SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. (Hansard, 10 July 1906)

§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)
asked the representative of the Board of Trade for some information in regard to the 850 Bill. He had been instructed by Dudley Corporation and another public body to oppose the Bill, but he understood that they were now perfectly well satisfied with the pledges secured from the promoters of the measure. The statements which had been, placed in his hands by the Dudley Corporation, and other opponents of the Bill, raised a question on which this House ought to be satisfied, gamely, the bona fides of the promoters. It appeared that the Bill was originally introduced in 1903, and nearly all the powers now asked were secured then, except that under the present Bill there was to be an extension of the territory over which operations were to be conducted. Under the 1903 Bill there was a time limit of two years, and during that period absolutely nothing had been done in the way of putting into practice the powers given by Parliament. What was still more important was the statement of the Dudley Corporation that on the previous occasion the Bill was not really introduced by a bona fide company in any sense of the term, that the promoters were the Parliamentary agents and solicitors who backed the measure, and that, to a great extent, the company was bogus. It was further stated that 851 the moment a monopoly was secured by that Act the gentlemen concerned sold the powers they had obtained under the Act to a syndicate. That syndicate had been unable during the intervening time to carry out the provisions of the Act, and now application was made to Parliament again for the purpose of reviving the powers which were obtained in 1903, and which had been allowed to lapse. The House had no guarantee even now that the promoters intended to use the powers. The House ought to get some security that this was a bona fide promotion, and not merely a speculation. They should be fully assured that the promoters, if they secured the passage of the Bill, were not immediately going to sell the powers as in the case of the previous Act. He was not inclined to proceed with his Motion that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months, as the Committee upstairs would have an opportunity of going into these matters. At the same time, in view of the facts which he had mentioned, the question was no longer merely local. It was a question whether powers could be obtained from Parliament by two or three persons, and then sold to others who had nothing to do with the original undertaking. He hoped if the Bill went upstairs the Committee would thoroughly investigate the whole of the circumstances.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,) Devonport
said the opposition of the local authorities to this Bill had been withdrawn, and he had satisfied himself as far as he could that the financial support behind the Bill was ample. He had seen the names of the financial group, if he might use that term, 852 and although he did not know them all, he recognised the names of several gentlemen who were regarded as sound financiers. He would point out that the House of Lords had investigated the financial position of the company, and had put in a clause requiring £300,000 of capital to be set up within eighteen months.

§ MR. J. WARD
An exactly similar provision was in the original Act, but it was never complied with.

§ MR. KEARLEY
said he was not able to speak of what had been done in the past. He could only speak of what had been done during this session. It was quite impossible for the House to constitute itself into a Committee to inquire into all these details. The House might accept the assurance that he had had an opportunity of seeing the financial group who were behind this Bill, and he believed that their financial obligations would be carried out. He therefore urged the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, and leave the Committee upstairs to make what further inquiries might be deemed necessary.

§ MR. MIDDLEMORE
said that on behalf of a large number of the inhabitants of Harbourne, which was a residential community, he opposed the Bill. Many of these people let their houses at £20 a year and upwards, and their whole living would be affected by the generating station being planted at the spot indicated in the Bill.