HC Deb 24 March 1926 vol 193 cc1312-43

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. CAMPBELL

I beg to move, "That it be art Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they shall leave out Clauses 52 and 53."

I realise (he importance to the Guildford Corporation of this Bill, and for that reason I have withdrawn my objection to the Second Beading. I have done so with the intention of showing the Guildford Corporation that, whatever may be our views regarding Clauses 52 and 53, we do not want to stand in the way of the main provisions of the Bill, nor do we wish to detain the House unnecessarily in the discussion of a Bill with which we very largely agree. We have put down this Instruction because in our opinion these two Clauses involve proposals for municipal trading, and it is for that reason alone that we wish to have them deleted. Those who have read the Bill and the statement circulated by the corporation, will have observed that Clause 52 empowers the corporation to sell electricity fittings. [HON. MEMBERS: Why not?"] That I shall endeavour to explain. Clause 53 seeks to confer powers for the establishment of showrooms. It is said that 70 or 80 municipal authorities already possess these powers, and that a precedent has been established. I maintain such is not the case, and that. those powers were obtained by the municipalities mentioned prior to tail up to which date the retail electricity appliance trade was very small and offered no organised opposition. We are told that the Weir Report advocated municipal retail trading in electrical apparatus, but it may be pointed out that this recommendation was not incorporated in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, and the Minister of Transport has been at pains to note the fact.

Having been a trader and a merchant all my life, I am against municipal trading. As a member of the London County Council I have put in a great deal of time there, and I have come in contact with the various departmental heads and their staffs. I have not one word to say against any of them. On the contrary, my experience of the London County Council has led me to realise that there are some first-class men on the staffs there, but these men are great civil servants and not traders. To my mind, they do not know the first essential of trading though they are civil servants and, as I say, are possibly very excellent civil servants. What is the difference between a municipal trading corporation and a private firm? If a private firm does business, as my firm did, it is up against keen competition all along the line. We had to arrange our business in such a way as to be able to compete against all corners. If the transactions which we put through were successful, we made, a profit, but if they were not successful we made a loss, and in any case it was our money or the money of our shareholders with which we were doing business—or speculating if hon. Members prefer that expression.

Take the case of a municipal body which does business. Time is money in business more than in any other connection, and I will ask hon. Members to imagine one transaction of a kind with which we often have to deal in business. A merchant wants certain produce. I get a telegram to that effect, and my competitors get a similar telegram. It is of the very essence of the matter to reply to that telegram as quickly as possible, because if the other man gets in first with his reply he will probably get the business, even though his price may not be so favourable. That is a case in point which has arisen in my experience in the East, and I have also worked in London, where I found the procedure mainly the same, though on slightly different lines. If a man wants to do business with your firm you must be able to accept or refuse straight away in order to make your trading a success. What happens in municipal trading? In the first place, there is a big difference in price. A meeting of a general purposes committee or some other committee has to be called to know whether it is advisable to take up certain business or not.

Mr. J. JONES

Rubbish.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

I would ask hon. Members to allow the argument of the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell) to proceed. They are under no obligation to accept it.

Mr. JONES

I wish to apologise, Sir, but the hon. Member in !advancing his arguments is making allegations which he cannot prove.

Mr. CAMPBELL

When we speak in this House we all try to prove our allegations. Some of us succeed and some do not, but I hope when the Division comes to-night it will show that I have been able to prove my allegations. In any case I am entitled to express an opinion and my opinion is that private enterprise is always better than municipal trading. I was endeavouring to put forward my reasons for that view. I was trying to state that in my opinion time is of great importance, and I maintain that if you do not have, as has been suggested, committee meetings, you in any case have a very big staff through whom these various things have to filter. I myself have experienced, on the other side of the bridge, that decisions have had to be put before committees, whereas, if they had been dealt with straight away, the bargain might have been struck. You have also, in dealing with municipal authorities, a very high rate of overhead charges, and if you find that you cannot deal on the same basis as competitors, it is comparatively easy to put the balance on the ratepayers, and that is what eventually must always happen when you have municipal trading.

Again, very often in a firm, when business is going badly, you find that you have to make various cuts, right and left. You find that your staff is not as good as it might be. I realise that it is sometimes quite difficult for a man to get on to the staff of a corporation or into the Civil Service, but when a man is once there, I think we all realise that it is extremely difficult to displace him. I have had personal knowledge of cases where a man, admittedly, is not as good as they had hoped he would be, but he having passed his examinations and got into the position, it needs almost an Act of Parliament to get rid of him, and that is not to the benefit of either the municipality or the work which they are carrying out. If it is agreed to-night—and I sincerely hope it will not be—that this Guildford Corporation is allowed to deal in the articles mentioned in the Bill, where is the end going to be? Is this not the beginning, or I should say the carrying on, of not only municipal trading but national trading? What is going to prevent this self-same Corporation on a future occasion suggesting that they should have leave to sell other things? I maintain that this country has made its name, its reputation, and its credit through its private enterprise, and I, therefore, have very great pleasure in moving that it be an instruction to the Committee to delete these two Clauses.

Sir HARRY FOSTER.

I beg to second the Motion.

The Clauses which we desire to take out of this Bill are very wide, and the objection to them is the objection to the principle which they embody—namely, that they seek to extend rate-aided trading in competition with, and gradually to the extinction of, private enterprise. Two quite recent attempts in that direction have been rejected en Second Reading in this House for that very reason—namely, the Municipal Milk Bill and the Omnibus Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell) referred to the genesis of this principle, under which something like 70 corporations got rights down to the year 1903; and the House knows that from 1912 onwards it, was the practice of this House to insert the Clause called the House of Lords Model Clause in similar Bills. I would call the attention of the House to an interesting discussion which took place in another place last year in connection with the Burnley Bill, and as the result of that discussion, in which it was suggested that there ought to be a Joint Committee or some similar inquiry set up in order that this question of municipal wiring and sales should be settled once for all, the Marquess of Salisbury, the present Leader in another place, undertook to bring this suggestion to the notice of the proper quarters. I do not quite know what that meant, but I understand that down to this moment nothing whatever has been heard of that suggestion. I suggest to the House that that would be a proper and an admirable way of dealing with that question, and that before the business of private electrical firms and contractors in this country, employing capital which is estimated to amount to about £3,000,000, is subjected to what I suggest is unfair, rate-aided competition, it is right that such an inquiry should be instituted and the whole question thoroughly investigated.

