HC Deb 24 February 1926 vol 192 cc626-40

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."


I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."

This Bill is promoted by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company, and I am going to state the objections to this Bill which are held by the Joint Electricity Authority for the London and Home Counties area, of which I happen to be Vice-Chairman. The lines of objection to this Bill do not involve a political issue. The issue to-night on this Bill is not a division between private enterprise and public enterprise. We discussed on Monday a Bill of rather similar character, which I opposed from a similar point of view to that which I am taking to-night, but an Irish red herring was drawn across the trail, with the result that there was somewhat of a contest on very well-trodden lines, which, as a matter of fact, had nothing whatever to do with the subject under dispute.

The Metropolitan Electric Supply Company, which is itself a company that joins with nine others, derives its power from the London Power Company. When I say "power," I use the word in the electrical sense. It seeks by this Bill to extend its area of supply, to get extended power in the area of supply which it has already, and to increase its area both inside the area of the Joint Electricity Authority for London and the Home Counties, and also in a very wide area in a number of counties as far away as Hampshire and Buckinghamshire, which are not so much my immediate concern.

The lines of objection are threefold. There is, first of all, a general objection to upsetting the work that was done by this Parliament last summer. This Par- liament last summer, by two Electricity Supply Bills, and by the London and Home Counties Electricity Order, settled in broad outline the electricity programme of London. It set up a Joint Electricity Authority representative of all interests, the duty of which was to co-ordinate supply and distribution of electricity in the whole of that area, with the object of providing a cheap and an abundant supply, and, among other duties, that Authority had the duty of reporting by July next on a technical scheme annexed to the Order which is to lay down the general lines of development.

This Bill introduced to-day takes little or no account of that Joint Electricity Authority. It proposes to set up a large area, and proposes that this company should be constituted a power company. Under the Acts of 1919 and 1922, the power companies were given a position which practically put them outside the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority. Thus you have one very large power company in the North known as the North Metropolitan. You have sundry others in the South, and, in effect, those areas of power companies constitute imperia in imperio, leaving the Joint Electricity Authority only a nominal authority in those areas. This Bill proposes to create another power company area in the West of London stretching over the South-West side, over a large part of Middlesex, parts of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, and right across to Hampshire into areas in which I am not immediately concerned. The Joint Electricity Authority says, first of all, it objects to new jurisdiction being set up in contravention of what Parliament did last summer, and, secondly, in any case this work set out here is premature, because the Joint Electricity Authority has to report in July on the technical scheme. Until that is done, it is unfair to prejudge any of these questions.

There are various points that arise on this Bill, but I do not intend to deal with what may be called small Committee points. That there are a number of these Committee points may be judged from the fact that there are some 63 opponents of this Bill, and among those 63 are local authorities, companies and various persons. I will deal with the broad objections. First of all, we say that a greater part of this Bill, so far as relates to the existing areas of supply of the company, are quite unnecessary, because by collaboration with, and through the Joint Electricity Authority, on which this company is represented, the whole of what it is sought to do by the new powers in this Bill can be effected. Secondly, in the added area, which is within the Joint Electricity Authority's area, you are in effect setting up certain territory and handing it over to this company, and actually infringing the rights of bulk supply given by Parliament to the Joint Electricity Authority only last July. It is not fair to the Joint Electricity Authority. It is not fair to members of other component parts of the Joint Electricity Authority, whether companies or local authorities, that Parliament should step in and give this wide authority and these wide powers to this particular company. Thirdly, there is the point of the area outside the new area. I am speaking more particularly from the point of view of the Joint Electricity Authority and the London and Home Counties outlook, and if there are areas which can usefully be supplied by this company, which are not being supplied, and over which there are no powers, I am not particularly concerned with regard to that supply, except that I think in any case in that part of the area an absolute freehold should not be given to thi6 company, but suitable and proper regulations should be laid down.

