My Lords, can the noble Marquess the Leader of the House make any statement to us about the course of business?

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I am afraid that there will have to be a formal sitting of your Lordships to-morrow in order to take the First Reading of the Finance Bill. That is not likely to attract a very large attendance, and I do not suggest that it should, but the meeting is proposed in order to enable us to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday. The first Order on Monday is the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Bill, and the Second Order will be the Finance Bill; I understand that it is likely that there will be some discussion on the Finance Bill, although your Lordships are precluded from taking any action in respect of it.

Not quite that. We generally say a little about it.—

The noble and learned Viscount knows more about the Parliament Act even than I do, so I will not go into that. Next comes the, Fire Brigade Pensions Bill, of which I would ask your Lordships to take one stage, and after that there is the adjourned Electricity Order which was under discussion yesterday and which, at the request of some of your Lordships, was postponed. I hope that we shall be able to deal satisfactorily with that Order when it comes up for discussion on Monday.

I see no objection to that course, which is reasonable in the circumstances. I do not think that the discussion on the Finance Bill will be very long, but at the same time this House does exist, with powers with regard to finance as well as other things, although we know that they are restricted.

I ought, perhaps, to have added that your Lordships will, I hope, make no objection to taking the remaining stages of the Budget on Monday. It is necessary, as the House is aware, to get it through by a particular date, and it is not likely that your Lordships will want to discuss it in Committee.

We cannot do that—at least, we cannot amend it. The noble Marquess will, I suppose, put down a Notice of Motion suspending the Standing Order?

Yes, in the ordinary course.

had given notice to move, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Newport Corporation Bill to strike out of the Bill Clause 106. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this Bill, as printed—and no doubt your Lordships have had an opportunity of going through it—there is only one clause, namely, Clause 106, to which there can be any possible objection. The Bill provides generally for increasing the powers of the Corporation in relation to dealing with lands in every proper way, and also in relation to constructing roads and bridges, to dealing with water from the municipal point of view and in regard to electricity, omnibuses and tramways, markets, streets and buildings, sanitary provisions, slaughter houses, police and traffic, finance and miscellaneous activities.

My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees replies, may I say one or two words about this proposed instruction? I am not proposing to support it. I have interests as a director of an insurance company, and I confess that all my interests would be in favour of the instruction, but, on general broad principles, unless the case is very strong, I do not like these instructions to Private Bill Committees of this House, which ordinarily discharge their duties with great ability and to the general satisfaction. But I do want to ask the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, whether he can assure us that the finance of this question will be carefully looked into. I do not know on what financial basis the fund of £150,000 contemplated is made up. I do not know what proportion of the risk which the Corporation proposes to undertake that sum would really cover. I should, therefore, be glad of information on that point. Also I understand that this clause is a precedent. No clause exactly similar to it has been passed in a Private Bill before. On the other hand, clauses which contain some of the powers which are suggested in this clause have been passed in other Private Bills. I should like to know whether the Ministry of Health has presented a Report on this Bill, and whether the noble Earl can tell us anything about the tenour of that Report.

My Lords, I rise to take part, in this debate with some difficulty, for a rather peculiar reason. As your Lordships are aware, the Chairman of Committees moves all stages of these Private Bills pro forma. He is riot personally responsible for the provisions of every Bill he submits to your Lordships at every stage, and it is usual, whenever any opposition is raised to a Bill, for parties interested, whether for the Bill or against it, to get some Peer to state their case from their particular point, of view. I have just heard that the Newport Corporation have, unfortunately, not been successful in securing a member of your Lordships' House to take their part this afternoon. Therefore, it will, of course, be my duty to state this case as briefly as I can, but to state it from both points of view in order to leave the decision in your Lordships' hands. In the end, having the same right as all your Lordships have, I shall not hesitate to state what view I hold on the particular point in question.

I think I ought, first of all, to inform your Lordships of the Parliamentary position. If this Bill goes to a Committee three Petitions have been deposited against it. Two of those Petitions do not raise this clause. The third Petition—a Petition from the National Union of Teachers and the Newport District Teachers' Association—does call attention to this clause, but only on a small point. They do not raise the whole question of policy. Of course, as your Lordships are aware, all clauses are in the hands of every Committee to which they are referred, but in the normal course the attention of the Committee which went into this Bill would not, except of their own motion, be drawn to this clause in detail, unless they chose to look into it with the Report of the Ministry of Health before them. My noble friend has referred to that and I will come back to it in a moment. But it is fair to tell your Lordships that there is a body called the Insurance Parliamentary Association, and I am informed that this body was some time ago in communication with the promoters, who informed them that if they deposited a Petition they would not object to that, as perhaps they might have objected to it, on the ground of locus. With that knowledge in their minds the Insurance Parliamentary Association have not deposited a Petition and therefore, for the moment with that amount of information before me, I cannot regard them as very dissatisfied with this clause.

