§ (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the agreement set out in the Third Schedule hereto the Joint Electricity Authority may, on giving not less than three years' notice of their intention to exercise the power conferred upon them by this Section, require the London companies upon the terms hereinafter mentioned to transfer, and the companies shall transfer their undertakings to the Joint Electricity Authority on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and if the Joint Electricity Authority shall not give such notice as aforesaid they may, upon giving not 14366 than three years' notice, require the companies so to transfer their undertakings at any subsequent period of ten years up to and including the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-one
§ (2) If the Joint Electricity Authority shall exercise the power conferred upon them under the preceding Sub-section to acquire the undertaking of the London companies before the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and seventy-one, the terms upon which those undertakings shall be transferred to the Authority shall he those sot out in the agreement hereinbefore referred to, except that in the case of any lands, buildings, works, machinery, plant, mains, apparatus, and other like property (hereinafter called "the assets ") comprised in the undertakings of the London companies, and which shall have been in use or available and suitable for 160 at the date of the establishment of the Joint Electricity Authority, the Joint Electricity Authority shall pay to the London companies concerned a sum equal to the amount properly expended in providing such assets, as shown in the books and records of the companies, less the amount standing to the credit of Sinking Fund A, which, in accordance with the terms of such agreement, is to be provided by the London companies.—[Dr. Salter.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Dr. SALTERI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
2150 I may say that there are a number of London Members who wish to have this Clause added to the Bill. At the present time the purchasing authority is the London County Council, and the earliest date on which the Council can exercise its power of purchase is 1921. The terms of purchase are all laid down specifically in the Electric Lighting Act of 1888. As a result of negotiations between the Electricity Commissioners, the London County Council and the companies, a definite scheme has been arrived at which is embodied in the present Bill. That scheme provides, in the first place, for the establishment of a joint electricity authority for London and the home counties; secondly, the purchasing rights of the London County Council are transferred to the newly constituted public authority; and in the third place, the date of the transfer of the company from private to public ownership is to be postponed from 1931 to 1971. Fourthly, the existing purchase terms, as specified in the Act of 1888, are to be entirely abrogated, and new purchase terms are to be substituted as laid down in the present Bill. The present Bill is to give statutory sanction to that scheme and to those conditions. We are asking, in this proposed new Clause, that the Joint Electricity Authority, the new purchasing body, should have power, after giving proper notice—that is to say, not less than three years' notice—to take over the companies, not in 1931, as the London County Council has power to do at the present time, not in 1971, as is proposed by the Bill, but that this new body should have the option of taking over the companies, either in 1941 or in 1151 or in 1961.
When we ask that, we are not asking at the same time that the purchase price should be varied, or rather, that the principle upon which these terms are based should be varied in any respect, but only that the necessary modifications should be made which are, of course, rendered necessary by the alteration in the time; and, if the Joint Electricity Authority does take over the companies at the earliest date specified in the new Clause, namely, 1941, it will mean that the companies will still have another 16 years to run from the present time. We suggest that 16 years is a quite sufficiently long period, for a number of reasons, amongst which are the following. The Electricity 2151 Supply Acts, 1919 and 1922, most definitely contemplated that there should be set up one generating authority, and one generating authority only, for the whole of the County of London, in order to get the best load factor and the most economical distribution. These Bills which are now before the House violate that principle, and set up, not one generating authority, but three groups of generating authorities. There will be, when these Bill become law, no fewer than three separate generating authorities in the County of London. There will be Company Group No. 1, Company Group No. 2, and the group of the municipalities.
On this side of the House we say that that scheme defeats entirely the primary purpose of establishing a Joint Electricity Authority for London. We also say that such a regimecannot make for the most efficient and most economical methods. I feel quite certain that at some future date, probably within a few years, further legislation will be demanded which will unify and consolidate these three groups, and we are simply asking, in this proposed new Clause, that such unification and consolidation may take place, not 45 years hence, but 16 years hence, or 26 years hence, or 36 years hence. We are not even asking that it shall take place in 16 years; we are only asking that it may take place in 16 years, if the public body representing all the consumers in London and all the local authorities in London considers it desirable and necessary. We suggest that it is not a reasonable thing to postpone the possibility of public purchase for, practically speaking, another 50 years. There are certain to take place tremendous developments in electricity supply in the near future. The whole situation in the electrical world in general, and in the Metropolis in particular, is likely to change in the very near future, and we say there ought to be some provision in the Bill for the public getting the advantage of all these developments in the years ahead.
We are asking, therefore, that at 10-yearly intervals the public authority may have the chance of acquiring the electricity supplies of London, on proper terms, and, of course, after giving proper notice. 2152 I suggest that it is practically certain that, long before the 45 years proposed in the Bill have run out, the people of this great city will demand that their services like the electricity service shall be in their own hands; and this Clause, which is an optional one, will save both the Joint Electricity Authority and this House a great deal of time and a great deal of trouble, and the public a great deal of expense in the way of further legislation, as compared with the provisions of the present Bill.
