HC Deb 13 July 1933 vol 280 cc1382-99

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 39, at the end, insert: (2) Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act the board constituted to administer any scheme under that Act approved after the commencement of this Act shall at all times comprise (in addition to the elected representatives of registered producers prescribed by that subsection) two persons nominated for their commercial and financial capacity and experience by the Minister after consultation with the Market Supply Committee. (3) In the case of any scheme under the principal Act which was approved before the commencement of this Act the Minister, after consultation with the board, may make an order amending the scheme so as to make it conform with the requirements of subsection (2) of this section.

Major ELLIOT

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I warned the House that when we came to an Amendment of a substantial nature I would call their attention to it. This Amendment deals with the position of the boards, and it is a matter of substance. The boards will have great responsibilities and clearly we can deal with these responsibilities either by saying that the boards feel the weight of the responsibilities upon them or, alternatively, by saying "Let us give them every kind of guidance and insure that highly responsible persons shall be placed upon them." We took the view that on the whole it was desirable, even at the risk of a certain amount not of inefficiency but of inexperience, that the boards should be interfered with as little as possible. In the other place the view was taken that the matters which these boards will have to handle are so important and the responsibilities in money so gigantic that it is necessary to ensure that at all times persons of great experience should be, from without, secured for the purposes of these boards.

It is to some extent an academic discussion, since no one denies that for the first time there will be two nominees on the board nominated by the Minister and it is, of course, our desire and intention to ensure that these persons will be not merely of the greatest experience in finance and commerce but that they will be sufficiently good "mixers" to ensure that when their term of nomination is over they will be elected on the board by the producers themselves. We are emboldened to hope that that will be so since in the case of the only scheme which is at present working—the Hops Board—the Minister's nominees were eagerly sought after by the producers themselves when their period of office had come to an end.

But here is a difference of opinion between the two Chambers. I do not wish that we should regard this as in any way either a party matter or indeed as a matter of disagreement between the two Houses, each desirous of insisting on its constitutional rights. There are two views which might quite reasonably be taken here. We hold to our own, and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment. But I do not disguise from the House that I desire to continue conversations with those responsible for this view, and to see whether any modus vivendi can be reached between the two views of the two Chambers, for I desire more than anything else that both Houses of Parliament and all sections of the community should feel that they have had a full share in the framing of this legislation, so that we may all by our attempts ensure that it is a success.

Therefore, while I ask this House to disagree with the Lords, I hope I shall not be accused of running away or of bowing to some small section of opinion if I am able at a later date to say that I have been able to come to an agreement. But for the moment I must hold to my opinion that it is desirable to interfere as little as possible with the boards. The boards in the past have shown a sense of responsibility which I believe they will continue to show in future. Therefore the Amendment inserted in another place, that there should be at all times persons even with the high qualifications which are there set out, namely, that they should be chosen simply for their financial and commercial capacity and that they should be continued as members of the board even after the probationary year is run out—I suggest at the moment that those who desire that provision inserted did not fully make out their case, and therefore we hold to our position.

11.8 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER

I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he hoped to continue conversations in this matter, because it is a matter of very great importance that has been raised in another place, almost as important as the first matter which we debated just now. I am sure that the majority in another place will not accept the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is to move and which is in fact identical in words with the Amendment which was defeated in the House of Lords. But I quite agree with him that this question ought not to be incapable of composition. What the House of Lords are insisting upon, and I think quite rightly, is that there should be a guarantee to the nation that on every one of these great marketing boards which, as the Minister has pointed out, are concerns of the magnitude of Imperial Chemical Industries or the London Midland and Scottish Railway and other great business concerns of the country, there shall be the wide variety of experience which concerns of such magnitude require.

