HL Deb 08 December 1925 vol 62 cc1165-86
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which appears in my name on the Paper.

Moved, That the Special Order which was presented on the 15th day of July last be approved.—(Viscount peel.)

THE EARL OF CLARENDON had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "having regard to the decision of a Select Committee of this House upon the Horley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [H.L.] the Special Order be not approved." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name upon the Paper. I think I should explain to your Lordships why it is that I am asking your Lordships to follow the course that; is there outlined. I appear before your Lordships to-day, not as a member of His Majesty's present Administration, but as Chairman of the Select. Committee that heard both these cases and gave the Horley Gas Company their Bill. "Before I go any further I ought to give your Lordships, quite briefly, the history of this case. The Order has appeared under somewhat unusual circumstances, and it raises important considerations of procedure and policy. I will give your Lordships the history of the case and I ask you to reject the Order.

Two applications were made. First there was this Order promoted by a small electricity company in the district of Horley, and in the second place there was a Bill presented by the Horley Gas Company, whose application was heard, as I have explained to your Lordships, by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I may say that the Gas Company is an undertaking of some years' standing and has carried on its operations most successfully, so far as the supply of gas is concerned, in the district of Horley. The Gas Company were obliged to adopt the procedure of promoting a Bill for the simple reason that the new Electricity (Supply) Act was not upon the Statute Book and they were unable to avail themselves of its provisions. They accordingly followed the course which had been sanctioned by Parliament. The Electricity Company was formed and application was made for support after it had been made known that the Horley Gas Company intended to promote their Bill, and the Gas Company, in September, 1924, informed their opponents of this fact when their opponents were asking for subscriptions to their company. The Electricity Commissioners were informed of the promotion of this Bill so long ago as July, 1924. A copy of the Bill was handed to them at the same time as it was deposited in the Parliament Office so that the Commissioners might know of the intended promotion and follow the usual course, which was to defer consideration of the Order until Parliament had considered the Gas Company's Bill.

The Gas Company objected to the Order, but they were not heard by the Commissioners in support of their objection. The Commissioners granted the Order and forwarded it to the Minister of Transport for confirmation; and I should like to read to you Lordships a quotation from a member of the Commons Committee when the Bill was being considered there. He used the following words: There seems to be a contest here between the Electricity Commissioners and the Houses of Parliament as to who shall be able to decide between these two competing authorities on this particular Bill. The Gas Company's Bill originated in your Lordships' House. It was considered by a Select Committee consisting of Lord Lovelace, Lord Lilford, Lord Erskine, Lord Hindlip and myself JS Chairman. Our hearing was a most exhaustive one and lasted four days. The Committee heard not only the representatives of the Electricity Commissioners but also the representatives of the Minister of Transport, and after a hearing which, as I say, lasted four days, they gave the Horley Gas Company their Bill.

I should like to quote to your Lordships quite briefly some of the advantages which the Gas Company claim for their Bill. In the first place, the Bill seeks to supply a materially larger area than does the Order. During the time when the Bill was being considered the manager of a neighbouring electricity undertaking intimated to the promoters of the Horley Gas Company's Bill that he would ask them, if the Bill went through, to supply that undertaking—namely, the Crawley undertaking—with electricity in bulk up to a maximum of 120,000 units per annum. Other advantages are as follows: (1), capital would be much more easily and more cheaply raised, as it would be raised under the Auction Clause, as required by the Standing Orders; (2), dividends would be limited; (3), cheaper electricity could be provided for these reasons: it would be generated very largely by utilising the waste heat resulting from the process of gas manufacture until such time as a bulk supply could be granted, the overhead charges would be spread over the two undertakings and only a portion of the administrative and executive charges would be charged to the electricity undertaking; (4) the same offices and showrooms would be available for both undertakings; and (5) very little increase in the staff of workmen would be needed. Further, the Gas Company would begin electricity business with an established clientèle, repeated interference with roads would be avoided and there would also be an absence of speculation.

