§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commission and the Expenses of the Commission.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThis Supplementary Estimate for a token sum has been presented in order to obtain Parliamentary approval for the payment of travelling expenses to the members of the Public Works Loan Commission. We thought it desirable to make it clear to Parliament that money was being spent in this way.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI would like to ask one question regarding the form of the Vote, because it is a little difficult to follow. It appears to be a Vote for £10, in addition to £10 asked for previously, making a total of £20, but the question is complicated by a note at the bottom of the page 7:
The sum of £50 has been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund and a corresponding amount is required to enable repayment to be made to that fund.At first sight, the Committee might be excused for wondering how an advance of £50 is to be repaid out of but I imagine it is brought forward in this form in order to enable a transfer to be made from sub-head A to sub-head B. I admit our expenditure has to be jealously guarded, but I suggest to the Financial Secretary that he might well consider whether, in a case of this kind, it would not be possible to have a general covering sanction which would enable the Department to make minor transfers of this kind without coming to Parliament for approval. This is a particularly interesting case, because the incidentals are set out in the most minutely particularised fashion. They are stated in the original Vote in a fashion which is quite unusual. They go into details about cab hire, telegrams and telephones, items which usually appear as incidental expenses. I think that in future some such action as I have suggested might be taken. I imagine the explanation I have given is the right explanation, but if there is any other, perhaps the hon. Member will tell us.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe explanation is that we thought it desirable to obtain Parliamentary sanction for this expenditure. If the sum had been merely an addition to existing expenditure no such difficulty would have arisen, but owing to the fact that this is a new form of expenditure, we thought it right to get the sanction of the House of Commons.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThis was, I thought, merely a case of the Government requiring some additional expenditure, but it now appears that this is an altogether new form of expenditure. The Financial Secretary has not, however, explained the reason for it. I had thought it was the same class of expenditure as is usually set out in incidental expenses, such as small travelling charges, in which case I imagined it was hardly necessary to go through all this form if there could have been a general covering sanction.
§ Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCEI thought I had made things clear, and I am sorry if I have not. Hitherto, nothing has been paid to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for travelling expenses. The Commissioners have been people who either lived in London or frequently had business in London, and the meetings were held at times when they could attend without difficulty. As the Committee knows, additional Members were recently appointed, and as they come from the provinces some of them have found it necessary to ask for payment of their travelling expenses and accommodation. It is not suggested that they are to have any emoluments for what they do. It is only payment of their out-of-pocket expenses for travelling and lodgings.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI am sure the Committee are obliged to the Financial Secretary. The only other question I have now to ask is whether he can tell us what the actual expenditure will be?
§ Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCEThe amount is stated. It is £75.
Sir H. YOUNGIt appears that we are introducing a new practice in connection with the work of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Hitherto 2039 it has been unnecessary to provide for their travelling expenses, but it has become necessary owing to a change in the composition of the Commission. I do not think the occasion calls for more than one comment, and that is, that it is perhaps rather to be regretted that a Commission which formerly conducted the whole of its work in an entirely voluntary manner has now become to this small extent a charge on the public funds. I really do not know, indeed, why we should be called upon to vote this money, because is it not the case that the expenditure of the Public Works Loan Commission is, by Act of Parliament, to be defrayed out of the Local Loans Fund? If the Local Loan, Fund stands behind the expenses of the Commission, why should it be necessary to adopt this rather cumbrous procedure of making a payment out of the Civil Contingencies Fund and submitting this Supplementary Estimate? It may be that it is only possible to have recourse to the Local Loans Fund in the following year, and if that is so it may he an imperfection in that legislation which it may be worth while to consider on a future occasion, because the intention of the Act appeared to he that the Local Loans Fund should finance the work of the Public Works Loan Commission.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman is really passing beyond the scope of this Vote. I understand that it is submitted for the special purpose of paying certain expenses of members of the Commission, and our discussion must be kept to that point.
