§ 6.52 p.m.
§ Mr. BANFIELD
I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert:"(5) In determining for the purposes of this Act the normal working hours for which a young person has been employed about the business of any shop in any week in which occur statutory, customary, or other holidays but so as not to include the weekly half-holiday as provided for in Section nine of this Act he shall be deemed to have been employed for those hours which but for the intervention of the afore-mentioned holidays would have been worked on those days, and the hours which would have been worked on those days shall be deemed to be the average hours worked per day during the preceding four complete working weeks.This Amendment is for the purpose of making sure that when a young person is called upon to work during a week that is broken by a holiday other than the weekly half-holiday fixed by the Shops Act, the time worked shall not be so arranged as to compel him to lose the benefit of the half-holiday in that week, or to work an unreasonable number of hours in a comparatively short period. The underlying idea of the Amendment is fairly common in industrial practice. It is our custom in holiday periods to arrange with the employers that the hours shall be averaged, generally speaking, over a fortnight, in such a way that the day's holiday shall not be included in the number of hours so averaged, that is to say, if you have a 48-hour week and there is a holiday period in that week, the time for the averaging of the fortnight, instead of being 96 hours, is only 88 hours. We want to see to it by this Clause that a young person, having received the usual statutory holiday or holidays that may be customary in the locality, shall not be called upon to work, say, 52 hours on the other five days of 394 the week, or to lose half a day simply because he has had the day's holiday.
This is one of those cases in which, I suppose, 90 per cent. of the employers who employ young persons would say: " We have no intention of doing anything of the kind, but the fact remains that we have to safeguard the position of young persons against those who are shamelessly exploiting them." We feel that this is a matter which should not be left at a loose end. I am not hard and fast about this particular thing, except to say to the Under-Secretary that I feel—and I think that a good many other hon. Members who have had experience of the exploitation of young persons will feel—that in a Bill of this kind it is necessary, as far as possible, to tie up as tightly as possible the conditions under which young persons may be employed. In doing that you are doing no harm whatever to the decent employer, but you are helping him. My experience in these matters has been this. The decent employer has said: "If you can get those people to come into line, we are prepared to do even better than we are doing now, but if you cannot get them to come into line you must be content with what we are doing, because we are doing considerably better than our competitors, and there is a limit to what we can do in competition." The underlying motive of the Clause is to protect the young person and to help the decent employers against unfair competition. In this Bill we are dealing only with the young persons, and in many instances they represent a small number on the staff. We are not laying down laws, regulations and rules to cover the majority of people employed, but only that section of young persons from 14 to 18. If there is any provision 395 which we can make to ensure that the purposes of this Measure shall be carried out, we ought to be willing to do that.
I aim afraid the Amendment would have exactly the opposite effect to that which the hon. Member is trying to produce. He said that one of its objects was so to arrange matters that the young person should not lose his holiday. He might very well lose his holiday if any provision of this kind were put into the Bill. As this Amendment now reads, he is to be deemed to be employed during the holiday for the hours which are the average for the previous four working weeks. Incidentally, this Amendment is drafted the wrong way round and- could not possibly he accepted, because it is actually nonsense as it reads. It says:The hours which would have been worked on those days shall be deemed to be the average hours worked per day.It should read, of course:the average hours shall be deemed to be the hours worked on those days.I do not mind about that, but if you deem an employé to be employed on the holiday, which, I understand, is the effect of the Amendment, the employer might quite well get over that provision by telling the employé to come for an hour during the holiday itself, and then, instead of having eight "deemed" hours, he would actually have one hour's work. This would abolish the whole benefit of the averaging suggestion which the hon. Member makes. That is a possibility which he has overlooked, and the result might be that, instead of having a clear holiday on the customary day, an employé might find himself employed instead of getting a holiday.
I see what the hon. Member and his friends have in mind. Obviously they want to avoid the difficulty that the young person may be employed for his full 48 hours plus overtime on the other days of the week and not on the holiday, and therefore—as it appears on the surface—would be working on five days or four days a great deal longer than would otherwise be the case. That, again, is not in accordance with the facts. At present there is no limit laid down by 396 Statute to the hours during which a person can be employed per day. The Bill lays down the general proposals of the Government on a weekly basis. It is therefore quite possible, holiday or no holiday, to get in the statutory amount and overtime in the five days. The words "other holidays," moreover, do not necessarily mean a statutory holiday; the holiday might be one which the employer wanted to give his employés from time to time. He might think twice about giving a holiday to young persons who wanted, for in stance, to go to a cricket match if they had to be deemed to have worked seven or eight hours. He might say: "It is hardly worth while giving them the holiday if I have to do that," and the hon. Member would therefore deprive the young fellows of a holiday which they might otherwise get.