With regard to the Electricity Order, I venture to suggest that it possesses none of those advantages. The authorised capital of the electricity company is £20,000 and it transpired that the consulting engineer had guaranteed of this amount a total of £5,000 on the understanding that he was to secure a management agreement for seven years. At the inquiry which was conducted by the House of Commons Committee, both these, schemes were examined and after a hearing lasting for three days the Horley Gas Company's Bill was rejected. In view of the course which I am asking your Lordships to take this afternoon, I think I should give you a few more facts regarding the proceedings before the House of Commons Committee. Under the Standing Order of Parliament, No. 106 of your Lordships' House, the Minister reports to Parliament upon the powers which are sought and that Report stands referred to the Committee appointed to hear the Bill. The Minister also has to perform a judicial function on every Order which is sent him, and that power is granted under the new Electricity (Supply) Act, 1925. If a memorial is lodged by any of the opponents, the Minister has to direct an inquiry to be held. But the terms of the Minister's Report undoubtedly indicated a desire, on his part, so far as we can judge words, that the Committee should uphold the Commissioners' Order. Whether this Report did or did not influence the Committee it is impossible to say, but I venture to suggest that there was an absence of that judicial spirit in which the Minister himself would have desired that anybody who held an inquiry should approach the subject.

The Gas Company very naturally felt that they were placed at a great disadvantage by the terms of the Minister's Report and felt that no good purpose could be served by their appearing upon their memorial and being heard. I might point out that the Gas Company have, therefore, been precluded from stating their case before either of the two subordinate tribunals and feel that they have no alternative but to concentrate upon this appeal to your Lordships. Although the Minister reported to Parliament that the Commissioners were satisfied with the practicability of the technical scheme as submitted by the Electricity Company and the promoters informed the House of Commons Committee that they had explored in vain the possibility of a bulk supply, the promoters at the last moment threw over the scheme which had been approved by the Electricity Commissioners and submitted a proposal for a bulk supply with the County of London Electricity Supply Company.

The nearest main of the County of London Electricity Supply Company is eleven miles away, and further power would be necessary if at any time it should be found possible to bring a supply of electricity to Horley. If bulk supply is a practical scheme now surely it was so when the Commissioners approved the original scheme. If that was so, they would undoubtedly not have sanctioned a local and separate generating station. Assuming that a bulk supply was practicable, why does the confirmed Order retain its original form and say nothing about bulk supply? I think it is pertinent to ask this question: Who are the real promoters and under which scheme is the district of Horley to procure its supply of electricity? Is it to be under some bulk supply, or is it to be under a scheme confirmed by the Minister, abandoned by the promoters of the Order and condemned by the Committee over which I had the honour to preside? I might point out that the Horley Gas Company, if they had secured power under the Bill, would have given a supply of electricity to the district within one year of the passing of their Bill—a condition which the Committee imposed. They would have utilised the method of waste heat until such time as they would have been able to supply the district with a bulk supply.

I think I need only give one more fact. The engineer of the promoters of the Electricity Order, who appeared before our Committee in March, told us when he was cross-examined that he had explored in vain the securing of a bulk supply, and he used every means in his power to defend the local generating scheme, as the only alternative. In his evidence before the Committee in the House of Commons it transpired that in January, 1925, he had commenced pourparlers with the County of London Electricity Supply Company. It also transpired later on that those preliminary arrangements had reached a more or less tangible form when he was actually giving evidence before our Committee, and only a fortnight after we had disposed of the question and granted the Horley Gas Company their Bill, a provisional arrangement was entered into that the County of London Electricity Supply Company should undertake to support the promoters before the House of Commons Committee and should continue to support them in asking for any further powers which they sought. I do not know whether your Lordships feel the same as I do, but I submit that this want of frankness on the part of the promoters' engineer is hardly consonant with the best Committee Room tactics. I submit that the Committee had a light to expect to be treated with more frankness by this gentleman when he appeared before us.

There is one final point, if this Order is agreed to I think it will be assumed by outside sources that your Lordships agree with the policy upon which the Electricity Commissioners' policy is based. Your Lordships are probably aware that under the new Electricity Supply Act, 1925, statutory gas companies? are now empowered to apply for Orders to supply electricity, and I think they will certainly wish to know how they stand under this procedure. Gas companies have a right, I think, to expect that whatever undertakings they place before Committees, or before the Electricity Commissioners, should be considered on their merits as business propositions. I venture to suggest, that the only safeguard in regard to these matters consists in allowing Parliament to retain control over the granting of Orders, and if your Lordships to-day reject this Order I can give an undertaking, on behalf of the Gas Company, that they will promote a Bill on the same lines next Session.

