HC Deb 13 December 1926 vol 200 cc2728-31

Lords Amendment:

In page 29, line 14, leave out from the word "supply" to "is" in line 16.

Colonel ASHLEY

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

We consider that on the whole it is far better to have this finger post to the Commissioners, so that they may have an idea of what sort of area they should have to insist upon in these new companies, which it is proposed to form.

Lords Amendment:

In page 30, line 23, at the end, insert (ii) where the area of supply is not situate wholly or mainly within the district of a joint electricity authority but is situate wholly within the district of a single local authority, the right of purchase shall be exerciseable by that local authority.

Colonel ASHLEY

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a consequential Amendment.

Lords Amendment:

In page 30, line 35, leave out dividends paid by the company" and insert "divisible profits on the capital attributable to the undertaking authorised by the special order.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is merely to bring the words of the Clause into accord with Clause 25 of the Bill.

Mr. TOWNEND

Will the Attorney-General tell us how the varying amounts are to be allocated under this Clause?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL

A Special Order will have to be prepared and submitted to the House and the object is to ensure that the sliding scale which is going to be made or that the relation between the proposed charge for electricity and the divisible profits authorised on the capital attributable to the undertaking are brought into relation one with the other. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 30 on page 25 he will find the words in that form were inserted in this House in Committee.

Mr. TOWNEND

Do I understand that the allocation under any scheme submitted to the Board before being finally agreed to will come before the House?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL

The Special Order has to come.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 19, at the end, insert new Clause D.

(Power to alter terms of purchase by agreement.) D. Where under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, or under any order made thereunder, or under any deed of transfer executed in pursuance of powers conferred by any such order, or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers is vested in a local authority (including a joint electricity authority) the authorised undertakers may at any time within ten years before the date of purchase next occurring after the passing of this Act, or within ten years of any subsequent date of purchase enter into a contract with the local authority to amend, vary or alter the terms of purchase on the next occurring date upon which they may purchase upon conditions to be agreed between the parties with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and the terms of such agreement shall be binding upon the parties.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Clause, which is permissive in form, not mandatory, is put forward on the ground that it would be expedient and remove the stringent provisions as to the purchase contained in the Act of 1858, or which may be contained in any special Order. The result of insisting on these terms, although neither party wanted to carry them out, might stultify development during the years immediately prior to purchase. That danger was pointed out by the Weir Committee, and it was thought advisable to put in this Clause.

Mr. ATTLEE

I think this Amendment was accepted rather light-heartedly by the Government. The electricity industry was built up on the Acts of 1888, which lay down the terms of purchase, and by this Amendment, which is not really germane to the main purpose of this Act, we suddenly upset that plan and practically allow a free bargain in every case between the local authority and a company as to what the terms should be. I do not know that the matter is of very serious import, but I certainly think that in a Bill of this sort, which does not attempt really to deal with the question of supply areas, or of the relationship of local authorities and companies, it should not have been accepted. It really destroys the whole basis of the purchase rights of local authorities.

Mr. KELLY

Can the Attorney-General explain how development will be held up if we do not have this new Clause? I can appreciate the point that fictitious values may be created and that endeavours will be made by some people, probably, to line their pockets in view of a purchase, but I would like to know from the Attorney-General what he means by stating that this would be holding up development.

12.M

Colonel ASHLEY

If a private undertaker who is carrying on business knows that in three or four or five years he is to be purchased by a local authority he would be much less likely to spend money, and if the local authority and the undertaker could come to some little arrangement to carry on and continue the improvements it might well be that it would be for the benefit of the locality.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned."—[The Attorney-General.]

Lords Amendments to be further considered To-morrow.