HC Deb 25 February 1935 vol 298 cc879-95

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question, That a sum, not exceeding £2,146,300, 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, 1935, for a Grant to the Cattle Fund.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,146,200, be granted for the said Service."

9.11 p.m.

Mr. PALING

We were told that the cattle industry was in such a parlous state that unless this subsidy were given, entirely for the benefit of the producers of cattle, the cattle industry would go out of operation. I wish to put one or two questions to the Minister about that, because it was a rather serious statement. The Minister is aware that the producer is getting only a portion of the subsidy and, in the opinion of a number of people, only a small portion. Has the Minister tried to ascertain how much of the subsidy is actually going to the people to whom it was intended? In one or two other schemes for which the Minister has been responsible—the wheat scheme, for instance—there is a committee of inquiry, and I think the same is also true of the milk marketing scheme. Is it likely that we shall also have a committee of inquiry to find out whether this money has gone where it should have gone—to the cattle producer? In the words of the Prime Minister, are we to appoint somebody to inquire into the consequences of the consequences? We ought to know the answer to that question before this Committee is required to pass this money which, in the Minister's own words, was intended for people in an industry which was on the verge of bankruptcy. The Minister admits that those people are not getting it, and we are therefore entitled to know who is getting it, and whether he is taking any measures to ascertain who is getting it.

It was admitted on a previous occasion that a committee appointed in regard to the subsidy had carried out their duties in a very satisfactory manner. I see a statement before us in regard to salaries for those people, and a figure of £26,140. There is a figure of £11,000 for office and administration expenses. I would like to know whether those people are engaged merely in paying money to the producers or whether they have any responsibility in getting to know where the money goes after they have paid it out. Is the £11,000 paid merely on the basis of administering the subsidy to the producers and no further notice is taken, or have those people, who are in an Office upon which a considerable amount of money is spent, any responsibility not only in paying the money out but in seeing where it has gone? Lastly, can the Minister tell us how many people are employed in the administration?

9.15 p.m.

Major HILLS

I would point out that the largest part of this money has been spent already, so that it is no use inquiring about it now, and the whole Act will come to an end on the 30th June next. It would be putting rather a heavy burden on the official of the Ministry if, after he has carried out his duty under the Act and paid the 5s. to the producer, we were to say that he should enter into an economic and mathematical calculation in order to inform the country and the House where the 5s. has gone to. It has been paid to the producer—there is no doubt about that; it has not been misapplied; but has the price that he receives been so far reduced that as a matter of fact the 5s. gives no advantage to the farmer? I think that that is the real question.

From inquiries that I made, I found that at the beginning of the subsidy period the farmers thought that the butcher was getting it, but towards the end I found a change of opinion, and they thought that anyhow part of it, in some cases a substantial part, was going to the stock-raiser. I think that that is understandable in the case of a falling market, and prices have fallen very fast during the last two or three years. It is quite possible that the fall which has occurred was a natural fall which was not entirely stayed by the subsidy. Anyhow, farmers who were paid the subsidy on a falling market, when prices were lower than before would be the last people who would be inclined to think that they had got the subsidy if they had not; and yet I found farmers who, in spite of the fact that they were receiving a lower price, still thought that part of the subsidy had come to them. Their complaint against the subsidy was that it unduly favoured the farmer who had beasts ready for the market, for the fanner who was caught with a large amount of very young stock could not bring forward those animals in time to sell them in the market and gain the subsidy. The subject is a very wide one, and I do not want to dogmatise; I can only repeat what I am told; but I think that on the whole the stock-raiser did benefit, and in some cases to a substantial amount.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART

It strikes me as rather extraordinary that, after these large sums of money have been freely voted, most of the discussion should now be as to whether the money has actually reached the people for whom it was voted.

I was not fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir Dennis, in the previous Debate, and I am not sure whether what I am about to suggest will be in order, but I will make my effort, and no doubt I shall be pulled up if necessary. I should like to put this point to the Minister, as reflecting the view, not only of hon. Friends of mine on these benches, but also of stock-raisers in my division, which is one of the most important beef-fattening districts in Scotland. They are at the moment, and have been for the last year, carrying on from stage to stage without knowing what is going to happen to them a reasonable time—say six months—ahead. This additional subsidy takes them on for a further three months, and there is a possibility of their being taken on for three months after that, but what we on these benches and the farmers are concerned about is as to what is the scheme behind this—in what plan this scheme finds a place.

