HC Deb 08 July 1937 vol 326 cc718-36

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th June]: That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stretford and District Gas Board, which was presented on the 24th day of May and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

Question again proposed.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Henderson

I am convinced that what has eventuated since last week nas justified the action that was then taken in opposing this Order, and I am positive, in view of the facts that have emerged, that the House would be wise to refer back the Order for further consideration. I know it will be said that the householders in question could have protested at the Board of Trade inquiry. I very much regret that they did not recognise the significance of that inquiry, and were remiss in not giving attention to it, but I believe it to be our duty to repair that remissness. In this locality there are 1,140 householders, nearly 1,000 of whom signed a petition protesting against this Order. In 1934, 147 of them left the district; in 1935, 188 left; in 1936, 236 left, including 64 owner-occupiers; and, from the information I have been able to obtain it seems likely that many more will leave in 1937. Last week a lot was said here about safeguarding the rights of this Mother of Parliaments, but we find that in Stretford, although this Order has not yet received the sanction of the House, the extensions to the buildings involved in the Order are in a very advanced state. From this it would appear that the procedure here is regarded as simply a matter of form, and that we are considered to be here simply to give the interest by means, so to speak, of a rubber stamp. I do not know whether the Board of Trade have any locus standi in the matter, but it seems to me to be very wrong to go ahead with these buildings and rather compromise the position and try to jockey this House into passing the Order.

Some days ago the Minister of Health and other Members spoke very eloquently about the preservation of amenities in this country—the preservation of rural England. That is the gravamen of our complaint in opposing this Order. We want to protect the lives and homes of the people who live near to this gas plant. The noises day in and day out are nerve-racking. The stench is disagreeable, the fumes are injurious to health and, as a result of the dust and grit, the people cannot allow their windows and doors to be open. It will be said that the new plant will prevent this, to which our reply, in Yankee slang, is "Says you." They paint such a handsome picture that perhaps the landlords will be induced to increase house rent in the neighbourhood. I have seen some of the housewives' washing in the locality. Within six hours it is as bad as ever. I have a letter from one who lives in the locality. He says: I own and live in property directly overlooking the field in which they are already building the proposed extensions. Indeed, what I am told is to be a new power house and the tall steel framework of what is to be the new retort house already tower in front of my windows. When I came here in 1924 we faced a pleasant field, apart from a single lined siding connecting the then small gas works with the railway. Now every available foot is being filled. The whole plant immediately adjoins the densely populated residential area of Gorse Hill, Stretford. The fumes from the present retorts and gas holders are very bad indeed and an overhead travelling grab rattles and whirrs with its load of glowing cinders all night. Thus the other end of Thomas Street. Now we are to have this duplicated at this end. The representative of the Board of Trade said last week that he had received many letters from business firms stating that unless this Order was granted, it would have dire consequences and reactions on them. I have a shrewd idea that many of these letters, and many of the reports given to newspaper representatives, are inspired, and that the writers do not live in the area, but get their gas at the other end of the pipe, miles away.

The background of our objection is that there are adequate resources available to fulfil this demand. I believe it is Government policy, and business policy, that electricity should be confined in large units. If that is good for electricity, why not for gas? The gasworks of the Manchester Corporation, the most modern in the country, are nearer Stretford than Manchester, away from all habitations, and they have displayed acumen and foresight in putting them there. The maximum load of these gasworks is 36,000,000 cubic feet. Their peak load at the moment is 27,000,000 feet, leaving 9,000,000 feet deficiency. The Stretford addition will have a maximum of 6,000,000 feet, which means that Parting-ton gasworks, with this additional load, will still be well below the maximum load. It would mean no great financial outlay. There are miles of gas mains right away from the Partington Gas Works, and the "T" passes, in order to connect up any locality, actually exist in Stretford. I suggest that with the minimum of disturbance it would be possible to connect Stretford with the Partington gas main within a very short time. Therefore, from the standpoint of disturbance and speed, there is a saving to be gained by linking up with the Manchester-Partington Gas Works. The 36 high pressure main from Partington passes within 200 yards of the extensions involved in this Order.