Speaking as one who has had experience of the National Farmers' Union's attitude in this matter, I am convinced that not only the National Farmers' Union but the farmers of the country as a whole recognise that while these great boards must have upon them a preponderating number of farmers—many of whom are not only first-class agriculturists but also first-class business men—there is also required a type of experience which can only be got, to put it bluntly, in the City of London. That is financial experience, experience of commerce on a big scale, and experience of the sort of thing which the British public will stand. We must remember that these boards are great statutory corporations exercising a monopoly conferred on them by Act of Parliament and they may at any moment run the risk of taking a false step which would put public opinion against them. Therefore it is very important that upon these boards there should be represented that experience which I have described. That is provided for in the 1931 Act by the nomination of two members by the Minister until the first annual general meeting of the board. As the Minister has said, in the case of the Hops Board the producers were only too glad to reelect the Minister's nominees. What the House of Lords ask for is a statutory guarantee that that shall always recur. They say that the matter is too important to be left to chance, and I agree.

At the same time, I cannot believe that the farmers would willingly accept the Bill as it stands. It would mean that there would be upon each board two members, who would be there, not with the free accord and free will of the producers, but by the authority of the Minister. It is not reasonable to ask the farmers to agree to that. We must have this element of experience, but it must be provided by people who are satisfactory not only to the Minister but to the producers. Surely it is possible to arrive at a compromise on those lines. I should like to see the matter dealt with by providing that the board itself should be required to co-opt these outside gentlemen and that somebody, the Minister or the Market Supplies Committee, should be satisfied that the people co-opted are of the required stamp; not because anybody thinks that the producers are unwilling to co-opt such people, but because the matter is of such importance that Parliament is justified in asking that there should be a statutory guarantee. There is another aspect of the question, indicated in Amendments to the Lords Amendment which I put down, but which I did not move, because I did not want to occupy the time of the House when the point could be raised otherwise. I am convinced that experience is showing us that it would be an important advantage, if the Minister in the first instance could nominate not two but three additional members of the board, and if, after a preliminary period, those three members were subject to election by the producers, or co-option in the manner I have tried to indicate.

My reason for attaching importance to the figure 3 instead of the figure 2 is this: When you are dealing with a board like the Milk Board or the Pig Board, these tremendously big boards, you will have to get men of the very first calibre in the City of London for your special nominees. These men do not always stay in England. They quite frequently have to go to America, or to South America, or other parts of the world on the great enterprises with which they are connected, and it may quite well be that they are forced to be away from this country for two or three months. In that case we are left with only one such gentleman on the board, and he may very well have influenza or be incapacitated by some accident, in which case there may be several vital board meetings when the board is deprived of this particular assistance. Therefore, I think it is wise, now that the importance of this matter has been brought to our notice by the other House, to take the opportunity of seeing that the Minister, in the first instance, shall appoint three outsiders on to the board, but that after the preliminary period is over, of course, it shall be left to the farmers to say whether or not they desire those three particular gentlemen to be re-elected.

There is another point. You are casting a very heavy responsibility on two men, and, if one of them is away, on one man, in placing them on a board in these circumstances, and it would be a great advantage to themselves to be increased in number. And it is not only the outside problems of the board where I think these members will play a most useful part. In the inside problems of the board it will be a very great advantage to have a panel of directors who are completely impartial as regards the divergent interests within the industry. When the farmers face Parliament they come as a united body, but when they are tackling these problems among themselves there necessarily arises a great deal of divergence of interest as between one county and another county or one class of producer and another class of producer; and if I may be pardoned for alluding once more to hops, we have found it of the greatest advantage to have on the board three men not connected with the hop industry in any way personally, but there simply as an impartial panel. A large number of questions have been referred to them by their colleagues on the board, simply because they know they will look at them without any county or sectional interest at the back of their minds. Therefore, I press upon my right hon. and gallant Friend, when he is continuing these conversations during the next day or two, to consider whether this question of increasing these nominees in the manner that I have suggested is not worthy of consideration.

I cannot refrain from drawing the attention of the House to the fact that in the pig scheme and in the milk scheme we have the names of the board put forward. Those names are those of splendid men, every one of them, most able men, not only leading farmers, but real good business men who are essential to the work- ing of the board, but there is no room in either of those schemes for the future election of special members beyond the two members that the Minister is going to nominate, and I do not think it is wise to confine the personnel of your board to these great national statutory corporations, which is what they will be, to confine them so much to persons whose principal experience and reputation are in agricultural matters. It would be wise and prudent to introduce a large element of perfectly impartial outside business men and men of affairs, whose counsel would be of real value to the board, and who would in future years be re-elected every year by the producers themselves.