Amendment moved— Leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("having regard to the decision of a Select committee of this House upon the Horley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [H.L.] the Special Order be not approved.")—(The Earl of Clarendon.)

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I think I can throw a little light on some of the questions addressed to the House by the noble Earl, but I think I ought to draw attention to this extraordinary fact, that the Minister of Transport, in support of the course which has been taken by Viscount Peel in moving the confirmation of this Order, is being to-day opposed by another Minister of the Crown, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. I believe such a course is quite unprecedented in your Lordships' House—the course, I mean, of one Minister opposing the recommendation of another Minister.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I interrupt the noble Lord, as this really touches my responsibility? The fact is that my noble friend Lord Clarendon was appointed by your Lordships Chairman of this Private Bill Committee, and he has a loyalty to your Lordships which he is bound to observe to the best of his ability. I am pronouncing no opinion whatever upon the merits of the case. My noble friend, with this obligation upon him, in the summer approached me when he knew that there might be some friction with the Ministry of Transport, and asked me what course he ought to pursue. I felt bound to say that, in the interests of the judicial procedure of your Lordships' House, he was obliged to speak as Chairman of the Committee over which he presided, but that it was, of course, quite understood that he did not speak as a member of the Government.

LORD GAINFORD

Of course, I accept the explanation of the noble Marquess. I am a comparatively new member of your Lordships' House, but the practice in another place, of which I was for long a member, was different. It was usual there for another member of the Committee to voice the opinion of the Committee, if it were thought necessary, rather than show a division among the members of the Government. But let that point go. What is really of importance is this: What is the best thing to be done for a particular community who are very anxious to secure electric light and electric power? I do not want for a, moment to suggest that the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment is actuated by anything like obstructive tactics—far from it. Nobody could have presented the case for the Gas Company in a clearer or more forcible way than he has done this afternoon. But I want to point out that the Gas Company's Bill is now dead. The other proposal, this Order, is before your Lordship's House, has passed all the tribunals which Parliament has appointed for the consideration of a matter of this kind, and, having passed the House of Common's Committee, comes up for ratification here; and within six months, if this Order is passed, the people in this locality will not only have a bulk supply of electric light and electric power, but will be in a very much better position than they possibly could be if your Lordships accepted the Amendment which has been suggested.

In that ease the noble Earl has promised that another Bill will be brought, in next year in order to deal with this subject de novo. That means that the whole of the expense which has been incurred by the people in this locality, some in favour of an electric supply company, others in favour of a small gas company, would be incurred again, and then possibly the matter may be once more deferred. On the other hand, in the event of the noble Viscount's Motion being accepted the population will be able to secure their electric light on the cheapest terms available, and the supply will be of a very satisfactory kind. The natural inclination of us all must be to support the tribunal of the House which has apparently investigated these things. But it should be pointed out that in March last there were two private enterprise concerns—and do not let us trouble about which had priority in promoting this particular proposal of a generating station in Horley. It is not that question that is of importance, it is a question of which is the better proposal—the one which was before your Lordships' Committee last March, or the much larger one which came before the House of Commons Committee two months later.

In March last there were these two comparatively small bodies in the Horley district, one composed of a number of gentlemen who had subscribed £10,000 to put up a generating station in order that their homes might be adequately lighted, and the other, the Gas Company, who, having failed to supply a satisfactory gas to the community, said: "We will put up a generating station of our own, so that we may replace by electricity the gas which we formerly supplied to our customers." But during that period the Barking station came on the scene. The Barking station, I submit, is one of the finest stations in the world. It was opened by His Majesty the King not very long ago, and it produces electric power to the extent of 100,000 kilowatts at its 800,000 h.p. station.

That station has now got vast mains—not, as the noble Earl said, within eleven miles of the Horley district, but within four miles of the area of supply. It is quite true that if you draw a line to the far end of the area you can reach the eleven miles, but within the next few weeks an Order will be secured for the County of London authority to continue its main up to the very area of the Horley district. There is no difficulty whatever now in continuing the mains—as they will be continued—to the Merstham district, which is immediately on the north, and another area which they intend to supply on the north-east. The House of Commons had before it this proposal of a bulk supply for this community instead of the comparatively small generating station which was going to be erected at Horley.

