§ As amended, considered.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended," put, and agreed to.—[The Chairman, of Ways and Means.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. DICKSON
I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I do not know whether it is open to me, in moving this Amendment—I shall probably get out of order very often, as I do not know exactly the procedure which governs the Third Reading of a Bill—I do not know whether it is open to me to congratulate the company on the speed with which they have managed to get this legislation to its present stage, particularly in view of the fact that the Bill as it now stands does not seem to call for any very great speed so far as immediate legislation is concerned. In Clause 48, for example, I observe thatThe powers of the company for the compulsory purchase of lands for the purposes of this Act shall cease after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act.That does not seem to imply at all that the speed of the company, after it gets the legislation, will be at all commensurate with the speed at which it has travelled before securing the legislation. Further, Clause 47 provides that there may be a further extension of the period by two years or otherwise, as the Electricity Commissioners may allow. To those of us who recall the Debate on the Second Reading, when emphasis was laid 2849 upon the great desirability of taking up as many men as possible from the ranks of the unemployed by means of this and other beneficent Measures, which are being brought forward for the benefit of the unemployed, it seems very strange indeed that, in regard to works of this description, the company has in mind the possibility of its labours, or, rather, its lack of labours, extending over a period of three, and possibly five., years. In another Clause of the Bill, which deals with the utilisation of the land and of the water necessary, one finds that they are going to have, as they must necessarily have certain, compulsory powers to take over lands in particular parishes covered by the Bill; but, while those compulsory powers are very general, in so far as they apply to communal lands, to lands within parishes, or to lands owned by private individuals, we discover that the terms of the Bill are much more considerate when they come to deal with companies who are already operating in that area. We find it provided, in Clause 52, thatThe company shall not under the powers of this Act except by agreement enter upon take or use any lands of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company"—while, When it comes to a question of dealing with a private company already in existence—dealing with private enterprise—they can only enter upon those lands if they have come to a mutual agreement as between that company and themselves. The same applies to the company which is dealt with in Clause 53, namely, the Gourock Ropework Compand, Limited. There, again, the sanctity of private enterprise is safeguarded, and they are only permitted, no matter what the public interest might be, no matter how much it might aid the production of cheap electricity, which is one of the prime objects of the Bill, they could not take compulsorily any land that might be so necessary unless with the consent of the Gourock Ropework Company. To me that is rather a strange contrast with the wider and more general powers that are given to them to deal with lands in other directions.
Another aspect which I think requires consideration is this: As a few Members of the House know, and as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Ceptain Elliot) knows, perhaps, even better than 2850 I do, this particular area is one of very great beauty. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, in fact, all hon. Members, unless their minds are tainted and their vision spoiled and dimmed by private concerns and the hope of private gain for themselves or their companies, will agree with me that this is an area which ought to be dealt with somewhat reverently, and I notice that that thought has not been altogether absent from the minds of the gentlemen who are promoting this Bill. I notice that they are taking certain precautions to preserve the amenities and the beauties of that particular area in my Division, which includes the famous Falls from which, to some extent, the water supply is to be taken for the purposes of this company. I find that in Clause 37—from which I must read in order to convey the substance of it to hon. Members—it is provided thatIn the execution maintenance and working of the works authorised by this Act all reasonable regard shall be had to the preservation as well for the public as for private owners of the beauty of the scenery of the districts in which the said works are situated.'I congratulate the promoters of this Bill on having introduced into a Private Bill an aesthetic sense which, so far as Lanarkshire at least is concerned, has not hitherto been apparent. I hope that this provision in the Bill will be fully realised in the years that are to come, and, if the Bill passes, I shall be the first to congratulate them in that case on the works coming into operation. We are used, however, to seeing such provisions for precise purposes of this kind, but, in order that there may be some appearance of reality, Subsection (2) of Clause 37 provides thatfor the purpose of securing the observance of the foregoing provisions of this Section and of aiding the company therein, it shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland"—I am sorry not to see him in his place at the moment—at any time alter the passing of this Act and after consultation with the company to appoint a Committee consisting of such number of persons as he shall think proper.The Secretary for Scotland has power to set up a certain Committee, which will deal with the question of the amenities and beauty of the district, and will, I take it, consider, under the provisions of 2851 the Bill, any proposals of the company, and whether such proposals would destroy the amenities or the beauty or the scenic value of that area; and, under Sub-section (4) of Clause 37:The Committee may make to the company such recommendations as they think proper and reasonable for the preservation of the beauty of the scenery and shall if so desired consult with representatives of the company thereon before making the same.Then here is what follows, once we have got that Committee going, once they have looked at this scenery with æsthetic eye and idealistic mind:if the Committee are prepared to comply with any such recommendation they shall intimate their acceptance thereof to the Committee within one month after the receipt of the recommendations or within such further time as the Committee may in any case agree, and failing such intimation the Committee may make a representation to the Secretary for Scotland who, after consideration of the representation, and after giving to the Committee and the company an opportunity of being heard, may make such order or orders (if any) as he thinks fit and the company shall comply with any order so made.It is rather tragic, after all that, to find this proviso—Provided always that no recommendations or orders made under this Section shall be of such a character as would be likely to imperil the financial success of the undertaking.It leaves one guessing how, after all this consideration has been given to the great beauty of this area and to the fear of destroying for a single moment a leaf of a beautiful tree, and after the Secretary for Scotland has got the Committee and set it going, they have again to consult with the Secretary for Scotland that it shall only become operative provided it is of such a character as will lint imperil the financial success. I can scarcely conceive of any proposal suggested in connection with the carrying out of an industrial undertaking which will not imperil in the smallest degree the financial success, because making the world beautiful added to financial success instead of imperilling it and increased dividends instead of decreasing them there would be no need to put provisions Of this kind into a Bill, because the companies would make it their business to increase their profits if, incidentally, they increased the beauty of the scenery. Further, this Sub-section (6) does not, 2852 any more than any other part of the Bill that I have been able to look at closely, declare who is to decide when the financial success of the undertaking is in peril. There never been a time in any undertaking in any generation where any proposal at all which was going to cost a penny or two did not imperil the financial success of an undertaking.
