HL Deb 05 April 1922 vol 50 cc46-80

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 10:

Power to continue wayleaves.

10. Where any joint electricity authority or authorised undertakers have under any terminable agreement or arrangement, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, placed above or below ground any electric line which could have been so placed under the provisions of section twenty-two of the principal Act, the joint electricity authority or authorised undertakers may, notwithstanding the termination of such agreement or arrangement, retain the line in position, but in the event of any objection by the owner or occupier of any land over or under which it is placed the line shall only retained if the Minister of Transport consents thereto, and the provisions of section twenty-two of the principal Act shall apply to the giving of such consent.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY had on the Paper an Amendment to omit all words after "retain the line in position," and to insert "subject to the provisions of section twenty-two of the principal Act applicable to the original placing of any such line." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which appears in my name is designed to preserve to railway companies certain protection given to them under the Act of 1919. Of course, your Lordships know that the land owned by railway companies is, or in the future may have to be, covered with structures for purposes quite different from those which the ordinary occupancy of land may require. And not only that, but the expedition and safety of transport have to be taken into account.

Accordingly, in 1919, Parliament took a great deal of trouble in enacting an elaborate set of provisions, intending to make it impossible for the granting of wayleaves for electrical cables and the like, either across or along the railway companies' property, to take place without careful consideration, and in cases in which injury to other public interests involved would be likely to result. My Amendment was put down in order to preserve those sections so elaborately designed by Parliament in 1919. But since I put it down there have appeared on the Paper two Amendments in the name of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill which, if he intends to move them, would be unreservedly accepted by those whom I have the honour to represent as really carrying out their desires and intentions quite as fully as, and in a more skilled manner than, the Amendment I have on the Paper. Therefore, it is unnecessary for me to move.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I move the next Amendment, and I shall also move the following Amendment on the Paper in order to carry out what the noble Lord has said.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("but in the event of any objection") and insert ("on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as were previously applicable thereto, unless and until objection is made")—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out from "placed," where that word last occurs, to the end of the clause, and insert "but in the event of any such objection being made, the line shall only be retained if the provisions of section twenty-two of the principal Act regulating the placing of a new line are complied with, and subject to the provisions of that, section applicable to lines placed across land in pursuance of that section."

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("placed") to end of clause and insert the said words.—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause: . In any case where a generating station containing distributing plant is transferred to a joint electricity authority, the joint electricity authority shall provide such sub-station and plant as may be required by the previous owners of the generating station, to enable them to continue their distribution business as heretofore, and until such sub-station and plant shall have been so provided shall permit such previous owners to use the distributing plant in such generating station in as full and complete a manner as if such generating station had not been so transferred.

The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment with the same object that I had in moving the last new clause last night; that is to say, in order to invite the Government to give some encouragement to undertakers to come into their proposed joint authority. The object of the clause is that, if the station has been handed over, and the authority is doing the generating and the undertaker the distributing, the latter should be enabled to get access to such of the distributing plant—the switchboard, which is in the generating station, and so on—which he would not otherwise be able to do, having handed over his generating station. Perhaps the noble Viscount might consider this clause in connection with the last new clause that I moved last night, and which he promised to consider before the Report stage.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

This is exactly the same point which I said I would consider last night. If the noble Earl would withdraw, both clauses could be considered together.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I am obliged to the noble Viscount, and ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:— (". In connection with any transfer or any lease to a joint electricity authority of any part of any undertaking of any authorised undertakers the Electricity Commissioners may by Order suspend, as regards any undertaking or part of an undertaking of such undertakers, any powers of a joint electricity authority or the London County Council or any local authority relating to the purchase of any such undertaking or any part thereof for such period as the Electricity Commissioners may think fit or may extinguish such powers, and may for that purpose amend the provisions of any Act or Order relating to any such undertaking.

The noble Earl said: I have some confidence that the noble Viscount may be able to accept this clause with regard to the suspension or extension of the rights of purchase. I fancy he will accept it as being helpful to the Bill. If the noble Viscount would express some opinion upon it perhaps there would be no necessity for me to explain it at length.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)

LORD MONK BRETTON

I have an Amendment which covers the same ground as that of the noble Earl up to a point, which is that provision should be made to enable the exercise of purchase rights to be suspended, but, only where the purchasing authority approves, not otherwise. The London County Council has fought for these powers for a very long time, and would be very unwilling to relinquish them, or at least would desire that they should not be suspended until such time as the transfer is made to the joint electricity authority, and then with the joint electricity authority's approval. Otherwise, the joint electricity authority would be prejudiced in its dealings and arrangements with the companies as to taking over generating stations. That is the point so far as the Amendment is alternative to the proposal of the noble Earl.

After that my Amendment contains new matter. May I say before I reach the new matter that I am now coming to the same sort of Amendment as Lord Parmoor proposes to the following clause and the only difference between his Amendment and mine is that I think he uses the word "revoke" and not the word "suspend" which we would prefer. As regards the new matter in my own clause it is the provision of a sliding scale of prices and dividends which we think would be in the interests of all the authorities concerned as likely to lead to a steadier balance in the cost of electricity.

LORD PARMOOR

May I support what the noble Lord has said as regards the part of his clause with which we are dealing at present. My new clause is in substance the same, apart from what the noble Lord calls the new part, to which I am rather opposed. But as regards the earlier part I think that either Lord Monk Bretton's clause or mine may be adopted; it really does not matter which it is, because they depend upon getting the consent of the authorised distributor and the local authority. It is clear that the terms now granted to the authorised undertakers as regards the period of their concession ought not to be altered without their consent; and on the other hand that the new terms should not be imposed on the local authorities without their consent. I think that these terms have in many cases stood in the way of the progress of the electricity movement in this country and it would be very wise if words of this kind were admitted in order to give this power to the Electricity Commissioners.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am prepared to accept the alternative Amendment of Lord Monk Bretton. I think he has stated quite clearly the difference. We lay some stress upon the point that his Amendment suspends and does not extinguish these purchase rights, which would be contrary to the whole provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts. If it is moved in this form I am quite ready to accept it.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I am quite prepared not to move my new clause in favour of that of the noble Lord opposite. I would only like to suggest the desirability of putting in some proviso in regard to consent—that it should not be unreasonably withheld.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I will consider that point before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PARMOOR

May I ask that my rights should be preserved and that the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, should be content to move his clause up to the point that it is the same as mine; that is, down to the word "undertaking." I do not wish him to include in a clause of this kind what is an entirely different matter—namely, the question of the revision of prices or the introduction of a sliding scale as between authorised undertakers based on the relations between the prices which may be charged and the dividends paid by such company. That is an entirely different matter, and it may or may not he of advantage. I think it is not of advantage.