I venture to suggest that this Order will enable the promoters to become distributors. Instead of generating electricity they will become distributors of a bulk supply provided for them by the Barking station. The distributors cannot be asked an absurdly high price by the County of London Company, because the Electricity Commissioners can control that price, and can say what is a fair price for the County of London Company to charge. The consumers of the district can also apply to the Electricity Commissioners every three years to have the price which they are charged revised. If this proposal were accepted the community would have no generating station in its midst, with a factory chimney and the consumption of coal there, but would get the electricity as cheaply as it can possibly be generated in this country. It will be an abundant and reliable supply, and in the event of any factories or workshops being put up in that district, instead of requiring extensions of the Gas Company's plant, their bulk supply will always be there ready to hand and will be the cheapest possible supply that can be secured to those factories. It seems to me that your Lordships have merely to decide what is really in the interests of the community which these two rival concerns desire to serve. I think there ought to be only one answer.

In defending the cause of the Gas Company the noble Earl suggested that no useful purpose would be served by the Gas Company appearing before the tribunal of inquiry which the Minister of Transport was obliged to set up. They did not appear. They had every opportunity of appearing. They were invited to appear, but for reasons of their own they did not.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but I would point out that the Gas Company had already secured their Bill at the hands of your Lordships' Committee in this House, and that is the reason why they did not appear.

LORD GAINFORD

I said they had their reasons for not appearing. But I will explain to your Lordships that the circumstances are different Your Lordships' Committee had not before them the considerations in connection with this bulk supply at all.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

There was no bulk supply or generating station in the Order.

LORD GAINFORD

The bulk supply has been arranged—

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

Yes; but the point is that it is not in the Order. The original Order is for a local generating supply scheme.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I will deal with that. There is a perfect answer.

LORD GAINFORD

There is some little technical point as to what is in the Order and what is not in it; but the fact; remains that there is a bulk supply available to the community if they like to take it and if your Lordships care to enable the community to have it. My point is that this supply will be an efficient and adequate supply, and that the Gas Company in not appearing before the tribunal in June last put itself really out of court, lint it is not upon those technicalities that I ask your Lordships to support the Government in the action they have taken. It is because I am satisfied in my own mind that the community will best be served by having a bulk supply available which will meet all the necessities, not only of the present day but for years to come.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, we are all disposed in this House to agree, when we can, with the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. But neither our regard for him nor the mere technicalities of the order in which Bills and schemes have passed ought to move us in this matter. The whole question is whether the bulk supply scheme is not by far the best for this particular locality in Surrey. To confine it to a small local company supplying gas as well as electricity is to leave it exposed to the very thing of which it has been the policy of successive Governments to get rid. These Governments have laid down that electricity supplies in bulk under such large schemes as the one at Barking are preferable in every respect to the smaller schemes—preferable in cheapness, because the price is controlled, preferable in quality because the system is a well-thought out one applicable in various directions, and preferable in that it all goes towards the unification of the system under which light, heat and power are to be produced. I have no wish to take up your Lordships' time. This is a question which has come, up before and will come up again; but I cannot have any opinion in this matter except that the proposal of the Government is very much the best on the merits. Whether there are minor questions about the Order which have come up here from decisions of the Committee, I do not think it worth considering. We have to consider the substance of the matter.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, you have been reassured by the noble Marquess opposite as to any division in the Government. You have listened to speeches on the one side and on the other, and I am rather wondering whether on the whole the same effect has been produced in the minds of your Lordships as on mine. I am sorry not to agree with my noble and learned Leader, but I see no reason why we should not imitate the excellent example of the Benches opposite. What is it that we really have here? We have a company which, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, had collected £10,000 from the neighbourhood to light their own homes. That was a very fine example, but I understood from the noble Earl's exposition that £5,000 out of that £10,000 was in consideration of a service agreement by the engineers and not so much connected with anybody's home. I should be glad if the noble Viscount who represents the Ministry of Transport would tell us, when he comes to reply, whether it is or is not the fact that the contemplated Gas Company's Bill does supply a larger distinct than the Order, and whether it is true that the Order merely picks out, as I understand, the "plum" of the district and leaves the outlying people unsupplied. If that is so, I do not see how, on the whole, it would be an advantage to Horley to have a smaller Order.

