HC Deb 14 May 1925 vol 183 cc2175-97
Mr. DALTON

I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, at the, end to insert the words Provided that the dividends to be allowed after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, on ordinary capital subscribed in cash or issued for an equivalent consideration and on ordinary capital created by the capitalisation of free reserves shall be five per cent. and not seven per cent. as allowed for in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the said agreement. This Amendment is concerned solely with the dividends to be allowed to the company on ordinary capital after 31st December, 1931, and it proposes that for 7 per cent. there should be substituted 5 per cent. I submit that it is an exceedingly reasonable Amendment. The principle has already been admitted that some limit must be placed upon the depredations to be allowed to private enterprise in the London area, so far as electricity is concerned. The only question is, that being admitted, what limit shall be placed upon these depredations? I submit that 5 per cent. would very adequately satisfy the equities of the case. in the first place, the companies at the present time are paying dividends of 10, 12, and, I think, 15 per cent., and there is going to be no cheek upon that until after 1931, hence, upon the principle of averaging, it would not he unreasonable that they should cut down a hit after 1931.

Mr. ERSKINE

Hear, hear!

Mr. DALTON

I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for St. George's, who is an expert on these matters.

Mr. ERSKINE

I do not agree with you at all.

Mr. DALTON

I hope yet to be able to convince the hon. Member. A further point that. I want to submit is that the 7 per cent. or the 5 per cent. as the ease may be, is not going to be a maximum at all. As a matter of fact, there is to be an addition made to it in respect of any reduction of charges to the consumer, and we do not yet know how great those reductions may be. Further, there is a capitalisation of reserves, which will also improve the position of the shareholders. Having put these preliminary points, I should like to argue that 5 per cent, is an exceedingly reasonable rate of interest, even if it were to be a maximum. It is not going to be a maximum, as I have shown, but even if our Amendment were accepted—and I am sure the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who always speaks, in these cases, as theadvocatus diaboli,will have no difficulty in accepting it.

Mr. HANNON

I am the advocate of the angels.

Mr. DALTON

The distinction between the two positions always depends on the point of view, but I have confidence that the hon. Member will be quite prepared to accept this Amendment on behalf of the companies.

Mr. HANNON

He will not.

Mr. DALTON

I really hope he will, when I point out that 5 per cent. is all that is being paid now on Government securities, and that this is going to be just as secure (now that the previous Amendment has been rejected) as British War Loan itself. If 5 per cent. is good enough for British War Loan, it will surely be good enough for the London Electrical Trust. We have been hearing from other sources—we heard it from the Minister of Transport and from the Minister of Labour—of the tremendous developments that are going to take place in electrical supply. The Minister of Labour took the view that that was the great way in which unemployment was some day going to be solved. That holds out great prospects of increased profitableness and an increased volume of business for this Electrical Trust. They are perfectly secure, and, that being so, I think we may treat this as being equivalent to a gilt-edged security. In fact, I might go further, for only a few days ago in this House, when teachers' superannuation was under consideration, the President of the Board of Education suggested that 3½ per cent. was quite enough to be paid as the rate of accumulation in that regard—I know this is a point of view which will have some weight with hon. Members opposite—and he said that what he was aiming at was getting a secure rate of interest which would not have to be altered, but would be appropriate for a long period ahead. We have to legislate here also for a long period ahead, namely, to 1971, and if 3½ per cent. is good enough as the rate of interest in teachers' superannuation, I submit that 5 per cent., or per cent. more, surely ought to be good enough for the London Electrical Trust. I am no lover of long-winded orations, either from Front Benches or Back Benches. I have put my points, I hope, with reasonable brevity, and I beg to move the Amendment.

Mr. GILLET

I beg to second the Amendment.

In entering into this new phase in connection with London electricity, we have to make a new arrangement with the companies, and one of the most difficult things in connection with any semi-public company, like an electricity or gas company, is so to arrange the sliding scale that any measure of justice shall be done to the consumers of the light and those who are shareholders in the company. I know very well that the London County Council and the companies spent months in trying to arrange a sliding scale that would in any way seem to be acceptable to both parties, but my first objection to the whole of the arrangement is that I believe it is altogether impossible to arrange sliding scales of this kind, and to know what actually will be the financial outcome of the arrangements. Both parties may find the results very different from those which they are expecting.