The Minister has already given us an assurance that he has no intention of expanding unduly the production of meat in this country, but up to what point is production to be allowed? The farmers whom I represent want to know whether it is wise to increase their production of meat or to decrease it. The policy which one hopes will be adopted, after conference with the Dominions, will be to lay down a method of maintaining prices, and I think all of us would welcome that; but for what amount of cattle are prices to be maintained? I am concerned to know what is the object of our agricultural policy, and I would like to put to the Minister a suggestion made to him, I think, in the "Times" a few days ago, that for the benefit of us all, and particularly of meat producers, he should issue at some time soon a White Paper setting out, in the broadest outline if he likes, the aims that he has for agriculture as a whole, and especially for meat as one section of agriculture. I think it is essential that we should know that. At the moment we go from milestone to milestone, but we are never very sure what town we are making for, or how far away it is. Agriculture demands, and is entitled to have before it, some clear objective. Meat production fits in from day to day with other sides of agriculture. It is only one part of a whole—in Scotland much the most important part—but the other things depend upon it, and, if we are not clear as to the object of this all-important part, the other sections are affected, and there is a general tendency to reduce the vitality of the whole industry.

I do not know whether the Minister can give any reply to that question now. During the Scottish Debate I addressed the same kind of question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I asked him where we were going, and. I said to him then that I supported these demands because I was in formed that they were emergency demands. I suppose I shall continue to vote for emergency regulations, but there is in my mind a feeling of uneasiness. The Minister must have the same feeling of uneasiness in his own mind. Representing a division which is, I should say, almost 100 per cent. behind the Government, I can ask, as a friend of the Government, for some guidance as to the general objective that we are to have in mind. I am sure that it would be to the Minister's advantage to prepare a White Paper. It would certainly be to the advantage of agriculture, and it would make those on this side of the House supporters, not only of emergency regulations, but of carefully planned steps towards one objective. I beg the Minister, either to-night or at some very near future date, to give us a reply on these points.

9.25 p.m.

Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLES-BRISE

I just want to say a word on this vexed question as to who has received the subsidy which the House is now Toeing asked to continue. In my view, there is not the slightest doubt that it has gone where Parliament intended it to go, that is to say into the pockets of the producer, and helped him to get back a portion of his cost of production. At the time when the subsidy came into operation on 1st September last year, there happened to be a rapidly falling market for fat stock. As the Minister stated, the fall had been going on for years, and the coming into operation of the subsidy last autumn did not, in my view, affect the situation of that general fall in prices one way or the other.

The fall was accentuated at that particular time by an act of Providence. We had a very dry summer, and beasts which purported to have been fattened on marshes and pastures were coming on to the market not in that same finished condition in which they usually do arrive on the market at that time of the year. That was purely a seasonal accident, but it had the effect that these animals which were not so well finished as usual did come on to the fat stock markets and accentuated the fall in price already going on through the law of supply and demand. The real reason for the fall in the price level of fat stock which has been going on so long has been the old economic law of supply and demand. There has been a larger supply than there has been a demand. I think the right way to look at the question of whether the subsidy has reached the pocket of the producer or not is to look at it the other way round. Had it not been for the subsidy, undoubtedly the producer of fat stock in this country would have been 5s. per cwt. worse off than he has been during the last five months.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

I am sure that we are all indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) for his business-like speech. I do not think that any practical man in the House or outside doubts that if the subsidy had not been given the producer of fat stock would have been 5s. per cwt. worse off than before. I was asked if the money has gone to the producer. Of course, it goes to the producer. I am asked how it goes to the producer. It goes in the most practical way possible of giving money; it is put into his hand. I was also asked whether the administrator took any steps afterwards to see what the producer did with the money. The answer is "No." We take no further responsibility after the money is paid into the man's hand. It is put into his hand, and the administrator could no more follow it up than the owners of a coal mine could follow up the miner's wages after he has drawn them. There is a great deal of interference with all things before we get them, but we resent it very much if anybody presumes to interfere with us after we get them.

