§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNI beg to move, in page 93, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
and except that as affecting freight transport hereditaments it means the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.I did not expect that it would fall to my lot to move this Amendment. It is put down in order that a case may be put to the Committee, and that we may get a statement from the Ministry about the matter. I cannot do better than read a letter I have received from a firm in Leith, putting the matter from their point of view, which will bring the point at issue in a concrete way to the notice of the Committee. The Amendment is put down because of the situation that has arisen affecting coastwise traffic, and 1002 because of the ante-dating of the relief to railway freight transport hereditaments by 10 months. Before the House rose for the Recess we passed the necessary powers ante-dating the relief, which in the ordinary way begins on 1st October this year, to begin, for the railways alone of the freight transport properties, from 1st December last year. For certain kinds of traffic there is very keen competition between the railways and the coastwise lines. This Amendment by itself would not put any money into the pockets of the shipping companies. Its intention is that docks and harbours should be put on an equal footing with railways, so that, by cutting dues, it may be passed on to coastwise shipping firms so that they may not be unfairly treated because of the ante-dating, the unfairness of which we think the Government did not mean. The Dundee, Perth and London 1003 Shipping Company write from their Leith office:We would respectfully draw your attention to the position in which regular coasting companies of the United Kingdom are placed through the Government's having anticipated the De-rating Bill in favour of the railway companies, thus putting them in a position to grant an allowance to traders of 10 per cent. from 1st December, 1928. The original scheme provided for the docks and other interests enjoying the benefits of the de-rating policy from December, 1929, and railway companies were to be in the same position. As you are aware, the Government changed their mind and made an exceptional arrangement as regards the railway companies. The result is that from 1st December, 1928, the railway companies have been empowered to grant a rebate of 10 per cent. to traders in agricultural commodities such as potatoes, oilcakes and manures. A very large proportion of these traffics did not travel by rail previously; merchants looked to the coasting companies to provide the regular service to carry them at low rates. These rates have always been kept at a low level, not only on account of the railway competition but on account of competition by tramp steamers.6.0 p.m.The letter further points out that the matter has been brought to the notice of the Minister of Transport, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Health, by the Chamber of Shipping, in order that they might be prevailed upon to grant to docks and harbours and other freight and transport services the ante-dating by 10 months which has been given to the railway companies.
It will be asked whether there is any material point in this. It is very difficult, since the scheme has only just begun to work, to give any concrete evidence of the effect upon coastwise steamship owners, but I will give some figures affecting my own constituency. Every other hon. Member who represents a port will have had figures given to him from his own port. Take the Port of Leith. A certain shipowner points out that of the scheduled traffic carried in November, 1928, a month before the ante-dating of the railway relief, he carried 587 tons, whereas in the month of December, after the relief had been given to the railways, the traffic had fallen to 486 tons, or a reduction of 17.2 per cent. Another owner states that in regard to oil cake, in November, 1928, he carried 250 tons and 1004 in December he carried none. Therefore the whole traffic appears to have gone from the coastwise ships to the railways in that particular commodity. With regard to coal, the same firm carried, in November, 1928, 2,831 tons, and in December, 1,876 tons—a drop of 33 percent. In regard to grain, in the month of November, 449 tons were carried, whereas in the month of December, a month after the railway relief had begun to operate, only 259 tons were carried, a drop of 42 per cent. These are partial figures and I do not wish to press them too highly, but we have been asked for indications, and these figures have been given to me by firms in my own constituency. I have no doubt that hon. Members sitting for other seaports wilt have been given by various shipping companies in their constituencies comparable figures in regard to the schedule of traffics concerned.
There can be no doubt as to the fact that in regard to certain traffic, such as potatoes from Dundee, the railway companies have made definite offers of a cut of 10 per cent. because of the ante-dating of the railway relief. The point which we wish to put to the Committee, and which we wish to be made clear, is whether or not the Government in this way suggested in the Amendment, or in any other way, can meet the point raised by the coastwise shipping companies. I need not stress the extreme value to the nation of the maintenance of an efficient and effective coastwise shipping service. To some of us, because we sit for seaports, it seems that the Minister of Transport thinks too much about railways and not enough about ships as a means of transport. Whether that be so or not, the fact is that in Northern Ireland where they have ante-dated the relief, as we have ante-dated it in England and Wales in regard to railways, they have made provision not merely to ante-date the relief given to the railways but they have made it apply to all forms of freight transport hereditaments as laid down in the Bill. I move the Amendment in order that the right hon. Gentleman may make a statement as to the view of the Government.
§ Sir L. SCOTTThe question raised by this Amendment is one of great importance. The Amendment, I think, is one which is not capable of acceptance 1005 by the Minister in charge of the Bill, but it is one which raises the question effectively. The position, quite shortly, is, that under the concession given to the railway companies, and quite properly given, in order to expedite the relief intended by the Bill, for instance, to agriculture, the railways are put into the position of competing with coastwise shipping traffic in the selected types of goods which get the benefit of the scheme as applied to the railways, so as to force the coastwise shipowners into a position of extreme difficulty. They have to face one of two things, and they are facing it with courage. They have either to attempt to keep up their freights and lose their traffic, or they have to lower the freights at a time when shipping is not paying or hardly paying at all.
Employment in the shipping trade is just as important to this country as employment in any other industry. The shipping trade is to-day in the seventh year of a long and profound depression. Owners have been running ships for years and years without profits, barely paying a part of their depreciation. The coastwise shipowners, in some ways, have not been quite as badly off as the owners of the big ocean-going ships, but shipping in this country has certainly suffered appallingly for a long series of years. The coastwise trade is struggling up at the present time, and in the last few months things have seemed a trifle better; but it is now faced with a position which may be one of very great hindrance. The money figures involved are not necessarily very large, but there is a principle of great importance involved and a question of absolute justice.
