§ (1) Where it appears to the appropriate Government Department that the financial position of any undertaking to which this Act applies has been adversely affected by circumstances arising out of the present War, the Department may, if they think fit, by Order provide for the modification of any statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made by the undertakers, and of any statutory provisions consequential on or supplemental to any such 1852 provisions as aforesaid, for such period during the continuance of this Act, in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as appear to the Department to be just and reasonable:
§ Provided that—
- (a) where the undertakers are a local authority no modification shall be authorised which will increase the statutory maximum charge by more than fifty per cent., or which is more than sufficient so far as can be estimated to enable the undertaking to be carried on without loss; and
- (b) in any other case no modification shall be authorised which is more than sufficient to enable, with due care and management, a dividend on the ordinary stock or shares of the undertaking to be paid at three-fourths the standard or maximum rate of dividend, if any, prescribed for the undertaking, or at three-fourths the pre-war rate of dividend, whichever is lower.
§ (3) The undertakings to which this Act applies are tramway undertakings, including light railways constructed wholly or mainly on public roads, and undertakings for the supply of gas, water, and electricity.
§ Mr. DENMANI beg to move, in Subsection (1, b), to leave out the words "three-fourths" ["three-fourths the standard or maximum rate"], and to insert instead thereof the word "half."
The House will remember the Debate we had a couple of nights ago on this subject, and I suppose that we are still in the same position that we were then, and the House will be able to decide once more this question. As the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) who put down this Amendment is now in his place, I will formally move it and allow him to state the case to the House which he desires to put forward.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI beg to second the Amendment.
We had a very full discussion on this matter on Monday evening and we were amply provided with facts and statistics which I have no intention of repeating. I do not believe that the Debate which then took place reflected a great deal of credit upon this House, because it developed very largely into a scramble as to the amount of dividend that was going to be apportioned to the various companies, first whether it should be half and then two-thirds, or three-fourths, and also whether it should be the full pre-war dividend. We had the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Neville) saying in one speech first of all that there was no need to weep crocodile tears over the consumer, and then he said, "If you give the shareholders the half standard, what will be the 1853 effect with regard to the company with which I am connected?" I do think it is lowering the standard of politics when hon. Members seem to speak less for their constituencies than for themselves and—
§ Mr. NEVILLEMay I point out that my Constituency is not affected by this Bill because there the gas undertaking is in the hands of the municipality, and the stockholders get their full interest and dividend.
§ Mr. ANDERSONThe hon. Member for Wigan on that occasion seemed to be more the Member for the gas companies and not the Member for Wigan. In order to justify the action we are taking in trying to put back one-half it is necessary to bring out one or two salient points with regard to what really took place. I regret that the President of the Board of Trade, who I believe desired to act fairly in this matter, appears to have had a great deal of pressure brought to bear upon him and he seems to have given way to the various interests on this question. I think it was very unfortunate that we should have mixed up the gas and the tramway undertaking in regard to which an inquiry had taken place. The conditions were different, and yet the measure of relief given is precisely the same. I would again point out that in regard to gas undertakings, at any rate, a Committee of this House investigated the whole question and heard the evidence put forward by exceedingly able advocates on both sides, and after hearing that the Committee unanimously decided to take the course which we are recommending in this Amendment. I believe that this House will get into difficulties when it begins to depart from the recommendations of an outside Committee, and we shall have all sorts of outside interests brought to bear to increase beyond what has been recommended by the Committee if we are not going to stand by the Committee's recommendations. If you proceed in this way, there is no reason why we should stop at three-quarters or why we should not go up to any amount dictated by the pressure of the interests concerned.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI understand that that recommendation was so vague that it left it practically to the Board of Trade to determine what the amount would be.
§ Mr. NEVILLEIs that fair?
§ Mr. ANDERSONI am not arguing that, but that has not been done by the Board of Trade, and so far as they had guidance it has been thrown over in all other cases, and that, I think, is a rather strange policy on the part of the Government. I understand that very powerful interests were aroused in the matter, but I do think on a question of this kind, and equally on a wage question, it would be far better to be determined by some tribunal outside this House not subject to the political pressure that is brought to bear upon hon. Members. Otherwise you are opening the door very wide, and by-and-by you will have the class of politics in this country which has been condemned in the United States if you go on in this way. The whole Debate on the last occasion took place as to how much the companies were going to get. First, we debated whether they should get anything, then whether it should be half, then two-thirds, and afterwards three-fourths; and then some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wigan, wanted them to have the full pre-war dividend, and they put an Amendment down to that effect. That is not a very edifying spectacle so far as this House is concerned. It would be easy to give illustrations, if one desired, from the speeches to show that that was the whole trend of the Debate—to see how much could be extorted from the House; and I suggest that the only safe course is to get back to the recommendations of the Committee and to stand by them. That is the course that has been advocated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) and myself upon this Amendment. I was very much surprised that a departure from that course should have been moved by a Member of the Liberal Front Bench, who moved his Amendment without putting forward one single argument in favour of departing from the recommendation of the Committee. His Amendment was moved with great brevity in a speech of twenty-five words, and it did not contain one single argument as to why the amount should be three-quarters instead of half, and the same argument would apply to the pre-war dividend or even to double the pre-war dividend.
It is said that these various companies ought to be generously treated because they are subject to statutory Regulations and restrictions. That is true, but if we are going to act in that way, apart altogether from the recommendations of any 1855 Committee, there are any number of companies, like food companies, whose prices are governed either by statutory Regulations or by Regulations issued by a Government Department. The prices of food and the profits in regard to food are regulated, and if we once begin to guarantee dividends up to this or that amount it seems to me that the door will be opened very wide indeed. The Committee very carefully considered the matter, and it was anxious to act fairly as between the gas consumer and the gas producer. The voice of the gas consumer is not well heard in this House, and he is not so well organised as the gas companies. The result is that whilst there has been very powerful pressure put upon the Government to increase the amount only from the standpoint of the gas companies, the gas consumers have not been heard, and have not been able to bring the same kind of pressure to bear. The Committee on Monday night, without any real consideration of all that was involved, or the cost that was involved, decided to make this departure from one stage to the other. I venture to say that the interests of the consumers were not adequately considered by the Committee. It really seems to me to be the beginning of very corrupt politics if this principle is going to prevail. I do not want to see all kinds of interests swarming into the Lobby in order to put pressure upon Members to increase dividends, or to see the votes of Members reflected next day on the Stock Exchange. I therefore think it would have been wise if the Committee had decided to give the companies such a measure of relief as we are now advocating. It would have been quite sufficient to enable them to carry on. It is quite true that their future position will have to be considered when the War is over. That is another matter. Very big questions will be raised then. I wish, in conclusion, to enter my protest very strongly against Members who are interested in these undertakings taking a leading part in the discussions, the effect of which is to put money into the pockets of the companies with which they are concerned.
§ Mr. PETOI do not think many Members were aware when they came down today that it was to be seriously proposed to reverse the decision arrived at on Monday night after a long and exhaustive Debate, but since the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) and the hon. 1856 Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) have actually moved to reverse that decision, I think a word or two with reference to the speech to which the House has just listened, will not be out of place. The hon. Member talked about dividends being guaranteed to the companies and about sums being extorted by the companies from the consumers. He used phrases of that kind, showing exactly the frame of mind with which he approaches the subject. The dividends are not to be paid to the companies by the Board of Trade or by the public. It is a question whether it is reasonable that the shareholders in these companies, which are mostly people of very small means, because the Committee which investigated the matter stated through the mouth of their chairman, the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir William Middlebrook), that they had found that three-fourths of the shareholders had less than £300 of shares, should be singled out and told that during the War, while the prices of commodities are at their present level, they must live upon half the income which they have hitherto received. I hold that the decision we arrived at—like most of these decisions, it was a compromise; there was no real logic in it—was really inadequate from the point of view of these small shareholders. I would ask the House to consider who are these shareholders. They are also consumers and ratepayers. Why should you single out one small fraction of the consumers of the country, people who certainly are not anything like so well off or wealthy as the average, and who have all the burdens in common with other ratepayers, and put upon them an undue share of the enormously increased wages paid to the colliers and of the other costs in the production of coal, which is the sole reason for the increase in the price of gas.
The hon. Member tried to influence the House because the Members who spoke in the Debate on Monday night were those to whom the House would naturally look for some expert guidance in the matter, namely, those who had been or who are connected with gas and water companies. I am not connected with any gas company at all. As far as I represent any interests other than those of my Constituents, they are those of the provincial water companies, not because I am a director of any company, but because I happen to be the chairman of their 1857 association, an office which I took up in connection with the general duties which I think fall upon Members when they have no official duties to perform. It is true—this is the only point on which I agree with the hon. Member—that it is most unfortunate that the case of the water companies and the electric light companies should be lumped together with the case of the tramways and the gas companies, each of which have had a separate Committee to consider their case and had opportunities of putting their views before a Committee and the Board of Trade. The case of the water companies has never been considered at all. If I had known that this matter was going to be seriously raised I could have brought figures showing that the water companies have been as hard hit as any gas company by this increase in the cost of coal. There are water companies where the increased cost of coal and of wages in the last three years aggregate more than the total of the pre-war dividends. Under these circumstances, their case is, at least, as strong as—and, I think, stronger—than the case of the gas companies, and their shareholders are quite as small people, on the average, as the shareholders of gas companies. Therefore, I very much regret that this question has been raised again, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not think of going back upon the decision of the Committee.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle)I hope that the hon. Member who moved and the hon. Member who seconded this Motion will not think it necessary to divide the House again. The Seconder of the Motion said the Board of Trade had given way. The Board of Trade have not given way. They only said that it was a matter which should be settled by Parliament. The House of Commons decided what should be the exact fraction on the principle which the Committee itself laid down. This is not the first time, by any means, that the House of Commons have not accepted the Report of the Committee which it has set up. In effect, the House of Commons have accepted the principle which the Committee recommended, and the Board of Trade accept that principle. It is that the burden should be divided in some measure between the consumer and the producer. The exact measure which the Committee recommended was that half the pre-war dividend should accrue to the 1858 producer and that the rest should be borne by the consumer. I think I should be right in saying that the Committee itself had no accurate knowledge or facts by which they could precisely fix the half. They thought it was a fair compromise, and they came down to the House and frankly said that was the position. The House, looking at the whole of the facts, said, "We think that three-fourths is a proper thing." I do not think that either of those figures can be justified on logical grounds. I do not think anybody would attempt to justify them on the grounds of logic. It is not a question of principle which is at stake. I certainly join with the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) in hoping that the House of Commons will never become a place of bargaining or of lobbying for mere financial reasons and gain. It would be a great pity if that ever came to be the fact. He said that so far as this particular matter was concerned they were seeking to persuade the House and the Government to adopt the principle of guaranteeing dividends to this or that amount. The Committee itself, of which he was a member, adopted the principle of guaranteeing dividends up to a certain amount, and it was only the amount which the House settled. I myself, with other Labour Members, have taken part in a good many Debates in this House and have attempted to defend the interests of labour and to get certain advantages for labour. I think that we were perfectly entitled to do so, and we ought not to be throwing stones too much at other people who attempt to do the same thing. The whole of this question must come up again, because this is only a temporary settlement of a very difficult and complex problem. When the time comes, I hope that the problem will be settled upon reasonable lines and that it will not be settled by a Debate in this House. Under these circumstances, I hope we may get rid of this Bill without any further division or controversy. I would like to add that the Committee which sat on this Bill performed a very useful service to the House. I hope they do not think that the House of Commons has thrown any slight upon them whatsoever. We are greatly indebted to them. I am sure I am speaking for my right hon. Friend and for the Government when I say that we thank the Committee for the labours they performed in going into this very difficult and complex question. The 1859 principle which the Committee recommended has been adopted, and it is only a question of the precise amount. That having been left to the House, and the House having decided it, I hope we shall not seek to reverse the decision arrived at.
