§ As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
§ CLAUSE 7.—(Penalties and legal proceedings.)
§ The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper)
I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, after "whether" to insert "or not."
The Amendments to this Clause fall to be considered together. When the Bill was in Committee, doubt was expressed as to the exact meaning of the provision which enabled the court to require an employer to make back payment of wages. I undertook to look further into the matter and these Amendments are now proposed with the object merely of making more specific the purpose that the Clause is designed to secure, namely, that when the court orders an employer to make back 1172 payment of wages, either for the period of six months in Sub-section (3) or for the longer period of a further 18 months in Sub-section (4), the money shall be paid to the workman and not to the court. Owing to a mistake one drafting Amendment has been omitted and I will move it on line 16.
§ Mr. Johnston
We welcome the Amendments to clarify the position and to meet the objections that we raised in Committee, when we held the view that it was not clear that a victimised employé would get the allowances that had been withheld from him in cases where a farmer had been convicted and fined. We should, however, like to know precisely what the Amendment is that it is proposed to insert on line 16.
§ The Lord Advocate
It is to delete the words "in addition," which do not read well with the Clause as amended. I will read the opening words of the Subsection as they will read when amended as proposed:In any proceedings against an employer under this Section the court shall, whether or not there is a conviction or a fine is imposed, order the employer to pay to the worker such sum as may be found,and so on.
§ Mr. Johnston
What purpose is served by taking out the words "in addition"? They make it quite clear that the intention is that, in addition to the fine paid in certain eventualities by a defaulting employer, the employé, who has been defrauded may get such sums as are due to him. What is the purpose of taking out the emphasising words "in addition"?
I think it will be more convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to explain that when we come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. Johnston
It is purely a matter of convenience. If we could be satisfied on the point, all the Amendments could be agreed to at once.
§ The Lord Advocate
As originally drafted the Clause read: 1173whether there is a conviction or not order the employer to pay in addition to the fine, if any, such sum,In order to make it clear that the payment falls to be made to the worker, we have deleted the closing words of line 16 and refer to the fine at the end of line 15 by making it read:whether or not there is a conviction or a fine is imposed,So that the fine is brought in there and the payment that falls to be made to the worker, as distinguished from the payment that falls to be made to the court, will, of course, be in addition to the fine, if a fine has been imposed, but will not be in addition to the fine if a fine has not been imposed. The alteration has precisely the effect that we all intend to achieve. It is only a question of doing it one way or another.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 16, leave out "not," and insert "a fine is imposed."
In line 16, leave out "fine, if any," and insert "worker."
In line 34, after "pay," insert "to the worker."—[The Lord Advocate.]
§ SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and proceedings of agricultural wages committees and the agricultural wages board.)
§ 8.44 p.m.
§ Mr. Johnston
I beg to move, in page 12, line II, to leave out, "may, if at any time they deem it expedient," and to insert "shall."
As the Schedule stands, the Department may, if at any time they deem it expedient, appoint two independent members to each committee for the fixation of wages, that is in addition to the independent chairman. We took the strongest possible objection to the nomination of these two independent members and we were fortified in our objection by the fact that the Caithness Committee, composed as it was of farmers' representatives and neutral persons, agreed unanimously that it would be undesirable that there should be any of these nominated persons. The committee said:No members of the district wages committee should be appointed by the Minister. In making these recommendations, we have kept prominently in mind what we regard as the vital and essential principle of any system of wage regulation in Scottish Agriculture, 1174 that the determination of minimum rates should as far as it is practicable be left in the hands of the industry itself.We hoped to induce the Secretary of State and the Government to agree that the alleged independent members should not be appointed. We also hoped to induce the Committee to accept our point of view, but in the course of the discussion there emerged a new difficulty, that, as the Schedule now stood, the Secretary of State might appoint these independent members if at any time he deemed it expedient, and that it might be that he would deem it expedient to appoint these two independent members during the operation of a wages dispute. Many Members in all parts of the Committee felt that it would be highly undesirable that the Secretary of State for Scotland, either the present Secretary or any future Secretary, should nominate alleged independent members to give, in effect, a decision in the event of a dispute between the farmers and the farm workers. The Secretary of State undertook to consider the matter. He was obviously in some doubt himself, and he undertook to examine the whole position afresh between the Committee and the Report stages. He was not tied one way or another to the Schedule.
