HC Deb 15 July 1930 vol 241 cc1167-81

I beg to move, in page 21, line 25, at the end, to insert the words "at a cost approved by the Department."


This Amendment raises a point of some substance, and we should be glad if we could have some explanation of it. This Clause is the all-important financial Clause. It has turned up here under an alias in a place different from its previous place in the Bill, but it is still the financial Clause for all that. We are dealing with the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and by the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon), that is to say, the formula on which the grant is to be based. The proviso to Subsection (2) says:— Provided that the number of persons to be taken into account in calculating such contribution shall not exceed the number of persons of the working classes for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department, been rendered available by the authority in new houses. and the White Paper issued by the Government says what that formula will amount to. We are now asked to add to this proviso a further proviso that the accommodation must have been provided at a cost approved by the Department. Is there any necessity for the introduction of these words? Is it meant to insist upon a maximum cost, or upon a minimum cost. We should like to have some answer on this point.


In the English Bill there is no similar provision to this, because the Ministry of Health has control over the borrowing powers of local authorities, and in this way can exercise some control over the cost of houses. In Scotland we have no such control over borrowing powers, and if a local authority chose, for example, to restrict tenders—I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had some experience of this in Scotland—to a local ring of building contractors, it might quite possibly be that the cost of houses would rise unnecessarily high, and, if there were no control in these matters, we might find that the cost of house-building would rise all over the country, and that at the end of the subsidy period the State would be faced by a demand for a higher subsidy. We think it is necessary that the Department, which has knowledge of the average prices, in various parts of the country, should be able to exercise a veto upon local costs if it has reason to believe that the local costs are being manipulated, or that they are unduly high because a local authority is restricting its tenders, perhaps to one man or perhaps to two men who are local contractors, and we feel that it is necessary to import into the Bill these words "at a cost approved by the Department," as some sort of safeguard in the public interest that costs will not be unduly raised. It is in the interests of cheaper housing that we propose to insert these words.

Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, to leave out Subsection (6).

This brings us to the question whether or not the previous power which was granted to the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to make contributions on a 50–50 basis, or on a percentage basis up to 50 per cent., should be taken away from the Secretary of State or not. In the first place, it seems to be unnecessary that this repeal Clause should be carried. It is quite true that at the worst it might lead to the maintenance of two possible avenues of approach to the solution of the housing problem in Scotland, that is to say, firstly, the block grant determined by a formula, and, secondly, a percentage contribution. Hon. Members below the Gangway on this side afforded us very considerable support when this proposal was before the House previously, and the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) was also strongly moved by our arguments then, and I think was on the point of voting, if he did not actually cast his suffrage for us on that occasion.


I did.


He did, and we are grateful to him for it. That is enough to make it clear that the proposal attracted support from several quarters of the House. The fact remains that there is no guarantee that this Bill will prove a complete solution of the housing problem in Scotland. The local authorities have become accustomed to working on a 50–50 basis, find they themselves have desired to maintain it as part of the machinery in Scotland. The proposal is very well safeguarded. The Minister has to have the approval of the Treasury; he may—not shall—make these contributions; and there is no danger whatever of his being rushed into doing something that he would rather not do. Therefore, the only question that remains is, is it desirable to withdraw this power from the Minister of making contributions on a percentage and not on a block basis? I suggest that it is not desirable to withdraw it. The Minister, after all, has had experience of it with the local authorities extending over a year on this occasion, and over a year in his previous administration, and I am sure he cannot point to any case of abuse of this power, nor to any case in which the local authorities have desired to have it swept away. The local authorities themselves—the City of Dundee, the City of Edinburgh, and even the City of Glasgow—have found this provision to be quite easy, and have desired that it should be maintained. It gives exactly what the Minister was pleading for a few minutes ago, namely, a greater flexibility in dealing with these problems. He is bound by the Clauses of the previous Statute of 1923, and I think he will agree that it allows him the greatest possible latitude.

When we have a valuable piece of machinery, which has proved its use in the past, on the Statute Book, the case for sweeping it away must be overwhelming before we are asked to do so. No such overwhelming case has been made out to-day. At the best, it is a plea for tidiness in legislation, for sweeping this up and putting it into the dust-bin because a new piece of furniture has been brought in. We have au old proverb in Scotland, "Keep a thing for seven years and you will find a use for it." We might easily find a use for this in a much shorter period. This desire to throw away a useful piece of machinery before we have had any experience of the working of the new is a proposal to which the House should not accede.


