HC Deb 23 July 1934 vol 292 cc1549-65

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.42 p.m.


May I ask the Minister of Agriculture exactly what we are to expect from this Clause. When the right hon. Gentleman issued a White Paper a short time ago, there was an indication that, if he succeeded in his bargaining with the importers from South America and the Dominions, he would be able to apply a levy. In a few observations which he made during the Debate upon the Money Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman hinted that there was no possibility of any levy being brought into effect. Hon. Members are in some doubt as to whether the £3,000,000 advance is to be regarded as a direct subsidy from the Treasury with no hope or intention of repayment, or whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the proceeds of the levy would ultimately go towards repaying the advances. We ought to have as clear a statement as the right hon. Gentleman can make. I appreciate that he can only reply provisionally, the position depending upon whether he succeeds or fails in his negotiations with the South American countries and various parts of the Dominions, but a matter which ought to be cleared up once and for all is whether this fund is to be drawn from the Treasury with no intention of repayment, or whether the money is likely to be repaid out of a future levy following negotiations with the various interests. If the latter is to be the case, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there will be intense opposition from these benches to any part of the Measure; on the other hand, should the proposal be for a direct payment from the Treasury, our opposition may be slightly, but only slightly, tempered. The Committee are entitled to know, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in so far as lie can make a statement, will do so, and will let us know whether the tax-, payers are to pay this £3,000,000 or whether the consumers of imported meat are to pay it. If the right hon. Gentleman will clear up that matter, the Committee will be better able to determine their attitude towards the Bill.

3.45 p.m.


I readily respond to the invitation of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The position as regards Clause 1 is simply that it sets up a fund, and the remaining Clauses indicate how payments shall be made out, of that fund. In the White Paper we said that if we could secure agreement with the countries concerned, it was our intention to place a levy upon duties, but it would not be in order to discuss that proposal at this stage. The Bill merely makes provision for the payment of money out of the fund. We thought it fair to leave hon. Members in no misapprehension as to what were the aims of our policy, but it would not be in order to go further into that matter on this occasion.

3.46 p.m


The Clause says that any advance shall be repaid from the fund to the Exchequer. We understand that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to raise the money by means of a levy, but, in presenting the Money Resolution, he indicated that there might be a difficulty as to whether the countries would pay or not, and that it might be found, after negotiation, that the levy could not be put on at all. If the negotiations fail and the levy cannot be put on, and the fund does not materialise, from what source is the right hon. Gentleman going to repay the money to the Exchequer? I understand that the money is to be taken out of the Exchequer immediately, and before the levy is decided upon.

3.47 p.m.


I shall do my best to make that point more clear. It will eventually be within the power of this country, when the trade agreements run out, to place any levy desired upon any imports coming into this country, if no arrangement can be come to before that time. No levy will be, or can be, imposed in contravention of any trade agreement into which we have entered, but when the trade agreements run out it will open to the country to decide whether it desires to place a levy upon imports. What I indicated was that it was at present the policy of His Majesty's Government to recommend that such a levy should be placed upon imports. Naturally that is a matter for the future. We are dealing with the present,, and we cannot discuss that matter now.

3.48 p.m.


Is it the intention of the Government, whatever be the result of the negotiations, to repay this money to the Treasury in any circumstances? That provision is part of the Clause. The government are asking for the money on the understanding that it shall be repaid. Hon. Members have argued that this money is not a subsidy, but is only a loan. If the levy fails, from what source is the money to be repaid?

3.49 p.m.


The hon. Member is discussing points which arise under Subsections (2) and (3). These are mere matters of accounting. The money is to be repaid if the country decides to put on a levy. If the country does not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—but that is not contrary to the statement of the White Paper. The money is to be repaid if the country decides to put on a levy, and if the Government carry through Parliament the legislation necessary for putting through a levy. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recommend a levy, and, if the House accepts the Government's advice, then the money will be repaid. The House of Commons is completely sovereign over what it does in the future, and it is in a position to accept or reject any advice given to it by the Government. We are making preparations to pay from this fund advances towards the producers of beef. We have indicated to the House how we propose to feed that fund in the future, and it would be out of order to enter into that matter now.

3.50 p.m.


