§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I rise to oppose this Bill on behalf of the proprietors and tenants of land in Ayrshire, on behalf of miners and collieries in Ayrshire, and on behalf of the fishing interests. I do not suppose there 1159 are many Members of the House who have had the time or patience to wade through this tome of 105 pages which constitutes the Bill, and so I would like to give a very brief description of what the position is and what the Bill proposes to do. Loch Doon is a loch in Ayrshire which drains into the River Doon. The River Doon runs for about 26¼ miles and empties into the sea at the town of Ayr. Loch Doon supplies the water for most of the mills, industrial organisations and residences on its course to the sea, and also at its mouth in Ayr. About 100 years ago some of the proprietors and owners of land around the loch erected a barrier across its mouth so as to conserve its waters and to prove of assistance to the countryside if drought should overtake it. By the aid of sluices the flow of water is guided and restricted when necessary. The average flow of water from Loch Doon to the sea has been about 65,000,000 gallons a day when there is a drought on, going up to 80,000,000 gallons a day ordinarily. It is the contention of the opponents of the Bill that 65,000,000 gallons a day is the very minimum amount of water which is necessary to keep the river clean, sweet and healthy and to ensure that no disease or infection arises from pollution at its mouth or on its course.
According to the promoters of the Bill, they are going to erect a still higher barrier at the mouth of the loch. They are going to raise the level of the loch from 23 feet to 38 feet, raising it first of all by 23 feet and taking powers to increase that height by 38 feet afterwards. They are going to reduce the quantity of water released daily to 45,000,000 gallons a day, with a flush every three weeks of 80,000,000 gallons. That is a totally inadequate quantity of water to preserve the health of the community or to give the necessary assistance to the industrial organisations which depend on that water. What are the promoters going to do with the balance of the water? They are going to take that water away on to another watershed altogether, the watershed of the Dee, in another county altogether, and are there going to erect power stations to generate electricity for a county outside the County of Ayr, the County of Kirkcudbright and Galloway generally. 1160 We in Ayrshire feel that we are being done out of our birthright. We feel that our interests and the interests of the county are not being properly considered, and although when the Bill was before the Committee of the House of Lords numerous concessions were given, there was a reason for that. Every million gallons a day which is restricted from flowing down the river means £1,100 a year to the promoters. It will be seen, therefore, how keen the promoters are to save every additional million gallons which they can.
Along the course of the River Doon there are farms, villages and cottages, all of which drain into the Doon, and disease is bound to be created if there is not sufficient water in that river; and although the promoters have gone to the local authority in Ayr and said, "We will assist you to erect sewage installations at the mouth of the river so as to keep things right," it is estimated by experts that the rateable value of the land alongside the river Doon will be reduced by 50 per cent. if there is this diminution in the amenities of the neighbourhood. At the same time the occupiers of that land will be forced to pay higher rates towards the cost of erecting the sewage installations. I submit that that is unfair, and, if for no other reason, the Bill should be rejected.
Then we come to the salmon fishing. That is a prosperous industry on the Doon, and if this Bill is passed it will be seriously affected. Of course we have had a period of drought lately, but only yesterday I myself saw no more than a few inches of water on the Doon there. If the flow of water is still further reduced, how will it be possible to ensure the health of the community or to give the salmon a chance to get up the river? The spawning grounds for the salmon are right at the south end of Loch Doon, and whether the promoters provide hatcheries or not, this scheme will undoubtedly spoil the salmon fishing to a very large extent, thereby reducing the work for many men employed in that industry and interfering with the amenities of the district generally. A further point is, "What do the promoters hope to do when they get this water into Kirkcudbright?" They are going to erect five power stations to produce 188,000,000 units of electricity per annum for the "grid." That is the ostensible plan. As far as we can make 1161 out, there is no possibility of that amount of electricity being required for the Galloway district. I am not talking now of Ayrshire at all, because we do not come into that. We are like the milch cow, or, to vary the simile used by one distinguished Member of this House the other day, we are being butchered to make a Galloway holiday. According to our investigations, there cannot be any sufficient demand for the quantity of electricity which would be produced under this scheme, and there will have to be a leg of the "grid" running from Kilmarnock to Carlisle at a cost of about £250,000. That money is not going to be charged up to the Galloway scheme; it is going to be charged to the Electricity Board.
§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)The hon. and gallant Member was not quite fair in the presentation of his case, quite unintentionally I know, when he said there would not be enough consumers in the Galloway district to justify that output. The whole idea is to make that electricity available not only for other districts in Scotland but for parts of North-West England. It is a national scheme.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI accept that statement, and I therefore would say that the general increase of the cost of electricity will be spread over a wider area.
§ Colonel ASHLEYThe cost of electricity to the consumer will be diminished by that proposal.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREOf course, I accept the information which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given on this point, but the investigations of those who are interested in opposing this Bill have led us to believe that the Electricity Board are wrong, and our opinion is that there will be a general increase to the consumer. There is another point of great importance which should be taken into account. The promoters claimed before the Lords Committee a reduction in rates, and that reduction is estimated will be something like £22,000 a year. Why should any company which, after all, is a competing company, be subsidised in this way to the extent of £22,000 a year?
§ Colonel ASHLEYI am authorised to say that the Secretary for Scotland is 1162 going to make a further report on this electricity scheme.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREA document which has been issued by the promoters of this Bill makes a great deal of the additional employment which it is claimed will be given to skilled and unskilled workers, owing to the erection of the plant connected with the schemes in this Measure, and it is stated that it will employ 4,000 men for three years. That is an estimate which I greet with some considerable reserve. If the power required in connection with the schemes under this Bill was produced by coal instead of water, that would employ between 400 and 500 miners. I cannot believe that this House will pass a Bill which will put the unemployed miners in a still worse position by subsidising an electricity company. I hope we shall not be mislead by the statements which have been made in favour of this Measure, because the promoters are not philanthropists who are out to help their fellow-men. Their object is to make money and to make anything between 5 per cent. and 6½ per cent.
We are told that the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board are in favour of this Bill. Of course they are, because they wish to encourage enterprising people from England to come over to Scotland in order to exploit schemes of this kind. As for this Measure being for the general good of the greatest number, that statement is simply drawing a red herring across the track. My own opinion is that this Measure is not an economic scheme at all, and I believe that the promoters are so desirous of getting it through that they have made such large concessions to Kirkcudbrightshire as will enable that county to reduce the price of its electricity after the Bill has gone through. I believe the scheme is uneconomic, and, if it passes, it will mean that a certain amount of money will go into the pockets of the people who are co-operating in the working of it. The Electricity Commissioners will be left behind as well as the consumers, and a higher price will have to be paid for the electricity.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI beg to second the Amendment.