As a matter of fact, the companies recognised the reasonableness and equity of these proposals last year, and agreed in principle to accept them. I understand that it is now denied that any such agreement was arrived at, but I think there is indisputable evidence on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), when he was Minister of Transport, undertook negotiations with the companies on this point, and I understand quite specifically that he came to an arrangement in principle with the promoters of the Bill on this point, and that they were prepared to accept the period of 1941 as the first period for transfer. We also know that the first information that reached Members on this side of the House came through the Press. It came to us through the Lobby correspondents of this House, who actually received it themselves from the promoters, and then came to Members on this side and asked them for their comments for publication.
The then Member for South Hackney, Mr. Herbert Morrison was the most prominent opponent of the Bill at the time, and the first knowledge we had of the matter was when a Lobby correspondent came and asked his opinion, the correspondent having received the information from the promoters themselves. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who is a member of the London County Council, stated at the time in public in the London County Council that he had been approached by the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Sir A. Shirley Benn), who was, if not actually representing the promoters, at any rate acting as a friendly intermediary, and who informed him that, if he would move an Amendment in the sense of this proposed new Clause, 2153 the promoters were willing to accept it. On these grounds, and on many others, we are perfectly certain on this side that a year ago the promoters of the Bill were perfectly prepared to accept this new Clause, and I would ask, if the proposal was reasonable and equitable then, and acceptable to the companies, what has happened in the meanwhile to alter the position and make it unreasonable or impossible at the present time As a matter of fact, the promoters have sent out a circular to all Members of the House within the last 24 hours, in which they say that the Clause which we are now moving would be unjust to the companies, and would destroy the whole structure of the Bill.
§ Mr. HANNONHear, hear! Quite right.
§ Dr. SALTERThe hon. Member opposite says, "Quite right," but the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept this Clause a year ago. If it would destroy the whole structure of the Bill at the present moment, it would have destroyed the whole structure of the Bill 12 months ago, but there was no suggestion to that effect a year ago. The change is simply due to the altered political complexion of this House, and to no other reason. I come to the second Sub-section of our Clause, which is merely a consequential one dealing with the terms of acquisition, and, if hon. Members will read the terms they will see that the, terms of acquisition are, in principle, exactly the same as are set out in the Bill itself, and are only made necessary by the alteration in the time.
The seventh and eighth Clauses of the Third Schedule of the Bill lay down the terms which were agreed between the London County Council and the composite company which is representing all the companies at the present time, and those terms state that the company shall create two sinking funds, which are called respectively Sinking Fund A and Sinking Fund B, and that, when transference takes place in 1971, these two sinking funds shall provide the purchase price of the assets of the company. The object of these funds is a very excellent one, namely, to ensure that, when the transfer is effected, there shall be not much capital expenditure by the purchasing authority at the time; but, as 2154 a matter of fact, the consumers throughout London have to provide these sinking funds through enhanced prices for their current. That is to go on over a long series of years, until, when the actual transfer takes place, there will be sufficient money in the fund to pay for all the assets, and the companies will then appropriate the accumulated money in the sinking funds and accept that as the purchase price. That is all laid down in the Bill itself.
Sinking Fund A provides for payment for the physical assets of the company which are actually in existence at the present time, or which will be in existence when the Joint Electricity Authority is duly constituted. This first Sinking Fund A provides for payment for the land, buildings, plant, mains, machinery, apparatus, and so on, which are at the present time in existence; and if the Bill passes in its present form, without the proposed new Clause, all these physical assets have to be handed over to the Joint Electricity Authority in 1971 absolutely free of cost, the purchase price in the meanwhile being made up in Sinking Fund A. Sinking Fund B is to provide in respect of the assets which are to be created hereafter, and these are to be paid for on the basis of cost of new capital properly expended, less depreciation at a rate fixed in the Bill. In our proposed new Clause, Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the terms of transfer shall be those set out in the Bill, that the principle in the agreed Schedule, that the company shall be compensated for all new capital by proper payments out of the two sinking funds, shall not be affected in any way, and that the physical assets—land, buildings, and so on—in use or suitable for use at the present time, shall be paid for at their original cost to the companies, less The amount standing to the credit of Sinking Fund A. Obviously, that is a thoroughly just and suitable arrangement, and I take it that the promoters would this object to it if it is laid down by this House that the time of transference should be earlier than 1971—that it should, in fact, he periodical.
The terms of transfer provide an arrangement which is good from the public point of view, and which, as it seems to me, is fair and just to the companies also, because they are not to be robbed, there 2155 is to he no spoliation on behalf of the public on the one hand, and there is to be no exploitation of the public on the other. We say it is not right that a great city like London should have its hands tied for 50 years in regard to one of its vital public services, and one which involves the very life of the city. We ask this House, in view of the rapid changes which are taking place in electrical developments, and particularly in civic and communal needs at the present time, that the time of transfer should not be as long as 50 years, but that the public authority should have an option to take over these electrical undertakings in London either in 1941 or at 10-yearly intervals thereafter.