§ Sir HUGH O'NEILLWill the Financial Secretary tell us whether any of the travelling expenses of the Public Works Loan Commissioners have been incurred in connection with lands and farms which may be held by the Commission under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not know what connection that legislation has with this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Sir H. O'NEILLI was only asking whether any of the travelling expenses which we are now being asked to meet were incurred in connection with a particular service, and surely that is in order. Under the Agricultural Credits 2040 Act, 1923, power was given to the Public Works Loan Commissioners to advance on mortgage sums of money to agricultural associations.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI can answer that question straight away. The answer is in the negative. This is simply expenditure incurred in attending meetings of the Commission.
§ Mr. HARDIEIs it in order for a Member from Northern Ireland to come here to raise these small points in view of the fact that only yesterday we voted a sum of money towards building the Law Courts in Northern Ireland?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not a point of Order. Any hon. Member of this House is entitled to ask a question on the business before us.
§ Mr. HARDIEYes, but the right hon. Baronet should have some sense of proportion.
§ Captain CAZALETI am not certain whether this is quite so simple a matter as it would at first sight appear to be. We are told that certain members of the Public Works Loan Commission have asked for payment of out-of-pocket travelling expenses when attending meetings of the Commission, and that is a perfectly simple proposition, but when we refer to the more elaborate Civil Service Estimates and look into the details we find that the total expenses of this Vote will be met out of certain fees appropriated in aid of this Vote. In so far as these expenses are not met by that means, they will be met from the Local Loans Fund, and probably next year these expenses will be met out of that particular fund. In that case, I understand that this sum will be repaid next year, and I would like to know if I am correct in that assumption.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSThe Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us that this is a very simple matter, but that is not so, because it is extremely complicated. How is it that on the present occasion, quite suddenly, we have these travelling expenses in connection with the Public Works Loan Commission, and why has there been such a colossal increase in the amount of their travelling expenses? We have been told that some of these Commissioners came from the country, but he did not say from which 2041 country they came. Is it a fact that some of them came from Scotland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Torquay!"] I do not mind whether they came from Torquay or anywhere else, but I want to know where they come from, and what they have been doing for this money.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANMay I point out to the hon. Member that this Commission was appointed by the House?
§ Mr. CULVERWELLMay I remind you, Mr. Dunnico, that when these Commissioners were appointed, there was no question of paying their expenses?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am not concerned at this moment as to whether the Commissioners were to be paid their expenses or not. They were appointed by the House, and we cannot have a long discussion on the point raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) as to who they are and where they came from.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI should never think of initiating anything in the nature of a long discussion on this point. It has already been pointed out that, for practical purposes, there was no necessity to bring forward this Estimate, and on this point the Financial Secretary seems to have hoodwinked my hon. Friends on the front Opposition Bench. It was quite needless to put down this Estimate. I feel convinced that this money is going astray. There has been a proportionately large addition to the original sum, and no reason has been given why the amount has been increased. I should like to have an assurance as to whether this great addition to the cost of travelling is in any way injuring the work of the Public Works Loan Commission, because I do not want anything to be done that would tend to hinder the excellent work of that body. Again and again we have had these little additions to items of this kind without any explanation being given, and it is most unfortunate that an Estimate of this kind should be brought forward in this way. There is no justification for it, and still less justification for the representatives of the Government knowing so very little about it.
§ Commander SOUTHBYI would like to ask whether it is the intention to pay the travelling expenses of all the members of the Public Works Loan Com- 2042 mission? Is it understood that now all the members of that body are in need of being paid for their services? I am not arguing that certain members of the Commission should not be paid their expenses when they come up to London to do public work, but I would like to know how many members of the Commission are being paid. I know it would be inconvenient to give their names, and I do not ask for them, but we ought to know how many members of the Commission are being paid out-of-pocket expenses, including hotel bills and travelling expenses. If that principle is going to be applied, obviously the Public Works Loan Commission is going to be a very expensive body to keep up. The sum of £75 is being asked for now, but that may be increased to a very much larger amount in the future. Is this Vote to be regarded as the thin edge of the wedge to secure payment for the whole of the members of the Commission? If certain members are to he paid, I do not see why other members should not receive payment for their services. I hope we shall have a satisfactory statement from the Financial Secretary on these points.
