§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley)Perhaps at the outset I should indicate the Government view, not only with respect to this particular Bill, but also the other Gas Bills which are before the House which seek for some modification with respect to their charging power. Perhaps it is also desirable that I should deal with other similar and analogous statutory undertakings, such as the electric supply companies, and also it might, perhaps, be an advantage if I indicated at this time the restrictions which the Government find it necessary to place immediately upon the consumption of both gas and electricity. It is now several months since the Board of Trade were approached by a deputation representing both gas and electric undertakings in which they sought for the assistance of that Department with respect to alleged financial hardships arising out of the War, so that the Board of Trade have had for some time now a general knowledge of the whole position. It is probably within the knowledge of all hon. Members that there are a large number, quite a considerable number, of gas undertakings which are subject to what is known as the sliding scale. Under that sliding scale an increase in the price of gas produces a corresponding decrease in the dividends, and a decrease in the selling price of gas may make an increase in the dividends. Obviously an arrangement of that kind has many advantages, and certainly it is a great advantage to the consumers, and I have no doubt it has proved an advantage to those who have invested their money in these undertakings.
§ Sir F. FLANNERYAnd to the workers.
§ Sir A. STANLEYYes, in some instances it has been an advantage to the employès connected with these undertakings. There are a number of other undertakings which operate without a sliding scale, and which sell their power based upon a maximum charge. These provisions relating to price and dividend were in each instance fixed by Parliament, and all of them were embodied either in special Acts or in Orders. It is quite clear, of course, that these pro- 1087 visions were fixed in normal times, and that no provision was made for abnormal times, and the War has made it necessary to deal with a situation such as now confronts us to-day. I am not proposing at this time to enter into the merits of the particular proposals put forward by the companies, beyond observing that in so far as the information available to the Board of Trade is concerned, it is clear that there is no case, or certainly there was not at the time these Bills were introduced, for a general and indiscriminate relaxation of statutory requirements, and it was necessary that each case must be examined upon its merits, if it should be decided that any relief under the circumstances is desirable.
There are two courses only which appeared to us to be practicable. One was the method which has been adopted by some of the companies—that is, the promotion of a Private Bill, which obviously involves considerable expense, and places upon Parliament the burden of considering in detail the circumstances in connection with each case. The other alternative would be for the Board of Trade, or other appropriate Department, to present a general Bill which would place upon a Government Department the responsibility and the duty of considering the merits of each application, and of making Orders if it should be found desirable and necessary. The Board of Trade has been very reluctant to assume the responsibility of bringing in a Bill of this nature without having some indication of the policy of Parliament. It has been the view of this Department, that inasmuch as the sliding scale has always been regarded somewhat in the light of a Parliamentary bargain, no modification whatever of it should be made until the principle involved had been considered by a Parliamentary Committee. This was the position when these Bills were introduced. Since then a very considerable change has taken place, or is about to take place, which must, I think, materially affect to a greater or less degree most, if not all, of the gas and electric undertakings in the country. It will not be possible henceforward for the necessary transport to be secured for supplying all these great public undertakings with the necessary amount of coal. Therefore, the restrictions which we are finding it necessary to introduce, must have considerable effect upon these undertakings, both gas 1088 and electricity. I said that the difficulty was one of transport. It is very largely transport, but not entirely, because the withdrawal in the near future of a considerable number of men from the mines must alone have the effect of reducing the-output of coal in the country.
The problem that confronts us is primarily one of transport. It has been found necessary to withdraw from the coasting service a number of steamers which have been engaged in the transport of coal to the Southern ports of this country, and the withdrawal of these steamers will place on the railways, if all the coal that these steamers transported is to be consumed, a burden which I think will prove to be quite beyond their ability to carry. If the railways cannot take this, additional traffic caused by the withdrawal of these steamers for essential service elsewhere, the only alternative is for us to find means whereby the amount of coal that has been consumed in the country in the-past can be in some way or other reduced. The amount of coal which these steamers have been carrying is in round figures 3,000,000 tons per year. According to the calculations of those responsible for the operations of the railways, it will not be possible for them to carry more than halt that amount. Therefore, we must find ways whereby we can bring down at once the consumption of coal, particularly in the Southern parts of the country, so that this additional 1,500,000 tons need not be transported. It is not necessary for me to say that the railways will do their very best to meet this new situation, but it would be asking too much, or expecting too much, to hope that the railway companies will be able to take more of the burden than I have indicated.