11.21 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG

I should like strongly to support both the pleas put forward by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) for an Amendment which will make the appointment of the impartial members statutory in these schemes; and also for an Amendment to increase their number from two to three. As a newly returned Member, I regret that I am unable to agree with the view taken in this House. I agree with the view taken in another place, because that view corresponds with the view which was arrived at after long consideration by the Commission of which I was chairman. We devoted months to this matter, and we were convinced that this was necessary in the interests of the producer, the trade, and the public. By those recommendations I still stand. I should like to explain to the House how grave we considered the responsibility which was laid upon us in this matter. We felt that a provision of this kind was owing to the trade and to title manufacturers. They had an enormous capital already launched in their business. They had a business of very great complexity, and they had a. great responsibility to the public in conducting it. Under these schemes the producers quite properly are given powers to compete with private enterprise in every way and to compete with special powers and resources due to the fact that they are given the monopoly of private sales. The commission were convinced and I remain convinced, that while it may be proper—and I think it is proper—to give the producers these powers, they should be accompanied by measures making certain that they are wisely used under good advice. That is very desirable in the interests of the producers themselves and everybody else.

We also felt that a provision of this kind is necessary and owing to the public. Milk is different from all the other commodities which may be dealt with under these Marketing Acts in the fact that it enjoys a natural monopoly. If the supplies of fresh milk are curtailed in any way fresh milk cannot be brought in at short notice from abroad. In addition to the natural monopoly, you are going to give the producers under this scheme a monopoly of the right of primary sale, an absolute monopoly. In fact, that right involves power not only to fix the wholesale price, but if they chose, ultimately the retail prices and the conditions or which all these sales are made. That is an enormous power, and affects not only the distributing industry, but every home in the country. It is proper and in the interest of the industry that this power should be given, but it should only be given under safeguards. Those safeguards are additions to these boards of men of impartiality and ability who will see that these powers are properly used. I do not wish to argue the matter of numbers. I will only say that the commission went very closely into the question and it was only after grave consideration that they decided on recommending three. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to discuss these matters, will find it possible to adhere as closely as he can to the recommendations of the commission, which were arrived at after months of study.

Major ELLIOT

I think my hon. Friend is getting a little confused. He did make a recommendation about the elected special members—they would be elected by the producers; but what he is speaking about now is what is popularly known as the "superstructure." The superstructure has nothing to do with this, and the argument to which he directed attention would not bear upon the point.

Sir E. GRIGG:

I am very glad to have that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, because I understood him to be moving this in place of the superstructure which the Commission had in mind.

Major ELLIOT

Let there be no misapprehension. This has nothing at all to do with the superstructure, but is merely a modification of the producers' board. The question is whether the producers' board should contain a certain proportion of nominees or co-opted members as well as elected members. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree that in his report there was no suggestion made that the producers' board should contain anything except elected members, although he was desirous that certain of these elected members should be what are called special members.

Sir E. GRIGG

Am I to understand that if this Amendment is made, the right hon. Gentleman is still bound to the creation of the superstructure, and that this is not intended as a substitute

Major ELLIOT

As I have said to my hon. Friend, the superstructure is not a legislative matter at the present moment, and consequently this issue has nothing to do with the superstructure. I am not proposing this as a substitute for the superstructure or anything connected with the superstructure, but really as a point concerned with the boards themselves, the boards being the superstructure, and apart altogether from the superstructure, in relation to which it may be necessary at some other date and in some other fashion to take some action.

Sir E. GRIGG

As long as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not come forward later and say that this removes the necessity of establishing the superstructure I am satisfied.

Major ELLIOT

I shall not.

11.28 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

It is necessary to consider very carefully the composition of this board. The very fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just mentioned that this has nothing to do with the other matter, makes it more than ever important that the people on these boards should be men with marketing and business acumen. In the Amendment which the House is asked to pass, in rejecting the Lords Amendment, there is no mention at all of men nominated for commercial and financial capacity, and that is a point which all of us interested in the pig or milk schemes must really insist on.

