HC Deb 05 March 1934 vol 286 cc1585-602

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain.

5.55 p.m.


Estimating for the beet sugar subsidy services is a matter of very great difficulty. We have to form an estimate in January for an article manufactured from a crop which is not sown until April. The crop is very susceptible to climatic influences during the growing period, and the harvesting does not commence until September, and does not finish until the new year. We can, of course, have forecasts of the contracts to be entered into between the farmers and factories, but they do not give us the real amount. They give simply an indication of the acreage that is likely to be planted. In 1933 contracting had hardly commenced when an Estimate had to be made. The other essential factors, the yield of beet per acre and the percentage of sugar content, are a matter of the bounty of nature and, like all bounties, you have to guess at them in advance. There is not much in the way of a normal expectation to serve as a basis, because the industry has only been going for a few years and has been in process of rapid development. The yield has varied from 6.5 to 8.8 tons to the acre, and the sugar content on 16.1 to 17.7 per cent. We can only do our best in the way of estimating, always with the proviso that we may have to return to the House if our estimate has turned out incorrectly. Last year we put down the probable acreage at 340,000, as compared with 256,000 in the previous year. This area, producing beet at an estimated yield of 8¼ tons to the acre, with a sugar content in the region of the average of 17 per cent., was expected to afford the factories material for the production of sugar and molasses qualifying for a total subsidy payment of £2,900,000. An Estimate for this amount was accordingly submitted to and voted by the House, and the only subject for discussion now is the reason why this particular sum for which we estimated was not an accurate one. It is not in any way connected with the policy which led to the House voting that original sum.

The area planted amounted to 366,000 acres, which is 26,000 acres over the estimated area. That would have increased our commitment by £220,000, assuming that the other factors were near the mark. But the ultimate yield turned out to be nine tons to the acre, but the sugar content was 16.3 per cent. which was below the average, and these two factors cancelled each other out to a certain extent. The unexpectedly high acreage and yield are responsible for this Supplementary Estimate. The total amount of the subsidy paid on the 1933 crop amounts to £3,400,000. Of that, £80,000 on account of molasses will be carried into 1934. There is a balance of £30,000 for 1932 in molasses which fell due for payment in 1933, so that the net total amount paid in the financial year 1933 is £3,350,000, that is to say, a Vote of £2,900,000, and a supplementary Vote of £450,000. The Committee may ask why this high yield, since we had a very dry summer which might have been expected to have produced poor roots? In the first place, the crop had a good send off. The conditions of seeding time were ideal and germination was uniform. The crop had a bad set back during the growing period, because from July to the beginning of harvesting time the amount of rain which fell was again negligible. First supplies to the factories were very rich in sugar and very small in size. When the rain came in September, it started the second top growth which is very detrimental to sugar content. The plant, becoming aware of capital investment, suddenly turns into development and thereby draws heavily upon its accounts, which is what we rely upon to plunder. The plant, growing in this way, reversed our early expectations. The yield turned out to be very great. The amount of beet sugar content, the invested capital in those beets, was poor.

I should also mention that the workers were very efficient. [An HON. MEMBER: "Inflation!"] I should not like to enter into a discussion with authorities so great as hon. Members opposite on the subject of inflation. I prefer to call it development. The efficiency of the workers who handled the crop was higher. That is the cause of the Supplementary Estimate. They handled the crop well. They cultivated it in a very skilful fashion. Very skilled singling, and very adequate hoeing and cleaning during the growing period, all of which are most important in a time of drought, led to the higher yield which is the cause of the higher Estimate for which I am now asking the Committee to vote the corresponding subsidy. The effects of the drought were felt severely on the lighter lands, and the average yield figure was a great deal less than in the areas where heavy soils predominate, notably the Fen areas, where the average yield for certain factories was as high as 10½ tons to the acre. That is approaching Continental standards of beet culture, and it has been done with only about 10 years of experience.

