HC Deb 05 March 1929 vol 226 cc299-313

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "functions," in line 8, to the word "as," in line 9.

Owing to the way in which the Guillotine has worked during the discussion of the Bill the case of the small burghs has never been adequately discussed. This is the last opportunity that we may have while the Bill is in this House of considering the position of the small burghs under the provisions of the Bill. Under the Clause as it stands. all the functions of the district committees of the districts within the county; and the functions of town councils of small burghs within the county as local authorities for the purposes of the statutory provisions set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act are to be transferred to and vested in the county council.

Under the Amendment which I am now proposing, and the consequential Amendment which also stands in my name in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert the words: of town councils of such small burghs as within six months after the passing of this Act have not been able to satisfy the central authority as to their capacity to discharge these functions efficiently. only those functions would be transferred of such councils of burghs as failed within six months of the passing of the Act to prove that they were efficient in the discharge of their duties. It has been admitted in the course of the Debate that the small burghs of Scotland, as a rule, are not inefficient in the discharge of their duties. Great praise has been given to the small burghs for the very adequate way in which they have discharged their duties, and the Secretary of State must have realised by now, if he did not realise it when he brought in his Bill, the strong feeling that has been aroused throughout the small burghs by the very drastic methods which he has adopted in regard to them. He has given way to a very large extent, and a large number of the powers which he proposed in the first instance to take away from the small burghs, have been restored. There remain, however, the proposals in this Clause to take away the administration of 25 Acts of Parliament, which are mentioned in the First Schedule, which range from the Registration of Births, and the Land Valuation (Scotland) Act, down to the Food and Drugs Acts, which the small burghs have administered in the past.

It has been argued on the Government side that the main objects of the Bill are efficiency and economy. We who speak for the small burghs say: "Why do you deprive them of the administration of these Acts which they have proved in the past that they are efficient to administer." Nothing in this world is perfect, and we are prepared to admit that there may be certain small burghs which do not come up to the standard of the majority. In this Amendment, opportunity would be given to the Government to say, within six months of the passing of this Act, "You have not proved your efficiency in administering the Acts; you have failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to you. Therefore, we will transfer these powers from you, to the county." Unless a burgh has shown that it is inefficient in the discharge of these duties, the Government should not deprive that burgh of the opportunity of exercising those duties. I suppose there are few Members representing county constituencies who have not several small burghs, two, three, or four, in their constituencies, whose administration is an example of efficiency and economy. It is so in my constituency. We, on this side of the House, are very doubtful where the economy is coming under this Act. We are inclined to foresee that there will be increased expenditure in a great many directions, and that if the administration of these matters, which has been in the hands of well-worked burghs in the past, is to be in the hands of the county councils, who have not the same interest in the administration that the burghs must have, we shall not get the same efficiency. Therefore, I ask the Government to give consideration to this Amendment, even at this later hour, so that a small remnant of their powers may be preserved to the small burghs of Scotland.


I beg to second the Amendment.

A great deal is to be said for burghs with a population of from 8,000 to 15,000 in respect of efficient local administration. There are three such burghs in my own constituency, and the administration leaves nothing to be desired; their general administration of the health services are a model for the rest of the country. They have the most up-to-date hospitals and health inspection, both on the medical and sanitation side; they have public baths, run on the most approved methods, and yet these go ahead burghs, which have administered their own affairs for hundreds of years, are to be drawn into a larger area of quite recent formation. I am satisfied that the administration is bound to Suffer. If I had had the drawing up of this Measure and wanted to create larger areas I should have built the larger areas around these burghs rather than incorporated these burghs in the areas. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will realise the hardship which will be caused by the proposals in this Bill. If he will accept the Amendment he will improve the Bill and also show some charity to these small burghs.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I have an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words: other than Royal burghs and those coastal burghs having an estimated summer population of twenty thousand persons or over. It covers the same point as the Amendment we are now discussing, and perhaps I may be allowed to discuss the two together.


The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was covered by a new Clause which was negatived by the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

There is just one difference, and that is that in my Amendment I refer to the Royal burghs.


