HC Deb 02 April 1936 vol 310 cc2268-85

10.1 p.m.

Mr. BARNES

I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, after "inquiry," to insert: (ii) the report of the person who held the inquiry shall be published. The Minister will recollect that this subject was debated at some length in the Committee. The licensing schemes with which the Clause deals relate to very important matters such as the establishment of licensing, the operation of levies, production quotas, and, in connection with the framing of schemes, the question of inefficient and uneconomic output from refineries, and also the marketing of sugar. It excludes from entering into refining many large concerns which might have an economic output if they entered into manufacturing. In this Clause, dealing with such a range of important matters, the Minister has inserted a provision for a public inquiry and it appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of that inquiry that the report of the person who holds it should remain a secret document. If a public inquiry is to be held, our contention is that the person who conducts the inquiry should accept the responsibility of publishing the report together with the evidence upon which he arrives at his conclusions.

In Committee the Minister sought protection on this point behind one reason only, namely, that it might be to his interest and to the public interest that the person holding the inquiry should have the opportunity of reporting to the Minister in secret. If the Minister desires secret reports on these matters, he ought to adopt a different method. We desire to establish the principle that a public inquiry ought to be public all the way through. We hold that it is inconsistent with the purpose of such an inquiry that the person who must ultimately accept the responsibility of coming to certain conclusions on the evidence, should have the protection of secrecy in making his report to the Minister. It means that aggrieved persons will be confronted with a decision without any knowledge of the facts and evidence upon which it is based and in the interests of public administration we ask that our Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. QUIBELL

I beg to second the Amendment.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. FOOT

I support this Amendment which raises the question of first-class importance. Under a number of statutes Ministers are required or are entitled to hold public inquiries. A Minister sends one of his inspectors or a representative of his Department to hold an inquiry. That is a procedure with which we are familiar but there is a widespread feeling that it is not a very satisfactory procedure because the person who hears the evidence is not the person who arrives at the decision. The inspector or representative of the Department may spend many days in hearing witnesses. He sends in his report but the decision is taken by some official of the Department who may not act on the evidence. His decision may be contrary to the weight of evidence and indeed contrary to the tenor of the inspector's report. Nobody is able to tell, and even if that is not so, it is inevitable that in a large number of cases where you have this secrecy preserved there should be a certain amount of suspicion on the part of the people affected. They are not sure, at any rate, and have no means of knowing, that substantial justice has been done.

This is not a new subject, because it has been raised here on a good many occasions, and I have raised it myself several times. The Lord Chief Justice had something to say on this question of inspectors' reports. In his book "The New Despotism," he has a passage which comes in his chapter on "Administrative lawlessness," and I would like to quote from it. He says: It is sometimes enacted that, before the Minister comes to a decision, he shall hold a public inquiry, at which interested parties are entitled to adduce evidence and be heard. But that provision is no seal safeguard, because the person who has the power of deciding is in no way bound by the report or the recommendations of the person who holds the inquiry, and may entirely ignore the evidence which the inquiry brought to light. He can, and in practice, sometimes does, give a decision wholly inconsistent with the report, the recommendations, and the evidence, which are not published or disclosed to interested individuals. In any case, as the official who decides has not seen or heard the witnesses, he is as a rule quite incapable of estimating the value of their evidence. So far, therefore, as restraining the arbitrary power of the deciding official is concerned, the requirement of a public inquiry is in practice nugatory and it cannot be of much value in enabling him to form a just conclusion. It seems absurd that one official should hold a public inquiry into the merits of a proposal and that another official should be entitled, disregarding the report of the first, to give a decision on the merits. That is a very clear and emphatic statement of opinion from an authority which ought to be held in respect by this House and by Members of the Government. I do not say that the provision for publication of an inspector's report goes all the way to meet the difficulties set out in the quotation which I have read, but at any rate it goes some part of the way, because the person aggrieved is able to judge how far the decision taken by the Department is in accordance with the report on the inquiry.

