HC Deb 09 February 1937 vol 320 cc275-91

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,937, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge whih will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants in Aid and Supplement to certain Statutory Salaries.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

Last night we had considerable discussion on this Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate is one for the comparatively small sum of £14,000, and it deals with the administration of the Special Areas Reconstruction Act. Attention was drawn last night to the fact that the amount is small, and that it deals with administration, but it deals with the administration of an Act which was put before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think in an experimental mood, but not without optimism. I am well aware that in this Debate we are limited by the particular form of the Estimate and the subject with which it deals, but I think it is permissible to remind the Minister and the Committee that this is one of the very few and important schemes for dealing with the Special Areas upon which the Government rely. The Act implements no small part of the Government's policy with reference to these areas, and, therefore, while we are not allowed to discuss the matter in its broader aspects, the Government and the House must not forget that we are dealing here with a phase of reconstructive policy upon which the Government have based considerable hopes, and in which the areas themselves have in some respects placed a good deal of confidence as regards restoration.

The Minister said yesterday that a whole flood of schemes came in—I think he said there were some 450 odd—immediately the Act began to operate. He pointed out that applications had been made by people who really misunderstood its functions. That, no doubt, is true, but I am not so sure that they showed as great a misunderstanding of the functions as the people who administered them. When the schemes were boiled down, 42 were left which were admitted in principle. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us yesterday just what he meant by the schemes being admitted in principle, though he had a certain amount to say about it when a question was put to him. He said that the loans had been agreed to in principle, but that in some cases the money was not required for the moment, and in others the matter was in legal hands. I wonder if the cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) were among those that were admitted in principle. Whitehaven is geographically a very bad place, and, if there is an area that needs special consideration, I should think it is that part of the country. If you have an enterprising man or number of men who want to do things, and even take risks, it seems to me that that is one place which might have been very generously considered by this body of people. Other instances were given in which it seemed to me that the people concerned, if they could have accepted the conditions, need not have gone to the Special Areas Reconstruction Association at all, for the conditions were not only the common conditions of the market, but sometimes worse.

One of the most outstanding was that a rate of 5 per cent. was asked for the loans. On every hand 5 per cent. was given as the uniform standard rate of interest to be paid. Then the right hon. Gentleman came along and said that the Association had reduced the rate to, think, 4½ per cent. in some cases. I think that that came as a surprise to most Members, and it is one of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has to answer. As far as I remember, none of those Members who made complaints knew that there was any lower standard of interest than 5 per cent. until the right hon. Gentleman himself made the statement to the House. When was that decision taken? Why was it not more commonly known? To whom does this lower rate of interest apply? Are there any cases in which the rate is less than 5 per cent? Here are Members of the House, not only on this side but on the opposite side also, who are in close touch with gentlemen and firms interested in the Special Areas, and yet nobody knows anything about it. I only mention that as an illustration of the method of dealing with this matter, for the purpose of showing that the members of the committee who are handling this matter are prepared to yield for the moment on the spot when it is a case of debate, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman something to work upon, but we shall be very glad to have instances where in any of these 42 cases the Committee has in actual practical fact granted loans at a lower rate than the standard rate of 5 per cent.

I did not hear—and the right hon. Gentleman must have noticed this—any Member who did not criticise the administration of the committee; I did not hear anyone speak enthusiastically about it. The fact of the matter is that it is the same with this particular organisation as with every other Department. When they are dealing with this problem they are aloof, cool, practical, twenty-shillings-to-the-pound people, who act as though they had nothing to do with the central policy of the Government. That is really the position. The right hon. Gentleman is answering, not for the Government's policy, but for the Treasury. His only business is, not to see that this particular committee does its job, as was visualised, so we are told, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he asked the House to pass the Bill, but to get this Supplementary Estimate through, and the Supplementary Estimate is really a floodlight on the whole attitude towards this question. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is not only Members of the House who have criticisms to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) have referred to particular items, and I believe that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) had considerable criticisms to make.

Mr. Mabane

I was asking questions rather than making criticisms.