That is true, but I think the hon. Member should argue his case on this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE

I only wish to put in a claim for the Royal burghs of Scotland. I have no justification to advance on their behalf on the ground of population, either summer or winter, but I plead on the grounds of sentiment which seems to have been lost in this early part of the 20th century. The Royal burghs of Scotland date back for hundreds of years. They have a tradition which is unequalled in Scottish history. They are the very basis on which Scottish history is formed. They have contributed to the education of Scottish people, and it is due to them that Scottish education is so widely famed throughout the world. I do not need to accentuate what has already been said in regard to the efficiency of civil administration in Scotland. That is well known to every visitor to Scotland who has had the misfortune to go into the hospitals which these Royal burghs provide or, has had the good fortune to visit the wide esplanades of the coastal towns. There are other reasons. In the small town of Saltcoats we have the largest swimming pool in Scotland; and it is true that these small burghs have shown much initiative and imagination in their civic administration. I feel that there is a point to be made in favour of the exclusion of the Royal burghs and many other small burghs which have shown their efficiency in local administration, and I hope that even at this late hour the Under-Secretary will accept some such proposal as this.


Right throughout the discussions on this Bill I felt that there was some call for a change in local government in Scotland, but I never felt convinced in respect of the transfer of functions from small burghs to the county councils. I do not subscribe to the view that every small burgh in Scotland is efficient. Many of them are, but this at least can be said, that in the main they are much more efficient than county councils. We have no guarantee that county councils, which are to be entrusted with these wider functions, will be more satisfactory in respect of the administration of health and other services than the small burghs, and without such a guarantee I suggest that there is no reason why the small burghs should be denuded of the powers which they possess. I am confronted by a difficulty in this matter which, perhaps, the Under-Secretary might be able to remove. It is now proposed to set up district councils, and, as I understand it, these bodies are to have from time to time duties which would otherwise fall on the county councils. Therefore, some district councils may have wider functions than others; it depends on circumstances.

The difficulty I see is this, that in the transfer of county council functions to district councils it may happen that some small burghs, as a result of the loss of functions, will have fewer functions to perform than the new district councils, and if that is the case, and I think it must be so, it will lead to the seining up of an anomaly that would be wholly unsatisfactory from the standpoint of local government administration in Scotland. That is, I think, a point of substance. At all events we are entitled to some information in respect to the possible variation in power as between small burghs under the new dispensation and the district councils as now constituted under the Bill. Let me say a word in regard to the most substantial argument advanced by the Under-Secretary of State and his friends in respect of the need for taking away certain functions from the small burghs. The argument was this, that for the purpose of the de-rating proposals, and on the ground of efficiency and because of the need for centralisation, it was essential to adopt this device. Let us see what substance there is in that argument. As far as the de-rating is concerned it cannot possibly affect the position of the small burghs in the new form, because if it did it would equally affect the position of the new district councils. The two cases are on all fours. Therefore, derating cannot be adduced as an argument in support of this proposal.

Take the question of centralisation. I accept the view that centralisation is, on the whole, more advantageous than the existence of a large number of units of a more or less efficient character. But, if centralisation is a good principle to introduce then clearly there was no occasion for the establishment of district councils, because the establishment of district councils vitiates the principle of centralisation. As regards the question of efficiency, I submit there can be no gainsaying the fact that in respect of the major number of small burghs in Scotland no case has been made out against them on the ground of inefficiency. Hon. Members during the Debate have referred to their own constituencies. As regards the small burghs with which I am acquainted they appear to me to be quite efficient in respect of health services and general local administration, but of this I am quite certain, that there is no small burgh in the County of West Lothian which has not proved itself better than the County Council of West Lothian. I challenge contradiction on that point. For these reasons I submit that the Under-Secretary of State must make out a much more convincing case if we are to believe that there is need to transfer existing functions from small burghs to county councils.

8.0 p.m.


I might have some difficulty in meeting the point put to me by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) if what he has said were the plan and intention of the Government. We have altogether failed to describe the scheme to the hon. Member if he still visualises it as the transfer of functions from burghs to county councils. What is proposed is something quite different. We are proposing to set up a joint authority of burghal and county-authorities, on which urban authorities are to be represented as well as the landward areas. That is the fundamental thing for the House to grasp at this stage. We are not seeking to transfer the powers to be taken out of the hands of the burghs and given into the hands of the county councils. We are seeking to set up a new body which shall be both burghal and county, and which shall exercise the functions of the major health services.


I find it rather difficult to apprehend the meaning of this. May I direct the attention of the Under-Secretary to the First Schedule in which the language is clear and unmistakable: Statutory provisions regarding functions of town councils of small burghs transferred to county councils. That surely means what it says.


