HC Deb 01 November 1949 vol 469 cc239-55
Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, at the end to insert: (3) The Forestry Commissioners shall make to the verderers in respect of land for the time being enclosed by virtue of this section payments of such amounts as may be agreed between the verderers and the Commissioners. These words, which in the Bill as printed are enclosed in brackets, were left out by the Lords to avoid questions of Privilege. There is a series of such Privileged Amendments that we have to make.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

This Clause seeks to give the Forestry Commission power, subject to the permission of the verderers, to enclose a further 5,000 acres, and I think that before we part with this Clause we ought to hear from the Minister something about how he arrived at that figure; whether he is satisfied that he can find those acres in the Forest; and whether, above all, he is satisfied that he can find them in the Forest in such a way as not further to deprive the commoners of their rights of pasture and the public of their rights of amenity.

When this was discussed in another place before the Select Committee, the only statements we got from the Government were two in number. The first was that, according to the Baker Report, this figure of 5,000 acres had been arrived at without any consideration of amenities at all. Therefore, I think it fair to say that probably this figure does not take amenities into account at all. The second statement we got from Lord Robinson, who spoke on behalf of the Government, and who said that no survey had been made in any respect in the New Forest to show either that there were 5,000 acres that were suitable or, secondly, where that acreage should be. All that he, on behalf of the Government, was able to state was that 5,000 acres was one-eighth of the total unenclosed Forest, and that therefore it must be possible, on that sort of percentage, to find 5,000 acres.

Now, I am the last to decry the great contribution that timber growing in the New Forest has made to the country's economy. I think I am right in saying that something like a half of the total soft woods that were employed during the war came from the New Forest. However, I do say that, whatever may be the immediate value to the Forestry Commission of an additional acreage in the New Forest, from a national point of view that can be justified only if the Commissioners can show that it will not upset the traditional agricultural occupations of that district. Our first duty in this House is to make certain that the agricultural balance, particularly as regards the small commoners, will not be upset. So far, we have heard nothing about that, and I hope the Minister will say something on that subject.

I do not think the Minister will deny that under previous Acts, with which we have very little to do this afternoon, the Forestry Commission has taken unto itself all the best parts of the Forest. That is what the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) talked about, and I am sorry that he is no longer here. Having taken all the low-lying land and the land adjacent to water, they have left, as a general principle, merely the gravel highlands, and they are now saying in effect, "We may as well have the remainder as it is eminently suitable to conifers."

The real object in promoting this Bill, which has been asked for by the New Forest, was to ensure that the New Forest should be a balanced agricultural community in the future. That can never be done if the commoners are encouraged by the provisions of the Bill not only to continue depasturing their cattle but to increase the number. If there is one way of ensuring that that will not be so, it is by trying to take another 5,000 acres out of the Forest. I know that the Minister will say, "Here we have a large unit and a convenient unit, and it is much cheaper and more economical." My answer is that the New Forest is not something essential to the Forestry Commission. They were asked in another place what they had done about those countless thousands of acres, particularly in Surrey, growing nothing but scrub and eminently suitable for replantation, and which they could get very cheaply. Lord Robinson's answer was that that had been considered, but he was not going to tell the Committee, and I do not suppose that this afternoon we shall hear anything about their plans for using that agricultural land.

I ask the Minister to withdraw this Clause, which cannot be operated except by doing harm to the commoners. I suggest that it is bad not only locally for the New Forest because of the effect which it will have on the depasturing of cattle, but also from the amenity point of view, as the inclusion of a further 5,000 acres must mean greater destruction of wild life and further restriction of access to the public.

Mr. Shackleton

I am astonished at the modesty of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who is one of the verderers, that he should consider that they are unfit to discharge the duty which the House in this Clause seeks to impose upon them. It is absolutely misleading for him to suggest that this Bill, in effect, provides for the enclosure of 5,000 acres for the growing of trees. It does nothing of the sort. It provides for the enclosure, with the permission of the verderers, of an undefined number of acres not exceeding 5,000. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), who lives in a town which is full of conifers—there are probably more conifers in Bournemouth than in any other town in England—would, of course, object on principle to the growing of any conifers in the New Forest.