I beg to second the Amendment.


I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends will not press this Amendment. It was very closely examined in Committee, and it has been the subject of long arguments and anxious discussion with the local authorities and, while it is true that at the beginning of the negotiations the local authorities, almost without exception, although not entirely, desired to maintain this alternative proviso in the Bill, we are assured now that they are satisfied that the terms and methods in this Bill are infinitely superior to the old 50–50 basis. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might retort, "If that is so, why not leave them the option, and if they did care to exercise it there would be no harm in placing it in the Bill." Let me tell the House what the whole purpose of the grant is. Under the 50–50 basis, whereby the local authority pays 50 per cent. of the annual loss and the State grants the other 50 per cent., we are faced with this situation, that every year there requires to be a very close audit by the Department in Edinburgh to ascertain, on behalf of the Treasury, what exactly the loss is, and as the loss must vary from year to year, every sale of slum property involves again a most meticulous examination on the part of the Department in order to ensure that the financial interests of the State are safeguarded. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see at once that any development of the slum clearance system on that basis would so develop bureaucratic control as really to make local government impossible.

The whole basis of the Bill is to give local authorities, and especially the local authorities of the wider areas under the 1929 Act, the greatest possible powers and to free them from this detailed audit, which was inevitable under the 50–50 basis and under the Addison scheme. We struggled, we believe successfully, to convince the local authorities that this new method of the unit grant system not only opened up a new vista of freedom from bureaucratic and departmental control in the detailed work of local government but was in itself a much fairer and juster and more economical method of proceeding with slum clearance. In the many discussions with representatives of the local authorities, while at the beginning we had very considerable pressure brought to bear upon us to let them retain the option, within recent months, certainly not since the middle of the Committee stage, have we had any request whatever from any source for the retention of the 50–50 method. We believe it is essential and wholly desirable that we should proceed in future on the basis of the unit grant and free the local authorities from this detailed, year in and year out, supervision of accounts, and that we should give the local authorities the widest possible freedom—this unit grant basis is equivalent to the block grant basis which hon. Members opposite frequently argue in favour of—and enable local authorities to proceed with the development of their schemes and free them from detailed supervision.


I think the House has listened with some surprise to the Under-Secretary's remarks. To my mind, they exhibit very clearly what has been in the mind of the Government. Apparently their great triumph has been to convince the local authorities that the new system is not worse than the old and, now that he has convinced them, he wishes to deprive them of the alternative of both systems. The new system is highly experimental. It has only recently received even the most qualified measure of approval from the main authorities connected with slum clearance, and it seems to me on the hon. Gentleman's own argument to be quite unnecessary to deprive the local authorities of the alternative system. He skated with great speed over the thin ice of the obvious argument that it would give the local authorities the opportunity of choosing for themselves which scheme they wished to adopt. Surely that is an argument of great force. It is all the more powerful because the new scheme is so experimental, and because the hon. Gentleman has himself shown that, from the purely administrative point of view the new method will probably be simpler for the local authority. Therefore, there is no bias in favour of their retaining the old for any administrative reasons. If, therefore, they desire to retain the old, it will be because they have discovered that in spite of the prophecies of the Government, the old method has merits which the new method does not possess. If I thought the retention of the old method would enable the local authorities, for some extraneous reasons to prefer a scheme less satisfactory from a slum clearance point of view, I, too, should be all in favour of getting rid of the old, but the argument clearly is that, having found by experience that the old system has in certain circumstances merits which the new does not possess, it will make the local authorities desire to retain the old method and, therefore, there is no danger of their making use of the option unless it is clearly to the advantage of the clearance of slums.

I do not believe the hesitation and doubt with which the Government's Bill was received by the local authorities was entirely based upon administrative detail, or anything of that sort. So far as I understand the matter, I believe there is still room for cases in which the old method will be preferable to the new and, if that is so, I cannot see any reason connected with slum clearance which should make the Government insist upon the destruction of the old method. I can see many reasons quite unconnected with slum clearance but most clearly connected with politics. I can see what fun it will be for future Labour supporters to say that from 1930 onwards every single slum clearance has been done under the Addison Act. Of course, that will be the greatest possible fun, but it has nothing to do with slum clearance. If that is to any extent the motive at work, it is introducing an entirely new element into the housing question, because up to date all parties, both in local and national politics, have tended to give credit where credit is due, to Acts passed even by their opponents. However, that admirable method is going to be altered and future generations will see, no doubt, statues of the right hon. Gentleman erected in many of the old Scottish boroughs as the great solver of the slum clearance problem as the result of having destroyed every alternative method. I would rather that, for his own credit, which I think is properly high in Scotland, he should take his courage in both hands and put the new experimental method against the old and let experience show which is the better. That seems to be the most practicable method.

