HC Deb 02 March 1925 vol 181 cc158-91
(Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon)

This is the third time within a fortnight that I have had to deal with electricity 9.0 P.M. problems. Certainly our last Debate was not without incident. It shows what a very complex human organisation the House of Commons is, because although the result of the last Debate was not particularly gratifying to myself, I am certain that if it has brought any good to any body of men like the ex-service men, I, at least, am satisfied. When anybody in Essex for the next few years staggers up to bed holding a candle, their Members of Parliament will, I hope, explain that the lack of development of electricity in Essex is due to the King's Roll. Perhaps I had better say at once that the North Metropolitan Company is on the King's Roll, has been on the King s Roll since the King's Roll started, therefore, we can talk about electricity and not about something else. I have the further advantage in not having any Cabinet Minister at my back to help me in my deliberations.

There are a few points which I should like to clear up, after reading sonic of the Debates of the last fortnight. One hon. Member said that I had put forward the Government plan for the reorganisation of electricity in this country. That is not in any way a fact. All I said in connection with the two London Bills which have preceded this was that it was the duty of the Ministry of Transport to see that the organisation of London electricity under the arrangement of the two Bills and the setting up of a Joint Authority did not run counter to any re-organisation of electricity in this country. That is all that I can say on that subject, beyond this, that nobody who has studied this problem can think of anything else but that the re-organisation of electrical development in this country is wanted. It is, however, singularly complex. One meets with all sorts of difficulties. It would be out of place for me to say anything in regard to the possibilities of development over the whole country, until the matter has been more carefully considered. It is being considered every day.

Mr. WALLHEAD

We are afraid that you are going into it at the wrong end.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I can assure the hon. Member that we approach it not from one side or the other. I hope he has appreciated what I have said in praise repeatedly of Manchester, and I hope he has appreciated also what I have said as to the results obtained by private enterprise. We approach it in quite a neutral frame of mind.

There is another point which I wish to mention. I am not in charge of this Bill. Some hon. Members have referred to me as if I were a promoter of the Bill. That is very unfair. The function of a Minister on these particular Bills is to state whether in his opinion it is against the public interest for such a Bill to proceed or whether he thinks that it is in the public interest that it should be proceeded with, get a Second Reading and go upstairs to be investigated. In my judgment, this Bill should receive benevolent support, and that is what I am endeavouring to give to it to-night. All these complicated questions must be thrashed out upstairs. Dealing with electricity, we never can speak of it without having this terrible question of private enterprise and municipal enterprise introduced, and I do not think that I should be contributing to this Debate if I were to avoid that issue.

We must not approach the question of the supply of electricity as if finality had been reached. No one can lay down the theory that we know all about the generation and distribution of electricity. There is very much yet to be learned. If every undertaking in this country were under municipal or national enterprise, they would all adopt the safe course, and it is due to private enterprise, in which people are able to risk their money on a gamble for increased profits, that advances of a technical character take place. On this point, may I draw attention to the position in America, where the consumption per unit per person is very much higher than here. There are many questions of a technical character, on which development has proceeded, which have not yet been fully decided. For instance, a municipal undertaking would not put down a plant to-morrow experimenting with steam pressure up to 1,200 lbs. No municipal undertaking would to-day use a steam pressure of more than 300 lbs.

An HON. MEMBER

Has any private enterprise in this country done it?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

In the Midlands there is a plant running at 1200 lbs. to-day. Are we also to take it for granted that the three-phase system is really the last word in the distribution of electricity? There are to-day machines which show very attractive technical advantages over the three-phases system. Nobody knows how these things are going to develop, and it is not within the province of a municipal undertaking to experiment along those lines, while it is legitimate for private enterprise to gamble along those lines, because if their experiment is a success, then perhaps they reap a certain benefit for themselves, but they also confer upon everybody else the benefit of the risks which they have taken.

There is nothing in this Bill which stops a local authority from becoming a supplier and distributor. They can apply to get an order to become a distributor, but it is well known by anybody who has studied this Bill, that it is not regarded as wise in this country that generation should be in the hands of a small plant, but that it should if possible be concentrated, with big bulk supplies to extensive areas. If one looks at this particular company one sees that that has been happening. The Willesden urban generating station has been taken on by request; Harrow has been stopped, and it takes power in bulk; Hendon has been stopped and takes power, and the Northwood company stopped, and they take power. The Metropolitan Electric Tramways Company also take power. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) drew a picture which suggested curious conclusions as to the relations between the particular companies, but for the current supplied to the Metropolitan Electric Tramways I find that 1'28d. was the cost. In the case of the London County Council, the corresponding figure is 1'63d. I cannot see that any very serious conclusion can be drawn by the hon. Member as to there being anything wrong in taking current by a particular company if it is as low as that. It is an ordinary business proposition. Let me now approach some of the figures for last year, with coal at 28s. 9d. per ton, while, I understand, coal now at the station is down to 26s. 2d. We find that the figures were: Bulk supply, untransformed, '98d.; bulk supply, transformed, 1'28d.; large power consumption, transformed, 1'31 d.; domestic purposes, retail, 2d.—

Mr. R. MORRISON

What does "domestic purposes" cover? Does it mean 2d. for heating and 6d. for lighting?

Lieut.-Colonel MOOFRE-BRABAZON

Everything except lighting. The average for all classes including lighting is 3'47d. That would bring the lighting up to about 6d. This particular company asks for an extension of power. The hon. Member referred to skimming the cream of the trade in his district. Frankly I cannot see by any stretch of imagination that that particular district can be described as the cream of the trade.

Mr. MORRISON

I did not describe the new district as the cream of this trade. I endeavoured to convey to the House that they had skimmed the cream off Edmonton and other places, and that they had left the great hulk of the people uncatered for.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

This new area is a very difficult area to exploit. There is no alternative promised as to who should do it. The question really is: are you to leave it fallow, and have nothing done, or allow a private company to develop it? Are you to leave great gaps in the country unprovided with electricity until you can re-organise the whole thing or are you going to allow fixed distribution to proceed and then bring that into your organisation? What is the company proposing to do? It has four stations: Brimsdown generating plant, 23,000 kilowatts; Willesden, 25,000 kilowatts; Hertford, 1,700; and St.