There is one aspect of shipping which I do not think Members of this House have realised as much as they ought to realise it, and that is that British shipping, practically speaking, gets no subsidy from the Government. It gets no help from the Government with which to compete with foreign shipowners. Foreign owners, or the great majority of foreign owners, get very large subsidies from their Governments, and all the time-the shipping trade of this country has to fight an uneven fight in competition with the foreign owners who get immense help from their Governments. Of course, that does not apply very much to coastwise traffic, but you cannot regard the shipping trade in sections; you must always think 1006 of it as a whole. Broadly speaking, the shipping trade of this country has been suffering from very extreme difficulties due to the competition of foreign shipowners, greatly added to by the assistance given to foreign shipowners by their Governments.
At this moment, the Government, by their action in assisting agriculture by helping the railways have, inadvertently, done a great injury to the coastwise shipping trade of this country. They have put a burden upon the coastwise trade. They have not only not given it money assistance, as they have given assistance to the railways, but they have actually put upon it a burden, because they have forced the shipowners to reduce their rates. Let me read a few figures which I had taken out last week with respect to the Coast Lines, which represents 60 per cent. of the strictly coastwise traffic. These are the rates upon oil cake and potatoes. I will take random examples of traffic which come within the scope of the benefits given to the railways. From Liverpool to Glasgow the steamer rate on oil cake prior to the de-rating assistance which has been given to the railway companies, was 15s. That rate has been reduced to 13s. 9d., simply because the coastwise shipowners cannot keep the traffic otherwise, on account of the competition of the railways. That is a reduction of 1s. 3d. on a rate of 15s.
§ Sir L. SCOTTI have not the rail way rates at the moment, but I assume that probably these rates are lower than the railway rates. Nearly always that is the case, slightly. The point is, that these are recent reductions in consequence of what has been done for the railway companies. The rates for oil cake from Liverpool to Greenock, which were 15s. 5d., have been reduced to 14s. 2d., and there have been similar reductions in the rates to Leith and Bristol. The rates to Portsmouth have been reduced from 21s. to 19s. 6d., and to Southampton from 22s. to 19s. 6d. From Leith and Dundee, Plymouth, Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea the rate on the carriage of potatoes has been reduced from 22s. 6d. to 20s.
These are typical rates. Estimates have been made, and the loss involved is 1007 only a comparatively small figure, something between £50,000 and £100,000, during the period that will elapse between now and 1st October next year, not a very large figure; but the point is that if the shipping companies were to attempt to keep up their pre-de-rating rates, the rates that were obtained at the end of last year, they would lose their trade, and trade once diverted from one channel into another channel is very difficult to get back. That is the real point. Obviously, they cannot face that risk; they have no alternative but to reduce their rates and, consequently, the position is that the farming community, for instance, get the benefit of lower rates from the railways and, as a consequence of what has been done for the railways, they equally get lower rates from the shipowners. In the latter case they get the benefit at the expense of the shipowners, whereas the benefit which they get from the railways is not at the expense of the railway companies. That is the unfairness of what has been done. In this way, the Government are putting upon the shipowners a handicap and a discount of their rates which they have no power of controlling; they cannot met it, and this is being done at the end of a seven years' period of depression in the industry.
It is not a question of amount, but a question of principle. This House ought not to allow one trade in the country to be penalised in that kind of inadvertent way. One word on the practical aspect of the matter. I do not think there is any Amendment of this Bill which will make it possible to redress the grievance. The only method is the method which has been adopted in regard to the railway companies. There must be some payment of money to the coasting trade of this country on exactly the same sort of lines as that given to the railway company. Fortunately, it is a small sum of money which is involved, but the Government ought not to say that because it is a small sum it is not worth while doing this piece of justice. They ought to say: "Thank Heaven, it is a small sum, and therefore that enables us to do what is asked!" The coast lines of this country are not unreasonable. All that they say is: "Put us in the same position as if you had not, so to speak, 1008 given an extra amount to the railway companies in order to enable them to compete with us and to take away our natural traffic."
It is of extreme importance to this country that the coasting trade should be maintained in a healthy condition. A considerable amount of saving is involved in goods imported into this country, and to some extent on goods exported from this country by means of the coastwise trade. Handling is reduced as compared with railway transport, and the facilities for discharge are considerably increased by having coastwise traffic available alongside the large ocean steamers; and insurance rates are lower on imported goods sold in this country if railway carriage is not included in the transport. These are small things, but in their total amount they are considerable and important to the shipping trade of this country. I submit that not only is there a principle of justice involved but also the policy of doing something to facilitate a method of importation which is in the interests of the country.
I have a practical proposal to make. I am informed that the Chamber of Shipping has been able to work out a very simple system by which if the Government will find the comparatively small amount of money necessary, the shipowners of coastwise trade can account for every penny received, and make quite certain that the money is transmitted to the destination desired in accordance with the scheme of the Bill. The administration of the scheme can be assured with the assistance of the water transport sub-committees at the ports. I ask the Government to agree to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament from all parties, because this is a non-party question, and all the interests affected; to allow them to put their case before the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transport and see whether there is not an unanswerable case although it is a small one.
§ Mr. SEXTONI have endeavoured, as far as my limited intelligence willallow me, to grasp some of the points which have been raised during the Debates on this Bill. I confess that I have not much technical knowledge, and perhaps may not have grasped many of the points raised very clearly, but on the particular question 1009 raised by this Amendment I do claim to have some practical knowledge. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite realised the serious questions raised by this Amendment. The principle of the Bill, as I understand it, is to relieve industry and reduce unemployment, but if he resists this proposal, he will be intensifying unemployment and adding to the burdens of a particular industry. We conceded, not without some sacrifice, the freedom of the roads to the railways, and all that we are asking for in this Amendment is the freedom of the seas. It affects not only the shipowner but the men engaged at the docks as well. I have had some 20 years painful personal experience in the work of handling cargoes, and I know something about the conditions which prevail in this particular industry to-day. There are, I should say, about 33 per cent. of the men unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman has only to consult the figures supplied by the Ministry of Labour to find out the exact numbers. As far back as 1912 we created machinery of a very exceptional character which not only certifies the number of men employed daily, but also collects the wages of the men and pays them for their work at the end of the week. Therefore, I speak with some authority on this point. According to the returns of the Ministry of Labour 33 per cent. of the men employed on the docks to-day are permanently unemployed. The railway companies, in order to increase their traffic, and I am not blaming them for that, have gone to those people who generally use coastwise lines for the carriage of goods and intimated that they are prepared to cut their rates if they will divert their traffic from the coastwise lines.