The subsidy of 5s. has been of great advantage to the livestock producer in this country, and had it not been for the money voted by this House undoubtedly fat stock producers would have been very much worse off. In the early months the producer got the subsidy and got a rise in prices as well. I have had taken out the prices month by month. On 5th September the market price for beef was 3s. above what it had been in the previous year, so that the producer was then getting the 5s. subsidy and the 3s. rise in price. On 4th October the price was still 4d. above what it was at that time the previous year, so that the producer got the 5s. plus the 4d. On 1st November the price was 6d. below what it had been the previous year, so that with the sub sidy the producer was still getting 4s. 6d. more. On 6th December the price was 1s. 8d. below what it had been the previous year, so that the producer was 3s. 4d. up. On 3rd January the price was 2s. 9d. below what it had been the previous year, so that the producer was still 2s. 3d. up. When I am told by some hon. Members that after Parliament has voted these considerable sums we still do not know whether they go to the producers or not, I can say that these figures clearly show that in the early stages more than all these grants went to the producer and that in the later stages a considerable sum has still gone to him.

One or two specific questions were put to me by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) which I should briefly answer. I do not intend to set up any committee of inquiry because this is a temporary Act. The hon. Member asked whether the administrators had any further responsibility after the money was paid over, and the answer is in the negative. He also asked how many people were employed, and the answer is 202. That I think deals with all the points which have been raised, except for certain matters raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) who asked if I could issue not merely a White Paper showing the general bearing of policy, which is what was asked for by the "Times," but a further thing only asked for by himself, namely, a categorical list of how much agricultural produce should be produced in this country for several years to come. Did I understand the hon. Member rightly? Is that what he is seriously asking for?

Mr. H. STEWART

That is not exactly what I said. I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would not give producers in broad outline the total volume of production to which agriculture in this country should start.

Mr. ELLIOT

It must be not only a broad, but a fairly correct outline. It is not enough to say that I should like about 100,000,000 gallons of milk or 300,000,000 gallons of milk produced. I must give a correct estimate. If I had done that a year or two ago, the hon. Gentleman's beet-sugar factory would not have had any beet. It would have been very easy to give such a categorical list including how much beet-sugar acreage there was to be in the United Kingdom. But then his factory would have been cut out altogether.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

We really cannot go into the question of beet-sugar.

Mr. ELLIOT

My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife several times looked very tentatively towards the Chair when he was speaking, but he was not pulled up, and I took that as an indication that I was expected to follow him into the extremely wide field of discussion that he raised. I hear with delight and joy the ruling that I should be out of order in going into it, because I am quite sure that to set up categorical lists of how much the producer is expected to produce would be immediately followed by demands for a great many other equally detailed estimates, and I fear that the most enthusiastic of planners might break down before such a scheme. I think it is clear that the Committee is desirous of helping the agricultural industry; that on the whole it desires that this time should continue to be afforded while we continue this exploration. I hope very much that the Committee will now see fit to give us the Committee stage of the Vote.

9.36 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

I should like to say a word about the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has just put forward as regards all this money getting to the farmer. He seems to think, first of all, that a sufficient proof that the farmer is benefiting to the extent of 5s. a cwt. is the fact that you pay the money into his own hand. Surely he will admit, as he did in the latter part of his argument, that if he gets a lower price by reason of getting the 5s. he is not really getting the benefit of the 5s. at all.

Mr. ELLIOT

I do not think anyone suggested that he is getting a lower price by reason of getting the subsidy.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I am not sure. What did the right hon. Gentleman himself say? He said that in September by reason of this policy he was not only getting this 5s. but an extra 3s.; in October he was getting not only the 5s. but an extra 4d., whereas in January he was only getting 2s. 3d.

Mr. ELLIOT

I certainly said there had been a fall in these prices extending not only over one year but four, and that the subsidy had not succeeded in arresting that fall. But that is a different thing from saying it was responsible for it. If it has been responsible for it now, what was responsible for the fall during the three years when there was no subsidy being paid?

Sir S. CRIPPS

That is a very easy question to answer. What was responsible was the law of supply and demand. The right hon. Gentleman said his subsidy in September was responsible not only for giving the farmer 5s. more but also 3s. in addition, and I was quarrelling with the proposition of these figures that he gave us for each month to prove how the farmer had benefited. What is the purpose of giving us the figures otherwise?