In order to make the position clear my hon. Friends and myself have tabled this Amendment to make it compulsory upon him to appoint his two independent members immediately the Act has passed, so that it will not be left in his hands to appoint his independent members during the currency of a wages dispute. The farm workers' representatives still hold very firmly to the view that we ought not to implicate ourselves in any way whatever in the appointment of these independent members, and it is the lesser of two evils that we have to choose between to allow the Schedule to remain. That is, that the Secretary of State may appoint them when he thinks it expedient. If the Schedule is agreed to as it stands, there is no compulsitor upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint independent members at all. There are areas where doubtless he will appoint them, but there are areas where he might find it difficult to get independent members, and indeed he might not find it desirable, for various reasons, to appoint independent members. Therefore, my hon. Friends and myself have 1175 come to the conclusion that it is advisable in this, as in every course of life, to choose the lesser of two evils, and with the permission of the House we do not propose to press the Amendment.
After a speech of that kind, I think I am bound to treat the Amendment as moved and to put the Question accordingly.
§ 8.50 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot)
I, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), am now in some little difficulty, and I think that it would be well to face this matter in the simplest fashion. I am perfectly willing to take the responsibility myself. I do not wish in any way to tie the right hon. Gentleman or his friends to the responsibility of inserting the two independent members as a compulsitor on the Secretary of State, but I hold to the frame of mind in which I was left at the conclusion of the Debate, that either the two independent members should be in the committee or should not be in the committee, and if they are to be in the committee, it should be by the decision of the House and not by the decision of the Secretary of State. I meditated for some time on that, and the right hon. Gentleman, and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), will remember I wrote both of them on 1st July at some length indicating that that was my view and that I proposed to put down an Amendment to that effect. On finding that there was an Amendment on the Paper, I thought that it would be courteous not to put my name at the head of such an Amendment, and, therefore, I did not put my name down to this Amendment. But it does express my view, and I recommend the House to decide accordingly.
I am perfectly ready to take the responsibility myself, but I think that the arguments which went a long way to convince us all on the Committee stage, and which, I think, convinced the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, to the effect that this Amendment ought to be tabled, are valid, and consequently the committee should include two independent members. That 1176 should be part of their constitution as enjoined upon the Secretary of State by the House and should not be left to the will of the Secretary of State or the Department. I am the more reinforced in that view since for 12 years now we have had experience of this being worked satisfactorily in England and the appointment of independent members of a committee has been a great advantage. I support the Amendment on the Paper.
§ 8.53 p.m.
§ Sir A. Sinclair
We all seem to be in rather a difficulty at the moment. As I understand the position, the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment asked leave to withdraw it. That leave will be refused and we shall then divide on it. We must decide what attitude we are to take when the Division is called. I have considered the question of the appointment of the two independent members very carefully. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State made this proposal and undertook this responsibility of appointing, in certain circumstances, these two independent members —and I stated this upstairs on the Scottish Select Committee—because of his anxiety to see, on the one hand, that this scheme was worked in the districts by the local people, and, on the other hand, that in the unhappy event of a deadlock there would be no breakdown. Personally, I should not have regarded it as a breakdown if it went to the central board, but I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman takes a different view. I am not going now into that controversy.
I can only say to the House that I have not altered the view which I expressed in the Scottish Standing Committee. I said then that I thought that the appointment of these independent members was a mistake. I still think that it is a mistake. Then the right hon. Gentleman made, as he said, a suggestion to me in a letter which he wrote to me—the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench has put in the form of an Amendment. Quite frankly, that did seem to be an improvement. One of the things I disliked most about the original proposal was that into discussions which had been barren and had led to a deadlock, would be interjected two new people who would come into an atmosphere which was already rendered difficult by sharp 1177 controversy and whose opinions on the point at issue would be canvassed and who would be considered to be biased one way or the other. I thought it was a very difficult task to put upon them and that it would not improve the atmosphere of the committee.
Therefore, when the Secretary of State made the suggestion that the two members should be appointed from the beginning, I thought that that would be an improvement on the original proposal, and I still think so. If the matter goes to a Division I assume that the question involved will be whether or not independent members should be appointed, and it is upon that issue that I shall vote. I shall vote against appointing these independent members, but if they are to be appointed then I wish to make it plain that I think the Amendment now before the House is an improvement on the original proposal.
§ 8.56 p.m.
§ Mr. Buchanan
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) on this point. I still hold to the view that the appointment of independent members either at the beginning or the end is a bad proposal, and I do not think that the Amendment is an improvement on the old proposal. What is it that is feared by the critics of the method in the Bill? As I heard the discussion in Committee and in the House, they fear that a dispute will arise and that the Secretary of State will then co-opt two independent persons on to the committee at that particular stage. I should prefer that method to the method now proposed. Let us assume that a dispute arises because conditions are not satisfactory, a deadlock occurs on the committee and at that stage the Secretary of State makes two appointments. The moment he does that, he has taken a Parliamentary step that can be challenged in this House at a very important moment. He throws the whole dispute into Parliamentary controversy and we can come to the House and challenge his action. Otherwise we shall have no such chance.