This Bill does something more than infringe the position of the Joint Electricity Authority. It also anticipates the proposals of the Government. We understand that the Government have proposals which will deal with the areas that already have authority, the areas that are outside the Joint Electricity Authority's scheme, and will deal with the supply and transmission of current in those and between those areas. Before we have any judgment on the problem by the new body sought by the Government, we have the territory being staked out by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company. But perhaps the most noteworthy thing to be borne in mind is that the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company is itself a middleman. It has handed over its generating to the London Power Company. Therefore, to undertake an intermediate supply to the local authorities or companies in the new areas it must itself draw its current from someone else. From whom that current should be drawn is a matter to which, I understand, a considerable amount of attention will be paid by the Government in their new scheme. I do not think anything ought to be done in anticipation of that scheme. But we have it on record that the London Power Company itself anticipates that the load which is in sight in the added area will necessitate new plant. How, then, can the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company be in a position to supply all those in the area, especially, as an intermediary? From that point of view, and so far as the Joint Electricity Authority area is concerned, there is no need for any intermediary between the Joint Electricity Authority and its constituent members. Therefore, it is on these lines that we oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

If, in fact, this company was made into a power company it would be that by the mere fact of going outside the range of the Joint Electricity Authority. Now, if desired, that could have been done by Parliament last July. I cannot help feeling that in the promotion of this Bill undue haste has been shown, and there has been an attempt to stake out territory in anticipation. Whether that anticipation is of the Joint Electricity Authority, the local authorities or other companies, we say that it should not be done; that that is not the right way to go about the matter. Rather should it be laid down that the development of the electricity for London and the home counties should be coordinated and dealt with by the Joint Electricity Authority. The Metropolitan Electric Supply Company is a member of the Joint Electricity Authority. It is represented there, and the powers that are sought in this Bill, therefore, so far as inner London is concerned, can be obtained by working in and through the partnership with the Joint Electricity Authority.

For these reasons, and failing a satisfactory answer, we shall be obliged to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. It has been suggested by the other side in the course of the Debates this week that there are aspects of the case that ought to prevent us voting against the Second Reading of the company's Bill. I do not think there is anything of the sort. Whilst on broad principles certain assumptions in a municipal sense may be allowed, where you have a wrong principle in a Bill that Bill ought not to go forward. It only means enormous expense and enormous trouble, of one sort or another. If the matter is in dispute in this Bill could be reduced to Committee point, well and good. Failing, however, satisfaction on these broad points which I have indicated, we shall vote against, and ask the House to vote against, the Second Reading.


I beg to second the Amendment.

I think that this company are premature in bringing forward this Bill, for it appears to me to be similar to the one we considered on Monday, only that this proposes to cover a different area, and probably a wider area than even the other Bill. It does, however, seem to be that this company is a partner in connection with the Joint Electricity Authority. There must be something in their minds that they either want to forestall the Joint Electricity Authority in some instances or they want to forestall the Government in their scheme. They know very well that the Government propose to bring in a Bill to deal with the whole of the electricity undertakings, and I hope they are going to have a very wide-reaching scheme when they do bring it forward.

It is a little bit too far-fetched that any company that is in the Joint Electricity Authority and taking part in its deliberations should come along with a Bill of their own, probably after talking and knowing what primarily the Joint Electricity Authority are going to do. They are endeavouring to jump the pitch. I cannot put it in plainer language than that. They never ought to be encouraged in that. As a matter of fact, I think they ought to be told definitely, like the other companies, that the House is not going to stand this. If they had only waited until the Joint Electricity Authority had had full time to discuss and consider the scheme which they are about to bring forward in accordance with the powers given to them last year entitling them to bring forward the scheme by July, well and good. I think this company would be well-advised to wait until that scheme is presented. The House will be well- advised to wait until after the Government have brought forward their scheme, and then, if it is found that the Government are not prepared to do all that is required to be done, it will be quite time for any company to consider how they might take up the parts left undone by the Joint Authority or by the Government itself.

The promoters of the Bill say that numerous petitions have been deposited against the Bill by parties representing the various interests, and the Bill will inevitably be carefully scrutinised by the Select Committee to whom it may be referred. There are, it is said, 63 different authorities opposing the Bill. If there were any other than these in favour of the Bill I venture to say that the promoters would have put a paragraph in this Memorandum, which has been sent to various Members in the same way, I suppose, as I have received it, but they appear to have no friend at court faithful to them. The House will be well-advised to reject the Bill.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)

I must say that it puts the Minister in a rather difficult position to find that no Member has risen to speak in favour of the Bill. It does not follow, however, that it is not a good Bill. I very respectfully disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lime-house (Major Attlee), who moved the rejection of the Bill when he said he took it to be on all fours with the Bill we discussed the day before yesterday in that it cut across the Government's proposals. In my opinion, this is a very different Bill. It does not cut across, or in any way impinge upon, the Government proposals, in that it is not concerned with a generating station. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I can say quite definitely on the part of the Government that we have no objection to this Bill qua our electricity proposals, whatever we may have felt with regard to the Bill which was before the House on the day before yesterday.