When the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) was addressing the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, he said that we, on this side, imagined that the companies were trying to exploit the public, instead of which, in point of fact, he said, many of the companies would have been better off if they had sold their undertakings in 1921. I have not the remotest idea what the hon. Member meant, or what opportunity the companies ever had to sell their undertakings in 1921, but I suggest that it is advisable, when you are connected with Birmingham, at any rate to make sure of your facts before you deal with London problems. As a matter of fact, if he has read the circular which was doubtless sent to him, as to other hon. Members, by the companies, he will have noted that it states distinctly that purchase could not have been exercised until 1931. However, I pass over that point, but when the hon. Member accuses us of saying that the companies are trying to exploit the public, 1 think probably he is expressing our views to a very great extent, because that is rather what we expect all the time that the companies are attempting to do.

One of the things about which we cannot be certain, and about which we know nothing, is the estimated saving that will be made when these companies are, to a certain extent, working in unison with one another instead of in the way in which they are working to-day —the savings by amalgamation—and although I think the Minister was unduly optimistic when he held out the idea to the House that in some way we had arrived at a uniform scheme of working in London, I look upon it that, instead of carrying out the idea of having one central body, you really are only arriving at a position where you will have three groups of bodies working in London, with a certain amount of control, according as the companies are willing to receive it, from the central body. However that may be, the point is, What advantage is there going to be to electricity financially in London by the uniform working, and what are the savings going to amount to? It is a very important point, because upon it one aspect of an increased dividend of 7 per cent. is going to depend. The next point is that the 7 per cent. will be paid not only on the ordinary capital of the companies. The total capital altogether is something like £21,000,000 at the present time. I am not suggesting that 7 per cent. will he paid on all that—the 7 per cent. is to be paid on the ordinary stock—but there is another item, in regard to which I put a question to the Minister two or three months ago. I asked him what the reserves were that were to be capitalised, and he was unable to give me any definite answer as to what was the sum of money upon which the 7 per cent. has to be paid.

If you take an extreme case, it is hardly necessary to point out, when you talk about a dividend as being a certain fixed figure, that supposing you have a company with a capital of &£100,000, paying 10 per cent to-day, and you allow it to capitalise its reserves, which happen to be another £100,000, and it then pays 5 per cent., the result to the shareholders is exactly the same as it was before. If, therefore, when you say that the dividend is going to be 7 per cent. you cannot at all tell, and even the Minister cannot tell, how much the reserves are going to amount to from which the 7 per cent. is to be paid, well, we really at the present time do not know what the dividend is really going to be. Nobody except those concerned with the finances of the companies know in the slightest what the actual rate of interest is going to be. It is said to be 7 per cent., but 7 per cent. on a larger sum, needless to point out., is not the same thing as having a higher dividend.

Therefore, for these reasons, when we look at these unknown factors on which really the House has not been informed, and on which neither the representatives of the company, nor the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) who speaks for the London County Council, nor the Minister has been able to give us any information, or even attempted to do so, I cannot imagine that the House will be surprised if we on this side are sceptical about the whole of this sliding scale, about the scheme put forward, or the proposals now being laid before the House. After all, as my hon. Friend has said, 5 per cent. is a reasonable figure for an investment of this kind, and if 1 read aright this scale, we are going a good way towards guaranteeing a fixed dividend for these companies. Loans are being floated on the market at the present time. Only yesterday on the London money market there was a New Zealand loan floated. I venture to assert that the securities of these great companies, these electrical companies in London, after all these matters have gone through, will not be better than the New Zealand stock.

Sir FREDRIC WISE

On which the underwriters have been left with 85 per cent. !

