§ (1) The Board of Trade, on the representation of the Electricity Commissioners, may by Order authorise any district electricity board or any authorised undertakers to abstract water from any river, stream, canal, inland navigation or other source, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for tlie purpose of enabling the district electricity board or authorised undertakers to utilise and return the water so abstracted, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order, but the board shall not in any case make such an Order until notice of their intention to make the Order has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the board may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto, and such Order may provide for the recovery of penalties for infringement of the Order:
§ Provided that—
- (a)where the source from which the water is to be abstracted is a canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour regulated by Act of Parliament, or where any existing rights of riparian owners will be affected by the abstraction of the water, the Order authorising the abstraction shall be a special Order, and shall provide that the water not consumed shall be returned at a level not lower than that at which it was abstracted; and
- (b)the Order shall require that all water not consumed (and in no case less than ninety-live per cent. of the water abstracted) shall be returned in a condition not less pure than when it was abstracted and at. a temperature not higher than such us may be specified in the Order (which temperature shall be fixed at such a degree as appears to the board necessary to avoid injury to public health or to fisheries, if any), or in the case of a canal or inland navigation to the works thereof, or to vessels using the same, or to the trade or busness carried on by any person using the same for the purposes of or in connection with his trade or business.
§ (2) A district electricity board and any local authority, company, or person may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, enter into arrangements for the utilisation, for the purposes of the board, of water-power, waste heat, or other form of energy which the local authority, company, or person may be able to dispose of, or for the supply by the board of any form of energy other than electricity, and where such an arrangement has been made the district electricity board may be authorised by Order to, exercise such powers (including the 1670 power to break up roads, railways and tramways) as may be necessary for the purpose of conveying such energy.
§ (3) A district electricity board may with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners dispose of any generating station, land or other works or property which appears to them to be no longer required for the purposes of their undertaking, subject as respects any land which is subject to any right of pre-emption to that right:
§ Provided that where the generating station contains plant which is the property of the former owners of the generating station, the Electricity Commissioners shall, as a condition of granting their consent to the disposal of the generating station, require such provision to be made by the district electricity board as the Commissioners consider necessary to safeguard the rights of such former owners.
§ (4) The purposes for which a district electricity board may be authorised to acquire compulsorily or use land under Section one of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, shall include the development of water-power for the generation of electricity.
§ (5) A district electricity board may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, erect, maintain, alter, improve, and renew by-product plant with all necessary machinery and apparatus, and do all such acts as may be proper for working up and converting the residual products arising directly or indirectly from the production of electricity:
§ Provided that where it appears to the Electricity Commissioners that the establishment of any such by-product plant could properly be undertaken by any existing company, authority, or person, a district electricity board shall not establish such plant without first giving to such company, authority, or person an opportunity of so doing.
§
Amendment moved [24th November,] in Sub-section (1) after paragraph (b), insert the words
and (c) no Order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from any dock regulated by Act of Parliament or from the Man chester Ship Canal except with the consent of the owners thereof und subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed."—[Lieut,-Colonel Sir F. Hall.]
§ Question again proposed, "That' those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ Major NALLReference was made by several speakers last night to the case of the Manchester Ship Canal, and in view of the attitude of the Government towards this question I think it necessary to add to what has already been stated. The efficiency of the Port of Manchester through out the War, and since the Armistice, has demonstrated what can be done by a properly constituted body of men. Other ports have been hopelessly congested, but Manchester alone has been able to efficiently handle the vast traffic passing through her docks. Is this position to con tinue? If it is. so far as Manchester is concerned, and if that efficiency is to be maintained, Manchester, as a port, must 1671 be left unfettered. Its management must be left in Manchester, and not removed to Whitehall. The canal and its equipment up to date has cost upwards of £18,000,000, and not one part of that great enterprise is due to any help from Whitehall; on the contrary, Whitehall has always been in the way when any further extension has been contemplated. It has been suggested that the Ship Canal is a proprietary company, and therefore in a different position to the large independent docks throughout the country. That may be technically correct, but it must not be allowed to convey a wrong impression. Dividends long postponed are now being paid, but only on a very low basis—3½ per cent, on £4,000,000 of Preference Stock and l½ per cent, on £4,000,000 of Ordinary Stock. The directors of the company have always kept in the forefront the development of the port as their primary objective. That was their policy in 1894, and that is their policy to-day. The canal, from the entrance at Eastham on the Mersey, is thirty-six and a half miles long to Manchester. The whole canal constitutes the Port of Manchester. Vessels of from 10,000 to 12,000 tons now navigate it and pass each other in the course of navigation. It is, there fore, of vital importance to navigation that no element should be introduced which in any degree might be thought likely to create or intensify fog. During the winter months, particularly in November, December and January, the prevalence of natural fogs all along the canal has been a matter of considerable anxiety to the canal authority.
