HC Deb 17 February 1927 vol 202 cc1166-95

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

Mr. McNEILL

This Estimate for the Stationery Office arises entirely through an unexpected, and, as far as I can judge, an incalculable rise in the cost of paper. Hon. Members who recollect the Debate on the Estimate of last year will recall that I then said that we had not a very large supply of material, because we wanted to keep the Estimate as low as we could. There was, therefore, not a very large stock upon which we could draw during the present year. It is another example of the extraordinary complexity of our system, social and industrial, that here again in a. very unexpected quarter we have one of the results of the industrial disturbance of last year, because, according to my information, the only reason that can be given for a very considerable rise in the cost of paper was the scarcity of fuel. I will tell the Committee the method by which the calculation was made. Taking the pre-War figures of price as 100, and taking that as an index figure, the average price of paper for the year 1925–26 was 155, and acting on such information as was at the disposal of those purchasing for the Stationery Office it was estimated that a figure of 152.5 should be taken as the figure for 1926–27. But that was considerably under the mark, as it turned out, because I find that in the September quarter of 1926 the cost was 170.8 and in the December quarter 162.2. Therefore, having small reserves, and having to make purchases of paper for the Government Departments we had to do so at a greatly higher price than that which we had originally reckoned. I do not want the Committee to understand that I am attributing the whole of the rise to a difference in the cost of paper There are one or two other comparatively small matters, one of them being the introduction of the Betting Duty, which required a good deal of stationery and forms, and activities on the part of the Stationery Department which were not anticipated when the Estimate was framed. All those factors together have made it necessary now to come to Parliament for this comparatively small sum, and I hope the Estimate will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. NAYLOR

It seems to be the fashion to blame the general strike for all additional expenditure incurred by Government Departments and the Stationery Office is no exception to that rule. I listened with interest to the explanation of the Financial Secretary but I do not think he has given us all the information which we have a right to expect in regard to this Supplementary Estimate. He drew attention to the great increase in the cost of paper in 1925–26 and compared it with the pre-War price, but I fail to see that that comparison has anything to do with this Supplementary Estimate of £37,000. I was glad to note that he admitted that the increase was not entirely due to the cost of paper, but the only other explanation he gave was that there had been unexpected demands in connection with the Betting Duty, the operation of which had not been anticipated by the Stationery Office. I am afraid that must be regarded as a somewhat lame and impotent explanation of this increase. A comparatively small amount of paper would be required for the purposes of the Betting Duty in relation to the enormous quantity of paper required for Government purposes generally. In the original Estimate, over £500,000 was asked, for paper alone and in comparison with that requirement the quantity of paper necessary for the operation of the Betting Duty is a mere bagatelle and cannot be accepted as any sort of explanation of this very large increase in the Estimate.

Mr. McNEILL

It represents £2,000.

Mr. NAYLOR

That bears out what I say—a sum of £2,000 is not much compared with £37,000. We are, therefore, discussing a net increase of £35,000 and I am prepared to confine my criticism to the sum of £35,000. One would suppose that the purchase of paper was conducted only at certain periods of time but in the purchase of paper, as of all commodities, the buyers buy at the time when the paper is cheapest and most easily obtainable. We are told that the £35,000 is due to the increased price resulting from the shortage of fuel. Presumably that shortage was responsible for causing the paper makers to increase their prices, but one would suppose that expert buyers of paper, knowing that trouble was going on in the coalfields before the general strike, would have anticipated that difficulty and would have increased their purchase of paper considerably. The Financial Secretary says that unfortunately they were short of stock at a time when, owing to the difficulties of the market, there should have been a large addition to the stock in anticipation of rising prices. I would like to know what the authorities of the Stationery Office were about that they were caught napping in this way. One would suppose that in the enormous warehouses which they possess they would have had huge additional stocks, not in anticipation of a general strike, which could not have been anticipated, but in anticipation of trouble in the coal mining industry. I think it a great reflection on the right hon. Gentleman's Department that adequate provision was not made in this respect.

The Financial Secretary did not tell us the actual value of the paper which was bought. How much paper was bought at a time when prices were inflated to this extent? Another consideration to which I draw the attention of the Committee is that the rise in price was not due to a decrease in the possibilities of supply, because, during the general strike, there was a great falling-off in the demand for paper. The daily papers were not brought out for a period of six or eight days which meant an enormous difference in the demand upon the paper manufacturers of this country. The ordinary demand of the daily Press, which is a huge one, was not being made. We in this House had our own experience of the shortage of printed matter in regard to the various documents supplied to Members. Paper was not being used, even by the Stationery Office, to anything like the normal extent. That makes it all the more difficult to understand this additional sum of £35,000. The Financial Secretary ought to give us a little more information. Before I vote for this additional sum I wish to be satisfied that it is actually due to the circumstances which he indicated but I am not as satisfied with the brief explanation given to us so far. Possibly when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply on the Debate he will have been able to obtain the additional information which I consider to be necessary before the Committee can vote this sum. I ask the Financial Secretary to be quite frank and honest in this matter as I am sure he will be. He knows from his experience that a sum of £35,000 takes a lot of building up. Are we to take it that it is due to the increased price of paper alone? The comparisons which he gave us, in his brief introduction of the Estimate, are hardly sufficient to account for £35,000. Taking the pre-War price as 100 he said that the year 1925–26 showed a rise to 155. That does not affect the additional Estimate before the Committee. What does affect it is the actual increase in the cost of paper arising out of the circumstances of the coal dispute. I hope the particulars which are at present missing, or which have not been supplied to us so far, will be forthcoming before we are asked to vote this additional sum.