It might be worth while to say a few words about the manufacturing efficiency. Factory efficiency has shown a progressive increase. The peak was reached in 1933 when the amount of sugar extracted, taking into account that contained in molasses, was 97 per cent. of the whole of the sugar content. That exceeded the rate of 1926 when the sugar content of the beet was 1 per cent. higher. That is to say, although the beets contained 1 per cent. less sugar, the efficiency of the extraction was such that more sugar was in fact extracted from those beets. The grower has a material interest in factory efficiency. Under the co-operative contract issued by some factories in recent years, and now offered by all factories for 1934, ultimately the price is determined on the basis of the factory income. The higher the factory efficiency the greater the factory income; the greater the factory income the more the farmer receives for his beets. The general adaptation of co-operative contracts in this matter is very well worth noting. The bringing in of the producer into partnership with the processor is a very interesting development in modern agricultural practice, and, as I said on another occasion, it has a parallel in the technique of the bacon industry where the pig producer is being offered, and, I hope, is accepting, co-operative contracts on the same lines. He stands in with the processor, and the greater efficiency of the processor means a better return to the primary producer.

The final beet price is not yet known. Under the co-operative contracts it cannot be determined until the company's books have been audited, but it is estimated that the figure will be at least 41s. per ton. That price is somewhat below last year's price owing to the lower basic price and sugar content, but the resulting net return of £18 10s. per acre is about the same owing to the higher yield. The total sum paid by factories to growers of beet amounted to about £6,750,000. Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt be interested in the growers' share of the beet subsidy, but any apportionment in that respect is speculative, because it will have to take into account the beet price to the producers. It is a difficult figure to ascertain, but an indication of the general position is given by the fact that for the whole period the sum paid for beets represents about 60 per cent. of the total net factory income from all sources. The figure for the past three years is about 70 per cent. On the factory side the production of sugar was 463,000 tons; of molasses, 130,000 tons; and of dried pulp, 300,000 tons. The sugar figure represents about a quarter of the total requirements of the country, that is to say, we still buy three pounds of sugar from abroad for every pound of sugar we produce at home.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting a little beyond the bounds of his Supplementary Estimate.


I am only too ready, Sir Dennis, to draw my remarks to a close. I should be most unwilling to broaden the field of discussion, more particularly since we are aware that there is a Bill which will shortly come before the House where a wide field of discussion will be possible, and on which, no doubt, many of my hon. and right hon. Friends will wish to have a full review of the position.


May I ask whether it would be in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman to supplement the figures which he has given and to say what was the value of the sugar produced with respect to which we are paying this subsidy? What was the worth of the sugar which was produced in the year?


I think that it would be in order to ask for such information, but it would be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentlemen to make very much use of it in further debate. The only figure at issue is the increased amount which is required.


I am afraid that I cannot give the figure which the right hon. Gentleman desires, but I will do my best to ascertain it. That, briefly, is the picture which I present to the Committee. It is simply a matter of estimating. On this matter we have not estimated that the British producer would sow as great an acreage or obtain as high a yield for beet as he did. I think hon. Members will agree that in that there is nothing of which to be ashamed. The British beet producer sowed more in the way of beets and got a better yield. The figures which we give are on the basis previously determined by the House of Commons, and I suggest that it is not unreasonable for me to hope that the Committee will give us this Estimate without any very great discussion.

6.11 p.m.


I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.

I appreciate to the full the manner in which the Minister of Agriculture has put forward the details of this Vote. I also realise the limitations placed upon us in the form in which the Vote comes before us. If the attention of the Minister of Agriculture had not been drawn to that fact, I should have been in rather a more difficult position. Nevertheless, he has given us a very fair impression of the complexities and of the various factors which have to be taken into account in this matter which will have enlightened many Members of the Committee as to the details which have to be considered in this industry. I do not think that anyone would feel perturbed by the fact that the growers have been able to produce more from the land than perhaps they have done in previous years. No one can deny that it is a good thing to recognise increased productivity by the application of method and science to this industry. But I am rather perturbed at another point arising out of the additional Estimate of £450,000. It is the fact that one of the factors which makes it incumbent upon us to give further help is the increased acreage which was sown. I have not quite grasped who is tilling this extra acreage. If the acreage has been extended to beyond what was anticipated in the earlier stages I should rather incline to the belief that it was not a sufficient reason to call upon this House for the payment for the extra acreage. I wonder what would actually have happened if the acreage had been doubled. We would have been asked to pay double the amount contained in the Supplementary Estimate.

The right hon. Gentleman stated that this is a very important subject. It is very important not only because of agriculture but because of the financial aspect which it presents to the nation. We have to be particularly careful in view of the fact that I was informed, in an answer to a question the other day, that £39,000,000 had already been contributed to this industry since 1924. That being the case, I should have thought that the general council in control of the industry would have been capable of ascertaining exactly what could be done with regard to extended acreage, and perhaps exercise a good deal of control. It is for those reasons that I move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

6.15 p.m.