I have never been under any delusion with regard to this particular fund. When we were considering the Financial Resolution, I anticipated exactly what the Minister has now made clear. The right hon. Gentle- man has always been perfectly frank, and has never tried to deceive either the House or the country. I interpreted the Financial Resolution as meaning that the whole idea of creating a fund of this kind was that, when the opportunity and circumstances permitted, the fund would be reimbursed by a levy—or in other words a tax—on imported meat. I pointed out at the time, and I think the right hon. Gentleman agreed, that at present, owing to an agreement which we have made with the Argentine, our hands are tied until 1936, and in the case of the Dominions until 1937, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is powerless to act in the manner contemplated without a real breach of agreements solemnly made in return for certain concessions on manufactured goods. The whole thing is a speculation. The right hon. Gentleman is, if I might say so, gambling on his powers of bluff or pressure with the Argentine and the Dominions to get them to give way and agree to a levy. I assume that he is going to use the threat of a quota, as a possible alternative, to persuade them to agree to a levy. He is going to say to them—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

I do not think we can go into a general question of policy of that kind on the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, but it is in order to ask the Minister whether the money is to be found from the Treasury or whether there is some intention to find it from other sources.


Then we are not discussing the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?


Yes, we are.


Are we not justified, as controllers of the public purse, in trying to find out clearly, before we agree to this fund being started, how it is to be repaid? I am not, of course, questioning your Ruling, but, after all, the two things are inter-connected. If we are going to create a fund, we have, in our solemn position as defenders of the taxpayer, to ascertain how the right hon. Gentleman is going to find the money. Unfortunately, money does not come down like manna from Heaven; it has to come out of some pocket, whether it be the Income Tax payer's or the indirect taxpayer's; and it seems to me that, before we agree to establish, not a small fund of a few hundred or a few thousand pounds, but a fund of £3,000,000, to be given as gratuities, no doubt thoroughly deserved, to a particular interest, we ought to know how the money is to be raised and who is going to provide the cash. I am surprised that, on the occasion of a Debate of this kind—it shows how we are degenerating in our duty as controllers of the public purse—there is no representative of the Treasury present to explain to the Committee how this new fund, which may be a precedent for others, is to be managed. When we are starting this new principle of subsidies, we ought to be told perfectly frankly how it is going to be financed.

It seems to me, and my hon. Friends above the Gangway appear to agree more or less, that it is going to be found at present from the general taxpayer— in other words, that it is going to be found out of the vanishing surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only other alternative, which I am precluded from discussing on this occasion, would be to find some new form of revenue. A new form of revenue has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but even that is a gamble; he is not sure whether he will be able to find that new form of revenue. I think that this is a very clumsy and dangerous way of carrying out legislation. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, when he is dealing with shipping, will use a more satisfactory method for financing the subsidy. Now that the Minister of Agriculture is embarking on his third method of helping agriculture—the first was by quotas, the second was Protection, and now we have a subsidy—he ought to make it clear to Parliament, and through Parliament to the country, how the money is to be obtained. If it is to be obtained by a tax, let the right hon. Gentleman say so; or, if not, let him make it clear to the nation that it is to come from the general taxpayer.

3.57 p.m.


The speech of the hon. Baronet was obviously devoted, not to making the matter clear, but to confusing the mind of the public outside. The matter is perfectly clear. The Minister has told us that he is hoping by negotiation to bring about certain arrangements which will place the money at his disposal, but in the meantime he wants to give immediate assistance to the industry. He proposes to do that in the first place by a loan out of the Consolidated Fund—which is what I might call one of the numerous book entries under the charge of the Treasury —and later on, when the exact situation is known, that is to say when it is known whether he will be able to make arrangements for a levy, and whether in that event the levy collected during the financial year will be equal to or less than the amount required, he will know how much he will need by way of a Supplementary Estimate, and in due course that Supplementary Estimate will be presented and passed. It will then be possible to refund to the Consolidated Fund the sum which for the moment has been advanced on loan. Surely, there is no mystery about that.