§ Mr. CULVERWELLThis Vote is an entirely new departure, and the Financial Secretary appears to think that we ought to allow the Estimate to go through without asking any questions. I think that we are entitled to ask for more information than we have received. I agree with what has been said to the effect that this principle may lead to a very considerable expenditure in the future. I am not saying anything against the commissioners, but when they were established I understood that they were gentlemen who volunteered for this work, and that this body would not involve any charge on the Exchequer. Now we are told that within the last few months it has been found that members of this Commission cannot afford expenses which they were able to afford in the past. I would like to know whether the Vote we are discussing covers a period of 12 months, or whether it applies only to the last two or three months? If the incurring of these expenses goes on at the same rate, then the amount will be four times more next year than this year. We ought to be told what period this Estimate covers.
2043 In view of the discussion which has just taken place, I would also like to ask whether these commissioners travel first-class or third-class on the railway. We have a large number of voluntary workers on public bodies in this country, and I might quote the Economic Committee set up by the Prime Minister as an example. I know that I should be out of order in pursuing that point, but I think I shall be in order in suggesting that if the Public Works Loan Commission, which was set up as a voluntary body at no cost to the State, are to be allowed expenses to an indefinite amount for unknown reasons, then this House is setting a precedent which may lead to a very large expenditure of public money in the future. The same principle may be followed by other bodies which, up to the present, have given their services free. I know it is usual for councillors and aldermen who attend conferences in London on behalf of their corporations to receive their expenses, and very often the municipalities are prepared to pay those expenses in the interests of efficient service.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am afraid we cannot discuss that larger point now. We must keep to the particular subject before the Committee raised in this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. CULVERWELLIt may very well be that next year, after this precedent has been established by means of this comparatively small sum for the Public Works Loan Commission, we may find other Departments just as deserving asking for payment for their services. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us, not details, not each taxi fare or hotel bill, but roughly the type of expenses covered by this Vote, whether we may expect increased demands, and whether the expenses of the whole of the commissioners are being paid or only the expenses of those who are impecunious.
§ Major COLFOXWill the Financial Secretary tell us whether Lord Hunsdon is still the chairman of this body, whether he is going to share in this £10 for travelling expenses, and, if he is still chairman, whether the travelling expenses have been granted with his consent or against his advice. It seems 2044 to me that this is introducing a new principle and marks a very definite step backwards in the public service of this country. Here we have a body of public servants who have always had the right to pride themselves on the fact that they did this service gratuitously. Now, under a Socialist Government, these public servants have been reduced to the level of—shall we say?—trade union officials or Members of Parliament or other inferior people, who are compelled to accept remuneration for their services entirely contrary to the custom of former years. What is meant by the words in the Estimate:
Additional sum required to pay travelling expenses on the usual scale"?I thought that the whole point of this Estimate was that there was no usual scale at all, that up to now the scale had been nil, because these public servants had paid their own expenses. It seems a bit odd that these words should have been inserted in the Estimate. They require some explanation.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. GILLI welcome this Supplementary Estimate because of the explanation given of the reason for the money being required. I certainly support the payment of reasonable travelling expenses to the members of the Public Works Loan Commission for two reasons: firstly, because I believe that under that procedure and a further expansion of it we are likely to get more disinterested members on various commissions; and, secondly, because I believe that it will widen the choice of the people who are available to take these positions. I certainly feel that the question whether an individual can or cannot afford to pay his own travelling expenses ought not to be a determining issue in any circumstances. This Commission is not a body which is a charge on the Exchequer; it is a body that is making money for the Exchequer, and the least that can be done is to pay the reasonable expenses of those who form the Commission.
§ Commander SOUTHBYI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
§ Captain HAROLD BALFOURI beg to support the Amendment. Having 2045 listened to this Debate throughout I have seen looming up, as other Members have seen looming up, a matter of grave public principle, namely, whether in future we are to give money for out-of-pocket expenses to those who are voluntarily giving their services to the State. That is a principle which depends on this Supplementary Estimate. It is a principle which has very nearly got through by the back door, and it would have slipped through but for the vigilance of seine hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Another point is the very serious charge which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Gill) made against the gentlemen with whom we are dealing here. It is a cowardly thing to say that if people are paid out-of-pocket expenses we shall obtain more disinterested service by having a wider range of people from whom to make a selection.
