§ Mr. HARRISI beg to move, in page 39, line 16, to leave out the words "first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine" and to insert instead thereof the words "last day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty."
I am surprised at the great length of time that it is proposed to delay the operation of the town planning schemes. Time is the very essence of town planning. While we are waiting, towns are 478 growing up, almost in a night, and developments are going on in an un-organised and unintelligent way on every side, creating fresh slums. The whole purpose of the Town Planning Act is to try and prevent what has been a disgrace to the Midlands and many of our large districts. The very fact of Regulations of the kind proposed being in existence and coming into operation in a few years' time, is likely to encourage the jerry builder and the land speculator to anticipate the Regulations, in order to prevent interference with his operations. In London, we have had a great deal of opposition by private interests to many of the very splendid ideas for town planning. People plead, apparently with some reason, that they should be entitled to do what they like with their own. They do not like the interference of local authorities, and they want to turn into money, as rapidly as possible, the land in their possession. When they know that in years to come these Regulations are to come into full operation, it will be an encouragement to rapid and unsatisfactory developments.
I do not attach particular importance to the year mentioned in my Amendment. It may be that to bring the Act into operation will take a little time, but to suggest that it should be postponed until 1939 is an astounding proposal, particularly coming from the Minister of Health. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, even before he became a Minister, speaking of the tremendous importance of large schemes of town planning. I have heard him speak of the millennium. We are to wait for the millennium until 1939. If we are to wait until then, this Government will be a thing of the past and some of the mischief that it has done may be forgotten, but the affections for town planning cherished by the right hon. Gentleman will be associated with the year 1939. If it is a good thing to have town planning, if it is a good thing to try to prevent un-regulated development of towns and the creation of fresh slums, the sooner we allow local authorities to take effective steps, the better it will be for all concerned. It is unfortunate that the Minister should have put this very far-off date in the Bill.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI beg to second the Amendment.
479 I cannot see any adequate ground for the proposal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. As recently as 1925, less than, four years ago, this Parliament authorised the right hon. Gentleman to put into the Town Planning Act a date which was then less than four years away. When with the authority of Parliament that date was selected, the particular local authorities to which this Section referred had already had three and a half years in which to consider their schemes. Another three and a half years has gone by, and the Minister now proposes to postpone the date for the completion of the schemes. It may be that there are adequate grounds for postponing the date, but it seems to me to be quite extraordinary that three and a half years having been considered an adequate period when the Act was originally passed, and after so much time has elapsed, a further 10 years should be given before this Section of that Act is made operative.
We all realise to-day, what some of us realised 25 or more years ago, that the housing problem is not to be solved in the hearts of cities and towns by the pulling down of slums already in existence, but by seeing to it that the areas yet unbuilt upon are properly laid out and that the housing of the people in those areas takes place according to a good plan. The idea of postponing this matter for another 10 years is contrary to the interests of the public, contrary to the interests of town and country, and contrary to the health and well-being of the people. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment in its existing form, he will modify his own proposal and antedate by some years the date which he suggests.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)I think the House will be in general agreement with the desire which the hon. Members opposite have expressed as to the necessity of town planning and the desirability of its being put into operation wherever possible. We all regret that acts are being committed which are destroying in many respects the beauties and amenities of our country. The question which we have to consider is, how can that which 480 we all desire best be achieved? We are all naturally anxious to see town planning put into force more rapidly, but there is another side to the question. We have to put ourselves into the position of the local authorities. There is nothing in this Clause that can prevent any local authority from coming forward, as soon as they properly can, with a town planning scheme. The issue which we have to decide is, how soon shall we impose compulsorily upon local authorities the condition that they shall bring forward their plans. We have to consider whether by using compulsion, we shall be advancing town planning as we would desire it to be.