§ Mr. ACLAND ALLENI cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that the course which was taken was very lightly taken or was the usual course to take. What are the facts of the case? Here is a very complicated subject, which was referred to a Committee upstairs, which might be said to be fairly representative of all parties in the House, which included certain members of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party and one Labour representative, and that Committee spent a considerable time and took very great care in arriving at its decision. It is suggested that the House of Commons, in the course of a few hours' Debate, hearing no evidence, not hearing counsel, having none of the figures put before them or sworn to, as they were upstairs, is in a better position than the Committee was to arrive at a fair solution of a problem of this kind. That is an idle proposition to make. I am bound to say I think the Committee—although, of course, they have no grievance whatever against the House of Commons, because every Committee is a servant of the House of Commons—have some grievance against the President of the Board of Trade and the Government generally. The Committee presented its Report. It was accepted by the Board of Trade. It was embodied by the Board of Trade in a Bill which comes before the House of Commons for discussion. Great pressure is brought to bear on the Board of Trade by the various interests concerned—I do not hesitate to say that the pressure was brought to bear by those interests—and, in face of that pressure, the Board of Trade, with very little delay, ran away from their decision, and thirteen members of the Government voted against the provision in the Clause of the Bill introduced by the Board of Trade. I have had considerable experience in the House of Commons—more, perhaps, than the right hon. Gentleman—and I tell him that it will be extremely difficult to get people to serve on Select Committees if that is the way the Committees are to be treated by the Government which appoints them when their recommendations come down to the House of Commons. From that 1860 point of view it is a serious matter. I must say that I think the Parliamentary Secretary made a very poor case on the other side.
§ Mr. ALLENWith regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who asked why these unfortunate gas shareholders should be picked out from the whole of the community to receive only one-half of their dividends during the War, I would put this point to my hon. Friend: There are many of us who are suffering from the War. I myself this morning have been presiding over a meeting of a company which has had to pass its dividend altogether, that being almost entirely due to the fact of the interference the Government has made with the business in which we are engaged. We do not come to the House of Commons and complain because we have not been guaranteed half our dividends during the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they statutory dividends?"] Our dividends are not statutory, but the interference with the dividends is mainly due to the action of the Government, and, if anyone has a claim to consideration, we have!
§ Mr. PETOMy hon. Friend uses the word "guaranteed." The right hon. Gentleman opposite said there was no guarantee of the half-dividend.
§ Mr. ALLENThe gas companies are allowed to make such charges on the public as will enable them to pay their prior charges and half their pre-war dividend.
§ Sir J. WALTONHalf the standard dividend.
§ Mr. ALLENWe thought at the time that it was a fair arrangement, and I think it is now. We have to remember that the arrangement between the gas companies and the public was in the nature of a partnership, under which the consumers gained very great advantages. Now that the partnership begins to work seriously against the gas companies, they come down and say it is the fault of the Government and therefore something ought to be done to see that they do not suffer unduly. We quite agree that it is unreasonable that, through action taken by the Government, the gas companies should suffer unduly in this matter, but we have also to look at the position of the other parties to this partnership, and we ought to see 1861 that the consumers also do not suffer unduly through the action of the Government. We thought—and I still think rightly—that it was met by the arrangement we came to, which, I repeat, would have guaranteed to the gas companies half their pre-war dividends or half their standard dividends, and would have allowed them to charge the consumers a sufficient price per 1,000 feet to enable them to arrive at that figure.
The House must remember that the complaint is really a complaint against the Government. If there is, as undoubtedly there is, a very great grievance on the part of the companies on such matters as residuals—I quite agree that the price of residuals has been kept down seriously by the Government, and that the gas companies have undoubtedly done excellent work in the way they have produced those residuals and the general work they have done for the Government; they have done splendid work in that connection, especially some of the London gas companies; the South Metropolitan Company, in particular, has done excellent work in that direction—if it be a fact that the Government has kept down prices of residuals, that does not seem to be any reason for putting the whole burden on the consumers of gas. That is really a case for going to the Government and saying, "Look at the State work we are doing; is it reasonable or fair that we should be forced to work at a loss because you refuse to pay us a reasonable price for residuals?" So far as residuals are concerned, that would have been the proper course for the gas companies to take. On that ground they had a very real claim on the Government. This matter was so fully discussed on Monday that I have nothing whatever to add to what was said, but I wish be close as I began, by saying it is not a good principle that, when matters have been carefully considered upstairs—matters of great intricacy and difficulty—when the conclusions of the Committee have been adopted by the Government and embodied in a Bill, the Government should come down and throw over the Committee, and throw over their own Bill.
§ Sir C. CORYI am not in any way connected with any gas or water company, and it is to my interest as a consumer to keep down the price of gas and water. But I have had representations from my Constituents, from local authorities and 1862 boroughs, and also from shareholders, in favour of putting up the dividend to a higher level. I have not had a representation from one consumer objecting to anything of the kind or objecting to any increase in the price of gas.
§ Sir C. CORYI am here to voice the views of my Constituents, and those are their views. The consumers, apparently, do not object, but those interested in the gas and water companies do object to having their dividends brought down to vanishing point. I have had some pitiful letters from shareholders on the matter, from spinsters, widows, ministers of religion, and people of very small means, who claim that as their incomes are entirely dependent upon their investments in gas and water companies, their condition would be deplorable if their dividends were reduced, especially when the cost of living has so much increased. They have a claim to ask that their dividends shall be increased when they themselves contribute to the increase by means of the additional cost of gas. It is really in the interest of the consumers themselves that we should not make these investments bear such a low rate of interest. If you make it one-half, and you require money to provide additional water and gas facilities, I do not see how you can expect to raise that money if you only give people 1½ or 2 per cent. on their money. It will go against the interests of the consumers themselves, because they will not be able to get such facilities as gas, water, or electricity. As to what has been said regarding the Report of the Committee, although I have every consideration for the Committee who reported on this matter, I must say I cannot feel bound by the Report of a Committee with whose appointment I had nothing whatever to do, with whose Report I had nothing to do, and with whose appointment my Constituents had nothing to do. My Constituents have considered the Report, and have represented to me that they still want an increase in their dividend. As far as the price of residuals is concerned, the last speaker said he thought the duty of the companies was to press the Government to increase the price. I quite agree with him in that. There is nothing to prevent that pressure being put upon the Government now. If the price of residuals is increased, then the consumer will not be called upon to pay the increased cost 1863 of gas. I therefore suggest that that pressure still goes forward, so as to relieve consumers to that extent. I beg to oppose the Amendment.
§ Mr. FIELDI have had representations from the corporation of Dublin, the Black-rock Town Commissioners, the Kingston Urban District Council, and, in fact, from all the suburban districts, in regard to this matter. The last speaker occupied an extraordinary position when he said that on behalf of consumers that they wanted the price of gas to be raised.
§ Sir C. CORYThe hon. Member is misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that they wanted it raised. What I said was that I had had no representations from consumers in regard to the matter.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. FIELDAs I said before, you are a lucky man. I am afraid there is a little gas about that somehow. The Government have behaved very badly in this business, because, in the first place, they have thrown overboard and entirely repudiated the findings of a Select Committee of practically their own choosing. I have served on Committees, and I am bound to say that if this becomes the rule of the House we shall have no Select Committees, because men will not serve on Select Committees in order to have their findings overthrown. The Government have not played the game fairly. The majority of the Members of the House were not informed of the change of front of the Government. This thing was rushed on Monday, and no information was given to the House that the Government intended a change and that they were going to repudiate the recommendations of their own Select Committee. It is not playing the game fairly, because a large number of Members would have been here to oppose that change if they had known of it. It was at the last moment that this change was mentioned in the House of Commons, and quite a large number of Members were away. We Irishmen are so accustomed to the Government violating their promises that we never expect them to keep them. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench hardly ever keep their word. There can be no question that there is a large amount of feeling throughout the country that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass. In the whole of my twenty-six 1864 years' experience I have never known the House of Commons to be treated in such an extraordinary fashion as it was yesterday. The Report of the Select Committee was accepted by the Government and came before Members of the House as an accepted document, but we are all supposed to be under the orders of the Front Bench, and, like a flock of sheep driven before the shepherd, we are expected to take whatever the President of the Board of Trade says as gospel. If this kind of thing goes on in future, whatever credit remains to the Government it will lose entirely. The House of Commons has a right to be informed, but the private lights of Members have been altogether taken away. I hope the Amendment will be persisted in and a Division taken and the Government defeated.