I submit again for the consideration of this House that it is not in the public interest to create fresh battalions of either State or municipal public officials, and particularly when some of those officials are to be engaged, as is suggested in one of these Clauses, in wiring private houses and factories and selling electrical apparatus in semi-State shops. The public views with grave concern the existing great army of such officials, and we are hearing again and again, in this House and outside, measures urged for the purpose of reducing that number of officials under which we are State and municipal-ridden. There is another suggestion that I would put to the House, and that is on the question of labour troubles. We are not unfamiliar with them, and we know what a very serious matter it is to the whole community when a labour trouble arises in that which is an essential industry to the very life of the community. It frequently happens that under the present arrangement the wire-men employed by private electrical con- tractors have gone on strike without involving the electrical workers in the electricity supply stations, but if all the electrical workers in a town were employés of the municipal authority, a strike taking place among the wiremen, in daily touch with that centre of unrest, the building trade, would quickly provoke a sympathetic strike among their fellow employés. The result, of course, would be that the town would be plunged into complete darkness during critical labour troubles, and there is no hon. Member on the opposite side of the House, whatever may be his views and sympathies with regard to labour, who would look with calmness, and certainly not with pleasure, at such a state of things. [Interruption.] I hope my hon. Friend will try and restrain his emotion, and that if he must talk, he will talk to himself. I am sure he does not want to put me off in any argument that I may consider worth putting before the House.

Under present arrangements electrical contractors are organised all over the country to keep the electrical power stations running during periods of industrial unrest. Five years ago electrical contractors in Glasgow manned the Glasgow Corporation electricity station for 24 hours, thus maintaining the supply during a very citical period, to the advantage of the whole of the inhabitants of that great city. I observe with regret that the Municipal Corporations have circulated, according to their custom, the town clerks of all the corporations in the Kingdom, asking them to communicate with their Members to support this Bill, and that automatically the town clerks have communicated with their Members accordingly. I confess that when I first came back to this House, I was not familiar with that machinery, and I was foolish enough to think that my constituents desired that a particular Measure should be supported or should be opposed. I found out afterwards, and I learn now, that, so far from that being the case, the electors—for example, the electors in Portsmouth—knew nothing whatever about the communication that was either being made to the town clerks by the Municipal Corporation, or the communication which was being made by the town clerks automatically to the Members for Portsmouth, and, therefore, they conveyed not at all the ideas or wishes of those represented in this House.

Communications have been sent out in which the American example is quoted, and I wish to show the House that that is a most misleading reference. It is quite true that in the Weir Report—a most valuable Report in many respects—there is a statement made that the sale of electrical apparatus is carried on by American electricity supply undertakings, and that similar activity should be indulged in by British electricity supply authorities. But the fact is, first of all, that America is, as we know, the home of private enterprise, and, secondly, in the United States all the supply undertakings of any consequences are operated by private companies, and not by municipalities, and that some of these electricity supply companies sell electrical apparatus, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, for the purpose of earning dividends, and selling the apparatus at the proper retail price. In this way, they do not smash the business of private traders, who are able to compete with the supply company on level terms. Electrical supply manufacturers and retailers are welcomed by the supply companies. There are hosts of electrical shops in all American cities. If I may contrast that with the position here, electricity supply here is largely in the hands of municipal authorities. There is no incentive to earn a profit, and no incentive to follow the ordinary usages of trade and commerce.

Electricity supply undertakings are in the hands, for the most part, of the chief engineers. Any loss must fall on the rates, or increase the price that all consumers have to pay for their current. The Coal Report emphasises the fact that it is impossible to prevent municipal trading losses being made good out of the rates. In a private undertaking, successive losses can only end in one way—in the bankruptcy court. In a municipality there is the bottomless purse of the ratepayer to meet those losses year by year as they arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "What losses?"] What losses are incurred in London by the tramways, for example? I am talking about municipal trading, and I am submitting that if there be a loss on any municipal trading, that loss inevitably falls upon the. Ratepayer, But the business still goes on; whereas, if it were in private hands, the balance-sheet would tell its own tale, and a concern which was being carried on at a loss must eventually come to an end. The conditions are not equal. The incentive to profit is not the same, and I am sure the tendency, which this House has condemned recently more than once, as I mentioned a few moments ago, to increase municipal trading is against the public interest, and on that ground we desire these Clauses struck out.

Municipal losses, as I have said, fall upon the bottomless purse of the ratepayers, and as an illustration of that fact—and I commend this to the consideration of hon. Members opposite, if they are not obsessed with one idea only, namely, on every conceivable occasion to increase municipal trading or nationalisation, to both of which policies, as they know, we are opposed—as an illustration that it is not necessary for a municipality to have these powers, I would quote the case of the Newcastle Electric Supply Company, which is one of the biggest supply authorities in the Kingdom, and they place all their wiring in the hands of private contractors.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON

They charge the consumers.

Sir H. FOSTER

I know that to hon. Members opposite the consumer ought always to have something supplied to him, and if there is a deficiency, it should fall on the shoulders of somebody else, and the shoulders are those of the ratepayer. [Interruption.] Hon. Members need not be so restive. After all, I am only trying to state as clearly as I am able to do the view we hold, and why we object to this system. There has been remarkable progress in electrical development in this country, due very largely to the private contractors and the electrical engineers, and I would like to conclude by reading a statement by a well-known authority, Mr. W. W. Lackie, late chief engineer of the Glasgow Corporation, and now one of His Majesty's Electricity Commissioners, who recently said: Electrical contractors are the best canvassers an electricity supply authority can have. From intimate personal knowledge and sincere conviction, I can testify to the important part which the electrical contractors of this country have played in connection with the development of electricity supply. Without fear of contradiction, I say that the work of the electrical contractor is just as important as the establishment of capital stations, main transmission lines and distribution net works. I hope and believe that all enlightened authorised undertakers will see the wisdom of recognising the electrical contractor, and of leaving him undisturbed to pursue his legitimate and excellent activities in his own sphere which belongs to him. If that quotation had been the other way hon. Members opposite would have told the House at once, and would have said what an indeniably recognised authority he was. Undoubtedly Mr. Lackie is a great authority, one of great knowledge, and independence. That is his estimate of the importance of doing nothing to squeeze out of existence this worthy body of men. It is upon a sane and wholehearted co-operation between public supply authorities and the electrical engineers that the future supply of electricity in this country depends. I thank hon. Members opposite who have allowed me to put. forward views which I know are diametrically opposed to theirs, who have courteously and patiently listened to my case.

Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM

I should like to repair an omission by the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion. It is to apologise to the House for taking up the very valuable time of a Private Member's night in discussing a somewhat comparatively trivial matter of solely domestic interest to the town of Guildford. I myself am sorry that the time is being spent in this manner over the subject, for the discussion, in my opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of a great many Members, is far more suited to discussion upstairs than on the Floor of the House. I agree with a good deal of what has been said by hon. Members who have already spoken. I am not standing here to-night in a. white sheet. I am not in the least ashamed of rising to oppose the Instruction that has been moved by my hon. Friends, because I think the House has been led away entirely on this question of municipal trading. The present question is not a question of municipal trading at all, but purely a matter of business. I am supporting it, and I am opposing the Instruction because I feel perfectly satisfied that if these Clauses are passed it would mean good business for the town of Guildford.

I am not likely, I think, to be accused of helping to promote a Socialistic Measure. The Mover and the Seconder of the Instruction very wisely did not go into that matter, because it would have been really too humorous for Guildford to be accused of wishing to do anything in any sense Socialistic. It would have been very humorous to find me rising in Lay place as Member for Guildford to support anything Socialistic. I am not supporting anything Socialistic, but something which is really good business. One hears occasionally of hon. Members on the Labour benches and on the Liberal benches accused of what is called "political obstinacy" in that they follow Free Trade or some other principle of the kind, stick to it through thick and thin, and nothing will make them change their minds. Really, I am beginning to think that there are some people beside me on these benches who are just as obstinate in this question of municipal trading as are some hon. Members opposite in their political views.

The real fact of the matter is that the town of Guildford does not desire anything Socialistic. They do not desire any municipal trading. But the town of Guildford fortunately for the citizens, is governed by a very businesslike and enterprising council, and they want the powers for which they ask in these particular Clauses of the Bill to enable them to develop their electricity undertaking, full responsibility for which they accepted some four years ago. They are at present unable to develop that under-tiling with sufficient benefit to the citizens of Guildford unless they are given the natural evolution of the powers they now possess by these new Clauses.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth Central (Sir H. Foster) tried to frighten the mayor, who is in the Gallery upstairs and the citizens of Guildford, by some tale of the awkward things and strikes that would happen if the two Clauses were accepted by the House. I think on behalf of my friends who, I believe, are upstairs, I cm assure the House that we in Guildford are taking all these ideas with calmness and equanimity. I am not at all ashamed of what I am doing. I have explained why, and I believe I am doing it as a matter of business. I am also doing it for a reason which the Mover and bewilder did not mention to the House, and that is that this matter has been the subject of a good deal of discussion in Guildford, having, in fact, been submitted to a poll of the ratepayers of Guildford—than which nothing could be more democratic! The result of that poll was, in round figures, that two-thirds voted in favour of this Bill and one-third against. Therefore, I maintain that I should not be fulfilling my political duties to my constituents if I did not help all I possibly could to carry out the wishes of that great majority. All I am asking for is that these Clauses should be in the usual way sent for discussion to Committee. They would go before a Committee experienced in dealing with this and similar matters. The opponents of these Clauses, or any other Clauses, would have every opportunity of putting their case professionally and thoroughly before that Committee. It is with the greatest regret that I have to speak here on the Floor of the House. on matters which I consider are purely matters of domestic concern.

Let me remind the House of one or two facts connected with these contentious matters. First of all, let me say that local authorities which are authorised to provide gas are almost on every occasion permitted to sell gas fittings. The same applies to corporations who provide water. They are permitted to sell water fittings. Therefore I fail to see any reason at all why, if a corporation is endowed with powers that Guildford has, to run a supply of electricity, it should not have further powers. It would be utterly unreasonable that they should be debarred from providing electrical fittings and other matters that go with it. The subsidiary powers are the logical sequence of the powers already given. Such a logical sequence is particularly necessary in a growing district such as Guildford is, where a very large number of small houses are springing up. In these modern days all those small houses ought to be wired and equipped with electricity. In many cases the occupiers or the owners of such houses are not able to put down the necessary capital to pay for the installation, except upon the deferred payments system, and local contractors will not as a rule put in electric installations on such terms, and the result is that many of these small houses now being erected are deprived of all the benefits of electricity. We know that the encouragement of the use of electricity is the generally accepted policy of the Cabinet, and we are awaiting with interest the production of the Government's Bill on that very matter. One thing which should encourage the use of electricity is the removal of restrictions. Reference has been made already to the Report of the Committee appointed to review the National Problem of the Supply of Electrical Energy, and I would like to read a few lines from it. In paragraphs 103 and 106 the Committee say: There has in the past been a serious lack of organisation in the encouragement of the use of electricity, especially by domestic consumers, which compares most unfavourably with the great enterprise shown in America…Partly the restrictions are legislative. Host local authority undertakers are prevented by their Acts from selling ally electrical apparatus. No such restriction exists in America, and it should he removed here. All undertakers should he encouraged, not only to sell apparatus, but also to provide show-rooms and exhibit appliances with which they can demonstrate the numerous practical applications of electricity in the home. Those words are not mine. They are the words of this committee, the chairman of which was Lord Weir, and I am certain no one in this House, certainly no one on the benches opposite, would ever accuse Lord Weir of being a Socialist, and I have never heard that Lord Forres or Sir Hardman Lever, the other members of the Committee, are tainted with the terrible sin of Socialism.

9.0 P.M

I know that one of the objections raised against these Clauses—it is raised by the association which has briefed my hon. Friend opposite—is that the grant of these powers will mean considerably increased competition with local contractors. Of course it will, and it is the best thing that could happen to the local contractors. I have been in business for 40 years as a merchant and a manufacturer, and I have never yet regretted any fair competition. The more competition there is the better for everybody engaged in the particular trade. There is not the least doubt that there will be competition, but the competition will be perfectly harmless to the local manufacturers, because the result of this Measure will be such a boom in electrical fittings, the wiring of houses, and so on, in the Guildford district that there will be a great increase of work in which everybody engaged in the trade will benefit. An hon. Member declared that the local contractors will suffer extinction. He used the wrong word. The local contractors will suffer from extension.