It is adduced—and I believe it is true, and I am not going to attempt to controvert it—that the price of Manchester gas is higher than that of Stretford, but I suggest that if the Manchester Gas Works, with no additional capital outlay can have a demand for over 6,000,000 cubic feet per day, it is bound to reduce the overhead costs and cheapen the price of gas. That was envisaged when these works were erected years ago, and, after all, the price is a matter of negotiation, and I think that no insurmountable obstacle will arise in that direction. Eight housing estates exist around Stretford and Gorse Hill. I believe that up till now it has been the basis of the claim for this Order that the Trafford Park industrial estate desire gas. If that is so, why not erect these works at Trafford Park? There is any amount of space, and huge stretches of unoccupied land a long way from houses or habitation. We have heard a great deal in this House and in various conventions about the question of atmospheric pollution, and it is the duty of this Parliament to minimise that pollution, and to stamp it out if it is at all possible.

There are alternative sources of supply. If there had not been any alternative sources, the feeling behind our objection would not have been so strong. The Manchester Corporation—and I am not eulogising them—are very progressive and have established their electricity works at Barton, their sewage works at Davyhulme and their gas works at Partington. I am informed that Stretford take Manchester water and electricity and use their transport, and why, in the name of goodness, if these facilities are to hand, cannot they use their gas and save themselves the trouble of protesting, since this matter was discussed in this House a week last Monday, in the most vehement form? If they have been remiss in not attending this enquiry, why should we intensify these evils? If these facilities are to hand—and I do not think it will be denied—it will be an accident conceived in Bedlam to go on with this Order when adequate and suitable sources are available.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Crossley

It is delightful to find so many hon. Members opposite taking such a deep interest in my constituency. There are now two main objectors to the Order before the House. One is the Stretford Trades and Labour Council. They are a body who believe so strongly in democracy that they have not at any period during the objections to this Order even considered it worth while to let their Member know that they have objected at all. That is a fact worth putting upon record.

I have no complaint to make against the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) who raised this matter the other day. I know that he did his utmost to find me in the House, but I was on a visit from this House to the French Parliament at the time. I equally know that under the system of democracy in this House, in which a Member represents his whole constituency, all parties, for the time being between elections, it is a little surprising that they did not even consider it worth while to inform him what action they were taking in approaching a Member for another constituency.

The only other objection I have received regarding this Order was from the Owner Occupiers' Association. They wrote to me last March. I acknowledged the letter and communicated with the Town Clerk of Stretford, who replied that there was a Board of Trade inquiry then taking place, and that the Town Council had approved the plans in February and could offer no objection to this Order. It may be noted that the Town Council—true, it does not contain many members who belong to the party opposite—the elected representatives of the people of Stretford, had approved the Order. They said that they did not object to the Order for the extension. I then referred the letter of the town council to the Owner Occupiers' Association. That letter was delayed in the post for some time, but it reached their secretary on 10th May and contained an offer from me to go and see anything which that objecting body cared to show me. That offer was not taken up. I, therefore, assumed that the objection had been dropped, and I was a little surprised when I found that it had been raised last Monday week. Only since that day had I received any private correspondence on the subject. I nevertheless considered it my duty to go out and see for myself, and it is what I saw and the conclusions I came to that I propose to state to the House.

Gas was first manufactured in Stretford in 1862, and the houses on both sides of the gas works have come there since that date. Let me say quite frankly that I entirely agree that it is not a very happy piece of town planning when you have two large residential districts with a gas works wedged in between them. In 1921 the Manchester Corporation acquired the gas works by a Bill from this House, in which a Clause was inserted stating that if the local authorities in the Stretford area wished to re-purchase the gas works they should be allowed to do so. A second Bill was put through Parliament in 1922 which enabled the Corporations of Stretford and Sale and the Urban District Council of Urmston, with one or two other constituent authorities, to re-purchase the gas works from Manchester. Those authorities are at present the controllers of the Stretford Gas Board, which supplies an area containing 60,000 of my constituents and 40,000 of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). At the same time an adjoining field was bought with the obvious purpose of extending the gas works if it was felt desirable, and since that date the huge recent developments of Trafford Park plus the huge housing developments have caused a vastly increased demand for gas. Two alternative solutions have been put forward. One has been the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Ardwick and I am surprised that, as an ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester he should know so little.

Mr. J. Henderson

rose

Hon. Members

He is not an ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Mr. Crossley

I am surprised that he should know so little about the details of the gas supply of his own city.

Hon. Members

He is not an ex-Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Mr. Crossley

I am sorry; I have been reading Dod.