§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLORThe hon. Member has informed the House that private rights are being taken away. I thought what happened on Monday was that the House was given an opportunity of saying what the amount should be. That is rather extending the recognition of the rights of Members than taking them away. I take it that the principle of the Committee's recommendation was not repudiated but adopted by the Government. The House is not a suitable authority to decide the amounts either of wages or percentages or anything else, but there was a great principle at stake. I put it rather differently from the way it has been put in any speech so far, and I would say that what has really taken place is a difference in the valuing power of the pound sterling—that is to say, prices based on the pound sterling as it was five years ago are not equitable as between buyer and seller to-day. It is on that root principle that advances of wages have been rightly claimed and granted. In other words, money has a less purchasing power; so much less as to be really robbing the investors in these undertakings of what they are fairly entitled to, namely, a moderate remuneration for their capital. I am only speaking for my Constituents. I have no penny in any gas, water, tramway, or similar undertaking, and never had any, but I have had some really pitiful letters. I have not checked them all, and they may not all be accurate in their details. The people who have invested their money in public utility businesses, which have been to the advantage of the public, have done so with the expectation of a very small rate 1865 of interest. The shares, I believe, have been sold by gas companies in years past on the basis of a return of about 4½ per cent. A moderate rate of interest violates no principle of equity, and I am speaking in defence of the rights of these people to continue to receive what I may call a small living wage in return for their capital. If I thought this was the case of some rich, greedy corporations, plundering the helpless public, I should be on the side of the public. It is absurd to speak as if these were corporations which had done something wrong and deserved punishment. The opponents of this proposal, to do them justice, do not put it forward on that line, but the result of voting for these people only to have half of what they formerly had, when they really had very little, is not very different from enunciating that principle.
These companies are very much in the hands of the Government. My hon. Friend (Mr. Allen) said he knew of a company, and there were many others, whose dividends had been diminished in consequence of the War. I asked him whether the dividends were statutory. Had they this low limit which is very properly placed on the dividends of these public utility concerns? Of course the company he spoke of was one which had an opportunity to make 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. It was unlimited. These investors have spent their money in providing a kind of property which otherwise would have had to be provided at the public expense. I am in favour of municipal authorities having these monopolies. I am not in favour of private ownership, but so long as we have it we ought to treat them fairly. Let me give the House one figure. A large part of the income of gas companies is derived from the sale of residuals. I am very much interested, as a user of dyes, in seeing a colour industry established in this country, and I hope the Government will be able to do it on sound lines. But for the purpose of making mainly explosives, and possibly incidentally of helping the dyeing industry, the Government has artificially kept down the prices of these residuals, and whereas a certain gas-making company in 1913 derived 74.6 per cent of the cost of their coal back again in residuals, in consequence of the Government's control and artificial depreciation of the price of residuals in 1917 they only derived 43.3 per cent. I know coal was dearer also, but the dividends 1866 of the company, the price of their residuals and the price of the gas, has not been allowed to rise at all in proportion to the diminution in the purchasing power of money. The principle that ought to guide the House in a matter of this kind is that, as in all other affairs where money is the measure of value, we ought to recognise that the purchasing power of money is less than it was. It is a quite reasonable thing to allow these people to have three-quarters of their past dividends till there is a final settlement. These poor people's incomes have been reduced at a time when everything is dearer and other people's incomes are going up. I should not speak in favour of this if I did not feel that equity was on the side of the Amendment, which the Government did not itself propose, but allowed the House by a large majority to adopt.
§ Sir J. AINSWORTHI think the House has entirely lost sight of the ground of procedure on which this Bill has been brought before us again. I have not heard a single charge against the chairman or the members of the Committee. I have not heard a word as to whether there was any point on which the Committee omitted to take evidence. The House has no moral right, if it ever wishes to be served by a Committee again, to go back on its findings. Most Members present have served on Committees. I ask them to put themselves in the position of the members of the Committee whose Report we are discussing now. How would they like to have their patient work upstairs, in hearing evidence, in hearing counsel, in trying to save the House the trouble of coming to a decision on a question which the House allows it has not time to go in for, to be set aside? How would they like to be told that their work was not of the least use, that the House was going into the question itself and was going to make up its mind whether the shareholders were getting enough? You might as well go into a private individual's house and make up your mind whether he is spending too much. We are on a most vital question. How far are the decisions of Committees in future going to be adherred to? How can the House of Commons, which is at least bound to keep the head of the ship straight, for a moment profess to interfere with the decision of their fellow Members? If you do not approve of the action of the Committee, 1867 your only course, it seems to me, is to recommit the Bill. I should like, if the Speaker were here, to have an answer to that question, but I do wish to press upon the House that Members ought to support the Committee and the findings of their fellow Members.
§ Sir W. PEARCEI think the House is forgetting that we are dealing with the Reports of two Committees. My hon. Friend seems to be using the argument that the Report of one of the Commitees must not be disregarded by the House, but I would point out that the Tramways Committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman, also had to review the whole case, and their decision was that the compensation should be left to the decision of the Committee of the Board of Trade. It is very doubful, if it had been put to us, whether we would have made a recommendation of 50 per cent. of the statutory dividend. Therefore, the case it not quite so simple as my hon. Friend appears to imagine, inasmuch as we are dealing with the recommendations of two distinct bodies. I feel confident that the facts presented to the Tramways Committee might have led us to a different conclusion as to the percentage to be allowed. I am not complaining, but the House should remember that there were two Committees
§ dealing with two problems both equally complex. With regard to the gas companies, I think it is only fair to remind the House—and I have never been a friend of the gas companies in this House—that the price of coal is a great factor in the price of gas. Residuals count for something, but they do not come to anything like equal to the price of coal, which, since the Board of Trade began to consider the question, has been raised 4s. a ton by the action of the Government. If by a stroke of the pen the price of the raw material of the gas company is put up 4s. a ton, I think it is a factor which the House cannot very well afford to ignore. At the same time, I feel that the interests of the consumers have to be safeguarded in this Bill. I know a great deal about the gas position, and I always felt that the original Report of the Committee was rather hard on the gas companies. On the other hand, if you give them any more it is equally hard on the consumers. Altogether, it is a very complex question, and I submit that, as the price of coal has, even since the Committee began considering the question, been raised 4s. a ton, that is a factor the House must bear in mind.
§ Question put, "That the words 'three-fourths' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 97.
1869| Division No. 72.] | AYES. | [5.20 p.m. |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Agnew, Sir George | Denniss, Edmund R. Bartley | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm. | Du Pre, Maj. W. B. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lonsdale, James R. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Barnett, Capt. Richard W. | Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Fell, Sir Arthur | McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A. |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.) | Finney, Samuel | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Barran, Sir Rowland H. (Leeds, N.) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. William Hayes | Macleod, John M. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Ganzonl, Francis J. C. | Macmaster, Donald |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gardner, Ernest | McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Malcolm, Ian |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John | Mallalieu, F. W. |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford | Marks, Sir George Craydon |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham) | Mason, Robert (Wansbeck) |
| Boles, Lt.-Col Fortescue | Hardy, Rt. Hon Laurence (Ashford) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Boyton, Sir James | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Mount, William Arthur |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.) | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Bryce, John Annan | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Holt, Richard Durning | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cator, John | Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | Parkes, Sir Edward |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn Aston Manor) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Parrott, Sir Edward |
| Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon) | Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) | Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) |
| Colvin, Col. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington) |
| Compton Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Lambert. Rt. Hon. G. (Molton, S.) | Philippe, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor |
| Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.) | Lane-Fox, Major G. R. | Philippe, Sir Owen (Chester) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent Thanet) | Larmor, Sir Joseph | Pratt, Jonn W. |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Br'df'rd, E.) | Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir Charles (Mansfield) | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel Sir E. | Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Pulley, C. T. | Shortt, Edward | Weston, John W. |
| Bandies, Sir John | Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool) | Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich) |
| Rees, Sir J. D. | Spear, Sir John Ward | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H. | Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Rendall, Atheistan | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) | Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth) |
| Richardson, Alblon (Peckham) | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Younger, Sir George |
| Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen) | Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.) | |
| Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby) | Tickler, Thomas George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Cowan and Mr. John M. Henderson. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N'wood | Walker, Col. W. H. | |
| Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub, U.) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Gilbert, James Daniel | O'Shee, James John |
| Ainsworth Sir John Stirling | Glanville, Harold James | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Hackett, John | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Harbison, T. J. S. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick | Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Boland, John Plus | Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.) | Reddy, Michael |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Durham) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehavan) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hogge, J. M. | Robinson, Sidney |
| Byrne, Alfred | Holmes, D. T. | Rowlands, James |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jowett, Frederick William | Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. |
| Clough, William | Joyce, Michael | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Kilbride, Denis | Shaw, Hon. Alexander |
| Collins, Sir William (Derby) | King, Joseph | Sheeny, David |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) | Smallwood, Edward |
| Cotton, H. E. A. | M'Kean, John | Smith, Albert (Clitheroe) |
| Crumley, Patrick | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Cullinan, John | Maden, Sir John Henry | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Martin, Joseph | Sutton, John E. |
| Dillon, John | Meagher, Michael | Thomas Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Doris, William | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B. | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Cs.) | Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C. |
| Duffy, William J. | Molloy, Michael | Whitty, Patrick Joseph |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Morrell, Philip | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Muldoon, John | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Esmonds, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Nolan, Joseph | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nugent, J. D. (College Green) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Field, William | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Fitzgibbon, John | O'Dowd, John | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Leary, Daniel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Anderson and Mr Denman. |
| Fletcher, John S. | O'Malley, William | |
| Galbraith, Samuel |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir WILLIAM BEALEI beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "water" ["undertakings for the supply of gas, water, and electricity"], to insert the words "hydraulic power.'"
The object of this Amendment is to bring within the ambit of the companies to which the Act applies the hydraulic power companies which may be looked upon as water companies. It may be that they would come within the scope of the Act automatically, but it is well to have an Amendment to make the point clear. I understand that there are five such companies, namely, Glasgow, Manchester, Hull, Birmingham, and Leeds, and one or two of them have the same maximum restrictions which are to be found in the case of water companies. It seems quite clear that if the principle is adopted these companies would be involved, and I hope some Member will second this Amendment.
§ Mr. T. TAYLORI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. WARDLEI believe I am right in saying that this will only apply to one company for practical purposes, and, therefore, if the hon. and learned Member attaches any importance to it, we will accept his Amendment.
§ Mr. ANDERSONWill the hon. Member say whether it is a statutory company?