Let my right hon. Friend put himself in the position of a producer. Up to the present he has been able to make contracts with a salesman. Now he has to make contracts with the board. If he is not satisfied with his salesman he can change him, or perhaps he can get out of the contract, but now he is to be absolutely bound down to the board. The board have absolute control over him, body, soul and everything else. It is far more important for the producer now to know that he has a good salesman than ever it was before, and it is vital that the composition of this board should have the confidence of producers. They must be people, as was put in in the other place, of commercial and financial ability.

I happened to be among those who gave evidence before the Commissioner, and that was our one plea and our most important plea. Other associations gave the same plea. We shall not be able to learn, unless the Minister likes, what is the Commissioner's opinion of our plea, because the Commissioner keeps it private and goes on bargaining with the producers without informing anybody what the result is. I cannot help thinking of what I saw in that commission. There were all sorts of interests represented, including the co-operative societies. The Commissioner will give some advice to the Minister that he will be unable to arrange with the producers for the forming of a scheme. If the Minister wants to create confidence for these schemes he must have a board of business men who understand marketing. The Pig Board and the Milk Board have far too many members—17 instead of about seven or eight. The best farmers are men who have not the time to act on these boards, because they have to make money out of their farms, and they are doing it. They want the men on these boards to be practical men. The farmer is necessarily not very good at marketing. I must ask the Minister to implement to the full his pledge to the House.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. DIXON

It is with great diffidence that I find myself in opposition to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) on a matter of this description. I am bound to say that from the discussions that I have had with farmers—I have discussed it with many, particularly Northern Ireland and Scottish farmers—I find that the real fear of the farmers in this matter is that the board will be a bureaucratic one and will be overloaded with experts. I quite agree that experts are very well in their place, but there are people, particularly among the farmers, who have not nearly so high an opinion of the experts in London as has the Noble Lord. They have found in the great companies where these experts have been brought in at immense salaries, that instead of being advantageous they have been, at times, disadvantageous. I disagree with what has been said about the farmers and I would ask the House to remember that since the Ark, farmers have been getting on better than people in any other business of which I know. It is all very well to make fun of the farmer and to say that his hair is full of hayseed, but his brains are not full of hayseed.

I hope the Minister of Agriculture will show in this matter, as he has shown in many others, his great Scottish caution. Before coming to a decision in this matter, he should consult with the real working farmers. I am satisfied that if these boards are not worked by the actual producers, they will he a complete failure, and no expert will save them from being a failure.

11.34 p.m.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE

I should not have intervened but for the speech that we have just heard. I have, in a humble way, been a farmer myself, and although I feel perfectly confident to farm 1,000 to 1,200 acres, when it comes to handling production running into millions it is important that we farmers should have, amongst our representatives, a minority of people of substantial business and financial experience. That is all that is asked for. Personally, I do not mind by whom the nomination is made. I attach no importance to the nomination of these three experts by the Minister; I should be quite satisfied if they were nominated by the producers—the promoters of the scheme themselves—so long as it was in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Market Supply Committee; but we must ensure that there is business experience as well as small-scale producing knowledge and experience on these boards.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Major ELLIOT

I beg to move, in lieu of Lords Amendment last disagreed to, in page 13, line 34, to leave out from the word "sub-section," to the end of line 39, and to insert instead thereof the words: provide—

  1. (a) for the board by whom the scheme is to be administered being composed, wholly or in part, of persons chosen by a body or bodies elected by registered producers in such manner as may be prescribed by the scheme;
  2. (b) for not more than two persons nominated by the Minister being included among the members of the board either permanently or for such periods and in such circumstances as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the board; so, however, that nothing in any scheme shall be taken to oblige the Minister to nominate members of the board unless he thinks fit to do so."