Now I think I ought to inform your Lordships of what has been the recent practice of Parliament in this matter. I have before me a list, of clauses that have been granted since 1921 authorising municipalities to do their own insurance particular departments. I think I ought to go through them and mention them by name. Section 197 of the Batley Act of 1921 gave that Corporation authority to carry on their own insurance in accident and employers' liability matters, and Section 207 in infectious diseases cases. The same year Grimsby received those powers in fire, accident and employers' liability cases; in Liverpool, the same three departments; in Middlesex, in fire only; in Wigan, in fire, accident and employers' liability cases. In 1922 Ramsgate was given that power in infectious diseases cases, and in 1923 Morley was given it in infectious diseases cases. On the other hand, there is the Torquay case in which, in 1923, powers were refused, and there is one other case where powers were refused. But what Lord Emmott said is, of course, quite true, that this is the first case where a corporation has come to Parliament asking to have a general insurance fund covering all its insurance risks, not confining its powers to particular departments, as has hitherto been done.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris, first of all criticised this clause as dangerous for the ratepayer. I can only remind your Lordships that this Bill is promoted by the Newport Corporation, who are responsible to their ratepayers, and that it has been through the usual procedure of approval under the Borough Funds Act and, of course, approval by the Corporation themselves. The noble Lord suggested also that it is dangerous for the insurance companies because we might have corporations breaking out and doing all the insurance within their boroughs, whatever it was. I can only say that the clause does not say that and obviously nothing of the kind could be done without the approval of Parliament. When that very much larger question was raised, if it ever was raised, Parliament, no doubt, would have a great deal to say—

I did not say that it was in the clause. I said that ultimately it might broaden out into that.

We are none of us wise enough prophets to know what Parliament may be asked to do during forthcoming centuries, but we may safely leave that, I think, to the Parliament of the day. Before I pass from that, I may recall that the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, asked whether the Ministry of Health had had anything to say on this point, and I think it will probably be convenient, as it is not very long, if I read an extract from the Report of the Ministry of Health on this clause, in order that your Lordships should know what is before Parliament in this matter. This is what the Ministry of Health say:—

"By this clause it is proposed to empower the Corporation to set up an insurance fund to cover all risks against which they would ordinarily insure in insurance offices. The Ministry are not aware of any local Act precedent for a clause of so comprehensive a scope"—

I agree—

"although powers have been given in certain cases enabling local authorities them selves to undertake the insurance against some of the risks specified in sub-clause (1) of this clause. Attention should perhaps be drawn to the proceedings before the Committee on Part XV of the Torquay Corporation Bill, 1923, where the clauses empowering that Corporation to establish workmen's compensation, fidelity, guarantee, education, accident, and fire insurance funds were struck out."

That is a matter to which I have already called the attention of your Lordships. The Ministry go on to quote the rest of the decision which was against the Torquay claim in that case. The Report then continues:—

"Clauses empowering the Corporation to create accident and fire insurance funds were withdrawn from the Oxford Corporation Bill of this Session. An accident fund clause was passed in the Barrow-in-Furness Bill."

That, I think, is the end of the extract from the Report as I have it now before me, but in one sentence I can sum up, from the evidence given by the witness for this clause before the House of Commons Committee, what the Corporation are asking your Lordships to do, and I think I can sum it up in a very simple form.

For the last fifteen years the Newport Corporation have kept a very careful record of their experience in the matter of insurance. Speaking in round figures, they have paid during these fifteen years £27,000 in premiums and claims have had to be satisfied to the extent of £10,000. The Corporation have made this quite clear. It would not be fair to say that there has been a profit of £17,000 to the insurance companies. There have been obvious expenses of management, and so on, which should be accounted for in that fund. But the Corporation say now that they believe that if, in the interest of their ratepayers, they are allowed, by savings on their premiums, slowly to build up this sum of £150,000 they are not going, the minute they get this clause, to stop insuring anything through the insurance companies, but they hope, in, roughly, ten years, to be able slowly to build up this sum of £150,000 and to save their ratepayers a considerable amount in premiums to the advantage of those ratepayers. On the case as submitted to me, I do not think it is an unwise proceeding on the part of the Newport Corporation, and I hope on this explanation that the noble Lord will not press his objection. Personally, I should be sorry if this instruction was adopted by your Lordships in this particular case.