Had the previous Act been a failure, had it been shown that its continued existence was a danger to the new, had it been necessary to sweep away the old method and put something workable in place of the unworkable, I should have been with the Government in their argument, but clearly that is not the situation at all. In the interests of slum clearance, in the interests of the whole vast problem, we should not abandon a method which, within its own limitations, has been successful. The House knows how far more largely carried out slum clearance has been in Scotland than in England. We have a successful Act behind us. I am all for trying new experiments if it can be shown that they contain some element of success or rapid advance which the old methods do not, but I am equally against abandoning a method which, so far as one can judge, if it is inferior, is only fractionally inferior to the new method, and a method which is well known to local authorities, which they were so satisfied with when the Bill was introduced that they wanted no change at all. Their views in favour of the Bill have only been slightly altered as a result of repeated and eloquent arguments by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. It is folly to abandon the old method and to deprive local authorities of a perfectly valid and sound alternative when the interest that we have at heart is the improvement and the continuation of slum clearance and not the glorification of the Labour Government.

7.0 p.m.


I support this Amendment for the retention of the Act. The position of the corporation of Dundee still stands good. They have not made any representations whatever on the score of difficulties in auditing, and the Under-Secretary has somewhat unduly emphasised that particular aspect. The strength of his case on former occasions was that under this new plan we were going to get a very much better financial result. There is, however, a very marked difference of opinion on that point and the moderate way of viewing the situation, leaving out any likelihood of partisanship, is to remember that there are two schemes from which the local authorities may choose the one that suits their purpose best. I am quite confident that the Under-Secretary is the last one to say that the corporation of Dundee are not exceedingly anxious to facilitate in every way the production of the requisite houses and to carry through any scheme in the most reasonable and economical fashion, but, at the same time, to seek to do justice in the matter of accommodation. The difficulty that arises under the Act pertains to a certain class of house, the smaller class of house. Not only our own corporation, but other corporations, have been meeting the requirements for these smaller houses. This Bill intends to take out the provision about the smaller class of house. That is a departure which is not made as regards the English Bill, and our constituencies decidedly object to it being foisted on Scotland and not on England. By the retention of this Act, the corporation of Dundee will have what they desire and will be able to provide this class of house which they find essential to many in the community.

I am very sorry that for some reason or other the Government remain adamant on this issue. There is no strength in the Government case for maintaining only one scheme. They maintain that these corporations are wrong, and they will get better results under the one scheme, but, if these experts say there are grave doubts about that, and ask that they should have the opportunity they now have of using the benefits of the other Measure, why should not the Government agree to that proposal? They have to-day in some Amendments made concessions to the Opposition. Here is a concession to the local authorities who have been making earnest appeals and strong representations. They have made a declaration that the position still remains as before, and that there is an absolute need to secure that this Act should still be available for their choice. I wish to urge this point strongly. My duty to my constituency has been discharged here in maintaining that we would only be doing justice to the requirements of these constituencies by giving an opportunity to these corporations to use the Act for their requirements as they have done in the past.


I view the destruction of an Act, which admittedly has been working with considerable success in Scotland, with some apprehension. If it had been the case that we had not made any progress in Scotland in dealing with slum clearance, and if it had been demonstrated that in practice there had been material difficulties facing the Department and local authorities in dealing with these problems, then I would have been the first to listen to the arguments to destroy this Measure. Let me remind the House that in the past successive Governments, grappling with one of the most difficult problems any Government has had to face, have tried by one means or another to solve some of these housing problems. When there were various Measures dealing with the housing problem, it has not been the habit to destroy the Acts, but to endeavour to work them alongside each other. The Government, of which I was lately a Member, gave every support and opportunity to the working of the Wheatley Act. If we had desired to take up the attitude which the Government have now taken up with regard to slum clearance, we might have destroyed or refused to have operated that Act. On the contrary, we refrained from any thing of the sort, and it has been our attitude—and I had hoped it would have been the attitude of Members on all sides—to co-operate and work together.

