CONSUMERS' COUNCIL [EXPENSES].

HC Deb 21 July 1931 vol 255 cc1385-417

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to provide for the constitution of a Consumers Council, to define the powers and duties of that Council, to enable the Board of Trade to regulate by order the prices to be charged for certain commodities and the charges to be made in respect of sales thereof, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

1. (a) any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying such remuneration (if any) and such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairman, deputy-chairman, and members of the Council constituted by the said Act, such remuneration to accountants and other assistants employed by the Council, and such other expenses of the Council as the Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine; and
2. (b) any other expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act."—[King's Recommendation signified],—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)

I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee, as the Opposition have a number of Amendments down, if I move the Resolution formally and allow hon. Members to move their Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN

Before I call on the first Amendment, I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee—I am in the hands of the Committee—that the first four Amendments might be discussed together. They are all on the question of expenditure.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS

I beg to move, in line 8, to leave out the words "such remuneration (if any) and."

I wish to direct attention to that part of the Resolution which provides that the members of the Consumers' Council are to be paid. I object to those words in Resolutions for three reasons. First of all because of the amount of the expenditure involved; secondly, because I do not believe that it is in fact necessary to pay any remuneration at all, and thirdly, because I believe that the result, if remuneration is paid, will be positively harmful. Take the question of the amount at issue. Anyone who turns to the Consumers' Council Bill will, I think, probably form the opinion that in being asked to pay members of the council we are only being asked to pay at most seven people. That is quite incorrect. As a matter of fact, as the Bill was originally drafted, power was taken to add any number of additional members of the council for the purpose of particular investigations.

The Sub-section dealing with that in the Bill, as originally drafted, read in this way. Clause 1, Sub-section (3): The Board of Trade may at any time appoint such number of persons as they think fit to act as additional members of the council for the purposes of any investigation which the council are proposing to institute. I am glad to say that that has to some extent been modified. As Members of the Committee are, no doubt, aware, Members of the Opposition in the Committee upstairs are struggling to improve the Bill in the face of every obstacle that the ingenuity of the First Lord of the Admiralty can put in their way. They have, however, at least succeeded in this, that the Committee have at their suggestion modified this proposal with regard to additional members by adding to the Sub-section I have just read these words: Provided the total number of persons so appointed in respect of any one investigation shall not exceed six. In addition to that we have the obiter dicta from the First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that on every such sub-committee there must be at least one of those seven regular members of the council. If the Committee will make a little calculation they will see that there are seven original members of the council and that at least one member has to be on each sub-committee. There cannot be more than seven subcommittees, and as the number of additional members on each sub-committee must not exceed six, that means that the additional members cannot exceed, but may attain, 42. Add to those 42 the seven original members and you get 49 members. I should like the Committee clearly to appreciate the fact that when the First Lord comes here to-night with a proposal which on the face of it is to provide remuneration possibly for seven persons he is really asking power to provide remuneration for 49 persons. To my mind that is just the kind of additional expenditure which at the present time above all others we should avoid. There have been one or two very grave warnings addressed to the House and to the nation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of public finances, though relative to the sums dealt with in the Budget this amount is, of course, small. It is very probable that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was here to-night he would agree that by refusing to be led into small unnecessary expenditure of this kind in many directions we can avoid adding to our financial burdens to an extent that may ultimately endanger the financial stability of the country. Therefore, on the ground of the amount to be expended, I object to the presence of those words.

On the second point as to whether such payments are necessary, it is agreed that one of the most agreeable features of our public life is that people of all ranks and occupations are willing to be called upon to give their time and services to the State on commissions or committees of inquiry. There is no difficulty in finding suitable people of experience who are prepared to work on such commissions or committees in a public spirit and without payment. I should have thought that if there were any people who appreciate the truth of that statement it would be the Members of the present Government, who have created a record in the number of commissions and committees of inquiry they have established. There is hardly any difficulty with which they have been faced that they have not tried to shelve by appointing a commission or committee. As a general rule members of these commissions or committees are not paid. The expenses of the members of the council are provided for. Travelling expenses are to be paid to the chairman, deputy-chairman and members of the committee. Therefore, by accepting membership of this body without remuneration, the members would not be put to heavy personal expense. Moreover, the work which the members of the council will have to perform will, to some extent, be lightened by the provision of paid assistance. It is specifically laid down in the Resolution that remuneration is to be provided for accountants and for assistance employed by the council. That assistance is intended to save the time of the members of the committee. On these grounds and on the known availability of people for work of this kind and the fact that expenses are to be paid and that expert assistance is to be provided, no case can be made out for salaries for the members of the council.

In regard to the third point, I suggest that if the members were paid a salary it would be found to be harmful. If you have a number of people, eminent in their particular line, put on the council, without remuneration they will have other interests and they will devote such time as may be necessary for serious inquiry. They will have no temptation to waste time upon trivial or unnecessary inquiries. On the other hand, if you pay them to do the work and they have no important inquiry before them at a given moment they will naturally be anxious to show that they are earning their salaries and in the absence of some really important inquiry may be tempted to take on less important and trivial inquiries. That may not appear a very serious matter at first sight, but look at it from the point of view of the people who will be the subject of these inquiries. It means that they will be put to a considerable amount of expense and time and trouble in getting up their defence and I submit that it is in the highest degree undesirable that traders should be put to all this annoyance and expenditure of time and money unless a grave cause can be shown that an inquiry is necessary into a really serious matter. For that reason I maintain that if these members are paid there will be a greater risk of unnecessary inquiries and a consequent waste of time and money to all concerned in the trades affected. Let me sum up the argument. I submit that the payment of members of the council is undesirable, first, because of the actual amount of money at issue in paying 49 members, secondly, because no ease can be made out for such payment as suitable people can be got without payment, and thirdly, because the payment of members of the council would be positively harmful. For these reasons I move the Amendment.