§ Mr. SNELLI beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has explained the Clause very lucidly and I do not propose to go over the ground he has traversed. Our desire is to make a plea to the House for this shorter period whereby the community may resume its control over what is an essential and may become a very vital service which it will need. We are asking the House to agree to this, and especially hon. Members opposite, because we are not asking them to sacrifice any political principle We are only asking them to consider the convenience of future generations —perhaps even our own generation—in allowing them to be able to assume control at an earlier period should they desire to do so. We hold that it is a foolish and probably also a very dangerous thing to legislate out of the hands of the public for a period approaching 50 years this vital service without at the same time providing frequent opportunities whereby it may he restored to the community. It has been said that inasmuch as the London County Council has agreed to the general provisions of the Bill, therefore it is entirely satisfactory. That argument will undoubtedly be impressive to those who do not know the London County Council, but to those of us who do it loses a great deal of its force. We feel that this attempt to legislate away powers which belong rightly to the community is making a gamble of our industrial future. We cannot possibly foresee what the needs of the community may be and how vital it may be for it 2156 to have control of this very essential service. What the Bill really does is to jump the claim of a public electrical system. That is what it is designed for. That is why it has been pressed forward at this time—to get in on the ground floor before the community is ready to look after its own interests.
The previous electricity schemes have always aimed at this joint electrical authority, and the private companies who are promoting this Bill were always opposed to that joint electrical authority. The issue before us to-night is not that of a public service versus a private service, but a question rather of private enterprise in a very objectionable and dangerous way. The principle upon which we base our plea is that the community may require at any time, possibly within the next 10 years—indeed, it requires it now—freedom to control, for its own needs, these public services, and we have no sort of guarantee that these companies to whom we are to entrust these services will not restrict electrical development. We have no assurance that they will respond to the industrial needs, for though it may be the best company in the world, they are in business, not to provide a public service, but to conduct a commercial enterprise, the test of success being, not the way in which it serves the community, but the amount of money which that service will bring to themselves, and with a commodity which is so universally used and may be so vital to the community, it ought to be treated as we treat the health service, the education service, and the provision of water for the public. It is altogether too important to let pass out of the public hands unless at the same time we provide the means whereby at a short date we can resume control over that industry. When you cannot escape from a tyranny altogether the right thing is to make the period when you are compelled to bear it as short as possible, and we feel that inasmuch as the House is being asked to sacrifice no principle that it has previously affirmed, it might with a great deal of justice to the future, and with an appreciation of possible needs, grant this Clause.
§ Sir GEORGE HUMEThe hon. Member has travelled rather more widely than the proposer of the Amendment, and I will crave leave to follow him shortly into the 2157 fields into which he has strayed. He has talked as though something new was being done, something which will be creating precedent and setting up tyrannies. I think if we come down to the real facts of the case, we shall find that the picture is very different from that which he has sketched out. When the Electrical Supply Act was passed in 1888, the period given to the companies was one of something like 40 years. It was realised that it was necessary to give a considerable life, and it was towards the end of that 40 years that three years' notice had to be given in 1928, to come into operation in 1931, in case the London County Council desired to purchase the company. As a matter of fact, under the existing law it is open to the county council to refuse in 1928 to give the notice, and thereafter ten years' notice can be given. What will the result of that be? We have found in practice that the result has been that the companies have found themselves hampered and tied by this constant uncertainty as to what was to become of them at the period when the county council had to give its notice, and in all the discussions which have taken place over these electricity Bills, before their inception the county council has realised that., whatever arrangement is come to, it was vitally necessary to remove the uncertainties which had hampered development hitherto.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) put his Amendment in a very moderate way. I have only knowledge of what the county council has done and what its motive has been, and I do not know what may have passed between the Minister of Transport and the companies. All I know is that I was approached personally from one quarter and another and urged to take a hand in negotiations, which I was told were going on, to urge the companies to agree to some sort of arrangement that we put forward As I had to point out, we had entered into an agreement which we had worked out in detail, which had resulted in the Bills that were before the House, and in honour we could not go back on those agreements. If the companies chose to come to an agreement it would be another matter, but at that time it was our duty to point out—this is what the hon. Member for Bermondsey has not really realised—that it would be impossible merely to make the Amendment 2158 he suggests without having to make very radical Amendments in the Bill on its financial side. The difficulties which had to be faced in working out this agreement were extremely great. When we came to the sliding scale, we had t3 bring in experts, and in the provision of a sliding scale for electricity purposes—I think it is the first time anything of the sort has been done—they found extreme difficulty. I have the conviction that in working out these scales and the agreements generally we have reached a most equitable balance. The fight has been a very prolonged and difficult one, but I think it will probably hit the beam far closer than we had reason to fear we might do. It is strange that when proposals of this kind have been made, involving transfers such as are contemplated, and dealing with the companies' undertaking in the manner which is proposed, there has been no speculation on the Stock Exchange whatever, showing to my mind that the conclusions arrived at were extremely accurate.