§ Mr. WARDLEYes, a statutory company.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WARDLEI beg to move in Subsection (3), after the word "electricity," to insert the words
and in calculating the maximum charge which may be authorised under this Act in respect of such tramway undertakings fractions of one halfpenny shall be calculated as one halfpenny.1871 I am sorry that this Amendment is in manuscript. It appeared on the Paper in the Committee stage, and we promised on the Report we would consider it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI think that the vote we have just taken is probably the best protest than can be expressed in this House against this sort of legislation. On any measure brought forward which is to benefit a particular trade or industry, you might necessarily have a great deal of whipping of vested interests and a great deal of pressure brought upon Members of this House to support those vested interests, because, unfortunately, the vested interests are always more active than the public interests of the consumer, and I think this Bill is an example of the sort of legislation which ought to be kept out of this House. If anybody is losing money over this War, the idea that they should be able to come to the House of Commons and get the contract under which they are manufacturing a certain article revised by a vote of the House of Commons, appears to me to be monstrous. We are legislating, and by a simple vote of the House we are thereby sending up the price of gas shares on the Stock Exchange.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWe have by our action added thousands of pounds to the capital value of the money of these shareholders, and have put large sums into their pockets, and we have done this at the expense of the silent mass of the community, who consume gas and water. That sort of speculation by House of Commons vote is an utterly new principle, and is one which I think everybody in this House deplores. To my mind, the fact that they should have been able to get 141 Members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of putting money into the pockets of a certain class of shareholders is the biggest condemnation that has been passed against this House of Commons. It has been said, over and over again, that this is an old, effete House of Commons, out of touch with the electorate. It has shown by this Vote that it is not only out of touch with the electorate, but that it is contemptuous of that electorate, and that it pays more attention to the shareholders, 1872 and the shares that are held in this House, as well as by corporations who have been circularising Members, than to the interests of the country as a whole. Against that I wish to raise my voice in protest. The Government appointed a Committee to consider this matter, and the Committee came to a decision. That decision was embodied in the Bill after mature consideration by the Government Department concerned, and then, because the shareholders lobby and because they circularise and because they clamour for their pound of flesh, the Government accepted a modification which puts thousands of pounds into the shareholders' pockets. That alone seems to me to be a condemnation of legislation of this sort. The next body of manufacturers that come along will demand a larger slice. Everybody will want their finger in the pie, and the bottomless pocket of the taxpayer and consumers of this country will gradually be fleeced by the various vested interests of this country, who can exercise—and, indeed do exercise—undue influence upon Members of this House.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI do not propose to carry the protest that we have made any further by means of any further Division, but I do wish to associate myself with what has been said, that I think we are introducing a very dangerous principle into this House. One might have imagined, from the speeches we have listened to, both on Monday and to-day, that the whole of the shareholders are made up of widows and orphans and fatherless children and clergymen. But behind these there are very powerful financial interests ranged who have been fighting this particular battle. I wish to say, therefore, that if a question of this kind does arise it seems to me, whether it be a question affecting dividends or wages, it is not a good thing that this House, subject to outside political pressure, should be the tribunal to decide such a matter. It ought to be settled by some absolutely fair and impartial tribunal not subject to political pressure. Unless we do that we are going to have corrupt politics, business politics, craft politics, brought into this country.
We have had quite a number of Members taking part in this discussion who are Members of this House. I do not wish to make charges against my fellow Members, but they must have felt in an invidious position when they are 1873 associated with the very companies whose cause they are pleading. We had a speech on Monday from the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Sir F. Flannery), who is associated with a very large number of companies of one sort and another, and he is the deputy-chairman of the South Suburban Gas Company. Therefore, as a Member of Parliament, he is fighting the battle of his company, and using his position as a Member of Parliament in order to fight the battle of that concern. We have had the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Neville) taking a leading part in these Debates. The Member for Wigan is the chairman of the Brentford Gas Company. I have been very frequently to Wigan, and I know Wigan very well, and Wigan is not a place that I associate with gas shareholders. Anyone who knows Wigan knows that it does not stand by gas shareholders. Therefore one can only assume that the hon. Member for the moment is not the Member for Wigan, but the Member for the Brentford Gas Company. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen took some part in these Debates, and I am very glad to see him in his place. He was a Teller in the recent Division. He was very virtuously indignant because somebody had suggested that he was associated with gas companies, and he rose in his place and said that he had never been a director of a gas company and had no connection with gas companies, and I believe that the hon. Member in saying that spoke what was quite true. But this Bill covers more things than gas companies. It deals with tramways and electrical undertakings, and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen is a director of the Lancashire United Tramways Company, Limited, a director of the New St. Helens and District Tramways Company, and a director of the South London Electrical Supply Corporation. So that in all these companies he has an interest so far as this particular legislation is concerned. He might have told us, when he was making a virtuous disavowal, that he had no connection with gas companies, that he had at least a connection with tramway companies and electrical concerns. The hon. Member for Ipswich '(Sir D. Goddard) also took a part, although a minor part, in these discussions. The hon. Member for Ipswich is a Gentleman for whom personally we all have a real admiration. I find that he is a director of the following companies: The Bournemouth Gas and 1874 Water Company, the Gas Light and Coke Coke Company, the Gas Purification and Chemical Company (chairman), the Ipswich Gas Light Company (chairman), and the Tottenham District Light, Heat, and Power Company.
Really, what are politics coming to? I do not suggest that this raises very big issues, and for that reason I think that, although those hon. Members have a right as Members of this House to take part in discussion and Divisions, yet if their interests are involved so vitally, surely that is a very good reason why in future on questions of this kind they should be taken out of this House and settled by tribunals outside this House who will be able to adjudicate fairly as to the issues involved! I wish to enter a protest against legislation of this kind being taken from the Committee which investigated the facts of the matter and being brought down to this House and made the subject of violent agitation. We have been bombarded with letters from the companies, and we were lobbied by representatives of these companies. I do say that that is degrading the level of our politics. It is a serious thing for the purity of our politics, and I think it is not a matter that will be repeated in this House.
§ Mr. J. W. WILSONAs I have not spoken before on this Bill, I would like to speak from another point of view. I deeply regret the course which the House has taken. The House, in its wisdom in the past, has dealt with these matters through Special Committees or Select Committees appointed with care, and one of the qualifications of those serving on those Committees has been that they have no direct association with the town, borough, railway, or company concerned in the Bill. It has always been the custom of this House, in the twenty years or so I have had experience of Committee work, to treat with the utmost respect every Report presented to the House by such Committees. In this case we had a unanimous Report from the Committee of nine or ten Members drawn from various sections of the House, who had gone into the matter very carefully, had heard evidence, and had heard the parties, who had the Lest and ablest counsel in the land to state their case, and after the labours of this Committee for days and weeks this House, in a moment of excitement, in a couple of hours, reversed that decision, and it is led into the Lobby by the President of the Board of 1875 Trade. That has not been the custom of this country and this House in the past.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODBusiness management.
§ Mr. WILSONAs a Member of this House who has endeavoured to take some part in the Committee work, I warn Ministers that they will not get hon. Members to give their time freely and their brains and energy to deciding these vexed questions, and questions which bring a great deal of opprobium upon those hon. Members, if this sort of thing is allowed. We get a good deal of criticism on the floor of this House in regard to the work of these Committees, and it has always in the past been the custom of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Minister of the Department concerned, to defend the Report of the Committee when it comes to be considered in the House. What happened the other evening? The House was stampeded by a lot of letters and circulars that were sent not only by the companies concerned to their Members and the Members for their constituencies, but by the shareholders in these companies by instigation of these concerns. There has been a good deal of it in the last year or two. Perhaps it is because we have been so far off a General Election, and possibly they think that Members of Parliament require more educating than they used to do. This bombardment of Members for the protection of particular interests is a custom which I think will be resented if it is continued to the extent which has prevailed recently. We do not object to having our attention called to particular grievances, but we do resent it when it is accompanied by entire misstatements. Apparently the companies concerned in many cases have circularised their shareholders to write letters to their Members. I have had some letters. One is from a very intelligent business man who apparently thought that Parliament was passing a Bill to cut down the dividends of gas companies, and the writers of these letters did not know that this was a Bill for the relief of the gas companies. These shareholders seemed to believe that Parliament was arbitrarily saying to gas companies, "You must not pay dividends at more than half pre-war rates," instead of which, if the President of the Board of Trade had taken the Bill as it came from the Committee and said to the gas companies, 1876 "Take it or leave it," does anyone suppose for a moment that they would have refused this Bill as it came from the Committee? Therefore I could not help rising to make a protest, not only in this particular case but generally as to the treatment of Special and Select Committees appointed by the House, and the treatment of Members by companies and shareholders in various interests all over the country.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONAs a personal attack has been made on me by the hon. Member for Attercliffe—
§ Mr. ANDERSONNo.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI desire to say that I am not a member of the directorate of any gas company, and with regard to tramways we do not want any assistance. We are outside of this.
§ Mr. ANDERSONNo.
§ Mr. HENDERSONExcuse me; we do not require it, and neither my co-directors nor I have ever asked a single word about it or put any pressure on a single shareholder. We do not ask for relief under this Bill. It was intended principally for gas undertakings, but the Board of Trade lumped the whole of them together. My right hon. Friend who talked about this Committee forgot to mention that, since the Committee issued its Report, the price of coal has risen by 4s. a ton. Would not that make some difference? Suppose that on the following day the price had been raised by 4s. a ton, would he not have been quite willing to raise the half to three-quarters? Would not that have affected his mind on the subject?
§ Mr. WILSONNo.
§ Mr. HENDERSONDoes it make no difference in your views?
§ Mr. WILSONNo.
§ Mr. HENDERSONSupposing it were put up 10s. a ton, would that make any difference?
§ Mr. WILSONI was speaking of the Report of the Committee.
§ Mr. HENDERSONSince then coal has been raised 4s. a ton.
§ Mr. WILSONBy whom?
§ Mr. HENDERSONBy the Government.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen it ought to be paid by the taxpayer, and not by the gas consumer.
§ Mr. HENDERSONWhen the Coal Mining Bill was brought forward we were told that there would be no charge upon the Exchequer. To avoid a charge on the Exchequer the price has been raised so many shillings.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is no reason why the gas consumer should pay.
§ Mr. HENDERSONSomebody has got to pay.
§ Mr. HENDERSONAccording to what my hon. Friend opposite says, if the gas company have to pay 7s. or 8s. more for their coal and from 50 to 100 per cent. more for wages, the gas company shareholder is to pay for it.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe price has gone up.