§ Mr. HANNON
Tile hon. Member is detaching a single expression. He must take the whole substance of the Subsection.
§ Mr. DICKSON
I am doing that. I am going and and will read it all—Or being such as cannot be carried out on lands which can be acquired by the company under the powers of this Act or such as to limit the amount of water which the company are by this Act authorised to use for the purpose of the undertaking or such as to conflict with any obligations which the company may have entered into with any landowner or other person for the preservation of the beauty of the scenery, nor shall any such order require the company to pull down any works already constructed by them or to construct any other works in view thereof.I do not know why the hon. Member wished me to read this. Apart from that there is another point. They have actually gone into the question of preserving the scenery even from anything which may reduce its value in respect of several considerations, but again they are going to withhold the right by this Bill to exhibit such advertisements as may be in their opinion undesirable if there is anything which would deface the scenery of our country it is the conception of private companies when they put their ideas into advertising form on to hoardings. One can get more concentrated hideousness in that form than any other of which I am aware. One very strong point was put very vehemently by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman). I felt somewhat ashamed of the vehement manner in which he denounced anyone who for a single moment will seek to hold up any undertaking, to delay by a single moment any Bill which gave a shadow of appearance of finding employment for a few men within a reasonable time. The right hon. Gentleman had very full details of what this work was going to do, and no doubt he had his information from the promoters. I am sure he would not talk without authority. He said, in response to an interjection from this side, 2853 that the Bill was going to provide employment for 1,500 men. He may be able to tell us by-and-by how that figure is made up.
§ Mr. DICKSON
I will take it for a year. I do not know which year it is, whether it is the first, second or third, or which of the other two years you may get from the Electricity Commissioners. By one of the Clauses of the Bill the Company may begin operations when it has raised £10,000, but under Clause 8 the capital of the company is to be £250,000. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I do not know much about finance. I belong to that un-happy section of the community which has never had any chance of any practical experience or knowledge in such matters. But by a little sum in division, which may or may not be correct, I have calculated that if you take 1,500 men, and assume that your whole capital is raised in your first year you are going to supply for that 1,500 men wages at the rate of £3 a week for a year. That, I suppose, is a very big accomplishment until we remember that it is not allowing anything at all for materials. On that assumption, employing 1,500 men at £3 a week for a year would mean that you are going to build a castle in Spain, that you are going to require no machinery and no materials, you are going to pay nothing for water rights and wayleaves, and nothing for the wages of intellect and managerial capacity. So that in the first year—I assume you are starting very soon—it means that you are going, in order to employ your 1,500 men at. £3 a week, to eat up your £250,000, and I do not know how you are going to arrange for getting the materials necessary to carry out your undertaking It may be argued by the hon. Member that I am taking too restricted a view of employment, and that I must not view this provision merely as an undertaking to employ 1,500 men in the area covered by this Bill, and that if we counted the men who make the engines and this and that, over a certain period, you are going to employ 1,500 men. I believe if you get any number of men making engines for a year, you will have a much larger undertaking than is provided for in this Bill. That sort of argument will carry no conviction with the 2854 House. I hope the hon. Member will be able to show that the promoters do intend to employ these men. I want to see them employed very soon, if the Bill becomes law. Carrying the hon. Member's argument further, I suppose it might be shown that in consequence of this Bill, not only will engines be made, not only will turbines be moulded and cast, but the miners and the steelworkers will be employed producing the coal and the steel for these processes. To go further back, men will be required to build the ships to bring the iron ore over to this country, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member would have been able to prove to his own satisfaction, if he accepts that type of logic, that not merely will 1,500 men be employed, but 15,000,000 of men. If he could pass on such a method of employment as that to the Minister of Labour, all the troubles of the Minister of Labour would be over, and hon. Members opposite would leave him at rest.
Other hon. Members desire to speak on other points of this Bill, and I have restricted myself to certain points. I hope that before we part with this Bill hon. Members opposite will be able to prove that there is within the financial provisions of this Bill an adequate guarantee that this number of men will be employed, and that they will be employed at adequate rates and for the time that has been mentioned.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I beg to second the Amendment.
My first reason for doing so is that I do not believe this Bill will carry out the purpose taken in the Preamble, namely,to facilitate the provision of such supply of electricity at low rates of charges.There is no guarantee that electricity will be supplied at low rates of charges as far as this particular Bill is concerned. The developments in our knowledge of electricity are so rapid that it is quite possible that in the very near future we may be able to produce electricity at one-tenth the present prices. The promoters of this Bill, while they are professing that their object is to provide electricity at low charges, are asking for 8 per cent. on their invested capital. The second reason why I support the Amendment is that I am suspicious of the haste with which legislation of this kind is sought lto be rushed through this House. I am suspicious, because when the nation is beginning to 2855 demand that there shall be national control in connection with the production of electricity we are finding Electricity Bill after Electricity Bill being rushed through this House.
