Skip to main content

Clause 1—(Establishment Of North Of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board)

Volume 389: debated on Wednesday 5 May 1943

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page r, line 7, to leave out "body," and to insert "public authority."

This Amendment is only verbal. The object is to make it clear that certain enactments which apply to "public authorities" shall apply to the Hydro-Electric Board.

I did not hear very clearly what my hon. and learned Friend said, but I gather that he indicated that this was a purely verbal Amendment. I do not take that view at all, But before I endeavour to explain why I disagree, may I take this opportunity, which I feel sure all Members of the Committee desire that I should, of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State upon his safe return to the House, after a somewhat alarming accident? We all sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in having to face the ordeal of a two days' Committee stage. I fancy we should all have wished, had it been possible, to save him that trial by postponing the consideration of this Bill. That, I suppose, was not possible, in view of the long delay that has taken place. All we can do is to show as much consideration as possible; and I am sure he will show the same consideration towards our Amendments. It is in that spirit that I approach the Bill and this Amendment.

This is a most important Bill. We are dealing here with an Amendment which, as I think, strikes at the very root of the Bill, at the purpose which the Bill is designed to serve. This Bill will be important not only to the Highlands, not only to Scotland, but to the whole of this island. We should be failing in our duty if we did not examine this Amendment with the greatest possible care. The people we represent are going to benefit or to lose by the proceedings of these two days. It is our bounden duty to make certain of what we are doing, and, by our constructive efforts, to make this Bill a good one. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, seemed to regard it as being of rather slight importance. I do not take that view. I know that the Act setting up the London Passenger Transport Board uses these words "public authority" to describe the Board, but the Act setting up the Central Electricity Board, which is a much more analogous case, uses the word "body." Therefore, precedent is not of great assistance to us; and my argument does not rest upon precedent. I am concerned rather with the present-day accepted meaning of words, and with what I believe to be the right and only hopeful concept of the functions of the new Board.

"Public authority" connotes in the public mind a body which is elected, which is representative, which makes local laws, which levies rates, which orders and safeguards the rights of the people over whom it exercises authority. This new Hydro-Electric Board is none of these things. It is no more an authority in this sense than is the Grampian Power Company, and I do not see why it should be called a public authority. It is something entirely different. If it is going to be successful, it can only be a commercial concern, manufacturing and selling a product—or, if you like, a service—in competition with other products produced and marketed with skill, with enthusiasm, and with great energy. It is essential that we should grasp at the outset this fundamental conception of the functions of this Board. In order to discharge the duties laid upon it, it must, as my right hon. Friend said in his Second Reading speech, pay its way, like any other business, by efficiency, enterprise and sound commercial methods. Despite the misnomer "non-profit-making concern" which has been applied to this Board, it must make profits. The Secretary of State says so, and so does the Lord Advocate. Under Clause II, it must use these profits as every other concern of that size and character uses them, to pay interest on its capital, to build up reserves, to pay salaries and wages, and to maintain plant.

The hon. Member is making a very wide speech on a comparatively narrow Amendment. If his speech continued on those lines, it would obviously preclude him from making any remarks on the Motion "That the Clause stand part." I thought I ought to warn him.

I appreciate that, Mr. Williams. I am just concluding that point. My contention is that to call this new body a public authority strikes at the root of the purpose of the Bill. You must face that issue. These charges of which I have been speaking are the first charges on the Board. They must be met, and the price to the consumer must be adjusted accordingly. How can you possibly describe a Board performing such functions in such a commercial way as a public authority? In what respect is such a Board as this, with the functions laid down in the Bill, different from any other electricity company or commercial concern? It is only different in one respect. It has a fixed interest-bearing stock but no share capital. I am not at all sure that the consumers of electricity in the Highlands in the future will be altogether benefited as a result of that distinction. If the Board's finances at any time go wrong, the Highland public may well regret that they have not available to them the cushion of ordinary shareholders to bear the burden and tide them over the difficulty.