§ Mr. ANDERSONThe price has gone up from 2s. 6d. to 4s.
§ Mr. HENDERSONSince that time the price of coal has risen. Is it to be expected that, when the public are saving the millions that have been charged by the Government arrangements in reference to coal mining, it should be all thrown on the gas companies? So far as electric companies are concerned, I have practically ceased to be a director, and so far as tramway companies are concerned, they want no relief, and no pressure has been brought by them to bear on anyone with regard to that point. As to the gas companies, seeing that the Government have prevented them getting a proper price for residuals, and that 4s. a ton has been added to the price of coal since the Report was issued, I submit that if the Committee had known that that increase was going to take place they would have been willing to increase the proportion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not agree with the hon. Member below the Gangway in his argument that because a Member happens to be a director of a company he has no right to express his individual view. If that were carried out, it would be impossible to get a class of Member who, I venture to think, is often very useful. No one will deny that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Henderson) is very independent in his opinion, but his argument is that when the Coal Regulation Bill was introduced the Government said 1878 that there would be no charge on the taxpayer. My recollection is that both he and I said that the Government were wrong. That is the fault of the Government. If the Government commit a fault, who is to pay for that fault? The people who put in the Government, the people of the country, and not any particular class, either shareholders or consumers, but the people at large who are responsible for the Government being here. Then my hon. Friend pointed out that the price of coal has risen. It has risen because the Government conceived, in the interests of the country, that certain things should be done. If there is a loss the people who are to pay are the people of the country, and not an individual class. Therefore, I maintain that the argument of my hon. Friend goes to prove that the gas companies have suffered, that they ought to have some remedy for their suffering, but that that remedy should be provided by the taxpayer as a whole, and not by the consumer—a small and isolated class. It must not be forgotten that statements have been made by gas companies which are not altogether accurate. I do not think that I have seen in any of the statements by gas companies an announcement of the fact that they have already increased their charges by something like 70 per cent. The general idea in this House was: Why should not the consumer, like everybody else, pay a little bit more? But the consumer is paying, as far as I can make out, 70 per cent. more than before the War. Those are the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There has been an increase of from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000.
§ Mr. ANDERSONThere has been an increase of from 2s. 3d. to 4s. 4d. per 1,000 feet.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe gas consumer is already paying considerably more than before the War. Then the statement is made, How are they to raise money? They can raise money either by preference shares or debentures, and if they had accepted this Bill they would probably be in a position to pay 2 per cent. on their ordinary stock. There are railway companies who are paying only 2 per cent. on their ordinary stock. The statement for the gas companies in this respect is most misleading and would not appeal to anybody 1879 who has any knowledge of their finances. There is no allusion to the fact that a 2 per cent. dividend on their ordinary stock is equal to 4 or 5 per cent. according to the old figures, because in many cases the 10 per cent. on £100 has been changed, into 4 per cent. on £250 and nothing whatever has been said about that. During the many years I have been in this House I have always stood up for the rights of property and the rights of companies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has held me up to—what shall I say?—opprobrium, because I supported the rights of companies, as I hope I always shall do. But in this particular instance I think that the person who is in fault is His Majesty's Government, and it is His Majesty's Government and the taxpayer who ought to pay.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI agree almost entirely with the speech which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City. I find myself so completely in agreement with him in many things these days that I have very serious hopes that he will shortly become a recruit of the advanced Radical party. But I think that it is advisable that the episode of this week in regard to this Bill should be stated in clear and definite terms, so that the country may appreciate what has been done. There are two reasons why that is so. In the first place we are face to face with a very serious condition of industrial unrest outside this House to-day. A strike has already begun which may extend all over the munitions areas in the country, and which may involve tens of thousands of men. These men are in a state of suspicion and distrust as to their treatment by the Government, and it is certainly not calculated to inspire confidence in these men's minds when they see to-day the Government and the House of Commons united in buttressing the vested interests of the great statutory companies. The other reason is this: We have been told in inspired quarters, or rather I should say in quarters which inspire the Government, that there is to be a General Election in the autumn. I think that it is well that the country, in view of that election, should know what the present Government and what the present House of Commons are doing—that they are giving every assistance in their power to all powerful interests to prevent them in any degree or substantially suffering from the War.
§ Mr. KILBRIDEIt is because they are a business Government.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite for his suggestion, but that moral will not be forgotten. It is true that the Government Press in these days endeavour to suppress all these things, but the platform will soon be alive, and opportunities will be taken to make known in every part of the country the sorry part which the Government has played and which the House of Commons have equally played in following its lead, because it has been its lead. It is true that the Government took off the Whips in the Committee stage, but we know how the friends of the Government voted for it. It is an open secret that the Government Whips practically told the votes in Committee. It was their assistance in the Lobby, and the log-rolling of the combined companies, that brought that vote about. What does it mean? I am prepared to accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, that these companies have been prejudiced by raising the price of coal; but does it follow, because the price of coal has been raised by the Government, that the consequences of the rise of price to these companies should fall upon all the consumers throughout the country? This increase in the price has been caused by a gross miscalculation on the part of the Government. When the Coal Mines (Agreement) Bill was before this House a number of Members with whom I was associated, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, pointed out that the inevitable result of the guarantee arrangement in that Bill would be that the fund would not be solvent, and that in these circumstances it would be essential for the Coal Controller either to go to the Treasury to meet the deficit or that he should supply the deficit by making it a charge upon the consumers of coal. Both of these propositions were denied. But now, as a result of the guarantee arrangement, and now that the price of coal has been raised 8s. per ton, the Government, instead of shouldering the liability as they ought to have shouldered it if they had acted honestly—though that can hardly be expected with transactions of this kind—are seeking to disguise their own blundering by spreading the charge over the whole community.
1881 I am not greatly impressed by all these pleas for these suffering companies. There are a great many people who have been called upon to make sacrifices in this War, and it is largely upon the shoulders of people who have been called upon to make these sacrifices that this burden which you are imposing to-day will fall. The people who are working in munitions will not have to do it. They will go to the Minister of Munitions and get another 12½ per cent. Increases are not refused to them, and the Government send up the price of coal again. But there are people who do not share in these industries. There are the wives and dependants of men who are fighting in France and other theatres of the War; there are the pensioned widows of men who have fallen; they are not going to get any increase so that they may keep up the dividends of the statutory companies. What answer will the Government have to them? They have made great professions as to their anxiety to have the votes given to soldiers and sailors, but I am not so sure that they will be so eager when November comes. These things will be remembered against them. It will be remembered that they have made financial arrangements for the benefit of powerful interests which will bear with crushing weight upon the shoulders of all these classes I have just enumerated. This is a transaction to which I believe this House will only be able to look back with shame. It is exploiting the weak and oppressed, him who has no helper, but I am thankful that nearly a hundred of us in this House have at least had the conscience to resist it.
§ Mr. FARRELLI beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I rise for the purpose of dealing with the case as it affects Ireland. This Bill, I understand, is to enable statutory gas companies to increase the limits fixed by the Acts applying to those undertakings. This Bill affects a number of poor towns and many humble people in Ireland. Since the year 1850 we have had gas companies of various kinds in that country, some of them owned by individuals, some of them built up by shares taken in small companies by the public, and so forth. One of these companies was formed about the year 1854, in the town of Longford, in which I reside. It conducted its operations as a private company with statutory powers until seven years ago. At that 1882 time an enterprising syndicate in London sent a committee over to Ireland to buy up gas undertakings there, and they succeeded in acquiring gas undertakings in about twenty towns, of which, unfortunately, Longford was one. I do not know what the particular designation of this syndicate is, but I believe the managing director is a Mr. Anderson, who lives in Victoria Street, not far from this House. I understand he is no relative of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), who has taken part in this Debate. The syndicate started its operations by fixing the price of gas in the pre-war time at 4s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet. As the price of coal went up they increased the price of gas until they reached the limit fixed in their Act of Parliament, 6s. per 1,000. Those acquainted with the price of coal and gas in England will no doubt regard this charge as high enough in all conscience. What happened? About six weeks ago all the consumers in Longford Town were served with notice from London that the price of gas would be increased to 10s. per 1,000 cubic feet as from 1st September next. The right hon. Member for Battersea stated that the increase in London was from 2s. 4d. to 4s. 5d., or about 70 per cent. But the price is to be 10s. per 1,000 in the poor towns of Ireland. Why are people in the poor towns of my country to suffer any more than people in any part of London? The increase here is 70 per cent., but in Ireland the increase will be a long way over 100 per cent.
The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) dwelt on the responsibility of the taxpayer in respect of these increased prices, and rightly so, I quite agree. I have known him a long time in this House, and I agree with the hon. Member for Lanark that the right hon. Baronet is gradually changing his views. We in Ireland have had no responsibility whatever for the increase in the price of coal. It has been done from this side, and it has been done to such an extent that I am going to put a question to-morrow which will show that as a result of these increased charges you are depriving poor lunatics in the asylums of Ireland of the supply of coal necessary to keep them alive during the coming winter. As to the Coal Controller, I do not wish to say anything offensive about him. I believe he is a well-meaning man, but of course he has no more power than 1883 I have in these matters. He has to obey orders. You have cut down the supply of coal, and you take advantage of the consumers in the small towns of Ireland, who suffer for a national act, if I may so call it. The right hon. Member for the City asked why should not the responsibility be shouldered by the taxpayers as a whole, represented by the gentlemen on that bench? I strongly protest against this Bill, on behalf of the poor towns of Ireland, which will be robbed by this transaction. Something should be done, even at this late stage, to limit the operation of these statutory companies.