It will also be in the recollection of this House that this matter was fully considered by the Committee on Ministers' Powers, and I would like to give on other important quotation from the unanimous recommendation of that committee. It was a very strong committee, on which all political parties were represented, and in the main their recommendations were unanimous. They heard a great number of witnesses, and I admit there was a certain conflict of evidence on this question of the publication of reports, but at the end of their report they said: To these various arguments for and against publication we have given prolonged consideration, and on balance have come to the conclusion that publication is right. By that we do not mean that the expense of printing a long report should in every case be incurred; but that in all cases the report of the inspector should be made available to the parties concerned and to the Press, and in important cases should be officially published by the Department responsible for the inquiry. There again you have a perfectly clear recommendation. I have frequently put questions to the Prime Minister asking him how far the Government accepted the recommendations of that Committee, and I have never had a very clear answer. He has always told me that the Government are bearing the recommendations of that Committee in mind for putting into their legislation as occasion arises. Now here is a perfectly clear case where those recommendations have been ignored. I was not on the Committee upstairs, but I was rather staggered to hear the account given by my hon. Friend above the Gangway of what was said there by the Minister, because if that account is correct, and if the Minister did indeed defend secrecy in this matter as being essential or highly desirable, it means that the Minister is taking the responsibility of throwing over altogether the relevant part of the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. If that is so, let us know it clearly, and let us hear that the Government do reject that recommendation.

Mr. ELLIOT

Why not read what was said in the Committee instead of depending on hearsay?

Mr. FOOT

I have only just heard the statement of my hon. Friend, but if the Minister has been misquoted, no doubt he will tell us. If he does accept the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, then he must also accept this Amendment. This is an issue which we have frequently had before this House. We have never had any particular satisfaction from the Government on it, but I hope they will make their attitude clear on this Amendment, so that we shall know where we stand in this matter, not only on this Bill, but on future occasions.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM

The difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment, or Amendments of this nature, is that it is of a peremptory and mandatory kind, and the effect would be to require that the report of an officer who held an inquiry had to be published in any case and in all cases. It might well happen, and it often does happen, that an officer conducting an inquiry of this kind is an officer of a Government Department, and the practice of Government Departments in the past has been, and to-day is, generally speaking, not to publish the reports of officers holding inquiries, but such reports can be published and are published if the Minister thinks it proper to do so. If he so thinks, there is nothing on earth to prevent him from so doing, but it is a very different thing when it is provided by Statute, as is suggested here, that a report shall be published and that there shall be no discretion with the Minister to decide whether it is or is not in the public interest to publish the report.

I think the House should bear in mind that the report of an officer of a Department holding an inquiry as proposed here is a preliminary stage, only one of many stages, which would lead up to the Minister's decision whether or not to modify a licensing scheme in consequence of the objections made to it. The report is only one factor in enabling the Minister to give his ultimate decision, which is an executive act. Therefore, a report of this kind is quite different from reports made by inspectors holding inquiries, for instance, into accidents in factories or into railway accidents, where the inquiry culminates in the report, which is an end in itself. In cases of that sort an inquiry is not a preliminary matter, as in this case, to enable a Minister to come to a decision, but it is with the specific object of finding out certain facts.

Mr. FOOT

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the inquiry foreshadowed here is precisely the sort of inquiry that is dealt with by the Committee on Ministers' powers, and will he say whether or not the Government accept that Committee's recommendations on the subject?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM

I was coming to the hon. Member's point in due course. I must remind the House that the officers conducting these inquiries are officers of a Government Department, who are expected to give the Minister confidential advice as to the form his decision shall take, and if such advice was made public I suggest that it would be necessary to make public all the minutes in departmental files written by the various officers concerned. A state of affairs like that would undermine the confidential relations which exist between Ministers and officers of the Department. If the reports have to be published as a matter of course, it would defeat the intentions of Parliament by giving the duty of making an executive decision not to the Minister who is responsible to Parliament but to the official who produces the report. When the hon. Member claims in aid of his argument the Donoughmore report I would point out that the general conclusion of that committee was in regard to the publication of reports leading up to judicial or quasi-judicial decisions by Ministers. In this case the Minister is not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. He is considering questions of policy, whether or not he will submit the scheme under consideration with or without modifications to Parliament for confirmation by an affirmative Resolution. The Donoughmore Committee is not relevant to the procedure under discussion and, therefore, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I am no more moved by the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary than I was by the reference to the situation in Committee, and in fairness to the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes) I ought to say at once that it is quite impossible to state that he has misrepresented the Minister's attitude in Committee. Let me quote a few words to show how completely justified my hon. Friend was. This is what the Minister said: Honestly, it is not that at all. I am very anxious that we should not delay. The point is that I have had Commissioners inquiring and making reports, who have said, Look here, if you are not going to publish my report, I will give you a good stinking report and tell you exactly What I think.' That is just bluntly the fact and there are conditions obviously when a man wants to let himself go on paper, but he says, If all this is going to be broadcast for the whole world to hear, I cannot do it.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 19th March, 1936; col. 366.] It is not reasonable to say that my hon. Friend misrepresented the Minister when he said that he was defending secrecy. That was his object in making use of those words. He wanted to preserve to himself the right to keep secret these reports. I am going to go much further than that. I know perfectly well from the history of the various inquiries in which the Ministry has been concerned during the last four year that they do not want to have a statutory compulsion put upon them by this House to publish these reports in the public interest.

Let us take the history of this industry into which we are inquiring and examining, in connection with this Bill to-night. I suggest that one of the most scandalous things with regard to it is the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture have for the last four years handled the various conversations, wire-pullings, consultations and the like, and the way in which they have mishandled the results of inquiries. During the course of the discussion of the Bill in Standing Committee I said, and I repeat again, that in its present structure the Bill is a great improvement on what it was when it was under contemplation a couple of years ago. Then it was not so much in the form of a Bill as in the form of a marketing scheme.

I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was very anxious about the public interest and the drain upon the. Exchequer, asking the House to believe him, in March, 1932—four years ago—that there would be at an early date a public inquiry into the whole question whether the subsidy to this industry should be continued. That inquiry was postponed for over two years, and those two years were spent in continuous logrolling, lobbying, conferences and wire-pulling. Then there was the production of a so-called marketing scheme, under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. In fact it was not an agricultural scheme at all. Twenty-two companies—11 manufacturing and 11 refining—were concerned, and it was sought to set up exactly the same type of monopolistic control of the industry as is set up in this Bill, but with the very grave disadvantage that the funds for it were to be raised by a levy—although that was not stated in the scheme—of 2s. 4d. per cwt.—

Mr. ELLIOT

What has that to do with the recommendation that the report should be published?

Mr. ALEXANDER

I am glad the Minister said that; I am not going to let him off on that point. A levy of 2s. 4d. per cwt. was to be put on all sugar. That 2s. 4d. was to be used for the private profit of the limited combine of 22 companies, without anybody else having the right to come in, and with no independent sugar commission as we were able finally to force the Government to create in this Bill for the purpose of dealing with licences. What happened? When the draft scheme was produced, the Minister correctly followed the procedure under the Act of 1931. A public inquiry into the business was duly authorised. That inquiry was held, not, as seemed to be suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, by some special member of the staff of the Ministry, but by a specially appointed judicial person, a King's Counsel, who sat for seven or eight days in public. There was legal representation of the promoters of the scheme, legal representation of some of the opponents of the scheme and layman representation of some of the other opponents of the scheme. I happened to be one of the laymen.

I feel that the exposures in that public inquiry were a strong factor in bringing about a change in the attitude of the Government in this matter, and I am sure that the publicity in the Press at the time had something to do with it. In that inquiry there were witnesses on behalf of the promoters of the scheme who refused to answer questions in the witness-box as to what was the nature of the negotiations between them and the Minister and his Department with regard to the future of the scheme. Obviously the information for which we asked in the public inquiry could not finally be withheld from the Commission, and I do not suppose the Commissioner would have continued his consideration of the evidence unless he could also have been furnished with evidence from the Minister's Department. Then, at the end of four months, after the conclusion of the inquiry, the whole of the stuff for which we were trying to probe appeared in another form by way of an advertisement in the London "Times" published by the promoters of the scheme. From that moment to this, although that was a public inquiry held by a judicial and properly qualified person, we have never had a word printed in public of the result. That is a scandal.