moved, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection:—

"(6) If under the preceding section a guardian has been appointed by the court to act jointly with a surviving parent, he shall continue to act as guardian after the death of the surviving parent; but if the surviving parent has appointed a guardian, the guardian appointed by the court shall act jointly with the guardian appointed by the surviving parent."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendments which I have put down on the Paper to this Bill are mostly of a formal character and will not give rise to discussion. The first one provides that if a guardian has been appointed by the Court to act jointly with a surviving parent he shall continue to act as guardian after the death of the surviving parent. I beg to move.

moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "application," to insert "other than an application for variation or discharge of an existing order." The noble and learned Viscount said: I think that is an alteration which ought to be made.

moved, in paragraph (2), to leave out "Vicar-General of the Archbishop of the Province" and insert "Master of the Faculties." The noble and learned Viscount said: It has been suggested that the right official to be named here is not the Vicar-General but the Master of the Faculties. I beg to move.

There is a formal Amendment to the Schedule which I beg to move at the end of Part I.

My Lords, the objects of this Bill are to put statutory gas companies on the same footing as other gas companies in reference to obtaining electricity powers from the Electricity Commissioners, and to empower the Electricity Commissioners to grant money powers to such companies and to statutory gas companies already authorised to supply electricity. As matters now stand, such companies must promote Acts for either of these purposes. The present position is that in many of the rural districts of England people are becoming awake to the fact that electricity, as a means of supplying light, is more satisfactory than gas, and many of the statutory gas companies are willing and anxious to supply such electricity out of their superfluous power. As things are now, before they can do that, they have to promote a Bill in Parliament and the cost of promoting such a Bill is in some cases prohibitive, and especially so in the case of the smaller companies. As to the larger companies, they have in twenty-four cases promoted such Bills and these powers have been granted to them by Parliament.

The objection which my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam has to this Bill is, I understand, this: that it will increase the powers of the bureaucracy at the expense of the powers of Parliament. I think my noble friend may be fighting in a good cause, but so far as this question is concerned it is a lost cause. By the Gas Regulation Act of 1920, powers which had been previously exercised by Parliament in connection with gas companies were transferred to the Board of Trade, and by the Electricity Supply Act of 1922, the functions which had previously been exercised by Parliament in connection with electricity were transferred to Electricity Commissioners. The Electricity Commissioners are now empowered to deal with something like 90 per cent. of the applications made to Them for a grant of electricity powers, and the only people whose applications they cannot deal with are these statutory gas companies. There are certain Amendments to this Bill which have been drafted by the Government Department concerned, and if your Lordships give it a Second Reading I propose to put them down for the Committee stage. In conclusion I would only say this. If your Lordships do not give a Second Reading to this Bill, you will be affirming no principle, and merely making it more difficult for people in rural districts to obtain electric light. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to move the rejection of this Bill on these grounds. The Bill takes away front Parliament powers which, I might say almost from time immemorial, it has exercised, and bestows them upon a body of persons called the Electricity Commissioners. I do not know who those Commissioners are. They may be, and probably are, a most excellent body, but no one knows who in the future these people will be, and it seems to me that it is a very great mistake to take from Parliament powers which it already has, and bestow them on bodies which are practically responsible to no one. Moreover, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to this fact. These are powers of a valuable nature. The Commissioners, if this Bill is passed, will be able to grant concessions which have a pecuniary value. I do not think it is necessary for me to say that that power might be subject to corruption. Where a body of people have power to grant concessions which have a pecuniary value, it is not improbable that at some time or another unjust pressure will be put upon them to grant these concessions. Not only have they power to grant concessions to these gas companies to supply electricity, but they have power to grant them permission to borrow money and to raise capital. Up to the present time, if any statutory company desired to borrow money or to raise capital, it had to come before Parliament, and the matter was thoroughly investigated.

The position now is that the Electricity Commissioners may give power to a certain company, which is perhaps not very well off, to borrow money, and to put that money in front of its existing debenture stock. That that is not an improbable event I will show your Lordships. A good many years ago, when I was a member of the House of Commons, one evening late I found a Bill which gave powers to a small railway company—I think it was an Irish railway company—to borrow money, and to put it in front of its debentures. Mr. Ritchie, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the member of the Government in charge of the House, and I pointed cut to him that this was a very serious thing, and that I hoped he would help me in resisting it. His reply was that something of the same sort had already been done—very much the argument which has been used by my noble friend to-day, that because something has been done once you must go on doing it, whether it is good or bad. There was only one other railway director in the House at that time, and I could not get him to support me. I divided the House, but I only got a very small number of votes. However, I went to the late Lord Avebury and told him what had taken place. He moved the rejection of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and carried his Motion. Since then we have never heard anything more of any attempt to put money in front of any existing debenture stock, and, so far as I know, that particular railway lost nothing by what happened.