At the present time there are 80 local authorities possessing the powers for which I am asking to-night, and I do not think I am breaking any confidence when I say that one more was added to the list to-day in the Committee room upstairs. It would be rather hard when there are already 81 authorities possessing these powers that the town of Guildford should be deprived of them. I was rather amused when I received to-day a circular signed by a certain number of hon. Members of this House, including the hon. Member for Fulham and the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon), both of whom represent constituencies where the local authorities already possess these powers. I appeal to all reasonable men—I am not appealing to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley, or my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham—if he were here—because they are unreasonable—and ask them can they imagine anything more unreasonable than to attempt to deprive another constituency of the very benefits which their own constituency has? I appeal to all hon. Members representing constituencies possessing these powers to be consistent this evening and vote for Guildford to have the same powers. I have tried to show that these Clauses are not socialistic, but that they are beneficial, and are desired by the citizens of the borough; I have tried to show that they will help to remove restrictions on the larger use of electricity; and I have tried to show that they will in no way injure local contractors, and for all these reasons I ask the House in its fairness to reject the Motion.

Mr. ATTLEE

I rise to support the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) and the Guildford Corporation. I hope that every time a Bill of this kind comes before us we are not going to have an attempt to prejudice the fair consideration of the question by a lot of talk about Municipal Socialism, and so on. I rather suspect that when that is done the other side have an extremely bad case. It certainly seemed to be so in this instance, judging by the amazing statements made by the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell). He told us how municipal electricity undertakings work. We gathered from him that they could not sell an article without having a meeting of the General Purposes Committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL

I said they could not change their prices.

Mr. ATTLEE

They cannot do anything, apparently. I might just as well say that a limited company cannot sell a. single article or do anything at all without a meeting of the shareholders. As everybody knows, a municipal undertaking is carried on by a skilled engineer a ad manager, a man who has been trained and equipped and who very often passes from the service of a company to that of a municipality, or goes from municipal service to a company's service. They know their work and they are given a free hand, and when hon. Members opposite use arguments like those which we have heard to-night, it shows that they have not got a very good case. I happen to be the chairman of a local undertaking, and I am sure' we could not run it on the lines which have been laid down by the hon. Member for North-vest Camberwell. In these cases all you have to do is to get a skilled manager and trust him, and he has power to buy and sell, and it is only on large matters tat he has to consult the committee.

It has been represented to us that Guildford is a very businesslike corpora-on and I agree, for it is only recently that that town has gone into the electric supply business. Up to a short time ago Guildford was supplied by a company. The result was teat there was a large number of breaksdown, they did not pay any dividends, and they did not reduce the price of electricity. The town of Guildford decided to take over this business, with the result that up to now it has raid its way, and there have been no more breakdowns. Besides this the price of electricity has been reduced from 11d. to 7½d., and there is another reduction due next month. Therefore, the statement which has been made to us, that this is a business proposition put forward by a businesslike corporation, is quite correct. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth will be glad to hear that his constituency is, according to its return in the Municipal Annual, "fortunate enough to possess remunerative concerns dealing with tramways, motor omnibuses, and other forms of municipal enterprise, and have placed £7,500 to the reserve fund and £10,000 to the relief of the rates."

A considerable point was made with regard to the action in another place that had occurred with regard to these particular clauses. Let us consider the history of that. For many years it was quite common form to allow municipalities with electricity supplies to run show rooms and sell apparatus, but an association of contractors took up arms against this, and they managed to get these powers struck out of Bill after Bill. On this point, however, the information was not carried up to date. We have been told that nothing has been done in this matter since that time. I would like, however, to remind the House that a strong Select Committee was set up, the chairman of which was very strongly prejudiced against municipal enterprise. That Committee came to the conclusion that it was right and just that municipalities should have these powers. When we get a recommendation of that kind put forward very strongly by such a Committee, we want something more than the arguments we have heard here to-night to induce us to turn down the request made to us by such a highly respectable Conservative municipality like Guildford.

We have been told that if these proposals are adopted the municipality will come into contact with the terrible Bolshevists connected with the Building Trade Union, who may take strong action and plunge the town in darkness. What happens in company areas to-day? They have these powers. They are doing the same kind of work, and they have to come into contact with the Building Trade Union, and yet nothing very serious happens. What about the gas companies? They have to run all these risks and they put in this apparatus, and nothing of the kind suggested happens in such cases. It has been said that this Bill will knock out the poor independent contractor, but there is nothing in these Clauses which gives a monopoly either one way or the other in regard to the supplying of electrical apparatus. The great desirability of having competition in these matters has already been referred to. I have tried to find out whether it is really true that if these powers are granted some blighting hand will descend on the contractors and they will disappear. Nothing of the kind has happened.

I have seen a report from an engineer of one of our municipalities that has perhaps gone further into this selling business than most corporations, and he says that he works in the closest harmony with the contractors. He also informs me that despite the large amount of his sales, and they are very large—they jumped up from £12,000 a year to £40,000—tillers is only one contractor in his district who objects to these sales by the corporation, and the others are doing very good business. As a matter of fact the business of those contractors has increased in consequence. What happens is that municipalities who have the benefit of these Clauses do a large amount of advertising business both for themselves and the contractors. The municipality runs the central showroom and the publicity department, and the work of selling electrical apparatus is stimulated both by the council and other agencies. It is noteworthy that those who have opposed these Clauses have not adduced any evidence of their contention that they would mean a heavy loss on the rates. I know they were speaking on behalf of the Contractors' Association, but I would like to remind them that the Guildford Corporation have put into their Clauses a restriction in regard to What has been called unfair competition.

Sir H. FOSTER

Is provision made in these Clauses that there should be power to deal with overhead charges.

Mr. ATTLEE

The Clause is perfectly clear, and if hon. Members wish it to be made stronger in Committee there is no objection to that, and no doubt the Guildford Corporation are quite ready to make it a perfectly watertight Clause. The hon. Gentleman opposite tried to raise the bogey that this is the thin end of the wedge of municipal Socialism. As a matter of fact, it must have got pretty thick on the wedge by this time, because, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Guildford, this has gone on in many towns up and down the country for years. We have not had any complaint from Birmingham, although possibly we may get a complaint against the Birmingham Corporation from a representative of Birmingham here to-night. They have these powers and, as far as I know, they exercise them very well. I am not aware that there are no electrical contractors in Birmingham; I believe it would be found that they are carrying on their trade quite well, despite the Corporation's powers.