I apologise for intervening at this early stage in the proceedings, but I regard this issue as fundamental and one which affects our whole outlook on the Bill that we are about to consider. I feel that I must raise it and press it on the attention of the Committee. I can see no wrong with the word "body" at present in the Bill. If my hon. and learned Friend dislikes the word "body," then why does not he insert the word "Board"? It is a Board. It is called a Board 78 times in the course of the Bill. If it is called a Board throughout the Bill so frequently, why introduce this extraneous and wholly unsuitable phrase "public authority"? I regret it and would prefer the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper, which suggests the adoption of the word "Board."

Surely we are to have an answer from the Solicitor-General for Scotland to the speech of the hon. Member?

I can easily reply to the objection which my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has made. I thought it was a very slight Amendment. This Board—there is no question about it at all—is a public authority and will have certain functions, as the Committee well knows, corresponding to those of the Central Electricity Board. The sole reason for altering the phrase from "body" to "public authority" is, as I pointed out, that there are certain Statutes, in particular the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, which use the phrase "public authority" Accordingly, it was thought better that the same phrase should be used in this Bill, so as to make it clear that the provisions, for example, of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, would apply to the operations of the Board. As the Committee well know, the provisions of the 1919 Act made a modern code for the assessment of compensation where land is compulsorily acquired. Surely, my hon. Friend would not wish us to go back to the 1845 procedure under the Land Clauses Act. The whole idea of the Amendment is to bring this Measure into line with the former Acts which use the phrase "public authority."

I recognise the force of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, if this Bill is to be based upon any previous Measure at all, surely it should be based on that closely analogous Measure, namely, the 1926 Act, which set up the Central Electricity Board. In the first Section of that Act these words appear:

"For the purposes of this Act there shall be established, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, a body to be called the Central Electricity Board."
The Central Electricity Board has also very great powers to exercise and Statutes to regard. It is performing work of very great national importance, and it is not called a public authority because it is not, in fact, a public authority. I confess that I cannot follow my hon. and learned Friend in choosing out of all the string of Acts dealing with electricity and relevant subjects one so little related to the subject with which we are concerned. The 1926 Act is directly relevant to it, and I suggest that, if a precedent is to be found, then that is the precedent he should adopt.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland has referred to the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, and surely, in coming to a decision, it would be well if we know what is referred to as a "public authority" and that it should be put on record. It says:

" 'public authority' means any body of persons, not trading for profit, authorised by or under any Act to carry on a railway, canal, docks, water or other public undertaking."

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert:

"The Board shall be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of its general control and through him to Parliament."
I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to accept this Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) and myself, because we consider it to be essential in connection with a board of this kind. We have had experience in the past of how these boards are set up, and are then let loose to carry on in the most harsh and bureaucratic fashion as far as the workers employed by them are concerned and, very often, as far as the poorer section of the community who are dependent upon their services are concerned. It becomes the most difficult thing imaginable to do any- thing about it or to find any way of dealing with these people when there is a most glaring case of bureaucratic and harsh treatment. This Board is to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Fuel and Power. In Scotland we already have experience of the selective capacity of the Minister of Fuel and Power, and it does not at All commend itself to us. It is possible that when the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Fuel and Power get together, we may find such a gentleman as Lord Traprain on this Board, and it would be a terrible thing for the small consumers in Scotland if they were to be left at the mercy of such a man or a set of such men. Anyone can understand that the people who are to be appointed to this Board are all of one particular character. The Secretary of State has no intention whatever of appointing five ordinary workmen to this Board. Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule makes clear the kind of people who are to be on the Board. It is as follows:
"Any member of the Board shall, if he is interested in any company with which the Board has made or proposes to make any contract, disclose to the Board the fact and nature of his interest, and shall take no part in any deliberation or decision of the Board relating to such contract, and such disclosure shall be forthwith recorded in the minutes of the Board."
It is taken for granted in all these things that the members of a Board like this must be company directors of one kind or another. Therefore this will be a Board of company directors, and, as I say, you may have on it Lord Traprain, concerning whom I have a letter in my pocket about some old age pensioners on his estate off whose wages he knocked 10s. a week. They had been getting 25s., and he reduced them to 15s., and when challenged he wrote to the Press to say that that was what old age pensions were for—in order to relieve the poorer estates of their responsibilities. Imagine a man of that kind sitting on this Board.