Mr. ELLIOT

I never said the subsidy was responsible for the rise in price over and above the subsidy. How could I have said such a thing? If I did, I apologise for giving so false an impression. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman bring his powerful intelligence down to the question whether the fall was or was not due to the subsidy which I understand was the argument that he was advancing.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman had given us these detailed figures with some purpose. I now understand that he did not; they mean nothing, and therefore we can dismiss them.

Mr. ELLIOT

rose—

Sir S. CRIPPS

I want to get two consecutive sentences without an interruption from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. ELLIOT

Then why ask a question?

Sir S. CRIPPS

I was not asking any question, I said it was a pity that he troubled his clerks to get out these detailed figures as they are apparently of no use whatever. [Interruption.] If they are of use to the rest of the House, I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. What I understand him to say now with his great intellect which, as we know surpasses that of any others in the House—I do not deny that proposition—is that the farmer has benefited to the extent of 5s. in each of the months from September to February irrespective of the fall in price. I hope that I have the right answer at last.

Mr. ELLIOT

I hesitate to interrupt; I do not know whether these questions are purely rhetorical or whether the hon. and learned Gentleman really desires an answer. I will sit down in a moment if he does not desire an answer.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I desire it.

Mr. ELLIOT

We are again at one. We are frequently at one in this discussion. The farmer all through all these months has been 5s. better off than he would have been if there had been no subsidy.

Sir S. CRIPPS

At last we have an answer which hitherto I understand the right hon. Gentleman had been unable to give us. When we were discussing the matter earlier, he said he could not say where the money had gone but that a great part of it had gone into the farmer's pocket. Now he says that the whole of the 5s. throughout the whole of the period has gone into the farmer's pocket. Is that right? The right hon. Gentleman has a difficulty in answering.

Mr. ELLIOT

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to be interrupted?

Sir S. CRIPPS

Yes.

Mr. ELLIOT

Good. I say that in each of these months the farmer was 5s. better off than he would have been had there been no subsidy, although in each of the successive months he has been subject to general adverse conditions and a falling market.

Sir S. CRIPPS

If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the speech that he made when the matter was passing through the House in another stage he will find that he then said he could not say that the farmer had got the benefit of all the subsidy, though in the earlier months he got most of it.. I understand that since then he has had some further information, no doubt from his staff, which is an extremely competent one, which now leads him to say as a responsible Minister in asking for these £2,000,000 that the farmer has got the whole of the subsidy throughout the whole of the period without any deduction whatsoever by the middle man or anyone else. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to deny it?

Mr. ELLIOT

It is very difficult to get these points home to one who is so inexperienced as a stock-breeder. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that during all this time the farmer was continuously subjected to adverse influences and to a falling market. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise the bearing of that on the rest of my remarks.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I do not claim at the moment to be much of a stock-breeder. Unfortunately, I had that experience in the past, but I had to give it up. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because of the falling market!"] Because of the falling market. Unfortunately I never survived into the period of the National Government or I might perhaps have gone on indefinitely as long as Parliament was prepared to vote millions to the farmers. Now we again hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he can guarantee that the whole of this 5s. has been received throughout the whole of the period by the farmer and has not gone into any other pocket. That, I agree, is a very satisfactory declaration for him to be able to make.

Mr. ELLIOT

It is also not what I said.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I am in the greatest difficulty. Though I may not be a stock-breeder I am accustomed to asking people questions, and I know that in asking some people questions it is extremely difficult to get a concise and definite answer to them. But I am bound to assume—because it would not be right to delay the Committee with any further cross-examination—that the whole of this 5s. has gone into the pockets of the farmer every month during the whole of the period and that no one else has benefited by it. If that be so, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what the right hon. Gentleman's policy is. He says this fall in price is due to the law of supply and demand irrespective of the subsidy which has had no effect at all upon that law of supply and demand. It has not caused people to send more beasts into the market than they would otherwise. If that had happened, one could have understood this fall in price. Does he then say that the supply at present is too great? I presume he must. That would account for the falling prices. He now proposes that we should apply a subsidy to keep up this too great supply. That seems to me to be very bad planning.