In addition to that, it is important that any arrangement made for the return of water taken out of the canal for industrial purposes should be made with every safe guard against the creation of cross currents in the canal. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott) dealt with that point last night, and for the benefit of hon. Members who were not present then it may be well to refer to what he said. This appears in column 1588 of the OFFICIAL REPOKT—
§ Mr. SPEAKERSpeeches may be quoted from other Debates, but I think it would be violating the Rule against repetition if the hon. and gallant Member were to repeat a speech already made in this Debate.
§ Major NALLI accept your ruling, Sir. I did not propose to read the whole of the. 1672 speech, but to re-emphasise the danger of fogs and to refer to the fact that the hon. and learned Member had personal ex perience in dealing with cases arising from collisions in the canal. Immediately prior to the outbreak of war the directors entertained a proposal made by the Corporation of Manchester that, as regards the large electrical station which the corporation had obtained powers to erect, the corporation might be permitted to take from the canal and return to it water in connection with the condensing plant. The canal company took expert advice on that matter, and, after great consideration, they felt that the preservation of clear navigation should outweigh their desire to assist the corporation in connection with the use of water for the pro posed electrical station. There the matter rested until about twelve months ago, when the directors were again approached by the Manchester Corporation. The present position is that the corporation, by agreement with the canal company, have now obtained Parliamentary powers to lay pipes with the consent of the company, and to take water from the canal and return it to the canal. As soon as the corporation are ready, arrangements are made to admit of their taking and returning this water in a manner which will not prejudice the navigation by ocean-going vessels along the canal. A similar case exists with regard to the Mersey Power Company. There the Canal Company entered into private arrangements with the Power Company that they, like the Manchester Corporation at Barton, should take and return water from the canal for use in a large electrical station. That is an additional station which they are building at an estimated cost of some £500,000. The arrangements between the Mersey Power Company at Runcorn and the Canal Company were made as long ago as June, 1909.
It will be seen from this that the Canal Company has already anticipated by agreement the exercise of the powers which this Bill would compulsorily place in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners when appointed. The point which emerges is whether the Port of Manchester is to remain in the control of the directors, of whom a majority—eleven out of twenty-one—are appointed by the corporation, and whether they are to continue to be the responsible authority to look after the ports. 1673 The Home Secretary in his speech on this matter said that the canal is no different from any other canal, and that canals are provided for in the Bill, and what we have to understand is that the Manchester Canal is no different from any other. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) referred to that statement. Really it is a most misleading statement if it were allowed to go unchallenged. The Manchester Canal is absolutely different from any other in this country, even from the Caledonian Canal. All the others are small, or at any rate for the most part unimportant. It should be noticed that although the Ship Canal Company, who are so concerned about this particular measure, require this particular provision in respect of the Ship Canal which is a dock for seagoing vessels, they do not ask for any special provision in respect of the Bridgwater Canal, which also belongs to them and which they acquired at a cost of a little under £2,000,000. For that reason we feel it is essential that the principle which was accepted during the passage of the Transport Bill should be maintained in this Bill. That principle was that the Manchester Ship Canal should be specially provided for, as it is an enterprise which stands alone in the ports of the Kingdom. We ask the Home Secretary to simply carry on that principle. We do not ask for anything new. We do not ask for anything unusual; we simply ask that the principle adopted in the Transport Bill of making special provision for the Port of Manchester to enable the authority which is at present responsible for the navigation of that port to continue as the supreme authority in charge of the navigation. With that object, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, will accede to the request and accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLBefore the Question is put, may I make an appeal to the Home Secretary? If he is not pre pared to accept the whole of the Amendment, will he give us that portion of it which relates to the docks? If the words referring to the Manchester Ship Canal are taken out, would the right hon. Gentle man be prepared to accept the Amendment?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)I told my hon. and gallant Friend last night 1674 that if he would eliminate the words "or from the Manchester Ship Canal" I was perfectly willing to accept the Amendment with regard to docks. Docks are a very small matter. The Manchester Ship Canal is a very different matter. I told my hon. and gallant Friend I certainly could not agree to having the Manchester Ship Canal dragged in at the tail of the docks. If he will take out the words with regard to the Manchester Ship Canal, I am quite willing to accept the rest of the Amendment.