Mr. Lawson

I only wish that I could put the questions which the hon. Member put as clearly and competently as he put them last night. I should say I was not a bad hand at criticism if I could put a question in exactly the same form. Everywhere you go you hear these criticisms. The bankers are in charge. What do they care about the spirit in which a thing like this has to be operated? It is of small moment to them. We have seen it all before in one form or another. It is a case of no one cares. With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman and his ability, I think this is an Estimate that the Chancellor himself ought to have been here to answer for, because he is usually the person who answers for Government policy in dealing with the Special Areas. This Supplementary Estimate and the administration of the fund are related to the whole policy of the Government. All that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us is that 42 firms have been granted loans in principle. He has not been able to tell us where they are operating, how many men they are going to employ, or anything of that kind. We have been given definite instances where first-class business men who have agreed to establish new industries in the Special Areas have wanted money for the purpose and they have been either hampered or questioned or penalised in various ways until they have got tired and given it up as a bad job.

We have never been prepared to cry stinking fish about any of these schemes. The remarkable thing is the general tolerance that there has been in the matter, and the disposition to accept almost anything if it was an attempt to do something. There is a good deal that the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to tell us. First of all, he must answer the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven, and I hope he has had an opportunity of reading them in print and is going to square up to them. We are also entitled to be told whether this niggardly spirit, this kind of refrigerator, is to dominate the operation of the scheme. The finance of the Act is an elusive subject. The Chancellor first gave the impression that there was to be a £2,000,000 loan, and then that therewas to be a £2,000,000 guarantee. Generally speaking, there was a good deal of doubt whether the Government were going to put anything into it or not. Now we understand that £250,000 has been loaned. Have these 42 companies accepted the loans? Are they going to operate? Are factories representative of light industries going to be laid down? I ask that, because some hon. Members have given instances where there have been promises of loans in certain conditions which have not been accepted because the conditions have been so heavy. Are these real live companies? In the second place, how many are to be employed? In the third place is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared, in the face of the criticisms that have come from every side, to tell us that they are going to do what they can to operate the Act in the spirit in which the Chancellor spoke originally, and at the same time let these people understand that it is not merely a plain banking financial deal, but that they are really handling a scheme which was designed to reconstruct areas which have been suffering considerably, and to give men and women a chance in them?

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Cartland

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was quite fair in levelling such an attack against my right hon. Friend, because I cannot help feeling that, while the Treasury are bound to answer for the administration, they have not very much say in the day-to-day administration. It will be particularly helpful to the Committee to know how close is the co-operation between the Treasury and the directors of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association. Until we know that it is very close, I feel that the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman made are not justified. So much of the criticism is levelled really against the terms of the Act, and a great deal of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it seemed to me, was criticism of the Act and not of its administration. When, for instance, he said that the directors were 20s. for a pound men, that is to be expected, because they have to carry out this financing of companies in the Special Areas within the terms of the Special Areas Act. It is not suggested that they should carry it out with any particular degree of generosity or that they should accept every scheme that is put up. As I understand it, they have to go into each scheme as carefully as if it were a private company financing an ordinary business concern. The money that the Special Areas Reconstruction Association is working through is not Government money, but private money; therefore, obviously it is to be expected that those who consider these loans are automatically 20s. for a pound men. I do not think that is a criticism against the administration though, perhaps, it is a criticism of the Act.

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question with regard to the rate of interest. When schemes are put forward, do the rates of interest vary from scheme to scheme or is there one uniform rate? It might be very helpful if we were told that. Five per cent. has been mentioned, and there is a general feeling that this is a uniform rate which cannot be varied according to whether the scheme is more likely to prove successful or not. I should say that on the face of it the rate ought to vary with regard to the type of scheme that is put up. Finally, there seems to be very great delay in dealing with these schemes. There was a case in my constituency where there was a delay of five or six months. A scheme was put forward and sent up to the North and considered. Eventually it was turned down. The man was treated with complete courtesy throughout, but six months is a long time when you are waiting to know whether you are going to obtain a loan or not, and particularly long when in the end it is refused.

6.28 p.m.

Sir John Mellor

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up one point. According to the statutory report, on l0th August last year there had been received by the company in respect of shares £145,000, that is to say, £100,000 in respect of £100,000 ordinary shares of £1 each, fully paid, and £45,000 in respect of 900,000 cumulative preference shares of £1 each, 1s. paid. My right hon. Friend yesterday said that altogether £247,000 had been lent by the company or was in process of negotiation for loan. Does that mean that further calls have been made on the preference shareholders and that now more than 1s. per share has been paid up, or that these loans have been or will be financed from other sources?