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle)
I gave a ruling on this point yesterday. On the Third Reading of a Private Bill it is not in order to raise questions of policy. The hon. Member cannot proceed to argue as to Bills being rushed through, or as to the general policy of the Government. All that he can do is to argue, on the merits of what is contained in this Bill, whether or not the Bill should be given the Third Reading.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not entitled to raise these points on the Third Reading, if he thinks that the Third Reading has been unduly rushed, and if he thinks that proceedings are being taken contrary to precedent? Is he not entitled to do that, if he thinks that this Bill has been brought forward in defiance of the precedents set and the previous rulings given by the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and in defiance of custom?
§ The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young)
May I point out that there has been no departure from custom and no departure from precedent in dealing with these Bills? Only last year the same thing occurred as is occurring this year, namely, that on the two nights previous to the termination of the Session, for the time being Private Bills were taken. I could refer to what has been done in other years to disprove the statement that we have departed in any way from the regular custom adopted.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I do not accept that statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am entitled to prove my point, and no ordering or bullying will put me off. This is a very vital point. Last year, in regard to the Private Bills that were taken, due notice was given to hon. Members of this House before the time when the Bills were to be taken. No person knew until the orders were given out yesterday that these Bills were to be taken last night and to-night. To the credit of the Tory party last year, the 2856 then Deputy-Chairman gave us due notice that the Bills were coming on so that those who were interested could be present. There is this further point, that the Bills taken last year had not been contested as had been the Bills this year. In other words the Bills taken last year were accepted as general principles, whereas this year's Bills have been hotly contested. Scottish Members are vitally interested. We may be right or we may be wrong, but we are entitled to our privileges as Members. We met the Prime Minister on this subject, and he assured us that there would be no contentious business taken in the last week of the Session and that as far as that was concerned we should not be involved in any vote. In defiance of that, and when our Members are in Scotland, the Deputy-Chairman or the Chairman of Ways and Means has brought forward these Bills, when hon. Members who are vitally concerned have no chance of being present. In these matters the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means should act in protection of hon. Members in this House.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I suggest that there is a difference between the Third Reading of a Private Bill and the Third Reading of an ordinary Measure. In the case of a Private Bill there is no opportunity given to Members of this House to put down Amendments in Committee. In connection with the Private Bill which was taken last night, 130 Members opposed the Measure on Second Reading, yet the Chairman of Ways and Means did not think it worth while to give any notice to these 130 Member, whereas notice was given to those promoting the Bill.
The hon. Member is now raising a point which refers to the previous Bill. The points that have been raised ire not really points of order. The assurance given by the Prime Minister is not one that affects the Chair, and does not affect the ruling that I have given. It is not in order on the Third Reading to refer to these questions, and I must restrict the discussion to a discussion on the merits as to whether this Bill itself, quite apart from any other question, should have a Third Reading.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
Does the fact that the procedure in connection with Private Business is so different from the procedure 2857 in connection with Public Business permit of a greater amount of latitude in connection with the discussion on the Third Reading?
The ruling winch I have given is peculiarly applicable to the Third Reading of a Private Bill, and covers the point which She hon. Member has raised.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
We are not protesting against the Third Reading being taken. What we are protesting against is the Third Reading being unduly rushed. Are we not entitled to argue that as a general criticism against the Third Reading being given?
No, that is within my ruling. I do not think that is in order on the Third Reading of a Private Bill. This was raised on the question of the Adjournment of the Bill yesterday, and I made a ruling then that on the discussion on the Third Reading it is not in order to discuss, and I am not prepared to allow any discussion now, on the question of the Bill being rushed or otherwise.
§ Mr. WESTWOOD
I do not desire to embark on a criticism of your ruling. I believe that there is plenty of scope in the Bill for opposing the claim made by the company. According to the Preamble they askpower to construct such generating stations and works for the purposes of such supply … and that power should be conferred on the company for such purposes and for acquiring certain lands for such generating stations and works, and generally 'for carrying out the objects and provisions of this Act.My reason for opposing this Bill is that no body of private individuals should have the power of acquiring land or erecting buildings that may deface the landscape, or destroying rights of way, all things which are contained within this particular Bill. We heard the argument on the Second Reading of the Bill that it would provide work for 1,500 men. The promoters of the Bill are not interested in providing work. They do not care whether there is unemployment or employment. They are interested only in exploiting the consuming public so far as the need for electricity is concerned. They are interested only in private enterprise. I trust that we are 2858 not going to give to a directorate of three individuals rights to acquire land in this country, and particularly in Lanarkshire, to harness the power of the Clyde, to erect buildings which may be as ugly as some of the buildings already erected under private enterprise, and to destroy rights of way for which in so many instances we have fought so strenuously in Scotland, and give in their place others which are not nearly so good or so useful.
If any of these things have to be done for the purpose of providing cheaper electricity the power to do them ought to be given to the people of Lanarkshire, and not to three individuals and the company controlled by them. I do not propose to go into the national question. It is merely a question of what is going to be best for Lanarkshire. I hope that this Bill is not going to get a Third Reading. So far as the argument that it will provide work for 1,500 men is concerned, we can provide work for more than 1,500 men by retaining national control of our land and our water system, without giving the rights now asked for to private enterprise.
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
The matter between us on this Bill is of a very simple nature. We who have followed the tactics of hon. Gentlemen opposite know what they are after. They have told us plainly and in an honourable and straightforward manner—
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
As the hon. Gentleman has referred to what he calls the "tactics" of the party opposite, perhaps he would just explain.
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
That is exactly what I was going to do. The Clauses of this particular Bill are nothing to hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they are!"] They are only the stalking horse under which they are putting forward a certain amount of criticism in order to get a certain amount of propaganda for what they call nationalisation.
§ Mr. DICKSON
Is the hon. Member, on the Third Reading of the Bill, entitled to deal with the policy of nationalisation?