What I suggest to the House, and these are the reasons which have animated my right hon. Friend in making the proposal which is contained in the Clause, is that, above everything else, we want in connection with town planning good schemes rather than quick schemes. Nothing could be more undesirable than that a local authority should, under power of compulsion, bring forward hasty, ill-conceived and ill-considered schemes of town planning. Undoubtedly, it is a very complicated matter. It does take time. There are considerable complications in connection with work of this character, and the very matters which are contained in this Bill, the new conditions which we are imposing for closer co-operation between the various authorities, add to the difficulty of the situation. We have to consider that, by this Bill, we are putting upon the local authorities a great many other duties and responsibilities which they will have to face during the next few years. In these circumstances, inasmuch as this Clause does not prevent a local authority from acting more quickly if they so desire, I ask the House to adhere to the date mentioned in the Clause.
§ Mr. HARRISWill the right hon. Gentleman explain why the year 1939 has been selected? Is there any particular reason for that?
§ Sir K. WOODNo, except that my right hon. Friend considers that it gives a reasonable period for the making of the necessary schemes. We realise that during the next few years local authorities will have to adapt themselves to one of the biggest changes in local government in this country for very many 481 years. They will have a great deal of work to do. Never in our history were local authorities entrusted with such important matters as they will be in future, and we must have regard to that fact. We are asked to make the period shorter. We think that by giving the period which we propose we are more likely to get action on reasonable schemes from local authorities. No one is more impressed with the importance of town planning than my right hon. Friend, but we must remember that during the past few years considerable progress has been made, probably more progress than has ever been made in our history in town planning, especially regional town planning. Therefore, when we are inclined to be impatient and to condemn local authorities for not making more progress, we must have regard to the considerable work which they have already done. For these reasons, we have made our proposals.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Miss WILKINSONThe right hon. Gentleman, as usual, has expressed most excellent intentions, and then he proceeds to say "but." I have no doubt that he desires to get on with the building schemes which he tells us are so dear to his heart, but I would ask him to realise that the Government's proposal means a period of 13 years before the unwilling authorities, the backward authorities, are brought into line. That is hopelessly unreasonable, because of the development that is taking place, especially around London. We are in a time of rapidly developing arterial roads, which are being sent right into the provinces. The idea in the construction of the arterial roads was that we should promote rapid motor transport. That idea will be defeated if we are to have a long string of straggling little villas and straggling suburban towns right along the arterial roads, with children rushing over the roads, subject to the dangers of motor traffic. It is surely of the utmost importance that while these roads are being built, at the time when they are developing most rapidly, that town planning schemes should be in operation. If the Parliamentary Secretary has troubled to read the newspapers he will know that there has been a great outcry by some of the best architects against having long stretches of houses on the side of these arterial 482 roads. There should have been some policy by which these houses could be taken half a mile from these main roads and then linked up with it by smaller roads. The mischief will be done if this matter is left until 1939. If the right hon. Gentleman insists on this date we shall have what everybody who cares for the amenities of the country dreads, that is, arterial roads with long straggling frontage lines of mean little suburban houses. The whole idea of these main arterial roads will be absolutely lost. I suggest that this is false economy. It is not an expensive thing to have an adequate town planning scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken as though we were putting an extra burden on local authorities in asking them to look ahead and have some regard for the beauty of their districts.
We are always behind the fair in this country, so far as building is concerned. Anyone who takes a motor drive along some of these arterial roads will see the perfectly miserable conditions which are growing up, not miserable in a sense that they are slums, but because they are ugly and cheap, with an utter lack of beauty and design. If you drive along the main roads in Germany you will see that they have taken the houses away from the main roads and grouped them in beautiful small villages, which are linked up by smaller roads with the main thoroughfare. Why could not that be done in England? It could be done if the right hon. Gentleman pressed the matter at all. All he says is that it is not a matter of much importance and therefore local authorities had better take eight or nine years more. The mischief will have been done then. It is extremely shortsighted on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to inflict this 10-years' limit instead of demanding that town planning should be speeded up.