It is recognised that the Motion before the Committee is of a limited character. We cannot to-day discuss the whole policy of beet sugar subsidies. When the Bill is introduced on the Financial Resolution now on the Order Paper we shall have opportunities for full dress debate, of which I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will take advantage. But even the limited proposal of to-day is not unimportant. A sum of nearly £500,000, in addition to the large Estimate which was presented and voted at an earlier stage, in these times is a matter which should attract the attention of the House of Commons and the country. It is due to the increase of acreage and of yield which have taken place and which were not foreseen when the original Estimate was presented. The Minister of Agriculture says that these facts are due to the bounty of nature. They are also due to the nature of the bounty. It is a characteristic of this subsidy that the more sugar beet that is grown and the more sugar that is produced the more the taxpayer has to pay. That is not necessary or essential in practice.

When the wheat subsidy was introduced it was arranged that it should not be an encouragement to a great expansion of wheat cultivation at the expense of the consumer. If more acreage was culti- vated that did not involve a greater charge upon the consumer, but the money that was available was divided among a larger number of people in smaller proportions. That has not been done in regard to the beet sugar subsidy. A bribe has been given to cultivators to cease growing other crops, which might give an equal amount of employment, and to concentrate upon this crop, and the more they do so the more we are called upon to pay and, as on this occasion, we are obliged to vote an additional £500,000 out of the taxpayers' pockets. I protest against this additional expenditure or any additional expenditure upon the beet sugar industry for various reasons, and one of them is that the Government have not fulfilled the very definite pledge that was given nearly two years ago that an inquiry should be held into the whole policy. That was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech, not of last year but of the year 1932. He clearly stated the point and used these words:— As to whether this concession should be continued in a future year, or as to what is to happen when the present Subsidy Act expires in 1934, I am not at present in a position to express an opinion, but, with a view to receiving guidance on this and other matters, the Government have further decided to appoint a committee to inquire into the conditions of the United Kingdom sugar industry as a whole, including production, refining, and distribution, and to ask this body to report to them before the present Subsidy Act expires."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1932; col. 1435, Vol. 264.] Now, we are asked to vote this additional £500,000 without the guidance of any such inquiry.


We are still under the Subsidy Act. We have not yet got to the point which the right hon. Gentleman can very rightly raise when we come later on to the proposal to prolong the beet sugar subsidy. We are well within the limits of time stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.


I do not think so, if I may respectfully say so, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking on 19th April, 1932, nearly two years ago, and he was not committing himself to what was to happen when the Subsidy Act expired. He raised two points as to whether the concession should be continued in a future year—this is a future year—or as to what is to happen when the present Subsidy Act expires in 1934. He said: I am not yet at present in a position to express an opinion. The matter might have been revised for this year. It has not been revised, and we are now asked to vote this Supplementary Estimate. My contention is, that before Parliament is asked to vote an Original or a Supplementary Estimate or to take any action in respect of this industry, it ought to have had the guidance of the Committee of Inquiry which was definitely promised nearly two years ago, and has not been appointed.


I am not quite sure what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant on that occasion, but I think it is clear that the arrangements for this year could not have been altered without legislation. If so, the right hon. Gentleman is not in order in enlarging upon that point now.


I recognise that I am on somewhat uncertain ground on the point of Order in raising the question of inquiry. Therefore, in deference to what you have said, I will pass from that and say not another word about it. There is, however, another point which is definitely in order, or if it is not in order then the White Paper which has been presented to the Committee is out of order. The White Paper dealing with the Supplementary Estimate has the following footnote: The Excise Duty at existing rates on sugar and molasses manufactured from beet grown in Great Britain is estimated to yield in 1933, £1,911,000. I assume that I shall be fully in order in commenting on that footnote. Why is it inserted? Not because it is a piece of interesting information, but I imagine as an argument from the point of view of the Government why the House of Commons should vote this additional money. I do not know whether this is in accordance with precedent, but I assume that it is. Here we have a footnote saying that the Excise Duty on British-produced sugar yielded to the Exchequer nearly £2,000,000. We are asked to draw the conclusion that there is a set-off to the subsidy. The subsidy is a heavy charge upon the taxpayer, but we are asked to assume that the taxpayer gets a great deal of his money back, because there is a tax levied upon this sugar. As a matter of fact, the fiscal bearing of this matter from the point of view of the Exchequer is exactly the opposite. The more beet sugar is produced the greater is the charge upon the taxpayer. The tax upon sugar imported from foreign countries is about double the tax levied upon home produced sugar.