It may be of some interest to hon. Members if I just briefly give them some indication of the present railway position. The railway companies have not been able since the War began to add any new rolling stock, either locomotives or wagons. On the contrary, a considerable number of locomotives have gone abroad and several thousand wagons have also left the country. The railway companies to-day have less rolling stock than they had at the outbreak of the War. On the other hand, passenger, goods, and mineral traffic have constantly increased. There was a period—unfortunately it proved to be only a short period—when there was a diminution in the number of passengers carried. It will be within the recollection 1089 of hon. Members that something more than a year ago we took steps to reduce the passenger traffic on railways. At that time we thought that by adding 50 per cent. to the ordinary fares there would be a substantial falling-off in travelling. There was a falling-off for a time, though not to the extent that we anticipated; but I am sorry to say that the traffic has gradually come back, and to-day the effect of that 50 per cent. increase has practically disappeared. The railway companies, therefore, find themselves to-day not only with a depleted rolling stock and with a considerably reduced staff, but, on the other hand, with an enormously increased traffic with which to deal. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with me that Sir Herbert Walker, the acting Chairman of the Railway Executive, and all of his comrades, and all of the officers of the whole of the staffs of the railways, are entitled to our sincere thanks. Certainly, they have acted with great ability and with complete self-denial during the whole of the War, and, if I were permitted to disclose completely all the work which the railway companies have done during the War, I am sure that hon. Members would fully agree with me that we owe all of them a very deep debt of gratitude.
§ Mr. ROWNTREEMay I ask whether the actual amount of civilian traffic has increased?
§ Sir A. STANLEYI should not like to say that the civilian traffic alone has substantially increased during the War, though it has increased. When I say that they are carrying more passengers on the railways to-day than have ever been carried in the history of the companies before, I include those who are riding in uniform, but I exclude the general military traffic. There is another difficulty that presents itself in connection with the provision of coal to those big public undertakings which have heretofore secured their supply either entirely or to a very considerable extent by steamer. Both by reason of the location and the design of these stations, they are not in a position to take the whole of their supply by rail. Therefore, quite aside from the fact that the railways are not able to take this additional traffic, the fact that the stations themselves are not in a position to take the whole of their requirements by rail, makes it imperative that there should be some immediate reduction in the consumption of coal. Since it is impossible for the 1090 railways to carry all the coal that we require, as I have said, it is necessary that we should establish restrictions on the consumption of coal. But those restrictions need not be, and it is not intended that we should, make those restrictions uniform right throughout the country. Those districts which are more nearly adjacent to the coalfields need not, at the present time, be placed under quite the same restrictions that will be necessary in those districts more remote from the coalfields. At the same time, I would desire to emphasise how imperative it is that every possible economy should be exercised everywhere, irrespective of whatever part of the country it may be, with respect to anything which has to be carried by railway. As I have said, it is vitally necessary that the railway companies should be released from traffic as much as possible, and anything that anybody can do in that direction will be most helpful.
Perhaps I might at this time mention to the House that we have come to the conclusion, much to our regret, that it will probably be necessary in the very near future to establish further restrictions with respect' to passenger traffic. It is also proposed in the next few days to cancel a very considerable number of passenger trains. It is necessary that this should be done not only that the coal which these locomotives consume may be saved, but it is also necessary that locomotives should be released for the movement of these additional trains that will be involved in the transport of this coal. As I have said, we have found it necessary to establish at once restrictions with respect to use of gas and electricity. The restrictions we are proposing are those which we feel are vitally necessary at the present time. We have gone into the matter with the greatest possible care, and we have come to the conclusion that these restrictions are the minimum which the circumstances demand at the present time. I should not like to have to suggest that these restrictions may not have to be extended. We must meet the situation as it develops from time to time, but it may be that these restrictions will not produce the desired results, and it may be necessary for us to extend these restrictions a little later on. Therefore, as I have said, while we arc establishing certain fixed limitations, it is very desirable—indeed, highly desirable—that everybody should, if possible, exceed the restrictions that we are suggesting 1091 and exercise every possible economy in the use both of gas and of electricity. It is quite clear that it would be impossible for these great public undertakings themselves to ration their consumption of coal. They can only manufacture electricity and gas, and it is beyond their control how those commodities are used. Therefore, it is necessary that we should come to their assistance and establish some system of rationing the consumers.