Mr. GILLETT

I am perfectly well aware of that, but I might remind the hon. Member that I do not think the figure works out at 5 per cent. to the purchaser. The figure, actually, of New Zealand stocks works out at the rate it was offered at just under 5 per cent. I was allowing for that, of which I was perfectly well aware. I venture to suggest that, allowing for that, 5 per cent. is the figure that, probably, New Zealand would have been wise to have placed it on the money market at. However that may be, New Zealand people are giving the hon. Member for Ilford no chance of getting more than 5 per cent. If the economies work out satisfactorily, it is not limited to 5 per cent., but may be rather more than that. Allowing for that, I think the hon. Member will agree that this is an excellent investment, and that 5 per cent. is a very reasonable figure. Under these circumstances, there is no reason why the people that consume electricity in London should be asked to pay 2 per cent. more than 5 per cent. for lending money to these companies. I therefore beg to second the Amendment.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HANNON

One need not, perhaps, recall in the present House that hon. Members opposite have done everything possible to embarrass during the past two years these proposals for electrical supply, and Amendments have been put down to this Bill to-night on Report. These are part of the process of preventing these Bills becoming law, and so enabling a great scheme of cheap and abundant electricity for the people of London being developed at the earliest possible period. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) with that benevolent interest which he always takes in people on this side of the House said that we had to go to Birmingham to get somebody to be the protagonist of this Measure for London. I accept with great interest the kindly reference of my hon. Friend on the other side of the House, but I venture to suggest to him that this is not a mere matter for the City of London. It interests the whole country.

In moving this Amendment to limit the rate of interest which has been done by the hon. Member in his own admirable and super-critical way, the hon. Member for Peckham quite left out of account the number of people in this country who have borne the entire burden of the promotion of all this quality of enterprise—that is to say, the shareholders and the promoters of the schemes. If London was capable of dealing with these proposals of getting control of its own electricity supply in 1931, why does it not come forward to this House with a scheme by which it can do so? As my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the London County Council is not prepared to undertake that responsibility—the enormous responsibility of the undertaking promoted by private companies who for years have been devoting themselves to the development of the utility services, and to whose services London owes an immense debt of gratitude. The object of this Amendment by hon. Members opposite is in accordance with the principle which they have professed in this House in many Debates. It does not matter what subject comes before us. We always have suggestions from hon. Members opposite that the only way to manage it successfully is to put it under the control of the State. Can any hon. Member opposite suggest one single State enterprise in this country, or anywhere else, that has been a real and substantial success?

Mr. THURTLE

On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Amendment as to the rate of interest to be paid or the much larger question?

Mr. SPEAKER

We are certainly not discussing nationalization.

Mr. HANNON

I really was not going to discuss that question. I was merely pointing out the fact that on every question that comes before this House as between private enterprise and State control, hon. Members opposite are prepared to introduce a proposal which will bring the enterprises under the control of the State. The real object of the Amendment in limiting the rate of interest bas exactly the same purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who is one of the outstanding authorities in this House on all economic questions, who has a monopoly of all the wisdom that can be produced in this House in these days, is prepared to offer a solution on every question. He is a Member of the London County Council. He has had before him the importance of limiting the rate of interest paid on the reserves of these companies. Has he put forward one single proposal during that time to deal with this proposition? Not a single one. The whole series of obstacles that have been brought for ward against these Measures is part and parcel of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I see on the Front Bench opposite my hon. Friend, the most kindly and most generous of men, the late Minister of Transport (Mr. Gosling). There is no Member of this House who is so kindly intentioned in every respect as my hon. Friend the late Minister of Transport. Last Session, when these. Measures were before the House, the late Minister of Transport did his best to secure their passage through the House.

Dr. SALTER

With modifications.

Mr. HANNON

I will deal with the modifications in one minute. The hon. Gentleman was not particularly frank about modifications when he was stating his case to the House on the first Amendment this evening. My hon. Friend the late Minister of Transport did his best last year to bring about an understanding between the London County Council and the private companies, and his friends behind him, with their views as expressed in this Amendment, limiting the rate of interest which private undertakings are to get on reserves of capital, pressed my hon. Friend so much that he was forced to withhold the passage of these Bills, and that kept so many projects from being developed and so many hundreds of people out of employment. That was because the hon. Members behind him wanted to have a nationalised scheme. If the late Minister for Transport had had his way, the House would not have been troubled with these Bills this Session. They would have become law in the last Session, and we should not have been dealing with this Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham, limiting the maximum percentage payable. The whole story of the development of electricity supply in London is a story of the activity of private enterprise, in doing everything it possibly could to provide this service for the people of this city.