I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the original Estimate is mentioned here, but he will not think the insertion of this reference to the original Estimate gives him the right to argue the principle of the beet sugar subsidy, on the Supplementary Estimate.


I am afraid that I have not made myself clear. I do think that I am now in order. I do not contest the fact that I was straying beyond the point of Order in discussing the committee of inquiry, but I would point out that the figure mentioned in the footnote which I have quoted does not relate to the original Estimate but to the Excise Duty, which is a different matter from the subsidy. The footnote is put in as an indication to the House and the public that the Excise Duty is a matter of importance and that beet sugar has yielded that amount. If I am out of order, is not the footnote out of order?


No, I think not. The White Paper does not only mention the additional sum required but it also mentions the original Estimate and the revised Estimate. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite proper for the information of the Committee to compare with the original Estimate and the revised Estimate, that is to say with the total Estimate, the Excise Duty to be put against it. That fact does not give the right hon. Gentleman the right to discuss the principle of the comparative operation of the subsidy and of the Excise Duty.


My contention is that it is a misleading footnote, and, indeed, a dishonest footnote. It would lead the Committee to believe that beet sugar production in this country is an advantage to the Exchequer, whereas it is a disadvantage to the Exchequer.


It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman is getting on to the main question as to the advantage or otherwise of the subsidy. In discussing that he would be out of order. Whether the footnote is wrong or not is a matter of opinion. I must not allow myself to be misled by the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman.


My point is whether as it is placed before us it is properly couched, or whether it is a right footnote to have put in, apart altogether from the merits of the subsidy. I suggest that it is not a proper footnote to put before the House of Commons and that it is not a proper consideration that we should have before us when we are voting the Supplementary Estimate. If I am told that I am out of order, the Government are out of order in this footnote. If there was to be a footnote they ought to have said: "Although there is Excise Duty which has yielded a certain amount, if there had been no beet sugar produced in this country the amount that would have been yielded in taxation would have been not in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000 but in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000."


The right hon. Gentleman might quite well complain that he thinks the White Paper is disorderly, or misleading, or dishonest, but even if that be so it does not give him the right to discuss the principle of the beet sugar subsidy.


No, Sir. I am dealing purely with the point of the footnote. I submit that such a footnote ought not to appear, and that if there was to be any footnote dealing with Excise Duty it ought to have been of a nature to show the whole of the facts. I submit that this is not a question of arguing the original subsidy or policy but the purely narrow point of the footnote, and that it is not in order as it appears on the White Paper. The Government ought not to have presented the White Paper in this form.


The right hon. Gentleman is in order in making his complaint upon that particular point. What I am trying to make clear to him is that I cannot allow him, because of that, to go further into the question of the advisability of the principle upon which the subsidy is based. I would remind him that, however disorderly the Government may have been in the production of the White Paper, it does not give him the right to be disorderly in Debate.


I will keep myself strictly to the very narrow point, and I think I shall be within your Ruling in referring to the footnote and in quoting an answer which was given in the House to a question which I addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20th December. I asked: What is the total sum that has been paid in Excise Duty on beet-sugar produced in the United Kingdom since the introduction of the subsidy; and what sum would have been paid in taxation on an equal quantity of sugar if imported from Empire countries and if imported from foreign countries, respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1933; col. 1323, Vol. 284.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied that the total amount of Excise Duty paid on beet-sugar was £10,981,000. If the sugar had been imported from Empire countries it would have been £11,456,000 and if imported from non-Empire countries it would have been nearly £23,000,000. Therefore, there was an enormous loss to the Exchequer through the encouragement of sugar-beet growing in this country compared with what would have happened if the sugar had been imported from foreign countries. Therefore, if a White Paper of this kind is to be presented it should not have been presented in this misleading form, merely asserting that so much Excise Duty has been levied, but it should have been completed by saying that so much Excise Duty has been levied upon beet sugar, but that if that sugar had not been produced and if no subsidy had been granted a very much larger sum in taxation would have been obtained by the Exchequer from imported sugar than was obtained from beet sugar. There are other points with which I should have wished to deal but the Chair has very properly confined the Debate to the narrow limits which are legitimate to a Supplementary Estimate and, therefore, I will conclude by expressing my regret that we still see that this industry, which was established with a view to becoming self-supporting after a short period, is not self-supporting but year after year comes to Parliament for a fresh grant from the heavily burdened taxpayer.