Sir BASIL PETO

On a point of Order. You have indicated, Mr. Chairman, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we debated other Amendments on this present Amendment. I did not intervene earlier because I desire to hear what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) had to say. He has dealt entirely, and very properly, with his own Amendment, but the principle of his Amendment is quite different to that which I have put on the Paper, and I cannot see how we can have a very intelligent Debate if all these different points are to be dealt with at the same time. I have no desire to intervene on this Amendment, but I do desire to maintain my right to move my Amendment later, to leave out paragraph (b), and to speak on it. It raises a simple point but a separate point which cannot be raised on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think the objection of the hon. Member arises in any way. I did not intend that he should not be allowed to move his Amendment, and have a Division on it if necessary. That would be quite in order.

Captain CROOKSHANK

Is it not a fact that if objection is taken the Amendments must be taken separately, and is it not necessary that we should have four separate small discussions?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member might have raised his objection when I just made the suggestion about discussing the Amendments together. Because of the hon. and gallant Member's silence I thought he had agreed to the suggestion. There is no difficulty about discussing the Amendments. If I now call upon the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) he can discuss the proposal of his Amendment if he likes.

Sir B. PETO

There is nothing that I wish to say to the Committee on the Amendment now before it, but I do desire to move an Amendment which stands in my name. When we come to the end of the discussion on this Amendment, I presume that you will put the Question and that we shall have a Division. Then I want an opportunity of putting the arguments in favour of my Amendment, which has been on the Paper for weeks.

The CHAIRMAN

I am in the hands of the Committee about that. If the hon. Member wants to move his Amendment later, he can do so.

Mr. CULVERWELL

I am interested in the Amendment which seeks to insert the words: Provided that the total expenditure incurred by the Boar of Trade under the said Act Shall not exceed £20,000. While I am in agreement with what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) has said, I want to deal rather more fully with the total expense which I presume the First Lord will shortly ask this Committee to sanction. To-night we are very largely repeating the position in which we found ourselves when this House sanctioned the Financial Resolution on the Coal Mines Bill and set up the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. I can quote no less an authority than the President of the Board of Trade, who introduced this hardy annual last year, and possibly will have the opportunity next year of introducing it again: The position in this respect"— that is, as regards the probable expenditure on the Committee— is substantially the same as the position which existed when we were discussing amalgamation commissioners under the Coal Mines Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1930; col. 1304, Vol. 238.] Therefore, it is very relevant, in considering the expenditure which we are asked to sanction now, that we should take into consideration what happened after we had sanctioned a similar expenditure on the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. We are asked this evening for a blank cheque to pay for the expenses of the Consumers' Council. Let me remind the Committee—and I have no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty will recall these words, though perhaps he will alter his argument a little tonight in the light of events which have happened since—of what the President of the Board of Trade said when he introduced the last Financial Resolution on 8th May, 1930: We are taking powers under this Resolution for remuneration if it is required. It may be, as is the case with the amalgamation commissioners under the Coal Mines Bill, that we may have the offer of the services of very able people, thoroughly competent in every way, who do not expect any remuneration and would be content to have their out-of-pocket expenses covered or some small honorarium or allowance of that description."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1930; col. 1304, Vol. 238.] I am sorry the Secretary for Mines is not here to-night. He would listen with pleasure, no doubt, to that optimistic reference to the Financial Resolution for the Coal Bill because, when we had sanctioned that Resolution, we were astonished to find that, far from the members of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission working for "a small honorarium or allowance of that description," with mere out-of-pocket expenses, this House had committed itself to an expenditure of £7,000 a year for the chairman—and I suggest that the chairman of the Consumers' Council will have a no less responsible or onerous position—and a minimum of 700 guineas a year for each member of the Commission to the number of five. Hon. Members will be well advised to take notice of what I am saying because it was not until we drew attention to the fact that they awoke to a realisation of the monstrous salaries a Socialist Government was paying. The Coal Commissioners numbered five. The Consumers' Council, nominally consist of seven members, but by a very simple arithmetical sum we find that the actual number we are asked to permit the President of the Board of Trade to employ under this Financial Resolution is no less than 49–49 potential, if not actual, members, with a chairman and vice-chairman. If they are paid on the same scale as were the Coal Mines Commissioners, the Committee will appreciate that we are involving ourselves—not in salaries alone—in a very much greater expenditure than the President of the Board of Trade last year suggested would be the maximum sum which this House might find itself called upon to pay for the luxury of this very futile Consumers' Council. I would point out that while we are starting with seven members for the Council, the President of the Board of Trade has power to add to the number. The existing Food Council which the right hon. Gentleman considers inadequate to fulfil the task he has in mind consist of 12 nominal members and 10 active members. Therefore, under that head alone we may be involved in considerable expenditure. The first question which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is, on what scale does he anticipate that the chairman, the vice-chairman and the other members of this council will be paid. The Parliamentary Secre- tary, a year ago, when he introduced the previous Financial Resolution said: It is impossible to give an exact figure, but in so far as it is possible to calculate what may be the outside figure under this Bill, the figure mentioned is one considered reasonable in the circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1930; cols. 1311–1312, Vol. 238.] The figure mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade—and he analysed the method by which he arrived at the figure—was £20,000. If that estimate is anywhere near a correct estimate, then I suggest that, in these times of financial stringency, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and put off schemes' involving expenditure until more prosperous days, the First Lord of the Admiralty is not entitled to ask the Committee for a blank cheque—for a mere token Vote. I have no reason to assume that the right hon. Gentleman will differ from the President of the Board of Trade in the estimate of last year. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the figure of £20,000 is not going to be exceeded, he would be well advised to put in a limit of that amount. The right hon. Gentleman, however, will probably refuse to do so, and I can well understand his position because he knows that the figure given by the President of the Board of Trade last year and given in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill of this year, is totally inadequate and cannot cover the vast expenditure which is envisaged.