Since the other aspect of the policy is not known, and cannot be known until certain negotiations are completed, the Minister in the meantime is making the money available. Whether it will be a charge on the general taxpayer at the 31st March next, obviously neither the Minister nor anyone else can say at the moment, because the negotiations are not completed. In the worst circumstances, there will be a Supplementary Estimate of £3,000,000, and to that extent the Financial prospects for the present year will be worse than they otherwise would have been. On the other hand, if the levy, or tariff, or whatever it may be called, is obtained, that sum will not be required in full. Surely, there has never been any mystery about the matter; it has all been disclosed in full in the past. I do not understand why hon. Members are trying to make a mystery out of something which has never been a mystery, and never can be a mystery, because it has been perfectly clearly disclosed.

3.59 p.m.


I think that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has himself rather mystified the Committee. The hon. Gentleman, 'who now apparently speaks on behalf of the Treasury, has made quite clear to us, so far as he himself knows, precisely where this money is coming from, but in a matter of this kind, when £3,000,000 has to be found from somewhere, while a book entry is all very well in its way, there must be a day of reckoning, and I am wondering where the safeguard of the Treasury has got to. It has always been assumed in this House, and it has been said on many occasions by various Ministers, that, however sympathetic they may be to one scheme or another, the watchdog of the Treasury always stands in the way. What has happened so far as this matter is concerned? Apparently the watchdogs of the Treasury have gone to sleep, or have gone on a holiday; or is it because there has been a change in the officials that we have no representative of the Treasury here to give us that explanation which obviously the hon. Member for South Croydon himself thinks the Committee requires and should have?


I did not think that the Committee required it, but, after the remarks of hon. Members opposite, I thought that the people outside might.


If I may suggest to my hon. Friend opposite, very kindly, there are other people beside himself who speak for the people outside this House. It would appear to me that if the Budget surplus which the Chancellor anticipates in this financial year is to be frittered away by a subsidy last week, a subsidy this week and, possibly, a further subsidy next week, the people outside will want to know what the Treasury is doing and what the House itself is doing to allow millions of money to be given to this or that distressed industry, with, apparently, no safeguards whatever. I look upon this Clause as the fundamental Clause of the Bill. I am not satisfied about the fund. Had a wicked Labour Government suggested the setting up of a fund of this kind for some other purpose, hon. and right hon. Members opposite would have denounced it to the utmost. I hope that we shall vote against this Clause. It is a matter of serious consideration if the Government side of the House no longer have any qualms about the Treasury, and if they themselves are indifferent as to the way millions of money are to be given to this, that or the other object. At least, we on this side are thoroughly justified in demanding that we get some official statement from the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to where this money is coming from. The Minister of Agriculture himself is by no means satisfied in his mind that there is any possibility of getting this tariff, or levy, or whatever it is, soon enough to give us this money back in this financial year. He makes provision for round about six or seven months. I cannot understand —it may be due, of course, to my utter ignorance—Sub-section (2), which says: any advances made under this subsection to the Cattle Fund shall be repaid from that fund to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom before the end of that financial year. If that means anything at all, in view of what the Minister has explained from time to time, it is pretty obvious that this money will have to be found by the Exchequer, and as it appears that it must be found by the Exchequer for this financial year, under the terms of Subsection (2), surely the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might have been here to explain to us that this has their blessing, that they do not mind £3,000,000 going in this way, and endeavour to ease the minds of some hon. Members who are not so readily inclined to see millions of money, I will not say exactly thrown away, but frittered away without any guarantee or sufficient explanation. Of course, we are all obliged to the hon. Member for South Croydon for trying to do his very best for the Minister and the Government, and I am sure that they in turn, must be extremely obliged to him for the care which he takes to explain and apologise; but the hon. Member's explanation hardly carries the same weight as that of the Chancellor, and it is only fair, right and what is due to the dignity of this House, that a statement should be made either by the Chancellor or by the Financial Secretary with regard to this £3,000,000.

4.6 p.m.