Before the hon. Member rose I was about myself to point out that it was not in order to indulge in criticism of hon. Members on 2859 the opposite side of the House on a question which I should have ruled out of order on the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Now that the hon. Member has made his statement, would it not be fair for you to allow me to repudiate the charge?
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
I am sure that we understand one another perfectly well, and though we cannot say these things we know them quite well. The arguments which hon. Gentlemen opposite started have really nothing to do with the promotion of this Bill—I mean the particular criticism which they have made about rushing this Bill through the House.
The hon. Member must not deal with that point, because I prevented hon. Members making that point themselves.
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
That rules out the second great argument, and now there only remain two points which hon. Members have made in their extremely short speeches, because to-night they have dried up very quickly. Last night they spun a tremendous yarn, but to-night they are almost exhausted. There are only two points to which I wish to refer. The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate referred to the statement, which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill, that this work would employ 1,500 men for a year, and he criticised that statement and adduced the fact that the capital of the company was £250,000. There he stopped. Has he read Clause 8? If so, he did not disclose the whole of that clause. Clause 8 says that they can go up to £400,000, and also borrow half that sum in addition. Then the hon. Gentleman suggested that it was impossible to employ 1,500 men with a capital of £250,000. The capital is a great deal more than £250,000. If the hon. Gentleman will work it out he will find that the employment of 1,500 men means this: The capital cost of works and plant directly involved will be at least £300,000. Of this 80 per cent. at least represents wages either in connection with the site or in 2860 engineering works, or, further back, in steel works and iron works and coal mines, and £3 a week will average itself over 1,500 men for a year or 3,000 men for six months.
§ Mr. DICKSON
Is there any reasonable chance of having this thing done within 10 years, and has not the money represented in most of the machinery and coal already been spent on the men employed?
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
The hon. Gentleman said that this company was out for private profit and nothing else. Is it not then in the company's own interest that it should get to work on this job as soon as possible? How can it do that without employing men at the earliest possible moment? The hon. Member says that they have three years to do it.
§ 9.0. P.M.
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
I thought the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) was in favour of finding work for the people. If so, I shall see him walking into the Lobby in support of this Bill. As to time, it is necessary to put in some kind of limit. One never knows what is going to happen. There may be industrial disputes and all kinds of things, and it is necessary to have this safeguard. But the promoters are going to get to work at once, in their own interests. I know quite well what hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to do. We have proved on the Second Reading of this Bill that they made a great mistake in opposing the Bill. The news has gone through Lanarkshire and industrial Scotland that hon. Members are opposing a Bill which will give work to the men of Scotland. Hon. Members have found out their mistake, and they want to minimise it. They cannot have it both ways. If the company is out for private profit it will get to work at once. There is nothing in the suggestion that the Bill should be delayed. It was brought forward in absolute good faith as far back as November last. The promoters did not then know that a Labour Government would be in power.
The hon. Member is transgressing my ruling. I 2861 can allow discussion only on the merits of the Bill as disclosed in the Clauses of the Bill.
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
Then my task is finished. There has been no real criticism of the Clauses of the Bill. There have been petty criticisms about amenities, the destroying of scenery, and all that sort of thing. That is all right in a young men's debating society or when you want to waste the time of the House, but it does not touch this Bill at all.
The hon. Member must keep himself within my ruling or I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
§ Sir S. CHAPMAN
The last thing I wish to do is to contest your ruling. As hon. Members have brought forward no criticism of the merits of the Bill, I hope it will receive the unanimous assent of the House.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I wish to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. It has been suggested that the Bill will provide for the employment of a certain number of men. Although, for the time being, this Measure might have the effect of providing a very limited amount of employment, yet the cost of that employment to the community would be so considerable that the House is not justified in passing the Bill. This is simply a speculative proposal. There is to be a company which is to have a certain amount of capital. Statements have been made as to the capital. I would draw attention to the precious Clause, which relates to the capitalisation of the concern. It says:The capital of the company shall be £250,000: Provided that the capital of the company may from time to time be increased to such extent up to but not exceeding £400,000 as may be authorised by a Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Transport in accordance with the previsions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922.Then it proceeds:Provided that a Special Order made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall not come into force unless and until approved either with or without modifications by a resolution passed by each such House.2862 So that this company is going to get off with whatever it proposes to do in this connection unless there is a special Order by the Minister of Transport and unless that special Order of the Minister of Transport is passed by a direct Resolution of this House. That is asking far too much. If the Minister lays an Order on the Table of the House that in itself should be regarded as sufficient. It may not be quite so easy for the Minister of Transport to get a Resolution of the House, because the time of the House will be a matter of material consideration and the various ongoings of this precious company may not be considered a matter of sufficient national importance to put aside other importance Measures. It is no doubt true that under the present Chairman of Ways and Means precious time has been given to these Measures without opponents having an opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
The hon. Member is again straying into that region which I told him was forbidden. He must stick to the Bill.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I again bow to your ruling, although I must say I think there has been in this matter not anything like the consideration shown which ought to be shown to hon. Members in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL
I rise to speak on this Bill because it was my duty to preside over the Committee which considered it upstairs. The object of the Bill is clearly set out in the Clauses, and if hon. Members who have any doubt as to what the Bill will do, a careful perusal of the Clauses should clear up any doubts. If I may put it in a shorter form, I should say that this Bill, promoted by the parties who will erect the plant, seeks to carry out one of the schemes referred to in the Report of the Wafer Power Committee set up in 1918. When the Bill was first deposited in the other House, there was considerable opposition to it. I cannot go into that matter, but it was made clear to the Committee upstairs that all the opposition, other than the opposition of which we heard in this House on the Second Reading, had been cleared up either by agreement or by a process of Amendment in the other House. The 2863 Department concerned drew attention to the fact that this scheme, depending for power on the unregulated waters of the River Clyde, was not likely to be a success unless it could be linked up with a steam-generated electricity undertaking and the promoters realising that fact and being opposed by the Clyde Valley Company, came to an arrangement with the Clyde Valley Company under which, after the promoters had established the stations and presumably proved them sufficiently, it was to be taken over by the Clyde Valley Company and the power generated by the new stations was to be distributed by the Clyde Valley Company through their mains. As recommended by the Departments Report and by witnesses in support of the Bill, the scheme is now linked up with the existing and, according to the evidence given, the highly efficient service of the Clyde Valley Company.