If the Amendment were carried, the effect would be that the development once more of the company's areas would be hampered. They would not know from year to year what will be likely to happen to them at the end of the 10 years' period, and the great advantage we hope to obtain by having a long period of development would be lost. I do not think it is realised generally that the companies are not to be bought out at the end of that period. The buying out begins at once. They are being bought out through the whole of that period. I think hon. Members do not realise what a concession it was on the part of the majority on the London County Council that they should have been willing, in order to obtain an improvement in the supply conditions in London, to set up arrangements which make it absolutely certain that at the end of that period the whole undertaking is to pass under municipal control. That sacrifice was made willingly.
§ Mr. DALTONSacrifice of what?
§ Sir G. HUMEThe wiping out of private enterprise in the London area at the end of the period. Hon. Members smile, but the sacrifice was a very real one on the part of the majority of the London County Council, who do not believe in municipal trading. They were 2159 perfectly willing, in order to achieve what they recognised was a necessity for London, to throw their objection overboard and make it absolutely certain that the companies would pass over to the Joint Electricity Authority at the end of that period. Another sacrifice they were prepared to make was to transfer their purchase powers to the central authority as soon as that authority was set up and functioning. I hope the Amendment will not be agreed to. It will strike at the very root of the arrangement. There are two sinking funds. The idea of the first was to be able to pay off the whole assets now existing—what I may call the perishing assets—and the second sinking fund would be set up later on in order to cover the assets which would have to be taken over at the end of the period. If you are going to have only a 10 years' period, I do not see how that first sinking fund is going to work. You will certainly not have paid off the existing assets and there will have to be all sorts of financial adjustments made which, under this Amendment, could not possibly be carried out.
§ Dr. SALTERWhat adjustments? Will the hon. Member specify?
§ Sir G. HUMEYou are proposing in this Amendment to leave the general arrangements in the agreement standing. You wish to alter the period when the option can be exercised. If the option were to he exercised at the end of the first. 10 years, the result would be that you would not have paid off the cost of the assets, or the value of the assets, at the end of that period.
§ Dr. SALTERProvision is made in the second Sub-section.
§ Sir G. HUMEThe provision in the second Sub-section will be quite inadequate for the purpose. When I realise the difficulty of the fine adjustment which had to be made in negotiation, on the advice of our experts, I say that the House will be doing an extremely dangerous thing if they pass this Amendment, not knowing what the result of doing so will be.
§ Mr. HARRISI congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) on 2160 his return to this House. We all realise that, whatever we may think of his views, he has great knowledge and experience of municipal matters. My regret is the particular cause for which he is standing to-night. This is a reasonable Amendment. I remember that late last year the companies concerned were prepared—there is no secret in the matter—to accept this period as a settlement, and a just and fair settlement, of this long-outstanding problem.
§ Mr. HANNONWill the hon. Member state the terms on which they were prepared to accept it?
§ Mr. HARRISI cannot say that I was a party to it, because I refused to be a party to it, but I was approached, if not officially, at any rate semi-officially, and told that the companies would be prepared to break the term at a period of every 10 years. They even went so far that I was asked to move an Amendment. It was said that honour would come to me in bringing this long and bitter 30-years' controversy to an end. I want to be quite frank with the House. I wanted to destroy the Bill altogether, and that being so I did not think that I was an appropriate agent to move the Amendment. That seems to me to indicate that the Amendment now moved, very wisely and very properly, in the terms that the companies were prepared to accept as a just settlement a few months ago, should be accepted. There does not seem to be any reason why the House should not support this Amendment now.
§ Mr. HANNONWhen the hon. Member says that the companies were prepared to accept the arrangement to surrender, at intervals of 10 years, will he tell the House what were the terms on which they were prepared to surrender?
§ Mr. HARRISI was led to understand that they were the terms contained in the Bill.
§ Dr. SALTERThe terms in this Amendment.
§ 9.0 P.M
§ Mr. HARRISI think I have good reason for saying that they were prepared to accept such a proposal. If this did not concern London I believe a soulotion of this kind would be carried by the home. When a similar Bill was brought forward to set up a large company for Essex, the 2161 representatives of the County of Essex, irrespective of party, and not only the ordinary representatives but the Secretary of State for War, intervened and persuaded the House to throw out the Bill. Somehow or other in regard to London matters London Members are indifferent, and they have to go to Birmingham to find a champion of Bills of this kind. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) may achieve his end. However, we are going to make an effort, and I think the effort embodied in this Amendment is sound. Unfortunately, the London representation of the party to which I belong is infinitesimal. If our representation had been larger, probably the fate of this Bill would be very different.
There is a very special reason why we should limit the period to ten years. The Minister of Labour announced to-day, and there have been similar announcements during the last few weeks on behalf of the Government, that the Government intend to deal with electricity on large national lines, that they have a big scheme in hand, on which they have been sitting for many weeks, and that by the autumn large scientific schemes will be brought forward dealing with electricity on such a large scale that it will be a cure for unemployment. We congratulate the Government from that point of view. Unfortunately, this Bill will prejudice London from reaping the advantage of any such scheme. If this Bill becomes law it will he impossible for London to come inside any large comprehensive scheme. London has a difficult enough fight for its industry at the present time. Is it right, just, and fair, to prejudice London for 40 years in its supply of electricity. It cannot be right and fair, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who understands this question, will realise that this problem cannot be dealt with in patches, hut that it must be dealt with on large lines, which will give a good diversity factor. If we are to get a scheme that will bring about the cheapest production of electricity, it must not be dealt with on a small scale but on a very comprehensive scale.