LORD MONK BRETTON

Then I will move my clause as the noble Lord desires it.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 11, insert the following new clause: (". In connection with any transfer or any lease to a joint electricity authority of any part of any undertaking of any authorised undertakers, the Electricity Commissioners may by Order suspend, as regards any undertaking or part of an undertaking of such undertakers, any powers of a joint electricity authority or the London County Council or any local authority relating to the purchase of any such undertaking or any part thereof for such period as the Electricity Commissioners may think fit, provided that consent to such suspension has been previously obtained from the authority or authorities in whom the said powers are vested, and may for that purpose amend the provisions of any Act or Order relating to any such undertaking.")—(Lord Yank Bretton.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand the noble Lord moves the clause as printed, subject to the omission of the last four and a half lines, beginning at the words "and may."

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I accepted this Amendment subject to its being entire and not truncated. Does the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, intend to move the rest of it?

LORD MONK BRETTON

I understand that I am omitting the last part merely because it is more convenient that I should move it separately.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I only wanted that to be made clear.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then the question is that the new clause as printed, down to the word "undertaking" in the fourteenth line, be here inserted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONK BRETTON

May I now move what I may describe as the sliding scale provision, consisting of the words after "undertaking" to the end of the clause?

Amendment moved— Line 14 of the said new clause at end insert: "and may, if thought fit, in the case of an undertaking belonging or leased to a company, make provision as to the relation between the prices which may be charged and the dividends paid by such company.")—(Lord Monk Bretton.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I accept that.

Loan PARMOOR

Does the noble Viscount accept what I may call the true meaning of these words, which may have to be altered—namely, that in this way you may alter the prices which are now being charged by the companies? At the time an arrangement of this sort is made by consent all terms can be reconsidered, because in order to obtain that consent, and the consent of the Electricity Commissioners as well, any terms can be inserted. People would say: "We will not consent unless such and such terms are inserted." In that case, to refer to one special matter is, I think, very objectionable. If the noble Viscount accepts it I am not here to oppose it, but I think it is wrong in principle and ought not to be put into the Bill in that form.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

Could not this Amendment be put down by the noble Lord in the form of a new clause on the Report stage?

LORD MONK BRETTON

I will do that.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then I understand the noble Lord does not now press this Amendment?

LORD MONK BRETTON

That is so.

LORD PARMOOR

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the action he has taken.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause: The joint electricity authority and any authorised undertakers whose area is wholly or partly within the district of such authority may enter into and carry out agreements with any proprietors of any railway, tramway, dock, canal, or navigation to whom the authority or such undertakers are authorised to afford a supply of electricity in respect of the transfer or supply to such proprietors of any electrical apparatus or machinery by the authority or such undertakers and the exercise by such proprietors of any rights of the authority or such undertakers in relation to any electrical apparatus or machinery so transferred.

The noble Lord said: This clause appears to be rather complicated, and I should like to explain it to your Lordships. It is intended to remove a difficulty which sometimes arises when an undertaker gives a supply to a railway, tramway, dock, canal, or navigation and lays down mains or apparatus to give it, and at the end of the contract a supply is no longer required and the mains or apparatus would be useful to the owners of the railway, tramway, dock, canal, or navigation. The clause which I propose would, in such a case, allow the mains or apparatus which are of no use to the undertakers to he sold by them to the railway or other body to whom they would be useful and would enable that railway or other body to repair the mains or apparatus and to break up streets for the purpose, but to no greater extent than the undertakers could have done. If undertakers, and equally a joint authority, have laid down mains or apparatus to supply a railway company who will eventually be supplied from its own station and that apparatus is already installed or in the ground it does not seem right that the undertakers should not be able to sell as I understand they cannot do without this clause—or that the railway company or other body should not be able to buy it. In addition the parties who buy cannot open the streets to repair such mains or apparatus although in many cases they could open the streets to repair or lay down exactly similar apparatus. There can be no objection think to enabling a Government Department to be covered in the same way, if necessary.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I really do not think this Amendment is necessary, because if the noble Lord will look at Section 23 of the Act of 1919, which deals with apparatus and so on, he will see that all that is wanted is sufficiently given by that section. I can assure the noble Lord that no complaint has been made of the extent of these powers at all and I do not think any is likely to arise.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

The noble Viscount has referred me to a section which I fear I have not read and did not understand to refer to this. I shall be pleased to withdraw this Amendment at present, with the leave of your Lordships, and then, if I find it necessary, I will move it on the Report stage.

THE EARL OF BESSBOBOUGH

The noble Viscount has a great many duties and it is possible that he has not been able to consider fully this very complicated point, which is one of great substance, and I hope he will agree to consider it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes; when the noble Lord has digested Section 23, I understand he is going to move, his Amendment again.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

If I find it necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

I beg to move after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:— .—(1) Subsection (1) of section 12 (Powers of joint electricity authorities in respect of the supply of electricity) of the principal Act shall have effect as if—

  1. (a) the words from 'except' in paragraph (b) of that subsection to the end of that paragraph were omitted therefrom;
  2. (b) the words 'or power company' were omitted from the proviso to that subsection in each place where those words occur, and
  3. (c) the following proviso were inserted at the end of that subsection:
Provided also that the Electricity Commissioners may by special order authorise a joint electricity authority to supply electricity in any particular part of the area of supply of a power company, without the consent of the power company, if in that part of the area of supply any authority, company or person requires a supply of electricity for any purpose for which the power company are authorised to supply electricity and is prepared to enter into a binding contract to continue to receive and pay for a supply of electricity upon such terms and conditions including a minimum annual sum to be paid to the power company as shall in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners afford an adequate return to the power company and is also (in the case of a company or person) prepared to give to the power company (if required by them so to do) security for the payment of all sums which may become due to the power company under the contract and if the power company are not willing and in a position to supply electricity to that authority, company or person on such terms and conditions. In determining what terms and conditions will afford an adequate return to the power company the Commissioners shall have regard to the following amongst other considerations:
  1. (i) The period for which the authority, company or person requiring the supply guarantees to take the supply;
  2. (ii) The amount of electricity and the maximum power required;
  3. (iii) The hours during which the power company can be called upon to give the supply;
  4. (iv) The capital expenditure in connection with the supply; and
  5. (v) To what extent capital expended in connection with the supply may become unproductive to the power company upon the discontinuance of the supply."
 The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, in dealing yesterday with Clause 1, told me that he would accept the first part of my Amendment. I understand he accepts all that is printed on pages 4 and 5 of the Marshalled List, but not the subsection (2) which appears at the top of page 6.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Not subsection (2), because it is covered.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

