§ Where under any Act of Parliament a Government Department is authorised or required to hold an inquiry, arid the costs of the inquiry are made payable by any local authority or other person, or in such manner and by such persons as the Department or the officer holding the inquiry may direct, then, notwithstanding anything in such Act, such costs may include a fee in respect of the services of any officer of the Department engaged in the inquiry not exceeding five guineas a day.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON
I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This is another relic of the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, of which the previous Clause was also a relic. This Amendment and the subsequent Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name, are put down on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing all the large towns and urban districts in the country, and also on behalf of the County Councils Association. Therefore, I hope the House will forgive me if I press upon the Government the view that is unanimously held by the county councils and the various municipal authorities throughout the country. This Clause proposes to place on the local authorities a charge which at present is being borne by the national Exchequer. The Bill which we were discussing prior to this Bill sought in a small measure to help to case the burdens of local authorities, and when we know that the outcry from all districts is for a reduction rather than an increase of local rates, it is somewhat ironical that in this Clause we are seeking to transfer from the national Exchequer a burden which up to the present has been borne by the State, and to place it on the backs of the already overburdened ratepayers. We are told that the amount is not much, but I submit that until we have redressed the grievances of the local authorities with regard to the incidence of national and local charges, the local authorities have a right to protest against any burdens being added to their shoulders which they have not had up to the present.
145 I submit that there is no real economy achieved in this Clause. This Clause seeks to place on the local authority the burden of the cost of inquiries held not at their instigation but on behalf of the Government Department concerned. The real economy would be to reduce the number of these inquiries by various Government Departments from Whitehall, and the best way to do that would be to ensure that the burden of the cost is placed, not on the local authorities, but upon the authorities at Whitehall. It is said, truly, that it is the desire of the authorities at Whitehall to carry out certain matters of local interest; but the local authorities are complaining of the number of visits from officials at headquarters, and they maintain that a great many of them might be reduced. During the period of the War, apart from the ordinary cessation of local Government work, these official inquiries were much less frequent than previously. We find from experience that under the 1909 Housing Act the limit of the fee which might be charged to local authorities for inquiries under the very housing schemes was removed. Under the original Act the fee was £3 3s., but under the 1909 Act the limit was removed, and there was no limit as to the charge which might be made by the Ministry of Health, which was then the Local Government Board, with regard to the inquiries to be held respecting housing schemes. The result of the removal of the limit has been the placing of a great burden upon local authorities.
I have had handed to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations two accounts which were presented last year to the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull for inquiries under the Housing Acts, which lasted for one day only. An inquiry was held on the 20th March, last year, and the fees charged to the borough for the inspector for that one day amounted to £30 8s. 6d. The borough protested, but what is the use of protesting against a Government Department? On the 31st August, another one-day inquiry was held under the Housing Acts, and the charge made was £38 11s. 3d. These charges, apart from the merits of the case, are excessive. If the Clause be not deleted, I have an Amendment down to limit the charge to £3 3s. per day instead of £5 5s. The real economy would be to place the charges upon the Government Department 146 which makes the inquiry, so that it will have some incentive to economy. The fewer inquiries that are held the better it will be, both for headquarters and the local authorities.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
The hon. Member does not fully appreciate how very limited is the application of this Clause. It is not a Clause which says that the costs of an inquiry are to be borne by the local authority where those costs are not already borne. All that the Clause does say is that where an inquiry is held and where under the existing law the costs of the inquiry are made payable by the local authority or by some person, the cost shall cover the fee payable to the officer who holds the inquiry, and that fee shall not exceed £5 5s. a day. Therefore this particular Clause, which merely fixes the maximum amount of fee at, £5 5s., only applies to cases where the costs of the whole inquiry are chargeable to the local authority. There are some Acts of Parliament under which a fee is chargeable for the services of the officer who holds the inquiry, but no limit is fixed, as I think is the case under the Housing Acts, so that the Government Department can charge 10 guineas a day if it likes. In future, if this Clause passes, they will never be able to charge more than £5 5s. a day. Under other Acts the fee is £3 3s. In these Acts directing that the cost of the inquiry shall be charged to the local authorities, it was thought that £3 3s. would cover the costs of the officer holding the inquiry. To-day £3 3s. does not cover the cost, and that has been realised in connection with Private Bill legislation within the last two or three years by the insertion of a Clause which provides that in regard to inquiries there shall be a fee of £5 5s. charged. Therefore, what we propose in this Clause is that wherever the Government Department now charge more than five guineas, it shall only be entitled to charge five guineas, and where it is charging three guineas, it will be entitled to charge five guineas. If we can get the expense down to a pre-War level, I am sure my hon. Friend would he very willing to review these fees, as he certainly does not want to make money out of local authorities. He merely desires that where the intention of Parlia- 147 ment is that the local authority should bear the cost, the fee should be commensurate for the purpose. I can assure my hon. Friend that the fact that five guineas is going to be chargeable as a fee will certainly have no effect in making the Government Department anxious to institute inquiries of any sort or kind. Most of these inquiries are inquiries which are asked for by local authorities, or inquiries which Parliament has decided are necessary to be held in protection of the ratepayers and taxpayers. I submit that all this Clause does is to bring into conformity what has been the common practice of the last three years, and I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