Is the Committee to understand that the real object of this Amendment is to make an attack upon Lord Traprain?

No hon. Member can, on an Amendment of this kind, make an attack on some other individual. Such an attack would be altogether outside the scope of this Amendment. Though the Amendment is fairly wide, it does not go as far as that.

I do not want to make an attack on anybody or to say anything offensive about anyone. I merely wanted to use that individual's name as an example.

I think this is just the time when I ought to warn the hon. Member that it would be better for him to come back to the original Amendment and leave his illustration without further elaborating it.

I accept your advice, Mr. Williams, and I come back to the purpose of the Amendment. Every Member on this side of the Committee, however it may be with hon. Members opposite, understands the danger which exists in a Board of this kind unless there is a sufficient measure of control. At the present time there is much talk about democracy. Everybody is for democracy. Even the most case-hardened, hard-faced Tories pay their tribute to democracy. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Communists, too".] If the Deputy-Chairman would allow me to do so, I would be quite prepared, in answer to that interruption, to demonstrate and prove—

I will not go further into that, but I would say that a democracy based upon economic equality is a very much higher form of democracy than that based upon economic exploitation, but of course the Tories will not, and even some of the dull-witted on this side do not, understand that. Everybody recognises the importance of this scheme. It is a very important step, and the Secretary of State fur Scotland is to be congratulated on bringing forward this Measure. We do not want to hinder or obstruct him. We want to help him in every way. We want to see the scheme a really great success as far as Scotland is concerned. We do not want to hamper the progress of this Bill or of the scheme which is to follow it. It will be of the greatest value to Scotland to get it operat- ing in the most efficient and democratic way.

I would like to be able to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to get up in his place now and say, "Instead of leaving this scheme to a body of company directors, I will guarantee to appoint five honest workmen." Then one could be satisfied that justice would be done to everybody. But if we are to have a Board of five company directors, controlling this great scheme, men who are all the time associated in their social life with the representatives of big companies who want cheap electricity, then it is a certainty that the poorer consumers will be completely neglected, and we shall have the harsh and bureaucratic treatment of the workers employed in the scheme to which we are accustomed from boards of that composition. If there are complaints from poor consumers, or from those outside the immediate range of the scheme who are, rightly, demanding supplies of electricity—a point which we shall raise later in another Amendment, if the Chairman is good enough to call it —such complaints will be disregarded by a Board of this kind. Demands by poor consumers, or by those claiming the right to be consumers, or complaints by the workers employed in the scheme will arise, and it is essential that we should be able to get these things rectified without loss of time. Members of Parliament should be in a position immediately to approach the Secretary of State and through him to exert a measure of control over this Board and the development of the scheme. It is because we want to see the scheme worked with the maximum efficiency that we ask that at all stages of the general policy of the Board, the House of Commons should have control.