Mr. J. Henderson

I have never been privileged to be Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Mr. Crossley

I am sorry, but he will take it as a compliment, I am sure. At any rate, it is not true to say the gas could be supplied as more than a temporary remedy, because at most only a 20 per cent. increase of gas supply could be obtained. They make gas of 450 calorific content as against 500 calorific content at Stretford. The price of Manchester gas is considerably in excess of that manufactured by the Stretford Gas Board, and the average price of gas is 8.21 per unit as against 5.96 in Stretford. The other solution put forward has been a complete removal to a site to be acquired in Trafford Park, and although I agree that that would be most desirable from the point of view of town planning, I cannot help thinking that the large capital outlay would cause gas to be supplied to 60,000 of my constituents, and 40,000 of the hon. Member for Altrincham at a very enhanced price for many years to come, because this is not a company trading for profits. It pays its loan charges and it puts something into reserve sinking fund. It is a department of the three local authorities to which I referred.

In the new extension there will be no new gas holders. Unloading will take place in a covered building on to a rubber band, and will be conveyed under cover into the retorts where the gas will be made, and I cannot believe that there will be the same nuisances in the case of the new extension that probably exist in the case of the present works. The local representatives without a single dissentient passed the plan for the gas works, and I could not feel that I could, either by vote or voice, act against this extension. I went into the housing districts adjoining the existing gas works. I found a great dread of the new gas works, because they feared it might be similar to the annoyance from the existing gas works.

I found complaints of grit and dust, and fumes and noise, and, apart from the fumes, most of which came from a carbon bi-sulphide factory a mile away and not from the gas works at all, the complaints were substantially justified. The dust and grit were undoubtedly most disagreeable. The noise on the Stretford track was jarring and harsh, and the noise from tipping at night carried on close to the houses, frequently without the tip being properly lowered, was unnecessary, and ought to be remedied. I also received a complaint from several householders of workmen shouting at night.

All these things ought undoubtedly to be remedied, and the gasworks authorities did say that when these extensions were completed they would turn their attention to the existing gas works. The complaints I heard were not against the extension but against the existing gasworks. I say most sincerely that the members of the Board ought to consider these matters at the earliest possible moment—and I am certain that they will do so. They have never been brought to their notice as a formal complaint, and as far as the local authorities in my constituency are concerned I know that they consist of people who give whole-hearted service to the public for the good of the public, and I believe that they will turn their attention to this matter in the near future. Having said this, I trust the House will agree with me that it is desirable in the interests of the price of gas to the consumers and the industries of Trafford Park, many of whom have been attracted there as against the south—a process which everyone will agree is desirable—that the Order should go through.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Lawson

I heard the Debate on this matter the other night, and I was struck by the conditions which prevail. At the same time, I should not intervene in this Debate, as I represent another part of the country, but for the fact that Parliament as a whole has a responsibility in this matter. I received this morning a communication from the solicitors of the undertakers which I have read carefully. The statements are so bad that I must say a few words. They are on a par with what has been said by the hon. Member, and if the House fulfilled its proper functions in relation to a matter of this kind it would ask for the Adjournment of the Debate in order to have the matter reconsidered in view of these statements. Most Members have received a plan which shows that all round the existing gas works there are 100,000 houses. The hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade said the other night that these people have built their houses there and went there after the gas works were built. There is nothing in that argument, because working people have to go where the houses are and in the vicinity of their work. This document from the solicitors says: Within 300 yards of the new gas works there are 1,140 houses, all of which except 120 are also within 500 yards of the existing gas works, and only a dozen of these properties were unlet on 4th March, 1927, while tenants were moving in and out. This, it is submitted is the best evidence that there is no real objection to these works. My reply to a statement of that kind is that working people have to take houses where they can get them. Would any hon. Member, if he could get a house anywhere else, move to within a few yards of a gas works of the description painted by the hon. Gentleman? Then the solicitors go on to give pretty much the same description that the hon. Gentleman has given. They say: The objections were on the ground of nuisance from fumes, smell and grit, depreciation in value of the property in one or two cases, injury to paint work and the like.…A boundary wall has been erected at Thomas Street in order to keep in any ground dust made by road vehicles loading coke. That is the kind of conditions under which people have to live, and this undertaking is going to extend this kind of thing and multiply the grievances.

Mr. Crossley

That is exactly what it is not going to do. It is going to adopt an entirely new and up-to-date process, and this extension will be entirely covered in. The old process is not covered in, and that is the whole difference between the two.