It was shown in evidence that, unlike some other hydro-electric schemes, the possibilities in power generation of this scheme will vary considerably throughout the year. The promoters intend to erect plant of 13,000 kilowatts capacity. At some periods of the year, in the dry season, only a small fraction of that can be operated, but that is at the time of the year when the demand for light will not be so heavy and, incidentally, at the season when the coalfields are not so fully occupied. The scheme will reach its maximum production during the winter months, when the water available in the river is higher and therefore the natural power resources will balance with the actual demands made upon the plant. By linking up this scheme with the existing Clyde Valley concern we get that balance which enables the whole proposal to be economically adjusted and worked, but, failing such an arrangement, I think it will be admitted this scheme would not be a useful proposition. Various Amendments have been made in the Bill, and the Committee has added a number of Clauses relating to the fixing of prices, the regulation of dividend, the revision of prices by the Minister of Transport, and also Clauses definitely laying down the arrangements for transferring to the Clyde Valley Company, and in certain cases making definite 2864 arrangements with the landowners concerned. During the Second Reading Debate something was said about the opposition of one landowner, and his case was very fully considered upstairs, and on the evidence before it the Committee decided that the scheme should proceed. From further statements made to the Committee after coming to that decision we have had reason to believe that the landowner who opposed the Bill in its earlier stages does not offer any undue opposition to the completion of the scheme, subject to the preservation of his rights under the land Clauses incorporated in the Bill.
The most important Amendments we made relate to the prices which may be charged, and I should tell the House that, under the Bill as it now stands, the whole production of power, it is intended, will be transferred, sold, to the Clyde Valley undertaking, and, therefore, the whole power will be disposed of as a bulk supply. In the Bill as originally printed the maximum price which could be charged for that supply was 3d. per unit for the first part of the supply and 2d. per unit for the remaining supply. Those figures have been reduced upstairs, and the maximum price which can be charged in the first instance is and for the remaining supply 1½d. There is also reference in one Clause to a standard price which governs the company's provision for paying dividends. As originally printed, that standard price was 2½d., but it was shown to the Committee in the course of the proceedings on the two Bills that the Clyde Valley Company, who are going to dispose of the current, are already selling steam-generated power for less than per unit, and, therefore, it appeared to the Committee that this water-generated power would not be likely to be sold at 2½d. Obvously, if the Clyde Valley Company were going to sell the current for certainly not more than they are now getting on their steam supply, for 1d. or less, they were bound to buy from the Lanarkshire Company for less than that, so we came to the conclusion that a standard price of 1d. for governing dividend distribution would be ample.
We further added to the Bill a Clause which requires or enables the Minister to revise the prices in every five years. The Bill is now in this form, that if the undertaking is successful and the current 2865 is disposed of below the standard price of 1d., the company is enabled, subject to profits being available, to increase its dividend. It may be argued with some reason that that should not be done, but I would submit to the House that it has this advantage, that the company has a direct incentive to reduce its price, because, subject to a balance being available, it is thereby authorised to increase its dividend. If it does so and, in fact, pays an increased dividend, when the time for revision comes along, the Department will have a clear case for ordering a reduction of the maximum or standard prices payable under the Bill. So I suggest, having regard to these new Clauses which we have added to the Bill upstairs, and having regard to the quite different frame of mind now adopted by the landowner who was a petitioner against the Bill in the earlier stages, that the objections which were raised on the Second Reading stage have really been met and have completely disappeared.
There is one other objection that has been raised to-night, that this scheme may destroy the amenities of the district. I do not think, as the scheme was explained to the Committee, that there is any risk of that, and, indeed, if there is, another Clause which is now in the Bill, and to which attention was drawn by the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill, provides, as he read, for the Secretary of State for Scotland taking certain steps. We in the Committee approved of that Clause. We did not design the Clause, and I think it is only fair to say that that Clause was put into the Bill in its present form as agreed to between the promoters and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Scotland has had the matter in mind. The Department have had regard to the risk of damaging the amenities of the district, and the promoters have met them and agreed the Clause. That Clause meets with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The hon. and gallant Member has several times referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I wish to point out that it should be the Secretary for Scotland and not the Secretary of State. As this has been rather a sore point with Scotsmen for many years, it is adding insult to injury 2866 to refer to the right hon. Gentleman as the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Sir J. NALL
I only hope that this Bill, as to which great hopes are entertained, may even result in the Secretary for Scotland being raised in status, and, if that be achieved, I am sure the Bill will be even more beneficial than some hon. Members seem to suggest. However, that Clause has been agreed by the Department, and was inserted at their instance. I would remind the House that in a scheme of this kind there will, of course, be no smoke, and there ought to be no question of spoiling the landscape. As a further safeguard, it is required that plans shall be submitted to the Commissioners. That is in the Bill, and, further than that, the Committee asked the Commissioners whether any further suggestion could be made in the public interest, and it was suggested that the actual contracts which are to be made between the promoting company and the parties concerned for the erection of plant should be submitted to the Commissioners for their perusal. That was agreed to at once. I have followed that up since the Bill came downstairs, and the agents tell me that they have already submitted the plans to the Commissioners, who have pronounced favourably upon them, and I think one observation made is that the contracts as drawn provide for One of the cheapest installations for power production in the country. I think the latter point should be of interest in view of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the possibility of cheapening the prices. I think the Water Committee, in their Report, said that if a scheme of this kind could be carried out at a capital cost of £60 per kilowatt, it could compete with coal at a certain price. I understand that the contract already arranged and submitted to the Commissioners for their observations works out at considerably below that figure; therefore, on capital cost we are assured the figure is well below previous figures. By the figures in the Bill the maximum prices at which current may be sold are well below any maximum prices which I think have been quoted in any previous Bill. So far as the public is concerned as consumers the necessary safeguard is there, and so far as extra- 2867 vagant capital charges are concerned they are safeguarded as well.