An attempt was made to say that the Weir Report did not really touch this matter, but was referring to America or something of that sort. The Weir Report is at least a business man's Report, and it touches upon the two obvious practical instances in which these powers are necessary. Hon. Members will notice that they are both cases affecting the smaller type of consumer—the man of small means, for whom it is most desirable that the supply of electric power and light should be extended. The first is the question of hiring. A great deal of hire-purchasing is done, but, although simple hiring can be dons without these powers, if it is desired to carry on a hire-purchase system these powers are necessary. What happens is that a piece of apparatus is hired, and, after a few months, the consumer says, "I like this very well, and should now be glad to buy it"; but the corporation have to say, "We are very sorry, but we cannot do that. You must go round the corner and buy it from someone else," and they have to take back the part-worn piece apparatus, which is useless to them.

The second point is that there are contractors and contractors, Some contractors are in a large way of business. I was speaking to one of the largest to-night, and he was strongly in favour of the attitude taken up in favour of this Bill. But there are also very small contractors, who live, necessarily, in a more or less hand-to-mouth way. If you want to eater for the smaller consumer, you have to bring the apparatus, by some means, within his financial capacity, that is to say, by weekly or monthly payments. The ordinary small contractor is not in a financial position to do that, but the municipality can do it. That part of the work is not work that is taken away from the contractor; it is simply work that would not be done if the municipality had not these powers. That is why it has been pointed out that, along with the contractors continuing their work, you get a very great development of a different type of work. I think it is too late in the day to say that we will not have any municipal trading in electricity. The big towns of the country are not going to stand that. I do not think for a moment that the Birmingham Corporation would stand it. What is happening here is really this: You are going to say that experience has found certain powers of sale to be necessary in order to complete the businesslike arrangement of these undertakings which municipalities have been allowed to take up, but that you are so much frightened of municipal trading that you are prepared to hamper them by not giving them this Clause.

Mr. HANNON

We should like to see their balance-sheets.

Mr. ATTLEE

If the hon. Member will make an appointment with me, I shall be delighted to take him round and show him the accounts of the Stepney Borough Council at any time. It really is not fair to raise all sorts of mad points about strikes and so on, when everyone knows that the companies have these powers. Why do you not ask that the companies should not have these powers? If you are so fond of the contractor, have you no sympathy for the contractors in the companies areas who have been squeezed out by the companies that are doing their own wiring and selling their owl apparatus? That is not done because hon. Members know that it is not logical. The case put forward by the hon. Member for Guildford is a businesslike case, which has been recommended by a thoroughly businesslike committee, namely, the Weir Committee, which is following out the principle that has been adopted by all the chief municipalities in the country, and which is following out the recommendations of an extremely strong Select Committee of the House of Lords. I do suggest to this House that it is better to fall in with those views, and allow Guildford to manage its own business in the way that it has shown itself so capable of doing, rather than that hon. Members should allow themselves to be driven into the other Lobby by some bogey of municipal Socialism.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) is not able to use his own discretion in speaking to the brief of the Corporation of Guildford. I suppose it is as much as his political life is worth to oppose that august body, which controls his political destinies. It may be a Conservative body, but certainly I think the applause with which the sentiments uttered by the hon. Member for Guildford were greeted on the other side ought to have made him question whether he could consistently follow them. He used the word "business," and the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) always talked about "a business proposition." It reminds me that when in the Courts you hear a gentleman saying that everything is in his favour, it always means that he has a very bad case in law. The hon. Member said he did not object, even in his own business, to fair competition. I do not know what the hon. Member's business is, but I would say this, that he would very much object to being rated by one of his business opponents, and to part of the rates he paid being used as the capital of his business opponent. He would be the first to squeal, and to say that that was not fair competition; and that is the position here. It is true that they make a profit out of it—

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM

My hon. and learned Friend is entirely misinformed. There is no charge whatever on the rates of the Corporation, and a very large profit is made.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

On the capital provided by the rates. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Many a corporation starts very well, but finishes very badly. You see that in all the corporation' tramway enterprises—they start splendidly, but generally finish badly. It may be that Guildford may be able to carry on for a number of years. The last speaker said that a very good account had been given of these municipal enterprises, and that is quite right. He said that they are carried on by engineers, and it is these engineers who always wish to magnify their position; they want their salaries and their emoluments, and they are at the bottom of all these attempts to get a bigger development of particular departments. They are quite right. I am not blaming them; I would do exactly the same myself, and so would everyone on the other aide. But it is our business to see that these things do not happen, and that local authorities stick to the business for which they have been elected.

Corporations get these powers because they are monopolies. If electricity could be transmitted by wireless, if you did not have to pull up the streets, and lay mains, and all that sort of thing, you would not have the corporations taking up this business; it would be done more or less by private enterprise, and Parliamentary Bills would not be needed. It is not so much that I am afraid of Guildford being a Socialistic town council, but when these places get an opportunity of doing something on their own account, with their own officials, they are very apt to fall from the narrow path. Even in this case, there is no need for these powers, because there are already a dozen contractors, who are well able to do this work and employ between two and three hundred men. It is said, of course, that business will greatly develop. There are already 4,000 consumers in a population of 27,000, a very good percentage using electricity already. The hon. Member for Guildford referred to the poll, but not 25 per cent.. of the electors voted at the poll. I think there were only 3,000 out of a population of 27,000. That cannot be said to be a very heavy poll. What is even worse, and shows that even a Conservative municipality is not very decently minded, is the fact that these contractors asked to be heard before these Clauses were proceeded with by this Conservative corporation, and that they were refused a hearing and did not get an opportunity of stating their ease at all. That was not very sporting or judicious. They ought to have given these gentlemen an opportunity of stating their case, but they did not do it. That being so, their views ought at least to be heard here.

The Corporation, too, was almost equally divided. A member of the Corporation proposed that these particular obnoxious Clauses should be deleted. Ten voted for the deletion and only twelve for their retention, so that you are representing very nearly 50 per cent. of the Corporation of Guildford when you throw out these Clauses. I am perfectly sure that these 10 gentlemen will have something to say to the hon. Member for Guildford. It is said that waterworks have these powers, but I have yet to learn of waterworks that go laying pipes through the houses. They do not do anything of the kind; you cannot get your water into the house without plumbers. The ordinary plumber under private enterprise is dilatory enough. We all know that when he comes to his job he has to wait while he sends the boy back for something, but a municipal plumber—!