I should be glad if the Minister would explain the two Memoranda which have been issued. Sub-section (2) of this Clause merely states: The Treasury may, during the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, make, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, advances to the Cattle Fund not exceeding in the aggregate three million pounds. Then, in the first Memorandum, it is also stated: Authority will be sought in this Bill for making temporary advances to the Cattle Fund from the Consolidated Fund to an amount not exceeding £3,000,000. But the small Memorandum, which was placed in our hands last Thursday, states: It is estimated that the total sum which Parliament will be asked to provide under the proposed legislation in respect of payments to producers and in respect of the administrative expenses of the Cattle Committee and of the appropriate Ministers will not exceed £3,000,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain a very simple matter, namely, whether the amount is really limited to £3,000,000, or, as indicated in the final Memorandum, it is merely an estimate.

4.7 p.m.


I think that this Clause is absolutely clear, and, in the event of the Government being unable to come to any terms such as the Minister stated, the taxpayer will have to pay. May I congratulate the Minister on having done one thing that I have never known any Minister do before: he has made something clear to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I understand that the hon. Member now says it was not made clear, but I think he got one sentence clearly in his head. I want to say, as one who has always very strenuously opposed anything of this kind, that, as far as I can see at the present time, the Minister, having been put in an exceedingly difficult and hopeless position, has had to come to the Exchequer. Whether you are justified in coming to the Exchequer for £3,000,000 for the beef producer and the agricultural labourer, is a matter of balance, on the whole. The Minister has been put in this position by years of a system of free imports, and, Further, by the behaviour of a section of the Liberal party, or, should I say, ex-Liberals, who were returned to support the Government. If you fail at the present time to help the beef market, you will have an enormous addition to unemployment, and if you think also of the stimulus put into other trades and industries, I think the Minister has some justification for the expenditure of this money.

But I would say, as a Member of the House of Commons who dislikes any form of subsidy, and dislikes going to the Exchequer whether it is for coal or anything else, that this is only justified because of the success of the wheat quota, and the whole of this will follow on those lines. I would say at the same time that I think it is rather a pity that on all these occasions you fall back on the Exchequer. I am always being told that there are immense funds at present available in the money market, and I am not at all sure that it might not be possible in some other way, by starting a company or something of that kind, so that there was not the chance of piling burdens on the Exchequer, as you are in this Bill. All I wish to say on this Clause is that I, personally, have not the slightest intention of taking part in this subsidy one way or the other, and I protest most strongly in the interests of the taxpayer, but I would like to remind those who criticise the Government that this position is almost entirely of their own making, and every time they speak they simply show their entire lack of knowledge of agriculture and the conditions of the business world to-day.

4.11 p.m.


I want to be clear about the money which is being voted today to the Cattle Fund. In the first place, in the event of the Minister of Agriculture succeeding in extracting an agreement by the negotiations he is about to enter into with the representatives of the Argentine, I take it from him that it is proposed, 'as soon as may be, to impose a levy on those people, and that the money now being taken from the Consolidated Fund will be repaid, but that, in the event of those negotiations not succeeding, then he tells us at some future time, in 1936 or 1937, or sometime after that, when the existing agreements have expired, it is the intention of the Government that a levy shall be imposed. But a, number of things may happen in the meantime to alter the views of the Minister or the Government. A General Election may alter the constitution of the Government, and, in those circumstances, they would have to consider whether or not the policy of the present Government should be pursued. Assuming the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in these negotiations, and the levy is imposed, who is going to pay the levy?


I would point out that that would require fresh legislation, and we cannot go into the question of fresh legislation now. In no circumstances could money from other sources be paid into the Cattle Fund under this Bill.


I accept your Ruling, but, so far, we have been discussing the question of the House being asked to vote a sum of money to-day on the assumption that the levy will be repaid, but, if we cannot discuss that, I will put it in this way. We are really in the position now that there is no guarantee whatever that this money will be paid back to the Treasury. The Minister says that he hopes in the future to be able to do something which it is not in order to discuss now, and that if that does take place, the Government of the day hope to be able to pay the money back into the Treasury. Is it not a fact that if they are unable to pay back the £3,000,000 in the way indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, the consumers of meat on which the levy is to be imposed will pay? Would anyone in their senses imagine that the people who have actually to pay the cash down in the form of a, levy—


All that I ruled was that the hon. Member was entitled to ask the Government whether they could raise money from some other source or not. We cannot go into details.