I do not move that subsection now, subject to being able to move a somewhat similar one on Report.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I understand that the noble Viscount does not wish to move his Amendment at present?

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

I want to move the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, will give me.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I suggest that the noble Viscount should move his Amendment, less subsection (2).

Amendment moved— After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Falmouth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Methods of charging and revision of prices.

(4) Where a joint electricity authority has been established, then on any revision of prices to be charged by undertakers who receive a supply of electricity either directly or indirectly from that authority, regard shall be had to the benefit to the undertakers of any reductions in the price of electricity attributable to the establishment of the authority, and notwithstanding anything in any Act or Order regulating the undertaking a revision of prices may be made at any time within three years after the establishment of the joint electricity authority.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, in subsection 4, to leave out "attributable to" and insert "arising solely from." The noble Earl said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. Its object is to make it clear that authorised undertakers who have handed over their generating stations shall not be liable to have their prices reduced because of the establishment of a joint electricity authority, unless it is clear that the cheaper price at which they can obtain electricity arises solely from the authority having been established. I suggest that the words attributable to "are vague and leave a good deal open to argument.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 11, leave out ("attributable to") and insert ("arising solely from").—(The Earl of Bessborough.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am afraid the addition of these words would make the matter more difficult, because the interpretation of "solely attributable" would give rise, I suggest, to exceedingly difficult arguments. If the noble Earl chooses to leave the word as "attributable" it will remove a great number of difficulties, and make the definition, I think much easier. "Solely attributable" is a very difficult phrase to interpret.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved to leave out from "authority" ["to the establishment of the authority"] in sub section (4) to the end of the subsection. The noble Earl said: This Amendment refers to the question of a revision of prices, and I will endeavour to explain it as briefly as I can. First of all, under the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, the prices which undertakers might charge could be revised every five years instead of, as previously, every seven years. Now, by this clause, they are liable to revision every three years, and if the words which I propose to omit by this Amendment are left in, although the undertakers' prices have been already revised within the last three years, they may nevertheless be revised again at any time within three years after the establishment of the authority.

I submit that it will be very difficult for anyone to undertake any large expenditure, which may after all only become productive in the future, for the purpose of improving and cheapening the supply of electricity, if that person has hanging over his head the liability of having the price which existed at the time of his making the expenditure revised, not at the end of three years but in the period which would be possible if the words to which I venture to take objection are left in. It might, I submit, be practically impossible for the work to be done if that period be still further curtailed, as it is in these four lines. I suggest also that within so short a time there will hardly have been sufficient experience of the working of the authority which we must imagine has been set up under this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 12 to 15, leave out from ("authority") to to the end of subsection (4).—(The Earl of Bessborough.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Earl will see that two points are involved in subsection (4). One takes into account any reduction that may be due to the establishment of this new authority, and the price at which it can provide electricity. That, of course, is in favour of the consumer. The second point is that within three years after the establishment of the general electricity authority there may be an application for a revision of prices. I do not suppose that if the application for the revision, in the case of any Act or Order, was made immediately after a previous revision, as the noble Earl suggests, that there is much likelihood that any alteration would be made. I leave this clause to the feeling of your Lordships, however. It is put in in order to assist the consumer, and it rather lies with your Lordships as to whether you prefer it or whether you would desire to modify it, as the noble Earl suggests. It is a question of the balance of interest. On the one side you have the point taken by the noble Earl with regard to the producing authorities, and on the other side you have the interests of the consumers, who would desire the price of their electricity reduced as soon as possible.

LORD PARMOOR

May I point out in support of the noble Earl's Amendment that these four lines allow of a revision of price, although the undertaker has received no advantage from the supply of electric power or of electricity generally, from the new joint electricity authority. Therefore the mere establishment of a joint electricity authority, although the various undertakers had no advantage from it, would enable a revision of prices to be made in conditions under which a revision cannot be made at present. That surely is an objection. I do not know whether I am speaking on behalf of the ratepayer or on behalf of the company. One wants this Bill to be in a form in which it will be accepted, and I think it is rather hard to include a provision of this kind. If the noble Viscount could see his way further to consider the matter, but allow the words to be expunged at the present time, I think it would make the Bill more acceptable.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I will not press my objections to the noble Earl's Amendment subject to this, that I reserve the right, if necessary, to bring up some amended edition on Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause— . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary whether actual or implied contained in this Act or in the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, no undertaking of an authorised undertaker shall be shut down unless a supply can be obtained from some other source at a lower cost to the authorised undertaking than the authorised undertaking may be able to generate, and every such authorised undertaking shall be free to develop so long as it is able to generate at cost not greater than it can obtain a supply from some other authorised source.

  1. (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, whether actual or implied, contained in this Act or in the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, every charge or scale of charges made by a joint electricity authority or other authorised authority whose capital is raised by loans, for a supply of electricity, or any further or subsequent supply to art authorised undertaking shall include a sliding scale based upon any increase or decrease in the price of coal, rate of pay for labour, capital cost of plant per k.w. and rate of interest upon loans above or below a fixed basis, and the joint electricity authority or other authorised authority shall not at any time increase the price of such supply, except in accordance with such sliding scale.
  2. (b) Every charge or scale of charges made by an authorised authority who is a limited company or whose capital is not raised by loan, for a supply of electricity, or any further or subsequent supply to an authorised undertaking, shall include a sliding scale based upon my increase or decrease in the price of coal, rate of pay for labour, and capital cost of plant per k.w. above or below a fixed basis, and the said authorised authority shall not at any time increase the price of such supply except in accordance with such sliding scale."