Albans, 1,430. I understand that money is required to increase Brims-down. That is to be connected with Willesden, and the other two stations are to be closed clown and main transmission lines are to be laid. As to development., there is this imposed on the company: first of all from the point of view of the area which comes within the sphere of the London and Home Counties Joint Authority, the company has to submit to that authority a technical programme. The whole of that technical programme will advance together. From the point of view of new business the company give an undertaking and they are compelled to put before the Electricity Commissioners within two years a definite plan of development, and the Commissioners will examine this scheme and amend it or improve it as they wish. As to price, I do not think there is anything very extraordinary about it, because the Middlesex County Council, as has been said, have become one of the bodies that have asked for a revision of prices every three years. It is along the line of revising prices every three years that I think the price will be cut down. Hon. Members have seen what are the prices to-day. There is no reason to suppose that there will be any exploiting of the community at large in the future. I see nothing revolutionary and nothing to which great exception can be taken. Nor do I think there is any Machiavellian principle behind the promotion of this Bill. It seems quite a useful extension of power, and I ask the House with great respect to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading, so that it can go upstairs.

Mr. SNELL

I am sure that the House, and especially those on this side of it who have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on these four Bills, will pay a very hearty compliment to him for his courtesy in trying to meet our criticism on these occasions. In the few minutes at my disposal I do not propose to deal with the question whether this company is reputable or otherwise, or whether there is any special advantage as between private enterprise and public enterprise. What I wish to do is to draw the attention of the House to a rather different matter. In this question it may be said that those of us who are London Members have very little real interest in a Bill which affects Hertfordshire and Essex. But in the course of the development of our national life, it is extremely probable that the powers of London will extend over the particular area. with which this Bill deals, and that will make the complication that exists still more pronounced when that time comes. Therefore, we London Members have a very real interest in this matter. The, Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that there is a considerable need for reorganisation. One could not help feeling that he has had a particularly thankless task placed upon him in connection with these Bills. The tone in which he presented his defence of them seems rather to suggest that he would have been !pleased if fate had allowed him to postpone them until the issues of reorganisation were made clear.

The real point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that it was just a gamble whether it was wiser to wait until reorganisation took place or whether it would be to the public advantage to give this company immediate powers. As between those two issues I for one would prefer to wait. After all, certain portions of Hertfordshire and Essex have done without electric light for a good many years, and if we proceed with this Bill, we tie them up for ever to a particular form of electric light and power. As between those two evils, the evil of waiting a little longer for the benefit of the light that we want to confer upon them and tying them up so that they are imprisoned under a certain set of regulations made before we know what the actual needs are, I would prefer the process of waiting. The Parliamentary Secretary said that 'this company was really gambling, that it was almost conferring a public service by offering to undertake these onerous and possibly unprofitable duties in this area. I know there is a good deal of bravery about public companies, but this one, at any rate, seems to have been gifted with the faculty of taking every precaution to see that its losses in the public service were not serious.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I think the hon. Gentleman misrepresents me a little. What I tried to say was that private enterprise was much more prone to gamble in new development than was municipal enterprise.

Mr. SNELL

Of course I do not wish to misrepresent the Parliamentary Secretary. The question, from our point of view, is not whether this particular company is asking for privileges which may be safely given or not. The point is that we are at a period when we do not know what it is wise to do. We are entering upon a new industrial era which may he of the very greatest moment to the future of our country. Because of that, it would seem on every ground wise that the House of Commons should not put a barrier in the way of future development which would be of enormous assistance to our industrial future, by passing this Bill which would tie our hands in some way. The Bill provides for an extension of the area of operations of this company in Hertfordshire and Essex and to the outer fringe of London. It touches Tottenham and Edmonton and Enfield and Wood Green. But if the principle on which these power companies work is wrong fundamentally, then any expansion of their privilege is worse. Our view is simply that it is injudicious. It may be highly dangerous for a community to place the supply of an essential service under the control of any privileged company without providing for frequent opportunities for the community to escape from the toils in which it has been bound. Electricity is one of the vital services of the present time. It may become of the very first importance to the development of our nation and because of that the nation ought to keep its hands clean. It ought not to tie itself up, even with so estimable a company as I am sure this is. It ought to reserve the power in its own hands. May I explain what I think is the harm that those power companies may do. First of all they may, if they wish—and they very frequently do wish—hold up the development of the electrical supply in any area until it suits them. I am not uttering a word of complaint against this company. It is a commercial company engaged in business, and has just the same aims as any other commercial company in the world. Its aim is to make a commercial success of this undertaking and provide itself with profit. Its aim is not to supply a public service whether there is a loss or not. We may take it for granted that a power company of this kind would not seek to develop any area until returns from that area would bring to it what it considers a satisfactory profit which can be shown on the balance-sheet.

Mr. HANNON

As a matter of fact; this company has been developing at a loss.

Mr. SNELL

That is a miscalculation. It did not go into business for the purpose of making a loss. That is a misfortune which often befalls gentlemen who go into business with that end in view. This Bill gives a monopoly without any effective control over prices; it gives them a monopoly which is in perpetuity. It provides no opportunity for the community to assume control over the undertaking, and because of that gamble with the future needs and liberties of the community it seems to me that this Bill ought to be opposed. Another point is this, that these power companies have frequently stood in the way of development. Whatever the desire of this company may be to serve the public in the face of a loss as has been suggested, other companies have stood against electrical development for their own particular account.

Mr. HANNON

Give us an example.

Mr. SNELL

I will take a particular example. Take the East Kent Company, which obtained its powers in 1905. It has done practically nothing to develop public service in the area it has covered, but it has time after time. opposed applications from other companies that wanted to give service in that particular area, for the simple purpose of reserving to itself, until the time was suitable for a profit, these particular opportunities. Take the case of the Borough of Retford, which is now engaged in promoting an Order. That is opposed by the Derbyshire Electrical Power Company, who obtained their powers 22 years ago, but have not made in those 22 years the slightest effort to provide the Borough of Retford with the electrical service it needs. These power companies claim the right to say to any particular area, "We will not, and you shall not. We will keep you in darkness until it will provide us with an opportunity for making profits." Take the Boroughs of Sheffield and Rotherham. They have frequently made applications for Orders to supply electric power to areas adjoining their own, but they have always been opposed, and successfully opposed, by the Yorkshire Electrical Power Company. I have, sup plied, not one case, but several eases. and any number could be supplied I have a further criticism to make in this respect: that power companies like the Yorkshire Electrical Power Company, for example, frequently buy electricity in bulk from the Corporations of Sheffield and Rotherham, and thus merely act as middlemen, making no effect on their own account to supply electricity, hut drawing from the local authorities, and thus making a profit on the mere transit of it to their consumers.

Mr. HANNON

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but can he cite any case in which the company concerned in this Bill has stood in the way of electrical development in its own area?