I am not speaking so much of municipalities, or large corporations or tramways—we are unfortunately outside the pale in those matters—I confine myself solely to the question of gas undertakings, and especially to the question of gas undertakings by adventurous speculators from England, operating in Ireland. I say it is a monstrous thing that a London syndicate should be able to do this. They first take over local gas companies in which local people were given no control, and had no share at all in the companies. Then it was found that in some extraordinary way that course of action did not popularise the working of these gas companies, and they allotted people in the towns a certain number of shares. The curious part of it is that they are non-dividend-paying shares. They have been allotted for the purpose of putting a gloss on the undertaking, but under this Bill it seems that the London people will come in and scoop the pool. If I am in order, I want to submit to you, Sir, and to the House, a further Motion on this matter, and to move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. I make that Motion as a protest on behalf of Irish consumers of gas and also in the interests of fair play, because we have had no opportunity hitherto to consider the effect of this Bill, and I ask the House again to mark their protest against this Bill by supporting the Motion which I now submit in the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. BURNSI beg to second the Amendment. In your absence, Sir, an incident has happened that I have not witnessed during my twenty-six years of membership of this House, an incident that reflects the greatest possible credit on two of the most capable—most useful and hardworking Members of this 1884 House for nearly thirty years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. J. W. Wilson) has been honourably associated with Committee work in this House for at least twenty-five years, and, within his right and most honourably expressed, he said this afternoon that he thought the action of the Government in connection with this Bill was fraught with danger to the House of Commons, as it would tend, by the Government throwing over the Report of a Select Committee to whom they had submitted the subject-matter before the Committee was appointed, to discourage Members of this House to give their time and their ability to the consideration of technical subjects, such as a Gas Bill before a Select Committee must necessarily be, and although the right hon. Gentleman, in his private and personal capacity, has associated himself with many large commercial concerns, he used this opportunity, very properly, in the public interest—and he deserves great credit for doing it—of dissociating himself from the kind of conduct that the Government have displayed in appointing a Select Committee, overruling its Report, and first introducing and then contemptuously casting on one side the Bill based on the Report of that Committee. That is a very significant thing in the domestic life of the House of Commons, when a Privy Councillor, a great business man and an honoured Member of the House, makes that protest to the President of the Board of Trade. Last, but by no means least, what do we see in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who supported him from the same bench? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that occasionally I have differed from him in his representation of certain views on great commercial questions in this House. I have done so because I was within my right, and I invariably did it with directness, with simplicity, and with courtesy, and certainly expressing, as I then felt, what we all know, that notwithstanding the archaic views that the right hon. Gentleman has on some questions, he is a capable and a devoted Member of Parliament, and enjoys as much as any man I know in the House of Commons the personal respect of those who politically disagree with him.
But what did the right hon. Gentleman say, and what does he represent on this question? In this matter he represents 1885 the City Corporation, who, identified with the London County Council, have petitioned and appealed against this Bill, and when we are told, and it is implied, that the only Members who oppose this Bill and the subsidy at the expense of the consumer, and probably later at the expense of the taxpayer, are men who have scant regard for property in general, it is not true, because the City Corporation and the London County Council, acting on behalf of millions of gas consumers in London, protested and appeared by able counsel, by chemists, and engineers before the Select Committee against this Bill. The implication that is made by one or two Members, gas directors, tramway share-holders, electric light promoters and directors, who have told and voted and lobbied against this Bill, is that these men who opposed this Bill are a type of Bolshevists, who want to rob property of its rights and privilege of its perquisites. The only Bolshevists who are here in this House are the financial Bolshevists, who do not with chaotic impulse, with disorderly intent, and with revolutionary and confiscatory measures, rob other people. They do it decently and in order. They turn on a Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, a business man, and this is the first instance we have had of financial, panoplied Bolshevism responding to the Government Whips at the instance of a vested interest's pooled and syndicated machinations in the Lobby, not against the State, which ought to have treated the gas companies more considerately in the price of their residuals, but against the widow and the orphan and the poor people who consume gas, and to whom the difference between 2s. 3d. and 4s. 4d., between 1s. 9d. and 4s. 5d., is a consideration which they will feel in cold and in pain and in inconvenience when winter arrives. I am glad to say that we have had a respectable Liberal from the Front Opposition Bench and an equally respectable Conservative repudiating the right hon. Member for Berwick's (Mr. Tennant's) conduct, whose programme on this subject and on this occasion seems to me to be mail-clad Imperialism abroad with iron-clad plutocracy at home. That is neither the doctrine of modern Liberalism nor of modern Toryism, and nothing has given me greater pleasure than to find the right hon. Member for the City of London and the right hon Member for North Worcestershire giving us an evidence of true Liberalism, a regard for 1886 the respects of property, and not making the House of Commons, which the President of the Board of Trade has, an appanage of the Stock Exchange and a perquisite of the commercial classes. Why do I say that? The reason is this: For the first time in my life I have got the "Financial News" in my pocket, and I apologise to the House for being found in possession of such a document. But see the effect of yesterday's decision and of the President of the Board of Trade intervening against his own Bill and against his own Select Committee. The "Financial News" says:
As a result of yesterday's Division, gas stocks advanced on the dividend allowance.That is that the increase from half to three-quarters has sent gas shares up this morning. Now I come to another paper, that is very often regarded as the pillar of honest financial journalism, although I sometimes have my doubts about that. What does the "Times" say of yesterday's proceedings, and I must ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade to listen to this? The "Times" says:The House of Commons, at the invitation of the President of the Board of Trade, threw over its own Select Committee's recommendations and substituted three-quarters for the one-half recommendation originally in the Bill. We hardly think, however, that the Board of Trade played a very brave part in this matter in leaving it to the House of Commons to decide, but eventually, after a good deal of fumbling. Sir Albert Stanley,and so on. What did he do? This is what he has done, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and men like myself protest. When the gas companies expressed a desire to have their position improved they put forward a proposal, both in the Press and upstairs, that to keep their dividends at the pre-war rate they would want something like 2d. per 1,000 feet of gas, or, converted into terms of cash, £415,000 per annum more from London alone to maintain their dividends at their pre-war rates. Twopence per 1,000 feet seems in itself to be a small thing. So does a penny in the £1 on the Income Tax, but before the War that raised three millions of money, and when people heard of only 2d. per 1,000 feet they said, "This is a small thing," but convert that into terms of cash and it is £415,000. When the President of the Board of Trade saw this demand he said, "The Board of 1887 Trade on its own responsibility cannot decide this. It must go to a Select Committee." The Select Committee was appointed, and I am glad to say that there was no attempt, so far as those who act with me on this subject go, either to get on the Committee, to influence it, or to take any part in influencing its judgment. It would be grossly improper to do that. This Committee of nine members, composed of all parties in the House, after nine or ten days' investigation and deliberation, unanimously came to the decision that it would be unfair not to help the companies to some extent, but that it would be grossly unfair to help the companies to the extent that the companies demanded, and they recommended that they should be guaranteed as a minimum condition not less than half their pre-war dividend.
§ Mr. NEVILLENo; their standard dividend.
§ Mr. BURNSI will accept the view of the hon. Member for the Brentford Gas Works. It is a technical interpretation by him of the same cash fact. The Committee recommended half instead of three-quarters, whereat it was moved that the half should be withdrawn and three-quarters substituted. May I deal with the difference between half and three-quarters from the point of view of a London Member? Sec what this means to London! If the London County Council were to raise rates a 3d. in the £ for trams over Westminster Bridge or for a new park at Bermondsey or Deptford, the Yellow Press, led by the "Times"—and now Members must agree with my definition which I gave years ago of them—the Yellow Press, led by the "Daily Mail" and the "Evening News," and papers of that type, owned by blackguards, edited by ruffians, read by fools—
Mr. SPEAKERI do not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring. If he is referring to a Noble Lord in another place—
§ Mr. BURNSI said—and I repeat it—I was quoting a statement I made years ago in this House. I now repeat the actual statement. I said if the county council were to ask for a ¼d. increase in the rates 1888 for a park at Bermondsey or Deptford, or for the trams over Westminster Bridge, we should have the Yellow Press newspapers saying the county council were financial wastrels—that they were rascals who ought to be turned out of office. And this proposal of the gasworks and the gas companies—what does the difference between this half and three-quarters mean to London? Yesterday's Division put upon London £289,000, or a l¾d. rate, or 1¾d. per 1,000 feet; and on £28,000,000 of capital, which is watered and converted capital—actually on £15,000,000 of capital—it means 2d. per 1,000 feet, or over £400,000 increase in the price to the London gas consumer; and if we express it, as we have a right to do, in terms of London rates, it would mean to London a l¾d. rate levied on London ratepayers if they paid for their gas through the rates instead of through the meter to the gas companies.
Mr. SPEAKERI took no objection to any of that. The objection I took was to the expression of the right hon. Gentleman that a certain newspaper was "owned by blackguards."
§ Mr. BURNSThe statement I made was that when an election took place the Yellow Press, which I described years ago—and recent events have amply confirmed my prescient definition and forecast—I said the Yellow Press, owned by blackguards, edited by ruffians, read by fools. That is the Statement I made in this House. I repeat it to-day. If you say it is unparliamentary, and out of order, I withdraw it.
Mr. SPEAKERIt most certainly is unparliamentary. The leading English paper to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the "Times"—is owned by a Member of the other House. To refer to a Member of the other House as a "blackguard" is an expression which is not permitted here, and it certainly would not be permitted in the other House with reference to the hon. Member himself.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it not the fact that the paper to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is owned by a company?
Mr. SPEAKERI do not know, I am sure. I have always understood that Lord Northcliffe was the owner of the "Times."
Mr. SPEAKERThen it makes it worse, because it is other gentlemen to whom he refers as well. There can be absolutely no justification to use that phraseology about anybody, whether he be a Member of the other House or not. I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. SPEAKERI say the right hon. Gentleman has no business to refer to the owner or owners of such a newspaper as being blackguards. That is the point.
§ Mr. BURNSI mentioned no Member of Parliaments—no Member of the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I shall obey the Speaker, and no one else. If you, Mr. Speaker, decide now—and it is a very serious decision, and I respect your decision. I have been twenty-six years a Member of the House, and never come into conflict with the Chair, and do not intend to, because I do my best to comply with its rules—but if you decide now—and it is a narrow interpretation, if you say I ought to withdraw, when I did not mention the name of a Member of Parliament, or a Member of the House of Lords—I, of course, respect your decision, and I will withdraw, but I mentioned no peers and no commoners.
Mr. SPEAKERI do most certainly say that for the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, to get up in this House and name certain newspapers, and then to say they are "owned by blackguards, edited by ruffians, and read by fools," is utterly disorderly, unparliamentary, and unprovoked—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Hear, hear!"]—and I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience of the House, should have permitted himself to use such expressions.