If these people are appointed beforehand, perhaps long before a dispute arises, there will be no chance of raising the issue on the Floor of the House. I shall divide against the Amendment 1178 because it makes the appointment of these independent people compulsory. I am totally opposed to the so-called independent persons. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge (Mr. Barr) said that he would like to know who the independent people were. Independent people do not exist. I do not think they are necessary for the working of this legislation. Of the two methods the method in the Bill is preferable. If the right hon. Gentleman is to appoint two persons it is to be assumed that he will appoint those whom he regards as best qualified, and once they have been appointed we can challenge him here, but if they are appointed in the way now proposed those appointments will not be subject to Parliamentary criticism.
§ 8.59 p.m.
§ Mr. De Chair
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I think it would be unfortunate if the independent persons were to be added at a late stage of the proceedings when, as the hon. Member suggests, their independence could be challenged on the Floor of the House. What sort of independent members would they appear to be on the committee if their integrity and impartiality were being challenged in the House of Commons? If I had thought that hon. Members opposite were going to adopt the Gilbertian situation of bringing forward an Amendment merely because they thought they would not be associated with it, I should have put down an Amendment on these lines. Therefore, I am glad that the Secretary of State has adopted the line that he has. The experience of the English Wages Committee has been that the independent members have saved the situation. If the matter was to be left to the decision of a single independent chairman, whatever decision he made he would be a black or tan according to the way the people looked at his action. By the addition of two independent members to the tribunal we can ensure that any decision arrived at will be much more likely to be accepted than if it is the decision of a single member. For that reason I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is going to adopt the procedure which he has explained.
§ 9.2 p.m.
§ Mr. Barr
I want to dissociate myself and my hon. Friends on these benches 1179 from the supposition that we have put down an Amendment in order to dissociate ourselves from it. We are under the influence of public opinion and consultation from the farmers or the farm servants, and it is only because we have fuller knowledge of opinion in those quarters that we have hesitation in proceeding with the Amendment. We appear to have fallen into eddies and crosscurrents in the House and we are faced with difficulty. Hon. Members are, however, generally agreed on one thing, and that is that if a certain crisis or deadlock arises there is danger at that point in appointing men who are not likely to receive thanks from one side or the other. That is why we thought of putting in the compulsitor. On the other hand, I must say that I do not like bringing these so-called independent members at all. I do not know where you will find them. I have not found them in politics.
§ Mr. Barr
No, I do not think you will find an unbiased man in religion either. When he says he is strictly undenominational, it means that he has still a denomination on his own. When a man says that he does not belong to any party he belongs to what was once described in this House as "the party of no party men." If a man at any time comes up to me and says, "Mr. Barr, I never take any part in politics," I know at once that he does not vote Labour. There is the historic case of the great preacher Charles H. Spurgeon who was a famous preacher and a Radical. A friend wrote to him saying that he was mixing in the mire of politics, and that he should be above taking any part in politics. Mr. Spurgeon wrote back in reply: "I am very glad to know that you do not take any part in politics, for I am sure that if you did you would vote Tory." I do not know that we can find these independent men, and if we did I do not think they would be worth very much either in argument or in matters of policy. I do not know how this question will emerge, but I should be inclined to go back to the position I originally took up and leave out these two so-called independent members, or to take part in a decision which would show that we 1180 are not in favour of bringing in these independent members.
§ 9.8 p.m.
§ Mr. Boothby
We are in a most extraordinary situation, and one which certainly confuses me. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has moved an Amendment which has been attacked from all sections of the Opposition and at the same time has been warmly supported by the Secretary of State, who said that he would be happy to accept it. In normal circumstances such an announcement would be cheered by hon. Members opposite. But now I do not know exactly where we are. At any rate, we are at one that the question can be decided on its merits and that it has nothing to do with party politics. I do not agree with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) that these committees are practically bound to develop into a dog fight between farmers and farm servants, with a sort of piebald referee to decide the issue. If that is the result of this Bill then it would be far better if the Bill had never been introduced at all. The one thing which we are all anxious to avoid is to drive a wedge, which has not existed for a century, between farmers and farm servants in Scotland. That is the one thing we want to avoid. We do not want to have the farmers on one side and the farm servants on the other engaged in a kind of dog fight, and then a so-called independent refereee called in to decide between them.