The noble Earl said: I am sorry at this late hour of the evening to trouble my noble friend, Lord Peel, with a rather complicated Amendment, but I am assured by expert advisers that it is very necessary that this clause, or some identical clause, should be inserted in the Bill. I am assured that there is nothing in the existing Electricity (Supply) Acts, or the Bill now before your Lordships' House which guarantees that the proposed joint electricity authorities shall, or can, supply electricity at a lower cost to the existing undertakings than that at which they can themselves provide electricity, and unless the guarantee is given the main object of the proposed unification is lost. I believe I am right in saying that under the Act of 1919, although there is no compulsory clause, Section 11 of the Act enables the Commissioners to prevent the extension of any existing station, and thereby compel the local undertaker to take a supply from the joint electricity authority, or from some other source.

There is, then, no guarantee that this authority will supply electricity at a cheaper rate. The local undertaker may, indeed, have to pay more than he does at the present moment. It seems to me rather like the position of the manufacturer who is suddenly told to hand over his factory to a super-manufacturer, and then he is compelled to buy the manufactured goods of that super-manufacturer at a higher price than that at which he can sell them to the community himself. Eventually, the loss falls on the community, and that means the rates, about which we have heard so much this afternoon. There is, in short, no guarantee in this Bill that the joint electricity authority must supply cheaper electricity before they can justify their case. It suggests to me the position of the Metropolitan Water Board over again. That Board took over other water undertakings, and ultimately supplied water not only at a higher rate to the consumer, but incurred a deficiency in working which had to be made up from the rates.

I need not trouble your Lordships by going into details, except to say that, as your Lordships are aware, the Acts governing the electricity supply in this country are a whole series beginning in the year 1882. The last Act was passed in 1919. Under these various Acts electricity may be supplied by either a company or a municipality. I believe I am right in saying that a joint electricity authority is in process of being formed for London. I am told that an Inquiry was held at much cost, and it is probable that in a short space of time such an authority will be formed for London.

May I briefly tell your Lordships how this joint electricity authority for London would be formed? The representatives of local authorities would be eight in number; of companies in London, six; of companies outside London, one; power companies, one; of the London County Council, six; of Middlesex and Bucks, one; of Hertfordshire and Essex, one of Surrey and Kent, one; of railway companies, one; and a Chairman elected, one; making a total body of twenty-seven members. I would remind the House that practically all these nominated persons would not directly represent the people who were behind them. They would be merely selected, or nominated; and it seems a serious proposition that, without sufficient guarantees that the public are going to benefit by a cheaper rate of electricity this body should be imposed upon those who would have to pay more for their light in the end. If one looks through the Report of the technical body which was appointed by the Board of Trade in 1918 he will see that the whole tenor of that Report was that anything which was done in the future should be based upon cheapness. In moving this Amendment, which is somewhat long and complicated, I have only one object in view, and that is that the joint electricity authority should be quite satisfied, and should satisfy the public generally, that they can supply more cheaply before they disturb the existing arrangements.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

This is indeed, as the noble Earl has said, a very long and complicated clause, and I have a series of long and complicated objections to it. As to his first point, an authorised undertaker has no power to shut down its station without the consent of the authority, and that part of his Amendment falls to the ground. Then, the noble Earl wants to limit the powers under Clause 11 of the principal Act of the joint electricity authority. That, of course, would derogate greatly from their existing powers, and it is raised in a fuller form by Lord Bess-borough in a subsequent Amendment. As regards the question of prices, that is dealt with under Clause 13; and the prices to be charged by local authorities are already regulated. Under existing Statutes, after provision for interest, sinking fund and expenses, the profit made by the local authority is limited to 5 per cent. That seems to me to show that the majority of the provisions which the noble Earl wishes to embody in this omnibus new clause are already dealt with, or if they have not been dealt with are objectionable on the ground that they reduce the powers of the Electricity Commissioners under the Act of 1919. I hope he will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

Will the noble Viscount be good enough to inform the House with whom rests the ultimate decision? I suppose it rests with the Electricity Commissioners.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes, but there are all sorts of arrangements and Inquiries. The decision, I suppose, rests with the Commissioners and the Minister of Transport.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15:

Amendment of section 15 of Act of 1909.

15. Section fifteen of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909 (which relates to the supply of electricity to premises having a separate supply), shall have effect as if the expression "premises having a separate supply" included premises having a separate supply of electricity or a separate supply of gas, steam, or other form of energy applicable for the purposes for which electricity is demanded or received.

LORD NEWTON moved, after the first "or," to insert "on which." The noble Lord said: This clause is known as the "stand-by" clause, and its object is to enable an undertaker to exact the minimum payment in the case of emergency supply. Supposing a man had installed gas for the purpose of lighting, and had also an electricity supply, in case the gas supply broke down, then the electricity company would be able to enforce the minimum charge. Under the clause electricity undertakers would be entitled to charge a minimum payment in the event of the man saying that electricity was for lighting and gas for power or heating. The electricity undertakers in that case might, therefore, refuse to supply electricity on the ground that the consumer had already something applicable for the same purpose, and they might use this power in order to abolish the use of gas altogether upon the premises. If the clause was really only "stand-by" clause I think the electricity undertakers should only be able to enforce minimum payment in the event of the consumer having light by gas as well. I may point out that the minimum annual bum charged may run to a considerable figure, because under the Act of 1919 undertakers are entitled to charge such minimum actual sum as will give reasonable return on their capital expenditure. I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment; it is not much more than a drafting one.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 30, after the first ("or") insert ("on which").—(Lord Newton.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think I can accept the Amendment because these payments, as the noble Lord knows, are established in cases where there is an additional source of supply. It is very hard on undertakers, when they have spent so much money on establishing and making arrangements for this supply, that they should find (where there are other sources of supply) that no sufficient use is made of it. It is a question whether this power is installed and available, and not so much a question as to whether it is used. The installation is where expenditure is incurred, and I think it is a fair clause in the interests of the supplying authorities.