Mr. ELLIOT

Why?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Because we are entitled in the interests of the public who were affected by that scheme, and in the interests of the parties who were objectors to the scheme, especially in view of the enormous drain on the public purse that had taken place, to know what was the final report to the Minister of that Commission after the public inquiry.

Mr. ELLIOT

Has the right hon. Gentleman read his own Agricultural Marketing Act?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Surely the Minister of Agriculture is not going to suggest that all the events that arose out of past Statutes are to remain unchanged or that practices thereunder are not by experience to be improved? If we are going to have gibes about what happened under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, I would point out that the Minister has not hesitated to change it when he liked, and he has changed it very often by making it worse. We are asking in this case for the procedure with regard to public inquiries, so far as they relate to the industry under this Bill, to be improved.

We have had further examples of how vitally necessary it is if Members of the House really regard themselves as the protectors of their constituencies, to impose this compulsion by Statute. We have had a controversy with regard to the price that should be paid by the distributors and consumers of milk. The Minister's colleague who deals with agriculture in Scotland ordered a public inquiry under Section 9 of the Marketing Act. The inquiry was duly held in Scotland. It sat for days and involved great legal expense to distributors and consumers in establishing their case against the high contract prices fixed by the Marketing Board. The report was duly made to the Minister, and we were informed in one bald sentence of the findings of the inquiry, which was that the contract prices fixed for the year were prejudicial to the distributors and were not in the public interest. The next thing we heard was in answer, not to an oral question, but to a written question, that the Secretary of State for Scotland simply did not propose to adopt the findings of the impartial tribunal presided over by a Scottish lawyer which came to that result. Therefore, for the rest of the milk year the consumers in Scotland are to go on paying what in the view of the tribunal are unnecessarily high prices for milk. It is essential that the report of every public inquiry of this kind should be published and be made available to the House and to the public. We are entitled to ask for it in the interests of the whole of the community.

I want to bring the question down to this actual legislation providing for a public inquiry into grievances of applicants for these licences. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Ham has pointed out, the body to be set up will be one to grant licences. Let us not forget that this is not a licence to do this or that in the way of production or distribution in a Socialist community in which whatever is done is for the ultimate benefit of the whole of the community. [Interruption.] Not at all. The hon. Member who interrupts knows perfectly well what is going on, that there is a restriction on the right to produce but there is a right to distribute profits up to 7 per cent., according to the White Paper—and even higher with the consent of the Treasury. It is plain that in connection with applications for licences grievances may arise. The Minister has recognised it. As I have already acknowledged, in many cases he has improved the machinery of control, and so he provides for a public inquiry into these grievances but while doing that he will not accept the suggestion that its findings ought to be published.

The Minister is running a grave risk if he persists in that attitude, which will bring his whole administration of this scheme into disrepute. I am sure that he does not want that to happen. Let him recall what happened in this House on 20th December under the Bacon Board, which deals with another monopoly, or partial monopoly, under a marketing scheme. There we find a development board granting licences. Certain applications for licences are turned down, and an hon. Member stands up in this House to make a protest. I agree that the Minister was quite right in saying that from the way in which that protest was made it practically accused people in connection with the business of sitting first as judges on the tribunal and then of going down into the well of the court and asking for licences such as they had been refusing when they were sitting on the bench of the tribunal. There ought to have been a procedure for a public inquiry in such a case as that. If there are to be charges of corruption and log rolling in these marketing schemes, there ought to be a provision that when such an inquiry is held there shall be full publicity to the Minister, the House and the public at large.

If the Minister is prepared to so far as to take power to order a public inquiry where he finds it necessary—and if it is a public inquiry it is open to the Press to report what is going on—it is only logical and reasonable that at the end of that inquiry the report of the judicial person who presents its findings should also be made available to the public. There can be only one reason for not adopting that course, and that is that the Minister wants to hide from the public the real reasons for what the Parliamentary Secretary calls "the ultimate executive action of the Minister." If the ultimate action of the Minister is justified, he ought to be prepared to stand at that Box and justify it on the basis of the published report in the hands of the Members of the House. He does not desire that, however, but wants to be able to stand up and justify it with the Members of the House having no idea of what the findings are. That is unreasonable; it is not in accordance with the traditions of the House nor it is in the public interest. I shall be very sorry if the Minister is not prepared so to improve the present practice as to provide this element of justice at a time when we are setting up a close monopoly.