Dr. SALTER

And we pay a higher price in the London area than anywhere else.

Mr. HANNON

My hon. Friend is most competent to make anea partestatement, but he did not, in the speech that he made, produce one single argument in support of that contention. This is a suggestion to limit the return on private capital invested in a great enterprise to which considerable risks are attached: because nobody knows what the future possibilities of electric expansion may be. Why should hon. Gentlemen opposite do that when they are not prepared to risk anything themselves? Why do not the Labour party on the London County Council come down with some counter proposal, so that public control or municipal control could be exercised by the London County Council taking its share of responsibility for the development a these schemes? Is there one single hon. Gentleman opposite who is a member of the County Council, and who will vote to-night for this Amendment to limit interest on capital, who will go to the London County Council with a practical scheme to deal with this great question?

The task of building up in London great schemes for the supply of abundant and cheap electricity for lighting and power purposes rested in the beginning on the shoulders of private enterprise. Hon. Members opposite desire to cripple the possibility of private enterprise discharging its great purpose. That is the purpose of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I contend that all these Amendments, all these obstacles placed in the way of a development of this scheme—a scheme which has been subjected to more close and intimate examination by a series of public inquiries than any scheme ever submitted to the people of London—are merely pretexts to get national or State control of great public utility undertakings. I hope the House will reject the Amendment and give private enterprise a full opportunity, by a reasonable remuneration for services rendered, of continuiny to do the great services in the interests of the people of London which it has been doing for so many years past.

Mr. ATTLEE

It is a great pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on this subject, because he has such a remarkable ability to speak for quite a considerable time without dealing in any way with the merits of the Amendment under review, and without showing any knowledge whatever of the problem of London's electricity supply. I take it that is why he, from, shall we say, a rival metropolis, was selected to speak. He has not put up any argument on the merits of this Amendment. He has not suggested that if this limitation were imposed it would do anything to cripple these undertakings. He told us that private enterprise was respon sible for electricity in London, quite omitting to mention, though he was rather strong upon the question of frankness, that in fully one-half of the area of London electricity supply has been developed by municipalities, and that the capital burden of these municipal undertakings is ever so much smaller than in the case of the companies. One of the crippling factors in modern industry to-day is the over capitalisation of industry by those people who, we are told, took such a wonderful risk. Electricity supply may have been a risky business some time ago. The hon. Member taunted us by saying we never risked our money. The people of Stepney risked their money in building up a great electricity undertaking, and so did the people of Poplar and West Ham. They raised their capital cheaply, and their capital burdens are slight. To-day, when electricity is a, well-established thing, is there any reason for paying a huge ransom to private enterprise in what— as hon. Members on this side have said—is now a gilt-edged security? I want to see the purpose of the Electricity Act carried out. We want a cheap and abundant supply of electricity for London—not only abundant, but also cheap. It is an important thing for the manufacturer that he should get cheap power, and it is important for all of us to get cheap light.

I hoped when the hon. Member rose that he was going to contribute from those great corporations, on whose behalf he is speaking, towards helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of some of the difficulties that have fallen upon his head as a result of his unfortunate Budget. I believe the hon. Member opposite is not wholly unconnected with the great Federation of British Industries. I believe, judging from the Press, that manufacturers and business people are seriously upset at the heavy imposts—the last straw on the camel's back—that have been brought forward in the Budget. Here is a chance to give, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it, some "offset" with which they can pay, to give to people who are in the company's area cheap power as an offset to those burdens on industry. Let us do it, on that beautiful system of offsets that the Chancellor brought before us, at the expense of therentier,who has been so particularly helped in the Budget.