In the same way only a comparatively few of the corporations supplying gas lay the pipes through the ratepayers' houses. The vast majority of the work is done by private enterprise. This municipality merely wants to start shopkeeping. It is a wholly unnecessary business for them to engage in. Moreover, I must call attention to the fact, for the benefit of the Member for Guildford, that in Clause 52 (3) of the Bill they are seeking to alter the common law of the land. It is one of the features of the law that, when a particular article is affixed to the freehold and becomes part of the building, it shall not be taken away because it belongs to the property, yet they put in a Clause which says that, notwithstanding that they may be fixed or passing through any part of a premises, all electrical fittings shall continue to be the property of the corporation. They are going to get special privileges that no other person can have.

Mr. J. JONES

What about hired furniture?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

If my hon. Friend nails his furniture to the floor, then the cases will be similar and it will be a freehold. One of the principal objections to this Bill is that municipalities are not progressive. Occasionally when a thing has been proved then they come in, as the Government come in, and reap where others have sown. Electricity is a growing science, further developments are always being discovered. It is inevitably a thing to be left to the genius of private enterprise. It is not for municipalities. It may be right that they should generate it and supply it through the mains in the streets, but it is a wholly wrong principle that they should engage as retail shopkeepers employing large bodies of tradesmen. There is always the risk that is bound to come, as it has come in the tramway systems of corporations, that 'heavy burdens will be placed upon the rates and that ratepayers in the particular town engaged in this enterprise will be subject to unfair rate-aided competition.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES

The principle of municipal trading has been so of ten debated and approved by this House in the last 20 years that I could not understand the hon. Member opposite arguing against it. In view of the fact that a municipal authority in Birmingham is actually carrying on a municipal bank, it seems to me rather late in the day to argue against the principle. The question to-night is whether the Corporation of Guildford should have certain powers, and I am interested in the principle because there is a Bill before the House from the chief town in my constituency, Colwyn Bay, containing the same Clause. The question we have to decide is not whether or not we should have municipal trading in this country, but whether this particular town is to have the powers obtained last year by three other corporations, Bath, Barrow-in-Furness, and Burnley, under their Bills. I do not quite understand the objection of the Mover of the Instruction to-night, for it has already been pointed out—

Mr. MACQUISTEN

May I ask the bon. Member if he is aware that, before a Committee of the House of Lords the other day, the Colwyn Bay engineer confessed that he did not know whether a particular section of his undertaking was making a profit?

Mr. DAVIES

The Committee of the House of Lords passed the very Clause to which he takes objection to-night. All the corporations have, as a matter of common form in their Bills at the present moment, the right to sell gas fittings. I fail to see on what principle it can be argued that it is right to put it in as a common form for all municipal corporations to sell gas fittings and that it is a right principle also not to allow them to sell electric light fittings. No distinction can be made between them, and for that reason I shall oppose the Instruction.

Sir COOPER RAWSON

My Friend the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham) said that he did not appear in a white sheet, but he appears to have adopted the undervest of Micawber, because he anticipates good business in the future and hopes that something good will turn up. It does not follow necessarily that, because he is successful in Guildford in electricity supply, he is necessarily going to be successful in the supply of electric fittings. A document has been circulated in support of the Bill, and I only want to deal with two points in it. One point they make is that permission has been given to various municipalities all over the country. It is because of the general principle that 1 and many others on this side object to this principle of municipal trading. Because power has been given to municipalities in other parts of the country, that is no reason why we should participate in the continuation of this pernicious doctrine all over the country.

Another point they make is that power for local authorities to supply gas and water fittings is exceedingly common. My experience of a local authority which has power to supply gas and has a quasi monopoly is that your selection of stoves and other things that are necessary in connection with the gas supply is much more limited than if private enterprise were given a free hand, and we can anticipate the same thing if you get a monopoly in a small town like Guildford. It is very different in a great city like London, where you have private. enterprise which can supply all kinds of different patterns of instruments for use with gas or electricity. These public authorities compete unfairly with private enterprise. It is very easy to bring forward figures prepared by local authorities to prove that a, profit has been made, and it is very easy, by not debiting the undertaking with an adequate amount for overhead charges, to show a profit. The accounts of private enterprise companies are audited in a proper manner, under an entirely different system from those of public undertakings.

I base my objection on the ground that municipal trading is not one of the proper functions of a municipality. The functions of a municipality are to look after the health and the public services of the municipality and not to go in for trading and compete unfairly with private enterprise. Wherever State or municipal enterprise has been undertaken, the work has generally been carried on much less efficiently and much more extensively than it could be done under private enterprise. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to agree with me. That is not ply object in rising. My only object in rising is to support the abolition of these two Clauses and to support the private people in Guildford who want to set up in business, and to protect them against the monopoly of the municipality.

Mr. J. JONES

It was like a breath from the briny to listen to the last speech. The hon. Gentleman comes from Brighton, which has done more municipal trading in proportion to its population than almost any other town in Great Britain.

Sir C. RAWSON

It is an exceptional place.

Mr. JONES

If the principle you are standing up for really represents your ideas, you ought not to be the Member for Brighton.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It must not be assumed that these are my ideas.

Mr. JONES

I know your ideas, Sir, are far more advanced than those of your Conservative Friends, because you represent a City which has more progressive ideas. But municipal trading is not a matter of whether you believe in it or not. It is a fact. It is here, and most of the great towns and cities have discovered that it was a bad policy for them to allow themselves to be at the perpetual mercy of contractors. Some of us have gone through it. I have been for a quarter of a century a member of a local body in the East End of London which used to be a happy hunting ground for contractors. But we have wiped them off the slate. We can provide the people with electricity cheaper than any other power can be provided. We have beaten private enterprise with all the power of the Government behind it, and with all the opportunities of raising capital, and we are providing cheaper electric power and light than the private companies. We are limited within our own radius. We cannot go outside. They can go where they like. In spite of that, we are selling our electric power, light and heat 20 per cent., on the average, lower than they are.

Sir C. RAWSON

What are your rates?

Mr. JONES

What have the rates to do with electrical supply? It just shows that our Friends opposite know as much about electrical development in our great towns and cities as a Connemara pig does about astronomy. Our electrical undertaking is paying all the charges of money raised on loan, and everyone who has put his money into it has his percentage of capital back, and in addition we have £17,000 profit, on the average, for our electrical supply, the profit not going. into the profits of shareholders, but into the pockets of the ratepayers.