The right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) has said that the rates for coastwise traffic are slightly below those of the railways. That is quite true; and why? The reason is that the facilities given by the railways, as compared with the coastwise trade, ensure a quicker dispatch. That is not always the case. I have known instances where the railway has not given quicker dispatch. During the War the coastlines and short sea traders lost a considerable amount of traffic which they have never got back; but it does not always follow that the railway gives a quicker dispatch of goods, nor do they 1010 guarantee delivery on a particular day. Generally speaking there is as much delay on the railways as there is on the coastwise lines. My strong point, however, is, that in addition to handicapping and restricting imports by their policy of safeguarding, the Government are giving an advantage to railway companies over the coastwise, trade by the ante-dating of the freight relief, and thus intensifying unemployment. All we ask is that in all fairness there should be some kind of equity; and that the present amount of unemployment in casual labour at the docks should not be intensified. The casual labourer engaged in this trade is the Lazarus of our industrial system; a picker-up here and there of unconsidered trifles; one who watches the opportunity of picking up an odd job here and there. If the Clause is passed in its present shape it will further intensify unemployment in this grade of labour and the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is not going to gain either on the swings or the roundabouts; he is going to lose on both.
I have never doubted the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman to try to reduce unemployment and help industry, but let me say, without any reflection upon him and without any intention to offend, that a somewhat hypothetical and unmentionable region is paved with good intentions. The only effect of the Clause as it stands will be to rob Peter without paying Paul what is due to him, and I hope between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will find a way whereby the inequalities which exist in this matter will be avoided. The casual worker at the docks is the first to be. hit by any depression in trade, and the last to profit by any revival. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do what is asked by this Amendment. If the coastwise shipowner is affected by any lowering of the freights and loses profit, it is bound to have an effect upon the position of the men.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI quite recognise the good intentions of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee, but I could not help wondering while listening to him whether he had read the Amendment to which he was speaking. The Committee is in this extraordinary position that the Amendment we are now discussing has been dis- 1011 missed both by the mover and its principal supporter as being impracticable. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) shakes his head, but he recognised that it would not be effective in carrying out its purpose.
§ Mr. E. BROWNThe right hon. Gentlemen knows very well that this point has been raised very late and that the more effective Amendments which would have given us all that we wanted could not be discussed because of the Guillotine. We are left with this resource.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThat is exactly what I am saying. The hon. Member wishes the Committee to understand that although he is moving this Amendment it is not what he wants; he wants something quite different. It is an extraordinary position for the Committee. Apparently we are all agreed that this Amendment is not practicable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] If there is any hon. Member who does not hold that opinion, I had better devote one or two words of examination as to what it really does. What does it really effect? It puts the appointed day, as far as transport is concerned, back to 31st December, 1928, instead of 1st October, 1929. That applies not merely to docks but also to railways. What is the position of the railways? The relief has already been anticipated. They are already making rebates in respect of certain commodities. They would also be de-rated again. It would mean that we should do the thing twice over. Obviously, that would be an impossible situation as far as the railways were concerned; it would be necessary to scrap the existing scheme altogether. It would be impossible to carry it out because you would be depriving local authorities of a good part of their revenue for the current period for which they will have no substitute whatever. The whole thing would be a perfect chaos.
Let me examine now the particular grievance which I understand the hon. Member is bringing forward. The point made by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) really cannot rest upon so small a foundation as that which was the subject of the speech of the hon. Member for Leith. What are the rebates that the railways are giving on their rates? They 1012 are given only to certain selected traffics, not to all traffics. The selected traffics are, except to a small extent, not traffics which are carried coastwise. We have been told that the great principle that is enshrined here we must be careful to preserve. What the principle is I do not know. The thing itself is of very small dimensions indeed.
§ Mr. SEXTONThe principle is that these ships are carrying the raw materials of our factories, and the docks would be a cul-de-sac without them.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINWhat I am saying is that the rebates which are given to the railways are not given on all traffics, but only on certain traffics, such as coal for export and coal for iron and steel works.
§ Mr. SEXTONRaw materials.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThey are not all raw materials. For instance, there are certain agricultural articles, such as oilcake and, I think, potatoes. When we ask what it all comes down to we find it is oilcake and potatoes. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] If anyone says that there is something else, he can follow me and say what it is. As far as I can ascertain there is nothing involved but oilcake and potatoes. It is quite clear that when the scheme comes into full operation, when the docks get their rate relief, they are to pass it on to their customers. But there is nothing to say that they are to pass it on to selected traffic. The argument of the hon. Member opposite was, I believe, based on the supposition that what had to be considered was the period of 10 months, or thereabouts, between the time when the full scheme comes into operation and the beginning of this scheme of anticipated rebates. It is only a short time. The hon. Member gave some figures to show that the quantity of these particular articles carried by a particular firm had been less in one particular month than in another. But really we cannot base our action on such very isolated figures. We cannot judge whether that loss of trade is or is not due to the competition of the railways. It might be due to a number of other things; at any rate other things with which we are not familiar may account for a considerable part of the difference.