It has been argued throughout in connection with this Bill that the primary purpose is to raise revenue. Yet the right hon. Gentleman now tells us, as I believe he did on one or two occasions in the Committee stage, that this will not impose any additional burden on local authorities, and that local authorities will not be mulcted in any more charges than are at present imposed upon them. If that be so, if that is used as an argument now in quite an ingenious way, how in heaven's name do you expect to raise additional revenue? I think the House is entitled to have sufficient justification for passing a Clause of this kind before it accepts it. I maintain now, as I maintained on the Committee, and as I hope to maintain when I move the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading, that there is not the slightest prospect of raising revenue of any material kind so far as the State is concerned, and that the whole Bill itself has been so emasculated that it will be of no advantage to the nation in any form. I submit that all that is done by this Clause, as indeed by any other Clause, is to try to carry out in a pettyfogging way some of the proposals of the Geddes Committee, in which even the hon. Gentleman himself, and those associated with him on the Treasury Bench, do not believe.
§ Mr. G. THORNE
I rise to ask one question. I do not understand the reading of the Clause in the light of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. The reading issuch costs may include a fee in respect of the services of any officer.148 Why are those words there if they have already the authority, and if they have not already the authority—
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
What I said was that, where there was power to charge a fee, and if no fee was fixed, it would he limited to five guineas. The point was this: we could only make that charge in respect of an inquiry, the costs of which are made payable by the local authority.
§ Mr. THORNE
The point I desire to put is this. Under this Clause the Department is authorised to make a charge in circumstances under which it cannot make a charge at present. If that be so, you are adding the burden to the local authority, which is inconsistent with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring. I never made that statement.
§ Mr. J. JONES
This Clause gives an opportunity to the Government Department of inflicting themselves on the community locally, and fixes the charge which can be made in the matter of an inquiry which may be held into the administration of the local authority. We in the East End of London have been victims of this system for a very long time. If you want to inquire into our methods of conducting our business, you ought to pay the expense. We know what has happened. We have local rate-payers associations which meet together for the purpose of deciding that the government of the district is not good enough, and they want an alteration. They apply to the Minister of Health, or to the Local Government Board, or to whichever Board may be in existence, to hold an inquiry. We venture to suggest, so far as we are concerned in the East End of London, that the people who want an inquiry ought to pay for it, and if there are any fees to be paid they ought to be paid by those people who demand the inquiry, and not by the local authority which is the subject of the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that they are going to increase the fees to these people who are coming along to inquire, from three to five guineas. The cost of living is not going down, but the cost of briefing is going up. We have had some of these inquiries in West Ham, the district to which I belong. 149 The consequence of those inquiries has been that the rates have gone up, and we have had to pay thousands of pounds for legal gentlemen who have come along, not at our request.
Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, when an inquiry is held, that inquiry is going to be conducted at the expense of the local authority? Are we to understand that we are going to be the victims of any person who likes to claim an inquiry? Is that the position? Because we protest most emphatically against inquiries being conducted without our consent. If an inquiry is going to be made by the Government Department, then somebody else than ourselves will have to be responsible for the expense. You have no right to ask us to be responsible for the legal expenses which attach to such an inquiry. Yet, according to this proposition, we are going to be held responsible for those legal expenses. A gentleman comes down. He comes to Stratford Market Station. Although the Town Hall is only two minutes' walk away, he charges a guinea for a taxicab. Three guineas a day is his legal allowance, and he charges five guineas. Yet the men and women who sit upon the local authority get nothing for their work. They spend days and weeks looking after the interests of the public. A State official comes down from Whitehall, and he charges us five guineas a day by legal enactment. It is not good enough. We are fed up with it. We ask you to realise that, instead of increasing the charges in accordance with the cost-of-living arrangements, the lawyers' fees ought to come down as well as the labourers' wages, and instead of giving the lawyers more money you should give them less. I know what they got in the days gone by. They got more than they were entitled to. There are a lot of them sitting there who got more than they ought to have got. We ask you not to place further burdens upon us. In 'e 1e district that I represent we are to-day paying 26s. 1d. in the pound. We are paying out £9,000 a week owing to the gap that you have made in the unemployment benefit. Now you are asking us to pay for a gentleman who comes down in a taxicab from Whitehall, or takes a taxicab from Stratford Market Station, another two guineas a day. We are not having it. The time will come when we 150 will protest most emphatically against it. Therefore we hope that this Clause will not be carried.