I certainly do not want to do anything contrary to your Ruling, but may I submit that I am trying to get clearly as to who, in fact, will ultimately pay the money, whether it comes in the form of a levy, a quota, a subsidy or a tariff, which it is hoped to impose on someone in the future, and that that sum, when recovered, will be put back into the Treasury. Am I not in order in arguing that, if the money is recovered in that way, it will be passed on by the people from whom it is recovered to the actual people who consume the meat?


Not on this Clause. If the hon. Member looks at the Financial Resolution which covers the Clause, he will see that it provides for advances to the Cattle Fund, not exceeding in the aggregate £3,000,000 out of the Consolidated Fund and for requiring that any such advances shall be repaid out of moneys provided by Parlia- ment before the end of the financial year. Therefore, it will require fresh legislation to pay money into this fund from any other source but a supplementary Estimate.


There is no guarantee whatever that the money will be paid from any other source except public money from one Department to another. I should like to ask a question or two in regard to the administration of the fund itself. The Clause says that, subject to certain regulations which will be imposed by the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman or his successor will be the administrator of the fund. We have a right to know how he is going to administer it. In connection with all other money that we vote here, we generally get some information as to the general lines on which it will be administered, and some information as to the test that will be applied to the people who are to become the beneficiaries. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply any test to the stock raisers.


That arises on the next Clause.


The Clause says that the fund is to be controlled by the Minister of Agriculture. Before we pass over that right of control, surely he has an obligation to tell us what conditions he will apply to the people who are to benefit under the fund.


I think that really arises on Clause 2. The hon. Member can discuss the general administration, but Clause 2 deals with the terms on which the money is to be paid out to the producers, and the question arises there.


I will put my questions on the next Clause.

4.19 p.m.


I am very much indebted to you, Sir, for your Ruling, because it makes it clear that, although the Government are suggesting that we should spend £3,000,000, there may be no provision whatever for repaying the money to the Treasury. We find ourselves in very peculiar circumstances to-day. We have the most ingenious Minister of Agriculture that we have ever had, and in this Clause we have his latest device for helping the farming industry, and he is going to give them £3,000,000. He has no hesitation in making that statement quite clearly, and I have not the slightest doubt that he feels no qualms of conscience about it at all. He knows very well how generous are the masses of the people of the country. Not only do they make sacrifices on behalf of those who are worse off than themselves, but they are willing to make sacrifices for people who are better off than themselves and, whatever method the right bon. Gentleman may suggest of getting this money back at some time in the future, he will be able to take it from the pockets of the great masses of the people, and they will not squeal very much. Just as they help one another, he knows they will help the farmers and will help everyone else who is much better off than they are, and consequently the Minister is satisfied. Your Ruling, Sir, has made it clear where the Government stand on this matter. Here is £3,000,000 for the farmers. We do not know precisely how it is to be paid back to the Treasury, but we know that, when the moment comes, the mass of the people of the country will pay up and will be happy and the farmers will be more prosperous than they have ever been before.


Are we to have no reply from the Minister? It is treating the Committee with scant courtesy if we do not get an answer.

4.21 p.m.


I am more than ready to reply. I have been waiting until hon. Members have concluded their remarks. I had to remain seated while others were standing. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) asked how the Clause squared with the financial Memorandum. 'Clearly it would be rushing the matter unduly to bring in a supplementary Estimate; therefore, a temporary advance will be paid from the Consolidated Fund limited to the temporary period of the Bill. As to the other point, of course what the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) is pleading for is a quota of the most rigorous kind to be applied forthwith, so that no liability shall fall on the Treasury. The hon. Member is more royalist than the King. While I am anxious to avoid inroads upon the trade of the country or an immediate jolt to the price level, which might be caused by a rigorous application of the quota, hon. Members opposite have pressed on me that no leniency should be shown to the foreign or indeed the Dominion importer at all, which might lead to a liability on the Treasury.


I think the right hon. Gentleman is now going beyond my Ruling.


Far be it from me to enlarge the ambit of the Debate. I think the matter has been made quite clear and the intentions of the Government have been made clear within the limits of Order, and I hope very much that it will now be possible for the Committee to let us have the Clause.

4.25 p.m.


