HC Deb 29 June 1936 vol 314 cc177-89

11.7 p.m.


I beg to move, That the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (Extension of Period) Order, 1936, dated the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made under section one of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved. The effect of this Order is to extend the payment of subsidy to cattle producers in the United Kingdom for a further four months from to-morrow, 30th June, until 31st October. A very narrow point is involved, namely, whether the contingency foreseen by this House last summer, at the time when the Cattle Industry (No. 2) Act was passed, in which provision was made in certain circumstances for a further extension of four months, has arisen; and, in order to assist the House in coming to a conclusion on this point, I will very briefly recapitulate the history of the matter.

In 1934, on account of the very serious position in which the cattle industry found itself, Parliament decided that the best way of dealing with the matter was by the methods contained in the Act of 1934, pending the introduction of a scheme which would involve either modification by agreement of the existing treaties by which we were bound, or waiting until this country was free from the obligations of those treaties. The Act of 1934 came into operation on 1st September, 1934, and came to an end at the end of that financial year, on 31st March, 1935. As the House will recollect, it provided for a subsidy of 5s. per live cwt. in respect of fat cattle, and 9s. 4d. in respect of carcases, sold in the United Kingdom. The arrangements made by the Cattle Committee at that time have worked extraordinarily well since, and very few amendments, and these of a minor character, have been necessary. Up to the end of last May, £6,500,000 had been paid to producers for 2,750,000 beasts. That is about £3,750,000 per annum.

Early in 1935 there were negotiations with the oversea countries which were somewhat long and protracted. In March the first extending Act was passed with the object of extending the period by three months, April, May, and June, with a further extension to include July, August, and September, subject to the specific authority of Parliament. In June, 1935, authority for that extension was obtained. In July it was recognised that the House might not be sitting on 1st October, and the House passed a further Act to prolong the period to 30th June, 1936, with an extension of four months to 31st October, provided it was confirmed by Parliament. That is the extension that we are discussing to-night. The procedure of extensions was adopted because it was rightly considered that Parliament should keep these provisions closely under review. I shall have no difficulty in showing that the further extensions that have been made have been amply justified.

Take first prices. The average prices for first and second quality fat cattle in September, 1934, were 36s. 8d. per cwt. In September, 1935, that price had fallen to 33s. 2d. Last May it had recovered to 36s. 6d., which is about the same figure as was in force when the subsidy first operated under the first Act. The prices for the week ending 10th June this year were higher—39s. 9d. June is the peak period, and prices normally decline until November. In fact the decline has already set in. For first and second quality cattle average prices for the week ending 24th June have decreased to 37s. 4d., there again about the same as the price which obtained when the first Act was passed. But although the 1936 prices are higher than 1935, and 1935 prices were, I believe, the lowest ever, they are still lower than in the early months of 1934 when the Government first made up its mind that it was necessary to assist the industry in this way.

Prices for store, I am glad to say, are better. Breeders of stores have for some time been receiving a considerable proportion of the benefit of the subsidy. I believe the Cattle Committee estimate the proportion at about 50 per cent. This is despite the increase in 1935 as compared with 1934 of 38 per cent. in imports of stores from the Irish Free State under the Coal-Cattle Agreement and a further increase during the first five months of 1936. The second illustration I would give is home production. In the winter months of 1934–35 the increase of fat cattle in England and Wales was 22 per cent. over the year 1933–34. Part of that increase, no doubt, is due to the diversion of sales through markets in order to secure certification, but even so there is no doubt that our home supplies of beef in 1934–35 show an increase over the previous year. During the winter of 1935–36 some 11 per cent. more animals were certified for subsidy in the United Kingdom as compared with the previous winter when, of course, similar conditions as to certification at markets obtained. But it should be remembered that it takes three years to produce beef. The increase in home supplies in 1934–35 and the winter of 1935–36 has not, therefore, been called out by the subsidy.

I am very well aware that the House is anxious to know what progress is being made in the discussions between ourselves and the Dominions and the Argentine in connection with this business. At this moment I can only say that those negotiations and discussions are very actively proceeding. It is common ground that all parties desire agreement as early as possible. The House cannot expect me at this moment to foreshadow the terms, but my right hon. Friend has every hope that he will be able to inform the House of the main features of the matter in, say, about a fortnight's time.


Does my hon. Friend mean that his right hon. Friend will be able to inform us of the terms of these trade agreements?


I must repeat what I said, that he would be able to inform the House of the main features in about a fortnight's time.

In conclusion, may I remind the House that the proposal we are now considering is not one of principle? It is not a proposal whether there should be a subsidy or not, but it is simply whether the contingency which Parliament foresaw in the summer of 1935, when the second Cattle Subsidy Act of that year was passed, has arisen. The contingency is that the cattle producers still need help on 30th June, 1936. That is the contingency Parliament foresaw. It also foresaw that the negotiations to which I have referred might not be complete. This depends, as the House knows very well, on the progress of discussions which are extremely diffi- cult, very complicated and of necessity protracted. The contingency provided for by Parliament has now arisen. The appropriate Ministers, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, representing Northern Ireland, have made an Order, in the form of a White Paper, dated 15th June. This Order is now before the House, and it is up to the House to approve it.

11.18 p.m.


At this late hour, it would be extremely unwise on my part to attempt to launch an attack either on the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary because of their supreme optimism and hope. The right hon. Gentleman is the most hopeful Minister, and the hon. Gentleman the most hopeful Parliamentary Secretary we have ever had in this House. This is, I think, the fifth time within two years that an emergency Order has been introduced to subsidise cattle in this country. In July, 1934, the Government issued a White Paper as to their long-term policy. They produced an Order for a subsidy for a short period. They were hopeful at that time that their long-term policy would be announced very shortly. In March, 1935, they came for a further extension of the subsidy, an emergency proposal, and then in June, three months later, they came with another emergency proposal They were still hopeful that very soon their long-term policy might be announced. In March, 1935, they made a statement which amplified the original statement of 1934, in which they set out clearly some sort of an anticipated policy. In paragraph 19 of that Paper the right hon. Gentleman said: In order that the Governments concerned"— He was referring, apparently, to the Dominion Governments and the Government of the Argentine— shall have a further opportunity of considering the immediate problem, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have proposed to Parliament a continuation of the present Exchequer subsidy for a further short period. That was in March, 1935. They came in June, 1935, for a further extension and again in July, 1935. Now in June, 1936, they come for a still further extension which, as in 1934, they call an emergency Order. On 20th June of last year, Mr. J. H. Thomas, then Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, said that he had hoped it would be possible to announce that day an agreement. In June, 1936, the Government are still hopeful of getting an agreement. On 26th June of last year, the Minister said that it was time to say that they had now got down to realities, and that he could re-echo the sentiments of the Secretary of State for the Dominions that they were not without hope of reaching a settlement. That was exactly a year last Thursday. Now, the Parliamentary Secretary still hopes.

They have had so many agreements in other directions that they cannot get an agreement here. There is the Ottawa Agreement and the Argentine Agreement. There are agreements to the right and left of them, and they cannot get an agreement now. There is no way out but to continue with an emergency Order for £1,500,000 for three months. As far as the House is concerned, we know no more of the long-term policy in June, 1936, than we knew in June, 1934. Now that over £7,000,000 have been expended in this direction, it is time that the Government made up their mind on their long-term policy. It may be that as a result of the Ottawa Agreement, and the failure of the Dominions to accept the idea of a levy, or the Argentine Agreement standing in the way of a levy before next November, it is difficult to obtain agreement now. On these benches we said that an agreement could have been reached on a long-term policy without waiting for the application of a levy, to be imposed upon imported poor quality meat consumed by the poorer section of the community so that the consumer of high-class quality meat might be subsidised at the expense of the poor.