The Williamson Committee, which reported in 1918, came to the conclusion, after full consideration That, in the national interests, generating stations and main transmission lines ought to be, 2162 as a general rule, publicly owned. They went on to say that it should be dealt with, rather, through the electricity authorities owning the generating plant. That Report was signed, not only by Sir Archibald Williamson, who was then a Member of this House, but also by the hon. Member for Greenwich. He seems to have overlooked the fact that he sat as a member of that expert Committee, and signed this Report. I want to have the generating stations publicly owned, and I suggest that the distribution should be in the same hands. The Report stated that the generating stations and main transmission lines aught, as a general rule, to be publicly owned. It is a different proposition whether the retail distribution of electricity should not remain in the hands of the local authorities and the companies, as at present. The hon. Member for Greenwich has accepted the principle that it is right, just and proper that the generating stations should be publicly owned, by having signed the report. I think that he will agree with me that the London County Council recognised a scheme on those lines only because of the difficulty of bringing in the various interests, the local authorities and different companies, and that they finally compromised and gave away on the present scheme.
§ Sir G. HUMENot only have we provided for public ownership of generating stations, but for distribution as well.
§ Mr. HARRISIn 40 years time when we shall all he dead. We were led to think by an expert Member of this House, who opposed the. Bill which I introduced, that one of the great objections to my Bill, which he had not read, was that there were great revolutionary changes taking place in electricity which would make the system of generation possibly entirely different, and far more efficient and that the same would apply to distribution. But London would be prejudiced, however great the improvements are, if the matter be put entirely into the hands of these three companies. Whatever the views of the House may be about electricity being privately or publicly owned, it is clear that the larger the area of supply and distribution the snore efficient your service awl the cheaper the price to the consumer, and the better he would be able to produce the electricity.
2163 This particular scheme divides London into three systems, two different groups of companies and a set of local authorities who are going to have schemes of their own. That may be all right as a temporary measure, but is it wise to tie us to a scheme of this kind for 40 years? It is against industry and trade in London. Here is a reasonable way out of it. In 10 years' time, if these companies prove that they are giving an efficient service of cheap electricity, if they are selling their juice at a figure compared with that charged in the North of England and in other countries of Europe, then by all means let us renew their lease and let them go on with their good work. If, on the other hand, we find by experience that they are shortsighted in their policy, and that they refuse to bring their plant up to date to give us an efficient service, then we can make new arrangements to municipalise the generating stations or take over the whole organisation. The Committee which went into this matter deliberately came to the conclusion that the London County Council should be responsible for the supply of electricity in 1931. They say:
The Committee are of opinion that the best means of providing a supply of electrical energy in hulk for power and motive purposes is by one large inclusive scheme extending not over the County of London hut also the adjoining boroughs and districts".and it recommended that the London County Council should do this work. The House has a right to come to the conclusion that it should settle the matter for the next few years, but it is not fair to prejudice the future. For that reason, as a safe compromise, we should make it possible for a future. authority to terminate the arrangement in 10 years' time.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT(Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon)This Debate is, so to speak, a rehash of discussions which have been held, not in another place, but between two parties outside across the river. Both those parties are well versed in local government, and this House has always had such a respect for local government that I do not think it would be a wise precedent for us to butt in too much in the case 2164 of arrangements made by different municipalities. Consequently, I do not intend to address my remarks to-night to the actual agreement which has been made by one of the great parties in the London County Council with regard to this matter. My promise to-night is to tell the House whether the agreement that has been come to is to the general advantage or disadvantage of the development of electricity throughout the country.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) told us that we were considering the whole question of the reorganisation of electricity, but I want to assure him that we look upon the establishment of a Joint Electricity Authority in London as absolutely basic to the real development of electricity. In the consideration of the great question of electricity we have found running up and down the country much stultification and lack of progress due to the threat of an undertaking being taken over, not at a particular date but because there is an option to take over at a certain date. When the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) says that a private company will not develop its undertaking because it is going to look only to profit and not to the good of the community that comes in more and more if their tenure is an exceedingly small one. If there is an extended tenure, they can expend capital and put down lines with the view of getting back at a future date the money which they expend.
I maintain that the objections which the party opposite make to this proposal are more sentimental and political than real, because transcending the whole question is the question whether this authority is to be set up or not. To break the agreement made between the London County Council and the companies on such a basic question as this is to throw back into the melting pot the whole question which has been studied, and upon which agreement has been sought for the last 20 years. That is the great danger which I see in this particular Amendment. The Joint Authority is not a paper institution; it is a very real thing. It will be the first time that London electricity has ever been able to be worked together as a whole.