Local authorities have already bad three and a-half years. Some authorities have taken advantage of the powers under the 1925 Act, but other authorities have not, and it is these backward authorities which will not do anything until the Ministry of Health comes along and says that they are a perfect nuisance and are making a mess of the land all round. I suggest that we should take bigger views. We should regard the land of this country as a heritage and suggest to these back- 483 ward authorities that it is about time they put town planning schemes into operation. If you leave the whole thing over for another 10 years there will be no design, no kind of co-ordination, and these areas will grow up to be an eyesore, with cheap suburban villas over a long line of roads. I think the period should be cut in half, and I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept 1932 or 1933.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSThere is one other reason why I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the whole question of town planning. As usual he has told us that this is a very moderate proposal and that he and his right hon. Friend support town planning as much as any hon. Member in any part of the House. That is about the seventeenth million time he has told us that during the Committee stage of the Bill. It is always to-day, to-morrow, sometime—and never. It is pretty obvious that 10 years hence the right hon. Gentleman will not be burdened with much responsibility. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us of the difficulties confronting local authorities and the tremendous changes which will take place in the next few years. He has spent a lot of time during the progress of this Bill in telling us of the wonderful changes which are to be beneficial and advantageous to local authorities, but now he rather suggests, for the purpose of justifying delay in the preparation of town planning schemes, that they are not going to be so beneficial and that great responsibilities will be imposed on local authorities.
May I put this point to him. In Clause 44 local authorities or county councils are obliged to undertake a general review of the whole county area and by the end of 1932 schemes have to be submitted to the Department, which will probably extend the area of some authorities and contract the area of others. It seems to me that 1933 should be the maximum period allowed local authorities to prepare town planning schemes for their respective areas. They have to undertake this review; the Minister has taken power to compel them to do so. If two authorities can be combined, with mutual advantage, they must be combined. All these things must he done compulsorily by the county autho- 484 rity between now and the end of 1932. In 1925 a definite date was fixed by which all local authorities should be compelled to provide a town planning scheme. Four years was given. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposes to extend that for a further period of 10 years. No justification has been given for such a long delay. While to put in 1930 might impose too large an obligation on local authorities, with all the other duties they will have to carry out, yet the fact that this review must be concluded compulsorily by the end of 1932 justifies the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman should reduce 1939 to 1933, which would be the year following the compulsory review of the area by the authority. While the one thing is being done, the other could be done at the same time, with little or no cost to the authority and with tremendous advantage to local areas throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Mr. BECKETTIt is rather astonishing to find the Government calmly proposing to put off town planning schemes, about which they told us so much in 1925, until 1939 and to find the majority in this House—who in 1925 were saying from every platform throughout the country what a Conservative Government and an excellent Minister of Health were going to do for town planning in this country—sitting on the benches opposite without uttering a single word of protest while the Parliamentary Secretary, in his own incomparable manner, administers holy-unction by the bedside of the dying building schemes of this country. I am amazed that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), who has played such an honourable part in this matter, is sitting silent. I have driven through his constituency several times recently and I am sure he will not take it amiss when I say that it is a tragedy to see these districts on the outskirts of London being completely neglected from the aesthetic point of view in the matter of town planning schemes.
It is not only a matter of keeping houses off the new main roads, it is a question of preventing those appalling rows after rows of detached or semidetached houses built on exactly the same lines. They may be quite a good artistic design for a small detached house, but 485 when they are reproduced 10, 20 and 100 times along a long stretch of road, mile after mile, they are very non-aesthetic. Unless architects, builders and municipal authorities should be encouraged to pool designs, because it is quite impossible for any one landowner or builder to pay for 30 or 40 different architects' designs. It would be a simple matter for a local authority, which is controlling town planning on a considerable scale, to get an exchange of designs and avoid the terrible dull drabness and sameness which is to be seen everywhere at the present moment. The Minister of Health has taken no interest in this Debate and the Parliamentary Secretary, instead of being his usual bright and irresponsible self, has been very halting and was wholly unable to give us any reasons why the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, except the amazing reason, which I think the House and the country should know, that local authorities will be so busy for so many years adapting themselves to the changes of this Bill that it will be quite impossible for them to consider town planning schemes under a period of 10 years.
