HC Deb 16 June 1950 vol 476 cc824-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Kenneth Robinson.)

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hale (Rochdale)

In bringing before the House the question of the discontinuance of joint meter readings for gas and electricity in Rochdale, it would be unfortunate if hon. Members were to think that this was a trivial matter. When an Act which nationalises an industry which is of vital importance to the economy of the nation reaches its final stages in the House, hon. Members can pass opinion as to whether that Act is or is not a good one. The man in the street or the woman in the home are not so much concerned with the Parliamentary position of the Act as with how it affects them at the place where it makes contact with their everyday lives.

Joint meter reading was instituted in Rochdale in 1941 at a time when the nation faced a crisis in manpower and the corporation found that, by instituting this practice, economies were made in manpower. Immediately the system was brought into operation two meter readers were dispensed with; a couple of years later two further readers were dispensed with; and in 1948, when Rochdale had more houses than in 1939, they made an economy of five readers. When the gas and electricity boards of the North-West Region began to operate they discontinued this practice of one meter reader or meter reader collector checking the meter at a house at one visit. Now we have the system in duplicate where the Gas Board send one meter reader and the Electricity Board send another.

The corporation imposed this joint meter reading against the wishes of the gas and electricity committees which operated when the undertakings were under municipal control, but even those who opposed the introduction of the scheme are ready today to say that they were mistaken. Not only have the corporation found it beneficial, but the housewife has found it beneficial. As is well known, in Lancashire many married women work in a factory or shop in addition to keeping their homes going, and it is necessary for the wife to leave a key with a neighbour so that the reader can gain admission. The housewife finds she has to do this twice instead of once and, the designs of our houses being such as they are, we usually find that meters are in the most inaccessible places.

The Corporation of Rochdale and many other people believe it was sound business practice that meters in homes should be read at one time by one meter reader. The boards have decided otherwise and, as is usual in such cases, they give a variety of reasons. One of the major reasons given is that the areas covered by the gas board and the electricity board do not coincide. Neither did the areas covered by the gas committee and the electricity committee of Rochdale Corporation coincide, but the will was there to make the system work, and work it did. We were also told by these boards that the institution or operation of this practice would create administrative difficulties. That may well be so, but when the gas and electricity boards cease to have administrative difficulties I trust they will cease to employ administrators because we pay servants of public corporations to overcome difficulties, not for doing jobs as little office boys.

We are also told that it does not mean that because Rochdale had joint meter reading the job was done more economically than the boards are doing it now. That may well be true for the simple reason that they paid the gas and electricity readers £7 8s. a week, whereas the gas and electricity boards pay theirs £5 17s., so it would be improbable that there would be an economy there. It would seem that the economy they have been able to make has been at the expense of the wages of the collectors.

Another reason given is that both boards intend that the men who read meters shall do other jobs as well. They are to become salesmen and service men; in fact the multiplicity of their jobs seem to indicate that they are to do anything but meter reading. If that is so, I foresee the time coming when considerably more of these men will have to be employed on this work. In fact, the evidence is that the joint staffs of the gas and electricity boards have increased by four since the practice to which I have referred was discontinued.

When this House decided that these two vital industries should come under the control of the public through the boards, the Minister of Fuel and Power delegated the day to day administration of those industries to the boards, but our responsibility as Members of this House did not end there. We cannot afford to see these great Measures of nationalisation of gas and electricity become discredited by what in my view is pure bureaucracy. The gas and electricity boards like a uniform system all over the country, which is to me a confession of their own inflexibility. As it was possible for a municipal corporation to adapt itself to the needs of a particular town and to the desires of the people living within its boundaries, I consider it incumbent on the boards to make at least some effort to do the same.

It is no use the boards taking the view that whatever they do in an administrative capacity concerns them alone. It concerns us as people vitally interested in the success of these two industries. It may seem that this is the sort of thing we can expect from so-called bureaucracy, but it is alarming to note that in a letter from the Electricity Division of Fuel and Power, the same mentality seems to be creeping in. We are told that it is the Minister's opinion that it is the responsibility of the electricity and gas boards to decide what arrangement is likely to be most convenient and economical.