The only question we have to decide on this Amendment is whether we shall be more likely to avoid this by appointing two so-called independent members right away or whether it is wiser to give the Secretary of State discretion to appoint them ad hoe when a dispute arises. I was impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and I am inclined to think that it would be much better to let the thing alone for the time being. The Secretary of State has not produced any convincing argument for appointing in every case these two independent members to keep the ring between farmers and farm servants. If he makes this gesture to the Opposition which they do not seem to desire it will go a little way towards indicating that in every case there will be a dispute. I still believe that a dispute will be the rare occasion, and when it occurs will, in 1181 my opinion, be the moment for the Secretary of State to intervene on his own responsibility and take immediate cognisance of the dispute. If the Amendment is passed he will not be able to do that. I do not know whether there is time to give further consideration to this matter from that aspect but I hope that such further consideration will be given.
§ 9.12 p.m.
§ Mr. Johnston
May I by leave of the House make an appeal to the Secretary of State? We are in a little difficulty. We are trying to face the realities of the situation, and are anxious that the Measure should operate with the minimum of friction. For the Secretary of State's conduct of the Bill upstairs we have nothing but commendation, and it is due to that fact that there are hardly any Amendments on the Paper. Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to refrain from pushing this to a Division in the Lobby, leaving himself with the power he has in the Schedule and then if he finds it expedient he can appoint these independent members. There are areas where it will be found difficult to appoint independent members at all, and inasmuch as there is no political issue at stake and as we are all anxious for the Measure to work smoothly, is it not possible for the Secretary of State still to keep his power to appoint these independent members but not to make it compulsory?
§ 9.13 p.m.
§ Sir John Gilmour
I agree that this is not a controversial subject. It has been my duty to learn something about the working of the wages boards in connection with England when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, and as one who has had experience of dealing with this problem and also of appointing people to these committees, I can speak with a certain knowledge of the subject. So far as I am able to gauge the matter it was one of the surest methods of avoiding what I am sure we are all anxious to avoid, a complete deadlock between the two sections of the industry. Imagine, for a moment, what will be the position of the independent chairman who is to be appointed under the Bill if, in every case where there is a dispute, he is to be put in the unenviable position of having to take sides with one section or the other. His position will be untenable. On the other hand, if the committee has 1182 upon it from the first two individuals who, having heard the arguments on both sides and knowing all the details of the subject, can use their influence and advice, that of itself will be an ameliorative condition. If the suggestion were that when a deadlock had occurred the Minister should be called upon to bring in two independent individuals who would have no accurate knowledge of what had happened in the committee beforehand, that would not be helpful.
I look back to the times when we got along all right in Scotland without having wages boards; it is only because that system has unfortunately broken down that we are to-day faced with this Measure. With our experience of the working of such a Measure throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales, is it to be said that we are not to take advantage of the circumstances as shown to us, that these individuals who have been added to the committees have been able to prevent disputes throughout the country? In my judgment, the Minister will be well advised to accept this Amendment and to appoint the independent people from the beginning. I hope the House will agree to that.
§ 9.18 p.m.
§ Mr. Stephen
I have listened to the Debate with great interest. There seems to be a great deal of excitement about having two individuals walking into the committee when the dispute takes place, but that is the general practice with regard to many of the industrial disputes that occur. For instance, in the London transport dispute recently, the parties met and discussed the matter, and it was only after a deadlock had been reached that other people were brought in, and ultimately it was through those people that a settlement was arrived at. Hon. Members who say that it would be a terrible thing, in the case of these wages committees, if a dispute occurred between the two sides and two people who did not know anything about the matter walked in, should ask themselves what the people who have gone into most of the disputes in the industrial world during the last few years have known about them. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) was a member of the Government, that was the ordinary procedure that was followed. 1183 So much nonsense has been talked about this matter that I felt I ought to intervene in order to say how disgusted I was to hear all the talk about what a terrible thing it would be if two men were brought into a wages committee in Perthshire after a dispute had taken place. Many hon. Members are not assured about the impartiality of the people who would be brought in to deal with the disputes. I do not believe it is possible to get impartial people. I think that everyone has a tendency to judge from the standpoint of his own training and temperament. I believe that all this talk about impartiality is so much twaddle. It is the general practice of all Governments to appoint such individuals, and when they do so they do it on the basis that the particular people they are appointing are impartial. There is one other point that worries me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok has referred to the experience in England, where there are independent members of the committees. The right hon. Gentleman said that the poor chairman, if he had not those two individuals on the committee, would always be worried about the balance between the employers and the workers. What would happen if the two individuals in the committee took opposite sides? Generally one of them takes the workers' point of view and the other the employers' point of view, and then again the poor chairman is right in the middle of the two sides. I fancy that that would be a common experience if the two independent members were appointed.
