HC Deb 04 May 1934 vol 289 cc669-93

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper :

In page 3, line 39, at the end, insert "by the undertakers."

In page 4, line 1, leave out "whether."

In line 2, leave out "or not."—[Mr. Magnay.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I understand that these three Amendments are really one.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY

I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end, to insert "by the undertakers."

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your intimation. I thought that these Amendments might well be taken together, but I suggest that, after I have addressed the House upon them, it might be the wish of the House to divide on each Amendment separately. That, however, I leave to the House. I move these Amendments on my own motive power, using my own meter—that is to say, my brains—and I have no connection with any other, firm. I was asked to support the Bill, and the town clerk of my borough sent me a copy of a letter which he had received from the Association of Municipal Corporations, advising him and the Corporation to get into touch with me for that purpose. The first thing that I saw in reference to the Bill was that it was introduced at the request of a conference of local authorities owning electricity undertakings in Greater London. That did not interest me much, but my short experience of this House indicates to me that all private Members' Bills ought to be looked at very carefully, and this proposal of local authorities owning electricity undertakings in Greater London is no exception. I am just a little tired of these private Members' days being used for the most part by London constituencies and London Members. I had hardly been here five minutes, as the saying is, when we had something to do for London in regard to the cinemas. They had been breaking the law for three years, and we had to put them right—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It appears to me that the point raised by the hon. Member's Amendments is not a very wide one, and it hardly includes cinemas.

Mr. MAGNAY

As the late Joseph Chamberlain said, I was using that, not as an argument, but as an illustration. I bow to your Ruling. I am glad that this, the last of the litter of London Bills, is being dealt with to-day on the last day for private Members' Bills. Certainly I think that the House of Commons, which is the custodian of the rights of the individual, would not agree to Clause 5, to which I have put down my Amendments. The Clause says: The powers conferred on undertakers by section twenty-four of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, of entering premises shall be extended. Having suffered all my life from the gravest malady that can afflict a man, an inquiring mind, I went to the law to find out what Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882 was, and, for the en- lightenment of the House, I will read it. It says : Any person appointed by the undertakers may at all reasonable times enter any premises to which electricity is or has been supplied by the undertakers, in order to inspect electric lines, meters, accumulators, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity belonging to the undertakers"— I want to emphasise that— and for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity of electricity consumed or supplied; or, where the supply of electricity is no longer required or where the undertakers are authorised to take away or cut off the supply of electricity from any premises, for the purpose of removing any electric lines, accumulators, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the undertakers, repairing all damage caused by such entry, inspection or removal. I suggest that the powers contained in that Section are wide enough in all conscience for the requirements of Undertakers. Why should they be extended? The we find in Clause 5 of the Bill, paragraph (a), that: The premises which may be entered shall include all premise" in the area of supply of the undertakers in which electric fittings are being or have been installed. This is a monstrous thing. I cannot imagine how the Committee overlooked it. The premises which may be entered shall include all premises in the area of supply of the undertakers in which electric fittings are being or have been installed. There are Members of the House, including the President of the Board of Trade, who generate their own electricity. Under the Bill, without my Amendment the undertaker will have the right to go to any house inside its area and examine the electric fittings, whether supplied by them or not. I know a man who is a very clever inventor, and I had something to do with the patents that he has taken out to safeguard the fruits of his brains. He generates his own electricity because he wants absolute secrecy and privacy, so as not to have any outsider coming into his premisies without his consent and examining his patent machinery or things that are in the embryo stage. The old feudal rights were very mild compared with the powers suggested to be given to undertakers under this Clause. A new Clause entitled "Application to Crown lands" was brought before the Committee on 12th April. It read: The provisions of this Act shall apply to land belonging to any Government Department or belonging to any public officer or body on behalf of His Majesty, and for the purpose of the said provisions, the officer having the management of any such land shall represent His Majesty. This is what the Minister in charge said: I think that he will find that everybody who is connected with Government Departments is equally opposed to any such proposal. It has been the principle for a very long time that lands belonging to the Crown and in the keeping of Government Departments should be exempt from the exercise of compulsory powers by local authorities or public utility undertakers. It has always been recognised by Parliament, for obvious reasons, that in respect of land set apart for public or national purposes the national interests must prevail over the interests of a purely local character, whether those interests are connected with local administration or with the supply of utilities such as gas, electricity or anything of the kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 12th April, 1934; col. 134.] On this page of the Order Paper there appears the following Amendment: The provisions of this section shall not apply to or in respect of any building or premises (not being a dwelling-house) belonging to any railway company, harbour authority, navigation authority, or conservancy authority or tramway, light railway, gas, water or electricity undertakers, and used for the purposes of their undertaking or to any building or premises in the occupation of any local authority (including a county council), or which form part of any premises any part of which is occupied as a factory or workshop to which the Factory and "Workshop Act, 1901, applies. That is to say, that to Government offices or factories or public utility societies there is no right of entry, but in the case of the Englishman's house, which is supposed to be his castle, John Bull has no rights at all. The Committee have been sound asleep and ought to be jolly well ashamed of themselves. The other night I had some doubt whether I was doing right. [Interruption.] Even Homer nodded, and there are spots on the sun. I had some doubt whether I was doing wisely, being a Liberal of the old school, in voting for the Sedition Bill. But that was for the safeguarding of Government secrets and Government policy. Who cares for John Bull and the ordinary common law rights of seeing that his house is his own? In effect, this Clause is a search warrant without the leave of a justice of the peace. Every Board of Trade or Government inspector is sworn to observe secrecy in his visits and must not talk about what he sees, but these people, clothed in a little brief authority, have the right to come into your house or mine and say they will do what they like, examine what they like, and go where they like. I protest against this. This is a Bill for the electrical undertakings of greater London. No one on the Committee raised the flag of liberty. Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corpse to the rampart we hurried. But I never was more serious in my life. This writ will run not only over greater London but over the North. Greater London may agree to this. The Press are complaining of my remarks about the softness and pliability, to put it mildly, of the Cockney. He is as God made him, and I have no right to judge him. Certainly he is the kindliest of all our people. But I am certain that in the North we think something of liberty. This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England. We really think something of this land of liberty. If the House were foolish enough to pass this Clause unamended, I warn them that, if these undertakers came into such a house as mine by the law of the land, they would go out very speedily by the law of gravitation and would probably be the subject of another kind of undertakers. My Amendment, in effect, is to put us where we are in regard to Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. Let me again give that Section, because I think the House will agree, after what I have said, that it is quite capable of covering any cases that may have been acquired by the undertakers: Any person appointed by the undertakers may, at all reasonable times, enter any premises to which electricity is or has been supplied by the undertakers, in order to inspect electric lines, meters, accumulators, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity belonging to the undertakers, and for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity of electricity consumed or supplied, or where the supply of electricity is no longer required, or where the undertakers are authorised to take away or cut off the supply of electricity from any premises, for the purpose of removing any electric lines, accumulators, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the undertakers, repairing all damage caused by such entry inspection or removal.

Mr. CAPORN

Will the hon. Member tell the House how those powers can be enforced at the present time if the householder refuses to allow them to enter?

Mr. MAGNAY

It is a very sound axiom in common law that where there is a damage there is a remedy, and he who comes into court of equity must come in with clean hands and hot feet. These are axioms of which my hon. Friend is aware. I appeal to the common sense of the House and to its sense of justice and love of liberty. We are the custodians of the rights of plain John Bull, such another chap as myself. He will not stand any nonsense. He is not going to tolerate any Act of Parliament which overrides the rights of his humanity and the dignity of his manhood.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Does the hon. Gentleman rise to second the Amendment?

2.8 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

Certainly. I beg to second the Amendment. I have been so deeply moved by the powerful oration which we have heard that I feel compelled to second the Amendment. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that at last there has been one small voice raised among the few Liberals in the House of Commons on behalf of freedom.

Mr. MAGNAY

Did the hon. Gentleman say "small voice"?

Mr. WILLIAMS

It began as a small voice, and it swelled and grew until it was, after all, a very great sound indeed. And now I hope that I have not caused him offence. I think that it was very fortunate, as I have noticed during the last quarter of an hour that a couple of Liberal Members have drifted on to the Government Front Bench. What is the position of the Amendment? My hon. Friend was stirred to great depths by the word "undertakers," and wanted to cut them out wherever he could. We are always associating Liberals with undertakers. There is a constant demand on the undertakers. The vital Amendment is the leaving out of the words "or not." If you cut out those words, the undertakers cannot come on to the premises, is far as I understand the position. If the taking out of those words is accepted by the Government or by those in charge of the Bill, they will be doing something to meet the common feeling of the House. Undoubtedly, the hon. Member for Gates head (Mr. Magnay) had the whole House behind him when speaking just now. It was obvious to anyone who listened that the whole House would support him in the same way as I am supporting him now. In passing a Measure of this kind, it is absolutely essential that you should not give these people power to enter the house or factory of the ordinary private individual.

What is the position? My hon. Friend touched upon it lightly. You have a factory where some very important undertaking is being carried on, or some new invention is being worked out, and the inspectors of the undertakers of electricity come along and say, "We want to look at some fittings we put in five years ago." Someone strays in; he may be let in without proper authority. He may discover the whole of the secret and go out again. My hon. Friend who is looking at me so intently will realise that that is possible. But under this Amendment, an inspector cannot enter the factory unless the undertaker can claim to own the actual fittings. It is for that reason that I think the three Amendments as they stand together are sound common sense and will be accepted by the House. I have very great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead on this occasion, and I hope that he will continue in the good work that he has done this morning, and that he will always do something to protect the man in the factory against any form of interference whether from this country or from abroad.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The Amendment is not worthy of the eloquence with which it was proposed. Under the Act of 1882. Section 24, to which the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) referred, the right of entry is granted and, therefore, the question of the Englishman's castle does not arise. That right was taken away before the hon. Member was born.

Mr. MAGNAY

It was long after I was born. I was born in 1876.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I apologise to the hon. Member for underestimating his age. The right of entry exists where any of the apparatus belongs to the supply authority, whether it is a municipality or a company. The purpose of the Clause as it stands is to enable the supply authority to inspect apparatus to which they are supplying electricity, whether it is their own apparatus or not. The right of entry is already established in practically every case because the meter invariably belongs to the supply authority. Therefore, the right of the company to get into the premises already exists. The question arises : The inspector having got into the premises, are you going to debar him in the interests of safety and security, or rather are you going to prevent him because he wants to ensure safety by inspecting apparatus from which the authority are supplying the electricity? I have in my house a small electric refrigerator.

Mr. THORNE

No wonder your memory is cold.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Something might be going wrong. I might think that it was prejudicing the supply of electricity generally and it would be wrong for me to be put into a position whereby I could say to the representatives of the County of London Electric Supply Company when they came to my house that they were not allowed to see my refrigerator, though they were entitled, as the law stands, to see the meter in an adjoining room. It is absurd when today most of us buy our electrical apparatus from the manufacturers or representatives of manufacturers, and obtain our supply of electricity from the supply authority. It is true that in a certain number of cases we might have made our purchase of apparatus from the electric supply authority, but in general we have not. To say that you are protecting the Englishman's right of liberty merely because you refuse to let the inspector see the apparatus, though you are compelled at the moment to let him see your meter—

Mr. MAGNAY

After having spoken at such length it is a great blow to me that I have not made myself quite plain. I am concerned about cases where they have never even given an electrical supply, and they have no right to come in to inspect what they have never supplied or generated.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

If that is the hon. Member's point, I am sorry that he did not put down an Amendment to meet it. If he merely wanted to say that a company should have no right of entry to premises where they are not supplying electricity although electricity may be consumed on those premises, I would vote for him but that is not his Amendment. I hope therefore, he will not press it, as it does not achieve the object he has in mind.

2.17 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN

This Amendment has been moved in a Shakesperian and murderous but fascinating speech, but I hope the House will not be moved to accept these Amendments. Fire risks are ever present where electrical power is used, and the freedom asked for John Bull may imply liberty to do acts involving the death of Mrs. Bull, her children and her domestic servant. Inspection will add safety. Apart from factories supplied in bulk, there are many institutions such as hospitals and sanatoria, in the depth of the country, which manufacture electricity in quantity for lighting, power, for X-Ray plant and for surgical purposes. All this involves danger to human life and it would be all to the good if such places were inspected by some big expert undertaking.

The care of human lives is a care to which this House has always given ready attention. The liberty to manufacture gunpowder is carefully inspected and safeguarded; so too is the liberty to manufacture and to use methylated spirits, and I think it would be consonant with the mind and temper of the House not to exempt users of electric power from inspection. Sub-section (3) implies a right to refuse a wrongful, prying inspection. The fine of £5 for a refusal of entry is modest. An inventor anxious to secure the privacy of his patent is by this very Clause protected against any peculiar and improper inspection that may rob him of his ideas and inventions, and no magistrate would in such circumstances convict. This Amendment is a harassing Amendment which serves no good purpose except to entertain the House on a Friday afternoon with a Shakesperian speech on lost liberties.

2.19 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that the Amendment did not achieve its purpose, but his main objection was that it achieved its purpose much too well. Take the three Amendments together. Fittings have been installed by certain undertakers. What business has anyone else to come in? We do not want to permit any more nosey Parkers. We have quite enough of them already. We have inspectors from cradle to grave, and if not Income Tax inspectors, then we are harassed by panel doctors and debt collectors.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

If as result of a grave defect in the electrical apparatus in a neighbour's house the supply of electricity to the hon. and learned Member was interfered with, would be think it unreasonable that the authorities should have the right to inspect the apparatus?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

That is a case which cannot arise. They can cut off the supply to that place perfectly easily, and that is the usual remedy with the electricity supply company. Let anyone stop paying his bill for a little time, and the supply company cuts him off. The hon. Member for South Croydon, who has made a life-study of electricity, is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, and has not yet succeeded in doing it.

Dr. O'DONOVAN

I understand that the hon. and learned Member objects to inspectors small and large and in quantities, but how does his complaint of being harassed by panel doctors affect his argument about inspection of electricity supplies?

Mr. MACQUISTEN

It is because they both shed the light on something. Para graph (b) of Sub-section (1) says : The purposes for which premises may be entered shall include the following purposes, that is to say, the inspection of all meters and electric fittings on the premises whether belonging to the undertakers or not. I do not trust public authorities, municipal or electrical. A public body is ready to commit almost any moral crime on the ground that it is for the public good. The paragraph goes on to say: the ascertainment of whether or not there is or has been any contravention of any of the Acts or Orders applying to the undertakers or of any regulation or bye law made thereunder, and, where the undertakers are authorised under the provisions of any such Act, Order, regulation, or bye-law to cut off the supply of electricity to the premises, the cutting off of such supply. Apparently they can do almost anything they like. Surely one ought to have the right of refusing access to his house to someone to whom he objects, someone in the district to whom he takes the highest possible exception—it may be a person in private life of disreputable character. I bow to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) in matters relating to electricity, but I submit that an electricity company could say to one of its customers "If we wish access to your premises for the purposes of an inspection and you refuse, we shall be entitled to cut off your supply." They could easily frame their contract in that way, and it would be reasonable, but in ail Act of Parliament to give arbitrary powers to people to enter a man's home is altogether wrong. It brings home to me the feeling that there must be truth in what I was told by an eminent electrician, that the whole of the Electricity (Supply) Act was derived from the brain of Lenin. The Conservatives said, "we must do it before the Socialists," and therefore they ran us into the Electricity (Supply) Act.

I regard the proposal which I am now criticising as an impertinent attempt to get access into private houses. A very large number of people to-day are prepared to make their own electricity. The charge for electricity is so high that it would almost pay anybody to make their own electricity. When I was in Edinburgh I had serious thoughts of putting a windmill on the top of my house for the purpose of generating electricity. I could have generated it splendidly, because on the east coast there is always plenty of wind. More and more people will be disposed to generate their own electricity. The tendency of monopolies is to get more and more staff, more and more overhead charges, more and more soft jobs for all sorts of people who cannot get into Government departments, and as a result the monopolies will arrange their prices to suit their overhead charges, and people will be driven into making their own electricity. It is like making gas, I know of one big firm in Glasgow who made their own gas. They did it at 1s. or 2s. per cubit foot although the Corporation were charging five or six times that amount for industrial gas. The Corporation begged and prayed that firm not to make gas, because they did not want the disease of people making their own gas to spread, otherwise they would be in the street. I believe that many people will make their own electricity in future. Then they will not need to call in a tradesmen to do a little job which would take a couple of days, although it should not take more than a couple of minutes.

This Clause would enable inspectors to have the right of entry at all times, and there is a penalty of £5 for refusing admission. On a particular day there may have been a number of people pretending that they had come to examine the gas meter, the electric light meter, and so on, and they may get away with some of the household property. The more people come into private houses the more danger there is of that sort of thing happening. If admission is refused to the emissary of a public authority, the maximum penalty would no doubt be sought. The Amendment is very sound and sensible and the promoters of the Bill ought to accept it unless they want unreasonable powers. I cannot see why Conservative Members should not support the Amendment. It would do no harm to the Bill and it would allay the suspicion of a great many people.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. GROVES

I have considerable sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Argyle (Mr. Macquisten) on the point of the privately-owned electric supply, and I think that the promoters of the Bill would not desire to interfere with the ownership of privately-generated electric supply, any more than they would desire to interfere with the privately-owned telephone.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The hon. Member is wrong. The last thing that the public supply company wants is to see private supplies developed. Would a distillery company encourage people to keep private stills?

Mr. GROVES

As a member of the West Ham Council I can testify to the utility of the suggestion contained in the Bill, and I am very sorry to oppose the idea of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay). This is a question of a public service for the bulk supply of electricity that is being used by private individuals. The hon. Member for South Croydon put his finger on a very sore spot. Sometimes in the case of a factory or a house a small refrigerator may fuse and the other apparatus of contact may get out of gear. The private owner may not be technically competent to put it in order.

Mr. MAGNAY

Factories, as will be seen by another Amendment, are to be exempted from this right of entry. Only dwelling houses are to be searched.

Mr. W. THORNE

Because they have electricians on the job in factories.

Mr. GROVES

In private houses, especially houses of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Gateshead, some specialised engineering apparatus may be used which will interfere with the supply of electricity to the people in the neighbourhood. In our own area in the last month or two our electrical department has been disturbed because in one of our roads a whole series of electric lamps have been dithering, that is, not giving a persistent illumination at the candle power required. It took a great deal of time, trouble and cost to ascertain the exact cause of that loss of power, and it was not accomplished without transgressing in some way that degree of liberty which is desired by the hon. Member for Gateshead. Surely, in many other walks of life we adopt the same principle. Suppose you go to buy a motor car and you have a fancy for a Ford or a Wolseley, would you say to the people : "what magneto do you fit" If so they would reply : "we fit our own." You would reply, "I must have a Bosch." Then you say, "I must have a different form of gearing." They would reply : "That would interfere with our standard and our service." So in regard to electricity. If in his country home the hon. and learned Member for Argyle is supplying his own electric current, without in any way asking the local authority for any of their supply, and without his interfering with the bulk supply of other people in his neighbourhood, there would be no objection.

Mr. MAGNAY

Why give power to enter?

Mr. GROVES

But if he calls upon an electric supply undertaking to supply him in bulk and wants to use a special apparatus, which the technicians of the undertakers might consider would interfere with the supply of electricity to the general public, surely the undertaking concerned should have the right to ask that their inspectors shall have a right of entry, not to interfere with the liberty of the hon. and learned Member, but to bring to his service the highest skill it has at its command.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

In such a case they are much more likely to condemn my installation in order to force me to buy their own.

Mr. GROVES

There is no evidence that public electricity undertakings in this country have been vexatious or harsh in their treatment of private individuals. That is my experience; not only in the case of electricity but also in the gas industry. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Gateshead has a false idea as to how these powers will be used. They have always been used in the interests of the general public, and I am convinced that the promoters of the Bill are actuated by the best intentions, that is, to bring to the public the highest skill and equipment which electricity undertakings can give.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. THORNE

I must oppose the Amendment. It is well known that in many cases electric wires have been disconnected and electricity consumed without paying for it. It is also well known that gas pipes have been disconnected and gas consumed without paying for it. Nobody can find this out unless there is a right of entry to see whether wires have been disconnected. For the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) to talk about the right of entry and interference with the liberty of the individual is all moonshine and rubbish. We have no individual liberty anywhere. A municipality or an undertaking, if they find defects in the wiring of electricity or in the supply of gas, should have a right of entry in the interests of the public. If a consumer of gas has a pipe disconnected he will, of course, refuse an inspector the right of entry. If a consumer of electricity has his wires disconnected and a knock comes to the door and the man is recognised as an official of the electricity undertaking, that individual will, of course, be denied a right of entry. I say that they should have a perfect right to enter, in the same way as an official of the Metropolitan Water Board has a right of entry when it is a case of faulty taps. Surely, you are not going to allow the leakage to go on?

Mr. MAGNAY

But suppose I am getting my water from a well, what right has the water company to come in and inspect my taps?

Mr. THORNE

They will know that you are not using their water. The Metropolitan Water Board know their customers; they have their names and addresses in their books.

Mr. MAGNAY

Why should they come to non-consumers?

Mr. THORNE

The right of entry is all moonshine. Factory inspectors have a right to go into a factory, and a sanitary inspector has a right to go into your house. I think they are perfectly justified too.

2.42 p.m.

Sir G. HUME

I hope the House will not accept the Amendments of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay). The question of the apparatus, whether it is supplied by the electricity undertaking itself or purchased from outside, is not the most important thing, the important thing is that it is connected UP with the generating station. If the apparatus is faulty great damage may be done at the generating station and, therefore,

it is in the consumer's own interests, if the apparatus is faulty or there is a risk of a shortage, that he should be protected from fire on his own premises and also that those who are taking current from the same main should be protected against such dangers. We have heard wonderful speeches this afternoon on constitutional rights, but as an inspector can now enter into houses to examine meters it is not going much further to say that he shall go into a house to see that the electrical apparatus is in working order and will not cause damage to the occupant or to his neighbours. If the Clause is so wide that it includes people who do not take their supply from the undertaking that is another point which can be looked into at some other stage, but as far as these Amendments are concerned I hope that the House will not accept them.

2.44 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO

I agree with the proposal. No factory which is producing its own electricity could be entered if we pass the Amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay). That is the answer to the whole difficulty. We. took a great deal of trouble upstairs to try and lick the Bill into shape from the point of view of the consumers, and I suggest that it is no good trying to talk out a useful and innocent Bill like this because hon. Members want to keep off another Bill.

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

The House divided : Ayes, 53; Noes, 87.

Division No. 241.] AYES [2.45 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Hales, Harold K. Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Hanley, Dennis A. Rickards, George William
Broadbent, Colonel John Howard, Tom Forrest Ropner, Colonel L.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Lockwood, John C (Hackney, C.) Rutherford,
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Loder, Captain J. de Vere Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Mabane, William Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Caporn, Arthur Cecil McCorquodale, M. S. Scone, Lord
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) McKie, John Hamilton Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Denville, Alfred McLean, Major Sir Alan Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Dickie, John P. McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Spens, William Patrick
Duckworth, George A. V. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) C. J. Summersby, Charles H.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Moreing, Adrian Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Moss, Captain H. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Peto, Sir Basil E (Devon, B'nstaple) H. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Windsor-Cilve, Lieut-Colonel George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Goldie, Noel B. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Romer, John R. Mr. Magnay and Mr. Macquisten.
NOES.
Albery, Irving James Banfield, John William Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Attlee, Clement Richard Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Cape, Thomas Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Clayton, Sir Christopher Hicks, Ernest George Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cooke, Douglas Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cove, William G. Holdsworth, Herbert Rothschild, James A. de
Crossley, A. C. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Runge, Norah Cecil
Daggar, George Hume, Sir George Hopwood Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Strauss, Edward A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Dobbie, William Ker, J. Campbell Sutcliffe, Harold
Edwards, Charles Leckie, J. A. Tate, Mavis Constance
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Lindsay, Noel Ker Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Thorne, William James
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Wayland, Sir William A.
Goff, Sir Park McEntee, Valentine L. West, F. R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Mainwaring, William Henry Whyte, Jardine Bell
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Maitland, Adam Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Grimston, R. V. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Groves, Thomas E. Milner, Major James Wills, Wilfrid D.
Grundy, Thomas W. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Wilmot, John
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Wise, Alfred R.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. Orkney Zetl'nd) O'Donovan, Dr. William James Womersley, Walter James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Palmer, Francis Noel Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Penny, Sir George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M, Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bistt'n) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Mr. Eales and Mr. Thorp.

2.52 p.m.

Mr. THORP

I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 11 to 14.

The Clause in which these words appear is in no way germane to the question of cutting off the supply of electricity. The Clause is concerned only with the right of entry, and in the circumstances it would be improved by the omission of these words.

Sir G. HUME

I beg to second the Amendment.

2.53 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

This is an Amendment which I think the House should accept without any division, because it does go some way towards improving the condition of the consumer. It is a concession for which I thank the promoters. I cannot for the life of me imagine why these words ever got into the Bill or why the Committee did not deal with them.

Amendment agreed to.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. THORP

I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, after "producing," to insert "on demand."

There is an absurdity in leaving the Bill as it is drafted, because it would mean that an officer would have to produce written authority in the case of unoccupied premises. If anyone were on the premises, of course the authority would be produced when asked for, but, if there is no one there to ask for the authority it is ridiculous solemnly to suggest that anyone should produce written authority when premises are not occupied.

Sir J. LAMB

I beg to second the Amendment.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I think it is a scandal that these words without the addition "on demand" should have got into the Bill at all, in any circumstances. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that they make nonsense and would create an impossible position under the Bill. I congratulate him upon having found out the mistake before it was too late and upon having saved us from passing a Bill containing such an absurdity.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 4, line 33, after "of," insert : and producing on demand written authority from."—[Mr. Thorp.]

2.56 p.m.

Mr. THORP

I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end to insert: (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to or in respect of any building or premises (not being a dwelling-house) be longing to any railway company, harbour authority, navigation authority, or conservancy authority or tramway, light railway, gas, water or electricity undertakers, and used for the purposes of their undertaking or to any building or premises in the occupation of any local authority (including a county council) or which form part of any premises any part of which is occupied as a factory or workshop to which the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, applies. All the big organisations such as those mentioned in the Amendment have, in these days, their own staffs of electricians and it does not seem necessary that there should be any power of entry into their premises for purposes of inspection. One objection to this power or entry mentioned on a previous Amendment was that people might possibly purloin or wrongfully acquire certain secrets in regard to research work which was being done by such organisations as these. It is proposed to insert this Sub-section to meet that objection as well as for the other reason I have mentioned.

Sir G. HUME

I beg to second the Amendment.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I am amazed at the hon. and learned Gentleman proposing this Amendment. It is all right for him to refer to any building or premises belonging to a railway company, harbour authority and so forth, but he did not explain to the House the concluding words of his Amendment in which he proposes to exclude any building or premises any part of which is occupied as a factory or workshop to which the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901 applies. These words would cover practically every undertaking, however small. Indeed, they would cover practically everything except dwelling houses. I wish to say that we on this side do not intend speaking for the purpose of destroying the chances of this Bill. We want the Bill to become law to-day. But, upon that score, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends have themselves tabled practically all the Amendments to their own Bill, which appear on the Paper, and they must take the responsibility if its chances are destroyed. Having said so much on that point I would only add that while arguments have been put forward to show why I ought to allow these people to come into my house, I could multiply arguments in favour of inspectors going into every small factory throughput the country where there are no electricians. The hon. and learned Member represents a constituency in Lancashire and I am sure he knows that there are probably hundreds of little factories in Lancashire where they do not know any more about electricity and electrical apparatus than I do. Consequently we oppose the insertion of these words.

3 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

This is either a wrecking Amendment or else it is designed to confine the power of inspection to private dwelling houses. If the Bill is good enough for private dwelling houses, then this power of entry should apply in these other cases., I have no enmity to the Bill, but I ask what is the reason for exempting local authorities for instance—in some cases badly administered authorities—while retaining within the scope of the Bill the ordinary well-managed private dwelling house. Either take away the power of entry for inspection purposes altogether or retain it altogether. I cannot understand excluding these big works from it. I do not know what the Government are going to do about the Amendment, but I should be reluctant to vote for a proposal which gives a class privilege to local authorities and large concerns and denies it to the individual. If I had any encouragement from the Government I should be inclined to vote against the Amendment. We should not make this distinction. This should be a clear cut principle and should not involve any question of privilege.

3.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

There seems to be no good reason why this Amendment should not be accepted down to the words "a county council," on the ground that Clause 5 is not designed to cover the right of entry into the premises of such large bodies as those specified in the Amendment down to that point. There is, however, a difficulty as to the concluding part of the Amendment which refers to premises occupied as a factory or workshop. The definition of "factory and workshop" is very wide. You might have a workshop at the back of a private house and it would be difficult to decide whether that was a dwelling house or a factory.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN

Is it not the case that the same problem arises to-day in regard to rating and that there is a method of testing whether premises are used for manufacturing purposes or for the purposes of a dwelling house? Could not the same test be applied in this case?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

i think it would be extremely difficult and the fact that there is a difficulty in one case is no reason for extending the difficulty to another case. It is, of course, unlikely that public authorities would object to inspectors going in to see if their electricity supply was safely installed and there is no harm in exempting them from the provisions of the Clause but when we come down to factories and workshops we are faced with the difficulty of deciding what is a factory or workshop. I suggest to the House that if they accept the Amendment they should leave out the concluding words.

Mr. ALBERY

If the Parliamentary Secretary is in favour of the Amendment, will he say a few words to justify it?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I have no objection to the Amendment, and I gave what I thought was a reason for it, namely, that as far as public bodies and local authorities are concerned, when they have electrical installations they are not likely unwarrantably to refuse admission to people who come to see that they are safe.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO

If they are not likely to be refused entry, there is no earthly reason for this Clause; if they are not likely to be refused, they will be admitted. I thought the Minister realised that this Clause, unless it is amended to exclude factories and workshops, will give the power of entry into any factory or workshop with electrical fittings of any sort, whether they are generating their own electricity or not. They may have nothing to do with the supply company, which may not have a cable within half-a-mile of their works, yet they will have the right to go in and inspect their secret processes, or whatever they are doing, and anything else they like. I do hope that the House will accept the Amendment, or else Clause 5 is most dangerous.

3.6 p.m.

Sir CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON

I ask the House to accept the Clause as it is, because it is impossible for those of us who own works, and especially research works and works with secret processes, to admit the representatives of the undertakers to go where they like in those works and do what they like. We are under the Factory Acts, and the factory inspectors are bound by the Official Secrets Act. The consequence is that we admit those men throughout our works, but I think industrial manufacturers cannot possibly agree to admit the undertakers' representatives to wander through their works and go where they like.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

Does the hon. Member mean to imply that there are more secrets in a factory than in a home?

Sir C. CLAYTON

It depends on the home and on the factory. Those of us who are responsible for factories have to look after them, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman looks after the home.

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR

Factory inspectors have the right of inspection, and not only so, but they have a duty laid upon them of examining the electrical fittings, and any hon. Member who takes the trouble to look at the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops will see that each year very great care is given to the state of the electrical fittings in factories and such places.

3.7 p.m.

Mr. A. REED

While strongly supporting this Amendment, I would point out that there is this difference between factories and other buildings. Nearly every factory has its own skilled engineers, by whom the machinery is looked after and the repairs are done, and, therefore, there is not the risk that there might be in a house of having defective apparatus. I strongly stress that point, because there are many processes which cannot be patented, for obvious reasons, and if people come into factories and wander where they like, where these secret processes as opposed to patented processes are in operation, that is not what we should expect in this country.

3.8 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND

At the present time in many factories they contract to keep their electrical fittings in order, as well as their gas fittings. The inspector comes in and does not ask to see the manager.- He simply walks through, does the job, and goes away; and I am confident, working as I do in a factory where secret processes are carried out, that no inspector in the time during which he was in that factory could fathom any ordinary secret process. I do not think there is anything at all in the argument that an inspector should not be allowed to roam over the factory and look after the apparatus.

3.9 p.m.

Mr. SPENS

I feel myself in a great difficulty on this Amendment. I would remind the House that under Section 24 of the 1882 Act, which we are extending, the officer of any undertaking which supplies electricity has the right to go in and inspect and examine all the fittings supplied by that particular undertaking. As far as I know, there is no exception to that power of inspection given by that Section, whether the premises be factories, or belong to railway companies or local undertakings or anything else. The only point is that if the undertaking supplies electricity and has its fittings and so forth on the premises, the right of inspection exists and that right is not even dealt with by this Amendment, and will remain exactly the same.

Now by Sub-section (1) of this Clause we have given the right of inspection to an officer of an undertaking, whether that undertaking is supplying the factory or the railway company or anything else, as long as it situated in the area. That is an entirely new right of inspection and a very extended and serious right, and as soon as it is put in by Sub-section (1) everyone claims to be left out by the new Sub-section (4). We therefore have everybody claiming to be exempted from this extended right of inspection by this new Sub-section except the unfortunate owner of a dwelling house or a shop. These are the only people who will be left in. I cannot believe the promoters of the Bill intended to give to an undertaking the right of inspection of premises to which they did not supply electricity. In so far as Sub-section (1) still stands, I shall support the Amendment so as to limit the right of inspection to as low a point as possible, although it is unfair that the inspection should remain solely for the owner of a private house or shop.

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

The House divided: Ayes 66; Noes, 67.

Division No. 242.] AYES. [3.13 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Hanley, Dennis A. Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Rickards, George William
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Runge, Norah Cecil
Bossom, A. C. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Scone, Lord
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Ker, J. Campbell Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Cheater, City) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Spens, William Patrick
Clayton, Sir Christopher Leckie, J. A. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Cooke, Douglas Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Sutcliffe, Harold
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (somerset, Yeovil) McKie, John Hamilton Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Dickie, John P. McLean, Major Sir Alan Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Duckworth, George A. V. Magnay, Thomas Whyte, Jardine Bell
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Maitland, Adam Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Galbraith, James Francs Wallace Moreing, Adrian C. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Golf, Sir Park Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Goldie, Noel B. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) Wise, Alfred R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W Peto, Geoffrey MW'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Womersley, Walter James
Grimston, R. V. Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Hales, Harold K. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Remer, John R. Mr. Thorp and Mr. Eales.
NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Daggar, George George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Attlee, Clement Richard Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Banfield, John William Denville, Alfred Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Broadbent, Colonel John Dobbie, William Groves, Thomas E.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Edwards, Charles Grundy, Thomas W.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Cape, Thomas Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Crossley, A. C. Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Hicks, Ernest George Milner, Major James Tate, Mavis Constance
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Holdsworth, Herbert O'Donovan, Dr. William James Thorne, William James
Howard, Tom Forrest Palmer, Francis Noel Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Penny, Sir George Wayland, Sir William A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Pownall, Sir Assheton Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Lindsay, Noel Ker Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Mabane, William Ropner, Colonel L. Wilmot, John
Mc Entee, Valentine L. Rothschild, James A. de Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Rutherford, John (Edmonton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mainwaring, William Henry Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Beltast) Mr. Charles Brown and Mr. G.
Margesson, capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Strauss, Edward A. Macdonald.
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John Summersby, Charles H.