Mr. Lawson

It is going to extend its works—

Mr. Crossley

It it not going to extend the nuisance.

Mr. Lawson

—in the middle of a great population. I speak with experience of having lived in such crowded areas. I have lived in conditions of this description, and no Member with similar experience would consent to the passing of this Order. I desire to move "That the Debate be now adjourned" until proper consideration has been given to the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Burke

The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) is wrong in his notion that this matter concerns only Stretford. I think that he betrays the real attitude of the Stretford Council in making it purely parochial. I look upon it as a matter of real importance to the future of the town planning of the country. It is not merely a matter that concerns the people of Stretford, it concerns the health of the community throughout the whole of that area. There was a time when I was a citizen of Stretford and would have had the privilege of voting against the hon. Member. The hon. Member has supplied the reason. He tells us that the local trade council never thought it worth while to consult him.

Mr. Crossley

Not to consult me—to inform me.

Mr. Burke

That is even worse. The local trade council never thought it worth while to inform the hon. Member of what is going on in his own constituency. That suggests a lack of contact between tke hon. Member and his constituents. However, let us come to the point. Close to Stretford—which is a residential area and very largely a dormitory of Manchester—there is a big industrial area, one of the biggest in the country, which has been set aside as an industrial area and upon which a great deal of money has been spent. Many of the people who work in the industrial area of Trafford Park have to live close to it. Across the border from Stretford are the large works of Metropolitan-Vickers which employ 15,000 people, and many of those people have to live close to the gasworks in question. I suggest that it rests with Members of the House, and not merely of Stretford alone, to look after the health of those people. The hon. Member suggested that Manchester could not cope with this demand and that instead of having gas supplied to Stretford by the Manchester Corporation, Stretford must have a little gasworks of its own. That suggestion is all against the tendency of modern industrialisation. We are getting past the time when each local authority is trying to do its own little job, in its own little way. The tendency is towards bigger plants and amalgamation of authorities and co-ordination. Stretford, all along, has been parochial in its outlook.

The Manchester Gasworks can turn out 36,000,000 cubic feet of gas per day. [HON. MEMBERS: "More expensively."] I will deal with that point later. According to the statement which I received this morning the present sale from the Stretford Gasworks is about 1,126,088,000 cubic feet per year, as something like 4,000,000 per day. At the most, they say, the safe capacity for making gas would be 8,250,000 cubic feet per day and Manchester can give them 3,250,000 cubic feet per day over and above the highest figure they can safely make. It seems a waste of energy and of industrial power to have this works when there is a large undertaking close by which can supply the demand. The question of the change of calorific value is a mere matter of minor adjustment and, as to price, while it is true that Manchester gas is clearer than Stretford gas at the moment, that, again, is a matter for negotiation between the local authorities. In any case, I submit that the interest of the health of the people of Stretford should come first. A healthy community is a hale community and a hale community is a holy community. The words are one in etymology and one in meoning. The hon. Member for Stretford ought not to come here to ask for the perpetuation of this vandalism for the sake of one-sixteenth of a penny per thousand cubic feet in the price of gas.

12.15 a.m.

Sir Joseph Nall

The remarks of the last speaker and of the hon. Member for the Ardwick division of Manchester (Mr. J. Henderson) seemed almost to suggest that Manchester was instigating this fuss in order to get hold of the Stretford gaworks. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) told the House what happened in 1921 and 1922 when Manchester endeavoured to acquire these works. The matter was then gone into very thoroughly upstairs on two Bills, and, in the end, Stretford and the adjacent authorities formed this joint board and took over this undertaking for themselves. I am sure the hon. Member for Ardwick does not wish to give the impression that Man- chester is now trying to make this Order an excuse for going in again and trying to get what it failed to get in 1921. The fact remains that this smaller undertaking having specialised in commercial gas for industrial purposes is serving a useful purpose to a large number of important industrial undertakings. It is supplying gas at very much below the ordinary gasworks price. Therefore it is of great importance to the employers and industrialists concerned that this supply should be maintained at the present prices or less. Incidentally, this is an interesting example of the fact that the smaller undertakings can often be run more cheaply and economically than the large ones. That illustrates a mistake which is often made in discussing these matters. It is not always the biggest undertaking that is the most economical.