On the question which the noble Lord below me raised as to the bulk supply, the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, says that there is a complete answer to that; but I do not understand why we are to be told that we are to approve of an Order providing for a generating station and are to have it understood in some way that that means a bulk supply. That seems to me to be a very excellent reason for rejecting the Order in the form in which it is before us because, as I understand it, the Order we have before us to-day makes it perfectly clear that it does not contemplate a bulk supply, and I do not think we ought to pass it under the impression that it means something else.

Then there is this further question. The noble Lord who supported this Order, and who spoke second, said that it had gone through all the stages which Parliament had provided and that it now merely came to your Lordships for confirmation. That is rather to suggest that Parliament is to be bound to confirm, without examination and consideration, any Order which comes before it. I think it is very important that Parliament should retain the power of saying in special circumstances that it is not prepared to confirm an Order where the circumstances are peculiar. In this case they certainly do seem to be peculiar. There seem to have been changes of front on the part of the promoters of this electricity undertaking and there seems to have been a decision of your Lordships' Committee, after a careful hearing, in favour of the Gas Company I hope that your Lordships to-day will at any rate assert the fact that the ultimate control rests with Parliament, by not passing this Order which has been prepared, not by any Parliamentary body but merely by those bodies to whom Parliament has delegated the business of examining these things in the first place and bringing them up in a complete form. I trust your Lordships will agree that the arguments of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment are really unanswerable and have not been answered.

LORD HINDLIP

My Lords, as a member of the Committee, may I be allowed, in supporting my noble colleague Lord Clarendon in his Motion, to assure your Lordships that we were all abso- lutely unanimous in the consideration of this Bill when it came before your Lordships' Committee. As far as I can gather, there are only two objections raised this afternoon. One was raised by Lord Gainford on the ground of expense. But had it not been for the opposition, surely the Gas Company would have had their Bill and by next June they would have been supplying electricity, as the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, has already told your Lordships. The other point was raised by the, noble and learned Viscount opposite and was as to the bulk supply. This bulk supply is, of course, something new to anything we heard during the Committee stage. But as far as I can see there is no earthly reason, why, if your Lordships prefer a bulk supply, that bulk supply should not be given through the Gas Company instead of through the Electricity Company.

The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said the Gas Company was a minute company. I think I might retort by saying that the Electricity Company is almost a microscopical one. I see no great advantage in the argument of the bulk supply, and if my memory serves me aright—I am fairly certain it does—as has already been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the area under the Order is considerably smaller than the area under the Gas Company. It seems to me that if you pass the Order of the Ministry of Transport you will be depriving, at any rate for some time, a large number of the inhabitants of that part of the world of any possibility of obtaining electricity. Another point that has occurred to me—I do not know if your Lordships will agree with me—is this, that in this matter the Department has been rather apt to consider themselves in a position to usurp the powers of Parliament, certainly the powers of this House, which I am sure your Lordships are very jealous to preserve.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Marquess who leads the House for the explanation which he has given. It has enabled us to enjoy the sight of two colleagues speaking on opposite sides. I am sure the position was made quite clear, but I should, of course, have regretted very much if the practice of your Lordships' House had made it impossible for the Chairman of a Committee to explain the action of a Committee of your Lordships. At the same time, I confess that I do not think I have ever approached any debate in your Lordships' House in which I felt more puzzled than I am by the issues now before us. The Affirmative Order system is one which, I know, we all desire to encourage. At the same time it has this disadvantage compared with the Private Bill system: Under the Private Bill system rival schemes come before your Lordships under a Bill, and you have to judge between individual members of your Lordships' House responsible for the schemes. But in these Affirmative Resolutions the Government move, and are forced, therefore, to take one side or the other, or at any rate the Department represented takes one side or the other, and we are in a difficulty—which some of us perhaps feel more than noble Lords opposite—in voting upon the question, because if we happen to disagree with the Government Department we have to go into the Lobby against the Government. I appreciate, that noble Lords opposite will find that easier than we do, and perhaps my noble friend behind me will find it easier than some of us do.