Mr. SNELL

If the hon. Member had listened attentively to what I tried to say he would remember that I said I did not propose to suggest that his company had done that, but that all companies were alike: they all went into business for profit.

Mr. HANNON

This is the company we are dealing with.

Mr. SNELL

If I am out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker will, I am sure, keep me to the point. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) will have an opportunity of speaking later. I suggest that this and similar Bills are unfair to the local authorities. A local authority can only keep down prices to the consumer if it is able to have a general supply; if the whole supply of that area is in their hands. But if somebody is to come in and take the most remunerative part of their business, and leave them with that part which scarcely pays at all, it is inflicting a real injury upon the consumers who have to deal with the rest of the power supply. I hope the House will see its way on the grounds of those general principles to refuse this Bill a Second Reading. It seems to me to be, in spite of its commendation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, to be "a sin against the light itself." rather than to have anything to commend it. The real objection to it is that these patchy, opposing interests, springing up here and there in the community, ought to be swept away, and the whole business put into the hands of a joint electrical authority which would have the power to adjust so as to do the right thing by the community and by the future. But here we are in this situation, that before we know what we want, what the development of the future will be, what the needs of the next generation will be, we propose to invest those predatory companies with powers. When they are given, we shall see in this case, as we have seen in so many other cases, that the community will be compelled to buy out these companies at an enormous sacrifice, because of the privileges which this House ought not to have given. It seems to me to be a thorough stupid and even wicked business. Because this Bill fails to protect the public and secure to them the right of having control over those essential services, I hope the House will reject it and not give it a Second Reading.

Sir H. NIELD

I congratulate hon Members who have spoken from the other side of the House on the lines they have taken. They have been mutually destructive. The first two Members attacked this company and represented it as being a company which should not be trusted with powers, but the academic speaker who last addressed the House has carefully and very wisely refrained from attacking the individual company, but has given us a lecture on the theory of "Wait and see." I should think that Members on the benches below the Gangway opposite and the benches above the Gangway had nothing to learn from "Wait and see." I am surprised to hear from Socialist speakers that doctrine being inculcated. I see upon the Order Paper no less than three separate Notices of Motion affecting this Bill. The first is what I will call the frontal attack, and is a Motion that the Bill be read upon this clay six months. Of the other two we have one supported by London Members exclusively which is what I may call the first flank attack and which seeks to put off the Bill until after the County Council Elections. Finally, there is the Motion which states that as this company is one which "has failed to give a reasonably adequate service "the House should not proceed with the Bill. That is the other flank attack, and it also has not developed, and so we are left to meet the frontal attack, which is Socialism pure and simple. In a House composed as the present House of Commons is, we arc not going to accept without further inquiry a great many of the statements which have been made in support of it. The last speaker referred to the necessity for waiting in this matter because it concerned the fringe of London, and he said London would probably extend over the area at present. in question before very long. I say reverently, "God forbid." I took part in the inquiry which was held under Lord Ullswater when London attempted to enlarge its boundary at the expense of Middlesex. [HON. MEMBERS: "God help London"!] I say, God help London to be as well governed as the County of Middlesex I have always stood up for it, and I believe hon. Members who represent Middlesex will also stand up for that ancient county—the mother county.

Mr. DAY

What Middlesex says to-day, London says to-morrow.

Sir H. NIELD

Next week. Our theorists on the other side go on to say that they do not know what is the wisest thing to do because we are entering upon a new era. When I heard that statement I thought that a silent thinker following the Debates in this House and listening to controversies outside would have a quiet laugh to himself to hear from those progressive and even revolutionary benches the statement that we really do not know what it is wise to do. What will the ordinary man in the street say to that? I fancy it will be: "A plague on both your Houses." Reference has also been made to the principle being "fundamentally wrong" that private enterprise should be charged with the supply of an essential public service. What principle is attacked? The principle of private capital, which has done everything hitherto for this country and which has made this country prosperous in contrast to that eastern realm so dear to the hearts of my hon. Friends opposite, where desolation and misery prevail. Really I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite themselves believe in some of the statements which have been made. From my experience, which extends to a number of municipalities in the Midlands and elsewhere, private enterprise has always had the best of the game—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I hope hon. Members will reserve their cheers until I complete my argument—and private enterprise has always been able to give the greatest advantage to the community, free entirely from many things which have produced parochial and other scandals. Why? Because on the one hand you have a body of keen directors and managers looking after things; on the other hand, you have a number of officials who do their work perfunctorily, and are, very often, hopelessly blind to what is going on under their very noses. I turn to the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, and I am bound to say that, representing as he does on the County Council of Middlesex the district adjoining that which ho represents in this House, I was very much struck to hear him do something which I myself would not have dreamt of doing, and that was to mention in this House what took place in the com- mittee of a public authority. I thought these matters were inviolable secrets.

Mr. MORRISON

Will the right hon. Gentleman point out the passage in which I referred to anything that happened in committee? I was not a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Middlesex County Council at the time. of the negotiations. The quotations which I made were from a report presented by the clerk to the county council as a whole.

Sir H. NIELD

Then my hon. Friend was curiously secretive in the way in which he gave that information to the House. He never intimated that it was the Council's property, but talked about negotiations which went on with the company between committee meetings. He cannot have it both ways—that is what he certainly will not get from those accustomed to straight dealing in municipal as in other affairs.

Mr. MORRISON

Here is the report from which I quoted. I hope in view of that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his suggestion.

Sir H. NIELD

If my hon. Friend had said that this matter had been reported to the Council I should have made no objection, but I am complaining about the way in which he placed it before the House. If he reads his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he did not say anything of the sort, but represented that these were matters which were going on between the committee and the company.

Mr. MORRISON

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has now received an assurance that I was not giving away private information, but was quoting from a report which he as well as I received as a member of the county council, will he withdraw his suggestion?

Sir H. NIELD

I will withdraw the suggestion most certainly since I have that assurance, but I do invite my hon. Friend to be a little more candid on a future occasion, As to the statements which have been made about private companies acting against municipalities in this matter, I would point out that in almost every instance the larger municipalities or urban districts in Middlesex obtained Orders under the Act of 1882 and sat down on them and did nothing. It was only in 1900, when this company got its original Act, that they were able to get a supply of electricity at all. What nonsense it is to talk of private companies interfering with the rights of the local authorities, when the local authorities had the powers and for years made no attempt to use them? We have had it from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Transport that these Orders were taken over and I know, as a resident for 40 years in that particular part of Middlesex, that these Orders were disposed of to the company for a consideration, and that the company worked them. To have a generating station in each one of these districts would be as uneconomic a proposition as could be thought of. We have the evidence that the great urban district of Willesden, as great as any in Middlesex, has thought it prudent to transfer its generating station and take its bulk supply from the company. You have had the same thing repeated again and again throughout the county, at Harrow, Willesden and elsewhere.