Mr. MACOUISTEN

Do you sell fittings

Mr. JONES

I cannot for the life of me understand the hon. and learned Gentlemen, more honourable than learned on this particular subject. He knows more about the law than I do, but I know more about roads and electricity than he does. He is talking about cutting up the roads. That is one of our great troubles with private enterprise. In the old days in London we had the water company cutting the road up one day and the gas company the next, and the roads were always in a state of chaos. The hon. Member yesterday talked about roads in Argyllshire. Private enterprise could not solve the problem of transport. Nothing could be done, and he wanted the Government to come and help them. Now he tells us a municipality must not help itself. Logic, of course, is supposed to be the peculiar forte of a Scotsman.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member appears to be travelling a little far from the electric lighting of Guildford.

Mr. JONES

It is necessary sometimes to have a little light on the subject. It is not a mere matter of whether one place or another ought to have these powers. The hon. Member who seconded the recommendation for the rejection of these Clauses comes from a town that is built up on State enterprise—Portsmouth. I have received representations from Portsmouth objecting to the discharge of men from State workshops and saying that if the dockyards are closed and we reduce our armaments, if we try to interfere with the great Government establishments which have built up for hundreds of years our supremacy in the matter of naval power, the world is coming to an end. State enterprise has made the very town the hon. Member represents. Surely we have a right to say, if Portsmouth has the opportunity of development built on State resources, why cannot Guildford, if it is willing to take the risk, have an opportunity of carrying on its public enterprise.

One charge against the municipalities is that they have no enterprise, and yet whenever a Bill comes forward in this House, the object of which is to give them a chance to show their enterprise, certain enterprising gentlemen on the opposite side of the House protest and say they must not be given the power. We ask for the opportunity. A private company can come into West Ham tomorrow and set about doing the work we are doing, but they cannot do it because they cannot do it nearly so well. We pay our men better wages than private enterprise pay their men. We work our men shorter hours and give them better conditions, and yet private enterprise claim that they are the only people who can do things under the best conditions. From Aldgate pump down to Barking Broadway we can beat the contractor every time in the supply of electrical power and light. Go to the West End at d see what people have to pay for the simply of electricity.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

And for everything else.

Mr. JONES

I do not know what things the hon. Member enjoys there. I do not have the opportunity of going to night clubs. The charge made against the municipal authorities in regard to electrical supply is that we are not enterprising, and yet we can beat private enterprise 50 per cent. all the way from Aldgate Pump to Barking Broadway. There our enterprise is such that we can heat private enterprise in the West End in regard either to electrical equipment, power, heat or light, down to a frazzle. There is nothing that the capitalist can de for the people which the people, organised, cannot do better for themselves. Every time a Bill is brought in or. behalf of a municipality, we find opposition. We have to come here and ask for powers to do this, that or the other. Why should not private companies come here, and why should not the contractors come here and ask for powers, seeing that the municipalities are com- pelled to come here? When we come here and ask for powers we are met with antediluvian arguments. We get the Noah's Ark grandmother argument against us.

Guildford is only asking for a little. She is asking for what every other great municipality in the country has already got. I would like to see some of the hon. Members who have spoken against this Bill going to their own constituencies and talking against the powers which the municipality there already possesses. If it is wrong for Guildford to have these powers, it is wrong for Portsmouth to have them. These hon. Members go before their constituents as representatives of the public, but they come to this House and speak as representatives of private companies. They have their briefs both ways. Our brief is that of the general community against private vested interest. We support this Bill, coming from a Conservative town like Guildford. I come from a less Conservative town such as West Ham. In principle we are united to-night; shall be divided to-morrow. The hon. Member who has spoken so well for Guildford to-night will be sent back here again. Some of us stand for the right of the community to decide its own destiny.

I would like to see the time when so long as there are proper guarantees that the ratepayers' financial resources are capable of meeting their responsibilities, the municipality should have the right to engage in any kind of enterprise, so long as they are prepared to foot the bill on their own responsibility. We have asked for that power time and time again. I have been a Member of this House eight years, and all the time I have found hon. Members saying that there is danger in the idea of public bodies entering into business. Why should there be any danger? The leader of the party opposite, the man who made it possible for them to occupy their present position, was an advocate of municipal training to its fullest possible extent, and went so far as to advocate the municipalisation of the liquor traffic. I refer to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain, many years ago, advocated the extension of municipalisation to its fullest possible extent, and yet to-day we have so-called modern Con- servatives, young men who are not in a hurry, saying that a municipality with a population of 27,000 should not be allowed to sell gas fittings or electrical fittings because it is the thin end of the wedge towards the abolition of a system which puts us at the mercy of private enterprise contractors. So far as some of us on this side are concerned, we want to give municipalities greater power in regard to self-determination. So long as financial responsibility is accepted, this House ought to give complete power to the municipalities of the country to carry on business in the interests of their people.

Mr. BRIGGS

I support this Bill on principle and not on purely local interests. In doing so, it seems to me that the opposition to two Clauses of this Bill to-night, as on other occasions, is based on two grounds: (1) the effect it will have on the local trader, the dealer in electrical fitments and electrical wiring, and, secondly, the fact that it means an extension of municipal trading. In regard to the local trader and the local electrician, I cannot see what difference it makes whether it is the municipality that is undertaking the work or whether it is a large electrical company. In either case, the position of the local trader is exactly the same, and I suggest that as the local trader has succeeded despite the large electrical company, so he will succeed despite the powers being given to the municipalities. This power gives the local trader fuller opportunities, because it is only by such powers as these that the development of electricity in our country can take place. Unless there is development of electricity in our industrial and rural centres, local traders will find their business gradually dwindling.

In regard to the question of municipal trading, I support the Bill on principle, because a necessary service for a large proportion of our people can only be rendered by the municipality. Hon. Members have supported the rejection of two Clauses of the Bill. I wonder if they are cognisant of the fact that there are industrial centres in this country and cities where 90 per cent. of the houses in the whole of the township are less than 10s. a week rental. Do any of these hon. Members suggest that the average man, occupying a house of a rental of less than 10s. a week, is in a position to find £10, £15 or £20 for the purpose of electrically wiring his house? He cannot do it, because he has not the money, and because he cannot do it, it means that a vast proportion of our population are to-day doing without what has become and will become even more so in the future an absolute necessity of life.