1013 I am not going to say that everybody will be in exactly the same relative position when this scheme comes into operation as they were before. I am sure we shall find that there are grievances, and people will say that a competitor is getting an advantage. That is inevitable in a scheme of this kind. Whilst hon. Members have put forward this grievance they have put forward no remedy for it, and have made no suggestion except that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott), which is nothing more nor less than a permanent subsidy to a particular kind of shipment. I do not think the Committee would look favourably on a proposal of that kind. We have not quite got to that yet.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe right hon. Gentleman chided my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) with not understanding the Amendment. I am not going to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not understanding his Bill. But he does not understand the circumstances of coastal shipping vis-a-vis the railways, He knows nothing whatever about it, and every shipowner in this House who heard his speech will bear me out in that statement. The position is this: There has been for years a natural rivalry between the railway companies and the coastal shipping lines for carrying certain traffics. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is merely a matter of oilcake and potatoes. It is nothing of the kind. There is a very heavy traffic in manures, in pig-iron and in coal. Does the right hon. Gentleman know how much of the London coal comes by sea? I believe the amount is over 30 per cent. That is omitted from the Schedule.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)The coal coming into the Port of London is for gas works and industrial consumption.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThat is not the case. There is a great deal of coal that conies by sea for domestic use, and does not get any rebate. The point is that under the Schedule of the Bill the coal carried coastwise is deliberately excluded to meet the railways' demands. There are other 1014 traffics as well. There are manures, oilcakes, feeding meals, millers' offal and provender. It is not a little matter. The trade affected is very considerable Where you have this intense competition between the railways and the coastal lines, if you give the advantage to the railways you upset the whole balance and do far more damage to the coastal lines than the mere decrease of 10 per cent. in the rates would appear to indicate. I hold here a letter from the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the London, Midland and Scottish Company. It is a joint letter to a firm of potato merchants in Aberdeenshire. They quote the freights from Aberdeen to Newcastle, Hull, London, etc., by rail, on the understanding that the whole of the traffic is to be guaranteed for rail transport. These are the words:
We are prepared to quote the following rates conditional upon the whole of the traffic being guaranteed for railway transport.Having quoted the rates they say:We may say that the charges will be subject to the 10 per cent. allowance under the railway freights relief scheme, and in view of the reduced charges now available for the traffic by rail, we trust that the members of your Association will consider favourably the sending of the whole of the-traffic by rail.That letter is dated 14th December. They knew what was going to be done long before this House had settled the matter. There had been secret meetings between the Minister of Transport and the railway companies, and some selected members of the National Farmers' Union and one or two others. The hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver) knows ail about it—these hole-and-corner meetings. Here we see the result. It is blackmail purely and simply, and the right hon. Gentleman has put the railway companies in the position of being able to levy this blackmail.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYNo, it is blackmail by the railway companies against the merchants. They give reduced rates, not according to the will of Parliament, but on condition that the whole of the traffic is sent by rail.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINHas the hon. and gallant Gentleman never heard of 1015 any shipping company doing the same thing?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYCertainly, but this House has passed a provision whereby the whole of the traffic in potatoes on the railways must receive a 10 per cent. rebate in exchange for the subsidy, but here we have the railway company threatening this Association of merchants that if they dare to send a ton of potatoes by steamer the will of this House is not to be carried out. Here it is in writing. These rates are quoted with a 10 per cent. reduction on condition that the whole of the traffic is sent by rail and not otherwise. But that is only one part of the story. The right hon. Gentleman has permitted the railways to steal this march, to get this advantage over the coastwise shipping companies until next October. But he says, "Oh, then it will be all right." But what is to happen to my constituents in the meantime, those who are thrown out of work. What about the constituents of the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) and the constituents of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who are thrown out of work? It is true that there is great unemployment in the docks. There is a very carefully balanced wage rate for the stevedores, with the shipowners as a party to it, and if the trade is upset that wage rate will be upset also. The men may not be able to accept a reduction, and then there will be industrial trouble.
It is all very well for the Minister to make light of this matter. It is a very serious business. I do not altogether blame him. The truth is that the coast shipping companies have been caught napping. Their officials were in communication, or tried to get into communication with the Minister of Transport, but he kept them at arm's length. They saw some junior official and got no satisfaction. They were kept engaged while the real negotiations went on between the Minister himself and the railway directors. That is how the real business was arranged. The unfortunate coastal shipping lines and the Chamber of Shipping were kept in the dark until the Bill came before the House. When the terms of the Government proposal for anticipating rating relief were known, they tried to take what action they 1016 could. When the Supplementary Estimate was coming before Parliament, I received a telegram—just as other hon. Members received similar telegrams—from my Chamber of Commerce, begging of me to ask the Government to extend the same privilege to the docks. I did so in December last. I got no satisfaction from the Minister. He ignored the point. I hate to say "I told you so," but I warned him in so many words that he was going to have a repetition of the chaos which we had during the War when the balance was upset and when, for strategical reasons, we had to send more freight by rail. Then, the coastal shipping traffic was disorganised and they had the greatest difficulty in winning back the traffic which they lost while there was congestion on the railway.
Hardly anyone else in the House was able to press home that point. It was not known what was going to be the effect on the coastal shipping lines. If half the fuss had been made about this question that was made about the private mineral railways, we would have got a concession then. But the interests concerned allowed themselves to be hoodwinked and were kept at arm's length by the Minister of Transport. All this is very unfortunate for the poor people who depend for their livelihoods on this traffic. The right hon. Gentleman says it is impossible to anticipate the derating of docks. It was considered impossible at first to anticipate the de-rating of the railways. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) pleading for an anticipation of the rate relief on the railways and it was then regarded as impossible. It would be no more impossible to derate the docks, than it was to give this relief to the railways in December last I consider the Amendment is feasible and workable and if it does inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman I would rather have that than the worse inconvenience which will be caused to the unfortunate workmen concerned in this matter.
§ Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLENI do not wish to take up much of the time of the Committee on this question, but I am afraid that attention has been diverted from the real point. The real point is simply this. Owing, no doubt, to an oversight, this particular form of transport which is as necessary to us as other forms of transport—because we do not wish 1017 that there should be any monopoly in transport in this country, and we know how vital it is to have an option from time to time, in regard to different forms of transport, and we know the great service which the coastal service is doing—will be injured by this arrangement. But the amount involved is not large and the period of time concerned is not long. I thought that the Minister did not quite convey the true position as I understand it. It is quite true that the Bill does not stipulate any direct payment to the coastal shipping people. On the other hand, the coastal shipping people trust the dock people, and have reason to trust them, and to believe that they will do the right thing. There is no doubt that they will. I do not go further than that, but it is clear that business men do not trust people without knowing what they are about. There is no fear on that score.
I think that, quite unintentionally, there has been some slight misunderstanding in another respect. This is not a permanent subsidy, but a measure of very temporary assistance to tide over, until the appointed day arrives, a difficulty created by an oversight in the Bill. There is no other suggestion. As regards the Amendment, I do not see how it could be supported because it would put the Bill info a hopeless position; but I am glad to see that the point which the Amendment brings out has been fully discussed in the Committee. I do not want to see that point exaggerated, although, it is important. At the same time, there is a grievance which I hope the Minister will see his way to remedy. Justice ought to be done. Above all, we do not want to see our shipping in any way injured at a moment like the present. While various rather brilliant, though perhaps hardly logical suggestions have been made in the course of the Debate, I hope we shall confine ourselves to the simple point which has been brought before the Minister by this Amendment and I trust that the Amendment, having served its purpose, will be withdrawn. I also hope that the Minister, and those who may have been disposed to look upon this matter too lightly, will realise that though it may be a small point in itself, the principle is a serious one and one to which they ought to give further attention.
§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODI have observed before that when the Minister deals with matters outside his own Department, his knowledge generally proves to be of the sketchiest kind. I do not want to put it in any stronger terms than that. We have had illustrations of the fact before, and I think it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the subject with which he is now dealing. He tries to deal with it by belittling it, and by saying that this is only an incidental discomfort, that it is only going to operate for a short time, and that it is merely a matter of oil cake and potatoes. It does not matter to me whether it is a small problem or not. It is, in fact, larger than the right hon. Gentleman pretends, but, whether it be small or not, this is an injustice which has arisen out of this Bill and it is very real to the people affected. I am not moved by what the right hon. Gentleman said about this Amendment not doing what is wanted There is still a Report stage, and if the right hon. Gentleman cared to make some amends, he could do so perfectly well. The fact that we have not been able to raise the matter before is not our fault. The right hon. Gentleman's guillotine has prevented us having full opportunity of doing so.
What is the position? This all goes back to what I have said more than once in the course of these Debates. The right hon. Gentleman is always defending his de-rating of railways on the ground that the whole of the advantage is to be handed over to the consumers—that it is to be passed on in the form of lower freights for certain selected traffics. I have pointed out, and other hon. Members have pointed out, that although it may be perfectly true that the railways have to pass on in reduced freights all they get from de-rating, yet the very fact that they are able to reduce their freights below the economic level, which has hitherto obtained as against their competitors, gives them an advantage over coastwise traffic and road transport. The proposal was bound to mean that traffic would be attracted to the railways which had hitherto bean carried in other ways. My attention has been drawn to-day to what is happening at this very moment. Coal, which has hitherto been carried by steamer, is now being carried by rail. That is very serious. If you are going to allow the 1019 railway companies to take, even selected traffics, from other forms of transport, you may confer some small benefit on railways but you are going to impose a serious hardship on the other forms of transport affected.
The coastwise traffic of this country is no inconsiderable matter. It is an industry of substantial importance and it happens to have had an extraordinarily bad time since the War. I know of no industry which has suffered more than the coastwise and short sea traffic industry of this country. During these nine months—short as the period is—you will drive these people into a position of grave difficulty from which they will not be able to emerge at the end of the nine months. It is not as though you were merely asking them to make this sacrifice in the interests of the Tory party for nine months, and that their position was to be bettered at the end of that time. That will not be the case. The traffic diverted to the railways will tend to remain with the railways, and an industry which is already depressed will be injured more severely still.
7.0 p.m.
When we come to the dockside we find there a colossal problem of unemployment which is bound to be intensified. Even if it is only, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a small problem; even if it only adds 200 to the number of unemployed in our ports, it is an evil thing that such an injustice should be perpetrated and that the Government should do nothing when it is brought to their notice. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we proceed on the lines suggested, we shall create chaos, but it is the scheme that is making the chaos. It is the scheme that is wrong. The fact that the Government, without due regard to shipping interests, have selected one form of transport for public assistance at the expense of every other form of transport, has created the chaotic condition to which attention is drawn by the Amendment. The people concerned with coastwise traffic cannot allow these nine months to elapse and hope to get back again the traffic which they will lose. Kipling has said:
But, oh, the little cargo boats!They've got to load or die.Unless they are going to get the loads, these boats must die and the effect of the 1020 Government proposal will be to create a serious problem in one of our essential industries. Hon. Members will surely agree that the Mercantile Marine is one of our vital industries. The effect of the Government proposals as they stand, will be to inflict serious injury on that industry. The right hon. Gentleman tries to brush the matter aside by saying it is not very large. If the injustice is a real one—as admittedly it is—then it is the Government's business to find a way out of it. If the method suggested here will not do, then it is the Minister's responsibility to find another way. As we have been reminded, we were told at first that it was impracticable to anticipate the date originally fixed for the de-rating of railways, but sufficient pressure on the Minister in that case converted the impracticable into the practicable. It was done and done very speedily and the amended proposal came into operation in next to no time. If this grievance appeals to the Minister at all, he can remedy it. If he does not remedy it, then we must simply add it to the other grievances and injustices which this Measure is bound to create.