This is nothing more or less than an academic Debate to-day as between Socialism on the one hand and private enterprise on the other, and I am quite sure that the House, since it is not to be treated to the red herring of the Ring's Roll to-night, will not hesitate to give this Bill a Second Reading. Let me assure any doubter on this side of the House whose energies—and I appreciate them—are exerted on behalf of the disabled soldiers and sailors, that one of the chief directors of this company obtained honourable distinction by reason of the service that he gave throughout the late War to the soldiers and the sailors. [An HON. MEMBER "Another red herring!"] Well, if you have one fish, you will have another. Really, the representations or misrepresentations which have been made on this subject are such as to make the average Member of this House wake up to the necessity for facing the facts and refusing to have this theoretical doctrine preached on the subject of private enterprise as against municipal control. It is impossible for these authorities to generate their own electricity at anything like the rate at which a large power company can supply it, and let not the House forget that this matter has been before the Electricity Commissioners on two occasions, and that prolonged inquiries have been held, at which all parties have been represented, and that the Order which was ultimately made for the establishment of a Joint Electricity Authority for this area provides for the very thing that this Bill is endeavouring to carry out. I hope my hon. Friends on this side will realise that, and that this Bill is being promoted with the full knowledge, and I was going to say the full concurrence, of the Electricity Commissioners in order to give effect to that home counties scheme. I saw it stated when last there was a Debate in this House, and it was stated to-night also, that these companies sit still and prevent people getting a supply. Would hon. Members be surprised to know that some of the most strong objections to the Joint Electricity Authority in this area came from the urban districts of Hornsey and Finchley? Your own friends, the lambs of the flock, the urban districts, crying out against this very Order which you say is obstructed by private enterprise! We have had only half the facts to-night, and if all the facts could be ascertained, I think you would never be able to stop it private venture Bill again. There was a statement made by one hon. Member, who, if he had the courage to make that statement outside the walls of this building, without the privilege which attaches to utterances in this building, would have found himself defendant in an action for defamation, because there were very serious statements made, and they included one phrase to the effect that this was not straight business. I am surprised to hear any man get. up and say this is not straight business, and T invite the hon. Member, if he has faith in that statement, to repeat it elsewhere, and see what results may follow.

Mr. BROAD

Do you think we are frightened?

Sir H. NIELD

I do not suppose the hon. Member—[An HON. MEMBER: You would get a brief out of it!"] Some hon. Members can never divest personal interest from these matters. It is all very well to say to a man, "You would get a brief out of it." You may be sure that if I did, the person I cross-examined would have a warm time. Now I want to call attention to another want of candour on the part of those who oppose this Bill. We were referred to page 16 of the Bill by the hon. Member who moved its rejection, and he read Sub-section (2), and said: "By contrast, look at the way in which the company are going to treat railway companies." He then read Sub-section (3), but he had not learned the necessity for referring to the context of a document. When you read a document, do not read extracts, but read the whole of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did, you remember that in your electioneering?" I will answer that by saying that, having been returned eight times to this House, there is not a man present or in my constituency who can say that I have ever made a misrepresentation knowingly.

Clause 25 of this Bill was quoted against. the company as showing that they had treated the local authorities perfunctorily, but had gone on their knees and salaamed to the railway companies, but Sub-section (1) shows that it does not apply to the streets of the local authority at all. It is true that notice has to be given to the local authority, but the streets are private streets not taken over by the local authority, and over which they have no jurisdiction at all. Why was not that quoted, instead of it being suggested that, in respect of the local authorities, they had to have streets broken up after a peremptory notice of 21 days? It is part and parcel of the whole campaign, and you do not get the whole truth. You get a suppressio veri, which enables you to get through if there is not somebody to expose you, though the hon. Members opposite must know that if I am anywhere about and know the facts, they will have them told. The strange part of this Bill is that there is not a single petition outstanding except that of the railway company. Do you suppose that those urban councils in the north of Middlesex, where the fresh air gives a man such vigour, would not have had their objections on the file and insisted upon them? They would say: "Look at this dishonest, disreputable company, which is engaging in fishy business. Should we allow them, whatever it costs, to get their Bill without a fight?" Not a bit of it. Every one of them as quiet as mice, and even the council which is mainly composed of friends of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion for the rejection, so much so that they have most delightful times in their deliberations, even they are in the quiet mousetrap.

No, Sir, the whole thing is artificial. The company have given satisfaction in the past, and that is the reason there is no petition now. Tottenham? I remember Tottenham at the time it gave up its order, and although lived at Tottenham for a great many years after that, I never heard a complaint. Then it was suggested that the tramway system of the County of Middlesex was being treated as a milch cow, and was being made to pay inordinately for its supply of current, in order that the power company might distribute its 10 per cent., although the tramway made a loss. Will the House believe me when I say that as the Chairman for many years of the Light Railways Committee, which governed the tramways during the time the agreement was made, that the supply of current has been arranged perfectly amicably with the company, and, until the War came, that joint arrangement between the county council and the tramway company was working most advantageously and satisfactorily, and the council was getting its interest regularly paid upon the outlay in construction and maintenance. The county council of Middlesex have worked most harmoniously as the tramway authority with these lessees, to the great advantage of the inhabitants, and they have not got that appalling deficiency which the County of London presents.

I want to call attention to those districts which are looked upon as a kind of promised land, which is about to be filched from the lawful inhabitants, and to be conveyed to the representatives of the evil one. Does the House know that the instructions of Hertfordshire to their counsel before the Electricity Commission were, "We do not want to be in the Order at all, but if we are in the Order, put the whole of us in it." It means that those districts of Hertfordshire will be supplied in reasonable time with electricity, and supplied at a great loss to the company, because it is a pioneer company in that district. In Welwyn Garden City they are taking supplies from this company, and who is there with any knowledge of the 10.0 P.M. affairs of Welwyn Garden City, and the political complexion which, at any rate, hung for a long time like a clamp cloud over it, would ever suppose that the directors of the Garden City would fail to appreciate a bargain they made? And they are perfectly content with the bargain they made with this company, and make no complaint.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I will not say that about it.

Sir H. NIELD

My hon. Friend lives too far away to know.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say I live in the neighbourhood?

