HC Deb 16 December 1929 vol 233 cc1145-61

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500,000, 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Work-people and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War.


The Estimate which I am now asking the Committee to pass arises out of the Unemployment Insurance Act of July. The principle of that Measure is what we know as the principle of "the equal thirds" and it was accepted on Second Reading and Third Reading without a Division. I may also remind the Committee that the principle of the Measure was that laid down in the Blanesburgh Report—the part of the Report which the last Government did not accept, although they accepted certain other parts of it. This Estimate is made out as from the beginning of the financial year 1929. The original sum voted under this particular sub-head was £11,990,000 and this revised Estimate brings the total up to £15,490,000, by the addition of £3,500,000. We shall require another Supplementary Estimate in connection with the Bill the Third Reading of which we have just passed, but the second part of the Estimate will have to be taken in the new year when the House reassembles. This is a very clear, small, precise point.


I timed the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour, and she has been exactly one minute and a half in proposing to the Committee, at a quarter to 12, a Vote of £3,500,000. I put it to the Committee that that is not the spirit in which we expect even a Socialist Government to deal with the national finances. We have seen during the last week very rapid increases in the Estimates for unemployment under the Bill to which we have just given the Third Reading, but in spite of it being a comparatively agreed point that the Insurance Fund should be made as solvent as possible, I think it is treating the Committee with scant courtesy and the finances of the country with absolute negligence on the part of the right hon. Lady to have the audacity to come at this hour of the night and ask us to vote a sum of £3,500,000 without any explanation at all. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us something far more adequate in the way of an explanation. The only thing that the right hon. Lady said was that this embodies the Estimate for the Bill which was before the House in July, but the circumstances have changed since then, and there are a great many questions with regard to the fund about which explanations are very much called for. Since then we have had the appearance of new Ministers on the Front Bench who have been instrumental in raising the cost of the Unemployment Fund for the future, and if we look back to the Debate which took place on 11th July we find that the right hon. Lady admitted in her Third Reading speech that at that time or thereabouts—I could not quite catch the date, but it was some time in June of 1929; I think it was the date upon which the original Money Resolution for the Unemployment Insurance (No. 1) Bill was passed—the actual number of unemployed at that time on the live register was 1,117,800. That shows how circumstances have changed since then, because the figures to-day, while those were an increase on the number when the right hon. Lady took over her present portfolio, are far worse, and it is for her or someone else on the Treasury Bench to explain exactly the state of the fund.

At the moment, as the right hon. Lady has pointed out, the additional provision which is due to the change in number, by which the Exchequer contribution was one-half of that of the employers and the employed, is £3,500,000. Is that adequate, in view of the great increase in unemployment that has been progressively going on since the Money Resolution upon which that Bill was based passed through a Committee of this House? [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think there is something funny about that. Their party, which professes to be able to cure all our ills, has done nothing. It has to be borne in mind that the unemployment figures are going up and that must rapidly alter the basis of the fifty-fifty contribution which the Treasury makes to the Insurance Fund. The efforts of the Lord Privy Seal by no means equalise the amount by which the number on the live register has gone up. It would nut be in order now to anticipate Friday's Debate, but, if you examine the Lord Privy Seal's statement as to the schemes which he has in mind, you will find that the first item of work represents 84,000 man-years, the second, 4,000 man-years, and the third 1,300 man-years. That totals less than 90,000 man-years. I should like an explanation of how this figure of 90,000 is to be correlated to the increase of something like 200,000 in the numbers on the live register, because, automatically, as the live register increases, so does the drain upon the Exchequer on account of the money which is poured into the Insurance Fund to make it solvent.