I support the Amendment. It is necessary that the proposed measure of control should be exercised. This is to be a public service corporation, and in Clause 14 of the Bill power is to be given to the Treasury to guarantee loans to the extent of £ £30,000,000. That is a fair sum of money, and as the State is to be in the position of guarantor and to be responsible for the finance of the undertaking, it is necessary that the State should have the last word in the control of the undertaking. If this elementary safeguard is not assured, the Board will simply become a law unto itself and its members virtual dictators. Without requiring to take any financial risk themselves, they are in a position to control without question this great undertaking. If the Amendment were accepted, the Board would be responsible to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. The Secretary of State would be answerable to this House for the actions of the Board. We are all aware of the power exerted by these boards. I am a member of the Ayrshire Electricity Board, and from the moment I was elected by the Ayrshire County Council to become a member of that Board the County Council had nothing to do with me. I am not answerable to the County Council; I am merely a member of the Board. This kind of thing means that very largely officials run the scheme, and poor simple men like myself merely dot the i's and cross the t's. Many questions directly affecting a county council and a fairly large population can arise, and I have always thought it to be an anomalous position that this Board, which is composed of representatives of the Ayrshire County Council, the Kilmarnock Town Council and the Ayrshire Town Council, are not responsible in any way to the people who send them there.

The main function of these boards is to make their undertakings pay, to see that they do not make a loss in any year. Consequently, where transmission lines are so costly it is the general practice to skim the cream in any particular locality into which they go. They tap the industrial areas or the big towns, and the very last thing they think about is becoming suppliers of electricity to people who have no electricity. Although they have a monopoly of the whole area for the supply of electricity, the people who do not get it, because of the cost of these transmission lines, have no redress whatever. They have nobody they can appeal to, and the result is that the Board does exactly what it likes. That is what this Board would do immediately it was set up. I think it would be easy to guess the type of people who would be elected to this Board. All controls set up during the war give an indication of the type of people who would be elected to a Board of this description. That being so, it is necessary that we should have some control. This undertaking, when it is in operation, will produce enormous sums of money, and that is an additional argument for this control. When development takes place the undertaking will be able to produce 4,000,000,000 units of electricity per annum, which means an enormous revenue and enormous responsibilities. Scottish Members of Parliament will be entitled to question the operations of this Board. Beneficial results will accrue to Highlands. We must not be parsimonious in this matter. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the Board merely to produce electricity and carry on as a revenue-producing concern, but that, I hope, will not be the function of this Board.

Glowing pictures have been painted of the development of these Highlands as a result of the operations of this undertaking, and we have been told that the first duty of this Board will be to supply the Highland areas with electricity. In an area capable of producing so much electricity there ought not to be one crofter's cottage or farmhouse left without an electricity supply. What guarantee is there of this? There is no guarantee at all. The Board will be composed of privileged people who will be under the supervision of nobody. This Board must be the servant of the community, and it can only be that if there is somebody responsible in this House. That responsible person must be the Secretary of State, who can be pilloried here in regard to every action of the Board. So I hope the Secretary of State will see his way to accept this Amendment.

I want to support the Amendment and to say that we have no intention of doing damage to this gigantic scheme. We support the Amendment because we believe it will be beneficial to the Highlands of Scotland, the condition of which at present is deplorable. We see through this scheme the opening-up of the Highlands of Scotland. I can see as a result of this a Board of business men being appointed. I have had contact with business men, and when it comes to a question of business they have no conscience. See what they have done with the Highlands already. Why the Secretary of State should resist the Amendment it is beyond me to understand. If he were still a Socialist, he would never resist it; he would back it. I was on the Glasgow Town Council when the Clyde Valley electrical scheme came into operation, and all the wires were pulled to keep the Corporation out of the business. The shareholders pulled the wires in order to see that our activities as a municipality were trammelled. The Glasgow Corporation, which is run now by working men, is producing the cheapest electricity in Scotland. If the Secretary of State gets away with this, there is no danger of his appointing working men on this Board. It will be big business men. The working men of Britain have shown that they can run business as efficiently, if not more so —

I do not think we ought to go into the question of running business efficiently. I have allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude on the point that the Board of directors should be subject to the controlling authority of Parliament, and I think we must keep to that point.