§ Mr. RADFORDMy right hon. Friend the Minister of Health made it clear to the Committee that this Amendment was an unworkable one but he certainly did not satisfy me that the position, if not dealt with, is not very inequitable nor did he satisfy me that the question was not capable of solution. As I understand it, free and open competition between the railways and coastwise traffic was not interfered with by any Government until December, 1928. Had the original intention of the Government been adhered to, the position would still have been unaffected but the Government ante-dated the relief to certain railway traffic as from 1st December, 1928, by a grant of 3⅓ millions. The right hon. Gentleman has said, rightly, that any differentiation as between the treatment of the railways and the treatment of the coastwise traffic is only a comparatively small matter and only for a period of 10 months. That is quite true. He also said that none of the hon. Members who supported this Amendment have put forward any suggestion as to how to remedy it. I suggest to him that, when the Government decided that a grant of 3⅓ millions would be a figure 1021 which would justify them in calling upon the railways to make a 10 per cent. reduction as from 1st December on the freight charges on certain commodities, they must have had the data in front of them to enable them to come to that decision. The information which they had before them with regard to that particular traffic from the railway companies could also have been available to them in regard to the traffic borne by our coastwise steamers. I appeal to the Minister on the grounds of equity to have the necessary inquiries made and to invite the coastwise steamer companies to give him the necessary figures, duly certified, so that the very small amount may be voted to them which will make their position during the period between 1st December and 1st October, when (he two competing classes of carriers will be once more level, an equitable one. It is our duty in this House not to look at matters parochially and not to be concerned only with our own constituencies but nevertheless, while taking a broad national view, we must think of our own constituents first. Only this week while I was interviewing the Transport and General Workers' Federation about getting some men who are out of work back into work at the Salford Docks I was told that the work there was not sufficient to keep employed the casual workers already there and that two or three hundred men were unemployed. I sincerely hope that between now and Report stage the Minister will be in a position to make some statement which will satisfy us.
§ Mr. MARCHSome time ago when the Minister was speaking in regard to this matter, he said it was only the potatoes and oilcake that were concerned, but, if he had asked his right hon. Friend beside him, he would have heard a different story. The President of the Board of Trade knows quite well the different commodities which are carried by the coastwise steamers to our wharves in London and knows that they include a good many other commodities. Potatoes at this time of the year are a very important freight from Dundee, Aberdeen, and the other coastal places. We get thousands of tons brought in from Aberdeen. The Scottish potatoes are well known to be the best seed potatoes the farmers can get in this country and the majority of them come by coast- 1022 wise steamer. I have a letter here which I have received from the Aberdeen Wharf Company in my division, in, which they point out that this will mean a big reduction in the labour that they have been in the habit of employing. It not only means a big reduction in employment for dockers and for those who do the loading and return loading, but also for vehicle workers who do the carting away from that wharf to places in and around London. Many of those loads are carried long distances by motor.
I do not think the Minister has realised what he is actually doing. If there is no possibility of accepting this Amendment and he states that the amount granted to the railways was in respect of specially selected goods, cannot this be extended to the coastwise steamers on specially selected goods on the same lines as with regard to the railways? Then the reduction of 10 per cent. can be given on those commodities which are going to assist the agricultural workers. A large number of men are affected by this matter round our wharves. Our shipping and ports and wharves have been very hard hit for a number of years. There is no industry in this country which has been hit so hard as the shipping industry. We have 33 per cent. of the dockers of this country unemployed for years and there is not another industry, not even the miners, that can say the same thing. Therefore, I think that the Minister ought to give this matter very serious consideration and see if there is not a possibility of putting this industry on an equality with regard to the percentage which can be given to those specially selected goods. I hope we will get this matter considered in the right direction.
§ Sir BASIL PETOI want to put to the Minister very shortly the case from a slightly different angle. It may be quite true that this is a very small question and deals with a very limited period, but I want to point out how it affects one specific case which I will bring to the attention of the Committee. We have only had a coastwise service, which is of great importance, restored since 1922 to the district I represent. There is not a very wide difference between the railway rates and the freight that can be charged on this coastwise ser- 1023 vice from Bristol to the Port of Bideford on articles which are essential to agriculture, such as artificial manures, feeding stuffs and goods of that kind. Under the present proposals the Minister is giving the railway companies a ten months run during which they will be in the position of offering the attractive advantage of a 10 per cent. reduction in their freights. That will bring their freights almost to an equality with those charged by the sea. What is this coastwise steamer company to do? It has either to make a 10 per cent. reduction on its freights for 10 months out of the pockets of the owners or shareholders or it has got to withdraw this particular coastal facility for some time. Once you upset the balance and drive goods, which have been accustomed to go by sea, back to the railway it is very difficult to get them back again and it is very likely that you will not get that essential competing service, which is so necessary to meet the needs of the farmers, restored at all. What is the effect? Clearly, it is of immense advantage to the agricultural industry that this service from Bristol to Bideford and the other little ports should be maintained. It is also undoubtedly an advantage to the workers in unloading these coastwise vessels. We have a very high percentage of unemployed. In November, there were 16 per cent. unemployed at (he Port of Bideford, and I do not want to see them increased. I do not want to see the farmers' facilities for getting cheap manure and foodstuffs taken away from them. That is not the purpose of this Bill. Although I agree with the Minister that the particular words of this Amendment are quite impossible, yet we all know that there is a Report stage, and that a very trifling sum of money would do away with this inequality for this period of ten months.
I understand from the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) that the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir Leslie Scott) never put forward any idea of a permanent subsidy amounting to £100,000 a year for coastwise steamers. It is only a matter of ten months. There is nothing in the Bill which would insure that the coastwise steamers will be in exactly the position of the railway companies to offer a 10 per cent. reduc- 1024 tion on those particular freights but these particular articles are the very articles that are carried in the case I have quoted and it is obvious that, when they get relief under this Bill, they will have the money and will use it to reduce whatever freights it will be in their interest to reduce. In practice they will be the freights on the same things as the railway companies are put in a position to reduce. That comes out of the ordinary law of competition. We are only dealing with this period of 10 months and I ask the Minister between now and Report in the interests of agriculture, in the interests of employment, in the interests of maintaining this vital coastal service, not to do anything which would be injurious to agriculture, and to consider putting the coastwise services on terms of equality for this period of ten months.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but, in view of the statements made as to the effect of these proposals upon coastwise traffic, I think it my duty to say a few words to the Committee. We are all agreed as to the value of coastwise shipping, whether in peace or war, and I do not think any of us would rightly assent to any proposal which was going seriously to affect the coastwise shipping trades. Certainly, if I were satisfied that any proposal made in this Bill was calculated to have very serious or unfair effects upon coastwise slipping, I would be the first to tender advice to my colleagues in the sense expressed in all quarters of the Committer.