A few minutes ago the right hon. Lady went into the question of the position of the live register at various recent dates and the balancing point of the fund. On 31st December, 1927, the live register was 1,336,333 persons. At the end of June, 1928, that figure had dropped to 1,192,564. In December the figure rose again. The rise was excessive owing to the very bad climatic conditions, and by last Christmas the figure was 1,520,730. Then we had a drop, and at the beginning of June, when the late Government left office, it was somewhere about 1,100,000. The figure has ever since been on the upward curve. By the end of June it had risen to 1,117,600, and on 30th November it had reached 1,285,500. At this moment, it has, we are very sorry to see from the records of her Department, touched the 1,300,000 line. The point is: what should the figure be which requires a State contribution of £3,500,000? When the Bill, embodying the new arrangement, was passing through the House and the right hon. Lady made her speech in July, on the estimate that something like £3,500,000 was going to be required, did she anticipate that by this date the figure of the live register would be anything like 1,300,000? In the speeches made by hon. Members on the other side during that Debate, it was stressed that the figure then was somewhere about 1,115,000. The right hon. Lady went on to say that after the 1925 Act the balancing point was 1,200,000, but that after the 1926 Act it was reduced to 1,050,000. I take it that the balancing point means the point at which, other things being equal, the fund does not increase its debt. By the end of 1927, the right hon. Lady told us, the figure was 1,000,000, and that automatically reduced the deficit. At the end of July this year, she thought the balancing point was 1,090,000. These figures are extremely confusing, even to those best informed on the subject. If the right hon. Lady admits that the balancing figure of the fund should be 1,090,000, I should like some information of what the position of the fund will be when the actual figure on the live register is over 1,300,000, Which is a considerable increase on what she has admitted is the balancing point of the fund.

I take it that the estimate must he wrong. She has said that she will in due course have to introduce a second estimate. I agree that, in the disastrous conduct of affairs by the present Government, some more money will be required for the fund before this Bill becomes an Act, because nothing is changed so far as the fund is concerned until the Bill becomes an Act, and it will not become an Act before March, 1930. At the moment, what is the position of the fund? Does this £3,500,000, which the right hon. Lady thought was required in June and July to balance the 1,090,000 on the live register, anything like make up the debt which she has increased by a progressive gradual rate? The right hon. Lady has not expatiated on that point, and I hope that she will ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain some of these riddles.

12 M.

When the number on the live register was 7,200,000, as I understand from her speeches, the income of the fund was £43,000,000. What will be the income of the fund when the live register is some-thing like 1,300,000? The right hon. Lady and her friends are constantly saying that they found the fund bankrupt, and that it has only been by their tremendous endeavours that they have been able to bring some sort of sanity into this business. Those on this side who have followed the Debates on this Bill, and have studded the state of the fund from time to time, cannot accept the accusation that it is entirely the fault of the Conservative party that the fund has been so near bankruptcy. I should like to remind the right hon. Lady that the great trouble as regards the Unemployment Insurance Fund arose from the fact that, if you take the debt of that fund on, 31st March, 1926, it was £7,175,000, That was not a very excessive figure and everybody who has had anything to do with the Unemployed Insurance Fund has always understood that when you are considering the state of that fund you have to take it for a period of years. It is not the slightest use taking it for a short period, because it does not balance. It has always been held by those who have studied insurance that you must take a period of years. [Interruption]. I do not see why hon. Members opposite who are not prepared to give an exposition of this subject, which I admit is extremely difficult and which I am trying to explain in the absence of any explanation from the Minister, should interrupt me. After all, the Minister of Labour is paid a salary and it is her duty to explain this Measure to the House.

I was using an argument relating to the bankruptcy of the fund. I was giving, as an example, the fact that on the 31st of March, 1926, the deficit on the fund stood at £7,170,000, and at the end of that year it had risen to £22,640,000. This shows that there was an increase in the debt during 1926 of 215 per cent., and that was entirely due to the trouble which was started by the general strike. [Interruption]. We want to know something about the state of the fund at the time that I have mentioned and at the time of the introduction of the No. 1 Bill. We have had a series of Unemployment Bills, and there have been changes in the proportion of the Exchequer contribution to the fund, but there has also been an increase in the administrative expenditure which is likely to be increased in the near future with regard to training centres. That would affect automatically the amount of money required to save the fund from bankruptcy. The Minister of Labour is anxious to save the fund from being closed until there is a further change in its financial structure. The further Exchequer contributions which are going into the Unemployment Insurance Fund deal with the Acts which are already on the Statute Book, and they have nothing whatever to do with the Bill which we have just read the Third time.

The right hon. Lady is still faced with great administrative difficulties in regard to the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause. We used to hear a good deal about the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act under the last Government, and we want to know, if there was administrative persecution under the last Administration, whether there has been any great relaxation of inquiries to find out whether certain individuals are genuinely seeking work. The more you relax the administrative provisions as administered by the Minister of Labour the more your payments automatically increase, and the more the number of unemployed will increase and automatically there will be a greater call on the Exchequer on the fifty-fifty basis. I should like the Minister of Labour to give us some further information regarding that aspect of the question. Will she tell us whether this is merely a bookkeeping entry. [Interruption.]