Mr. ELLIOT

If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read my earlier speech with the attention that he has devoted to some of it, he would realise that I said there had been a diminished and not an increased supply and therefore we considered it advisable and justifiable to go on with the present policy.

9.45 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Whatever the estimates were, we are dealing with the expenditure of money which is to be expended, I understand, over the next few months, up to the end, I take it, of the financial year. The present supplementary estimate, I imagine, will last us to the end of the present financial year, and we shall not have another supplementary before the end of the financial year. During that period it now seems, from the general trend of prices, which, incidentally, he has told us has been going on for three years in exactly the same way, so that it is nothing new, there is too great a supply, and that is why the price is falling. In spite of that, he proposes to give a subsidy in order to encourage too great a supply to continue. That is the effect of the subsidy. We find prices falling, and, under ordinary processes, it would theoretically cut off supply. That is how capitalism regulates supply. When prices fall to a certain level, production becomes unremunerative, and therefore production is lessened. I think that is the orthodox capitalist creed.

Mr. ELLIOT

Not the orthodox farmers' creed.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I thought the farmer was a very orthodox capitalist. I think that the farmers look upon the right hon. Gentleman, from what I have heard from them, as a very unorthodox capitalist. The fall in price shows, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, that there is too great a supply. He agrees with me there does he not? I should not like to think that I was misrepresenting him, and that is why I give him every opportunity to interrupt me if he thinks I am wrong. I see that he thinks that I am right in saying that it indicates too great a supply. The House of Commons is being asked in these circumstances not to do something to limit the supply which the right hon. Gentleman would like to do, but to do something to encourage the supply. That is to say, insead of letting the low price regulate the supply to a lower level, he is keeping up the price by putting on the subsidy so as to continue a great supply.

In those circumstances, surely he must see that he will be continuing the great supply, and will be making the necessity for the continued payment by this House of a continued subsidy if the price continues to fall by this natural law operating for three years, and which since last September has brought the price down to something like 6s. It seems to us that it is a most Mad Hatter type of economics altogether, merely to throw away into the pool, as it were, a large sum of money without any real policy behind it, and without knowing whether your supply is right, and without making any plans for your supply to meet demand, or for demand to meet your supply, is something which we can neither encourage nor vote for.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT

I should not like the hon. and learned Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. I did not think that be was likely to vote for us on this occasion. The Committee is quite clear as to one reason why the right hon. Gentleman lost money in farming, and why he gave up stock breeding. If he did not know anything more than what he knows now, I am not surprised that he lost money. He has gone on the assumption that I am going to subsidise all the market. He did not get that idea from me. Do not supplies come from outside, and are not these the supplies which are being regulated, to which the quota applies, and the supplies which had increased and which are not being subsidised. If so, what becomes of the whole case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Absolutely nothing, and for that reason we should be quite pleased to have him vote against us on this occasion.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. YOUNG

One concludes from this little dialogue that there is a special system of mathematics attaching to the stock-raising industry, just as there is special book-keeping by farmers. It has been said that it is in Sussex that the best farmers can be found. It is said that sometimes in one year a farmer makes £500 profit, and the next year £200, and that he goes round the markets telling people that he has lost £300 that year. We who represent industry more than agriculture wonder sometimes whether the farmer is as badly off as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister attempts to paint him. We have listened for a long time to the right hon. Gentleman who has spent much ingenuity in pointing out the impossibility of their making both ends meet. We wonder sometimes when we see them in the market tumbling over each other to buy cattle, and remember how much advantage they have had already from the Government in the form of different subsidies, whether they are entitled to any more at the expense, in the long run, of people who live in the industrial areas. The farmer has been the spoilt pet of the nation for many years past. To begin with, he pays no rates except upon his house.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman seems now to be making a speech more appropriate to a general Debate than to the Amendment.