§ Sir L. SCOTTWill the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation to satisfy him on that point?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have already had an opportunity, not of hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but of having the very fullest possible discussion with two Members of this House, the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) and another hon. Member, who presented the views of the Chamber of Shipping. I had a discussion of very great length with them, and I have been in touch for a considerable time with the Chamber of Shipping. The one thing on which I think a strong case was made out was the question of coal, and that is entirely met in the body of the Bill.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAm I right in saying that in the Schedule to the Bill, on page 139, "coal, coke and patent fuel shipped coastwise" are left out?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERReally, the hon. and gallant Member is more royalist than the King. I discussed this with the Chamber of Shipping, and the only case made out was in regard to a particular class of coal, namely, coal which after being shipped coastwise is exported or used for bunkers. To give a rebate on other coastwise coal would be giving a rebate on coal shipped coastwise where there was no rebate on railway traffic. The only case put forward by the Chamber of Shipping was that you may get coal which is shipped coastwise, for example, to the Port of London, which ultimately passes, not into domestic or industrial consumption, but into coal for export or for foreign bunkers. In that case the railway rebate would apply equally to the coal shipped coastwise as to the coal sent to the port of export by rail. Three-quarters or more of the total amount of rebates with which we are concerned are on coal, and there the coastwise shipping case has been met.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY rose—
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI cannot give way. I say that advisedly, and I say it in the presence of those hon. Members who know this position, with the Chamber of Shipping, and I am sure that no hon. Member who does know it will deny what I have said.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI have evidence to the contrary.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI said, "Hon. Members who know." Then he mentioned pig iron. Pig iron is not included.
§ Mr. E. BROWNIs it not a fact that in Parts I, II and III of the Schedule you will find ore, pig iron and scrap iron?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, you will find ore, but not pig iron or scrap iron.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERReally that is so. What are included are ore, limestone, and pit-props. We may differ, 1026 perhaps, on opinions, but surely not on facts. Therefore, the coastwise question only arises when we come to deal with the agricultural traffic, which is relatively small, and it only arises then—and my right hon. Friend is quite right—with regard to a very few of those agricultural traffics; and in the representations which I have received the serious question is on a certain amount of potatoes and feeding-stuffs and perhaps a little artificial manure. Let me put two things to the Committee. The first is that what is asked is in effect a subsidy to meet the 10 per cent. difference in railway rates—we are all agreed about that—and the subsidy would not be for nine months only. I think hon. Members are too optimistic if they suppose that when they can claim any guarantee from the dock authorities they are going to apply what they get in derating preferentially to coastwise shipping. I should be deceiving the Committee if I said anything else.
§ Sir L. SCOTTThat is not what is asked for.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERJ know, but I am concerned to show that it would not be sufficient for your purposes. If we granted a subsidy for nine months, that subsidy would have to continue afterwards.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERUnless you have a complete guarantee from the dock companies that what they are going to do with the relief when they get it is to apply it to coastwise shipping you have no guarantee that they will not apply it to other purposes as well As a matter of fact, I am pretty certain that when the docks come to apply their relief they will find that there will be a very large number of claims. Not only has all shipping its interest in getting a reduction of dock charges, but traders who are represented on the dock authorities and who ship goods will make their voice heard. So far from it being certain that dock relief will be confined to selected traffics, I am certain that this argument will be advanced, that the selected traffics have had a very considerable amount of relief already and that it ought to be the turn of other traffics which have not been specially selected. Therefore, if you are to give 1027 a subsidy at all you will have to give it for more than nine months, and the Committee would want a very strong ease I think to convince it that a subsidy was desirable. There may be some reduction made in rates by the railways in some cases—I think that is certain—but surely what we have to consider is if the difference in these freights is such as to call upon us to come in and invite the taxpayers to find the money for a subsidy.
In regard to the argument that these freights were so close that the coastwise companies would lose a good deal of trade if ever there was any reduction in the railway rates, my right hon. Friend asked the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) whether he could give the corresponding railway rate. I have got it. It is important in considering the justice of the case, to see whether the railway rates and the coastwise freights are just about the same, in which case even a small reduction is going to make a good deal of difference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the case of oilcake shipped from Liverpool to Glasgow. The steamer rate is 15s., but the railway late, even after the rebate of 10 per cent. is taken off, is 25s. 4d. a ton.
§ Mr. GREENWOODIs that a special rate?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERWhat I am quoting is the rate quoted by the railway companies to-day, less the rebate of 10 per cent.
§ Mr. GREENWOODMy point is this, that, however different they were before, they now work on competitive prices.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIf the case is really going to be put that where you find a difference of 10s. a ton in favour of the shipping—
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt is the rate which is being quoted by the railways to-day. When you find that the railway rate quoted is 25s. 4d. and the coastwise freight quoted is 15s., and allowing for the fact that it takes longer to ship—although a great deal of exaggerated importance can be attached to 1028 that point, because when you are shipping potatoes, not new potatoes that you want to get quickly on to a market, but ordinary potatoes, time is not nearly as great a factor as the cost of freight— anxious as I am to do anything I can for coastwise shipping, when you get a difference on that large scale between the sea freight and the railway rate, then I do not think I should be justified in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find a special subsidy for the coastwise shipping.