We are proposing to issue an Order in the next few days which will have the effect of restricting the consumption of both of these commodities over a very considerable area. It, perhaps, might be of interest to the House if at this time I gave some indication of just what those restrictions will be. We are proposing that, as regards Great Britain, no lights shall be used for the purpose of illuminating shop windows. There, we think, we shall secure a very considerable economy. We also propose that no food shall be cooked or any hot meals served in any of the hotels, clubs, inns, restaurants, public eating, refreshment, or boarding houses between 9.30 o'clock at night and five o'clock the following morning, and that all lights in the dining rooms of those places must be extinguished between ten o'clock at night and five o'clock the next morning.
We are also proposing that no performances in any theatres, music halls, cinemas, or other public places of amusement, shall be continued after 10.30 at night or reopened before one o'clock on the next day—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not 9.30?"]—and that all lights must be put between those hours, with the exception of those actually required for the use of the employés. It has been asked, Why not 9.30? Certainly nobody was authorised to say that we had determined that 9.30 should be the hour when these places of amusement should be closed. We are naturally very anxious that no restrictions shall be put upon the public if they can be avoided, and our object in placing restrictions upon the hours when these places of amusement may be carried on is twofold: first, we think that there would be a direct saving both in gas and electricity, and the other is that there will be an indirect saving through the earlier hours which this Regulation, we trust, will establish. But, at the same time, there is no desire on our part to deprive the people of the right to amusement by the—
§ Sir A. STANLEYI was very careful to say they applied to Great Britain. I will deal with Ireland later on. It is proposed to adopt further restrictions in all the counties south of a line drawn across the country from the Wash to the Bristol Channel, the number of counties so affected is twenty-three. Here we propose that all users of gas and electricity shall be restricted to using five-sixths of the amount consumed in the corresponding quarter of last year. This restriction is subject to a minimum allowance below which the consumption need not be reduced. This particular area is affected more than the other parts of the country because it is so remote from the coal fields, and because this is the area, which heretofore has been served very largely by these steamers which have had to be withdrawn, and therefore, as regards consumption of coal in this area, the difficulties are much greater at this time than they are elsewhere. But as regards these restrictions it will be necessary to make certain exceptions, such as munition works, hospitals, nursing homes and places where, by reason of the occupation not being generally similar to that for the comparative period, some modification of the restriction may be necessary. It is also proposed to ration all the large power stations from which power is supplied for tramway and electric railway undertakings. It will be necessary that all the tramway services in this area, all electric railway services, including the Underground in London, shall considerably restrict their services. It is also proposed to extend the scheme of rationing of household coal which has been applied to London during the present winter to the greater part of England; and this rationing of household coal practically throughout England will have to be done during the next winter on a considerably reduced ration as compared with that now in force in London, Those who are familiar with the coal situation in London will agree with me that that scheme of rationing has been extremely well done. It has certainly not been brought to my attention during the whole of the winter that there has been a single instance of a coal queue anywhere in London, or any complaint. I am quite sure here again that hon. Members will 1093 agree with me that Mr. Calthrop, the Coal Controller, and his assistants, the merchants of London, the colliery owners and everyone who has taken part in this scheme deserve our very best thanks.
§ Mr. BYRNEDo we understand that no one can be served with a cold meal in London in a restaurant after ten o'clock?
§ Sir A. STANLEYIt will not be possible to serve any hot meal in any restaurant after 9.30 o'clock at night. Cold meals can be served and the people who are in the dining rooms can continue to occupy them up to 10 at night, when all the lights must be put out.
§ Sir A. STANLEYIt may be necessary to provide exceptions in special circumstances, but in so far as these places are concerned, this is the Order.
§ Sir W. DICKINSONIs the rationing in London next year to be on a lower scale than last winter?
§ Sir A. STANLEYYes, it will be necessary that the scale of rationing in London next winter shall be considerably less than this winter. As regards Ireland we are not taking steps to reduce the consumption of coal. The scheme has not yet been completed, and it will take a little time before we can announce the details. Ireland, too, I am sorry to say, must suffer some restriction.
§ Mr. FIELDWill you take steps to connect the coal mines in Ireland with the main lines, so that Irish coal may be used in Ireland?