Viscount WOLMER

On a point of Order. I should like to ask if hon. Mem- bers are in order in attempting to shout down my hon. and gallant Friend by callous laughter?


Has not the speech of the hon. and gallant Member so far been an argument in favour of capital punishment?


Is it not possible for you, Mr. Chairman, to ask hon. Members opposite to abate their animal noises and to give a little more consideration to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) who is dealing with a very complicated subject.


The hon. Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) rose to put a point of Order, and he must stick to that point. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House not to make so much noise.


May we have a ruling on the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone)?


I should like to call the attention of those hon. Members who are sitting on the cross-benches, that they are outside the House, and therefore, must keep silence.


I regret sincerely that any anxiety should be caused by the remarks which I am endeavouring to place before the Committee, but the difficulty of carrying on a debate on this important subject is, after all, one against which we protested at a quarter to Four in the Division Lobby when the Prime Minister moved that this Estimate should be taken after the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill.


That point was settled by the Division which took place at a quarter to Four.


It has added to the difficulties, because we are now discussing the payment of £3,500,000 out of the Exchequer at a time of night when, judging from the interruptions, it is outside, I will not say the competence, but the wish of hon. Members to discuss it at all. It shows, on the part of certain hon. Members, a cynical disregard of questions of national finance and a total lack of interest in the position of the live register as we find it to-day. I would put my question to the right hon. Lady, though I know that she will not be able to answer it, because I have observed that, although it is a somewhat technical and difficult question—that is not my fault—she has omitted to take a single note. This large sum of money is going to make this year's contribution of the State to the Unemployment Insurance Fund a sum roughly equal to that which the State spent on education in the last year before the War, and before the Committee finally pass it they want to know from the right hon. Lady or from the representative of the Treasury how this amount squares with the Minister's forecast in June, when the number of unemployed was about 200,000 less than it is now. We want to know what the state of the fund is now, how much of this £3,500,000 is being taken for administrative services, and how much for the educational services which have been forecast during the last few weeks; and also whether it is really a cash transaction, or merely a bookkeeping entry on the part of the Treasury. If the right hon. Lady or any of her Friends will be so good as to answer these questions fairly rapidly, I am sure it will help the business.


I desire to put two or three quite simple questions to the Minister, because I think that hon. Members, in whatever part of the Committee they may sit, are really agreed that certain circumstances have changed since July, and the right hon. Lady cannot dismiss the matter in the very few words that she thought it necessary to say. As I understand it, in July the balancing figure was 1,090,000, and the right hon. Lady's view then was that the money which she then obtained would he enough to last till the end of the year. Now we find ourselves faced with a state of things in which the number on the live register is slightly over 1,300,000, and we are told that this sum of £3,500,000 is going to be sufficient to carry on at least till February. It is manifest that the second Supplementary Estimate which the right hon. Lady has in mind cannot be brought before the Committee until the last week in January. How are these two facts reconciled? No doubt there is an explanation, and I think we ought to have it. My second question is the one that was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank), namely, what is the state of the fund at the present moment? In July there were unexpired borrowing powers, if I remember rightly, of something like £3,750,000. What is the state of the fund at the present moment, and how long will it be possible, with this £3,500,000 to carry on before the fund reaches the point of exhaustion? My third question, which cam be answered equally shortly, is what, at that date of expiry, is the estimate of the number of unemployed on the live register? The Government must have a figure to which they are working, and I think we are entitled to know what it is.


I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.

Several questions of great interest to the Committee have been asked on this Vote, and I move this reduction in order to provide an occasion for the Minister to make a reply. There are three points which I think ought always to be asked about on every Supplementary Estimate for a substantial amount, and they ought to be asked about all the more when the Estimate is introduced at so late an hour as this, because no hour is too late for the Committee to do its characteristic duty in dealing with an Estimate for such a substantial amount as this. The first point is that a comment ought always to be made when a considerable Supplementary Estimate is introduced not at the earliest possible opportunity after it has become inevitable that there should be such an Estimate. There are very good reasons for that in the financial procedure of the House—reasons of common sense. As soon as the House knows that it is going to have to vote more money, it ought to be enabled by the Government to proceed without any delay to ascertain precisely what the amount is, and to deal with it. If it does not do so, it may be asked to incur other financial obligations without knowing what its full financial obligations for the year may be; in other words, it may be asked to incur financial obligations without really knowing whether the national finances are in a position to meet them or not. That is precisely what has occurred this year. On many repeated occasions we have been asked by the Government in the course of discussion to provide fresh money without being told precisely what were our obligations under the Acts of last Session. The Act now in question was passed in July, and a Supplementary Estimate is not introduced until now, towards the end of the year; and it seems to me that there is a clear case, subject to what explanation may be given by the right hon. Lady or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as to the reason for what seems to be the long delay in the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate.