5.15 p.m.

This Clause does allow, with the permission of the verderers—and it puts a heavy responsibility on the verderers from which the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch should not shrink—more trees to be grown in the New Forest. Where it is possible to find 5,000 acres is a matter for the future and for the verderers to decide in consultation with the Forestry Commission. I am sure that they are patriotic enough to realise that if it is possible to find a place to grow these trees without spoiling the amenities or seriously interfering with the grazing, that should be done.

Whether they are conifers or hardwoods is, I agree, a matter of some importance. Personally, I rather like conifers in the right context. One can find them in the wrong context in the New Forest, and also find them sometimes under conditions which are objectionable from the amenity point of view. All this could be straightened out by the Court of Verderers. The hon. and gallant Member put words into the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture on this particular subject of the growing of conifers which, I am quite sure, the right hon. Gentleman did not utter.

The purpose of the Clause is to provide for the growing of more trees in the forest if that is possible. I cannot see what is the objection. If this Clause had remained in the Bill without the other provisions since inserted in another place, there would have been very serious objection. If, in fact, it was to provide an important source of revenue, and it was only through the growing of trees that the verderers could get the necessary revenue, I would say that the argument originally put forward, that they had to negotiate under duress, would have been sound. I think that in its original form the Bill was objectionable. That has now been altered, and I ask the Committee to look at this matter in its reality, not as a matter of putting conifers all over the forest, but as a measure designed for the growing of more trees for the benefit of this country, if possible. We have agreed that it should be left to the verderers, without the Minister of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission verderers, to decide whether that should be so.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

It is left only to the Forestry Commission verderers.

Mr. Shackleton

Even so, there is a clear non-official majority also supported by the people representing the amenity interests and the local planning authority. Therefore, I cannot really see what is the objection to this Clause in its present form.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton) has not approached this matter with very much understanding of the problems of the Forest. Where are these 5,000 acres to be found at the present time if we are to protect the amenities of the forest and give further opportunity to the agriculturists in the Forest? The hon. Gentleman's approach strikes me as being best described by the lines: The law doth punish man or woman That steals the goose from off the common, But lets the greater felon loose, That steals the common from the goose. That is what is happening now. To bring the Forestry Commissioners into the New Forest and give them rights to enclose another 5,000 acres without specifying where they are to be is, to my mind, a monstrous affront to the Forest.

Mr. Shackleton

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people themselves are better capable of judging whether their land should be enclosed for the growing of trees than are the verderers? That is precisely the effect of this Clause.

Mr. Bracken

It does not do any such thing. It will appear in an Act of Parliament that the Forestry Commissioners, with their thoroughly bad reputation for destroying the amenities of this country, will enclose another 5,000 acres of the Forest. I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the forestry expert of this Government; certainly, he is the best paper producer we have ever known. I ask the Committee to appreciate that more and more people are coming to the Forest. The Forest is a great lung for many cities, and we cannot afford to allow another 5,000 acres of it to be enclosed by the Forestry Commission. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton), who sits for an industrial constituency, would have been the first to protest against any further enclosure of land in Britain. There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and his party were ferociously opposed to all forms of enclosure. I think it is an abominable proposition that of the little land that still remains to the New Forest, another 5,000 acres should be enclosed. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would support us today—

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)

Why?

Mr. Bracken

In his hey-day the right hon. Gentleman was against all forms of privilege, whether on the part of Government Departments or capitalists. This is the worst form of privilege, and it is being conferred on the Forestry Commissioners—a body of acknowledged incompetents which has done more to destroy our landscape than anything else in history, including erosion of the soil and the malice of Hitler. I hope the Minister will not agree to this idea of enclosing more land in the Forest, which is a great public possession. I ask him not to let the Forestry Commissioners loose on more enclosed land. According to the Commissioners' protagonists, it is not at all certain today that the Commission intend to grow many trees. It is said that they want the land back. They may decide to grow some of their favourite conifers, or use the land for pasturage for goats.

