§ (1) Any officer or servant employed in connection with the Pacific Cable undertaking, or the West Indian undertaking, or the Imperial Transatlantic Cable undertaking on the said first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, shall be transferred to and become an officer or servant, as the case may be, of the Communications Company by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before the said first day of April, and shall receive not less salary or remuneration than the salary or remuneration to which he would have been entitled if this Act had not been passed, and any such officer or servant who by virtue of this Act, or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof, suffers any direct pecuniary loss by determination of his appointment or by diminution of salary or emoluments shall be entitled to compensation under this Act for that loss.
§ Any claim to compensation made by such officer or servant shall be determined by the Postmaster-General.
§ (2) For the purposes of the preceding subsection any officer or servant—
- (i) who, at any time within five years after the passing of this Act, relinquishes office by reason of his having been required to perform duties which are not analogous to, or which are an unreasonable addition to, those which he was required to perform immediately before the passing of this Act; or
- (ii) whose appointment is determined or whose salary is reduced within five years after the passing of this Act because his services are not required, or his duties are diminished, and not on the ground of misconduct
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The words of the new Clause are in common form and have occurred again and again in Acts of this kind. They occur also in the Local Government Bills for England and Scotland. In those particular Bills compensation is allowed, and the position of the servants and employés is safeguarded. We ought to have some such safeguard in this Bill. If the Government do not like the actual words of the new Clause, although they are common form, we shall be prepares to consider any alternative safeguards. We are certainly entitled to ask for some guarantee for the position of those 1642 faithful servants of the State in the cable companies, who have had no charge of incompetence or lack of zeal brought against them, but have been complimented again and again by successive Postmasters-General, and have been publicly thanked for their services by some of the greatest figures in this House while holding their offices under the State. I shall be very glad to hear that their position has been safeguarded.
The only persons whose rights we have heard about are the directors of the private companies which are to be merged in the new Communications Company. On page 18 of the White Paper it is admitted that there will be redundant directors on the first Board of the new Communications Company:
At the outset the number of directors will, in consequence of the amalgamation, be large.In answer to a question which I put, arising out of the number of Government directors, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the number would be 20. The White Paper goes on to say:It has, however, been proposed to, and accepted by the companies, that, as and when opportunities offer, this number will be reduced to a smaller figure, say twelve, including of course the two directors appointed by His Majesty's Government.That is the only word we have had about the human element in this business. It is, of course, satisfactory to the gentlemen who are members of the boards of directors of the companies concerned.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that arises on this new Clause.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYApparently, their position is made secure, and I ask that equally generous treatment should be given to the officers and employés of the Government cables, the Imperial Atlantic Cables and the West Indian Cables, which we are handing over. The Noble Lord spoke earlier about rationalisation in connection with materials. He told us that probably one of the Atlantic cables would be allowed to rot away, and that other savings in material would be made. What is the position of the personnel? If you allow a cable to go down you may affect the strategic interest of the Empire, but if you dismiss men without compensation and throw them into an overcrowded market, skilled men who can only obtain 1643 employment under this monopoly in the future, I maintain that as the State has employed them in the past the State ought to safeguard their position in the future.
If there is to be rationalisation of human material, will the Noble Lord inform the Committee what safeguards have been proposed by the Post Office, and are they standing by their own servants. Hon. Members will agree that we ought to ask for something substantial from the Government. If this is a matter which must be dealt with in future contracts, and if that reason is to be given for refusing to accept this new Clause, then I think we should ask for some assurance from the Treasury that they will make a fight for the position of these servants. They have the whip hand, and I think it would be a gracious act on the part of the Treasury if they would make a strong fight for the salaries and future prospects of these faithful servants of this House, just as the interests of private enterprise have been safeguarded.
Mr. SAMUELI think the hon. and gallant Member has overlooked Recommendation 3, on page 17 of the White Paper, which deals with this point and which provides that arrangements shall be made for the transfer of the existing staffs, and the terms to be arranged. I would remind the Committee that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement to the House during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill. I will not trouble the House by reading that statement, but it is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT and is within the recollection of the Committee.
§ Mr. W. BAKERWill the hon. Member read it?
Mr. SAMUELYes. It is as follows:
I can assure the House that that is a matter which was very carefully considered by the Imperial Conference and the Government, and the arrangements to be made for the transfer of the Government cable and beam system will include provisions for the transfer to the company of existing staffs. Full consideration will he given to that aspect of the question, and no effort will be spared to secure a just settlement. I can assure the House that ample opportunities will be given to the staffs concerned to examine the proposed arrangement and make such suggestion as they may think fit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1928; col. 1869, Vol. 222.]1644 The arrangements to be made will be in respect of the Pacific cable staff, the West Indian cable staff, and the Post Office cable staff. In so far as the new Clause refers to the Pacific cable staff, they are clearly inappropriate as subjects of special legislation by the British Parliament, but, apart from that, it is obvious that a satisfactory settlement can only be secured by detailed negotiations in the light of the particular circumstances attaching to each class of employment. The Committee, however, may be assured that the Government. are determined, and are even pledged, to do their utmost to reach a just and acceptable settlement in the terms of transfer, and they intend to do all that lies in their power to see that the transfer to the Communications Company shall not be accompanied by a worsening of the position of the employés. Before any settlement is made, full opportunity kill be given to the representatives of the staffs concerned to examine the proposed arrangement and to make any such representations in the matter as they may think fit. It will not be possible to announce any detailed scheme until the partner Governments and the staffs concerned have gone into the whole matter in detail. I am in a position to state, after a close consideration of the Amendment, that, whatever difference there may be in detail, we have not, in my own view of the matter, overlooked any of the points raised therein. I hope the Committee will be satisfied with that statement.
§ 3.0 p.m.
§ Mr. TOWNENDJust as the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading was quite unsatisfactory equally unsatisfactory is the reply of the Financial Secretary now in regard to the question of compensation for the staffs. All the way through we have been dealing with two factors. The first factor is the financial claims connected with the scheme; and very generous treatment has been given to these claims. Indeed, practically all the time has been taken up by Members on this side in condemnation of the unfairness of the proposals in this respect. Now we are dealing with the second factor. We do not ask for the same generous treatment which has been meted out in the first place, but we ask that those responsible 1645 for this scheme should treat this second claim with the equity to which it is entitled. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary does not cover the position at all. The assumption on the part of the Government that whatever arrangements have to be made must be detailed negotiations is not quite in accordance with our experience. In his speech the Secretary of State pointed out that before any arrangements are made with the Communications Company the conditions under which the staffs are to be transferred will be submitted to the staffs for their suggestions; they are to have full opportunity to consider them, but I look in vain for any statement that they will he submitted to the representatives of the staffs for approval. That is the important matter. Arrangements which have been entered into concerning the financial side of these negotiations have always had to receive the approval of the other side, and we are asking that the staff side shall have these conditions submitted to them for approval.
Seven years ago this principle was laid down. It was the case of a huge merger, involving a far greater number of employés than the number involved on this occasion. It was anticipated that their position might be in some jeopardy and the question had to be faced. On that occasion the Government did not lay the conditions of the contract before the staffs. They laid down the exact terms on which compensation would be granted. A definite compensation clause was inserted and about 700,000 of the staffs on the administration and operative side were all included in the scheme. We ask that definite terms should he inserted in this Bill in order to protect the interests of those whose positions may be endangered as a result of this legislation. Let me recall the attention of hon. Members to an even more recent case where the question of compensation was considered. Within the life-time of the present Parliament£33,500,000 of money was put on one side under the Electricity Acts. The question of compensation for capital was considered and was applied equally as generously in that case as it is proposed to apply it now. After we had finished with capital we went on to property. Compensation was claimed on behalf of private electricity undertakings, and a further lump sum of compensation was handed to private interests. After 1646 having considered the question of compensation for the disturbance of capital and the disturbance of plant and property a claim was made for compensation on behalf of the human element, and the same compensation clause was introduced into the Electricity Supply Acts as was introduced seven years ago into the Railways Act.
All that we are asking for is that the same conditions as apply to the staffs who were disturbed by the electricity scheme, shall be applied to those who find their positions jeopardised as a result of this Bill. The answer of the Financial Secretary does not fit the Bill. The Government have it in their power to introduce here and now such a Clause as this. Although the drafting may not cover the whole of the case, it could be altered. I should prefer a Clause without a limiting period, because even after the 1921 Compensation Clause, owing to the organisation of that huge merger, there are certain people becoming redundant even now. That fact demonstrates how essential it is that the very lives not only of the various staffs shall be protected, but the lives of those who are dependent on them, not for one year, but five years or 10 years. As I have said, I should have preferred no limiting period in the Clause, but even with a limitation the Clause is far more definite than the kind of reply that we have had from the Financial Secretary. The suggestion that compensation should be left till a later date means the throwing away of any claim that we may have for equal treatment.
There is only one time for this compensation arrangement, and that is the present, here and now. If this opportunity is allowed to pass, the chances of getting justice for the staff will disappear. Compensation was applied in the ease of the railways, but a few years before the leading spokesman of the railway laid it down that one of the first principles of a business institution was that, when they had finished with a man and could not find work for him, they were at perfect liberty to throw him on the industrial scrap-heap. That principle is applied to-day in many areas of the country. We are certainly not going to allow this Bill to pass without offering the most strenuous opposition to any 1647 suggestion that the matter shall be left over. We feel that unless there is something definite and statutory and legally binding inserted in the Bill, those concerned will have their future seriously endangered. The same kind of treatment as has been meted out in larger doses of generosity to the capitalist factor that is playing its part in this matter, ought to be meted out to those for whom we are pleading.
Mr. MALONEI am sure that the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be read with dismay and dissatisfaction by the hundreds of officers and men who are concerned. I would like to pay a tribute to the officers and men employed on the cable and radio service, whose work in the last 20 or 30 years has made possible the enormous development that we have seen. The Committee ought to understand something about the number of officers and men affected. We have the staffs employed at the different stations of the undertakings referred to in the New Clause. We have at the central cable office of the Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand the men who operate the ends of these cables, and in the same room are the men who are operating the beam services. I believe that, in the Post Office alone, something like 250 telegraph clerks and supervising officers are concerned. Then you have at all the different beam stations men who are under the Postmaster-General, and you have also the engineering staffs.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe employées concerned in the beam service are not the employés who come within this proposed New Clause.
§ Mr. TOWNENDIs it not possible that the part of the proposed New Clause which refers to analogous positions, would bring in the question of the beam wireless?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo, hon. Members must confine themselves to this proposed New Clause which deals with a particular class of officers or servants, employed only in connection with the cable undertakings.
Mr. MALONEI was led to digress because, in the room at the central cable office, are the officers manipulating the 1648 cables and also those manipulating the beam services. It is all the same problem, but I shall refer to them as "cable operators." We have already had five Government Departments concerned in these discussions and I do not know which Department will take charge of this matter, but I should like attention to be paid to three points. The first concerns conditions. I understand that, lately, a claim for a large increase of wages was put forward. That claim is now in the hands of the Secretary to the Post Office, but, owing to the pending merger, it is in abeyance. I want an assurance that before these men are transferred to any merger, or Communications Company, or any other organisation of that kind, all these outstanding wage claims will be considered and decided. I do not want them to be left to the new company to decide. I know that there is a great deal of give and take about the conditions. The conditions in the Eastern Telegraph Company are better than those in the Marconi Company, but worse than those in the Post Office. A certain amount of bargaining may be possible about conditions of employment. Would it not be better that the Government, before they go any further, should discuss the draft terms of the agreement with the organisations concerned? Why do they not call a conference of the Union of Postal Workers, the Overseas Telegraph Superintending Officers' Association, the engineers, and all the different organisations of the men concerned?
The second point I want to make is in regard to security. When these men are taken over by this new undertaking, there should be an assurance of a certain amount of security for them. While employed under Post Office conditions they are, more or less, in a permanent service. I fear that under the new undertaking there is a great chance that many of the Post Office men will be dismissed. One reason is that on these long-distance cable services, up till a short time ago, men were employed in working the relay stations. It is not possible to send a message direct from London to Australia, and men have to operate the relay stations. The beam wireless is operated direct from the Post Office. In these long-distance cable companies, I understand that these human relays have now been substituted 1649 by mechanical regenerators, and that in gone company alone, the Eastern Telegraph Company, no fewer than 400 men are now on what corresponds to notice.
These men are employed by the cable companies, which will have the controlling influence in the new merger, and there is a likelihood that the predominant factor in the new company may try to find posts for these men in the new company. That will require very careful consideration, but it is a danger. The Post Office men, who are not in this controlling position, may receive a second place, and the cable companies' employés may Dome and take their places. This is what the chairman of one of the Post Office organisations writes to me, and I think it is a fair statement of the position:
It is the considered opinion of the staff that an agreement should be drawn up which makes definite safeguards for the staff before the transfer takes place. This—and this is the important point—must cover a term of guaranteed employment, as the present Post Office system is virtually a guarantee for continuity of work.My last point is this: I hope that any transfer arrangements will be entirely voluntary. A man employed by a cable company or by the Post Office must be given his own choice as to whether or not he transfers to this new organisation, and if he does not elect to transfer, he must be given reasonable terms for going on pension or obtaining other employment either in the Post Office or anywhere else.
§ Mr. W. BAKEROwing to the necessity, under the Ruling of the Chair, to amalgamate three Amendments on the Paper into this new Clause, it has been necessary for the word "shall" to appear where, in the case of one Amendment, the word "may" appears. That is important, because it does not necessarily follow that a man now employed on the Imperial Atlantic cables will desire to be transferred, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seems to imagine. He read out a long statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland in which what was thought to be a favourable assurance was given in that form, that the men would be transferred, but I hope the Postmaster-General will take it from me 1650 that there are men in the postal and telegraphic service of his Department who have no desire to be transferred at the dictate of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It shows one of the difficulties of handing these things over to persons outside the Departments connected with them, that the problems in relation to them are not always understood. What we want is an assurance, not only that certain men shall be transferred or compensated, but that there shall be the option whether the men will or will not be transferred, and that if they do not desire to leave the Post Office service, they should be guaranteed employment equivalent in remuneration and similar in status to the work which they have been performing during recent years for the Postmaster-General. This point has been mentioned two or three times in this Debate, and I had hoped that the Assistant Postmaster-General would have dealt with it, but so far I have not received the undertaking or promise which I sought.
I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) that it is no good to the men concerned, or to us, to tell us that, at some distant date, negotiations as to details will take place. Once this Bill is through, there is no chance at all for the staff to have any effective negotiations on any of these points, and if the Government have good will towards the staff—and there is no reason why they should not—let them accept the new Clause or give a specific undertaking that the fair thing will be done by everyone concerned. I am reminded that the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the provident fund, the pension guarantee fund and the pension fund of the Pacific Cable Board would be dealt with by means of a private Bill which would be introduced to this House at the cost of approximately£400. What I want to ask is, whether the whole settlement of the details with regard to the future of these men will be considered and settled, not only before that private Bill is drafted for introduction here, but before this Bill receives the Royal Assent. It is not good enough that this Bill should be passed and put out of the way before many of these vital matters receive adequate consideration on the part of the House of Commons and the Committee.
§ Viscount WOLMERI think, perhaps, I ought to say one word after what has fallen from the hon. Member in regard to the telegraph engineers. I would remind the Committee that they are civil servants and that they have rights of which the hon. Member opposite is fully aware. There is no question of transferring these civil servants against their wish. The question is simply whether the Communications Company would be able to induce them to leave their present service and take service with the company. In order to do that, it is obvious that the Communications Company would have to make the terms offered as attractive as possible, and, therefore, there is no question of any compulsion of that sort. At the present moment the Postmaster-General and the Treasury are carrying on negotiations through the proper channels to try to find a line on which these terms of transference should be offered, but the Postmaster-General has already given a pledge to the Union of Post Office Workers that when negotiations each a sufficiently concrete stage he will lay the proposals before the representatives of the staff for their criticism and comment. Even then, and after the offer has assumed its final form, it will be open individually to every civil servant to decide whether he accepts that offer or not. If he does not accept it, he will continue with the Post Office, enjoying his present terms and present rights, and nothing can take those away from him.
Mr. BENNI think we are very much indebted to the Noble Lord for his statement. I do not know whether we have got it quite right. Do I understand that these servants who are presently operating the Post Office wireless have security of tenure even if not taken over by the Communications Company?
§ Viscount WOLMER indicated assent.
Mr. BENNThat they will not be put out of employment if they do not agree to accept the terms offered by the Communications Company?
§ Viscount WOLMERThey are civil servants with Civil Service rights.
Mr. BENNDoes that mean that if they do not wish to accept the terms offered by the Communications Company they will still remain civil servants?
§ Viscount WOLMERThey remain civil servants with all their rights.
Mr. BENNI am not sure that I understand what the words "civil servant" mean. Do I understand that if these servants are not prepared to accept the terms offered by the Communications Company they none the less remain in the employment and pay of the Post Office?
§ Viscount WOLMERThat is so.
Mr. MALONEAre there not in this service a number of unestablished men who can be discharged without any notice?
§ Viscount WOLMERI do not think there are any unestablished men involved.
§ Viscount WOLMER indicated assent.
Mr. BENNTherefore we understand now that all the persons presently employed in the Post Office wireless service, if they do not care to accept the terms offered, will be, none the less, secure in their employment?
§ Viscount WOLMER indicated assent.
Mr. BENNThat is a very definite and satisfactory statement. But I would ask a further question. The Noble Lord speaks about terms which are being negotiated for the employés, and he tells us that the Postmaster-General has been actively engaged in watching their interests. With whom has he been negotiating? Will the Noble Lord tell us? I will give way willingly if he will. What an impossible position the Committee is in. I will ask the Postmaster-General now that he has come into the Chamber. In his much regretted absence, the Noble Lord, the Assistant Postmaster-General, has been telling us all about the benevolent activities of the Postmaster-General on behalf of the staff in securing good terms of employment for them. Is that not so? Why the look of surprise on the face of the Postmaster-General? I do not think that there ever was such a spectacle in the House of Commons! There are four separate Ministers, each with different information, such as it is, and each giving different answers, 1653 and each one anxious to conceal something. We are told by the Assistant Postmaster-General that these negotiations have been going on, and I am asking the Postmaster-General with whom has he been negotiating? Is he prepared to give me an answer to that?
We are told that there is no company in existence, and we are told not to ask what the Communications Company is, as there is no such thing before this Bill is passed, and before the financial gentlemen will consent to form a company at all. Now we find that there is such a body, and that the Postmaster-General has been negotiating on behalf of the staff with his body. We cannot compel the Government to answer, but, in the judgment of the public, and in that of their own friends, they are in a somewhat surprising position. I do not know anything about the technical side, but is any staff concerned with the second Atlantic cable? I suppose that every cable has an appropriate staff, but what is to happen to the staff of the second Atlantic cable? Does any of the galaxy on the Front Bench know anything about it? The amusing thing about this second Atlantic cable is that the Financial Secretary has said that the Advisory Committee will never permit the All-Red Route to be broken by the sale of the cable, but, while he was having lunch, the Postmaster-General told us that they were making such a good bargain because the cable was to be sold. Incidentally, the matter arises again in regard to the staff.
I cannot force the right hon. Gentlemen to give answers, but it would be interesting, and I think valuable, which is better than being merely entertained, for us to hear what is the body with whom the negotiations have been made. It is a scandal if negotiations are going on, and the Committee is being denied a, knowledge of them. The gravamen of our case is that all the time there is what is vulgarly called a ramp, a term with which I associate myself, and that the Bill has been so framed as to keep the House of Commons from discussing material points, and to prevent them from having material documents. It is only by occasional disclosures of an indiscreet Under-Secretary that we have any information.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWe have had one satisfactory statement from the Assistant Postmaster-General with reference to the established civil servants, and I thank him very much for it. They, at any rate, will have some bargaining powers. If they choose they will be able to say to whoever is in charge of this merger, "We do not like your conditions and we will stay on with the Post Office." I am glad to have drawn that assurance from him. Now I wish to ask him a question about a matter in which I take a particular interest, the position of the officers and crews of the cable ships. Certain cable ships are maintained by these three undertakings. I would remark here that I am glad to see the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) is present, because he also will be interested in this, and I hope he will support me in getting justice for these men, as he has supported me before. I believe I am right in saying that the officers and crews of the cable ships are not established civil servants, but that they are appointed under ordinary articles. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) told us that one of the many economies to be carried out would be reducing the cable ships to one. What is to be the position of the masters, officers, engineers and others of the crew of the cable ships? They are highly skilled men, trained for this special work, and, in view of this merger, they will not be able to get similar work with any other company. If they do not like the conditions which are offered to them by this company, they will have to take their chance of going to sea in ordinary passenger liners. Unless there is some safeguard for them, they will be absolutely at the mercy of this new merger.
The Assistant Postmaster-General, when a private Member, took a very great interest in all nautical matters. He was one of the leading lights of the Navy League, and was always talking about what we owe to our sailors, and that kind of thing. I ask him now, what will be the position of these men? Further, I would like to know what is the real position with regard to the so-called redundant cable—that is not his word, it is my word—across the Atlantic. We are told that it is not now needed for strategic purposes, that war has been outlawed and that it is no longer re- 1655 quired. But what will happen to the staff of that cable? Is it supposed that the Post Office will maintain a complete cable staff for a cable which is not required and which the merger company is going to dispose of in some way? There will not be work for those men in the Post Office, because the Post Office will not have any more cables on which to employ them, and you cannot expect honest men to eat the bread of idleness for ever on the staff of the Post Office when there is no work for them to do.
It is not a fair position to put them in. If the Government will insert in the Bill now or on the Report stage some words which will safeguard the position of these people it will be most satisfactory. That is all we ask. If we allow this Bill to go through now, if hon. Gentlemen are whipped out of the Lobbies, the Library and the tea room to vote without having heard the arguments, if it is to be carried by the automatic majority of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, then these people will have no bargaining power at all with these mysterious financiers. The Government will have approved this scheme and that will be the end of it, and these unfortunate men, and especially the unfortunate officers of these ships, will be left in the lurch.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI should like to ask the Committee to seriously consider the matter before they turn down this Amendment. We are asking hon. Members to do something which has already been done in other directions for workmen and officers connected with private and municipal undertakings dealing with electricity. It seems to me that there can be no real argument against providing by Act of Parliament for men who may be displaced and doing for them exactly what we have done for others under similar circumstances. It is not enough for the Assistant Postmaster-General merely to give assent by a nod. We want it in black and white that if a man or woman connected with the Post Office or any other undertaking connected with this merger is injured, some sort of compensation shall be paid for that injury, the same as would be given to a landlord or any other person who suffers through the legislation of this House.
This principle of compensating work-people when big rationalisation schemes 1656 take place is one which Parliament should stand by. Workpeople in the past have objected, and still object, to great combinations and great schemes of rationalisation because those schemes nearly always involve the displacement of men, or the throwing of them out of work for a certain period. Of course, I know I cannot enter into a long argument about that question, but, at any rate, no one in this Committee can controvert that statement. One of the most important questions that is now being discussed by the Peace in Industry Conference between certain groups of employers and the trade unions is the question of compensation for people displaced during the period of transition from one form of industry to another. Surely the employers who are negotiating on this question are not going to be behind what the best employers have already done.
I would point out to the Postmaster-General that one big industrial firm in York has undertaken great changes in its method of production which has displaced a large number of workmen, and they have undertaken a big scheme to protect the workmen who have been displaced. I cannot believe that this Committee will really turn down this Amendment, and I beg the Postmaster-General to consider again the matter. If he is not willing to accept our words, I hope he will give us a definite pledge that if anyone is injured in the public service he shall receive as a right that compensation and consideration which is given in the case of every other industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do that not merely for the sake of those men and women who may be displaced, but in order to set an example to the rest of the employers in the country, and prove to the workmen that at long last they are going to be treated upon an equality with ordinary property.
§ Mr. TOWNENDThe reply which the Postmaster-General has already given, as to the effect of these proposals on the position of civil servants, does not go far enough; it only deals with a very small proportion of those with whom this Clause is concerned. May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the undertaking, and express the hope that, after listening to what I have to say, he will be able to give the 1657 necessary information to the Assistant Postmaster-General before he replies? I do think that the Committee is entitled to an answer from the Government, which we have not yet had. Merely to ride away by saying that, after the establishment of the merger, the Civil Service status of these people will remain, is not enough. In addition to their status at the moment, a, further point is dealt with in this proposed new Clause, but I do ask for an answer as to what is going to become of the redundant staffs of the Pacific Cable undertaking, the West Indian Cable undertaking, and the Imperial Transatlantic Cable undertaking. It is quite conceivable that, as a result of this merger, every one of those units which now exist will disturb a certain proportion of its staff, and I think that those who are likely to he disturbed are entitled to the protection of the House of Commons, which is going to lay down the conditions that will apply.
As I have already pointed out, the House of Commons on two previous occasions was prepared to impose, both on the railway companies and on private electricity undertakings, compensation Clauses such as we are asking for this afternoon. The Assistant Postmaster-General says, "That is all right; we will give protection to the civil servants," and then sits down. I hope that, before the Committee divides on this question, we shall have something further on that point. This proposed new Clause deals with another point. If, after the merger, the already established civil servants come back to some other form of civil service, while they retain their standard conditions, while they retain for the moment their standard salary—I want to put this particularly to the Noble Lord, because he knows exactly what I mean—is it conceivable that, as a result of the handing over of this valuable property to private enterprise, the status of those who are disturbed is going to be to no small degree endangered? As has been pointed out, the beam wireless service is a modern arm, which offered prospects to a certain section of the Civil Service staff, but, as a result of this scheme, they are going to be denied those prospects.
The Assistant Postmaster-General shakes his head. Perhaps he is unaware 1658 that, in the compensation Clauses which were imposed on the railways, all these points were taken into consideration. Will the Noble Lord go further and say, in the assurance that he gives to the Committee, that, in the event of redundancy being caused by the operation of this Bill—which we anticipate, despite all our endeavours, is going to become an Act—will he guarantee that positions of equal importance, with equal opportunities of promotion, and equal salaries, will be found for these redundant people, and that in no circumstances will their conditions be worsened or their salaries reduced. I think, therefore, before the Division is taken, we are entitled to ask for protection for the private enterprise staff and, on the top of that, an assurance that analogous positions in respect to conditions, salary and prospects are guaranteed to the men in the Civil Service who are disturbed, and that their salaries shall in no circumstances—of course I exclude misconduct — be worsened.
Commander WILLIAMSI realise that the Clause, as drafted, is absolutely impossible, but, on the other hand, I think when you are, or may be, transferring a considerable number of civil servants, the Government ought to do what an ordinary employer would do under similar circumstances and see that the men will get a reasonable chance when they are transferred. I am not quite certain from the answer of the Noble Lord how many of these men will be transferred and whether there is any reasonable chance of the new companies absorbing the whole of them. If they can absorb the whole of them, obviously there is nothing very much to be considered, but we have heard to-day—and this is really where I was a little anxious in my mind—that one of these cables, with the ship it employs and the men it employs in making and repairing, will in all likelihood not be used very much in the future. Under the circumstances, although the Clause is impossible, I think the Government might before Report put down an Amendment to make it quite clear that they will look after the interests of the men engaged in that work. I am not quite sure whether they are all established men. It would seem from the answer just now that most of them are.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASI am sure hon. Members opposite must be disturbed at the attitude of the Government. The Noble Lord had no part in the negotiations in the railway amalgamation, but he knows that private negotiations took place and the Government of the day, although they had no control nominally over private enterprise, realised straight away that they dare not come to the House with provision made for compensation to directors and officials without making a similar provision for the humblest man in the service. They were not civil servants nor Government employ és, but it could not be done. They would not have been affected had it not been for the action of the Government and, therefore, the Government said, "We have a responsibility to these people." What is the difference in this case? The Noble Lord says, "None." Then why not do as was done then? If, as the Noble Lord says, and as I admit, there is no difference, then why the difference in treatment in the Act of Parliament? We are entitled to ask why the change, and we are entitled to ask Members on both sides of the House when they vote on this Amendment, how they will explain what the Noble Lord cannot explain. If there is no difference, they have to reconcile the situation of Parliament deciding in one case and refusing to decide in this case in precisely the same way as they did in the Railways Act. Take the answer as applied to the Civil Service. As I understand the position, the mechanical engineers are mainly affected. They are not really civil servants, but at least they are treated as civil servants, and yet the answer of the Noble Lord would not even cover them.
I want to know what is going to be the attitude of Parliament? The largest body of employés, in this country, the trade unions, are discussing this problem at the present time. Whatever else may happen, amalgamations are inevitable. These amalgamations must result in the displacement of large numbers of employés for the purpose of efficiency, economy, and for all the other reasons that one might develop. The best employers all say to us: "Yes, it is inevitable. It is no good running away from it. It has to be faced, but there is an obligation upon us to see that this efficiency is not brought about at the 1660 expense of the starvation of the individual." And they have to make provision. That is what the ordinary private employer is facing to-day and doing voluntarily. Yet, when a Government proposal, and a proposal where the Empire is drawn in, is put forward, nothing is proposed to be done.
Up to now the argument on the opposite side has been that this is a great Imperial question, that this is something in which Canada, Africa, and our other Dominions are all vitally affected. I wonder what any hon. or right hon. Member would say if he had to face the Dominions and say to the Dominions: "This is an admited benefit to you. This is a Government scheme. These great Imperial advantages which we are giving to you provide that those on the top shall be looked after but for those at the bottom no provision whatever will be made." What an answer he would get from the Dominions! This is called an Imperial policy; it is called a policy in the interest of the Empire. I ask the Noble Lord to face this fact. There cannot be any advantages from amalgamation unless someone is going to be adversely affected. It is no good pretending otherwise. It is impossible now as it was impossible in regard to the railways. On the railways, there are 70,000 less employés, there to-day than there were under the old system prior to grouping. Provision had to be made to meet the situation and Parliament inserted Clauses to deal with the situation.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIn the same words?
§ Mr. THOMASThe words are copied. The words that we are now asking this Committee to accept are precisely the words in the present Act of Parliament. Therefore, when we divide on this issue, as we shall, when we ask for a Division we shall ask Members on all sides of the House to realise that it is not put forward as a mere party issue. Just as hon. Members would claim the right to say that any individual has to be protected, so we say that the principle shall apply to the humblest individual. We do not discriminate here whether the individual be a director or a manager or anybody else. We do not particularise in any degree. As the Noble Lord said, as far as his first observation which was only 1661 observed by myself is concerned, he saw no difference at all between this ease and the railway case. I ask him now to tell us why the same words taken from an Act of Parliament which a Coalition Government, of which he was a Member, accepted in the case of a private undertaking should not also be applicable in this particular case?
§ Viscount WOLMERI do not think the right hon. Gentleman was present when I made my short statement about half-an-hour ago, or he would not have made such a comparison. The difference between the postal servants and the railway servants is that the postal servants are civil servants. I should like to repeat and to make quite clear what I said, that every postal servant has full Civil Service rights, and those rights will not be interfered with.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEWhat about the cable ships?
§ Viscount WOLMERAll men serving on cable ships will be in exactly the same position as any other postal servant. I can give an undertaking to the Committee that no postal servant will have his conditions worsened by the merger that is to take place. When the Communications Company is formed, an offer will be made to the postal servants as to whether they would like to take service with the Communications Company. There is no idea of compulsory transfer. The New Clause which hon. Members opposite are moving involves compulsory transfer. It deals with postal servants as of they were mere bits of property who can be transferred at will. We cannot accept any proposal of that sort. We simply say that a perfectly fair offer will be made to the postal servants; if they do not like to take it they need not take it, and they will still be able to continue in full enjoyment of their present rights as employés of the Postmaster-General.
§ Mr. W. BAKERI have heard charges of unfairness in this House, and I have lived to this day to see how a Noble Lord can be unfair. When this new Clause was moved, I explained, in explicit terms, exactly how it happened that in the necessity to amalgamate three Amendments into a New Clause, in order to meet the Ruling of the Chair, we had to use the word "shall," whereas in the original Amendments one contained the word "may." Therefore, for the Noble Lord to try to make a point of that sort, at the end of a very heated speech, is not only unfair but a great deal worse. The Noble Lord unintentionally or intention ally is misleading the Committee. While the Debate has been going on in formation has been handed to me to the definite effect that the majority of the Post Office staff employed on engineering work in relation to the cable and wireless services of the Post Office are Unestablished men, and are liable to dismissal at a week's notice.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYCan we have a reply? Is that true?
§ Mr. THOMASThis is very important, because it destroys absolutely the Noble Lord's promises. Can the Noble Lord say whether these people are subject to a week's notice, or not?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONWe promise that no unestablished man will be displaced, and that every established man will preserve his rights.
§ Mr. BAKER rose—
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 99.
1665| Division No. 39.] | AYES. | [4.0 p.m. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bennett, A. J. | Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Berry, Sir George | Buchan, John |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Betterton, Henry B. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Ként, Dove.) | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Boothby, R. J. G. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H, (Ox. Unlv.) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanasittart | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton |
| Balniel, Lord | Brass, Captain W. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Brldgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Charterls, Brigadier-General J. |
| Barnett. Major Sir Richard | Briscoe, Richard George | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer |
| Beckett, Sir Gorvase (Leeds, N.) | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Clayton, G. C. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Rye, F. G. |
| Cope, Major Sir William | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Salmon, Major I. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro) | Lamb, J Q. | Sandon, Lord |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip | Savery, S. S. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Looker. Herbert William | Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Skelton. A. N. |
| Drewe, C. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine. C.) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Smithers, Waldron |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Maclntyre, Ian | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | McLean, Major A. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Macmillan, Captain H. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Macquisten, F. A. | Stott. Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Ford, Sir p. J. | Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Forrest. W. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Malone, Major P. B. | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Margesson, Captain D. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Ganzonl. Sir John | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Gates, Percy | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Grenfell. Edward C. (City of London) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Grotrlan, H. Brent | Morden. Col. W. Grant | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Morelng, Captain A. H. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wells, S. R. |
| Hacking, Douglas H. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pennefather, Sir John | Windsor-Cilve. Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Penny, Frederick George | Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Withers, John James |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Perring, Sir William George | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Pildltch, Sir Philip | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar) | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham) | |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Captain Bowyer. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Ropner, Major L. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Baker, Walter | Griffith, F. Kingsley | Potts, John S. |
| Barr, J. | Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Hardie, George D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) |
| Bellamy, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Benn, Wedgwood | Hirst, G. H. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Sexton, James |
| Brlant, Frank | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Buchanan, G. | John, William (Rhondda. West) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Shinwell, E. |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd) | Smillie, Robert |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kennedy, T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M | Smith. Rennle (Penlstone) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lansbury, George | Snell, Harry |
| Connolly, M. | Lawrence, Susan | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawson, John James | Stamford. T. W. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lee, F. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Day, Harry | Mackinder, W. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Duncan, C. | March, S. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow) |
| Dunnlco, H. | Maxton, James | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.) | Montague, Frederick | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gardner, J. P. | Murnin, H. | Townend, A. E. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Naylor, T. E. | Vlant, S. P. |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Goslling, Harry | Palln, John Henry | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Greenall, T. | Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Poneonby, Arthur | Weil wood J |
| Whitelev. W. | Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Wilkinson, Ellen C. | Windsor, Walter | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling. |
| Williams, T. {York, Don Valley) | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
1666§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 169.
1667| Division No. 40.] | AYES. | [4.7 p.m. |
| Baker, Walter | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Barnes, A. | Hardle, George D. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barr, J. | Hayday, Arthur | Sexton, James |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Beckett, John (Gatesheo) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Bellamy, A. | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Benn, Wedgwood | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Shinwell, E. |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smillie, Robert |
| Briant. Frank | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smith. Rennie (Penistone) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snell, Harry |
| Buchanan, G. | Kennedy, T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lansbury, George | Stephen, Campbell |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawrence, Susan | Sutton, J. E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R | Lee, F. | Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Connolly, M. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Cove, W. G. | Mackinder, W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dalton, Hugh | March, S. | Townend, A. E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Maxton, James | Vlant, S. P. |
| Day, Harry | Montague, Frederick | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Duncan, C. | Murnin, H. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Dunnlco. H. | Naylor, T. E. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.) | Oliver, George Harold | Welsh, J. C. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Palln, John Henry | Westwood, J. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Whitelev. W. |
| Gillett, George M. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gosling, Harry | Ponsonby, Arthur | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenall, T. | Potts, John S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Windsor, Walter |
| Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ritson, J. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Saklatvala, Shapurji | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Balniel, Lord | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Elliot, Major Walter E. | James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Ellis, R. G. | Jones, Sir G.W.H. (Stoke New'gton) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | Kennedy, A. R, (Preston) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Everard, W. Lindsay | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Berry, Sir George | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Kinloch. Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Ford, Sir P. J. | Lamb, I. Q. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Forrest, W. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'tm |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Ganzonl, Sir John | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R, | Gates, Percy | Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Gower, Sir Robert | Maclntyre, I. |
| Buchan, John | Grant, Sir J. A. | McLean, Major A. |
| Cayzer, Sir c. (Chester, City) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Macqulsten, F. A. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.) | Hacking, Douglas H. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Charterls, Brigadier-General J. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hammersley, S. S. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hartington, Marquess of | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Haslam, Henry C. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Rye. F. G. | Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Salmon, Major I. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Moore, Sir Newton J. | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sandon, Lord | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Morden, Col. w. Grant | Savery, S. S. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Moreing, Captain A. H. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Skelton, A. N. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C) | Wells, S. R. |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Smithert, Waldron | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Penny, Frederick George | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Perring, Sir William George | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Pildltch, Sir Philip | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Withers, John fames |
| Power, Sir John Cecll | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Tasker, R. Inlgo. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Ropner, Major L. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace, |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
§ It being after Four of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
1668§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
§ Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 10th December.