I think the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) has put his case 1163 very well. I wish to speak on behalf of the coal industry. In the speeches which were delivered last night we heard a good deal about the efforts which have been made to bring about peace in industry. I appeal to the House to reject this Bill on various grounds. My main reason is that at the present moment we have about 30,000 miners in Scotland who are out of work. I know a return has been published; informing us that 25,000 miners are idle, but I am not sure that that represents the full number of those who are idle. If this schemes goes through it has been calculated that the generation of the power required will employ 500 miners full time all the year round. I know it is argued that water power is much cheaper but my belief is that the scheme of this Bill is not a practical one. Under one scheme power is given to use and divert the waters of the following locks, rivers and streams:
Loch Doon, Loch Ken, Loch Grennoch, River Dee, River Dee or Blackwater of Dee, River Ken, River Deugh, Craigshinnie Burn, Palnure Burn, Pullaugh Burn, Green Burn, Glenhead Burn, Mid Burn, Carrouch Burn, Blackwater Burn, Bow Burn, Cullendoch Burn, Lamford Burn, Meadowhead Burn, Fingland Lane and Carsphairn Lane.If you interfere with all those streams and rivers and divert the waters running through them, I do not think that you will have sufficient pressure to turn the machinery which will be required for the purposes of the undertaking. The point about cheapness is one that should be considered. It is generally admitted that electricity can be produced at a cheaper rate by water power than by steam power, but the cost of generation is not the main factor. In this case it is the transmission, and the cost of transmission will outrun the saving in cost of generation, so that the electricity will ultimately be much dearer. I noticed that the Minister tried to put my hon. Friend right on some points, but I want to repeat some of these things. The grid is to be constructed from Carlisle to Kilmarnock, a distance of 110 miles. It is to run through wilds of Galloway, where there is practically no population. The biggest town there is Dumfries, and that is already supplied. It is astonishing to learn that the tapping of the grid is not an easy matter It is calculated that one tapping will cost 1164 anything from £30,000 to £40,000. That means that it will not do any good in Galloway unless it is going to work back, because there is no population there that is ever likely to require the power which will be placed at their disposal.The Minister says that this is to link up with a scheme for the whole of Scotland, and, personally, I should rather welcome that, but, taking Scotland as we know it, the natural route would be from Carlisle through Hawick and Galashiels to Edinburgh. That would pass through the rich Border counties, where there is a big population, where there would be a demand for power, and where it would be much more useful and ultimately much cheaper than it could be under the Galloway scheme. The admission of the Minister that they are not sure yet about the concessions as to rates is an ugly thing. Nowadays everyone is demanding the extinction of rates, and, if anyone were to bring before this House a Bill to save us all from paying rates, it would certainly be carried. It seems as though the cure for everything is relief from rates. This company would be liable to pay about £32,000 in rates, but I understand that they have obtained in another place a reduction to £9,400; but they themselves have an agreement with the county of Kirkcudbright to pay £11,000. I suggest to the House that, in view of the Minister's statement, this Bill ought to be delayed, and we ought to know exactly whether they are going to pay rates or whether they are going to be exempt. It would be unfair now to pass a Bill of this kind. The other point is that I believe the scheme to be wholly uneconomic, and that the promoters are making a mistake, even from their own point of view. The natural route which I have pointed out would afford some hope of success, but to put it through the wilds of Galloway would involve an economic loss, and I hope the House will reject the Bill.
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISI am sorry, in giving a short reply to some of the arguments that have been put forward against this Bill, to find myself, for once, in oposition to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), with whom I have been associated in connection with other Bills which have passed through this 1165 House, but I think that the information he gave to the House was, no doubt unintentionally, incorrect and entirely contrary to the actual situation. The first thing that I would ask the House to remember is that this Bill is not coming before us as an entirely new Measure, un-investigated by anyone It was brought before the House of Lords, and it has been examined by an expert committee presided over by Lord Younger, himself a former Member for Ayr Burghs. Before that Committee of the House of Lords every interest was fully represented, and every possible legal argument was placed before them. The Bill as we now have it is the result of the investigations of that committee. Evidence was brought before the committee which led to the conclusion that no less a sum than £47,000 a year would be saved in the provision of electricity if the Bill were passed in its present form. Assuming the calculations to be correct, the electricity supplied under the provisions of this Bill would be supplied at a cost which would be £47,000 a year less than if the electricity were produced by the use of coal.
It is quite open to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to the hon. Member who seconded his Amendment, to discredit the estimates on which these figures were based, but I would ask the House to remember that the figures have been examined by a very highly qualified committee and have been accepted by them, and it would not be wise, if I may say so, to set against that the opinon of any hon. Member, unless it were backed by highly expert information, on such a subject as that of electricity supply. Turning to some of the other arguments used against the Bill by my hon. and gallant Friend, he mentioned, first of all, the question of mills, and said that the amount of water left would not be sufficient for the purpose of working the mills. He did not, however, tell the House that the Bill includes a provision that if the water power should prove insufficient the scheme will provide electric power free to the mills to enable them to carry on their industries. My hon. and gallant Friend also mentioned the question of health, but, of course, one is entitled to say that the people responsible for the health of that area—the county councils and the local 1166 authorities—do not oppose the Bill, and it must therefore be taken as their wish that it should become law.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREWhen my hon. and gallant Friend says that the county councils have accepted the Bill, I hope hon. Members will recollect that I said that, for every 1,000,000 gallons saved daily., the promoters save £1,100 a year, and they are, therefore, in a position to adjust the matter somewhat easily. I think that to say that the county councils welcome the Bill or are in favour of it is rather going beyond the bounds of actual fact.
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISI do not want to enter into an argument with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the attitude of the county councils, but I suggest that it is not very probable that the Ayr County Council will allow themselves to be drawn away from what is fair because the company will have an estimated surplus. Surely we can trust our local authorities to be a little more careful in their investigation and better guided on a matter which would gravely affect the health of the community for which they are responsible. I think the House is bound to accept the view that the county councils are in favour of the Bill. Any suggestion that the county councils would not be in favour of it if the company had not a surplus of money is, if I may say so with all respect, not only absurd, but is a suggestion that ought not to be made in this House with regard to any public body which is responsible for the carrying out of important public duties. The question of the use of the electricity has been raised, and it is said that this electricity would not be used for Ayrshire, but that is incorrect, because a very large amount of it is hypothecated for use in Ayrshire itself.
Then there is the question of disease. One statement of the hon. Member filled me with a certain amount of alarm. He said that the amount of water remaining was so small that disease would forthwith attack the people of the area, but the river has already been several times far below the amount which the Committee considers necessary and, so far as I know, no disease has supervened. Therefore, I think we can leave the question of health in the good keeping of the local authorities who are responsible for 1167 it. With regard to the relief of rates, the Minister will no doubt give us some further information on the subject. But on the general principle of relieving hydro-electric undertakings from a portion of the rates, the House should consider that if you take electricity produced by coal, the coal that comes into it gets a relief in rates in itself. In the case of electricity produced by coal, the rating relief would be reflected by the reduced value in the coal. For example, electricity produced by coal and costing say £50,000, might use £40,000 of coal and would get relief in rating on this amount. This raw material, coal, is represented in a hydro-electric scheme by the high initial cost of construction of the head works, and it is surely entitled to an equitable rebate, not to give it any advantage but to put it on an equality with electricity produced by coal.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWill not the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that all the things that are required for the purpose of establishing this industry, and which are involved in the capital outlay, are de-rated?