What is the attitude of the local authorities? When this matter was brought to their notice, obviously those who spoke with knowledge and authority were disturbed. It may be that the Government have been able, through private explanations, to mitigate and lessen their fears, but, so far as my knowledge goes, they have not removed, particularly in the minds of some of those who have the most difficult problems to deal with, the fear that, whatever advantage may come from the working of this Bill, there may be certain circumstances and conditions in certain parts of the country where it would be more to the advantage of the country to make use of this Act than the present proposals. The House ought, in dealing with these matters, unless there are insuperable difficulties and it is clear that there is going to be a misuse of public funds, not to destroy Measures which in practice have proved beneficial and have given good results. The assertion in these debates that we have made greater progress in slum clearance in Scotland than in England has not been disputed. It is under this Act which the Government now destroy that that progress has been made. It is, of course, within the power of the Government to deny to the local authorities the assistance of the Act, but I regret it, and think that those who have at heart the best interests of slum clearance will themselves come to regret it.


I would like to reply to a couple of statements made by the two last speakers from the Opposition side. With regard to the late Secretary of State, he waxed very eloquent over the idea that we were taking away some of the things that he and his Government had put on the Statute Book, but, in making that statement, he must have forgotten that he himself destroyed the very principle for which he is now contending. Under the Local Government Act, he abolished as far as possible the percentage system and brought in the block unit, so that, in condemning us, he is condemning himself, because he did his best to destroy that principle in the Local Government Act, 1929. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said he was surprised at the position that had been taken up to-day by my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The position he is taking up here now is the position taken up in Committee. The Amendment we are discussing is the very Amendment we discussed very fully in Committee, and which I think was not divided against.


It was carried by one vote.


I stand corrected. It was carried by a majority, and now the hon. Member for Perth says that the local authorities for Scotland prefer the other system. I do not know a single local authority, with the exception of Dundee, which has not approved of our substituting the unit grant system for the percentage system. They believe, after having carefully examined the question, that they will be better off and will get more money under the unit grant system than if the percentage system had remained. The hon. Member for Perth went on to say that the new system is experimental. The same can be said about the Local Government Act, 1929, which he supported, that Act in which hon. Members opposite destroyed the very principle they are now seeking to retain. If it is experimental in the one case, surely it can be as truly said that it was experimental in the other. I appeal to the Opposition not to press a matter which has been fully discussed in Committee, and agreed to by a majority of the Members. We have had this matter fully discussed in all its bearings, and the majority of the Committee believed that the system proposed by the Government was a better system than the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends are attempting to thrust upon us to-night. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment and let us proceed to the next Amendment on the Order Paper.


While I desire to facilitate the passage of the Measure, I think that there are points of principle on which it is necessary for us to take the opinion of the House. This Amendment was only carried by two votes in Committee. One hears discussions always after a close Division as to whether certain Members were or were not absent, but I am fully convinced that, if we had cared to bring pressure to bear, we could have obtained larger representation and carried the Amendment. In spite of the explanation which has been given, the Government case that their Bill is really a better Bill than the 1923 Act. The Government's case is that the local authorities which were previously not satisfied are now satisfied. The senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has indicated that his local authority are not by any means completely satisfied yet with the provisions of the Bill. The Government which originally intended to deal with slum clearance by this Measure now find it necessary to bring in the 1924 Act in order to deal with smaller houses which it was proposed previously, either should not be built at all or should be built under the provisions of this Measure.

It is clear that this Bill is still in the process of evolution. Do not let us sweep away a thing which we have found useful in the past. Many of us have found that things which we desired to sweep away when in Opposition are not perhaps so easily dispensed with when we are in power. The Act of 1929 which the right hon. Gentleman brings in as an analogy, after all did not sweep away the percentage grant in several of the services, but there were services in which a clear case was made out for treatment by a block grant instead of on a percentage basis.


That Act was not carried by argument but by action in the Lobby.


The hon. Member may bring his own conclusions to bear on that matter. Be that as it may, the arguments brought forward do not weaken our case at all. Here is an Act which is working, and if it continues to work it will not clash with the Bill which we are now asked to put upon the Statute Book. Here is a proposal which it was decided to preserve in the Scottish Grand Committee by only 22 votes against 20, and for all these reasons it seems reasonable that the opinion of the House should be taken, although, we are perfectly ready to bow to the decision of the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 91.