In this case my immediate interest is in the large number of working-class people for whom more employment is being found in that district. That, to a certain extent, is due to the fact that this very cheap gas power is available for certain industrial processes, and I should be sorry to see that industrial development retarded in any way by throwing out this Order and disturbing the development which is going on now. It is a fact that the Stretford undertaking will shortly be unable to meet its commitments and meet the demand made upon it unless it is able to proceed with this modernisation and extension of its plant. I have heard a great dealt about this matter locally, and I can confirm what the hon. Member for Stretford has said. If the Stretford board goes on with this modernisation a great deal of the cause of complaint which has arisen in recent months will disappear. It is no good coming to the House and saying: "Here is something which is causing complaint and is very bad. But we will not allow the owners to improve it. We will make 1 hem go on as they are going." That is a policy of despair which can do nobody any good. The question of a local supply and a supply from Manchester has been gone into in this House in the past and ought not to be re-opened. I am sure the Manchester city authority does not wish it to be re-opened on this Order. I understand that an inspector of the department has gone thoroughly into the matter, and the result is that the Board of Trade have presented this Order to the House. This is a local government undertaking and not a company for making profit, and it is now abundantly clear that the grievances which have caused this obstruction can only be remedied by allowing this new plant to be erected.

12.19 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace)

When this matter was previously before the House, I acceded to the request of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) and moved the Adjournment of the Debate on the Order, but I took care to say that I did so without prejudice to the position of the Board of Trade on the question. That was a polite way of saying that the speeches which had been made had not in any way shaken the arguments, adduced by me, in favour of the Order. Since then, the House has had the advantage of hearing the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall), who have filled up the gaps in the history of the matter which I presented—perhaps not in sufficient detail—the other night.

There are in this case three question to which the House should address itself. First of all, is a larger supply of gas required in this particular area in the interests of the people who live there, whether they be domestic consumers or industrial users? I do not think there can be any doubt that the answer to that first question must be emphatically in the affirmative. I will not weary the House with the figures.

I think enough has already been said to show that this particular area will require in the near future a largely increased supply of gas; and the researches which I have made during the last ten days have gone to show that, if this Order does not go through, certain plants will have to shut down in the not very far-distant future, and certain other plants which are being constructed will not be able to start. Therefore, I think we may take it that an increased supply of gas is required in this area, and I am certain that the hon. Member who first objected to the Order will not deny that proposition.

The second question we have to consider is whether that supply of gas can be obtained more cheaply, more efficiently or with less detriment to local amenities from outside the particular area. Again, I think enough has been said, particularly by the last speaker, to show, first, that to get a supply of gas from Manchester to this area would be only a temporary expedient, because I do not imagine that Manchester is going to stand still any more than Stretford, and secondly, in spite of what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) said, I am advised that there are substantial difficulties involved in a difference of calorific value, although I agree that that is a minor point compared with the main one. We hope that Partington will find a full market for its gas in the near future, and it may indeed want to extend itself.

The third question is: What effect will the extension of the present source of supply, as proposed in this Order, have on the living conditions of the people who live round it? I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr Lawson) that that is something to which we must have regard. My position in recommending the House to pass this Order is made singularly easy by the fact that there is no doubt whatever that the construction of the extension to this gasworks, so far from increasing the nuisances about which there have been well-founded complaints, is actually going to do a great deal to mitigate, if not to remove, them. It is intended to do away with what is known as the telpher system of conveying coke and coal on overhead trolleys, and to substitute rubber belts and enclosed gangways to convey coal from the siding; this, I am advised, will have the effect of very substantially reducing the nuisances of which the local residents have complained. Therefore, I think in the circumstances it is not necessary for me to say any more or to go into the question of whether the matter should have been represented earlier or should have been represented to the local Member of Parliament. It so happens that in this case the industrial necessities of the area and the convenience of the inhabitants seem to go side by side. For these reasons, I hope the House will pass this Order.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Paling

If hon. Members opposite ever want to find an excuse for doing something, they always say that if it is not done, it will stop progress in building works, stop people from getting work, and so on. I have not heard sufficient evidence of that to-night. Most of the evidence given by the hon. Member who represents the division admits that all the complaints that have been made by these people are justified up to the hilt.

Mr. Crossley

Not as regards the extension.

Mr. Paling

No, the complaints have been with regard to the present gas-works, as to the dirt and all the rest of it. The hon. Member admits that it has been badly planned, that it ought not to be there and that there is a site somewhere in the neighbourhood to which it would be better removed. His objection to removal is that it would be expensive.