Commander BELLAIRS

I think it would be useful if we had a little more information as to the buying methods of the Treasury. In this case it is obvious that the big rise in the price of paper did not occur until September. It is obvious that before the beginning of the financial year the Treasury should have examined their stocks of paper with the object of finding out how much they had to tide them over the year. It is also obvious that if they buy in big quantities they get the paper cheaper. Having regard to the situation in the coal industry, it should have been obvious also that the proper policy was for them to place their big orders as soon as they found what stocks they had in hand. It seems that this £35,000 does not arise on the whole quantity of paper for the year because they must have had a fairly large stock in hand, and it looks as though they waited until the worst possible time—until September—before buying. I would like to know if they examined their stocks at the end of the financial year, and then placed their contracts ahead in large quantities? In this case it looks as if the buyers had been caught napping.

Mr. HARRIS

This rise in the cost of paper is a mystery, but the coal stoppage is a very convenient excuse for the apparent discrepancy revealed by this Estimate. I propose to ask two questions which may assist in solving the mystery. There was a tax in the Finance Act of last year, a Safeguarding of Industries tax, dealing with wrapping paper. The purpose of that tax was to increase the price of the article so as to enable the British manufacturer to produce at a profit. Is it unreasonable to suppose that some part of this increased expenditure is due to the beneficent effect of the safeguarding of industries? I do not think it is an unreasonable question to ask how much of the paper concerned in this Estimate comes under the operation of that tax. I do not suppose that the Minister of the Department would buy wrapping paper from abroad.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Wrapping paper is included.

Mr. HARRIS

Is not that then some explanation of the increase? The Department has to pay like anybody else. Hon. Members opposite have an idea that the foreigner pays a tax of this description, but when the Stationery Office buys wrapping paper it is not the Swedes or the Germans who pay. It is the Stationery Office, and therefore the British taxpayer. I am sorry the hon. Member for Eastern Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) is not in his place. I am sure he and the other hon. Members opposite who approved enthusiastically of this tax would be delighted with this extra charge. They would possibly tell us that it means more employment, but it is the taxpayer who has to pay.

It is not fair that all the responsibility for this Supplementary Estimate should be attached to the coal dispute. Is not the production of the "British Gazette" responsible for some part of this increased charge? The paper for that publication had to come from somewhere. The "Gazette" was published by the Stationery Department, but we ought to know whether the paper was bought in the open market or through the machinery of the Stationery Office. We understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the "British Gazette" was a great financial success—or that it would have been a great financial success. He sold a lot of copies, but the Financial Secretary, this evening, not having the advantage of the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seems to have forgotten the existence of the "British Gazette." Perhaps these two matters may help to explain this Estimate, rather than the coal stoppage. I ask if it does not result, first, from the Safeguarding of Industries Tax, which I regard as vicious, and which hon. Members opposite regard as beneficent, and, secondly, from the publication of the "British Gazette."

Major SALMON

I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the system by which the Printing Department purchase their paper. Is it purchased under a system of tendering in the early part of the year, because the Financial Secretary mentioned that the price has increased in three quarters? I should have thought the price in the early part of the year was given for the whole year, and it would be interesting to know how much has been charged in increased prices owing to the increased cost of coal. Have the contracts been made beforehand, and then have the contractors afterwards come to the Government and asked for an increase of price on their original contracts? The second question I would like to ask is this: Can the Financial Secretary say what is the value of the stock that was taken over in 1925–26, and was the amount of paper purchased during 1926–27 such as will carry a large surplus stock to the end of the current financial year, or did the officials in making their purchases take into account the fact that, the market being against them, they would do well to buy very closely? It seems to me that there should have been a large stock in hand, because with such a thing as paper, which is largely used. one would have thought the buyers would have taken advantage of the low price at a certain period and carried forward a big stock, but I observed that the Financial Secretary said the stock was small. Perhaps he will give us the amount of that stock, and then we shall better be able to see if it was beyond the power of the buyers in that Department to anticipate the difficulty. On the other hand, everyone was quite aware that it was possible that we should have trouble in the coal mines, and one would have thought that a sufficient quantity of paper would have been purchased in anticipation of requirements.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON

This is the second year in which we have had a Supplementary Estimate from the Stationery Office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may remember that he made promise to the Committee last year that he would ask the Publications and Debates Committee to go into the whole question of the number of Returns rendered to this House, some of which appeared to have become unnecessary, such as the Returns of the number of times the Adjournment had been moved, the number of Divisions, the number of days on which the House had sat, and Returns of that kind. The Publications and Debates Committee issued a very valuable Report at the end of last year, but it did not deal with that question at all. It dealt with the question of the Returns and Publications of Government Departments, and there is no doubt that if that Report be acted upon, a considerable saving will take place in the future. But I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he will again draw the attention of that Committee to the necessity of going into the question of the Returns rendered in this House. They are the only body which can deal with that question. It cannot be dealt with by the Estimates Committee or by the Public Accounts Committee, and it cannot be dealt with by the Stationery Office itself, because the Returns are rendered under the orders of this house. It, therefore, seems desirable that their attention should again be drawn to it and that, if possible, they should deal with the question during this Session. I would be very glad if my right hon. Friend would give that matter his attention.

