs on which there are no subsidies?

The hon. Member will remember that we allowed rationed and pointed foods to be sent to Germany because these would represent a personal sacifice on the part of the sender. If we were to allow other foods to be sent, it would mean dipping into the common pool, which we think is unfair.

Potatoes

asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the fact that the control of prices of potatoes entails that good and bad are paid for at the same price and leads to evasion of the law he will remove control of price or institute some form of grading for this year's potato crop.

No, Sir. A quality standard is already laid down for new potatoes and higher prices will, as usual, be prescribed for the better varieties and classes of maincrop potatoes.

Is it not evident that there never was any need for potato control at all, and that the panic regulations of the Ministry are a complete farce and involve heavy loss to the taxpayer, as well as a loss of potatoes? May I have an answer to that question?

Milk Marketing Board (Booklet)

asked the Minister of Food the cost and the number of copies printed of a book entitled "The Milk Marketing Board," and how much this has added to the cost of milk to the consumer.

I have no information about the cost of the book in question, as my Department was not concerned with its publication.

T.T. Milk

asked the Minister of Food to what extent T.T. milk not bottled by the farmer is subsequently kept separate by the bottles and sold as T.T.; and what steps he takes to ensure that such milk is not mixed with non-T.T. milk.

In May, 1948, the latest month for which returns are available, approximately 27 per cent. of the T.T. milk sold by producer-wholesalers in England and Wales was retailed as such. Under the Milk (Special Designations) Regulations, T.T. milk sold as such must be kept separate from all other milk and sold to the consumer in sealed containers specially labelled and fitted with overlapping caps. Failure to comply with these conditions may involve dairymen in the revocation or suspension of their licences to sell T.T. milk.

While thanking the Minister for that information, may I ask her whether it is not the case that a certain amount of T.T. milk is not sold as T.T. milk at all and is, therefore, wasted so far as the quality is concerned, since it is mixed with ordinary milk before being sold? The purpose of this Question is to try to get the matter put right. T.T. milk should be sold as such, because there is a wide demand for it.

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I wish there was a wide demand for it. Only 27 per cent. is sold as T.T. milk We cannot govern consumer preference.

Does not the hon. Lady agree that the only way to ensure that there is pure milk is to have it boiled in every household?

Extra Rations (Farm Workers)

asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to any new plans for facilitating the distribution of extra food rations to farm workers.

I am informed that in the great majority of cases, agricultural employers apply for and obtain these special seasonal allowances and distribute them to their workers either as meals or in unprepared form; and we are very grateful to them for the time and trouble they give to this task. Where a farmer is unable to undertake the procurement and distribution of the allowances, this task may be undertaken by a responsible person appointed by him, or one chosen by the workers themselves, such as a local officer of their trade union. My Ministry is conducting regional and local conferences with farmers and farm workers for the purpose of making arrangements of this nature where they are needed. The application form for the allowances must be signed by the farmer or his foreman or bailiff and my right hon. Friend has decided to issue an order laying upon him the duty of completing this application form in all cases where he is about to carry out one of the seasonal operations for which special food supplies are authorised, whether or not he himself proposes to undertake their procurement and distribution.

Is the hon. Lady aware that this proposed action should result in every farm worker getting the extra rations to which he is entitled? Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the farm worker would like a little bit more food still, when there is any going?

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that certain agricultural and horticultural workers who paid National Insurance contributions prior to 5th July as agricultural workers and thus were entitled to extra cheese ration, now find that since 5th July they are not allowed the extra cheese; and if he will take steps to restore the extra ration.

I would add, to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 21st July that we have no intention of withdrawing the special cheese ration from any people who have been receiving it up to now, so long as they stay in the same sort of employment.

If we have any case of difficulty in this connection, can we bring it to the notice of the hon. Lady?

Sugar for Sweets (Exchange)

asked the Minister of Food if he will look into the question of the sugar for sweets practice that is developing; and if he will take steps to prohibit this, in view of the abuses that are possible under this arrangement.

We are keeping a very careful watch on the exchange of domestic sugar for sweets, but I should not feel justified in stopping a scheme which gives some freedom of choice to the housewife unless I was satisfied that there was serious abuse. No evidence of serious abuse has yet been produced.

Is the hon. Lady fully aware of the potential menace to the non-trading parts of the community if this practice should develop?

I do not think it can be regarded as a menace. I think the amount of sugar exchanged for sweets amounts to about 70 tons per week, as against 4,000 tons which we allocate to the ration.

Imported Plums

asked the Minister of Food what quantity of plums is to be imported this season; what quantity of the plums imported is to be the result of bulk purchase by the Government; and whether the prices for imported plums will in general be lower or higher than the prices for home grown plums.

There is no bulk purchase of plums by the Government. They are imported by traders under licence and the total quantity which will come in will be governed by what we can afford to spend and the state of the market. As plum prices are not controlled I cannot say what they will be. Weather conditions in August will have a considerable influence.

Is the hon. Lady aware that a very heavy plum crop is expected in this country this year, and will she use her powers for regulating imports and granting licences in such a way as to prevent serious loss to home growers through a glut?

Certainly. We have that in mind. Any which are imported will be dessert plums, and the glut we expect will be in cooking plums.

Is the Minister aware that the plum picking season has now started, that plums cannot be sold for more than the cost of picking and that unless she takes steps immediately to stop imports there will be great waste?

May I ask the hon. Lady if, in considering this problem, she will pay particular attention to the interests of the consumer?

Is my hon. Friend aware that if it is true that home grown plums are fetching such low prices that they cannot be sold, there will be no need for import control because plums will not be imported at all?

May I ask the hon. Lady whether she is aware that at Evesham there is a real crisis going on and, further, whether she did not promise a statement regarding plums before plum picking?

On a point of Order., I put a nice question to the Minister on a matter which is all-important to thousands of people in Worcestershire. I really think I might have been given some answer.

Bacon Consignment

asked the Minister of Food why a recent consignment of bacon intended for Manchester was delayed in transit from Avonmouth, the port of discharge; and what steps were taken to make it fit for human consumption.

The last occasion on which bacon was consigned from Avon-mouth to Manchester was in March, 1947, and no delay then occurred in transit. The bacon arrived in excellent condition.

Does the hon. Lady deny that there have been recent consignments on this route; that they have arrived tainted, and have had to be doped before sale to the public?

I have no knowledge of the case. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have details.

Bread Rationing (Flour Saving)

asked the Minister of Food the estimated tonnage of flour saved during the two years of bread rationing.

During the two years of rationing deliveries of flour for human consumption in the United Kingdom from bulk stocks amounted to 10,077,000 tons. If during these two years flour deliveries had continued at the rate per head of population at which they were running over the period of twelve months immediately prior to the introduction of rationing, they would have amounted to 11,037,000 tons. Calculated in this way the "saving" amounts to 960,000 tons. I am afraid it is impossible to be more precise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures she has just given more than justify the imposition of bread rationing? Can she say whether, at the reduced rate of consumption, the average consumption over the last two years is not higher than pre-war consumption?

Is the hon. Lady aware that the figures in the Statistical Digest for the year before the introduction of bread rationing—1945—and those for the year after—1947—show a reduction of less than 2½ per cent. in the flour used for consumption in the United Kingdom? Is not that a fair picture of what happened?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot always be guided by figures in the Statistical Digest, because when calculated on a population basis, they include the men in the Services abroad.

Is not the hon. Lady aware that, in fact, the consumption of flour went up during the rationing period by about 1.7 per cent. over the 96,900 tons we were consuming in 1947?

The hon. Member must realise that the population increased by two millions in the last two years.

Was not the increase in population only just one-half of one per cent.?

United Nations Day (Observance)

asked the Prime Minister what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to implement in this country the United Nations Assembly resolution regarding the observance of 24th October as United Nations Day; what answer His Majesty's Government have given to a communication from the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on this subject; and what instructions have been sent to the appropriate Government Departments to co-operate with that body.

I can assure my hon. Friend that all practicable steps will be taken to carry out the resolution to which he refers. I have already replied in this sense to a recent approach from the United Nations Association. Detailed proposals are at present being considered by the Departments concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many of my colleagues on this side of the House are also interested in this subject, and will he keep us in touch with developments?

Statutory Instruments (Publication)

asked the Prime Minister whether Questions, asking why Statutory Instruments have not been published until after they came into operation, should be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury or to the Ministers respectively responsible for the Instruments.

If there has been delay in making an Instrument, it is for the rule-making Departmént to explain; if there has been Stationery Office delay in printing, it is for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There is, however, no need for the hon. Member to put Questions to either because the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments include the duty of reporting to the House any cases in which

"there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament."

Surely the Prime Minister would not deny that an hon. Member has an absolute right to ask Questions on this subject? Is he aware that some Questions addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury have been answered by him and others have been transferred, although they were in precisely the same form? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that that haphazard practice will stop, and will he say to whom these Questions should be addressed?

I made it quite plain in the reply, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies it, to whom the Questions should be addressed. I was not trying to controvert in any way the hon. Gentleman's duty. I was only trying to save him trouble by pointing out that provision had already been made by the House for this kind of Question.

How can an hon. Member know whose fault it was until the Question has been put on the Paper and answered?

If the hon. Gentleman does not know, it will be answered by the correct Department when they come to look at it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Statutory Instruments Committee normally meets only once a fortnight, and that in any event most of the members of that Committee welcome such action as hon. Members may take by putting down Questions in the House?

Agriculture

Vermin (Destruction)

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many individuals are employed by local authorities in the destruction of vermin in England and Wales; and how the total compares with that of 1st January, 1946.

In January last there were 1,297 persons wholly, and 2,063 partly employed by local authorities on destruction of rats and mice. I regret that I cannot give comparable figures for January, 1946.

In view of the public interest in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman transfer this responsibility to the Minister of Health?

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall be as successful in 1948 as we were in 1945?

Requisitioned Land, King's Heath

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to restore the land taken over in 1943 from the Moseley Golf Club Limited, King's Heath, Birmingham; if the development by the erection of 45 prefabricated houses has yet taken place on the course; what alterations to the course are necessary in order to safeguard the houses and their occupants; and if he will consider the propriety of the continued maintenance of this open space in a congested area of the City of Birmingham.

This land was requisitioned in order that it might be used to produce food, and I am unable to agree to its release just yet. The pre-fabricated houses have been erected. I am not aware that any alterations to the course are necessary to safeguard the houses and their occupants. As to the last part of the Question, this is primarily a matter for the local planning authority to consider in the preparation of the development plan for their area.

Is the Minister aware that all the land that can be usefully employed for the production of food is under cultivation, and when does he hope to be able to announce the release of this land?

I understand that there is power to retain possession up till 1952, but I hope that release may come before that time.

County Executive Committees (Accounts)

asked the Minister of Agriculture why when publishing trading accounts of county agricultural executive committees in England and Wales he is unwilling to publish separate total accounts for England and Wales.

My reason for deciding not to show separate figures for England and Wales when the trading accounts of county agricultural executive committees are published is to avoid the possibility of erroneous conclusions being drawn from a comparison. There are only a few counties in England where geographical and other conditions are similar to those which obtain in the majority of Welsh counties.

Is it not the case that separate figures are to be published for Scotland, and are not the people of Wales and, indeed, of England just as much entitled to know what has been spent as the people of Scotland?

Could the right hon. Gentleman present these figures in such a way that there will be no possibility of an erroneous comparison being drawn?

Not without enormous explanation, which would be a burden on the members of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise the matter referred to in this Question on the Adjournment.

Feedingstuffs

asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether, under the proposed new regulations, he will consider increasing the allowance of feedingstuffs to the special category of disabled ex-Service men who, under existing regulations, are entitled to draw rations of feedingstuffs; (2) whether he will now consider extending special facilities to obtain feedingstuffs to men disabled in the 1914–18 war.

I am considering with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Labour whether any relaxation is possible and desirable in the conditions on which special rations of feedingstuffs for pigs or poultry are allowed to seriously disabled ex-Service men.

Training Scheme

asked the Minister of Agriculture how far he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for finding positions for men who have completed the Government Training Scheme in Agriculture; and if he will state the percentage of men for whom jobs are found when their training is completed.

While no actual responsibility for finding employment is accepted, I am satisfied that my county committees and the principals of training centres do everything possible to assist trainees to find suitable employment in the industry. County committees bring to the notice of local employment exchanges particulars of men who, when nearing completion of training, have not found suitable employment. A very large proportion of the trainees are found suitable employment under those arrangements. I cannot give percentage figures, but, apart from the instance which I am investigating on the hon. Member's behalf I have no evidence that trainees find difficulty in getting employment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is quite a number of men who have done this practical training but who, at the completion of the course, find themselves without suitable employment? Although the major responsibility is not my right hon. Friend's, could he see whether some arrangement could be made to find suitable employment for these men?

My information is that very few have difficulty in finding work once they have been trained, but should any case be brought to my notice I will cause inquiry to be made into it.

Cormorants, North Wales (Destruction)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the River Conway Fishery Board is organising parties to destroy the nesting areas of cormorants on Great Orme and Little Orme at Llandudno and in addition is offering 2s. 6d. reward for the feet of each bird killed; and whether, as the uncontrolled methods of destruction being adopted are repugnant to public opinion, he will arrange for any necessary reduction in the cormorant colony in North Wales to be effected by some other means.

I am aware that the River Conway Fishery Board is offering rewards for cormorants destroyed in its district, but no decision to organise raids on the nesting areas has yet been taken. I am advised that neither scheme would be likely to result in any widespread destruction, and see no reason, therefore, for making representations in this matter to the Board which is acting within its general powers, over which I have no direct control.

If cormorants are to be killed, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that they are disposed of decently and in order?

May we be assured that we shall not shortly be having cormorants on the menu in the dining room?

In view of the fact that this is one of a series of similar Questions asked by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), would the right hon. Gentleman or some other Minister make a statement on why such shabby treatment has been given to the widely scattered constituents of the hon. Member?

House of Commons Catering (Beaver Meat)

asked the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee of what is the dish on the House of Commons menu described as "Blanquette of Beaver" composed, and from whence the beaver meat used in this dish is imported.

"Blanquette of Beaver" is beaver cooked in a rich white sauce. We are informed that the beaver used in making the dish is imported from Norway.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he has told me something I did not know and has, therefore, taught me something? Does he not think that it would add to the excitement of House of Commons menus in future if these weird dishes were mentioned in connection with the country of origin of the animal served to us?

As there is a close season for beaver in Norway, would the hon. Gentleman consider whether some could be imported in tins so that we might enjoy this delicious dish all the year round?

It is served frequently on menus of the House of Commons and on other menus already and it is, in my view, an enjoyable dish. They tried it on the Chairman first.

Can the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee assure us that the "Blanquette" content of the dish is exclusively of British wool?

Can we be assured that we are not likely to be reduced to eating the London Zoo?

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the essential thing is that it looks and tastes suspiciously like rabbit?

I think the dish is quite a good one; it is more like hare than anything else.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the water rat belongs to the same family as the beaver and, if foreign supplies grow short, can he assure us that we shall not have the water rat on the menu?

Roads

Bridge, Corby

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the narrowness of the Rockingham Road bridge at Corby, the heavy vehicular traffic across it and its constant use by a large number of pedestrians make it a dangerous place and that, after repeated representations by the Corby Urban District Council, contract drawings for the widening of the bridge were completed in 1946; what steps are being taken to ensure safety on this public highway; and when it is proposed to widen the bridge.

Yes, Sir. I issued a grant towards the cost of widening this bridge some time ago, and last March I approved the acceptance of a tender. I understand that the contractor is now awaiting delivery of steel.

Can my right hon. Friend say when work will be begun and how long it will take?

No, I cannot say when the contractor will be able to begin. It will depend on when he gets his steel.

Transport Undertakings (Acquisition)

64, 65 and 66.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) how many road haulage undertakings have been acquired by the British Transport Commission since 1st January, 1948; what was the name of each; and how many vehicles involved;

(2) whether any notices of acquisition have been served on any road haulage undertakings by the British Transport Commission under Part III of the Transport Act, 1947; and

(3) how many road passenger undertakings or shareholdings therein have been acquired by agreement by the British Transport Commission since 1st January, 1948; and what were their names.

The British Transport Commission inform me that since 1st January, 1948, they have come to agreements, now either signed or about to be signed, for the acquisition of shares in 115 road haulage undertakings, many of which are associated or subsidiary companies. These undertakings own 3,490 vehicles and 364 trailers. It is the intention of the Commission to begin the issue of notices of acquisition early in October. Owing to the stage which the negotiations have reached in some cases it would not be in the public interest for their names to be published.

With regard to road passenger undertakings, the Commission have arranged to acquire three undertakings vested in the British Electricity Authority Negotiations are proceeding in certain other cases.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his informative reply, and congratulating the Transport Commission on having made such progress, may I ask him, first, if he will give me an assurance that the basis of acquisition of these undertakings has in no case involved a cost any greater than that allowed for in the compulsory acquisition of these concerns as provided for in the Act; and secondly, whether, in view of the slowness with which the acquisition of passenger transport undertakings is proceeding, he will consider taking compulsory action in that case also?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the terms have closely followed the terms laid down in Section 47 of the Act. With regard to the acquisition of road passenger services, I would remind my hon. Friend that, in the main, they depend on area schemes; and the acquisition of road passenger undertakings is proving to be a little more complex than road haulage acquisitions.

How many of these firms the right hon. Gentleman is purchasing are small firms, the operators owning five or less vehicles?

I really could not give an analysis of these acquisitions, but facilities for acquisition by agreement are open to small undertakers as well as to large undertakers.

Can my right hon. Friend give any indication about when he will name the vesting date after which no road transport can operate under private enterprise under the terms of the Act?

Oh, no, I think the next stage is the order for the compulsory acquisition of the road haulage undertakings, and the getting of the organisation into being.

Plum Crop, Evesham

On a point of Order. May I ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance, to wit, the picking of the plum crop in Evesham, which is in danger of destruction unless the Government take appropriate action at an early date?

I am afraid that that would not fall under Rule 8 of our Standing Orders—not by miles.

Detained Yugoslavs (Surrender)

With permission, I wish to make a statement on the implementation by His Majesty's Government of their international obligations in connection with the handing over for trial by the Yugoslav Government of Yugoslav nationals charged with collaboration.

Since the end of hostilities, we have received requests for the surrender of some 1,800 persons, and we have now examined the charges against these people. Only some 400 of them have actually been found on British or British controlled territory. We have tried to see whether in each case the Yugoslav Government had established, to our satisfaction, a clear prima facie case of active and wilful collaboration. After careful and painstaking examination of all the charges and circumstances, we have been prepared to surrender some 58 persons to the Yugoslav Government.

In this way we have conscientiously discharged our obligations. Now, however, that we have completed the consideration of all cases of persons whom we have found on British and British controlled territory, we feel that a new stage has been reached. It is now more than three years since the end of the war, and it is clearly not possible for us to continue the process of search and surrender for an indefinite period of time. Of those persons whose surrender has already been requested we are now only prepared to consider the cases of 19 persons should it so happen that they are found on territory under our control. These 19 men, whose names I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, are all persons who, by the nature of their official positions, rendered such signal service to the enemy that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to justify a refusal to consider surrendering them. Against the remainder of those whose surrender has been requested, we propose to take no further action; and we will not now accept any fresh requests for surrender. We feel that it is time for this matter to be brought to an end. The Yugoslav Government have been notified accordingly.

While congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his very proper but very tardy action, may I ask him whether he has any information regarding the fate of those sent back to Yugoslavia purportedly to stand trial?

While again congratulating my hon. Friend on this decision, which must be accepted even by loyal Communists today, may I ask if he will give the name of one of the 19 people, to indicate what kind of persons they are?

Their names and offices will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The best known of them is Pavelic.

Does this decision affect the five who have been the subject of the requests by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes).

Is it not a fact that this action has been delayed so long that now the pretext is made of the lapse of time? Is it not the case that if these people have assisted the Nazis they should go back, no matter how long a time afterwards? Would it not be the case that, if there were an opportunity of sending back to China or elsewhere anybody who had engaged in Communist activities, it would not be minded whether it was a year afterwards or 30 years?

Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that question, may I ask him to bear in mind the active assistance that Marshal Tito gave to the Nazis during the first 18 months of the war?

Following are the names List of Yugoslav traitors whose cases His Majesty's Government would still be prepared to consider if they are found on territory under His Majesty's Government's control.

1. Milan Acimovic: Serb Minister of the Interior.

2. Andrija Artukovic: Croat Minister of the Interior.

3. General Rafael Boban: Officer Commanding Croat Black Legion.

4. General Matija Canic: Commander-in-Chief Croat Armed Forces.

5. Filip Crvenkovic: Director of Public Order and Security in Croat Ministry of Interior, and of State Monopolies.

6. Mate Frkovic: Croat Minister of the Interior.

7. Ivo Herencic: Chief of Ustashi Security Service.

8. Djafar Kulenovic: Vice-President of Croat Government.

9. Osman Kulenovic: Vice-President of Croat Government.

10. Eugen Kvaternik: Head of Croat Public Security.

11. Vjekoslav (Maks) Luburic: In charge of all concentration camps in Croatia.

12. Ante Niksic: Croat Minister of the Interior and Minister Plenipotentiary to Fascist Italy.

13. Ante Pavelic: Head of Croat Government.

14. General Ivan Prpcic: Chief of Staff Croat Armed Forces.

15. General Vilko Pecnikar: Officer Commanding Croat Gendarmerie.

16. General Stefan Radovanovic: Officer Commanding Serb Gendarmerie.

17. General Drajntin Rupic: Ustashi Air Force.

18. Stjepo Peric: Croat Minister of Foreign Affairs from November, 1943, to the end of the war.

19. Mihajlo Olcan: Quisling Serb Minister of National Economy.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ Mr. H. Morrison. ]

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 85.

Division No. 269.]

AYES.

[3.38 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Holman, P.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Horabin, T. L.

Alpass, J. H.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Hoy, J.

Anderson, A, (Motherwell)

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

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

Attewell, H. C.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Awbery, S. S.

Delargy, H J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ayles, W. H.

Dodds, N. N.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Bacon, Miss A.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Balfour, A.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Durbin, E. F. M.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Barstow, P G

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Janner, B.

Barton, C

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Jay, D. P. T.

Battley, J. R.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Bechervaise, A E

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

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

Benson, G.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Jenkins, R. H.

Beswick, F.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Blackburn, A. R

Ewart, R.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Boardman, H.

Fairhurst, F.

Kenyon, C.

Bottomley, A. G.

Farthing, W. J

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H W

Fernyhough, E.

King, E. M.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Field, Capt. W. J.

Kirby, B. V.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Foot, M. M.

Leonard, W.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Leslie, J. R.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Lever, N. H.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Levy, B. W.

Burden, T W

Gallacher, W.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Burke, W. A.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

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

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Longden, F.

Byers, Frank

Gooch, E. G.

Lyne, A. W.

Carmichael, James

Goodrich, H E

McAdam, W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Gordon-Walker, P. C

McAllister, G.

Chamberlain, R. A

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

McEntee, V. La T.

Champion, A. J.

Grenfell, D. R

McGhee, H. G.

Chater, D.

Grey, C. F

Mack, J. D.

Chetwynd, G. R

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Cluse, W. S

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

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

Cocks, F. S.

Gunter, R. J.

McLeavy, F.

Coldrick, W

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Mainwaring, W H

Collins, V. J

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Colman, Miss G. M

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hardy, E. A.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Corlett, Dr. J

Harrison, J.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N)

Cove, W. G

Haworth, J.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Crawley, A

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Marquand, H. A.

Daggar, G

Herbison, Miss M.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Daines, P

Hicks, G

Mayhew, C P.

Mellish, R. J

Rhodes, H.

Titterington, M. F.

Mikardo, Ian

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Tolley, L.

Mitchison, G. R

Robens, A

Vernon, Maj W F

Monslow, W

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Viant, S. P.

Moody, A S

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wadsworth, G

Morley, R.

Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

Walkden, E.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Scollan, T

Walker, G H.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Scott-Elliott, W

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E)

Shackleton, E A. A

Warbey, W. N.

Moyle, A

Sharp, Granville

Weitzman, D.

Murray J. D

Shinwell, Rt. Hon E

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Naylor, T. E.

Shurmer, P.

Wells, W. T (Walsall)

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

West, D. G.

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

Skeffington, A. M.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

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

Skinnard, F. W.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)

Oliver, G. H.

Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Orbach, M.

Snow, J. W

Wigg, George

Paget, R. T.

Solley, L. J

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Palmer, A. M F.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Parker, J.

Sparks, J A.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Parkin, B. T

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Stross, Dr. B.

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

Pearson, A.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Perrins, W.

Swingler, S.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Piratin, P.

Sylvester, G. O.

Wise, Major F. J.

Popplewell, E.

Symonds, A. L.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Woods, G. S.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Taylor, Dr S (Barnet)

Wyatt, W.

Proctor, W T.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Yates, V. F.

Randall, H E.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Ranger, J.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Rankin, J.

Thurtle, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rees-Williams, D. R

Tiffany, S.

Mr. Simmons and

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Timmons, J

Mr. Wilkins.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Gridley, Sir A

Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Grimston, R. V.

Nicholson, G.

Baldwin, A E.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Beamish, Maj. T. V H.

Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)

Nutting, Anthony

Birch, Nigel

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Osborne, C.

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

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

Peake, Rt. Hon O.

Bower, N

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Peto, Brig. C. H M

Boyd-Carpenter, J A

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

Pickthorn, K.

Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

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

Rayner, Brig R.

Bullock, Capt. M

Keeling, E. H.

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

Channon, H.

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Renton, D.

Clarke, Col. R. S

Langford-Holt, J.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Cooper-Key, E. M

Legge-Bourke, Maj E A H.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Crookshank, Capt Rt Hon. H. F. C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E)

Smithers, Sir W.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Darling. Sir W. Y.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Studholme, H. G.

De la Bère, R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Sutcliffe, H.

Digby, S. W.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Teeling, William

Drewe, C.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A F.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Eccles, D. M

Maclay, Hon. J S

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Eden, Rt Hon. A

MacLeod, J

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Erroll, F. J.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

Marlowe, A. A H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gammans, L. D

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Major Conant and

Glyn, Sir R.

Mellor, Sir J.

Brigadier Mackeson.

Gomme-Duncan, Col A

Molson, A. H E.

Orders of the Day

Gas Bill

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[ Mr. Gaitskell. ]

3.47 p.m.

We make no objection to the Lords Amendments being now considered, but we consider that the Government might have indicated a little earlier their action with regard to certain of the Amendments. It was only on Saturday that the Government's decision as to the Amendments which they were accepting was on the Order Paper, and, of course, the Opposition have had no time to frame any further Amendments in lieu of any which the Government may or may not be accepting. This puts the Opposition into some difficulty.

It would, no doubt, be too difficult to submit manuscript Amendments to a Bill so intricate at this stage, but perhaps it would be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to give a certain degree of latitude when we are discussing these rather intricate matters; all the more so, as the Bill has obviously been greatly improved in another place, since already 100 Amendments are to be accepted; and we trust that, with a little persuasion, a reasonable proportion of those that remain will commend themselves, I will not say to the Government, but to the good sense of the House as a whole. Meanwhile, we make no objection to such Amendments being now considered, but we ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the shortage of time available to the Opposition for considering the Government's decision, whether you would undertake to temper justice with mercy in our examination of these Amendments.

The right hon. and gallant Member is very persuasive, but he is not the only person who has been short of time. I hear that these Amendments were put in at 12.45 p.m., and I saw them at 2.15 for the first time. Therefore, I have had no time to consider them, and neither would the House have had time to consider which of them may or may not be important. Therefore, while I am very sorry, I find myself unable to select any of them at such short notice.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE I.—(Establishment and general functions of Area Boards.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 6, after "coke," insert:

"other than metallurgical coke."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[ Mr. Gaitskell ]

Perhaps we might have a word or two of explanation from the Minister on this. In another place the Government spokesman said that he did not set himself up as an expert upon metallurgical or, indeed, upon any other form of coke. This is the place where experts on this subject should give the House the advantage of their views.

Metallurgical coke is, of course, normally produced by coke ovens and not by gas works, although some gas works also produce metallurgical coke. It was considered advisable not to impose a duty, therefore, upon the gas works to produce metallurgical coke, though it remained within their powers to do so.

If the Minister says metallurgical coke is not usually produced by gas works, perhaps he will look at the Lords Amendment in page 85, line 20, at the end insert:

"'metallurgical coke' means coke produced in coke ovens and of a quality primarily and customarily used for the smelting, melting, or refining of ores or metals."