I think that some of the conduct of this Order has been very unfortunate. It is most unfortunate that the Ministry of Transport did not invite the Gas Company to appear before them at an earlier stage. My noble friend Lord Gainford referred to the fact that they were invited. Yes, but in this way. Your Lordships are aware that there are two inquiries, one before the Electricity Commissioners, and one before the Ministry of Transport. In this case the inquiry could be held before the Electricity Commissioners, and in that case it takes place before the inquiry by the Committee of your Lordships' House. Acting entirely in their discretion, the Electricity Commissioners did not decide to call upon the Gas Company to appear before them. Then came the decision of the Committee.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I do so because what he has just said may give a false impression. The noble Earl suggested that the Gas Company were not invited to go before the Electricity Commissioners on the first inquiry. I think your Lordships could necessarily gather from that that their case had not been considered. That is not so. They sent in full documents on the subject, and they were entitled to appear if they had wanted to do so, and they did not. I think I am entitled to put that right.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I am not arguing the matter of procedure with the noble Viscount or the Department he represents. My impression was that it was the other way. I had been given to understand that the initiative lay with the Electricity Commissioners, and not with the parties themselves. At any rate, in appearing before me, the parties said in a tone of grievance that they were not summoned before the Electricity Commissioners, though I admit, and the Memorandum makes it quite clear, that their ease on paper was heard. But they were not heard in person.

VISCOUNT PEEL

No, but they could have been had they liked.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

Their impression is that they could not. After the decision of the Committee—I am talking now solely in point of time—the second inquiry (the Ministry of Transport inquiry as opposed to the Electricity Commissioners' inquiry) invited the Gas Company to come and state their case, but the Gas Company, I think rightly, said they would not, because they had had a decision of the Committee of your Lordships' House, and the Ministry of Transport is not a Court of Appeal from a Committee of your Lordships' House. I think the Gas Company were right in refusing to take any further part, relying on the protection they would receive from your Lordships as a result of this debate. That being so, I think it is very unfortunate that the Ministry of Transport did not hear the Gas Company at an earlier stage. It gives the impression that the Ministry of Transport have been partisans all through. That being so, I sincerely hope that the noble Marquess will not think it necessary to put on the Government Tellers in favour of the Motion before us, if we, unfortunately, as I believe, have to come to a decision on this matter.

Therefore I desire to make a suggestion. I agree, of course, with my noble friend Lord Gainford. Our cardinal desire is to do the best we can for Horley, but I think it would be very unfortunate if this Order was forced through to-day, in view of its history from the beginning. I think, too, that it would be equally unfortunate if a direct negative were carried. Primarily, of course, this is a disagreement between a Committee of your Lordships' House and the Ministry of Transport, but a much more important matter than that, as the debate has made clear, is that it is a disagreement between the two Houses of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Clarendon pledged himself, in the event of this Order being refused, that the Gas Company would reintroduce their Bill. I understand that under the Standing Orders the proper notices for the Bill have already been given with a view to its deposit on December 17, the usual date. My noble friend also tells me that the Bill is already in print.

I would like to suggest that this Motion should be withdrawn to-day, and that your Lordships should allow the question of the disagreement between the two Houses to be decided in the only way that it can be decided—namely, by referring this Order and the Bill, when introduced, to a Joint Committee of the two Houses when we meet in the early spring. I would, of course, undertake that everything that I can do shall be done to bring that inquiry on as early as possible. I am very reluctant to make this suggestion for two reasons. I feel that it will increase the expense in a matter which is not a very great one from the point of view of bulk in comparison with the schemes that are considered by your Lordships, though it is of great importance to the parties immediately concerned. I am also very reluctant to make the suggestion because it means some delay. But, after all, it is better to have a little delay and to come to the best solution in the end.

