HL Deb 23 November 1927 vol 69 cc213-23

LORD GAINFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Transport have had their attention drawn to the fact that the large majority of electrical supply undertakers in the South-East of England unite in asking that an inquiry under Clause 4 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, should be held by the Central Electricity Board in connection with the scheme which has been published for this area; and that having regard to the general desire that the important and highly complicated issues raised by the scheme shall be thoroughly investigated before any decision is arrived at, or action taken to carry out the scheme, to ask that His Majesty's Government will give an assurance that an inquiry by the Central Board will be held; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, undoubtedly the object of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926, was to secure a cheap, abundant and universal supply of electricity, and the Question which I have placed upon the Paper is intended to draw attention to the procedure which I understand is about to be adopted in connection with the carrying out of those very excellent objects. The scheme devised by the Electricity Commissioners has been adopted more or less by the Central Board established by the Electricity (Supply) Act to which I have just referred, and has been published without any previous consultation with any of the parties affected by the proposals of the scheme. They had not had, up to the time of the publication of this scheme, any opportunity of placing before the Control Board their views upon this particular scheme. Whether they think the scheme is a good one or a bad one or an indifferent one is not really the point that I wish to impress upon your Lordships to-night. The real question is whether a scheme brought, forward in this way affecting, as it does, so many interests, should be forced down the throats of the people of this country without adequate investigation and consideration.

I have put down this Question because indications are already manifest of a great variety of points which are debatable and controversial, and many of which are uncertain and require elucidation. This is the first scheme of any magnitude which has been proposed by the Central Board to affect England. It covers an area from Peterborough to Brighton, an area of nearly 9,000 square miles with a population of 11,392,561 people. It operates through eleven counties and parts of three others and relates also to the whole of the Metropolis. It is most important that no mistake should be made in connection with the first scheme which is proposed, and if the public are to have confidence in the proposals it is essential that they should be carefully investigated and considered. This scheme affects 102 municipal corporations who at present possess electrical stations. At least 96 out of those 102 are protesting against this threatened action of the Board in refusing an investigation for which Parliament in its wisdom made provision in the Act of last year. The County Company, with six other companies affiliated to it, the City Company, the London Power Company, representing to a very large extent the Metropolis, all unite in protest against the action on the part of the Control Board and ask for an inquiry.

What I submit to your Lordships is that a preliminary necessity exists before any definite step is taken to force this scheme upon the whole of South-East England, and that the proposals in it ought to be examined, criticised and weighed. The scheme, moreover, is devised in the first instance to secure profitable results at the earliest date rather than to secure a general expansion of the facilities of cheap electricity in rural areas. I venture to protest against this display of bureaucratic zeal fixing upon an area which, if it had been left alone, would in the natural course of events serve as an example to the Control Board. I do suggest that a better method would have been to secure an area which really requires electricity at the present time and to commence in that way. But the choice has been made under the powers which the Control Board have under the Electricity (Supply) Act, and of course we have to accept the inevitable. The important question of principle, however, remains, and can only be dealt with by an inquiry. The scheme affects both producers and consumers.

I wish at once to admit to your Lordships that I am a director of the County of London Company, and that I am therefore interested in this matter as a producer, but I also represent here to-day, through the Federation of British Industries, an enormous number of industrial undertakings in this area who have asked me to say here that they are very anxious about their interests under the provisions of this scheme. As the Act does enable them to be heard, and it was intended that they should be heard, unless their request was frivolous, it does seem to me reasonable that the Control Board should allow a public inquiry to be held. It cannot be imagined that a scheme of this kind is immaculate and incapable of improvement by a little consideration and by weighing the facts, experience and knowledge of a great number of those who have taken great interest in the development of electricity in this large area, I will give your Lordships one instance of the way in which this scheme might have to be varied. It is quite possible—I put it no higher than a possibility—that the anticipation of the Control Board that they would be able to fix a low tariff would not justify the wholesale scrapping of a hundred of these power plants which are already in existence throughout this area, and that the new stations which are proposed to be erected would, in that event, not have exactly the same load, or in other words their sales would be reduced because some, of these other stations might have to be left after experience, and the consequence would be that in these other places the price of electricity would have to be raised. Therefore the whole scheme might really require revision as the result of experience. How much better it would be to have that information presented to the Commissioners in public at once so as to avoid any danger of that kind.