The second paint is one to which I think attention ought always to be called when a Supplementary Estimate is for a substantial amount. Of course it would not apply to mere token Estimates, but when the Supplementary Estimate is for so substantial an amount as £3,500,000. I think the point ought to be taken of its relation to the general financial scheme for the year. Where are the funds for the additional expenditure to be found? If this were a year in which there was any certainty of a surplus at the end of the financial year, we might confront this additional Vote with more equanimity; but in such a year as this, all the hall-marks of which indicate the probability of a deficit, it is our duty on this occasion to call attention to the fact that we are probably enlarging a probable deficit at the end of the year. So that we are to-night drawing a draft upon the national Sinking Fund. In other words, we are, drawing a draft upon the national credit. That is a very serious thing to do. If the Committee resolve to do it, then it must be done, but let us at least beware of what we are doing. The third point which, I think, ought always to be taken into account arises when a Supplementary Estimate is not only substantial, but is continual; that is, when it commits us to expenditure not only for this year but for years to come. The other point is a straight and simple one. We ought to require, and are entitled to require, from the Front Bench a precise statement as to what are the future obligations which will be incurred owing to our embarking upon this fresh scheme of expenditure. Let me add that question to the very proper and interesting questions already asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson). The last question I would ask is: What is the precise extent of the obligations which will follow upon this obligation in the coming financial year?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who first rose to speak on this Vote, dealt with a number of points affecting this question. He did not put them in the same precise form as did the two speakers who followed him, and, therefore, without any discourtesy to him, I think that, if I answer succinctly the six questions which have been put to me, I shall answer his questions at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), put to me three questions. The first of these was: Why was this Supplementary Estimate not introduced earlier? The Bill was carried in July, and he suggested that the Supplementary Estimate ought, in order to conform to the customary practice, to have been introduced as soon after that as practicable.

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT

And at a reasonable time of the day.


The Bill was carried into taw in July, enabling the Government to base their expenditure for the year, not upon the £12,000,000 figure, but upon the £15,500,000 figure—I using round sums—in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But it did not find the additional money and the additional money was not required until the nine months had elapsed. No additional money has yet been wanted. The money which was originally provided —the £12,000,000—was employed to carry the Exchequer contribution up to the end of the calendar year, but not till the end of the financial year. The new money —the £3,500,000—is required to enable the Exchequer contribution to be paid for the remainder of the financial year. Therefore there was no need to ask for the Supplemenary Estimate until now The second point raised by the right hon. Member was that, owing to the passage of the Act and this Supplementary Estimate,, there will have to be borrowed money, and therefore the finances of the country will be in a worse position than they would have been if what was in existence before had been allowed to continue.


I referred only to the probability.


I am endeavouring to put the case as I understood the right hon. Member to put it, that there is no probability of a margin, a balance in the Exchequer position at the end of the year; and therefore the passage of the Act and the carrying of it out by means of this Supplementary Estimate will involve the borrowing in all probability in order to make ends meet. The fact is that this proposal does not increase the amount to be borrowed. It only alters the form. Under the proposals of the late Government, there was a debt on the Unemployment Fund. The present Government decided that that was an unsatisfactory proceeding and that the money ought to be paid directly from the Exchequer. Therefore, there is no larger debt incurred under the scheme of the present Government than would have occurred if the method adopted by the late Government had continued all all through the financial year. The debt is simply in one account instead of in another account, and, if the proposal of the present Government had not been carried out, there would have had to be precisely the same borrowing as there will be under the present scheme, because the late Government had allowed the Fund to get very seriously into debt. I am not sure that I understood the third point. The right hon. Gentleman said, so far as I could make out, that there was something we had not told to the Committee as to what were the commitments under the present Government. The only point that is relevant to the present discussion is the question of the commitments involved by this Supplementary Estimate, following upon the Act which was passed in July. I should have thought that the position was clear. Whereas before the Act the Government contribution was less than one-third, under the Act passed in July the Government contribution is brought up to one equal third. Those commitments continue for the current year and next year, and, unless they are repealed, in succeeding years, I think that answers the points put by the right hon. Gentleman.