§ Captain CAZALETMay I have an answer to my question? When I raised it the learned Attorney-General nodded, but I do not know whether it was a positive nod or a negative nod. Perhaps it was a nod in slumber as a result of my speech. Would this expenditure, whatever it may be, come under the words in the Estimate, that the total expense "will be recovered in the following year from the Local Loans Fund?"
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIt is only a token Vote. The money is found already and there is no need for it to be carried over into the following year. The suggestion has been made that this is an entirely new departure for people who give voluntary service. As a matter of fact all Royal Commissions and committees have their out-of-pocket expenses paid in this way, and the only thing that is new is that it is being done, with regard to these Loan Commissioners, so far as their attending meetings in London are concerned. It is a very small point, and we have come before the Committee in order to regularise the proceedings.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI quite agree that the formal point is small, but the question of principle is not small. On the question of form I repeat the question which the Financial Secretary has unfortunately omitted to answer, namely, how long has this practice been going on? I rather gathered from what he said that it was 2046 decided early in the financial year that this practice should be followed, and that £75 represents a considerable portion of the year. Why did not the Financial Secretary come here before? Why did he use the Civil Contingencies Fund? The Public Accounts Committee has over and over again impressed on the House hat this is a wrongful use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. How many months provision is represented by this £75?
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCESince the summer. What we have done is to come to the House to get sanction for the payment, and for the precise reason that the right hon. Gentleman has stated.
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONReally the Financial Secretary ought to be here in a white sheet. It is true that the amount is small but the principle is not small. The principle involved is that money is not to be advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund without repayment being made at the earliest possible moment. That is a perfectly well-known principle. The truth is that it was not convenient to the Government to bring forward this regularisation before. They wanted to get on with their own business in the early part of the Session, and so the financial regularisation which ought to have taken place has not in fact taken place.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Commander SOUTHBYI think the Committee, as well as myself, are entitled to an answer to the question which I put courteously to the Front Bench. The Financial Secretary has used the expression, "We could have got round it." There are members of the Committee who look with a good deal of suspicion on an expression of that kind coming from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The course of the Debate would seem to show there has been some attempt to get round it. Although questions have been put to the Financial Secretary, he has tried to gent round them by not answering them. How many members of this Commission have, in fact, had their travelling and incidental expenses paid, and is it or is it not understood by the Government that the payment of travelling and incidental expenses to members of this Commission, who are supposed to give their services voluntarily, is to be accepted as an established principle and 2047 to be extended to members of other Commissions? There is no doubt it is the thin end of the wedge. These people are supposed to give their services voluntarily.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThey are given voluntarily.
Commander SOUTH BYIt appears that their services are given voluntarily, but that they are paid at the same time.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe hon. and gallant Member must really not asperse responsible people in this way. There is nothing inconsistent in members giving voluntary service and being paid out-of-pocket and travelling expenses. I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member does not wish to cast aspersions on the Commission. All members of Royal Commissions and other committees who give their services voluntarily are and have been entitled to their expenses when they come specially to London on business. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his point.
§ Commander SOUTHBYI have no desire to asperse for one moment the members of this Commission. I have pointed out that I think the country is very grateful for what they are doing. But when the Commission was appointed there was no word whatever that the members were going to be paid expenses. I would not have it go out that there have been any aspersions from this side. If it is necessary to pay these expenses, the Committee is quite willing to do so, but what we want to know is whether in fact it is now the principle that there shall be payment of travelling and incidental expenses to all the members of this Commission; if not to all members, to how many; and for what reason? That is a perfectly plain question, and I think we are entitled to a plain answer.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe answer is simple. In all ordinary circumstances in a body of this kind there is provision entitling, the members of the Commission to be paid such expenses. In this particular case, no such words were originally there, and now they are being placed there with the result that anyone who desires his travelling expenses to he paid can in future have 2048 them paid. In fact, as I have explained, the bulk of these people are members living in London and are not put to any expense in attending its sittings, but there are members who come from the provinces, and we are now enabled to pay them.