I will deal with only two more points. First of all, I think it peculiar that from the other side, which contains the great advocates of Empire, should come the taunt in regard to a great British Dominion. I think that taunt should be. directed against a great many of those people in the City who will not put up the money to develop one of our great Dominions simply because they cannot extract the amount of interest they would like. The second taunt made is why did not the London County Council do this? Unfortunately, the present majority on the London County Council are not Conspicuous for doing things for the public benefit. Not only do they oppose municipalisation, but they do not always support private enterprise. They considered the other day the question of motor boats on the Thames, and the majority on the London County Council turned down that project. Meanwhile I ask the House to support this principle, in order to bring relief to those unhappy districts in London who are suffering from their shortsighted folly in the handing over of their areas in the past for exploitation to companies, instead of producing their own supply of electricity, and keeping it in public hands for the public benefit.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I do not intend to go into the larger questions which have been discussed to-night and I shall simply confine my remarks to the question of 7 per cent. and 5 per cent. With regard to what has been said about the capital may I point out that the money is already there and when it it put back into the enterprise it must rank as money put into the concern. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) does not admire the sliding scale because he says it would give too much profit over and above the 7 per cent. I will try and explain what is meant by this sliding scale. What is intended is that of any surplus in any year six-eighths should go back to the consumers, one-eighth to the shareholders, and the other one-eighth to the staff. This occurs from year to year and the amount is never a big one. I think there should always be some incentive towards a reduction of the cost of electricity and towards economy and general efficiency. With regard to the new capital coming in, I think it is unwise to put on a limitation of 5 per cent. because we want more capital invested, not only in these undertakings in London but throughout the whole of England.

In the London scheme, when new money is to be expended, first of all the scheme upon which it is asked for has to be approved by the Authority, and, when the scheme has been so approved, the way in which the money is to be asked for from the public is to be decided by the Commissioners. They can allot hew much can be asked for by debentures; how much by preference shares, and how much by ordinary shares, and, if the present 7 per cent. stood, the average of new money would come out at about 61 per cent.; but if such a situation should arise that there should be that confidence in electrical undertakings which has been foreshadowed, then the ordinary shares could be issued at a premium, in which ease the companies would get the extra money, but the yield would be reduced from 7 per cent, to whatever figure might be represented by the premium at which the shares were issued. If however, it were made 5 per cent., and if the trust in electrical undertakings went down, it would not be possible to do the reverse, that is to say, the ordinary shares could not be issued at a discount, because that is prohibited by law. Consequently, I do not fear the 7 per cent.; I do not think it is going to be any handicap. We want a lot of money, and we want it to be an attractive investment to the public., because, like hon. Members opposite, we believe that a large part of the prosperity of the country, not only in London, but throughout the whole of England, is dependent upon the development of electricity.

Captain GARRO-JONES

As a representative of a London constituency, I cannot let this occasion pass without saying a few words in opposition to these Bills for bargaining away the rights of electricity consumers in London.

Mr. SPEAKER

We have not arrived at the Third Reading yet. We are on the Amendment.

Captain GARRO-JONES

The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). who I notice, is not now present, said that these electricity companies were running a very big risk. By the way he talked one might have supposed that this was a big "death or glory" oil-drilling adventure. He altogether left out of account the fact which had been previously stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who pointed out that the present electricity consumption in London was only 100 units per head of the population, whereas in the United States, over the whole country, industrial and agricultural, it is 500 units per head. It is pretty obvious, in my opinion, that there 's great scope for increase and cheapening of production, and within a very short time this reduction of dividend to 7 per cent. will have proved to be an illusory concession. If any further evidence were needed of the very little risk that is being run by these companies, we have only to point to the very successful schemes of electricity which are being run in London under municipal enterprise. Even the much-maligned and much-despised financiers of Poplar have been able to do far better than the best private enterprise, as far as electricity is concerned.

Another point on which I am entirely unable to reconcile the speech of the hon.

Division No. 105.] AYES. [10.25 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hayday, Arthur Scurr, John
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayes, John Henry Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Attlee, Clement Richard Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Sltch, Charles H.
Baker, I. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Hirst, G. H. Smillie, Robert
Barr, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Batey, Joseph Hore-Belisha, Leslie Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)
Broad, F. A. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Smith, Rennle (Ponistone)
Bromley, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Snell, Harry
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stamford, T. W.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, T. 1. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sutton, J. E.
Compton, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Connolly, M. Kennedy, T. Thurtle, E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lee, F. Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry Livingstone, A. M. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Dennison, R. Lowth, T. Viant, S. P.
Duncan, C. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Wallhead, Richard C.
Forrest, W. Mackinder, W. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Warne, G. H.
Gibbins, Joseph March, S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Gillett, George M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gosling, Harry Murnin, H. Whiteley, W.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Oliver, George Harold Wignall, James
Greenall, T. Palln, John Henry Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Paling, W. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Groves, T. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grundy, T. W. Potts, John S. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Windsor, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rlley, Ben Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hardle, George D. Ritson, J.
Harland, A. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harris, Parcy A. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) Mr Dalton and Mr. A. Barnes.
Hastings, Sir Patrick Salter, Dr. Alfred
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Barnett, Major Richard W.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Balfour, George (Hampstead) Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W,