Mr. Shackleton

The right hon. Gentleman is completely misrepresenting what I or anyone else has said on this subject. In addition to reading the Bill, which I recommended earlier, he should also read the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. Bracken

As Socrates once said, "You are right, but you are unintelligible." That is the trouble with the hon. Gentleman. He comes here with impeccable sentiments, but he cannot make us understand them.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture is capable of a death-bed ministerial repentance. His amiability is one of the most attractive of his characteristics. I feel sure that before he assents to the strange idea that we should hand over 5,000 acres to the Forestry Commissioners, without any knowledge of what they will do, he should ask Lord Robinson to explain what they intend to do with the 5,000 acres. Perhaps he would also confer the further advantage upon us of asking them to consider planting their conifers on the marginal lands of Scotland, or in Surrey. The New Forest is a precious public possession, and it is wrong to enclose more of it. I hope the Minister will overrule his officials and be remembered in history as the man who did as much for the New Forest as its original planter, William the Conquerer.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has talked about the evil persons who constitute the Forestry Commission I do not know what sort of people they are in England, but I do know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will testify that the Forestry Commission in Scotland are today doing a good job in re-beautifying Scotland.

Mr. Bracken

indicated dissent.

Mr. Gallacher

Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman will come to the West of Scotland he will see what a splendid job they are doing there.

The Deputy-Chairman

I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill deals only with the New Forest in England, and has nothing to do with the administration of the Forestry Commissioners in Scotland.

Mr. Gallacher

I was merely giving an illustration of the difference between people in England and Scotland.

When at school I remember a little lad writing a composition in which he said that a kick from an ostrich would knock a man sensible. I think the right hon. Member for Bournemouth could do with a kick from an ostrich. But I would tell him that as soon as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs and I saw the word "enclosures" we were reminded of the evil conduct of the Tories in the past. They enclosed land for the advantage of a few parasites at the expense of the mass of the people. This Clause does something entirely different. Here it is a question of using powers of enclosure to ensure that, where-ever necessary, our land can be used in the interests of the people as a whole and not just a few parasites. If it should be necessary even to remove a croft or two and give the occupants something more desirable in the way of housing and fertile land, that would be an advantage to the community as a whole, because the land would be put to the best possible productive use. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tries to tell us about the evil ghosts of the past and to "kid" my right hon. Friend and myself. We do not like enclosures on principle—

Mr. Kirkwood

But we are more against the Tories.

Mr. Gallacher

In all my experience as an agitator I have never known anyone whose instincts were always so proletarian and so correct as those of my right hon. Friend. He has no need to reason things out and labour over matters like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth; instinctively he knows when a thing is against the old gang and to the advantage of the people as a whole. That is why he and I will support this Clause.

Mr. T. Williams

It is clear that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) does not like the Forestry Commission or any of their works.

Mr. Bracken

Not the Commissioners personally, but the whole idea of the Commission.

Mr. Williams

I agree with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that the Forestry Commissioners, since 1920, have done a grand job. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Norfolk, for instance, he would see the work that is being done there on tens of thousands of acres, with trees growing where nothing would grow before. If he would do that, I am sure that his prejudice against anything detrimental happening in the New Forest would be superseded by an acknowledgment of the glory of the transformation which the Commissioners have brought about. Indeed, this Conservative-nationalised industry is one of our most successful undertakings so far. I do not, therefore, sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's valuation of those civil servants who are associated with the Commission.