He will see that metallurgical coke is covered in this description only where it is produced by coke ovens. Does he mean by his speech just now that it is also covered where it is produced by gas works?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would raise that question when we come to that Amendment.

I am unconvinced that we should accept this Amendment. If we are nationalising coke, why not do so? It rather looks as if the Government have found some form of coke which ought not to be nationalised; the only reason there could be for accepting this Amendment is that they have found such a form of coke. It seems that, once again, the Government, in accepting this Amendment, have gone some way in proving that almost everything else they are doing is wrong.

What was the reason for this change which was made in another place? We discussed this Bill very thoroughly in this House, and this question was not then raised. What was the reason for the change?

I do not think we did discuss the rather fine point whether, if this Amendment were not made, there would be upon the area board an obligation to produce metallurgical coke. I, myself, do not think that there would be, but we want to make quite certain that it should not be an obligation. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), the explanation is that metallurgical coke is produced in coke ovens as such, although some of these coke ovens are operated by gas works.

Question put, and, agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Constitution of Area Boards and Gas Council.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 18, leave out from beginning to "members" in line 19, and insert:

"not less than six nor more than eight."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[ Mr. Gaitskell. ]

I think the Minister ought to give us a word or two of explanation on this.

This is a paving Amendment to the Amendment in line 37, under which the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman, one of whom is to have had experience of gas supply, is provided for. Perhaps we could discuss it when we come to that later Amendment.

That does not seem to be correct at all. This Amendment enlarges the size of the area board. I hope the Minister can tell us why.

This simply takes out the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman from the appointments of the other members of the area board.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lord's Amendment: In page 5, line 24, at end, insert:

"not less than one member shall be a worker, who has been employed in the gas industry, in the area covered by the undertakings taken over by the Area Board, and who by skill and experience has shown himself qualified for the post and"

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment has a rather strange history, or even pedigree. It will be recalled that the Bill as originally drafted —and, indeed, in the form in which it left this House—set forth a number of possible qualifications for members of area boards, but did not impose upon the Minister any obligation to appoint a specific number of members of the board from any one of the categories mentioned. The actual membership itself was to be drawn from persons appearing to the Minister provide that not fewer than two members should be elected by the workers. However, he was prevailed upon by a number of his noble Friends, including his noble kinsman the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, to omit the words "elected by the" so that the Amendment then read:

The proposal is, I think, faintly syndicalist in character, and possibly also attractive to members of the Communist Party. The case for the election of workers' representatives is one thing; the case for this Amendment is another, and to begin with I want to distinguish sharply between those two. The proposal originally put forward here by the Liberal Party and by Lord Cecil in another place, was that workers' representatives should be elected. There was no doubt, I think, in the minds of the hon. Members who moved that here, nor in the mind of Lord Cecil, that these men were to represent the workers. Lord Cecil, I am sure, derived this idea from the experience of one or two concerns where there were on the board employee representatives, because of the co-partnership scheme.

We have never agreed with the view that appointments to these boards should be on that basis. We held—and the Parliamentary Secretary explained our position very clearly during the Report stage—and still hold, that the Minister should be responsible for these appointments, and that he should not be unduly fettered in making them. We do not think it is desirable that workers' representatives should be elected to these boards.

4.0 p.m.

We think that were that course to be pursued, there would be a clash of responsibility and interest so far as the workers were concerned. Should they be responsible to the Minister together with the rest of the board, or should they be responsible to the workers and their electors? I do not know what is the answer to that, but my own view is that if they are elected they ought to be responsible to the workers who elected them, and in that case we are converting the area board into a kind of consultative council, for which provision is made elsewhere in the Bill.

Suppose there were negotiations between the Board and the workers about wages and conditions. One has only to consider the difficult situation which would arise so far as these workers' representatives are concerned to see the confusion into which we get. There is a considerable difference from the case of the individual works—I pass no judgment here, because there may have been an advantage in having employees' representatives on the board of a single concern. But area boards will be employing some 10,000 or 20,000 people, and I cannot conceive that two persons elected by 10,000 or 20,000 employees in the area would be able to report back in any regular form to their constituents.

This Amendment does not even have the merit of representation; there might be some merit in representation. It does not provide that the worker shall be elected. He has to be selected by the Minister from among the workers, and he has to have skill and experience which qualifies him for the post. Let us examine the Amendment a little more closely. The first thing is that the term "worker" is not a very satisfactory one. It is not clear to me whether it means a manual worker only, which I am pretty certain was the intention of the noble Lord, or whether it covers clerical workers, engineers, or people who have hitherto been holding managerial positions in the industry. Then again there is the question, which would definitely arise if this Amendment were carried, of whether it would be in order to appoint a person who has been a manual worker in the industry or a clerical worker and has risen to a managerial position. I doubt whether, if such a person were appointed, it would be consistent with the intention of the mover of the Amendment.

The second point is that the wording is such that I am advised it would give rise to the possibility of an appointment being challenged in the courts. Suppose the Minister were to appoint someone under this Amendment and the view was held that he was not a person qualified by skill and experience for the post, the appointment might then be challenged in the court. I am sure we all agree that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

The third question which arises is whether the post will be full-time or part-time. I think it is clear that there will be some part-time and some full-time members of these boards. If it is to be a full-time post, we have to have regard to the nature of the full-time members, some of whom will be administrative, some technical, some commercial and some may simply be required to have the qualities of intelligence, good judgment and the capacity to handle men. It is, of course, possible that a person with these qualifications could be found in the industry, but whether one could make very much of experience in this matter I am not quite so sure, because there cannot really have been any experience of membership of these boards since these are the first to be set up. On the other hand, let us suppose that the post is to be part-time. The question then arises whether the man concerned is to continue with his work as a worker. If so, I submit that we get into almost all the difficulties I have referred to in connection with elected representatives.

The Government feel that if the responsibility for appointing the members of the boards is the Minister's, then he should be as free as possible. Certainly it must be his decision as to what the precise qualifications are to be. It cannot be laid down absolutely that the person concerned must be skilled and experienced. That is a matter which must be for the Minister to decide. It may be, and it very likely will be, that the Minister would find within the ranks of the workers persons qualified for posts of this kind. I was careful to emphasise that I did not take the view that there must be technical or even commercial qualifications, because I think there are certain general qualifications which might make a man suitable for a post of this kind. The point is that there is nothing in the Bill to rule that man out. Among the various categories from which the Minister may select members for the area boards are "gas supply" and "the organisations of workers." Of course that covers everyone in the industry; we said that and have left the matter quite open.

I would emphasise that we do not want people on these boards to feel themselves responsible to the workers and not to the community. The boards are appointed by the Minister and are responsible to him. If we single out a particular category like this and say that there shall be one member who is a worker, we are certainly going to make that person feel responsible to the workers instead of to the community.

The truth is that this Amendment is an untenable compromise based on a confusion of thought about the nature of industrial democracy. We feel it is of the utmost importance that the workers in the industry should feel themselves to be part of the show. I feel that were a workers' representative to be elected or a so-called workers' representative appointed it would not achieve the result that is wanted, because once a man is appointed he is simply a member of the board; moreover, what we should have is a workers' representative on the board responsible for a very large number of employees.

What we need is consultation not only at the area board level but at every level. The way to get true industrial democracy is not in the manner suggested by this Amendment, but for the representatives of the workers to confer with the management on all the problems of the industry affecting the workers, as is provided for in the Bill. I appreciate the motives which led the noble Lord and others to suggest this Amendment in another place, but in these circumstances I ask the House to reject it.

It is true, as the Minister has said, that the whole of this difficulty arises out of confusion of thought as to the nature of industrial democracy, but the confusion of thought is in the minds of the Minister and of the Government who think the very idea of democracy is that it should not be democracy. This is an argument to buttress up what they have done in their Bill, and it is impossible, at this stage, to go back on what has been so done. The Bill was to sweep away the process of popular election, and replace it by the process of nomination. That is what it has done. The Government now find it impossible to go back and substitute under any condition the principles of democracy. Surely the principles of democracy include, somewhere, at some point, the principle of election. We had this out in Committee. The case was stated there not quite so nakedly as in another place, in a declaration by the Lord Chancellor, who said:

"There are undoubtedly instances"—

I am quoting this as a declaration of Government policy—

"where, without any slavish adherence to the Russian system, nomination is better than election. The question is: Is this one of those instances? I think it is."

We can dismiss the argument of the Minister about what he calls industrial democracy. The question is: Would it be possible to remedy the great evil for which Ministers have been responsible? They have destroyed the principle of popular election in a local authority and in the case of companies. The Minister's argument is: Would it be possible for two people to represent the workers in units so large that they might be employing 10,000 or 20,000 men? It may well be not; these unwieldy units have that kind of disadvantage, and this is one of them. As a final example of the great difficulties that might arise the Minister said, "It is possible that the decision of the Minister, by this Amendment, might be challenged in the courts." That, it seems, is the final degradation, the thing that must be avoided at all costs. The Minister must not lay himself open to the courts of justice in this land.

Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think the Minister ought to be responsible to this House or to High Court judges? He cannot be responsible to both.

The hon. Member, who has occupied with distinction the position of Temporary Chairman in this House, knows very well that above all positions that men may hold in this country, we properly consider that justice rules them all. We consider that the Minister's action should, in many cases, be subject to challenge. If all the occasions on which Ministers had been subject to challenge by the courts were ruled out of our constitutional history, the position of all of us, Mr. Speaker, and your position, in particular, would be very different from what it is at this moment.

The position which the Minister is in, is one which he is trying to justify by the great evil which he and the majority behind him have committed. They have done away with the process of election, and now the Minister says it would be very difficult for Government to accept this Amendment because it would lead to a clash between elected and nominated members. Of course it would, but the argument for that is not to do away with election but to do away with nomination, and allow the principle of local authority control, or, indeed, of company control of directors over those who are elected to the board, to represent capital which is there invested, capital of brain and hand as well as of cash.

The Minister, having now taken the other course, cannot go back on it, and we would not support any Amendment which would powder the nose of the evil which he has committed. It is right that there should be differences of opinion between the other place and this House, that the other place should take its own view from time to time and that we should take our view from time to time. It is also right that neither party should follow slavishly the views of its opposite number in another place, simply because it belongs to the same political colour or complexion. I cannot advise my hon. Friends to vote for this Amendment because it merely varnishes over a great evil. Later, we shall have an opportunity of discussing the principle of incentive and co-partnership, which has been dispensed with although the Minister has said that in some way or other he can restore it in administrative practice.

This is a well-meant attempt by those who have given many years to the study of this problem to save a shred from the wreckage. Lord Cecil and Members in this House, on both sides, have given great attention to these matters. They have tried to remedy the wrong, but have found the same difficulty as this House will find it is under today. This is irremediable. The Minister is not slavishly adhering to the Russian principle, but he is using it as a general directive to go in for the principle of nomination. The person to be nominated is to be judged by the length of the Minister's foot.

4.15 p.m.

I agree that it would be very difficult for "worker" to be completely satisfactory. In the Congress of Europe it arose as an issue affecting not merely this country but all countries of Europe, and it was agreed by acclamation that "worker" meant anyone who worked in any industry in any position. That is the only definition that "worker" could have in those circumstances. If a Milne Watson were appointed to represent the workers in industry, either by the right hon. Gentleman or some other Minister, it would perhaps lead to widespread indignation from those who think that a worker must mean only a manual worker and nothing else. The definition can only be properly made if the people are allowed to select the representative for themselves. None can quarrel with the choice of the people; it is their responsibility. Because he is subject to all sorts of criticism the Minister will not pick those who disagree with him.

This is the Nemesis of the tame packed councils which the Minister has set up in every establishment of this industry. The right hon. Gentleman says, "At the end of the day I am the person who selects, and I use my own judgment." This is a striking example of the difficulties into which the Government are getting by the course they are adopting. They, not we, have voted down the suggestion that workers should be represented; they, not we, have used the argument against election in favour of nomination; they, not we, are following the Russian system and not the British system. They have done these things, and they have to defend them here on the Floor of the House. We leave them to it.

The interesting point in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was when he said that the Opposition did not propose to divide against the Government on this matter. That is something of the greatest significance. We were also interested to hear his view about the way in which directors of the average company are at present elected. He described that process, rather curiously, as "popular election." I should imagine that some workers in some of the companies with which Members opposite are associated would like to see this process of popular election applied to the companies for which they work.

This Amendment had a most interesting evolution in another place. It started in a form which was not very different from the extremely careless Liberal Amendment which we discussed on the Report stage. This particular discussion will be of some interest to them. After that start their Lordships seemed to me to begin to smell out some of the difficulties of this kind of Amendment. Those difficulties are well known to trade unionists and others who have been thinking about industrial democracy, not for the last month or the last six months, but for the last 30 years. As far as the Labour movement is concerned, we are building on a tradition which goes back to Robert Owen and beyond. It does not start from the Tory Party's industrial charter.

As I said, the original Amendment in the other place was somewhat modified and it is not easy to recognise in the present fairly well groomed animal we have before the House the wild creature that started its life in the other place. My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct, with his usual penetration and understanding, in shooing this curious animal away. I am surprised at the prevailing note in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities for this reason: my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), in the Committee stage, put down an Amendment which substantially contained this principle, and for his trouble he was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) as

The hon. Gentleman must not run away from his hon. Friend's arguments in Committee. The fact is that we repeatedly pointed out, and the hon. Member does not attempt to deny it, that the Government have swept away the whole principle of election and this is an attempt to restore it. We said that in Commitee, and we say it now. We have been perfectly consistent in our votes and in our speeches.

I disagree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Opposition have been most inconsistent and their latest inconsistency is marked by the performance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman today. Not only on the Gas Bill itself are they inconsistent, but also in relation to the Electricity Bill when it was in Committee. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) described some similar proposals there as syndicalist proposals. When we came to the Report stage of the Gas Bill we discussed a Liberal Amendment on this matter, and only one Conservative speaker, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) spoke. If he reads his own speeches—as I expect he does, for they are often very thoughtful speeches—and if he studies the last six lines of that speech, he will see that he condemned the Liberal Amendment and supported my right hon. Friend.

Having exposed all these inconsistencies and shown the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be mere political opportunism, I wish to say that, in common with the great majority of my hon. Friends, I believe firmly in the principle of joint consultation in industry, not only joint consultation in publicly-owned industry but in privately-owned industry as well. That means the right of the workers to a voice in policy at every point of production where it can be effective and is seen to be effective by the workers themselves. This is very properly provided for in Clause 56 of the Bill, which deals with the statutory obligation to establish joint consultative machinery. That machinery must provide for the discussion not only of welfare matters but of every other matter of common concern to both sides of industry, including efficiency in the operation of the board's services.

It can be summed up in this way: it is not just a matter of the workers' interest in welfare schemes, in lavatories and dartboards, but a positive dynamic interest and a joint responsibility in the effective running of industry to the advantage of the community. I suggest that this Bill provides that in this industry and it is provided in a better way than ever was done when the industry was under private ownership. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is not merely a matter of joint discussion on the highest levels, but a question of discussion at the lowest levels right the way down to the smallest shop or works employing just a dozen men. It may be that some nationalised industries so far have not taken full advantage of the opportunities that are given them under the nationalisation Acts, but there is time for the trade union movement to rectify that, and I have no doubt that it will be done in due course.

I hope the House will reject the Amendment and that it will adopt the course which has been suggested to us by the Minister, for this poor, pale thing of an Amendment will add nothing at all to strengthen the process of joint consultation. Its only practical effect, if carried, would be to limit my right hon. Friend's choice of the people whom he should select for the gas boards. Therefore, I support the Minister in his recommendation that the House should reject this Amendment.

I should like to support what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has said. Whatever our views may be as to the proposals of this Bill for the future of this industry, we are on common ground in that we all want to do everything we can to ensure good relations for the future and the utmost co-operation between management and employees under the new conditions that will prevail. That has been made clear by us on this side of the House at every stage of our discussions on this Bill and also from the Opposition benches in another place. The same theme ran, in particular, through the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, to whom my right hon. and gallant Friend has already referred.

The Minister seemed to imply that this Amendment might be Communist inspired. But it is, I think, unnecessary fearfulness to believe that Communist infiltration has gone so far that it has reached the ranks of the Opposition in another place. I should like to pay tribute to the tremendous services that the noble Viscount has rendered throughout a long career in the cause of industrial relations.

We believe that, important as is this problem of human relations in industry in general, it is specially important when there is set up a vast national monopoly of this kind. Unless we can humanise relations and ensure a really effective team spirit, we shall merely be creating an organisation without a soul and without a motive force.

4.30 p.m.

The question is whether this Amendment helps to achieve that object. I confess that I have doubts whether it will have that effect. The Minister has expressed the opinion that the composition of these boards must not be too rigidly laid down in advance. We want to have the best men. Members of the board must owe loyalty to the job and to the board before everything else. It is the duty of the Minister to ensure that the members of the board have wide experience and practical knowledge of every section of the industry. I have just a doubt, if the proposal were put into the Bill that there should be one member appointed from one section of the industry, whether it might make team work not easier but more difficult. The Minister has mentioned the difficulty of definition of the term "worker." In that connection I should hate to see too rigid definitions. That would, I believe, create distinctions when we want to break them down.

There is sometimes a notion that effective co-operation can be ensured by the simple process of appointing representatives from each side to a joint body at the top, or fairly near the top. After all, an area board is bordering on the stratosphere, anyhow. I wonder whether we realise how remote an area board must be from the ordinary worker in the industry. The board inevitably covers an enormous area. The really important level is at the gas works. Co-operation must start there. If we start at the area board level and just slip in two representatives there, we shall by-pass those very important links in the chain of spontaneous co-operation at levels lower down, which are more important. Those are my reasons for being a little dubious about the Amendment.

While we sincerely support the views put forward in another place by those who suggested the Amendment with the object of finding a substitute for the schemes of co-partnership which are being destroyed under the Bill, and completely identify ourselves with that aim, I am doubtful whether putting the Amendment into the Bill as it stands will achieve the results that we hope to achieve in humanising the industry and stimulating really effective co-operation.

I wish to support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), but before I do so, I hope he will forgive me if I say that I think he was quite wrong in one of the contentions he made. That was the contention that there is not a point of common interest between the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Conservative Opposition in another place. There is a very clear point of common interest, in that both those rather strange and somewhat out-dated organisations have a tendency to consider every issue which comes before them not on its merits but on how far they can make political capital out of it. Since both the Communists and the Opposition in another place are trying to make capital out of criticism of the Government, it is not so surprising as it might first appear that they make common cause in this matter.

There is no need to argue this matter at length. First of all, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has already made it clear that he and his friends are fighting a "phoney" war and do not propose to divide the House against the Minister's Motion. Secondly, the real arguments in this matter have already been put by the Minister, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) and by the hon. Member for Tiverton. There is one point which I should like to add in furtherance of those views. It has been consistently overlooked by those who have urged the Opposition point of view during the passage of the Bill through both Houses, and not surprisingly, because it is a point which has been consistently overlooked by all those people who get their knowledge of the workings of organised labour, not at first hand from the inside but vicariously from the outside, like a small boy trying to peep through the railings at a test match that he cannot get in to see.

This important point is the vital necessity, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton referred, of ensuring not only that we get joint consultation at all levels but that we do not get a loss of contact between the different levels. The real problem which is aroused by the proposition that one should have workers either elected or appointed to area gas boards, a problem which has not been answered by anybody with the Opposition point of view—indeed, not one of them has attempted an answer to it—is: what would be the relationships of such workers on the area boards to the workers' representatives on the joint consultative committees? I cannot see that there is a real answer to that question. If workers all over the area are to be the constituency for election, or the Minister's field of choice, of the worker who is to go on the gas board, how do we safeguard against complete divorce and complete loss of contact between that worker and the workers on the joint committees at the level of the individual gas works, who will almost certainly be either directly elected by their fellow workers in the works, or indirectly as officers in the trade union branch covering that works?

This is the key problem, and until it is faced it is idle for the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities or anybody else to work himself up into a passion about democracy. Democracy consists not merely of the process of the election of representatives but also of the process of the accountability of the representative to his electors. That fact is overlooked by hon. Gentlemen opposite because they have been accustomed for many years, indeed for many generations, to being elected to this House without ever going back and telling the electors what they were up to. It is a face that unless we—does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to say something?

I am sorry I was so harsh with the right hon. and learned Gentleman since he turns the other cheek and is so gracious. I appreciate his kindness and his courtesy. Unless one provides machinery for the accountability of the representative to his electors—what is called in trade union circles "reporting back machinery"—one has nothing faintly approaching democracy. That is why none of the proposals—not merely the one on the Order Paper, which is admitted to be inadequate on all sides—brought forward in this sense so far is a practical means for ensuring that the democracy which, with excellent motives, is sought at area levels, shall not vitiate the even more important democracy at gas works level. On those grounds, I urge the House to support the Minister.

Whenever the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) writes in "The Tribune"—I read everything he writes—and whenever he speaks in this House he always says that no one on this side of the House knows anything at all about the inside of a factory. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) knows a great deal more about factories than the hon. Member for Reading does and he is a most successful manufacturer. Many hon. Members on this side employ a great many more men than are employed by the hon. Member for Reading. As for democracy, we shall have to look at the next General Election results at Reading and then we shall see whether the hon. Member for Reading is as good at democracy as we are.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton. This is a bad Amendment for the technical reasons put forward by the Minister. The important principle has always been that no one should be appointed to a responsible job on a board or a management committee unless he has the qualifications for the post. Very often when a committee is being formed one hears people say—mistakenly I think—"We had better have a woman on this committee." That is a very silly thing to say. There are many women who have qualities which will enable them to go on a committee whether they compete with the men or not, but to put someone on because of the representations they may have, whether it is of their sex or the workers, always leads to weakness and trouble. I am therefore against the Amendment.

I hope the Minister agrees that that is the general principle, because when we look at appointments which have been made to area boards and such committees in the industries which have already been nationalised, we are not always convinced that they have been made solely because of the experience of the persons concerned in that type of industry or in industry generally. If the Minister follows through his principle, he must not put people on these boards because they are members of the Labour Party, because that is exactly the same thing as putting people on because they are workers. It is invidious to go into names, but hon. Members on both sides of the House could think of men in the hierarchy of the Coal Board who have no qualifications whatever for coalmining. We do not want the same sort of thing to be repeated in the area boards. The Amendment is a bad Amendment, and I shall not vote for it.

I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) that I agree entirely with what I said on the Report stage and I equally assure the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) that this is not in any way a "phoney war." The issues on either side are quite clear, but they overlap. The first issue is one of syndicalism or no syndicalism, and in so far as there is a "phoney war," it is that, unfortunately, the substantial number of hon. Members opposite who believe in syndicalism have not as yet voiced their views in that respect. However, the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) and the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Chater) all very clearly voiced their view, and an Amendment was actually moved that not less than 50 per cent. of the members of the area boards should be representatives of the workers.

There is definitely a clash, and I suspect that on the Report stage, when the Liberals raised this issue, they were not aware of that fact. But, like us and like hon. Members opposite, they are seriously concerned at the absence of support by the workpeople of the appointments to the area boards. It is very important that not only good appointments, should be made but that those appointments should really carry conviction of their goodness among the people working in those industries. It is for that reason that we have been pressing for a link-up between co-partnership and democracy in this Clause from the beginning.

4.45 P.m.

I want to read what the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green said in this respect. During the Committee stage, he said:

I must admit that I have been very gravely disappointed by all the speeches on this matter. It is one about which I feel very closely and very deeply and in which my party has always had a very deep interest. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) said that some of us put forward a party point of view. I do not know why in the world on a matter of this kind we should not put forward the point of view of those whom we represent in this House—in other words—a party point of view. I speak from a wider point than that.

It has been pointed out, again and again, that the original forefather of all these Amendments, which now dwindle down to this one, was the lesser Liberal Party. I have a very large number of people—or at least a diminishing number of people—in my constituency supporting that party and I really do not see why I should not put their point of view, which is very much the same as my own. That is, that we want to see everything possible done to bring the worker closer to his industry and more interested in its management. This Amendment is disappointing because it does not show sufficient strength of opinion to bring that about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) quite rightly said that few of us want to see such appointments as he instanced, namely, that there should be a woman on a committee. I might go further and say that we do not want the appointment to a committee of a Minister who has failed. I am not at all sure that I could not mention one Minister now who will shortly be in that position—one who has obviously qualified for the failed part. There ought to be some method in the Bill by which we can get the worker much more closely associated with the management. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) mentioned the right way to build up—

Whether I have read it once, twice or three times it would not be in Order to discuss it now. I do not want to get into trouble with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by being led away by the hon. Member opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, as I have said, suggested the right basis on which to build and from which to develop to higher levels.

The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the rejection of this Amendment, in that manner which characterises the products of certain public schools, insinuated that he did not think that the ordinary manual workers had any experience in management.

That was the impression I had, but if the right hon. Gentleman likes to get up, I will willingly give way.

If the hon. Member challenges me, I must get up. Certainly I said nothing of the kind.

I accept that explanation, but the impression I had from his speech was that he said it was not usual, or very difficult, and HANSARD will bear it out. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that a large number of working men have great experience of the management of their co-operative societies. Whether it is good or bad I do not know, but I should have thought that from that branch of industry alone, it would not have been necessary to take quite such a poor view of the possibility of getting men from the industry. I give that illustration because, after all, if the party opposite really mean that they are the Labour Party, they should have used that illustration long ago to try to bring in workers under this heading.

I had no intention of taking any part in this Debate, but I was provoked by the lack of sympathy towards those of us who really want to get some development, and I believe that is the way in which to get better feeling in industry. I regret that the whole tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was so unsympathetic to what we think is a sound move. I realise that this is not a good Amendment, and it is a pity that it could not have been threshed out properly in Committee, although much thought was given to it. Yet the idea behind the Amendment is sound. We have to get it over somehow, at some time, in the immediate future, and every chance we miss is bad for industry. So I regret that we have not had some support from those Liberals who were so enthusiastic over the first Amendment.

Beyond that, I regret that we have not had greater help from some hon. Gentlemen opposite who have vast experience in matters of this kind, such as the right hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). Although we cannot possibly accept this Amendment now, I believe that if he and other hon. Members opposite would put their minds to it, they might have helped us to improve the position, because their negative attitude is doing nothing to help something which is of great value to industry.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 36, at end, insert:

"(3) Not less than three members of the Board, including the Chairman and Deputy Chairman or one of them shall be required to render whole-time service to the Board."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is not concerned, as one might at first sight suppose, with the question of whether or not there should be a specific number of full-time members on an area board, but whether we should put into the Bill an obligation upon the Minister to appoint a certain number of full-time members. I draw that distinction quite deliberately at the outset because, as I said in Committee upstairs, my personal view at the moment is that it is desirable, and will be desirable, to have rather more full-time members on these area gas boards than we had in the case of electricity. It may be that apart from the chairman and deputy-chairman we should have another full-time member, maybe two full-time members. I would not like to tie myself down because it may vary between the different areas, but I put my views of this matter on record in Committee.

What this Amendment is concerned to do is to impose an obligation, not only on myself as the present Minister, but on all future Ministers of Fuel and Power, to appoint three members of the board full time. My feeling is that although that may turn out to be right, as I believe at the moment it is, we should be unwise to fie down a Minister in this manner. After all, in the case of electricity, which is the nearest parallel we have, there are at present only two full-time members—the chairman and deputy-chairman—all the others being part-time, and it may be that experience will show that that arrangement is the most suitable. In the case of local government, we have a wholly part-time committee, but it works reasonably well. There is—and I think one should pay some attention to this—a danger that if one has too many full-time members one probably is liable to have the functional type of board, which is rather heavily under criticism at the moment.

5.0 p.m.

I have said in Parliament—I think when the Coal Board was set up—that a full-time board of that kind was appropriate. I am not saying that there may not be a similar occasion in future, but there is a danger in tying the Minister down in this way. I do not feel that just because the noble Lord—Lord Swinton, I believe—who was the keenest supporter of this Amendment holds the view, as I know he does, that in his experience this is the right type of board to have, we should tie the Minister down in this way for all time. It is not right, even if I hold—as I do—similar opinions to him, that I should commit all my successors in this matter.

It is for those reasons—not so much on the substance of whether or not there should be full-time members, but on whether or not we should leave the Minister free to gain by experience and appoint, as he wishes and in accordance with his experience, full and part-time members—that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

While recognising the Minister's wish for as much elasticity as possible, I would like to point out to him that his successors, for whom he expresses such sympathy, are extremely unlikely to have anything like the knowledge of this Bill that he has, after all the efforts of the Opposition to explain it to him and his own experience of sitting through the whole of the proceedings on the Electricity Bill and, if I recollect rightly, a large part of the proceedings on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill also. He should have the courage of his views and say what he believes to be right. He is in a better position to commit his successors than they, with their lesser chances of knowing as much about the Bill as he does, would be.