Mr. ELLIOT

I must say that it is most extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should make a speech so far from the point as that which he has made to the House.

Mr. ALEXANDER

That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. ELLIOT

It is not a reflection on the Chair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has such an appetite for the subject that we have under discussion, and that he is generally so acute, that I am alarmed to find that his speech has led him so far from his subject.

Mr. EDE

He has caught it from the Minister.

Mr. ELLIOT

Then the sooner we finish our deliberations the better. Most of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman would be properly directed to Clause 19, and have really nothing to do with Clause 21. He talked of the necessity of seeing that, when licences were applied for, grievances were properly ventilated in the light of day. It is Clause 19 which covers all that, in regard to the licensing scheme, and the procedure under the licensing scheme about which the right hen. Gentleman was so eloquent. Clause 21 deals with the procedure which has to be followed by the Department and the industry. The operation of the licensing scheme, upon which the elaborate procedure is laid down in Clause 19, has caused a great deal of heat, but nobody could have seen from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that what was being discussed was a report upon the question whether the scheme should be laid before Parliament, a scheme which has afterwards to be voted upon by the industry and may not come into force. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that his remarks were not to the point which was under discussion.

Mr. ALEXANDER

This Clause deals with the inquiries connected with the schemes, but the schemes are licensing schemes, and I was giving illustrations of instances in which, in my view, the reports of public inquiries ought to have been published. It is true that the subject-matter being inquired into would not be exactly analogous to what is in this Clause, but I am arguing that all those instances are sound reasons why the Minister should be compelled to publish reports arising out of what are public inquiries.

Mr. ELLIOT

Now we are at one upon this, that the cases quoted were not exactly analogous to the Amendment under discussion. The essential point is whether there should or should not be a discretion with the Minister when he is considering a report, upon which proposals will be made for a scheme which will afterwards be laid before both Houses of Parliament and go before the industry. The decision on that report is one of the steps in that procedure, and is something quite other than the cases which the right hon. Gentleman was pleading as being cases where a judicial or semi-judicial decision was about to be taken by the Minister as the result of an inquiry. All that the Minister decides as the result of the report is whether or not the scheme is to be laid before Parliament. It is more properly an executive than a judicial act. There is nothing judicial or quasi-judicial about deciding whether these schemes should be laid before Parliament.

Mr. FOOT

Surely it is a quasi-judicial decision, which is being taken after the hearing of parties concerned. After the evidence has been heard in a public inquiry, the Minister has to decide what is best to be done. That is, I understand, the definition of a quasi-judicial decision, and is entirely different from a purely administrative decision. A purely administrative decision is the sort of decision that a Government Department makes when it decides to place an order for stores for a certain purpose, but when a decision has to be taken by a Minister after evidence has been heard and after the parties have been heard, that, surely, is a quasi-judicial decision.

Mr. ELLIOT

Under Sub-section (1, f) of Clause 21, the Minister does not do anything on this report. If he is satisfied, all that happens is that he may lay before Parliament a draft scheme, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree that, given such conditions, his argument is not germane to the discussion. The essence of a judicial decision is that something should be done. One is reminded of the controversy between the divine and the judge, in which the divine said to the judge, "You are an inferior person to me. You can say, 'You shall hang,' but I can say 'You be damned.'" "Yes," retorted the judge, "but, when I say a man shall hang, he is hanged." The essence of a judicial decision is that something should be done, but here it is simply that the Minister is to act as one who is considering before a scheme is finally laid before Parliament. In such circumstances, a report made to the Minister may influence him in his decision, but—

Mr. FOOT

If the decision be that action shall be taken by Parliament, Parliament must have the evidence before it. If the decision is to be taken by the Minister subject to the approval of Parliament, or is to be taken by Parliament, it cannot be taken by Parliament if Parliament has not the evidence before it.