§ Mr. BURNSI was under the impression that the Rules of this House allowed a Member a freedom of speech that, so long as he did not make a personal reflection on any Member either of the public or of this or another House, he was entitled to choose his own language in so doing. I had the honour of repeating a statement which I made when you yourself were in the Chair, and I thought I was entitled, having made it then, to repeat it now. But if during the War we are to have another standard, and have during the War—
Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman is contesting my ruling, and will not accept my statement. I have pointed out that I think those expressions are very improper. I cannot say at this time whether they were used before. I should like to have the reference. But I do suggest to him that he should withdraw those expressions. He would object to being designated in those terms, and I am sure he would not wish to apply to others terms by which he would not like to be designated himself.
§ Mr. BURNSI am too old a Parliamentary hand to damage my position in this House and the cause I represent by quarrelling or disagreeing with the Chair. I accept your advice, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Say so!"] I have said so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. That is what I meant by saying I accept your advice. The newspapers have been representing that this action of ours was in a narrow interest in defence of views that are against property. The President of the Board of Trade does not realise the harm he has done. He does not realise what he has done by appointing a Select Committee, bringing in a Bill, repudiating the Select Committee, opposing his own Bill, and not standing by his Bill in a Division in the House of Commons. I can assure the Minister in charge of the Board of Trade that we have taken this action in the interests of sound, clean, honest policy on private Bills in the House of Commons, and that he, by taking the side of the gas companies in the way that he has done, has inflicted a great damage upon Departmental control of public Bills. He has damaged the policy, procedure, and traditions of Select Committees, and has inflicted upon the poor gas consumers a considerable burden, from which they would have been saved had he stood by his own Bill. I repeat that the decision of yesterday is equal to a 1¾d. rate on the whole of London. It raises the price of gas to the consumer £298,000, or over 1d. per 1,000 feet. It gives to him that hath, and it takes away from him that hath not that which he seemeth to have.
In a word, this Bill does for the gas companies what the Corn Production Bill did for the landlord, and the Coal Mines Bill for the coal-owner. What you do for the landlord in your Corn Production Bill, what you do for the coal-mine owner in 1891 your Coal Mines Bill, what you have done for the railway director, will all be quoted as precedents, standards, and examples by all those disinherited people who have no property, whose wages have been shortened by their being taken from their labour in pit, mine, and factory and sent to the trenches in Flanders. When these men come home there is sure to be political excitement, some social dislocation, perhaps economic disturbance of a serious character, and I am really a friend of the Government when I ask them not to erect so high a standard of generous compensation, at the expense of other people or the taxpayers, for people who have more than sufficient to carry on during the War. If you do, the poor, the demobilised, the unemployed, those upon whom the burden of the War has fallen disproportionately, will say that what is good enough for the landlord, the coal-owner, the railway director, and the gas company shareholder ought to be good enough for the men who sacrificed all their property, damaged their health in at least a million of instances, gave up their lives for their country, on whose behalf they have splendidly enlisted and gallantly fought—I say by the erection of this standard you are giving an incentive to disproportionate, perhaps outrageous, demands that no country will be rich enough to stand, and wealthy though we almost were beyond the dreams of avarice, thanks to the open door of Free Trade, it is even too much for our riches to pay. When that trouble comes, you must not blame the Labour Members, the leaders of the unemployed, the leaders of the disabled soldiers, the old age pensioners, and the wives and widows of soldiers who have been injured and killed The erection of this disproportionate standard of compensation for people who do not want it, at the cost of those who are unable to bear the burden of it, will rest upon the Government, and not upon those men who, to their credit, have honourably and persistently opposed this Bill. I am not at all hopeless that some farsighted earl or prescient peer, removed from the influences of financial lobbying and company promoting, will, perhaps, in the calmer atmosphere of the House of Lords, say:
If England is a land of just renown.Where freedom broadens down from precedent to precedent"—it is the business of the peers to correct 1892 undisciplined finance, and disordered, wild, anarchic gas shareholders who marshal their legions in the House of Commons to get out of the consumer, and ultimately the taxpayer, that to which they are not entitled. I do not despair that some Members of the House of Lords, when this Bill goes to the other place, will take the view that is, I think, the view to be taken upon this question, that when the War has imposed upon the community burdens to the tune of £8,000,000,000 of debt, it is not the business of those that are rich to give examples of stampeding a Ministry, raiding the Treasury, or robbing the poor by means of disproportionately high gas prices. If such a peer were to do what I have stated he would earn the respect of his fellows, the gratitude of the public, and, speaking for London, he would earn the gratitude of a community that has been burdened by this War as no other community has ever been burdened. London's contribution to this War is nearly £3,000,000,000. It has sent a million men into the Army and Navy, and it has at least 150,000 dead men as a result of its contribution to the War. You have no right to submit these people to the great sacrifice of this burden, hitherto cheerfully borne, by getting a Government Department to shift the burdens of the gas shareholders on to the widow, the orphan, and the wife of the soldier and sailor—burdens which each of us, rich and poor, in proportion to our means and our taxable and earning capacity ought equally to bear until the War is ended.I know of no more squalid proceeding, no meaner task that has ever been undertaken by interests that have been organised as I have never seen them organised on any other Bill. I know of no meaner task and no more squalid undertaking than that which has ended in giving the gas companies privileged protection at the cost of the gas consumer I should have been false to my duty as one of the Members for London on whom this burden disproportionately falls, had I not spoken as I have spoken. Never in my lifetime, in my opinion, was any protest more justified than the protest I now make against the Minister who appoints a Committee, throws over its recommendations, brings in a Bill to carry out those recommendations, then runs away from his Bill. The "Times" is right when it says that that is not the kind of thing that evokes admiration of any Minister or any Government. 1893 If he thought one half was not sufficient, it was his business, on his own authority, as the Minister, to give three-quarters as against one-half; to stand by that proposal, and to say it was right and the Committee was wrong. He had no right first to appoint a Select Committee, then to bring in a Bill, then to abandon both the Committee and the Bill, then to run away, and not to vote on either side, but leave it to the House of Commons. He knew, or he ought to have known, what I stated in my speech here the other day, that if this Bill had been confined to the gas companies alone, and they had been voted upon, the gas companies would probably have been beaten. What happened was that at the last moment tramways, electric light, and then water was added to the gas, with the result that we saw a pooling and linking of the four interests, the end being that they got a collective vote and a majority which, I am sorry to say, was larger than it ought to have been. Thanks, however, to the Irish Members, who in these matters have invariably taken the side of the poor in London, the side of the disinherited throughout the rest of the United Kingdom—besides Ireland—the Irish Members have helped us to raise the protest from 52 to 97. If we could continue the discussion on this subject for another week or two, here and in an impartial Press, if we could get the mind of the country and not the votes of well-manipulated gas company interests, this Bill would never get its Third Reading in another place. Whether it pass or not, I have made my protest on behalf of London.
§ Mr. BURNSI have never claimed to speak other than for my own Constituents, but in this case the hon. Member for Dulwich is making a mistake. I am in this matter doing what the City of London have unanimously decided to do by petition, that is to protest against any alteration of the dividend of the gas companies, and they have been joined by the London County Council. These two great bodies have united in sharing and expressing our view before the Committee upstairs. Added to that all the Liberal Members in London have voted with us on this particular subject. I regret to say that some London Members have not joined with us to the extent we had hoped. Certain it is that I am right 1894 in saying, with all respect to the hon. Member for Dulwich, that, speaking broadly and generally, the view of London is that if there is to be any increase in the price of gas, if there is to be any disability under which the gas companies should labour, it should not be shouldered wholly on to the gas consumers, which will be the effect of this proposal, but the shareholder, the Government, the consumer, the taxpayer, and the ratepayer should proportionately, decently, and in order, each bear their proper share of the burden. It is because the interests concerned are unloading this upon the gas consumer alone that I make my protest. If a Division be called against the Third Reading, I shall have the honour and the privilege of supporting the Amendment.
Sir F. HALLI intended speaking on this matter a few days ago, when the House discussed the Bill, and I intended to do so because I am desirous of saying here and now that I do not think it has been recognised, or sufficiently recognised, that the great bulk of the capital of the gas companies in this country is held, not by the large financiers to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea has referred, but to a great body of small investors who in many cases have paid for their shares of £25 or £50 a price perhaps double the price of the shares of gas stock at the present time. It is on their behalf, and as a Member for London, that I am supporting the Government in this measure. I can tell the House that, so far as I am concerned as a London Member, I have received an enormous number of letters from small investors—scores and scores—and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) whether his experience is the same as mine, or other Members, who have received a protest against the forced reduction; and in all cases it has been in favour of the increased dividend, of the dividend being maintained notwithstanding the extra cost that will have to be borne by the consumers who are also shareholders. In not one single case have I received from the consumers a letter of protest against the proposed increase of the price of gas. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the large amount that had to be borne, £289,000. I accept his figures, notwithstanding I have not checked them, because I know full well that when the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement in this House he is so known and recognised 1895 by all those who have the pleasure of knowing him that they are fully satisfied that at all events his figures are correct. What then does it mean?