6.31 p.m.


As one who has been concerned for a number of years with the sugar beet industry, I cannot allow the observations of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) to pass entirely unnoticed. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under the delusion that this Supplementary Estimate has something to do with the extended period which is contemplated. It has nothing of the kind. It concerns the last of the 10 campaigns authorised under the original Beet Sugar Subsidy Act. The right hon. Gentleman also seems to desire that the acreage should be reduced as much as possible and that the factories should manufacture as little as possible. May I point out to him that factories can only be run efficiently and economically if they are fully employed, and that as they become more and more efficient year by year they are able to take rather more beet in order to be fully employed and, of course, give employment to more people. The same thing applies on the farm. Each year a farmer who is cultivating sugar beet gets a little more efficient in the handling of the product; he gets a little more per acre and also a better sugar content. This accounts for the greater part of the additional production of sugar for which the Supplementary Estimate is required. The balance is due to the fact that in 1933 the Kelham factory was operating. In the previous year it did not succeed in obtaining a sufficient contract acreage to run a campaign, and at the time when the estimate was made, that is in January, it was impossible to have foreseen that the Kelham factory would run a campaign at all in 1933. I am not going to follow the right hon. Member for Darwen in his partially successful attempt to deal with the general policy of the sugar beet subsidy, but I would remind him that unless every step was taken to promote an increased quantity per acre and an increased efficiency in the factory, this industry would have broken down during the depression and arable agriculture in many parts of the country would have completely collapsed.

6.36 p.m.


I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture one or two questions connected with this Sup- plementary Estimate. My right hon. Friend referred to the question of labour, and I should like to ask him whether this extra amount of £450,000 does not represent employment for about 4,500 people. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has said that there are other crops in agriculture which would provide a great deal of labour, but is it not the fact that sugar beet employs seven men per 100 acres whereas the average number employed on a farm under ordinary circumstances is two men with one boy for each 100 acres? Are we not, therefore, giving more labour by giving some 4,500 men work in the fields and factories by this Suplementary Estimate than has ever been the case in any special scheme to provide £1,000,000 and give work only to some 3,000 or 4,000 men. Again, is not some of this subsidy passed on to the consumer? Under the 1928 Act I believe that about one-sixth is passed on——


I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is now getting dangerously near being out of order.


I will not pursue that point any further. I am content to leave the matter as it is.

6.38 p.m.


Some hon. Members have expressed alarm at the prospect of an enormously increased acreage for sugar beet. One hon. Member suggested that the acreage should be doubled. I do not think it is possible for the factories to have dealt with such a large increase. It is quite true that by increased efficiency they are using more and more sugar beet and that growers are getting a better tonnage per acre and also a better percentage of sugar content, but there is a limit to that, and the factories have set a clear line as to the amount of beet-sugar they can handle in any given season. They are now being offered contracts for more than they can handle. The amount that they can handle they are handling now, and I do not think that existing factories could possibly handle anything like double the present acreage.

6.39 p.m.


Is it not the case that this Supplementary Estimate for an increase in the cultivation of beet sugar has had an advantageous effect on other branches of agriculture, and that employment in various other districts has been increased?


I do not know whether the increase in employment which is a result of this Supplementary Estimate is any different from an increase in employment as a result of the original subsidy.

6.40 p.m.


In regard to the question as to whether in fact the acreage could have been doubled and a correspondingly larger subsidy demanded from Parliament, there are many limiting factors, beyond the amount of money voted. I do not think that the fund available would have in any way sufficed in this last year to carry out any large expansion of acreage. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) spent some time in referring to the disorderly nature of the White Paper which has been issued, really an innocent little document to draw down such condemnation. I hope that it is not disorderly, and all the more so because the footnote to which he drew attention, and which was in his opinion so disorderly, is exactly the same footnote as was included in all previous Estimates, including the Estimate of the Cabinet of which he was a Member.