This Bill will undoubtedly be beneficial to the large areas outside the area under the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority. I will deal with the case of the Joint Electricity Authority in one moment. In the large area outside, where this company seeks to get powers, the Bill will undoubtedly help the consumer of light and power to obtain it more easily, and to that extent it will be for the benefit of the community at large. I know there are many objections to this Bill from that area, and I understood that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) was going to be in his place to voice the feelings of some of his constituents on the subject; but I submit that all these objections are Committee points. They may be very excellent points—I have not gone into them, it has not been my duty to go into them—but because, in my opinion, all these are Committee points I think the House would be very ill-advised to reject the Bill. The objections which are raised ought to be heard by the Committee which will deal with the Bill if a Second Reading is given to it.

May I come to what is really the contentious part of this Bill as I see it, and I have taken some trouble to inform myself as to the views of hon. Members who are interested in it? The hon. and gallant Member for Limehouse, speaking for the Joint Electricity Authority of London—which was set up three or four months ago and which is, if he will allow me to say so, doing very good work, and I hope will continue to do better still in the future—says they object to this Bill inside their area because they submit, and with some force, that if the Bill be passed in its present form it would take away some of the rights and privileges they now possess. I sympathise with what they say. I understood, from private conferences—and that is why I am sorry nobody got up to speak for the Bill—that the company were willing to meet the Joint Electricity Authority along, I might almost say, nine-tenths of the way, and that there was only one real point of difference which stood between them and complete agreement.

There are two areas inside the area of the Joint Electricity Authority of London. One is in the north-west, where the Metropolitan Company are now functioning, and where they seek certain fresh powers. In that area they are quite willing, as I understand—I do not speak for them, but I feel it is my duty to put to the House what I know, so that Members may be in possession of the facts so far as I am able to ascertain them—that the suzerainty, the overriding jurisdiction, to put it that way, of the Joint Electricity Authority shall prevail, and that none of the fresh powers which this Bill would give shall be exercised by the Metropolitan Company without the consent of the Joint Electricity Authority. That seems to me a very sensible arrangement and one which, I believe, the Joint Electricity Authority could agree to. It seems quite reasonable.

Then we come to the other area, south-west of the present district which the Joint Electricity Authority has power over, and where the Metropolitan Company also seek powers. In that area, I understand—as far as I know—the company have made no offer to submit these potential powers to the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority. Speaking personally, I think they should do that.

To sum up, if I may advise the House, I should say most certainly that we should give this Bill a Second Reading, because I think it deserves a Second Reading on its merits. As the House knows, it is my duty when a Bill is in Committee—it is a statutory duty—to send a communication to the Select Committee which is considering it, and I say, quite definitely, that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading I shall consider it my duty respectfully to suggest to the Committee that they should insert provisions which would safeguard the overriding interests of the Joint Electricity Authority in the area where the Joint Electricity Authority is paramount at the present moment. Subject to that, I think the Bill is a sound and a good one, and should receive a Second Reading.


Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend anything with regard to the area outside?

Colonel ASHLEY

The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that I am in a very difficult position, because I have no power to speak for anybody, but I did understand that the promoters were offering that if they were to become the power company in the area outside the jurisdiction of the Joint Electricity Authority—not to become a power company with perpetual tenure, as power companies have usually been up to now, but a power com- pany with a tenure up to 50 years. At the end of 50 years they should be liable to be bought out by the Joint Electricity Authority or any other public authority which has power to purchase. I have no right to make that as an offer on the part of the company, but I understand that is a suggestion which has been put forward and not unfavourably received by the company.


Do you mean by that that there is likely to be another Joint Electricity Authority, or will the present Joint Electricity Authority have power to cover those areas?

Colonel ASHLEY

That I could not say: 50 years hence is a long time.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

Like the Minister, I feel in a difficult position to-night, because I have been waiting to hear a statement from the promoters of the Bill. I want to represent the case of one of those 63 authorities which are objectors to this Bill. The Royal Borough of Wokingham, amongst others, is apprehensive of certain Clauses in the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister is right or wrong in saying we ought to allow the Bill to go to Committee, but I think we ought to get a definite undertaking that in Committee the promoters will, as far as my objectors at Wokingham are concerned, reconsider Clauses 13 to 15. What will be the position of a little country town like Wokingham, where it is proposed to run wires all over the town, although the town have made arrangements with the local gas and electricity undertakings that that should not be done? Are their streets to be dug up without any proper compensation? I would also like to know, seeing the Government are bringing in a big electricity scheme, what the position of this company itself is going to be? Will they be able to say, "Now we have got this thing, and you will have to pay us so much to get out."? I think before the Government recommend even a Second Reading they ought to arrange that with the promoters. If the promoters will meet Wokingham in the two points they have raised I shall not oppose the Bill going to a Second Reading, but I shall expect them to give an undertaking that in Committee these objections shall be met.