LORD NEWTON

Perhaps I have not made myself quite clear. The whole point is whether they would be able to make this charge although the consumer had not an alternative form of lighting.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think it is only where they have a separate supply. It is only in those cases that they can make the charge; but I will consider the matter later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Power of persons not being undertakers to supply electricity.

16.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any special Act or Order, it shall be lawful for the owners of any railway generating station, or a any generating station erected under statutory authority for the purpose of working tramways or light railways, to supply electricity therefrom upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed—

  1. (a) to a joint electricity authority; or
  2. (b) with the consent of a joint electricity authority to an authorised undertaker whose area of supply is situate within the district of such joint electricity authority; or
  3. (c)to an authorised undertaker, whose undertaking is not in the district of a joint electricity authority; or
  4. (d) to any consumer, subject, in the case of premises situate within the area of supply of an authorised undertaker, to the consent of that undertaker:

Provided that—

  1. (i) no such supply shall be given without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, nor otherwise than subject to such conditions as they may impose;
    2. 63
  2. (ii) no such supply shall be given to any authorised distributors whose undertaking is in the area of a power company without the consent of that company;
  3. (iii) no such supply shall be given to any premises within the district of a joint electricity authority and not within the area of any other authorised undertakers without the consent of that authority.

(2) The Electricity Commissioners may, subject to the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1890, by order authorise the breaking up of such roads, railways, and tramways as may be necessary for the purpose of such a supply.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "it shall be lawful for the owners," to insert "or lessees."

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 35, after ("owners") insert ("or lessees").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "with the consent of a joint electricity authority." The noble Earl said: During the course of the debate on the Second Reading the noble Viscount said that I had burnt a good deal of midnight oil in order to try to discover compulsion in this voluntary Bill. I think that I have discovered indirect compulsion in this clause relating to railway companies supplying electricity to undertakers. It appears to me that with the inclusion of the words "with the consent of a joint electricity authority" it is possible for the authority to put pressure on the authorised undertaker to sell his generating station to the authorities. That is to say, it is entirely inconsistent with the spirit of the Act of 1919, where your Lordships were so successful in driving out every form of compulsion.

Under this clause, as I understand it, the joint authority will first of all have been set up. Then that joint authority will be given a supply of electricity in part of its district, but there will presumably be some undertakers who prefer to keep and to work their stations—a possibility that your Lordships had in view three years ago in refusing to agree to compulsion. The clause goes on to contemplate that a railway or tramway company may have spare energy beyond that required for its own immediate purposes; that it is prepared to give that spare energy to an authorised undertaker and that the authorised undertaker is ready to take it in order to be able to give an additional supply without the cost of putting up additional plant, and, by getting this spare supply from the railway or tramway company, to be able to cheapen his supply to the public, an object which your Lordships will agree to be a very desirable one.

But the clause as drafted says that the railway or tramway owners who have this spare energy to supply shall not be able to give it to the undertaker unless the joint authority consent. That proviso seems to me to mean that the authority will be in a position to say to the undertaker: "We are not going to let you get any energy from the railway or tramway generating station to meet your increasing business, and you had much better reconsider your position and come into the authority itself." I think it is worth while pointing out, in addition, that the clause allows the joint authority to receive the energy from the railway generating station without the authorised undertaker being allowed to take any part in the matter, but so soon as an authorised undertaker, carrying on what he conceives to be his legitimate business, desires to take a supply from a railway company, he is at once in the position of being confronted by the joint authority with its power of refusing him, and presumably he is not a particularly popular person with the authority, because he has joint stood out when the joint authority in his district was formed.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 41, leave out ("with the consent of a joint electricity authority").—(The Earl of Bessborouyh.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not quite understand why the noble Earl suggests that the authorised undertaker whose area of supply is situated within the district of such joint electricity authority should necessarily be outside the joint electricity authority.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

He might be.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think he is very likely to be.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Why not?

VISCOUNT PEEL

Whether he is or is not does not appear to me to be very important, because the main point is that this is a limited question of supply. You have these tramways, railways, and so on, which may, as the noble Earl knows, have a little surplus power to dispose of. It is not intended, of course, that they should be general suppliers, but only that they should meet cases where there is some factory or such like establishment which is not very well supplied with electricity, or likely to be so supplied, and which can conveniently obtain it from the adjacent railway power station. I think, however, it is necessary that there should be some control, because these railways and other companies are not general authorities for supplying power, and it is intended to give them only a limited power of dealing with their surplus supply. It is right, therefore, that the joint electricity authority should have some general control over supply by these tramway or railway companies to authorised undertakers, in virtue of the powers they possess over the general supply. The suggestion that these people are going to be unfairly used is not at all a necessary one, because the authority will be dealing with the supply in the general interests of the whole community in the area in which it is set up. Does the noble Earl wish to interrupt?

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

I only want to say a word in reply when the noble Viscount has finished.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I thought the noble Earl desired to interrupt. My view is that it is well to keep this power, because it is a useful power of general control, and any dangers to which it may give rise are rather problematical.

LORD PARMOOR

I doubt whether the noble Viscount has quite appreciated the objection which the noble Earl raised. It is true that we are dealing here with what he calls the surplus supply of a tramway or railway company as regards their own generating station. The provision is that the surplus supply, which may, of course, be of value, may be supplied to a joint electricity authority. That is right. You have a surplus supply, and it may be an advantage to a joint electricity authority to have it. But in the same district you have an authorised undertaker who would also like to obtain that advantage if his mains were well situated to obtain the surplus supply. Why should he not have the same right to undertake it? What the noble Earl has pointed out is that he can do so only with the consent of what may practically be a competing authority, because they are both in one district. I should have thought that, just as a joint electricity authority may get a surplus supply if it can, so the authorised undertaker ought to be in the same position. That is really the point which the noble Earl has raised.

