HC Deb 21 May 1935 vol 302 cc1018-31

Amendment made: In page 138, line 30, after "service" insert "or a civil post."—[Mr. Butler.]

6.56 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I beg to move, in page 138, line 31, after "affected," to insert: or if by reason of a fall in the sterling exchange value of the rupee.? On 4th April an hon. Friend of mine moved an Amendment to Clause 238 of the original draft of the Bill providing for payment in addition to salary of exchange compensation allowance. The matter was debated at considerable length at that time, as will be found in col. 669 to 675 and col. 721 to 731 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Secretary of State appeared at the time to have accepted the principle underlying the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but be stated quite naturally that he must give 'further consideration to the whole matter, as he saw difficulties about putting the proposal into precise words. Therefore he could not give an explicit promise. But his attitude was undoubtedly unusual, because it was extremely sympathetic to the views we put forward. I mean that it was unusual in that particular case, although no one could be more sympathetic than my right hon. Friend when dealing with other subjects. The Amendment was withdrawn because we understood that the subject was open to review.

As far as we can see none of the Secretary of State's Amendments to the Bill on Report refers to this matter. That is why this Amendment and one which stands later on the Order Paper have been put there. This Amendment does no more than attempt to specify a fall in the exchange value of the rupee as proper ground for the payment of compensation. It is merely implementing statements which I think the Secretary of State made in the Debate on 4th and 5th April. This is a matter which has created very deep concern amongst those who are likely to be affected, and I would remind the Secretary of State that the matter was covered under previous rules and instructions and that the principle has been admitted in the past. I hope he will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

Sir A. KNOX

I beg to second the Amendment.

The object is to stabilise the exchange at a rate that is not less favourable than the rate at present in force for civil servants. The present rate of ex change is 1s. 6d. per rupee. That has been the rate for a long time. I under stand that all withdrawals from the Provident Fund and so on are paid at that rate at present. It is feared that the new Government in India might possibly go in for inflation. In that case the value of rupee might be less favourable to those ex-civil servants who have to draw their pensions out of India. The Amendment we have put down proposes to stabilise the rate of payment for pensions that are in rupees, and paid outside India, and to stabilise the value of the rupee at ls.9d., and to keep that rate.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) referred to the discussion which took place on this subject during the Committee stage, and quoted references to the Debates of the 4thand 5th April. I do not deny that the Government consider that any question such as this which might prejudicially affect the Members of the Civil Service should be looked upon with sympathy in order that it should be dealt with in case of necessity. We consider that this will be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill, as I shall show later. But before doing that I must give the House the exact words which I used in answering the Debate on that occasion. I said: In view of all these problems and the difficulty of meeting them in any simple and easy manner in the statute, we consider that the matter had much better be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to carry on the policy which he has under taken in the past. Then I said, after referring to the possibility of informal discussions about this matter with one or two hon. Members: I do not want to give any undertaking that we have any easy method of placing it on the statute, since we consider that it would be very difficult and, if put in in the wrong way, would be very undesirable.?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1935; cols. 729–30, Vol. 300.] That, I think, was the view of the Government, and that is substantially the view of the Government to-day. In Committee the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) put many complicated points which have been raised on this subject and explained the difficulties of fore seeing exactly what might arise and what the economic conditions would be in India and England if by any possibility the rupee were to depreciate. It was their opinion—and the opinion was shared by a great many Members in the Committees at that time—that anything laid down in the Statute would be almost impossible and that it would not in fact achieve the end desired. The first of these Amendments which we are considering is the simplest possible way in which an hon. Member can put forward what he has in mind, and I readily acknowledge that. It is much simpler and easier to put it in the Statute than the second Amendment which is very complicated, and which we do not think would be desirable on any ground. Let me, therefore, refer chiefly to the first Amendment—though my remarks will cover both of them. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth desires that there should be a proper ground for payments of compensation inserted in the Bill, and desires that the present arrangement whereby this question is regulated by rule should be secured and continued. The rule that payments at a certain rate should be paid for rupee pensions converted into sterling will be carried on by the rule made by my right hon. Friend and protected by this Bill. There is another rule for provident funds which, though of a different type, will be governed by the conditions of the Clauses in each Service chapter.