A real difficulty would arise at the rush period—for example, the Christmas holiday period. The practical difficulty arises, of course, when Christmas comes on a Thursday or a Friday. That is probably what the hon. Member has in mind, that it is here that it is really necessary to try to safeguard the position of the young employé in the three or four days before the holiday. This provision would not, however, have the desired effect, because there is the great difficulty that if the employer had to "deem" hours on Christmas Day and Boxing Day then, when the Bank Holiday is on a Friday and they shut up the shops on the Saturday, as recently happened, it would be necessary to "deem" half a week, and therefore the employ would probably only be able to be employed for about 24 hours in the first three days of that week. Those are exactly the days of the rush week when the employer wants, and can reasonably be expected to want, to employ his assistants as long as possible. That is a real, practical difficulty which the hon. Member may not have envisaged.
We are making very novel provisions for restricting overtime which I cannot go into at this moment. The hon. Gentleman will, however, agree that the actual effect of his Amendment might well be entirely contrary to what he wants. Instead of guaranteeing a holiday, it might very well lead employers to be rather less anxious to give huh- 397 days, and even on statutory holidays to get their employés to work for a short time in order that they may not be deemed to have worked the average number of hours. That is apart from the general case against the Amendment, that it is drafted the wrong way round.
§ 7.6 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
The hon. and gallant Member (has made a splendid criticism of the Amendment of the hon. Member behind me. Let us put it this way. Suppose that the shops in a town close on Monday and Tuesday in the same week, as is often done in some towns. I do not think it is the intention of Parliament that the young person who has had those two statutory holidays should be called upon to work 12 hours on each of the next four days in order to get his 48-hour working week in that period. In several parts of the country —in Manchester, for instance—all the shops are closed for most of Whit week on the whole, the shops are not opened for more than two full days. It would be monstrous if the law provided that the young shop assistants could be called upon to work, as indeed they could in some cases, to make up the whole of the 48 hours in the week after having most of the week as holiday. This is very largely a new point in the form in which it is now put. It is not the intention of the Government that what we are suggesting can take place, should prevail. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether it is not possible to draft a provision in another place to meet the case that we have put forward. That is the only possible way of dealing with it. Before we decide exactly on our attitude towards this Amendment we would ask the Home Secretary and his deputy whether they can hold out some hope that when they have looked into this problem they may put the point right in another place.
§ 7.8 p.m.
§ Mr. DENMAN
Is it not necessary to remind the hon. Member that this Bill originated in another place and has come down to us, and we send it back with certain Amendments? We cannot send it indefinitely to another place to introduce quite fresh ideas. This point was discussed in Committee, and the reply of the Government was that the eleven-hour interval was the effective protection of the child. It is impossible to get 48 hours 398 into three days, because the necessary 11 hours of leisure cannot then be provided on each day. I, therefore, anticipate that the effect of the leisure interval will be very materially to lessen the evil that the hon. Member and his friends are seeking to abolish.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
Will it not still be possible, with an eleven-hour interval of rest, for the young person to make up the 48 hours in four days?
§ 7.9 p.m.