One other point has been raised as to whether the promoters will get on with the scheme. On that point, which has been also considered, we were assured the promoters intend, granted the Bill is passed, to start work in September of this year. They must do it in September of this year or they cannot start till September of next year, owing to the flow of the water in the river, and so on. September is said to be the only time of the year when they can properly start their work. Therefore, they propose to do that, and in two other Clauses of the Bill safeguards are put in requiring them to start within a reasonable time and complete in the period named in the Bill. In the Bill sent upstairs, after Second Reading, the term of five years was put in. That we reduced. They must complete the work within three years, or in a further two years if the Commissioners are satisfied that the further two years are necessary. If they do not complete in that time, the whole of their rights under this Bill lapse. Similarly, if the Minister is not satisfied that they have made a proper start within two years, he can cancel any part of the scheme of the works which he may decide. So that on the point as to whether the work will go on, or whether somebody is merely trying to stake out a claim with a view to future redemption, the answer is that if they do not carry out the scheme in three years, or, in an emergency, possibly five years, the whole of the powers lapse, and it is open to anybody else to come forward and ask for similar powers. We have also put in a Board of Trade Clause giving the Board of Trade certain options of purchase after a lapse of years. It is a purely formal Clause, and was in the Bill when it came into Committee.
Having regard to all these facts, having regard to the need for power development in the territory supplied by the company, I hope this power will be given to them. The fact is that there is a rapidly growing demand in the area. As I said before, the Lanarkshire County Council have agreed with the promoters—Clauses being put into the Bill at the instigation of the county council—to cover 2868 what they believe to be the council's rights. All these questions of local and public interest have, I venture to say, been considered fully and are covered by the Clauses in the Bill as it is now before this House. I hope, having sat on the Committee upon this Bill, I must confess, as a critic, when we started, I think it only fair to say, in view of all the evidence produced, in view of the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, and having regard to all the circumstances of the Bill as it is now before the House, it is certainly in the public interest and it certainly would be against the public interest not to pass it, without further delay.
§ Captain Viscount CURZON
I came here to-night unfortunately not in time to hear the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, but I was in time to hear the extraordinary performance of the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I, for a long time, thought he had missed his vocation. I think I could introduce him to a firm of "movie" producers.
§ Viscount CURZON
If I am not in order, and you, Sir, think I ought not to say that, I will gladly withdraw it. I resent the attitude of the hen. Member when called to order by yourself. With regard to this Bill, I wanted to hear some considered opinion by hon. Members opposite as to why the Bill to provide the hydro-electric power scheme—one of the not many schemes of the kind in this country—should not go forward. I think it is admitted that this country is particularly backward in its development of hydro-electric power schemes.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I rise to a point of Order. I submit that to discuss this general question of hydro-electric power in this connection is not in order.
§ Viscount CURZON
In line 5 it the Preamble I have discovered the following paragraph:Whereas the application for that purpose by means of the works by this Act authorised of power afforded by water 2869 derived from the River Clyde will facilitate the provision of such supply at low rates of charge.Of course, I cannot suppose the provision of power for electric light at a lower rate of charge can be expected to appeal to hon. Members opposite who are always professing that they are very anxious to secure a cheap supply of power, and who, it seems to me, are not anxious to see this question of hydro-electric power developed, and when I saw this provision in the Bill I thought I was entitled to refer to it. The whole objection to this Bill, if I understand it aright, is on the question of charge. Personally, I regard it as a perfectly fictitious objection. I do not think hon. Members are really serious in their objection, because it, is quite obvious that, if we can develop successfully hydro-electric power in this country, we shall be able to cheapen the supply of light and power which will benefit our industries. The hon. Member for Camlachie alluded to the provision of employment under this Bill. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to it but, undoubtedly, it is a fact that if this scheme goes through it will mean work for people who are at present unemployed and, in particular, for skilled labour. We ought to do everything in this House to provide more work for skilled men. Here is a chance for the House to carry out its desires in this matter and for hon. Members opposite to show whether they really want to provide work for skilled men or whether they do not really care anything about it, as some of us think.
The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division said that this was a speculative proposal. I tried to follow his argument so far as it was possible to find any argument in his utterances, but, beyond the fact that the scheme is not already in existence, I could not understand his objection to it on the score of it being a speculative proposal. It is always possible, of course, that we may have a dry year, and I suppose that would appeal to hon. Members coming from the Camlachie Division and elsewhere in Glasgow. At the same time, beyond the speculation involved in what sort of weather we may experience across the border, I cannot see anything particularly speculative in the scheme to develop hydro-electric power in Scotland. One of the hon. Member's objections was with regard to 2870 a special Resolution of this House, and that it was not easy to get, because the time of the House may not provide for such a Resolution being obtained. I cannot help thinking that it would not be hard to obtain the necessary time if hon. Members opposite were to a little curtail their eloquence.
There is one thing I do want to know. Are we going to have any guidance from the Minister of Transport with regard to this Bill? We had a proposal before us last night of, so to speak, an allied character. I listened to the discussion on that proposal, but I heard no utterance from the Minister of Transport on the subject. Could not we get some idea from the Minister of Transport as to what his attitude towards this Bill is? One heard from the Chairman of the Committee what happened upstairs, and I think it would be of great help and guidance to the House if the Government Front Bench would disclose their attitude towards this particular Bill. The Minister of Transport might incidentally say a few words to show what his attitude is towards the whole principle of the Bill. Personally, I cannot understand what the objection is on the part of hon. Members opposite.
There is one Clause to which I would like to direct the Minister of Transport's attention, namely, Clause 41, which provides power to stop up foot-paths and ways. Presumably this will mean roads. It is laid down in this Clause that when the company have provided an alternative route, then they may stop up the original road. I hope the Minister of Transport will keep an eye upon that Clause, because it frequently happens that through-traffic is very much hampered. A large proportion of our goods traffic to-day moves by road, and unless the alternative route is pretty strong, and the foundations of it are well made, it is quite conceivable that lorry traffic in the area affected by the Bill will be somewhat severely handicapped. Hon. Members opposite no doubt know that it is a very different proposition steering a lorry with geared-down steering from steering an ordinary private car, and unless the foundations of the road are good, large holes are likely to be formed in any temporary roadway laid down. I would ask the Minister of Transport, when he comes to watch the administration of this Bill if 2871 it goes through as I hope it will, to see that the temporary roadway will be made with foundations sufficiently strong to carry the heavy goods traffic which may be expected to pass over the roads within such an area. I have no other objection to the Bill. I hope the House will weigh duly the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee, and that it will not pay undue attention to the frivolous objections of the hon. Members opposite, who are only opposing this Bill on a political principle, and not in the interests of the general good of the locality or of the unemployed of the district.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
I had not intended to offer any remarks on this Bill had it not been for the observation of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who said that this Bill came from Scotland. It is quite obvious he has not followed the Bill. I have only one word to add to the admirable statement of the Chairman of the Committee as to the Bill itself and its process through Committee. There is one point to which he did not refer, and it is germane to the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green. It is this: This Bill not only affects Scotland and employment in Scotland, but it affects England and employment in England. I happen to represent one of the towns in England where employment will be affected by the passing or the non-passing of this Bill. The point I wish to make is this—that as a matter of fact, in these bad times of employment and restricted trade there is one bright spot, and that is that we have been able to do a great deal in the way of electrical export trade. There has been one great difficulty. The intention of the promoters of this Bill is to erect two hydro-electric stations in this district. The main reason is this—that the grave difficulty facing the export trade in electrical appliances has been the lack of demonstration facilities in England. Model plants are non-existent in this country. Contracts have to be made in this country, but there is no possibility of demonstrating on the spot the working of the plants in this country. By the passing of this Bill, and by the operations of this company setting up these hydro-electric stations demonstrating the plant, it will be possible very largely to increase the power of our export trade in 2872 this machinery. This is a very important matter with regard to the acceleration of our export trade in electrical appliances. To get a demonstration of this electrical machinery in our own country, instead of having to go to Brazil to demonstrate it, will facilitate the making of contracts, and therefore the getting of markets, which are very badly wanted by this country to-day in this time of unemployment and bad trade.
I would beg the House to put aside all prejudice in dealing with this matter. In my judgment there are only two or three questions for this House to settle. The first is: Is the company a reputable company? It will not take any unprejudiced mind in this House very long to answer that question in the affirmative. It is a question which I asked myself very earnestly when I came to consider this Bill. The Minister of Transport knows that I have taken some small part in blocking Bills for other companies which I considered not to be reputable, in other parts of the country, but I think any unprejudiced mind, considering this company and the Bill, must come to the conclusion that the company is a thouroughly sound company. The second question to be asked by an unprejudiced mind is: Does the Bill carry out the intentions laid down in the Preamble? I have no doubt myself, after careful examination, that it does. Since this Bill will not only provide light and power, work and employment in Scotland, but will help also the development of our electrical trade in this country by giving us demonstration plants. I beg the House to give this Bill a Third Reading.
§ Mr. HANNON
I am sure the House will have listened with much gratification to the interesting speech made by the hon. Gentleman. One of the main objects of this Bill is to enable an enterprising body of gentlemen to organise in Scotland hydro-electric power stations, in the construction of which a large amount of highly technical machinery will be required. The construction of this machinery under the powers which this Bill will confer will mean immediately the placing of orders which will give employment to a large number of skilled men. It has been frequently said in this House, on Debates on the unemployment problem, that one of the saddest things in our 2873 present-day economic life is the exodus from our country of highly skilled and highly trained artisans, and it is impossible to—
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. I want to submit that in view of the Deputy-Speaker's earlier ruling that only the Clauses in the Bill should be discussed, that it is not in order for the hon. Member to discuss the general principle of the electrical supply in Scotland on the Third Reading of this Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
No, I think it is not. It is not in order to discuss general principles on the Third Reading of a Private Bill.