Mr. Crossley

Suppose such a complete transference did take place. It would inevitably involve large capital expenditure, and that would mean enhanced prices for gas to some 100,000 consumers. While in theory I should like to see such a transference, in practice it is quite impossible.

Mr. Paling

I said that I thought the hon. Member had admitted that there was a better site, but that it would mean increased outlay. I grant that, but if it would be costly to move the present works it would be infinitely more costly to shift them at some future time, after the extension has been built. Which is the wiser course? To shift now, or in the future, after the extension has been made? If the extension is made now the people there will be subjected to this nuisance for the rest of their lives. It would be cheaper to shift the works now, even though it might involve increasing the price of gas, while there is the opportunity to do it, and thus remove this nuisance for ever. I am surprised that the hon. Member has not taken up that point of view on behalf of his constituents rather more strongly than he has done. If this nuisance is to be remedied, now is the time to do it.

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Benn

Will the Minister tell us whether he has made any inquiries of the Manchester City Council as to whether this service could be supplied by them, in order that what is recognised as a great nuisance and a danger to the health of those in the neighbourhood could be dealt with?

Captain Wallace

I can speak again only by the leave of the House. I have not written to the Manchester City Council myself, but my Department have made inquiries, and I think that the question has been very effectively answered by the hon. Member above the gangway opposite.

Mr. Benn

The hon. Member above the gangway did not really answer that question at all. I have the great honour to be a representative of one of the divisions of the City of Manchester and it is proper to ask the Minister whether he has consulted that very large and progressive city, which has shown in connection with

its gasworks a desire to develop along town planning lines. Have the Manchester City Council been asked whether they would render this service in order to do away with what everyone, including the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley), recognizes to be a danger to public health.

Question put, That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stretford and District Gas Board, which was presented on the 24th day of May and published, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 52.

Division No. 275.] AYES. [12.28 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Furness, S. N. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Gluckstein, L. H. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Goldie, N. B. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Grant-Ferris, R. Palmer, G. E. H.
Apsley, Lord Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Patrick, C. M.
Aske, Sir R. W. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Perkins, W. R. D.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Grimston, R. V. Petherick, M.
Balniel, Lord Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Gunston, Capt. D. W. Procter, Major H. A.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Hannah, I. C. Radford, E. A.
Bernays, R. H. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Bird, Sir R. B. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Ramsbotham, H.
Bossom, A. C. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rankin, Sir R.
Boulton, W. W. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hepworth, J. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Higgs, W. F. Ropner, Colonel L.
Butcher, H. W. Holdsworth, H. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Cartland, J. R. H. Holmes, J. S. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Cary, R. A. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Channon, H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Salt, E. W.
Christie, J. A. Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Savery, Sir Servington
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Hutchinson, G. C. Seely, Sir H. M.
Clarry, Sir Reginald James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Joel, D. J. B. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Colfox, Major W. P. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Colman, N. C. D. Kimball, L. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Critchley, A. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Touche, G. C.
Cross, R. H. Leckie, J. A. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Crowder, J. F. E. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Levy, T. Turton, F. H.
De Chair, S. S. Liddall, W. S. Wakefield, W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Drewe, C. Lyons, A. M. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) McCorquodale, M. S. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Dugdale, Captain T. L. McKie, J. H. Watt, G. S. H.
Duggan, H. J. Maitland, A. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Duncan, J. A. L. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Eastwood, J. F. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Emery, J. F. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wragg, H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Fleming, E. L. Morgan, R. H. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Foot, D. M. Munro, P.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Nall, Sir J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sir Edward Grigg and Mr. Crossley
NOES.
Ammon, C. G. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Price, M. P.
Barr, J. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pritt, D. N.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Burke, W. A. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Rowson, G.
Cape, T. Jagger, J. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cocks, F. S. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Daggar, G. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sorensen, R. W.
Dalton, H. John, W. Stephen, C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Kelly, W. T. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Dobbie, W. Kirby, B. V. Tinker, J. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lawson, J. J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Ede, J. C. Logan, D. G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. McEntee, V. La T. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gallacher, W. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Marshall, F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R. Mathers, G. Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Ellis Smith.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Groves, T. E. Paling, W.

Resolved, That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Conway Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved, That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Urban District Council of Llandudno, which was presented on the 9th day of June and published, be approved.

Resolved, That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Marlborough Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 9th day of June and published, be approved."—[Captain Wallace.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before One o'Clock, a.m.