I have heard some very hard things said about the Bill from this side of the House, but I do not think any of us has condemned the Bill quite as efficiently as the Parliamentary Secretary himself did when he said that it would confuse the local authorities to such an extent that it was hopeless to expect any town planning from them for 10 years. I really think that the Parliamentary Secretary has exceeded even his own audacities in Debate. Unless the Amendment in some form is accepted, there is an end of any hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite may have of persuading the country that they have any interest at all in the matter. As has been said, at the end of 10 years the mischief will have been done. The country will be drab and ugly and mean, and one of the worst condemnations of this Government's action will then be that at the moment when the whole country was suiting itself to the new conditions of traffic and transport the Government allowed this matter to go by default, and, for the sake of a little negotiation and tactfulness in the handling of local authorities, allowed the countryside to become the kind of thing that it will be then.
§ Mr. W. BENNETTI regret very much that Sir Herbert Samuel is not present to see the interesting events that are taking place on the Liberal benches to my left. As to the putting off town planning, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of difficulties, but it seems to me that every year that elapses makes it more difficult to bring in town planning schemes. It may be that there are difficulties in shortening the length of a period, but there are greater difficulties in lengthening it. Every year that passes makes it more difficult to bring in the things that are wanted. I have in mind such things as playing fields for children, air spaces and so forth. If you allow 10 years to pass, each year some fresh difficulty, some fresh vested interest is established that is more difficult for the local authorities to cope with. We have seen that in the delay that has already taken place. I cannot understand why there is this objection to putting town planning schemes on paper. I sometimes fancy that it must be vested interests in the ground around the towns are very anxious to get their little schemes put into operation, and to have congested areas established before a town planning scheme is adopted. Like the last speaker I am astonished that all the objections to this Clause have come from this side of the House, for there are many people opposite who, I am sure, are perfectly sincere in their desire to see town planning promptly carried out. Why are they afraid, why do they not make some protest? Ten years is much too long a time to allow. Sufficient time has passed already and recalcitrant local authorities should be requested to make their plans immediately.
§ Mr. WALLHEADI would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent contribution which he has made to our discussion, and I am sure that I echo the opinions both of political friends and opponents in saying that we hope this is not the last occasion on which he will take part in the Debates of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation or excuse for not accepting the Amendment is about the lamest that I have heard. He showed, as usual, a certain amount of dexterity and ingenuity—on which I should be the first to compliment him—in meeting the difficulties of Debate, but on this occasion I 487 think he lamentably failed in his reply. I should have thought that the Ministry of Health might, at least, have taken unto themselves powers to enforce the laws that already exist. Surely, instead of extending the time, it would be far better to limit it to a greater extent than now. Three-and-a-half years have passed and many councils still refuse to adopt town planning schemes. The Amendment asks that another two years shall be given to them, and surely that is long enough.
The Ministry of Health is convinced of the necessity. There are few people in the House who would defend the delays that are taking place in the adoption of town planning. The country is spending a very large amount of money upon arterial roads, which are being laid down because of the development of certain types of traffic. We are insisting that those roads shall be of a, certain width, for the free passage of slow-moving and fast-moving vehicles. Yet at the same time, in certain areas contingent upon large towns, we are permitting the building of ribbon houses, very often small houses with small garages attached. Presumably, the householders are to own small motor-cars. The longer the ribbon the more vehicular traffic will be stopping outside these houses, and if you get vehicles continually stopping outside houses on both sides of the new arterial roads you narrow down your arterial roads seriously, and defeat your own object so far as rapid transit is concerned. Reference has been made to the constituency of St. Albans. I have not lived in Hertfordshire long. When I went
§ there first it was a pleasant ride from my home to St. Albans. Now it has become a nightmare and an atrocity. The whole place is built up from end to end with nothing but a string of unaesthetic little bungalows, which are a positive eyesore.