§ Mr. MARCH
I want to enter my protest in this matter, as I did in Committee. I tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to accept three guineas instead of five. It seems to me that it is the thin end of the wedge in getting the five guineas inserted in all the Acts of Parliament. So far as we can learn from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill, there are a number of Acts of Parliament which have been passed at different times, in which the sum is three guineas. This seems to me to be the beginning of getting it made five guineas. Later on it will give an opportunity for some other officer of another Department to come along and say, "As you have already passed a Clause in an Act making it five guineas, we want to get it uniform, and to have it five guineas all round "—a very nice way of doing it.
I also want to enter my protest with regard to inquiries. I think, if the Government desire an inquiry, they should bear the expense, and, if another person requires an inquiry, he should contribute something towards the expense. It may be in the memory of some Members of the House what transpired during the last Government. There were two hon. Members who were supposed to represent the Borough of Poplar, but they misrepresented it, and they caused a great furore in this House with regard to the way in which the council and the guardians were conducting their business. Through the Association of Ratepayers they forced an inquiry upon our board of guardians, which lasted a very great number of days. That inquiry was not held by the consent or the wish of the guardians, or of the borough council, or of the people of the borough, but it was forced upon them. After they held the inquiry they found out nothing. They have not advised us to do anything in connection with the matter. The consequence was that we got a forced inquiry upon us. If this Bill becomes an Act, we stand to have an expense of five guineas a day thrust upon us unnecessarily and unwarrantably. If there is any kicking to be done we can do it at Poplar, and we shall certainly kick against an expense being imposed upon us without our desire or 151 wish. I certainly think the Government are ill-advised in coming forward with a Clause of this kind. As a matter of fact, I am entirely against the Bill, There is another Clause in the Bill with which I will deal, if I have an opportunity, later on; but I certainly am opposed to this Clause, and I hope the Government will see their way clear to withdraw it.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Certainly. It would make a uniform fee of five guineas. If there is no fee, it will enable them to charge five guineas. If the fee is three guineas it will enable them to charge five guineas. If they are enabled to charge any more it would limit the charge to five guineas.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ADAMS
This Clause indicates the disability in which this House is placed by having to deal with a number of diverse problems in an omnibus Bill. Certain Members of the House are very anxious that some sections of it should pass, while, at the same time, they feel the great disability which other sections will impose upon matters in which they are directly interested. It does seem unlikely that any Members of local authorities should be prepared at this time of day to submit to a Clause of this character, when the tendency of the times is towards a diminution of the burdens upon local authorities. The Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, and every municipal association, large and great, is continually pressing upon the Central Authority the necessity for relieving local burdens, and in that way enabling the local taxation to be relieved. This Clause is a direct negation of that policy. It is a violation of the spirit in which Governments in recent years have met the local authorities. In every appeal which has been made, if there has been any reasonableness or substance in it, it has been met by the central authority assisting to share the burden with the local authorities. I understood, from careful inquiries as to what took place in Committee, that the 152 right hon. Gentleman indicated that this would not add to the burdens of local authorities. Instead of that he has pointed out to us now something quite the contrary, that it is about to do so. If the object of this Measure was to raise funds for the central authority or, which is the same thing, to provide economies in a Measure of this kind, it might have been possible for the Government to give to local authorities much greater economies than they enjoy at the present time. Why should not there have been introduced a Clause, or a Bill entitled, "The Local Authorities Enabling Bill," which would permit local authorities to engage in necessary reforms without the intervention of the central authority subject to the measure, Bill, or proposals lying for a certain time unchallenged on the Table of this House? In that way we would have secured large economy and local authorities would be relieved of a great deal of outside and unnecessary pressure under which their schemes are frequently diverted into channels to which they themselves are strongly opposed, but on which, for the sake of compromise with the central authority, they yield from that which the majority of their ratepayers desire.
With regard to this £5 5s., it is a retrograde departure. There are very few local authorities in this kingdom which will pay their members as much as the City of Newcastle, £2 a day. We have people in a large way of business who are satisfied that all their expenditure is fully met by £2 2s. a day, so that if £3 3s. were charged that certainly ought abundantly to suffice. I hope members of local authorities will vote against this Bill, and that there will be an Amendment for the rejection of the entire Measure unless the right hon. Gentleman meets us in that respect. Here we are proceeding in a direction which certainly the central authority will be attempting to travel by adding greater and greater burdens of expenditure upon the already overburdened local authorities. It is very significant that the policy pursued almost throughout this Measure is in a direction quite contrary to that which the Government is understood to be following with regard to the great local authorities of this kingdom. The work they are performing voluntarily often at very great 153 expense to themselves—I allude to membership of the same—ought to be encouraged and not discouraged, local authorities ought to be relieved and not penalised as they are in this case.
§ Question put, "That the words of the Clause to the word "five" [" five guineas a day "] stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 136.155
|Division No. 64.]||AYES.||[8.7 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Paget, T. G.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)||Furness, G. J.||Pease, William Edwin|
|Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut. Colonel martin||Ganzoni, Sir John||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.||Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Pielou, D. P.|
|Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)||Goff, Sir R. Park||Privett, F. J.|
|Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence||Gray, Harold (Cambridge)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Greaves-Lord, Walter||Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Barnott, Major Richard W.||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Becker, Harry||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Remer, J. R.|
|Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Berry, Sir George||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)||Reynolds, W. G. W.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Halstead, Major D.||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Hertford, Watford)|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Harrison, F. C.||Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Harvey, Major S. E.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hawke, John Anthony||Rogerson, Capt. J. E.|
|Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)||Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)||Roundell, Colonel H. F.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E.|
|Bruford, R.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Russell, William (Bolton)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Herbert, S. (Scarborough)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.||Hiley, Sir Ernest||Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Sanderson, Sir Frank B.|
|Burn. Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew||Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Sandon, Lord|
|Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)||Hood, Sir Joseph||Shipwright, Captain D.|
|Button, H. S.||Hopkins, John W. W.||Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.|
|Cadogan, Major Edward||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Singleton, J. E.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hudson, Capt. A.||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hume, G. H.||Sparkes, H. W.|
|Churchman. Sir Arthur||Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)||Stanley, Lord|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Clayton, G. C.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Cobb. Sir Cyrlt||Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frater|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||King, Capt. Henry Douglas||Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.|
|Collox, Major Wm. Phillips||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sykes, Major-Gen.Sir Frederick H.|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Lamb, J. Q.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Cope, Major William||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Cory. Sir J. H. (Cardiff. South)||Lorlmer, H. D.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)||Maddocks, Henry||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Wallace, Captain E.|
|Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)||Manville, Edward||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Margesson, H. D. R.||Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Wells, S. R.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Mercer, Colonel H.||Weston, Colonel John Wakefield|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Milne, J. S. Ward law||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)||Morning, Captain Algernon H.||White, Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Morris, Harold||Whitla, Sir William|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)||Winterton, Earl|
|Ednam, Viscount||Morrison-Bell, Major A.C.(Honiton)||Wise, Frederick|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Murchison, C. K.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Nesbitt, Robert C.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)||Wood. Sir H. K. (Woolwich, Wast)|
|Fawkes, Major F. H.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.||Newson, Sir Percy Wilson||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Yerburgh, R. D. T.|
|Foreman, Sir Henry||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Frasor, Major Sir Keith||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.|
|Adams, D.||Barnes, A.||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Brotherton, J.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Batey, Joseph||Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Buckle, J.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Bowdler, w. A.||Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)|
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)||Irving, Dan||Roberts, C. H. (Derby)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Jarrett, G. W. S.||Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)|
|Cairns, John||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Royce, William Staple ton|
|Cape, Thomas||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Saklatvala, S.|
|Clarke, Sir E. C.||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)||Salter, Dr. A.|
|Collins, Pat (Walsall)||Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)||Sexton, James|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newingtan)||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Kenyon, Barnet||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Duncan, C.||Lansbury, George||Simpson, J. Hope|
|Dunnico, H.||Lawson, John James||Sinclair, Sir A.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Leach, W.||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Edge, Captain Sir William||Lee, F.||Smell, Harry|
|Edmonds, G.||Lees-Smith, H. S. (Keighley)||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Linfield, F. C.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)||Lowth, T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Foot, Isaac||Lunn, William||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Mac Donald, J. R. (Aberavon)||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Gosling, Harry||McLaren, Andrew||Sullivan, J.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Gray, Frank (Oxford)||March, S.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Greenall, T.||Maxton, James||Tillett, Benjamin|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Middleton, G.||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Groves, T.||Millar, J. D.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Morel, E. D.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Weir, L. M.|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Muir, John W.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Murnin, H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Hardie, George D.||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Hartshorn, Vernon||Newbold, J. T. W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)||O'Grady, Captain James||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Oliver, George Harold||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)||Paling, W.||Wright, W.|
|Herriotts, J.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hill, A.||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Hillary, A. E.||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hinds, John||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Mr. Fairbairn.|
|Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Riley, Ben|
|Hogge, James Myles||Ritson, J.|
Mr. T. THOMSON
I beg to move to leave out the words "a day" [" five guineas a day "], and to insert instead thereof the wordsfor every day upon which the inquiry is conducted.I understand the Clause as it stands does cover inquiries held under the Housing Acts, and any subsequent inquiries under any future Act that may be passed. The purport of the Amendment is that the charge of £5 5s. 0d. for which the Clause provides shall be limited to the number of days on which the inquiry is actually held. I submit that is a very reasonable proposition. One cannot tell how long Government Departments may take in journeying to and from, or what amount of time they my spend necessarily or unnecessarily in the locality making inquiries. As the object of the Bill is economy I submit that it is very desirable to reduce the costs which those who are holding the inquiry can get to as narrow limits as possible. I gave an illustration of the inquiries held last year at Kingston on Hull into housing; an inquiry lasted one day, and the fee charged the local authority amounted to over £30 in 156 each case. I presume that if a bill of costs had been asked for, there would have been so many days spent making inquiries on the spot before the inquiry was held, and so many more days after the inquiry was held. That is expense over which the local authority has no check whatever. In the interests of economy and of the local authority the local authority should pay only for those services which are obviously rendered while the inquiry is being held.
§ Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN
Whether the Amendment be considered reasonable or unreasonable, there is no doubt that it would introduce a complete innovation into the existing practice as regards charging for these inquiries, because in the past it has been the practice to include in the days for which a fee may be charged all the days which are occupied by the person who conducts the inquiry, not merely in sitting at the inquiry but in travelling to and fro and in preparing his report. If the object of the Clause is to provide that the cost 157 of the inquiry should be recovered, it is absolutely necessary that the Clause should read as it does, and not as suggested by the hon. Member. I could not accept an Amendment which introduced such a complete innovation.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I beg to move to leave out the, word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I desire to refer to one or two matters which are more prosaic than many of the subjects discussed earlier in the Debate, but are none the less important. We have been discussing the desirability of obtaining for the general public facilities for acquiring information and obtaining culture and learning, and all those desirable things. I do not quarrel with the Government for having withdrawn a Clause which was regarded by almost everyone in this House, and by the public, as most objectionable. But if public opinion could be used to induce the Government to withdraw a Clause such as that to which I have just referred, then public opinion might also be appealed to for the withdrawal of a Bill which, generally speaking, is just as objectionable as the Clause which has been withdrawn. The primary purpose for which this Bill was introduced was to raise more revenue and effect certain economy. So far as revenue will be raised it will be at the expense of efficiency, and I question very much whether revenue will be raised to any considerable extent.
If it be, as it is, desirable to provide facilities for culture, it is equally desirable to protect the lives of men and women. I submit that the effect of certain proposals embodied in this Bill will be to increase the risks undertaken by this class of men, whose risks to-day are equal to if not greater than those undertaken by any other class in the community—I refer to the men of the mercantile marine—and it will also increase the risks undertaken by those who utilise vessels for travelling purposes. On the Second Reading speeches were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite who are associated with the shipping industry, in the course of which assurances were given that 158 nothing would be done to interfere with the efficiency of the mercantile marine, or to bring about a less rigid inspection of merchant vessels than has hitherto been in operation. I am not disposed to quarrel with hon. Gentlemen who make statements of that kind, but I do know that, as a matter of practice, when you impose additional burdens on an industry, those who are associated with the industry will seek to devise ways and means of escaping from such burdens, and the natural and inevitable outcome of the imposition of additional fees on the shipping industry will be to reduce efficiency and cause a less rigid inspection of the mercantile marine.
The right hon. Gentleman responsible for this Bill has an exceedingly limited knowledge of the shipping industry. That is not surprising, because Govern-merits frequently are composed of gentlemen whose knowledge of particular industries is not commensurate with the importance of the Departments which they supervise. As the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of shipping is so limited, one can hardly expect him to consider, as one would desire, the importance of the proposals contained in this Bill. He has been in the hands of the shipping industry. [Laughter.] I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is so amused by observations from this side, but if he had to suffer the conditions which men in the mercantile marine have to suffer, men of whose lives, privileges and liberties his Department is the custodian, he would laugh at the other side of his face.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
The hon. Member is not entitled to say that. What I was laughing at was the suggestion that I was in the hands of the shipowners, which I though was a very crude remark. Seeing that I am imposing a charge of £120,000 on them, I should have thought that they were in my hands.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
The right hon. Gentleman is much too ingenuous in his argument. Originally he intended to impose comparatively high burdens on the shipping industry. Why did he change his original proposals? He intended to inflict on the shipping industry impositions which they considered that they were hardly able to bear. But he withdrew them. Why? No justifiable explanations have ever been 159 given to the House, and in the absence of reasonable explanations we are justified in assuming that the shipowners, in accepting the modified proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, must have known what they were doing. All along I have contended that the shipowners have obtained a quid pro quo. There has been a compromise, undoubtedly, and a compromise means that one side or the other gives way. Of course, the Government have given way. They give way much more readily to the shipowning fraternity than they do to the sea-going fraternity. That is the ground of complaint which will be used not only on this occasion but on any other. Not only with regard to the proposals which affect the Mercantile Marine, but with regard to every single Clause in this Bill, we are entitled to submit as our ground of complaint that the whole of the proposals are pettifogging in character.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
The hon. Member says that he will be happy to speak. I presume from his impatience that he will be unhappy. I submit that every one of the proposals of the Bill is pettifogging in character. After consultation with certain selected interests, it is proposed to raise a few thousand pounds out of the Mercantile Marine. It is proposed to raise a sum of £600 from fees to be imposed in connection with burials.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer)
Fees from what?