It is only if this power is given to the municipalities that these people will be able to have this necessity they so long for, because the municipalities only can instal electricity wirings and fittings into these houses on what is called the hire-purchase system. if it were not so; if the private corporations could have done it, why have they not done it already The market is there and has been there for them. It is only the municipalities who can venture to undertake such a transaction, because, naturally and necessarily, they can have powers given to them that the private corporations cannot have. It is because of that fact, if for no other, that I oppose this Instruction. I sincerely hope that it will be taken as an example, so that, if similar Bills are brought forward, they will be sent upstairs to be discussed on their merits.

Here I venture to tread on more delicate ground. I would suggest that the opposition in this case are obsessed by a term, and they are not taking the merits of the Bill into consideration. They are obsessed by the term "nationalisation." I would suggest that there is a greater interest than the interest of the individual, and that is the interest of the community at large. If the interest of the community means nationalisation, it will have my support, at all events. What is the good of making a pretence that, this is the thin end of the wedge Have we so little confidence in ourselves as to think that, if it is the thin end of the wedge, we cannot hold it back, if necessary? [An HON. MEMBER: "Rank Socialism!"] If it is rank Socialism, then what you term "rank Socialism" will be a fact in 50 years. In all seriousness, I ask hon. Members whether they agree with me or not, to give this Bill a real chance of being judged on its merits.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES

The hon. Member who has just sat down appears to be under a slight misapprehension in regard to this Bill. Only two Clauses are in dispute, Clauses 52 and 53. Ex- ception is being taken to them, and I associate myself with those Members who have taken such exception. I should like also to slightly correct the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham). He made a statement that in another place to-day a Clause, including safe and wiring, had been passed in regard, I think, to Doncaster. I am informed that while sale of fittings was allowed, the permission to wire was cut out.

Mr. BRIGGS

I happen to be one of the Committee who dealt with that question. The Bill for Doncaster was passed in its entirety as a Bill, including those two Clauses. There was only one condition made, which was that in the case of wiring the corporation should employ the local contractors to do the work.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES

I naturally wish to amend that statement. To return to this subject, the hon. Member for Guildford said that he believed in fair trading and competition. How can competition be far if in the one case you have a private individual who, before he can earn a single penny to pay wages or profits, has to pay money out, whereas where you have public bodies they need have no care whatever? The staff, the premises, and the stock are all provided out of the public purse. It is true that possibly the public

subsequently reap the benefit, but the competition cannot be fair because the two conditions are absolutely unequal. Whatever your views may be as to whether trading should be municipal or on an individualistic basis, I cannot conceive how you can call that fair trading. If it is said that municipalities are doing this kind of business in an increasing degree, I do not think that the argument that 81 blacks or 82 blacks make one white can be upheld.

If the principle is right, it is right; if it is wrong or contrary to the public interest, it is wrong. I believe, holding the political views I do, that it is contrary to the public interest to grant those powers, not only to Guildford but to other municipalities. It is not as though private contractors were non-existent. It is not as though competition in these matters was non-existent. When you set up these trusts—for they are nothing else, to control municipalities, you kill competition and individual effort, and destroy that public interest which you pretend to support. For those reasons I shall support the Motion.

Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they shall leave out Clauses 52 and 53."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 135.

Division No. 101.] AYES. [10.5 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gee, Captain R. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Gower, sir Robert Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Apsley, Lord Greene, W. p. Crawford Nelson, Sir Frank
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gretton, Colonel John Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Gunston, Captain D. W. Oakley, T.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Harland, A. Phillipson, Mabel
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Pllcher, G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Broun Lindsay, Major H. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Raine, W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Holland, Sir Arthur Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Holt, Captain H. P. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cane, Gordon Hall Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hopkins, J. W. W. Ropner, Major L.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J, Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Clarry, Reginald George Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Salmon, Major I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Huntlngfleld, Lord Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro) Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Curzon, Captain Viscount James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sanderson, Sir Frank
Davies, Dr. Vernon Kindersley, Major G. M. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sewerby)
Davles, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) Knox, Sir Alfred Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Dawson, Sir Phillp Little, Dr. E. Graham Smithers, Waldron
Edmondson, Major A. J. Looker, Herbert William Stanley, Hon. O, F. G. (Westm'eland)
Elveden, Viscount Lougher, L. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Lumley, L. B. Templeton, W. P.
Everard, W. Lindsay MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.
Falls, Sir Charles F, Maclntyre, Ian Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Finburgh, S. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ford, Sir P. J. Macquisten, F. A. Watts, Dr. T,
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Gates, Percy Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Winby, Colonel L. P. Wise, Sir Fredric TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Wragg, Herbert Mr. Campbell and Sir Harry Foster.
NOES.
Ammon, Charles George Henderson, T (Glasgow) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Attlee, Clement Richard Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Rose, Frank H.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abartillery) Hills, Major John Waller Rye, F. G.
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Scrymgeour, E.
Barr, J. Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar) Scurr, John
Batey, Joseph Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Sexton, James
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Jacob, A. E. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Boothby, R. J. G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Broad, F. A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bromfield, William Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bromley, J. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Short, Alfred (Wadnesbury)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Sitch, Charles H.
Cape, Thomas Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Clowes, S, Kennedy, T. Smith, Rennle (penistone)
Cluse, w. s. Lansbury, George Snell, Harry
Cockerlll, Brigadier-General G. K. Lawson, John James Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Cova, W. G. Lowth, T. Stamford, T. W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cunliffe, sir Herbert Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman Strickland, Sir Gerald
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Taylor, R. A.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) Mackinder, W. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacLaren, Andrew Thurtle, E.
Day, Colonel Harry Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Tinker, John Joseph
Duckworth, John March, S. Townend, A. E.
Dunnico, H. Merriman, F. B. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Badwellty) Montague, Frederick Varley, Frank B.
England, Colonel A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Viant, S. P.
Forrest, W. Naylor, T. E. Warne, G. H.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Gibbins, Joseph Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gillett, George M. Nuttall, Ellis Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Gosling, Harry Oliver, George Harold Whiteley, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Palin, John Henry Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Granfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Paling, W. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Groves, T. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Grundy, T. W. Potts, John S. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Price, Major C. W. M. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Purcell, A. A. Windsor, Walter
Hardie, George D. Radford, E. A. Withers, John James
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wright, W.
Hayday, Arthur Riley, Ben
Hayes, John Henry Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) Mr. Briggs and Sir Henry Buckingham.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.