Sir F. HALLWith your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will move the Amendment omitting the words "or from the Man chester Ship Canal." In doing so I need hardly say that I am extremely sorry my right hon. Friend is not in a position to accept the whole of the Amendment.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTBefore the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to say a word, as I seconded it. In my view it is essential that the Manchester Ship Canal should be given a larger discretion than any special order under the special order procedure proposed in the Bill would allow. I do not propose here to object to the withdrawal of the Amendment and its being moved in the amended form, but I do ask the Government to reconsider this matter between the Bill leaving this House and its being dealt with in Committee in another place. It is possible that some compromise arrangement between the absolute refusal of the Home Secretary at the present moment and the Amendment, as drafted, might be arrived at there. Subject to that, and in order that there should be no misunderstanding on the part of the Government as to the attitude of those who speak on behalf of the Manchester Ship Canal authorities to-day, I would agree to the course proposed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment made: At the end of Sub section (1), insert the words
(c) no Order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from any dock regulated by Act of Parliament except with the consent of the owners thereof and subject to such terms and conditions as may bo agreed."—[Sir F. Hall[...].]
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add
(d) any water-power, arising either from navigable rivers, streams, reservoirs, or other water supplies on public or private property, capable of generating electrical or other power and not used previously to the passing of this Act for any such purpose, shall be available without compensation for the purposes of this 1675 Act, and may be so utilised by any district electricity board acting under a special Order of the Electricity Commissioners.It is not clear from the Bill at present whether we have to pay compensation for the use of water-power for these electric lighting undertakings. Under Sub-section (4) of this Clause—
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONOn a point of Order. I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, whether this Amendment is not out of order, as being outside the scope of the Bill? The Bill, according to its Title, is a Bill—
To amend the Law with respect to the supply of electricity.I notice that the Amendment has, as one of its leading characteristics, the use of water-power described as beingcapable of generating electrical or other power.I submit that that portion of the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWould not this Bill also require, if these words were inserted, to go before the Standing Orders Committee, because it would be a Hybrid Bill. Notices would have to be given to the persons owning the water supply. You cannot take their rights away from them without notice.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWe are not taking a man's private property away, we are merely using the water and returning it to the stream again. There is no question of taking a man's private property. It is merely a question of using the water supply which has never been known to be private property so long as the owner of that property is not deprived of it. The whole point of the Amendment is that there should not be a Fresh claim set up on behalf of private property, that, al though the water is returned, a charge shall remain on the community for the use of that water. It has been recognised in the past—not rightly, but wrongly—that if you use water you have to pay the riparian owners for the use of that water, but that was when the water was not re turned. In the case of electricity all the water is returned. In this case the water is merely passed through generators and returned to the stream, and we claim that the public should not be mulcted by the vested interest of the land lord, and that the landlord should not construct a new claim for the utilisation of public property.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is outside this Bill. It would require to be dealt with by a separate Bill.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWe are already dealing with the same question so far as the dock companies are concerned. The water from the Ship Canal is being taken, and I submit that what is good enough for the Ship Canal is good enough for other private owners. Unless we put this pro vision in here we shall have a fresh series of charges made against the public, and the least we can do is to enter a protest against this new form of grant. This is all being dealt with in the Clause subsequently, but in a different manner. Sub section (4) states quite clearly,