Member for Moseley is the fact that only this afternoon the Minister of Transport was telling us that the Government contemplate, as a great scheme for the improvement of the unemployment figures, the development of electricity. I consider that to make these concessions in advance of this Government scheme is to tie their hands, and that they will find, when producing their general scheme, that they will be unable to carry out their proposals. This is a great day for the hon. Member for Moseley. He is to be congratulated upon it, because, in the years to come, as the dividends will be going up and the electricity supplies depreciating in efficiency, he will be fêted and banqueted, and will look back on this day as the greatest day of his career. Therefore, we may congratulate him, while at the same time expressing our sympathy with the future electricity consumers of London.

Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 97; Notes, 219.

Betterton, Henry B. Golf, Sir Park Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Gower, Sir Robert Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Blundell, F. N. Grace, John Phillpson, Mabel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Grant, J. A. Pllcher, G.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W Greene, W. P. Crawford Pllditch, Sir Philip
Brass, Captain W. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Assheton
Brassey, Sir Leonard Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Preston, William
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Gunston, Captain D. W. Price, Major C. W. M.
Brlggs, J, Harold Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Radford, E. A.
Brocklebank, C E. R. Hammersley, S. S. Ralne, W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Brown, Maj. O.C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Harland, A. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) Harrison, G. J. C. Remnant. Sir James
Burman, J. B. Hartington, Marquess of Rice, Sir Frederick
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Calne, Gordon Hall Haslam, Henry C. Ropner, Major L.
Campbell, E. T. Hawke, John Anthony Ruggles Brise, Major E. A.
Cassels, J. D. Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Salmon, Major I.
Cauttey, Sir Henry S. Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putnty)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hilton, Cecil Sanderson, Sir Frank
Charters, Brigadier-General J. Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard Savery, S. S.
Christie, J. A. Holland, Sir Arthur Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mel. (Renfrew W)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Homan, C. W. J. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Clarry, Reginald George Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfast)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hopkins. J. W. W. Skelton, A. N.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n It Kinc'dine, C.)
Cooper, A. Duff Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cope, Major William Hume, Sir G. H. Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Couper, J. B. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Sprot, Sir Alexander
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Illffe, Sir Edward M. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Strickland, Sir Gerald
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Jacob, A. E. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Cunllffe, Joseph Herbert Jephcott, A. R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Curzon, Captain Viscount Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) King, Captain Henry Douglas Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Little, Dr. E. Graham Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Tinne, J. A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester) Loder, J. de V. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Dawson, Sir Philip Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Dlxey, A. C. Lumley, L. R. Waddington, R.
Drewe, C. Lynn, Sir Robert J. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Eden, Captain Anthony Mac Andrew, Charles Glen Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hult)
Edmondson, Major A. J. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Warrender, Sir Victor
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Macintyre, Ian Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) McLean, Major A. Watts, Dr. T.
Frskine, James Malcolm Montelth Macmillan, Captain H. Wells, S. R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Wheler, Major Granville C. H
Falls, Sir Charles F. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Fielden, E. B. Margesson, Captain D. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Fleming, D. P. Meyer, Sir Frank Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Ford, P. J. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Forester-Walker, L. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C Winby, Colonel L. P.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Murchison, C. K. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Nail, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fraser, Captain Ian Neville, R. J. Wise, Sir Fredric
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E, Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Womersley, W. J.
Gadle, Lieut. Col. Anthony Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Ganzonl, Sir John Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)
Gault, Lieut Col. Andrew Hamilton Oakley, T. Wragg, Herbert
Gee, Captain R. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Gilmour, Lt. col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Mr. Dennis Herbert and Mr. Gratraian.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. SCURR