The public are not very much concerned as to whether a particular matter is convenient to officials who are paid to work for the public convenience. Even if the monetary economy would be negligible, or even if it would mean additional expenditure to do what is formerly done, the Minister would do well in the public interest to bring it to the notice of the boards that they must not only consider the convenience of the working of their own departments but should also take into account the views of many other people in this country who are equally interested in the success of these two industries.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Pannell (Leeds, West)

My first comment is to note the lack of interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite when anything is raised here which would promote the efficiency of the nationalised boards. It also reflects a lack of awareness of the part local government presumably plays in relation to trading undertakings. However much we feel about that, our principal thought must be to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale) for raising this important matter.

When a great nationalisation project is launched on the Floor of this House, it is very similar to a blue print coming off the drawing board of a great factory. It is not the Bill which is brought before this House by which nationalisation is judged; it is the bill which the consumer pays. It is judged largely in the homes of people up and down the country, and we should therefore advertise at every stage that nationalisation is economic, efficient and right.

I was interested in this matter soon after I came into the House. The practice that Rochdale embarked upon as a result of manpower difficulties during the war was something practised by many of the great local authorities in the cities and borough of this country before the war. Indeed, the city which I have the honour to represent had a common practice, especially with regard to back-to-back houses, of sending a man round to collect all the bills. One man was responsible—and it was cheaper than posting—for delivering notices for gas, electricity, rates, and, I believe, although I say this with reserve, for water as well. It may very well be in some cities that rates, water, gas, electricity are the subject of four demands and I think that would be very sad indeed. It should not be beyond the ingenuity or business capacity of the new boards to work in concert one with another so that efficiency is advertised at every step.

There is the difficulty of manpower. Earlier today we discussed another subject but the same sort of content comes into it. We have great industries like the self-service stores because we have a waning population. In exactly the same way we cannot afford to waste men on duplicated jobs. The people who pay these bills are largely people who have not much of the goods of this world. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has a noble record, not only in this House, but in local government of which he has a great knowledge, and I feel he will be very sympathetic towards any suggestions which may be put forward to see that this needless duplication should cease.

I would only ask him to see whether, if not some directive, at least some fairly straightforward intimation should go to the boards that in the opinion of this House these great nationalised industries should not be administered as separate empires but should be unified one with another and get together on this small question raised by my hon. Friend so as to see that waste is completely eliminated. Having got together on that subject in the public interest, there should be even a wider exploration of jobs that might be pooled between the great nationalised electricity and gas undertakings. I thank my hon. Friend for raising in a local way a subject of such great national interest.

4.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)

We have rather a thin House but I am certain that the hon. Members who have remained will appreciate the very moderate way in which my hon, Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale) raised this matter in the public interest. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) who has had great experience in this matter also was of considerable value.

The real difficulty, as I see it, is in weighing up the balance of arguments as to whether it is a good thing to have one man to read the meters and collect the coppers from pre-payment meters for gas and electricity, or whether each industry should have its own collectors. Obviously the boards must look at this matter from a businesslike point of view and with all the local circumstances taken into consideration. It is their duty to arrive at a decision on matters such as this in the public interest, and I am sure that they would give it that consideration. Because of that I am certain that hon. Members would not regard it as proper for the Minister to use his powers of direction on a small matter of this kind. He could only intervene if strong representations were made to him by one or other of the consultative councils, or if he thought that it was a matter of general policy which affected the national interest. Only in those circumstances should directions be issued by him.

Both the electricity and gas consultative councils in the North-West, the area in which Rochdale is situated, have considered this question of separate meter readings, and both councils, on which there is a very high proportion of local government people, have come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage in that area is on the side of separate meter readings. I think that the Electricity Consultative Council advised the Rochdale Corporation to that effect. It was Stockport who raised the matter with the Gas Consultative Council, and it was to them that the council wrote.

We do not take the view as a Ministry that this is a matter in which we should issue directions. It is a matter which the board should consider in the light of local circumstances and not as a matter of national principle. There will be circumstances where a mutual arrangement of this kind may be justified. On the other hand, there will be circumstances where it is impracticable to have joint meter readings.

As I understood my hon. Friend, his case rested on two points. One was that it saved manpower and the other was that it was more convenient for the consumer. There is something in both those arguments, but I am not sure that they are as strong as they appear at first sight. As my hon. Friend knows from his local government experience, it would not automatically halve the number of people required to read the gas and electricity meters at the same time instead of reading them separately, because in Rochdale alone out of 41,000 consumers of gas and electricity there are only 16,000 houses which have both services installed.