There is something of a mystery about this Amendment. In another place, where I might almost say it seemed likely to be accepted, I understand it was discussed with great friendliness and, in fact, a compromise had already been arrived at. I believe it was originally suggested that there should be three full-time members besides the chairman and vice-chairman. The number was reduced to two and it appeared that that arrangement would be accepted. But no; there was a sudden change in the weather, an uncompromising attitude was taken up and the whole Amendment was turned down. It is worth bearing in mind that the gentleman who did so much in framing the structure of the gas industry—the present Sir Geoffrey Heyworth—recommended very much the same thing. He said that:

There is a danger, too, that if the directors of the area boards are drawn only from amongst the industry—men who spend their whole life in the industry—as time goes on the attitude of those boards will become what I might term monastic. They will think in terms of gas and gas alone. It would be a great advantage to have leading industrialists, men from insurance companies and banks, leading consumers and the like, to help. I am delighted that the Minister now sees this point of view. I cannot see why, if, as he says, he feels that the principle of the Amendment is probably right, and having the experience that he has with these Bills, he should not be prepared to back his opinion; and why he should be so keen to turn down this suggestion which was accepted, I think with wide support, in another place. I do not think there was any expectation there that this Amendment would be finally turned down. I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider it.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) talked about gas monasticism. It is, perhaps, a fact now that the only way in which one can escape from the world is to go on to the board of a nationalised industry. It may be the equivalent of medieval monasticism which is now descending on us. The Minister said that he must not be tied down, and that that was why he was against this Amendment. I thought he gave the impression to those who had not read the Amendment that he would be tied down to the exact number of three full-time directors, but what the Amendment says is,

Let us take the area board in which I shall be most interested—Wales, which is a very large acreage of the country. As everybody knows, it takes practically a whole day to get from North to South Wales and vice versa. I do not know how we can get real personal contact between those who are running an industry at the top and those who are running the individual works unless there are sufficient full-time people able to travel around to see what is happening on the spot. It is like the Army and other things; we can never really get results by complete remote control. There might be a great genius sitting in Cardiff once a month and still a very bad gas service in North Wales, simply because the people there would not suffer if the gas supply was bad. I do not see how there can be proper contact between the people who will be running the show unless those with control can get around and see what is being done. They cannot possibly do so if they are part-time, because it will be an enormous task in these great areas to get around at all and will take a very great deal of any director's time. The man who is engaged part-time and paid accordingly cannot really take on that task. I hope, therefore, that we shall uphold the Amendment.

I should be one of the last to disagree with the principle of flexibility advanced by the Minister, but I think that argument can be carried too far, and I wish to give one or two reasons why he should change his mind and accept this Amendment. We are often told by the Government how necessary it is to get a degree of uniformity between the various nationalisation schemes they have advanced: but one cannot help being struck by the difference between the present proposal of having no fixed number of directors and the practice of the Transport Commission of having the chairman and four other members in a board of roughly the same number employed full time. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is on a slightly different level, but that is not entirely true, because the area boards are given much wider powers in some senses than the transport executives. That is one argument for having some fixed number of permanent members of the board. We see very clearly from the Heyworth Committee's Report that the Committee had in mind a fixed number of people from within the industry. In paragraph 254 the Report says: depart from the conception of the Heyworth Committee of having men from within the industry who are conversant with it and who can deal with technical problems with first-hand knowledge.

There is also the difficulty of part-timers getting round the areas. I come from a county and constituency which will be at the extreme edge of one of the new areas. We have grave apprehensions that we shall be neglected. The chairman and deputy chairman will each have two separate functions. Not only will the chairman have to look after his own area, but he will also attend the Gas Council, and we hope that the Council will meet frequently and give him a great deal of work. I cannot see how a part-time chairman could fulfil those two functions and get around his area to deal with diverse problems at the same time. There seems to be a strong case for a definite nucleus of whole-time members with real knowledge of the industry. The suggestion in this Amendment is modest and leaves a considerable amount of flexibility, for which the Minister asks, and I hope he will reconsider his decision.

I find it a little difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Lords Amendment. He said he agreed with the substance of it and went so far as to say that he had put himself on record as accepting the substance. Apparently all he disagrees with is being—in his own words—"tied down." That is a curious argument, because the whole object of legislation is to tie down Ministers, Government Departments, and persons concerned. If there were any real force in his argument, the matter should be carried to its logical conclusion and the Bill should be a one-Clause Bill, empowering the Minister in his discretion to do anything he likes with the gas industry. That has not been done, and it is surely to be expected that it is part of the duty of this House and another place to lay down certain limits fettering the Minister's discretion.

5.15 p.m.

We are being asked to take a great industry away from companies and municipalities and hand it over to this system of boards. Surely we are entitled to impose certain limitations upon the composition of those boards. An area board, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said, will cover the whole of Wales and another area board will cover the whole of Scotland. To hand over so great an area to an organization at the summit of which there are to be less than three full-time workers is ludicrous. We could not discharge our responsibilities in this House if we did not insist that so great a national enterprise should be given a sufficient superstructure of full-time responsible persons to control it. The Minister having said that, from his point of view, he agreed there should be at least three full-time people, would it not be safer and more in accordance with the proper discharge of responsibilities in this House to put that in the Bill? It may be that in the future there will be Ministers of Fuel and Power even worse than the right hon. Gentleman—

The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) may be one.

I agree, it is possible, but improbable. There may be some Ministers who really think that the gas industry in these great areas can be run with less than three full-time members on the board. To obviate that risk, and to make permanent what the Minister regards as right, we should accept this Lords Amendment. I feel that in suggesting its rejection the Minister is much more affected by a petulant refusal to have his Bill amended by another place than a serious consideration of the issues involved.

I wish to add my plea to the Minister to accept this Amendment. I hope he will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there are to be not less than seven and not more than nine members of an area board, and the Lords in their Amendment are giving him very great flexibility. Although they say they want three of those seven, or possibly nine, to be full-time members, they are not saying that the chairman must be one, nor that the vice chairman must be one, nor that they must be three ordinary members of the board. They are giving great flexibility in the direction in which the Minister wants flexibility. The importance of this Amendment is that it lays down in the Bill what I understand to be the Minister's admission of principle. He envisages in any appointment he makes that for a long time he will be appointing on this basis, if not more generously, from amongst full-time appointments.

We have just been discussing the question of the relationship of workers to the area boards. It is most important that it should be patent in the Act when it becomes law that these area board members who are to work these vast areas should be clearly and obviously full-time employed in the work. There is already a sufficient suspicion that directors do not give enough of their time to the affairs of companies. I think that is probably wrong, but at this juncture, above all, it is most important that a nationalised industry should have a good start and that it should be obvious to everyone that the people who are appointed to the area board are on the job properly and fully at all times of the day.

The Minister gave as one of his reasons for not accepting this Amendment the fact that it implied a functional organisation. I hope he will correct me if I am imputing something wrongly to him in that respect. I understood him to say that an important reason for his not committing himself to full-time appointments was that it was like the functional appointments in the case of the Coal Board, and that events had shown that functional whole-time appointments on the central bodies did not work. I agree that they do not, and we gave a warning about that at the time. But there are many other kinds of organisation of full-time directors other than functional.

To take the example of Wales, I would like to see one full-time member for North Wales, another for South Wales: such a person would have a sense of responsibility. A geographical organisation is just as possible as a functional one. There can be what is ordinarily called the line organisation as well. There are many possibilities, but the point is surely that the Minister should make it quite clear to Britain that these appointments are to be of people who are to give their full time. I fully admit the value of a chairman or deputy-chairman—but not "and" deputy-chairman—or a member of the area board who may not be full-time; that will widen the Minister's choice enormously. Moreover, the ability of a director to ask what are called "fool" questions is very great. Let us keep our sense of proportion. The Amendment means that there would be up to six people on the area board on a part-time basis only, who are to ask these "fool" questions. The Minister wishes to have the flexibility to have nine. We are asking him to accept that he can have six or four, depending on the size of the board, to ask "fool" questions." I ask him to consider favourably what I regard as a highly constructive Amendment, and to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Our only difficulty is that the Minister has gone back on the undertaking given in another place. Arguments must have been adduced there which carried weight, and it seems reasonable to assume that they would continue to carry weight. The merits of the proposal appear to us to be indisputable. The Minister has already had the case of Wales brought before him. I bring before him the case of Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in connection with our Second Reading Debate the "Manchester Guardian" commented rather acidly on the unwieldy size of the board which was to represent the whole of Scotland. To suggest that three whole-time representatives would be a reasonable allowance on such a board does not seem in any way to be an exaggerated claim. After all, the number of whole-time people who are being swept away is much larger than that.

It is something of a commentary on the interest which is being taken in this matter that throughout practically the whole of this discussion, not one representative of Wales or Scotland on the Government side of the House has been present or has taken any part in our Debates on this subject. To designate a single organisation to cover the whole of Scotland and to say that only two whole-time people are, of necessity, to be upon it is surely a claim which the Minister will find great difficulty in defending. The same applies in the case of Wales, for although it is a smaller country I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) that to travel about in Wales is in some ways even more difficult than to travel about in Scotland.

The Minister has said, "I fully agree that the case is sound and that it has been well made out. I simply do not want to be fettered. "There is another word for "fetter" which is "definition," and to define the number of whole-time people here is reasonable. We do not attach fundamental importance to the matter, although we shall certainly support the Amendment if the Government decide not to accept it. We do not wish to delay the proceedings; we want to get on with the discussion of the Bill. The Minister will agree that discussion of the Bill has been rapid. Brooding upon the Bill has had such an effect upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) that he has worked himself into a temperature and is at present confined to his bed. I have no doubt that if the Government are unreasonable, his sense of public duty will prevail over his doctor's orders and he may join himself to our discussions. As the Minister has had experience of him when his temperature was normal or sub-normal, he might well boggle at the thought of encountering him in a state of high fever. We are not anxious that that should happen. We are anxious to proceed with the Bill. We hope that on later Amendments the Minister will be able to come and go with us. If he cannot see his way to meet us on this Amendment, we shall have to register our opposition in the Division Lobby und then get on with the Bill.

I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has a temperature. The last thing I would wish to do is to get him out of his bed at the present time, although it is always pleasant to have him here. I am afraid that I cannot see why the Opposition are following the line which they are doing in this matter, and I am surprised at it. We are deciding whether or not the Minister or any future Minister is to be bound to appoint as many as three full-time members. Supposing that a future Minister decides, in the light of experience, both in the case of electricity and gas, that it is best to have simply the chairman and vice-chairman full-time—I do not say other members may not be giving a good deal of time to the work although they are not absolutely full-time members—if we were to agree to this Amendment we should be tying him down to do something which he thinks to be wrong.

As for the undertaking alleged to have been given in another place, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not always possible to have consultations in the middle of a Debate, and the Lord Chancellor was careful to make it plain when he was discussing this matter in another place that he was not committing the Government. It would have been easy for us to agree to this Amendment, and had I really thought that it did not matter in the least I should have agreed. But I honestly believe that we must be prepared to be guided by experience in this matter, and that is the sole reason why I am suggesting that we should resist the Amendment.

Reference has been made to functional boards. All I said was that the part-time type of board was not likely to be a functional, type of board. I am not suggesting that three full-time members would be dangerous in that direction but the more full-time members there are the more likely it is that a functional type of board will result.

5.30 p.m.

With great respect, I think that the geographical division is just as well known organisationally as the functional.

I was coming to that. I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) that part-time members could not perform useful functions in different parts of the area. I should think there would be room for this kind of work and it might be rather easier to get local representation from part-time members than from full-time members, although I agree that the latter is also possible. In all honesty, and although it would be very simple for us to agree with this, I feel it would be wrong to do so, and I must ask the House to reject it.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 109.

Division No. 270.]

AYES.

[5.32 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Colman, Miss G. M.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Corlett, Dr. L.

Hardman, D. R.

Alpass, J. H.

Cove, W. G

Hardy, E. A.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Crawley, A

Harrison, J.

Attewell, H C

Daggar, G

Haworth, J.

Awbery, S S

Daines, P

Herbison, Miss M.

Ayles, W. H

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Hicks, G.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hobson, C. R.

Bacon, Miss A

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Holman, P.

Balfour, A.

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

Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

Barstow, P. G

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hoy, J.

Barton, C.

Delargy, H J

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

Battley, J R.

Dodds, N. N.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Bechervaise, A. E

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

Benson, G

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Berry, H

Dumpleton, C. W.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Beswick, F

Durbin, E. F. M.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Binns, J.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Janner, B.

Bottomley, A. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Jay, D. P. T.

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

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

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

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Jenkins, R. H.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Ewart, R.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Fairhurst, F.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Farthing, W. J

Keenan, W.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Fennyhough, E.

Kenyon, C

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Field, Capt W. J

Key, Rt. Hon. C W.

Burden, T. W.

Foot, M. M.

King, E. M.

Burke, W. A.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

Kirby, B. V.

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

Gaitskell, Rt Hon. H. T. N.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Carmichael, James

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Leonard, W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Leslie, J. R.

Chamberlain, R. A

Goodrich, H. E.

Levy, B. W.

Champion, A. J

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Chater, D.

Grey, C. F.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Chetwynd, G. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Longden, F.

Cluse, W S.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Lyne, A. W.

Cobb, F. A.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

McAdam, W.

Cocks, F. S

Gunter, R. J.

McEntee, V. La T.

Coldrick, W.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

McGhee, H G.

Collins, V. J.

Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

Mack, J. D

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Price, M. Philips

Thomas, O. E. (Aberdare)

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

Proctor, W. T

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

McLeavy, F.

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Randall, H E

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Mainwaring, W. H

Ranger, J

Thurtle, Ernest

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Rankin, J,

Tiffany, S.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderstield)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Timmons, J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Rhodes, H.

Titterington, M F.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Tolley, L.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Robens, A

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Mellish, R. J.

Rogers, G. H R.

Viant, S. P.

Mikardo, Ian

Scollan, T.

Walker, G. H.

Mitchison, G. R

Scott-Elliott, W

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Moody, A. S.

Segal, Dr. S.

Warbey, W. N.

Morley, R.

Shackleton, E. A. A

Weitzman, D.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C)

Sharp, Granville

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon E

West, D. G.

Mort, D. L

Shurmer, P

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Moyte, A.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Murray J. D

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.F)

Naylor, T. E.

Simmons, C J.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Skeffington, A. M.

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Skinnard, F. W.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Oliver, G. H.

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

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Orbach, M.

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

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Paget, R. T

Snow, J. W

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Solley, L. J

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Palmer, A. M F

Sorensen, R. W.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H

Parker, J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Wise, Major F. J.

Parkin, B. T.

Sparks, J. A.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

Woods, G. S

Pearson, A.

Stross, Dr. B

Wyatt, W

Perrins, W,

Swingler, S.

Yates, V. F

Piratin, P.

Sylvester, G O.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Popplewell, E.

Symonds, A. L.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Taylor, Dr S (Barnet)

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Mr. Richard Adams

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Nutting, Anthony

Amory, D. Heatheoat

Glyn, Sir R.

O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H

Baldwin, A. E.

Gomme-Dunean, Col. A

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Baxter, A. B.

Gridley, Sir A.

Osborne, C.

Beamish, Maj. T. V H

Grimston, R V

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Beechman, N. A.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Pelo, Brig. C. H. M

Birch, Nigel

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Pickthorn, K

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

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

Pitman, I. J.

Bower, N.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Hollis, M. C.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Keeling, E. H.

Raikes, H V.

Bullock, Capt, M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Butler, Rt. Hn R A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Rayner, Brig. R.

Byers, Frank

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Channon, H.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

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

Clarke, Col. R S.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Roberts, P G. (Ecclesall)

Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

Low, A. R. W.

Ropner, Col. L.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Crowder, Capt. John E

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Darting. Sir W. Y

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

De la Bère, R

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Smithers, Sir W.

Digby, S. W.

Mackeson, Brig H. R.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Dodds-Parker, A D

Maclay, Hon. J. S

Sutcliffc, H.

Drayson, G. B

Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

Teeling, William

Drewe, C.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Ougdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

Duthie, W S.

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Wadsworth, G.

Eccles, D. M.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ward, Hon. G. R

Eden, Rt. Hon. A

Marsden, Capt. A

Wheatley, Colonel M. J (Dorset, E.)

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Walter

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Erroll, F. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Molson, A H E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

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

Mott-Radclyffe, C E

Mr. Studholme and

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Nicholson, G.

Major Conant

Gammans, L D

Noble, Comdr A. H. P

CLAUSE II.—(Compulsory purchase of land.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 32, at end, insert:

"Provided that an Area Board shall not be authorised under this section to purchase compulsorily a right to place a gas pipe above ground unless the Minister is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to place it below ground."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a matter, as the Minister will remember, on which earlier we had some discussion. I am glad that it has been found possible to come to an agreement. The Amendment made in the other place seems to us to be reasonable. It is an Amendment upon which we can all be united. I trust that the Minister will recognise this reasonable and forthcoming disposition on the part of the Opposition and will bear it in mind when we put some arguments before him at a later stage in our proceedings.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Undertakers to whom Part II of Act applies.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 41, after "company" insert:

"not being a private company."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This House should not pass this Amendment without realising that the Minister accused us of obstruction upstairs because of the number of hours we spent in trying to get this Amendment. The Amendment was accepted in another place in about four seconds, and if the Minister had done that we would have had nowhere near the trouble which we experienced.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Disclaimer of agreements and leases.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 4, leave out from "agreement" to "on" in line 6, and insert, "ought to be disclaimed."

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment appears to be linked up with the Amendment to line 8, to leave out "or varied," and line 10, at end, insert:

"Provided that, if the arbitration tribunal are satisfied that the agreement or variation thereof was made in the ordinary course of business and was in no way connected with any provision made by this Act or with any anticipation of the making of any such provision, the tribunal shall revoke the notice."

I am not at all clear what exactly is the effect of this Clause. It will be seen that in pages 25 and 26 in half the cases the words, "or variation" have been taken out but in the other half they have been left in. As a layman and not a lawyer I am completely at a loss to understand the ultimate effect of these Amendments. Also I am completely at a loss to understand what happens when we have a proviso to a proviso. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain.

5.45 p.m.

The Amendment with which we are now dealing, together with others which follow, provide for the interested party to refer to arbitration the question whether or not a contract is to be disclaimed. Later we shall come to Amendments which will deal with the question of contracts made in all good faith, but I presume that I must not deal with them now. If we have the discussion when we come to the Amendment in line 10, perhaps we could clear up the whole matter.

If I may have leave to speak again, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. It appears to me that once we have taken out lines 4 to 6, we have committed ourselves to a definite line of action. Therefore, with great respect, I ask for the explanation to be given now.

I doubt if Mr. Deputy-Speaker would permit me to deal with an Amendment which has not yet been moved. It will be seen that in page 26, line 10, we insert quite a number of words which will put this matter into its proper perspective.

On a point of Order. Could we have a Ruling on this question? There are three Amendments here, two of which are consequential on the first. We are in the difficult position that if we pass the first Amendment without an explanation and then object to what is provided in the third Amendment, we shall be without any remedy whatever.

The first two Amendments are consequential on the coming into operation of the Companies Act, 1948

On a point of Order. I am sure that it would be for the convenience of the House if a slightly more general discussion could take place. If you, Sir, could rule that that might be done, I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side of the House would be agreeable. I think that it would save the time of the House.

That would be quite convenient, if it is agreed.

In that case, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us the wider explanation which he was willing to offer.

This Clause provides for matters that may be referred to arbitration. In the Amendment in line 10, there are a number of words suggested by another place to which we propose to agree. The intention behind this Clause was to avoid penalising a business action done in all good faith which turns out ultimately to be a rather unfortunate one. It would be wrong, in our view, that that action should be disclaimed. Therefore, it would be right for a tribunal to discuss that, and if they were satisfied that the action taken was taken in all good faith—that it was a good business risk which had turned out unfortunately—then it would be right for the tribunal to revoke the notice of disclaimer. The companies would be protected at present in respect of commitments into which they are about to enter which may be a little adventurous but, are to their minds sound business deals. They would be prevented from doing that if they felt that, should it 'urn out to be unfortunate, they would have the contract disclaimed. If these three Amendments are approved, a tribunal will be able to revoke the notice of disclaimer if it is satisfied that the arrangements were entered into in good faith but had turned out to be a bad business risk.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to speak again? If he does, he will have made three speeches on this matter.

As a matter of fact, we have only just started the general discussion, and the hon. and gallant Member is speaking for the first time.

I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House, but I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question. If we accept the first Amendment, as I read it, only an original agreement can be referred to arbitration and not an agreement that has been varied. Is that the case?

I agree there is a little difficulty now, because I have not moved the next Amendment, but, if I may refer to it, it is clear that the phrase "or variation thereof," on page 26, line 10, meets the point, provided that they are satisfied about "or variation thereof." Surely that meets the point?

I think we all agree that this is an attempt to improve a rather unsatisfactory Clause. The only difficulty that has arisen—and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates it—comes from having to try to sort out three separate Papers, and, by a kind of jig-saw puzzle, find out what is meant in a complicated Clause. My difficulty is in regard to the second Amendment, that to line 8. We are concerned throughout this Clause with two separate things—the making of an agreement, with what the Government call an "unreasonable lack of prudence," and the variation of an agreement. These are two separate matters dealt with separately throughout the Clause, and the Amendment seeks to take out the words "or varied." I am certain that there is some good reason for that, but I am quite unaware, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said, what that good reason is. I think we are entitled, when we are dealing with such a complex matter, to a little more assistance, and that we might be given the reason for the deletion of those words.

This is purely drafting. The words are:

"The agreement or variation thereof was reasonably necessary as aforesaid, or was made. . ."

The word "made" relates back to both the words "agreement" or "variation," so that these words are pure surplusage.

I find this matter a little intricate. Often, in the Committee proceedings, we have been greatly indebted to the learned Solicitor-General for the clarity with which he was able, in the ancient legal phrase, to unscrew the inscrutable. I think perhaps he was a little short in the explanation he gave us, and, while we do not wish to delay the House—[ Interruption. ] Indeed, the hon. Member has not been sitting on the Gas Bill, or he would have known of the enormous co-operation which has been given to the consideration of this Measure. This is a matter on which law suits will be brought, unless we have this question explained to us more fully before we part from it. I still find myself a little confused about this matter, and it may be that I shall never be completely clear, but I am sure some of my hon. Friends could be enlightened if the Solicitor-General, with the leave of the House, could speak again.

I think a little confusion has crept into the discussion because it has been suggested that this particular deletion is consequential on another. It now appears, from what the Solicitor-General said, that, in point of fact, these words were tautologous from the beginning of the Bill. It may be that the explanation is that we are seeking an explanation of "consequentialness" which is not there to be sought, and, if the learned Solicitor-General could answer on that point, I think it would help a great deal.

When I said that the words "or varied" are surplusage, what I meant was this. It rests upon whether the agreement or the variation was not reasonably necessary, and that is one category of circumstances, or, if the agreement or variation was made with an unreasonable lack of prudence. In other words, if the agreement was made, or the variation was made, with an unreasonable lack of prudence—that is how it reads at present—to add the words "or varied" simply adds words which have no effect at all. The word "may" covers both the making of the agreement and the variation, and it is quite unnecessary to add the words "or varied," which are merely surplusage and should be removed as dead wood.

I put a point of Order to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before this Debate opened, but I have not yet addressed the House on this series of Amendments. The question I want to ask the Government is this. After these Amendments have been passed, it seems to me that the only matter that can be referred to arbitration is the agreement, because with the Clause as now drafted, the agreement or variation thereof may be sent to arbitration, whereas, if this Amendment is made, it will refer only to the agreement itself. There may be circumstances, in fact, the earlier part of the Clause contemplates that there will be circumstances, in which the original agreement is acceptable and no question arises, and in which it is only the variation which is objectionable. I should have thought that, in these circumstances, it is the variation of any agreement which ought to be referred to arbitration, though I have some doubts in my own mind as to how this Amendment will enable that to be done. I do not think there is anything between the two sides of the House as to the desired end, but I am bound to say that I do not see that it is achieved by means of this Amendment.

Referring to the third Amendment, I think the drafting here is a slight protection. We begin with the main body of Subsection (1), which is at the foot of page 25 of the Bill, and we go on to a proviso to Subsection (1) which is at the top of page 26. It is now proposed to add a second proviso. As the second proviso stands on the Order Paper, it would appear to be a proviso to Subsection (1) of the Clause, and, if it were that, it would make nonsense. It is only intended to be an exception to an exception, a proviso to a proviso to Subsection (1) of this Clause. If the wording is as printed, it would appear that the effect of the second proviso would not be to make a certain exemption, but to make mere nonsense of the second class of exceptions to the Subsection itself. It is merely a matter of drafting, and I entirely agree with the Government that it is an improvement, but we want to make quite certain that that improvement is carried out. I do not know whether it is possible, between now and the passage of the Bill, for the Government to look at the matter again to ensure that this rather cumbrous language is put in such a form as to make its meaning absolutely clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Compensation to holders of securities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 14, leave out Subsection (2) and insert:

"(2) In the case of any class of securities of a company being a statutory or non-statutory undertaker or a gas holding company, the value of securities of that class for the purposes of this section shall be deemed to be the amount of the reasonably maintainable annual income which could have been expected from those securities, if this Act had not been passed, multiplied by such number of years purchase as may be appropriate in order to secure the payment of fair compensation to the holders of those securities. The amount of the reasonably maintainable annual income and the number of years purchase shall be such as may be agreed between the Minister and the stockholders' representative or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by arbitration under this Act."

6.0 p.m.

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Under this Bill, certain undertakings—statutory, non-statutory and holding companies—are to finish, lock stock and barrel, and go out of existence. In return, the holders of securities in those undertakings are to receive compensation in the shape of British Gas Stock. This Clause lays down the principle by which compensation for these securities is to be assessed; Subsection (2), which another place is particularly keen to delete, sets forth the method of arriving at the value of such securities as were quoted on certain relative dates in the London Stock Exchange daily list.

It will be noticed that another place has deleted the whole of this Subsection and inserted a new Subsection with an entirely different basis of assessing compensation. Instead of fixing compensation by reference to the Stock Exchange quotations, it fixes it by reference to an agreed number of years purchase of the reasonable maintainable annual income of the securities. The amended Clause envisages that that formula should be used between the stockholders' representative and the Minister concerned, and that, if they should fail to agree, that the matter should be taken to the arbitration tribunal and determined by that body.

Those of us who have followed this Bill through all its phases will immediately realise that this is a challenge to the main basis of compensation which is laid down not only in this Bill, but also in the Transport and Electricity Acts. I would remind the House that, in another place, this Amendment was passed by 48 votes to 20, that is, with a majority of 28. When we remember that the effective strength of another place is something like 830 Members and that only 48 thought it worth while to come down to vote for this Amendment, I think we can assume that they themselves did not take it very seriously, particularly when we also remember that there was no real challenge to the compensation policy of the Government when the Transport and Electricity Bills were being considered.

So far as I know, this is the first time that another place has thought fit to make a drastic alteration in the basis of compensation in a Bill of this kind. The reason why the Government decided to adopt this basis of compensation has been discussed in Committee at very great length. It was also discussed on the Report stage, and it would be unfair of me to attempt to go over that old ground now. At this juncture, at any rate, I do not propose to do so.

The Financial Secretary said it would be unfair of him to go over his old arguments. He knows that they were wholly ludicrous on all these Bills, and that the more often he repeats them the worse they become. He is reduced to the argument that, having sinned twice, if he sins a third time it is not, for some reason, a sin—an argument which, even for him, is rather fatuous. He said that only 48 people had voted for this Amendment in another place. What would he have said if 800 had voted? That would have been a terrific sensation. I would recommend him to read the Debate which took place in another place and which I am not at liberty to quote. The devastating arguments which the Lord Chancellor rolled out are really well worth reading.

The right hon. Gentleman is always trying to do two things. First, he is trying to take over the undertakings, and, secondly, he says he is trying to be fair. Some time ago when we were discussing this matter he said:

Of course, the really asinine thing about the whole of this business is that the method selected by the Government will take an enormous amount of time because, in 95 per cent. of the cases, there is no Stock Exchange price at all; it is a notional price. What the Government are trying to do is to value sheep in terms of cows, that is to say, so many cows are worth so much, and, therefore, notionally, so many sheep would be worth so much. But if anybody does not agree that so many sheep are worth so many cows or vice versa, then there should be the right to go to arbitration. The whole business would, of course, take some months, which is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman said he cannot, in any circumstances, contemplate. Although it might be just, fair and right, it cannot possibly be done because it would take time.