I must now address myself to the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, who wants to know whether the Bill as it stands actually covers the potential need to meet the depreciation in the value of pensions and provident funds which would arise from a depreciation of the rupee. The opinion of my right hon. Friend and his advisers is that this matter is covered, notably by Clauses 244 and 246. Clause 246 is the Clause which gives power to grant compensation in cases of necessity. This might be taken to apply to individual cases. Actually it does give a general power of compensation. Under Clause 246 it will be possible to deal either with the isolated case of an Officer serving in some station on the outskirts of India who will be affected by a depreciation of the rupee or, I under stand, with the case of other individual officers who might be affected by the fall in the value of the rupee. But we have made assurance doubly sure. I am informed that in any case, under the references in Clause 244 to pay arid pensions, it would be possible for the security which members of the Services desire to be achieved. I did have a chance of conversation with at least one hon. Member on this subject and I think in that conversation it was possible to illustrate—as I am attempting to illustrate to the House—that the contents of these two Clauses do cover what we have in mind.

Now let me refer to the other safe guards inserted in the Bill. We considered that this matter was better left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. It will be in the interest of the Services in the future that this should be so. Certain hon. and right hon. Gentle men may consider that they cannot rely on a future Secretary of State. In order to meet thatdifficulty—which I realise is one felt by some hon. Members—I would remind them that the Secretary of State in this matter will be guided by his advisers. If the majority of his advisers did not agree with him on this point he would have to conform to their wishes. He is not able to dismiss an adviser simply because he disagrees with him. There are provisions in the Clause relating to the advisers which insist that a large proportion of them shall have had service in India. It is, therefore, virtually certain that these advisers will have no axe to grind, and that they will have the interest of the Services at heart. The Secretary of State being to this extent almost at their mercy, it would be difficult for him, in the very unlikely case of his wishing to do so, to take any action which would be pre judicial to the interest of the Services. I think that safeguard in the constitution of the Secretary of State's Council, coupled with the assurances of the Bill and combined with the undoubted wish of any future Secretary of State to do his best for the Services, really does make the position watertight.

On the question of the possible depreciation of the rupee, I think it is much better not to lay something down definitely in the Bill, but to rely on the assurances which I have attempted to give the House, based as they are on definite provisions in the Statute as it stands at present. In an uncertain matter such as this it is much better to rely on certain powers definitely given to the Secretary of State than to attempt to lay down a head what conditions are likely to be. In view of that firm conviction of the Government, who do desire to do their best for the Services, if this contingency should arise, and in view of the many complicated questions which arose out of it in Committee, I would ask the House not to accept this Amend- ment, and to believe that the matter will be dealt with, if it arises, in this way.

7.10 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether, supposing that the rupee fell again to a shilling, there is any machinery in this Bill which would correspond to what is known as the Exchange Compensation Fund? Does that exist under the Bill? We have heard hopes expressed that some such machinery would be brought in, but I should like to know whether such a fund does exist and whether it will definitely come into effect?

Sir S. HOARE

There is no specific provision for the existence of a fund, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there are full powers in the Bill to give compensation. My own considered view is that it is much better to leave the question of compensation in that general state rather than to attempt to deal with a very complicated contingency here and now. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there are full powers to deal with this. I cannot conceive my self, or any Secretary of State, at any time and to what ever party he belongs, not dealing with such a situation if it arose.