Division No. 433.] AYES. [7.21 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Herriotts, J. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Phillips, Dr. Marion
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Pole, Major D. G.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hoffman, P. C. Potts, John S.
Alpass, J. H. Hopkin, Daniel Price, M. P.
Arnott, John Horrabin, J. F. Pybus, Percy John
Attlee, Clement Richard Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Quibell, D. J. K.
Ayles, Walter Johnston, Thomas Raynes, W. R.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Barnes, Alfred John Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Barr, James Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Bellamy, Albert Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Ritson, J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Kelly, W. T. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.) Kennedy, Thomas Romeril, H. G.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Kinley, J. Rowson, Guy
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Knight, Holford Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Lang, Gordon Sanders, W. S.
Bowen, J. W. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Sawyer, G. F.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Lathan, G. Scurr, John
Broad, Francis Alfred Law, Albert (Bolton) Sherwood, G. H.
Bromfield, William Law, A. (Rosendale) Shield, George William
Brooke, W. Lawrence, Susan Shinwell, E.
Brothers, M. Laurie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Simmons, C. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Sinkinson, George
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Burgess, F. G. Lindley, Fred W. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Lloyd, C. Ellis Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Caine, Derwent Hall Logan, David Gilbert Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Cameron, A. G. Longbottom, A. W. Snell, Harry
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Longden, F. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C. Lowth, Thomas Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Chater, Daniel Lunn, William Sorensen, R.
Clarke, J. S. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Stamford, Thomas W.
Cluse, W. S. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Stephen, Campbell
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour McElwee, A. Strauss, G. R.
Compton, Joseph McEntee, V. L. Sullivan, J.
Cove, William G. McKinley, A. Sutton, J. E.
Daggar, George Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Dallas, George Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Thurtle, Ernest
Dalton, Hugh McShane, John James Tillett, Ben
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Tinker, John Joseph
Denman, Hon. R. D. March, S. Townend, A. E.
Dickson, T. Marcus, M. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Duncan, Charles Markham, S. F. Vaughan, D. J.
Ede, James Chuter Marley, J. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Marshall, Fred Walkden, A. G.
Egan, W. H. Mathers, George Walker, J.
Forgan, Dr. Robert Matters L. W. Wallace, H. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Maxton, James Wallhead, Richard C.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Melville, Sir James Watkins, F. C.
Gibbins, Joseph Messer, Fred Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Middleton, G. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gill, T. H. Mills, J. E. Wellock, Wilfred
Gillett, George M. Milner, Major J. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Gossling, A. G. Montague, Frederick Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Gould, F. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morley, Ralph Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Groves, Thomas E. Mort, D. L. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Grundy, Thomas W. Moses, J. J. H. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hall, F. (York. W. A., Normanton) Muggeridge, H. T. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Murnin, Hugh Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Noel Baker, P. J. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Wise, E. F.
Hardie, George D. Oldfield, J. R. Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Paling, Wilfrid TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Haycock, A. W. Palmer, E. T. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Hayes, John Henry Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) William Whiteley.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Perry, S. F.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gower, Sir Robert Remer, John R.
Albery, Irving James Greene, W. P. Crawford Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Atholl, Duchess of Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Atkinson, C. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Hanbury, C. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Beaumont, M. W. Haslam, Henry C. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Berry, Sir George Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Scrymgeour, E.
Boothby, R. J. G. Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Skelton, A. N.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Boyce, H. L. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Smithers, Waldron
Bracken, B. Kindersley, Major G. M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Knox, Sir Alfred Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Carver, Major W. H. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Chapman, Sir S. Little, Dr. E. Graham Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Lymington, Viscount Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Colville, Major D. J. Macquisten, F. A. Train, J.
Courtauld, Major J. S. MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Marjoribanks, E. C. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Mond, Hon. Henry Warrender, Sir Victor
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wayland, Sir William A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Wells, Sydney R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Elliot, Major Walter E. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Womersley, W. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Muirhead, A. J. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Everard, W. Lindsay Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Fielden, E. B. Pownall, Sir Assheton TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ford, Sir P. J. Rathbone, Eleanor Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Rawson, Sir Cooper Margesson.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Reid, David D. (County Down)

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.