Mr. YOUNG

As the industrial population largely pays this subsidy, I think that we have a right to know, first of all, what becomes of the money which is voted for the farming industry. I listened to a good part of the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman and he suggested, as part of his mathematical calculations, that whatever happened to the wholesale prices, they were not reflected to any considerable extent in retail prices. He used the figure of 70 per cent. wholesale as being reflected only to the extent of 10 per cent. in retail prices. Consequently, as his argument set out to prove, it made very little difference to the consumer as far as prices were concerned. We can only say that if that be true, the retailer before that was making such an excessive profit that he could afford to cut his profit to the extent of 50 per cent. on the calculation which the right hon. Gentleman himself made. If that be so, there is a very strong case against the granting of the concession of the subsidy as proposed now until we know exactly what is to become of it, and what big share the middleman gets out of it. One of the Northern newspapers has reported to-day that the leaders of the miners' union approached the coal miners at Newcastle, and asked them if they would join forces with them to enable them to get a subsidy from the State for the miners. One can see the force of that argument, because the leader of the deputation representing the miners pointed out that the Government have granted £75,000,000 in subsidies during recent years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is again getting away from the actual Amendment.

Mr. YOUNG

I used that only as an illustration. I can understand the very narrow limitations. The point I want to make is this: Are not we who have to pay these subsidies entitled to make these objections? Whether the subsidy is large

or small, it is undoubtedly paid by people who have to consume beef. If it is passed in the name of a subsidy it is simply a slight form of protection against which even Conservatives were revolting very vocally a few years ago. It was only about two years ago that the Lord President of the Council, in a speech he made in London, said that the reason why they did not like a duty on meat was because no one duty on meat could be effective; it would be futile and a humbug. Lord Hailsham expressed similar views. We say that while we are victims of a protectionist system, whether by way of subsidies or anything else, we are entitled to make a protest against this further grant to the farming interest, which has already had far more than it has been entitled to. It has received grants out of all proportion to the service which it renders to the nation. We have to make our protest by opposing the Government on this Vote, as we have opposed them previously.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,146,200 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 148.

Division No. 61.] AYES. [9.57 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Rathbone, Eleanor
Banfield, John William Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Rea, Walter Russell
Batey, Joseph Grundy, Thomas W. Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Bernaye, Robert Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Thorne, William James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Cleary, J. J. Leonard, William West, F. R.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Macdonald, Gordon (ince) White, Henry Graham
Cripps, Sir Stafford McEntee, valentine L. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Daggar, George Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton) Mainwaring, William Henry Wilmot, John
Edwards, Charles Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Maxton, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Nathan, Major H. L. Mr. John and Mr. Paling.
Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan) Parkinson, John Allen
NOES.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Burnett, John George Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Albery, Irving James Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Eastwood, John Francis
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Aske, Sir Robert William Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Conant, R. J. E. Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Cook, Thomas A. Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Cranborne, Viscount Fermoy, Lord
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Craven-Ellis, William Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Crooke, J. Smedley Fremantle, Sir Francis
Boulton, W. W. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Ganzonl. Sir John
Bower, Commander Robert Talton Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Glossop, C. W. H.
Brass, Captain Sir William Davles, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil) Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Dawson, Sir Philip Gower, Sir Robert
Broadbent, Colonel John Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham) Doran, Edward Greene, William P. C.
Gretton, Colonel Bt. Hon. John Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Salmon, Sir Isidore
Gunston, Captain D. W. Margetton, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Hammersley, Samuel S. Mayhew, Lleut.-Colonel John Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Headiam, Lleut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Mills, Major J. D, (New Forest) Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer.ties) Smithers, Sir Waldron
Hills, Major Bt. Hon. John Waller Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Somervell, Sir Donald
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Munro, Patrick Soper, Richard
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Stevenson, James
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. O'Connor, Terence James Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Stones, James
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Orr Ewing, I. L. Strauss, Edward A.
Kirkpatrick, William M. Pearson, William G. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Knight, Holford Penny, Sir George Sutcliffe, Harold
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Petherick, M. Tate, Mavis Constance
Leech, Dr. J. W. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Pike, Cecil V. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Levy. Thomas Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Tree, Ronald
Liddall, Walter S. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lindsay, Noel Ker Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles) Tulnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Liewellin, Major John J. Romer, John R. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Rickards, George William Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Loder, Captain J. de Vera Ropner, Colonel L. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Loftus, Pierce C. Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Mabans, William Ross, Ronald D. Womersley, Sir Walter
MacAndrew, Lleut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
McCorquodale. M. S. Rothschild, Jamet A. de TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward Sir Frederick Thompson and Mr.
McKie, John Hamilton Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Blindell.
McLean, Major Sir Alan Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Resolution agreed to.