I will keep within your Ruling, Mr. Williams. All I am doing is to prove my argument regarding the type of board that will be appointed. I am only warning the Secretary of State at the beginning of this business that all this is in front of him unless he toes the line. This is a gigantic undertaking. We are practically handing away the Highlands. Do you mean to tell me that £30,000,000 being given to the Highlands does not mean that we are handing them away? We must be very careful what we are doing. We are very anxious not to trammel the right hon. Gentleman's activities and to do what we can to develop and re-populate the Highlands, and the opportunity is here. It is not too much that £30,000,000 should be given for their redevelopment, but this House must have the controlling voice. We must be able to bring the Secretary of State to book here. Some of the most beautiful parts in the world have been absolutely destroyed. I do not want to see a Board appointed which has no soul, no conscience and no love of country. We do not want to see the country completely destroyed for the benefit of shareholders who do not give a damn for it and whose, only interest is making money. We are more anxious to make the country secure and make the lives of the people better than they have been in the past.

This is a matter not for Scotland only but for the whole country. We are all in cordial agreement with the general principles involved in the Measure and cordially congratulate the Government upon its introduction, but Parliament will be, voting these large sums, and therefore Parliament must have a say in the matter. In the language of the Prime Minister, it is certain that in the post-war era there will be an expansion of public enterprise, as there will be an expansion of private enterprise. He did not intend the House to understand that public moneys would be paid out without full democratic control, as is apparently intended in the Bill as it stands. This House long ago established the principle, after considerable struggles, that where subsidies were granted in certain directions there should be the appointment of directors to represent Parliament upon those concerns. All we are asking is that the voting authority of these moneys shall see how the concern is being organised and that Parliament shall have the right to indicate where criticism ought to be directed to the management or control of this board. If we fail to insert this principle, we shall be giving a lead to post-war Parliament that moneys may be freely voted without any democratic control whatever. We are a capitalist country, and we shall be bound to support capitalist movements and the expansion of capitalist industry. Are we to do so following the example of the Bill as it is at present, without the full control of Parliament? I cannot believe that in these days of expansion and planning in every direction, particularly in that of industry, Parliament will be crippled, following the example of the Bill as it is at present, and that we shall leave industry in the full enjoyment of public moneys relieved of all public control.

I must be one of the dull ones on this side of the Committee, because I do not yet understand what the Amendment proposes to do. The Mover at the beginning of his speech led me to understand that the object was to ensure that the employees engaged in this undertaking would be properly treated and that the directors would not exercise tyrannical powers over them. If that were to happen, it would not be the only organisation or industry that was in that position. Up to now the workers have exercised their democratic rights by forming trade unions and having trade-union protection against tyrannical action from employers.

We must not allow this to develop into an argument as to whether Parliament or the trade unions or any other body can protect the workers from employers. We must keep the discussion strictly to the point whether the Secretary of State should be the final authority.

On a point of Order. The hon. Member says that he does not know what the Amendment is about. Why should he then take up the time of the Committee in discussing it?

I have no desire to get out of Order, but if I am out of Order it is because you, Mr. Williams, allowed the Mover to get out of Order.

The hon. Member is going outside the bounds in criticising the Chair. I am pointing out to him that he was going further than the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

I have stated the impression I received from the Mover of the Amendment. The hon. Member who supported it said that Parliament was being asked to find £30,000,000 for this scheme and argued that we were surrendering all control over it and that the Board would be entitled to do what it liked with the money without any right of Parliament to interfere with it. My hon. Friend referred to Clause 14, which authorises the provision of the money, but I cannot understand the reason for the Amendment if he had read Subsection (5), which gives authority to the Secretary of State to ensure that every year duly audited accounts will be presented to Parliament. I cannot understand how Parliament loses control over that £30,000,000 if every year an account of what has been done by the Board is presented and laid on the Table of the House. In the following Clause the Secretary of State is given power to appoint the auditors and to carry out certain other functions. This House, therefore, is given all the authority and power that it can exercise in connection with the operations of this scheme.

I could have understood and sympathised with the speeches that have been made in support of this Amendment had they been made on paragraph 72 of the Cooper Committee Report, where it was recommended that there should be one development scheme and that Parliament thereafter should divorce itself from the day-to-day powers of the scheme. The Government did not accept that recommendation and the Bill as drawn very largely meets the point made by the hen. Members who supported the Amendment. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in conjunction with the Minister of Fuel and Power, appoints the Board. He can, therefore, be tackled in the House at Question Time and on other occasions as to his action and the composition of the Board. When the Board starts it devises three kinds of schemes. There are a development scheme, a constructional scheme and a distribution scheme. All these schemes have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval, and the constructional scheme, which is the most important one, has to be brought before this House. On the big three operational schemes, therefore, this House can tackle the Secretary of State, who is responsible for approving them.

Not only so, but the Secretary of State is responsible for the appointment of the Amenity Committee, for the appointment of the Fisheries Committee, for the regulations under which the prices of electricity are fixed, for the regulations under which borrowing takes place, for the appointment of the auditor, and for the form in which the annual report of the Board is to be presented to Parliament. Indeed, so far as I can see there is only one phase of the operations of this Board in regard to which the Secretary of State is not responsible to Parliament. That is the technical, electricity side of the operations, which are to be supervised by the Electricity Commission. That Commission is under the general control and direction of the Minister of Fuel and Power. It was, therefore, held to be desirable in a partial Measure of this kind, dealing only with the North of Scotland area, that there should be no interference with the general structure and the technical experience and knowledge which the Electricity Commissioners possess. It was felt to be undesirable. that the Secretary of State should set up an electricity department at St. Andrew's House, and it was decided that it would be preferable to set up a Board instead of a Government Department. With that single exception of the technical side of the operations the Secretary of State is responsible under the Bill, and he can be tackled in Parliament. Therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary, unless it is the opinion of the Committee — which, I agree, is a possibility—that the Secretary of State should take over the purely technical side of electrical development and take it away from the Electricity Commission. On all other aspects of the Board's work the Secretary of State has to be consulted. He is responsible to this House, and the control of Parliament is supreme.

Will not the Secretary of State see that the Amendment will strengthen the Bill and not in any way weaken it? He knows as well as I do that the men he will have to deal with will find ways and means of getting away from him unless it is definitely stated in the Bill that they are responsible to the Secretary of State.

I have been trying to explain that they are responsible to me—responsible in terms in the Bill, and that I am in turn responsible to Parliament and can be asked questions in Parliament.

The control or responsibility of the Minister in regard to the operations of this Board are very limited by the Bill. In such undertakings as this the freedom of the employees is seriously restricted. Therefore, it is all the more important that they should have the fullest and freest approach to Parliament and the Minister. The consumers also have to be considered. There will be great difficulties in connection with the transmission of electricity, and we shall have many hard fights on this question. It is essential, in order that the poorest and most needy shall get electricity, that this House and the Secretary of State should have immediate control over the Board. It is all very well for the scheme to be prepared and submitted in general to the Secretary of State, but after that the application of the scheme can be utilised in such a way as to give the greatest advantage to the people who are interested in business, to the neglect of the poorer and outlying consumers. This House should have day-to-day control over the Board if it is necessary to exercise it. It might be that for months at a time there would be no necessity to interfere or do anything as regards the working of the Board, but a day might come when it was necessary for the House to bring some matter before the Secretary of State and for him to step in and say the Board must do this or that immediately. We do not suggest that every day we shall be watching what the Board are doing, following all the technical details, but at any time when this House demands it the Secretary of State should have a

Division No. 18.