6.29 p.m.

Mr. F. Anderson

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many cases have been withdrawn after they have been agreed to in principle, because the persons concerned could not comply with the conditions laid down by the Special Areas Reconstruction Association. The next question is, how many cases have been made by the association where the association have been the predominant partners?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards

There are one or two points which I should like to raise before the Minister replies. A case came before me quite recently where a man had been given a promise. His application must have been approved in principle, but he was actually advertising that he had been promised a loan under certain conditions and was then trying to get support from the public to further his proposition in the distressed area. I recently heard of a case of another type where they definitely refused to give a man any kind of report which would assist him in going to the City for finance. Perhaps a rather dangerous precedent will be set here, if we are to assume that, when there is approval in principle, it means that the Government or the company are expressing approval of the scheme. The Government Department said that they would not in any circumstances give a report in the particular case they had investigated because the people would then go to the City and ask for money with which to back their proposition, and they would, no doubt, get it. If the man had had a scheme approved in principle, he would have got a considerable amount of money, and people would have thought that it was a sound proposition. I should like to know, when the Financial Secretary replies, whether it is correct so to construe approval in principle. If so, there may be some extremely dangerous experiences.

Someone who spoke yesterday rather ridiculed the idea that this scheme was to be a kind of fairy godmother to the depressed areas. It was precisely a scheme to induce people to go into those areas where people would not go unless there was some special inducement. It is idle to tell us that no ordinary bank will accept proposals such as are approved by this company. If you are to charge 5 per cent.—I understood late last night that the Financial Secretary said that it would perhaps be 4½ per cent. in certain circumstances—and even 4½ per cent., it will not be difficult to get money to-day on the conditions that this company demand; a floating charge on all the assets of the company, a guarantee to put 50 per cent. in cash into the proposition, and, in addition, guarantees by the directors. Under such conditions, I should be very glad at any time to get for anyone who has a good proposition, all the finance that is wanted. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is the case of a fairy godmother. Are some people to get the money at 4½ per cent. and others at 5 per cent., or are those whose applications have already been approved in principle to have the benefit of 4½ per cent.? If so, it would be grossly unfair. Can we know definitely whether money has actually passed into industry yet, and have the first steps been taken towards employing anybody in the distressed areas? We were put off yesterday by the statement that it was unimportant whether money had passed or not so long as it was approved in principle. That is a vague statement and covers a multitude of sins. Can we know whether money has been devoted to the establishment of any new industries in the distressed areas?

6.35 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville)

I think that the Committee will be ready to agree that I should now attempt to reply to a number of the points that have been raised. I make no complaint at all about the interest which is being taken in the work of this Association. We regard it on all sides of the House as an experiment, and it is right and proper that the Parliament which agreed to set up this Association should take an interest in its operations. I pointed out last night that it was early yet to judge. It has had eight months existence, but only about four months of effective operation. It had to be formed and boards had to be got together and machinery arranged. None the less, it is not unsatisfactory that in four months the company should have agreed to lend a sum of nearly £250,000, which is about a quarter of its capital. Through almost all the speeches there has run one question, which I will deal with at the very start, namely, What do I mean by "approved in principle?" There was a suggestion in the mind of some people that I was giving a figure which was perhaps, unintentionally, a misleading figure in that it might not be reached. I want to assure hon. Members quite categorically that that is not the case. When I say that 42 cases, amounting to £243,450, were approved in principle, I want to make it clear that the Association regards itself as committed to make these loans. In almost all the cases they are merely waiting for the necessary formalities to be completed.

Far be it from me to say anything against the formalities which take place among legal friends when a company is formed, but hon. Members will be aware that when a new company is formed—and in many of these cases we are dealing with new companies—there are certain formalities to be gone through. There is the production of the articles of association and the registration of the company, and in such cases, naturally, the applicant is not ready for the money and does not want the money until the company has reached that stage. In the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), there is every reason to suppose that virtually the whole of the £243,450 will be lent. I have already said that this is a figure to which the Association regard themselves as committed. The Committee will agree with me that I cannot deal with the affairs of individual firms or individual applicants. That would not be fair and proper. If I dealt with the affairs of individual firms who had received loans, equally I should have to deal with the affairs of those who had not been granted loans. Obviously, to discuss such things and mention the names of the firms would be to damage their credit. I cannot do it. I must therefore deal rather more generally with the work of the Association.

I should like to answer some questions which have ranged over the Debate, and I must come back to some of the ground which I covered last night. Running through the Debate there has been a suggestion of delay in giving sometimes even a negative answer. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland), who, if I may say so, showed a very clear appreciation of the terms of the Act, said that he knew of a case where some five or six months had elapsed between the application and the reply, which, in this case, was a negative one. I do not know whether his particular case was one which came into the matter from the start. If so, I feel that what happened in that and in many other cases was that the applications came in at once before the machinery of the Association had been got together. The first two months of the official life of the Association were really not active months, for the reason I explained last night. They had to get people to serve on the boards and put the machinery into operation. I hope and believe that there will not, in the future work of the Association, be undue delay in dealing with correspondence and sending out replies.

There are at present 51 applications still under consideration, and now that the Association is fully in its stride, I do not anticipate undue delay in dealing with these cases. I appreciate that on all sides hon. Members have felt that in the initial stages there was some delay in dealing with the applications, and that, I hope, I have satisfactorily explained. A number of questions have been asked, and I should like to deal with as many of them as possible. I was asked last night—and I think the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) stressed it—what type of work is being effected by these loans. I cannot mention individual firms, but I can give examples. They include brick manufacture, coal mining, toy manufacture, pressed steel, tiles, iron foundry, quarries, grain silos, box manufacture, glass manufacture and tube manufacture. That is not an exhaustive list of the types of industry in regard to which loans have been granted.

Mr. Maxton

Why cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mention the names?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

I have already explained that to the Committee.

Mr. Maxton

I did not hear any explanation at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

I will repeat it. If I gave the names of the firms for whom loans had been agreed in principle, equally I should be entitled to be asked to give the names of all firms for whom loans have been asked and to whom the Association were not prepared to give loans. Nearly 50 per cent. of the loans approved are in respect of new businesses altogether, the balance being in respect of extensions of existing businesses. Of the new businesses, a number of them are entirely new to the areas concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield raised the point whether we had regard to the competition which was being introduced into the areas by new industries receiving a certain amount of special assistance. To that I must say that the Association certainly does consider the question of redundancy within an area, and, to a certain extent, in the particular industry outside the area, in making a grant. As to the rate of interest to which hon. Members referred, 5 per cent. was the maximum rate quoted up till quite recently. I cannot give the exact date of the change. I heard of it last week. There was a maximum rate of 5 per cent. before then, but it was not a flat rate. The Association, acting in the terms of the charter is obliged to consider each case on its merits. There have been a number of cases where it has been willing to lend at rates below 5 per cent. That is because the Association must have regard to the particular circumstances of each case in deciding whether it will make a loan available or not. Those circumstances include the security and credit-worthiness of the applicant, and for that reason it would not be possible for the association to fix a flat rate in all cases.

Mr. David Adams

Are we to understand that the maximum rate to-day is 4½ per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

That is my information. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) was in relation to the local boards, and was to the effect that the local boards upon which we have capable people serving should be given a higher degree of responsibility. The same point was raised by another hon. Member in relation to another part of the country. The actual responsibility for making the loan rests upon the central board. They cannot devolve the responsibility on the local boards. The local boards in an advisory capacity can be of great assistance to the central board, and we can well understand the importance of close association between the local boards and the central board, but the actual responsibility must rest with the central board. I do not know that there is much more that I can say. The Committee will recollect that in moving the Supplementary Estimate I drew attention to another and different item in the Estimate, which relates to a saving on a certain sporting event in Ireland.

Mr. Cartland

Can the right hon. and gallant Member say anything about the co-operation between the Treasury and the central board?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

The Association acts under the terms of its charter. Under the Agreement with the Treasury the Association has in its own power discretion as to the making of loans, but there is a certain degree of co-operation with the Treasury. The Association is, for example, limited to the making of loans up to £10,000, except with the consent of the Treasury. When a higher proposal than that is contemplated, there must be discussion and co-operation with, and finally the consent of, the Treasury. Such consent has already been given, and there are other cases under consideration. The Association must, however, under the terms of the Agreement, have power to decide whether it will make a loan or not.

Mr. Anderson

Are not the expenses of administration met by the Treasury?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

The reason why the Government thought it advisable that the power and the duty should be vested in the Association to make loans and to consider applications on their merits, was because it was felt that it should not be a subject of continual political pressure that, say, certain individuals should be granted loans. It was therefore felt right that it should remain in the hands of the Association to administer matters in accordance with the terms of its charter. With regard to administration expenses, within the terms of the Act and up to a sum of £20,000, the expenses are met through a Vote, which is the Vote we are considering to-night. Two other questions were asked. In regard to the figure which I gave as to the loans agreed on, in principle, I am informed that none has been withdrawn. Therefore, the figure that I gave does not include any loans that were subsequently withdrawn.

Mr. Mabane

I asked whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could say how much of the £243,000 has actually passed to the borrowers.

Mr. Lawson

Can the right hon. and gallant Member say whether any men have been employed as a result of this scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

It is too early to say, but I have no doubt that some employment has resulted. If the hon. Member asks that question a year hence when the companies have got into operation, it ought to be possible to say what employment has been given. I am not in a position to say at the present time how many men are employed as a result of this work, but I do know that several of the proposals envisage the employment of a considerable number of men. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Anderson) last night spoke of one undertaking which in the event of its coming into fruition would employ 1,000 men. There are other proposals, and I can assure the Committee that it is our belief that as things develop the scheme will lead to the employment of a considerable number of men in the Special Areas. It must be remembered, however, that the formation of the Association was not undertaken as a cure for unemployment in the Special Areas but as an effort to fill a gap in the present finance system. In reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), I am not in a position to say what sums have passed over, but it is clear that the Association is committed to pay the sum which I mentioned.

I think it was the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) who took me up on the statement I made, that one quarter of the capital had already been promised. He said that the £1,000,000 was a floating fund and that I was exaggerating when I claimed that already one-fourth of the capital had been earmarked. I am not exaggerating, because although the fund is a revolving one you cannot lend the same £1,000,000 twice until you get it back again. Therefore, I am right in saying that the Association at the present time is committed to lend one-fourth of its capital.

Mr. Anderson

Has the right hon. and gallant Member information as to the number of instances where the association has asked for the putting up of an amount of capital equivalent to the loan?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

I have not the information, but I do know that it has not been laid down as an invariable rule to ask that the applicant should put up an equal amount. That must depend upon the individual case. I cannot give the hon. Member the information as to how many cases have been dealt with where the security of an equal amount of capital has been given.

Mr. Anderson

This was one of the serious points which I mentioned last night, and I think that it ought to have been looked into in the meantime as to how far what I said was accurate or otherwise.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

The Association has to examine each case on its merits and it has to act prudently and lend money only in those cases where it believes there is the germ of success. It is entitled to ask for a certain measure of security before deciding to make a loan. If the applicant can get his accommodation from a bank, then the Association cannot act under the terms of its charter, because it was definitely formed to deal with those cases where accommodation is not available from the banks. I hope the Committee will appreciate that I have tried to cover the ground which was covered in the Debate last night, and perhaps I may in conclusion be allowed to say—

Sir J. Mellor

Will the right hon. and gallant Member answer the very brief question that I asked as to whether the quarter of the total capital he mentioned is entirely derived from the proceeds of the issue of shares, or that the loans will be financed from other sources?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

I cannot state the exact capital position, but the intention on the formation of the Association was that the funds should be derived from subscribed capital. In moving the Estimate I referred to another item, and that was a certain sporting event in Ireland, to which we do not have to contribute on this Vote, as it is now met from other funds.

Mr. David Adams

May I ask the right hon. and gallant Member a question on a very important matter, namely, what is the amount of capital to be made ultimately available? Are we to understand that the total amount will be £1,000,000, and that nothing further will be available unless we have legislation until the £1,000,000 has been repaid at the end of five years?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville

I cannot deal with the future. The capital at the moment is £1,000,000. The hon. Member is dealing now not with a question of administration but with the whole question of the Act, the terms of which are known to hon. Members. I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Act. It is clearly laid down what is the way in which the capital will revolve, and it should not be necessary on a Supplementary Estimate which deals with the question of administration to explain the terms of the Act of Parliament. In conclusion, let me say in reference to that particular sporting occasion, which I have tried several times to approach, and which hon. Members will perhaps now allow me to approach, that it is not the speed with which one backs horses but the skill with which one selects them that brings results. So in the case of this Association, it is the skill which the directors show in

selecting those enterprises that will make good and give employment in the Special Areas, that will be the test of its work. I hope and believe that as time goes on we shall see that the Association is doing good work in that respect. Meanwhile, it will do the association no harm but good to see the interest which is being expressed in Parliament in the work which it is carrying out.

Question put, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,937, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants in Aid and Supplement to certain Statutory Salaries

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 113.

Division No. 74.] AYES. [6.57 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Dawson, Sir P. Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Albery, Sir Irving Denman, Hon. R. D. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Denville, Alfred Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Drewe, C. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Apsley, Lord Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Aske, Sir R. W. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Duncan, J. A. L. Leckie, J. A.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Dunglass, Lord Leech, Dr. J. W.
Baxter, A. Beverley Eastwood, J. F. Lees-Jones, J.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Eckersley, P. T. Levy, T.
Beit, Sir A. L. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Lewis, O.
Blindell, Sir J. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Liddall, W. S.
Boulton, W. W. Elliston, Capt. G. S Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie Elmley, Viscount Lloyd, G. W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Brass, Sir W. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Errington, E. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Brocklebank, G. E. R. Erskine-Hill, A. G. M'Connell, Sir J.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Fildes, Sir H. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Fremantle, Sir F. E. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Furness, S. N. McKie, J. H.
Bull, B. B. Ganzoni, Sir J. Magnay, T.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Cartland, J. R. H. Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Goldie, N. B. Markham, S. F.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Gower, Sir R. V. Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Channon, H. Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Gridley, Sir A. B. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Christie, J. A. Gritten, W. G. Howard Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Clarke, F. E. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Munro, P.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Guy, J. C. M. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Hanbury, Sir C. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Hannon, Sir P. J. H Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Colfox, Major W. P. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Palmer, G. E. H.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Patrick, C. M.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Peake, O.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Peat, C. U.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Hepworth, J. Peters, Dr. S. J.
Cranborne, Viscount Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Petherick, M.
Critchley, A. Holdsworth, H. Pilkington, R.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Holmes, J. S. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Crooke, J. S. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Porritt, R. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Horsbrugh, Florence Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Cross, R. H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Procter, Major H. A.
Crossley, A. C. Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Radford, E. A.
Crowder, J. F. E. Hunter, T. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Culverwell, C. T. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Ramsden, Sir E. Shakespeare, G. H. Touche, G. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Tree, A. R. L. F.
Rawson, Sir Cooper Shepperson, Sir E. W. Turton, R. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Remer, J. R. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Warrender, Sir V.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Ropner, Colonel L. Somerset, T. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Wells, S. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Rowlands, G. Southby, Commander A. R. J. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Spens, W. P. Wise, A. R.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) Withers, Sir J. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Salmon, Sir I, Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Salt, E. W. Sutcliffe, H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Scott, Lord William Thomson, Sir J. D. W. Sir George Penny and Sir Henry Morris-Jones.
NOES.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Ridley, G.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Riley, B.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Ritson, J.
Adamson, W. M. Hardie, G. D. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Harris, Sir P. A. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Banfield, J. W. Hicks, E. G. Rowson, G.
Batey, J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Sanders, W. S.
Bellenger, F. J. Hollins, A. Seely, Sir H. M.
Benson, G. Hopkin, D. Sexton, T. M.
Bevan, A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Shinwell, E.
Bromfield, W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Short, A.
Brooke, W. John, W. Simpson, F. B.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Buchanan, G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Cape, T. Lawson, J. J. Sorensen, R. W.
Cassells, T. Lee, F. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Chater, D. Leslie, J. R. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cluse, W. S. Logan, D. G. Thorne, W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lunn, W. Thurtle, E.
Cove, W. G. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Viant, S. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Maclean, N. Walkden, A. G.
Ede, J. C. Mainwaring, W. H. Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Mander, G. le M. Watson, W. McL.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Marshall, F. Welsh, J. C.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Maxton, J. Westwood, J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Milner, Major J. Whiteley, W.
Foot, D. M. Montague, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gallacher, W. Owen, Major G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gardner, B. W. Paling, W. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Garro Jones, G. M. Parker, J. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Parkinson, J. A. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Potts, J.
Grenfell, D. R. Price, M. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Pritt, D. N. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Richards, R. (Wrexham)