§ For aestheticism hon. Members opposite usually claim greater appreciation than we are supposed to have on this side of the House. One would have thought that they would have done something on this Bill at least to establish that claim. All architects, the greatest in the land, are in a state of perfect horror at the possibilities of the future in connection with the new arterial roads. For the sake of generations to come the House ought to restrict as far as possible the operations of the jerry-builder and the land speculator. The beauty of the land ought to be preserved. I am much interested in the development of garden cities, but what is the use if one has continual rows of ugliness leading up to each garden city? The Government are making a very great mistake. It is not a question of economics at all. I love the country, and I think that the Government ought to pay some attention to what is being done with our beautiful roads and lanes and the approaches to our towns and villages. The Government ought to take their courage in their hands and compel local authorities to do their part.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 129.
491| Division No. 197.] | AYES. | [6.29 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips |
| Albery, Irving James | Briggs, J. Harold | Cooper, A. Duff |
| Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Centr'l) | Briscoe, Richard George | Cope, Major Sir William |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Brittain, Sir Harry | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks,Newb'y) | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Apsley, Lord | Buchan, John | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Buckingham, Sir H. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) |
| Atkinson, C. | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Burman, J. B. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Campbell, E. T. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Carver, Major W. H. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Cassels, J. D. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Berry, Sir George | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Bethel, A. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Ellis, R. G. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Charteris, Brigadier-General J, | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Clarry, Reginald George | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cobb, Sir CyrN | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Brass, Captain W. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D. | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Fall, Sir Bertram G. | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Rye, F. G. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Salmon, Major I. |
| Faster, Sir Harry S. | Loder, J. de V. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Looker, Herbert William | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Lougher, Lewis | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera | Sandon, Lord |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Gates, Percy | Lumley, L. R. | Savery, S. S. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Maclntyre, Ian | Skelton, A. N. |
| Goff, Sir Park | McLean, Major A. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Smithers, Waldron |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th'e'w, E) | Margesson, Captain D. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Marrlott, Sir J. A. R. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Mailer, R. J. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hamilton, Sir George | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatbam) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hanbury, C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Moore, Lieut.-Coionel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Harland, A. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell |
| Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M. | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R, (Oxf'd, Henley) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hilton, Cecil | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G, | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.) | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Lutoa) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Wells, S. R. |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Penny, Frederick George | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Power, sir John Cecil | Windsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel George |
| Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Withers, John James |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Ralne, Sir Walter | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Ramsden, E. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Raid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Rentoul, G. S. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Iveagh, Countess of | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Jackson, sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Captain Bowyer and Major the |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Ropner, Major L. | Marquess of Titchfield |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Rots, R. D. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Day, Harry | Hollins, A. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock) | Dennison, R. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Duckworth, John | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Duncan, C. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Dunnico, H. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Edge, Sir William | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Barnes, A. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Barr, J. | England, Colonel A. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Kennedy, T. |
| Bellamy, A. | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Kirkwood, D. |
| Benn, Wedgwood | Gibbins, Joseph | Lawrence, Susan |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Gillett, George M. | Lawson, John James |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Greenall, T. | Lowth, T. |
| Bromfield, William | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lunn, William |
| Bromley, J. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Mackinder, W. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Griffith, F. Kingsley | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Buchanan, G. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypoof) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan) |
| Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel | Groves, T. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Cape, Thomas | Grundy, T. W. | March, S. |
| Charleton, H. C | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Maxton James |
| Clarke, A. B. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Morris, R. H. |
| Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hardle, George D. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Compton, Joseph | Harris, Percy A. | Mosley, Sir Oswald |
| Connolly, M. | Hayday, Arthur | Oliver, George Harold |
| Cove, W. G. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Palln, John Henry |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hirst. G. H. | Paling, W. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Stamford, T. W. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Potts, John S. | Stephen, Campbell | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Purcell, A. A. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sullivan, Joseph | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Ritson, J. | Taylor, R. A. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Saklatvala, Shapurji | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Shinwell, E. | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Tomlinson, R. P. | Wright, W. |
| Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Townend, A. E. | |
| Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Snell, Harry | Viant, S. P. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. |