As the Financial Secretary rightfully said, this case has often been argued, but I will sum up once again the argument on this matter. First, in the case of the gas industry, 95 per cent. of the actual securities to be valued are not quoted on the Stock Exchange at all. Secondly, those which are quoted on the Stock Exchange have, in most cases, a very small market indeed. One often gets the case on the Stock Exchange where one security has been quoted at a particular figure for months on end, and where someone comes along with a lot to sell and the transaction is actually negotiated at several points above the market price because a large amount is involved. The actual price represents nothing at all so far as the gas companies quoted on the Stock Exchange are concerned.

The old argument about Death Duties and so on is nonsense, because the whole point is that we are dealing with an unwilling seller, and a whole undertaking—not just a part—is being taken over. It has always been found when negotiating for the sale of an entire business that the actual price finally agreed or arbitrated upon is never exactly the same as the Stock Exchange price, and it is very much more likely to be right. There is nothing very odd, particularly in the case of statutory companies, in carrying out the valuation on a net maintainable revenue basis. What this Amendment seeks to do is to ascertain the net maintainable value of each class of security, and that has been done very frequently in negotiating the purchase and sale of gas undertakings.

It is far easier to assess the net maintainable revenue in the case of a statutory company where the revenue is circumscribed very clearly by every sort of provision. There is no difficulty whatever in doing this. There is no reason to suppose that our method would take longer than the method which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes. All that has happened is that the T.U.C. have recommended that a certain method is the correct one.

The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is based on the pig-headed analogy of two things which are already wrong. It was wrong to do this with electricity and with transport, and it is even more wrong to do it with gas. To say that because I have been wrong before, I am entitled to be even more wrong now—although a normal method of government—is, of course, not a very powerful form of argument for those who still retain the power of reasoning.

There is one question which I should like to ask the Government before I finally make up my mind on this point. I wish to look at it from the point of view of the taxpayer. My constituents comprise many more taxpayers than holders of gas securities. The taxpayers, as such, dislike the principle of nationalisation because they believe it will cost them a good deal more. However, as the principle has been adopted, they are now faced with the question of paying compensation to people who are being taken over, and I believe they wish to be fair.

The Members of this Government are planners who, apparently, look into the future. Is it intended that this nationalised gas industry will make a loss? Shall we have a loss in this industry of £1 million, £10 million or £20 million a year, which eventually must be borne, no doubt, by the taxpayer? Before we make up our minds on the question of compensation, we ought to know the Government's intention. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion said that it would be run on a non-profit making basis.

In view of our past experience of other nationalised industries, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to keep that in mind and to say whether he thinks there will be a heavy loss. If there is going to be a heavy loss, the taxpayers will be faced with paying out a lot of compensation and also having to bear the subsequent loss. That is the dilemma in which the right hon. Gentleman is forcing these people by nationalising this industry. The taxpayer does not want to pay more than is reasonable, but, on the other hand, he wants to be fair and he does not want to pay too little.

So far as I can see, where each concern is valued on the net maintainable revenue basis, it does not necessarily mean that the shareholders will get more; nor does it mean that they will get less. I should like some indication from the Parliamentary Secretary whether a valuation on the basis proposed in another place will mean more compensation or less. It may well be, of course, that a large number of shareholders would receive less and others would receive more, but I should like to know, generally speaking, how they will be affected. The taxpayer wants to know, first, what is the intention of the Government, whether they are going to run the industry at a loss, and whether this new form of valuation will cost the taxpayer more or less. I am certain that, despite all the burdens which the Government are placing upon the taxpayers, they still want to be fair, and, so far as I can see, the fairest procedure is to ascertain the value of each item.

6.15 p.m.

The object of this Amendment is to try to substitute the principle of maintainable income for valuable purposes in place of the Stock Exchange valuations. I think this method is particularly suited to gas stocks for a reason which has not been advanced, at any rate, this afternoon. Some gas companies have paid steady dividends for about 100 years. In another place, the Gas Light and Coke Company were quoted as having paid 5 per cent, regularly for the last 100 years. Sometimes, I believe, they have paid a little more. That has made them particularly popular with trusts.

Yesterday I came across an example of hardship which has resulted from the method of compensation proposed in the Bill. My own church has an endowment for upkeep, actually invested, not in Gas Stock, but in Transport Stock. As a result of nationalisation they have lost about one-eighth or one-ninth of their income. It was in debentures; if it had been in preference shares the loss would have been more like 15 per cent. When a man who has been doing so many hours work a week is told that he will have to reduce those hours it is rather disconcerting. I do not wish to continue with that case, but there are similar cases all over the country. There are cases in which a small sum of money has been settled on a daughter who has failed to find a husband, and that sum of money is her only income. Trusts will be particularly hard hit in the case of gas company stocks because they have had a very high net maintainable income reputation.

I want to sum up the principal objections to the Stock Exchange form of valuation. First, the number of gas securities which are quoted is particularly small. I know we hear it said that two-thirds of all the gas companies' capital is quoted, but that means in bulk. The great companies are quoted individually but very few of the smaller ones. Gas companies have a permanent franchise, unlike electricity companies which are liable to purchase by local authorities. Gas stocks are therefore investments of a permanent character, and market dealings comparatively rare.

Thirdly, I maintain that the valuation of unquoted securities by arbitration is practically an impossibility. It is supposed to be done having regard to quoted securities, but there are very few of these quoted securities and, as a consequence, there is bound to be not only difficulty—not only will it take months, which I know the Financial Secretary is anxious to avoid—but even when it does take place it will be very unsatisfactory and possibly unfair. Finally, the small amount of business which takes place in gas securities on the London Stock Exchange or on provincial Stock Exchanges prevents these quotations from being of any great value. Gas stock very often changes hands in the offices of the secretary of the company and never comes on to the stock market at all.

In another debate—not in this debate—it was brought up against me that if the method of stock exchange valuation was the one suitable for Death Duties, why should it not apply in this case? Perhaps the principle was that this was the death of the gas industry. I agree with that, but I do not see why the same valuation should be adopted. First of all, when shares are not quoted. Stock Exchange valuation is not used for Death Duties. Where a man dies who owns the whole of a business or, in a partnership, owns a substantial part of it—or where a property is composed of physical assets—one does not take a Stock Exchange quotation for Death Duties.

Nor would the method be adopted for stale prices, particularly on a falling market. I cannot see the Inland Revenue authorities going back three or four years on a falling market to find the value of securities. There are a great many other reasons why we should accept this Amendment, but I shall not continue. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends on this side will enlarge on what I have said. I only wish to make one further point. It has been mentioned before, but it is so important that it should be mentioned again.

The Trades Union Congress themselves are opposed to the method of Stock Exchange valuation and are in favour of this system of valuation. Details of this have been given on numerous occasions and I do not propose to repeat them, but I do challenge the opposite side of the House to deny that that is a fact and that their own back benchers, their own supporters, in 1945 had a meeting of their economic committee, after examining four different methods of compensation, and said that although Stock Exchange valuation might superficially appear to be the best, in the case of gas it has, in addition to certain very special disadvantages, a particular disadvantage, that nearly all the shares are unquoted and were falsely depressed by war conditions. Not only were they falsely depressed by war conditions, but they were also depressed by the appointment of the Heyworth Committee which was believed by some to be the forerunner of nationalisation. The committee concluded, therefore, that the most satisfactory, and the only fair basis, was that of reasonable net maintainable revenue.

I should like to emphasise what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in June: there had been no opposition to the Stock Exchange valuation in regard to the railways. I should like to speak on behalf of many constituents who are stock-holders in railway companies and who have written to me, for I am quite certain that every hon. Member must be aware that a very great number of railway stockholders are suffering under a grave sense of injustice and have undoubtedly suffered a very great diminution pro rata in the income they draw after nationalisation, by comparison with that which they drew before nationalisation.

Stock-holders in the four big railway companies are in a very much better situation than the holders of gas stock because, in the case of gas, the companies are so much smaller and the market for the shares is so much less free. It has constantly been the case that for a given income the capital valuation as quoted on the Stock Exchange, or by comparable Stock Exchange quotations, was, for similar stock in gas, on a very much lower basis. Stock-holders in the gas industries are thus to be treated worse, even, than stock-holders in the railway industry, by reason solely of the fact that whereas there were only four big companies on the railways there are several thousand gas companies which have to be compensated on this basis.

Take the case of my own city, Bath, and the stock-holders of the company of which I am a director; they are to get a diminution of income, as we suppose, of at least 33⅓ per cent. That will be knocked off their income under this Bill. Do not let us deceive ourselves and say that they will be able to maintain the capital value of their investments and will be able to invest their money again to get, with equal security, the same return from some other investment. That is not the case and we all know it. They will suffer, by the forcible disturbance of their investment, a cut of one-third in their incomes.

I should like to make the point that these stock-holders are generally local people who are investing in a local industry. They have been an enterprising and a forward-looking people and I feel, and I think all of us in this House ought to feel, that when we, as a nation, take over the benefits of that enterprise, we ought not to do it on terms which so strongly depress the reward they have been enjoying as a result of their enterprise. For two reasons I ask the Financial Secretary or the Minister to think again. First, will he develop in his argument the reason why it is impossible to give what he would give? Secondly, why does he wish to diminish the income of thousands of good people in this country at the present time?

6.30 p.m.

I know nothing about gas stocks or shares, but I must say that at every succeeding Debate that we have in this House of Commons on the subject of compensation for property taken from the citizens by the State, I become more and more uneasy at the complete lack of principle which is evinced in our approach to the problem. I want to assert three principles, and to ask how far the particular proposal which we are asked to refrain from amending corresponds with and is justified by those three principles.

The first principle is that there should be compensation. One ought to say that because, in the earlier days, at any rate, of the Socialist movement, there was a school which advocated that the State should take over property without compensation. However, that issue was settled by debates—seemingly interminable debates—many years ago in the Socialist movement; and the movement was committed to the principle of compensating the citizen for his property when the State took it over. That is principle number one—that there should be compensation.

The second principle is that it should be a just compensation. I imagine that all of us agree that the content of the word "justice" in this connection would be that we should pay for the property what it is worth. We may dispute about the particular means of assessing its worth; but we should agree, I think, that we ought to pay what it is worth. That is the second principle. The third principle is that we ought not to treat one class of property owner who happens to have his money in this, that or the other industry, in a fundamentally different fashion from the way in which we treat another class of property owner whose property the State also acquires. Those seem to me to be the three elementary and fundamental principles involved here.

Over a series of years I have seen those principles played about with in the most reckless and the most unjust fashion in this House. This is not an attack against any particular Government. I can quote examples of injustice done when the Tories were in power, and under the Coalition, as I can quote examples against this Government. Let me take, for example, the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. That was passed by a Conservative Government. The Measure went through before the formation of the Coalition Government. It contained some provisions dealing with property taken over by the State from the citizen which, in my opinion, were utterly unjust. For example, the State could take away from hotel proprietors their furniture, their carpets, and what not; and the Act laid down that the prices to be paid for them were to be at the 1939 value, with no regard to be paid whatever to the increased prices arising out of the war. The result was that hundreds of hotel proprietors in Britain had their furniture taken over at 1939 prices and then, when the end of the war came—

I said that that Act was passed by a Conservative Government. I have not pursued the history of the thing farther. The right hon. Gentleman's time will come. I submit it was a monstrously unjust provision to take from them their furniture at 1939 prices and to expect them to start business anew in 1945 when the prices of furniture were approximately three times as much as those the Government paid for it. No matter what the character of the Government is that does that, it is still unjust.

Let us see what has happened since. We have had every kind of variation in the way of compensation. When we dealt with coal, a global sum was fixed. As I recollect, it was £300 million. I have forgotten the precise figure, but we passed a global sum, which had then to be broken down amongst the areas, districts and companies, with results that, I should imagine, nobody could have prophesied with certainty in advance, and which have probably involved injustice to many individuals in this country.

My hon. Friend says they did well out of coal. If so, that is equally wrong, because the principle I assert is, not that they should do well or badly, but that they should be dealt with justly. That is the principle I am trying to assert. In the case of land, we decided to give the owner of land 1939 values of agricultural land, and then required him to put in claims to a fund, from which nobody knew what the individual owner would get. There is a growing anticipation that they will probably get 2s. in the £ of the development rights of the property which has been taken by the State. When we come to deal with gas, I say that we ought to give the owner of the gas stock the proper value of his property.

Is the hon. Member prepared to base it on the Stock Exchange quotation?

I do not pretend to be an authority on gas stocks, but I do say that if it can be reasonably shown that there is a substantial variation between the Stock Exchange price of a commodity in particular circumstances and the really just and assessable value of that property, that case has either to be answered or met. In my submission, it has not yet been answered.

I think it is important for any Government, and above all for a Labour Government, that there should be no suspicion that they are doing less than justice to any class of property owners whose property they decide to take over in the public interest. I believe that any Government who perpetrate act after act of injustice, weaken themselves, and weaken their hold on the community to which they are responsible. I beg the Government, whatever may be the precise, right way of settling this, to think out their compensation practice in principle, and to avoid the repetition of what I have seen over and over again in this House—a series of contradictory principles producing different results amongst different classes of property owners, and in some cases very great injustice to those whose property has been taken over.

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he, in considering things in principle, have some regard to the facts? He was about £141 million out in the coal figure, and entirely wrong about the 1939 value in relation to compensation.

I said I was uncertain about the global figure. I was pointing out that in that case there was a global figure. In another case, that of land, I said that there was an estimate that people would be compensated at about 2s. in the £.

I think the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) was a little muddled. He was talking about the State wishing to take over in peace time an industry or an undertaking, but referred to how the State acted in taking over property in 1939. That was very different. At that time there was a state of emergency. In a state of emergency the Government may have to take over buildings and the equipment of those buildings for the immediate purposes of dealing with that emergency. I was not in the House in 1939, but I should be the last to be ashamed that in 1939 we took over hotels, and the equipment of those hotels, at 1939 prices, rather than at prices in 1940 or 1941, which would have been prices inflated only by the war, and having nothing whatever to do with the intrinsic value of the equipment.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will examine the provisions of the Act to which I referred, he will find that it provided that the Government could take over property at 1939 prices in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, and right to the end of the war. He will find, too, that, in fact, they did use that power in that way. I contend that that was utterly unjust.

If hon. Members opposite want an argument on this point, I am perfectly willing to give it to them. It is one thing to discuss compensation in 1939, when we were faced with an immediate emergency, and quite another to settle down in cold blood, in time of peace, to discuss compensation to gas shareholders. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rugby would like to leave it at that. In the years to which he was referring, there was a Coalition Government, and it may have been that both sides of the House were so concerned in waging war that they could not pay attention to things of that kind.

That particular Act of Parliament was passed before the war came—in time of peace, early in 1939, under a Conservative Government—and is not to be brushed aside by reference to the Coalition Government and the war years.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that no real challenge was made on the question of transport and electricity compensation. I do not think that he could have seriously meant that, since on both those occasions Members on this side of the House complained vigorously and bitterly at all stages of the Bills against what was proposed. We did not at that time have what we have now, the proof that the complaints which we made were justified in fact. We have said before, and I do not want to repeat it, that what the Government have done in fulfilment of the terms of compensation with regard to transport and electricity has shown better than anything we can say how un fair those terms were.

The Financial Secretary said that the basis of Stock Exchange values had been argued against various backgrounds. There are, surely, only two things which really count. The first is whether the Government are justified in saying that this is fair compensation, and secondly, whether they can indicate that the capital and income granted to a recipient of compensation stock is fair, taking everything into regard. So far as the first point is concerned, I think that the Government Front Bench are alone in saying that Stock Exchange valuation is fair. The T.U.C. have denied it, and the Stock Exchange Council have denied it. Apart from the Financial Secretary, who has applied that argument on all occasions to the Debates which we have had, there has not been one Member in this House who has defended it. The Financial Secretary stands alone.

I think that I should be right in quoting from HANSARD, his most illuminating statement as to why he thought that these terms were right. He said that if someone were going to sell shares on the Stock Exchange, he would expect to receive the Stock Exchange value, and that he would consider it just—he added the vital clause—

I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has pointed out that the author is the father of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, because no doubt that will have great weight with the Financial Secretary. In this learned work two principles of compensation are laid down. The first is not that which might be assessed by the purchasers, but that which the owners might require. In other words, the Financial Secretary takes the line that the Stock Exchange value is correct when somebody wants to sell, and his argument falls to the ground under this definition when the stock holder does not wish to sell.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is a fact that Sir Alfred Cripps was stating what the then Statute said, and, secondly, will be give us the date on which that distinguished ornament of the Conservative Party first wrote those words?

That is going outside my purview. I think that I am right in saying—at least I am assured so by Lord Moyne, who spoke in another place—that it was the case of the South Eastern Railway Co. If I have successfully carried that point, I hope that I may be allowed to go on with my speech.

The second principle which, I understand, "Cripps on Compensation" lays down is that Stock Exchange quotations are not correct. In that, he follows what the T.U.C. and the Stock Exchange Council have already said. I am given to understand—and as the hon. And learned Member for North Hammersmith is looking so pugnacious, I hope that I am correct—that phrase is in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and that those two principles have been accepted by the Bar, of which he is a member.

If the House has got up to date, that is no doubt because the Financial Secretary is no longer willing to follow the father of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That may be a good thing. If the arguments I have made are correct, then I think there is no possible criterion for taking the Stock Exchange value as the proper valuation.

On the second point, that the terms of compensation should provide that, so far as the recipient of the compensation is concerned, he should have an equivalent capital value and an equivalent income value, we have already said that, so far as capital is concerned, what the Treasury does is to provide stock which is quite unrelated. The Financial Secretary would be the first to admit that this stock which the Government provide is quite unrelated to the value of that which they are supposed to have taken over. I think that the argument of the Government is that this is riskless capital. The only risk is that one day these stocks should stand at par. Apart from that sole risk, there is no risk, except for the unfortunate holder of them.

So far as income is concerned, a great deal has been said, particularly in Committee upstairs. The income loss suffered by those who will receive compensation is over 50 per cent. I ask the House to consider whether it is justified, in terms of compensation, to ask those classes who particularly subscribe to gas stock to accept a 50 per cent, reduction on that which they will receive in the future. Is that conceived to be right and proper? The Financial Secretary has often said that, as a member of the Labour Party, he is determined to see that compensation is fair. Throughout, not only the passage of this Bill, but that of the Electricity and Transport Acts, the Government have come here, time after time, stating that they are full of good intentions, and that what they are doing is fair and just and will provide the fulfilment of what they promised in "Let Us Face The Future."

The fact is that in no case under Stock Exchange valuations, have they produced anything fair, as regards either capital or income.

The Government stand condemned by every known authority on the ground that Stock Exchange valuations are not the right basis on which to base compensation. On that basis they are condemned alike in principle and, in the action they have taken. It seems impossible for hon. Members on either side of the House, if we are fair in what we say and if hon. Members opposite really mean that they will provide just compensation, to allow this travesty to go through yet once again. The Financial Secretary says he has argued this so often, and that he does not want to do so again. If hon. Members opposite look at what has happened in the previous Debates, they will see that that is all he has said throughout the whole of the Gas Bill.

It may be sensible, as the hon. and learned Member says; but if it is sensible, it simply means he places himself amongst those who are willing to justify neither the principle nor the result of what they have done in compensation in this or previous Bills. Therefore, I hope this House will agree to this different basis; one which experience has shown cannot lead to injustice, because under it in every separate case the compensation is based on not only the revenue, but the multiplier the company can expect to receive in the course of its probable dividends in the future.

The only objection, as I understand it, is that the Financial Secretary says it may take time; it may take months, to use his words. But he knows full well, if he looks back to what happened under the London Passenger Transport Act, that this method of compensation is far speedier than the one he proposes, because under it all the undertakings can be transferred on vesting date, and the compensation can be left until such time as the courts may have been able to arrive at the definition and solution of the formula proposed. There is no holdup whatever in nationalisation. The only argument may be that under such a proposal, the stockholders would have to wait longer for their compensation than they would otherwise; but I feel quite certain that any stockholder would prefer to defer receipt of payment for a few months in the hope—indeed, in the certain knowledge—that he would receive fair compensation than to receive something now which he knows to be unfair. For all those reasons, I hope that this House will decide to agree with the Lords in this proposal.

We have had a considerable Debate, marked by one or two remarkable speeches, such as the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I think it is true to say that the Debate has also been marked by some remarkable silences, for not one hon. Member from the other side of the House has ventured to rise to defend the proposition which their Government are putting forward. That is not for fear of delaying proceedings, because at an earlier stage, when they had a case in which they thought they were justified, hon. Members opposite had no hesitation in coming forward and making valuable contributions.

The Government remain quite rigid on the contention that to take Stock Exchange valuations for things which are not quoted on the Stock Exchange, is a valid method of compensation. We cannot agree about that. And, what is more, the Trades Union Council did not agree to it, and another place did not agree to it. It seems as if there is a certain strength of argument, for it is rarely that those two powerful bodies, the Trades Union Congress and the other place, find themselves at one on financial questions, and still more rare when they find themselves at one on the method of compensation.

I should have thought this proposal was worth more than a few, what I can only call, rather perfunctory remarks by the Financial Secretary, because all the arguments which we have had, return again to the same point: that if the State is doing injustice which is seen to be injustice, it will deter citizens from embarking upon the course which is so being punished, and the whole trend of the Government's actions in this respect will tend against the citizen attempting to accumulate savings of one kind or another. Now, it may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing that citizens should accumulate savings; but the Lord President of the Council has indicated that 80 per cent. of the country's industry should be carried on by private enterprise, and if the method which is to be adopted tonight, if the Government have their way, is applied universally, then the use by the State of this method of financing the concerns of the citizen will be greater.

That has repercussions in the most unexpected places. It has repercussions in a direction which I am sure gives the Financial Secretary the greatest concern—that of National Savings certificates. There is no doubt whatever that the ordinary citizen feels an increasing anxiety as to the future of his savings in National Savings certificates, as is proved by the fact that he is drawing upon them to a greater extent than he is investing in them. It is impossible to waive aside the effect of provisions such as those which the House will put into force if it accedes to the request of the Government tonight and wipes out the proposal which another place sent down to it.

It is no doubt true that this argument has been held again and again. But it is only by holding it again and again that we can bring forward the weight of argument, as well as the cogency of argument, which we hope will convince the Government. After all, the losses and considerable drops in income of what have always been regarded a stable securities—especially when, as in this case, of small people—have an effect, as we are beginning to realise in our postbags, and as we shall increasingly realise as the effect of these Measures begins to come home to the ordinary citizen.

However, on this there is obviously a cleavage between the two sides of the House. The Government command a majority, and will undoubtedly obtain a majority here tonight. But this must be referred to the grand assize of the nation, to the electorate, at by-elections and at the General Election, and I am certain the Government will find that this line of conduct is not commending itself to the ordinary people of this country. But that is prophecy; and, admittedly, prophecy can be tested only by events.

If the Government are set upon this course of action, let us hope that it will be possible for them at least to apply the method which they seek with due re- gard to where obvious injustices may take place, and where obvious remedies can easily be applied. Nobody, I think, would contend that quotations which did not represent actual dealings should be used for this purpose. It has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) that they would not be accepted for a moment in valuations by the Inland Revenue. They certainly would not. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee), who asked about fair compensation when interrupting the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), said it was what a man was willing to sell at on the Stock Exchange. But if he was not willing to sell on the Stock Exchange at that price, that argument not ony falls to the ground but rebounds upon himself.

7.0 p.m.

The first question I ask is: will the Minister undertake that quotations which are out of date—and I should use the figure of three months—should not, for the purpose of the valuations which he has in mind, be founded upon his present proposals? Secondly, when he is dealing with securities which have not been quoted at all, will he give a fair value and not simply take an analogous class of securities? Thirdly, I hope that this arbitration tribunal will have powers to have regard to all the relevant factors. We had hoped to put forward Amendments which would have brought this last point before the House and would have enabled a Division to be taken, but because there was not time for the House or for you, Mr. Speaker, to give consideration to them you ruled that they should not be taken. Therefore, I put the point in the form of a question and ask that all relevant factors shall be brought within the review of the arbitration tribunal.

The Minister accepted an Amendment in Committee dealing with the point on war damage. It is a matter which has some relation to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rugby. He blamed the Government of the day for passing an Act, although it was passed under the stress of war, whereby the community was entitled to possess itself of the property of an individual at a price which was lower, as it turned out, than the price at which the individual could replace the property in question. The war took many turns which were quite unexpected to many of us, and one of them was this question of war damage. The advent of the flying bomb brought in a new set of war damages. When the first "doodle-bug" flew over London the Londoners realised that this was something entirely new. They were now sitting with a cannon trained on them and were no longer at the mercy of the outcome of the fight between two aviators. They were sitting at the mouth of the cannon as it were, and the value of property fell as a result. That led not only to the movement of population which the present Measure has taken into account, but to the movement of industry, trade and business.

These are practical points which we hope the Ministers may take into account. There are minor points, such as whether the sales of gas should be held to have been substantially reduced or not, and again we hope that the Government may modify their attitude in that respect. All these are examples where the Government should say, even if they ask the House to reject the present proposal which comes from another place, that the last word has not yet been spoken. All these are matters where modifications could be made and should be made to relieve the hardship which is being placed upon the shoulders of many citizens who have done no more than live quietly, save money and invest it in undertakings of great benefit to the community, individuals who were looking forward to seeing that go on undisturbed for their lifetime and, not unreasonable, for the life time of those who depend upon them in future years. If the Government can do that, we shall have done something tonight, but for the moment, in respect of this proposal, we shall press our position forthwith to a Division.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) whether I had read the Debates which took place in another place. I did read them, of course, and I am bound to say, reading them carefully as I did, that I found no new arguments had been advanced. That being so, it seemed unreasonable to waste the time of the House by recapitulating all the arguments which had been adduced on previous occasions—no new arguments needed admitting or refusing. It depends how one views this question of nationalisation as to one's fundamental attitude towards this Bill. If one thinks it is essential for the community that the gas undertaking, with other undertakings, should be taken over in order that it shall function more efficiently for the community as a whole, it follows that one is biased in the controversy which takes place.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) indicated that the party to which I belong, and to which he once belonged, at one stage of its career was by no means sure that compensation should be paid at all. It was argued then that as in war certain things should be taken over—horses requisitioned and houses requisitioned—and no compensation paid, with men conscripted into the Army and no compensation being paid for what they lost and for risking their lives, so it was essential in peace-time that these things, essential to the community, should also be taken over. The argument was carried to the length by certain people on the Labour side of saying that no compensation should be paid. It is obvious that for many years now the Labour Party has believed in compensation being paid, and the question now arises what compensation should be paid and how shall it be assessed.

As we have indicated on many times during the lifetime of this Parliament, this party is not wedded to any particular form of compensation so long as it is fair, just and the most reasonable form in the circumstances. We have adopted the net maintainable revenue formula in the case of coal. We adopted the present formula when dealing with the Bank of England, and as far as I know there was no complaint in that case.

We adopted it in the case of transport and electricity, and we are now adopting it for the same reason in the case of gas.

Yes. There are two methods of paying or assessing compensation. One is the net maintainable revenue and the other, if it is obtainable, is the Stock Exchange price. Here, we have adopted, so far as we can, the Stock Exchange daily list as our guide for certain securities quoted on certain dates over two distinct periods during 1945 and 1947. It seems that some Members opposite are under the impression that we are fixing the price of all gas undertakings by an imaginary Stock Exchange list which, in respect of certain securities, does not exist. That is not so at all. All we are doing is this: Where the Stock Exchange list contains, for certain selected dates, quotations of certain gas undertakings we are taking those quotations as a reasonable basis. I can find no fault with it.

It was said that this represented only 5 per cent. of the undertakings. That is true, but actually that 5 per cent. represents £111 million nominal capital out of £169 million. The great majority of the larger undertakings are, therefore, covered by the Stock Exchange quotations. When the Minister comes to reach agreement with stockholders' representative on what the price should should be, we shall be guided by the large number of quotations on the provincial lists. Many gas undertakings are in the provinces, and do not get quoted very often on the London Stock Exchange because local people like to invest in their own gas undertakings. Quotations are, therefore, made locally.

In spite of what has been said, it is possible to get a fair idea, over a very wide field, of what should be the Stock Exchange price. It is said that that does not represent true value, but that is a matter of opinion. As between willing buyer and willing seller it undoubtedly represents what the public, at any given time, assess as the value of any share. It is no argument to say that the seller may not be willing to sell, and that that nullifies entirely the quoted price. Those who have had anything to do with the Stock Exchange must know that the quoted price is the price which the willing buyer would pay to the willing seller.