I am sorry that my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Transport has not yet addressed us, because I was hoping to receive some enlightenment from him. We have heard a great deal about bulk supply. I would point out that this Order contains authority for setting up a small generating station. I am unable to reconcile that proposal with what I am told the real proposal is—namely, to get a big bulk supply from the Barking generating station, if this scheme is to go on surely it is better to go on in its real form and not in its wrong form. That qualifies, I hope, the disadvantage of delay. I make the suggestion in the interests of peace and with the desire of reaching the best possible solution on behalf of Horley. On the other hand, if it is not accepted and the Ministry of Transport remain of the same mind as they have always been in this matter, then I can only say that I have heard no reason which makes me think that the Committee decided wrongly last, year and I shall support the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, in the matter.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, I will deal as rapidly as I can with this matter because there is other business on the Paper which must be dealt with. I do not suppose that the promoters of the Bill by the Gas Company, or the promoters of the Special Order, ever imagined that it would threaten to produce a schism on the Government Bench or effect a formidable split in the serried ranks of the Party opposite. Unfortunately this has happened, and it partly arises from the fact of this double procedure; this procedure by Bill and procedure by Special Order. The Gas Company adopted the procedure by Bill; the Electricity Company desired to proceed by Special Order.

Let me say just what happened. It has been recited already, and I only do so in order to get on with the business quickly. The Bill was passed by a Committee of this House over which the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, presided, but it was rejected by the Committee of another place. What was the action as regards the Bill taken by the Minister of Transport? I think the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, made some suggestion that he had not exercised the full judicial wisdom which he is supposed to exercise. The Minister of Transport reported, as he was bound to do, to both Committees, to the Committee of your Lordships' House and to the Committee of the other House. It was a perfectly fair and judicial Report, and no one who reads it can impugn its judicial quality in the slightest degree. But it produced different effects in each House; or rather, I suppose I ought not to suggest that a Committee of another place is influenced by the Report of a Minister. What happened was this: the Bill was dead.

Concurrently with this Bill there was a Special Order brought before the Electricity Commissioners in February last. The noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, says there was no opportunity for the Gas Company to make their views heard before the Commissioners, and it is quite true that the Commissioners did not at that time, although it was perfectly within their discretion, order an inquiry. But that does not affect the position of the Gas Company; and on two grounds. The Gas Company sent their case by documents to the Special Commissioners. They were fully considered; it was not until after full consideration of these points had been given by the Special Commissioners that the Provisional Order was made. But there, is this further point. It was absolutely in the power of the Gas Company, if they chose, to ask that an inquiry should be held. They did not ask for an inquiry. I do net criticise their action, but they cannot now come and criticise the Commissioners when they could, if they chose, have asked for an inquiry themselves. That Order was not confirmed.

When the Bill was dead, the Minister of Transport decided again that he would have an inquiry. It was intimated to him that the Gas Company did not want to appear before the inquiry, but he did not wish to take any advantage of statements of that kind, and therefore a letter was written from the Ministry of Transport to the Gas Company asking if they wished to appear. They were perfectly able to appear. I do not criticise their reasons for not appearing. I only say that they did not appear, and therefore they cannot argue now as to the action of the Commissioners when they had full opportunity of placing their whole case before them if they chose to do so. Throughout the Commissioners themselves and the Minister of Transport seem to me to have acted with perfect fairness and with a perfect observance of the judicial position in which they were placed.

Before I consider what would be the result of following the advice given by the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, let me deal with one or two incidental points upon which some criticism has been made. It has been said: What are these people doing? In their Order they are to set up an electricity undertaking of their own, a generating supply. What are they going to do? They are going to take the bulk supply from some other company. Yes, of course, they are going to take bulk supply from some other company if they can get it more cheaply; but these critics have completely misunderstood, or have incorrectly read, what the Order is. It does not say they must set up a generating station. It gives them power. It is purely permissive, and, therefore, there really is nothing whatever in the point that these people are departing in any way from their Order. And not only that. They could not under the Order set up a generating station, because, under Clause 11, before they set up such a generating station they have to go before the Electricity Commissioners and see if they have a right to do so. That, I think, entirely disposes of that criticism.

There is another point about capital. I have heard some rather critical opinions as to the amount of the capital involved. It is said it is only £20,000. What a miserable amount of capital! But you do not want to subscribe more capital than is wanted, and this is not a company which is being subscribed to by people who do not live in the area and who want to exploit the area. This capital is subscribed by the people in the area themselves, many of them small and poor people, and it is not right to sneer at a company of this kind because it has only £20,000 of capital. It is a great effort on the part of these people to produce electricity for themselves. There is no reason why they should not have their own company, or why they should be bound to take it from the Gas Company, whose business is not to supply electricity and whose gas is not always satisfactory to the inhabitants of the district.