Sir H. NIELD

It is certainly making great progress, no doubt very largely helped by the hon. Gentleman. Here is a company that has done its duty well. Therefore, to object to the Second Reading of this Bill is to ask this House to tear up all its precedents, all the records of the past, and to embark upon a fresh policy which can only end in disaster to private concerns and the country generally, together with the dignity of the House of Commons.

Mr. ATTLEE

The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has given us a very great entertainment. I do not think I have ever heard him in better form since I heard him before the Electricity Commissioners, when he was endeavouring at one and the same time to persuade the Commissioners that one county ought to come into the scheme and another county ought to come out, both counties being in exactly the same position with regard to London. It showed me how one man could ride on two horses. To-night he has told us that one county has sat down and waited while the ether has gone ahead with the development of electricity with enormous success. So he has it both ways. The hon. and learned Gentleman very much wanted to have all the facts. I think he himself was a little economical in some of the facts he gave. He told us, for instance, the wicked municipalities would not come into the Greater London scheme. But he did not tell us Hornsey and Finchley objected because they were afraid they were going to be handed over to the company.

Sir H. NIELD

My hon. Friend has evidently not followed closely the proceedings of the last inquiry. Hornsey and Finchley were objecting to coming in, because of their association with the North Metropolitan. But the North Metropolitan had no power over them at all.

Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have sat for the last four years with representatives of Hornsey and Finchley considering this matter, and I know the difficulty has always been that they feared to be swallowed up by the North Metropolitan. That is what the Hornsey and Finchley engineers have to say in the matter.

Sir H. NIELD

Where are the petitions?

Mr. ATTLEE

I was dealing with quite a different point, namely, that with regard to the different municipalities that would not come into the main scheme. There was also the question of Willesden, which, apparently, gladly came in with the North Metropolitan. As a matter of fact. Willesden wish they had done nothing of the sort. They were advised to do so by their engineer. Their engineer is now in the North Metropolitan. I turn, however, from the other points made by the bon. and learned Gentleman to the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary to thy Ministry of Transport. I recognise that he had a very unpleasant time with these Bills. I quite agree with him that he is not the father. He is merely put up to hold the baby, and I do not envy him the task. I do not think, however, he was entirely correct when he said that municipalities and public authorities never have any enterprise. I have found a great deal of enterprise amongst municipal engineers, who were willing to experiment. I know that, on my own authority, the electricity committee of which I have been a member for some years. we frequently have suggestions of experiments by the engineers, who are quite willing to take them up. When I was chairman we laid out £750,000.

Mr. D. HERBERT

Of the ratepayers' money?

Mr. ATTLEE

You could not raise £750,000 on the rates in Stepney. We are not so large or rich as some other parts of London. Therefore we raised the loan which was approved by the Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. HERBERT

Yes, on the rates!

Mr. ATTLEE

Yes, but we required some of the money for other local extensions, and—if the hon. Member will allow me—it was for the future of London. The point put forward to-night has been that the municipalities were not enterprising and were not prepared to take long views or to make experiments. I am pointing out that municipalities do this. Electricity is not the only thing. While that is necessary, what we are particularly concerned about is social experiments. It is in the realm of social experiment that we expect nothing from these companies. The North Metropolitan will not lay its plans in this respect for the bulk of the population. What we fear is that if these further areas are handed over to the power companies we shall not get that concerted social policy of electricity development. I recognise that the Minister is in a difficulty. He has got to work this wretched Act of 1919. He has, as a matter of fact, the whole of this northern part of London practically handed over now, and it is proposed to extend the working of the company to a part of Hertfordshire. It is a very delightful place, and T wish the people there luck, and hope that they will get their electricity. The Parliamentary Secretary said something that some of us in Essex will have to go to bed by candle light. But a great many people have been doing that for years in an area where there are full powers for the company, which has never yet used them.

Our point is that, whatever you may say about these power companies, they have not fully developed the areas which they have already. Until the North Metropolitan Company can satisfy the masses of the people in Tottenham, Edmonton, and other places like these, I do not see why they should be allowed to go outside the area. Fundamentally object to the system where we are handing over the Far East. of London to one big company and handing over the Far North of London to another. The hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) talks about the municipalities holding up schemes. He did not tell us why the greater part of the district he referred to was out of the electricity authority.

Sir H. NIELD

Because we profoundly distrust London!

Mr. ATTLEE

I am very sorry that while talking of Middlesex my hon. and learned Friend endeavours to hold back the northern parts. We. are endeavouring to help the people and the backward areas which my hon. and learned Friend represents. I do, however, suggest seriously that there is a strong case here against the proposal. I think that instead of putting forward these Bills we want to have the problem looked at again, and that we ought to recognise that in cutting up the areas between dd.' various types of electrical organisation we are doing wrong. The North Metropolitan Company, as a matter of fact, ought to become a part of one great authority, and from the social point of view that is enormously important. Tottenham and Edmonton and the other beauty spots by the Lea, who feel they have suffered from private enterprise in a way allowed by the House of Commons, at least should have the advantage of public lighting with their housing. From the point of view of social development—and I know other large areas of Greater London—the matter should not be left to the companies, whose sole aim, necessarily, is the making of profit.

Mr. D. HERBERT

So far as the question of this Bill is one as between private enterprise and those who are opposed to private enterprise, we on this side of the House are content to meet the issue in the Division Lobby without discussing it here in detail. I want to say a few words to any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who may be in any doubt as to the effect of this Bill, or who may have been misled by some of the speeches from the opposite benches, and to hon. Members who are not quite so closely acquainted with the particular part of the country most affected by this Bill as I am, and my constituency.

However remarkable hon. Members opposite may think it to be, I support this Bill not merely as a supporter of private enterprise generally, but I support this Bill on behalf of the local authorities most intimately concerned with it. Now and then you do find a local authority which is able to do better for its particular neighbourhood than private enterprise in that particular district. In Hertfordshire there is a municipal electrical undertaking which is doing a remarkable thing. Far from not putting its powers into operation it has put them into operation so well and effectively that they have been able successfully, and on their merits, to withstand what I may call any opposition or competition on the part of the North Metropolitan Company. The biggest and most prosperous municipal electrical undertaking in the home counties, that of Watford, supports this Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite, who leads the opposition to this Bill, was bold enough to refer to the country districts of Hertfordshire which, he said, were going to be collared under this Bill so that they could get electricity nowhere else, and so that they would, therefore, probably find themselves for a period of years without it, and entirely at the mercy of this company. I think that is, in effect, what he says. I am a member of the Hertfordshire County Council, which considers it its duty to look after the interests of those particular rural districts, and it wants this Bill to go through as providing the very best possible chance of getting electricity into those country districts. Apparently, the hon. Member has not even got up his brief, or if he has he has not been sufficiently candid with the House, for he has not pointed out to the House that under a Clause specially obtained by the Hertfordshire County Council the company, within two years from the passing of this Act, or within such extended time as may be approved, have got to submit proposals to these added areas, and, having submitted those proposals, when they are approved they have got to carry them out.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Is there any specified time?