Mr. ELLIOT

The evidence is before Parliament, but what the hon. Member is asking for is a report by an officer on that evidence, and I think that in the circumstances it is reasonable that discretion as to the publication of such a report should be left to the Minister The point is one that has been argued repeatedly here and elsewhere. I doubt if we can take the matter further by argument, and perhaps it may now be possible for the House to come to a decision.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. EDE

I hope it will not be considered unduly obtrusive for a backbench Member to speak after three front-bench Members in succession. In a few minutes, or hours, we are going to discuss an Order that is submitted by another Department. It includes 90 Clauses, and some of us would have liked to speak on it, either about Scotland or about raspberries; but, if it is opposed, the Government Whips will be put on to carry it through the House, and the Minister by that act will have accepted responsibility for the scheme, which this House will be expected to ratify, because the Treasurer of the Household will see to it that last night's unfortunate episode is not repeated.

These inquiries are public and they are the matter of some very contradictory statements not merely with regard to the facts but, as I understand, upon occasion with regard to the desires of the people who may be on one side or the other and their relative cupidity. We may rest assured that such matter as is published in the general Press will be that which is the most highly spiced. It might be suggested in the course of cross-examination of a witness that he was guilty of certain very undesirable desires in his wish to get this scheme made or rejected. Surely, when that has been done and the judicial person who holds the inquiry has reached his decision, the person whose character has been so attacked should be able to point to the decision of the appropriate person on it. I was not at all impressed by anything I heard from either of the Ministers who spoke, and I hope the House will insist upon proper publicity being given. The Minister certainly assumes responsibility for the decision.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE

What we are discussing is something which could not continue to exist but for the public guarantee, and yet the whole subject has been so conducted as to create general suspicion. There is nothing that has been done in recent years in regard to this subject but has been merged in absolute suspicion. The Parliamentary Secretary was pleading for Star Chamber methods and nothing else. It will be a fatal blot if the House at any time consents to privacy or secrecy in a matter like this. Wherever we are dealing with public money, everything connected with the expenditure ought to be put in front of the public, and the best way to do that is to do it in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary says these were simply preliminary inquiries, but the inquiry does not go any further. It remains there. In one inquiry that took place in regard to this industry, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was fighting for the rights of the consumer, a legal representative opposite said he could make any speech he liked but in the end he would get his own way. If that statement meant anything at all, it meant that private arrangements and Star Chamber methods had been used in order to inform those who were fighting against the consumer that, no matter what was said on behalf of the consumer, they already had some private agreement with the Minister. There is no other deduction that could be made. If these things had come properly before the House, we might have been able to prevent a whole lot of what is having to be done now in the way of public money being handed out.

The argument has been used, by the Parliamentary Secretary that you get more by holding a secret inquiry. That cuts both ways, because damage can be done secretly that could not possibly be done at a public inquiry. The House should realise that a sum of £48,000,000 is involved, out of which £11,000,000 has been given in profits, and yet we are being told that it is necessary in order to carry on this so-called business that we must once more give Star Chamber powers to the Minister. We will not remain

main silent while public money is being used as it has been in Scotland. We have been told that a great industry was being established, that something was being done for agriculture. We see the result to-day, we see that the expenditure of this public money—

Mr. SPEAKER

That has nothing to do with the Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. HARDIE

That money has gone in private profits instead of helping industry. If there had been an open and public inquiry, at which witnesses were not led away and intimidated, but where a chance was given to straight and honest methods, what this House is discussing to-night would not have happened, and I hope that the House now will try to remedy this position.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 218.