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

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

11.36 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the Bill, in line 6, after the word "persons," to insert the words: one being a representative of the consumers and the other a representative of the workers in the industry. I am half inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Belfast (Mr. Dixon). The conditions of the State being as they are, if the experts are wholly responsible for this set of circumstances, the fewer experts the farmers have to guide their destinies the better will it be for the farmers. As a result of the Minister's Amendment, which is a half-way house towards the original Amendment moved and carried in the House of Lords, special representatives will be added by the decision of the Minister, and we think that at all events the consumer ought to be represented, and also the workers in the industry— not necessarily by a man drawn from the centre of the arable field, but by someone representative of the workers within the industry.

In no way have the workers, or even the consumers, any representation whatever on these marketing boards. I think you might very well look round the consumers, who constitute a very formidable body, and secure persons with the business and financial knowledge that would enable them to be really useful units in any marketing scheme; and so with the workers, I think you might very well draw upon those who could be regarded as representative, and secure assistance and advice and guidance on these boards equivalent to any that might be drawn from Penguin Island. It does not seem to me that the finance expert is the best sort of person to guide agriculture into the channels of prosperity. If the Minister insists upon this Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment, he takes power to appoint two persons to every marketing board, either permanently or temporarily, in accordance with circumstances which he himself may prescribe. We want to see that these additional members are representative of the consumers and of the 500,000 or more workers in the industry.

11.40 p.m.

Major ELLIOT

I am sure we must all desire to compliment the hon. Gentleman on having seized the Parliamentary opportunity of raising again a point which was not only thrashed out to a very considerable extent in the 13 days of Committee discussion, but also in the long Debates on the 1931 Act, when he sat on this side of the House and supported the then Minister in refusing such an Amendment. Of course, this raises the whole question of the representation of interests upon the Board. We have had the argument out many times, and it has always been decided against making those boards the arena where the contending interests could fight out their differences. The same arguments that led Dr. Addison to resist the Amendment must lead me to resist it now. A producers' board is one thing and the reconciliation of producers, consumers and workers' interests is quite another. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that throughout the whole of the discussions we sought to secure additional names beyond producers. We can anticipate the possibility of producers appointing landowners, commercial men, financial experts and so forth, but by no stretch of the imagination can we hope that they will appoint workers or representatives of the consumers. The right hon. Gentleman is now taking special power to appoint special persons over and above those permitted under the original Act, and we think we are entitled to such representation.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I cannot remember what was my attitude on the 1931 Bill, but I cannot see why it. is that a workman is not a producer and why he is not given the right to be elected as a producer. He has no right to nominate or to vote, which is the essential thing. The workman has an interest in the matter himself, and he has financial capacity. The moment you suggest working men, the Minister says that you will turn it into a fight between warring interests. His argument is that working men are not capable of being included the upper classes are big.

Major ELLIOT

I will take the other half of my hon. 'Friend's Amendment, and say that consumers are not capable of acting. The hon. Member must not bring in the class argument here. After all, every word he said must be applied to consumers. If he thinks that I am making an attack on the consumers, really, there are 40,000,000 people in this country who are consumers, and no class argument can lie against the consumers.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I am dealing with workmen at the moment. What is said in the Amendment is that one workman who is a producer should be appointed. He is as much a producer as the farmer.

The Minister makes one reply, and says that if you put more people on the board conflicting interests would arise.

Major ELLIOT

We have had very long Debates on this subject, and, as the hon. Member truly says, he does not remember the attitude he took up at that time. I do not think that he took a very great share in our Debates. I am not dealing with the class argument at all, but with the question of the representation of interests. When I was besought by my hon. Friends from behind to put on representatives of landowners, I resisted them. I am now asked to put on a representative of the consumers, and I resist it. I am asked to put on a representative of workers, and I resist it. I resist it just as keenly as the suggestion that there should be a representative of the land-owing interests. We have had this argument at very great length during many Debates, and I assure my hon. Friend that it is not a question of the representation of any kind of interests, but of financial interests. It is the representation of interests which we have resisted in the past that I am resisting at this moment.

Mr. BUCHANAN

With all respect, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not met us. He has said that he rejected the landowners, but everyone knows, and the landowners know, that the landowner can be on the board because of the fact that he is a farmer.