Mr. HERBERT

Where local authorities are run on non-political principles—I want to be fair about it, there are such bodies on which there are considerable numbers of members of the party to which hon. Members opposite belong—where they are run on those tines a local authority knows when it can do its own business better than private enterprise, as in the case of Watford; and when in the rest of the county the business can be done better by private enterprise, it takes care to bring in private enterprise whenever it can, and to bring it in effectually. When hon. Members opposite talk about their opposition to private enterprise, I would ask them whether they have never realised the position of these statutory companies. Some hon. Members opposite are not altogether unacquainted with private enterprise; either as small partners in a large business, or as large partners in a small business, many of them have been concerned with it, and I venture to ask whether if they were out to make money by their own private enterprise they would chose the form of a statutory company for the purpose of doing it? Here you have a Bill submitted by a company which, at every step it takes, has to come to this House, and to meet upstairs before a semi-judicial Committee all the objections of those who are specially affected by the Bill, a company that is limited in its profits, limited in the amount it may distribute and limited in its expenditure by this House; and yet it is to be held up to contempt simply on the principle that one ought to condemn private enterprise. Hon. Members opposite, if they condemn a Bill of this sort, ought to realise that they are using a two-edged weapon which may turn against themselves. Their arguments tonight will be used against them in other cases in the future.

There is one point I wish to put particularly to Members on this side of the House. Let me put it in this way. Under what circumstances may it be right to oppose or refuse a Second Reading to a private Bill of this kind? Hon. Members opposite who object in any way to electricity undertakings being carried on by any sort of private enterprise even by statutory companies are perfectly within their rights in opposing a Bill of this kind because they are out for a great principle in which they believe, and therefore, they are entitled to oppose Measures of this kind. On the other hand I do ask hon. Members on this side to consider whether it is right to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind unless there is 3 great matter of principle involved. This Bill has run the gauntlet of efficient and well-advised local authorities. and it has run that gauntlet successfully. Under these circumstances I suggest that as this Measure is one which gives the greatest promise, in the opinion of the rural districts of Hertfordshire, of getting electricity at the earliest possible date on the best possible terms, this is a Bill which certainly ought to go before the Committee and be given a Second Reading without hesitation, or any opposition except on the part of hon. Members opposite, whose opposition we do not fear.

Mr. WALLHEAD

I understand from what has been stated by the last speaker that there is no opposition to this Bill from the local authorities of Hertford. The townships in Hertford are small and it is perfectly obvious that under modern conditions it is uneconomic to establish independent local authority electricity generating stations, and if they are to get electricity this is the one means for them to get it. I am going to oppose this Measure. because I think it is entirely inopportune at the present moment. We have heard a great deal about the necessity for electricity in this country, and we have been told that it would be sound policy to establish in various parts of this country large generating electricity stations for the purpose of assisting our industries. In this House we often hear doleful wails about the position in which our industries are to be found and our incapacity to compete with people on the Continent. We often hear doubts as to whether Germany, our late competitor, after she is allowed to recover, we shall be able to cope effectively with her competition. It is frequently stated that one of the reasons why we shall not be able to cope with German competition effectively is because of our defective scientific organisation. Therefore, in my view, it would seem the best policy to defer the passing of such Bills as this until some national policy has been produced, a policy which might be decided by experts. I think that is a point of importance. Experts will tell us whenever a national policy is produced that we must establish a national standard of frequency, and how do we know that this company will be able to do that? If they cannot there will remain the question of remedying the mistake we are making now. I submit that the best policy for us to pursue would be to establish a national policy at the earliest possible moment.

I oppose this Bill also, and I oppose this question of private enterprise, because I do not think it is a right policy to establish this company in control of this large area in perpetuity. There is no limit to the length of time that their control runs; they are given control practically till the end of time. I am sure, of course, that they will not retain it until then, but so far as this Bill is concerned there is no limit whatever to the length of time that they can control this area. And the area is becoming more important. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) discussed the question of Welwyn Garden City. I happen to live in Welwyn Garden City. He discussed the question of Letchworth. There is not much electricity used there. It is not put into the houses in Letchworth. When Letchworth Garden City began to be developed, they had no hope of getting electricity there, although this company at that time had a monopoly, and the houses were not fitted up for it. But in Welwyn Garden City every house is fitted with electrical appliances, for lighting in particular. My charge against this company is that it is supplying current at too dear a rate. It supplies it in bulk to the Welwyn Garden City Electricity Company at id. per unit. I consider that that is too dear, in bulk.

Mr. HANNON

It is a very good price.

Mr. WALLHEAD

How many great industrial undertakings could afford to run on electricity at 1¾d. per unit? Under the great municipalities of the North, current is supplied to business undertakings at something less than ½d. per unit in bulk.

Mr. HANNON

Are you speaking of light or power?

Mr. WALLHEAD

I am speaking of current. I am talking of bulk supply. I said it comes in bulk at 1¾d. per unit, which I say is dear, because it afterwards has to be distributed for lighting purposes by another company, which has to charge a high price for it, making it prohibitive. I gave a quotation a few nights ago in this House to show that Manchester Corporation were supplying current, even with a fixed charge, at less than id. per unit.

Mr. HANNON

Not for light.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Yes, for light. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I have here a bill, which I will show him if he likes, showing that what I say is correct—a bill presented by the Electricity Department of the Manchester Corporation to a cottager customer—

Mr. D. HERBERT

It is worth seeing.

Mr. WALLHEAD

With the utmost pleasure. The charge on that bill to a cottager is 14s, as a fixed charge per quarter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and then he consumes 712 units at the average cost, in a summer quarter, being less than ½d. per unit for lighting, heating. cooking, boiling kettles, cleaning, irons, and so on. If you can go as far as that, I am prepared to listen to your dirge that a great private company, asking for special powers from this House, should be stopped when the best it can do is to supply a growing community at ¾d. per unit, in bulk.