Mr. HAYCOCK

What is the hon. Member's estimate?

12 m.

Mr. CULVERWELL

I am asking the First Lord of the Admiralty to give us his estimate. Last year we were told that it would be £20,000, but we had not then seen the operation of the Coal Mines Commission proposal. I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, who talked about an honorarium and about small expenses in connection with that body, would not have given that estimate had he known that a Minister associated with his own Department, and more or less under his control, would sanction an expenditure of £7,000 a year on the Chairman of that Commission alone. I also ask the First Lord whether membership of the Consumers' Council is to be a full-time job? We have had no indication in Committee. We have been struggling with the Bill in Committee for the last few weeks, in the face of the very greatest difficulties, but we have received no information on that point. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will give as curt and inadequate reply to our questions on this occasion, as he has been accustomed to give to our arguments in Committee. Will this be a full-time job? I ask for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride off on the vague generalities on which the President of the Board of Trade rode a year ago. We have the valuable experience now of the Coal Mines Commission—

Mr. HAYCOCK

That is only the seventeenth time you have said that.

Mr. CULVERWELL

I am relating my repetition of that statement to another argument. I mentioned it in connection with salaries; I now mention it in connection with the services of this commission. The President of the Board of Trade, in the Committee stage of the Coal Mines Bill, said: They are not to be full time people. They must be remunerated to some extent in terms of honorarium or allowance not disproportionate to what would be some moderate recognition of the work they perform. I have explained that to get men on full time, to give up all their other interests, would involve a large payment. Neither the Board of Trade nor this House nor the men themselves would want that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1930; col. 2159, Vol. 235.] I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what happened after that statement, whether the members of this council will be full-time members. The President of the Board of Trade went on to say: If we set out to get full time commissioners and to pay them a salary which would be reasonable, that would be a large charge upon public funds. Quite frankly it is not intended to do anything of the kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1930; col. 2134, Vol. 235.] I always suspect the President of the Board of Trade when he is most frank with the House. We never imagined after that statement that we should have a full-time chairman and other members at the enormous salaries which he was prepared to pay. I therefore ask whether the members of the Consumers' Council will be full time. How does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that £20,000, which is the estimate in the Financial Memorandum, is possibly going to cover the vast expenditure that will be incurred under this Bill? How does he imagine that the council, with all the dictatorial, extensive, autocratic powers of investigation which he has given it, can possibly carry out its duties of investigation into every stage of the price structure from production to the ultimate consumer, at an expenditure of £20,000? Is any provision made in this Resolution for the payment of witnesses? We know that owing to a lapse on the part of his supporters, owing to the apathy of those enthusiastic guardians of the interests of the consumer, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to secure the support of the Committee for Clause 3 of the Bill, which gave him powers of compulsory investigation and of obtaining evidence on oath compulsorily. He has expressed the intention of securing the reinsertion of the Clause if he can obtain the support of the Liberal party, and if he does so then I shall move an Amendment which is designed to ascertain whether it is proposed to pay the expenses of these witnesses. It is obvious that when the council undertake an investigation and summon witnesses from all parts of the country those witnesses will be put to considerable outlay. I ask whether the expenses of the witnesses are covered by the Financial Resolution, and whether it is thought that £20,000 is really adequate to meet not only the expenses of the commission, but the salaries of the council and the expenses of the witnesses. By Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 the Board of Trade may institute and carry on proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act in any case where the Board consider it desirable so to do. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the Board can carry through proceedings against a large trading corporation without incurring considerable expense? How can £20,000 suffice for all these purposes? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer, and I hope it will be a more adequate answer than the type to which we have been accustomed in Committee upstairs.

Before the Committee parts with this Resolution in these times of financial stress it has a right to know to what it is committing itself, and certainly a right to criticise the mere token Vote of £20,000 which the President of the Board of Trade put forward in what I consider to be an ill considered estimate of the expenses. We are not so much in the dark as we were a year ago. Then we knew nothing of the expenses of the Coal Commission. Since then we know to what we were committed in that matter. For that reason I support the Amendment. I do not know which Amendment I am supporting, but the one I wish to support is that to limit the expenditure to £20,000. The Committee has no right to commit the country to a vast expenditure on a council which will do no good to consumers and considerable harm to the trading interests of the country.

Major SALMON

I rise to move the Amendment which provides that only £20,000 shall be—

Sir B. PETO

On a point of Order. Can we have two Amendments before the Committee at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the Committee realise that several Amendments are being referred to in the discussion, and that the hon. and gallant Member intends to refer to one specifically.

Major SALMON

I should have thought that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have given us an explanation of the purposes for which this money is wanted. I would remind him that some little time ago, on the last occasion when the Financial Resolution was moved in the House, the Prime Minister said that the estimate had been put in after very careful consideration, and that it was not at all a token figure. It must be obvious to anyone who has studied this matter that it will be impossible to carry out the Bill for anything like £20,000. I say that because the Government are considering a very important Measure which, in the words of the President of the Board of Trade, represents the whole of the distributive trades of the country, which is more than one-half of the national income. I should have thought that when the Government were going to ask for a roving commission such as this they would have given careful consideration to the question of how much it would cost. The first thing to consider is the composition of the commission itself. As my hon. Friend has reminded us, the Government found it necessary to pay the chairman of the Coal Commission £7,000 a year.

Mr. HAYCOCK

How much do you get a year? [Interruption.]