There is no use in trying to make it appear that London is not going to govern its own electricity. That is far 2165 from what is going to happen. We have to remember, first, that the consumption of electricity in London is very much behind what it is in America. It is only 100 units per head, while to-day throughout America it is 500 units per head. I think we are justified in believing that within the next 15 years the consumption of electricity in London will equal the present rate of consumption in America, and everyone can see what enormous developments there must be in the generation of electricity in London in that particular time. Consequently, one can almost neglect the present installations and one must look to an expansion of the London electricity plant, as compared with that which exists to-day, to the extent of three times its present dimensions within the next 15 years. How is that going to be done if it is not within the province of this authority to co-ordinate exactly how that development shall take place? You must remember that the private companies have bound themselves to the technical schemes to be imposed by the joint authority, subject always to the approval of the Commissioners. You will see in the agreement that already what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green wanted in his old compulsory powers has practically taken place. What I call the West End group has already segregated generation into one home. There you see the start of efficient generation. Undoubtedly the most efficient company will carry the base load, and other companies will carry the peak. That is the sort of development that will take place throughout London.
I am certain that when this authority is set up, and when the private companies and the municipalities get round a table together and are able to develop and talk these questions over, the animosity between the two branches cannot go on for ever. The power of imposing a technical scheme upon London transcends any other thing that we can do with regard to the reorganisation of electricity in London. As the thing is built up, so London will be able to look at the whole picture as one, and not as at present as two warring elements, the one against the other. In future, money which is expended by the private companies is to be controlled by the authorities. They will say how it is to be issued, whether in 2166 debentures or in preference shares, or in ordinary shares. They will say for what it is to be used. I assure hon. Members opposite that this question of the setting up of an authority transcends all the other questions, such as the date when the thing shall be taken over. By the time 1941 is reached I am certain that London will have reached the stage of looking upon this development from the point of view of electricity as one whole and comprehensive problem, instead of as at present, one party waging war against another.
§ Mr. BARNESI am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech has not conveyed very much satisfaction to the Members on this side of the House, because he has failed entirely to explain the point in the Mover's and the Seconder's remarks, namely, how it is that the present Government, with its added powers as far as its majority is concerned, has failed to obtain from these private companies the same terms as were offered to the Labour Government last year? That is a responsibility particularly on the Minister himself. As far as we can gather from fairly reliable authority, owing to the opposition that emanated from the London Members towards these Bills 12 months ago, the companies expressed their willingness to agree to this periodical purchase clause being embodied in these Bills. Since then we have had a change of Government, and those of us who represent London constituencies are entitled to ask the Ministry of Transport, which is assuming more and more power over London affairs, for an explanation. I was very interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that it was not the province of Parliament to butt into municipal affairs. Yet the Ministry of Transport in particular has taken upon itself to butt into London affairs to an extent that we have not experienced before. In so far as that Department is so largely concerned in London municipal affairs, we are entitled to ask from the Government why it is that they have not seen that the concessions given or indicated 12 months ago are not embodied in the Bill to-day. The fact that they are not embodied in this Bill is significant for the history of these negotiations.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) when he was outlining the views 2167 of the London County Council. We all know that he can speak with some authority of their mind. What was the burden of his speech He emphasised the necessity of removing this feeling of uncertainty as far as the companies are concerned. Why should Parliament be concerned with the uncertainty involved in private shareholders in electricity in London? Despite the amusement of the hon. Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon)—whenever we enter on these Debates his concern seems to be to take away municipal powers in London—the primary duty of Parliament, of Members of Parliament who are elected to represent their constituents and not the shareholders of private companies, is not to consider the anxiety of the shareholders and the directors, but to try as far as possible to safeguard the communal interest of the people of London. I want to approach this question by indicating what this 40-years' concession means. We can best gauge in a broad sense what it means if we compare the development of electricity with the power and usage of coal in the 19th century. If Parliament had been farsighted enough at the beginning of the 19th century to take over the coal supplies of the country, industry, and particularly the coal-mining industry, would not have been in the parlous state that it is in today. The condition of the coal-mining industry in this country to-day is the result of the neglect of Parliament to foresee the development of the power and the influence that coal would exercise, not only in industrial life, but in the whole life of the community.
It is apparent to anyone who watches the development of electricity in the first quarter of the 20th century, that electrical power is going to exercise just as great an influence in the industrial, social and domestic life of the community in this century as coal did in the 19th century. We had Parliament in 1888 laying it down that in 1931 the people of London should resume municipal control of this important development. The private companies have had 40 years in which to carry out their part of the responsibilities to the people of London, and the Parliamentary Secretary's speech in itself is a condemnation of the extent to which they have performed their function, because he admits that London is behind every 2168 great city in the world as far as this electrical development is concerned. There was no uncertainty as far as their period of life was concerned from 1888 to 1931. The uncertainty has cropped up only during the last two or three years, when they have been out for an extension of their powers. This Parliament ought to take into consideration the purpose and policy of previous Parliaments. In 1888 Parliament intended that this force of electricity should become municipal in 1931. In the 1908 Act Parliament went further. It recognised that, whilst this right of purchase was spread over a number, of local authorities, they very probably would impede the purchase of these rights by the community in 1931. Therefore in 1908 Parliament transferred those purchase rights from the local authorities to the London County Council. The larger municipal bodies would be more easily able to function in this direction. As far as the London County Council is concerned, as a representative of one of the areas outside the London County Council, I challenge the right of the London County Council to bargain away those powers vested in them by Parliament, not only in the interest of the people of London itself—the London County Council area—but the people of London in the larger areas. I consider it is a gross betrayal of the functions which Parliament conferred on the London County Council, that a Conservative majority there, finding itself entrenched for a period, not having been returned by the people of London on that issue, should upset its rights, and that Parliament should confirm it. Another point I wish the Minister to explain is this: In the Act of 1921 it was laid down that the Joint Electricity Authority for London should be set up. Why has it taken five years to establish the authority? Had the Joint Authority been appointed and set up before these private Bills were promoted, possibly they would never have got through. I venture to assert that the setting up of the authority has been deliberately held back until those private companies had staked out their claims, and were therefore practically independent of the operations of the Joint Electricity Authority.