This Bill enables the Electricity Commissioners to grant powers to statutory gas companies to supply electricity in an area in which an electrical company has already got electricity powers, which powers have been limited by Parliament. Their dividends have been limited, their charges have been limited, and they are obliged to sell their concerns to the local authority at the expiration of a certain number of years. It may be said that the Board of Trade would never give their consent to anything of that sort, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2 of the Bill which says:

"The Electricity Commissioners may also by Electricity Orders subject after consultation in each case with the Board of Trade"—

It is not subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, but after consultation with the Board of Trade. In my opinion it is a mistake to part with Powers which safeguard the property of individuals in this country even to a Department. The Board of Trade at the present moment may be, and probably is, a very excellent Department, but no one knows what it will be in the future and if the Party so ably represented by the noble and learned Viscount opposite comes into power, very different views may obtain in the Board of Trade. We know that certain members of the Labour Party have said that one way of nationalising industries is so to injure them that they cannot pay their way and the nation must step in and nationalise them. Therefore I do not think we ought to rely for all time upon what the Board of Trade may be.

If you turn to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, you will find this:—

"Bills for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons are treated in Parliament as Private Bills. Whether they be for the interest of an individual, of a public company or corporation, or of a parish, city, county or other locality, they are equally distinguished from measures of public policy—"

I contend that this applies to the Bill now before your Lordships' House. If you read a little further on you will find this:—

"Passing now to the existing practice, the proceedings of Parliament in passing Private Bills, are still marked by such peculiarity. A Bill for the particular benefit of certain persons may be injurious to others"—

that is exactly what I say this Bill may be—

"and to discriminate between the conflicting interests of different parties involves the exercise of judicial inquiry and determination.… In passing Private Bills, Parliament still exercises its legislative functions, but its proceedings partake also of a judicial character."

And if you read a little further on you will find, in the list of Bills which are given on page 676 as being Bills which should be Private Bills, Electricity Supply and Gas Work.

I have been told by a great authority that all this is quite true and that if this Bill related to two or three gas companies, or to the gas companies in London or Birmingham or any other large town, I should be perfectly right in saying that it was a Private Bill and not a Public Bill. But because it relates to all gas companies in the country it is said that it is not a Private Bill at all, and it may be a Public Bill. That is to say, five or six people may not do a thing but ten or twelve people may. With all deference to my high authority, for whom I have great respect, I say that, although that may be a correct argument from the legal point of view, it certainly is not common sense. I attach great importance to this Bill for the very reason which the noble Lord who moved it advocated. He says that it has been done before. I remember the late Sir Charles Dilke saying, in the House of Commons, that it was no use saying you had precedents, one bad precedent does not make two good precedents; and I think he was absolutely right. If you once allow bodies like the Electricity Commissioners or Departments —I include Departments because of late years they have been very anxious to obtain powers for themselves which ought to be reserved for Parliament—to obtain these powers, you do not know what injury you may do to private people.

I was Chairman of the Committee on National Expenditure, and I was also on the Canteen Committee in 1923. I have a very great opinion of the old Civil Service. They were an example to any similar institution in any country, but I cannot say the same of the latter portion of the Civil Service where they have been exposed to temptation and have had valuable powers given them. If your Lordships will excuse me, I will read two or three sentences from the Report of the Committee on Army and Navy Canteens which sat in 1923:—

"In July, 1919, a former employee of the Board, Mr. Walter Hyde, became associated with Mr. Blake, and almost immediately thereafter Mr. Blake began to buy large quantities of goods from the Board."

Major Boyd, who was the official in charge, stated on oath that he was not a friend of Mr. Hyde, but the Committee obtained letters which had passed between Major Boyd and Mr. Hyde, and the first letter began: "My dear Arthur," and the reply from Major Boyd began: "My dear Walter." In this letter, which I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting, Major Boyd says that he is in some little difficulty owing to his friendship with Mr. Hyde and is doing everything he can to make the position as easy as possible. That is what I am afraid may result if certain people are given powers which have a pecuniary value.

I am not against these various gas companies having these powers, but let them obtain them in the ordinary and proper way. I have here the statement given me by the promoters of this Bill. They say that already twenty-four gas companies have got these powers in the ordinary way—I make the number twenty-one. But I hope your Lordships in rejecting this Bill, as I hope you will, will do it not because you object to the companies having the powers they desire, but because you consider they should obtain them in the proper way, and that the control of Parliament, which is a valuable control and has been in existence for many years, should still continue.