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I am not sure whether the Noble Lord has studied the Bill. I would direct his attention to Clause 7, Sub-section (1) of which reads as follows:
Where a Secretary of State issues a licence under Section twenty-five of the Burial Act, 1857, for the removal of any body, or the remains of any body, which has been interred in any place of burial, there shall be payable in respect of the licence such fee, not exceeding two pounds, as the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may prescribe.
According to the estimate it is intended to raise £600 per annum in that way. It has also been urged that a certain suns will be raised, although no definite figure is mentioned, by imposing fees on local authorities in connection with inquiries. We were told on the Second Reading that the Geddes Committee had laid it down that certain fees must be charged in order to raise additional revenue. If this be the outcome of the Geddes Committee proposals, the Government ought to be ashamed of itself in submitting it. Is this what is called economy? Is this a concession to the Anti-waste party? If the right hon. Gentleman and his associates want to effect economy in State administration they will receive much valuable and helpful advice from the Labour benches. I cannot enter into matters of that kind now, but every Member of this House knows that economies can be effected even in the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. It is not the way to effect economy to interfere with the safety of the men in the Mercantile Marine and with the safety of passengers using merchant ships. It is false economy and it ought not to be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be a bit doubtful whether the imposition of further fees on the shipping industry will bring about further risks. He said in Committee that he thought I was arguing on behalf of the shipowners. Need I assure him and this House that I hold no brief for the shipowners? I contend that the services which are intended to prefect life and limb, and which relate to the Mercantile Marine, ought to be considered by the State in precisely the same way as the inspection of mines, of railways, and of all those things with which the State is concerned.
§ If this Bill passes, it is the thin edge of the wedge, and no doubt in due course the right hon. Gentleman will submit a Bill asking the railway companies to pay for the inspection of railways and to pay for Board of Trade inquiries; he will ask the agricultural interest to pay for the inspection under the Milk and Dairies Act; and he will ask the mining industry to bear the charges which are now borne by the State for the inspection of mines. It. a pernicious principle. This Bill ought never to have been introduced. It is of no value as a means 161 of raising revenue. If all that the Government can do is to introduce a Bill of this character, and then to withdraw important Clauses which they said would have enabled them to raise large amounts of money—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was introduced to the Committee for the purpose of proving how much money could be raised if certain Clauses were obtained—the House ought to reject the Bill. The Government is endeavouring to meet its commitments and promises with regard to economy. They are not meeting their commitments or promises by means of this Bill, but are merely playing with the question.
§ I hope that the House will tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill in its emasculated form, after Clause 9 has been withdrawn, cannot pass. It is pernicious in principle, it undermines the safety of the general public and of men engaged in important national service. It will be remembered against the right hon. Gentleman in days to come by the men of the mercantile marine, for every accident which takes place on board ship, for every reported case of impure water and impure foodstuffs due to the lack of rigid inspection, for every disaster which takes place and which affects the safety of those who travel on passenger ships, due to the fees imposed in connection with wireless telegraphy—a most obnoxious proposal. We all know the attitude of the shipowners on that question. They want to withdraw the men employed on board ship for the purpose of keeping in touch with wireless telegraphy operations. These things will be remembered against the Tight hon. Gentleman and the Government in days to come when accidents of the kind which I have indicated take place and disasters accrue. Because the Bill is of no value as a means of raising funds; because it does not effect any economy; because it imposes a burden on industry which should be borne by the State; because it does not meet with the views of the men engaged in the industry which is so much affected by it, I ask the House to reject it.
§ Viscount WOLMER
The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill lashed himself into a totally unnecessary state of excitement and made a number of charges against my right hon. Friend the 162 President of the Board of Trade which I think he will regret when he comes to read the latter part of his speech in cold print. The hon. Member has not hesitated to insinuate, not only that the Bill is a corrupt bargain between the Government and the shipowners, but also that it is going to endanger the lives of the men of our merchant service. He knows, or he ought to know, perfectly well that, such a charge is absolutely baseless.
§ Viscount WOLMER
The hon. Member argues that increased fees are going to increase the dangers to the Mercantile Marine. He might as well argue that increased wages would also increase the dangers to the Mercantile Marine. The point is perfectly absurd and the explanation of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend gave it on the Second Reading, is very simple. The Geddes Committee which was appointed by the late Government to inquire into every department of national expenditure, gave as its opinion that, among many things necessary, it was high time the fees which various Government Departments were allowed to charge for various services rendered and the various costs to which they were subject in administering Acts of Parliament, should be brought up to date so as to bear some relation to present-day charges. That is the beginning and end of the reasons for this Bill. It is an exceedingly simple and almost trivial matter. The hon. Member spoke about the thin end of the wedge. The thin edge of this wedge was introduced by Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel, and even by their predecessors. Most of the fees to which the Board of Trade or the Government were entitled were on the Statute Book and all we are doing is bringing them up to date, as I say, and into some relation with the present costs of administration. Finally, the insinuation of the hon. Member that there has been any sort of agreement with the shipowners or with any other parties in regard to this Bill, is totally and utterly devoid of foundation.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
May I ask the Noble Lord if it is not the case that, after the original proposals had been submitted, a consultation took place with the ship-owning industry and these proposals were considerably modified? On what ground did that modification take place?
§ Viscount WOLMER
I will explain to the hon. Member if he gives me a chance. As my right hon. Friend explained on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was first drafted to carry out in their entirety the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. In the drafting of the Bill we did what the late Government did not do in regard to the Economy Bill; we put the individual charges dealt with by the Geddes Committee into the Schedule to the Bill, so that it became apparent at once to the Department and to the industry exactly the amount of money the recommendations involved. We then put them before the representatives of the shipowners, and said to them: "This is what carrying out the recommendations of the Geddes Committee means." The shipowners appealed to toy right hon. Friend and said: "Do you realise the enormous burden this will place on the shipping industry at this very critical juncture "My right hon. Friend was much impressed by that argument, and, after consultation with the Cabinet, he was able to modify the proposals of the Bill so that they were much less drastic than the proposals of the Geddes Committee. That was fully explained by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading, and he also denied that there was any sort of bargain with the shipowners or with anyone else on the matter. I hope the House will not desire me to go further into the details of the Bill, which have already been fully discussed both on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. A. SHAW
I only intervene to repeat what I said previously, that the idea that there is in this Bill any arrangement by way of a bargain between the Government and the shipowners, is without the slightest shred of foundation. It is a pure figment of the brilliant imagination of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell). From beginning to end there has been no transaction of that, kind. I have told the House exactly how the matter stood, and it is extremely simple. We were faced with a Bill which sought to impose a charge which would have amounted to about £.420,000 per annum. We employed, with a certain measure of success, the arguments so very well put forward by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We pointed out that if the Government were to proceed logically 164 they would have to charge railways and mines with all the costs of supervision, that the same thing would apply to agriculture, and that they would have to charge the factories with all the costs of the machinery for factory inspection. Of course, we intimated to the Government that if this course were persisted in we should have to fight the Bill by all the means in our power. I gather that we should have had the powerful assistance of my hon. Friend in doing it.
§ Mr. SHAW
The Government said, "We will not give way to your arguments," but after a while they said, "We have reconsidered the matter, we have put it before the entire Government, and we have come to the conclusion that there is great force in what you say, but we must carry out the recommendations of the Geddes Committee as far as we can, and we will, therefore, agree that your arguments are so forcible that we shall impose only half the cost of carrying on these services instead of the whole cost." So that to that extent the arguments which we used and, if I may say so with respect, the strenuous opposition which we offered were successful, but from the beginning to the end there was nothing else in it than that. Something was said on the last occasion about an Economy Committee. That Committee was entirely independent of whether we supported or opposed the Bill, and had we come here and opposed the Bill tooth and nail, with the assistance of the hon. Member, not a scrap of difference would have been made to the suggestion of the Board of Trade that there should be this Committee to investigate these services. The only other point I wish to make is this, that it seems to have escaped the notice of certain hon. Members that there is no chance whatever of these safeguards which protect life and the ship itself being swept away, because they are all statutory safeguards, laid down in Acts which have passed this House, and cannot be interfered with unless by the House itself.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
Will the hon. Member explain, since he has made a statement that has not been proved, whether it is not the case that Regulations are provided by the Board of 165 Trade with regard to the inspection of foodstuffs and life-saving appliances, which are in the hands of the Board of Trade and are not statutory Regulations which come before this House?
§ Mr. SHAW
I say without the least hesitation that I had no knowledge whatever of the provisions with regard to the inspection of food until I came to this House, but I would certainly never be a party to whittling down the provisions in that regard, and I would remind the hon. Member of what happened in regard to the last Bill. So far from those who are interested in the shipping industry wishing to do away with the inspection
§ dealt with in that Bill, they with one voice wished to retain it. The cost is very small, and it is a protection not only to the men, but to the shipowners. With regard to the other matter, we knew nothing whatever about it, and these statutory safeguards, so far as they affect boats and so on, have recently received the attention of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, of which an hon. Member whom I now see on the Labour Benches is a member.
§ Question put, "That the word now ' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 118.167
|Division No. 65.]||AYES.||[8.51 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynie||Edmonds, G.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Maddocks, Henry|
|Apsley, Lord||Ednam, Viscount||Manville, Edward|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin||Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Margesson, H. D. R.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.||Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)||Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.|
|Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)||Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.|
|Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence||Fade, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Morris, Harold|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Fawkes, Major F. H.||Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Ford, Patrick Johnston||Murchison, C, K|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Foreman, Sir Henry||Murray, John (Leeds, West)|
|Barrie Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Nesbitt, Robert C.|
|Becker, Harry||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Furness. G. J.||Newson, Sir Percy Wilson|
|Berry, Sir George||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)|
|Blades. Sir George Rowland||Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John|
|Blundell, F. N.||Gilbert, James Daniel||Paget, T, G.|
|Bowdler, W. A.||Goff, Sir R. Park||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Gray, Harold (Cambridge)||Pease, William Edwin|
|Brass, Captain w.||Greaves-Lord, Walter||Penny, Frederick George|
|.Grown, Major D. C. (Hoxham)||Greene, Lt.-Col Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Pielou, D. P.|
|Bruford, R.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Privett, F. J.|
|Bruton. Sir James||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Rankin, Captain James Stuart|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Halstead, Major D.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk Peel|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Hamilton, Sir George C. (Aitrincham)||Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew||Harrison, F. C.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Burney. Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)||Harvey, Major S. E.||Renter, J. R.|
|Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)||Hawke, John Anthony||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Button, H. S.||Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)||Reynolds, W. G. W.|
|Cadogan, Major Edward||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Herbert, S. (Scarborough)||Roberts, C. H. (Derby)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hiley, Sir Ernest||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Hinds, John||Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Rogerson, Capt. J. E.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Ruggles-Brise, Major E.|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Hood, Sir Joseph||Russell, William (Bolton)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hopkins, John W. W.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.|
|Cope, Major William||Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)||Sanderson, Sir Frank B.|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Sandon, Lord|
|Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.||Hudson, Capt. A.||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnuck)|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Hume, G. H.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)||Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)||Shipwright, Captain D.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Simpson-Hinchlifle, W. A.|
|Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Singleton, J. E.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Jarrett, G. W. S.||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||King, Capt. Henry Douglas||Sparkes, H. W.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lamb, J. Q.||Stanley, Lord|
|Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Lorimer, H. D.||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Edge, Captain Sir William||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Sturrock, J. Leng||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Wallace, Captain E.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Sugden, Sir Wilfred H.||Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Sykes, Major-Gen.Sir Frederick H.||Wells, S. R.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.||Yerburgh, R. O. T.|
|Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||White, Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)||Whitla, Sir William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Thorpe, Captain John Henry||Winterton, Earl||Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wise, Frederick|
|Adams, D.||Hardie, George D,||Potts, John S.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Harris, Percy A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hartshorn, Vernon||Riley, Ben|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)||Ritson, J.|
|Attlee, C. R.||Hayday, Arthur||Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Barnes, A.||Herriotts, J.||Saklatvala, S.|
|Batey. Joseph||Hill, A.||Salter, Dr. A.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hillary, A. E.||Sexton, James|
|Brotherton, J.||Hogge, James Myles||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Irving, Dan||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Buckle, J.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootie)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Simpson, J. Hope|
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Snell, Harry|
|Cairns, John||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cape. Thomas||Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Clarke, Sir E. C.||Kenyon, Barnet||Sullivan, J.|
|Collins, Pat (Walsall)||Lansbury, George||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lawson, John James||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Leach, W.||Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Dudgeon, Major C, R.||Lee, F.||Tillett, Benjamin|
|Duncan, C.||Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Dunnico, H.||Lowth, T.||Warne, G. H.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Mac Donald, J. R. (Aberavon)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||McLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|England, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Webb, Sidney|
|Fairbairn, R, R.||Maxton, James||Weir, L. M.|
|Foot, Isaac||Middleton, G.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gosling, Harry||Millar, J. D.||Whiteley, W.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Muir, John W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Gray, Frank (Oxford)||Murnin, H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenall, T.||Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)||Newbold, J. T. W.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||O'Grady, Captain James||Wright, W.|
|Groves, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.|
|Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES —|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Lunn.|
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.