HL Deb 16 December 1924 vol 60 cc110-1
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name to signify approval of certain Special Orders made under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. I should just mention that the Deal and Walmer Gas and Electricity Company Order, of which Notice has been given, does not now appear on the Paper, and I do not propose to move it.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

My Lords, with reference to the Order which appears last in the Motion—Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Company—I understand that there is some opposition to it. No doubt, that opposition ought to have been brought forward before, because I think that the noble Viscount has followed the practice which I myself followed last Session in allowing a full period of fourteen days between the first laying of these Orders upon the Table and the time when he asks the House to pass them. I believe, however, that a very good case has been made out, and I should be very much obliged to the noble Viscount if he could postpone it, even if only until to-morrow, so that the circumstances of the case may be brought to his notice.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am quite ready to postpone, it until either Wednesday or Thursday, as may be most convenient.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I am very much obliged.

Moved, That the Draft Special Orders proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920 (Special Orders), on the application of—

  1. 1. Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Mossley;
  2. 2. Barry Urban District Council;
  3. 3. Castleford and Whitwood Gaslight and Coke Company;
  4. 4. Halesowen Gas Company;
  5. 5. Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Helston;
  6. 6. Liverpool Gas Company and the Hightown Gas and Electricity Company;
  7. 7. Redhill Gas Company;
    8. 111
  8. 8. Urban District Council of Ellesmere Port and Whitby;
  9. 9. Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Morecambe;
  10. 10. Gosport Gas and Coke Company;
  11. 11. Urban District Council of Mary-port;
of which notice was given on the 2nd day of December, 1924, and which were presented on the 9th day of December, 1924, be approved.—(Viscount Peel.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, before the Question is put, may I remark that my noble friend opposite has pointed out that a period of a fortnight has been allowed in which these Orders lie upon the Table? That is true in substance, though not technically, because they could not be laid before December 9. We were, however, able to give notice in the Minutes. By arrangement amongst all those concerned the actual notice appeared in the Minutes on December 2, thus letting everybody concerned know what was intended. I only desire, in addition, to express my gratitude to His Majesty's Government for the steps which they took to bring about this state of affairs. I attach very great importance to this fortnight's notice. I think there should be at least a fortnight. I should have preferred a month, but one must make the best of the world as one finds it, and I therefore repeat my expression of gratitude to my noble friend and his colleagues for allowing us to initiate a new proposal which I think was very appropriate to the particular circumstances with which we were confronted.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I did observe the notice which was given and I asked the learned Clerk at the Table what the meaning of it was. The effect seemed to be to give full notice.

On Question, Motion agreed to.