LORD EMMOTT

May I ask whether it is not sufficient that the Electricity Commissioners should be consulted, because the proviso at the end of the clause says that no such supply should be given without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners? Is not that a sufficient safeguard?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not think the point is likely to arise, but I will consider it before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD NEWTON moved to leave out paragraph (d) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: Although this Amendment is of some importance, I propose to say very little about it. This clause confers powers on railway, tramway, and light railway companies, having authorized generating stations, which, of course, can now be used only for their own undertakings, to supply electricity in bulk or direct to consumers. At present, so far as I am aware, they are not allowed to do anything of the kind. If this paragraph were accepted, it clearly would place the railways in a preferential position, because they are under no statutory restrictions as to price. The result would naturally be that they would select their own customers, presumably charging what they like, and in addition they would decline to supply customers whom they considered might possibly be unremunerative. To put it quite shortly, I submit that the real function and duty of railways is transport, and that unrestricted powers of this character should not be granted to them unless there is some special reason given. If railway companies desire to supply electricity, either in balk or direct to the consumer, I submit that their proper course is that which has always been followed in the past—namely, to obtain those powers before a Parliamentary Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 5, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 8.—(Lord Newton.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

In this Amendment the noble Lord raises the general question whether railway companies, and so on, will be able to supply surplus power at all. That question, of course, was not dealt with by the noble Earl.

LORD PARMOOR

That was bulk supply. What the noble Lord has dealt with is supply to the consumer.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I could not make out whether it referred to (c) or (d). There might be a case, I think, of this kind, where, although the premises are within the supply of an authorised undertaker, it might be convenient for the taker of electricity and for the railway company which has the surplus supply, and the undertakers themselves, that this surplus power of the railway should be given to these particular premises. If all agree I do not see why the noble Lord should raise any objection. There are many cases, I understand, where you might have premises, or a factory or other establishment situated near a railway, and yet able, perhaps, with considerable difficulty, to get some supply, although within the area of an authorised undertaker. Surely it is to the convenience of all parties that this surplus supply should be used when all parties agree, and I really do not see why the noble Lord raises any objection to this proposal.

LORD GAINFORD

May I point out the difficulty of the position? It is obvious to the House that if a railway has its own power station and is running its electrical current for the purpose of transport upon its own railway, it may have a certain amount of surplus power which it is capable of disposing of to some individual in the community. If you have a situation such as this, where you have a cable running alongside a railway, through an agricultural district, and a mill which serves the purposes of an agricultural community close by, it is obviously to the advantage of the community and of the farmers and owners of the mill, that they should be able to get the spare current from that railway cable.

But if you take another ease, where there is already in existence a power company or a joint authority who have the right to supply current to the whole community, and because they are supplying it in bulk can give it cheaply to the community, it is unfair to that community who are through the rates also supporting that authority, that the railway company, who happen to have a certain margin of power which they are not using themselves, should select here and there special customers and be able to quote them prices under the quotation which is capable of being given by the bulk power company in whose district they are situated. It is to meet a case of that character that I understand this Amendment has been moved, and I think there is real substance in the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment disagreed to.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, in subsection (1), to insert as the first proviso: "No such supply shall be given under the powers conferred by this section." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is the first of a series of Amendments which your Lordships see finish up consequentially with that which is the substance of them, and is contained in the proviso which it is proposed to add at line 22. The reason of this is that there is in London a great power station, created under Act of Parliament in the year 1911, which enjoys the power of supplying certain railway companies and other like corporations, and the conditions of which were all carefully settled by Parliament in 1911. The object of this series of Amendments is to limit all these requirements of consent only to supplies given under the authority of this section, and to preserve to that particular power station its statutory right to supply its present customers, without having to conform to all these new requirements.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 9, at end insert ("no such supply shall be given under the powers conferred by this section").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the Government accept these Amendments.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does this cover the Amendments in the name of Lord Bessborough?

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

No. I think my second Amendment really comes first, because it leaves out lines 10 to 14, and leaves out proviso (i). The Amendment printed is only an alternative to that Amendment.

TILE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think the insertion of these words will not deny the noble Earl his right to move.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

Except that the other Amendment does not arise if I am successful in obtaining the acceptance of my Amendment to leave out lines 10 to 14.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then I think the noble Lord must oppose this Amendment which is accepted by the Government.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

Then will not move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved.

Page 10, line 10, leave out ("no such supply shall be given")

Page 10, line 14, leave out ("no such supply shall be given")

Page 10, line 18, leave out ("no such supply shall be given")

Page 10, line 22, at end insert: ("Provided also that nothing contained in this section shall limit or derogate from any powers already conferred on or exercisable by any owners or lessees of any railway generating station, or apply to any agreement already or hereafter entered into in pursuance of any such powers").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ERSKINE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:— No such supply shall be given within or for use within so much of the area of Greater London as may be constituted a separate electricity district under the principal Act.

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is one, I think, of some importance, and I hope it may receive favourable consideration at the hands of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. Clause 16 gives power to the owners of railway generating stations to supply power to joint electricity authorities, authorised undertakers, and others, under certain restrictions. Therefore, it would encourage a railway company not only to erect its own generating station, but so to design it as to be able to give a general supply as well as a railway supply. In certain out-of-the-way parts of the country where electricity was not available for electrification this might be justified. No doubt, isolated undertakings in various rural parts of England might benefit by a supply from such a railway generating station. But the case is altogether different when we conic to Greater London, and the Amendment proposed is to exclude London from the operation of the clause. In London there are too many generating stations already.

The reorganisation of the electricity supply of London, as conceived by the Commissioners in their Report, is that one or more capital stations should be erected in which the various types of supply (domestic, industrial, railway, etc.) should be pooled. Gradually the small inefficient, stations would be shut down, and the whole of the supply of London would he centralised in these capital stations. The obstacle to this plan is the large number of stations already in existence, and if railway companies should erect generating stations in London as well it would obviously add to this difficulty and still further postpone the day when the reorganisation would be complete.

In London by the time the first capital station is ready there will be a load awaiting it, very big indeed in extent, and comprising industrial and domestic supply. If to this is added the railway supply, then the costs of generation will be most materially lessened to all the classes of supply through their thus being combined in one station. The advantages of thus combining supply is emphasised by the Electricity Coin missioners in their Report following the June Inquiry. To suggest, therefore, that in London, at this late date, a new railway generating station should be built is to go in direct opposition to the whole of this ideal principle. But Clause 16 actually goes further than this. It suggests that the railway companies may not only build a station to take their own supplies, but may poach under certain conditions, on the industrial and domestic supply.