§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZONThe hon. Member is trying to make a case that it was possible to set up the 2169 Joint Electricity Authority under the 1921 Act. No electricity authority could be set up except by agreement.
§ Mr. BARNESThat confirms my point. The private companies had steadily refused to agree until they got their bargain and their terms. That is the crux of the whole position. The bodies which have been opposing the setting up of the Joint Electricity Authority in London since 1921 have been the private companies. All the municipal authorities have agreed as to the necessity for this authority, but the private companies have steadily refused to agree to any scheme until, first of all, they promoted these- Bills extracting their pound of flesh from a Conservative majority on the London County Council, and Parliament is now being asked to confirm them. Parliament is confirming these Bills and giving powers against the wishes of the local authorities outside the London County Council. Under all the circumstances, with full knowledge of what is involved, those of us who represent the London Labour movement feel that it is our duty to tell hon. Members here to-night that we are not a party to this bargain. if ever London Labour is able to influence the power of Parliament, we shall influence Parliament and use that power to destroy this electrical trust monopoly at the earliest possible moment.
§ Mr. G. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in the earlier portion of his remarks, made an observation which I am sure will meet with the approval of Members in all parts of the House. He said that no Member of this House should come here representing the interest of shareholders or of any section, but representing wholly and solely his constituents who sent him into this House. With that I cordially agree. I am sure any Member of this House will be ill-equipped for admission to this Assembly if he adopted any other attitude towards his duty in this House. I think the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a strange misconception when he speaks of the London County Council bargaining away the rights and liberties of the people whom they represent. On the contrary, I think the London County Council have adopted a very wise and prudent course for the protection of the interests of the people who entrusted them with the great duties they have to 2170 perform. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that until 1931 the companies were to remain in possession of the powers which had been granted to them under various Provisional Orders, and the London County Council had a right on that date to acquire these undertakings. In the interest of the public at large, the London County Council said to themselves, "Are we to wait until 1931 to exercise that option and meantime leave in a state of chaos and stagnation the development of the whole of the electricity supply of London? The hon. Gentleman must remember he is dealing with what is perhaps the most complicated problem any Member of this House could address the House upon. Are we to wait till 1931 before we begin to bring about unification?
§ Mr. BARNESIn 1920 the London County Council and the Joint Electricity Authority could have been set up and have had the power of purchasing the Barking electric power station—the best power station erected in London.
§ Mr. BALF0URWhat the hon. Gentleman says does not touch the question. The fact is that until 1931 this large number of stations was not purchasable, nor were the distribution services of these purchasable by the London County Council. I cannot imagine that the London County Council, in the exercise of their duties, would endeavour to do anything else than find a quick and rapid solution. They have made up their minds apparently that they would not desire to purchase in 1931. As I understand, they intimated to the various companies that they would not desire to purchase on that date and asked whether there were any means now of clearing up the situation? As I understand it, they had long discussions with all the companies interested. They battled for every point: they fought to get the hardest terms they could and I believe—and I speak with a certain amount of knowledge—the companies made in many cases very great, sacrifices in order to meet the views of the County Council and to co-operate with the County Council in finding a real and satisfactory solution of this problem. That is what I understand and I am associated, as many hon. Members know, with one of the two largest electrical companies in London. I am perfectly content to see this Bill thrown out. [HON. 2171 MEMBERS: "Vote with us "] Oh, no. I say I am perfectly indifferent, and all the constituent companies know. The company I am connected with is in a different position, and it does not affect us if this Bill is not passed. I say to hon. Members —and I hope they will accept it from me as a considered opinion—I do not think those two Bills, in combination with the Order which the Minister will lay on the Table, is the ideal solution. But I do think this. It is the nearest thing you can get to it: to the drawing together for unification purposes of the whole of the
§ electricity services of London. The companies have accepted this solution as their contribution to the solution of this complicated problem, and I put that before hon. Members opposite, speaking with full knowledge, with absolute sincerity, and I think they will make a great mistake in the interest of the people of London if they do not allow these Bills to pass.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 226.