My Lords, before any announcement is made, there are one or two questions I should like to ask. My difficulty about this Bill arises from wholly different reasons to those of the noble Lord who has just spoken. He dreads the Electricity Commissioners. He speaks of them as if they were some new body projected into the political firmament and exercising influence of which he knows nothing, and which he fears may be malign. The Electricity Commissioners came into existence after the Electricity Act of 1919, and they are one of the most important bodies that we have connected with the electricity interest. It is a very high-class Commission, comprised of very eminent men of great knowledge and great integrity, and their function is a very important one. This country has scattered all over it a vast number of small generating stations and supply organisations, and the functions of the Electricity Commissioners are, so far as they can, to get these together in order to prevent the waste that is going on to a very serious extent to-day, by bringing them into groups. Nearly every week—I think we may say every week—the noble Viscount opposite moves to approve a lot of Orders which they have made for the purpose of bringing people, whom they have to get together by negotiation, into groups of this kind. Accordingly, I think that the Electricity Commissioners are a very valuable body: where we should be without them I do not know.

But there is another consideration. The powers of the Electricity Commissioners are very limited powers, because this House thought fit to cut out of the Bill of 1921, and again out of the Bill of 1922, anything like compulsory powers. The result is that they have to proceed by negotiation and by withholding powers which it is within their discretion to confer in proper cases. But they use their powers in relation to, and are restricted in the use of their powers to, authorities and companies which are generating and distributing electricity. I do not know how these gas companies are going to come in. It may be that they do, but I suspect that the twenty-four cases to which the noble Lord alluded were cases where they have got through Bills before this system came into operation and have special powers and privileges.

May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? I see that two of these Bills were passed in 1923.

Two Bills? There it is, you see. It is done by Private Bills and not by Orders of the Electricity Commissioners. What I want to know is upon what ground it is sought to bring these gas companies within the scope of the operations of the Electricity Commissioners. I am far from hostile to gas or to the gas companies. I think that in the end it will prove that they will co-exist along with the suppliers of electricity, and that you will have two very valuable adjuncts to the public interest. But I am not prepared to say that any gas company can take the position of an electricity supply company or an electricity supply authority. I do not know, and I hope we shall be told, how it is, why it is, and on what footing, the gas companies are seeking to come in.

May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for one minute? It was impossible to obtain that information because this Bill passed the House of Commons at 11.30 or 12.30 at night, and was taken through all its stages without any discussion at all.

That may very well be, but this Bill asks that the statutory gas companies may apply for special Orders under the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1922. These Orders are now given by the Electricity Commissioners, and apparently what they want is to come in as if they were ordinary producers of electricity, either as municipal corporations or as public electricity companies. Lord Raglan did not tell us on what footing they want to come in. If they want to come in as s sort of outside suppliers of electricity, outside the scheme laid down by the Statutes of 1919 to 1922 and outside the control of the Electricity Commissioners, then I object to them very much, for it is only reintroducing confusion where we have with great difficulty got rid of it. If, on the other hand. they want to come in under the roof of the Electricity Commissioners, then I want to know whether they are the kind of people who naturally come in under that roof.

Who are they, and for what purpose do they want electricity? If it is for the purpose of their business, they will get it as soon as the scheme has passed through, because there will then be a large distribution at a cheaper rate than at present and gas companies will get supplied like any other customer. But why they should wish to come in under the scheme of the Electricity Commissioners and under the Statutes to which I have referred, I really do not know. I think there is some confusion of thought about this. Either they are people who would come in without being specially named, in which case no legislation is wanted; or they are people for whom legislation is wanted, in which case I doubt whether they are people who ought to come in. It is information on that head that I want in order to know how to vote.

My Lords, I have no special knowledge which would enable me to answer the question just asked by the noble and learned Viscount, but it seems to me, if I understand Clause 1, to be quite clear what is intended. A gas company that got powers through this Bill would come in under the Electric Lighting Acts and would supply electricity in the same way as either a municipal corporation or a public company would supply electricity, and, of course, it would come in under the scheme of the Electricity Acts. That being so, I think it is quite right that the Electricity Commissioners should be regarded as the proper Government Department to watch over them, if no more than that is intended—and I believe that no more than that is intended.

If I may now refer to the speech of my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, I hope he will forgive my saying that in the course of his remarks I found myself agreeing with a good deal that he said, but I am bound to say that if I had been confining my speech to this Bill I should not have said any of those things. My noble friend, first of all, raises the point that this ought to be a Private Bill, subject to Private Bill procedure, and not a Public Bill. I have no more authority than any of your Lordships on that point, but I am quite convinced that this is an erroneous view. Your Lordships are, of course, aware of the procedure under which all Bills come. They are examined by responsible officials who, if they think that the Standing Order should in any way apply, exercise their responsibility, subject, of course, to the supervision of your Lordships' House, and refer this Bill to the Examiners. I understand that the proper authorities have been into that question in the case of this Bill and have decided without hesitation that it is a Public Bill, in the sense in which we all generally understand it, and I have no doubt whatever that their decision is right. After all, this Bill, submitted for approval to your Lordships' House, is a Bill of purely general application and does not affect any private rights.