§ Brigadier-General CHARTERISThe principal part of the expenditure will be for actual manual labour With regard to employment, that of course is a very important aspect of the case, and if I believed for a moment that the true representation of the case was that this scheme was only to give employment to the number of people required for the preparation of the head works for a given period, as opposed to permanent employment of coal miners, I should be prepared to reconsider my position very carefully. But I do not think that is the position. You are bringing into the country a supply of electricity for the express purpose of encouraging industry, and the expansion of industry which may be expected to follow will far outweigh the employment of the men required for the production of the electricity or for making the head works. That is the real issue before the House. We have here a scheme the purpose of which is to give more power to certain local areas. It is based on the principles which the House has approved, of the electricity Bill. It has been accepted by every competent authority that has dealt 1168 with it locally and it would be wrong of the House to reject it altogether.
No case whatever has been made out for throwing the Bill out. It is suggested that Galloway alone is concerned in the Bill, and that the promoters of the company are the only people who will reap an advantage. I represent a county which is immediately adjacent, and it is closely concerned with the Bill and wishes it to go through. There remains only the question, which I am sorry the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs referred to, of money being transferred from the company to the authorities in Kirkcudbright so as to get them to accept the Bill. I think the figure of £11,000 was mentioned. It is true there is an allowance of some £11,000, but of that sum £8,000 is due to a reduction of rates and £3,000 is given to enable the electricity to be distributed so as to be of the utmost use to the area covered by the Bill. I do not know on whose behalf the hon. Member was speaking—it may be on behalf of a few people concerned with property in the area—but all the main public bodies have expressed their approval and desire for the Bill, it has been examined with extreme care by a Committee of the House of Lords, the Central Electricity Board have gone into all of its technical points and have given a very definite opinion through the chairman in favour of the scheme, and I ask the House to pass the Bill.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWhy do we oppose the Bill? In the first place, because it is our duty to see to it that this new power of electricity is kept in the hands of the community, and not allowed to get into the hands of exploiters. I do not see that those in charge of the Bill have any regard for my country whatever. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) referred to Lord Younger. He made a serious mistake. The last man in Scotland who has any influence on these benches is Lord Younger, because we believe he has no more regard for Scotland than the man in the moon. Evidence of that is contained in the picture in St. Stephen's Hall that was given by him. We protested to the best of our ability, and drew his attention to the fact that if he ransacked all Scottish history in order to depict one of the meanest transactions that has happened 1169 in our country, he could not have done better than produce that picture. The picture shows how the rich men, the aristocrats of Scotland sold Scotland. They were bought by English gold. Each individual on that picture had his price. We did all we could in this House to get the Noble Lord to take that picture down and put in its place a picture that would have some semblance of Scottish history as far as the British Empire is concerned. I would suggest that the picture to be substituted should deal with the period when James VI of Scotland became James I of England.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)This has nothing to do with the question of electricity from water power in either Ayrshire or Galloway.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI was merely pointing out the moral of the business. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries was allowed to bring in the name of Lord Younger, and surely I was within my rights in letting the House know what we think of Lord Younger.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI thought the hon. Member was going on to describe what artistic representation should be substituted for that approved by Lord Younger.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI do not wish to follow you, Mr. Hope; therefore, I will continue my speech on this Galloway Water Power Bill. What do we find in this Bill? There are ever so many burns and lochs in Scotland and there is a danger of their being tapped dry. Those individuals who are running this show do not care if they run Scotland dry as long as they make money out of it. They are going to tap all the burns. They are going to tap Loch Doon.
§ Captain STREATFEILDDo you know it?
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI know Loch Doon, and I know the River Doon, too. That is also threatened. These are the historical rivers and lochs of Scotland, and no Scotsman would dare to face a Scottish constituency in regard to the idea of destroying Burn's country. That is what it implies. Here we have a mere Englishman like the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. This is what we have to 1170 put up with. When we mention some-thing which is sacred to us, we have the Minister of Transport smiling.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI am as much a Scotsman as the hon. Gentleman. I have had three years in the Ayrshire Militia.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThere is a sample of the Hamilton Militia! He is no Englishman. Here they are going to tap the Doon, to tap all these rivers that our great bard Robert Burns has endeared to the hearts of everyone, not only to the hearts of Scotsmen but to the hearts of those who have any sentimental feeling or love of country. That fellow over there, I do not know which is his constituency—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf the hon. Member is referring to anyone in this House, it is a most improper way to do it.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODKeep them in order as well as us. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Captain Streatfeild) cares a straw what becomes of Galloway or of Scotland if he can make money out of the business.
§ Captain STREATFEILDrose—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not impute motives to any hon. Member of the House. If that practice were allowed it would put an end to the decencies of debate.
§ Captain STREATFEILDMay I frankly state that my constituency did me the honour to elect me to represent them, and that I have never failed to keep them in the forefront of my mind. Therefore, what the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) says is absolutely and categorically untrue.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODI do not want to go into the business but:
Facts are chiels that winna ding,And daurna be disputed.We know where these people get their money. Our country is being bled by them. In any case, we on these benches say that this Bill requires to be examined. There is something at stake here. We are not going to allow the country to be defaced. I am not opposing it. I am a Socialist, and I am not going to oppose electrical equipment. I am going to grasp whatever is the best means of producing the necessaries and the luxuries 1171 of life. I am not going to keep back the sands of time to suit one industry or section of the community. I believe that the Bill is something that we should examine so that we may see what is behind the individuals who are recommending it. Personally, I have a suspicion. I have a right to be suspicious. The recommendation of Lord Younger is nothing to us on these benches. At any rate, it ought not to be. Another thing that requires consideration is, whether it is going to deface the country. Therefore, I will do all I can to hold up this Bill until we find out what is behind it. Even the Minister of Transport, who belonged to the Hamilton Militia—
§ Colonel ASHLEYThe Ayrshire Militia.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWas it the Ayrshire Militia? Well, if I were the Minister, I would
tell it not in Gath and publish it not in the streets of Askelon.I leave the matter at that. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be in his place. There is no representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench. Again, they are treating the House with contempt—these great Parliamentarians, these great House of Commons men, who profess to stand up for the dignity of the House and all the holy traditions which surround it. But when there is business on they are absent at a supper or a wedding or something of that kind. They are not doing what the country pays Ministers £2,000 a year for doing. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been up for a rise in his wages, but this is another reason against giving him an increase in wages. He is not paying attention to his business. Either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, or the Lord Advocate—who has just been promoted—or the Solicitor-General, ought to be here, but we have not a single representative, and, with all these ideas before me, I am going to oppose this Bill in order that we may get at what is behind it.
§ Colonel ASHLEYBefore dealing very shortly with the general principles of the Bill, may I say, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris), that 1172 the actual allocation of the transmission lines of the grid in Scotland, though tentatively laid down, are susceptible of alteration and, therefore, if it is found desirable, there is no difficulty in having a branch line of the grid run through Langholm as he suggested. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite would have been so searching in their investigations and so vocal in their utterances if this Bill had been promoted by a local authority. I doubt it.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWe would not have been so hard.