The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) said that apparently the figure of 5,000 had been decided upon without any regard to amenities. I should have thought he would have known that there was not an atom of truth in that suggestion. He must have read the Baker Report, and I should have thought that he would have assimilated it very thoroughly. On page 34 it says: One expert witness gave it as his opinion that of the Open Forest 20,000 acres at least would be better under timber. The representative of the Ministry of Agriculture said that 10,000 acres in all were useless for grazing but agreed that much of it was scattered in small pockets and finally gave the reduced figure of 5,000 acres as suitable for afforestation. The committee therefore say: In the absence of plans it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion, but we are ready to assume that 5,000 acres of the total stated to be unfit for grazing might be planted without damage to amenities, or to the Commoners' interests. Therefore, 5,000 acres was a maximum figure, which emerged after cross-examining expert witnesses in both afforestation and agriculture.

5.30 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

Perhaps the Minister would look at paragraph (3) on page 34, where he will see the sentence: Both witnesses— that is, the two witnesses from whom he has been quoting— admitted that they excluded all consideration of amenity from their calculations.

Mr. Williams

I will read all the paragraph if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes; I do not want to shirk anything: Both witnesses admitted that they excluded all consideration of amenity from their calculations, and were speaking from a purely professional point of view. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to forget is that the first witness said 20,000 acres and the second witness said 10,000 acres, but in both cases the figure was reduced to 5,000. It was the committee themselves who said that, according to their best judgment, 5,000 acres could be planted without damage to the amenities or to the Commoners' interests. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot deny that when the committee made their recommendation they had amenities in mind, otherwise that sentence would not have appeared in their Report.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

This is a very important point. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at that paragraph again he will see that while it is true that the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture said 10,000 acres to start with and then reduced it, because of these small pockets, to 5,000 acres, as I read the paragraph the Ministry still maintained that, in giving that judgment, it had no regard whatsoever to amenity. I do not think that paragraph can be considered otherwise.

Mr. Williams

I could not accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interpretation. I have on my side the guidance of the committee, whose chairman was a very capable lawyer, able to sift evidence; and also I have the opinions of the men who were giving that evidence. Whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman may say, we shall disagree if we go on all night. I am standing pat on the committee's report. The committee said, after questioning these various witnesses, that 5,000 acres probably could be planted without damage to the amenities or to the commoners' interests. Thus the figure of 5,000 acres emerges. It must be clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that would in no way upset the commoners' rights.

It is common ground that the forest has been undergrazed for a very considerable period of time. Indeed, during the war something like 8,000 acres were taken over by the various Services. Despite those, as it were, absent 8,000 acres, the number of animals grazing rose from 1,200 in 1939 to 4,000 in 1945; but the verderers themselves have stated in evidence that the actual number the Forest could graze is something like 8,000 animals. Now, if only 1,200 animals were grazing in the New Forest when It was capable of grazing 8,000 it is clear that the lack of animals was allowing the potential grazing land of the New Forest to deteriorate all the time. I think that is a reasonable assumption for me to make.

Mr. Bracken

The Minister is surely destroying his own argument. If the number of animals is too small, is it wise to enclose another 5,000 acres and keep the animals from some opportunity of grazing?

Mr. Williams

That is not at all clever. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest said he hoped that the enclosure of 5,000 acres for timber production would not affect the commoners' rights. What I am trying to explain is that the commoners never exercised their rights, to the detriment of the Forest itself. Therefore, with regard to the land which the expert witnessess declare is useless for anything except timber growing, we propose that, where the verderers themselves assent to the proposal, such of it as is unsuited for grazing, or is extremely poor land, should be enclosed for this purpose. It seems to me that this proposition is a reasonable one. In any case, if the verderers were to assent to the enclosure of certain acres it would be many years before the full 5,000 acres were actually taken over.

I wish to make one other point about amenities before concluding. One of the verderers will be appointed to care for amenities, and amenities alone. It is therefore clear to me that grazing cannot be adversely affected, and if some acres which are more or less useless for grazing are taken over for afforestation, the amenity rights will not be subjugated for afforestation if the verderer representing amenities on the Court of Verderers is doing his duty. On all counts I therefore think that, from the point of view of making the best use of land, either for afforestation or for agricultural purposes, the New Forest ought to render its quota, and I think that Clause 12 is fully and amply justified.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I quite agree that the Minister and I will never agree on this if we go on all night. Nevertheless, when he gives a quotation he ought to give it fully. He quoted from the Baker Report, and I should now like to read the sentences one after the other, because I think that may make a different impression on the Committee. The Minister referred to the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture. The report says: The representative of the Ministry of Agriculture said that 10,000 acres in all were useless for grazing but agreed that much of it was scattered in small pockets and finally gave the reduced figure of 5,000 acres as suitable only for afforestation. Both witnesses"— that is the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and the expert witness— admitted that they excluded all consideration of amenity from their calculations, and were speaking from a purely professional point of view. We have more than once expressed our conviction that the question of amenity is all important and that the use of the Forest for silviculture should be secondary. Here is a statement by the two witnesses quoted by the Government that in giving the figure of 5,000 acres all question of amenity was ignored. We have the committee saying that they consider that silviculture must be secondary to amenity. Whether that is so or not I shall not argue, but certainly to my mind it destroys practically everything the Minister said, because here is the committee saying, first, that amenity is not taken into consideration in fixing this figure, and secondly, that in their judgment amenity must be paramount. That is the first point.

The Minister has not answered any one of the detailed points I put to him. He has not told us what steps he has taken to see that these 5,000 acres can be taken without preventing access to the commoners' cattle. He has put forward the view that the commoners' cattle are under-grazing the Forest, which is quite true, but one of the main purposes of the Bill is to enable more cattle to be pastured in the Forest. We are justified in saying that we shall have adequate cattle once the Bill becomes law, when we shall need all the resources we have at the moment.

The Minister once again has not faced the major issue, that if he is to ask for these powers, he must be able to justify them in detail to the Committee. That is the one thing he has not done, and it is the one thing the witnesses could not do before the Select Committee. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friends will vote against the retention of this Clause.

Mr. T. Williams

I must intervene again because the hon. and gallant Member

suggests that I have only quoted something which serves my particular purpose. He will recall that I said that one expert stated that 20,000 acres would be better under timber, and that the Ministry of Agriculture representative stated that 10,000 acres in all were useless for grazing, but that because it meant small pockets here and there he reduced his figure to 5,000 acres as being suitable only for afforestation. The hon. and gallant Member goes on to say that both witnesses admitted that they excluded all considerations of amenity from their calculations and that they were speaking from a purely professional view. That is quite true but the paragraph goes on: It is however indisputable that increased timber production is one of the most urgent necessities of our time, and in view of the national demand we are compelled to consider to what extent the forest can make a contribution without loss of its essential characteristics. Having taken all these things into account they proceed in the next paragraph: In the absence of plans it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion, but we are ready to assume that 5,000 acres of the total stated to be unfit for grazing might be planted without damage to amenities or commoners interests. The verderers will determine whether that is or is not so, not my representative. The five elected verderers will determine whether an area is useful for grazing, or whether it can be made useful for timber production. The hon. and gallant Member cannot reasonably sustain the claim that I have tried to deceive the Committee in not quoting the paragraph fully. If the Clause remains, I am quite satisfied that only those portions of the New Forest will be enclosed for afforestation which are practically useless for grazing and will be much better used for growing timber.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 121.