The fact that the seller is not anxious to sell does not affect the price which is quoted, and which is laid down as a reasonable price for the share of the undertaking. We wish to be fair to the individual stockholder. It has been argued that he is entitled to his share of the complete assets of the undertaking, that if it is to be broken up and disposed of the undertaking should be valued as an entity and that, according to his size of holding, he should get his share. But as the undertaking is going to the community the only interest which the stockholder has is in the actual number of shares he holds in the undertaking. So long as his income continues, so long as he is not robbed of it, and gets a market price for his shares, then he has no quarrel with the fact that the assets have been taken over as a whole by the Gas Council.

The T.U.C. have been quoted. When they were talking of using, normally, the net maintainable revenue formula they were not thinking that it would give the individual shareholder more; their view was—and if I had time I could give the full reference—that Stock Exchange prices were often inflated because a good deal of gambling went on, and that it was not always fair to take the Stock Exchange valuation. We have taken it because we think it is simple, that it gives us the valuation which the man in the street and those who deal on the Stock Exchange have put on the security in question.

If we do as is suggested by this Amendment it will certainly mean long quarrels as to what was or was not proper compensation to pay. In my view, there would be failure to agree, in a very large number of cases, between the Minister and the stockholders' representative. The matter would have to go to arbitration, which would be long drawn out, and we simply have not the manpower or time available to do that sort of thing. We have chosen, as I think, properly, the basis which I have mentioned.

In the case of Bank of England Stock, that was a gilt-edged security, and in the change from one form of capital to another the stockholder lost nothing or very little. The whole gravamen of the charge here is that in this case any change from capital in one form to another will mean that thousands of stockholders will lose considerably in income.

7.15 p.m.

It is quite true that the Bank of England Stock was gilt-edged, but I was not dealing with that point; I was saying that we based the compensation we paid on the value which the Stock Exchange put on the Bank of England shares as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, although all of us knew that very little Bank of England stock ever changed hands. At that time, Members opposite did not raise this as a reason why we should not do what we did do. In this case we are giving stockholders a gilt-edged security, a permanent security if they like to keep their money in that stock, with a Government guarantee and a firm rate of interest each year. Because of that there is every reason why they should be willing to accept a lower rate of interest than that which they previously had.

I could say a great deal more in reply to questions which have been put from the opposite side of the House, but I will not trouble now because I am firmly of the view that we have all made up our minds. This matter has been discussed many times on this Bill or on previous Bills, and I am sure that nothing will change the view that any one of us holds tonight. I therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

I put several specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he intend to leave them entirely unanswered, or is an answer to be given later?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will find the answers in the Bill. One question was whether stocks which were unquoted would be compensated on the basis laid down for quoted stocks, and the answer to that is "No." There, it will be an arrangement

between my right hon. Friend and the stockholders' representative. In regard to stocks which have not been quoted for a certain number of months, we inserted words in the Bill on the Report stage to allow their true value to be assessed by another formula.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of his party having been in favour in the past of confiscation rather than compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The right hon. Gentleman said that many Members of his party were in favour of confiscation. Does he claim, as an argument to exonerate his party for being wrong in the present that they were more wrong in the past?

I had better put this series of Amendments, to which the Government are moving to disagree, in three sections, taking first the Amendment just discussed, in page 29, line 14, to leave out Subsection (2) and to insert a new Subsection. After that there are four other Lords Amendments which I think are consequential. Then I gather there is one Amendment in which it is proposed that we agree with the Lords. Then there are others which are consequential with which it is proposed to disagree. I will now put the Question in relation to the Lords Amendment in page 29, line 14.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 92.

Division No. 271.]

AYES.

[7.22 p.m

Acland, Sir Richard

Blenkinsop, A

Coldrick, W

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Boardman, H

Collins, V. J

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, south)

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

Colman, Miss G M

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

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

Cooper, Wing-Comdr G

Attewell, H C

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Corlett, Dr. J

Awbery, S. S.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Cove, W G.

Ayles, W H

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Crawley, A.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Daggar, G.

Bacon, Miss A

Bruce, Maj. D W T

Daines, P

Balfour, A.

Burden, T. W

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

Burke, W A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Barstow, P G

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Barton, C.

Byers, Frank

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Battley, J. R.

Carmichael, James

Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

Bechervaise, A E

Castle, Mrs B. A

Delargy, H. J

Belcher, J. W

Champion, A J

Dodds, N. N.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon F

Chater, D

Driberg, T. E. N

Benson, G.

Chetwynd, G. R

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Berry, H.

Cluse, W. S

Dumpleton, C. W

Beswick, F

Cobb, F. A

Durbin, E F. M

Binns, J

Cocks. F. S

Ede, Rt Hon J C

Edelman, M

Mack, J. D.

Sharp, Granville

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, F.

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

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Shurmer, P

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mainwaring, W. H

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Silverman, J (Erdington)

Ewart, R.

Mallalieu, J P. W (Huddersfield)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Fairhurst, F

Mann, Mrs. J.

Simmons, C. J.

Fernyhough, E

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Skeffington, A. M

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

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Skinnard, F. W.

Forman, J. C

Marquand, H. A.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Marshall, F (Brightside)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

Mathers, Rt Hon. George

Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mayhew, C P

Smith, S H (Hull S W)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mellish, R. J

Snow, J. W

Gilzean, A.

Messer, F.

Solley, L. J

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Middleton, Mrs. L

Sorensen, R. W

Gooch, E. G.

Mikardo, Ian

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Goodrich, H. E

Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

Sparks, J. A

Gordon-Walker, P. C

Mitchison, G. R

Steele, T.

Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

Monslow, W

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Grey, C. F

Moody, A S.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Morgan, Dr H. B.

Stross, Dr B

Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

Morley, R.

Syivester, G. O

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Symonds, A. L.

Gunter, R J.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Haire, John E (Wycombe)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

Hall, Rt Hon Glenvil

Mort, D. L

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R

Moyle, A.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Murray J. D

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Hardman, D R

Naylor, T. E.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Hardy, E. A

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Thurtle, Ernest

Harrison, J

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

Tiffany, S.

Haworth, J.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Timmons, J.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

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

Titterington, M F

Hicks, G.

O'Brien, T.

Tolley, L.

Hobson, C. R

Oliver, G. H.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Holman, P.

Orbach, M.

Turner-Samuels, M

Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

Paget, R. T

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Hoy, J.

Palmer, A. M F

Viant, S. P.

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

Pargiter, G. A

Wadsworth, G

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Parker, J

Walkden, E.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Parkin, B. T

Walker, G. H.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Pearson, A.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Peart, T F

Warbey, W. N.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Perrins, W.

Weitzman, D

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Popplewell, E.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Wells, W. T (Walsall)

Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

West, D. G

Janner, B.

Price, M. Philips

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Jay, D. P T.

Pritt, D. N.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

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

Proctor, W T

White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Jenkins, R. H.

Pursey, Comdr. H

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Randall, H. E

Wigg, George

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Ranger, J.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Rankin, J.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Keenan, W.

Reid, T (Swindon)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Kenyon, C

Richards, R.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Robens, A

Williams, Rt. Hon T (Don Valley)

Leslie, J. R.

Roberts, Emrys (Merionesh)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Levy, B. W.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wise, Major F. J.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Woods, G. S.

Longden, F

Royle, C.

Wyatt, W.

Lyne, A. W.

Sargood, R.

Yates, V. F.

McAdam, W

Scollan, T.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

McAllister, G.

Scott-Elliot, W

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McEntee, V La T

Segal, Dr. S.

Mr. Collindridge and

McGhee, H G.

Shackleton, E A. A

Mr. Wilkins.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr P. G.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Erroll, F. J.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C

Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

Baldwin, A. E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Beamish, Maj. T. V H.

Cuthbert, W. N.

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

Beechman, N. A.

Darling, Sir W. Y

Gage, C.

Boles, Lt.-Col D C (Wells)

Digby, S. W.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Bower, N.

Drayson, G. B

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Drewe, C.

Gridley, Sir A.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Grimston, R V

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Duthie, W. S.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Walter

Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)

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

Mellor, Sir J.

Roberts, P G (Ecclesall)

Hogg, Hon Q

Molson. A H. E

Ropner, Col L

Hollis, M C.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Howard, Hon. A

Morrison, Rt Hon. W S (Cir'cester)

Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)

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

Nicholson, G.

Smith, E. P (Ashford)

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J

Nutting, Anthony

Smithers, Sir W

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

O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H

Stanley, Rt Hon. O

Lambert, Hon. G

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Osborne, C.

Studholme, H G

Langford-Holt, J.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Sutcliffe, H

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Teeling, William

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Pickthorn, K

Thorp, Brigadier RAF

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Pitman, I J

Turton, R H.

Low, A R. W

Ponsonby, Col C. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

Watt, Sir G S. Harvie

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Wheatley, Colonel M. J (Dorset, E.)

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Raikes, H. V

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Mackeson, Brig. H R.

Rayner, Brig R.

Maclay, Hon. J. S

Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Manningham-Buller, R. E

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

Major Conant and

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Renton, D

Major Ramsay.

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 41.

Division No. 272. ]]

AYES.

[7.33 p.m

Acland, Sir Richard

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

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

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughten)

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Davies, S. O (Merthyr)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Attewell, H C

Delargy, H J.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Awbery, S S

Dodds, N. N

Irvine, A J. (Liverpool)

Ayles, W H

Driberg, T E N

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.

Bacon, Miss A

Dumpleton, C W

Janner, B.

Balfour, A.

Durbin, E F. M

Jay, D. P. T.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A j

Ede, Rt. Hon J. C

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Barstow, P G

Edclman, M.

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

Barton, C.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Jenkins, R H.

Battley, J. R.

Edwards, Rt Hon. N (Caerphilly)

Jones, D. T. (Harttepools)

Bechervaise, A E

Edwards, W J (Whitechapel)

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Benson, G.

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Berry, H.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Keenan, W.

Birtns, J.

Ewart, R.

Kenyon, C

Blackburn, A R

Fairhurst, F

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Blenkinsop, A

Fennyhough, E

Leslie, J. R

Boardman, H.

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

Levy, B. W

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W

Forman, J. C.

Lewis, A. W J (Upton)

Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Lipton, Lt.-Col M

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

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H T N

Longden, F.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Ganley, Mrs C. S.

Lyine, A. W.

Brook, O. (Halifax)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

McAdam, W

Brooks, T J. (Rothwetl)

Gilzean, A.

McAllister, G.

Brown, T J. (Inoe)

Glanviile, J. E. (Consett)

McEntee, V. La .

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

Gooch, E G

McGhee, H G

Burden, T. W.

Goodrich, H E

Mack, J. D.

Burke, W. A.

Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

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

Grey, C F

McLeavy, F

Byers, Frank

Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

Macpherson, T (Romford)

Carmichael, James

Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Guest, Dr L. Haden

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Champion, A. J.

Gunter, R J.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Chater, O.

Haire, John fc. (Wycombe)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Chetwynd, G. R

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Cluse, W. S.

Hamilton, Lieut-Col R

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Cobb, F. A

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Marquand, H. A.

Cocks, F. S

Hardman, D. R

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Coldrick, W

Hardy, E. A.

Mathers, Rt Hon. George

Collins, V. J

Harrison, J

Mayhew, C. P.

Colman, Miss G M.

Haworth, J.

Mellish, R. J

Comyns, Dr. L.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Messer, F.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr G

Hicks, G

Middleton, Mrs L

Corlett, Dr. J

Hobson, C. R.

Mikardo, Ian

Cove, W. G

IHolman, P.

Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

Daggar, G.

Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

Mitchison, G. R

Daines, P

Hoy, J.

Monslow, W

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 88.

Moody, A. S.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Morgan, Dr. H. B

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Thurtle, Ernest

Morley, R.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Tiffany, S.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Timmons, J.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Royle, C.

Titterington, M F

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Sargood, R.

Tolley, L.

Mort, D. L.

Scollan, T.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Moyle, A.

Scott-Elliott, W

Turner-Samuels, M

Murray J. D.

Segal, Dr. S.

Vernon, Maj W. F.

Naylor, T. E.

Shackleton, E. A. A

Viant, S. P

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Sharp, Granville

Wadsworth, G

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

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Walkden, E

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

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

Walker, G. H.

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

Shurmer, P.

Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

O'Brien, T.

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Warbey, W. N

Oliver, G. H.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Weitzman, D

Orbach, M.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Paget, R. T.

Simmons, C. J.

Wells, W. T (Walsall)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Skeffington, A. M

West, D. G.

Pargiter, G. A.

Skinnard, F. W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E)

Parker, J.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Parkin, B. T

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Pearson, A

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

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Peart, T. F.

Smith, S H (Hull, S. W)

Wigg, George

Perrins, W.

Snow, J. W

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Popplewell, E.

Solley, L. J

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Sorensen, R. W.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Price, M. Philips

Sparks, J. A.

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Pritt, D N.

Steele, T.

Williams, Rt Hon T (Don Valley)

Proctor, W T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

Wills, Mrs. E A.

Pursey, Comdr. H

Strachey, Rt. Hon J

Wise, Major F. J.

Randall, H. E.

Stross, Dr. B

Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

Ranger, J.

Sylvester, G. O

Woods, G. S

Rankin, J.

Symonds, A. L.

Wyatt, W

Rees-Williams, D. R

Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

Yates, V. F.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Richards, R.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Roberts, A

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Mr. Collindridge and

Mr. Wilkins.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt Hon Sir C

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Baldwin, A. E.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Pitman, I. J.

Beamish, Maj. T. V H

Hollis, M. C.

Ponsonby, Col. C E

Beechman, N. A.

Howard, Hon. A

Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)

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

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

Raikes, H. V

Bower, N

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

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

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Lambert, Hon. G.

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

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Lancaster, Col. C G

Ronton, D.

Clarke, Col. R. S

Langford-Holt, J.

Roberts, P. G (Ecclesall)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Law, Rt. Hon R. K.

Ropner, Col L.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E

Linstead, H. N.

Smithers, Sir W.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

Darling, Sir W Y

Low, A R W.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Digby, S. W.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Studholme, H. G.

Drayson, G. B

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Sutcliffe, H.

Drewe, C

Mackeson, Brig. H R

Teeling, William

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Maclay, Hon. J. S

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

Duthie, W. S.

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Turton, R. H.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Fraser H C P. (Stone)

Mellor, Sir J.

Walker-Smith, D.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Molson, A. H. E.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P M

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J (Dorset, E.)

Gage, C.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S (Cir'cester)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Nicholson, G.

Gomme-Duncan, Col A

Nutting, Anthony

Gridley, Sir A

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grimston, R V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Major Conant and

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Osborne, C.

Major Ramsay.

Further Lords Amendments disagreed to: In page 30, line 42, leave out "subsections (2), (3) and (5)" and insert "subsection (2)."

In page 31, line 3, to leave out lines 3 and 4.

In line 5, leave out "either of."

In line 5, leave out "two."

In line 6, leave out "subsections" and insert "subsection."

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 15, at end, insert:

(8) If all the securities of any issue were originally disposed of to a person who did not become the registered holder of those securities, the price of issue of each of those securities shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be either—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I am not at all clear what this Amendment does. If hon. Members look at Subsection (7) they will see that certain definitions are laid down as to the compensation to be paid for new issue—within the terms of the Bill—securities. The new Subsection (8) states that the price shall either be:

"the price paid for that security by the first registered holder thereof;"

or alternatively:

"the price received by the company for the security plus an amount equal to two and a half per cent, of that price."

Then it goes on:

"whichever is the lower."

I could have understood the new Subsection if it had read "whichever is the higher." Then it would have entitled either the first registered holder or the company to get the compensation which the Subsection is meant to give. As it reads it seems that if the first registered holder had to buy a share at a price greater than 2½ per cent, above the average at which the company disposed of to the firm of stockbrokers acting on its behalf, the first registered shareholder would lose when it came to compensation. I hope the Government will clear up the point.

7.45 p.m.

This Amendment simply implements an assurance given on the Recommittal stage by the Solicitor-General. Its object is to ensure that a security holder who obtained his security from an issuing house instead of directly from the company will, for compensation purposes, be treated in substantially the same manner as if he had subscribed directly to the undertaking. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) said he thought the Amendment should have read "whichever is the higher." In that case we should be providing that he might receive more than he would have obtained if he had bought it direct from the company. That would be wrong. If the hon. and gallant Member considers it, he will see that this completely implements the assurance which was given.

Question put, and agreed to. [ Specialentry. ]

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 16, leave out "six" and insert "three."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is consequential.

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, as an Amendment in lieu thereof, in page 31, line 16, to leave out "six," and insert "seven."

I find myself, not perhaps alone in the House, in a slight difficulty at the moment. These are very technical matters and I am not quite sure where this Amendment to leave out "six" and to insert "seven" comes in. I may be looking at the wrong passage but it does not seem to me to be so written in the text which I have before me. Could the Minister explain what the import of the words is and why he wishes to leave out "six" and, if he can by tremendous effort afterwards, tell us why he wishes to insert "seven," or "three" as the case may be—I thought it was "three."

I will endeavour to explain. We disagree with the Lords Amendment to leave out "six" and to insert "three" because we have disagreed with the previous Amendment to which this was consequential. We now propose that "seven" should take the place of "six" because we have just inserted a new Subsection (8) and it is necessary to amend the number.

Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 46.

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is consequential.

I am afraid that we shall need to ask the Minister exactly how it is consequential. I am not quite sure how it stands.

We are disagreeing with the consequential Amendment to eliminate Subsection (2). If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will turn—I am not sure which copy of the Bill he has—

The correct one is No. 108. The Lords Amendment proposed to leave out from the beginning of line 22 to the end of line 46—

It is necessary, since we have disagreed with their earlier Amendments regarding compensation, to reinsert, in effect, Subsections (9) and (10).

It is unjust, it is illogical, and for these reasons I take it that the Government will insist on it.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether I am in Order in asking whether this is an opportunity to ask the Minister to give us a little explanation in regard to the words

"as respects all matters affecting their value"

in line 32. The right hon. Gentleman has moved that we should reinsert these Subsections and we do not think it is fair because there are so many points that have to be taken into account. We wish to know whether matters will be taken into account such as the dividends which would have been paid if the Ministry of Fuel and Power or the Board of Trade had allowed the basic price to be increased. Clearly the Stock Exchange value has been considerably depressed by reason of the fact that the Board of Trade, then the appropriate Ministry, were so busy fighting the war that they could not attend to what was clearly their proper function, and in consequence of that the dividends of many companies in this country went down and, naturally, the Stock Exchange value of the shares went down correspondingly. The Solicitor-General has already given us some assurance that he meant that wording to cover the ability of the tribunal to take all matters into account.

Surely this deals with the definition of the value of securities, not the merits?

I am really seeking an explanation from the Minister, and I should be grateful if he would give it to us.

I disagree strongly with the re-insertion of the Subsections. We have had no adequate explanation from the Minister, and I am compelled to agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend that the only reason we are asked to re-insert this long passage is because it is unfair and unjust and, therefore, in keeping with the propositions of the Government right through. For that reason I regret that we are being asked to re-insert it at this point.

If we did not re-insert the particular Subsections, the only effect would be that there would be no method of valuing unquoted securities—a result which I do not think the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) desires. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), I do not think there is anything that I can add to what has been said before. The words will have to be interpreted by the arbitration tribunal, and I cannot say anything in further elaboration of them.

When the Minister says that these words will have to be interpreted by the arbitration tribunal, he should look at line 29 on page 31, where it says that these securities, which are 95 per cent. of the total number of securities which he is to Obtain under this Measure, are included, and that this 95 per cent. will have their values determined by the arbitration tribunal. To quote from line 27:

"the arbitration tribunal, in determining the value of those securities, shall have regard, as far as may be, to the value of securities to which subsection (2) … applies …"

In other words, if we reinstate this, we are saying once again that 95 per cent, of the securities of the gas industry will be valued on the 5 per cent. The Ministry admits that cannot be done by the arbitration tribunal and, therefore, the only direction it can give to the tribunal is that this 95 per cent, is to be valued "as far as may be." It seems to me wrong for this House to say that as far as 95 per cent, of the stocks to be taken over are concerned, all we shall do is to lay down that "as far as may be" the guide for the arbitration tribunal shall be 5 per cent, under Subsection (2). Therefore, before we reinstate this, I hope we can have a more convincing explanation from the Minister.

Again this makes it quite clear that the directive of the Government to the industry of this country is, "Look to the Stock Exchange, gamble on it, raise the value of your counters." It would have paid the 95 per cent, of the industry hands down to go on the Stock Exchange and sky-rocket the price of that 5 per cent., and then have their securities determined upon this. It is not merely a "spiv's" Charter, but a "spiv's" Ten Commandments that is being reinserted here, with all the commandments inverted. Instead of "Thou shalt not steal"—thou shalt steal; instead of "Thou shalt not covet"—thou shalt covet. Next we solemnly reinsert the whole of the Stock Exchange lists with a direction— us to do, and this is the basis upon which we are subsequently to have our securities determined."

We have made our protest, the T.U.C. has made its protest, the other place has made its protest. The people who feel they know everything are—I will not say the Front Bench; the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is the only man who is clear about this; he is the only man who speaks on it, he is the only man who defends it; nobody else says a word in favour of it. The only person beyond him is the Minister who says. "Well, of course, we have discussed this often before." What he means by discussion is that we have made arguments and that the Financial Secretary has said he can do nothing about it. The whole of the other side leaves this to go by default, the Minister leaves it to go by default, even the Solicitor-General leaves it to go by default, and all that we are told is: "Back it goes again into the Bill"; and the word goes out over the Stock Exchange, "This is the law and the prophets, do ye according to their will. Signed, The Labour Government."

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 26, disagreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Increase of value of securities of companies suffering loss of revenue from war causes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 30, leave out Clause 26 and insert new Clause "A"—(

In agreeing or determining under the last preceding section of this Act the amount of the reasonably maintainable annual income which could have been expected from any class of securities an allowance shall be made to offset any loss or diminution of income arising from any war damage (within the meaning of section two of the War Damage Act, 1943) suffered by the undertaker or any subsidiary of the gas holding company concerned or by reason of any transfer of population, industry, trade or business from any part of the area supplied by the undertaker or any subsidiary of the gas holding company concerned caused by circumstances arising out of the war.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

8.0 p.m.

I realise that in view of what we have done already this evening, the Amendment sent to us from another place cannot be inserted in the Bill in its present form. The first three lines assume that we have agreed that a reasonably maintainable annual income shall be the basis of compensation. I would ask the Minister whether, either now or later, he could move a manuscript Amendment which, while leaving him with Stock Exchange valuations, would permit the rest of this new Clause to stand. During the Committee and Report stages we on this side—and, I think, hon. Members opposite—showed great sympathy towards ensuring that those companies which had suffered through the war from any cause, be it war damage, shifting of industry or population, or whatever else it might be, should receive additional compensation under Clause 26, so that the Stock Exchange value would be made up to the true value of those shares.

Unfortunately, we were not able to convince the Minister or the Government. Apart from the very narrow classes set out on pages 32 and 33, the Minister said that he could not agree to any widening of the definition. He was unable, for instance, to take into consideration what might happen to companies who had suffered from flying bombs. He found himself unable to think of what happened in the case of a company which suffered from the migration of population because of the danger of those flying bombs. The new Clause would allow all those cases to be taken into consideration. By passing it, we would ensure that no company which had suffered damage because of the war, and as defined by the War Damage Act, would not receive proper consideration. I hope, therefore, the Minister will be able to tell us that, whilst disagreeing with this Amendment because of the first three lines, he is prepared, either now or later, to accept the remainder of the Clause while amending the first three lines to meet what we have done earlier today.

I am sorry that we cannot accede to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). When it left this place, this Clause contained words which, we think, cover what I feel he wants to do and certainly what we on this side desire. It is my impression that another place only inserted the words of the new Clause instead of those originally in the Bill, because Amendments had been made to the previous Clause. Otherwise, I think that another place would not have altered Clause 26, but would have left is as it was when it left this House. Looking at both drafts, it seems to me that the words which we have are as good as, if not better than, those inserted by another place. I hope, therefore, that the House will adhere to its original words.

We now come to the thought-reading section of the Government's activities. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury divines what he believes the other place were thinking at the time and divines that they put these words in merely because they had carried through some other Amendments. But I would like to know how he explains the fact that the Clause says

I understand the real contention of the Government to be that, gas being a domestic sort of industry, if we move the population there is no real difference between moving the population and moving industry, trade or business. That, I think, is at least an argument, which the Financial Secretary's statement was not. It really was an assertion, and was based on thought reading at that. If is a somewhat tenuous foundation on which to bring before the Chamber at this stage the contention of the Government that it does not really matter, that these, words are unimportant or unessential. If the Minister assures us that in his opinion that is so, we might be prepared, having made our point, not to divide the House, but if we get no satisfaction whatever from the Minister, except his saying that this is what he thought the House of Lords would have done if it had understood, then I fear we cannot accept that. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he thinks the line he is asking us to accept is that these words are really not essential, because, in the case of a domestic industry—gas—movement of trade or industry would be very closely associated with the movement of population.

I thought that my right hon. Friend had made the position clear. Our view is that where there is a transfer of population arising out of war purposes we meet, in effect, with a movement of industry and trade. It is unlikely that in war time there would have been any substantial move of industry or trade which affected the gas industry without there being a transfer of population. As has been pointed out, 70 per cent., I think, of the sales of gas are to domestic consumers. Therefore, in effect, the Amendment makes no substantial difference to the original wording of the Bill.

I want to comment on what the Minister has said and to remind him that there are also industrial users of gas. Those industrial users are increasing year by year. I do not think that the argument he has put forward covers the case of industry.

I am not convinced by the Minister's rather rapid conclusions on this particular Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) said that there are other reasons for the movement of population, and has just referred to the industrial case. Is the Minister sure that, since the war, there has not been any considerable movement of population from any cause in any part of this country? Is he quite sure, for instance, that there is not a considerable movement in certain parts of Scotland?

I can assure the hon. Member that, if he reads Clause 26, he will find that the point he is now making is covered.

That is my point. The right hon. Gentleman keeps assuring us, and we keep finding out that the point has never been covered at all. I do not wish to think that he does not fully understand it, but it is unfortunate that this always happens. The wording both in the new Clause and in the Bill as originally drafted is lengthy; that is why I have avoided using the words in detail. I must, however, express my extreme dissatisfaction at the way in which the Government are treating the interests of good, sensible, honest people. The proper thing, of course, would never appeal to this Government.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Compensation to composite companies.)

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 31, after "debentures" insert "or."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I must ask the Minister for some interpretation of exactly what the Amendment does. As I understand it, it was originally designed and promoted in another place by the Government to ensure that in the case of a composite company, the right of the shareholder to demand gas compensation stock was to be limited to debenture and preference stockholders. The debenture stockholders are now no longer to be entitled to this right. I understand that the spokesman of the Government in another place said that because they did not wish to infringe on the profits it could be properly left to the courts to decide. I understand that earlier today we have removed composite companies from Clause 25 and, therefore, I should like an explanation of this Amendment.

As the hon. and gallant Member has rightly pointed Out, this affects the position of debenture and preference holders of composite companies. When the Bill left this House, it provided that either a debenture holder or a preference stockholder might require the company to exchange for British Gas Stock such part of his holding as was attributable to the gas undertaking and the company had a similar option. Subsequently, discussions took place with representatives of the composite companies and it was agreed to leave reductions of share capital to be dealt with in the normal manner through the courts. At the same time, the Amendment also provides that debentures may be allowed if they so desire to exchange the whole of their holdings for British Gas Stock and not just that portion attributable to the gas undertaking. I was not able exactly to follow what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about Clause 25, but I do not think that affects this particular issue.

If the right hon. Gentleman will look at page 29, line 2, he will see that we have now inserted:

"other than a composite gas company or an ancillary gas undertaking,"

which I understand has a considerable bearing on Clause 25.

That is all covered in the subsequent Clause dealing with compensation for composite companies. The purpose of the earlier Amendment was to prevent an ambiguity arising in connection with the exchange of British gas stock for the stock of gas undertakings which might at that time, the vesting date, still be owned by composite companies.

Question put, and agreed to

CLAUSE 33—(Control of dividends, interest and other payments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 8, leave out from "made," to "nineteen" in line 10, and insert:

"on or before the thirteenth day of February."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I think this Amendment is misconceived or, perhaps, one should say it was inserted in another place under a misapprehension and that is the only reason why I am asking the House to disagree with it. The proviso to which the Amendment relates was inserted in this House at the request of the Opposition to meet certain cases of alleged hardship to which the Opposition quite rightly drew attention. The particular case produced was that of subsidiary companies of the British Electric Traction Company Limited where the directors had recommended, just before the Bill was published, a dividend higher than that permitted under the Bill, and by the time the provisions of the Bill had been fully appreciated it was, so they argued quite reasonably, too late for them to withdraw. Therefore, in this House we inserted a proviso which gave the Minister discretion to approve the higher rates of dividend provided the payment resulted from a recommendation of the directors made on or before the date on which the Bill was published.