§ Colonel ASHLEYMay I suggest that, although hon. Members opposite are entitled to consider municipal enterprise better than private enterprise, yet things being as they are, it is against the public interest to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill simply because it is promoted by private enterprise.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODIt is because the Government at the moment are dealing with electricity and supplying the country with electricity that we are opposing it.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI should have thought that would be a "bull point" on our side, and that, if we are supplying electricity to the country, we are doing a very good thing. We must really regard the objects of the Bill and not the people who promote it—although naturally you have to scrutinise whether the promoters are able to carry out what they say they are able to carry out, and whether they are the proper people to whom extensive powers should be entrusted. But questions of whether fishing will be affected, and whether certain farms may be hurt, while they are very important, are not Second Reading points. They are points which ought to be, and I hope will be, investigated in Committee here, just as they were investigated in Committee in another place, when certain modifications were made. I am authorised by the Secretary of State for Scotland who is unavoidably absent—I hope the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will understand that—to say that he is not satisfied with the valuation Clause as it comes from another place, and hopes, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, to suggest to the Select Committee of this House that they ought to make some alteration in that Clause in order to put the scheme on what he considers to be an economic basis.
1173 I should have thought that, on general principles, everybody in the House would have welcomed such a scheme as this, provided that the Committee to which the Bill is sent, is satisfied as to the details and the economic basis of the scheme. What is the country crying out for? What did we spend months in 1926 in doing? We passed the Electricity Bill and, I freely admit now, as I did then, that hon. Members opposite gave us considerable help. Their criticisms were not unfriendly and were helpful on the whole. This Bill does assist the sheme. So I am advised technically. I am not an expert in these matters and I cannot say personally whether this particular form of generation of electricity will help the grid in Scotland and North-West England and the Glasgow area particularly. But I can tell the House what I am advised by the Central Electricity Board, which has a very distinguished Scotsman at its head. It is his considered opinion and the unanimous opinion of his Boards that this scheme will supply electricity to the grid, in the industrial areas of Scotland, and in the country districts as well, distinctly cheaper than it would be possible to provide electricity from a coal-fed station.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODDoes Sir Andrew Duncan not hold that his Board could ran this business themselves without private enterprise?
§ Colonel ASHLEYIt is not Sir Andrew Duncan's business to express an opinion on that matter. His business, which he is doing extremely well, is to carry out the Electricity Act of 1926. I am reinforced by the technical advice, not only of Sir Andrew Duncan and the Board, but by that of the Electricity Commissioners, a body which has at its head Sir John Snell, a great expert in electricity who prepared all the data on which the 1926 Act was based. They hold that this scheme, if carried through, will supply electricity cheaper than it could be supplied by a coal-fed station. If that is so, I suggest respectfully to the House that we ought not to criticise whether it is municipal or private enterprise.
§ Mr. SULLIVANWhat about the miners?
§ Colonel ASHLEYI had the honour of passing a scheme of freight reduction on coal in connection with iron and steel, but it is not surely suggested that the community as a whole should be compelled to pay a higher price for electricity, because the hon. Member thinks that coal ought to be used in preference to water for the generation of electricity. Let us help the miners by all means but we cannot do so by compelling an increase in the price of electricity which is so important industrially, especially in the Clyde area.
§ Mr. SULLIVANBut the Minister's own colleague at that Box yesterday said the only way to help the idle workers was to get them back at their own jobs.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI do not think the way to do it is by increasing the price to the general consumer. I suggest to the House that they should give the Bill a Second Reading. It will then go to a Select Committee where all these minor, though important, points can be discussed, and then, if the House considers that it has not had sufficient consideration, it has a full right to reject it on Report.
§ Mr. HARDIEAs one who served on the Electricity Committee in 1926 I am surprised that the Minister of Transport in his brief address has not reminded the House of the promise which the Prime Minister gave before the Electricity Bill was drafted. The Prime Minister, in 1926, said that the nation was going to be the first consideration, so far as the production of electricity for industry was concerned. The Minister of Transport should have made it perfectly clear what was meant by the passing of that Act, but, instead, he tries to skip off by throwing out something that has absolutely no relation to the criticisms which have been made by hon. Members on these benches. We on these benches are fighting against the right of any handful of individuals in any form of ramp to have handed to them a natural source of energy called water, in order that they may sell power back to this nation at a profit. That is what is contained in page 86, Clause 124, of this Bill.
If you want to find out what someone is driving at, especially if it is a Bill of over 100 Clauses, you must turn to the 1175 end of the Bill and you will get the kernel of the whole matter. In Clause 26, you find that the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury, may at any time within six months, make arrangements for the purchase of hydro-electric works, and the details, which regularise purchase in time to come, are contained in three pages. If the gentlemen concerned in this hydro-electric scheme were operating in the national interest in order to decrease the price of electricity why should they go to the trouble of having all these details concerning the buying back by the nation inserted in the Bill; and buying back that which belongs to the nation. The water power of this country does not belong to any individual; it belongs to the people. To-night we are being asked to put this natural source of energy into the hands of a few people. We on these benches oppose it. The Minister of Transport said something about tenures. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman knows what is meant by the word "servitude" in regard to land. I do not say that he ought to know, but I do think that the Lord Advocate should be present whilst this Bill is being considered.
§ Colonel ASHLEYIt means an easement.
§ Mr. HARDIEYes, but you have not told us what an easement means. The word "easement" has a great many meanings in actual interpretation. I am not blaming the Minister of Transport, but I do think he should have had someone with him capable of dealing with such a question.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI have told you what easement means.
§ Mr. HARDIEYes, but there are hundreds of other questions I could put to the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister of Transport did not try to relate this Bill to the national scheme. The Act of 1926 did not intend that any group of individuals should come along and make a prior claim to a part of the national estate. The Act of 1926 says that the great essential power of electricity is going to be viewed first from the point of view of the needs of the nation. What has happened? Just as American capital is being used in certain parts of England in order that 1176 they may sell out at a higher price, so the same thing is now taking place in Scotland. I am not sure what capital is being used in Scotland, but I will find that out later. The Government get the Act of 1926 through and tell the British people that the nation is to come first. Here we have the methods whereby this part of the nation is being taken over by a company for the purpose of selling back electricity to the nation at a high price. That is their whole interest, so far as the company is concerned.
Take the question of generation. London with its power stations buys coal at the same price, pays the same rate of wages, and that means that at the machine the unit is almost uniform in price. The real price of electricity comes in when you begin to transmit it. Here you have a case where you are going to generate electricity and travel 110 miles on such a high voltage that you cannot step down and supply people who want it under a cost of something like £30,000 or £40,000. If you are carrying thousands of volts and you want to come down to 400 or 500 volts in order to supply a community you have to go to the expense of stepping down from this high current. It means that all this expensive grid is carried through grouse moors. There is no tapping there which would make it profitable to reduce from such a high voltage. I could have seen the force of this if we had been generating electricity at a low voltage in order to give every farmer and every place nearby electricity. The idea here is not to give service but to enter upon linking-up with what is called the national grid. It is that alone which makes the promoters of this Bill put in what we find on page 86 and establish the right to say: "You have got to purchase this." The whole thing depends on what Government is in power if this Act goes through.
Now we come to the question of price. The Minister of Transport has repeated what he has said more than once since the passing of the 1926 Act. He said the whole idea was that we were going to cheapen prices of electricity. The first linking-up in the grid scheme was in Scotland, and the first thing to happen was an increase by the Clyde Valley Electricity Supply Company in their price to the consumer. If the Minister can stand up and show that in any particular 1177 instance in that area which is now linked up there is a decrease in price, I would like to hear him.
§ Colonel ASHLEYI think I said that the first supply will not come into operation until next month, and therefore any increase of price, of which I have no knowledge, cannot be put down to that.