I shall vote against this subsidy to-night, not because I feel that the producers of beef in this country are not entitled in existing circumstances to some relief, but because I feel that the long delay on the part of the Government to obtain a real and lasting agreement has tended completely to upset the balance of agriculture in this country. If I had to choose between a direct subsidy from the Treasury or the imposition of a levy upon imported low-grade quality meat or chilled meat I should certainly plump for a direct Treasury subsidy, so that those who consume the highest quality meat, and pay less than an economic price for it, should have to meet the deficit through their Income Tax, instead of the proposal of the Government to make a levy on frozen and chilled meat which is consumed by the poorer sections of the community so that the better-grade qualities can be consumed by the other section of the community at an uneconomic price. From that point of view I would support a direct subsidy rather than a levy. It is not because we are not as anxious as the Minister himself to help any section of the agricultural community but because the Government have been toying with the House in regard to their long-term policy, to which we are utterly opposed, and we feel we must oppose the Motion. Recently we have been discussing leakages. In this case the Prime Minister seems to have intervened in agricultural matters, and we are informed, surreptitiously, that he has communicated with the National Farmers' Union and informed them of the Government's long-term policy.


That report came out in the "Daily Herald" and it is entirely incorrect and untrue.


I am glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member's correction, but I have read a report this morning, not in the "Daily Herald" but in a newspaper which supports the farmers and is generally recognised to be a Conservative newspaper, that the policy of subsidies is now being discussed in the various branches of the National Farmers' Union. If that is not correct there is no more to be said.


The whole complaint of the National Farmers' Union is that they can get nothing out of the Prime Minister.


That is not peculiar to the National Farmers' Union. If, as the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested, we are to discuss this question in the middle of July, we should know something about it now. We shall have something to say about marketing schemes. The Minister has tended to discourage marketing schemes until the long-term policy is available. We shall also want to know what the Government are doing about applying the recommendations of the Commission which considered the question of the slaughter of animals. We shall want to know something about what the Government are doing with regard to the report and recommendations of the Hopkins Committee, which considered the question of cattle diseases. We shall want to know how the Government are trying to turn the balance in regard to the over-production of milk, according to existing liquid sales, and we shall also want to know something about beef production. There will be many questions which we shall put when the appropriate time comes. At this moment it is sufficient to say that for two years we have been hearing about temporary policies, temporary palliatives, emergency measures all needing money from the Treasury. The money may be justified, but we ought to know much more about the intentions and purposes of the Government with regard to their long-term policy. Unless we hear all about it, I, at all events, shall feel justified in voting against the subsidy to-night.

11.32 p.m.


I would like to ask a question on a point which the Parliamentary Secretary did not make clear. As I understand, the subsidy which we are asked to extend now will expire on 30th October, which normally falls in the Recess. Therefore, is it not a fact that if the Government wish to extend the subsidy into the autumn session, they will have to bring in a Bill during the next month? Is that so? If it is, if the Government will have to produce fresh legislation or at any rate a fresh scheme of some kind during the next month in order to carry on after 30th October, it seems to me that we might postpone the discussion until that time—when surely we shall have further details—and not bother about the short extension now. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Is this matter of necessity to be before the House between now and the Summer Recess or not?


The answer to that question depends upon the statement which my right hon. Friend will make in a short time.

11.33 p.m.


I rise for a few moments to say that, while I agree with a good deal of what he said, I do not think in the attitude he took towards the vote to-night the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was logical. He admits on behalf of his party that there is a real and urgent necessity at this moment for giving assistance to the agricultural industry, and yet he says that he will not vote for that assistance because the Government have not produced what he calls their long-term policy.


Perhaps in trying to shorten my remarks, I did not make my point clear. What I intended to imply was that we are unwilling to grant millions of pounds unconditionally to any branch of the agricultural or any other industry. So far as I know, these subsidies have been unconditional.


When the hon. Gentleman puts that point, I am bound to say that I find myself to some extent in agreement with him. I think that a moment will come, perhaps in the year 1940 or 1941, when this House will get a bit fed up with passing temporary emergency subsidies for the purpose of subsidising the cattle trade in this country. I think we are agreed on all sides of the House that it is very necessary that the production of beef in this country should be fostered and encouraged and that some special assistance is necessary for the beef producers. That applies particularly at a moment when, perhaps more than at any other time, it is necessary to safeguard in the future the food supplies of this country. I feel it necessary that we should bring pressure on the Government, from all sides, to produce a long-term policy. There is a danger that the agricultural policy of the Government may become something of a farce if things go on in the present "hand-to-mouth" fashion. Scotland has been waiting for six years for some policy with regard to oats. We are still told that the matter is under the most intensive consideration. Similarly, with regard to the milk scheme—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I think it would be better to keep to the subject matter of the Order.


I was about to say that I think the cattle industry is the most glaring example. Year in and year out we have been waiting for a clear statement on long-term policy, with regard to what many of us regard as the most vital aspect of British agriculture at present. I would, again, support, in some measure—although I do not go all the way with him—the hon. Member for Don Valley on the question of a marketing scheme for beef. The Minister gave a specific pledge to the House that he would impose a system of orderly marketing of beef on the agricultural industry. Yet when some of my hon. Friends and I, about six months ago, put questions on the subject, my right hon. Friend said he had not the slightest intention of imposing any scheme for the revision of marketing of beef upon the industry, unless there was complete agreement in favour of it. It is desirable to get the support and co-operation of the industry in devising a marketing scheme, but I doubt whether the Government have sought to obtain the co-operation, even of the farmers' unions of England and Scotland in devising an efficient scheme of beef marketing. I think the House feels that the time is rapidly approaching when we must be satisfied with regard to the Government's long-term policy as far as beef is concerned.

I wish to ask a specific question. The Parliamentary Secretary said that within a fortnight's time the House would be put in possession of certain relevant facts regarding what he described as "this matter." Does that mean that the Minister will be able to give specific information regarding the progress of negotiations for the revision of the Ottawa Agreements or of the negotiations with regard to the Argentine? I think that is probably the root of the whole matter and many hon. Members would be thankful, I am sure, if they could receive some assurance that this question will be cleared out of the way before we rise for the Summer Recess.


My right hon. Friend expects to be able to give that specific information to which my hon. Friend refers.


Will it be submitted to the House in a form which will enable us to discuss the question in its wider aspects?


The information will be in the form of a statement and a statement of such importance will, clearly, have to be debated.

11.39 p.m.


I know the House is anxious that this Debate should be brought to an end, but this is a matter of vital importance to many parts of the country, and we are told by the Government that the Order deals with the most important branch of the agricultural industry. I feel, therefore, as the representative of a constituency in North East Scotland, that some expression should be given here to the deep disappointment of the agriculturists in that part of the country that no definite long-term policy has yet been submitted to the House. I would remind the Government of their statement in the White Paper to the following effect: Failing agreement on the payment of a levy on meat imports His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will have no alternative but to take steps to regulate, during the currency of existing agreements, the quantity of imports to whatever extent is necessary to restore livestock prices to a remunerative level. These prices have not been restored yet to a remunerative level, and the livestock industry is somewhat disappointed with what the Government have done to help them. We are now asked to give an extension of four months to this subsidy, and we would rather have half a loaf than no bread at all, but it seems to me that something more than a 5s. subsidy ought to be realised as necessary for the industry. It has not brought the price of meat up to a paying level, and surely we might have a 10s. subsidy, so that the farmers would not have to carry on at a loss for another four months, because that is what we shall have to do with only 5s. I know there are difficulties, but I would again remind the Minister that the position of the industry is very serious. I would like very much to know whether, as a result of the negotiations which are taking place at the present time, the Government contemplate any modification of the White Paper scheme which was laid down last year.


In answer to my hon. Friend, I would say that it would be altogether premature for me to make a statement at the present time.


Then may I press on the Government that if there is in contemplation a modification of their White Paper scheme, they will have a very hard time in front of them?

11.43 p.m.


I will not detain the House for long, but I have to put a point which to all of us who are interested in this matter is of very substantial importance. It is with regard to the form which this subsidy should take. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), with whom I am glad to find myself in complete agreement for once, raised the question of marketing, as did the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). There are many matters that are related to this question of meat which you, Sir, very rightly, ruled out of order to-night but which we would like to debate on some subsequent occasion, and possibly in a fortnight's time. The ques-

tion of marketing is only one question; the relations of meat to other agricultural produce is another. I would ask very seriously that the resolution, or statement, or whatever it may be should not be so confined as to prevent our discussing in its widest form the whole future of agriculture in this country.

Question put, That the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (Extension of Period) Order, 1936, dated the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made under section one of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935, by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretaries of State concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 74.

Division No. 258.] AYES. [11.45 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Duncan, J. A. L. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Dunglass, Lord McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Eastwood, J. F. McKie, J. H.
Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Eckersley, P. T. Magnay, T.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Margesson. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Apsley, Lord Elliston, G. S. Markham, S. F.
Aske, Sir R. W. Emery, J. F. Maxwell, S. A.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Erskine Hill, A. G. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Atholl, Duchess of Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Fleming, E. L. Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Baxter, A. Beverley Fremantle, Sir F. E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Furness, S. N. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Fyfe, D. P. M. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Blindell, Sir J. Goodman, Col. A. W. Munro, P.
Boothby, R. J. G. Gower, Sir R. V. Neven-Spence. Maj. B. H. H.
Bossom, A. C. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Gridley, Sir A. B. Palmer, G. E. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Grimston, R. V. Patrick, C. M.
Bull, B. B. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Penny, Sir G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hanbury, Sir C. Perkins, W. R. D.
Cartland, J. R. H. Hannah, I. C. Petherick, M.
Carver, Major W. H. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Radford, F. A.
Cary, R. A. Harbord, A. Ramsbotham, H.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hartington, Marquess of Rankin, R.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Channon, H. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Remer, J. R.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Holmes, J. S. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hopkin, D. Robinson. J. R. (Blackpool)
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hulbert, N. J. Ropner, Colonel L.
Craven-Ellis, W. Hunter, T. Ross, Major Sir R. D (L'derry)
Crooke, J. S. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Keeling, E. H. Rothschild, J. A. de
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Un[...].) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Cruddas, Col. B. Kimball, L. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Culverwell, C. T. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Scott, Lord William
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Latham, Sir P. Selley, H. R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Leckie, J. A. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
De Chair, S. S. Leech, Dr. J. W. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Liddall, W. S. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Lindsay, K. M. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Lloyd, G. W. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Loftus, P. C. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Dugdale, Major T. L. Lyons, A. M. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Duggan, H. J. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Spens, W. P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Strickland, Captain W. F. Turton, R. H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Wakefield, W. W. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Sutcliffe, H. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Tate, Mavis C. Ward, Irene (Wallsend) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Warrender, Sir V. Wise, A. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Titchfield, Marquess of Wayland, Sir W. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Tree, A. R. L. F. Wells, S. R. Mr. James Stuart and Captain
Arthur Hope.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Paling, W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adamson, W. M. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Potts, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Harris, Sir P. A. Pritt, D. N.
Ammon, C. G. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Riley, B.
Banfield, J. W. Holdsworth, H. Ritson, J.
Barnes, A. J. Hollins, A. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Bellenger, F. Jagger, J. Rowson, G.
Benson, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Seely, Sir H. M.
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sexton, T. M.
Bromfield, W. John, W. Smith, Ben (Ratherhithe)
Brooke, W. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cape, T. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Casselis, T. Kelly, W. T. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kirby, B. V. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Daggar, G. Lathan, G. Tinker, J. J.
Dobbie, W. Logan, D. G. Watson, W. McL.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lunn, W. Welsh, J. C.
Ede, J. C. Maclean, N. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Mainwaring, W. H. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Frankel, D. Marklew, E. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gardner, B. W. Messer, F.
Garro Jones, G. M. Milner, Major J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, D. R Moreing, A. C. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)