In the ordinary way, if this were an ordinary Measure, we might be perfectly contented on this side of the House to let the Third Reading go through without Division, but in view of what has been said throughout the whole course of this and the previous Debates and the recognition which has been made on all sides of the importance of electricity and its future, we feel that we have to make a protest. Every examination in regard to the electricity undertakings of the country shows that where- ever municipal enterprise is in control we have the cheapest and the most efficient electricity, while on the other hand wherever we have private companies we find that the public interest is sacrificed all the time to dividends. So far as we are concerned, we agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), that we have been responsible during the last few years in doing everything we possibly could to stop these Bills from becoming law. We have done that because we consider that we have a responsibility to our constituents, because we feel that this is a gross betrayal of the whole interests of the London people-4110N. MEMBERS: "No ! "]—and because of that betrayal we are making this protest, even at the final stage of the Bill.

We know that we are going to be beaten in the Division Lobby. We know that the serried ranks opposite will come in, as they always will, on behalf of private enterprise, on behalf of dividends, and always against the interests of the public. They are going to he absolutely true, as they always have been, as they always are, to their friends. They are going to look after the interests of their friends. We are here to make our protest, and I make it on behalf of the people of London. The time is coming when hon. Members opposite will not be there in their serried ranks, but when others will be there who will look after the interests, not of shareholders and dividend hunters, but of the people as a whole.

Mr. LANSBURY

I am sorry to have to intervene in this Debate at this stage, but circumstances, over which I had no control, prevented my being here earlier. I wish to join in the protest. I happen to come from a borough which causes a good deal of amusement on the other side of the House, but which in respect to this particular business of electricity holds the field in the whole of the country. Whatever hon. and right hon. Members may have to say about the frenzied finance of Poplar, the frenzied electricity of Poplar is the cheapest and best in the whole country. Our electricity concern pays a minimum rate of wages for skilled people of £4 5s. per week. it gives &£4 a week to unskilled men. We work the best hours of any undertaking in the country. We give holidays, we give sick pay, and yet we manage, by organisation and a good deal of courage on the part of those who manage the concern, to give the cheapest product in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the cost of the rates! "] No, not at the cost of the rates. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the courage of the ratepayers? "] Their courage is that they return us to the extent of 43 members out of 49. The courage of our workpeople is such that they give us 100 per cent., and that courage is shown because we give them the advantage of a cheap, clean, wholesome life, which the private gas companies never permitted us to have.

BrigadierGeneralSirHENRYCROFT

What about your high rates?

Mr. LANSBURY

Our high rates have nothing whatever to do with the electricity undertaking. That undertaking pays its own way. It produces the cheapest electricity, and it makes a profit. I am ashamed to say we make a profit, but we do. We are so efficient that we are obliged to make a profit. I was not here in time to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) I always enjoy listening to him. I cannot understand why he represents a Birmingham constituency, holding the extraordinary views on municipal affairs that The does. I learned nearly all I know in regard to gas, water and electricity Socialism from Birmingham, from the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, whom we first heard of in London as the apostle of municipal Socialism. I think that it shows a very decadent public opinion in Birmingham to send a representative like the hon. Member, for why a Member from Birmingham should be against municipalisation I cannot understand, because they not only run tramways, but they actually run omnibuses and banks. There is no end to their municipal undertakings.

Mr. HANNON

They are run by the successful business men who made their success in private enterprise.

Mr. LANSBURY

That is exactly the argument which we always put forward. If the hon. Gentleman will only speak for another minute or two he will make my whole case. We have always said that the municipalities and the State can buy brains as well as corporations and companies and all the various concerns that co buy them. For exactly the same reason that Birmingham manages its municipal concerns, Poplar manages is municipal concerns[Laughter]I am very pleased to hear the hilarity of hon. Gentlemen at this time of night. They cannot get over the statement published, not by ourselves, but by the Board of Trade that Poplar has shown them how to pay high wages, enable men to work under decent conditions and at the same time produce electricity more cheaply than anyone else and make a profit on it. Hon. Members cannot answer that. No amount of jeering will get over facts. With regard to Birmingham, you are in the same position as we are in in regard to omnibuses, trams and the hundred and one other undertakings.