The purposes for which a district electricity board may be authorised to acquire compulsorily or use land under the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, shall include the development of water-power for the generation of electricity.It uses the words "development of water power." and not "use of water power." I take it that the use of the word "development" there acts as a safeguard in the public interest, as a sort of plea that the water power is not being taken, but merely being developed. If the Sub-section passes as it stands, even the development of water power may be charged for just as the land is charged for upon which a generating station is built. Under the Electric Lighting Act of 1909, for the purposes of the acquisition of land authorised to be taken compulsorily, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, which relates to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement, shall be adopted. That means that for the use of water, not for the deprivation of the owner's water, but merely for the use of it, we shall have to pay compensation as arranged for under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1846.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODUnder the legislation passed this year in connection with the acquisition of land we have got rid of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, because land is vital to the public, and there fore we have adopted a better and cheaper system of acquiring land compulsorily. But the case of water is much stronger. It is not even being taken away from the owner and that he can put in claims for injurious affection or for destruction of amenities or for indirect damage due to the use of the water, and on top of that 10 per cent, compensation for compulsory acquisition seems perfectly monstrous. When we 1677 are starting to deal with electricity we are going back to this old bad Act of 1846 and hampering the use of water which is essential to every electrical enterprise in great quantities, by exactly the same shackles that we riveted upon the railway companies in the old days, and which we are suffering from at present in the increased charges which have to be levied for all railway transport. The party for which I speak, and which put down this Amendment, has a strong case in urging that the 1846 Act should not be the basis for the acquisition and the use of water, and that we should have instead a simpler and cheaper way. We would say that where the water is returned to the stream from which it was taken no compensation should be payable. In the case of oil we have taken exactly the same line. We have said that oil below the ground shall be acquirable without paying royalties, and in the same way we believe that the natural supply of water should be not a subject for private property, but should be there for the use of all men as the country may think fit.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to second the Amendment.
I believe it is being rapidly accepted now by the rank and file of the party to which I belong that what has been placed there by God shall be national property, and what has been placed there or developed by man shall be private property. If you are to pay compensation for the use of water in streams, you might just as well pay compensation for the use of the wind which blows over a man's land to turn a windmill for pumping water for generating electricity. With the present ideas in every country in Europe with regard to natural resources, I think this Amendment is only in accordance with what is being recognised as the people's need in every country which has reached our stage of civilisation or anywhere near it.
§ Mr. SHORTTThis Amendment, I now gather, has been moved owing to a total misapprehension of what the Bill provides. There is no question of the Bill reintroducing any form of compensation under the Lands Clauses Act. Sub-section (4) says the purposes for which land may be compulsorily acquired shall include the purpose of development of water-power, but it does not incorporate in this Act any of the provisions of Section I of the Act of 1899 dealing with compensation. 1678 There is no connection with that at all. It simply says there is power under that Act to acquire land to build a generating station, and there shall also be power to acquire land to develop water-power. But for the purposes of the Act any necessary payment is decided by the Bill itself. The provisions of the Bill are that an Order shall be made—"subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order." That means that if any real harm is done to the owner of the water by taking it out and putting it back again he will be properly compensated. If it does no harm at all, of course he will obtain nothing.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODHe would make his claim on the Lands Clauses Act, presumably.
§ Mr. SHORTTOf course, he would do nothing whatever of the sort. He would enter his objections or demand certain conditions to the Order being made. He will be asked, "What harm does it do to you?" It may be proved that he is £100 out of pocket by the taking of the water. He would get that £100. If he could not show that it hurt him, the water would be taken and he would have nothing.
§ Mr. SPENCERI think the right hon. Gentleman's reply is the best indication of the necessity for this Amendment. If it is going to be left to the owners to say whether they have suffered damage and have any claims to compensation, it will naturally follow that there will be an abundance of claims and a Commission will have to be set up to examine them. This is an attempt to safeguard the rights of public property as against the rights of private individuals. The purpose of the Amendment is to give a free right to the public without any compensation for use. The right hon. Gentleman's reply has not given us any assurance whatever that for the use of that water there shall be no charge made upon the public purse. Rather he has held out hopes to the private interests that they may claim compensation merely for the use of water, and if it is merely a question of setting up a plea that damage has been done, I am convinced that any amount of pleas will be put for ward for the purpose of claiming compensation.
Dr. MURRAYI think the Bill will largely affect water power in the Highlands, where we have some considerable waterfalls and where a good deal of elec- 1679 tricity is being generated. I do not object, for the time being, to landlords having rights over the water for the purpose of fishing. It would be easy to prove, if any power was taken from the falls and employed for the purpose of generating electricity, that that would diminish the rent he would obtain from the fisheries; but this Government has done enough already in the way of providing compensation for the sporting rights of landlords in Scotland in connection with deer forests in the Land Settlement Act, the Land Acquisition Act, and every other Land Act which Parliament has passed. In fact, anyone coming into the House when a Land Bill was on would think he was coming into a meeting of the Land Union. I think these advantages to the landlord should not be extended to water power in any part of the country, at any rate not in Scotland. Nature has provided us with tremendous sources of electrical energy, and that should be regarded as the property of the people of the Highlands or of the country as a whole. I do not think, even if it could be alleged in some way that damage was done to the rights of landlords by the use of water, it should be assessed to the advantage of the landlord. I think the great natural water power of the country should belong to the country, and not to any private individual.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI think there is a confusion of ideas. The intention of the Clause is not connected so much, if at all, with the generation of electrical energy as with the getting of water for condensation purposes, which is absolutely essential to the erection of large generating plant. My recollection of the matter is that there are comparatively few rivers or lochs or lakes large enough for some of these large stations. I think we were told that there were only some half a dozen rivers in England that supplied enough water for what has been described as a super-station.
§ You will crib, cabin, and confine the whole undertaking if you do not provide in your Bill adequate water for condensation purposes for these new stations. The Amendment is out of all reason. It would never do at all. Conceive for a moment the case of a reservoir in the Lancashire Hills used for the benefit of cotton factories. It is proposed that these district boards shall be entitled to claim that the water shall be available for the purposes of this Bill, irrespective of the fact that they drain the reservoir and leave no water for the cotton manufacturer. The thing is perfectly preposterous, it would not work for a moment, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment. It is quite impracticable as it stands. There is nothing in this Amendment about returning the water except at the point it is taken. If it is going to be used for electric power it cannot be re turned, but if it is used for condensation purposes by means of pumps you can re turn it at the point where it is taken. That is in the Bill. There is nothing in this Clause connected with the generation of power from water. It only relates to water for condensation purposes.
§ Mr. G. BALFOURI endorse every word that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I am sure the lion. Members who have moved this Amendment are labouring under a complete misapprehension. It is quite impossible under the Clause as it stands for any hydro-electric development to take place. It is only possible to use the water for condensation purposes, and the Clause compels them to return the water at the same level from which it is extracted. You can generate no power by passing water on the same level. This Amendment is not necessary for the objects of the Bill.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 236.
1681| Division No. 136.] | AYES. | [4.50 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Grundy, T. W. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Bell, James (Ormskirk) | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghtom) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Hallias, E. | Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute) | Hartshorn, V. | Robertson, J. |
| Cape, Tom | Mayday, A. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G. | Short, A. (Wednesbury) |
| Davison, J. E. (Smettiwick) | Hogge, J. M. | Simm. M. T. |
| Edwards, C. (Bedwellty) | Irving, Dan | Spencer, George A. |
| Galiraith, Samuel | Lunn, William | Swan. J. E. C. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.) |
| Griffiths, T. (Pontypool) | Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles) | Thorne, W. (Plaistow) |
| Toatill, Robert | Wignall, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Col. |
| Walsh, S. (Ince, Lanes.) | Wilkie, Alexander | Wedgwood and Lieut-Commander |
| Watorson, A. E. | Williams, A. (Consett, Durham) | Kenworthy |
| White, Charles F. (Derby, W.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge) | Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox) |
| Aug-Garduer, Sir James Tynte | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Murray, William (Dumfries) |
| Armitage, Robert | Glyn, Major R. | Nail, Major Joseph |
| Ashley, Col. Wilfred W. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Neal, Arthur |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gould, J. C. | Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'clclx.) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Greame, Major p. Lloyd | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Green J. F. (Leicester) | Nitnoll, Com. Sir Edward |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick | Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar | Nicholson, R. (Doncaster) |
| Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood- | Greer, Harry | Nicholson, W. (Petersfield) |
| Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.) | Greig, Colonel James William | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Barnston, Major H. | Gretton, Colonel John | Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Grlggs, Sir Peter | Oman, C. W. C. |
| Bell, Lt.-col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro') | O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H. |
| Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich) | Gwynne, R. S | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Bennett, T. J. | Hacking, Captain D. H. | Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow) |
| Betterton, H. B. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich) | Palmer, Brig.-Gerieral G. (Westbury) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Harnbro, Angus Valdemar | Parker, James |
| Birchall, Major J. D. | Haslam, Lewis | Pearce, Sir William |
| Bird, Alfred | Honnessy, Major G. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Perring, William George |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith | Hickman, Brig. -General Thomas E. | Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester) |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F. | Pinkham, Lt. -Colonel Charles |
| Bnwyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hinds, John | Pownall, Lt. -Colonel Assheton |
| Boyer-Carpenter, Major A. | Hope, John Deans (Berwick) | Pratt, John William |
| Bramsden, Sir T. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Prescott, Major W. H. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham) | Homo, Sir Robert (Hillhead) | Raeburn, Sir William |
| Buckley, Lt. -Colonel A. | Houston, Robert paterson | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Howard, Major S. G. | Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple) |
| Burn, T. H. (Belfast) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Remnant, Colonel Sir James |
| Campbell, J. G. D. | Hurd, P. A. | Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Carr, W. T. | Jephcott, A. R. | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Jesson, C. | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Carter, R. A. D, (Manchester) | Jodrell, N. P. | Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F. |
| Casey, T. W. | Johnstone, J. | Rowlands, James |
| Cautiey, Henry Strother | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Satnuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey) |
| Cayzer, Major H. R. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) | Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Sassoon, Sir Philip, A. G. D. |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Kidd, James | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | King, Commander Douglas | Seddon, James |
| Clough, R. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Seely, Maj.-Gcneral Rt. Hon. John |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Law, A. J. (Rochdale) | Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock) |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow) | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar) |
| Colvin, Brig. -General R. B. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.) |
| Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Lewis, T. A. (pontypridd, Glam.) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. [Preston] |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim) | Lloyd, George Butler | 1 Starkey, Captain John Ralph |
| Curzon, Commander Viscount | Lonsdale, James R. | Steel, Major S. strang |
| Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.) | Lorden, John William | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Dav/es, Si; Joseph (Crewe) | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Oavies, T. (Cirencester) | Lowe, Sir F. W | Sturrock, J. Leng- |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Strattord) | Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington) | Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk) | Taylor, J. (Dumbarton) |
| Denison-Pender, John C. | Lynn, R. J. | Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts) |
| Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander H. | M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey) | Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford) |
| Donald, T. | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling) | Thomas-Stanford, Charles |
| Doyle, N. G rattan | M'Gufiin, Samuel | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl) |
| Duncannon, Viscount | M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Du Pre, Colonel W. B. | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury) | Waddington, R. |
| Edwards. J. H. (Glam., Neath) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wallace, J. |
| Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark) | Mallalieu. Frederick William | Ward. Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Elveden, Viscount | Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander | Middlebrook, Sir William | Wardle, George J. |
| Falcon, Captain M. | Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B. | Waring, Major Walter |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A. |
| Farquharson, Major A. C. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Whitla, Sir William |
| fltzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wigan, Brig. -General Sir Tyson |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Forrest, W. | Mosley, Oswald | Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. | Mount, William Arthur | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Gange, E. S. | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Ganzoni, Captain F. C. | Murchison, C. K. | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke) | Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Wolmer, Viscount | Yate, Colonel Charles Edward | Young, William (Perth and Kinross) |
| Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon) | Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) | |
| Wood, Major S, Hill- (High Peak) | Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. |
| Woolcock. W. J. U. | Talbot and Captain Guest. |
§ Mr. MALLALIEUI beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add
(d) The Order shall provide for the inspection by an officer, duly appointed for the purpose by the county council, of any apparatus for abstracting water from and returning water to any such river or stream in the area of the county council, and such county council are hereby empowered to recover such penalties as are provided for in the Order with respect to such river or stream;(e) Before making any Order the Board of Trade shall consider any representations made to them by the county council or by the Fishery Board with respect to any river or stream referred to in the proposed Order.5.0 P.M.I am quite aware that the Home Secretary has not looked with any favour upon this proposal hitherto, on the ground, I understand, that it would not work well in practice. I have hopes, however, that on reconsideration he will see that there is not only no harm in this proposal but considerable benefit, and that with the sweet reasonableness which characterises him he will adopt this proposal. The proposal is not an innovation. It has been adopted and incorporated in many Bills, which have in their operation circumstances such as will arise from the present Bill. I need only mention one instance, namely, an Act obtained by the North-Eastern Railway Company in 1905 for the extraction of water from certain streams. This pro vision was incorporated in that Act.I believe that they are working: very well in practice, and I see no reason why, if incorporated in this Bill, they should not work equally well in this case. There is another point as to penalties. Under the Clause, penalties may be imposed for infringement of the Order, and the Order specifies that at least 95 per cent, of the water abstracted shall be returned to the stream is a not less put condition. If penalties are to be attached for the infringement of the Order there should be some provision whereby action can be taken so that the penalties can be imposed. I do not see any provision in the Bill for anyone to seek to recover these penaltes. It would be an advantage to the working of the Bill if it were stated specifically that county councils intrested in the abstraction and return of the water from and to the streams should be empowered to pursue the matter and recover the penalties.
§ Mr. CLOUGHI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. SHORTTI hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. The Act pro vides that the electricity board or the authorised undertaker may use the water under an Order made by the Board of Trade, and, of course, the Ministry of Transport, on the recommendation of the Electricity Commissioner. The Electricity Commissioners are responsible for supplying the whole of the electricity, and will, therefore, be responsible for super vising the carrying out of any conditions of the Order. In addition to that, the Board of Trade, which will make the Order, are the proper persons to see the Order carried out and that those conditions are per formed, and that any penalties which may be incurred under the infringement of the Order should be properly enforced, and it would be most inconvenient, indeed, almost without parallel, that the county council should be the people to step in, though they may not be the persons only concerned in the matter—in some cases, they might be and in others they might not—over the heads of the Board of Trade, and do the duty of inspecting and enforcing the penalties which the Board of Trade should perform. This would lead to con siderable friction and a general lack of smoothness in the working. With regard to the next Amendment (d) of course the Board of Trade will always consider any representations that are made. No Order can be made without duo notice and parties being given a chance of representation. Therefore, I suggest that neither of these Amendments is in the least necessary, and that the first might do consider able injury.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. G. BALFOURBefore moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I would ask your ruling whether the words which I propose to leave out are not entirely out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill has for its object to amend the law with respect to the supply of electricity. These words would grant authority for the supply of gas, high pressure water, steam heat, or any other form of energy.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese words have been passed by the Committee, and I cannot overrule their decision.
§ Mr. G. BALFOURI beg to move to leave out the words
or for the supply by the board of any form of energy other than electricity.I move this Amendment formally, but I understand from the Home Secretary that the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham, is to be accepted. If that is so, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf these words re main in the Bill will it not be necessary to alter the title of the Bill, because they are in absolute contradiction to the Title? Is it not a fact that if the Committee insert something which is outside the scope of the Bill, then the title of the Bill must be altered?
§ Mr. BALFOURThis matter was raised by myself in Committee and these arguments were advanced. It is quite true that the words were passed by the Committee, but they seem contrary to the title of the Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhat was the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee?
§ Mr. BALFOURThe point did not come up for ruling as to whether it was within the scope of the Bill. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Captain BOWYERI beg to move, at the end of paragraph (2), to insert the words
Provided always that such district electricity board, local authority, company, or person shall in no case have the power to enter into arrangements for the supply by the board of any form of energy, other than electricity, in any area or district within which any undertakers may be authorised by Parliament to supply such form of energy unless and until such undertakers consent thereto and then, only upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon with such undertakers.The same point comes in here as was raised just now on the point of Order, namely, as to the scope of these words. Provided the Electricity Commissioners see fit to give their approval, the words are so wide that they would give the district electricity board the right to provide any form of energy other than electricity. I am sure that the intention of the Bill, especially when one reads Clause 6, is quite manifest—that is, the provision of a cheap and abundant supply 1686 Of electricity. But there was a passage in Committee, of which I was a member, which renders it important that some such words as this Amendment should be put in. The hon. Member for Hampstead said,I certainly do not wish these electricity boards to enter into all sorts of business enterprises which are not contemplated in the Bill. If the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament could you not enter into some other enterprise totally different from the supply of electricity?
§ Mr. ShorttNot without the consent of the Commissioners.
§ Mr. BalfourBut is it contemplated to bring it within the scope of the duties of the Electricity Commissioners?
§ Mr. ShorttI have said that it is subject to the Order of the Commissioners."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT.]
§ In the circumstances some words such as those now proposed are necessary.
§ Mr. BALFOURI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYOn a point of Order. May I call attention to what was said, by Sir Erskine May in the Twelfth Edition of his Book, page 381:
When notice has been taken on Report that a Clause which is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill has been introduced in the Committee, the Bill has been recommitted in respect of that Clause.I was not on the Committee. Therefore I do not know whether this Clause was introduced in Committee.
§ Mr. BALFOURNo.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen I submit that if it was introduced in the original Bill, attention having been called to it now, if it is irrelevant to the title of the Bill either the Bill should be dropped or the words that are irrelevant should be omitted.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe fact that that House of Commons read the Bill a second time with those words in it shows that the House of Commons considered them and accepted them. I have no power to reject words which are sent up by a Committee
§ Mr. SHORTTI accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. SHORTTI beg to move, in Sub section (5), to leave out the word "production," and to insert instead thereof the word "generation."
§ Sir W. PEARCEWill the Home Secretary agree to the insertion of the words "by them" after "electricity"? Unless 1687 that is done the electricity board may, for instance, manufacture things like sulphate of ammonia in enormous quantities from the raw material they get from other places, which is a result that was not intended.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat point can be raised when we have disposed of this Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir W. PEARCEI beg to move, in Sub section (5), after the word "electricity" ["production of electricity"], to insert the words "by them."
§ Mr. SHORTTI am quite unable to accept these words. Without consideration, I have not the slightest idea as to what their effect would be. I will consider the matter now, for the purpose, if necessary, of dealing with it in another place, but the Amendment may have a far-reaching effect, and must be considered.
§ Sir W. PEARCEIf my right hon. Friend will consider it I must be content. All I am asking the Home Secretary to do is to confine this business to the by products actually produced by the company themselves, and not so that they may not be able to get together by products all through the country and set up enormous establishments for the manufacture of certain articles. It is a point of some moment, and I hope that before the Bill is finished the Home Secretary will be able to define the matter, so that there can be no dispute as to the real intentions of the Bill that these people shall be allowed to operate only on their own by-products, and not purchase by-products all over the country and manufacture all sorts of substances.
§ Amendment negatived.