7.0 P.M.
I should like to ask the House to consider what is the ordinary amount of gas that is consumed by the consumers. Is it a question of 10,000 cubic feet or 3,000 cubic feet per quarter? I think it will be found that it is more in the neighbourhood of 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 cubic feet per quarter. We hear all these questions in regard to the great trusts and financial experts, and the question is perhaps 4d. or 5d., the cost of gas per quarter to each consumer. I think the whole question speaks for itself. Members of this House are able to get up and say, as I can say, that in no case has there been any protest received. On the other hand, I have been asked by widows, to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, to support this, for they are relying for their entire income upon such securities as those we are discussing. They have carefully saved up their sovereigns in the past and invested in former times. Now you are to say, "Never mind what increase has been given to the labourer or paid to the miner; never mind at what extra cost the gas company has been compelled to continue to produce its gas—never mind all this, the consumer has not to pay it in order that a reasonable return shall be made to the shareholders." I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade of having the courage of his convictions, of having seen that he had made a mistake, and then of coming down to this House and practically saying that in the hurry and multiplicity of the things he had had to look into he had not been able to give this Bill that care and attention which in the ordinary course he would have done. That is really what it comes to. He has said to us, "So far as I am concerned, I throw the decision in this matter upon the House." To use his own expression, "Many Acts of Parliament have been passed in this House in regard to the gas companies; they have been carefully thought out, and discussed and voted upon by Members of this House; nevertheless, so far as I am concerned, I think, under the extraordinary circumstances through which the country is passing, that, at all events, the House should decide the question of what should be done in regard to the additional cost being thrown or not thrown upon the consumer." 1896 I think it was a courageous action on the part of the President of the Board of Trade, and if the Government would only have like courage in other matters when they find the Committee have done wrong—if, for instance, with regard to the Coal Mines Bill and other Bills they had taken the same course—it would have been to their advantage. I hope that this is going to be a precedent. May I say at once, I do not believe in the view that the whole of the legislation of this country should be decided in the Committee Rooms of the House of Commons. I am quite convinced that the members of Select Committees do give most careful attention to the subjects remitted to them, but I hold at the same time that a House of 670 Members should have the right to inquire into the matters which have been decided upon by Committees upstairs, and if in the opinion of a great body of the members the Select Committee's decision is not to the greatest advantage of this country, then it is the duty of the House of Commons not to endorse their Report, but to do, as has been done in this case, take the matter into their own hands, and decide what in their opinion is best for the community. The right hon. Member for Battersea told us that he was afraid that the power of Select Committees is likely to depreciate, in consequence of the action of the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that will not be the case. I believe in these matters being thrashed out by Committees, and I hope that will continue to be the practice in the future. I believe that members of the Select Committee who went into this particular matter, now they know fully the feeling of the majority of the people in this country, will accept the decision of the House of Commons in the way one would expect from good, capable, courageous men of business. I hold it is proper the House should be given a free hand to discuss these matters, and I hope that in cases of other Gas Bills, of Bills of a similar nature, the Government in the future will adopt the same course when there is any possible question as to the decision of the Committee being a right one—that they will take off the Whips and leave the matter to the vote of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. FIELDI only desire to bring before the House this fact, that the Corporation of the city of Dublin are as strongly opposed to this Bill as the Corporation of the City of London. 1897 Various urban and rural district councils in Ireland, also, have sent to me petitioning against this Bill. On the other hand, I have had no communications of any kind in its favour, except from some gas companies. I have no desire to go over the arguments which have been used, but I wish to make this one observation, that the Debate this evening shows that public utilities in England ought to be owned and operated by the public, and not by private companies, which obtain vested interest in connection with them, and are not subject to that jurisdiction which ought to be exercised over all public utilities. I hope this Debate, too, will prevent any Minister of the Crown in future acting in the manner of which we are now complaining. This subject was examined by a Select Committee, which duly reported, and whose Report was adopted by a Minister of the Crown. At the last moment that right hon. Gentleman changed his mind. The result is that the House of Commons really is not in possession of the information which it ought to have, before being called upon to vote for this Bill. I think, too, that in future when a matter of this kind is before Parliament, Members ought not to receive so many communications, or to be Lobbied in the manner they have been during the last few days. I remember that when a Bill promoted by the London and North-Western Railway Company was before this House, the directors of that company were not here to vote. In matters of this kind, where people have a personal and financial interest in the subject under discussion they ought to have the good taste to abstain from voting upon it, and if that attitude were adopted then the House of Commons would be recognised as an impartial assembly, competent to deal with public interests. I trust that this Debate will make Ministers more careful in the future in regard to upsetting decisions of Committees.
§ Mr. GILBERTI do not happen to represent an aristocratic villa district such as the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) appears to do. I represent a working-class district where a great deal of gas is consumed. One would imagine from the hon. and gallant Member's speech that no gas is consumed in Dulwich, but I think that when an election comes along the hon. Gentleman will be surprised when he hears the views of gas consumers in his Constituency on this 1898 particular Bill. I understand him to say that there had been no feeling in London on this matter and that he had only been approached by shareholders and widows and people of that kind. The district with which I am connected is the Borough or Southwark, and the Southwark Borough Council unanimously passed a resolution asking the Members for the Division to support the Report of the Select Committee of this House. Further than that, as we have been told by the right hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), the London County Council, which is not composed so far as the majority is concerned of members with those political views I am in sympathy, has also unanimously asked the London Members in this House to support the action of the Committee upstairs. Personally, with a very short knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, I am surprised at the action of the Government on this Bill. I certainly thought that when a Special Committee had been appointed to go into the matter, had taken evidence, and had examined the details, and upon an unanswerable case had come to a decision and reported unanimously in favour of the adoption of a certain course, and when the Government had brought in a Bill based upon the recommendations of the Committee, that Bill would have been carried into law. Speaking on behalf of the particular district in London with which I am concerned, I have had very few applications from shareholders in the sense indicated by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich. I know that one gas company issued a circular worded in a special way asking people who possess a small amount of gas stock to personally interview their Member of Parliament. Another company has a kind of profit-sharing scheme and a certain number of the workmen own a small number of shares, and the result has been that we were visited in the Lobby every day last week and pressed to vote for the gas companies' proposal.
I was amazed during the Debate the other night to hear Member after Member who differed from me on this Bill get up and advocate increasing the dividend, not as Members of Parliament, but as directors of gas companies and in the interests of those companies. Public bodies with which I have previously been associated have always considered it ultra vires for persons connected with any concern to get up and advocate their own personal interest. It was quite new to me that a 1899 Member of Parliament should get up in this House and boldly advocate the interest of the company in which he is concerned, instead of safeguarding the interests of his constituents. In my part of London we have thousands of penny-in-the-slot gas consumers. These people have already been charged very much higher prices for gas. The quantity has been reduced and the calorific power has been lessened. Many of these people are munition workers, who are out all day and have to do their cooking at night by gas. They already have to pay a high price for that gas. But as the result of this Bill they will have to pay very much more in the future. I have no quarrel with shareholders of gas companies in seeking to maintain their dividends, but I would like to point out that there are shareholders in other commercial undertakings who would be very pleased indeed to have a guarantee that they will during the next two or three years get at least 50 per cent. of their pre-war dividends. Take the case of the rubber companies. For years before the War they paid very high dividends. Now, owing to the War, many of them pay no dividend at all, and I am sure their shareholders will be only too delighted if they could be assured of a percentage of their pre-war dividends in the same way as gas company shareholders are being treated under this Bill. I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea in saying that we strongly object to the gas companies obtaining these powers under this Bill. If they want to retain their pre-war dividends, let them do it in another way. It is not right, at any rate, that this burden should be thrown on the consumer. The part of London which I represent is strongly opposed to this Bill, and I feel pretty confident that when the gas consumers of Dulwich realise the fact that they are going to be charged extra prices for their gas the expression of their views will very much surprise their representative in this House.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSI want to refer to one remark in the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), and as the President of the Board of Trade was not present at the time it was delivered, I desire to call his special attention to it. The hon. Member for Dulwich is so enthusiastically delighted with the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken that 1900 he complimented him very highly on his courage, and so forth. As is usual in these cases he was evidently looking for favours to come because he said distinctly and deliberately, not once, but twice, that he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would make this a precedent in dealing with future gas and other Bills. I should like, if it is possible, to get from the right hon. Gentleman—
Sir F. HALLWhat I said was that I should like him to make it a precedent if he is satisfied that the decision of the Select Committee is wrong. In such cases I hoped he would act in a similar manner and take his action in this case as a precedent.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSThe hon. and gallant Member stated that with regard to many other subjects, but when he used the word "precedent" he was dealing with this particular Bill, and the one thing he particularly used it in connection with was the Select Committee's Report. I seriously ask anyone who has had a wide experence of procedure, who is conversant with our Constitution and has had practical experience, whether he can look with satisfaction to the Reports of Select Committees being dealt with as this one has been dealt with. I put it to any constitutional authority in this House that there is no precedent for such a proceeding. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich; said that the President of the Board of Trade, with his multifarious duties, could not look into all these questions, but what did he do? He took the right course. He said, "I cannot go into all the details, and there is only one constitutional course for me to adopt. I have advised that we have a strong Select Committee to sit upstairs to deal with these questions," and that Committee sat and deliberated, and came to a unanimous conclusion, and presented its Report.
There were three courses open to the Government and to the President in connection with that Report. They were not bound to accept, or they could have adopted part of it, but instead of that, they accepted the whole of the vital portion of the Report, embodied it in a Bill, presented it to this House, and supported the Second Reading, and then the Government actually comes down here and throws over their own Bill. Another precedent of such a kind could not be found. With regard to what the feeling 1901 is outside I have had letters from shareholders, and I happen to know that all the shareholders are not absolutely widows, and you will find the bulk of the shares in these companies is held by large holders. We have been told that we have not heard the voice of the consumers in opposition to this Bill, but I would remind the House that they are not organised. What I do say is that if this thing is going to go on in this way you will have a feeling and an organisation such as you had in the case of similar proposals by the Gas Light and Coke Company and the South Metropolitan Gas Company, when the Gas Consumers' Association was formed in London in 1894 An agitation like that would take time to organise on behalf of the consumers, but the organisation of the companies is there. They can turn out as many circulars as they like, and they have not to wait until you create a popular organisation. I know the feelings of the consumers. We must look for the organised expression of public opinion as representing the voice of the consumers. You have been told that the Corporation took up one position and the London County Council took the same attitude. Some of the borough councils took the same view with regard to the Select Committee's Report, and the Urban District Councils' Association took exactly the same view, and they asked hon. Members representing urban district council areas to stand by the Committee's Report. There is not a single representative of any of these local bodies which has asked any hon. Member to vote against the Report of the Select Committee. Therefore, as against the individual letters written by shareholders, we have the stronger case on behalf of the public.
I do not desire to injure the shareholders, but I want it pointed out fairly that this is not an attempt to break down the dividends. This is really a relief Bill. The shareholders said that, owing to the War and the action of the Government, their dividends were disappearing, and they said they believed that they would entirely disappear, and they asked Parliament to come to their aid. The Committee heard their case, admitted they were in a serious position, and came to their relief, and they said, "We will see you do not lose beyond 50 per cent. of your dividends." Why did the gas companies not come out, by means of their organisations, to attack the Government with regard to 1902 what they considered to be their grievances? They say they have a grievance because of the price charged for coal and the calorific power of the coal, and they also state that they have not had a fair price for their residuals. Why did they not bring those grievances before the Government and ask the Government to meet them? They have not done so. When private legislation is promoted we have a right to see that the community is entirely and carefully protected by the Department concerned. The Deparment affected by that particular private legislation is the only stand-by between the community and the promoters of that legislation. We want to feel that in these matters the House will hold to its old prestige and honour, and we also want to feel that the community can look with confidence to the Government Department concerned standing between it and the demands of any of these promoters of private legislation.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.