8.15 p.m.

In another place, their Lordships introduced the Amendment we now seek to delete to alter the scope of the proviso so as to allow the Minister discretion to cover any excessive dividend without regard to when the recommendation was made provided only it had been paid on or before 13th February, 1948. In other words, they substituted as the limiting case that the dividend must have been paid before 13th February instead of that the recommendation must have been made before the publication of the Bill. At that time, both the Government and the Opposition were under the impression that no dividends of this kind were in fact paid after 13th February, 1948. But, a few days ago a representative of the Opposition informed us that some of the dividends of the British Electric Traction Company Limited had been paid after the 13th February and there has been a misunderstanding on both sides about this matter. I am told that seven of the company's subsidiaries paid dividends approved by the directors just before the publication of the Bill, at the end of February or the beginning of March, and those companies would be caught by the Amendment to the proviso which has been inserted in another place. To ensure that justice should be done so far as those dividends are concerned, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that confusion has arisen about this point. I am certain if he will look at the Debate in another place, he will see that the real object was very simple and that it was to give companies time to study the Bill and to appreciate what it set out to do before they became subject to the penalties of this Clause. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman could meet the spirit of what another place sought to do and of his own speech now or at a later stage, although we all agree that this Amendment must be disagreed with—except that 23rd January should be altered to 13th February in line 10. If he did that, he would meet his, own argument and certainly that of another place that any undertaking, of which there are 2,000 in this country, must be given adequate time to discuss and find out what is in the Bill before proceeding to recommend a dividend. Before agreeing to the Motion I think we should have an assurance from the Minister.

All I can do is to repeat what my noble Friend said in another place. He said that if the Opposition would produce any cases under which directors had not had time to consider the Bill and had, therefore, made a recommendation after the date of publication we would certainly consider the matter. But no such cases have been produced and in the circumstances I do not think there is any case for making the alteration.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) referred to a possibility of getting over the difficulty on a further stage of the Bill. But that is the trouble, there is not likely to be a further stage on which anything can be done about it. This provision does not seem to be water-tight. The right hon. Gentleman just now said something about a matter of discretion. Is there any possibility under this Clause of his using that discretion in further cases which quite obviously are unintentional and are due to lack of time in getting to know the different points? Perhaps his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would help him on this point of using his discretion to deal with matters in the event of any difficulties arising, such as have been mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch. I put that point to the right hon. Gentleman with a view to his getting out of this difficulty, because the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do here what is right and he does not want to catch anybody unnecessarily.

The Minister has made us a promise that if we can find any actual case in which payment has been made, he will consider the matter further. I take it that by that he means that he might move an Amendment in lieu of this Lords Amendment. That could still be done, and we shall investigate to see whether there are any such cases. As he remembers, this was a long argument of principle as well as of actual cases, and because a director did something that was perfectly legal on the day that the Bill was published, it would be very hard if subsequently he were proceeded against. Even though no actual cases arise, it is right for the House to point to the undesirability of making these dates coincide as they do here. I should prefer these dates to be staggered a little. I do not like the date for a Bill becoming effective, to be the date upon which it is published. The people should have time to consider the publications which come out.

I think the Lord Chancellor held the same views, because on the occasion when this was discussed he made the classic and specific declaration of policy, "If I am strongly pressed I am told that I may accept it, but I must be strongly pressed in a very few words." I think an invitation to loss of virtue has seldom been so flagrantly held out, and I only say that I am sure that the Lord Chancellor would never have said such a thing unless he were convinced that there was justice in the case advanced to him. Therefore, I trust that the Minister—not merely in respect of a particular case which we may or may not be able to ascertain—will say that it is not desirable that this coincidence of Parliamentary publication and statutory penalty should take place on the one date. I hope that he will examine this matter from both these points of view and possibly submit an Amendment in place of that which is about to be deleted.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 39, leave out "decides" and insert "decide."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I have lodged so many criticisms against the Government that I wish to congratulate them on having decided at length whether a tribunal is singular or plural.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Final payment of dividends and interest.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 30, leave out "Minister" and insert:

"President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales."

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Is this in pursuance of an undertaking or did it arise out of the discussion in another place?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that we discussed this matter in Committee, and I gave an undertaking that we would accept a suggestion that was then made. This is in pursuance of that undertaking.

I should like to say how pleased I am that this Amendment has been accepted. Anything is better than leaving a matter to the Minister at the present time, and, therefore, the Amendment cannot do anything but good. I congratulate the Government on having for once shown some modesty as well as some sense. It is so rare that one finds it that one must congratulate them heartily on the occasion.

As far as Scotland is concerned, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales deals with the case. We discussed this in Committee, and the suggestion was made that the Scottish Chartered Accountants were affiliated to this particular body and would be satisfied with any decisions made by the President of the Association.

It sounds an unconvincing contention. It may be so, but I beg the Minister, if he is looking into this, to look into that point also because I would hate to find that we had leaped literally from the frying pan into the fire, and that we started one of those fierce feuds which, in ignoring the tartan, we are almost bound to set on foot.

Question put, and agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 52, line 38, at end, insert new Clause "B"—(

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one hundred and forty-nine of the Companies Act, 1948, and the Eighth Schedule to that Act, the accounts to be laid before a company in general meeting may, in the case of an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act but not section eighteen thereof applies, be in the same form as the last accounts of the company so laid before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.

(2) Section one hundred and fifty of the Companies Act, 1948 (which requires that, in the case of a company having subsidiaries at the end of its financial year, group accounts within the meaning of that section shall be laid before the company) shall not apply in the case of an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act but not section eighteen thereof applies and the group accounts of a holding company, not being an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act applies, need not deal with a subsidiary which is an undertaker to whom this Part of this Act but not section eighteen thereof applies.

(3) The Minister may by order provide for the modification of any local enactment which—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The object of this new Clause is to comply with the undertaking I gave on the Report stage. It was pointed out that a good deal of unnecessary labour would have to be undertaken if undertakings which were going to vest in the boards had to comply with the requirements of the new Companies Act, that is to say, the 1947 Act and the 1948 consolidation Aft, in the matter of the preparation of accounts. Schedule 8 of the 1948 Act prescribes that companies' accounts shall take a certain form, and it was thought that if the various undertakings which were going to vest had to reconstitute their accounts in order to comply with that, it would simply mean a considerable waste of labour. That is what Subsection (1) does.

Subsection (2) equally relieves undertakings which are going to vest from the obligation to file group accounts when they own subsidiaries, and this again is to avoid what would be a completely unnecessary expenditure of labour. Subsection (3) equally contains certain minor alleviating provisions, with the same end in view. That is the whole object of the Clause. It is to save labour on the part of those responsible for undertakings.

So far as I can see, after consultation with my hon. Friends, this Amendment does meet the undertaking given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is certainly not desirable that a great deal of purely unnecessary work should be done merely to comply with certain regulations. I think that the power of waiver is being exercised in this case, and I support this new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 40.—(Revenues of Area Boards and Gas Council to be sufficient to meet outgoings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 52, line 45, at end insert:

"and if and so long as they exercise their powers to manufacture plant, gas fittings or coke fittings, they shall so exercise those powers as to secure that the revenues arising from such exercise are not less than sufficient to meet their outgoings in respect thereof properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The position is, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, that in Committee there was some discussion in relation to plant manufacture, and the point was made that plant manufacture should not be subsidised out of the revenues of the gas undertaking itself. This Amendment puts that matter in its proper perspective, so that boards engaged in the manufacture of plant and fittings shall have that side of their business standing on its own feet and it shall not be subsidised out of gas revenues or any other funds of the boards. This Amendment, I think, meets the spirit of the discussion on Committee.

I think it does fulfil the undertaking which the Parliamentary Secretary himself gave to the Committee. We are grateful to him for the general way in which he has made it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 45.—(Central guarantee fund.)

Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 46, leave out from "in" to end of subsection, and insert "Trustee Securities."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Under the Bill as drafted, the Gas Council, with the approval of the Minister and the Treasury, were to invest the moneys in the Central Guarantee Fund in approved Government securities or Government guaranteed securities. Under the Amendment, the Council could invest the Fund in any trustee securities without reference to the Minister or the Treasury.

When this was discussed in another place, it was felt that a case had not been made out, and hon. Members who were in the Committee will remember the long discussions in which the Financial Secretary was involved in relation to "Daltons" and so on. The purpose of the Central Guarantee Fund is to step into the breach if a board or the Council default on their obligations to service British Gas Stock or to make the periodical payments to local authorities under the "net debt" arrangements.

In our view, by far the greater liability would be in respect of British Gas Stock, and as this will be guaranteed by the Treasury, the fund is, in effect, what one might, term the first line of defence for the Treasury, as well as an' insurance for the boards. I do not think there is any dispute that the fund ought to be held in some secure, stable and readily realisable form. These are requirements which obviously suggest Government securities. There have been precedents for this. The Coal Act of 1938 provided that the Coal Commissioners Reserve Fund should be invested, with the approval of the Board of Trade, in Government securities.

It seems to us, therefore, that the Amendment is not really necessary. At best, even on the main argument put forward both in Committee and in the other place, the only freedom offered is that of investing a limited sum in a restricted range of securities. We do not regard the Amendment as one which helps the Bill in any way. We feel that adequate safeguards are made in relation to the investment of this fund, and it is for that reason that I ask the House to disagree with the Lords.

The House ought to be very clear on this issue before we divide. The Parliamentary Secretary wishes to put back the original words of the Bill which say that the only thing the central guarantee fund can be invested in are: Council not to be able to invest any of its money without the permission of the Minister and the Treasury?

Let us follow the matter a little further. Recently there were discussions in this House about the Unemployment Fund. If I understood him correctly, the Parliamentary Secretary has just said that one of the major objects was that all the investments should be in such a form that they were stable and realisable. Let us consider what has happened in regard to the one fund of which we know something recently, the unemployment fund. There the Treasury have poured the money available to them into the most un-realisable and unstable forms of security. Never was there a time when so much money has been put by the Treasury into the very things that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary say that they wish to avoid.

Let us also remember that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said a few nights ago, that he thought that he was perfectly right and justified in losing money in this fund to support the Government's cheap money policy. I am not going to argue the cheap money policy, though it is quite obvious that a policy of cheap money, like any other doctrine, can be carried too far. Are we seriously going to allow this money to swell the funds at the disposal of the Treasury merely for fulfilling whatever may be the temporary policy of the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If the Parliamentary Secretary really means the Gas Council to be independent, if he really means that these funds ought to be in a stable and realisable form, if the Gas Council should be able to follow its own investment policy, not interfered with by the Treasury, I think the Parliamentary Secretary, instead of asking this House to disagree with the Lords Amendment, ought to be the first to agree with it. For these reasons, I hope that my hon. Friends will not agree to the Motion.

I hope that this Amendment from another place will be accepted, not rejected, and I want to call attention to the fact that there are really two points involved. The Government are trying to insist not only on this central reserve fund being invested in Government securities, but in Government securities approved by the Treasury. I think there are the greatest objections to both those provisions. In the first place, all through this Bill, I have striven to try to raise to some extent the status of the Gas Council. I believe the Minister is sympathetic, and that the original conception of the Gas Council, which was largely based on the views expressed in the Heyworth Report, has to some extent been amended. It has become a thing of more substance, and not entirely a nebulous centre with no power at all. I am sure that is right, and I do not believe that the gas industry, when nationalised, will be able to maintain its own in the hierarchy of the nationalised fuel industries unless its central Council has a more important position. I do not think we can afford to detract one jot or tittle of their power, but I believe that resistance to this Amendment will do so.

I think it is rather derogatory that a council of the importance and with the responsibilities of the Gas Council should not be allowed to choose in what securities to place its own reserves. After all, we are not allowing a very great difference of choice to them—only between Government securities approved by the Treasury and trustee securities—and many people have thought for a long time that the list of trustee securities is far too narrow and is far from being a class that contains possibly dangerous investments. It is far too grandmotherly and ought to be very much expanded, because it is extremely onerous on trustees who find themselves restricted within its narrow limits. I think that proves that we are not asking for any great latitude for the Gas Council, but only that they should have a choice of securities within a group of securities which is now a very narrow one. We only ask that they should be masters in their own house.

I feel that the Treasury has far too much to do with this, and that it has a tendency to have its fingers involved in too many things. In every direction, the Treasury is 10th to give up power and always keen to extend it, and I think it should be restrained when these powers are not necessary. In the Debate in another place, the Lord Chancellor quoted as a precedent the reserve funds of the coal industry, although I do not think they are quite comparable. This proposal avoids a certain amount of grandmotherliness and saves the Treasury from assuming unnecessary and interfering powers. There is still ample protection for the investors, in view of the fact that they are limited to trustee securities, and that is surely narrow enough without imposing a still narrower limitation and confining them to Government securities approved by the Treasury.

8.45 p.m.

It is obvious why the Treasury are opposed to this Amendment. If we adopted this Amendment there would be a wider choice of places where money could be invested. The Treasury are acting in this matter, as they have acted on so many occasions in the past, as the worst type of monopolist; they are always trying to force money into such a position that they and they alone can manipulate and control that money. If we retain the original words, one is only able to invest in United Kingdom securities. That would seem to me to prohibit entirely the Gas Council from investing any money in Canadian Government securities, for instance. I do not think anyone would deny that.

Do the Government really say that Dominion securities, with their very high standard, are of such a nature that an institution like the Gas Council should not be allowed to invest its money in them? Such a prohibition would be entirely against the best' interests of the nation. In that case, the Government are deliberately preventing the Dominions from borrowing money in the ordinary way as they have been able to do in the past. Apparently, the Government wish to divert the money in every single instance into those things which they themselves have approved rather than into ordinary trustee securities. There have already been a number of complaints in this Debate about the narrowness of Government securities. I should have thought that there were many British industries in which some of the money could be invested to the advantage of those industries.

What the Government are asking us to do is ensure that any money which comes into these great companies is kept within the most narrow and confined range possible, so that the Government can have control of it, without any regard to what may be the best interests of the country.

They know perfectly well that that kind of thing will have to be altered, and, indeed, will be altered in the next Parliament, but they want to build up an entirely artificial position as regards money in the country.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Financial Secretary, or the Solicitor-General, who I think is dealing with the legal side of this question, whether under this Clause, as the Government are asking us to retain it, the Gas Council is able to invest its funds in local authority funds. That is a technical and legal question. I imagine they can do so because, presumably, those funds have some sort of Government approval. I think we ought to know, because when money is taken away from the local authority, through the taking over of their gas undertaking, and then all of it is handed to the Gas Council, I think at least some of the money might be re-invested in the local authority funds or loaned to the local authority who have built up the original gas works. I think that is a most important matter.

As no one, apart from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), is representing the Scottish side of this matter, may I ask a couple of questions of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Has he examined this Amendment which another place wishes to make? It would be a tremendous advantage to Scotland. Has he adopted the cause of Scotland in the Cabinet, and sought to find out why the Cabinet are trying to prevent Scotland from getting its fair share? There are many trustee securities in Scotland which might have some share of this money, whereas if we keep to the narrow Treasury outlook I do not think Scotland will get a look into it. Hydro-electric power might be considered for instance. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland might tell us the position. I think it is essential, when we are dealing with a vast sum of money like this and dealing with a matter of this kind, which affects Scotland as well as England, that we should be sure that the Treasury will not take the point of view of England alone, but that both Wales and Scotland will get a fair share.

As there is no Welsh Member present, I strongly advocate that the Welsh trustee securities in big towns such as Cardiff should have a fair chance of getting some of the money which has been created really through their own industries. That is a most important matter and, so far as I know, a matter which has not been considered at all. I wish there were other hon. Members present who would be able to help me on these two particular points. They are small points, but we must put the Scottish and Welsh point of view, because local authorities there are very interested. Glasgow has a very good representative from the Universities here at the moment, but I do not see in the Chamber some of the hon. Members who generally talk for some time from the other side, on behalf of Glasgow.

I think we should have a very clear assurance that this money can be used, if necessary, to help local authorities. Without any offensiveness at all, I would say that it is apparent at present that if we accept the Amendment from another place we shall get a wider discretion. As the Bill left this House, all we were doing was to tie up money in such a way that the Government could control it and could prohibit the Gas Council from making the wisest and best use of its money. I see I have a considerable amount of support from the back benchers opposite who now, at any rate, have joined with me in agreeing that the Government are incapable of handling the money. Therefore, I say that from every angle it is clear that the Government should not be allowed to carry on with this monopolistic control of money which they are now establishing and which is quite as bad as any other monopoly, such as that in the willow industry.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is too optimistic in hoping to convert the Government. The fact of the matter is that the Government intend to do all these things. These funds were previously spread over the country under the control of elected bodies or of powerful companies. This control is being taken away. The funds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay quite rightly said, of a great city such as Glasgow, a great city such as Edinburgh, great cities such as Leeds and Cardiff, whose city treasurers looked after and managed with the civic authorities, funds previously entrusted to the citizens, are now being swept into the control of the central authority. It is all one with the abolition of the electricity authorities and the substitution of nominated authorities; and the attempt made by the other place to restore a certain amount of that local control is now being put an end to by the will of the Government tonight. And for what? For the purpose that the Treasury should have the discretion as to which of its own stocks should be supported by investment by the Council. Frankly, is that a very good idea? It is putting an undue share of the control of this country's affairs into the hands of the small number of men to whom these affairs are continually being more and more entrusted.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has now been for a long time in his high office, must be, surely, well acquainted with the difficulties of this increasing centralisation. The fact is that the judgment of a number of different men, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but averaging out, is going to be lost. I remember a famous occasion when a local authority wanted to raise some money, and came to the Treasury. It had been unable to raise money before. It was in fact, a Scottish local authority. The Treasury suggested that there was a financier in the City called Hatry who was good at raising money, and suggested that it should consult him and have his advice. That was a striking example of bad advice, but such advice is quite likely to be given. If only one person is to give all the advice about financial affairs, that one person may be wrong, and if that one person is wrong, great disasters will occur.

But the Government are settled in their ways. I do not intend to recapitulate the sad story of the other funds which the Government have very rashly handled, to put it no higher. I only say that, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, this is certainly no vendetta against the unhappy Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because we press it just as strongly against the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Government are at present engrossing too much power into their own hands, disregarding too much the average which is caused by a number of transactions taking place all over the country. They are thereby risking a great deal, and they are thereby also putting into their own hands power to say what particular type of securities—and their own stocks—should be stimulated at the moment. These are dangerous powers to take, and this is a dangerous course for the Government to pursue, and, therefore, we shall certainly divide against them.

9.0 p.m.

I think that we can dispose of this point with very little trouble. Hon. Members opposite have been making very heavy weather of what is a very tiny thing. What we are doing in this Clause is to set up a central guarantee fund. It can never amount to more than £5 million in all. If we remember how widespread the work of the Gas Council and the area boards will be, that is a very modest sum indeed. The fund is to be set up and contributed to at the rate of not more than £1 million a year, in order that it should be available, if the Gas Council or the area boards were to fail to meet their obligations to service British Gas Stock and to make the appropriate payments to the local authorities whose assets and liabilities have been taken over. That being so, and as the Treasury on behalf of the Government guarantee the gas stock, it is only common sense that they should have some say in how the guarantee fund shall be invested. We suggest—I think quite properly—that the money should be invested in stock which the Treasury approve, and that it should be Government or Government guaranteed stock.

I do not want to give way now, because I intend to sit down in a moment as there will be nothing more for me to say. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) talked on and on and on about nothing. I have often thought that it is a pity that he cannot sit on this side of the House and watch himself speaking. If he could, and if he could see the boredom, the utter boredom, on the faces of his hon. Friends, it would be on very rare occasions that he would address the House.

That is all that there is to this particular proposal. The Division in another place was 40 votes to 14—and I would remind the House once more that the effective membership of the other place is now about 830—so there cannot have been a great deal of excitement about this particular Amendment. What was suggested by another place was that the Gas Council should be allowed to invest these moneys in trustee stocks instead of in Government or Government guaranteed stocks. I believe that to be going too wide. If the fear is, as it may well be, that this Amendment was moved because there is a feeling that the Government will invest these sums in irredeemable or very long-dated stock, now colloquially called "Daltons," I can give the House the assurance that that is not intended. We do not intend to invest these sums in very long-dated or irredeemable securities.

They will be invested in much shorter dated funds, and it is only when we come to other funds, about which I cannot speak now, that we think that the long-dated stocks are a suitable and good investment. We think that it is right and proper that this money should not be put into very long-dated securities. If an assurance in that direction is needed, I can give it.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 84.

Division No. 273.]

AYES.

[9.5 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Delargy, H. J

Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Diamond, J.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Dodds, N. N.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Attewell, H. C.

Donovan, T.

Jay, D. P. T.

Awbery, S. S.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Ayles, W. H.

Dumpleton, C. W

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

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Durbin, E F. M.

Jenkins, R. H.

Bacon, Miss A

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Baird, J.

Edelman, M

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Balfour, A.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon N. (Caerphilly)

Keenan, W.

Barstow, P G.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Kenyon, C.

Barton, C.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Battley, J. R.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Kirby, B. V.

Bechervaise, A E

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Belcher, J W.

Ewart, R.

Leslie, J. R.

Benson, G.

Fairhurst, F.

Levy, B. W.

Berry, H.

Farthing, W. J.

Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

Beswick, F.

Fernyhough, E.

Longden, F.

Binns, J.

Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E)

Lyne, A. W.

Blackburn, A. R

Foot, M. M

McAdam, W.

Blenkinsop, A.

Forman, J. C

McAllister, G.

Boardman, H.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

McEntee, V. La T.

Bottomley, A G.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McGhee, H. G.

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H W.

Gaitskell, Rt Hon. H. T. N

Mack, J. D.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Ganley, Mrs. C S.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

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

Gibson, C. W

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

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Gilzean, A.

McLeavy, F.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Gooch, E. G.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Goodrich, H. E.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)

Burden, T. W.

Grey, C. F.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Burke, W. A.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Carmichael, James

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Gunter, R. J.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Champion, A. J.

Guy, W. H.

Mayhew, C. P.

Chater, D.

Haire, John E (Wycombe)

Mellish, R. J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Messer, F.

Cluse, W. S.

Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R

Middleton, Mrs. L

Cobb, F. A.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Mikardo, Ian

Cocks, F. S.

Hardman, D. R

Mitchison, G. R.

Coldrick, W.

Hardy, E. A.

Monslow, W.

Collindridge, F.

Harrison, J.

Moody, A. S.

Collins, V. J.

Haworth, J.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Morley, R.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Herbison, Miss M.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

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

Hicks, G

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Mort, D. L.

Cove, W. G.

Holman, P.

Moyle, A.

Crawley, A

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Murray J. D.

Daines, P

Hoy, J.

Naylor, T. E.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

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

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

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

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

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

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Oliver, G. H.

Orbach, M.

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

Titterington, M F

Paget, R. T.

Shurmer, P.

Tolley, L.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Pargiter, G. A.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Turner-Samuels, M

Parkin, B. T

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Pearson, A.

Simmons, C. J.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Peart, T. F.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Viant, S. P.

Perrins, W.

Skinnard, F. W.

Walker, G. H.

Popplewell, E.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Warbey, W. N.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Weitzman, D.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Price, M. Philips

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

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Proctor, W T.

Solley, L J

West, D. G.

Pursey Comdr. H

Sorensen, R. W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Randall, H E

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)

Ranger, J

Sparks, J. A.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Rankin, J.

Steele, T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Rees-Williams, D. R

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Stokes, R. R.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Richards, R.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Strauss, Rt. Hon G R. (Lambeth)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Robens, A

Stross, Dr. B.

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Sylvester, G. O.

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

Rogers, G. H. R.

Symonds, A. L.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wise, Major F. J.

Royle, C.

Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Sargood, R.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Woods, G. S.

Scollan, T.

Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

Yates, V. F.

Scott-Elliott, W

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Segal, Dr. S.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Thurtle, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Sharp, Granville

Tiffany, S.

Mr. Snow and

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Timmons, J

Mr. George Wallace.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Orr-Ewing, I L.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Grimston, R. V.

Osborne, C.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

Pitman, I. J.

Beechman, N. A.

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

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

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

Hogg, Hon Q.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bower, N.

Hollis, M. C.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

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

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N J.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Byers, Frank

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

Roberts, P G. (Ecclesall)

Clarke, Col. R. S

Keeling, E. H

Ropner, Col. L

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

Langford-Holt, J.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Crowder, Capt. John E

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Smithers, Sir W.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Darling. Sir W Y.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Sutcliffe, H.

Digby, S. W.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A F

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M S

Turton, R. H.

Drayson, G. B

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Wadsworth, G.

Drewe, C.

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Duthie, W S.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Mellor, Sir J.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Molson, A H. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D. P M

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cir'cester)

Gage, C.

Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Nutting, Anthony

Mr. Studholme and

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H.

Brigadier Mackeson.

CLAUSE 57 (Provisions as to pension rights.)

Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 34, after "section, "insert:

shall be made within twelve months after the vesting date and any regulations made under this section."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

9.15 p.m.

I should like to put a question on this Amendment as, a few minutes ago, the Financial Secretary had no answer to some points I made, and lost his temper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, if Hon. Members opposite had been here to hear the right hon. Gentleman, they would know that what I have just said is true. Why is it necessary to make this change in the date? We have a right to know. Why was a mistake made after the long proceedings on this Bill upstairs and elsewhere? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have attended so sparsely today, and have taken so little interest in the affairs of their con- stituents, will be glad to know that this is one of the Amendments we are accepting from another place.

There was considerable discussion in Committee about the making of regulations, especially in relation to the time limit that ought to be put upon them. Two Opposition Amendments were put forward and accepted by the Government, which obliged the Minister to make the original pension regulations within 12 months of the vesting date. Those Amendments were to line 34, in page 72, and this Amendment is consequential upon that.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 58.—(Co-partnership schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 2, after "undertaking" insert:

"or to take part in any machinery for promoting industrial co-operation between employers and employed."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment ought to be rejected for a number of reasons. This Clause deals with co-partnership schemes, and it will be seen from an Amendment to be moved subsequently that we are providing for the continuation of these schemes until such time as, in accordance with Clause 56, the parties—that is, the workers and the area boards—have given consideration to the changed circumstances and have made new arrangements for those schemes. Tied up with co-partnership schemes, that is, the sharing of profits, are a number of other schemes, welfare and the like, and the subsequent Amendment also provides for those schemes to be carried on until such time as a change is made under Clause 56.

The Amendment made by another place ought not to be included in the co-partnership Clause. It would be extremely difficult for my right hon. Friend in making regulations, which he must make, to take into consideration the many varieties that exist in schemes of that character in relation to industrial co-operation. Indeed, it would be well-nigh impossible for him to make amendments to these regulations because they are so many and varied. Therefore, it would hardly be a practical proposition. In any case, if hon. Members will look at Clause 56, they will see that machinery for industrial co-operation exists. It has nothing to do with co-partnership, except in so far as many of the schemes were dealt with by that co-partnership, but they are not necessarily part and parcel of it. Anyone could stop profit-sharing without stopping some of the other schemes which go with it, and it seems to us that Clause 56, which gives that wide flexibility between worker and employer—in this case the trade unions and the Gas Council or area boards—gives all the power needed to meet every single case of industrial co-operation.

Therefore, it would be wrong to agree to this Amendment, and it is unnecessary to put it into Clause 56, which deals with industrial co-operation, because sufficient power is already in the Bill. I draw the attention of the House to the opening words of Clause 56, which says:

The Parliamentary Secretary, in some of the opening words of his speech, displayed the fact that he had not the least conception of what co-partnership is. He began by saying that co-partnership was the sharing of profits. Co-partnership is more than the sharing of profits; it is ownership by the workers of part of the works in which they are engaged and it has other attractions, including welfare schemes. The sharing of profits, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, is a minor part of it. During the war many of the co-partnership schemes went on without any sharing of profits, and at the end of the war the schemes were as strong and were working as satisfactorily as they were before.

The Parliamentary Secretary put to us some reasons why this Amendment should be rejected. First, he said that there were such a variety of schemes that it would be difficult to find a way of fitting them in so as to avoid a general clashing. May I remind him that areas are going to be broken up into districts, and what is likely is that one area will represent one company only. The leading company in co-partnership is the South Metropolitan, which might easily form a district by itself, and if it were not the South Metropolitan only it might be the South Metropolitan with the South Suburban joined to it. They are old friends who have worked very well together.