§ Mr. HARDIEThat is exactly what I expected. Despite the 1926 Act that was going to have an effect from the national point of view, and under which there was going to be a national grid which would prevent an increase in the price of this great need, we are now being told that it is within the power of every private company producing units to increase the price. The Minister tells me that this thing does not count until some future time, but can he answer this? Will he say that the grid that is linked up with Scotland is not in commission and is not working? Does he deny that it is carrying power to-day for more than one station? He knows, of course, that these wires are carrying current. That is part of the scheme, but, despite that fact, these consumers have had notice that they are going to get one-third added to the cost. As an illustration of what happens, under the Act of 1894 they gave the Clyde Valley certain powers as regards Ruther-glen, which is a town practically in Glasgow. They gave power to say to Glasgow "No, unless you are prepared to pay higher prices." They have been compelled to pay higher prices. Then there was a Clause that if the Clyde Valley at any time under the new arrangement and in new areas sought to increase the price, that could not be done. What happened? The Clyde Valley sent up this notice of increase to the people in Rutherglen and one magistrate there remembered the Act and drew the attention of those in power to that Act, and that intimation of increase was withdrawn as far as Rutherglen was concerned. That is exactly what is taking place, and the public do not seem to be interested until they get a notice of increase. How can anyone stand up and say that the great hope is that they are going to be able at some time or other to reduce the price of electricity? It seems to me that when we have had so much experience, and have spent so much money already, it is a strange 1178 thing that we have no concrete statement that we shall be able to reduce prices.
The Minister referred to generation. He knows, of course, that there is a great difference between the cost of water-power plant and coal or steam plant. I am not arguing for one class of industrial power or another. I view this from a national point of view, but when you take the price of steam plant as against water-power plant, it means that your water-power plant will cost at least three times what your steam plant will cost. The reason is that whether you can produce to the consumer more cheaply depends entirely upon the amount of reduction you can make in the distribution of current, when you have made it. A big mistake has been made with the superpower stations of America. It does not follow that the small plant will be inefficient, and a five-horse power plant can be as efficient as a hundred-horse power. It seems to me strange that, after all the discussions, the Minister should be so far misled in regard to that point. There are many other things with which I want to deal, but there is one point as far as the land side is concerned. Take Clause 50. I would ask the Minister to explain this. It says:
If there be any omission, mis-statement…the Company, after giving 10 days' notice to the owners, lessees and occupiers of the lands in question, may apply to the sheriff for the county in which such lands are situate.What does that mean? There are instances where lands are without owners in Scotland. A company can give ten days' notice to the owners of that land to turn up, and if they do not turn up, it does not become the property of the nation but goes into the company, and the company becomes the owner without paying a single farthing for it. Then I hope the Minister will deal with Clause 52 where there is compulsory acquirement. With regard to access and the conveying of materials to and from any works, does this Act authorise it, or is it going to wipe out all the other Acts as far as that part of Galloway is concerned? Clause 60 is another instance of what is taking place. The Minister did not tell the House whether all this had been laid before the Electricity Commissioners or not. He referred to Sir 1179 John Snell, but his opinion is a personal and private one.
§ Colonel ASHLEYHe was speaking for the Central Electricity Commissioners.
§ Mr. HARDIEExactly, but it is the Board which is dealing with what the Act of 1926 is supposed to carry out. Did the Board have all these facts before them, and did they know what was on page 85 of the Bill? Did the Minister draw attention to the fact that the object of the Bill seemed to be to build something and to sell it at another date to the Government? Did the Board give any consideration to that fact, and, if so, what was the reply? Take the Clause which refers to the reduction of rates. Why should people who say that they are doing this in the interests of the nation want this reduction? Why should not the capital stand the same as other people's capital? How does the Minister of Transport interpret that Clause? Next take Clause 73, which is very serious. We have heard about the question of sewage, and we cannot deal with it in a pass-over kind of way. Here you have it stated, "If it is found that the water is insufficient." We know in Scotland that in dry weather, such as we have had recently, we can get a very big drop in the level of our rivers. The flow of the number of gallons passing is a simple thing to measure, and sanitary engineers can say how many million gallons are required to keep a river clean.
The Clause, instead of being definite, uses these words: "If owing to the construction and operation of the works," etc. Note the word "if." We all know the dangers of the presence of sewage on a hot summer day. Before we can prove under this Bill what is "reasonable" we may have lawyers arguing for weeks as to what "reasonable" means, and all the time the sewage would be still exposed and disease would be spreading. My point is that there is no need for the almost negative language in this Clause, If we know the number of gallons of water necessary to keep a river clean, we ought to be satisfied that that number, as a minimum, passes. This is the kind of thing that occurs in Bills that are rushed through the House. The 1180 same remark applies to water. They do not say, "We shall see that everyone gets water." The Bill calls for the utmost scrutiny. Instead of the Bill having been brought forward in interruption of the main Debate, in order to push through the Second Reading, we ought to have been fully informed, by a detailed speech from the Minister of Transport, as to what was in the Bill, and the Minister should have shown the need for the granting of the powers that are sought in the Bill.
I am not convinced at all. I know Ayrshire very well. I was at school very near Loch Doon. I have poached there, and as a boy I had the best poacher as a trainer. We hear a lot about sentiment. People say, "Do not allow your sentiment to interfere with an industrial undertaking." I am as much concerned with the development of industry as some of those who protest more about it. Not because of Robert Burns, but because of the generations that are yet to come, the destruction of these natural beauties ought to be considered. The Minister of Transport should have shown to-night that although by the Bill the natural beauties of this countryside will be destroyed, there would be compensation in the shape of electricity at one-eighth or one-quarter of the present price, or even that there would be a penny taken off the price. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, nor can Sir John Snell promise it, nor Mr. Page, the engineer of the Electricity Board. The Bill is just another form of ramp. A number of men see that a great national scheme has not had time to develop, and they step in and put their arms round a part of Scotland; and then, under the Bill, at a certain time the nation will buy back the undertaking, not at the nation's price, but theirs.
§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONI hope that the House will accord the Bill a Second Reading, for I regard it as a Bill not merely to provide for the generation of electricity but one which will tend to improve the conditions of rural life. When in full operation it will help to stop the flow of the rural community into large urban centres, for the urge of the city becomes less powerful as the amenities and advantages of city life become available to the rural population. Possibly it is for that reason among others that the 1181 Electricity Commissioners and Central Electricity Board are throwing their weight in support of the measure. I understand that the Mineowners' Association raise objections to the Bill on the ground that if electricity can be generated by coal it ought to be and must be generated by coal. Surely that is a retrograde attitude for any important body to adopt. It might as well be urged that railways ought never to have come into being because they interfered with the stage coach. Other illustrations might be given. The argument of the Mineowners' Association is not an argument that stands investigation.