§ Sir A. STANLEYWe have for some time been engaged in the construction of an extension railway in Ireland which, I am advised, will tap a very considerable source of coal in that country.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI am told this extension railway will be completed and in operation in May of this year. It is quite unnecessary for me to say how much we regret having to take this step. We quite realise that these restrictions must involve some considerable hardship upon the public. I am quite sure we are safe in assuming that these 1094 restrictions will be accepted with the same patriotic spirit with which other necessary restrictions have been accepted in the past. The public may be quite sure that they are only made in the national interest, and that they will be removed as speedily as conditions will permit. I do not know whether it is any particular satisfaction, but certainly with these restrictions we shall be very much better off in this country than they are in the enemy countries to-day. Our latest information in respect to Germany is that they are really in a very bad way indeed in regard to transport. Our information is that in the autumn of last year they had found it necessary to reduce their train services by 55 per cent., and since that time there has been a further considerable reduction. Their tramway services in every instance have been reduced, and in some instances as much as two-thirds of their pre-war service, and all through these countries they have found it necessary to reduce very substantially the consumption both of gas and of electricity.
It is quite clear that these restrictions must, in themselves, affect not only those undertakings which have Bills before the House but also many other gas and electric undertakings throughout the country, and it would, therefore, seem to me very undesirable that we should proceed with these Bills at the present time. The course which I am proposing to take, and which I trust will have the acceptance of the House, is that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to consider whether, in all the circumstances, any temporary modification of the existing statutory requirements with regard to price and dividends, or any other form of relief, should be afforded in the case of those undertakings whose financial circumstances have been or may be injuriously affected by causes arising out of the War. If such a Committee is appointed it will give the House the necessary guidance to enable them to determine whether these Bills should be allowed to proceed or whether some other method should be adopted which would afford relief to any gas or electric undertaking where financial hardship had been shown. I have purposely avoided giving any expression of opinion of my own upon the merits of this question.
§ Sir F. FLANNERYCan the right hon. Gentleman say when the Select Committee will be set up, and what special precau- 1095 tions will be taken to ensure an early Report from them, because when the Select Committee has reported I presume it will be necessary for these various Bills, twenty-four in number, to be referred to the Private Bill Committee, which also will occupy time during this Session.
§ Mr. BURNS rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think it would be better to allow the right hon. Gentleman to finish his speech.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI purposely avoided in any way indicating my own views in respect to these Bills. In my opinion they can only be determined after a most careful inquiry, and it has occurred to me that the setting up of a Select Committee of this House would offer an opportunity whereby this House could indicate its opinion on these matters. I do not feel that a matter of this kind can be usefully debated across the floor of this House. It occurs to me that if a Select Committee such as I have suggested is set up it will afford the House an opportunity of considering the whole question. If this proposal is accepted by the House, I propose to take the very earliest opportunity of formally moving the appointment of this Select Committee with a request that the Committee should report their conclusions at the earliest possible moment. If this proposal is accepted it will seem to me unnecessary that any of these Bills which are now before the House should be proceeded with at this time, and that the Bills should be held in abeyance until the Select Committee has had an opportunity of reporting to the House. That would afford time for any opinion which might be thought desirable arising out of the Report of the Committee. This seems to me to be the easiest and speediest way of dealing with an exceedingly difficult problem, and I trust it will have the acceptance of the House.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. FLANNERYI wish to elicit, if I can, from my right hon. Friend some more definite statement as to time. It is quite true that he has assured the House that he will move for the appointment of this Select Committee at the earliest possible moment. I assume that that will be immediately after the House resumes after the Easter Recess, but he has not been able to say what stops the Government will take to accelerate the proceedings of 1096 that Committee and its report. Unless such acceleration does occur, it will be impossible for sufficient time to remain during the present Session for the Private Bill Committee to inquire into each of the separate Bills. If my right hon. Friend could give the House an assurance that by some means he can get over this difficulty, well and good; otherwise the various Bills are in jeopardy for this Session. If the Select Committee takes anything like the usual length of time that a Select Committee does, these twenty-four Bills, the subject of considerable expense and some of them the subject of very great urgency in regard to other matters quite distinct from the question of coal consumption and the question of the sliding scale, would be in jeopardy and run the risk of being lost. I am sure that it is the last thing my right hon. Friend would desire that any Bill before the House which, apart from the questions of sliding scale and the other questions of coal consumption, etc., to which he referred in one of the moat lucid statements I have over heard in this House, should be lost. He would not desire that these other points in the Bills should be postponed for a year, as they possibly would be if the Bills were lost in their passage through this House by this delay. I am not objecting in the least degree to the course which my right hon. Friend proposes, but I do emphasise the necessity for acceleration, and I hope he will be able to give the House some assurance upon that point.