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He defends the Bill—he presents the Bill, shall I say, to the House—and I want to compliment him upon the very admirable way in which he has done it. He has met us courteously, and I think the discussion has been conducted with good temper on both sides. I think the hon. Gentleman recognises my point of view. I am irrevocably opposed to the private control of a vast new power like electricity. I believe in public ownership of the public services—I believe that that is the best way in which they can be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman has said that municipalities are backward. I know from my own experience of municipalities who have had machinery put in of the latest type at a given date, and six years afterwards have scrapped it, before it was worn out, because something newer and better had come; and they sold the machinery that they had scrapped to a private company. It was good enough for a private company but not good enough for a municipality. The hon. Member believes private corn- panies make experiments in various electrical appliances. I should be extremely interested to know what are those generating companies which make experiments with machinery. I should imagine, generally speaking, that those who make those experiments are the producers of the machines—the engineers. If they can produce a machine and can establish its value, of course any company or body of men who desired to improve their service to their customers or to the community they were serving would take advantage of that, and so far as I know municipalities are not behindhand in that regard.

I sincerely hope, though I have not much expectation that my hope will be carried out, that the Bill will be rejected. It fills me wit's amazement that gentlemen who represent great industrialists, the people who come here to ask for protection for certain industries barely able to hold their own, do not cast aside all kinds of bitterness and face the facts squarely and help industry by doing the one thing possible, by giving it cheap power and helping the nation all the way round. It is not that we who oppose private enterprise act from quite an abstract point of view. We oppose this thing and advocate our principle, particularly with regard to electricity, because we believe it will advantage the country as a whole and will be of advantage, not only to the great mass of the people, but to the great industrialists. I believe the captains of industry would be better off with a national scheme of electricity than with this hotch-potch and chaotic mess-up we are likely to get if this kind of legislation is fostered and engendered. For this reason I shall go into the Lobby cheerfully against the Bill, and I would go into the Lobby every night against Bills of this description as cheerfully as I shall go to-night. We shall continue our fight. We will go on, because we believe that ultimately the common sense of the nation will see our point of view, and you with your private enterprise will come on your knees for assistance for the industries you tell us it takes you all your time to make profitable to yourselves and your shareholders.

Mr. GRANT

The hon. Member who has just sat down has forced us to the conclusion that the real answer to the Bill is the objection to private enterprise. The hon. Member sincerely believes that such services as electricity would be better in the hands of municipalities than of private individuals. It is from that, standpoint that the opposition comes rather than from any substantial criticism of this company—any substantial criticism as to its usefulness in the past and the public services it has rendered or to the possibility of it rendering further services in the future. What is the cause we have to decide to-night—men like myself who are in no way connected with the district and have no interest whatever in the company? Here we have the case of a company which, some 25 years ago, was given powers in perpetuity from this House for its activities in certain areas. During the past 25 years it has well used the powers that the House gave it. It serves 25 districts in that area with power and light. It supplies in bulk nine public authorities. There are 45,000 individuals who, directly or indirectly, are customers of this company. It has spent a vast amount of money, more than £2,250,00 in the district, and, as far as we know, it has satisfied the public and the authorities in the district. The company comes before us this evening and asks for an extension of their activities. The only public authority that really has to deal with the extension area is the Hertfordshire County Council. We have heard, in an admirable speech which has just been delivered, that the Hertfordshire County Council is desirous of this extension.

It seems to me that the only duty, and the bounden duty of hon. Members is to follow local opinion and local desire as it has been expressed. There is no real opposition to this Bill. Two petitions have been presented. One petition by the Middlesex County Council has been met. The only other petition is by a railway company on a small point, which can be met in Committee upstairs. There is no reason why we should vote against this Bill so far as any expression from a public authority is concerned, and I do not think that we ought to be led away by the theoretical ideas of hon. Members opposite. No doubt they are sincere in their views, but we have had a General Election recently and the country has emphatically declared that the views of hon. Members opposite are not the views of the country. Only a few days ago we had an election which showed that there was no change of public opinion since the General Election.

One hon. Member opposite said that he would vote with pleasure against the Bill. I shall vote with pleasure for the. Bill, because it is the desire of the locality that the Bill should be passed. I shall vote with satisfaction, because I know the company treats its employ´s very well, and because the company has rendered good service, to the community. I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Bill, and I hope my hon. Friends will also support it in order to meet the public demand in the locality. The rejection of the Bill would mean the stoppage of supplies in the district concerned. It would mean that a growing demand could not be met. It would put back the clock. Hon. Members opposite are retrograde. They do not want to go forward, at any rate in regard to this Bill. If they defeat the Bill, it will mean that, for an indefinite time a supply that is asked for will not be forthcoming.

Mr. VIANT

In offering opposition to the Bill I am in no way opposing the Bill simply on theory. The last speaker said that we were simply advocating theories on these benches. Fortunately we are not advocating theories. We have a considerable amount of experience behind the principle which we are advocating. I have here a report from the "Electrical Times" of the 20th March, 1924. It gives the prices of various local authorities who have provided electric current throughout London and the adjoining areas. In addition to that there is a list of private companies who also provide current. I find that the average price per unit for the municipal undertakings amounts to 2.405d. and for the privately-owned undertakings the average price is 3.687d. In the light of those figures I submit that we are no longer backing up theories, but are advocating principles that have proved their value in the interest of the community as a whole. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) asked for an instance of any municipality being frustrated in its efforts by the company with which we are concerned this evening. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) who moved the rejection of this Bill gave an instance of the manner in which this company did endeavour to frustrate the development sought by the Corporation of Hornsey.

Mr. HANNON

Where is the petition of the Corporation of Hornsey against the Bill?

Mr. VIANT

When the hon. Member refers to the absence of a petition I immediately consider the composition of the various local authorities in the areas over which this company is seeking power. In all those areas the local authorities are controlled by those who are known as Municipal Reformers, Moderates, and all those who are in opposition to municipal enterprise. That does not detract from the statement which I have already made. I suggest that that very largely accounts for the absence of any petition.

Sir H. NIELD

The hon. Member for North Tottenham as a specific cause for the absence of petitions stated that local authorities are no longer prepared to waste their money on legal expenses.

Mr. VIANT

I am only putting forward a commonsense proposal as the reason for the absence of petitions in respect of this Bill. I will go further. The Urban District Council of Willesden and its electricity undertaking have been mentioned. That urban council purchased electricity in bulk from the North Metropolitan Company. There was a time, some few years ago, when the Willesden District Council generated its own electricity. Unfortunately for that area it also was controlled for a considerable time by Municipal Reformers, by those who believed in private enterprise, and with the aid of the electrical engineer the generating plant and the station were sold to the North Metropolitan Company. I will guarantee that such a thing would not occur now with the assent of the ratepayers in the Willesden area. The electricity undertaking of Willesden never paid its way until on the electricity committee there was a majority in favour of public enterprise. Six years ago, for the first time in the history of that undertaking, the Willesden Urban District Council obtained a revenue from its undertaking. No one can review these facts without becoming conscious that you will not get the best out of your undertakings unless you have representatives working the undertakings who are in sympathy with and believe in the principle embodied in those under-takings.