I will now deal with the three questions put by the preceding speaker. He asked: What was the effect of the Act of July in changing the point at which the fund balanced? The answer was given by the Minister of Labour in her speech on the Third Reading of the Bill. It raised it from 1,000,000 to 1,090,000. Then he asked: What was the live register on 30th November, 1929? The answer to that is 1,285,000, and the debt at that time was £37,570,000. Then he asked: How long is it anticipated that the fund will hold out even on the assumption of the £3,500,000 that we are voting? The answer to that is, towards the end of February. On the assumption that the figure on the live register remains at about what it is at the present time, well on into February.


Did not the right hon. Lady say that it was likely to increase?


That really is not the point. We cannot judge what the amount on the live register will be in a little while. The position is this, that if the live register remains at about what it is, this Vote will enable the fund to carry on until about the end of February. A corollary is that, if the live register is more, the fund will not last quite so long. But it will last quite long enough to endure into that part of the Session which begins in January. Unless, however, there is a very considerable fall in the live register, it will not last until the end of the financial year. That is why the Minister of Labour made it clear that there would be need for a further Supplementary Estimate. That Supplementary Estimate will be required and will put into force figures which are authorised, so far as the State is concerned, by the Bill to which a Third Reading was given by the House to-night.


The hon. Gentleman is now saying that there will have to be another Supplementary Estimate, quite apart from the Bill which we have passed to-night.


No; the Bill that we have passed empowers the expenditure of further money, and a Supplementary Estimate embodying the financial aspect of that will be introduced into this House when it meets in January, and will have to be put through before the end of the financial year.


I am not really apprehending what the hon. Gentleman says. If I understand him rightly, if the liabilities remain as they were, the money which we are now providing would run out about the end of February. If the live register grows, it will run out sooner. He went on to point out that the Minister of Labour said that we should have a further Supplementary Estimate before the end of the financial year. If I understand him rightly, that Supplementary Estimate will be quite apart from the Bill which we have just passed, and that I believe to be the case.


The right hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly incorrect. The position is that the Act passed in July was not in any sense an estimate of what would be required for the whole of the financial year.

The Act was simply to provide for the principle of one-third, a principle which the Government considered was sound and should be adopted, and I think the confusion arises in the right hon. Gentleman's mind through the provision of the calendar year and the financial year. The Minister of Labour in July said that the additional figure that was being passed in that Act would enable the fund to remain solvent up to the end of the calendar year. It was not an estimate of what would be required to enable the fund to run up to the end of the financial year. It was simply a desire to embody the principle of an equal one-third, and it was computed that that would carry us at least to the end of the calendar year. As the figures have developed, it is clear now that, apart from this Bill, this Supplementary Estimate will probably not enable the fund to run to the end of the financial year, but it is only probable. It entirely depends on what the figures turn out to be. If unemployment were seriously diminished, it might run us up to the end of the financial year. If the figures, however, are to remain as they are, the Vote will take us somewhere towards the end of February, but, if they seriously increase, it will not be as far as that. That we will see as the time comes. In any case, a Supplementary Estimate will be required to embody what is necessary under the Bill which has got a Third Reading to-night. It is a, rather difficult point, but I think I have answered the questions put to me.

Commander WILLIAMS

It is only right that we should have a rather clearer statement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) raised three very definite points. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this new Estimate is only brought in now, because the money is only just needed. I have heard remarkable statements from the Front Bench opposite, but I never expected to hear a representative of the Treasury coming down and saying openly that we as a country do not finance our expenditure in the main every year, but have to come down from time to time with Supplementary Estimates of this kind. You might just as well lay it down as clearly a principle of national finance that you should have

half or quarter yearly Budgets. It is clearly wrong to have Estimates of this kind coming on suddenly at this time. With regard to the second point, the Financial Secretary said that as far as this Estimate was concerned, it was not an increase, but rather a balance from one side to the other; there was a debt on the fund, and now it was balanced by a direct payment. If it is not an increase, what does the statement mean at the end, that you are raising to one-half the total contributions I That statement clearly disproves that there is no increase. There was a great deal in the statement made earlier in the evening that this is an entirely novel Estimate. There is an increase which is far higher than the taxpayer ought to be called upon to pay, and I hope that we as a party will divide against the Vote.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,499,990, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 199.

Division No. 106.] AYES. [12.41 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Albery, Irving James Glyn, Major R. G. C. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Ross, Major Ronald D.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Greene, W. P. Crawford Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Beaumont, M. W. Gunston, Captain D. W. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hamilton, Sir George (llford) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart Hartington, Marquess of Savery, S. S.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henrey) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Boyce, H. L. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R J. Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Briscoe, Richard George Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Smithers, Waldron
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Iveagh, Countess of Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Knox, Sir Alfred Somervllle, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Carver, Major W. H. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Lleweilln, Major J. J. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Colfox, Major William Philip Lymington, Viscount Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Colman, N. C. D. Margesson, Captain H. D. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Colville, Major D. J. Marjoribanks, E. C. Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornscy)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Warrender, Sir Victor
Cranbourne, Viscount Mond, Hon. Henry Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wells, Sydney R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Womersley, W. J.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Muirhead, A. J.
Edmondson. Major A. J. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Elliot, Major Walter E. Purbrick, R. Mr. Charles Williams and Captain Crookshank.
Ferguson, Sir John Ramsbotham, H.
Fison, F. G. Clavering Remer, John R.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Barnes, Alfred John Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Brockway, A. Fenner
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craile M. Bellamy, Albert Bromfield, William
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hilsbro') Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Alpass, J. H. Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Brown, Ernest (Leih)
Angell, Norman Benson, G. Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Arnott, John Bentham, Dr. Ethel Burgess, F. G.
Aske, Sir Robert Bevan, Aneuri (Ebbw Vale) Burgln, Dr. E. L.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Blrkett, W. Norman Caine, Derwent Hall-
Cameron, A. G. Kinley, J. Fichardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Lang, Gordon Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Charleton, H. C. Lathan, G. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Chater, Daniel Law, A. (Rossendale) Ritson, J.
Church, Major A. G. Lawrence, Susan Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Romeril, H. G.
Compton, Joseph Lawson, John James Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Daggar, George Leach, W. Rowson, Guy
Dallas, George Lees, J. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Dalton, Hugh Lewis, T. (Southampton) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lloyd, C. Ellis Sanders, W. S.
Dickson, T. Longbottom, A. W. Sandham, E.
Dukes, C. Longden, F. Sawyer, G. F.
Duncan, Charles Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Scrymgeour, E.
Ede, James Chuter McElwee, A. Scurr, John
Edmunds, i. E. McEntee, V. L. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Uedwellty) McKinlay, A. Sherwood, G. H.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) MacLaren, Andrew Shield, George William
Egan, W. H. McShane, John James Shillaker, J. F.
Elmley, Viscount Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Simmons, C. J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Sinkinson, George
Foot, Isaac Mansfield, W. Sitch, Charles H.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Marcus, M. Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Marley, J. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Gibbins, Joseph Matters, L. W. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gill, T. H. Maxton, James Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Glassey, A. E. Melville, Sir James Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gossling, A. G. Messer, Fred Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Gould, F. Mills, J. E. Sorensen, R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Milner, J. Spero, Dr. G. E.
Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan). Morgan, Dr. H. B. Stephen, Campbell
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.) Morley, Ralph Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Grundy, Thomas W. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Strauss, G. R.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Mort, D. L. Sutton, J. E.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Moses, J. J. H. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Tinker, John Joseph
Hardie, George D. Murnin, Hugh Tout, W. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Nathan, Ma|or H. L. Townend, A. E.
Haycock, A. W. Noel Baker, P. J. Turner, B.
Hayday, Arthur Oldfield, J. R. Vaughan, D. J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Wallace, H. W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Watkins, F. C.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
Herriotts, J. Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Palin, John Henry Wellock, Wilfred
Hollins, A. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigam) Welsh, James (Paisley)
Hopkin, Danfel Perry, S. F. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Westwood, Joseph
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfieid) Pethick- Lawrence, F. W. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Phillips, Dr. Marion Whitetey, William (Blaydon)
John, William (Rhondda, West) Picton-Turbervill, Edith Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Johnston, Thomas Potts, John S. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Price, M. P. Wlnterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Pybus, Percy John Wise, E. F.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Quibell, D. J. K. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Kelly, W. T. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Kennedy, Thomas Raynes, W. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.

Question put, and agreed to.

Back to