§ Mr. CHARLES BROWN
I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert:(5) Any young person employed in or about the business of a shop for overtime hours shall be entitled to corresponding holidays calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Shops (Hours of Closing) Act, 1928, and if at the date of the determination of his employment or at the end of the year, whichever first occurs, default has been made in granting to Lim any holiday to which he is entitled under this section the young person may recover as a debt due from the employer for every day's holiday in respect of which such default has been made a sum equal to one-sixth of the highest weekly rate of wage paid to him in respect of his employment in or about the business of a shop during the year or part thereof during which he has been employed therein.The purpose of this Amendment is to do everything we can to discourage the working of overtime. Hon. Members will be well aware that as the Bill stands it permits 24 hours' overtime in a year to the end of 1936, and 50 hours thereafter. Everybody will agree that wages paid to shop assistants are wages for what we will call a normal working week, and the normal working week until December, 1936, will be 52 hours. We admit that that is less than what is being worked in many cases at present. The principle has already been stated that in certain circumstances overtime may be necessary, but there is nothing in the Bill which says that the employé shall be paid for overtime. In the Committee stage we were expressly precluded from moving an Amendment to that effect. We now take the alternative course of suggesting in this Amendment that if overtime is worked, compensation should be given to the employé in the form of equivalent holidays, or in default of equivalent holidays: 399a sum equal to one-sixth of the highest weekly rate of wages paid to him in respect of his employment in or about the business of a shop during the year or part thereof during which he has been employed therein.Hon. Members will see at once that our purpose is, by making it necessary for some compensation to be paid for overtime, to discourage the employer from working shop assistants overtime at all.
The Select Committee definitely recommended that overtime should be paid for at a rate of not less than one-and-a-quarter times the rate for normal hours of employment. Behind that recommendation was the idea which I am trying to stress, that if it is compulsory to pay for overtime—or, as we here suggest, if employers must give some compensation—there will be a general tendency to discourage the working of overtime. I do not know why the Mother Country should not be in advance of the Colonies and Dominions, which are supposed to copy our good example. In many ways they are ahead of us. I wish to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that in Victoria, Australia, the current awards by the wages boards fix the normal working week for all employés at 47 and 48 hours with overtime payment at the rate of time-and-a-half. In Western Australia a 44-hour week is in operation for those under 16 years of age, after which time-and-a-half is paid with a minimum of 6d. or 9d. an hour and an allowance of is. 6d. meal money. We have agreed to the principle in this Bill that in certain circumstances overtime may be necessary. The Bill, however, does not make it incumbent upon the employer to pay for that overtime, and the Amendment is moved in this form because we want to make the employer give the employé some compensation if he requires him to work overtime.
§ 7.14 p.m.
§ Mr. JOHN WILMOT
I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept this Amendment. In replying to a statement made on the last Amendment he pointed out that he was resisting it because he thought that it would have the opposite effect to that which my hon. Friend desired. There can be no question of the effect of this Amendment. It would be what the Select Committee advised should be done; that if overtime working were permitted to young persons at all, 400 it should be discouraged by attaching to the provision the obligation to give some compensation for overtime. The reason the Committee gave for snaking this recommendation was quite clear. They said:In making this recommendation as to overtime your Committee trust that the enforcement of the higher rate of pay will have the effect of restricting the amount of overtime to what is absolutely essential to the business concerned.The House, I am sure, is desirous of restricting the amount of juvenile overtime to what is absolutely necessary, and I see no way by which that restriction can be enforced except by attaching to the overtime of young people some sort of penalty, some discouragement. The Amendment gives an alternative form of compensation, and in doing so it is in line with the most advanced forms of agreement between employers and employed. It says that if the employer finds it necessary to work young people overtime he shall give them an equivalent number of days or hours. If he is not able to give them the time that he shall give them a money payment of time and a quarter. It is an essentially reasonable Amendment. It is designed to carry out the purpose of the Bill, and I find it difficult to see any good reason why it should not be accepted. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that juvenile overtime is thoroughly undesirable and that it is only in exceptional circumstances that it becomes necessary. The good employer avoids working young people overtime; it is the bad employer, the incompetent employer, the inefficient, the muddling employer, who does not know how to arrange and conduct his business in such a way as to give a square deal to his employés, who will take full advantage of the provision and employ his young people the maximum amount of overtime, because he is too lazy or incompetent to arrange his staff problems properly. I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to accept the Amendment which carries out the spirit of the Bill.
§ 7.19 p.m.
§ Sir WILFRID SUGDEN
I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment, and for these reasons. Neither in the Committee nor in this House has any section of opinion faced up to the terrible automatic robot 401 system of trading which is springing up throughout Europe and the United States of America. The problem has not once been faced by hon. Members of the Labour party. You cannot go into a shop in Paris or in Lyons, or in any of the great provincial centres of France, you cannot go into any large shop in Germany or Italy without noticing that the use of this automatic robot method of trading is springing up everywhere as the means of supplying goods to consumers. It is the same in almost every town in Spain. In this country we have built up our shop trade by training apprentices. I do not believe that the shopkeepers.of this country are endeavouring to exploit young labour in respect of their services and trade, and I ask hon. Members of the Labour party to remember that they must be interested in the education and training of these young apprentices, for they also are traders. In some of our schools they are being taught the best method of salesmanship, and I say that if this carping and improper suggestion, that employers are exploiting their apprentices, is to be made it will put the clock back in respect of the training of apprentices in the arts of salesmanship, which should be the ideal of every English and Scottish shopkeeper.