Major ELLIOT

So can the worker be on the board if he is a farmer. It is no:use the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) shaking their heads. They must know that the small man who works with his hands is a. worker. In the Milk Scheme, for instance, they are in many ways the predominant number of people. The milk workers, the men who get up in the morning and go down and milk the cows and do not employ any labour at all—these men are the workers. These men are not only eligible, but they will be represented on the Board. Even taking the position of the proletariat—the non-Kulak—there are a great number of workers in the land, and a great number will be eligible to be elected on such organisations.

Mr. BUCHANAN

That does not meet the point. We ask that the worker should be co-opted by the Minister. I contend that it is possible for the interests of the landowners to be represented on the board through being producers, but it is not possible for workers to be represented. It is possible for people running one man businesses to be on it, but it is not possible for a workman employed by another man to get representation. The Minister has not met the argument. He has only said that it will bring in conflicting interests. Already, by his previous answer to those who suggest that financial interests should be represented, he has agreed to special interests. He said he was not closing the door to further discussion in another place as to whether men of financial standing should go on the board. He was not closing the door to them.

Division No. 269.] AYES. [11.53 p.m.
Banfiend, John William Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Milner, Major James
Buchanan, George Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Parkinson, John Allen
Cape, Thomas Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lawson, John James Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lunn, William
Edwards, Charles McEntee, Valentine L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Mainwaring, William Henry Mr. John and Mr. Gordon
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maxton, James Macdonald.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Drewe, Cedric Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Janner, Barnett
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Duncan, James A.L. (Kensington, N.) Jennings, Roland
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Eastwood, John Francis Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (Brk'nh'd.) Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Aske, Sir Robert William Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Ker, J. Campbell
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Emrys-Evans, P. V. Kerr, Hamilton W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Batman, A. L. Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Law. Sir Alfred
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Fleming, Edward Lascelles Leckie, J. A.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Ford, Sir Patrick J. Lindsay, Noel Ker
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Fremantle, Sir Francis Llewellin, Major John J.
Boulton, W. W. Ganzoni, Sir John Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Goldle, Noel B. McConnell, Sir Joseph
Broadbent, Colonel John Graves, Marjorie MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Greases-Lord, Sir Walter Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Greene, William P. C. McKie, John Hamilton
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John McLean, Major Sir Alan
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Burnett, John George Grigg, Sir Edward Magnay, Thomas
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Caporn. Arthur Cecil Guy, J. C. Morrison Margeeson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Christie, James Archibald Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Martin, Thomas B.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hanbury, Cecil Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Colfax, Major William Philip Hanley, Dennis A. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Colman, N. C. D. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Conant, R. J. E. Harbord, Arthur Milne, Charles
Cook, Thomas A. Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Mitchell, Harold P.(Bett'd & Chlsw'k)
Cooper, A. Dull Hangers, Captain F. F. A. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Copeland, Ida Holdsworth, Herbert Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Moreing, Adrian, C.
Craven-Ellis, William Hornby, Frank Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Horsbrugh, Florence Muirhead, Major A. J.
Cross, R. H. Howard, Tom Forrest Munro, Patrick
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Major ELLIOT

Not of financial standing, but of experience. The two things are not the same.

Mr. SPEAKER

We are not in Committee. This duologue cannot go on for ever:

Mr. BUCHANAN

It may be true that he has financial capacity. All that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has asked is that a, capable workman should be put on and should contribute what he can. His case has not been met except by sheer prejudice against the workman. The workman can give as good service as anybody else. The Amendment should be pressed to a Division against the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 163.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Penny, Sir George Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Turton, Robert Hugh
Petherick, M. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Pike, Cecil F. Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Procter, Major Henry Adam Skelton, Archibald Noel Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Wells, Sydney Richard
Ratcliffe, Arthur Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) Weymouth, Viscount
Rea, Walter Russell Soper, Richard Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Reid, William Allan (Derby) Spencer, Captain Richard A. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Spens, William Patrick Wills, Wilfrid D.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Strauss, Edward A. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Runge, Norah Cecil Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Rutherford, John (Edmonton) Sutcliffe, Harold Major George Davies and Dr.
Salmon, Sir Isidore Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Morris-Jones.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Thorp, Linton Theodore

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.