ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.

HC Deb 28 May 1902 vol 108 cc831-4

[SECOND READING.]

Order for Second Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

(6.12.) Mr. CALDWELL

said this Bill was rather of a technical character. If it did what the memorandum said it was intended to do, then he should say that it was a very proper Bill to pass. They had got the electric lighting Orders as they existed before the Act of 1899. If this Bill was to alter the old boundaries so as to make them co-equal with the new boundaries, that would be a proper proposal, and that object was given as the reason and purpose of this Bill. But this measure did nothing of the kind, and it would leave the boundaries in a worse condition after this Bill was passed than they were at the present time.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds Central

No, no.

MR. CALDWELL

said the President of the Board of Trade cried out "No, no," but this Bill would not make the boundaries co-extensive, and co-equal with the existing boundaries. If the district was situated outside a borough authorised to supply electricity within the borough, a particular course was to be taken, but if the Borough Council was not authorised to supply electricity in the borough, then the outside district had to apply for a supply of electricity to a company authorised to supply it within the borough. Then there was a third contingency that might arise in the case of London, whore an area of supply adjoined a transferred area. The hon. Member referred to the difficulties which were likely to result from the working of the measure on account of the provisions laid down with respect to the fixing of the areas of supply, and of settlement of questions with relation to the title of Borough Councils and private companies to supply outside areas with electricity. He pointed out the differences between the present Bill and the, Electric Lighting (London) Bill, 1901 (Bill No. 124). He ventured to say that the Bill of last year dealt in a more effective manner with the great question of areas than the Bill now before the House, because it recognised the fact that if they were going to make the boundaries co-extensive and co-equal with the new areas, they must buy out those who supplied the outside areas. There was a proper clause in last year's Bill which provided that where an area was transferred under the powers conferred, the council or company to whom it was transferred should take over the concern from the council or company from whom it was transferred and pay a price fixed by arbitration. He ventured to say that that was the only suitable way of making the boundaries co-extensive and co-equal with the new boundaries. He generally found that a second Bill was better than the first, but he did not think that was so in this case. There was a proviso in the present Bill which was not in that of last year, namely, that the provisions of the Act should not apply in the case of areas where the mains had been laid down before 1st January, 1902. He did not know the reason why that date had been fixed. He pointed out that it was proposed to give great powers to the Board of Trade under Section (b) of Clause 4 which was not in the Bill of last year. It provided— If any question arises under this Act with reference to any transfer under this Act for the supply of electricity in any area transferred under this Act, such question shall he referred to, and determined by, the Board of Trade. That gave universal power to the Board of Trade. The whole object of the Bill was not to make boundaries co-equal and co-extensive but to give general and absolute powers to the Board of Trade to confirm agreements. There was no obligation on any one to make agreements unless they read Clause 9 as giving full power to determine everything and anything. Every electric company had a Provisional Order which fixed its boundaries, and if the Government wished to alter what had been done they should do it by Provisional Order.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said it was quite true, as the hon. Member had said, that this Bill was in a manner consequential on the London Government Bill of 1899. The hon. Member complained that the Bill did not go far enough. If the memorandum implied that every single adjustment that was required to make the boundaries of electrical areas conterminous with the boundaries of municipalities was carried out in the Bill, he admitted that the memorandum conveyed an inacurate impression. It was not his intention that the Bill should go as far as that. The real object of the Bill was to make adjustments where they were practically of a non-contentious character. When this matter was examined two years ago, there were 216 alterations of area which had been made by the Commissioners under the Act of 1899 which would possibly come under the operation of this Bill. Of that number about 179 related to small areas where no electrical works had been executed, and inquiry satisfied him that in almost all of these cases no controversy would arise. There were other cases in which undoubtedly controversy would arise, and he had altered the Bill of this year, as compared with the Bill of last year, in such a way as not to render compulsory in certain cases the alterations which would have been compulsory under the Bill of last year. He did that deliberately, in order to avoid matters which might be so controversial as to imperil the passage of the Bill. All the non-controversial cases were still included, and he imagined that these would be 170 out of, perhaps, 216, unless in the interval works had been begun in any of these places. It was clearly advantageous that this Bill should pass this year, because in each succeeding year there was an additional possibility that electrical works would be laid down in areas at present non-controversial, which might then become contentious. With regard to changes of a controversial character, the Bill left the parties concerned to make such arrangements as they thought proper, and gave the Board of Trade power to give those agreements beween the parties the force of law. The Bill did not give the Board of Trade extravagant powers such as the hon. Gentleman imagined. The Board of Trade would have no power in controversial cases to force arrangements on the parties. The Board merely had power to confirm any arrangements to which the parties might come. In regard to non-controversial areas, at all events, the Bill would have a useful and valuable effect, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said there was a danger of want of elasticity in the Bill. There were cases in which it was desirable that an authority supplying electricity in one area should be allowed to supply electricity in part of an adjoining area. He trusted it would be considered in Committee as to whether that was not desirable; and whether authorities should not have power to enter into agreements for that purpose. He knew of at least two instances where it would be most, inconvenient for electric light to be supplied to a district from the station in its own area, and it could be most conveniently supplied by the station in an adjoining area.