I am very disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman has acquired a reputation for straightforwardness. Surely the questions that have been put to him are very plain indeed. The Clause says, that these moneys shall be repaid from the Cattle Fund to the Consolidated Fund and that they shall be paid before the end of the financial year.


Out of moneys provided by Parliament.


That is true, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite answer. We have had one from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?


I do not accept any answer given by anyone but myself, but I have repeatedly made it clear that this legislation merely requires money to be paid into the Cattle Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament, and anything else will need further legislation.


If within the seven months it is not possible to arrive at an agreement, or if the money cannot be raised in the way it is intended to be raised, is the Minister coming to the House for a supplementary Estimate?


It is laid down in the most explicit form in the Financial Resolution and in the Bill. Of course, I must come to the House for a supplementary Estimate. There is no power under this legislation to do anything else.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 39.

Division No. 343.] AYES. [4.28 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gower, Sir Robert Pearson, William G.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G. Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rld, N.) Penny, Sir George
Alien, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Granville, Edgar Percy, Lord Eustace
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Petherick, M.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Grimston, R. V. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Pike, Cecil F.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Gunston, Captain D. W. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Blaker, Sir Reginald Guy, J. C. Morrison Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
B[...]ndell, James Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hanbury, Cecil Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Hartland, George A. Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Brass, Captain Sir William Has[...]am, Henry (Horncastle) Reid, David D. (County Down)
Broadbent, Colonel John Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Remer, John R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Buchan, John Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ropner, Colonel L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Ross, Ronald D.
Burnett, John George Horsbrugh, Florence Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Howltt, Dr. Alfred B. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Caine, G. R. Hall- Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Runge, Norah Cecil
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brm[...]y) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, d.) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Castlereagh, Viscount Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Salmon, Sir Isidore
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Ker, J. Campbell Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Knox, Sir Alfred Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Clarry, Reginald George Lees-Jones, John Savery, Samuel Servington
Cobb, Sir Cyril Leighton, Major B. E. P. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Levy, Thomas Skelton, Archibald Noel
Cooke, Douglas Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwlch)
Cranborne, Viscount Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n) Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C. Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Smithers, Sir Waldron
Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Somerset, Thomas
Crooke, J. Smedley Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Crossl[...]y, A. C. McCorquodale, M. S. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Spear[...], Brigad[...]-General Edward [...]
Da[...]keith, Earl of Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Davison, Sir William Henry McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Denman, Hon. R. D. McK[...]e, John Hamilton Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Dickle, John P. Macqukisten, Frederick Alexander Strauss, Edward A
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Maitland, Adam Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Doran, Edward Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sutcliffe, Harold
Drewe, Cedric Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Duckworth, George A. V. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Meller, Sir Richard James Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'w[...]ck-on-T.)
Duggan, Hubert John Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Molson, A. Hugh E[...]sdale Tree, Ronald
Edmondson, Major Sir James Morsing, Adrian c. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Eimley, Viscount Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlver'ties) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Moss, Captain H. J. Wells, Sydney Richard
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Munro. Patrick Weymouth, Viscount
Entwistle, Cyril Fu[...]lard Nail, Sir Joseph Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Fielden, Edward Brock[...]ehurst Nation, Brigad[...]r-General J. J. H. Windsor-C[...]ve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fox, Sir Gilford Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Womersley, Sir Walter
Fremantle, Sir Francis North, Edward T. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Fuller, Captain A. G. Nunn, William Worthington, Dr. John V.
Ganzonl, Sir John Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Goff, Sir Park O[...] Ewing, I. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Patrick, Colin M. Sir Victor Warrender and Major
George Davies.
Adams, D. M (Poplar, South) Cripps, Sir Stafford Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding)
Attlee, Clement Richard Daggar, George Grundy, Thomas W.
Banfield, John William Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Batey, Joseph Dobble, William Harris, Sir Percy
Bernays, Robert Edwards, Charles Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Gardner, Benjamin Walter Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Buchanan, George Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Leonard, William
Cove, William G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) Logan, David Gilbert
Lunn, William Parkinson, John Allen Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
McEntee, Valentine L. Rea, Walter Russell Wilmot, John
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Sa[...]ter, Dr. Alfred Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Mainwaring, William Henry Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Tinker, John Joseph TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Pa[...]ng, Wilfred Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.