§ Where application is made by a railway company under Section sixteen of the Railways Act, 1921, for authority to provide any alteration, extension or improvement of existing works, the Minister may, by order under that Section, notwithstanding anything therein contained, authorise the construction of the works if the expenditure involved will not exceed five hundred thousand pounds.
§ Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAMI beg to move to leave out the word "five" 374 ["five hundred thousand pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
The Government have put down this Bill after Eleven o'clock although it is one of considerable importance and even on the Report Stage it should have been discussed at some length. Under the Railways Act, 1921, and other legislation affecting the railways of this country, the Minister of Transport has the power to authorise capital expenditure up to the sum of £100,000, but anything beyond that must be the subject of an ordinary Parliamentary Bill promoted by the railway company. The present Bill increases the power of the Minister of Transport to authorise work involving a capital expenditure up to £500,000. We contend that that is a very serious limitation of Parliamentary control over the capital expenditure of railways which we contend should be kept in force. The Minister of Transport defends this proposal on the ground that it will provide employment either in the immediate future or during the two years this Bill is to remain in operation. We have made inquiries on that point, and it is perfectly true to say that the four great amalgamations of railways now in force have already ample powers under different Bills which have been passed from time to time which, if carried out, would involve considerable capital expenditure and would provide as much employment as the railway companies are likely to provide in the near future in any case. I think it was really admitted on the Committee stage of this Bill that it is wrong to make too much of the unemployment argument in this connection. The real difficulty which confronts the House in this proposal is the weakening of Parliamentary control. I wish, in a sentence or two, to remind the House that the situation has entirely changed as compared with the time in 1921 when the Minister of Transport could authorise works up to a million of expenditure. In 1921 Parliament gave the four railway amalgamations of this country a form of guarantee of the net revenue of 1913 plus certain allowances for capital expenditure, past present and future. In view of the fact that capital expenditure of that character has to count before the Railway Tribunal when rates and fares are fixed to be imposed directly or indirectly on the whole of, our people, it is of the utmost importance that a full measure of Parlia- 375 mentary control should be retained over, at all events, the larger part of the capital expenditure in this connection. If we give the railway combinations power to spend on individual works up to half a million of capital expenditure on the mere approval of the Minister of Transport it is plain we shall part with the full measure of the power which the Standing Committee of the House in 1921 pleaded should be maintained under the changed conditions of the Railway Act of that date.
I wish to be perfectly fair in putting this Amendment. I recognise that on the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry agreed to the insertion of an Amendment providing for the Order to be laid for 21 days on the Table of the House of Commons. While we recognise the concession that was made, hon. Members must agree it is a very poor substitute for the complete Parliamentary control which we should enjoy under the legislation of 1921, because, in practice, it means that some hon. Member must first of all keep a very keen eye on the Order being laid at all, and, in the second place, he must lodge his objection, and that objection can only be taken after 11 o'clock at night, when it is. very difficult to keep a house for a technical problem of this kind. I submit that the protection we have now even under the amended Bill is altogther inadequate having regard for the great powers conferred on the four railway amalgamations. I beg hon. Members to recall that the Committee of this House, in 1921,took a very serious view of this proposition. After anxious consideration they decided that the Minister of Transport should only have power to sanction works up to a capital expenditure of £100,000. Their idea in doing so was that they should retain power of control over the Bills of railway companies in order to have an opportunity of protecting the rights of the whole of our people interested in the different classes of railway service. On these grounds we propose, to-night, by our Amendment, to restrict the capital expenditure that may be authorised by the Minister of Transport, to £200,000. I am opposed to raising it even to that figure but we have to put an Amendment 376 of some kind on the paper, and we take what appears to be the next lowest possible sum. Under this Measure, according to the confession of the Minister, Parliament is parting with a portion of its power effectively to control the great railway amalgamations in their capital expenditure, and therefore, to some extent, the power to control the charges which they impose upon the public for the services they render.