§ Mr. HANNON
I submit with great respect that in the Clauses of this Bill provision is made for the construction of a hydro-electrical power station on the Clyde in Lanarkshire. I am submitting that the erection of this station in accordance with the powers conferred on the promoters of this Bill will enable a contract of considerable dimensions for machinery to be placed which will give employment to a large number of skilled British artisans. I submit, Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my hon. Friend opposite, that that is particularly germane to the substance of this Bill. It has been contended by the hon. Member who opposed this Measure on the other side of the House, that the promoters of this scheme would be free to deal at their own sweet will with the fascinating landscape in that part of Lanarkshire. But within the confines of this Bill, the promoters are cribbed and cabined by all sorts of restrictions imposed by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland and, indeed, it is hardly possible to conceive any opening through which the promoters of this Measure or the company responsible for administering the provisions of this Bill, can take many measures for considering the aesthetics of the landscape, so closetted are they within the rigid restrictions laid down by the Measure itself. I submit that the whole case made on the other side of the House by hon. Gentlemen who for reasons of their own are opposing all these Bills—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—for reasons of their own, I am perfectly entitled to say so.
§ Mr. HANNON
I have not heard one single argument arising out of the text of the Bill itself that would justify a single vote being given against it in this House. With regard to this danger to the landscape in Scotland, you have the most wretched conditions laid down as to the limits within which a company is confined in interfering with the scenery. I do not think that anybody would suggest that, in view of the constant reference either to the Minister of Transport or to the Secretary of Scotland, both hon. Gentlemen having the highest conception of the aesthetic quality of the landscape in the country concerned, that a single violation of the beauties of the country, as suggested by my hon. Friend, will take place. Under this Measure it is clearly demonstrated that a considerable amount of employment will be found for a considerable number of people, and also that a portion of the Clyde stream now going to waste will be turned to a highly useful and practical purpose to supplement the supply of cheap electricity in that country. And it has been shown also that this company, working in conjunction with the company, the Third Reading of whose Bill the House gave last night, will set up in that part of Scotland, in that interesting and attractive county of Lanarkshire to which this House owes so much indeed in the splendid intelligence which it has provided for us on the other side—
§ Mr. HANNON
—will contribute to the spread of power and the provision of light. There are hundreds of small industries in that part of Scotland which can be materially assisted if electrical power can be provided for them, and the other day—and it all arises out of this Bill—the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphasised the importance of developing electrical supply in the rural districts. Here you have a Measure specially designed to give effect to that very suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, I think the House would be doing well to at once give a Third Reading to a Measure which enables this to be done.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."2876
§ The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 114.2877
|Division No. 193.]||AYES.||[9.59 p.m.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Franklin, L. B.||Owen, Major G.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)|
|Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)||Gates, Percy||Perkins, Colonel E K.|
|Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Perring, William George|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Gorman, William||Phillipps, Vivian|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Gosling, Harry||Pilkington, R. R.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Pringle, W. M. R.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Raffety, F. W.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Raine, W.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Gretton, Colonel John||Rathbone, Hugh H.|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel|
|Becker, Harry||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Rawson, Alfred Cooper|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Rea, W. Russell|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Remer, J. R.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Harland, A.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Bonwick, A.||Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Bourne, Robert Croft||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Robertson, T. A.|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Hillary, A. E.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Royle, C.|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Rudkin, Lieut-Colonel C. M. C.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hore-Bellsha, Major Leslie||Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Burman, J. B.||Huntingfield, Lord||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Kedward, R. M.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Keens, T.||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)|
|Comyns-Carr, A. S.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)|
|Cope, Major William||Lamb, J. Q.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Costello, L. W. J.||Lessing, E.||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.||Linfield, F. C.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Sutcliffe, T.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Loverseed, J. F.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Crittall, V. G.||Lumley, L. R.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Macfadyen, E.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||McLean, Major A.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Waddington, R.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Maden, H.||Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)|
|Deans, Richard Storry||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Dickie, Captain J. P.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Dodds, S. R.||Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Meller, R. J.||Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)|
|Dunn, J. Freeman||Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Morse, W. E.||Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.|
|Elliot, Walter E.||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Murrell, Frank||Wragg, Herbert|
|Falconer, J.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Ferguson, H.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Finney, V. H.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Foot, Isaac||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Sir Samuel Chapman and Colonel|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Hayes, John Henry|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Healy, Cahir|
|Alstead, R.||Dickson, T.||Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Dukes, C.||Hodge, Lieut-Col. J. P. (Preston)|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Duncan, C.||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Baker, Walter||Dunnico, H.||Hudson, J. H.|
|Barnes, A.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Isaacs, G. A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Gibbins, Joseph||Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Gillett, George M.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Jewson, Dorothea|
|Bromfield, William||Greenall, T.||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)|
|Cape, Thomas||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Groves, T.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Kenyon, Barnet|
|Clarke, A.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lansbury, George|
|Cluse, W. S.||Harbison, Thomas James S.||Laverack, F. J.|
|Cove, W. G.||Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Law, A.|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Haycock, A. W.||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)|
|Lawson, John James||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Leach, W.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Lee, F.||Potts, John S.||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Lunn, William||Purcell, A. A.||Thurtle, E.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Raynes, W. R.||Tout, W. J.|
|Mackinder, W.||Richards, R.||Viant, S. P.|
|March, S.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Maxton, James||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Warne, G. H.|
|Middleton, G.||Rose, Frank H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)|
|Mills, J. E.||Scrymgeour, E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Montague, Frederick||Scurr, John||Welsh, J. C.|
|Morel, E. D.||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sexton, James||Whiteley, W.|
|Mosley, Oswald||Shinwell, Emanuel||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)|
|Muir, John W.||Short, Alfred (Wednesday)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Nixon, H.||Smith, T. (Pontefract)||Windsor, Walter|
|Oliver, George Harold||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Wright, W.|
|Paling, W.||Snell, Harry|
|Palmer, E. T.||Spence, R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Stamford, T. W.||Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Westwood.|
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.