2173| Division No.104] | AYES. | [9.35 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon.W. (Fife, West) | Heyday, Arthur | Shlels, Dr. Drummond |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hayes, John Henry | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst. G. H. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smillie, Robert |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley) |
| Barr, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Batey, Joseph | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Snell, Harry |
| Brlant, Frank | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Broad, F. A. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kelly, W. T. | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Sutton,J. E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Taylor, R. A. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lee, F. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middiesbro. W.) |
| Connolly, M. | Livingstone, A. M. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lowth, T. | Thurtle, E. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Mackinder, W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon.C. P. |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Viant, S. P. |
| Duncan, C. | Montague, Frederick | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Forrest, W. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Warne, G. H. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Murnin, H. | Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda) |
| Gillett, George M. | Palin. John Henry | Whiteley, W. |
| Gosling, Harry | Paling,W. | Wignall, James |
| Graham,D. M.(Lanark, Hamilton) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Greenall, T. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, Dr. J. H.(Llanelly) |
| Greenwood, A.(Nelson and Colne) | Potts, John S. | Williams, T. (York,Don Vally) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Richardson, R. (Houghton.le-Spring) | Wilson,C. H.(Sheffield,Attercliffe) |
| Groves, T. | Riley, Ben | Wilson. R. J.(Jarrow) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Ritson, J. | Windsor, Walter |
| Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark,N.) | Robertson, J.(Lanark, Bothwell) | Wright, W. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R.,Normanton) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | |
| Hardie, George D. | Scrymgeour, E. | TELLERSFOR THE AYES.— |
| Harris, Percy A. | Scurr, John | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. T. Henderson |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Briggs, J. Harold | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Brittain, Sir Harry | Cooper, A. Duff |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Cope. Major William |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cente'l) | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cooper, J.B. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham) | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon.Wilfrid W. | Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Burman,J. B. | Crooke,J. Smedley (Derltend) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Caine, Gordon Hall | Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert |
| Beamish, Captain T.P. H. | Campbell, E. T. | Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry |
| Beliairs, Commander Canyon W. | Cassels, J. D. | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Berry, Sir George | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester,City) | Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Blundell, F. N. | Christie, J. A. | Dixey, A. C. |
| Bourne,Captain Robert Croft | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Doyle, Sir N. Grattan |
| Brass, Captain W. | Clarry, Reginald George | Drewe, C. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Clayton, G. C. | Eden,Captain Anthony |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Ropner, Major L. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. SirPhilip | Ruggles-Brlse, Major E. A. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Little,Dr. E. Graham | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Falls, Sir Charles F. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Loder,J. de V. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Fleming, D. P. | Looker, Herbert William | Sandman, A. Stewart |
| Ford, PJ. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Lumley,L. R. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Fremantle, Lt.-Col.Francis E. | Lynn, Sir Robert J. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Savery, S. S. |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mel. (Renfrew W) |
| Gee, CaptainR. | Macintyre, Ian | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | McLean, Major A. | Simms,Dr. John M.(Co. Down) |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Macmillan, CaptainH. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belief) |
| Goff, Sir Park | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Skelton, A. N. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Maitland, SirArthur D.Steel- | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kincidlne, C.) |
| Grace, John | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Malone, Major P. B. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Grentell, Edward C. (City of London) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Spender Clay, Colonel H. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Margesson, Captain D. | Stanley, Lord(Fylde) |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. WalterE. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Milne,J. S.Wardiaw- | Stott,Lieut.-Colonel W.H. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Harland, A. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Sykes, Major. Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell.(Croydon, S.) |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Neville, R. J. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Henderson, Capt, R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Nuttall, Ellis | Waddington, R. |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) | Oakley, T. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford,Luton) | Ward,Lt.Col.A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Waterhouse, CaptainCharles |
| Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wells, S. R. |
| Hilton, Cecil | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Phillpson, Mabel | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Pitcher, G. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Homan, C. W. J. | Pliditch, SirPhilip | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Preston, William | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Price, Major C. W. M. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) | Radford, E. A. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Rains, W. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Ramsden, E. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl'S) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| lliffe, Sir Edward M. | Remnant, Sir James | Wragg, Herbert |
| Jacob. A. E. | Rice, Sir Frederick | Yerburgh, Major Robert DT. |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | |
| Kennedy, A. R.(Preston) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | TELLERSFOR THE NOES—. |
| Sir George Hume and Mr. Hannon. |
§ CLAUSE 9.—(Confirmation of agreements between company and certain ponies.)companies.
§ Amendments made:
§ In page 8, line 25, after the word "shall" insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act."
§ In line 26, after the word "any "insert the words "conveyance or."
§ In line 29, after the word "such" insert the words "conveyance or."
§ In line 37, after the words "until a" insert the words "conveyance or."
§ In page 9, line 1, leave out the word "lease" and insert the words "conveyance or lease as the case may be."
2174§ In line 2, leave out the word "lease" and insert the words "conveyance or lease as the case may be."
§ In line 4, after the word "section" insert the words "or under other powers of this Act"?—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
§ Mr. BARNESOn a point of Order. Is it quite in order that all these Amendments should be submitted at this stage, without notice having been given to the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere was notice on the Paper to-day that Amendments were to be proposed by the promoters, and the Amendments could have been seen by anybody who was interested. They are only drafting Amendments.