Mr. J. Hale

Seventy-five per cent. of the total houses in Rochdale have a gas and electricity supply.

Mr. Robens

I would not say for one moment that my hon. Friend was misleading the House, but my information is that there are only 16,000 out of 41,000 houses where both gas and electricity is installed. Perhaps we can have those figures checked later. Clearly, it is impossible for an individual to read a meter which is not there. Therefore, it would not automatically halve the manpower required. I think my hon. Friend will also agree that it takes longer—I would not say twice as long—to read two meters rather than one. Also the meter reader would have to account separately for the cash, and he would become weighted down with coppers much more quickly, so that arrangements for collecting them would have to be extended. However, I agree with him that there must be some saving.

On the question of convenience to the consumer, it may be a hardship to have two men calling but, by and large, it is not really very inconvenient to have two men calling instead of one. So one would say, with reference to my hon. Friend's arguments, that there is something in them, and that that must be taken into consideration. On the other hand there are some very strong arguments against joint meter readings.

My hon. Friend referred to a particular point to which I now wish to make reference, and that is, the function of the meter readers. I am not going to go as far as he and say that meter readers should carry bags of tools around and do small repairs. I have never thought that they ought to do that. However, there is a general feeling on both the gas and electricity boards that meter readers should be something more than only meter readers.

What the boards are anxious to do is to train and equip men to go round and not only read the meters but be a help to the consumers in their homes by being able to advise them about appliances, to make notes of necessary repairs, to render services of that character, and, thereafter, to see that the appropriate instruction is sent to the appropriate department to do the work or service, and thus to relieve the consumers, as much as possible, of any inconveniences in relation to their supply of gas or electricity.

So the boards are anxious that the men who read the meters should be able to do more than only read the meters, and should be men who could assist the consumers. That would be a really good bit of public relations. If, instead of having men who go round—as both my hon. Friend and I know—and bang on the door and shout "Gas" or "Electricity" as the case may be, and stump in to read the meter and stump out again, we had men who could advise consumers about appliances, and make notes of necessary repairs, and render similar services, they would be good public relations men.

I do not want to make too much of the accountancy problem. A good accountant can do his work no matter how difficult, and can adjust himself to new systems or arrangements. There may be something in the fact that the areas do not quite cover the same ground; nevertheless, there would necessarily be some change in accountancy methods if we had joint meter reading.

I was interested in my hon. Friend's experience at Rochdale, because I too, have had some experience as a member of the Manchester Corporation. There we ran both a gas department and an electricity department. In Manchester we had about 220,000 gas consumers and about 210,000 electricity consumers, and between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the houses had both gas and electricity installed. Yet Manchester Corporation never felt it was worth while to have joint billing arrangements—though we did have joint paying-in arrangements—or joint meter readings. So we have two places such as Manchester and Rochdale, within a comparatively short distance of one another, both owning gas and electricity undertakings, but arriving at a different decision as to whether to have joint meter readings or not. I am not going to say that Manchester was right or wrong or that Rochdale was right or wrong. Each Corporation made its decision in the light of local circumstances.

Because of that fact, I hope that my hon. Friend, having very properly raised this matter, will agree that it is a matter which we ought to leave to the gas and electricity boards. I hope he will agree they should decide this matter of joint meter readings, and that they should decide whether, in any local circumstances, the public interest would best be served by having joint meter readings, or whether it would best be served by having separate meter readings. I think that that is about the best thing we can do, because it would be wrong—and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—for us at the Ministry of Fuel and Power to say that this is a matter of great public interest and that there is an instruction now that there must be joint meter readings wherever that can be done.

I am perfectly certain that the area boards that I have met—and I have met most of them in both the gas and electricity services—are really most anxious to do what is in the public interest, and what is most efficient, and to give the consumers a really first class service. I believe that the consumers' councils, composed as they are of representatives of the local authorities, of industry and other consumers, should have a voice in this. They are able to express themselves.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's raising this matter, and I thank him for raising it. I hope he will agree with me that, having ventilated it, having put the case—and I can assure him that all these Debates recorded in HANSARD are read by members of the various boards up and down the country—we should leave it to them—leave it to the good sense and good judgment of the boards to decide this matter of joint or separate meter readings.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Five o'Clock.