Mr. W. BAKER

I cannot hope to speak with the technical knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), but I have been greatly mystified by the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when it is remembered that a Stationery Office official has stated in evidence during the present year that the enormous stock of paper in their own physical charge was of the value of £150,000, and that they usually have in the hands of the contractors as much as £80,000 worth, making a total of £230,000. I hope the Financial Secretary will deal with the present demand for a Supplementary Estimate, and with the increased cost in the light of that statement made by an official witness from the Stationery Office. I wish to draw attention to the resultant effects of this failure on the part of the Stationery Office to buy within the money which has already been granted by this House. To-night I was called to a meeting in this building to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Bill which the Government are to introduce, and which, if I understand it, is to be based upon the Blanesburgh Committee's Report. I applied immediately to the Vote Office for the Report, but it was not forthcoming, and I learn that, because of the economy that is held to be necessary as a result of this very Supplementary Estimate, hon. Members who desire papers for their immediate Parliamentary purposes must write to the Stationery Office in order to obtain them. Although I wrote to the Stationery Office many days ago—I cannot give the exact date, because I do not remember it—that Report has not yet reached my hands. I am not going to say that the delay is due to the Stationery Office, because it may have been in transit, but I submit that if Supplementary Estimates of this sort are to result in Members of this House being handicapped in their efforts to obtain the papers necessary to their deliberations, this economy is going to have a very important bearing upon the discussions in this Chamber.

In common, I take it, with every other Member of this House, soon after we reassembled I received a communication from the Vote Office asking whether I was prepared to agree, in the interests of economy, again necessary because of this Supplementary Estimate, to forgo the right, which every Member has hitherto enjoyed, of receiving a bound volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates in this House. I do not know how many Members are not sufficiently interested in the House and its proceedings to comply with that request, but the point I want to make is that even if 50 per cent. of the Members took their duties so lightly that they did not want the bound record of the work in Parliament itself, the economy would be very small and paltry indeed. I earnestly appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to turn his attention from paltry economies which are detrimental to the efficiency of this Chamber, and to endeavour to secure the economies which are necessary by better business methods in the Departments.

Mr. R. S. HUDSON

I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he can answer it, whether on page 14, Part III, the estimate of expenditure is a net one; whether in fact, as a result of the General Strike, there was not a very great saving on paper used ordinarily in the Votes and Proceedings of this House; and whether he can tell us the extent of that saving, and how much really the extra expenditure was on paper under Part III.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a very extraordinary thing. We had a great deal of talk last year about an economy axe. I am very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury here, because I know how wholehearted he is, especially as a Lord of the Treasury, in the desire to bring about economy in the public service. A great parade was made by the Government of which he is such an ornament, and we were told that great economies had been made. Looking at the main Estimates, I see that a nominal economy of £23,775 was made, of which £725 was transferred to Class 2, Vote 15. Roughly, £23,000 is supposed to have been saved, and no doubt somebody got a Decoration or Order in the New Year's Honours List for this saving. Now we see a Supplementary Estimate introduced asking for £37,000. This, therefore, has wiped out all the savings, and £14,000 more. There you see the working of the economy axe in action, and it is most unsatisfactory.

Furthermore, I see also—and the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) also raised this question—that in the main Estimates this year apparently there was too much paper in stock, and £10,000 was put down as the value of paper withdrawn from stock in 1925. That brought the 1925 Estimates down from £558,000 to £548,000, and £10,000 worth of paper was apparently sold. There must have been some very bad calculating there, because now we are told, in the footnote to the Supplementary Estimate, that the expenditure on paper has exceeded the original Estimate. Therefore, we have the extraordinary spectacle of the Government, when paper is cheap, selling some surplus stock to the tune of £10,000, and then, when the coal stoppage has apparently, according to them, been largely responsible for raising the price of paper, they go into the market and buy it back. That is the way that the present Government carry on the nation's business. It is only one more example of their failure to do their duty, and it shows that it is time they went. Any hon. Members on the other side who agree with me have only to vote for the reduction of this Vote, and so help to reform the Government and obtain better business methods. If I have any influence with the next Prime Minister, I shall recommend the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow as an expert adviser, unpaid, to the Stationery Department, and I am sure he would save a great deal of money. It is no use the Government blaming the enhanced cost of fuel. It says "mainly,' and not solely, I admit, but if, to use a colloquialism, we allow the Government to get away with it, we are going to have examples of bad budgeting and overspending put down again and again to the effect of the coal stoppage, and we have got to show the Government that that excuse will not do, otherwise we shall never get down to close budgeting and to the necessary economy.

I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) draw attention to wrapping paper, and I want to ask the Financial Secretary how much of the total of £293,000 for Departmental stationery, envelopes, wrapping and household paper, account books, etc., is represented by paper taxed under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I rather suspect that it is a considerable item, and that a part at any rate of this increase is brought about by the Safeguarding of Industries Duty on wrapping paper. The Estimates Committee two or three years ago, I think, suggested a cheaper form of stationery for this House. We were to have thinner envelopes and cheaper paper, and I think that was a very wise suggestion. It is not a good thing for constituents to get letters from their Members written on expensive-looking paper, because they think we are wasting money at Westminster.

6.0 p.m.

It is a very good thing that we should use paper that is suitable but as cheap as possible for the writing of these letters. I should like to know what the saving has been on these envelopes and notepaper, and, furthermore, whether the Government offices have used them? The Foreign Office, for example, has a beautiful style of notepaper for writing notes to the War Office and so on. An hon. Member opposite says, Why not? He agreed with me when I said the House of Commons should economise on notepaper, and I say that every other Department of State should do the same. I would like to know whether the recommendation of our own Estimates Committee has been followed.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON

It was the recommendation of the Publications and Debates Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

At any rate, I hope the Government acted upon it. It is time we got beyond these Supplementary Estimates. It is a very unfortunate legacy of the War that the Government can bring in these long lists of Supplementary Estimates year after year. I know the Patronage Secretary does not like it, because his time is very valuable. He is a strong man, and if he likes he can check this kind of Budgeting. This is not a party question at all. It is the taxpayers' interest, over which this House is supposed to watch, and so as to give that opportunity to my colleagues, I move to reduce this Vote by £100.

Mr. MONTAGUE

I would like to make one or two further reflections on a point that has already been raised, and that is the Circular issued by the Stationery Department to Members of the House asking them to place themselves in the invidious position of writing to the Department if they desire bound volumes of the Parliamentary Debates to be sent to them. The point of view I wish to put to the House is that that is a niggardly, mean sort of economy that amounts to a very small sum, is totally unnecessary, and extremely undignified for the Mother of Parliaments to adopt towards its Members. The value of those bound copies of the Parliamentary Debates, especially to those Members who have not the means of employing private secretaries, is that each one of these volumes is carefully and finely indexed, and the opportunity one has, especially during the Recess, of looking up important questions—not merely speeches of Members which, perhaps may not be as valuable as replies to questions if you are doing research work—

Mr. MINEILL

I am afraid I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman's point. What is his complaint with regard to the bound volumes?

Mr. MONTAGUE

I have received, and I believe every other Member of the House has received a notice to the effect that if we wish, in future, bound volumes to be sent, we have to make a special application to the Department; otherwise they will not be sent. I think that is an unnecessary and a niggardly form of economy, and that militates against efficiency.

Mr. R. HUDSON

Was not this letter to which the hon. Member refers sent out to every Member by direction of Mr. Speaker? I think it started off: "I am directed by Mr. Speaker"—

The CHAIRMAN

The fact that this letter was sent in Mr. Speaker's name does not exempt the subject-matter from criticism.

Mr. MONTAGUE

I believe the letter was sent by the direction of Mr. Speaker, but my point is that one has to write to the Department, and I submit it is a proper subject to be criticised under this Vote.

Mr. R. HUDSON

On a point of Order. Is not this in effect criticising the conduct of Mr. Speaker?

Mr. HARDIE

Is it not a fact that any letter which Mr. Speaker sends out relating to expense is bound to go to the Treasury?

The CHAIRMAN

If the expense of the stationery, as I understand, was paid for out of this excess Vote, I do not think the fact that the letter was sent by Mr. Speaker exempts the expense from criticism.

Mr. McNEILL

I do not want to stop the hon. Member in the least, but I would like to point out—because I take personal responsibility—that an hon. Member is not in any way deprived of the right of getting these bound volumes as before if he wishes to have them. It may be, however, that a very considerable economy is involved. I have reason to believe that Members have continued to get these bound volumes as a matter of routine, because if an order had been given at the Vote Office by an hon. Member that he wished to get the bound volumes, it went on as a matter of course, and I have reason to believe that a great many Members, after, perhaps, a year or two, from one reason or another, ceased to have any real regard—

The CHAIRMAN

I am now seized of the point, and must rule that the discussion on this point is not in order. This is an economy, and certainly no part of the £37,000 we are now asked to vote is involved. Therefore, the discussion cannot continue.

Mr. McNEILL

I was perfectly aware that it was out of order, but I thought as it was out of order and the hon. Member had not been called to order, it was better to make the matter clear.

The CHAIRMAN

I think the better course would have been for the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to me on that ground.

Mr. MONTAGUE

Does that mean that I cannot continue my remarks on the subject?

The CHAIRMAN

Not at present.

Mr. MOSLEY

There are some questions arising on this Vote which have not been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. I would like to ask him whether any part of this Estimate can be ascribed to the special sittings of the House of Commons in connection with the Emergency Powers Act? It is quite clear that extra expenditure must have been involved in those special sittings, probably very heavy expenditure. In fact, it would be difficult to account for the very large increase in this Estimate unless abnormal circumstances of that kind had played some part. If the special sittings of the House in connection with the Emergency Powers Act are involved in this Supplementary Estimate, surely we should be favoured with the presence of the Home Secretary, the author and architect of that Act, to explain to us whether all the advantages which he anticipated in that Measure have, in fact, been derived. We all know that as a result of this expenditure special orders were issued, and that a large number of members of the working class were imprisoned. We know that those powers were exercised to the full, but I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether other powers which he was given were exercised. He stated in one of his speeches, on the occasions of the special sittings—

The CHAIRMAN

It the hon. Member were to pursue that line of argument, it would lead to an argument as to whether, for instance, we might sit a shorter time and not legislate so much. You cannot go into that.

Mr. MOSLEY

I would nut pursue the consequences or seek to argue the merits of this Measure. I would merely like to ask the right hon. Gentleman which of the powers, the exercise of which he secured from this Douse, were in fact employed, and in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman it is very difficult to get hat explanation.