If the hon. Member will look further and see the definition of the county council, or see the figures for the reconstituted county council, he will grasp the fact that in the County of Selkirk, for instance, there are seven representatives of the large ward division and 17 representatives from the small burghs. The hon. Member can ask himself whether in that case we are transferring the functions of the burgh to the county council. One might say that we are transferring the functions of the county council to the small burghs instead. Therefore, we sweep away that argument altogether. We are discussing now whether or not a new joint authority, county and burghal, shall be set up to exercise functions in Scotland over a wider field than hitherto.

I am asked to substantiate the claim which the Government are putting forward to have this Clause to-night. I was asked in what way the Government accused the small burghs or convicted them of inefficiency, and I am asked by the Amendment being discussed to undertake the invidious position of holding a drumhead court-martial and sentencing the defaulters to be led out and shot at dawn. We are not considering that question from that angle at all. We are considering the question whether the major health services of Scotland could be more efficiently administered in a smaller area or in a wider one. That is the question, not the condemnation of the burghs or the county councils. The question is whether the merging of the county and the local administration will provide a more efficient service for Scotland in the future than in the past. On that, I have a wealth of evidence which has been examined and considered by one Committee after another, and which has been reported on by almost every Committee which has been set up upon it in absolutely unmistakeable terms. Committee after Committee have reported urgently that the wider area of health services would be for the good of Scotland as a whole. I do not need to repeat again the report of the consultative council set up to consider this very point, a report which had the most authoritative representatives upon it from the hon. Member's own party. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), my predecessor in this post, the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan)—


Will the right hon. Member for a change and to relieve the monotony find something more substantial.


I have not the contempt the hon. Member opposite has for these hon. Members of his own party. As Under-Secretary for Health, he must allow me to rely on the opinion of another Under-Secretary of Health from the hon. Member's own party. I will go to another Report. Seeing that we are dealing with the Liberal party's Amendment, I will go to the Report which covers the Highlands and Islands. It is the Report of an authoritative Committee presided over by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education with a representative of the Liberals upon it and a friend of my own, Dr. Donald Murray, former Member for the Western Isles. I will ask the hon. Member to consider the opinion of the ex-Member for the Western Isles. He recommends: For the major health services the area of administration in the Highlands and Islands should be the county, and that no burgh within the islands should constitute an entirely separate area with administration of the major health services. I think we are entitled to call the attention of hon. Members opposite to this expression of opinion of one of their own party, a Member from the region for which many of them sit. The Report also dealt with the local authority for the administration of the health services. The Secretary of State for Scotland in his original draft included water, drainage, sewage, and housing within the functions of the county, but this Committee suggested that these functions would be better left to the smaller local authorities. The health scheme which we have brought in now is in close correspondence with the recommendations made by that Committee, and quite independently of the other Committee which considered the health areas, and came to the findings that I have recently given to the House What more remains to be said? It is this, that we are asking neither the burgh nor the county to abandon its functions, but to come together in a new health authority covering a wide area. The hon. Member for St. Rollox will in no way want to go back on the Report to which he gave his signature. In health services, he has never hesitated to affirm that he stands to-day by the position which he then took up. We differ on the question of the Poor Law, but on the question of the health services I think I have his support.

I would ask my friends of the Liberal party whether they really desire to press this Amendment, and to say that the position of the burghs of Scotland is to be gone over, and that they are to be looked at one after the other as a schoolmaster would mark the exercise books of the children in his school. We ask them to accept the finding of so many authoritative bodies that the wider area for the major health services will be an advantage to the country as a whole. We ask them to say that the burghs will lead in this as in the past, and will be able themselves to continue that lead in a wider area which they have given in the narrower sphere. We agree that the burghs of Scotland have been the centres of education and progress in all manner of ways, but times have moved, and we must move with them. In old days, the burgh street was the only decent road in the countryside. Hon. Members will remember the ride of Tam o'Shanter and the kind of road followed to Alloway Kirk. The burgh police who watched within the walls of the burgh formed the only police system, and the man who was outside the gates at sundown took his own chance and carried his life in his hands. In matters of the administration of health, all these things were confined within the walled towns, which were the only strongholds of culture in mediaeval ages. But now only an imaginary line marks the boundaries. It is possible for us to consider the services in all these respects for a wider area. It is for us to realise that the road runs out from burgh to county and that the ambulance follows the road to where the sick man is collected, whether in the burgh or county, and it is for us to ensure that the fullest possible use is made of these services. It is not because I do not recognise the transcendent services rendered by the burghs, but because I see an opportunity now for the burghs to extend these services—an opportunity that is open to the House to-night—that I ask the House to accept this Clause.