Certain figures have been quoted to your Lordships. We have been told that in either twenty-one or twenty-four cases Parliament has given power to authorities to supply both gas and electricity. If I had made the first speech I should have put the number at twenty-five, but I am not quarrelling over one or two eases. It is fair to say, I think, that this figure is independent of municipal authorities. There are scores of municipal authorities in the country who supply both gas and electricity, and it is a public convenience that they should do so. I am not afraid, on the point which has been elaborated, and quite rightly so, by my noble friend Lord Banbury, of the danger—he foresees danger, but I do not—of giving these rowers to the Electricity Commissioners, and for this reason. The noble Lord seemed to think that there would be danger of undue pressure being brought upon them. Perhaps there would. Public Departments are there to have pressure brought upon them. But the whole thing is subject to the review of Parliament.

In giving power to enable gas companies to apply to the Electricity Commissioners to make special Orders authorising them to supply electricity, Parliament has not finished with the matter. These special Orders remain subject to the approval of Parliament in each individual case, and I am not, therefore, afraid of any danger in this respect. On the question of principle, there is no doubt whatever that Parliament is willing that very often in particular cases the same authority should supply both gas and electricity, and I believe wisely so. I do not regard the Bill with any fears, but as merely a useful piece of Parliamentary machinery, within the power of Parliament, and I believe your Lordships will be wise if you read it a second time. If it ultimately receives the Royal Assent I believe it will facilitate matters much more than it will create difficulties.

My Lords, I would like to say one word from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport. As the noble and learned Viscount opposite raised his very interesting point, I thought he was going to proceed to speak on the question of generating stations, but he did not do so. Generally speaking, the Government do not regard this Bill with any disfavour, but are quite ready that it should receive a Second Reading. I do not think I need deal with the points which have already been dealt with by the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, but perhaps he will allow me to add this point, on any new procedure, which I believe has already been alluded to by the Leader of the House. Of course, if there were any unusual feature in any of these Orders it would come before the Committee which is to be set up, who would at once report upon the subject. The noble Earl also referred to the fact that as electricity authorities these gas companies would, of course, come under the control of the Electricity Commissioners and Electricity Acts.

I do not suppose that the effect of this Bill will be very large. What I understand is that there are, in some parts of the country, areas not really supplied with electricity at all, and where, I think rather as a temporary measure, it may be convenient for the gas companies to raise money or apply some of their money to the supply of electricity to those who want it. Of course, the noble Lord is well aware that the Electricity Commissioners are forming these authorities all over the country and hoping that electricity will be supplied from large generating stations on a, far more economical scale than at present. All these matters are fully within the cognizance of the Commissioners, and I think we may have every confidence that they will not sanction any Orders where the setting up of generating stations would interfere with large scale schemes or with the supply of the cheaper electricity which we hope will be produced. Therefore I say, on behalf of the Government, that I think there can be no harm in passing the Bill, knowing that the larger points will be fully safeguarded by the Electricity Commissioners.

My Lords, I am not an expert in these matters, but I have here some information which I think may answer the points raised by the noble and learned Viscount. The difficulty in the way of statutory gas companies obtaining electricity powers is felt more than ever at the present moment, owing to important developments in connection with the cheaper production of electricity, by which surplus heat arising from the process of gas manufacture, which has hitherto been wasted, is now being utilised for the generation of electricity. This process is now being largely adopted in large gas works, such as the Gas Light and Coke Company's works, for the production of electricity for use in their own works. Smaller companies have no use, or very little use, for electricity in their gas works, but the surplus heat referred to could be utilised for generating electricity for the purpose of a public utility supply, at a cost, too, at which it would be quite impossible for an electricity company, operating on a similar scale, to generate. I do not know whether that answers the noble and learned Viscount.

rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the unfair effect of the Regulations governing the award of the Territorial Decoration and Territorial Efficiency Medal; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the points to which I venture to invite the attention of the Government I feel sure will enlist the sympathy, and I hope the support, of this House. Those who, like myself, are interested and directly concerned in the raising and administration of the Territorial Army, will, I think, agree that it is a bad thing that there should exist any sense of injustice and of want of appreciation on the part of those who are at present serving in that Force. We are being asked, at least the Essex County Association, for whom I speak, are being asked, to raise new units for the Territorial Army. At the moment we are being called upon to raise in that County 1,700 officers and men for new units. I suggest it is no help, and in fact very much the reverse, that while we are endeavouring to carry out that duty there should be any suspicion of unfairness or hardship among those at present serving as regards the awarding of the Territorial Decoration and the Territorial Medal. That this feeling exists I know to be the fact, and while I am anxious in no way to exaggerate the point, I think your Lordships will agree, after I have stated the case, that there is legitimate ground for that feeling.