Division No. 139.] AYES. [10.55 p.m.
Acland, Fit. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Gibbins, J. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Potts, J.
Adamson, W. M. Grenfell, D. R. Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Pritt, D. N.
Ammon, C. G. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Quibell, J. D.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Griffiths, J. (Lianelly) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Groves, T. E. Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. J. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Barr, J. Hardie, G. D. Rowson, G.
Batey, J. Harris, Sir P. A. Seely, Sir H. M.
Bellenger, F. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Sexton, T. M.
Benson, G. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Short, A.
Bevan, A. Holdsworth, H. Simpson, F. B.
Broad, F. A. Holland, A. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Bromfield, W. Hollins, A. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Brooke, W. Hopkin, D. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Buchanan, G. Jagger, J. Sorensen, R. W.
Burke, W. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Stephen, C.
Cape, T. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cassells, T. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Chater, D. Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Thurtle, E.
Cocks, F. S. Kirby, B. V. Tinker, J. J.
Compton, J. Lathan, G. Viant, S. P.
Cove, W. G. Lawson, J. J. Walkden, A. G.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leach, W. Walker, J.
Daggar, G. Leonard, W. Watkins, F. C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leslie, J. R. Watson, W. McL.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Welsh, J. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Westwood, J.
Day, H. McLaren, A. White, H, Graham
Dobbie, W. Maclean, N. Whiteley, W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Wilkinson, Ellen
Ede, J. C. Marklew, E. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Marshall, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Maxton, J. Williams, T (Don Valley)
Foot, D. M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y. S.) Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Frankel, D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Windsor, W (Hull, C.)
Gallacher, W. Muff, G. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gardner, B. W. Naylor, T. E. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Garro-Jones, G. M. Oliver, G. H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Parker, H. J. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Fraser, Capt. Sir I. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Albery, I. J. Furness, S. N. Palmer, G. E. H.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Fyfe, D. P. M. Penny, Sir G.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Ganzonl, Sir J. Petherick, M.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Gledhill, G. Plckthorn, K. W. M.
Apsley, Lord Gluckstein, L. H. Pilkington, R.
Aske, Sir R. W. Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Assheton, R. Goldie, N. B. Pownall, Sir A. Assheton
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Goodman, Col. A. W. Procter, Major H. A.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Gower, Sir R. V. Radford, E. A.
Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet) Gridley, Sir A. B. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Grimston, R. V. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Baxter, A. Beverley Gritten, W. G. Howard Ramsbotham, H.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Ramsden, Sir E.
Beit, Sir A. L. Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Rankin, R.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)
Eoulton, W. W. Guy, J. C. M. Rayner, Major R. H.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hanbury, Sir C. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hannah, I. C. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Renter, J. R.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Harbord, A. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hartington, Marquess of Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Harvey, G. Ropner, Colonel L.
Bull, B. B. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Butt, Sir A. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Rowlands, G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Cartland, J. R. H. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Carver, Major W. H. Holmes, J. S. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Cary, R. A. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Salmon, Sir I.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hopkinson, A. Salt, E. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Horsbrugh, Florence Sandys, E. D.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hack., N.) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Scott, Lord William
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Hunter, T. Selley, H. R.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Colfox, Major W. P. Jackson, Sir H. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Colman, N. C. D. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'W'gt'n) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Latham, Sir P. Spens, W. P.
Craddock, Sir R. H. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Crooke, J. S. Leckle, J. A. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'T)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Leech, Dr. J. W. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Cross, R. H. Levy, T. Stourton, Hon. J. J.
Crowder, J. F. E. Lewis, O. Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Culverwell, C. T. Liddall, W. S. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Lloyd, G. W. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
De la Bère, R. Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V. Sutcliffe, H.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Loftus, P. C. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Donner, P. W. MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Dorman Smith, Major R. H. McCorquodale, M. S. Titchfield, Marquess of
Drewe, C. MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Touche, G. C.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Duckworth, W. R, (Moss Side) MacDonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Dugdale, Major T. L. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Wakefield, W. W.
Duggan, H. J. McEwen, Capt. H. J. F. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Duncan, J. A. L. McKle, J. H. Wallace, Captain Euan
Dunglass, Lord Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Dunne, P. R. R. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Warrender, Sir V.
Eckersley, P. T. Markham, S, F. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Ellis, Sir G. Milts, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Elliston, G. S. Mltcheson, Sir G. G. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Errington, E. Morgan, R. H. Wise, A. R.
Erskine Hill, A. G. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Everard, W. L. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Fildes, Sir H. Munro, P. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Findlay, Sir E. Nail, Sir J. Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert
Fleming, E. L. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Ward and Sir James Blindell.

Question put, and agreed to.