The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that Clause 56 covered everything. I want to know whether, under Clause 56, there is consultative machinery ready to operate at once. There are hopes of it, but I do not think there is any consultative machinery existing at all at present. The first two lines of Clause 56 read:

I would point out that the Clause, if thus amended, would still give plenty of latitude, and would be very elastic. There would be ample scope for alteration, if the Minister found that things were not working well. The Subsection is already very elastic, and with the addition of our Amendment would enable some use to be made of what will be left of co-partnership schemes.

The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was rather like an iceberg. I do not know whether hon. Members know anything about icebergs, which have three characteristics. The first is that they are very chilling to everybody around them. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech on the subject of co-partnership was very chilling. The second characteristic is that an iceberg is generally enveloped in haze. I am afraid that I thought the hon. Gentleman's speech was too. The third thing is that we see only about one-seventh of the iceberg above the water, the remaining six-sevenths, much the most dangerous part, being under water. I believe that six-sevenths of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was under water, and did not appear on the surface. I believe that the real reason why the Amendment is being refused is that many of back bench supporters want to see the last shreds of co-partnership got rid of at once, and as soon as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I get my answer.

It will be remembered that in the early days of the Bill the Minister met a number of co-partners. They hoped that a lot was going to be done for them. Nothing happened. On the day preceding the Second Reading a number of co-partners, including Mr. Tom Williamson—he is no longer a Member of this House so I can give his name—met the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister opposite and other Members of the Cabinet. Since that time co-partnership seems to have been doomed. Mr. Williamson made this remark:

I believe that if the trades unions go on in this way they will first have to produce an inquisition. Then there will be a reformation and they will not gain by it. That will be a pity, because they still have much good work to do. I feel it is unfortunate that they are so antagonistic to the principles of co-partnership which is trying to do the same thing as they are, but in a slightly different way. The Amendment was moved by a noble Lord who has the interests of the working men very much at heart. It is a good Amendment and should not be cast aside like this. It is wanted as an earnest in this new nationalised industry of what it is hoped that the relations will be.

9.30 p.m.

My hon. and gallant Friend was rather unnecessarily genial and kind-hearted in describing the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary as having any resemblance to an iceberg. On an evening like this, an iceberg would be infinitely more agreeable to contemplate than was the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, it is with a feeling that the situation is somewhat unusual that I find myself differing from my hon. and gallant Friend. I was very disappointed in the speech for two reasons. In the first place, the whole attitude, of the Parliamentary Secretary it seemed to me, augured very ill for industrial relations under the new gas councils. His whole attitude was wishing to see swept away the very fine development of industrial co-operation which exists at the moment, and it was a somewhat depressing anticipation of what is to come. Secondly, his speech depressed me because, quite obviously, he did not understand the Bill. His attitude was that this Amendment was unnecessary because all the matters with which it is concerned were taken care of already by Clause 56.

If the Parliamentary Secretary would look at the Bill, which I am sure would be a novel experience for him at this stage, he would see that Clause 58, to which the present Amendment relates, deals only with the interim arrangements. It deals in particular with the existing industry which, to hon. Members on this side of the House certainly seem to be valuable, until such time as other machinery can be evolved. That would seem to be a wholly reasonable attitude. Why should it be necessary to destroy any existing machinery for industrial co-operation until, at any rate, its successor has been worked out?

The attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary was that this machinery should be destroyed regardless of whether or not a successor had been evolved. That seems to be a wholly destructive, unhelpful and, from the long-term point of view, most unfortunate attitude for the hon. Gentleman to adopt. If, as I hope, he has now looked at the Bill and he appreciates that all that is sought to be done is to maintain the existing machinery until Clause 56 can be brought into operation, then is there any reason why that machinery should not be maintained for the interim period? I adopt the Parliamentary Secretary's own argument that under Clause 56 long-term machinery can be produced. Accepting everything that he said, I still ask why, until that machinery has been produced, the existing well-tried and satisfactory machinery should not be maintained.

There is one further point, namely, that it might not be possible to put back some of the machinery by Clause 56. The Clause, as it stands without this Amendment, includes the words, "to participate in the profits." There are schemes of co-partnership where the share of the workpeople depends not on profits but on a sliding-scale on the sale of gas. It may be that that is covered by the words "to participate in profits," but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance on that point. It is important for those employees of gas undertakings who depend not on a share in the profits but on a sliding-scale formula. It is true that two of the schemes where the workpeople share in the money produced by the sliding-scale are called profit-sharing schemes, but I doubt whether, in law, the workers are in fact sharing in the profits.

Of course, the main reason for this Amendment must be that one does not want to cause a break in the machinery of co-operation and then to find that it has to be reintroduced under Clause 56. It is extremely difficult to see why the Government object to this Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he agrees with object of the Amendment. If he agrees with the object, he must also agree with the subsidiary object that it should keep going. Clause 56 does not allow that, because it says that it has to start again. I consider that Clause 56 is not sufficient without the addition of this Amendment.

It is interesting to notice the retreat which the Government have had to make throughout on the question of co-partnership. The Minister will probably remember how, in his Second Reading speech, he said that all co-partnership schemes must stop. The House will remember how Mr. Williamson expressed the view that co-partnership was against the best interests of trade unions. I do not think that that is the general trade union view; it is a partial trade union view. The right hon. Gentleman found that there was a likelihood of losing a good many votes by persisting in that course, and he had to agree to the other course—and he was actually hastened by the activities of the Opposition—of allowing co-partnership schemes to extend. He would be well advised to allow these schemes to remain, and it is for that reason that I ask the Government, in the interests of the workpeople, to accept the Amendment.

I think this is a useful Amendment and I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not necessary. Clause 58 provides for the temporary extension of profit-sharing schemes, and the object of this Amendment is to extend co-partnership schemes in rather a broader sense than that. Some of us on several occasions during our discussions have made the point that co-partnership is something more than profit-sharing. I did so myself, at some length and, while speaking, I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary looked across at me with interest and attention. He had his pencil poised and I thought he was noting the points I made from time to time, and I had hoped that I had made some impression on him, but I am afraid now that it must have been a facade of politeness.

We want to emphasise once more that co-partnership is something more than profit-sharing, and that it includes a share in ownership and joint consultation. In any nationalised undertaking, profit-sharing is obviously a precarious basis for any scheme, and, incidentally, I am afraid that it might even apply to the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons. Under this Bill, a share in ownership has unfortunately got to go, but joint consultation should and must continue. We maintain that Clause 56, to which the Parliamentary Secretary called our attention, is not sufficient as it stands. The Minister has said, at various stages of this Bill, that the forms of co-partnership will require to be changed, and there is no dispute about that. We entirely agree, but we maintain that, with an industry like this, it is a thousand pities to discard and start afresh. We say that, in cases like this, we should keep going, so far as we can, what is already working and adapt it as necessary.

The main object of the Amendment is to provide for the temporary continuation of schemes for promoting industrial co-operation. I do not think that is a vague term at all; it seems to me to be a perfectly clear definition of the purpose, and I cannot understand the very heavy weather which the Parliamentary Secretary made about the difficulty of administering it. It is a continuation of the present element of joint consultation in the various co-partnership schemes on a temporary basis, until they can be expanded and developed to meet the new circumstances, about which I am concerned. The object of the Amendment seems to me to be entirely within the spirit of Clause 58 and within its general intentions, and I cannot see why the Minister has decided that it is an Amendment which he cannot accept.

9.45 p.m.

It is not so much the argument as the atmosphere which the Government have created which fills us with misgiving on this side of the House. It is obvious, and it was made very clear by the applause from the other side of the House, that the Government's object is to destroy co-partnership. If that is the Government's attitude, any device or scheme intended to promote or prolong its life is, from their point of view, obnoxious, and we must take it that they are doing this not by accident but by intention, and by intention from what we think are rather unworthy motives. It seems that there is a certain jealousy of the very considerable achievements which have been accomplished by co-partnership, along the line of the great organisations of employers and employed. It is quite true that it is not, perhaps, in the main stream of the development of industrial relations in this country, but, for all that, it was a hopeful, novel and interesting line, and it is a thousand pities that it should be trodden down with so little concern by the Government in this determined attitude which they have adopted. That augurs rather badly for the future of any non-orthodox experiment in co-operation in the widest sense.

I do not think that the last word has been said on industrial relations; I do not think the last word was said in the nineteenth century organisations. They have done very great things. We are very greatly indebted to them; indeed, hon.

Members in my own party in the past have done very great things in forwarding the organisation of the trade union movement. It was, in fact, a Conservative Prime Minister who, first of all, so to speak, gave the franchise and the official recognition to the trade union movement, but I do not think that is everything that can be said. I do not intend to prolong the discussion. We simply feel that it is a thousand pities that the Government are taking literally a reactionary step—a step which is closing the door to the possibility of a fruitful development. We regret it now, and we believe that the Government and the country as a whole will regret it in years to come.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 91.

Division No. 274.]

AYES.

[9.48 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Cove, W. G

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Crawley, A

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Allen, A. C. (Besworth)

Daines, P

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Attewell, H. C

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Hardman, D R

Awbery, S. S

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

Hardy, E. A.

Ayles, W. H.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Harrison, J

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Haworth, J

Bacon, Miss A

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Baird, J.

Delargy, H. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Balfour, A.

Diamond, J.

Hobson, C. R.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J

Dodds, N. N

Holman, P.

Barstow, P. G.

Donovan, T.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Barton, C.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich

Hoy, J.

Battley, J. R.

Dumpleton, C. W.

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

Bechervaise, A. E.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Benson, G.

Edelman, M

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Berry, H.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Beswick, F.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Binns, J.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Blackburn, A. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Blankinsop, A.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Jay, D. P. T.

Boardman, H.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Bottomley, A. G.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

Bowden, Fig. Offr H. W.

Ewart, R.

Jenkins, R. H.

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

Fairhurst, F.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Farthing, W. J

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Fernyhough, E.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

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

Keenan, W.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Foot, M. M.

Kenyon, C.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Forman, J. C

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Burden, T. W.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

King, E. M.

Burke, W. A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Kirby, B. V.

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

Gaitskell, Rt Hon. H. T N

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Carmichael, James

Ganley, Mrs. C S.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Gibson, C. W.

Leslie, J. R.

Champion, A. J.

Gilzean, A.

Lever, N. H.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Levy, B. W.

Cobb, F. A.

Gooch, E. G.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

cocks, F. S

Goodrich, H. E.

Lindgren, G. S

Coldrick, W.

Greenwood, A W. J (Heywood)

Longden, F.

Collingdridge, F

Grey, C. F.

Lyne, A. W.

Collins, V. J.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

McAdam, W.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

McAllister, G.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

McEntee, V. La T.

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

Gunter, R. J.

McGhee, H. G.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Guy, W. H.

Mack, J. D.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Symonds, A. L.

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

Price, M. Philips

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

McLeavy, F.

Proctor, W T.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Pursey Comdr. H

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Randall, H. E

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Ranger, J.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)

Rankin, J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Thurtle, Ernest

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Richards, R.

Tiffany, S.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Timmons, J.

Marquand, H. A.

Robens, A

Titterington, M F

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Tolley, L.

Mathers, Rt Hon. George

Rogers, G. H. R.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Mayhew, C. P.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Turner-Samuels, M

Mellish, R. J.

Royle, C.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Messer, F.

Sargood, R.

Viant, S. P.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Scollan, T.

Walkden, E

Mikardo, Ian

Scott-Elliott, W.

Walker, G. H.

Mitchison, G. R

Segal, Dr. S.

Warbey, W. N.

Monslow, W.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Watkins, T. E.

Moody, A. S.

Sharp, Granville

Weitzman, D.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Morley, R.

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

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Shurmer, P.

West, D. G.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Mort, D. L.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Moyle, A.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Murray J. D.

Simmons, C J.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Skeffington, A. M.

Wilkins, W. A.

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

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

Skinnard, F. W.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

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

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

O'Brien, T.

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

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

Oliver, G. H.

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

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Orbach, M.

Solley, L. J.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Paget, R. T.

Sorensen, R. W.

Wise, Major F. J.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Pargiter, G. A.

Sparks, J. A.

Woods, G. S.

Parkin, B. T.

Steele, T.

Yates, V. F.

Pearson, A.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Pearl, T. F

Stokes, R. R.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Perrins, W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon J

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Popplewell, E.

Stross, Dr. B.

Mr. Snow and

Porter, E, (Warrington)

Sylvester, G. O.

Mr. George Wallace.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Harden, J. R. E

Pickthorn, K.

Amory, D. Heathcoal

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Pitman, I. J.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Beamish, Maj. T. V H

Hollis, M. C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Birch, Nigel

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

Raikes, H. V.

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

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bower, N.

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

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

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Keeling, E. H.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W. H

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Byers, Frank

Langford-Holt, J.

Ropner, Col. L.

Clarke, Col. R. S

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Cooper-Key, E M.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Smithers, Sir W.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Cuthbert, W. N.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M S.

Sutcliffe, H.

Darling. Sir W. Y.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R

Teeling, William

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

McKie, J H. (Galloway)

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Drayson, G. B.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

Drewe, C.

Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

Turton, R. H.

Duthie, W. S.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wadsworth, G.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

Marsden, Capt. A.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Walker-Smith, D.

Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

Mellor, Sir J

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Molson, A. H. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Gage, C.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cir'cester)

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

Galbraith, Cmdr T. D

Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Nutting, Anthony

Mr. Studholme and

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Major Conant.

Grimston, R. V.

Osborne, C.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Lords Amendment: In page 79, line 39, at end insert new Clause "D"—

Nothing in this Act or in any regulations made, or direction given thereunder, shall limit the right of any person to choose such available source of fuel or power of different kinds as he considers most suitable to his needs.

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

My reasons for inviting the House to disagree with this Amendment, are, in brief, that it does nothing at all. It purports to prevent the Minister limiting, by the exercise of any power which is given to him under this Bill, the right of a person to choose an available source of fuel or power. He has, in any case, got no such power. Under the Bill, once there is an available source of fuel or power, then, so far as the Minister is concerned, the consumer's rights of access to it are governed by the express terms of the Third Schedule, and the Minister cannot interfere with his rights to that available source.

If hon. Members will bear in mind the provisions of the Third Schedule, they will know that these are provisions which state when and in what circumstances the consumer is to be entitled to demand a supply of gas. Broadly speaking, if his premises are within 25 yards of a gas main he can insist upon being supplied, subject to compliance with the necessary conditions, with a supply of gas; and if an area board fails to comply with that request in accordance with its statutory duty it becomes liable to a penalty. This is expressly provided for by the Third Schedule, and the Minister cannot interfere. All the Clause would do is to say that the Minister cannot interfere with something with which, in any case, he cannot interfere, and, therefore, it would be completely otiose.

After all, the scheme of the Act is quite clear. The area boards are under a duty to provide an efficient, economical supply of gas in the areas for which they are responsible. If there is, pursuant to the discharge of their duty, made available a source of gas supply, then the Minister cannot interfere at all. The consumer, if he finds himself within the three corners of the Third Schedule, can insist, as a matter of statutory right, on being furn- ished with a supply from that available source.

I do not think that I can advance the matter by repeating what I have said by way of argument, and that is that this Clause does precisely nothing, and simply says that the Minister cannot interfere with the access to an available supply. He cannot do that now, and for those reasons, and, in my submission, they are quite adequate to dispose of the Clause, I hope that the House will agree that it ought not to find its place in this Bill, that it is completely otiose and would only lead to obscurity, because every one would be wondering what it would mean, when in fact it has no meaning at all.

10.0 p.m.

I was surprised to hear the Solicitor-General deliver himself of that dictum not on a legal matter but on a technical one. The argument is much wider than the narrow one on which he tried to stand. The Minister has general powers of direction under national interest with regard to more than merely the supply of gas. He is dealing also with prices and quality and he has control over other forms of fuel and power. I appreciate the point which he made about the Third Schedule, and that if there was a house within a certain distance of a main, there would be a right of supply; but this matter goes far wider than that.

There have been cases in the past where competition between gas and electricity has tended to be eliminated by local authorities and others, and there was an Act of Parliament, the Gas Undertakings Act, 1934, passed with the express object of preventing local authorities from discriminating between various forms of fuel and power, and particularly with regard to price. The Solicitor-General did not apply himself—I listened very carefully—to the question of price. Obviously, it is right to deal with the question of price, just as much as with the question of supply.

Under the present arrangement, the Minister, by making different charges in the price of coal to different industries, can discriminate between one and the other. This has happened recently. The price of slack used by the electrical undertakings has been reduced, and the price of coal used by the gas undertakings has been increased within the last few months. That will obviously have a deteriorating effect on the price and supply of gas to consumers. That is a very real danger.

I can see the Minister, acting in his capacity as Minister of Fuel and Power over the Coal Board, saying, "I am going to discriminate between electricity and gas by charging a different price for one as against the other." Therefore, I think that the House has a very clear duty to see that there is no such discrimination in the competition between these two, three or four different sources of supply. I understand from the Solicitor-General that he agrees in principle that there should be competition. He did not go so far as to say so in his speech this evening, but I think that in other speeches by Government spokesmen it has been said that they agree with the principle of competition between electricity, gas and other forms of fuel and power. I should like to hear that undertaking reiterated tonight, because I think that it is important in view of what the Solicitor-General has said on this Amendment.

Paragraph 277 of the Heyworth Report states:

If that is quite clear, it goes a long way towards meeting the point which this Amendment is designed to cover; but it does not in any way answer the second point—that the Minister can, by manipulating the price, so affect the supply of gas that it will be more economic and convenient to use, say, electricity or something else. Unless we can have that assurance we shall have to ask very many and very searching questions in order to make clear that the points are covered as the Solicitor-General has stated.

I think that the Solicitor-General was, for once, a little excessively dogmatic in the way he attacked this Amendment. He is normally courteous, lucid and helpful, and that is why it seemed to me that his handling of this Amendment was, by his standards, unusual. Let me put it to him in this way. He dealt with the whole matter as if it were a question of the Minister discriminating between one fuel and another. Indeed, reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow will show that he used the words "the Minister" half a dozen times. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Amendment he will see that it is not limited to action by the Minister.

The Solicitor-General ignored the equally important subject matter of discrimination being possible under this Bill. This Bill—as no one knows better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman—is a complex and elaborate Measure with very wide ramifications. In the first place, it seems desirable to have in it a provision that under no part of it shall there be discrimination as between one form of fuel and another. Therefore, the matter cannot be dismissed simply by saying that the Minister has no power. What we are concerned to do, first, is to make clear that nowhere in this long and complicated Bill shall such discrimination be authorised.

Secondly, there is the question of the Minister, to which the Solicitor-General directed almost the whole of his argument On this point the matter is far from clear. Under Clause 7 the Minister has power to issue general directions. It would seem possible, on the face of it, that the Minister could, in certain circumstances where from the Ministry's point of view it was more economical to use, say, electricity than gas, issue a general direction to the board that gas should not be made available. It would seem that the Minister has power to do that, subject perhaps to some limitation under paragraph 8 of the Third Schedule in respect of a house within 25 yards of a main. Subject to that, I cannot myself see any restriction upon the Minister issuing such a direction.

There is the further point—whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates it or not—that there is outside this House a very considerable doubt about the consequences of the passage of this Bill into law, with the result that all the forms of fuel will be nationalised. Many people outside feel that with all forms of solid fuel, electricity and gas, in the hands of boards, themselves subject to directions by the same Minister, it may well be that there will be discrimination of a kind which has already existed in certain cases under some local authorities, as the Minister knows perfectly well. That disquiet would be much relieved if some such provision is put into the Bill. I would say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: if his only objection to this provision is, as it appears to be, merely that it takes the matter no further, rather than that it does active harm, I suggest that the psychological value of putting into this Bill a provision forbidding such discrimination is a factor not to be overlooked.

The Minister must face the fact that there is real disquiet outside; he must face the fact that people cannot but feel themselves a little helpless in the hands of what the Secretary of State for War so appropriately referred to as a trilogy—a tragedy in three acts—of coal, electricity and gas; that they feel themselves helpless when faced by that great monopoly, and that anything he can do to reduce that feeling of alarm will not only help to reassure the public, but will also help to give the implementation of this Measure a somewhat smoother passage than it is otherwise likely to have.

I support this Amendment and regret the attitude of the Government for several reasons. First, when it was raised originally in another place, there appeared to be a distinct suggestion that a number of small gas companies in rural areas would be closed and the works abolished, instead of the distribution system being kept in being and connected by high pressure mains with a more modern works where gas could be pro- duced cheaply. That appears to me to be a great waste of material, and would cause considerable hardship to those who in the past have always used gas.

Secondly, I believe, that in 1936 or 1937 this issue was fought out in a joint committee of the Lords and Commons, where the Gas Light and Coke Company brought a case against the municipal owner of an electricity works—a reverse case but the same principle—who insisted on only allowing electricity to be supplied. That case was won by the gas company, so that when this issue was considered before, the decision was in favour of the substance of this Amendment.

Lastly, I support this Amendment because of a small incident in my own constituency where, lately one of these new electricity boards has taken over a house that had both gas and electricity. It was a good installation and it has been taken up and replaced by electricity. Everyone is saying "What a tremendous waste of money. We cannot get gas cookers, we cannot get electricity laid on, and this house, which has been taken over by the electricity authority, is being changed over from gas to electricity quite unnecessarily, wasting money and plant which we should like to buy."

I should like the House to appreciate the difficulties of anybody seeking to negotiate with an area board for a gas supply. I have had certain experience in this connection and know the immense value which comes from its being clear in the Act that there is an obligation to supply. The fact that the area board is under no obligation whatever to supply unless already there is gas within 25 feet, puts the negotiator in a difficult position. What this Clause seeks to do is not to provide for surplusage, as the Solicitor-General calls it, but justice for the man who wishes to take a supply at a distance of more than 25 yards. We must remember that area boards will be getting out their plans for running grids or supplies in the various areas. Somebody will say, "I would like a supply in this neighbourhood, and I am prepared to pay for it." Under the Bill, as drawn, there is not even a moral obligation on the area board to supply in those circumstances and that, I submit, is not what this House wants.

10.15 p.m.

I think the principle is already covered in paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule where, for non-domestic use which is within 25 yards, if that use is so great that it requires a bigger supply main, the person demanding that supply has to pay what is a fair cost. The principle is, therefore, admitted, that if someone is prepared to pay a fair cost for the supply of that commodity he should be entitled, as of right, to have it. The real trouble here is that there is no such obligation on the area board, so far as I can see, to give the service in its area. I should be talking very differently if the Solicitor-General could show us where there is such an obligation to supply in that way, outside the 25-yard limit.

He will appreciate that jealousies occur, that people occasionally get at cross-purposes with others. It is, therefore, necessary to arm the citizen with what is the real intention on both sides of the House, that anyone who is prepared to pay what is a fair price for gas should have it, even if it is more than 25 yards from the point of the existing main.

I was very much impressed by the Solicitor-General, who seemed to make such a convincing case that I began to, wonder why this Clause had been put into the Bill by another place. The statement of policy which was made there is most revealing. It goes a great deal further than any of the arguments which have been adduced here today. There the Government did not defend their objection to the Clause merely on the line that if it was agreed to people could demand a supply. What they said was, "If you pass this Clause you will make it impossible for us to shut down gas works and deprive people of gas." That is quite different from what the Solicitor-General was saying; he was saying that everything in the garden was lovely, and that the Clause was purely otiose. The Government spokesman in another place put a very different complexion on it. He said:

"If this Clause were passed the Minister would be prohibited from issuing any regulation which would do away with a redundant gas undertaking, because it is providing a gas supply which is at present available."

A noble Lord then intervened to say:

"May I ask what is a redundant gas works?"

On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Sir, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to read extensive quotations from Debates in another place?

I am perfectly willing to paraphrase, but I submit that it has always been held that a statement of policy made in another place can be given ipsissima verba, because it is only by so doing that one can avoid the charge of travesty which the Government might easily make. I shall only quote statements of policy, without comment. I merely said that the Government spokesman in another place in so many words argued that if the Clause were passed it would make it impossible for the Minister to deprive consumers of gas, and for that reason he resisted the Clause. He said that on general economic grounds gas as well as electricity should not be developed in certain areas. He instanced rural areas, and he went on to state the matter with much greater vigour and strength than I can.

I merely say that I am sure it is not the desire of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, nor do I think it is the desire of hon. Members on the other side of the House, that the Minister should have the power to shut down a gas works, disconnect the gas mains and stop the use of gas by people who are at present enjoying that supply, all because the Minister on his own initiative thinks it desirable in the general economic interests of the country. That is different from what the learned Solicitor-General said, so that here we are in the presence of a conflict of statements on the part of the Government. Until it is resolved, we must take the view that it is desirable to err, if we err at all, on the safe side. The Solicitor-General himself said that it would not injure anybody or do any harm, and the representative of the Government, speaking on policy in another place, said that the Clause would make it impossible to enable the Minister at his own sweet will to stop a supply of gas. It is desirable, until these things are cleared up, that these words should be inserted in the Statute.

I can only speak again by leave of the House. My reply will be very much the same as what I said when I moved the rejection of this Amendment. What does it do? If hon. Members look at it, they will see that what it purports to do is provide that nothing should limit the right of any person to choose a source of supply if available. In other words, it says that where there is a source of supply already available, nobody should stop a person making use of that source or inhibit his right to go to it and take it. But we have to look at another part of the Bill to see when there is an available source.

This is a point of some substance. The Government spokesman in another place was not dealing with hypothetical cases of whether there were available sources but was dealing with the actual, existing available sources and the Minister's power to stop them.

That is what I was coming to, because I was going to say that it was the Opposition in another place who put down an Amendment which, in point of fact, lessened the duty on the area boards imposed by Clause 1 of the Bill as it was before it went to the other place. If hon. Members are concerned about this point, they should have made the necessary change in Clause 1, which formulates the duties of the area boards. No doubt they were concerned to limit that duty, because the Opposition in another place moved an Amendment to which this House has today agreed and the Amendment is to Clause 1, page 2, line 4. The unamended paragraph read: place. It is to that Clause we have to look to see what the area board has to do and it is from that Clause that hon. Members will find when there will be an available source of supply. When an area board is discharging its duty as provided in that Clause, and there is an available source of supply, there is nothing that the Minister or anybody else can do to limit the right of anybody who comes within the provision of the Third Schedule to have access to that available supply.

I was not guilty of super-subtle distinctions when I was asking the House to look back to the words of the Amendment which I am asking the House to reject. The Amendment is nothing more than I have said, and it does nothing more than I have said. It takes the position where there is already an available source of supply and it says that so long as there is that available source of supply, we cannot limit anybody's access to it. Other parts of the Bill say when there is and when there is not to be an available source of supply, and particularly Clause 1, which this House and another place have approved.

If the existing source of supply is more than 25 yards away, say 35 yards, as I have already put it, is it then within the power of the board to cut that supply off?

One has to look at the Third Schedule to see when a consumer is entitled to a supply, which is when his premises are within 25 yards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but the Amendment does not in any way affect that position. It leaves the position exactly as it was before and does not introduce the slightest change in the Third Schedule. There has been no Amendment down to alter the 25 yards and to propose, for example, that it should be 100 yards. There was discussion on the point, but it was finally agreed by the Committee that 25 yards was the proper limit. If hon. Members think there should be a more extensive duty imposed upon the area board, then other parts of the Bill would provide for that. The Amendment does simply what I have stated, and for that reason it is otiose.

I am quite confused now. How does the Solicitor-General explain the fact that he says the Clause does nothing, while the Government spokesman in another place said that if the new Clause were agreed to, it would deprive the Minister of the right to close down a gas undertaking and to prevent people getting a supply. Until we have reconciled those two statements we should not part with the Lords Amendment.

I find it equally difficult that hon. Members now want Clause 1 to be expanded while the Opposition in another place limited it and that limitation has been accepted here this afternoon.

I can only speak with the leave of the House and I ask that leave. I can only say that the Minister in another place said that under this new Clause the Minister would have no power to withdraw availability and that our proposal

"prohibits him from issuing any regulation under the Bill to make it non-available. Therefore, on that grounds the Amendment is unacceptable."

If the Minister really thought that the Amendment, agreed to in all good faith by the House, was as inconsistent as he now describes, the honest thing to do would have been to call the attention of the House to it when he asked for our acceptance of it. In any case, that Amendment already had been made by the time the explanation had been given in another place. It was given much later than Clause 1. The Government spokesman was speaking after the Amendment had already been made and in the light of that he made the statement I have quoted. It was a statement of policy. On that, I think it is our duty to see that the words go into the Bill.