I want my hon. Friends when they are dealing with the apprenticeship of shop assistants to remember the very high standard of technical training which is now being attained and support to the full those of us who are endeavouring to push forward the idealism of both salesmanship and supply, and to lift the system of apprenticeship to a higher grade by carefully worked out time table of work, study and recreation and thus do away altogether with what will be a menace to our trade, not only as regards the private shop-keeper but also as regards the co-operative shops—namely, the menace of the robot, the automatic machine, the "help yourself" system, the slot methods of salesmanship. I hope therefore, that the Under-Secretary will obtain support from all sides of the House in his endeavour to enable the good employer to permit an employe to go for three or four hours a day for some technical instruction either in college; or institution. Certain sections of our Universities for example are helping. The new Universities of Birmingham, Manchester 402 and Leeds are now specialising in the art of salesmanship, and hon. Members of the Labour party when they suggest that this extra half an hour or an hour and a half spent in experiment or an hour in some system of sales test is some kind of sweated labour are very far from realising the practicalities of the case. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stand fast land believe that the shopkeeping fraternity and those who lead them have ideals other than the exploitation of their employés, that they have ideals of apprenticeship which include careful training and good feeling, and a desire to offer their goods not in the same fashion and manner us many people on the Continent. by the robot, the automatic machine, the 6d. in the slot mechanism or the 1s. box slot method, but by the same arts of good salesmanship and careful thought for the needs of the British people which have characterised them in this country for years past.
§ Mr. C. BROWN
Does the hon. Member really suggest that the employment of young people overtime would prevent the mechanisation of industry in this country?
§ Sir W. SUGDEN
I want my hon. Friends to realise that their Amendment is the thin end of the wedge, that is, if the Amendment is carried to its logical conclusion.
§ 7.24 p.m.
I do not think that I need go into the argument respecting the robot and the automatic slot machine. Hon. Members opposite say that by their Amendment they want to discourage overtime in shops. This is common ground. They have surely overlooked the provisions of Clause 1. The amount of overtime which can be worked is now extremely restricted, but, judging from their speeches, one would think that there is no such provision as Clause 1 in the Bill. Under that Clause o overtime at all is possible for those under 16 years of age, and for those between 16 and 18 years of age it is limited to six weeks in which it can take place at all, to 12 hours in any of these weeks, and to a maximum of 50 hours during the whole year. We have really gone a long way to show where we stand on the question. of overtime, and I am rather sorry that hon. Members opposite should make it 403 appear as if we had not done anything about it. My hon. Friend opposite said that it was possible for young people to work 24 hours overtime. That is not so. It is not possible for young people to work 24 hours overtime in one week under the Bill. Let me refer them to the provisions of Clause 1, which says:no young person shall be employed overtime about the business of the shop in any year after he has been employed overtime about the business of the shop for fifty working hours in that year;There is no 24 hours overtime, and there never was, but it is just as well to clear up that point. As regards the suggestion that if overtime is worked the employer should be responsible for paying a corresponding increased wage, the Bill has not dealt with the wage question at all so far, and I deprecate it being introduced in an Amendment on Report stage, because it raises a considerably larger issue than can be dealt with now. No analogy can be drawn from the provisions of the 1928 Act. The provisions of the 1928 Act, with regard to payment for holidays, envisaged circumstances quite different from those with which we are dealing here. The provision for overtime under Clause 1 is merely part of the normal arrangement, but in the 1928 Act the question of holidays arises when there has been an order made in a certain place altering the normal closing hours, and as a compensation for that there are special provisions for holidays with wages. There is no analogy between the 1928 Act and the present Bill, and that is A good reason for rejecting the Amendment. I hope the House will realise the very severe way in which the working of overtime of those between 16 and 18 years is already safeguarded in the Bill, and that it will not be necessary to press the Amendment.