§ Mr. CULVERWELLI think the hon. Gentleman is getting deeper and deeper into the mire. He apologised just now for his honesty in not concealing this Vote, but it transpires that there is a very definite departure from policy. He now informs us, after a long period of cross-questioning, that by voting in support of this item we are really voting in support of altering the terms under which the Commission was set up. That is what I understood from the last remark of the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that this token Vote is a Vote which may be justified—I am not discussing its merits, and I do not think that any Member on this side has cast any reflection on the Commissioners—hut when we are asked to alter the terms on which they were set up we are entitled to he informed of the facts and to discuss whether the Committee should alter those terms. I am supported in that opinion by the speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway, who made an outrageous reflection on the Public Works Loan Commissioners. No one on this side has criticised the work that they have been doing during many years. We have always realised that they carry out a useful function and give their services voluntarily to the State, and this House has a right to thank them and not cast slurs upon them as the hon. Gentleman opposite has done. He realised even quicker than we did that there was a great change being brought about by this token Vote, for he stressed the fact that the Financial Secretary was really by this Vote improving the standing and status of the type of man who was in future to be among the Public Works Loan Commissioners. He was suggesting that until you remunerate or pay the expenses of these Commissioners you will have the same effete, ineffective members that you have now.
§ Mr. GILLI suggested nothing of the kind. I suggested that you would widen the choice of the people available by meeting their reasonable travelling ex- 2049 penses. That will not bear the interpretation the hon. Member is now trying to place on my remarks.
§ Mr. CULVERWELLI do not want to misinterpret the hon. Member, but I distinctly heard him say that in future the Commissioners would be more disinterested than they are now. I do not know what he meant by that if he did not mean to cast a reflection on the Commission.
§ Mr. CULVERWELLIn that case, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, like so many that come from the benches opposite, really meant nothing at all. If I have misinterpreted him, I accept his explanation, but at the same time I ask him to read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and consider whether his words can bear the interpretation he now places on them. As he has remarked, there is a very vital change being made in the status of the Commissioners, and we have the right at the outset and not at the end to be told where we are being led and what has induced this change on the part of the Government. I can only express my hope that when the Financial Secretary introduces the next Vote he will be a little more candid or clear in his explanation than he was in introducing this Vote.
§ Major COLFOXIt is true, of course, that a certain amount of information has been wrung from the Financial Secretary, who has been a very unwilling witness in the friendly cross-examination which has been going on from this side. But he has not even attempted to answer any of the questions which I put to him a short while ago concerning Lord Hunsdon—whether he is still chairman of this Commission, whether or not he is receiving or going to receive any of these expenses himself, and whether or not this new system has been entered into with his advice or against it? I hope very much the hon. Member will have the courtesy to answer these very reasonable questions.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSThe hon. Gentleman in charge of this Estimate referred to the travelling expenses to and from London of certain people who lived outside. I am not objecting to that, but I want to know if all or only part of this 2050 sum is used for the expenses of those people coming to London from their home. I would be much more willing to grant him the whole of it if part of the sum were used on their work. I would like to know whether these people get help when they go off to Aberdeen to see a fishing harbour, or anything of that kind. On the other point, I would be content if he would promise to write to me. It is an important financial point. The amount of money in the Estimate is very small, but, as I understand it, we are now taking a certain amount of money out of the Loan Fund and handing it over in travelling expenses. If that is going on year after year, this Loan Fund will contract, and we shall be placed in a very difficult position. I think we ought to be informed on this point quite clearly. I take a special interest in it, because I know the Commissioners and the fund are very valuable when they can come forward and help our fishing villages in the west of England. Nothing would induce me to vote for the reduction if I thought that that reduction would take any money from our harbours in the west of England. If the Financial Secretary could answer the two points that I have put, and would oblige my hon. Friends behind me, I feel we could possibly consider withdrawing this Amendment for a reduction. They are quite fair questions, and I feel sure the Financial Secretary will do his best to answer them, as they are vitally important to us before we can decide fairly and honestly whether we should vote for the whole or only part of this Estimate.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLANDI want to put one point to the Financial Secretary which he has not answered, and that is as to the length of time during which these payments have been going on? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI will answer the right hon. Gentleman's question again. I said that it was since the summer.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDIf it was since the summer, might I point out that that is one of the longest times during which such payments have ever been made out of the Civil Contingencies Fund? [Interruption.] Is there any reason why the period has been so long? It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to suggest that it is nothing 2051 at all, but, according to the old-fashioned practice, whenever these sums have been borrowed from the Civil Contingencies Fund, they have been repaid as quickly as possible. We shall certainly divide against the hon. Gentleman on this Vote, because he has given us no reason, although I can imagine what the reason is. He has told us the length of the
§ period, but he has not given us any explanation as to why there has been a delay far beyond what is the usual practice in matters of this kind.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 230.