So much for these two points. I did not want to go into the full details of the matter before your Lordships. I think the only question that remains concerns the result that would follow if your Lordships postponed or threw out this proposal. My noble friend the Chairman of Committees had made the suggestion that this Order should be withdrawn or rejected and that two Bills should be promoted next year.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I suggested that my noble friend should not press this Order now. It could remain on the Paper, and the Order, together with the Bill, could be referred to a Joint Committee.

VISCOUNT PEEL

When?

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

Early next Session. My noble friend Lord Clarendon made it clear that the Gas Company are prepared to re-promote their Bill. I was able to add to that information the fact that I know that they have given their notice and, in accordance with the ordinary procedure, they would deposit their Bill on December 17 for next Session. My proposal was that this Bill which will be introduced formally into your Lordships' House on the first or second day of our meeting next Session, should be referred at once to a. Committee along with this Order as competing schemes.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This particular Order?

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

Yes, assuming that this Order represents the scheme of the Ministry of Transport, which I doubt.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend says that he doubts that this scheme represents the view of the Minister of Transport. I am here to say that it does, and I think that, as I represent the Ministry of Transport, my word will be accepted. But I am going to ask your Lordships not to take any such course, but to pass this Order, if you are willing to do so, at once. Why should these people be delayed in getting their electricity in their own place? I understand that within six months, and probably still sooner, the necessary conductors can be laid down and these people will then enjoy their electricity. After all, both companies have not too much money, and I think that it is very hard indeed on this other Electricity Company that they should have to wait and to spend more money after this matter has come up to your Lordships' House. I should like to add one further point which has not been mentioned through the whole discussion I think your Lordships always pay a good deal of attention to the wishes of councillors in these matters. The Reigate District Council has given its assent to the electricity scheme, so that you not only have the Electricity Company, but also a public authority in the area supporting their scheme. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to support the public authority, to support the company and not to allow this delay of months which must: necessarily ensue if the whole matter is put off to be dealt with next Session. I trust that your Lordships will support the Order.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

My Lords, I am afraid that, in spite of my noble friend's appeal, I must press this matter to a Division.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am very reluctant indeed that your Lordships' House should be in any way hurried in a decision of this kind. So far as I am concerned, and the Government which I have the honour to represent, we shall naturally, in a Division, support my noble friend Lord Peel, who represents the Ministry of Transport. He has a responsibility thrown upon him as representing that Department of the Government, and he has discharged that responsibility. It is no use saying that my noble friend ought or ought not to have accepted the particular decision of your Lordships' Committee, because an obligation is thrown upon the Ministry of Transport to arrive at an independent conclusion upon the facts which may be submitted to them. That does not, of course, control your Lordships as a House, and, if this matter comes to a Division, undoubtedly your Lordships will decide as you think best after having heard the debate. But it does control the action of His Majesty's Government, who, of course, will support the Department of the Government whose responsibility is involved.

On the other hand, I do admit that the issues which have been submitted to us have not been very clear. There has been a certain vagueness about various matters which have been put before us—as to whether the parties have had a full opportunity of being heard, as to what precisely the Order contains, and as to various other facts. I am in your Lordships' hands entirely in this matter. If there were any desire to have a little more time, certainly I should not stand in the way of it. I think perhaps it is possible that a few days' consideration might enable us to arrive at a clearer conclusion as to what ought to be done than we could reach if we decided now. It may be thought a strong measure for me to make this suggestion, but I always feel myself, in matters of this kind, under a very special responsibility. We are a judicial body in this matter, although a Department of the Government is involved, and it is very hard on private rights if by any undue precipitancy they are overridden without due consideration.

I am led specially to make this observation by this fact. The Order was referred, under the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, to a Special Orders Committee, the very Committee which we set up here and which marks a new procedure in your Lordships' House. They considered this very Order, and their finding, as it stands upon the Orders of the House, is not very guiding. The Report is as follows: