HC Deb 19 March 1928 vol 215 cc160-71

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £25,858 15s. ld., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain, for the year ended 31st March, 1927:—

Amount to be Voted.
Class II. £ s. d.
Vote 15A. Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain 25,858 15 1

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness)

This Excess Vote of £25,858 for the beet sugar subsidy, spent in the financial year 1925–26, is due to a change in the process of de-sugarisation of molasses. The subsidy on sugar is payable at the time of manufacture, but the subsidy on molasses is only payable on the amount which is delivered from the factory or used therein for the manufacture of stock. Until this time, it has been the practice for the sugar factory to de-sugarise their molasses during the long period when sugar was not being manufactured, but the Anglo-Scottish Sugar Beet. Corporation had installed a process which enabled them to desugarise the molasses from their group of factories at the same time as the manufacturing process of sugar was going on. The result of that was that money had to be paid out in subsidy earlier than was expected. There will be no increase in the total, however, because there has been a reduction in the amount of subsidy on molasses paid after the 1st April, 1927, more than counterbalancing the amount which, owing to this new process, had to be paid before. We provided a carry-over for this subsidy on molasses of £200,000. In fact, it was necessary to provide only £172,184 after the beginning of 1927–28, and there is, therefore, a saving of £27,800. That is more than equivalent to the £25,850 which has been unexpectedly spent before. I hope the Committee will agree to the excess.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM

There are one or two points on this Excess Vote to which the attention of the Committee should be directed. The Minister of Agriculture has pointed out that a certain sum was taken in the financial year in question for a beet sugar subsidy, but the White Paper now before the Committee indicates that a Supplementary Estimate was also taken in February,1927, and, notwithstanding that supplementary provision, a sum of £25,800 in excess of the amount voted for this subsidy was actually paid during that financial year. This is a comparatively small sum, but the Committee will appreciate at once that in all these excess votes an important principle is involved, and that however small the sum it is our duty to look very narrowly and with the strictest scrutiny on the amount by which the sum voted by this House is exceeded by any Department. The Minister has explained that owing to this process of desugarisation of molasses having been brought forward some months, a larger sum was required before the 31st March, 1927, which, strictly speaking, would not have fallen to be paid until a later date. I would like the House to guard against a suggestion made by the Minister that that state of affairs is atoned for or made right by some subsequent deduction. The fact remains that within the financial year they have exceeded the sum which the House voted, and following the usual practice that has been scrutinised, in the first instance, by the Public Accounts Committee.

The Public Accounts Committee saw no reason whatever to object to it on the facts of the situation, but they would be the first to direct attention to the principle which is involved. On this narrow Excess Vote we are not at liberty, perhaps, to discuss the whole range of the subsidy. The Committee will agree that we must carefully examine any Excess Vote which it put forward during the financial year, especially when we are dealing with a subject like this, and more particularly with a subsidy which is now assuming such large dimensions. Any tendency to get in advance of the contribution voted within each financial year is a, very important consideration. I know that this is a very particular and exceptional case, but I think we are entitled to press the Government to see that the actual provisions in the new financial year will obviate the necessity for making supplementary provision in the future.

We must see that the Estimates cover the whole proposition, and we should guard against the House afterwards being asked to approve of any Excess Votes, even to the tune of a comparatively small sum like this. When these Estimates were previously before the House, we argued from these benches in favour of an inquiry into the general financial problem which is growing up in connection with the beet sugar subsidy. This Excess Vote is a reminder of that problem, and that a case is being put forward either for a modification of the existing scheme, or some increase in the amount of the public provision which has to be made each year. The time has come when the whole problem should be impartially reviewed, because the sums involved are very large indeed, to say nothing of the working conditions.

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is now unduly attempting to discuss the policy.

Mr. GRAHAM

I recognise that what I am arguing is slightly outside the Excess Vote before the Committee. When the proper time comes we shall ask for the whole case to be reviewed, and for a full inquiry into the financial position of this scheme.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Whether or not this Excess Vote is a large one is a matter of opinion. With all due respect, I say that any sum which amounts to £25,000, which is brought up a year and a half after it is actually due, must be a subject of comment in the House of Commons. The Public Accounts Committee have already taken cognisance of the fact that this sum should have been provided for in the Estimates for the year 1927, and the Minister of Agriculture has not given the Committee any information as to how this delay arose. He says it is due to the fact that the de-sugarisation of molasses has been hastened. We know that from the explanation circulated with the Paper, but how does it happen that in the return which ought to come in week by week as provided for in the Act there should have been no mention of the claim to be made by the Associated Scottish Companies for £25,000? Is the Department carrying out the obligation laid upon them by the Act? As I understand it, the payment in respect of the amount of molasses, which in each week is delivered from the factories, would be the basis of payment, and provision is made in Section 1, Sub-section (4), of the Act as follows: A payment shall be made from time to time as soon as may be after the amount payable in respect of each week has been ascertained. Can the Minister tell us how the returns come in from the factories? Do they come in week by week, in accordance with the Act of Parliament; and, if they come in week by week, how does it happen that the amount so ascertained was £25,000 out?

The Minister has not told us how it happens that this comes into one year or into the other year. if the amount was due week by week, surely it should have been possible for him, in drawing up his Supplementary Estimate in February, 1927, to make a much nearer shot as to what was to be payable by the end of the year. The irregularity of this account-keeping is in complete harmony with the whole system of distribution of the subsidy. It is not open to us to discuss the subsidy as a whole, but we can take this as an example of the kind of thing that has gone on ever since this money was distributed on such a lavish scale. The question which naturally arises is the question of date; that is the question which is raised by this Vote. My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has drawn attention to the fact that the parent Act provides for a fall in the subsidy from year to year. If we sanction this precedent of accounts being brought up a year or a year and a half after they are due, owing to acceleration of the process, it will be possible, by the end of this year, 1928, by a repetition of this process, or perhaps by some other process equally unexpected by the Ministry, for companies to come into the scale, provided in the First Schedule to the Act, of many shillings more than they would obtain if they went over into the later accounting period.

The Minister, I am sure, must have the Schedule well in mind, and I need not repeat it to him, but perhaps he will allow me to point out that, after the autumn of this year, the subsidy will drop from 19s. 6d. to 13s., and, that being so, it is obvious that any means that can be adopted by the companies to drag their processes into the period ending in October, 1928, would put them on the higher and not on the lower scale. We are asked to sanction, by this loose account-keeping, a process by which the companies might be able to get more in the way of grants than would be anticipated under the parent Act. Would the Minister give us further information as to when this omission was discovered? How long was it after the process of desugarisation of molasses had been brought into operation by the Scottish companies? We have no information as to when the omission was discovered, and that, certainly. should be communicated to the Committee before they are asked to sanction this amount. May we ask, also, when the payment was actually made to the companies? That, too, is a pertinent question on which information ought to be given, either by the Minister or by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Financial Secretary, who ought to be the guardian of the public purse, is no doubt well qualified to tell us when this payment was made, and why the omission was not brought to the notice of his Department at a much earlier date. Finally, I would like to ask the Minister if he can tell us what safeguards there are against a further repetition of this occurrence? I think that, before the Committee allows this amount to go through, a satisfactory answer should be given to each of these questions.

Sir G. COURTHOPE

I know nothing about the details of this particular excess, but I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) knows as well as anyone else that you cannot regulate to suit yourself the time at which crops will grow, and that you cannot convert sugar beet into beet sugar until the sugar beet has been grown and harvested; and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no factory can possibly expedite the period of its campaign so as to conduct the manufacture of molasses before October in the year in which the crop is grown.

Mr. GUINNESS

I think that, really, the questions which have been asked about this Excess Vote are largely based upon a misunderstanding. We have no choice in regard to paying the subsidy; it is laid down in the Statute, and we have to pay according to the claims which come in weekly. The estimates are necessarily based on the arrangements between the factories and the farmers, of which the factories alone can have knowledge. We frame our Estimates on the latest information which the factories can provide. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runeiman) knows, we have to pay week by week, but he equally must know that we do not, fortunately, bring forward Supplementary Estimates week by week. We have to lay them—or we did last year—at the beginning of the year on the best information the factories at that period were able to give us. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know when the payments were made. The exact date I cannot give him. The law says we have to pay the money, and we were paying out at a very large rate, and I suppose it was in the last week of the year that this £25,000 became short.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresenting the case. The fact is that the Supplementary Estimate was taken in 1927, within a week or two of the end of the Financial Year, and accordingly on any accurate computation this excess should have been absolutely unnecessary.

Mr. GUINNESS

The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Supplementary Estimate has to be framed and laid a considerable time before.

Mr. GRAHAM

It was clearly pointed out in Committee upstairs that this Supplementary Estimate was taken in February, within a week or two of the end of the financial year.

Mr. GUINNESS

The financial year ends on 31st March. How can you tell in a Government Department what demand the factories will make in the last weeks of the year except on the factories' own information? Our estimates of the subsidy payable are based, in the only way we could base them, on the knowledge the factories gave us, and really this fear of bringing forward demands for payment from one financial year into the previous one, is not applicable to the machinery provided under the Act, because the Act lays down that the subsidy varies not according to the financial year, which is what decides as to whether the Vote comes within the Estimates for the year or falls into the next year, but according to what is known as the sugar campaign between the 30th September and the 1st October of the following year. Therefore, there is really no danger of any expedient being used by the factory to anticipate the falling due of payment in order to get the advantage of a higher subsidy by bringing their manufacture into the earlier year.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman not inform the Committee when the omission was discovered and when the payment was made? It is not sufficient to say there are difficulties in the case and you cannot be sure.

Mr. GUINNESS

I have already said I cannot give the date. We paid out £3,200,000 last year. We were £25,000 short, and it is obvious that if the money was spread out more or less uniformly through the season, it was at the very end of the season that the deficiency occurred.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS

A few weeks ago the Minister presented a very large Supplementary Estimate for this beet sugar subsidy. Was it impossible a few weeks ago to foresee that this extra sum would be required?

Mr. GUINNESS

The hon. Gentleman cannot have looked at the Excess Vote. We are not talking about the sugar-beet subsidy for this year at all. This is an excess Vote brought before the Public Accounts Committee in the ordinary way in the following year to deal with an excess that took place at the beginning of 1927.

Sir G. COLLINS

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question, when was it discovered that this payment was made? In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of his answer to the six direct questions put to him by my right hon. Friend, we shall certainly record our Vote against the Estimate.

Mr. HARRIS

Is there any chance of this occurring next year and the year after? Can we never be certain where we stand?

Mr. GUINNESS

It is absolutely impossible to give any undertaking that an Estimate which has to be framed before the crop is even harvested will be exactly accurate. When we brought in the Supplementary Vote to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we anticipated that we should have expended very much more on sugar beet. We estimated that the crop would be about the rate of the 1926–27 crop, that is about 8½ tons to the acre. In fact, it has turned out at only about 6½ tons to the acre. We estimated that there would be a normal sugar content of something over 17 per cent., but owing to the bad season it has turned out to be just over 16 per cent. Obviously, the Estimate which is laid before Parliament, whether the original Estimate before the crop has been sown or last autumn's Supplementary Estimate before the crop has been harvested, cannot possibly be of great accuracy.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

The obvious lesson to learn from this is, that we may never expect to have an accurate Estimate from the right hon. Gentleman as to the cost of the subsidy, and that a Supplementary Vote each year is to be necessary. If we are to have an original Estimate, and a Supplementary Estimate in the spring, and may have an Excess Vote later on, perhaps the Financial Secretary for the Treasury will let us know when this payment was made. Was it paid some weeks before the end of the financial year, of just before the end of the financial year?

Mr. GUINNESS

I told the right hon. Gentleman it was just before the end of the financial year, and I regret that in the case of this country it is impossible to standardise agricultural production.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I can quite understand the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, but surely it is enough to come here for a Supplementary Estimate

for enough money to cover the liabilities to the end of the financial year. Why could not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury arrange for postponement of payment until 31st March had been reached? If he says that that would be impossible, I would point out that it is repeatedly done with regard to other Departments.

Mr. GUINNESS

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these Supplementary Estimates have to go through their normal stages, and be embodied in an Appropriation Bill. We cannot have a special Supplementary Estimate on the 31st March to cover the possibility of a small excess on sugar beet. We have to estimate it to the best of our ability at the normal time.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I regret having to press the right hon. Gentleman, but surely the whole object of having Supplementary Estimates in spring is to clean up outstanding accounts? That has always been the object, and always will be the object. What the right hon. Gentleman is claiming is that his Department alone of all Departments of State is to have the right to come, not only for Supplementary Estimates, but also for Excess Votes. What does the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say about that?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel)

I am only surprised that the Estimate has been so close. After all it devolves on this——

Mr. HARRIS

It is a gamble.

Mr. SAMUEL

It is a gamble with the sun and a gamble with the weather almost up to the last moment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219 ; Noes, 101.

Division No. 47.] AYES. [10.45 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Briscoe, Richard George
Albery, Irving James Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bennett, A. J. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Blundell, F. N. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Burman, J. B.
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover) Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Braithwaite, Major A. N. Campbell, E. T.
Balniel, Lord Brass, Captain W. Carver, Major W. H.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth. C.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Philipson, Mabel
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Pilcher, G.
Christle, J. A. Hills, Major John Waller Power, Sir John Cecil
Clayton, G. C. Hilton, Cecil Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Preston, William
Colman, N. C. D. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Raine, Sir Walter
Cope, Major William Holt, Capt. H. P. Ramsden, E.
Couper, J. B. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Rawson, Sir Cooper
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Remer, J. R.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Hopkins, J. W. W. Rentoul, G. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.) Ropner, Major L.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Galnsbro) Hudson, R. S. (Cumb"l"nd, Whiteh'n) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rye, F. G.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Huntingfield, Lord Salmon, Major I.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hurd, Percy A. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Illffe, Sir Edward M. Samuel, Samuel (W"dsworth, Putney)
Dixey, A. C. lnskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Drewe, C. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Eden, Captain Anthony Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Ellis, R. G. King, Commodore Henry Douglas Shepperson, E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Lamb, J. Q. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Little, Dr. E. Graham Smithers, Waldron
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Long, Major Eric Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Looker, Herbert William Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Fielden, E. B. Lougher, Lewis Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Finburgh, S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (westm'eland)
Ford, Sir P. J. Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Storry-Deans, R.
Foster, Sir Harry S. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Fraser, Captain Ian Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. McLean, Major A. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Macmillan, Captain H. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Ganzonl, Sir John Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Tinne, J. A.
Gates, Percy MacRobert, Alexander M. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Gillett, George M. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Makins, Brigadier-General E. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Goff, Sir Park Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Gower, Sir Robert Margesson, Captain D. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Grace, John Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Meller, R. J. Wells, S. R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Merriman, F. B. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waiden) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Grotrian, H. Brent Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, central)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Nelson, Sir Frank Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Gunston, Captain D. W. Neville, Sir Reginald J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hamilton, Sir George Nuttall, Ellis Womersley, W. J.
Hammersley, S. S. Oakley, T. Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Hanbury, C. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Harrison, G. J. C. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Wragg, Herbert
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Penny, Frederick George Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Perkins, Colonel E. K. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Perring, Sir William George Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Sir Victor Warrender.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Duncan, C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Dunnico, H. John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ammon, Charles George England, Colonel A. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Batey, Joseph Forrest, W. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Gibbins, Joseph Kelly, W. T.
Briant, Frank Greenall, T. Kennedy, T.
Broad, F. A. Griffith, F. Kingsley Kirkwood, D.
Bromfield, William Grundy, T. W. Lansbury, George
Bromley, J. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Lawson, John James
Brown, Earnest (Leith) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lindley, F. W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Lowth, T.
Charleton, H. C. Hardie, George D. Lunn, William
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Harris, Percy A. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Compton, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Connolly, M. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Mackinder, W.
Crawfurd, H. E. Hirst, G. H. MacLaren, Andrew
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
March, S. Saklatvala, Shapurji Varley, Frank B.
Montague, Frederick Salter, Dr. Alfred Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Scrymgeour, E. Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)
Murnin, H. Scurr, John Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Naylor, T. E. Sexton, James Wellock, Wilfred
Palin, John Henry Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Welsh, J. C.
Paling, W. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Westwood, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Whiteley, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Sitch, Charles H. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Ponsonby, Arthur Slesser, Sir Henry H. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Potts, John S. Snell, Harry Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Wright, W.
Riley, Ben Sutton, J. E. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Ritson, J. Tinker, John Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) Tomlinson, R. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St. Ives) Townend, A. E. Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Back to