Major SALMON

If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my point, he will see what I am driving at. The point I want to make is this. If it was necessary, in appointing the Chairman of the Coal Commission, to pay £7,000 a year to get a man of sufficient capacity to look after one interest alone, how much more is it necessary to pay a man who has to possess experience, not of one industry but of the whole of the industries of the country. The Chairman of this Commission must be a man who has the respect and confidence both of the consumer and of the producer, and the Government are more likely to have to pay a man of that character £10,000 or £14,000 a year. It would have been very interesting if the First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing this Measure, had given us some indication whether he intended to go in for dug-outs or for live individuals on the Commission. Sufficient attention has not been given to the amount to be paid to the other commissioners. The members of the Coal Commission are getting £1,500 a year. My hon. Friend asked if this was going to be a whole-time or part-time job. I suggest it will probably be a whole-time job. If the Government had really appreciated what they were legislating for they would have realised that if the Commission was to be of any use at all, it would have to watch the markets of the world hour by hour and day by day. The Commission are going to do something which has never been done in the history of this country before—to decide what the selling price of the commodities shall be and what the profits of the dealers selling the commodities shall be. It is evident that if this Bill is to be carried out in a practical manner the first thing the Commission will have to decide is what is or is not a reasonable profit. You cannot decide upon your selling-price until you know what is or what is not reasonable.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot enter into the merits of the Bill as a whole. That is a matter for the Committee upstairs.

Major SALMON

I was only giving that as an illustration of the capacity that the individual would have need to have. I submit that it is germane to the question, when Commissioners are to be appointed, that we should have some regard to the character of the work that they are to perform. We have to look around for very eminent and practical persons, if the duties are to be carried out in the manner that I presume the Government have in mind. If, on the other hand, the Government know that this is mere camouflage, and that it is not possible, as I do not believe it is, to do any real good, they ought not to waste the time of the Committee upstairs, or of the House of Commons, in asking for a blank cheque to disrupt and create uneasiness in the whole of the industries of the country.

The right hon. Gentleman has not favoured us to-night with any explanation whatsoever and that, I submit, is very discourteous to the Committee. On previous occasions, in Debates upon Financial Resolutions, the Minister in charge of it has generally had the courtesy to give some explanation. Unless we take the trouble to look up Debates that took place 12 months ago, we have not the slightest idea what this Financial Resolution is for.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I cannot permit the charge of discourtesy to pass. I particularly rose at the beginning of these proceedings and suggested that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I acted in the way I proposed. If any objection had been raised at that time, I should had no hesitation at all in giving a short explanation.

Major SALMON

I do not wish to make any charges against the right hon. Gentleman. If he says that that was in his mind, I do not wish to press the point further. What I desire to say is that when the Bill was introduced, a Financial Memorandum was presented with it, and that no figure was put down in it for the rent of the premises that would be occupied by the staff necessitated in carrying out the work. The President of the Board of Trade last year, and again in the Bill that he presented this year, said that the great idea that he had was to build up a great pile of statistical information which the Government did not possess. I do not see any figure here for the amount of money that would be spent under the heading, "statistician." These gentlemen are rather costly. Total up the expenditure that would be involved by this Bill, and you will find that we should get nearer to the hundreds of thousands a year, instead to the mere £20,000 per year. I do not think it fair, either to the House or to the country, that we should give a blank cheque or a roving commission, to a Government Department in these difficult times, when our energies would be better spent in economising than in adding to the expenses of the nation. If the Government are honest in their desire to limit expenditure—and I want to apply an acid test of their honesty—they will not refuse to accept an Amendment to limit this expenditure to £20,000. It is evident, however, that they are not prepared to limit the expenditure, and I suggest that they are going to spend, not £20,000, but over £100,000. In the unfortunate period when we had food control, from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 was spent on administration alone. I am not speaking of the cost of rationing, but of the control of foodstuffs. Here you are dealing, not with food alone, but with every industry in this country, and the House is being asked to give the Government a blank cheque which will probably involve the country in an enormous expenditure. It is the duty of the Minister in charge of the Bill to give us a full disclosure of what he is prepared to do, and also to limit the expenditure in which it is proposed to involve the country.

Captain CROOKSHANK

I am sorry that the First Lord should be fidgety because my hon. and gallant Friend said he was discourteous in not introducing the Resolution more fully, but it is an accusation which, unfortunately, has had to be made against him several times during the last few weeks, and I am getting accustomed to it. He is always laying himself open to it, and to-night he has started on the same sort of habit that he follows in broad daylight. There are one or two very remarkable things about this Money Resolution. Not the least is the proverbial absence of the Financial Secretary, which I just touch upon in passing. We have learned never to expect him here. Another remarkable thing is the extraordinary delay in introducing this Resolution. It has been on the Paper for months; the Bill was read a First time nearly a year ago; the Second Reading was taken somewhere in March; and it is not until the day before the Committee is about to reach the Clause which deals with finance that, after Eleven at night, the Resolution is introduced without a word of explanation. That is very strange, and in itself would justify every hon. Member in this House putting up the most vigorous opposition to it. I understand that there are four Amendments under discussion, so I take it that the later one with which I am more particularly concerned is to be dealt with separately.

There is no excuse for paying any of the members of this council anything at all. No argument has been put forward as to why they should be paid. The only trouble is that we have to assume that they are likely to be paid from the words such remuneration, if any. No one, however, has said definitely that they are going to be paid, and we are left to try and decide from the deliberations of the Committee upstairs whether or not it is going to be a full-time job, and whether it is going to last more than a month or six weeks over the 12 months, so that the Government will think they ought to be paid, whereas if the time were something less they would probably take some precedent from the many Royal Commissions and committees that they have set up on an unpaid basis, and say that there is no particular reason why the Consumers' Council should be paid if the others are not.