I think it is unfortunate that the House should be asked to give a decision upon a Bill of this character at the present time. We have before us the prospect of a very large electricity scheme, and I am rather surprised that the Minister of Transport, knowing that these smaller schemes were coming before Parliament, did not take Parliament into his confidence and give us the advantage of the inquiries he has made. Most of the inquiries made by various Committees have recommended that electricity, whether undertaken by municipalities or private companies, should be done on natural lines. The great mistake in the past has been that they have been dealt with piecemeal instead of under a large comprehensive scheme. The first step taken in this direction was the creation of the Joint Electricity Authority. I was one of those who wanted some kind of electricity authority for London because I thought that London provided a very-good unit, but technical experts have recommended that to take London as a unit would be a mistake and they recommend that we Should have much larger units, and the result of inquiries by commissioners is that they recommend that the Home Counties be taken as a unit for dealing with this problem.

The Joint Electricity Authority has hardly found its feet yet, and it has not issued any report, and has scarcely got through the first stages of its existence, and I do think under these circumstances it is unfair, without having the advantage of the Report of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister, or the Report of the inquiries of the Joint Electricity Authority, to be asked to give a judgment on this Bill. The area dealt with under this Bill is largely a rural area, and the load line will not be a very good one. For success you must not only have a large area, but you must include as large a variety of industries in it as possible. It would be far better for this new district to come into a larger scheme, instead of building new power stations.

With regard to this Measure we have been promised Amendments in Committee, but I suggest to the Ministry of Transport that it would be far wiser to stay our hand in order that the area dealt with under this Bill may come in under a great national scheme that will bring to our country a new era of electric development. I do not see why the part of the country dealt with by this Bill, which after all is very backward in many ways, should be handicapped in this way, because the very foundation of its industrial future depends upon having an up-to-date and efficient system of electricity. We ought to think very carefully before we pledge ourselves on the very eve of a new scheme to the adoption of a Bill of this kind.

I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) in his place, because I am aware that although we differ on many things, I think we are agreed to-night in regard to this Bill, and I understand that the county of Middlesex is not at all satisfied about this particular scheme. Many areas in Middlesex are affected by this Measure, and I think this is the very worst occasion to bring forward a Measure of this kind. The real issue is whether when the whole electricity system of the country is going to be reorganised that is an appropriate time for this Bill to be brought before the House of Commons.


I confess that I am not in my usual role to-night, and for once I am opposing a Private Bill.


Are you a Bolshevist?


I hope it will not be considered that opposition to a Private Bill is necessarily evidence of Bolshevism. The Borough of Ealing, who generate their own electricity, have during the last 12 months petitioned against this Bill, and so has the Middlesex County Council. Although I am adverse to wrecking Private Bill legislation on the Second Reading, I do think that if this Bill goes through there should be an instruction to the Committee not to proceed with it until the Report of the Joint Electricity Authority is before us, and I think a great deal of money might be saved by that process. By taking this course I am simply representing my constituency and exercising a certain amount of common sense. I was professionally concerned during the whole of those long inquiries with regard to the electricity supply of the Home Counties, and I know the great labour involved in producing this scheme, known as the Home Counties Scheme, and I should be doing wrong if in regard to this matter I allowed a private company to jump their claim. I am all in favour of private enterprise, but I am bound to say I think it would be a very unwise step to force this Bill to a Second Reading under the present conditions. I am not at all sure whether it would not operate retrospectively, so as to take the company out of the scheme of the Joint Electricity Authority. If my recollection serves me, only those existing power companies which have been put into the Schedule are exempt from the operation of the Order, and I do not think it is desirable, at this time of day, to add to them.