If I was disorderly then, it is disorderly now.


I hesitate to say that my right hon. Friend was not only disorderly then but was dishonest, which was one of the charges he made against this footnote. I will assume that both these suggestions were made in a Pickwickian

sense. If I am dishonest, then he is dishonest; if I am disorderly, he is disorderly. I am content to stand at the bar of public opinion in the company of such a financial purist as the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to his observations on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) was correct and that it refers to the last of the 10 campaigns. The remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear the interpretation that he was referring in both the clauses of his sentence to what would happen after the expiration of the subsidy, and not to the termination of the Act.


Then there will be an inquiry before we are asked to continue the subsidy?


I am not going to be led into a discussion on legislation because the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that would be very disorderly indeed. I do not propose to follow his alluring red herring. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) asked whether this did not represent a substantial increase in employment. The total employment given by the subsidy is 45,000 man years, and, therefore, this Supplementary represents actually a larger figure than the 4,500 men which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. It means a total of about 6,500.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £449,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 243.

Division No. 139.] AYES. [6.43 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middieshro., W.) Parkinson, John Allen
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rathbone, Eleanor
Banfield, John William Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Rea, Walter Russell
Batey, Joseph Hicks, Ernest George Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Holdsworth, Herbert Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Daggar, George Jenkins, Sir William Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thorne, William James
Edwards, Charles Kirkwood, David Tinker, John Joseph
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Leonard, William Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Lunn, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) McEntee, Valentine L. Wilmot, John
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Mainwaring, William Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Milner, Major James
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gluckstein, Louis Halle Peake, Captain Osbert
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Goldie, Noel B. Peat, Charles U.
Albery, Irving James Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Percy, Lord Eustace
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Gower, Sir Robert Perkins, Walter R. D.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Petherick, M.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Granville, Edgar Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Greene, William P. C. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Grimston, R. V. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Apsley, Lord Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Aske, Sir Robert William Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Hannon, Patrick Joseph [...] Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hartland, George A. Ramsbotham, Herwald
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rankin, Robert
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Rawson, Sir Cooper
Balniel, Lord Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Reid, David D. (County Down)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Hore-Belisha, Leslie Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Horsbrugh, Florence Remer, John R.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rickards, George William
Bilndell, James Hume, Sir George Hopwood Ropner, Colonel L.
Boothby, Robert John Graham Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Broadbent, Colonel John Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Runge, Norah Cecil
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Ker, J. Campbell Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Kerr, Hamilton W. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Burghley, Lord Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Salt, Edward W.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Burnett, John George Leech, Dr. J. W. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Leighton, Major B. E. P. Savery, Samuel Servington
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Levy, Thomas Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Lewis, Oswald Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Lindsay, Noel Ker Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Llewellin, Major John J. Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Castiereagh, Viscount Lloyd, Geoffrey Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Loder, Captain J. de Vere Smithers, Waldron
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Somerset, Thomas
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Somervell, Sir Donald
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) Lyons, Abraham Montagu Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Soper, Richard
Clarry, Reginald George MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. McCorquodale, M. S. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Conant, R. J. E. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Cook, Thomas A. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Cooke, Douglas McKie, John Hamilton Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Cooper, A. Duff McLean, Major Sir Alan Storey, Samuel
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Strauss, Edward A.
Craven-Ellis, William Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest Strickland, Captain W. F.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Crooke, J. Smedley Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Crossley, A. C. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Tate, Mavis Constance
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.) Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Davison, Sir William Henry Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Dawson, Sir Philip Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k) Train, John
Denman, Hon. R. D. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Tree, Ronald
Donner, P. W. Mitcheson, G. G. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Doran, Edward Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Turton, Robert Hugh
Drewe, Cedric Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Duckworth, George A. V. Morgan, Robert H. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Eastwood, John Francis Morrison, William Shephard Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Eden, Robert Anthony Moss, Captain H. J. Whiteside, Borns Noel H.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Whyte, Jardine Bell
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Munro, Patrick Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Nall, Sir Joseph Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Elmley Viscount Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Wise, Alfred R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Withers, Sir John James
Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard North, Edward T. Womersley, Walter James
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Nunn, William Worthington, Dr. John V.
Fox, Sir Gifford O'Connor, Terence James
Fremantle, Sir Francis O'Donovan, Dr. William James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.
Glossop, C. W. H. Patrick, Colin M.

Question put, and agreed to.