My Lords, may I, in the first instance, associate myself most fully and cordially with what my noble friend said in regard to the debt of gratitude which we all owe to the members of the Territorial Army, both officers and men, who served throughout the War, and who are now continuing to serve as officers of the Territorial Army and to help to reconstitute that Force? It is of special importance that we should have the advantage of the services of these members of the Territorial Army in view of the position which the Territorial Army will be called upon to fill in the future in accordance with the statement made recently at the meeting of the Territorial Associations by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War.

I am grateful to my noble friend for having brought this matter forward and for having mentioned the hardships which he considers to exist in connection with the granting of this Decoration. I think he is labouring under a slight misappre- hension, and I hope that such explanations as I am able to afford him may serve to remove from his mind any doubts he may have. My noble friend said that the Territorial Decoration and the Territorial Medal were instituted as a reward for long and efficient service. That is perfectly true. That is the purpose for which this Decoration and this Medal were instituted. The crux of the matter, as my noble friend brought it before your Lordships, is that in the reckoning of the qualifying period for the grant of this Decoration and this Medal, War Service is counted as double. This Decoration is not a reward for service during the War, such as are the 1914–15 Star, the General Service Medal, or the Victory Medal. It is not awarded for actual War service because, of course, it is open only to those who have served or are serving in the Territorial Army.

The object of granting double service for War-time service was to afford special recognition of the patriotism of members of the Territorial Army in preparing themselves in peace time for home defence and also—and this is a very important matter—in taking the further obligation upon them of service overseas. It would obviously complicate matters to extend this recognition to those who joined the Territorial Army after the outbreak of War. One difficulty would be that those who were serving in the Regular Army or the Special Reserve during the War, and afterwards joined the Territorial Army, could not count their service as double; whereas the man who happened to have joined the Territorial Army during the War could count that service as double, although, as we know, it was largely a matter of chance whether one served in the Regular Army, or the Special Reserve, or the Territorial Army.

The next point my noble friend raised was, I think, that a young man who was under age on August 4, 1914, but who joined up as early as the Regulations allowed and is still serving, could not reckon his War service as double service. That, of course, is the case. But, as I said before, the object of granting the double service was to recognise the patriotism of those who were serving in the Territorial Army before the War, and rendering themselves fit for home defence and for service overseas. The young officer who joined the Territorial Army after the outbreak of War was in the same position as the young officer who joined the new Army, who served throughout the War and received his medal and so forth, and new, possibly, has also joined the Territorial Army.

Another point raised by my noble friend was in regard to the rather complicated system which obtains in the case of the man who was serving in the ranks when the War broke out, who got a Commission and is either serving as a Territorial officer now or has rejoined and is serving again in the ranks. That is a rather complicated matter, and I think my best plan would be to give my noble friend a concrete illustration as to what will happen exactly to any one in that position. Obviously it has not happened yet, because the twenty years which are necessary to the earning of the Decoration or Medal have not yet expired; it would be impossible for any one in that position, even counting the double time, to have earned either the Decoration or the Medal and no actual case has happened. But there will be such cases and this is what will happen in the future.

Let us suppose that a young man joined the ranks on August 4, 1912, and served until August 4, 1914, in the ordinary way in peace. He is allowed to count half his service in the ranks towards his Decoration and, therefore, those two years would count as one year. Then if he served from August 4, 1914, to August 4, 1915, in the ranks, embodied and overseas, he would count that year as double his rank's service; that is to say, that one year would count as one year. Therefore, during those three years, two in peace and one in War, he would have counted two years service towards his Territorial Decoration. Then let us suppose that he got his Commission on August 4, 1915, and served for three years, he would then obtain credit for double service, that is for six years' service as an officer, provided of course that he continued to serve as an officer in the Territorial Army after the War. It is not only his service as an officer in the Territorial Army that is counted; but it is counted if he had a Commission in any other branch of the Army, either the Regular Army or the Special Reserve, provided again, of course, that he returned to the Territorial Army after the War was over. Therefore from August 4, 1912, to August 4, 1918, he would be able to count eight years altogether towards his Decoration. If, after having been an officer in the new Army, he went back to the Territorial Army in the ranks he would be able to count his War service double towards the medal. I think that is the best way of answering that part of my noble friend's Question.