7.12 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

The Under-Secretary has made it quite clear that there is contained in Clauses 244 and 246 powers which the Secretary of State can use to counter such a disability as is contemplated in the Amendment, caused by a fall in the exchange value of the rupee. The Secretary of State has told us that he thinks it much better to leave it with no statutory provision, and that he does not think any Secretary of State in the future—no matter to what political party he might belong—would ever be likely not to deal with the contingency when it arose and see that adequate compensation was made to the Civil Service in case of a great fall in the exchange value of the rupee. But the Amendment de finitely asks that this shall be put in the Bill and that it shall not be left to be governed by the general words in Clause 246 which immediately follow the word "affected," and which read: or if for any other reason it appears to the Secretary of State that compensation ought to be granted.? These words are so wide that there is no question that the Secretary of State has power to deal with the case when itarises—but the Amendment asks that after the word "affected" there shall be put in the words: or if by reason of a fall in the sterling exchange value of the rupee.? Those of us who want to see that the interests of the Civil Service are definitely protected by the provisions of the Clause would much prefer to see the Amendment put in, and to know that any fall in the exchange value of the rupee would definitely be a matter which would be dealt with, rather than leave it in the vague way in which it is now left in those Clauses. I did not think that the Under-Secretary's explanation was satisfactory on that point. He did not tell us why it was in the interests of the civil servants that they should not be specifically safeguarded by Statute in the event of a fall in the exchange value of the rupee whereby the whole of the value of pay and pensions would be affected. He did not tell us why it would be better in their interests not to put those words in. He only told us that in his opinion it was better left for Secretaries of State to deal with if they thought fit. In the circum stances I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) will think it worth while to divide the House, because I am certain that the civil servants would much prefer that this vital point of the exchange value of the rupee should be definitely dealt with in the Bill, so that they may know the value in terms of sterling of the salaries and pensions they get, without any doubt as to what a future Secretary of State might decide.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I cannot understand why hon. Members feel so much apprehension as to any line of action which a future Secretary of State may take on this matter. It is clear that he will look upon it not from the political point of view but from the point of view of pure equity and justice. Hon. Members have possibly over looked this point. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I happen to know that in the last few years civil servants of the Crown in various parts of the Empire have suffered a depreciation in salaries by reason of exchange fluctuations, and, as far as I know, in each of those cases compensation has been given to make the salary under the new conditions equal to what it was under the old conditions. I can not imagine there would be any departure from that custom in respect of British civil servants in India.

Sir B. PETO

The hon. Member would not go so far as to say that the fact that a thing has happened in the past is any guarantee that it will always happen in the future?

Mr. JONES

I think the hon. Baronet will agree that in these matters precedents have a good deal of influence. Civil servants would be shrewd enough to point to a precedent having been laid down in the year so-and-so governing this particular set of circumstances, and I cannot imagine what grounds there can be for this excessive measure of disquiet on the part of hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House. I am not sure whether it is strictly in order to deal with the other point which the Under-Secretary mentioned, but I cannot agree to the proposal that the Secretary of State should be so inexorably in submission to the views of a majority of the Civil Service when be acts as Secretary of State in Council. That seems to be a very grave departure indeed from what is regarded as the principal function of a civil servant in regard to the advice given to Minsters. The Minister is answerable to this House, but I do not see how he can fairly be expected to be answerable to this House when he himself is not in authority but under the authority of those who happen to be on his Council. I can only express apprehension at the wild course which there volutionaries on the Government Bench are taking in this matter.

7.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

If I were an Indian Civil Servant I should prefer not to have this Amendment in the Bill. Clause 246 begins with these words: If by reason of anything done under this Act the conditions of service … have been adversely affected. I think it would hardly be possible for the Indian Legislature to prove that a fall in the currency was due to anything done under this Act, arid I feel that the Secretary of State has far wider powers than this Amendment would give to him. This is a limiting Amendment, because it limits it to any thing that happens under this Act.

Lord E. PERCY

There are also the words "or if for any other reason."

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

That shows the difficulty of reading these Clauses. Having heard the explanation the Secretary of State has given, which shows what wide powers he has, I think this Amendment would be a limiting Amendment, and for that reason I shall vote against it.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES

I confess that I have been very much disappointed by the reply we have had from the Government Benches, although we have been full of disappointments in regard to this Bill. After all, we are asking for no more than this, that the principle of exchange compensation allowances should be allowed under the Bill as it has been allowed in the past in regard to the Civil Service when there has been a depreciation of the rupee. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) to say that he cannot see why anybody here should be disturbed by the present situation, but the people who are disturbed are not so much the Members of this House as the members of the Civil Service. We had this matter dealt with in the Bengal Association, because the Civil Service is afraid of losing the principle, which has always been upheld in the past, that if there is depreciation some compensation allowance shall be granted in order to adjust the difference. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary quoted from what he had said on the Committee Stage, and one realises the difficulties he has had to face in finding some method of dealing with the situation, but I do not think he made one point quite clear. When he replied on the 5th April and said he would further consider the question of giving statutory form to the request for compensation allowance he added the words: On the other hand if the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings considers that it would be valuable my right hon. Friend would be perfectly ready to talk the matter over with him and other hon. Members who have raised this question before the Report stage, in view of the unanimity of opinion in the Committee that this matter should be met."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1935; col.730, Vol. 300.] There was unanimity in the Committee on 5th April, apparently, that the request ought to be met, and there was unanimity in the Bengal Association that something ought to be done, and I do not see that the House has been taken very much further by the statement of the Secretary of State: "It is all right, it is in our discretion to deal with this matter." Nothing new has happened to change the position since 5th April, when the Committee were dissatisfied with the position taken up by the Government, and I very much hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will take his Amendment to a Division, because this is an issue of very great importance.

7.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES

Nothing has been said yet about appreciation in the value of the rupee. After all, most of us remember that in 1920 and 1921 the Government of India officially guaranteed that the value of the rupee would be 2s.After that it rose to 2s. 10½. and subsequently fell back to 1s. 2½d. Everybody in India suffered from those wild fluctuations. If now the rupee appreciates instead of depreciates, are we to understand that the civil servants will gain, because I see no mention of that. It occurs to me that if these words were inserted, so that they did not lose by reason of a fall in the sterling exchange value of the rupee, it might be just and equitable to insert that their salaries should be paid in sterling only, and that if they gained by reason of a rise in the exchange value of the rupee they might, in the converse case, lose that amount in rupees by which they now stand to benefit. Perhaps the Secretary of State, if he replies, will state what is the position of the civil servants if the exchange value of the rupee rises.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

On this matter I find myself in some disagreement with those with whom I am usually associated. In Clause 244 the general conditions are prescribed by rules. Under Clause 246, if anything goes wrong, there are general provisions for putting them right. If we insert one specific item, that is the rate of exchange, there is a danger

of limiting the value of Clause 246. We want to safeguard civil servants against a great many risks. Clause 246, covering "altered conditions "in the service, is very wide, and if we put in special words dealing with one particular risk we make it stand out and diminish the protection in respect of the other risks.

Sir B. PETO

The words which we propose to insert in this Clause are followed immediately by the words "or if for any other reason." No matter what words we put in we cannot do away with "any other reason."

Mr. WILLIAMS

They are sandwiched between the words" have been adversely affected "and" or if for any other reason." If we put in one reason we make it an outstanding feature and diminish the protective authority of the other words. Clause 258 is very important. There has been a good deal of reference to what some future Secretary of State might do, but in Clause 258 it states that the powers conferred by this Chapter on the Secretary of State shall not be exercisable by him except with the concurrence of his advisers. Therefore, in these matters, the Secretary of State is not a free agent. Clause 274 sets out who are the advisers of the Secretary of State: One half at least of the persons for the time being holding Office under this section as advisers of the Secretary of State shall be persons who have held Office for at least ten years under the Crown in India and have not last ceased to perform in India official duties under the Crown more than two years before the date of their respective appointments as advisers under this section. The advisers will be recently retired civil servants—at least half of them will be. Since the Secretary of State must take their advice and since, I think, they are not capable of dismissal in the ordinarysense—except on grounds of incapacity—there is a measure of protection which is very substantial. Having regard to these other Clauses and the danger of the limiting effect of the Amendment, I think that, on balance, the situation will be better if the Amendment is not inserted.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 247.