§ Mr. WILMOT
May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when we say that the employer should give compensation for overtime by increased wages it was put in as an alternative to allowing time off on another day. The analogy with the 1928 Act surely is that in that Act compensation for a breach of a special order was made by allowing time off during some slack period.
§ 7.29 p.m.
§ Mr. McENTEE
I regret the attitude of the Under-Secretary of State. When 404 I saw the Amendment paper, I came to the conclusion that the intention of the Government was that 48 hours per week was sufficient for any young person between 16 and 18 years of age to work, but that if there were exceptional circumstances, such as busy periods, they would agree that these young persons should be permitted to work for a limited number of extra hours per week. It appeared to me that the view of the Government was that 48 hours was a normal legitimate working period for young persons. I thought further that if in exceptional circumstances they were compelled to work longer it was reasonable to expect that the employer should in some way compensate them for that overtime.
The Government's own Fair Wages Clause for adults compels an employer to pay or to give some compensation for overtime work. Are we to take it that the Government and this House are less considerate in dealing with young persons than they are in dealing with adults who are organised? Are we to assume that because these people are young and have not the opportunities of organisation, they are to be treated worse than adults would be treated 1 Is it unreasonable to say to the fathers of children, that the conditions which they make for their young persons between 16 and 18 shall be at least as good as the conditions that they insist on for themselves as adults? I think that, if anything, we ought to be more considerate to young persons, but it appears from the very surprising attitude of the Government that because the young persons are weak and unorganised, and unable to take the measures of protection that adults take, the Government will not give to them the consideration which is given to adults under the Fair Wages Clause. I hope that in the interests of young persons we shall register our protest by going into the Lobby in support of this proposal. I know we shall lose, but at any rate we shall demonstrate that there is a small body of people in this House who are concerned with the lives and happiness of the young.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 216.407
|Division No. 330.]||AYES||[7.34 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Milner, Major James|
|Attlee. Clement Richard||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Banfield, John William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Grundy. Thomas W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Cove, William G.||Janner, Barnett||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Jenkins, Sir William||Thorne, William James|
|Curry, A. C.||John, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dagger, George||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||West, F. R.|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||White, Henry Graham|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Dobbie, William||Leonard, William||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Edwards, Charles||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Lunn, William||Wilmot, John|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||Mainwaring, William Henry||Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Ganzonl, Sir John||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Goff, Sir Park||Mitcheson, G. G.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Goldle, Noel B.||Monsen, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gower, Sir Robert||Morgan, Robert H.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Moss, Captain H. J.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Grimston, R. V.||Munro, Patrick|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Beaumont, Hon. B.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)||Harbord, Arthur||O'Donovan, Dr. William James|
|Belt. Sir Alfred L.||Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A|
|Bernays, Robert||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Orr Ewing, I. L.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Palmer, Francis Noel|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Pearson, William G.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Penny, Sir George|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Hepworth, Joseph||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Petherick, M.|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Hornby, Frank||Potter, John|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Horobin, Ian M.||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Horsbrugh, Florence||Pybus, Sir Percy John|
|Carver, Major William H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Radford, E. A.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Ramsay, T. B. W (Western Isles)|
|Christle, James Archibald||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Ramsbotham, Herwald|
|Clarke, Frank||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Rankin, Robert|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Ker, J. Campbell||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Collox, Major William Philip||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Renwick, Major Gustav A.|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Rickards, George William|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Law, Sir Alfred||Robinson, John Roland|
|Cooke, Douglas||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Leckle, J. A.||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Lees-Jones, John||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Cross, R. H.||Levy, Thomas||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Crossley, A. C.||Liddall, Walter S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)||Russell, Hamer Field Sheffield,B'tside)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Llewellin, Major John J.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.)||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Dickle, John P.||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Drewe, Cedric||Loftus, Pierce C.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Scone, Lord|
|Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)||Mabane, William||Selley, Harry R.|
|Douglass, Lord||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||McKie, John Hamilton||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Slater, John|
|Elmley, Viscount||Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Thorp, Linton Theodore||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)||Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Stones, James||Train, John||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Strauss, Edward A.||Tree, Ronald||Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord|
|Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George|
|Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart||Turton, Robert Hugh||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Sutcliffe, Harold||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)|
|Tate, Mavis Constance||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Thompson, Sir Luke||Wayland, Sir William A.||Captain Sir George Bowyer and Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.|