Adams, D. (Consett)Gruffydd, W. J.Smith, E. (Stoke)
Bevan, A.Horabin, T. L.Stephen, C.
Buchanan, G.Leslie, J. R.Stokes, R. R.
Daggar, G.McGovern,.J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)Maclean, N. (Govan)TELLERS FOR THE AYES. -
Foster, W.Maxton, J.Mr. Sloan and Mr. Kirkwood
Gallacher, W.Oldfield, W. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.Emery, J. F.Leonard, W.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)Emmott, C. E. G. C.Levy, T.
Agnew, Comdr. P. G.Erskine-Hill, A. G.Lewis, O.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)Liddall, W. S.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ.)Everard, Sir W. LindsayLinstead, H. N.
Barnes, A. J.Frankel, D.Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Barr, J.Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)Loftus, P. C.
Baxter, A. BeverleyFraser, T. (Hamilton)Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.Mabane, W.
Beattie, F. (Cathcart)Gates, Major E. E.McCallum, Major D.
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'h)Gibbins, J.McEntee, V. la T.
Beechman, N. A.Gibson, Sir C. G.McEwan, Capt. J. H. F.
Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)Green, W. H. (Deptford)McKie, J. H.
Benson, G.Gridley, Sir A. B.McKinlay, A. S.
Bernays, R. H.Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)McNeil, H.
Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.Grimston, R. V.Maitland, Sir A.
Blair, Sir R.Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)Mander, G. le M.
Bossom, A. C.Hammersley, S. S.Manningharn-Buller, R. E.
Boulton, W. W.Hannah, I. C.Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Bower, Norman (Harrow)Hannon, Sir P. J. H.Marshall, F.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.Harris, Rt. Hon, Sir P. A.Mathers, G.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham)Hayday, A.Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)Heilgers, Major F. F. A.Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)Molson, A. H. E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)Henderson, J. (Ardwick)Montague, F.
Bullock, Capt. M.Henderson, T. (Tradeston)Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Burden, T. W.Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)Hepworth, JMorrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
Cape, T.Higgs, W. F.Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Cary, R. A.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountMort, D. L.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)Holdsworth, H.Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)Hollins, A. (Hanley)Muff, G.
Chorlton, A. E. L.Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Clarry, Sir ReginaldHorsbrugh, FlorenceMurray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Cluse, W. S.Howitt, Dr. A. B.Nield, Lt.-Col. B. E.
Cobb, Captain E. C.Hulbert, Wing-Commander N. J.Nunn, W.
Colegate, W. A.Hunter, T.Perkins, W. R. D.
Collindridge, F.Hurd, Sir P. A.Peters, Dr. S. J.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F W.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)Peto, Major, B. A. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Isaacs, G. A.Purbrick, R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)Pym, L. R.
Denville, AlfredJewson, P. W.Quibell, D. J. K.
Dobbie, W.Johnston, Rt. Han. T. (St'l'g & C'km'n)Radford, E. A.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)Rathbone, Eleanor
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)Kimball, Major L.Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Dunn, E.Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Ede, J. C.Lamb, Sir J. Q.Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.Lawson, J. J.Richards, R
Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)Leighton, Major B. E. P.Rickards, G. W.

right to step in and say to the Board that they must supply power and light to this, that or the other place or must immediately negotiate and settle any difficulties or any grievances which exist in the undertaking. Surely the Committee will understand the importance of that.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 221.

Riley, B.Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)Watkins, F. G.
Ritson, J.Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.Watson, W. McL.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.Summers, G.S.Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh, Cen.)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)Sutcliffe, H.Westwood, J.
Salt, E. W.Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.Tate, Mavis C.White, H. (Derby, N.E.)
Sandys, E. D.Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)Whiteley, Rt. Han. W. (Blaydon)
Schuster, Sir G. E.Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)Windsor, W.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)Thomas, I. (Keighley)Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Silverman, S. S.Thomas, Dr. W S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)Wise, Major A. R.
Simmonds, O. E.Thorne, W.Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)Woodburn, A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Smith, T. (Normanton)Tinker, J. J.York, Major C.
Snadden, W. McN.Tomlinson, G.Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Spearman, A. C. M.Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Storey, S.Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Strickland, Capt. W. F.Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.Mr. Young and Mr. Adamson.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.