2053| Division No. 167.] | AYES. | [8.18 p.m. |
| Albery, Irving James | Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Penny, Sir George |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Remer, John R. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Hendenon, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bracken, B. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Simms, Major-General J. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Buchan, John | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Smithers, Waldron |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Hurd, Percy A. | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. |
| Cohen, Major J, Brunel | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Train, J. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Wallace, Cant. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Muirhead, A. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Commander Southby and Captain Balfour. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Daggar, George | Hardie, George D. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock] | Dallas, George | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Dalton, Hugh | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. | Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Haycock, A. W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hayes, John Henry |
| Ammon, Charles George | Devlin, Joseph | Henderson, Arthur, junr, (Cardiff, S.) |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Dudgeon, Major C. R, | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Arnott, John | Dukes, C. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Ede, James Chuter | Herriotts, J. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Edmunds, J. E. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Barr, James | Egan, W. H. | Hollins, A. |
| Batey, Joseph | Elmley, Viscount | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Foot, Isaac | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Freeman, Peter | Isaacs, George |
| Benson, G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Jenkins, Sir William |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Gibbins, Joseph | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) |
| Bromfield, William | Gill, T. H. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Brothers, M. | Gillett, George M. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Glassey, A. E. | Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gossling, A. G. | Kedward R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton) | Kelly, W. T. |
| Buchanan, G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Burgess, F. G. | Granville, E. | Kirk wood D. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Knight, Holford |
| Caine, Derwent Hall. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cameron, A. G. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lathan, G. |
| Cape, Thomas | Groves, Thomas E. | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Lawrence, Susan |
| Clarke, J. S. | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Leach, W. |
| Cove, William G. | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) |
| Cowan, D. M. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Lees, J. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Harbord, A. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Perry, S. F. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sorensen, R. |
| Longden, F. | Phillips, Dr. Marlon | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Pole, Major D. G. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Potts, John S. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Price, M. P. | Sullivan, J. |
| McElwee, A. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Sutton, J. E. |
| McEntee, V. L. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shattleston) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Raynes, W. R. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Richards, R. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| McShane, John James | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Tout, W. J. |
| Marcus, M. | Ritson, J, | Townend, A. E. |
| Markham, S. F. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Vaughan, David |
| Marley, J. | Rowson, Guy | Viant, S. P. |
| Marshall, Fred | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Walkden, A. G. |
| Mathers, George | Sanders, W. S. | Walker, J. |
| Matters, L. W. | Sandham, E. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Maxton, James | Sawyer, G. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Melville, Sir James | Scott, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Mills, J. E. | Scrymgeour, E. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Milner, Major J. | Sexton, Sir James | Welsh James (Paisley) |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Morley, Ralph | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Sherwood, G. H | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Mort, D. L. | Shield, George William | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Muggeridgs, H. T. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Murnin, Hugh | Shillaker, J. F. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Shinwell, E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Simmons, C. J. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | |
| Palin, John Henry | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Paling, Wilfrid | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| Palmer, E. T. | Snell, Harry | Thurtle. |
Question put, and agreed to.