10.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General refused to meet the point that the Government spokesman in another place had made, a statement inconsistent with the one which he made here, on the ground that the Opposition was inconsistent. That is not a reason for not answering. I do not want to let the opportunity go by without pointing out that, even though the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not right, I think he must be aware that the first Amendment on the Order Paper does not limit paragraph (a). I appeal to all hon. Members to see that that is not right. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Solicitor-General's argument was that the first Amendment limited Subsection (1, a ) by adding the words of the Amendment to which the House agreed: (a) was rejected by the Government, but obviously the Amendment proposed in another place and accepted by this House is adding a duty, not as large as the Opposition wished to be added, but larger than the one the Government asked for in this House. How can the Solicitor-General say that because we on this side agreed to the first Amendment on the Order Paper, the Amendment now proposed should not be accepted? Because he finds the Opposition is inconsistent, he will not answer a perfectly plain question. That is a cheap form of debating and does not answer anything. It is the tu quoque of a schoolboy.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman must answer the questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends. He can say that the Goverment spokesman in another place made a mistake. That is one answer. Or he can say he does not agree with the Government spokesman. The result of the Debate is that the Solicitor-General has not answered the point, and has taken refuge, as is clear to the whole House, by saying, "Oh, well, I am very sorry that the Opposition is so inconsistent." He may be as surprised as he likes, but that is no answer. He should say whether it is right or wrong, consistent or inconsistent. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with the leave of the House, to speak for the third time.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 276: Noes, 87.

Division No. 275.]

AYES.

10.35 p.m

Acland, Sir Richard

Ewart, R.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Fairhurst, F

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

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Farthing, W. J

McLeavy, F.

Alpass, J H.

Fernyhough, E.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

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

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Attewell, H C.

Foot, M. M.

Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R

Forman, J. C.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Awbery, S. S.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N)

Ayles, W. H.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Marquand, H. A.

Bacon, Miss A.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Baird, J.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mathers, Rt Hon. George

Balfour, A.

Gibson, C. W

Mayhew, C. P.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J

Gilzean, A.

Mellish, R. J.

Barstow, P. G.

Glanville, J. E (Consett)

Messer, F.

Barton, C.

Gooch, E. G.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Bechervaise, A. E.

Goodrich, H E

Mikardo, Ian

Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J.

Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

Mitchison, G. R

Benson, G

Grey, C. F

Monslow, W

Berry, H.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Moody, A S.

Beswick, F

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Morgan, Dr. Dr. H B

Binns, J.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Morley, R.

Blackburn, A. R.

Gunter, R. J

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Guy, W. H.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Boardman, H.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mort, D. L

Bottomley, A. G.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Moyle, A.

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Murray J. D.

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

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hardman, D R

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

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hardy, E. A

Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Harrison, J

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

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Haworth, J.

Oliver, G. H.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Orbach, M

Burden, T. W

Herbison, Miss M.

Paget, R. T.

Burke, W. A.

Hobson, C. R.

Palmer, A. M F

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

Holman, P.

Pargiter, G A

Carmichael, James

Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

Parkin, B. T

Castle, Mrs B. A

Hoy, J.

Pearson, A

Chamberlain, R. A

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

Peart, T F

Champion, A. J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

Perrins, W.

Chetwynd, G. R

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Cobb, F. A.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Cocks, F. S

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Price, M. Philips

Coldrick, W

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Proctor, W T

Collindridge, F.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Pursey, Comdr. H

Collins, V. J.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)

Randall, H. E

Colman, Miss G. M.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Ranger, J.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Jay, D. P. T.

Rankin, J.

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

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Reid, T (Swindon)

Corlett, Dr. J

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

Rhodes, H.

Crawley, A

Jenkins, R. H.

Richards, R.

Daines, P

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Robens, A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

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

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Keenan, W.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Kenyon, C

Royle, C.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Key, Rt. Hon C W

Sargood, R.

Delargy, H. J

King, E. M

Scollan, T

Diamond, J.

Kirby, B. V.

Scott-Elliott, W

Dodds, N. N.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Segal, Dr. S

Donovan, T.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Shackleton, E. A A

Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

Lever, N. H.

Sharp, Granville

Dumpleton, C. W.

Levy, B. W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Durbin, E. F. M.

Lewis, A. W J (Upton)

Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (St Helens)

Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

Lindgren, G. S.

Shurmer, P.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Longden, F.

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Lyne, A. W.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McAdam, W.

Simmons, C. J.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

McAllister, G.

Skeffington, A. M.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McEntee, V. La T.

Skinnard, F. W.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McGhee, H. G.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mack, J. D.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

Timmons, J

Wilcock, Group-Capt C A. B

Snow, J. W.

Titterington, M F

Wilkins, W A

Solley, L. J.

Tolley, L.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Sorensen, R. W

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

Turner-Samuels, M

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Sparks, J A

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Steele, T.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Williams, W. R (Heston)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

Viant, S. P.

Wills, Mrs E. A

Stokes, R. R

Walker, G. H.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon J

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Stross, Dr. B.

Warbey, W. N.

Wise, Major F. J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Watkins, T. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Symonds, A. L

Weitzman, D.

Woods, G. S

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Yates, V. F.

Thomas, D E (Aberdare)

Wells, W. T (Walsall)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

West, D. G

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

While, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Mr. Popplewell and

Thomas, John R (Dover)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Mr. Richard Adams.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Whitcley, Rt. Hon. W.

Tiffany, S.

Wigg, George

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Pitman, I. J.

Amory, D Heathcoat

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Baldwin, A E.

Grimston, R. V.

Raikes, H. V.

Beamish, Maj. T V H

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Birch, Nigel

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

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

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

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Bower, N

Hogg, Hon Q.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Hollis, M. C.

Ropner, Col. L.

Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Bullock, Capt. M

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

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Byers, Frank

Keeling, E. H.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Channon, H.

Lambert, Hon G.

Smithers, Sir W.

Clarke, Col. R. S

Langford-Hon. J.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Studholme, H. G

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Sutcliffe, H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Teeiing, William

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Darling Sir W. Y.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

Turton, R. H.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Wadsworth, G

Dower, E. L G. (Caithness)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Drayson, G. B.

Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

Walker-Smith, D.

Drewe, C

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Marsden, Capt. A

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Duthie, W S.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

Mellor, Sir J.

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

Foster, J G. (Northwich)

Molson, A. H E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Major Conant and

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Nicholson, G.

Brigadier Mackeson.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P M

Osbome, C.

Gage, C

Pickthorn, K

CLAUSE 65.—(Power to make safely regulations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 79, line 44, at end insert:

"(2) Any local enactment which is inconsistent with or rendered redundant by any regulations made under this section shall cease to have effect as from the date on which those regulations come into operation."

Read a Second time.

10.45 p.m.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out lines 3 and 4, and to add instead thereof:

"may be repealed by regulations made by the Minister under this section:

Provided that the local enactments so repealed are specified in the regulations together with the date of repeal."

The point which we seek to raise is a short and simple one. As the Lords Amendment stands, it provides that local enactments which are rendered redundant because of any regulation made under this Clause, or considered to be inconsistent with any such regulation, shall cease to have effect. With the merits of that proposal we have no quarrel, but we feel that the method by which it is sought to do this is somewhat clumsy and inefficient. As I understand it, what will happen is that the Minister will make a regulation, that regulation will be thought to be inconsistent with some local enactment and the local enactment will thereby cease to have effect. It is obvious that that situation may give rise to a certain amount of difficulty. Whether any particular local enactment is rendered redundant by a regulation may be a matter of genuine difference of opinion: it may be doubtful whether or not a local enactment has been repealed. That is clearly unsatisfactory.

There is a maxim that everyone is deemed to know the law. It would be difficult for an ordinary man to know which local enactments were overridden by a regulation of the Minister. All this Amendment to the Lords Amendment seeks is that the necessary work should be done in the Civil Service, and that the local enactments which are to be overridden by the Minister's regulations shall be specified by him.

It is interesting to examine this principle that everyone is deemed to know the law, because it works oddly. A Chinaman who lands at the white cliffs of Dover is supposed to know of the law contained in, perhaps, a million decisions, several hundreds of thousands of statutory instruments and a thousand Acts of Parliament. It is a curious fact that everybody is deemed to know the law except the judges, who have set over them a Court of Appeal to put them right.

One of the difficulties of not knowing the law would be encountered in this kind of Clause where people have to look at an enactment and then decide in their own mind whether it is inconsistent or redundant in relation to some regulations which have been passed. I think that is a wrong principle. All that we are asking, quite reasonably, is that a list should be made of the local enactments which are repealed. It would help everyone if they could look to a certain place and see whether a certain Act had become redundant or had been abrogated.

When Clause 65 went to another place, of course, this particular aspect was not dealt with at all, and the question which the House is now debating is really whether the method which has been adopted by another place is preferable to the method which is now suggested by hon. Members opposite. I am bound to say that, having compared the merits of the two, we feel that, on the whole, the method adopted by another place is certainly preferable.

After all, what does it do? It provides that, where an inconsistency exists between a local enactment and the safety regulation made by the Minister, it shall automatically result in the invalidity of the provisions of the local enactment dealing with the same matter. If we consider the case of the Chinaman landing at the white cliffs of Dover, and trying to master the many millions of decisions, it would be undesirable to place upon him, in addition, the need to master the provisions dealing with local enactments repealed because of inconsistency with the provisions. Under the proposal from another place all that is automatically done; but by the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, there would have to be interposed a further set of repealing regulations, nicely balancing out the alternatives to the two systems.

We feel that, having regard to the kind of problem with which we are dealing, it can be done automatically. When you have a previously existing local enactment and a subsequently made local regulation which is inconsistent with the terms of the previous enactment—when you have two inconsistent enactments, namely, the Minister's safety regulation and the local regulation, each inconsistent with the other and both as it were, riding side by side until the Minister decides to repeal the previous local enactment—we feel that makes for greater complication and greater uncertainty; and it is clearly in the interests of those who have to try to see their position, in order to comply with local requirements, that they should know that, if there is an inconsistency, it is the Minister's safety regulation with which they have to comply.

In practice it is not so difficult for them to decide where they stand. It should not, as a matter of practice, be very difficult for them to determine whether die one is inconsistent with the other. If they have any doubt, all they have to do is to look at the Minister's safety regulations and comply with them. If they do that and if it turns out that there is an inconsistency between the two, they are safeguarded because they have done what Clause 65—if the House accepts it—will provide, namely, that any subsequent regulation by the Minister shall over-ride any previous local enactment. I think, therefore, it is preferable not to adopt the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, and I shall invite the House in due course to agree with the Amendment which comes from another place.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman address his mind to the question why there is any particular difficulty, when the Minister wishes in his regulation to override a local enactment, in his including a provision that such and such a local enactment is repealed?

He may say, "Notwithstanding the provisions of such-and-such local enactment, the following regulations are to be applied …" I dare say that is the kind of language which may be used and that is used. I have no doubt it would contain the necessary intimations which hon. Members opposite think necessary.

I think hon. Members are directing more attention than is necessary to the Chinaman who lands at the white cliffs of Dover. I suggest that the inhabitants of Dover would also have to be considered, as well as the Chinese castaways, because, after all, they are more likely to know the local regulation. I say, let the Minister have his overriding power—we all agree that he should have it—let him say to the inhabitants of Dover or any other town or city, "Regulation so-and-so is hereby repealed and there is substituted for it …"

The Solicitor-General has spoken of regulations running side by side. The Minister's view is that the two horses should run side by side. My complaint is that if that is allowed, the horses will bite each other's necks. Surely a more reasonable line to take would be to say that the other horse running side by side with mine shall be reined back, curbed and put back in the stable; and my regulation shall so read that none can challenge it. The Minister should say that regulation so-and-so is to have no effect, while his regulation is to have effect. Otherwise, all that will happen is that the Minister will put out a regulation and the local authority will put out a regulation, possibly previously and possibly inconsistently, and then the local inhabitants in that place will go on with their own regulation and will not know what the Minister's regulation is. All this difficulty would be avoided by saying, in a more businesslike way, that the regulations of Dover, Eastbourne, or, if you like, Bournemouth, are repealed and that the Minister's regulations have the position of superiority.

I think it is time the House parted with this Bill, because the powerful and illustrious mind of the Solicitor-General seems to be getting blunted. I tremble to see that happening, because if it is blunted, anything may happen to the rest of the Measure.

I rise with some hopes of getting the Solicitor-General to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The Solicitor-General said that there was a high probability that the Minister would in practice carry out the very action which is proposed in this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. In his answer in justification, the Solicitor-General made the point which is, I think, rather for the convenience of the judges—that if and when the matter came up for consideration it would be quite simple and easy for the judges to operate an automatic repeal section. That is probably true, but it is equally true that it equally would not in any way worry them, in the relatively few cases in which they had to decide such issues, to refer to the more precise repeal which the other procedure involves.

On the other hand, looking at it from the point of view of the ordinary person in the street, whether a Chinaman on the white cliffs of Dover or a member of my constituency, it is very much easier for him to have the thing precisely set out, because the real difficulty is that, by the procedure of the Minister, it will be possible for a person to arrive at the conclusion only by elimination. He will need to go chasing round quantities of paper to find whether the Minister has issued anything. Even when he has done it, he does not know whether somewhere else

there may not be something which has covered the point. Both from the point of view therefore of the judges and from that of the man in the street, it is clearly better that the law should be stated. If the Minister is going to insist that one of two existing regulations is to be regarded as the winner, he ought to have one horse on which he is going to put his money, he should openly declare it to win, and let the world know it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 74.

Division No. 276.]

AYES.

[11.2 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Delargy, H. J

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Diamond, J.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Alpass, J. H.

Dodds, N. N.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Donovan, T.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Attewell, H. C.

Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)

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

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

Dumpleton, C. W.

Jenkins, R. H.

Awbery, S. S.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Bacon, Miss A

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Jones, J. H (Bolton)

Baird, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon N. (Caerphilly)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Balfour, A.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Keenan, W.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Kenyon, C.

Barstow, P. G.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Barton, C.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

King, E. M.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J

Ewart, R.

Kirby, B. V.

Benson, G.

Fairhurst, F

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Berry, H.

Farthing, W. J.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Beswick, F

Fernyhough, E.

Lever, N. H.

Bing, G. H. C.

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

Levy, B. W.

Blackburn, A. R

Foot, M. M

Lewis, A. W J (Upton)

Blenkinsop, A.

Forman, J. C.

Lindgren, G. S

Boardman, H.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Longden, F

Bottomley, A. G.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Lyne, A. W.

Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McAdam, W.

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

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N

McAllister, G.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

McEntee, V La T

Brook, D. (Halifax)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

McGhee, H. G.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Gibson, C. W

Mack, J. D.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gilzean, A.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

Glanville, J. E. (Cornett)

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

Burden, T. W.

Gooch, E G

McLeavy, F.

Burke, W. A.

Greenwood, A. W. J (Heyweod)

Mainwaring, W. H

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

Grey, C. F

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Carmichael, James

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Chamberlain, R. A

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)

Champion, A. J.

Guy, W H

Marquand, H. A.

Chetwynd, G. R

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Marshall, F (Brightside)

Cobb, F. A

Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil

Mathers, Rt Hon. George

Cocks, F. S.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Mayhew, C. P.

Coldrick, W.

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Mellish, R. J.

Collindridge, F

Hardman, D R

Messer, F.

Collins, V. J.

Hardy, E. A

Middleton, Mrs. L

Colman, Miss G. M.

Harrison, J.

Mikardo, Ian

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Haworth, J.

Mitchison, G. R

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

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Monslow, W.

Corlett, Dr J

Herbison, Miss M.

Moody, A S.

Crawley, A

Hobson, C. R.

Morgan, Dr. H B

Daggar, G

Holman, P.

Morley, R.

Daines, P

Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

Hoy, J.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

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

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

Mort, D. L.

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

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)

Moyle, A.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Murray J. D.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Neal, H. (Clay Cross)

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

Sharp, Granville

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

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

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

Viant, S. P.

Oliver, G. H.

Shurmer, P.

Wadsworth, G.

Orbach, M.

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Paget, R. T.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Warbey, W. N.

Palmer, A. M. F

Simmons, C. J.

Watkins, T. E.

Pargiter, G. A.

Skeffington, A. M.

Weitzman, D.

Parkin, B. T.

Skinnard, F. W.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Pearson, A.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Peart, T. F.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

West, D. G.

Perrins, W.

Snow, J W.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Solley, L. J

White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Sorensen, R. W

White, H. (Derbyshire, N E.)

Price, M. Philips

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Proctor, W T.

Sparks, J. A.

Wigg, George

Pursey, Comdr. H

Steele, T.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Randall, H. E

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wilkes, L.

Ranger, J.

Stokes, R R.

Wilkins, W. A.

Rankin, J.

Stross, Dr. B.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Swingler, S

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Rhodes, H.

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Richards, R.

Symonds, A. L.

Williams, R W. (Wigan)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Robens, A

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H

Rogers, G. H. R.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Wise, Major F. J.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Thomas, I. I. (Wrekin)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Royle, C.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Woods, G. S.

Sargood, R.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Yates, V F.

Scollan, T.

Tiffany, S.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Scott-Elliott, W

Timmons, J

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Segal, Dr. S.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Mr. Popplewell and

Shackleton, E. A. A

Turner-Samuels, M.

Mr. Richard Adams.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

Mellor, Sir J.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Molson A. H E.

Baldwin, A. E.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

Nicholson, G

Beamish, Maj. T. V H

Gage, C.

Osborne, C

Birch, Nigel

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Pitman, I J

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

Grimston, R. V.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Bower, N

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Raikes, H V.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Roberts, P G (Ecclesall)

Buchan-Hepburn, P G T.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

Ropner, Col L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Channon, H.

Hogg, Hon Q

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Clarke, Col. R. S

Hollis, M. C.

Smith. E. P (Ashford)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Smithers, Sir W

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

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

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Keeling, E. H

Studholme, H G

Crowder, Capt. John E

Lambert, Hon G

Teeling, William

Cuthbert, W. N.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)

Darling, Sir W. Y

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Turton, R H.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J (Dorset, E)

Drayson, G. B

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Drewe, C.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Duthie, W S

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Major Conant and Major Ramsay.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

Marsden, Capt. A

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Marshall, D (Bodmin)

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, "put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 67.—(Provisions as to prosecutions and as to offences by corporations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 37, at the end, insert:

"In this subsection, the expression 'director', in relation to any Area Board or the Gas Council or any other body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or under- taking, being a body corporate whose affairs are managed by the members thereof, means a member of that Board, Council or body corporate."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I think it would be ungrateful if I did not express my personal satisfaction that this Amendment has been brought forward. The Solicitor-General will remember that an Amendment in substantially the same terms was moved from these Benches at, I think, 6.30 in the morning, on Report stage, and only certain technical difficulties, as I understood it prevented the right hon. and learned Gentleman from then accepting it. It is none the less an important matter, in that it does ensure that, where in any branch of the law criminal penalties are imposed on directors of companies, a similar liability is imposed on members of nationalised boards.

That is a matter of, perhaps, even wider importance than this Bill. The Amendment has now been inserted in this Bill in another place by the Government, and I hope we may have an assurance that, there having been no similar provision in earlier nationalisation Bills, if, by some singular misfortune, any further nationalisation Bill should come forward, a provision like this will be inserted at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill, and not in the penultimate phase.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 72.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 12, after "nine" insert "and section seventy-one."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment needs a little clarification. When it was originally moved in another place there was a manuscript Amendment because, in the list of Amendments, it was printed in the wrong line. During Report stage, when the Government accepted it, it was put down as referring to Clause 73 and not Clause 71. I believe that that was because another print of the Bill was used at that time. There is a very great point at issue here, because if the Amendment is drafted in relation to another print of the Bill, it applies to England and Scotland equally, whereas if it is drafted in relation to the present Bill, there is some doubt about whether it refers to England alone, and does not embrace Scotland.

There is a further point I should like to ask the Solicitor-General, and that is whether this Amendment, in fact, covers all county councils. I should like to be assured that all county councils, if they should become parties to an inquiry, under Clause 71 of the print we are now discussing, are covered by this Amendment.

It covers all county councils. It provides, as appears on the face of it, that Clause 71, which deals with inquiries, shall apply to all county councils. At the moment provision is not made in definition of local authorities for the applicability of this Clause. This Amendment remedies it in the case of county councils.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, when the Amendment was passed in the House of Lords as referring to Clause 73, that was merely because a different print was being used?

I understand that is the case.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 86, line 18, leave out from "corporate" to "and" in line 23.

11.15 p.m.

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Motion is consequential on the earlier Motions dealing with Amendments concerning compensation which we rejected.

I do not think this Amendment is consequential at all. It goes much wider than the particular point under discussion. If hon. Members will look at page 86, they will see that debentures and debenture stock of a body corporate are included amongst the securities. If we disagree with the Amendment, mortgages, if quoted on the Stock Exchange, will equally be included. We have asked for, and never yet received, an explanation from the Government of how they differentiate between debentures and mortgages. Hon. Members on both sides will be seized of the point that it is impossible to distinguish between these two types of stock, and very often they appear as mortgage debentures.

I have asked the Financial Secretary on previous occasions what happens if one does have a mortgage debenture. Is it considered a mortgage within the terms of this definition Clause, or a debenture? Hon. Members will equally appreciate that, from the point of view of a security, there is no difference between a mortgage and a debenture—I am talking in terms of compensation—and that both are outside the stock of the company and both are prior charges to be met before any other stock of the company.

Therefore, to try to make this differentiation, to say in one case that debentures and debenture stock are to be considered as coming within Clause 25, and also mortgages, if quoted on the Stock Exchange, but not mortgages not quoted on the Stock Exchange, is to make a fatuous distinction between two types of security which are identical in the charges they have on the assets of a company. Therefore, I hope that before we pass from this Amendment we may get some clear statement, for once, from the Government about why they have chosen this particular classification and what happens when one has a mortgage debenture.

I think the House will agree with me, in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, that this Motion is clearly consequential to the earlier discussions dealing with the definition of securities. The Motion is to re-insert in the Bill the words which provide that mortgages quoted on the Stock Exchange shall be covered by the term "securities." We discussed this question in Committee. It is part and parcel of the question of whether or not Stock Exchange values are the appropriate method of compensation. I cannot see that any new point arises. It is, of course, a point whether or not mortgages should or should not be treated as securities. We say that if they are quoted on the Stock Exchange, they should be so regarded. That is part of the whole principle of compensation in this Bill, and that is the reason for re-inserting these words.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a mortgage, if quoted, is subject to Clause 25? If it is not, although the two might be identical, only one would be taken over by the area board and compensated under Clause 25.

It is clear from the definition that "securities" include mortgages of a body corporate quoted on the Stock Exchange Official Daily List. There is really nothing more to be said.

I should like to reinforce the point my hon. and gallant Friend has made on this matter. A debenture or a mortgage is a debt and something wholly different from a stock or share. Whether it happens to be quoted or not is purely a matter of accident. The Home Secretary will understand the matter of accident; he has suggested that if someone shoves his wife's head into an oven or if someone while he is running away happens to shoot a policeman, that is an accidental circumstance. The moral distinction is all the other way. Here there is a moral distinction between a debt and the ownership of an asset. If there is a company which owns something and someone who is owed money by that company, that person cannot have a prior claim to someone who is simply an owner of stocks or shares. It is one of the extremely damaging things about all this legislation that that distinction has been wiped away and a purely accidental circumstance has been allowed to prevail.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill:

Colonel Clarke, Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre, Mr. Gaitskell, Mr. Palmer and Mr. Sylvester.

Three to be the Quorum.—[ Mr. Gaitskell. ]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:

To be communicated to the Lords.

Representation of the People Bill

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

All the Lords Amendments to this Bill are of a drafting character, and I propose, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, formally to move them; but if there should be any on which hon. Members desire to have an explanation, either the Under-Secretary or myself will be pleased to give it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 33.—(Use of motor vehicles for conveying electors to the poll.)

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 23, leave out from "not" to "at" in line 24, and insert:

"by way of supporting or opposing the candidature of any individual as against any other or others."

Read a Second time.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "by way of," and to insert "with a view to."

When this Bill was discussed in another place, this was a further Amendment put forward by the Opposition. The drafting was criticised, and it was claimed that "with a view to" was better English, apart from being more clear, than "by way of." I am not criticising the way in which business is conducted in another place, but there was some doubt whether the proper words had got into the Bill. The noble Lord concerned regretted that the Bill, when reprinted, contained the words, "by way of." We do not think there is much in the point, but perhaps I should say that I would like to hear what the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has to say on this point, because he has expressed his view about drafting on occasions. However, we consider "with a view to" a little better than the other choice of words.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is going to give us some explanation of the Lords Amendment. This is a big change in the Bill from what it was when it left us. We spent three hours discussing lines 23 and 24, which are the lines concerned, and our discussion centred largely around this point.

I should like to thank the Home Secretary for making this Amendment. There was considerable discussion on this point, and we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having looked at it and for having changed the words.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended."

This Amendment, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) said, was considered at some length in this House. We are still of the opinion that the Clause, as drafted, was quite clear and carried out the intentions of the Government. We do not think that the Lords Amendment adds anything to the clarity of the Clause, but the words probably enable guidance to be given to people who may be considering the effect of the Clause, and if they make the law more clear to them, we can see no objection to those words going into the Bill, and have decided to accept them.

When this point was discussed in the House, the Secretary of State for Scotland said this was a matter for the courts, but the Attorney-General was quite confident about it. He said:

"… this expression 'a candidate' is used throughout this code of law in regard to corrupt and illegal practices at elections and throughout this Bill, and refers, as the courts have decided, to a particular candidate."

He added:

"To depart from a form which has been used in this and other Statutes would cast doubt on the words 'a candidate' in all such sections of the law in which one finds that expression."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 110.]

It is apparently now felt quite possible to depart from this phraseology, which has common acceptance in other branches of the law. While we must thank another place for having put this right, I would like to ask for an assurance that the dire consequences which the Attorney-General foresaw might happen if we departed from these words will not in fact happen.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 40, leave out from "it" to end of line 41 and insert "by way of supporting or opposing the candidature of some individual as against some other or others."

Read a Second time.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "by way of," and to insert "with a view to."

This is a similar Amendment to the previous one.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill

changed to

Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Bill

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of the Commission.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 7, leave out "Monopoly" and insert "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

There is one question which was, I think, raised in another place. While I think everyone welcomes the improvement in the title as far as it goes, is it necessary to have the words in brackets—"Inquiry and Control"? Would it not be a long enough title to have "Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act"?

I agree that it does make the title rather on the long side, but it had in its original form gone through all the stages in this House. It is essential by its nature that the procedure should follow two stages, inquiry and control; and I think it will leave the purpose and method which the House has agreed to more clear if we leave the phrase in, even though it does rather lengthen the title of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments

Resolved:

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Ampthill, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd July, be approved."

Resolved:

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Biggleswade, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd July, be approved."

Resolved:

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Goole, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd July, be approved."

Resolved:

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ledbury, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd July, be approved."—[ Mr. Younger. ]

Poisons (Sale)

11.39 p.m.

I beg to move,

This order relaxes the precautions taken to prevent certain poisons from passing into lay hands or into ill-disposed hands which may not be lay. It is part of what seems to me to be a coherent, if undesirable, policy on the part of the Government. Not so long ago large quantities of strychnine in units of four ounces each—enough to poison fatally 3,500 persons—were put into the hands of fishermen for the sole purpose of destroying an occasional seal or two. There is a Statutory Instrument, No. 2555 of. 1947, which was debated in this House on 28th January last, and when I first read this order in conjunction with that Statutory Instrument, I thought it was, as it were, intended as an encouraging pendant to the Government's amending Clause to the Criminal Justice Bill. I thought, as the Government had decided to make murder less risky, that it was quite consistent that they should make it easier. Now it is doubtful whether the order was first thought of as any lessening of the controls in regard to the sale of poisons to the ordinary public.

The question is, will this conduce to the safety of the public or will it not? There are two classes of persons who are interested in the illicit acquisition of poison. First, there is the drug-taker and those who, for the sake of filthy lucre, supply him with the means of satisfying his craving, although both stand in a class by themselves. Secondly, there is the much smaller but much more dangerous class of evilly-disposed persons having what I believe is called in lawyer's Latin the mens rea or the wicked mind, who desire to murder by means of secret poisoning. The main difficulty in the way of the secret poisoner has always been the undetected acquisition of the lethal agent, and because of this, and also because secret poisoning necessitated great patience and skill, a high degree of familiarity and a consummate exercise of cruelty and hypocrisy—it is what I may describe as the more artistic side of crime—it is an art, although a black art—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Fourteen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock, till Tomorrow.