Everyone knows that the gas companies treated the public abominably. We adopted electricity in Poplar because the gas companies would not light our streets. We were driven to it. It was done originally not by Socialists, but by gentlemen holding the view of hon. end right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fact is that when you are up against it you are obliged to fall back on the community. There is not a single communal service which you had not to take out of the hands of private enterprise. With regard to these Bills it is an iniquity on the part of the London County Council, dominated by your friends, to allow without protest this business to be handed over in the fashion in which it has been handed over. The people down at Poplar, and the poor people in all the other districts, will never get the advantage of electricity from a company. I could not get gas when I started my married life[Laughter.]That statement seems to have evoked an explosion of laughter. in my early married days we could not get gas-light into the house, because the gas companies would not put the mains down the streets in which poor people, lived. The same thing applies to-day to electricity, in those districts where the municipality does not own the generating plant.

You laugh at Poplar's "frenzied finance." Out of the profits that we are making in Poplar from our electricity undertaking, and out of the organisation of unemployed labour, the cables for conveying electricity are now down every poor street in the borough, and within a few months there will not be a house that will not have been wired by the borough, and every poor person, even those who live in single rooms, will have the blessing of electric light. The mains and wiring will be paid for out of the profits that would otherwise go to private electricity companies. We are able to do that because we use the profits for the service of the people instead of for the dividend hunters of the West End of London. That is the principle for which we have been contending. It is not something in the air; it is something that is happening now. It has not cost the people of Poplar a single penny. The result will be that for cooking, lighting and heating our people will have what rich people only have had in many districts, and that is the blessing of electric power. Hon. Members opposite forget another thing, and that is that from the point of view of public health this is one of the greatest blessings that poor people can have. The landlords certainly in the East End and in overcrowded districts, spend very little money in cleansing the houses.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is travelling a very long way from the Bill. I do not think that the Bill deals with Poplar.

Mr. LANSBURY

I was trying to give the example of Poplar to prove why other people should have the blessings enjoyed by Poplar. Where private companies own the electricity poor people have precious little chance of getting it. When poor people live in crowded areas the landlords do not spend much money in cleansing the rooms, and because the people have to use lamps and gas the rooms get dirty much more quickly than when electricity is used. I do not want anyone to think that I am posing as a person who has endured poverty. I never have, but I happen to have lived during a period when gas and paraffin lamps, and so on, were used by people who earned the sort of wage or salary that I earned. When electric light is introduced into a house none but those who have gone through the experience of other times can realise what a tremendous blessing electricity is. It is because I know that private companies never have given and never will give this boon to poor people that I protest against these Bills being allowed to pass to-night.

Question put,

" That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 100.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Wise, Sir Fredric
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Watts, Dr. T. Womersley, W. J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Croydon,S.) Wells, S. R Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Tinne, J. A. Wheler, Major Granville C. H. Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of White, Lieut. Cotonel G. Dalrymple Wragg, Herbert
Waddington, R. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Wallace, Captain D. E. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L.(Kingston on Hull) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Warner, Brigadier General W. W. Winby, Colonel L. P. Colonel Vaughan Morgan and Mr
Warrender, Sir Victor Windsor Clive, Lieut. Colonel George Hannon
Waterhouse, Captain Charles Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
NOES
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Harris, Percy A. Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hastings, Sir Patrick Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayday, Arthur Salter, Dr. Alfred
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hayes, John Henry Scurr, John
Barr, J Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Batey, Joseph Hirst, G. H. Sitch, Charles H.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smillie, Robert
Broad, F. A. Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Smith Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherbithe)
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Brown, James {Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Charleton, H. C. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Snell, Harry
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stamford, T. W.
Compton, Joseph Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M. Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Davios, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Kennedy, T. Thurtle, E.
Day, Colonel Harry Lansbury, George Tinker, John Joseph
Dennison, R. Lee, F. Viant, S. P.
Duncan, C. Lowth, T. Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Forrest, W. Mackinder, W. Warne, G. H.
Garro Jones, Captain G. M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Glbbins, Joseph March, S Watts Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gillett, George M. Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Gosling, Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wignall, James
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Murnin, H. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Greenall, T. Oliver, George Harold Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Palln, John Henry Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Groves, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grundy, T. W. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Windsor, Walter
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Potts, John S. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rlley, Ben TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hardle, George D. Ritson, J. Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Dalton

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments