READING CORPORATION BILL (Hansard, 25 February 1935)

§ Mr. GEOFFREY PETO
I do not wish to move the rejection of the Bill, but to move an Instruction with regard to the omission of certain Clauses. I do not oppose the Second Reading, because we all admire and like the great Borough of Reading with its biscuits, beer and flowers, and, of course, its excellent Member of Parliament, but when we come to these Clauses which—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member wish to move an Amendment to the Second Reading?

§ Mr. PETO
I am not speaking against the Second Reading, but I wish to move the Instruction.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I have not put the Motion for the Second Reading yet.

§ Mr. PETO
I beg to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 29, and Clauses 32, 33, 43, and 44. We received this morning a statement from the Reading Corporation explaining their reasons for including these Clauses, and we are very grateful for it because it tells us exactly their point of view. Their primary point is that these Clauses have already been embodied in a goodly number of private Bills, but that is exactly why I hope that the House will take action to-day to prevent them being embodied in further private Bills. The reason they are being embodied in private Bills is because the consumers of electricity, like many other branches of consumers, are entirely unorganised. There is no body with any organisation to oppose a Bill of an electricity company or electricity department of a borough or corporation. All through this class of legislation we see every possible effort made to protect anybody who might be likely to object, such as other local authorities. "Dog does not eat dog," and they are careful to exclude from their Clauses other local authorities. They also exclude railway companies, gas and water companies and anybody who is organised and likely to oppose them. Therefore, the Clauses to which we so strongly object are really only applied to the private consumer, including of course the commercial and industrial consumer who is of such very great importance. That is why these Clauses have found their way into so many Bills.
It will be within the recollection of the House that last year the electricity supply bodies decided to introduce a Bill to consolidate a great number of Clauses—some 29—which they had succeeded in getting embodied, without opposition, in a, number of private Bills. I remember that the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) drew a high place 852 in the ballot and introduced this consolidating Bill. He told us that it would be unopposed, as the Clauses had been introduced in individual Bills, but the moment the Bill appeared for Second Reading, and hon. Members saw the Clauses to be included, it was very severely criticised on the Floor of the House, and wishes were expressed that the Committee concerned would take every effort to protect the consumer. When the Bill got upstairs it was more or less torn to pieces. The promoters themselves withdrew a good many Clauses, others were drastically amended, and some were struck out altogether. When it returned to the Floor of the House you, Mr. Speaker, commented on the number of Amendments moved by the promoters and said that it was unusual on the Report stage, and that such procedure was not to be encouraged. Once more the Bill was mutilated. It took us the whole of a Friday, and I do not think that we got much more than half way through the Bill, and that was the end -of that Bill. That was the first time that the House of Commons had had a chance of expressing an opinion on the Clauses which I am seeking to exclude from this Bill. After we had expressed our opinion we found the Reading Corporation trying to turn our flank by reintroducing these Clauses quietly into a Bill which otherwise would be unopposed. I am glad to say that the attention of certain Members was drawn to it and we have therefore blocked the Bill, and now we have an opportunity of discussing it.
Let me direct the attention of hon. Members to the Bill in order that they may see the Clauses which we want to throw out. First of all, I take Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 29, to be found in page 21, line 13. It reads as follows: The premises which may be entered shall include all premises in the electricity limits in which electric fittings are being or have been installed. That is an amazing suggestion. It repeats word for word the provision which was in a Bill we considered last year. We had no answer to this whatever on the Report stage of that Bill. Why should the Reading Corporation wish to enter houses or factories which have their own private supply of electricity? Why should the Oxford body have a right to enter my house in Oxfordshire, where I generate my own electricity, merely because 853 I happen to be in their area? Why should they enter works and factories? Many of the largest works in this country still have their own supply of electricity. They generate their own supply, which has nothing whatever to do with the Corporation supply or any public supply. On what plea—and I hope that any hon. Member who supports this Bill will answer the question—do they seek to enter houses and works where they are not supplying electricity? It seemed clear to a good many of us that this must be a slip of the pen, or bad drafting. We thought that the words should read: are being or have been installed by them, and the words "by them" have been omitted from the Bill. The promoters themselves moved an Amendment on the Report stage of that Bill excluding factories and workshops because they thought it would be unfair that secret processes should be open to the eyes of an inspector of a company with no possible interest in such works. That Amendment was carried and yet we have come back to the old Clause. This is no bad drafting and no slip of the pen but a deliberate intention to give this body the power to enter any house or factory they like provided it has electricity even though they have nothing whatever to do with the supply of electricity or fittings to that house or factory. I submit that that is certainly a Clause which we ought to strike out. Where are we going to end? The gas people will want to go over a house where there is no gas, the water people, although one might have his own well, the Ministry of Agriculture, although there were no animals, and the Ministry of Education, although you have no children. It leads to endless inspectors wandering round at our expense and prying into every corner without the slightest reason or justification. Hon. Members will notice that the Clause ends with Subsection (4) which excludes the Reading Gas Company, no doubt because they would have objected. Therefore, they are carefully excluded.
The next Clause we wish to exclude is Clause 32 which is in two parts. The first part gives the Corporation the power to cut off electricity, a very serious thing. Now that factories are driven more and more by electricity the cutting off of electricity supplies means stopping the whole factory. If you are an individual it is 854 very inconvenient to have your lights suddenly cut off, but there is this power:—provided that if in the opinion of the Corporation a consumer acts in any manner contrary to the terms of such agreement, the corporation may discontinue to supply electricity. On the 9th April last year I received a letter from a very large London electricity company who supply my London house saying that as from the previous 1st January my agreement and all agreements would be null and void, and that certain alterations were to take place. I wrote to the Electricity Commissioners in view of the Electricity Bill in which I was interested, and said that it seemed to be an extraordinarily high-handed action. I have been in business all my life and I have never heard of anybody claiming the right to alter every condition of an agreement and say that it should be altered retrospectively. That is the procedure under which we suffer. The electricity suppliers can apparently alter the agreement retrospectively when they like, and if they think that you have infringed it they can cut off your whole supply, until as stated in page 23, line 32: They are satisfied that any electricity supplied to such consumer will be consumed in accordance with the terms of such agreement. Not only can they make and alter an agreement as they please but they have to be satisfied that you are carrying it out, and you cannot appeal to any other authority, the law or anyone else. That is one side of the Clause. The other side of the Clause is equally unjust the other way. They take the power to cut you off but supposing they cease to supply you, you have no remedy as their consumer unless you can prove that it is caused by wilful neglect or default of the corporation. Though the period I have been in this House is only eight or nine years the whole electricity supply of this House has been cut off on two occasions causing great inconvenience to Members and delay in the affairs of the State. Therefore we have had experience ourselves. We receive no apologies in these cases and get no explanation. Unless we can prove wilful neglect or default, unless the chairman of the suppliers has wilfully shoved a spanner into a turbine or something like that we have no remedy whatever. The Clause was withdrawn by the promoters of the original Bill. 855 Such was the feeling of the Committee about it that they withdrew it.
Clause 33 which we wanted omitted deals with transformers, a less important point, but still it might lead to great inconvenience. You agree to a transformer being placed on your premises, and that transformer may then be used by the corporation to supply other people. That sounds reasonable enough, but I fear it is merely a cuckoo's egg laid in our nest. As the bird grows, the rest of us will be pushed out of the nest. When the opportunity occurs you may be turned out of your house, which may be turned into a sub-station. If it happens to be a factory, you may find yourself very greatly inconvenienced by the transformer becoming larger and larger, and your sub-station being turned into a supply station for the whole district. It is a Clause which is certainly unfair to the consumer, the person who has had the transformer installed in his premises. The promoters also withdrew that Clause. Then we come to Clause 43. This Clause gives the corporation power to cut off your electric light or power if you are in arrear with your payments in respect of any apparatus or fitting let on hire by the corporation or supplied by them on hire purchase terms which the corporation are under obligation to maintain. I am not quite sure to which part of that sentence the words "which the corporation are under obligation to maintain," apply. It may be held that they only apply to the apparatus or fittings supplied on hire purchase terms, and not to the whole. In any case, why should the corporation have this extraordinary power? If you hire electrical apparatus from your local ironmonger or electrical supplier and you do not pay, he can remove the articles and sue you for the balance due. He has not the power to cut off your supply. Why should the corporation be given a power which the ordinary supplier of electrical goods has not got? Why cannot the corporation recover under the law in the ordinary way after removing the articles that have not been paid for, instead of being placed in a position as dictators in the district where they are competing with other traders? That is a grossly unfair Clause, and it was withdrawn by the promoters.
Clause 44 gives power to the corporation to charge for cutting off the supply. 856 You may have some dispute about the agreement which they may have altered, and before you know where you are your supply is cut off. There will be a little picnic for the corporation employé in playing about with your premises and cutting off the supply. You do not know what it costs, but you have to foot the bill. It is something like the case of a, person who sends you a bill with a halfpenny stamp, and then asks you to pay the halfpenny as well as the bill. The Clause is unreasonable and ought to be struck out. We may be told, that all this is done for the good of the consumer, that here is some parental authority who are really acting in the interests of the consumer and trying to do their best for him. We were told at school when we were subjected to corporal punishment, that it hurt the master a great deal more that it hurt us and that it was only done for our good. We have left school a long while ago, only too long, and we have reached an age at which we can judge what is and what is not good. We represent an enormous body of consumers of electricity, private consumers and consumers in factories all over the country, and we are consumers of electricity ourselves, and we hope that the supporters of the Bill will not try to persuade us that their action is only taken to give us a benefit which we are quite incapable of understanding. We understand the penalties imposed in the Bill, and on those grounds I move the Instruction.

§ Mr. CHORLTON
I beg to second the Motion.
I support my hon. Friend in his effort to demonstrate to the House that our desire is to protect ordinary individuals who collectively are not in a position to make their own case known or to protect their own interests. There could be no better proof that the object is to enslave people in the way in which the different Clauses are drawn. I will turn first to Clause 29. Under this Clause the ordinary rights conferred on the corporation in the Act of 1882 are extended to enable the corporation to enter premises in which electric fittings are being or have been installed. Dictatorial and autocratic powers are to be given and the notice to be given is so short and in some cases there is to be no notice at all, that the Englishman's right in his 857 own castle ceases to be assured and is liable to be invaded to a degree that I have never seen suggested before.
Looking further into this Clause one sees that the intention is to put into the power of the authority, despite anything they may have been agreed to previously, an autocratic control which will protect the interests of the authority but will not take sufficient account of the interests of the consumer. After an agreement has been made for the supply of electricity for light or power, why should additional power be required, power which is quite outside the original agreement, to enable the authority to do just as they like? If you have made an agreement with an authority or with anybody in ordinary civil life, you expect that each party to the agreement will carry it out according to its terms. In this Clause there is introduced something which, so far as I know, is introduced for the first time in any Bill, which will give one party to an agreement power to break the agreement. If we accept such a principle the risk of extension that may take place will be very great. These things creep in little by little. We must therefore make it clear that no authority is entitled to have such a power. That is the reason why we think our Instruction should succeed.
I do not understand the following provision in the Clause: If there is found to be no such contravention the corporation shall refund to the consumer any expenses or loss he may have incurred owing to the cutting off or disconnection of the supply of electricity to the premises. What on earth does that mean? Is not that a dangerous provision from the corporation's own point of view? It would include-any consequential expenses, anything in relation to loss of trade that may be occasioned by an act of the corporation. It is vague expression. The Clause further provides that where any premises that the corporation are entitled to enter are unoccupied, they may enter without notice in a case of emergency, and in any other case after giving not less than 48 hours' notice. Is that all the notice that they will give of any action that they may take? The Clause proceeds to say that if the owner is unknown to them: and cannot be ascertained by them by diligent inquiry by affixing such notice upon 858 a conspicuous part of the premises, they may forcibly enter the same. What does this "diligent inquiry" mean? Who is to say that they have diligently inquired? I do not understand why the corporation want these extraordinarily wide powers, and at the same time they do not tell us how we are going to ascertain that they have observed the conditions. The Clause further says that: Any person who shall refuse or unreasonably neglect to admit any officer of the corporation to any premises which they are entitled to enter … shall be liable to a severe penalty. A person is to be liable to a heavy penalty because he may have refused or unreasonably neglected to admit an officer of the corporation. That is a form of words which I cannot suppose any corporation would seek to act upon.

§ Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN
I understand that the hon. Member is only moving to omit Sub-section (1) of Clause 29.

§ Mr. CHORLTON
I want to explain the lines on which the whole of the four clauses run. Clause 32 seeks additional powers despite the fact that an agreement may exist between the parties. I cannot understand why, when an agreement has been come to, that one of the parties should seek to break it by getting special Parliamentary powers. This would place one of the parties at a disadvantage because he might not know of the existence of this additional power. One of the greatest difficulties is the ignorance of the ordinary customer with regard to various Acts relating to its services of supply, whether it may be electricity or otherwise, and he can be very easily caught. This Clause gives the corporation extraordinarily wide powers to act such as they think fit. Not only can they cut off the consumer but they need not resume the supply of power until they are satisfied that any electricity supplied to such consumer will be consumed in accordance with the terms of such agreement. The matter is entirely in their hands. The Clause also says that the authority shall not be liable for any damages occasioned to such customer. It is true that this provision is limited: unless the same is caused by or in consequence of the wilful neglect or default of the Corporation. 859 Who is to decide the wilful neglect in this case?

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON
It would help us if the hon. Member would tell us what he is reading from and to what paragraph he is referring.

§ Mr. CHORLTON
I am reading from Clause 32 on page 24, line 20. The Instruction also refers to Clause 33, which deals with a separate transformer. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston.

§ Mr. THORNE
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. CHORLTON
Wait a minute. The Clause as it stands might be read to allow an extraordinarily wide extension of the size of transformer which might be used. In a flat you might use a transformer in one part to supply the other parts. The Clause means more than that. It is not limited in that way. It might be used to supply power to a factory alongside, and I do not think it should be allowed to stand as it is. It should be limited so that one party will not suffer a disadvantage. In regard to Clause 43 which my hon. Friend has already dealt with, I would only remind the House that it is really an extension of the autocratic power given to a corporation. They are to be able to cut off the supply: In respect of any apparatus or fitting let out on hire by the corporation or supplied by them on hire purchase terms which the corporation are under obligation to maintain remains unpaid after the expiration of such period … as the corporation may from time to time determine. Apart from authority to act in this way they are also to have the power to give notice to cut off the supply at such period as they may determine. That might mean a day's notice. It is not at all clear. In Clause 44 it says that the corporation may recover not only from the person but from any other person on account of whose act or default the supply was cut off. They are to decide who are the persons concerned. There is no provision that the matter shall be dealt with in the ordinary way in the courts, and, further, there is no provision that if the corporation is the party to blame they shall refund to the purchaser any of the expenses he may have incurred not only in regard to the cutting off of his supply but in regard to any trade loss which 860 may have resulted. We regard this as an attempt, in a very insidious and quiet way, to put into the hands of a bureaucratic authority the power to enslave the ordinary people of this country. If I had had a legal training I imagine that I could have made a very strong case for our point of view, but we have tried to put an ordinary man's point of view and I hope the House will regard it as nothing but an honest attempt to show how this octupus is gradually extending its tentacles over the whole of the country.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne)
I will not detain the House for more than a few moments, because the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) in moving his Instruction has explained very clearly what happened with regard to the Bill promoted by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) last session. My only excuse for intervening is that the decisions taken by Parliament on that occasion have placed the Private Bill Committee in this House in a somewhat serious difficulty. Up to the introduction of that Bill and its passing through Committee, and its partial passage on Report, the Clauses of which the hon. Member has complained had been regarded more or less as common form Clauses. There were, I think, one or two which had been amended in detail in earlier private Bills. When, however, the House expressed very strong views on grounds of public policy that it was undesirable that these Clauses should continue, we felt on the Private Bill Committee obliged to strike these Clauses out of several private Bills last session. These Clauses the promoters and undertakers generally have inserted in private Bills, or something like them, and it is putting a real burden on Private Bill Committee, which it should not be asked to bear, to determine whether in cases where the House has expressed its views on public policy it should make an exception in private Bills.
All my interest in this matter is that the House should come to a definite conclusion, because this is not the only Bill promoted in this session in which these Clauses are inserted. This Bill has been taken partly by agreement as a test case, and hon. Members on the Private 861 Bill Committee are anxious to have instruction from the House as to how we are to deal with these Clauses. Let me make one last observation. The hon. Member for Bilston seemed to be under the impression that if a Clause is drafted in a private Bill it cannot be amended by the Private Bill Committee unless it is opposed by some outside body. I wish to assure him that that is not the case. I am certain, however, that in considering these Bills, if the Instruction is not carried, we shall at least give great weight to the observations he has made and consider what Amendments, if any, are needed should the House decide that these Clauses shad be left to the Private Bill Committee to consider on their merits.

§ Dr. HOWITT
I hope that the House will reject the proposed Instruction. The clauses to which it applies seem to me to give rights which should properly be invested in the Corporation of Reading. Indeed, that must have been the opinion of the House of Commons in the past, because there are many precedents for these powers being vested in the corporation. With regard to Sub-section (1), Clause 29, giving further powers to enter upon premises, may I point out that this power has been granted 35 times to corporations during the last six years, five times in 1934 and 10 times in 1933. I cannot see why Reading should be deprived of this power when it has been granted to 55 other corporations. With regard to Clause 33 dealing with the use of a transformer, I am told that this power is extremely useful in supplying a large building which has been made up into flats. During the past six years this power has been granted 33 times, and again I do not see why it should not be granted to Reading. The hon. Members who have moved the Instruction are fearful as to what may happen if corporations and companies have these powers, but in neither of their speeches was there any suggestion that these powers, which have been so frequently granted in the past, have been abused in any way. That is a very important consideration. The great thing is that they have been granted in so many cases in the past and have not been abused.

§ Mr. PETO
Will the hon. Member say why the corporation want powers to enter 862 premises where they are not supplying electric light?

§ Dr. HOWITT
They would not use this power unless they thought the right was being abused by a company manufacturing their own electric light. The House will be countenancing a great injustice to the borough I have the honour to represent if they refuse to grant these powers. I hope the House by its vote to-night will show that it does not propose to give powers to a corporation one day and then, when exactly the same powers are asked far by another corporation, on another day refuse. It is not just if one corporation is granted powers that they should be refused to another.

§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha)
As the Minister responsible for the general supervision of electricity undertakings, perhaps I may help the House to decide the question which the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means has raised. As he has informed the House, these clauses are in common form, and it is only necessary to look at the formidable list of precedents for the House to realise what grave injustice it would. be doing to the Reading Corporation if it withheld from the corporation the facilities which in the past they have always been ready to grant other corporations. The Instruction goes even further than that. It seeks to lay down that the Reading Corporation shall not even be permitted to argue their case for a like treatment with other corporations before a Select Comittee of this House. How does that question arise? The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means has told us. In the last Session some, though not all, of these provisions were rejected by the House of Commons on the general Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp).Some, but not all—

§ Mr. G. PETO
All withdrawn or objected to.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
That, I am instructed, is not the case. Clause 29 (1) passed the Committee stage, it is true with some amendment, but it did pass. It can also be amended when it comes before a Select Committee. But it did pass through the Committee and the Report stage in this House. As regards Clause 32 (1), that was not in the Bill at all in any stage; at any rate so I am 863 instructed, and I think correctly instructed. There is combined in the Instruction, therefore, an invitation to reject both what the House of Commons passed and what they did not pass. I would like to draw attention to a further anomaly that will arise if the instruction were carried. While it is true that the House of Commons rejected some of these provisions, they were carried in another place. Therefore, you would have the position arising that upon some proposals petitioners would obtain more liberal treatment in another place than in this House.
I do ask hon. Members to appreciate what they would be doing. If they passed this instruction it would mean that for all time all petitioners would be debarred even from arguing their case before the House of Commons, because in one Session of a particular Parliament on a particular Bill, a certain course was taken with regard to particular Clauses. Parliament does not consider itself bound by decisions which. it has taken in a previous Session. These are not the laws of the Medes and Persians for all time. The House of Commons can always review its previous decisions. While I have no actual interest in this matter, except the interest which imposes upon me the duty of safeguarding the public interest, I do ask the House to consider that it would be doing what is not equitable or fair to the Corporation of Reading if it deprived that corporation of an opportunity to argue before a Select Committee of the House of Commons upon the merits of its own case. Those are the only observations that I have to make and I trust that they may be of some assistance to the House.

§ Mr. G. PETO
Will the Minister explain why the corporation should have the power to enter premises where they are not supplying electricity?

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I am not called upon to answer, but I will do so to the best of my ability. My hon. Friend himself in his speech described the words in that Clause as a slip of the pen. I think it is clearly not contemplated that the corporation should have power to enter upon any premises whether they are supplying electricity or not. If that is a slip of the pen, as I believe it to be, the phrase can be rectified, in accordance 864 with the procedure of the House, before the Select Committee. I have deliberately foreborne from arguing the merits of the Clauses which Parliament has decided upon in the past and can decide upon again, but there is not a single argument advanced by my hon. Friends opposite, who have so ably presented their case, which would suggest that these are to be the final words of the Bill. Every Clause in the Bill is capable of investigation and scrutiny, and, if necessary, of amendment, in the public interest.

§ Mr. PETHERICK
In what number of cases has this House refused to grant similar powers to other corporations?

Mr. HOPE-BELISHA
I am not aware of any case.

§ Mr. LEVY
May I ask your guidance Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Are we to understand that this Bill when it goes to a Select Committee will have a thorough investigation, even though it may not be opposed and the only people concerned are the Reading Corporation?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)
If the hon. Member knows anything of the procedure of the Committee on Unopposed Bills he knows that Bills are subject to the most careful scrutiny.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
This is not the first time that we have heard similar arguments in this House. They have become rather familiar to some of us. I think I have heard them during the last 13 years off and on, and there is, therefore, nothing new in them. When it is argued, however, that this Bill should take heed of the fate of a private Bill and be guided by it, I am a little astonished. An hon. Member said that the consumers have no organisation to oppose the Corporation. That is a very strange argument to employ, because in the city where I live we assume that the Corporation and the citizens are at one, and if we do not like our city councillors we send others to replace them. We do that sometimes with our Members of Parliament too, and we might do it again. That sort of argument will not avail, because, after all, the consumers of Reading have made their Corporation what it is. I suppose it is a council with a Tory majority. If it is a Tory council that is fathering this Bill, I presume that the majority of the con 865 sumers of electricity in Reading may also be Tories. Consequently they must think alike about this Bill.
I can never understand the point of view expressed by hon. Gentlemen, that a council must always be against the interests of the consumer when the council supplies the citizens with electricity and gas and other services. The hon. Gentleman was very keen against inspection by the corporation. I am sure that he would not be against even more inspection if a private undertaking was concerned in this business. If these powers were asked by a private capitalist company hon. Members would probably not have moved this Instruction at all. What they object to is not the powers in these Clauses, but that the powers are to be vested in a municipal corporation. As far as the Labour party are concerned, we want the municipalities to have all the powers possessed by private enterprise undertakings and why should they not have such powers? Hon. Members apparently do not like the idea of a corporation having power to cut off electric light or power. The corporation of the city in which I live supplies gas, water, electricity and education. I have lived there for 29 years and my electricity or my water supply has never been cut off and I will tell hon. Members why—because I pay my accounts.

§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS
Nor have they cut off the hon. Member's gas.

§ Mr. DAVIES
If my gas were cut off I am sure the hon. Member's would be cut off at the same time. But surely a corporation does not want to do anything which would be outside the terms of their agreement with the consumer. Hon. Members know that in every town and village there are to be found some people, though they are a very small percentage, who like to challenge a corporation or local authority on everything it does. I know one individual whose gas, electricity and water supplies have all been cut off from time to time because he sets out to dispute with the corporation on everything they do whether it is right or wrong. When there are people like that a corporation ought to have power to deal with them. Let me now deal with another argument. One hon. Member implied that a corporation should not be entitled to cut 866 off a supply, even if the consumer was in arrears. If a corporation supplied water, gas or electricity, without taking care that payments were made by the consumers, then nobody would pay in the end. These corporations must have powers enabling them to get payments for the services they render. What happens in private trade? Let any hon. Member buy a sewing machine on the hire-purchase system and fall into arrears in his payments and he will see what will happen.

§ Mr. THORNE
Or anything else.

§ Mr. DAVIES
Yes, or furniture or anything else. There is no hesitation about taking action in those cases. Consequently I do not think that that argument will avail either. But the strangest thing about this discussion is that while the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt) supports the Bill—very naturally—yet the hon. Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Chorlton) opposes it. But the Mancester Corporation have all these powers and I challenge the hon. Member for Platting that if this were a Manchester Corporation Bill he would not stand up and deliver the speech which we heard from him.

§ Mr. CHORLTON
May I remind the hon. Member that it is not so very long ago since we did oppose a Manchester Bill.

§ Mr. DAVIES
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he is a very brave soul, but I imagine that in due course he will feel the consequences of his courage. I give great weight to the words of the Deputy-Chairman on this Bill. If we do not pay heed to those words, and if this Instruction is carried, then it seems to me that the whole machinery of Parliament will be put into a very difficult position. I would not like to see this big issue settled this evening on this Bill in view of the fact that these provisions have been given so often in the past to other municipalities. It seems to me that it would be wrong on the part of the House to deal with a large issue of this kind on Clauses in the Reading Corporation Bill. I would prefer that we should have another occasion on which to discuss and decide it, although I do not know how that could be done. 867 I certainly would be loth to see such a vital issue being dealt with here to-night. I think I am right in saying on behalf of my hon. Friends on these Benches that we, in the main support the municipality in all its activities in this connection We object to hon. Members who support all these provisions when they are in favour of private companies but oppose them when they are sought by municipalities.

§ Mr. ARTHUR REED
Clause 29 gives power of entry into any premises or any works which have their own supplies of electricity. Can the hon. Member give me an instance of any private enterprise which has powers of that kind?

§ Mr. DAVIES
I can do no better than refer the hon. Member to the reply just given by the Minister of Transport. I am not the promoter of the Bill, and I repeat that our objection is to hon. Members moving an Instruction on a Bill of this kind, when, as far as our experience goes. when a Bill is being promoted in favour of private enterprise they never object to the same provisions. We say that all the facilities and privileges given to private enterprise in connection with these matters, ought to be given equally to the municipalities.

§ Mr. CHORLTON
I would like to correct the hon. Member. Our position here bears no relation either to private enterprise or to public authorities. Our stand is purely in protection of the ordinary customer and the ordinary individual, and it is grossly unfair, if I may say so, of my hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend because he lives in Manchester—to publish what he said just now and to broadcast it, so to speak, with a view to the effect which it may have later on. Our action is simply and solely on behalf of the ordinary customer, and I am astounded that Labour Members should not stand up for us, instead of conflicting with us as they have done to-night.

§ Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has misunderstood the position in a way which is quite unusual. Let me put this to him. I represent an electricity supply company, and we should never ask for anything at all which was not to be given in exactly the same way to a corpora 868 tion. This question has nothing to do with private or public enterprise. It is a question of how the supply company or the corporation, as a supplier of electricity, are to carry on their work properly. There is another point of procedure which is rather important and which I should like to put to the Minister. I gather that the Minister referred to certain Clauses of a Bill which did not become law being passed in this House and certain other Clauses being passed in the other House, and he rather implied that committees would take notice of Clauses so passed in this House and of Clauses so passed in the other House in any decision to which they might come. I venture to point out that taking notice of anything that has occurred in this House which has not become law other than an Instruction such as this would be entirely wrong and that no committee should take notice of anything of the kind.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I do not think that my hon. Friend can have been present when the Deputy-Chairman spoke.

§ Sir G. ELLIS
I was.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Then my hon. Friend will remember that this was the question which he raised. I said in reply that Parliament would surely not inhibit a petitioner from presenting arguments in favour of these Clauses merely because in a general Bill similar Clauses were rejected.

§ Sir G. ELLIS
No Committee could take any notice of Clauses which had been passed in this House unless the Bill in question became an Act. When Bills come before the Unopposed Bills Committee, they do not go through automatically. Members of the Unopposed Bills Committee take just as much note of what is in the Bill as if the Bill had been opposed and another Committee were dealing with it. On the merits of this Bill, it is a question of giving the Reading Corporation, with one exception, the right of entry on to private premises over which they really have no control. That, I think, is a question that would be carefully looked into by any Committee, whether the Bill were unopposed or not. But these other applications are nothing more than to enable the corporation, just as a private company, to run its electricity undertaking in such a way as will 869 be most convenient to all its consumers. Something was said about transformers. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton) realises that the transformer is a thing that cannot be played with, and that if it is put in one place, it is put there by agreement and can only be used according to the agreements that are made with the person who allowed it to be put there in the first instance. I do not think the hon. Gentleman who moved this Instruction has appreciated the difficulties of electric supply, and he has brought in the Englishman's castle as a sort of excuse to stop a legitimate expansion in the ordinary way.

Mr. GROOM-JOHNSON
I support the Motion in so far as it relates to Clauses 29 and 32. I am not sure that the House quite appreciates what Clause 29 proposes to do. It may be, as the last speaker said, that the promoters of the Bill desire to have certain powers which every electricity undertaking ought to have, but, if so, in my judgment they have gone very far indeed beyond that in the language which is used in this Clause. As the Clause stands, it looks as though it were aimed at providing a kind of search warrant without any of the ordinary safeguards which this House is well aware are usually provided when power to enter premises is given. I find in Clause 29 words which apparently deal with the idea that the corporation may think that there has been some contravention of any of the Acts or orders applying to the corporation or of any regulation or bye-law made thereunder. What is that but giving power to the corporation to go upon premises because it suspects that there may have been a contravention of the law, in order that it may obtain for itself the evidence which will justify its taking proceedings under earlier Acts and getting the individual punished? The only safeguard, as far as I can see, which this Clause provides for an individual place in that position, is the statement which follows: If there is found to be no such contravention the corporation shall refund to the consumer any expenses or loss he may have incurred owing to the cutting off or disconnection of the supply of electricity to the premises. Thank you, sir, indeed for nothing. That is the provision which this corporation 870 desires to have, and in what circumstances? In circumstances, according to the language that it has used—whether intentional or not, I do not know—that electric fittings may be there in being, they may not have been installed or they may have been installed. There is nothing in the Clause, as I read it, which prevents the corporation going on premises where there are electric fittings installed, although there is no supply, and, further than that, the very things which it is going to inspect may not even be things which the corporation has let on hire to the consumer whose premises are to be invaded. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who made such an ingenious speech, introducing all sorts of other topics, does not really mean that either a private supplier or a public corporation should be empowered to do anything of the sort which is indicated in this Clause.
There are other comments which I might make upon the Clause, but the House has had them brought before it several times this evening, and I will pass on the Clause 32, which is indeed an astonishing Clause. It presupposes that there is a consumer of electricity who has a special agreement with the corporation That is the first step in the argument, and it starts off by making the corporation the' judge in its own cause as to whether the consumer has committed a breach of the agreement which he has with the corporation. So far as I can see from reading this Clause, there is no remedy against the unfortunate consumer who finds that the corporation takes the view that he has committed a breach of his agreement with it, and then finds his electricity supply gone. It is true that the corporation has to give him notice. and it is true that in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of the Clause the corporation may not be required to resume the supply until they are satisfied that any electricity supplied to such consumer will be consumed in accordance with the terms of such agreement. I suppose that means the terms of such agreement as interpreted by the corporation which put an end to the supply. There is no other provision in the Clause. The next step is: The consumer has paid to the corporation the sum payable by him pursuant to the foregoing paragraph (b). 871 The hon. Member for Westhoughton can be assured that nobody wants to protect any consumer unnecessarily who has not paid his due bills, but even he is entitled to some protection. I submit that people should not be allowed to go through his premises, when his supply has been cut off, in order that they may satisfy their curiosity as to what sort of electric fittings of his own he has on the premises, preparatory possibly to manufacturing a supply of his own. The next part of Clause 32 is even more astonishing. It is, indeed, a loosely drafted Clause. It must be remembered that the corporation are under contract to make a special supply under an agreement to a consumer, and Sub-section (2) incorporates the provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1899. Under that section, if a supply is not given the corporation is limited to pay by way of compensation or penalty to £2 a day. That may conceivably be all very well in dealing with agreements with regard to the future, but Sub-section (2) does not even say that. The language which is used in it is capable of being interpretated as affecting existing agreements between the Corporation of Reading and existing consumers. I hope I have said enough to show that these are matters which certainly merit, either here or elsewhere, the most careful examination.
The last point I desire to make is that it is indeed a lamentable state of affairs if two Clauses like 29 and 32 have hitherto, in 35 cases, passed the vigilance of hon. Members of this House and become the right of other corporations -who are thus enabled, as the result of legislation, to do these very things—

§ Mr. THORNE
And two or three private companies as well.

§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON
Quite possibly, and so much the worse. Is that a reason for going on multiplying the evil? There are some of us who think that there are a, good many invasions of private liberties which are going through this House under private Bill legislation which, owing to the exigencies of business, do not perhaps get examined with the care which sometimes they merit by Members of the House. I submit that the House should 872 come to a decision upon these Clauses now. It is all very well, when questions of this sort are raised, for Ministers, with the laudable intention of getting public and private business through, to invite us to leave the decision to a Committee upstairs. A great many of us only get our opportunity of raising these questions in the House and not in Committee upstairs, and, inasmuch as this particular matter was examined into on the Electricity Supply Bill of last Session, does not the House think it is a little early to have reached that stage, which the Minister has invited us to reach, when we can have a different view about it?
Of course, the decision of last year cannot bind the House; if it could bind the House, it could not bind it for all time. But is there any good reason why provisions of the type which I have indicated in Clauses 29 and 32 should be allowed to go on the Statute Book merely because in some other cases, too numerous by far, provisions of the same kind have reached the Statute Book? For these reasons, I hope the House will take the view that these Clauses are not such as we ought to permit to be given to particular local authorities, but, if such powers are to be given, they should be given generally to all electricity undertakings, big and little, private and public. The matter could then be properly investigated in a full House or by a Committee upstairs, which could deal with it as a question of principle. Some of us think that this method of introducing localised amendments of the law of the gravity of these Amendments has gone quite far enough, and I hope that my hon. Friends who moved this Instruction will press it to a division.

§ Mr. MAITLAND
I am not quite sure that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) in his closing sentences. He suggested that it was a bad thing to make exceptions by what he termed localising the law. If that were carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean that in no circumstances could there be any deviation from the law which on general principles might be sound. Most of the discussion seems to me to have surrounded the fact that in the Electricity 873 Supply Act of last year, which was a general enactment, it was decided to omit most of these Clauses. That is not in itself an adequate ground for refusing that proper consideration to the application of any one of these Clauses if the authority desiring the powers can offer sound reasons why they should possess them. Reference was made in a very airy way by the two hon. Members who supported the Instruction to the precedents which have 'already been established. Are we not making a mistake if we do not accept the fact that in 35 or more Bills similar Clauses have been included in similar Measures?
I am not disposed to agree with hon. Gentlemen who suggest that in former Bills there has been any less vigilance than is being shown to-day. It is sufficient to say that, on the 35 previous occasions the committees before which the Bills came gave the most careful consideration to all that is implied by these Clauses. I agree that by picking out one or two Clauses hon. Gentlemen have made a prima facie case which deserves the utmost consideration, and they have done a public service in calling the attention of the House and the committee which will be considering this Bill to them. I disagree, however, when they suggest that the Bill has not been subjected to proper consideration or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Peto) said, that there was any organised opposition. Under the procedure which the Local Government Act of 1933 lays down, a Bill of this kind must not only have the sanction of the corporation, but the approval of the electors. Surely there can be no greater evidence of the Bill being sound than the fact that it has been approved by the local council of Reading, presumably representing the electors, and of the electors themselves. This Bill has gone through that proceeding. Are we, then, because of some temporary difficulty which is involved in our Parliamentary procedure, to say that, we shall deprive the Corporation of Reading of the opportunity of submitting their case and of giving evidence in support of it if necessary? That has been done in all previous cases where these powers have been sought.
I would say to my hon. Friend who moved this Instruction that this is not a question of what he would like to see 874 done; it is not a question as between municipal and private enterprise. I wondered when I heard my hon. Friends speaking whether they had the right idea about local authorities. Why should they assume that these bodies, to whom Parliament entrusts more and more powers, are exercising those powers unwisely? I believe the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) said that he was trying to protect the ordinary average person. In some of the Clauses which he himself quoted the average person is protected by the very powers which are given to the corporation. The grant of those very powers might act as a deterrent. I was not at all terrified by the dreadful picture drawn by my hon. Friends sitting opposite. Not only have local authorities responsibilities, but they have a very high regard for those responsibilities, and they know that if they treat any of their consumers unreasonably the representatives of the latter on the council will bring them to book. With every respect, I suggest that the House would be making a mistake if it did not give the Reading Corporation the opportunity of presenting the reasons why they want these powers and, if necessary, submitting evidence to the Committee.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I am on this occasion supporting the municipality, partly because I still recollect with pleasure the time when I represented Reading in this House, and partly because I agree with the purport of these Clauses. I was a Member of the Committee upstairs which considered the Electricity Supply Bill, and if that Bill had not been wrecked, or, rather, prevented from passing, a great deal of expenditure would have been saved to a great many electricity undertakers, both company and municipal, because the powers already obtained by a number of companies and municipalities would have been generalised. I take a fairly active part on municipal and other private Bills, in conjunction very often with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). We both object to the general law being altered by an odd Clause in a private Bill. We think that a general principle ought to find its place in a general public Act. Last year an attempt was made to pass a public general Act which would 875 have given these powers to all corporations. That effort was wrecked through the ingenious opposition of two of the hon. Members who have spoken to-night, with certain of their colleagues who will no doubt also speak. I remember listening to their speeches, and I was amazed not at what they knew about the Bill but at what they did not know, because they excited fears by their references to these dreadful new powers of entry, entirely overlooking the fact that for 53 years electricity undertakers in this country have had these rights of entry.
Years ago people apparently did not contemplate that there would grow up the great business of supplying electrical apparatus, and that very often consumers of electricity would buy their own apparatus and arrange for its installation, and therefore, in 1882, electricity undertakers were not given the powers which they automatically would have been given if people had contemplated those developments. It is perfectly absurd that if I have in my house a piece of apparatus on hire-purchase from electricity undertakers they should have the right to inspect it, but that if I purchase my own apparatus from a shop and have it installed they have no right to inspect it, though it may be so defective that a serious breakdown may occur, affecting the supply of electricity to the whole district. It is only reasonable that there should be a proper right of entry. I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with those who officially represent the corporation, and they realise, quite frankly, that there are certain errors of drafting, in Clauses 29 and 32. If it had not been for what I call the error of drafting in Clause 29 hon. Members opposite would not have been able to make their speeches. Nearly everything in their speeches was based on the assumption that Clause 29 as it stands makes it possible to enter premises with which the corporation has no electrical connection. I am satisfied that was not the intention of the corporation.

§ Mr. G. PETO
Does my hon. Friend realise that those identical words are in a, Bill we adopted last summer and to which we strongly objected? They are repeated here in exactly the same form. It is no case of error on the part of the draftsman, it is deliberate intention.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
My hon. Friend's recollection of what happened last summer is a little defective. I have the Bill as originally presented. Clause 8 of that Bill states that the powers conferred by Section 24 of the Electric Light Act of 1882 shall extend to enable any undertakers to enter any premises to which electricity is or has been supplied by them. Those are entirely different words from the words he has criticised to-night. It is a little unfortunate that my hon. Friend did not read with sufficient care the Bill we were considering last summer before he made his speech to-night and before he indulged in his recent interruption.

§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON
I have the Bill as it passed Standing Committee. It is Clause 5 in that Bill, and the words there are the same as in the Reading Bill.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The words to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Peto) is objecting are precisely what he himself consented to as a Member of the Committee examining the Bill.

§ Mr. PETO
No.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Well, there it is. It passed the Committee upstairs, and I have no recollection that he raised that particular point. That Bill underwent considerable modification, very largely to please the hon. Member and in a vain effort to conciliate him.

§ Mr. PETO
May I remind the House that there was a mass of Amendments to which we strongly protested, both upstairs and downstairs, and that Mr. Speaker objected that the Bill had been so muddled by the promoters, including the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that it was quite unintelligible. Now we are told that the words were in and that I did not object to them. He cannot have it both ways.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The hon. Member was objecting to this House giving sanction to a Clause in a private Bill because it was on the lines of a Clause which the House as a whole had refused to accept. The interesting thing is that these words which he is now criticising—I agree that the Bill underwent substantial modification, and also that the words in the form as amended in Com 877 mittee are too wide—actually passed the Committee upstairs, and were not challenged on Report stage in the House.

§ Mr. PETO
There was a long debate on the question of allowing people not supplying electricity to enter factories and an Amendment was moved and carried to exclude factories. The only thing it did not exclude was private houses.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Is my hon. Friend quite right in saying the Amendment was carried?

§ Mr. PETO
Yes.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I am speaking from recollection, but my recollection is that there was only one vote one way or the other.

§ Mr. PETO
There was only one vote and one issue, and we won it.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
My recollection is that the Amendment was beaten by one vote

§ Mr. PETO
No.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I think so, but I speak subject to recollection. We can all have an opportunity of looking it up in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I think the proposal to which the hon. Member referred to justify his attitude was an Amendment which was, in fact, beaten by the critical majority of one. In any event the words as they stand are too wide. I have had an opportunity of making contact with the representatives of the corporation, who are in the precincts of the House, and prior to this debate their attention had been drawn to the wide manner in which paragraph (a) is drawn and it was already their intention to modify it and to make it clear that they did not intend it to have that wide signification. In Clause 32 there is also some drafting which, I think, is not satisfactory. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (2) on page 24 they will see these words: unless the provisions of that section are expressly excluded from application in any such agreement. Then it goes on to refer to what will happen if the corporation fail to supply energy. The wording is certainly ambiguous. It is not clear to what extent 878 the words which I have read out qualify the remainder of the Sub-section, but it is obvious that, it needs modification in order to make the meaning perfectly clear. I rather gather that it is felt that those words should be left out wherever they appear, and that there should be a proviso at the end. That would make the grammar much better. That is a matter to which the attention of the corporation has been drawn and to which they were also contemplating an amendment if and when the Bill appeared before the Committee upstairs. In view of the fact that the only two matters of substance which have been raised to-night are matters of detail where the wording was quite frankly unfortunate, and where it was intended that it should be put right, I hope that the House will reject the Motion and will let the Bill go upstairs so that those errors of drafting may be remedied.

§ Mr. A. REED
I want to be perfectly clear about Clause 29 (1). The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) says that this is a drafting error, but, as the words stand in the Clause, any supplier of electricity in the area can go into a factory even though it makes its own electric current and runs it independently of any corporation, and even if it is making goods by secret process. There is no doubt about that, and it does not seem to have been a slip. I would refer to the explanation which was sent out by the Reading Corporation: The object is to enable the corporation to enter premises for inspecting electrical apparatus, whether belonging to the corporation or not, in order to see that the enactments applicable are not contravened. That means that they could go into the factory and inspect the apparatus, although they did not supply any current. We already have a system of factory inspection whereby a strict inspection is made of all electrical apparatus to see that it complies with the law. Therefore, these words are unnecessary. If we can have it made perfectly clear that the corporation will not seek powers to go into factories or private houses to which they are not supplying electricity—

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
; So far as I know, from conversations with representatives of the corporation, that is what they intend.

§ Mr. REED
That will meet my objection.

§ Mr. G. PETO
In view of the assurance given by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the information which was given to us by the Deputy-Chairman of Committees that the points which we have raised will be fully considered in Committee—they are points to which we attach very great importance—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

§ Captain BOURNE
I can only give an assurance on condition that the Bill comes before the Unopposed Committee. I am not in a position to say any more than if it comes before the Unopposed Committee we will give great attention to the points raised.