I welcome a challenge of that kind because I believe it is the duty and function of the House to see that each and every resource in this country is developed in the fullest and most effective way. From the national point of view, I consider that this scheme is of great importance. It will not only affect the supply of electricity in Scotland, but will help us in England, and to that extent it is our concern to see that the Bill gets through. It is a great employment scheme. A sum of £3,000,000 will be spent on construction, and 4,000 men will be directly engaged in giving effect to its provisions. Some miners, I hope many, will find employment as a result of the scheme.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the rural point of view. Far too many of the schemes that come before the House do little or nothing to assist rural dwellers. Those of us who are familiar with the development of electricity in Sweden and some other Continental countries, realise how far behind we are in the matter, and that there is a great and urgent need for the development of electricity in our country. It is almost a tragedy that we get so few opportunities of debating the question of electricity supply. Kirkcudbrightshire, where this scheme will operate, is a large county with a small population, which is widely distributed. The County Council approve the scheme and believe that it will supply current on an acceptable and economic basis and at a reasonable price. They will obtain £8,000 relief from the rates, and also—and this I regard as a most important matter from the point of view of the development of electricity in rural areas 1182 —they will get an annual subsidy of £3,000 a year to be used for promoting distribution schemes in the county. That is a very important matter. It will enable current to be taken to between 40 and 50 villages and towns in the district.
After all, in the development of electricity the problem of distribution is the principal problem that has to be faced, and I am glad to think that public interest is at last being evinced in the need for greater activity in this matter. Many of us welcome the fact that the Electricity Commissioners have devoted a large section of their eighth annual report for the first time to the distribution of electricity in rural areas. In that Report, on page 6, they say:
The problems of distribution have already assumed special prominence in recent years in connection with two aspects of development, namely, the growth in the domestic load in urban centres, and the demand for the extension of supplies in the less populous rural areas.It is clear that this Bill will do a great deal to assist in that direction. Electricity minimises the drudgery of work both on the farm and in the home. It makes possible different forms of agricultural development, and it is available to assist the farmer to enable him to milk his cows, to prepare their food, and to pump the necessary water. It may also assist in the production of eggs. Electric brooders are being largely used in other countries, automatically regulated by thermostatic control. Electricity can often also be utilised to prolong the shorter days and encourage hens to lay more eggs. In countries like Sweden many acres of land have been devoted to glass heated entirely by electricity. This is used for growing fruit and vegetables, such as melons and lettuces, and it assists agriculture in this way to develop on various new and profitable lines.If development is to take place, we must, however, do all we can to assist a Bill of this kind, because it will help to solve the problem of distribution. In this particular scheme we have an assisted scheme of distribution which is welcomed by the county councils concerned, and by other local authorities, and is looked forward to by the inhabitants of the district. I, therefore, earnestly hope that the House will accord the Measure a Second Reading.
§ Mr. SHINWELLSeveral points have been raised by hon. Members in the Debate, but they may be photographed down to a simple issue—that is whether in the circumstances of this area the promotion of such a scheme is warranted. We have to remember that this is very largely a scattered, sparsely-populated, agricultural, semi-residential district, and the demand for electricity will not be considerable. Quite clearly the question of demand affects the price at which the produce can be sold, and the question of price affects the amount of consumption, and it is a question whether this company, in the words of the Minister of Transport, can afford to do without the very valuable and unique rating concession which they have been promised. Whatever advantage there is in the promotion of electricity schemes, every Member on these benches welcomes schemes of an efficient character. There can be no advantage in the submission and application of schemes which are redundant. We have asked ourselves, therefore, whether the scheme now promoted in this Bill is redundant, or whether it is a scheme which in the circumstances is desirable. It is proposed to make the seat of operations in Kirkcudbrightshire, and it is to extend over a long distance, as far nearly as Ayrshire, some 60 miles away. It is not unfair to ask why Ayrshire should not be provided with all the electricity it needs from Glasgow, or, as I am reminded, from the station at Kilmarnock. It is regarded as a super-station, and why the Electricity Board have homologated, to use a Scottish word, this proposal in face of the fact that the potentialities of the Glasgow stations, the Clyde Valley stations and the Kilmarnock stations are not clearly realised, but are known to be very vast, I cannot understand.
We have been told a great deal about the desirability of providing electricity for the purpose of promoting agricultural interests. We, on these benches, yield to none in this House in the desire to promote agricultural interests, if it means the promotion of agriculture. Incidentally, for the time being at all events, it means the promotion of the farmers' interests, but surely the hon. Member who has just sat down, and who appeared to have a very well-prepared brief on this 1184 subject, does not pretend that every farmer in Kirkcudbrightshire and in this particular district will be provided with electricity, and cheaply and efficiently, as a result of the promotion of this scheme. He appears to forget that what will appeal to the farmer will be the question of price. If the price be not satisfactory, the farmer will not be in a position to avail of the offer that is made to him. There are many isolated farms, off the beaten track, which involve expensive wiring and cables and the like, and all that adds to the price at which the commodity can be procured. Therefore, many points have to be taken into consideration, and points of a very substantial character, before you are entitled to declare that you can promote agricultural interests in respect to the provision of electricity simply by the promotion of such a Measure.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who dealt with this Measure, if I may say so, in a very lukewarm and certainly not in a very detailed fashion, such as the Measure warranted, because he himself regarded it as a scheme with vast ramifications, said that he had been told by his experts—he is in the hands of experts in such matters, and one does not complain of that—that if this scheme were applied, it would mean a considerable reduction in price. Does it not depend upon several contingencies? Does it not depend upon the demand? Of course it does, and if the demand be not considerable, the price will not come down. Capital outlay has to be taken into account, as well as expenditure, both initial and recurring. All these considerations will be all the time before the owners of this particular scheme, and, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to say that the price will be low, at all events low enough to justify the consumers in that area purchasing the electricity.
I may be countered by what might be thought an effective reply. It may be said, "Would the promoters of this scheme"—whose names I shall mention in a moment—"proceed with this Measure if they had not sufficient evidence before them in respect of capacity regarding consumption and price to justify them?" But may it not be—here I furnish a reply—that they seek, at some time or other, to impinge upon 1185 the preserves of the Glasgow Corporation and the Clyde Valley electricity supplies, and it may be upon the Kilmar-nock super station and, what is more germane, on the preserves of the Dumfries Town electricity supply?
10.0 p.m.
That brings me to what I think is the point of greatest importance, and I am quite satisfied that the Minister of Transport will agree with me in this. I think it was the intention of the Electricity Act to eliminate, so far as may be, unnecessary competition, to link up stations and super stations, and to effect a national electricity supply, but here we are faced with the promotion of a scheme that clearly involves, at some time or other, based upon the financial considerations involved and many others, the beginning of an intensive and ruthless competition in that particular area. It may be that the Electricity Board will come to the assistance of the municipal authorities, and indeed of the Clyde Valley and other undertakings, in the event of competition becoming too keen, but it will be much too late then, because much money will have been expended in the promotion of this scheme. Then the Electricity Board will be bound, in the circumstances, to keep their hands off, and I warn the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he is zealous in the promotion of the principle of unification and is concerned for the national wellbeing in respect of electricity supply, not to take this Measure with a light heart, not to rely too much upon the opinion of his expert body.