Now, the hon. Gentleman says, what about special rates which are quoted if you send your goods exclusively by rail? The last people who can complain of a practice of that kind are the shipping companies. Does not the hon. Member know that the regular practice of all lines? is to give a special rate to those who will ship exclusively by their line It is a practice which has been adopted by every shipping company in the world. It is a practice which has been debated in this House and whch came before the Imperial Shipping Committee, and I remember standing at this Box and defending the shipping companies for bat practice, because it is a very reasonable thing to allow a transport carrier, whether a railway or a shipping line, to give special rates for a known amount of traffic. That is a practice that has been common to the shipping lines for years, and if railways are now doing their business on competitive lines and—I do not want to be offensive—are waking up, if I may so put it, and trying to get traffic by methods which have been common in the shipping world for a long time, that is a matter, I think, upon which to congratulate the railway companies, and it certainly is not a form of competition which the shipowners can say is in any way unfair. Therefore, on the merits of this case, on the amount at stake, and having regard to the difference in the freights on the railways and on the sea, I submit to the Committer, that the case for a special subsidy, which this House always requires to be a very strong case, has not been made out.
§ Mr. BROWNIn order to show that there is a great deal more to be said than the right hon. Gentleman has said in favour of this coastwise shipping, let me read this telegram that I have re- 1029 ceived from a shipping firm with an office in Leeds:
Potato traffic from Angus, Fife, and Lothian districts by our steamers we have now been forced in order retain traffic which has always been carried by us to grant to traders a rebate similar to railways of 10 per cent. A tonnage of 30,000 tons is involved, and the loss to us is £3,000, which must come out of our pockets.I think that is sufficient to show that a great deal more than we have been able
§ to say can be said on this question. I regret the hard-faced view taken by the Ministers on this matter, and I shall have to go to a Division on this important point.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 224.
1031| Division No. 139.] | AYES. | [7.30 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Grundy, T. W. | Sakiatvaia, Shapurji |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Scurr, John |
| Amman, Charles George | Hardle, George D. | Sexton, James |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hayday, Arthur | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Baker, Walter | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hirst, G. H. | Shinwell, E. |
| Barnes, A. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Barr, J. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bellamy, A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Broad, F. A. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sullivan, J. |
| Bromfield, William | Kelly, W. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Bromley, J. | Kennedy, T | Taylor, R. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Kirkwood, D. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Lansbury, George | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawrence, Susan | Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawson, John James | Thurtie, Ernest |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Ciynes, Rt, Hon. John R. | Longbottom, A. W. | Tomlinson, R. P. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lunn, William | Vlant, S. P. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dennison, R. | Mackinder, W. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Duncan, C | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Dunnico, H. | March, S. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, J. C. |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| England, Colonel A. | Murnin, H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Forrest, W. | Oliver, George Harold | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Palin, John Henry | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Paling, W. | Williams, T. (York. Don valley) |
| Gillett, George M. | Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wright, Brig.-General W. D. |
| Greenall, T | Ponsonby, Arthur | Young, Robert [Lancaster, Newton) |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins) | Potts, John S. | |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Purceil, A. A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Giffith, F. Kingsley | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) | Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and |
| Groves, T. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Eiland) | Mr. Ernest Brown. |
| NOES. | ||
| Albery, Irving James | Briggs, J. Harold | Cohen, Major J. Brunei |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Briscoe, Richard George | Colfox, Major William Phillips |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Colman, N. C. D. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrld W. | Broun Lindsay, Major H. | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cope, Major Sir William |
| Astor, Maj. Hn.JohnJ. (Kent, Dover) | Brown,Brig.-Gen-H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Couper, J. B. |
| Atkinson, C. | Buckingham, Sir H. | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bullock, Captain M. | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) |
| Balniel, Lord | Burman, J. B. | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Butler. Sir Geoffrey | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Campbell. E. T. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) |
| Bellairs, Commander Cariyon | Carver, Major W. H. | Crockshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth. Drake) | Cassels, J. D. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Davias, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) |
| Berry, Sir George | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Bethel, A. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Belterton, Henry B. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood) | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Chapman, Sir S. | Deen, Arthur Wellesley |
| Brass, Captain W. | Ciarry, Reginald George | Drewe, C. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Ellis, R. G. | Lamb, J. O. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westons.-M) | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Sandon, Lord |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Lloyd, Cyril E (Dudley) | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Long, Major Eric | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Lougher, Lewis | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Fielden, E. B. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vero | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Lumley, L. R. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Beifst) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Skeiton, A. N. |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.) | Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Gadle, Lieut. Col. Anthony | MacIntyre, I. | Smithers, Waidron |
| Gaibraith, J. F. W. | McLean, Major A. | Somervlile, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Gates, Percy | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Spender-Clay. Colonel H. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Malone, Major P. B. | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Goft, Sir Park | Mason, Colonel Giyn K. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Melier, R. J. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Greene, W. P. Crawtord | Meyer, Sir Frank | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Hacking, Douglas H. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hanbury, C. | Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Harland, A. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Hasiam, Henry c. | Nuttall, Ellis | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon Hugh | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Penny, Frederick George | Waddington, R. |
| Hills, Major John Walter | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hoare, Lt.- Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hoibrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Pitcher, G. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Pownail, Sir Assheton | Wells, S. R. |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Preston, William | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S | Radford, E. A. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay) |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Raine, Sir Waiter | Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Ramsden, E. | Withers, John James |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland. Whiteh'n) | Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Rice, Sir Frederick | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Iveagh, Countess of | Ruperts, Sir Samuel (Herelord) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneli | |
| Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Ropner. Major L. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Rugriles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Captain Margesson and Captain |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Rye, F. G Bowyer. |
Question, put, and agreed to.
§ It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the. Government of which notice had been, given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.
§ Amendments made:
§ In page 93, line 35, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "and second fixed grant periods."
§ In page 94, leave out from beginning of line 38 to the end of line 2, page 95.
§ In page 97, line 23, leave out the words "means men," and insert instead thereof the words "and unemployed insured 1032 Women' mean, respectively, men and women."—[Sir K. Wood.]
§ Consequential Amendments made.