The attitude of the Control Board seems really to encourage the assumption that they are despots and are unwilling to face criticism or to modify or amend their proposals. I know Sir Andrew Duncan and several other members of the Control Board, and I know personally that their attitude is friendly to the undertakers, and that they are anxious individually to co-operate with those who produce electricity and to consider points which may be made. But they say: "Let these points be made in private within closed doors." They seem to object to anything in the nature of a public inquiry. A public inquiry is the real way in which the public case can be presented. It will enable those who already produce electricity in this area to be enlightened, to have matters explained, and where their interests are opposed one to another they will at any rate hear the representations which are made by their rivals or by those who take a different view or have varying interests of their own. I believe an inquiry of this kind will really be very valuable also to the Board itself. Figures upon which conclusions have been based are most hotly contested by the municipal corporations.

My case is that all interests should have the opportunity, which was promised when this Act was passed by Parliament, of having their case considered, and that the scheme should be framed on a really sound and reliable foundation after consideration has been given to it at an inquiry. The only objection that I can conceive to my proposal is that this request by the electricity undertakers as well as by industrial traders in the area might cause some delay. I believe that a slight delay would be far better than that the scheme should be an unworkable one and that the public should not be given the opportunity of being heard. It is quite easy for the Control Board to make arrangements as to how the case of those who wish for an inquiry should be presented. There are groups, such as the group of municipalities and the group of private enterprise undertakers, and many of the points which they desire to make publicly before the Control Board could be put in common so that there should be no repetition and no unnecessary delay. The alternative, I am afraid, in connection with some of the points, would be litigation. Apparently the Control Board are proposing to provide supplies and show revenue, to exercise powers to give directions as to the quantities of electricity to be generated and to take compulsorily surplus outputs not needed for the service of those stations, and to take it at bare cost.

That is a point which requires public examination, and if the Control Board persist in their attitude the only alternative is for these big companies as well as for the municipalities to take a case into Court and to spend money in litigation. I do suggest to your Lordships that that is quite a wrong way in which to proceed, that, it is wrong (hat litigation should be the first result of the Board's operations. By a public inquiry I feel quite satisfied points of this kind could be satisfactorily dealt with. In one way I might make a point against myself. The local authorities, 102 corporations, to which I have alluded, which produce electricity at the present time, are under the impression that the private enterprise companies are already being somewhat favoured by this very scheme. It is all to the good that, if they are under this impression, it should be removed and that by a public inquiry the position of private enterprise companies as contrasted with that of others should be thoroughly thrashed out and dealt with by representatives of both bodies. There are several technical points that I could dwell upon, but it is not so much upon the technical points that will arise before the inquiry that I need trouble your Lordships as with the question whether the Central Electricity Board should burke inquiry at the present time.

They will raise prejudice if they do so, and those of us who are consumers as well as producers of electricity are anxious to co-operate in order to make the scheme as workable and satisfactory as possible. We all want cheap electricity for industrial purposes and there is great anxiety among all those responsible for progress in this particular scheme. We are somewhat justified in the view that we take by the remarks of Mr. Page, who is one of the leading engineers of the new body, He addressed a meeting only a few days ago at the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and is reported to have said:— There were a number of things that the 'grid' could not do, and considering the extraordinary predictions that had been made it was as well that these should be clearly stated. It would not, as such, appreciably improve the efficiency of generation in certain areas of the electrical power companies and larger muncipalities; it would not reduce the price of electricity for lighting in our big cities; and it would not create a new electrical heaven nor give 9d. for 4d. In other words, the very things that were promised from the Electricity (Supply) Act when it was passing through this House and through another place, are apparently not going to materialise, in the opinion of the engineer.

In these circumstances, if I may be allowed to sum up, it is, I think, necessary for Parliament to express the opinion that some kind of public inquiry ought to be held before a scheme of this kind is forced upon the community. Apparently people are not going to get that cheap electricity which was anticipated, and these proposals ought to receive adequate public examination and the scheme ought to be adequately explained in public. I know that public opinion is anxious about this scheme, although it has only just been published, but perhaps the public are not fully aware of its importance. I think your Lordships will agree, however, that it is undesirable, as a first step in connection with a scheme of this kind, to refuse the request not only of bodies like the corporations affected, but of the large power companies who are also affected and of interests such as those represented by the Federation of British Industries, who believe that industrialists ought to have an adequate opportunity of being satisfied that the scheme is a good one before it is forced upon the community. This is an entirely reasonable attitude.

I desire, of course, to pay a tribute to Sir Andrew Duncan, with whom I worked in the past. I recognise his ability and his intentions, but I want to point out that no hole and corner proceedings, such as he thinks will meet the case, are adequate in a matter of this great importance. Private interviews may be of value, but the public have no confidence in this sort of thing and there is a variety of interests which ought to be explored publicly. If the community desires to have them explored, the Board ought to carry out the intentions of Parliament and allow a public inquiry to deal with a scheme of this kind. I felt that to resist a public inquiry raised considerations so important that I ventured to put this Question upon the Paper and to move for Papers.

LORD ASKWITH

My Lords, I desire most warmly to support my noble friend Lord Gainford in the suggestion that he has made that there should be a public inquiry in this matter. He has noticed that there can be a public inquiry, and, indeed, this is permissible under Section 4 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act of last year. He has also shown that there is a very strong demand for it, and this view is supported by many papers that have come to me upon the subject. Last year I had a good deal of work in Committee on this Bill, and on December 15, when it came back from the Commons, I remarked that it was useless to press for any more Amendments at that late period of the Session, but that many amending Bills would be required. It was notorious that the Bill was passed with very great speed and that those in charge of the Bill did not pretend to be technical electrical experts. The Central Electricity Board is not composed of technical electrical experts, and even those who are engaged in this business, both producers and consumers, are every day learning of essential developments that from time to time take place in this great industry.

What has been produced? There has been produced a bald, barren scheme, produced without consultation and consisting of two pages, with two maps added and with a few schedules, and some particulars are afterwards given in another yellow volume. The scheme has only six clauses, and Clause 5, which is the important one, is supposed to be both ultra vires and illegal. It lays down definite rules, as my noble friend said, without consultation with any of the people connected with this trade such as might have avoided many technical mistakes. It has not dealt with what is to be done with the high-frequency stations in London, and it has fixed upon certain stations which must ultimately depend upon an increase of population and the demand in the districts where they are placed. With regard to Western London, it has proposed to establish in Battersea a central station which is to produce 3,060,000 kilowatts in a district where intense resentment has arisen with regard to this matter, and where it was said twenty years ago by a Parliamentary Committee that a generating station ought not to be put up because the district was already too much industrialised.