Now, if I may for a moment or two, I would direct attention to one or two rather more detailed points. It has been argued from these benches, and indeed from the benches opposite—in this connection there is some common agreement—that this may affect the position of many coalminers, and indeed of coal-owners, in the neighbouring districts. I do not pretend that there is a very great deal of substance in the argument that, while there are coal resources, they should be always utilised for these and other purposes. I hope that some day we may find it possible to do without coal, and the exploitation of coal altogether, and if hydro-electric power is discovered to be an efficient substitute for power derived from coal, I am quite satisfied that no one on these benches would 1186 desire to force miners down a pit. But in the circumstances, particularly such circumstances as confront us in Scotland, it would be more than madness to allow a scheme of this kind to be promoted when there are available supplies of coal, and at a cheap price; and I venture to say that as between the cost of generating electricity from coal at a price that is not artificial, but that is actually based on the cost of production—speaking in national terms, and not in terms of private profit-making—and the cost of generating electricity in this fashion, having regard to the initial cost involved, it may well be that it is cheaper to provide electricity generated from coal. At all events, the point has never been made clear, and it is a matter that ought to be taken into account.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did say, I think, that Sir Andrew Duncan, who is regarded as an expert in such matters, had welcomed this proposal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, forgot, perhaps conveniently so, that when the Electricity Board receive a proposal of this kind, they will naturally say, "Well, it is the best in the circumstances," when there is no alternative measure before them. That always happens. I had occasion the other day to sit as a member of a Committee—I shall not mention the name of the Committee and I shall not give details of this operation, but I sat as a member of a Committee—to take evidence with regard to a particular measure. The argument which was constantly adduced in support of the acceptance of the Bill was that as there was no alternative proposal we ought to accept this. It was not the best, of course; it had serious defects and blemishes, but there was nothing to present to us as a substitute. That is a faulty argument, if I may say so. Is it too much to say, seeing the terms of the Electricity Act and having regard to the wide power vested in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport and his Department, that it was incumbent upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Electricity Commissioners and the Board responsible, to promote measures in place of the one which is being promoted in this Bill? It was their duty, it was their function, and, if they had done what I think the nation expected of them, and even hon. Members in all parts of the House expected, 1187 when the Electricity Bill was going through—if they had proceeded to a large measure of unification, and had filled in the gaps, and quite obviously the gaps required to be filled in—without waiting until someone came along in a philanthropic spirit, benevolently-minded and generously disposed, and thinking only of the interest of the community as we are always told to promote a scheme of this kind, it would have been better for everybody. Now who are the promoters of this scheme? The hon. Member for Galloway (Captain Streatfeild), who so far, despite his interest in this Measure, has been inarticulate.
§ Captain STREATFEILDOnly so far.
§ Mr. SHINWELLExcept for some interruption which amounted to as much as no matter—
§ Captain STREATFEILDOnly one.
§ Mr. SHINWELLNot that his speech would amount to much in any case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member's last observation was unseemly.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWith very great respect to you, Sir, not as unseemly as some of the things which are said by hon. Members on the opposite side and which are unnoticed.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have heard no such observations. The hon. Member makes a serious reflection upon me. If I hear unseemly observations from any hon. Member of the House, they will be dealt with in the proper way.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI should be sorry, Mr. Speaker, if you thought what I said was a reflection on yourself. I did not suggest that you had heard the observations and had not noticed them, but they have been made in this House unnoticed by hon. Members, and made in the course of these proceedings. When hon. Members on the other side sitting on the Front Bench below the Gangway are squeamish about such matters as I discuss and the language which I use, may I remind them that it is not for those who live in glasshouses to throw stones. If they do not like my language, they can leave it alone. I shall say what I think is right and proper so long as I am not out of order; 1188 and I am not out of order. I repeat that the hon. Member for Galloway who is sitting there has so far been inarticulate except for sending briefs round to other Members. All he has done so far as I can see is to deny that he has any monetary interest in this scheme. It is easy enough for hon. Members on the other side to deny that sort of thing; it is not easy for us to investigate so meticulously, having regard to all the circumstances. But here is my list; I do not know whether the hon. Member can recognise any of them. The Power Traction Finance Company—does the hon. Member know anything about that? Perhaps I should ask the Patronage Secretary? I beg his pardon; someone says that he is still slumbering. Then there is the Sir William Arroll Company and John Brown and Company—are those the philanthropists who are so concerned for the national well-being, and concerned about agricultural interest in Galloway, Kirkcudbrightshire and Ayrshire? Then there are Cammell Laird and Company, the English Electric Company—so much concerned with national interests as we saw quite recently—the Prudential Insurance Company, the Associated Portland Cement Company—that is in it, of course, because cement will obviously be required; you cannot erect an undertaking of this kind without cement—the Callender's Cable Company, Merz and McLellan, Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners. Those are the people behind this scheme, and it is because such people are behind the scheme that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport stands idly by and allows the national interests to be neglected.
§ Colonel ASHLEYMay I ask the hon. Member to explain what he means by saying that because these people are behind the scheme, I stand idly by?
§ Mr. SHINWELLI shall be delighted to tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is because it is the policy of the Government, of which the right hon. and gallant Member is so distinguished an ornament, to promote constantly the interest of such concerns as I have mentioned rather than the interests of the community.
§ Colonel ASHLEYThat is absolutely untrue. We promote the interests of the 1189 nation and not of any private concerns. We have much more care for the interests of the nation than the hon. Member has, at any rate.
§ Mr. SHINWELLAs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now disturbed from his complacency and is showing exactly what is in his mind, I am more than delighted.
§ Major COLFOXOn a point of Order. Is there no way of limiting the offensive-ness of the hon. Member?
§ Mr. SPEAKERHe has not been un-parliamentary since I last intervened.
§ Mr. SHINWELLIn view of the complacency which is shown at all times by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when we can induce them to show what is in their minds, we are delighted.
Mr. SANDEMANMay I ask the hon. Member a question? I should like to know where he suggests we should get our cement and our cables.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI should have thought that cement was the last thing which the hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandeman) would be thinking of. It is quite obvious that hon. Members are not pleased.
§ Mr. SHINWELLDoes the hon. Member really wish to have an answer? I understand that he is interested in the subject. We are discussing an electricity Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member knew that, but I will tell him so. We understand that the Portland Cement Co. and the Associated Cement Co. are interested, not in the promotion of electricity schemes which are an advantage to the people in Kirkcudbrightshire, but in the sale of cement. I do not know whether that occurred to the hon. Member.
Mr. SANDEMANMay I ask where you can buy cement and cables cheaper? After all, that is the question.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI am reminded that it is not very easy to pierce the ring 1190 which surrounds the sale of cement; but that is by the way. I do not want to transgress any more than I can help. There seems to be some surprise about that observation. I assure, you, Mr. Speaker, that so far as you yourself are concerned, it is perfectly true. As for the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House who are interrupting, for them I care nothing, but for you, Sir, I have some measure of respect. I come to my conclusion. [Laughter.] I need not come to it for some time for that matter; I have a great deal to say. I do not know whether hon. Members want to be kept here until 1 o'clock in the morning, but I can give them ample material to justify what I have said in my speech. Perhaps in the circumstances, I ought not to be tempted by the observations of those who are in the House temporarily. I want to submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who was almost beside himself a moment or two ago, is forgetting that the Electricity Act—I understood that he wished to have a reply; he put the point to me, and I am offering a reply, if I may have his attention for a moment, but with his usual courtesy he takes no notice. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted to know whether I accused him of neglecting the national interest. May I put this to him? The Electricity Act provides him with powers which I have indicated in my speech, but he has not availed himself of those powers, and therefore I tell him quite frankly that he has neglected the national interest in this connection. The people of Kirkcudbrightshire will not thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for this Measure, nor will the people of Ayrshire. The county councils, town councils and other local authorities who are to lose in rates through the valuable concessions provided for this new concern will not thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The only people who will thank him are these financial cliques, these unscrupulous financial adventurers, who are supported by hon. Members on the other side and are to some extent in association with them. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to agree that this Bill should be opposed, but I am satisfied that the people of Scotland in the area concerned will oppose this Measure if and when they get an opportunity in the next Election.