I am not sure that the analogy of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) with regard to the Coal Mines Bill was entirely right. After all, the object of that Bill was to force prices up, while it is stated that the object of the present Bill is to force prices down. This council might very well be paid nothing and take their remuneration in the satisfaction they will naturally feel at having done so great a public service, whereas those who forced up the price of coal would have had so much on their conscience that they would not be entitled to remuneration. [An HON. MEMBER: "The wages of sin!"] The wages of sin would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £7,000 a year. The analogy is not quite correct. I put it to the First Lord in Committee that there is no reason to pay these councillors a permanent annual salary, incidentally, I suppose with pension rights, about which a word might well be spoken, remembering what happened to the Chairman of the other Committee, though the circumstances were so different.

The First Lord might very well have cleared up the point about the other expenses they have in mind. The memorandum does not make that clear except that it says that Clause 6, which has not been discussed yet, empowers the Board to take legal proceedings in cases of general importance. I daresay the Solicitor-General will have something to say about that and will be able to estimate what the fees for these legal procedings of unknown dimensions are. With any luck some of them will come his way. But that is no reason why we should pass the Financial Resolution without further explanations on the point. Either the words refer to these mysterious legal proceedings or to the possible payment of all sorts and conditions of men who will be incommoded by the activities of the council. Therefore my hon. Friend is right in saying it is most improbable that £20,000 will be anything like enough. I take it that paragraph (b) refers to the statistical department that will have to be set up.

I am sorry to have to give all these explanations but I am doing my best to interpret the Bill for the First Lord, who did not do it for us. It is not provided in the Bill, but it will obviously be necessary, because, though the memorandum says the expenditure will depend upon the scope and area of the inquiries, if the Board of Trade, on the recommendation of the council, publishes an Order fixing the price of certain commodities for a certain period there will have to be some sort of arrangement for constantly keeping the prices in review. The statistical department will have to be functioning all the time while the main council switches off bread and goes on to, say, milk. Somebody has to be left behind in the office to keep their eyes on bread all the time. Therefore, it is clear that there is to be some kind of other expenditure at the Board of Trade in the nature of a statistical department. The upshot of that is that you cannot do all that monument of completely useless work and exertion, employing anything up to 49 members of the council with their subsidiaries, plus an unknown number of accountants, secretaries, deputy secretaries, and so on, for £20,000. I see, incidentally, that that figure is supported by the Lord Advocate: I had not noticed it before.

That £20,000 is absolutely valueless as an estimate, but, assuming that it was absolutely correct in every particular and that that was the last penny which the Consumers' Council would cost the taxpayer, is this the time for this Committee to embark on the expenditure of even an extra £20,000? That is the fundamental question. The First Lord of the Admiralty had nothing to do with the Budget as we were kept busy upstairs. It was only by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT and by rumour that we knew anything about what was going on, but it was brought to us as a general idea that the Budget was going to balance with something like £120,000 to the good. Since then supplementary Estimates to the tune of £500,000 have been presented to the House, so that the Budget is out by £400,000 before we begin to deal with this expenditure. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It is no good hon. Members saying "No, no" in the face of the fact that these supplementary Estimates have already been presented and that the deficit is already staring us in the face. Why then should we go out of our way to-night to pass this Financial Resolution, which is not going to be a mere £20,000? I doubt if £200,000 will cover all its activities.

It is all very well for the First Lord to scoff, but he knows, from his experience in the Co-operative Movement, how a little thing grows to be a big thing. When it gets too big, the "divvies" begin to go down and the people have to be thrown out of work, because they cannot afford to pay them the wages which they could pay them when they were small concerns. That is what may happen to the council. They may well be able to pay good wages to themselves, their secretaries, accountants, deputy secretaries and so on, but when it grows, then, like the Co-operative Movement, the time will come when the House will have to say that it cannot afford it and that the salaries of these people will have to be cut down like the wages of those poor people in the Cooperative Movement were cut. The result, both with the Consumers' Council and with the Co-operative Movement, will be that the last stage will be worse than the first.

It is fantastic that we should be asked to set the seal of the approval of this Committee to such a proposal. We cannot deal with the Bill to-night, but I might say that it is a very poor Bill and will never work, because of the financial Clause, Clause 7, which is founded on this Resolution, being embodied in it. I would appeal to the First Lord to use a little of the common sense, which other people say he has got, not to force this Resolution through at this hour of the night without giving us more information than he has done so far as to its possible effect on the taxpayer.

Mr. ALEXANDER

There is always this to be said for the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that, if he does not convey any important point in his speech, he at least is amusing. The House forgives much to hon. Members when they are amusing. He has said very little in his long address to us, but he has been interesting to us, because he has been amusing. Now, as to the delay in introducing the Resolution to the House, I am sure he will recognise that that is one of the matters for which I am not responsible. It is a question of arranging the business of the House, and, although it has been on the Paper for some time, it has not been possible, because of the other business which has had to be dealt with from day to day and which has to be arranged in consultation with the other parties, to take it at an earlier date. However, this is soon enough for our purpose in order to enable the Bill to be passed through Committee stage and to come before the House at a later stage for enactment. So far as the speech of the hon. and gallant Member is concerned, he really has not covered any other points except those which have been put to us by previous speakers.

I shall try to deal, as clearly and faithfully as I can, with the points put to the Committee. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) asked whether these payments to the members of the Consumers' Council would be necessary at all. I would be very pleased if they were unnecessary, and, if we could get, for the kind of work that is to be done, people of the right capacity and with the right time available, without having to make any remuneration to them at all. He was right in saying that there has always been a large number of public-spirited people willing to give their time and service to the State. I am quite sure that, if it is possible to get the right type of person to do the duties on the council to be set up, then the Government will avail themselves of their services. But, in view of the nature of the work to be done, the Government thought it advisable that at least the House should give it the proper power to pay the chairman or such other members of the council as may be necessary in order to secure that the work is carried out.