With regard to the County of London electricity company, in the East of London they were proposing to have a high-power electricity wire going over the Thames from Barking, but instead a new plan is brought forward with the suggestion that it should not be finished before October, 1929, whereas this other high-power scheme could be brought into being much more quickly, and it is desired to bring it into being much sooner. They have already paid money for way-leaves and taken steps in the matter, and they are uncertain with regard to which stations are to be abandoned, and how far they can proceed. In the circumstances, in view of the vast number of people who want to have an inquiry and to put their views before the Commissioners, for the Commissioners, as my noble friend says, to burke that inquiry seems to be unreasonable and unwise. I therefore support my noble friend.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, supported by Lord Askwith, has asked the Government to give an assurance that an inquiry by the Central Board will be held. I should like to say, before I give a specific answer to the Question, that Lord Gainford made certain statements as to the assurances which had been given while this measure was being carried through this House. I was in charge of the Bill, and I made no such statements. I never made any such statements about electricity in London such as he quoted. Equally, I not only did not state, but am entirely incapable of ever suggesting, in any circumstances, that the Government is going to give 9d. for 4d. I think his historical memory is at fault, and that he had better carry his mind back a few years and recollect who it was that made that statement about giving 9d. for 4d.

LORD GAINFORD

Ninepence for fourpence was Mr. Page's statement. My point was as to the assurances given to Parliament that there would be cheaper electricity provided.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord is really burking the question. My statements were made with reference to power, and nothing that I said can be quoted as showing that, as a result of the Electricity Act, there would be cheaper electricity all over the country. I specially guarded myself. I said that in certain places I did not think that the price could be reduced. If the noble Lord quotes me I hope he will look at my speeches, and be a little more accurate in any statement which he makes. With regard to the specific Question, the noble Lord, and my noble friend behind me, have given a good many reasons as to why an inquiry should take place. He will forgive me if I do not deal with all the points raised, because this Question really should not be addressed to the Government. His Majesty's Government are not in a position to give any such assurance as my noble friend asks, as they have no control over the action of the Central Electricity Board in this matter. Section 4 subsection (2) of the Act of 1926 gives the Board complete power to act as they think fit.

Presumably the action of Parliament in setting up a Board vested with the powers which the Central Electricity Board possesses, was to create, a quasi-business body which should proceed to deal with the matters entrusted to them in the most expeditious manner. On the 12th of October a conference of local authorities owning electricity undertakings in Greater London approached the Central Electricity Board, asking that a public inquiry should be held into the representations made by the authorised undertakers. On October 14 the Board replied that while it is not possible for them to determine the form of procedure they will adopt for the examination of the representations, they will in any event feel themselves bound to follow such course as appears to them best fitted to ensure that representations of the respective undertakings will all be considered on their individual merits. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Gainford is conversant with that particular correspondence. There is no reason to suppose that the Board do not wish to give every adequate facility for the making and consideration of representations, and prima facie it is difficult to see how they could give more specific pledges than they have given without creating unnecessary delay, which it is very desirable to avoid. As I have said, the Question really might be addressed more to the Electricity Board than to the Government, because the matter is one for the Electricity Board and not for the Government. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance for which Lord Gainford asks.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, the noble Viscount will realise that it is a very unsatisfactory reply to a matter in which a great number of people are very warmly interested. The noble Viscount says, in effect, that it is not the Government's responsibility but the responsibility of the Control Board. I admit that the words of the Act of Parliament give the Control Board the opportunity of putting forward a scheme and burking all inquiry, but that was not really the intention of Parliament. The intention of Parliament was that these schemes should be adequately considered, otherwise they would not have given to this body the power to hold a public inquiry; and surely it stands to reason that in a matter of this kind the Government might make representations to the Control Board, that in their opinion the intention of Parliament was that these matters should be fully investigated, so that there should be proper atmospheres created in regard to the production and consumption of electricity with a view of carrying out a good scheme. This is denied to the public, and because the public feel very strongly on the matter I ventured to put the Question on the Paper to-night, and I press for Papers.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13: Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS.
Beauchamp, E. Gainford, L. [Teller.] Sempill, L.
Buxton, E. Jessel, L. Southwark, L.
Liverpool, E. Montagu of Beaulieu, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
Muir Mackenzie, L.
Allendale, V. [Teller.] Olivier, L. Thomson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Plymouth, E. [Teller.] Bledisloe, L.
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Peel, V. Howard of Glossop, L.
Onslow, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.