BATH GAS ORDER, 1932. (Hansard, 12 July 1932)

HL Deb 12 July 1932 vol 85 cc769-76 769

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE had given Notice that he would move, That the Special Order, reported from the Select Committee on the 29th of June last, be approved as deposited and without modification. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as regards the Motion in my name relating to the Bath Gas Order, 1932, the Board of Trade have received a proposal from the parties concerned that in the circumstances which have arisen, and into which I need not go, it would be in the interests of everyone if the Order were not moved now but were postponed till next Session. The Board of Trade gladly assent to this proposal, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Bath, who was Chairman of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which dealt with the matter, also assents. Accordingly, with your Lordships' concurrence, I do not propose to move to-day the Motion standing in my name.

§ THE MARQUESS OF BATH, in whose name stood an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out the words after "approved" and insert "with the modifications proposed by the Select Commit- 770 tee," said: My Lords, of course the House will understand that if this Motion had been proceeded with by my noble friend it would have been my duty to ask the House to support its own Committee, but in view of the fact stated by Lord Templemore, that the parties are agreed to the course which he is taking, I, of course, speaking on behalf of my noble friends who sat with me on the Committee—we take no sides—are quite content to leave the matter there, on the understanding that the Order, which is still in the possession of your Lordships, will be brought forward at a later stage.

§ I should like, however, just to say this on the point that came before us. It is one of considerable importance, and I think I am speaking from the strong point of view held by my noble friends, when I say that we felt that it was one which was worthy of the consideration of Parliament in some way, but that it was not the proper place and time to bring it forward in an Order—I even go further and say in a Bill—which had the assent of all the parties concerned in that Order. I throw out the suggestion that it is a matter—a question of one or more basic prices of gas—which ought to be decided probably on the lines on which other gas questions have been dealt with, or by a Joint Committee or something analogous thereto, such as those two Committees which have already sat under the Chairmanship of two members of your Lordships' House, Lord Chalmers and Lord Marks. Having said that, and on the understanding that this Order will be proceeded with later, I have nothing more to say.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
My Lords, I should like to understand exactly what it is that Lord Templemore has told us. As your Lordships know, there has got to be an affirmative Resolution by both Houses before any Order can come into operation. This Order went before the Special Orders Committee. They recommended that a Special Committee should sit upon it. That Committee sat upstairs and heard counsel on behalf of everybody, and made a report to this House. Then the Government, at the last moment, put down in the name of Lord Templemore a Motion that the Committee's recommendations should not be followed and that the original Order should be left. Surely the Government must have 771 realised that your Lordships would never disagree with the findings of your own Committee without hearing arguments, and evidence if necessary. If that has all got to be gone into again on the floor of this House, is it reasonable that the Government should have put down this Motion on the last day of the Session, when they know that we could not possibly deal with it in that way?
I hope that Lord Templemore meant, and will tell your Lordships that he meant, that next Session we shall have before us, for our consideration, the Report of our Committee as it stands now, and not as possibly modified at the express desire of some particular bureaucratic Department, who, I have no doubt, can bring pressure to bear upon the other parties. We are entitled to see the Report of our Committee, and to see if we can approve it, and if necessary have arguments about that Report. That I think is a very important matter in your Lordships' House. These Orders and these Private Bills that come before your Lordships' House, have got to be looked at carefully, or there is a grave danger sometimes of something slipping in to which the attention of the House has not been called. There is the historic case of a Private Bill relating to a borough, where the town clerk happened to be on bad terms with his wife. He succeeded in slipping into a Private Bill dealing with sewage a clause to this effect: "The marriage between the town clerk and his wife is hereby annulled." One has to be a little careful that something of that kind does not happen again. I do hope that we may have the Report of our own Committee for our consideration unaltered, even though, through the exigencies of time, if cannot be taken this Session, but will be taken next Session.

§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE
My Lords, I cannot help thinking that this does require rather more explanation from the Government than has been given to us. I do not pretend to be an expert in the procedure in your Lordships' House, but I attended the Special Orders Committee when this Bath Gas Order came up, and I think that what we decided was that the matter was going to be referred to a Committee of your Lordships' House, and that the Report of that Committee would be received. I was very much mystified when I saw that the Government had gone back, and had 772 put down a Motion that the original Order should be passed. I did not really gather from the noble Lord who is in charge of this part of the business what exactly has persuaded the Government to take the course they have. I cannot help being rather suspicious. We have had Government Departments quoted often, and in this case again it is the Board of Trade which persuaded the Government to take this action.

§ LORD MOYNE
My Lords, can the noble Lord clear up the position? We are in great uncertainty as to whether this Order is to be brought forward at the end of the current Session, or whether the whole thing will have to start in the next Session. If a new Order must be proceeded with in the next Session I think the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Halsbury cannot possibly be carired out. I fear the matter is bound to start all over again, and probably entirely new proposals will be forced upon the parties. I feel very strongly as to the impropriety of that. We have had two separate systems of basic gas prices existing side by side. We were given a list in the Committee. I think all of us felt that there is a great variation in local conditions. The case was given to us of Middlesex where a large increment in revenue came like ripe fruit to the gas company without any effort; it does not necessarily apply to a rural area in the surroundings of Bath. Although since 1920 these two different systems have existed side by side, although the Board of Trade themselves strenuously fought the very system which they want to impose by a ukase now uniformly throughout all these Gas Orders, it is now suggested that a complete veto should be applied to the system of multiple basic prices. I do think we should be told whether this issue is coming up in its simple form when this Order again comes up or whether the whole thing is going to start afresh next Session, the parties to be put to the expense and inconvenience of an entirely fresh hearing, and whether the issue which I think was brought out very plainly as between the multiple and the single basic price will again come before your Lordships' House.

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE
My Lords, I will try to answer the various questions 773 which have been put. As regards the question of Lord Halsbury, he asked whether the House was to be allowed to see the Report of the Select Committee. The modifications in the Order approved by the Select Committee have been published as a White Paper and I think it is lying on the Table now. I was also asked as to whether this Motion was to be moved at the end of this Session. The answer is that supposing we had gone on with this matter to-day and the Motion had been defeated, I understand the Order would have been killed, but, as it is, it remains alive and can be brought forward either at the end of this Session or at the beginning of, or any time in, the new Session, and that it will not involve the parties concerned in any fresh expenditure. As regards the question asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, about an undertaking that this matter will be brought forward again, that is certainly what I intended to convey. It is not at all a matter of killing the thing now; it is merely postponed. As regards the reasons which induced His Majesty's Government to take the line they did, I should have been able to explain that, had this matter been proceeded with. I had a fairly long speech ready in which I could have explained it to your Lordships. I can assure your Lordships that there were very good reasons why His Majesty's Government assented to the agreement which had been come to between the parties in this case.

§ LORD JESSEL
I am not at all clear. I do not understand what the noble Lord means by "postponed." Does he mean that this stage will come on at the end of this Season? Or will the Order have to go before the Committee again?

§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLE
My Lords, what the House would like is to have an opportunity of hearing the views of the Select Committee and to see the evidence that would enable them to judge of what the Select Committee suggest should be done. If that is so, should it not be an understanding that no pressure should be brought to bear by a Government Department on the parties to this Order when they discuss it afresh, so that it should not be said: "Oh well, the Report of our Select Committee is immaterial; it has all been settled between the two 774 parties"? What I should suggest is that there should be an undertaking on the part of the Government that the Government Department concerned—I suppose it is the Board of Trade—should not enter into communication with the parties to this Order till your Lordships' House have had an opportunity of hearing the recommendations of the Select Committee.

§ LORD JESSEL
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, how exactly this will operate? Will this Order have to go before a Committee upstairs, or will the Government decide here in the House? Can that be done in the very few sittings after the resumption, or can the Order be carried over? I understand the Chairman of Committees brings up a Motion that certain Private Bills are carried over from one Session to another. Is that so, and will this Bill only be discussed in the week before Parliament is prorogued?

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE
I understand that this matter cannot be moved at once, but must take two or three days. As regards the Session in which it is moved I do not know, but I understand that it is doubtful whether we shall meet again this Session.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
We meet again on October 27.

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE
I did not know, but I now understand we meet again in this Session on October 27, and the matter can then be brought forward.

§ LORD JESSEL
But if that continuation of the Session only lasts a week, can the Bill be carried on to the next Session?

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE
My noble friend informs me that it cannot.

§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE
What does that precisely mean—that this matter cannot be moved at once, but must take two or three days?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)
My Lords, I think three days are needed in order to pass it through. That is the necessary time in one Session. If we have three days then I believe it will be possible to proceed with the Motion as it stands, but, supposing there are only two days, and the House is prorogued, and Parlia- 775 ment meets again, then the Special Order would have to be reintroduced. I do not think that any unnecessary expense would be entailed, but it would be possible to reintroduce the Special Order with certain modifications, and, as I understand from what Lord Templemore said, it is hoped that agreement may be reached between the Board of Trade and the Bath Corporation and the gas companies which will render it possible to bring before your Lordships a settled and agreed proposal. That will come before your Lordships as a Special Order, and it will go before the Special Orders Committee, and be dealt with in the ordinary way.
At the same time, as your Lordships will observe, it is said in the Motion— That the Special Order, reported from the Select Committee on the 29th of June last, be approved as deposited and without modification. Therefore the Report of my noble friend Lord Bath's Committee is before your Lordships' House. It will remain before your Lordships' House, and when the Special Order in its modified form, or in its original form, comes up after Prorogation in the next Session your Lordships will have everything before you, and be able to deal with the matter in such a way as your Lordships think right—to modify it in any way, to refer it to a Select Committee, or take any action which your Lordships think proper. But I think it ought to be quite clear that if it is after Prorogation it will be really a new Special Order with such modification as may be agreed upon between the various parties, or may not be agreed upon. As in this case there may be a difference, then it will be for your Lordships to decide, but you will always have before you the Report of the noble Marquess, Lord Bath's Committee.
May I say one word with reference to what fell from the noble Marquess? If it would be possible to appoint a Joint Select Committee, or some such body, to consider the whole of this question it seems to me it would be advantageous. It has been done in the original case of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Chalmers—the case of the question of basic prices—and it has been dealt with by the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in regard to the investment 776 clause, and a very useful settlement has been obtained. As regards this question of single and multiple basic prices it seems to me the suggestion of the noble Marquess may possibly commend itself to His Majesty's Government and to your Lordships' House. I think that is the state of affairs as regards the question of the Special Order and the procedure which will be followed by your Lordships if your Lordships agree.

§ LORD MOUNT TEMPLE
My Lords, I am sorry to be persistent, but the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has not answered the question I put. It was this. Very properly your Lordships' House attached the greatest importance to the recommendation of their Select Committee. After all, what is the use of having a Select Committee unless you pay attention to what they recommend? What, I apprehend, would occur, and probably will occur, is that during the Recess the Government Department concerned, who can put a great deal of pressure upon local authorities—I know that myself—will go to these various authorities and say: "Now cannot you come to an agreement? Never mind what the Committee recommend; come to an agreement," and the agreement will be come to, and then the Government, when Lord Bath's Committee bring forward their recommendations, will say: "It has all been settled, and your recommendation is a back number and out-of-date." I do not want that to happen. I want the Government to say: "We will not interfere with these local authorities during the Recess." We shall then be able to have the spokesmen of the local authorities if necessary, and above all the recommendations of the Committee, before us, and on that Committee's recommendations I should wish to judge the Order.