§ Captain STREATFEILDI crave the indulgence of the House for interrupting the somewhat amusing entertainment to which we have just been treated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Amusing?"] Amusing from one point of view. We have a sense of humour in this House, and I think we should be rather lost without it. I venture to intervene as the Member for the constituency which is concerned in this Bill, and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with one or two arguments which have been put forward by those who are in opposition to it. A good deal has been said regarding Loch Doon and the flow of water from that loch down the river. It seems to me that is a purely technical objection, and that as a technical objection it is unable to hold any standing whatsoever. It is proposed by the engineers to raise the level of Loch Doon by something like 23 feet. If, as the opponents of this Bill allege, the water supply is going to be insufficient owing to the tapping by the Galloway electricity scheme the level of that loch will be lowered progressively until it becomes so low that it is of the slightest use neither for sewage purposes, for water supply, or for the electricity scheme. I suggest that the technical advisers and experts who have been consulted by the promoters of this scheme would never have suggested touching Loch Doon if such a state of affairs were to be brought about.
Lient.-Colonel MOOREWill the hon. and gallant Member say why the promoters refuse to allow more than 45,000,000 gallons per day from the loch to flow down the river?
§ Captain STREATFEILDThe question of what quantity of water will flow down the river is on the lap of the gods. I understand that the normal flow down that river is 30,000,000 gallons per day, and under the scheme that 30,000,000 is to be increased to 45,000,000.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI would like to correct that statement. The normal flow in a period of great drought is 65,500,000. In a normal period it is 80,000,000 gallons. The first proposal that was made was that 30,000,000 gallons should be allowed, but afterwards that was raised to 45,000,000 gallons.
§ Captain STREATFEILDI cannot see how any scheme put up purely from the 1192 electrical engineering point of view can possibly require that amount of flow out of that particular loch. That is something which can only be judged by those who have a technical acquaintance with the generation of electricity by water power. The coal consumption under this scheme is not going to be as great as it otherwise would be. I am speaking as a coalowner, and any scheme which hits the collieries hits me personally.
§ Mr. SULLIVANWill the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us which collieries he is interested in?
§ Captain STREATFEILDI do not see what that has to do with this Bill. I am not ashamed of my connection with collieries, and, if the hon. Member likes to know more about them, I will say that they are situated in Northumberland and Durham. In this case, we have to treat the situation as a whole. If you take the Galloway scheme the amount of water generating will equal less than 1.1 per cent. of the coal consumption of the whole country, and it cannot amount to any appreciable increase in employment among the miners.
§ Mr. SPEAKERMay I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these constant interruptions are most irregular.
§ Captain STREATFEILDIf questions are put to me, I am only too pleased to answer them. Speaking from my technical knowledge of the coal industry I wish to say that it is anticipated that under the scheme of this Bill employment will be given to not less than 4,000 men for three years, and that the equivalent of coal consumption cannot possibly under any circumstances whatsoever result in the employment of anything like that number of men. Much objection has been raised in the course of this Debate to the effect of this scheme in regard to sewage. I think the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) raised this point. I appreciate the situation that he raises, but I would point out to him that the principle of hydro-electric generation is the utilisation of water power for turning turbo-generators in its passage from the source to the sea, and there is nothing in the 1193 elementary principles of that type of electrical engineering to prevent it from carrying out sewage duties on its way.
§ Mr. HARDIEI know that the water passes through a turbo-generator, and that it must pass out at a lower level than that at which it passes in, but I was quoting from a Clause in the Bill.
§ Captain STREATFEILDI fail to see why the water, in passing from a higher to a lower level, should not first of all pass through a sewage farm and do its duty there, and then pass through the turbo-generator equally effectively. Again, the hon. Member took exception to the utilisation of water power resources by private enterprise, on the ground that they belong to the nation. I quite agree that the power of water as it flows from its source to the sea is the property of the nation, but who shall own the means whereby that power is converted into energy suitable for utilisation by human beings? The water itself, in passing from its source to the sea, is of no use: it is human ingenuity which devises the apparatus to harness the power given by that water, and that is a point which the hon. Member seriously overlooked. With regard to the question of unemployment, it has been said that this Bill, if it be passed, will provide employment for 4,000 men for three years. I agree that that is not a large number, but on the subject of unemployment I would plead that the House should give to every individual a chance.
There is one other aspect of this Bill, which has not yet been touched upon, and I speak here as one who represents the constituency concerned. I refer to the local opinion and local wishes in Kirkcudbrightshire. The speeches that have been made to-night from the benches opposite seem to have utterly ignored the existence of the people in Galloway. They have taken not the slightest notice of those people, and I venture to take this opportunity of telling the House precisely what the people in Galloway would require in regard to this Bill. The general opinion is in favour of the Bill. The county council, although an accusation has been levelled against them which almost amounts to an accusation of bribery, is in favour of the Bill. The Bill is going to be a further stage in the progressive development of this country. Lastly, I would ask the House to 1194 remember that we in Galloway desire that this Bill should be passed, and I ask the House, as a democratic institution, not to override the wishes of the people of Galloway, but to give this Bill a Second reading.
§ Mr. W. BENNETTIn my opinion this Bill should be amended in Committee for one reason in particular. The Scottish Members are acquainted with the local aspect of the matter, but I want to touch on a question connected with figures which is dealt with in the Clauses commencing with Clause 9. This is not an ordinary private or limited company. It is the Galloway Water Power Company. It professes to be a public company for the service of the public, a company for the supply of a utility which is necessary to the citizen. If the Bill had been promoted by a municipality or a county council, on by the nation, there would have been a Clause compelling it to establish a sinking fund under the Act of 1898. Why has that been omitted? As the Act stands now, we are setting up a fresh hedge of vested interests which must be cut through before this can become a public property—before it can be acquired by the nation. Why should there not be exactly the same treatment meted out to a company of this nature as would be meted out if it was promoted in the national or municipal interest?
I do not know whether there will be an opportunity on the Third Reading or in Committee to move an Amendment of that nature, but I should strenuously oppose any Bill which purports to be a public Bill supplying a social service to the public which is not treated on precisely the same lines as a national or municipal undertaking would be, with a financial Clause which insists upon the redemption of the money that is invested in the company. In my opinion that is the great fault with most of the big companies, particularly railway companies. If only Clauses similar to those insisted upon in the case of municipalities and national undertakings had been incorporated when the railway companies were first inaugurated, there would be to-day none of the vested interests to oppose and it would be possible to carry freights and goods for British farmers as cheaply as they are now carried by national undertakings nearly all over the world. I shall 1195 oppose the Bill on that account unless there is an assurance that we can move an Amendment insisting upon a sinking fund as part and parcel of the finance of this company, because it purports to be