Division No. 220.] AYES. [7.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel. Blaker, Sir Reginald. Burnett, John George
Atholl, Duchess of. Bracken, Brendan. Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Broadbent, Colonel John. Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Lees-Jones, John Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Davison, Sir William Henry. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Levy, Thomas. Todd, U.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Fuller, Captain A. G. Macquisten, Frederick Alexander. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Gritten, W. G. Howard Mellor, Sir J. S. P. Wayland, Sir William A.
Hales, Harold K. Perkins, Walter R. D. Wise, Alfred R.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Kimball, Lawrence. Remer, John R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Knox, Sir Alfred Rutherford, John (Edmonton) Mr. Raikes and Mr. Emmott
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Glossop, C. W. H. Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. Magnay, Thomas
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Graham, D.M.(Lanark, Hamilton) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Albery, Irving James Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Martin, Thomas B.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan). May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Milner. Major James
Aske, Sir Robert William Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Assheton, Ralph Grimston, R.V. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Attlee, Clement Richard Groves, Thomas E. Morgan, Robert H.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George. Grundy, Thomas W. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Gunston, Captain D. W. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Banfield. John William Guy, J. C. Morrison Morrison, William Shephard
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Most, Captain H. J.
Beaumont, Hn. R. E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Beit, Sir Alfred L. Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Bernays, Robert Hammersley, Samuel S. O'Connor, Terence James
Boulton, W. W. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Harbord, Arthur Orr Ewing, I. L.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Harvsy, George (Lambeth, Kenningt?n) Owen, Major Goronwy
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield). Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes). Paling, Wilfred
Brown, Col. D. C.(N'th ld., Hexham) Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Palmer, Francis Noel
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Parkinson, John Allen
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Patrick, Colin M.
Butler, Richard Austen. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Peake, Osbert
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly). Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Pearson, William G.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G.(Burnley) Hepworth, Joseph Peat, Charles U.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm. Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Penny, Sir George
Cape. Thomas. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Percy, Lord Eustace
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Petherick, M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.). Holdsworth. Herbert. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, s.). Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Procter, Major Henry Adam
Clarke, Frank Hore-Belisha, Leslie Pybus, Sir John
Clayton, Sir Christopher Hornby, Frank Radford, E. A.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Colfox, Major William Philip Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Ramsay, r. B. W. (Western Islet)
Cook, Thomas A. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Ramsbotham, Herwald
Cooke, Douglas Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Ramsden. Sir Euqand
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Rathbone, Eleanor
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jesson, Major Thomas E. Rea. Walter Russell
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) John, William. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Reid. William Allan (Derby)
Cruss, R. H. Ker, J. Campbell Rickards, George William
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Robarts, Aled (Wroxham)
Curry, A. C. Kerr, Hamilton W. Robinson, John Roland
Daggar, George Kirkpatrick, William M. Ropner, Colonel L.
Davies, Edward C.(Montgomery) Kirkwood, David Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Law, Sir Alfred Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Denman, Hon. R. D. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Dickie, John P. Lawson, John James Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B?tside)
Dobbie, William Leckie, J. A. Russell, R. J.(Eddisbury)
Dower, Captain A. V. G. Leech, Dr. J. W. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Drewe, Cedric Leighton, Major B, E. P. Salmon, Sir Isidore
Duckworth, George A. V. Leonard, William Salt. Edward W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lional Lewis, Oswald Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Liddall, Walter S. Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Eady, George H. Llawellin, Major John J. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Eales, John Frederick Lloyd, Geoffrey Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Edwards, Charles Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Shaw, Helen B.(Lanark, Bothwell)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Elmley, Viscount Lunn, William Shute, Colonel Sir John
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Mabane, William Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen). MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr). Somervell, Sir Donald
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Macdonald, Gordon (Ince). Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Fox, Sir GI fiord McKie, John Hamilton Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian McLean, Major Sir Alan Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ganzoni, sir John Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Spens. William Patrick
Gledhill, Gilbert McLean, Or. W. H.(Tradeston) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver(W?morland) Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford). Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Stones, James Train, John Williams. Thomas (York, Don valley)
Storey, Samuel Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wild, Wilfrid D.
Stourton, Hon. John). Turton, Robert Hugh Wilmot, John
Strickland, Captain W. F. Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne) Withers, Sir John James
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L.(Hull) Worthington, Dr. John V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Tate, Mavis Constance Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thomas, James P. L. (Horeford) Wells, Sydney Richard. Mr. Blindell and Sir Walter Womersley.
Thompson, Sir Luke White, Henry Graham
Tinker, John Joseph Williams, David (Swansea, East)