§ Mr. T. JOHNSTONI beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) has dealt with the main points. One point which I wish to stress is the fact that in 1921, Parliament considered that £100,000 was the maximum that ought to be allowed to the railway companies. That £100,000 at present prices is probably equal to £250,000. Now the Ministry of Transport comes forward and proposes £500,000, which on the 1921 figures means works to the extent of £750,000. If we exclude works to the extent of £750,000 from the detailed analysis and criticism of Parliament this House is practically divesting itself of any control whatsoever over the railway policy of this country, and the trading and commercial classes, and the working classes are going to lose the weapon, poor though it may be, that they have to compel the railway companies to confine their activities to such works as will tend to produce lower railway fares, and lower freight charges, such as the industries demand. The argument of the Department in favour of the Bill is that it will provide means of additional employment. Only a month or so ago we on this side endeavoured to compel a certain railway company in the East end of London to provide a better class of service and to employ additional labour. They refused to do it, although they had sufficient spending power to carry out the works which would have employed a very large number of men. The real purpose behind the Bill is not to find additional work, but to take away from the control of Parliament the power which Parliament possesses to control railway policy, and this House ought not to divest itself of that.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)The hon. Member for 377 Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), whenever he has a case to put before the House, always puts it with moderation, but in this instance I venture to think that he has discovered what is called a nidus equines, that is to say, a mare's nest. The Minister of Transport, under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1921, has no power to authorise any railway company to borrow money or to raise new capital, and, therefore, any money which might be expended under this Bill has already gone through the ordinary Parliamentary procedure to enable the company to raise it, so that there has been, and is now complete Parliamentary control over any such money. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Member's argument that Parliamentary control is in any way weakened falls to the ground. Even if that were not the case, the amount that could possibly be expended under this Bill is infinitesimal compared with the £1,100,000,000, or whatever the amount is, of the capital of the railway companies and, therefore, it could not possibly have any appreciable effect on the railway rates to the disadvantage of the trading community.
As regards the Orders which may be issued under this Bill, I did in Committee, as the hon. Member will recollect, accept an Amendment to the effect that any Order under the Bill should lie on the Table of the House for 21 days, and I did that in response to the suggestion, I think, of the hon. Member himself and of other hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, who were suspicious of the procedure under the Railways Act, 1921. I think, therefore, that I have proved to the House that there is no weakening in any way of Parliamentary control, and that, as regards the Orders, I have met as far as possible the criticisms of hon. Members on the Second Reading, who said that they wanted further and stronger Parliamentary control over any Order that might be issued by the Ministry of Transport.
The other point which was raised, I think by the Mover of the Amendment, and certainly by the Seconder, was in regard to giving the railway companies powers to carry out certain works when, as they alleged, works which they have already powers to carry out have not been carried out. I do not know how far that 378 is the case, but I would ask the House to remember that during the War there were many works which could not be carried out, and that, owing to the amalgamation, many companies which are now amalgamated had powers to carry out works which, owing to the amalgamation, are not now necessary. As to the main object of the Bill, I think it is the duty of the Government to provide every possible method in order to deal with the unemployment which is coming upon us this winter, and probably also, the following winter. Hon. Members opposite would be the very first to criticise the Government if they did not look ahead and try to mitigate as far as possible this unemployment. We hope and believe that the Bill will help us this winter and next, and, therefore, I cannot possibly see my way to accepting this Amendment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn a gloomy picture of the future, and, with that before us, it is difficult to oppose or criticise the proposal which he is defending; but there has been a strange omission from his speech. There is no indication at all of the scope or extent of the works which are contemplated under the powers of this Bill, and, consequently, the House can have no idea at all of the extent to which unemployment could be relieved even if the Ministry had the powers which this Bill will confer upon it. It is for these reasons that on the Committee stage, and now on the Report stage, we are looking at the proposal somewhat narrowly and not without some degree of suspicion. The main point is that we are changing the provisions of an Act that was only passed two years ago. The Act of 1921 was only fully considered by a Committee of this House, and, in the light of that consideration, £100,000 was deliberately put into that Act as the limitation on the works which would be authorised thereunder. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) informed us that at that time the House was not contemplating unemployment at all. My recollection is that in the summer of 1921 unemployment was greater that at the present moment or than it is likely to be next winter. Consequently, the House not having had in mind the possibility that words included under that Act which had been entered upon for the purpose of relieving unem- 379 ployment. We are therefore, driven to ask why this has occurred to the Government at this late stage. I believe there were certain conferences between the late Prime Minister and the chairmen of the railway companies last winter. It was understood some kind of arrangement was arrived at whereby the railways would receive these powers. That was in December, and it is strange that all these months have elapsed before the Ministry has come to Parliament for the purpose of obtaining the powers. We can only assume that in the intervening period the Government has not thought very much about the matter, that they have not been greatly impressed by its importance in relation to unemployment, and that we are entitled to look for some other motive as the genesis of the present Bill.
This House has always jealously regarded its powers in relation to railway undertakings. It was only by means of the powers it held over Railway Bills that the House of Commons could exercise any real control over railway policy. If this proposal is passed Parliament will be surrendering such power as remained in the matter of influencing railway policy. It is not merely a matter of £500,000 that is involved. It is easy to see how an undertaking might be begun at an initial cost of £500,000 and that an Order for this sum would be passed, but a subsequent Order for £500,000 might be made. There is nothing to prevent it in this Bill. It is left entirely to the Ministry, subject to the somewhat illusory control represented by an Address by Members of this House moved after eleven o'clock. The ordinary Member of Parliament has great difficulty in understanding from the reading of an Order exactly what is contemplated, and it is conceivable that an Order may be so drawn by the railway company as to enable it to start considerable works which may cost £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 all of which can be carried out without any reference to Parliament. That is contrary to all past policy of Parliament in relation to railways. This House should not agree to a proposal which has that effect.
There is another aspect of the matter. If we allow railway legislation to be brought to an end in this matter it is going to have a very serious effect on private Bill legislation. These Bills 380 were very productive in the form of fees which were useful in helping the House of Commons to meet its expenses. If private Bill legislation, so far as railways are concerned, is to be destroyed in this way a fruitful source of revenue will be dried up. On these general grounds the amendment of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh should receive the support of the House. There is, however, also what may be called the motive behind this Bill. We know that the Ministry of Transport has been several times condemned. At the time of the last General Election it was under sentence of death. During the Election it had a respite. But if this Bill passes it will confer new functions on this Ministry and extend its life, and you have this Government which was pledged to the reduction of these superfluous departments, further entrenching a department which the late Prime Minister, at the time of the General Election, described as unnecessary.
Other proposals will have the same effect. There is a great scheme for the purpose of regulating London traffic, which it is understood will confer great powers on the Ministry of Transport, and this Bill, in relation to those other powers, means perpetuating the Ministry of Transport, which would otherwise cease, so that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be deprived of a job while the Ministry could be carried on as a department of the Board of Trade. In view of the inadequate explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his failure to correlate this proposal with the relief of unemployment we are entitled to look behind the Bill, and to find that it is depriving Parliament of powers which it has long enjoyed in controlling policy in relation to the schemes of railways, and affording a pretext for the continuance of an unnecessary and expensive department which should long ago have been abolished.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThe hon. and gallant Gentleman defended this Bill on the ground that it will help to relieve unemployment. I would ask—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)That would be relevant on the Third Reading of the Bill, but the question now in debate is the difference between £500,000 and £400,000.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE.I am coming to that. If the Amendment be not carried and the House allows the full scope of £500,000, has the hon. and gallant Gentleman assured himself that the works to be carried out will be carried out in those areas of the country where unemployment is most acute? That seems to me to be a very important point. If the railway companies are to get these powers I want to know whether their primary motive in seeking to get these powers is to relieve unemployment or to carry out works which are going to pay the railway companies? If the motive be to relieve unemployment, I think we ought to grant the £500,000, but, we ought to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he has gone into the question with the railway companies, and has ascertained that the works they contemplate are being carried out where unemployment is most acute. We ought also to have an assurance from him that he will not use these powers and grant the money for these works unless he is assured that unemployment is going to be relieved. I strongly suspect that if the railway companies take this power, they will use it wherever they find that the work will pay them best, and will snap their fingers at this House. It seems as if the unemployment bogey is pure camouflage; that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen were commending this to the House in an insincere way. It looks as if the railway companies have induced the hon. and gallant Gentlemen to bring this forward, and the unemployment is being used as a stalking horse, and that we shall find, when the Minister is approached by the railway companies to use this power, that the unemployed will not be considered at all. We have the right to demand some assurance that these works are not already cut and dried by the railway companies, and that the hon. and gall ant Gentleman has taken certain precautions which will lead to the results he has commended to us, and which we all demand, and which provide the only reason why we should give the right and the power he asks for.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELI hope that my honourable and gallant Friend will be in no way deflected from his purpose by such criticism as has been up to the present offered to this Bill. I cannot for the life of me understand the suspicions of my 382 honourable Friend who has just sat down, with reference to the intentions of the Ministry of Transport. When my honourable Friend, for reasons which I do not understand, uses a phrase like "the unemployment bogey," I rather feel, although he is a colleague of mine in the party sense, that for the moment party considerations are so strong that he is unable to do justice to this very modest proposal. In every part of the country we are being pressed as to whether public funds are available to give adequate remuneration to men who could be properly employed under the terms of this Bill, but who are at present a gross and dreadful burden on the community, and whose moral is being sapped. The community regard the future, especially the coming winter months, with great anxiety, because, up to the present, the Ministry of Transport has not had these powers. I am being asked, in a town in my own constituency, which is having to pay £24,000 a year in doles—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is nothing."]—It is nothing to the hon. Member, but it is a great deal to these burdened ratepayers, who hardly know how to sustain their existence. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen above the gangway to interrupt. This is a capital sum, and they pretend to have no interest or regard for capital, but they have a great interest in capitalising human misery for party purposes. They are the greatest political capitalists in human misery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]. I shall not withdraw anything.
§ Mr. SULLIVANMay I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Gentleman is in order?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see what this has to do with the subject under debate.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELWith great respect, I should have thought it was very relevant to the subject of giving to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport £500,000, and of wishing it to be reduced to £200,000.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt is not giving him any money at all.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELI have listened to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), who has talked at great length upon the change in our Parliamentary procedure by which sums are to be avail- 383 able under the immediate control of the Minister.
§ Mr. PRINGLENo.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELThen the hon. Member, who talks at great length in this House, has not succeeded in developing a clarity of speech which I am able to comprehend.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt may be it is a matter of lucidity of intelligence.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUELI am dealing with a very simple and direct point and I do not need encouragement from those who have been continuous failures. If the Ministry of Transport use this sum wisely, a great benefit will be conferred on the community and a work of great value will be undertaken. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) on the Second Reading referred to the question of whether or not some of this money would go towards improving the agricultural situation by pro-
§ viding transport facilities in agricultural districts. There is a railway scheme in Suffolk of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has knowledge. It has been in that Department ever since there was a Ministry of Transport and before that it was in the Board of Trade. That railway should be completed and it could be completed, and the cost would not be as high as the burden at present placed on the local taxpayers. The main criticism directed against the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary is that he is merely camouflaging the issue by saying that unemployment will be relieved if the Bill is passed. I speak within my own knowledge when I say that this money wisely expended will relieve unemployment and will be of great value to the entire community and to the agricultural industry in particular.
§ Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 113.
385| Division No. 306.] | AYES. | [11.40 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South) | Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) |
| Ainsworth, Captain Charles | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark) | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Hiley, Sir Ernest |
| Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover) | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Hood, Sir Joseph |
| Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hopkins, John W. W. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Ednam, Viscount | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Ellis, R. G. | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) | England, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Houfton, John Plowright |
| Becker, Harry | Erskine-Boist, Captain C. | Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) | Hudson, Capt. A. |
| Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Hume, G. H. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Fawkes, Major F. H. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. | Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Flanagan, W. H. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Furness, G. J. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. |
| Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Garland, C. S. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Bruford, R. | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. |
| Bruton, Sir James | George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Lougher, L. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gould, James C. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander |
| Button, H. S. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Manville, Edward |
| Cadogan, Major Edward | Gretton, Colonel John | Margesson, H. D. R. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gwynne, Rupert S. | Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mercer, Colonel H. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Clayton, G. C. | Halstead, Major D. | Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) | Molloy, Major L. G. S. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Harrison, F. C. | Moreing, Captain Algernon, H |
| Cope, Major William | Harvey, Major S. E. | Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A.C. (Honiton) |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hawke, John Anthony | Murchison, C. K. |
| Nall, Major Joseph | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretlord) | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Rogerson, Capt. J. E. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Tubbs, S. W. |
| O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh | Russell, William (Bolton) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney | Wallace, Captain E. |
| Paget, T. G. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) |
| Parker, Owen (Kettering) | Sanderson, Sir Frank B. | Wells, S. R. |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sandon, Lord. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Peto, Basil E. | Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A. | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Privett, F. J. | Singleton, J. E. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Raine, W. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Wise, Frederick |
| Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Rees, Sir Beddoe | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furn'ss) | Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak) |
| Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Remnant, Sir James | Steel, Major S. Strang | Yerburgh, R. D. T. |
| Rentoul, G. S. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | |
| Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs. |
| Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. | |
| Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William | |
| Robertson-Despencer, Major(Islgtn,W) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Paling, W. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Harbord, Arthur | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hardie, George D. | Phillipps, Vivian |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Harris, Percy A. | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Attlee, C. R. | Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) | Potts, John S. |
| Barnes, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Pringle, W. M. R. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bonwick, A. | Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) | Ritson. J. |
| Bawdier, W. A. | Herriotts, J. | Roberts, Frederick 0. (W. Bromwich) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hill, A. | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Briant, Frank | Hinds, John | Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) |
| Brotherton, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston) | Salter Dr.A. |
| Buckle, J. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Sexton, James |
| Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, T. (Pontefract) |
| Buxton, Charles (Accrington) | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Snell, Harry |
| Chapple, W. A. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sullivan, J. |
| Collison, Levl | Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Darbishire, C. W. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kirkwood, D. | Tout, W. J. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lansbury, George | Turner, Ben |
| Duffy, T. Gavan | Lawson, John James | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Duncan, C. | Leach, W. | Warne, G. H. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lee, F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Linfield, F. C. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Lorimer, H. D. | Westwood, J. |
| Foot, Isaac | MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Gosling, Harry | M'Entee, V. L. | White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McLaren, Andrew | Whiteley, W. |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gray, Frank (Oxford) | March, S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Greenall, T. | Marshall, Sir Arthur H. | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mosley, Oswald | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Murnin, H. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lunn and Mr. Ammon. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Newbold, J. T. W. | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Oliver, George Harold |