The CHAIRMAN

It is really impossible to allow that. You might extend it to every Act that was passed, giving powers to a Department, and then argue that if we had not had a sitting to pass that Act, expense might have been saved. It is only an item of £37,000 for stationery. You cannot go into the merits of the Acts which were passed, and which in some cases may have involved part of this increase.

Mr. MOSLEY

I am sorry that, under your ruling, to which I at once bow, we cannot be favoured with the presence of the Home Secretary. But there is another Minister of almost equally engaging personality, whose presence we might require on this Vote, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, I understand that some part of this Supplementary Estimate is in connection with the paper supply of the "British Gazette."

Mr. McNEILL

No.

Mr. MOSLEY

It is, indeed, tragic that we are prevented from enlivening the proceedings of this Assembly by desiring the presence of those notable Ministers. There is another question which I would Ike to address to the right hon. Gentleman. Is this increase in the cost of Parliamentary paper due in any way to the increasing tendency of the Government of the day to use the powers of the Closure? I believe every Division in this House costs something like £12, and a great deal of that expenditure is in connection with the prepara- tion of Division lists, and for material in connection with the taking of a Division. It is evident that the frequent use of the Closure will consequently result—

The CHAIRMAN

That can only be discussed on a Motion impugning the conduct of Mr. Speaker, or myself as Chairman of Committees, or the Deputy-Chairman. It is the act of the House, but the permission to give it is the act of the Chair, and it cannot be impugned except on a Motion censuring the Chair.

Mr. MOSLEY

Far be it from me to seek to impugn the conduct of the Chair. I merely wanted to point out that, owing to the bad arrangement of Government business, and the overloading of their programme, they have to seek powers from the Chair, which the Chair, in its discretion, on occasion sees fit to grant, and I would put it to the Government that they might really so arrange their programme as to consider the rights of minorities and Private Members to a greater extent than is evident in this rise in the cost of Parliamentary Papers, owing to their reckless use of the Closure in this House. On these grounds, I certainly support the reduction in the Vote.

Mr. NAYLOR

Are we to understand that there is to be no reply to the questions put to the Financial Secretary I think we have had certain pertinent and very vital questions put, concerning which both sides of the House, I am sure, want information. Is the right hon. Gentleman intending to reply?

Mr. MeNEILL

Yes.

Miss WILKINSON

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him a question which, perhaps, he will include in his reply? May I ask if it is becoming the policy of the Government to impede Members of this House in the necessary duties which they have to perform, by making it very difficult for them to get hold of certain Parliamentary Papers? May I give one example? A very important report—the Blanesborough Committee's Report—has been laid before this House. A Committee is being held in the House to-day to discuss the matter. It was of extreme importance that copies of that Report should be available. When Members apply at the Vote Office, they are told it is not possible to get that Report at the Vote Office, and that they have to apply to the Stationery Office. It has not been the only case.

There have been several important Reports lately which are absolutely necessary to any Member who is taking an interest in his work. Probably Members sitting opposite do not feel it as keenly as we do on this side. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is absolutely necessary that these Papers should be readily available. If it be said that it is only a question of writing to the Stationery Office, I would point out that Members are already overburdened with correspondence, and many on this side are unable to afford secretaries to deal with quite necessary correspondence. We feel that this parsimonious attitude of the Government—

Mr. R. HUDSON

Captain Hope, is not the hon. Lady developing exactly the same argument which you ruled out in another connection?

The CHAIRMAN

I am bound to say the ascription of military rank to me is inaccurate. I think the hon. Lady is rather near the line. Some part of this £37,000 may have been spent on the Blanesburgh Report, and if so her argument is in order.

Mr. MONTAGUE

Does not the same observation apply to my remark?

The CHAIRMAN

I think in that case no part of the money can be said to be involved by Mr. Speaker having issued the letter.

Mr. W. BAKER

May I point out that the matter is specifically referred to in the Supplementary Estimate and was paid for out of this sum of money, and the fact that an attempt was made to prevent free circulation does not prevent our discusing this on the Supplementary Estimate.

The CHAIRMAN

I think not, because so many hon. Members do not get the bound volumes. I do not imagine that these were not covered by the original Estimate. Anyhow, I have given my ruling on one point. In this case I think the hon. Lady is justified.

Miss WILKINSON

I feel I have made my point, and am merely putting before the right hon. Gentleman a very real grievance which Members of Parliament feel. I am sure that having brought this to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman he will accede to our request that these Papers should be readily available.

Mr. McNEILL

Of course, speaking generally, I can say that nothing is further from the intention of the Government, and of the Treasury in particular, than to put any sort of obstacle in the way of hon. Members in any part of the House getting all necessary literature connected with the conduct of their Parliamentary business. We want to assist them in every way we can. We have tried to make this modest attempt at economy, but it does not appear to have given any satisfaction to hon. Members opposite. As a matter of fact, there is no difficulty in getting all the Papers which are printed by the Stationery Office. There is a slight change, however, as to method and machinery in connection with some Papers. It is quite true in the case of certain Papers—nonParliamentary Papers—that instead of being able to get them at the Vote Office at a moment's notice a few hours' notice has to be given. If hon. Members write to the Stationery Office, they can get those Papers just as easily and freely as they can get Papers at the Vote Office.

Miss WILKINSON

Why not have them at the Vote Office?

Mr. McNEILL

Because Parliamentary papers are free, and a large supply is put into the Vote Office. Non-Parliamentary papers are kept at the Stationery Office, and hon. Members can get them from there, but they have to give notice. I want to say one word about the Blanesburgh Report. I am not sure whether it comes strictly within the terms of this discussion, but the fact that it is not. a Parliamentary paper was not due to the initiative of the Treasury, but of the particular department with which it was specially concerned. The hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) said he had difficulty in getting this particular report from the Stationery Office. I very much regret the reason.

Mr. W. BAKER

I would respectfully submit that the ends we are seeking to secure could be obtained by asking the Vote Office to receive a requisition for the papers instead of compelling us to write to the Stationery Office for them, and making it the duty of the Vote Office to get such copies as we ask for. It seems to be the difficulty which we experience—it may not be shared in all parts of the House—that instead of making a verbal request we are compelled to write a letter, which means one small task added to many others.

Mr. McNEILL

I Am quite ready to consider any suggestion of this sort from any hon. Member, and if I can do anything to add to the convenience of hon. Members without making it a public charge I shall be only too pleased to do so.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL

May we not have a few more printed? I asked for the Blanesburgh Report and I was given an envelope.

Mr. McNEILL

That is riot due to the Treasury, but I shall be glad to look into it. A certain number of rather mild criticisms have been put to me, but not very much in the way of actual questions. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member into the great question of Free Trade and Protection, but I may say that the Stationery Office are strictly British in this respect, that they do not buy foreign paper.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

The specific question I asked was whether the price had gone up since the industrial dispute.

Mr. McNEILL

I was not answering that question, but one put to me by an hon. Member below the Gangway. That particular question I cannot possibly reply to in detail, I can give only a general answer. Hon. Members have put to me a number of questions, but I do not know that I can add anything to what I said before. They can hardly expect me to keep myself fully informed of the commercial details of the purchases of all the vast supplies of materials bought from time to time by the Stationery Office. I doubt whether anybody, by the most precise analysis, could determine exactly the various causes, which may be many, of the particular rise in the price of paper to which I alluded in presenting this Estimate, and which is the main cause—I have not said it is the exclusive cause, but it is for all practical purposes the cause—why this Supplementary Estimate is necessary. The cause, as I said before, is attributable, partly it may be, to the industrial disturbance. Some hon. Members may not agree with that, and I may be wrong, and if hon. Members can attribute it to any other cause, I do not quarrel with them; but probably that was partly the cause. The Stationery Office had to go into the market and had to buy paper at a price very considerably above what they had estimated according to the best available data. As hon. Members may well believe, the Stationery Office have very skilful and knowledgeable people to go into the market to buy the material which the Department has to use.

I wonder whether hon. Members who presume to think it is impossible that t his Supplementary Estimate can be accounted for by a comparatively small rise in the price of paper realise the quantities which the Stationery Office have to buy. The Stationery Office purchases about 45,000,000 lbs. in the year. On that quantity it does not require a very large rise in price to make a very large difference. Some hon. Members have complained to me that we had not foreseen the rise. I do not profess to have enough knowledge of the market to say whether it would have been possible to foresee it or not. All I can say is that if those who buy for the Stationery Office were unable to foresee this particular rise, that I think it is extremely unlikely that anybody else in the country would have foreseen it. Three-quarters of that enormous amount I have mentioned, about 34,000,000 lbs. was bought from June, 1926, onward, during the period of the disturbance. Some hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), asked whether the Stationery Office ought not to have bought a much larger quantity in the earlier part of last year, and so have avoided purchases later. The practice I5f the Stationery Office ordinarily is to buy supplies for a few months, which I think is a very' reasonable practice. If they were to go into the market to buy suddenly, a rise might occur in price. It has to be borne in mind that the effect of the Stationery Department going into the market and making such a large unac- customed purchase for six or nine months ahead would immediately cause a rapid rise in the price.

Mr. NAYLOR

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the. stocks were low.

Mr. McNEILL

The stocks were low when we began the year but we bought three months in advance. The demands are so enormous that the Stationery Office must carefully estimate their stocks'. In former years the Stationery Office began the year with a fairly large stock but they had not such a large stock on this oocasion, and they had to buy more or less from hand to mouth. That is the practice, which has been followed in this case, and that, is really the reason for the necessity of coming to the House of Commons for this Supplementary Vote. That is the main reason, but it is not the only one. A question has been asked about the cost of the extra Parliamentary sittings. It is quite possible that there may have been a small extra cost in regard to paper on' that account, but a much more important reason for the extra cost was the amount of correspondence and forms of printing necessary to deal with the new schemes of pensions. I do not say that this could not have been foreseen to some extent, but it could not have been foreseen with accuracy what amount of paper would be required.

Of course we had to buy the extra paper required at a considerably higher price than was anticipated, and therefore it is quite reasonable to bring forward this Vote. An hon. Member opposite said that we had the same thing in regard to the Supplementary Estimates last year-, and he said that was a proof of the prodigality of the Government. I am sure every Department wishes to avoid supplementary estimates as much as possible, because they cause a considerable amount of additional labour, but I disagree, with the hon. Member about the prodigality of the Government. We have had to have a Supplementary Estimate in this case because the original Estimate was cut as reasonably near as we could go then to the actual bed-rock necessity. It would have been very easy to have asked Parliament for a larger margin in the original Estimate. In this particular instance, supposing I had come to the House and asked for a large amount on the ground that we could not tell what the price of paper was going to be. The only result of that would have been that we should have had a very large amount to surrender at the end of the year. After all, I am not at all sure that the method we have adopted is not the more economical system, that is to cut your original Estimate very fine, and then come for a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I should be very sorry if hon. Members opposite thought that by our criticism of this Estimate we intended to make an. attack upon the Civil Service, because that is not the case. As a matter of fact we have shown on many occasions that many of the Departments have in fact effected very considerable economies for the State. I am afraid however that there has been a tendency on the part of the Government to ride off from their responsibility in regard to this particular matter. I agree with what has been said on these benches that there ought to have been better anticipation by the Government as to what their liabilities would be in respect of these reforms.

It. is all very well to say that the cost could not have been foreseen, and when they put forward the coal stoppage as an excuse may I point out that the Government knew perfectly well that that dispute was coming. Wherever you look you will find that when the actual break in the industrial world took place the Government had prepared in every direction for that break by emergency provisions. If that is so— and the Government had some responsibility for trading Departments—it was only reasonable to assume that they would have instructed their trading Departments to take previsions. If that is so—and the Government themselves were taking in other directions. The real case against the Government is that they did not communicate to the spending Departments the necessity of taking similar steps to those which they were taking politically. After all it is exceedingly difficult for those who are engaged in the business of buying paper unless they have regular elasticity in the use of liquid capital. The hon. Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) who spoke with a very wide knowledge of the business of buying paper from his own business connection, knows perfectly well that any firm would find it very difficult to deal with such A situation as that which arose during the last 12 months when the purchases made were strictly limited by the annual sum voted, and this is rendered more difficult when there is no reserve capital for dealing with the situation as it arose. I hope we shall have some explanation in regard to the trading operations of the Government, and that in this matter we shall not be confined to small departments like the printing works and the Stationery Department. I hope the Government will make other arrangements for financing those Departments, because this system of voting annual sums makes it very difficult to deal with capital purchases.

The CHAIRMAN

That would involve legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I know that is so, and I will not pursue that point further, but I thought it well just to mention it. In view of all the facts, I do not think we have any alternative and we must press for a Division on this question.

Mr. W. BAKER

I thank the Financial Secretary for what he has said about obtaining extra Parliamentary papers to be made available for hon. Members at the Vote Office. I feel sure that we shall find very great convenience in consequence. I was very sorry after the right hon. Gentleman had done that graceful thing that he did not proceed to deal with what I regard as the very substantial criticism leveled against this Estimate by the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor). I thought the right hon. Gentleman gave us an excellent illustration of Parliamentary manners and prove quite clearly to me that a gracious manner will cover a very great deal of in-'efficiency. Of course we did not expect that he would be able to deal with all the details of these Supplementary Estimates. I submit that the purpose in submitting these Estimates to the House is in order that the Committee may direct its critical attention to details which cannot be adequately examined when the main Estimate is before tl-e Committee.

Seeing that he can add to the number of his advisers to any extent that he cares to, I do regard it as unsatisfactory that substantial criticisms, not of too detailed a character, should not receive an answer. The right hon. Gentleman made a very excellent speech in reply to the discussion which has taken place, but it was entirely new matter, and had no relation whatever to the criticism which had already been urged. If I may, I would like to repeat one of the points which I submitted before, and which I regard as being of substance. It is, and has been, stated by the Stationery Office that they had a definite normal reserve of paper. The figure was quoted when I spoke before. The official figure from the Stationery Office was that their normal reserve, in their physical possession, was £150,000 in money value, and in the hands of the contractors they had roughly between £70,000 and £80,000 worth. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I do hope he will deal with the point, this question: If the normal reserve of paper under the control of the Stationery Office was of the money value of £230,000, will he tell the Committee what the reserve was at the time when this purchase had to be made at the higher price? Will he also tell us what change in policy took place, so far as the Stationery Office was concerned, when their reserve apparently fell below the normal figure?

Mr. THURTLE

I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to respond to the appeal of my hon. Friend, if he haw the

Division No. 9.] AYES. [6.50 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, George D. Potts, John S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Harris, Percy A. Purcell, A. A.
Ammon, Charles George Hayday, Arthur Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Baker, Walter Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Riley, Ben
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)
Barnes, A. Hirst. G. H. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield). Scrymgeour, E.
Bromley, J. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Scurr, John
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kelly. W. T. Sexton, James
Buchanan, G. Kennedy, T. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Cape, Thomas Kenworthy, Lt-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Cluse, W. S. Kirkwood, D. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Connolly, M. Lawrence, Susan Sinclair, Major sir A. (Caithness)
Cove, W. G. Lee, F. Smillie, Robert
Crawfurd, H. E. Lindley, F. W. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Dalton, Hugh Livingstone, A. M. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lowth, T. Snell. Harry
Day, Colonel Harry Lunn, William Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dunnico, H. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Stamford, T. W.
Gardner, J. P. Mackinder, W. Stephen, Campbell
Gibbins, Joseph March, S. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Gillett, George M. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Sullivan, J.
Greenall, T. Montague, Frederick Sutton, J. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Thomas, Rt. Hen. James H. (Darby)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Mosley, Oswald Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Naylor, T. E. Thurtle, Ernest
Groves, T. Oliver, George Harold Tinker, John Joseph
Grundy, T. W. Palin, John Henry Townend, A. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P

information asked for. I rise to ask him another question. He said just now that a large amount of this additional money was due to expenditure on some new pension scheme. I am curious to know what pension scheme he is referring to. Does he mean a new pension scheme in connection with the Civil Service, or is it a, pension scheme in connection with the Ministry of Pensions? Perhaps he would be kind enough to let me have a word of explanation on that point?

Mr. McNEILL

I was referring to the Act which was recently passed.

Mr. NAYLOR

The right hon. Gentleman omitted to answer one question that I put to him. He was good enough to say that the total quantity of paper that was purchased during the period of high prices was, I think, 32,000,000 lbs. weight. What I asked him was as to the money value of the purchases made during that period of rising prices. Could he give that figure off-hand?

Mr. McNEILL

No, I could not, of course, give that figure off-hand, but I think the weight of the paper really gives the fact just as well as the money value.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 103; Nees, 235.

Varley, Frank B. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah Windsor, Walter
Wallhead, Richard C Whiteley, W. Wright, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon, Stephen Wilkinson, Ellen C. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Dean, Arthur Wellesley Malone, Major P. B.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Eden. Captain Anthony Margesson, Capt. D.
Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Edmondson, Major A. J. Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Elliot, Major Walter E. Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Ellis, R. G. Meller, R. J.
Apsley, Lord Everard, W. Lindsay Meyer, Sir Frank
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.
Atholl, Duchess of Fanshawe. Commander G. D. Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Atkinson, C. Fermoy, Lord Moore, Sir Newton J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fielden, E. B. Murchison. Sir C. K.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Ford, Sir P. J. Nerson, Sir. Frank
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Neville, R. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Forrest, W. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Foster, Sir Harry S. Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Nuttall, Ells
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Fraser, Captain Ian O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Bennett, A. J. Galbraith, J. F. W. Penny, Frederick George
Berry, Sir George Ganzoni, Sir John Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Betterton, Henry B. Gates, Percy Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Gibbs, Cot. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Boothby, R. J. G. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Phillpson, Mabel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Glyn, Major R. G. C. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Brass, Captain w. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Grotrian, H. Brent Remnant, Sir James
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Rentoul, G. S.
Briscoe, Richard George Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Rice, Sir Frederick
Brittain, Sir Harry Hall. Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hanbury, C. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Harland, A. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Hawke, John Anthony Ropner. Major L.
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Headlam, Lieut.Colonel C. M. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Buckingham, Sir H. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Salmon, Major I.
Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James Henderson. Lleut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bullock, Captain M. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watlord) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Burman, J. B. Hohler. Sir Gerald Fitzroy Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sanderson, Sir Frank
Campbell, E. T. Holland, Sir Arthur Sandon, Lord
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Holt, Captain H. P. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Homan, C. W, J. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nnn.) Shaw. Lt.-Col.A. D. Mel. (Renfrew.W)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hopkins, J. W. W. Sheffield. Sir Berkeley
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A. (Birm.,W.) Horlick. Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Skelton, A. N.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney.N.) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Christie, J. A. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hume, Sir G. H. Spender-Clay. Colonel H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Sprot, Sir Alexander
Clarry, Reginald George Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Clayton, G. C. Hurst, Gerald B. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l) Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Conway, Sir W. Martin Kidd. J. (Linlithgow) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cooper, A. Duff Kindersley, Major G. M. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Cope, Major William King, Captain Henry Douglas Tasker, R. Inigo.
Couper, J. B. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Templeton. W. P.
Courtauld. Major J. S. Lamb, J. Q. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.) Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C, C. (Antrim) Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crookshank.Cpt.H. (Lindsey.Gainsbro) Lynn, Sir R. J. Vaughan-Mornan. Col. K. P.
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen Wallace, Captain D. E.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Ward. Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) MacIntyre, Ian Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset.Yeovll) McLean, Major A. Watts. Dr. T.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Wells, S. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Mae Robert, Alexander M. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- Withers, John James Wragg, Herbert
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Woodcock, Colonel H. C. F. C. Thomson.
Wise, Sir Fredric Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 103.

Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)
Wallace, Captain D. E. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingeton-on-Hull) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Wragg Herbert
Watts, Dr. T. Wise, Sir Fredric
Wells, S. R. Withers, John James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) Major Cope and Mr. P. C. Thomson
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Shiels, Or. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hirst. G. H. Short, Alfred (Wednasbunry)
Ammon, Charles George Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Baker, Walter Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smillie, Robert
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Kelly, W. T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Barnes, A. Kennedy, T. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Snell, Harry
Bromley, J. Kirkwood. D. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Lawrence, Susan Stamford. T. W.
Buchanan, G. Lee, F. Stephen, Campbell
Cape, Thomas Lindley, F. W. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cluse, W. S. Livingstone, A. M Sullivan, J.
Connolly, M. Lowth. T. Sutton, J. E.
Cove, W. G. Lunn, William Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Crawfurd, H. E. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R.(Aberavon) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dalton, Hugh Mackinder, W. Thurtle, Elnest
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacLaren, Andrew Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry March, s. Townend. A. E.
Dunnico, H. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Montague, Frederick Varley, Frank B.
Gardner, J. P. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wallhead Richard C.
Gibbins. Joseph Mosley, Oswald Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Gillett, George M. Naylor, T. E. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Greenall, T. Oliver, George Harold Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne) Palin, John Henry Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Whiteley, W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth Pontypool) Potts. John S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Groves, T. Purcell, A. A. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Grundy, T. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Riley, Ben Windsor, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W. R., Elland) Wright, W.
Hardie, George D. Salter, Dr. Alfred Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Harris, Percy A. Scrymgeour, E.
Hayday, Arthur Scurr, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Allen Parkinson.