The hon. Member for Colchester referred to the question of subsistence and travelling allowances. What I have said before on the other point really covers that, but I should say that payments by the Board under the Resolution will cover not only the travelling and subsistence allowances to members of the council, but will also provide for such expenditure on witnesses as may be necessary. That was a point raised by the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell). The hon. Member for West Bristol asked on what scale the chairman and the members of the council would be paid. I am very sorry, but I am unable to answer that question categorically to-night, and I must leave that to the head of the Department concerned, who will have the duty of administering this Bill and who will make what decisions are necessary when he sets up the council. He will decide what salaries, if any, are necessary.

Mr. CULVERWELL

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that I mentioned the chairman of the Coal Commission as an example of the kind of salary that might be necessary? Surely he has some idea of the kind of scale on which they will be paid.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I am aware that the hon. Member has mentioned that case, the circumstances of which were debated fully in the House. I shall not go into it again to-night, because I should be out of order. I am certain, however, that the duties of the chairman of the Coal Commission and of the chairman of the Consumers' Council cannot be regarded as analogous. I am certainly not prepared to-night to tie in advance the hands of the Minister as to what the actual rate of remuneration will be. The same answer applies to the question as to whether or not these appointments are to be a full-time job.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Are they?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I cannot say whether or not all the Consumers' Council will, or will not, be full-time. I am not prepared to tie the Minister's hands. There is another point to which I ought to refer. It is the question of the legal costs of prosecutions. Some hon. Members seem to think that in this estimate of £20,000 no account has been taken of possible costs of prosecutions instituted by the Board of Trade. On the other hand, the Member for West Bristol and other Members who have been sitting on the Committee week after week, will know that a large part of the enforcement of any Order will be in the hands of the local authorities. Any costs which will have to be borne by the Board of Trade will be in important prosecutions, and any general enforcement of the Orders will be undertaken by the local authorities under Clause 6 of the Bill. The total figure of £20,000 mentioned has taken into account any allowance which may be necessary, as far as can be ascertained, for the costs of legal prosecutions which may be entered into by the Board of Trade. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asked for an indication of what is covered by the £20,000. The point was answered by the President of the Board of Trade in the case of the Financial Resolution introduced on the previous Bill. I will repeat what is to be covered by the £20,000. It will cover salaries of the additional staff of the Board of Trade which has necessarily to be employed. It will cover what necessary salaries have to be paid, if any, or remuneration to be paid to the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman or Members of the Council. It will cover expert accountancy, assistance, and statistics. It will cover the cost of Board of Trade prosecutions and the payment of witnesses. I want to reassure the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow that it will also cover payment of rent for accommodation. I will repeat what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the debate on the Financial Resolution of the previous Bill. He said that this is not a token vote. It is an estimate as to what the natural expenditure is likely to be, based as far as the Department can at present base it, upon a careful examination of what is likely to be expended.

Hon. Members opposite ask me to accept an Amendment which would limit definitely the expenditure to £20,000. As the Amendment appeals, it would limit the expenditure to £20,000 for the whole operation of the Act. I take it that what they mean is that expenditure should be limited to £20,000 per annum. Even that could not be accepted. I am not able to put in a figure of that kind. I can only give an assurance to the Committee that it is not anticipated that the sum of £20,000 will be exceeded, but it would be obviously wrong for me to limit the amount and afterwards sterilise the work of the Council if some extension of it was really needed. It would be futile to have to come back to the House of Commons and discuss the whole question all over again if we wanted £500 or £1,000 more in a certain year for the necessary work of the Council. [Interruption.] I hope I have given a sufficient answer to the points and that hon. Members opposite will not again charge me with discourtesy.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The right hon. Gentleman has given a full and entertaining speech. It was almost as entertaining as the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). It was the most extraordinary speech I have ever heard delivered in support of a Financial Resolution. I am not surprised that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has taken flight; and the Lord Advocate, I am informed, has gone to Scotland in search of a brief to prosecute the miners. Possibly that will be charged to the Coal Consumers' Council; I do not know. Why have we this Financial Resolution at all? The object of a Financial Resolution is to inform the House as to what is the expenditure which is going to be incurred, and obtain authority from the House to spend up to a certain amount. That is why this House laid down this financial procedure. That is why a Government is not allowed to proceed with the financial Clauses of a Bill until it has received the authority of the Committee of Ways and Means to proceed up to a certain amount. I know this is a, very silly and futile Bill. [Interruption.] An hon. Member who sits for Sheffield informed us to-day that the Bill is all eyewash; that nobody would try to fix prices at all. He is the only Socialist Member who spoke on the Bill.

Mrs. MANNING

No.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The bon. Lady did intervene upon skirts and women. On the Report stage of the Bill I hope the hon. Member will intervene again, because the case of fixing the standard price of skirts is one of the matters in the Bill. The only member who has directed his attention to what I may call the operative part of the Bill says that it is going to be quite futile. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary is here now. This is his resolution and, if he had been in the House, he would have seen how the First Lord of the Admiralty has been making away with the money he has got from the Treasury. All we have had with certainty from the First Lord of the Admiralty is that the only thing he knows is that this Bill has to be got through by the winter in order that we may wish traders a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. The First Lord of the Admiralty says that it is not anticipated that the expenditure will exceed £20,000. That is not what the President of the Board of Trade told us. I think he might be here, although I do not want to press him unduly.

It is not quite fair to the First Lord of the Admiralty that he should have to deputise for the President of the Board of Trade and get a Bill through which he does not like and which, with all respect to his abilities, he does not understand. He has said to-night that he will not tie the hands of the Board of Trade. What is the object of a Financial Resolution in the House of Commons except to tie the hands of Ministers? The First Lord has said that he does not know whether the President of the Board of Trade is going to pay salaries to the seven men and women on the Council or not. Then we ought to have the President here to tell us what he is going to do. There are seven members of the Council. Why seven? Perhaps because there were seven sleepers of Ephesus. [Interruption.]