With his usual brilliance the Under-Secretary of State has appealed to us not to press this Amendment to a Division. He has quoted in support of that appeal the opinions of certain eminent authorities and committees. But we should be much more inclined to listen to an appeal based upon the opinions of those committees and authorities if the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself would pay attention to the recommendations of the authorities that he commends to us as our guides. I marvel at his audacity, for example, in referring to the committee presided over by the Noble Lady, the hon. Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl). We know perfectly well that that same committee strongly and categorically recommended, as an essential feature of the local government of Scotland, the retention of parish councils. That recommendation the Under-Secretary sweeps aside as not worthy of consideration. Yet he appeals to us to consider the committee's recommendations with regard to health services. This Bill is not concerned only with health services; they are not the only matters which are being handed over to the new authorities. The Under-Secretary devoted the whole of his speech to health services. I hold here the Bill, and in the first Schedule I find a list of the statutory provisions regarding the functions of town councils of small burghs, which are to be transferred to county councils. I find 25 Acts in the list, including such essentially local matters as the town planning of the burghs. Those 25 Acts, or most of them, have nothing to do with health services.

The Under-Secretary has indulged in the tactics, which he carries out so well, of ridiculing and travesting the Amendment. He talks about a drumhead court martial to which he would have to submit all the burghs of Scotland, and of giving them marks for their efficiency, like the marks awarded to school child ren for success in their studies. But that was a mere travesty of the Amendment. The Scottish Board of Health, are, we believe, in close touch with all these burghs. They know where there is one which is not efficient, and they would be perfectly able to deal with it without any special drumhead court-martial inquiry. Very few burghs would it be necessary to deprive of their powers. If it is an impossible task to decide whether a few authorities are efficient or not, how is it possible for the Ministry to decide when it comes to the question of withholding a grant for inefficiency? In both cases exactly the same inquiry will have to be made.

I say frankly that I do not like this Bill, and I shall not like it even if the Amendment be accepted. I do not say that the Amendment will cure the defects of the Bill. The Amendment is by no means an ideal one. I do not like this cast-iron standard of efficiency which is to be laid down by bureaucrats in Edinburgh. I agree with the Under-Secretary that there should be wider areas for health services, but those wider areas can be obtained by force of public opinion and by free discussions based on experience over a course of years. That is the true method of reform, the true method of advancing and of raising the standard of civilisation in Scotland—free discussion on the platform and in the Press, free argument, the education of people so that they understand arguments, and learning by experience. But the Under-Secretary demands a criterion of efficieny, a cast-iron standard. Why take away from the burghs which are willing to combine for health services, and are doing it voluntarily, the powers which they are exercising in the way that the Minister wishes them to exercise them? The Government ought to accept the Amendment. They ought to like it better than I do. It is a bridge to meet them. Having regard to the great records of the burghs and the splendid services that they are rendering to the people of Scotland now, the Government ought to welcome the Amendment.


The references by the Under-Secretary of State to the historical safety of Scotland makes some of us feel that there is a lack of relation somewhere; but the poem which he quoted was rather against what he said, because it did not deal with difficulties and dangers that could be controlled by a county. Those difficulties were "ghaists" and witches. The whole purpose of the poem was to draw people's attention to what was meant by a pledge, and the buying of pledges. The references in the poem are all against the Under-Secretary's own arguments. This Amendment seems to improve the Clause. The transfer of these functions is a matter which has not been fully considered. There has been a lot of talk about it for many years, but you can talk for years about a subject, and unless you have some accurate information, it does not follow that you are going to do the right thing. Had this subject been properly sifted and dealt with we would have some definite result to-day, but, as it is, the answer which we get from the other side shows that even the officials themselves have not tried to find out exactly what are these difficulties.