I agree with those who have said that in this Bill, as in the two previous Bills, there are definite principles involved. We on the Labour Benches stand for the public welfare, and we believe that that is best obtained, as I have proved by the figures which I have quoted, through municipal enterprise and not through private enterprise. It is a grossly unfair and unjust thing to relegate power to this company for an indefinite period. There is no time stated in the Bill, Furthermore, there is no restriction whatever put on the price. Full powers are to be given to this company to exploit the area just as it thinks fit. Those who have spoken already have said sufficient to prove that this is by no means a progressive company. It is prepared to obtain powers from this House to stake out an area of control, but it is not progressive in the sense that it is prepared to supply the wants of those who are the inhabitants of the area over which it obtains control. Municipal undertakings do give an eye to the interests of the inhabitants for whom they are supposed to cater. Private companies will only put in the mains in those areas when they are assured that they are going to get a reasonable revenue as a result. Not so the municipal undertakings. Municipal undertakings have first of all to consider whether it is likely to be of value and use to the inhabitants in the area. The result is this, that you have municipal undertakings giving to its inhabitants the supply and the current wherever they are prepared to send in a reasonable requisition for it. On these grounds I submit that this House should be pre pared to reject the Bill. A case has been made out for this Bill being rejected, as was made out on the two previous Bills. The time has now arrived when this Government should be prepared to lay down a national policy in connection with electricity in order that the generations that are to follow may not have to pay enormous sums for our weakness and delinquencies in this Parliament. I hope this Bill will be rejected.

Mr. HANNON

I would like at once torepudiate the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite that municipal reformers employ their opportunities to encourage private enterprise at the expense of the ratepayers. Municipal reformers have been elected to the local authorities because of their efficiency in discharging local government. Why are those gentlemen there? They are elected by the ratepayers, and they are discharging their duties with great efficiency, and no hon. Gentleman in this House has the right to come in here and charge those gentleman with maladministration in the interests of private enterprise as opposed to the public. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have repeatedly referred to a national policy. This is a formula with the Socialist party in this country. They want a national policy on everything under the sun. The right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench and who led his party with such ability in this House and in the country, and with such glorious results at the General Election, had ample opportunity of submitting a national policy on electricity when he was head of the Administration. Did he do it? What is the national policy hon. Members talk about so glibly? Has any member of the Socialist party produced a national policy? Yet they are fighting these Private Bills in this House and refusing them permission to go to a Committee

Division No. 25.] AYES. [10.56 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cooper, A. Duff Greene, W. P. Crawford
Alnsworth, Majar Charles Cope, Major William Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Albery, Irving James Couper, J. B. Gretton, Colonel John
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Courtauld, Major J. S. Grotrian, H, Brent
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wlifrid W L. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Gunston, Captain D. W.
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro) Harrison, G. J. C.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Bethell, A. Curzon, Captain Viscount Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Betterton, Henry B. Daiziel, Sir Davison Hawke, John Anthony
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Davies, Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Dowson, Sir Philip Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Blundell, F. N. Dean, Arthur Wellesley Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Dixey, A. C. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Drewe, C. Hogg, Rt. H on. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Brass, Captain W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Brassey, Sir Leonard Ellis, R. G. Homan, C. W. J.
Brittain, Sir Harry Elveden, Viscount Hope, Capt. A. 0. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. England, Colonel A. Hopkinson, A, (Lancaster. Mossley)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Everard, W. Lindsay Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Brown, Brig,Gen.H.C. (Berks,Newb'y) Fairfax, Captain J. G. Huntingfield, Lord
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William lames Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Burman, J. B. Fermoy, Lord Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Ford, P. J. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Campbell, E. T. Foster, Sir Harry S. Jacob, A. E.
Cassels, J. D. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Cautiey, Sir Henry S. Fraser, Captain Ian Jephcott, A. R.
Cazaiet, Captain Victor A. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Frantic E Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merloneth)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Ganzonl, Sir John Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Gates, Percy Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Gee, Captain R. Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Clarry, Reginald George Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham King, Captain Henry Douglas
Clayton, G C. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Knox, Sir Alfred
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Lamb, J. Q.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Grant, J. A. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

upstairs. The one expression is "we want a national policy." Why do you not suggest and produce a national policy? The whole of your intelligence in Eccles-ton Square has been concentrated on producing a national policy.

Mr. SPEAKER

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to address my intelligence.

Mr. HANNON

No one in this House has more respect for your intelligence, Sir, than I have. All the arguments produced on the opposite side of the House against these Bills are mere pleading to put off the opportunity of giving employment to great numbers of people in this country in connection with this enterprise, and frustrate the efforts of great projects for the improvement of the whole condition of our national and civic life. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will have a poor record to present to this country if they continue in the attitude of preventing this kind of legislation.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 91.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Orinsby-Gore, Hon. William Smithers, Waldron
Little, Dr. E. Graham Pennefather, Sir John Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Loder, J. de V. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Looker, Herbert William Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Philipson, Mabel Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
MacAndrew, Charles Glen Pilcher, G. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Mc Donnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Price, Major C. W. M. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Maclntyre, Ian Radford, E. A. Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)
McLean, Major A. Ralne, W. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Macmillan, Captain H. Rees, Sir Beddoe Waddington, R.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Reid, Capt. A. S. C. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. (Warrington) Remer, J. R. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Rentoul, G. S. Warrender, Sir Victor
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Margesson, Captain D. Ropner, Major L. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Merriman, F. B. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Meyer, Sir Frank Rye, F. G. Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Milne, J. S. Wardiaw- Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Mitchell,Sir W. Lane (Streatham) M Sandeman, A. Stewart Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Sanderson, Sir Frank Winby, Colonel L. P.
Moore, Sir Newton J. Sandon, Lord Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Wise, Sir Fredric
Moreing, Captain A. H. Savery, S. S. Wornersley, W. J.
Murchison, C. K. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.A., Ripon)
Neville, R. J. Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mc I. (Renfrew, W) Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Shepperson, E. W. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Skelton, A. N.
Nuttall, Ellis Slaney, Major P. Kenyon TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Oakley, T. Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Sir Herbert Weld and Mr. Dennis
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Herbert.