The President said in an earlier debate that they had made a most careful estimate of how much money was going to be spent. We ask what it is going to be spent on. First, there are a few salaries for people in the Board of Trade, but the big thing is whether you are going to pay salaries to the seven Commissioners—the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman and the three men and the two women. It was only accidentally that we learned, while the Bill was passing through Committee, that this Council could increase and multiply. [Interruption.] I should really like a sterilization Clause in the Bill. That would raise no moral issue. People of all shades of religious and eugenic opinion might join in putting some birth control on this abortion. If I had had my way, it would never have been conceived. [Interruption.] I must not accept the invitation of the hon. Lady opposite to go further into this matter of obstetric discussion. I am addressing myself to the Financial Secretary. I know he was not allowed to take part in the Budget, but he ought to take part in this Bill. Can he not take part in this discussion? He is said to have made a careful estimate; how can a careful estimate have been made, when the First Lord says that he does not know at this moment whether salaries are to be paid or not? We do not know whether they are to be full-time or half-time, whether they will be on the dole, or whether they will be on full pay.

Mr. ALEXANDER

The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience of administration and in dealing with pro- visional estimates. It is necessary, in dealing with a piece of work like this, to have your estimate framed to provide for contingencies. It might be necessary to pay members of the council. The estimate prepared in a Financial Memorandum had been most carefully scrutinised.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

We have now to consider the question whether you are going to regard a payment of the whole of the executive officers of an undertaking as a contingency or not. If this is a contingency, and if the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the finances of the co-operative societies or the finances of this country, then I shudder for the success of both of them. Of course, you make clear in the estimates what expenses you are going to incur. Of course, salaries are not a contingency. The First Lord's salary is not set down in the Estimates as a contingency. It is a fixed salary; he knows very well whether or not he is going to draw that salary. The contingency may be whether the Cabinet will allow that cut in salaries which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adumbrated.

Mr. ALEXANDER

The right hon. Gentleman knows when he introduced the procedure under the Merchandise Marks Act that he did not know what the cost was going to be.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am glad of that intervention. When I came to the House with the Merchandise Marks Bill, I said I was going to pay salaries to the throe people who were employed.

I think I gave an estimate of exactly what I was going to pay

Mr. ALEXANDER

Rates per sitting?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I wish the First Lord would inform himself on these matters. It was not a question of rates per sitting. I said I was going to pay a fixed salary to the Chairman. I gave him £1,200 a year and £1,000 to the other two members.

It is quite true that on the agricultural side there was a proposal, where the work was likely to be less arduous, that the people should be paid so much a day for every day that they sat. But it was made perfectly plain to the House of Commons, when authority was asked, that they would be paid and an indication was given of what the salaries would be. To-day we have had no such information. In future, if business is going to be conducted like this, we had much better leave the Financial Secretary's name out of it, and leave out any fantastic estimates, and say to the country that here is a Socialist Government, in spite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's warnings, going out to seek where they can waste money, although they cannot say how and where they are going to waste it.

Mr. ALEXANDER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 76.

Division No. 449.]	AYES.	[1.2 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Gill, T. H.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Charleton, H. C.	Gossling, A. G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Chater, Daniel	Gould, F.
Alpass, J. H.	Church, Major A. G.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ammon, Charles George	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Gray, Milner
Angell, Sir Norman	Compton, Joseph	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Arnott, John	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Aske, Sir Robert	Daggar, George	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Dalton, Hugh	Grundy, Thomas W.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Barr, James	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Dukes, C.	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Duncan, Charles	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Benson, G.	Ede, James Chuter	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Bowen, J. W.	Edmunds, J. E.	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Brothers, M.	Egan, W. H.	Haycock, A. W.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Elmley, Viscount	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Freeman, Peter	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Brown W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Buchanan, G.	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Hicks, Ernest George
Burgess, F. G.	Gibbins, Joseph	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Millar, J. D.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Hoffman, P. C.	Mills, J. E.	Shillaker, J. F.
Hollins, A.	Milner, Major J.	Simmons, C. J.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Montague, Frederick	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Morley, Ralph	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Mort, D. L.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Muff, G.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Kelly, W. T.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Murnin, Hugh	Sorensen, R.
Lang, Gordon	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Stamford, Thomas W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Noel Baker, P. J.	Stephen, Campbell
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Strauss, G. R.
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Sullivan, J.
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Susan	Palmer, E. T.	Thurtle, Ernest
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Tinker, John Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Perry, S. F.	Toole, Joseph
Leach, W.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Tout, W. J.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)	Potts, John S.	Townend, A. E.
Lees, J.	Price, M. P.	Vaughan, David
Leonard, W.	Quibell, D. J. K.	Viant, S. P.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Wallace, H. W.
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Raynes, W. R.	Wellock, Wilfred
Logan, David Gilbert	Richards, R.	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Longbottom, A. W.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Westwood, Joseph
Longden, F.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	White, H. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Ritson, J.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Lunn, William	Romeril, H. G.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Rowson, Guy	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
McElwee, A.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
McKinlay, A.	Sanders, W. S.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
McShane, John James	Sawyer, G. F.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Manning, E. L.	Scott, James	Winterton, G.E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Mansfield, W.	Scrymgeour, E.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Marshall, Fred	Scurr, John	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Mathers, George	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Matters, L. W.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Maxton, James	Sherwood, G. H.	Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.
Messer, Fred	Shield, George William	Paling
Middleton, G.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Albery, Irving James	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Ramsbotham, H.
Atholl, Duchess of	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Remer, John R.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Salmon, Major I.
Bird, Ernest Roy	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bracken, B.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Skelton, A. N.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Smithers, Waldron
Butler, R. A.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Campbell, E. T.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Train, J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement
Cranborne, Viscount	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Womersley, W. J.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain
Ganzoni, Sir John	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.	Sir George Bowyer.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Penny, Sir George

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

Major SALMON

I beg to move, in line 14, at the end, to add the words: (c) Provided that the total expenditure incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act shall not exceed twenty thousand pounds.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 187.