There is not that evidence which would show to anyone who wanted to deal fairly

with administration the necessity for the changes which are to be brought about under Clause 2. It relates to the transfer of functions some of which are as old in practice, if not in legal form, as the "auld brig" in the poem where the gray mare lost its tail. This is not a case merely of transforming something like a new system. Here you are proposing to transfer something which is part of the life of the people, and I claim that sufficient investigation has not been made of the proposal. When we go back to our constituencies and visit various places throughout the country, we find that the more the people learn of these proposals, the more bitter they become against the Bill, because they have the sense that, not only is a certain amount of freedom being taken away from them, but also a certain amount of the local right which they possessed in the past.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out" stand part of the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 93.

Division No. 252.] AYES. [8.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hills, Major John Waller
Albery, Irving James Conway, Sir W. Martin Hilton, Cecil
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Couper, J. B. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nan.)
Atholl. Duchess of Courtauld, Major J. S. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Atkinson, C. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) Hopkins, J. W. W.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Dalkeith, Earl of Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Berry, Sir George Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hume, Sir G. H.
Bethel, A. Davies, Or. Vernon Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Betterton. Henry B. Eden, Captain Anthony Hurd, Percy A.
Bevan, S. J. Edmondson, Major A. J. Hurst, Sir Gerald
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Elliot, Major Walter E. Iveagh, Countess of
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Ellis, R. G. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Blundell, F. N. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Kindersley, Major G. M.
Boothby, R. J. G. Fanshawe, Captain G. D. King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fermoy, Lord Lamb, J. O.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Ford, Sir P. J. Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Brass, Captain W. Foster, Sir Harry S. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Loder, J. de V.
Briggs, J. Harold Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Looker, Herbert William
Brittain, Sir Harry Galbraith, J. F. W. Lougher, Sir Lewis
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Ganzoni, Sir John Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Gates, Percy Lumley, L. R.
Broun-Lindsey, Major H. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Brown. Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Graham, Fergue (Cumberland, N.) Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Bullock, Captain M. Greene, W. P. Crawford McLean, Major A.
Burman, J. B. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Macquisten, F. A.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Grotrian, H. Brent MacRobert, Alexander M.
Carver, Major W. H. Hanbury, C. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Cassels, J. D. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Margesson, Captain D.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Harland, A. Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton Harrison, G. J. C. Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Chapman, Sir S. Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Henderson, Lieut.- Col. Sir Vivian Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Clayton, G. C. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Moore, Sir Newton J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Henn, Sir Sydney H. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by) Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Nelson, Sir Frank Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Waddington, R.
Neville, Sir Reginald J. Sandeman, N. Stewart Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Savery, S. S. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Warrender, Sir Victor
Nuttall, Ellis Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Skelton, A. N. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Perring, Sir William George Smith-Carington, Neville W. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Smithers, Waldron Watts, Sir Thomas
Pilcher, G. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wells, S. R.
Price, Major C. W. M. Southby, Commander A. R. J. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Raine, Sir Walter Stony-Deans, R. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Ramsden, E. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Withers, John James
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Wright, Brig-General W. D.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lance., Stretford) Templeton, W. P. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Ropner, Major L. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Thomson, Sir Frederick
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Rye, F. G. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Major Sir William Cope and
Salmon, Major I. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Captain Wallace.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Griffith, F. Kingsley Saklatvala, Shapurji
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Groves, T. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barr, J. Grundy, T. W. Shinwell, E.
Batey, Joseph Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bellamy, A. Hardle, George D. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Benn, Wedgwood Harris, Percy A. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hayday, Arthur Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Bondfield, Margaret Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Snell, Harry
Broad, F. A. Hollins, A. Stamford, T. W.
Bromfield, William Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Stephen, Campbell
Brown, Ernest (Leith) John, William (Rhondda, West) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Strauss, E. A.
Buchanan, G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sutton, J. E.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Kelly, W. T. Thurtle, Ernest
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Clarke, A. B. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Tomlinson, R. P.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kirkwood, D. Townend, A. E.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Lawrence, Susan Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Compton, Joseph Lee, F. Wellock, Wilfred
Cove, W. G. Lowth, T. Westwood, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Mackinder, W. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Duncan, C. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Whiteley, W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Wiggins, William Martin
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Maxton, James Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
England, Colonel A. Mosley, Sir Oswald Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Forrest, W. Murnin, H. Windsor, Walter
Gardner, J. P. Oliver, George Harold Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gibbins, Joseph Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Greenall, T. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Potts, John S. Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison
and Major Owen.