Of course, as my noble friend has said, there are hard cases. Such eases must arise in any event in regard to any class of decorations or medals or anything else. Where there is a hard-and-fast rule which suits the majority of cases exceptions will crop up and may create hard cases. That, I am afraid, is a matter which one has to envisage in any circumstances. The man who happened to join the Territorial Army on August 5, 1914, two days late, suffers perhaps a disadvantage as compared with the man who joined on August 3, 1914. That cannot be helped, of course, because the line must be drawn somewhere.

My noble friend also touched upon another matter and expressed a wish that the Army Council would consider the question of further provision for future wars—we hope that such wars may not take place—for the encouragement of young officers and men to join the Territorial Army. That is really a matter with which I do not think I can deal now. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said and I shall be very glad to hear any suggestions he may have to make. But I want to make this clear to him in regard to the double service. Other meritorious service should, perhaps, be dealt with in another manner, but this particular regulation deals only with those who were members of the Territorial Army before the War. I wanted to make that clear to my noble friend, and I hope that the explanations I have given him will have cleared up some of the misapprehensions which I think were in his mind. I have endeavoured to do that and I trust that I have given him satisfaction.

My Lords, I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord who introduced this Motion, and to the speech made in reply by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government. The question is a very difficult and com- plicated one. I myself have had a good deal of experience of it in its earlier stages with the Territorials, and to arrive at a proper solution of this matter requires a number of things to be taken into account, and this in particular. Be careful, above all things, lest you make your decorations too cheap. I have seen a great deal of Territorials, and whatever the officers may say to you, and whatever the associations may say—and there is always somebody who says these things—among the men I have always found that they look upon decorations very much according to their value. They do not want things that come pro forma after a certain lapse of time. They know the difference between those things and the things that are real.

I am entirely with the noble Lord in thinking that we should do everything to make recruiting easier, in the sense of more attractive, at this time, but I do not think you do make is more attractive by showering decorations with a profuse hand. I am all for the rather rigid views which the War Office take, and the only thing I am afraid of is that sometimes technical considerations come in and interfere with the due carrying out of those views. Therefore I am not prepared to say "Yes" to the suggestions which the noble Lord makes, I think, a little too easily. I am not prepared to say that these decorations should be got very easily, or that War service should not count very largely in the considerations which determine them. I dare say there are improvements to be made, and I hope that this matter will be considered by the War Office, not as a closed one, but as one in regard to which they may proceed to entertain suggestions that seem valuable. I am, nevertheless, in favour of not falling too easily into compliance with those requests which I see being made in nearly every quarter of the country by people for a further extension of the system of decorations within the Territorial Force. We have to go very carefully. The essence of the Territorial Force is that those engaged in it should believe it to be a real thing—a real thing in war as well as a real thing in peace—and upon that you will find your Territorial soldiers very shrewd judges.

My Lords, I only wish to say that I have consulted the officers of my battalion, and I gathered that they agree with the views put forward by the noble Earl rather than with those put forward by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan.

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl put me right on the question of the ranker officers. I am afraid I shared the misapprehension on that subject that a great many other people have, and I am glad of the assurance, which of course we can take as an official assurance, on that point. It does deal satisfactorily with one of the cases that I have raised. I cannot quite let the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount pass, though I am not exactly in conflict with them, without saying a few words upon them. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that he has no greater admirer than myself for all he has done in the past for the Territorial Army, nor do I differ in the least from him, nor do those who support me differ from him, in the remarks that he made with regard to the thoroughly unsound idea of making the acquisition of these decorations easy. What the noble and learned Viscount says is, of course, perfectly true, and I would respectfully state that the suggestions that I have made do not in the least go outside that sound doctrine that he put forward.

I cannot see how it can be called giving a decoration too easily if a Territorial officer, or a man who received his Commission at the outbreak of the War and served abroad, is put in the same position with regard to his qualifications for the decoration (having served through the War) as the man who happened to be in the Territorial Army before the War and has continued right through. It seems to me that the test in that sense is about as severe a one as could possibly be given for his qualification to count those particular parts of his service as two-fold. I did not wish in the remarks that I made to go at all into the subject of recruiting. I carefully tried to avoid that. There is. of course, a great deal to be said on that, but it was not the question of recruiting but rather the feeling of these serving officers in the Territorial Army and of the men who have served throughout the War, that I wished to bring to the notice of your Lordships.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I am much obliged to my noble friend for his information, but I am not converted from the view which I expressed—and I hold it in common with those from whom I have had letters all over the country—that War service, whether attached to pre-War service or post-War service, should count double towards the award of these decorations. In view, however, of what the noble Lord has said, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motions which appear on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Viscount Peel.