Division No. 450.]	AYES.	[1.13 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Penny, Sir George
Albery, Irving James	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Atholl, Duchess of	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Ramsbotham, H.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Salmon, Major I.
Bird, Ernest Roy	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bracken, B.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Skelton, A. N.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.	Smithers, Waldron
Butler, R. A.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Thomson, Sir F.
Campbell, E. T.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Train, J.
Cranborne, Viscount	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	White, H. G.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Millar, J. D.	Womersley, W. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Ganzoni, Sir John	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.	Captain Wallace.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir John	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Gould, F.	McShane, John James
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Manning, E. L.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Gray, Milner	Mansfield, W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Marshall, Fred
Alpass, J. H.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Mathers, George
Ammon, Charles George	Grundy, Thomas W.	Matters, L. W.
Angell, Sir Norman	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normonton)	Maxton, James
Arnott, John	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Messer, Fred
Aske, Sir Robert	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Middleton, G.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Mills, J. E.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Milner, Major J.
Barr, James	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Montague, Frederick
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Haycock, A. W.	Morley, Ralph
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Mort, D. L.
Benson, G.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Muff, G.
Bowen, J. W.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Muggeridge, H. T.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Hicks, Ernest George	Murnin, Hugh
Brothers, M.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Noel Baker, P. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Hoffman, P. C.	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Hollins, A.	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Buchanan, G.	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Palmer, E. T.
Burgess, F. G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Perry, S. F.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Potts, John S.
Chater, Daniel	Kelly, W. T.	Price, M. P.
Church, Major A. G.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Quibell, D. J. K.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Lang, Gordon	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Compton, Joseph	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Raynes, W. R.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Richards, R.
Daggar, George	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Dalton, Hugh	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawrence, Susan	Ritson, J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Romerll, H. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Dukes, C.	Leach, W.	Rowson, Guy
Duncan, Charles	Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
	Lees, J.	Sanders, W. S.
Ede, James Chuter	Leonard, W.	Sawyer, G. F.
Edmunds, J. E.	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Scott, James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Scrymgeour, E.
Egan, W. H.	Logan, David Gilbert	Scurr, John
Elmley, Viscount	Longbottom, A. W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Freeman, Peter	Longden, F.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Sherwood, G. H.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Lunn, William	Shield, George William
Gibbins, Joseph	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Shillaker, J. F.
Gill, T. H.	McElwee, A.	Simmons, C. J.
Gossling, A. G.	McKinlay, A.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	Thurtle, Ernest	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)	Tinker, John Joseph	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)	Toole, Joseph	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)	Tout, W. J.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)	Townend, A. E.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Sorensen, R.	Vaughan, David	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Stamford, Thomas W.	Viant, S. P.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Stephen, Campbell	Wallace, H. W.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Strauss, G. R.	Wellock, Wilfred	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Sullivan, J.	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)	Westwood, Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 68.

Division No. 451.]	AYES.	[1.24 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Perry, S. F.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Haycock, A. W.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Potts, John S.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Price, M. P.
Alpass, J. H.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Ammon, Charles George	Hicks, Ernest George	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Angell, Sir Norman	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Raynes, W. R.
Arnott, John	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Richards, R.
Aske, Sir Robert	Hoffman, P. C.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Hollins, A.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Barr, James	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Ritson, J.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Romeril, H. G.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Rowson, Guy
Benson, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bowen, J. W.	Kelly, W. T.	Sanders, W. S.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Sawyer, G. F.
Brothers, M.	Lang, Gordon	Scott, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Scrymgeour, E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Scurr, John
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Buchanan, G.	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Burgess, F. G.	Lawrence, Susan	Sherwood, G. H.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Shield, George William
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Charleton, H. C.	Leach, W.	Shillaker, J. F.
Chater, Daniel	Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)	Simmons, C. J.
Church, Major A. G.	Lees, J.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Leonard, W.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Compton, Joseph	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Daggar, George	Logan, David Gilbert	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Dalton, Hugh	Longbottom, A. W.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Longden, F.	Sorensen, R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lunn, William	Stephen, Campbell
Dukes, C.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Strauss, G. R.
Duncan, Charles	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Sullivan, J.
Ede, James Chuter	McElwee, A.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Edmunds, J. E.	McKinlay, A.	Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	McShane, John James	Tinker, John Joseph
Egan, W. H.	Manning, E. L.	Toole, Joseph
Elmley, Viscount	Mansfield, W.	Tout, W. J.
Freeman, Peter	Marshall, Fred	Townend, A. E.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Mathers, George	Vaughan, David
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Matters, L. W.	Viant, S. P.
Gibbins, Joseph	Maxton, James	Wallace, H. W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Messer, Fred	Wellock, Wilfred
Gill, T. H.	Middleton, G.	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Gossling, A. G.	Mills, J. E.	Westwood, Joseph
Gould, F.	Milner, Major J.	White, H. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Montague, Frederick	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Gray, Milner	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Morley, Ralph	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Mort, D. L.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Muff, G.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grundy, Thomas W.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Murnin, Hugh	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Palmer, E. T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling.
NOES
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Ganzonl, Sir John	Ramsbotham, H.
Albery, Irving James	Gibson. C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Sarmon, Major I.
Atholl, Duchess of	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bird, Ernest Roy	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Skelton, A. N.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Bracken, B.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Smithers, Waldron
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Thomson, Sir F.
Butler, R. A.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Campbell, E. T.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Train, J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Cranborne, Viscount	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Warrender, Sir Victor
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Womersley, W. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Penny, Sir George	Captain Margesson and Captain
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wallace.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.