This they can do at their own will, so that they could pick and choose what supply they would take, and what supply they would leave. Further, they would be under no statutory obligations in regard to such supply such as regulate supply by the whole of the authorised undertakers in London. They would, in fact, have the status of an authorised undertaker or a power company without any of the obligations which Parliament has always thought fit to impose on the same by way of regulation. All this goes to prove that London has a claim to be considered by itself. I venture to state that whatever arguments can be adduced to justify Clause 16 applying to the rest of the country are exactly the arguments which show that it should not apply to London.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 22, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Erskine.)

LORD ASKWITH

I beg to support this Amendment. It is not designed to interfere with the supply of electricity to the rest of the country, but, supposing that the plans of the Commissioners, as put forward, are carried out, and large generating stations are erected in London, the principle upon which they are erected would be hazarded if the railway companies themselves built large generating stations to compete with them. The railway companies would have an unreasonable advantage, in the sense that they are permanent bodies, that they could select their own customers, and that they could provide electricity, not at a price that had to be the same for all customers, but to sonic at one price, and to some at another. They need not provide it at the same price as their competitors must, and at the same time, after deducting a considerable amount. from time to time, they would have the opportunity—having under-cut the big supply station, interfered with its customers, and hurt its trade—of suddenly, at their caprice, stopping the supply which they had provided.

It may be said that the Electricity Commissioners will have command over this, and that their authority will govern these matters in a correct way. But that is putting these very large undertakings, with the rates subscribing to them, at the judgment of the Electricity Commissioners, when the money has been already invested and is fixed. I suggest, therefore, that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill should take into consideration Lord Erskine's Amendment, with a view to its being most carefully weighed in the interests of the people who put their money into these undertakings, and also in the interests of the very principle upon which this Bill is based.

LORD MONK BRETTON

I think that the London County Council would gladly support an Amendment which had the effect of cutting London out of the operation of this clause. As Lord Parmoor stated yesterday, London is exceptional in the number of the companies and authorities already functioning. If this Amendment were accepted, and railways were not allowed to put up small stations which, for the purposes of the public generally, would not be necessary, it might prevent an addition to the present complications.

LORD GAINFORD

This is an Amendment put down to meet very much the ease which I tried to explain a few moments ago. It would be unfair upon the large companies producing in bulk in London if a railway company interfered with and poached upon the customers whom they are prepared to supply with either light or power. An Amendment of this kind is really needed. Already in London you have the area absolutely covered by electric power stations. It may be that a certain number of these stations ought to be amalgamated, so that bulk current could be produced at the cheapest possible rate. I am told by one of the principal directors of these London power companies that these bulk stations in London can now supply electric current much more cheaply than any railway company within the area could produce it for themselves. It would he absurd to allow these railway companies to establish a lot of small stations for their own purposes, and enable them in turn to sell to outside customers, and to select their own customers, when the ground is covered by the electric power stations already in existence.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think the discussion has gone on under a misapprehension. The form of the Amendment is, of course, a technical point, but I am advised that the term "Greater London" has not any meaning. It is not. a "term of art," and therefore the Amendment could not be accepted in that form. But no reason has been stated why a special provision should be applied in this way to London, and why London should be exempted from provisions applying to all the rest oft he country and to all the great towns. It was rather suggested, both by Lord Askwith and Lord Gainford, that these railway companies would become electrical power supply companies instead of railway companies. Then I think the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, further suggested that it was a great pity that railway companies should establish their own generating stations when they could get a supply from a much cheaper source. I entirely agree with him, but this clause has nothing to do with that matter. We have been dealing with authorised undertakers—people who can supply others. Railway companies are not authorised undertakers, and, therefore, this clause has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether railway companies are setting up, or will set up, stations of their own. They are free to do that if they wish. They are free to take their electricity from joint electricity authorities, or power companies as they please, and that question has no the least effect.

The point we have to consider here is—and this will apply only to London—whether, in cases where there are these generating stations, they should be allowed—with the consent of the undertakers within whose area these premises are situate and with the consent also of the Electricity Commissioners, who are certainly not likely to allow persons who are not authorised undertakers to go into general trading, and subject to all the safeguards which are scattered right through this clause—in certain limited cases to supply persons who cannot otherwise get a full supply. That is the whole thing. There is no power which will enable railway companies to establish generating stations in order to supply other people. The scope of the clause is far more limited than that. The railway companies are closely limited, and the fears that have been expressed by certain noble Lords that, armed with these powers, railway companies may set up generating stations and supply people all round their district, are really chimerical. They would not be able to do it. If, on the assumption made by Lord Gainford, a railway company

can get a supply cheaper from other sources than their own, what railway company is there that will not do it?

LORD GAINFORD

If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, it is very well known that the engineers of railway companies like to have the creation of power in their own hands rather than have to take it from others, although they have to pay much more for it exactly in the same way as every railway company likes to build its own locomotives although they can buy them more cheaply.

VISCOUNT CHURCHILL

No, no.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Not the Great Western.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The suggestion of the noble Lord is this, and if I am wrong I am corrected by the noble Viscount, the Chairman of the Great Western Railway Company, that the Chairmen, the directors, and the authorities of those railways are so incompetent that they actually allow their engineers to put up stations and supply current to their own lines at a higher rate than that at which they can obtain it from some other authority. I do not think that contention is supported by the Chairman of the Great Western Railway Company, who is here present.

LORD ASKWITH

The Chairman of the Great Western Railway Company confined himself to locomotives.

VISCOUNT PEEL

That question, however, does not arise. This clause does not in any way affect the power of the railway companies to set up their own stations. That power is not affected by the Bill; so that, whether the contention of the noble Lord is true or false, it falls to the ground and is not relevant to this particular case.

On Question, whether the proposed new paragraph shall stand part of the Clause?—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.
Beauchamp, E. Denman, L Newton. L. [Teller.]
Lovelace, E. Erskine, L. [Teller.) Ponsonbv, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Midleton, E. Gainford, L. Raglan, L.
Stanhope, E. Harris, L. Redesdale, B.
Askwith, L. Monk Bretton, L. Strathspey, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Aneaster, E. Ullswater, V. Kenyon, L.
Bradford, E. Killanin, L.
Lucan, E. Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.) Rotherham, L.
Onslow, E. Bearsted, L. St. John of Bletso, L.
Stamford, E, Colebrooke, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Colwyn, L. Stanrnore, L. [Teller.]
Churchill, V. Emmott, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Falmouth, V. Glenarthur, L. Teynham, L.
Kuutsford, V. Gorell, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Peel, V. Hylton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NEWTON moved, at the end of subsection (1) to insert the following new paragraph:— (iv) No such supply shall he given within or for use within the limits of supply within which any local authority, company, body, or person are or is authorised to supply gas by any Act of Parliament or Order confirmed by or having the force of an Act of Parliament without the consent of such local authority, company, body, or person.

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give effect to a statement made by my noble friend when he introduced the Bill. He said that the interests of those who might possibly suffer were very carefully safeguarded, and that this provision could only operate—he laid stress upon this—by agreement amongst all the parties concerned. Apparently, the gas undertakers do not consider that they are safeguarded. They are prepared to face electrical competition where there are statutory restrictions, but they think it very unfair that they should have to submit to the attacks of railway companies, who are not subject to restrictions of the kind I have mentioned.

I do not want to enlarge upon the point. Everyone knows that an enormous amount of money is invested in gas. I am not myself a shareholder in any gas undertaking, but money was invested in gas undertakings upon the strength of existing laws, and it seems rather a tall order that those rights should disappear. It does not seem to be fair that a railway company should be allowed to come into a gas area and supply electricity, either in bulk or direct, where an electricity undertaking might not consider it worth while to attempt anything of the kind.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 22, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Newton.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the clearness and brevity with which he has introduced his Amendment. What his Amendment really means is this. He is going to give an entirely new power to gas companies and suppliers of gas, and he is going to establish the right apparently—certainly in this particular case of gas companies—to veto electricity supplies. If you are going to leave electricity suppliers at the mercy of gas companies it is possible that considerable use will be made of the veto. Hitherto, it has not usually been customary to allow gas companies a locus standi in the case of electricity Bills simply on the ground of competition; therefore I hope that my noble friend will not give to a rival supplier so tremendous a weapon as a veto on electricity supply. That is, in fact, what his Amendment does. It would introduce a tremendous change in the relations between electricity supply and gas supply, and I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD NEWTON

I have another Amendment to prevent a railway company picking and choosing its customers, but it does not appear to be of any use moving it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am afraid it raises just the same point of principle, and I hope my noble friend will not move it.

LORD NEWTON moved, at the end of subsection (2), to leave out "such a supply" and insert "a supply under any of the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of this section." The noble Lord said: I hope my noble friend will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 28, leave out ("such a supply") and insert ("a supply under any of the paragraphs (a), (6), and (c) of subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Newton.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I claim that this is consequential on the others, and however kind-hearted I might be, it would be impossible to receive a consequential Amendment of which the parent Amendment has been negatived.

LORD NEWTON

I do not altogether accept my noble friend's reading of the Amendment. The object of this Amendment is to prevent the railway companies from breaking up roads, and so forth, in order to supply one or two customers whom they may consider to be promising and remunerative. Perhaps my noble friend will consider this before Report.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause— . Section 16 of the principal Act shall be read and have effect as though the words 'or under any other Act or Order confirmed by or having the force of an Act of Parliament' had been inserted therein after the words under this Act.'

The noble Lord said: This is a suggestion made on behalf of the officers. It is clear that in Section 16 of the Act of 1919 the Commissioners had in view that officers who were hurt or damaged or lost their places by means of these schemes would be compensated in a generous manner, and looked after so that they should not suffer any detriment from what occurred. I am informed that although that clause is very widely worded there come within it certain cases where the Electricity Commissioners have taken action and prevented an authority like a corporation from extending their electricity undertaking, and therefore that corporation or authority had to transfer their Orders under a local Act to another body. I have had a concrete instance given to me from Scotland. There may be other cases. The officials feel, at any rate, that there may be other cases which are not within the agreement between two authorities, or under this Act, or under the scheme for the improvement of the supply of electricity in the district. These words have been devised with a view to meeting those cases.

Amendment moved— After Clause 16, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Askwith.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

As the noble Lord has rightly stated, these questions of compensation for loss of office are dealt with under Section 16 of the principal Act The noble Lord suggests that there are certain cases which are not covered by that section. In the case of the transfer or purchase of undertakings the question of compensation for officials, if compensation were required, would, of course, be arranged between the vendor and the pm-chaser and would appear in the price. If there are other cases not falling within these categories I will have them examined, and see whether such an arrangement as that suggested by the noble Lord is necessary.

LORD ASKWITH

I am much obliged, and perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to send to him the opinion of Counsel on a particular case. He will then see the kind of case these officers have in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.

Schedule:

PROVISION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTION 32 (2) OF TUE SCHEDULE TO THF, ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) ACT, 1899.

Provided that if either—

  1. (a) the undertakers; or
  2. (b) such number of consumers not less than twenty as the Minister of Transport considers sufficient having regard to the population of the area of supply; or
  3. (c) in a case where the local authority are not themselves the undertakers, the local authority; or
  4. (d) in a case where the local authority are not themselves the undertakers and the area of supply is situate wholly or partly within the administrative county of London, the London County Council,
at any time after the expiration of three years after the confirmation of the special order make a representation to he Minister that the prices or methods of charge stated in the special order or approved by the Minister ought to be altered, the Minister, after such inquiry as he may think fit, may make an order varying the prices or methods of charge stated in the special order or so approved as aforesaid, or substituting other prices or methods of charge in lieu thereof, and the prices or methods of charge so varied or substituted shall have effect on and after such day as may be mentioned in the order as if they had been stated in the special order:

Provided also that the prices and methods of charge for the time being in force may be altered in like manner at any time after the expiration of any or every period of three years after they were last altered.

LORD BEARSTED moved, in paragraph (d), to leave out "administrative" ["within the administrative county of London"]. The noble Lord said: I have another Amendment down to insert "or within the city of London, the Common Council," but I do not think it is necessary to move that. The Schedule deals with the question of the revision of prices and the methods of the supply of electricity and enables certain local authorities to make representations to the Ministry of Transport on those matters. The object of the Amendment is to leave the Corporation of London as the sole authority so far as the City is concerned, and that would be the case if the word "administrative" were omitted.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 14, leave out ("administrative").—(Lord Bearsted.)

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, may I say that we propose to take the Report stage of this Bill next Tuesday.