§ Mr. HUDSONI do not for a moment wish to oppose the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House, but I would like to ask him one or two questions respecting the terms of reference to the Select Committee. Largely these gas Bills are asking for further financial powers. In the course of the inquiry, will they have the power to inquire questions and also to recommend with regard to the charges for domestic, commercial, and transport supply of gas, and also with regard to electricity if the right hon. Gentleman brings that within the scope of the inquiry? There is another important matter involved in the first Bill, the Brentford Gas Bill. This is a matter not only of taking further finance, but also of taking in a largo tract of land and transferring the gas works from Brentford to Chiswick and seriously interfering with a proposi- 1097 tion that was laid down before the War for town planning, and which, but for the War, would undoubtedly have been developed. It is now proposed to bring a tremendous gasworks into the midst of a residential population, and, so the people of the locality think, considerably to injure the amenities of the residential portion of the community. This is also a matter that should be inquired into fully. They were opposed only four years ago on the same project, but now advantage is being taken of the cessation of building operations during the period of the War. This is a matter which should be very carefully examined into and decided upon by the Select Committee if it is set up.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSI do not think that anyone who listened to the President of the Board of Trade could have failed to realise that we have had put before us to-night propositions of far greater effect than the mere question of the Bills that are being considered. I listened with the utmost attention to the very lucid statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and appreciate fully what it means to the community at large. We are going to be put on a very drastic system of rationing, and when the right hon. Gentleman told us what was going to happen to places of amusement, tramways, underground railways and tubes, which some of us have to use going home at night, he did not tell us what provision he was going to make for this House to sit earlier, so that we may have an opportunity of catching those tram sand trains before they cease running. While the right hon. Gentleman was making his statement it struck me that, so far as we are locally concerned with the various Bills before the House, we have to see that they are maintained, so that we can discuss them, because many of them contain very contentious Clauses besides those dealing with the sliding scale, and some of us are determined that those new powers shall not go in without a struggle, as in some cases they are an entire alteration of the Statute law with regard to electric supply. If we are to have this Committee, it means that the Government require it for the purpose of seeing what are their responsibilities towards these undertakings, and not the responsibility of the consumer. We in this House have a very great duty to perform. We have handed over from time to time by Statute these various monopolies to the various electric and 1098 gas undertakings. We have handed the consumer over to them. Our duty in this House is to protect the consumer, and it is in that interest that many of us have fought these questions from time to time.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the House a description of the sliding scale. It happens to have been my lot, not to-day, but in years gone by, to have fought the greatest gas company in this country—the Gas Light and Coke Company—over thirty years ago, when I was Member for East Finsbury. They used then to impress on us above everything else the sliding scale. I would like to draw the attention of the House and the public to this question. They have been utilising the sliding scale, as I could show if this was the right time, to increase the price on the consumer. The consumer has borne more than his fair share of the burden caused by the War. Whenever there has been a Bill creating one of these monopolies they were well advised in reference to the sliding scale by their gas engineers, and the gas companies have always seen that their standard price was not fixed too low. We know the reason that they have got these excessive dividends—even 6 per cent. in my own Constituency. It was because the standard price was so well fixed that it has been easy for them with the standard price to start at 5 per cent. and to get up to 6 per cent. by reducing it a little. I echo the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson)—What is to be the reference to the Committee that is to be set up? A great deal depends on that. If we are to have a Committee many of us will want it to have very wide powers indeed. We shall want it to go into the question whether there should be any change, and we shall want it to go still further than that. We shall want it to decide, if there is to be some compensation paid to these companies, and the Government requiring the by products for their own purposes, and for their own purposes reducing the supplies, whether that should be a national compensation, and not a compensation to come out of the pockets of the consumer. I understand that these Bills are going to remain, and I hope that when we come to these Bills individually we shall have the opportunity of dealing with them as we should have had if the procedure now suggested had not been adopted.
§ Sir HENRY HARRISI have been asked by the London County Council to oppose the Second Reading of some of the Bills which raise the same question as the Bill which is now before the House. After the statement by my right hon. Friend I do not propose to enter into the merits of the case for the moment, but I would like to know, will it be possible to have a discussion on the Motion to set up the Select Committee, especially as to the terms of reference which they are to consider? Though it is perfectly true that war conditions have told very hardly upon the producers of gas, I must point out that they have also told very hardly upon the consumers of gas. The present effect of the war conditions has been that six-sevenths of the additional cost has been thrown upon the consumers of gas, and if the proposal before the House is also to throw the one-seventh on the consumers of gas, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in preparing his reference will have due regard to the interests of the consumers. Very strong objection will be taken to interference with the sliding scale, and a strong case will have to be made out if that is to be done. As the right hon. Gentleman and the Government say that the matter should be considered by a Select Committee, I do not think that anybody will desire to oppose that, but I confess that I heard with very great regret the restrictions which the Government feel they may have to put on the service of tramways and underground railways in London, because anyone knowing the conditions as to the congestion of traffic at the present time will feel that a very serious state of affairs will be created, unless the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with great caution in this matter. That is all I have to say, except that I thoroughly appreciate all that has been done in connection with the supply of coal in London.
§ Mr. HOLTI think it is an extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman, or any member of the Government, should have made this very grave statement with regard to public affairs on a Motion relating to private Bills. Outside the House—and, indeed, Members who are not at present in this Chamber—will realise the extraordinary gravity of the situation revealed to us by the President of the Board of Trade. I hold that the more appropriate time for its discussion will be on the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow. It is a matter which certainly ought to be 1100 fully discussed, because these restrictions, which are said to be absolutely necessary, cannot be regarded merely as restrictions on the comfort and convenience of individual citizens, for they are restrictions on the working power of the people of the country, whose work will be reduced as the result of these proposals. The reduction of the working power of the country, for that is what it means, is a very grave thing indeed. With regard to this measure, it seems to me that both the consumers and the owners of gas undertakings have ground, on the consideration of the sliding scale, for saying that they both suffer from the same circumstances. The Government first of all forced up wages, and, secondly, they have artificially curtailed the price of the gas companies' by-products. These two steps taken by the Government have prejudiced both the gas companies and the consumers, and I hope that fact will be borne in mind in any reference to the Select Committee which the Government may bring forward, in order to enable the Committee to go fully into the question whether the progressive forcing up of wages and the restriction of the prices of by-products can either of them be justified.
§ Mr. BURNSSo far as it goes, the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in its relation to the twenty-four Gas Bills on the Order Paper is generally satisfactory, but it is impossible for us, not having before us the reference to the Select Committee, to judge finally this evening what shall be the course to be taken by those private Members who take exception to some of the proposals in these private Bills, that have no reference whatsoever to the War, and that are not necessary to be considered at this particular moment. I sincerely trust that the President of the Board of Trade will ignore—and I put this to him quite respectfully—the suggestion that was made to him, whilst he was speaking, to unduly accelerate the sitting of this Committee, and the consideration of this subject in all its aspects, so that the Committee may come to a decision early in this Session, in the interests of the various companies that are promoting some of these Bills. For instance, the House has had very little time to go into the details of some of these twenty-four Bills. Generally speaking, the reason of these Bills being introduced is that, owing to the War, the difficulty of getting coal, the cost of labour, 1101 and the cost of transport, the gas companies consider themselves under the necessity of meeting what they allege to be the increased cost of transport, of labour, of raw material, and other things. They consider that they are compelled to come to Parliament to ask for an alteration of the Parliamentary bargain, which laid down the sliding scale, and under which, generally speaking, all the London gas companies work. I have no objection to the Select Committee being confined, broadly, to the sliding scale, and to the financial proposals that may spring from consideration of the sliding scale, but I do object to three of the gas companies, whose Bills are down to-night, using them as the medium for attempting to smuggle through the House of Commons, for war reasons and under war conditions, proposals that have no relation whatsoever to the cost of transport or of labour, or the sliding scale, or anything of a financial character, which all of us, more or less, owing to the pressure of the War, are quite willing that the Board of Trade and the companies themselves should mutually and equitably adjust. Let me give the President of the Board of Trade the kind of instance that I have referred to. In the first Bill on the Paper (the Brentford Gas Bill), to which I am unalterably opposed, here is a simple Clause of four lines:
The local opposition to the acquisition by the company of a site at Chiswick for constructing new works is a matter which it is submitted should be dealt with in the ordinary course by a Select Committee, or, if the House prefer it, by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.Any simpleton reading that vague and nebulous reference to a proposal to acquire a new site of many acres, in the upper reaches of the Thames, would not at all think what the size and character of the land to be acquired are. I propose to enlighten the President of the Board of Trade, so that when he drafts his reference to this Committee he will do what I believe would meet the universal view not only of London Members, but of Members representing constituencies in the Home Counties—namely, regard a project of this character as fatal to the amenities of the district, disastrous to the residential character of the neighbourhood in which this new suggested works are to be erected upon land to be acquired, when there is no reason in war-time for a proposal of the kind, but which is attempted to be passed by means of any Bill which ought to confine itself to the sliding scale and 1102 similar things. Particularly may I say this to the President of the Board of Trade, that an attempt to get this particular site on the River Thames at Chiswick was before the other House only as recently as 1914, at the beginning of the War. Immediately and without ceremony the suggested land and site were summarily disposed of in the preliminary stages of the Bill, and while the War was on. Yet under the guise of a sliding scale proposal, this company, after having made the suggestion in another place, now again suggests that new land should be acquired by them. Everybody almost knows the upper reaches of the Thames, from Putney Bridge upwards. Everybody knows Thornycroft's Engineering Works, close by the Mall at Chiswick, and from Chiswick Mall to the other side of Barnes Railway Bridge, with a very long line of river frontage. In a Bill connected with financial proposals the Brent ford Gas Company proposes to acquire an area or land 125 acres in extent—that is, twenty times, the area of the total Houses of Parliament, terrace included. One hundred and eighty-five acres of land are to be acquired for the new works, while we are in the throes of war, after the Lords had thrown it out only four years ago. Of that 185 acres, with this tremendous river frontage, in a residential district, 124 acres are to be used for the erection of new gasworks.A new gasworks may or may not be necessary somewhere in that neighbourhood. The short answer to that is that this same company, who proposed to acquire 185 acres of ground and the erection of whose works would destroy for all time the amenities and appearance of that river district, have got a gasworks and manufactory at Kew Bridge, where anybody who passes can see what the company has done for that particular area, right opposite Kew Gardens. Under war conditions the company propose that 185 acres are to be acquired, 124 of which are to be scheduled for gasworks, and they ask that that should be smuggled through in this vague and nebulous way in four lines of a private Bill. As an ex-President of the Board of Trade, and having listened to the President of the Board, who has been well advised in taking the advice of the Department in referring these Bills to a Select Committee, I appeal to him not to allow a proposal of this, kind to be inserted in a Bill of this character before the local authorities 1103 affected have had reasonable time and opportunity to consider their attitude to this particular project, and before the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council and the Barnes District Council have had the opportunity of consulting even amongst themselves as to what attitude they should take to this proposal. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to jettison this particular Clause and not to allow in any of these Bills any consideration being given by the Select Committee to other than those things the War has rendered it necessary for us to consider as practical business men, both in the interests of the gasworks and in the interests of the consuming public.
My last point is this, that at this moment a number of Sub-committees of the Board of Trade and of the Ministry of Reconstruction have presented Reports to Parliament, amongst them Reports that in the interests of the economic production of power, light and heat, that we have too many electric-light installations with small units of power and of distribution in the London area, in the Home Counties, and in many parts of the United Kingdom. Those Sub-committees report that during the War the Government ought not, and the Government is accepting their advice, to allow new lands to be acquired, new capital to be raised, or money to be wasted upon uneconomical, because disproportionately small and therefore wasteful, installations where electricity is the means of providing power, light, and heat. If that be true, and it is, with regard to electric light, it is equally applicable during the War to the production of power, light, and heat from coal by means of gas manufacture. If there is any ground in that argument in logic, in economy, in consistency, in transport, in saving of money and prevention of waste with regard to electric power, light, and heat, the same principle ought to apply to similar things when suggested by the various gas companies. With regard to the London area we have got a residential argument why this should be done. London has got twenty-two gasworks, of which twelve are on the River Thames, and a good number of them are in the wrong place. I venture to suggest that 185 acres in a residential picturesque part of the upper reaches of the Thames is one of the worst places in which to put an enormous gasworks of this description. 1104 As an engineer I respectfully submit that the proper places ideally and theoretically in London for gasworks should be rather east of London Bridge than west of Putney Bridge. Coal would be cheaper and bigger vessels could come up without the intervention of the bridges and without obstructing traffic.
For all reasons—transport economy, cheapness both to the company and the consumer—there is no reason why this serious project should be considered in a Bill under the guise for considering the sliding scale. I respectfully suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, when he drafts his reference to his Select Committee, which is the right thing to do with regard to this subject generally, he should rigidly confine it to war conditions and to the financial conditions arising out of the alterations to be agreed upon by Parliament to the sliding scale, and that he should rigorously exclude two or three of the other things that have been inserted in the Bills. If he does that he will be pursuing the line of least resistance in this matter, and I should be delighted to render to the Department any help that a Member for a London Constituency can. I give him this warning as to my attitude if there is any attempt made by any of the Departments to depart from the tacit understanding we all arrived at at the beginning of the War as expressed by the Prime Ministers since the War began. We were told that we were not to consider controversial questions, but to confine ourselves, merely to war problems, and that we were to deal, so to speak, with hand-to-mouth pressing problems, such as the sliding scale and other matters. If that rule is departed from and if these twenty-four Bills are used as the medium of carrying through projects that ought to be considered with sufficient time and information to enable the various interests and authorities to be consulted, then I can assure him that I will offer unrelenting opposition to these particular proposals if he does not drop this particular Clause and one or two others, and I can assure him also unless he does so that the House of Commons will do its very best to oppose every one of the twenty-four Bills. What is more, I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority of the promoters of these twenty-four gas Bills do not identify themselves with this and one or two projects, because they see, as I have expressed it, and I am sure the bulk of the 1105 London Members agree with me, that it is unfair to Parliament and that it is not playing cricket as far as the localities affected are concerned in the guise of a Bill to amend the sliding scale and financial conditions, that certain things should be sought to be done foreign to the pledge that was given, and opposed to a fair consideration of this problem from every point of view. When the reference is drafted and submitted to the House I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, after his admirable speech, which I congratulate him upon making, this evening not to vitiate the satisfactory, the quick and equitable consideration of the financial Clauses by attaching to them proposals to which so far as I am concerned in the interests of London and the Home Counties I shall offer the most persistent, and may I suggest, most successful opposition to Clauses that under no circumstances ought to have been introduced into these particular Bills.
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)I think the House will agree that the points which have just been raised come within my province rather than that of the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) has been asking for what the President of the Board of Trade has already proposed to the House, namely, that this question of the sliding scale, the statutory price, should be considered by itself, and not mixed up with any of those extraneous questions which some of these Bills have brought in. It is not for me to express an opinion about the wisdom of the promoters in carrying deck cargo. They, no doubt, will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and, in view of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, come to a conclusion as to the other parts of the Bills. I have offered to meet the representatives of the companies soon after we resume after the Easter Recess, and then I shall be better informed as to their views on all the questions, but I know that in the case of one of those to which objection has been taken by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) he has been heartlessly flogging a dead baby. I thought I had informed him that there was no need for his passion in that respect. The Select Committee, which the Presi- 1106 dent has announced he will propose to the House after the Easter Recess, will deal solely with this question of the sliding scale maximum as affected by war conditions and restrictions, and, therefore, if any other part of the other Bills remain, they will have to be dealt with by another process. I think this is not the occasion on which to deal further with those matters. I hope the House, under the circumstances, will not have any objection to my moving that the Debate be adjourned. I should propose then to call all these Bills for the 11th April, not that they shall be taken on that day, but to give that interval for the promoters to let me know under the new circumstances what their position is, and then, if the House adopts the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade, I shall postpone all the Bills for a further period in order that the Select Committee may present its views on the matter to the House. If that is the view, I move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ Mr. FIELDI trust the right hon. Gentleman, who made such a lucid statement, will prepare such a reference as will meet with the approval of the House—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question of the Adjournment.
§ Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to. Debate to be resumed upon Thursday, the 11th April.
§ Cannock Gas Bill; Hampton Court Gas Bill; Liverpool Gas Bill; Long-wood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill; Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill; Cardiff Gas Bill; Commercial Gas Bill; Gas Light and Coke Company Bill; Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas Bill; Maidenhead Gas Bill; Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gates head Gas Bill; Plymouth and Stone house Gas Bill; Portsea Island Gas Light Bill; Richmond Gas Bill; Southampton Gas Bill; South Metropolitan Gas Bill; South Shields Gas Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill; Swansea Gas Bill; York Gas Bill; Basingstoke Gas Bill; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill; Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill.—(All by Order.)
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Second Reading deferred till Thursday, the 11th April.