If this company is constituted as a power company, it will very seriously handicap the borough council of Ealing, who are generating electricity satisfactorily, who, in spite of great opposition, have been able to increase their plant under an Order of the Electricity Commissioners, who are looking forward to reaping the benefit of that extended plant, and who know the borough, its capabilities and its wants, which they are able to supply. If this company is allowed to set up in opposition, it will be a matter of very grave concern to the ratepayers, whose credit is involved in the present station and the extended machinery. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be very wrong to grant these powers at a moment when the whole matter is in the melting pot, and before the authority which is representative of all the municipal and extra-municipal undertakings has been able to put its proposals before the House of Commons. The company are seeking further powers to break up the roads. This is a Committee point, but they have already considerable powers in that direction, and, having regard to the

problem with which my right hon. Friend the Minister has to deal, I am sure he would not encourage an increase of facilities for breaking up the roads. Then there is another objection, in the shape of maximum prices, and the proposed revision by the incorporation of Section 33 of the Act of 1905. This again, is a Committee point, but still it has its bearing. It is very undesirable that additional powers of this description should be given.

These three reasons are common to the county council and the borough council of Ealing, but there is a fourth, which affects the borough of Ealing alone, and that is that for 10 years they have to take their supply from this company in bulk under an Order of the Commissioners. It would be very improper that this company should come in as an opponent of the borough council in order to prejudice that authority, which has hitherto borne all the burden of initiating a supply of electricity in that district. It is now, or at any rate it gives promise of being, a very paying concern, and, therefore, whatever may be said outside, it does appear to the Borough of Ealing to be unjust that it should be subjected at this moment to opposition of this character. For all these reasons, while I deprecate the wrecking of a Bill on Second Reading, I hope the House will insist on an instruction being given to the Committee not to proceed with the consideration of this Bill until they have before them the proposals of the Joint Electricity Authority.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 128.

Division No. 48.] AYES. [9.0 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart Cope, Major William
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Couper, J. B.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Brassey, Sir Leonard Cowan. Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Apsley, Lord Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Curzon, Captain Viscount
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Campbell, E. T. Dalziel, Sir Davison
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Davies, Dr. Vernon
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Berry, Sir George Christie, J. A. Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cobb, Sir Cyril Dixey, A. C.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Eden, Captain Anthony
Edmondson, Major A. J. Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Rye, F. G.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Lumley, L. R. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Forrest, W. MacAndrew, Charles Glen Sandeman, A. Stewart
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony MacIntyre, Ian Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ganzoni, Sir John McLean, Major A. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Macmillan, Captain H. Simms, Dr John M. (Co. Down)
Grace, John Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sprot, Sir Alexander
Grant, J. A. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Greene, W. P. Crawford MacRobert, Alexander M. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent Malone, Major P. B. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hanbury, C. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Margesson, Captain D. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Harland, A. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Harrison, G. J. C. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Haslam, Henry C. Nelson, Sir Frank Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wells, S. R.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Oman, Sir Charles William C. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Pennefather, Sir John Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Huntingfield, Lord Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Jacob, A. E. Preston, William Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Ramsden, E. Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Remer, J. R.
King, Captain Henry Douglas Rentoul, G. S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Knox, Sir Alfred Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Sir Joseph Nall and Mr. Dennis Herbert.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hayday, Arthur Riley, Ben
Baker, Walter Hayes, John Henry Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Barnes, A. Henderson, Rt. HOn. A. (Burnley) Saklatvala, Shapurji
Barr, J. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Batey, Joseph Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Scrymgeour, E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Scurr, John
Broad, F. A. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Bromfield, William Hopkins, J. W. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bromley, J. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Buchanan, G. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Buckingham, Sir H. Hurd, Percy A. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel John, William (Rhondda, West) Snell, Harry
Cape, Thomas Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Clowes, S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Stamford, T. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Compton, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Stephen, Campbell
Connolly, M. Kennedy, T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cove, W. G. Kirkwood, D Taylor, R. A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lansbury, George Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Crawfurd, H. E. Lawson, John James Thurtle, E.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Lindley, F. W. Townend, A. E.
Dalton, Hugh Little, Dr. E. Graham Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Livingstone, A. M. Viant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lowth, T. Wallhead, Richard C.
Dawson, Sir Philip Lunn, William Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dennison, R. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Duckworth, John March, S. Welsh, J. C.
Duncan, C. Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. Westwood, J.
Dunnico, H. Maxton, James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gillett, George M. Morris, R. H. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Gosling, Harry Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Naylor, T. E. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Oliver, George Harold Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Groves, T. Owen, Major G. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grundy, T. W. Paling, W. Windsor, Walter
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wise, Sir Fredric
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Penny, Frederick George young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hardie, George D. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Major Attlee and Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.
Harris, Percy A. Purcell, A. A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.