Division No. 267.] AYES [5.45 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Attewell, H. C. Barton, C.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Austin, H. Lewis Battley, J. R.
Albu, A. H. Awbery, S. S. Bechervaise, A. E.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Ayles, W. H. Berry, H.
Alpass, J. H. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Binns, J.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Balfour, A. Blyton, W. R.
Boardman, H. Haworth, J. Price, M. Philips
Bottomley, A. G. Herbison, Miss M. Pritt, D. N.
Bowden, H. W. Hobson, C. R. Proctor, W. T.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Holman, P. Pryde, D. J.
Bramall, E. A. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Ranger, J.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Horabin, T. L. Rankin, J.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Houghton, Douglas Reeves, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hoy, J. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Brown, George (Belper) Hubbard, T. Richards, R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Royle, C.
Burden, T. W. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Sargood, R.
Burke, W. A. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Scollan, T.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Scott-Elliot, W.
Carmichael, James Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Segal, Dr. S.
Chamberlain, R. A. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Champion, A. J. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Sharp, Granville
Chater, D. Jenkins, R. H. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Simmons, C. J.
Cluse, W. S. Keenan, W. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Cobb, F. A. Kinley, J. Skinnard, F. W.
Cocks, F. S. Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Collins, V. J. Lavers, S. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Cook, T. F. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Snow, J. W.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) Lee, F. (Hulme) Sorensen, R. W.
Corlett, Dr. J. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Cove, W. G. Leonard, W. Sparks, J. A.
Crossman, R. H. S. Leslie, J. R. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Stubbs, A. E.
Daines, P. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Swingler S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Logan, D. G. Sylvester, G. O.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lyne, A. W. Symonds, A. L.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McAdam, W. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McAllister, G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dear, G. McEntee, V. La T. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Delargy, H. J. McGhee, H. C. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Diamond, J. Mack, J. D.
Dobbie, W. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Dodds, N. N. McKinlay, A. S. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Donovan, T. Maclean, N. (Govan) Timmons, J.
Dumpleton, C. W. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Tolley, L.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Edwards, John (Blackburn) Mainwaring, W. H. Usborne, Henry
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Viant, S. P.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Mann, Mrs. J. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Evans, John (Ogmore) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Warbey, W. N.
Ewart, R. Mellish, R. J. Watson, W. M.
Fairhurst, F. Messer, F. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Farthing, W. J. Mitchison, G. R. Weitzman, D.
Fernyhough, E. Monslow, W. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Follick, M. Morgan, Dr. H. B. West, D. G.
Forman, J. C. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mort, D. L. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Moyle, A. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Gallacher, W. Murray, J. D. Wigg, George
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Nally, W. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Gibson, C. W. Naylor, T. E. Wilkins, W. A.
Gilzean, A. Neal, H. (Claycross) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Goodrich, H. E. Oldfield, W. H. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Oliver, G. H. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Grenfell, D. R. Orbach, M. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Grey, C. F. Paget, R. T. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Grierson, E. Palmer, A. M. F. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Pannell, T. C. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Pargiter, G. A. Willis, E.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Parker, J. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Gunter, R. J. Parkin, B. T. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Guy, W. H. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Woods, G. S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Paton, J. (Norwich) Yates, V. F.
Hale, Leslie Pearson, A. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Peart, T. F.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hardy, E. A. Popplewell, E. Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Harrison, J. Porter, E. (Warrington) Mr. Hannan.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Porter, G. (Leeds)
NOES
Amory, D. Heathcoat Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E. Harden, J. R. E. Pickthorn, K.
Baxter, A. B. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Bennett, Sir P. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Price-White, D.
Birch, Nigel Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hollis, M. C. Rayner, Brig. R.
Bossom, A. C. Hope, Lord J. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bowen, R. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Renton, D.
Bower, N. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Keeling, E. H. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G. Lambert, Hon. G. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Langford-Holt, J. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Ropner, Col. L.
Bullock, Capt. M. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Byers, Frank Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Sanderson, Sir F.
Challen, C. Lucas, Major Sir J. Savory, Prof. D. L.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Scott, Lord W.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) McCallum, Maj D. Shephard, S. (Newark)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. McFarlane, C. S. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Crowder, Capt. John E. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Darling, Sir W. Y. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Davidson, Viscountess Maclay, Hon. J. S. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Digby, S. Wingfield Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Touche, G. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Turton, R. H.
Drayson, G. B. Marples, A. E. Vane, W. M. F.
Drewe, C. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Duthie, W. S. Medlicott, Brigadier F. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Eccles, D. M. Mellor, Sir J. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Fox, Sir G. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Nutting, Anthony Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Odey, G. W. York, C.
Gammans, L. D. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Gates, Maj. E. E. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Osborne, C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.