A great deal of humbug has been talked about this matter. I do not think these two members should be appointed at all. If a deadlock occurs, it is the business of the Minister to get into touch with the parties, as happens in the case of any industrial dispute. As things stand, I think the Minister would be well advised in the meantime to take the view which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), and then to reconsider the matter. If he alters his opinion, and thinks that a change in the Bill is necessary, possibly he could make the change in another place. I think the view that 1184 has been expressed from the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House, as well as from this side, is that the expectation should be that the wages committees will work in general, and that in practice no such appointments will be necessary.
§ 9.23 p.m.
§ Mr. Elliot
One would imagine from the Debate that we were discussing whether or not there should be independent members on the committees. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said that we were discussing whether or not there should be independent members, but no Amendment in his name or that of anybody else has suggested that there should not be.
§ Mr. Elliot
The Amendment on the Paper deals with the circumstances in which independent members should be appointed, and whether discretion should or should not be given to the Minister.
§ Mr. Buchanan
Under the Bill as it is, the Secretary of State may, if at any time he deems it expedient, appoint the two independent members, but the Amendment would make it compulsory by law that they should be appointed.
§ Mr. Elliot
The arguments have proceeded to some extent on the basis that there should not be any independent members. It would have been easy to put down an Amendment to that effect. But I only say that in no part of the House has any such Amendment been put down. The last thing I wish to do is to bring up against any hon. Members the Amendments which they have tabled, but the fact remains that we are discussing this on an Amendment which suggests that this should be enjoined on the Secretary of State. If such an Amendment had not been put down I should have put down such an Amendment, and there can be no suggestion of any lack of information about that, because I did intimate that as long ago as 1st July, both to the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). Therefore I do not think that the Committee are in any difficulty. The Committee are merely faced with the question whether the appointment should be 1185 made in circumstances dictated by the House or by the Secretary of State.
It has been borne in on me what dangers of ambiguity there might be if the words stood as they are. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has quite a different conception of it from me. My conception is certainly not that a dispute should go on and reach an acute point and then the appointment should be made by the Secretary of State, which appointment would be, as he said, challengeable on the Floor of the House. If I made the appointment according to my conception I should be challenged for bad faith by the hon. Member for Gorbals and others who would say "You are depriving us of the Parliamentary opportunity of challenging these appointments." The last thing I would want is to be challenged for bad faith. The circumstances under which these Members
§ ought to be appointed will have to go out from the House to-night. There is much more likelihood of trouble if the people working on this committee are working under circumstances of ambiguity, and I feel still more apprehensive about the dangers of ambiguity after to-night's Debate. If the circumstances in which the Members were appointed were left ambiguous it would lead to disputes in the Committee and in the House.
§ 9.29 p.m.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 184.1187
|Division No. 283.]||AYES.||[9.30 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke||Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Muff, G.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Noel-Baker, P. J.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)||Grenfell, D. R.||Parker, J.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Ridley, G.|
|Barr, J.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Riley, B.|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Ritson, J.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)|
|Broad, F. A.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Bromfield, W.||Holdsworth, H.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Jagger, J.||Rowson, G.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sexton. T. M.|
|Cape, T.||Kelly, W. T.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon T.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)|
|Chater, D.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lathan, G.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Leash, W.||Stephen, C.|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Lee, F.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Dalton, H.||Leonard, W.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Leslie, J. R.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Logan, D. G.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dobbie, W.||Lunn, W.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||McEntee, V. La T.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Ede, J. C.||Maclean, N.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Mathers, G.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Messer, F.|
|Foot, D. M.||Milner, Major J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Gardner, B. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Brass, Sir W.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Briscoe, Capt. R. G.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Beechman, N. A.||Bull, B. B.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Bernays, R. H.||Butcher, H. W.|
|Apsley, Lord||Bird, Sir R. B.||Campbell, Sir E. T.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Boothby, R. J. G.||Cartland, J. R. H.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Bossom, A. C.||Cary, R. A.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Boulton, W. W.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)|
|Balniel, Lord||Bower, Comdr. R. r.||Christie, J. A.|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Boyce, H. Leslie||Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Hepworth, J.||Rankin, Sir R.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Higgs, W. F.||Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)||Rayner, Major R. H.|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Cox, H. B. T.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hopkinson, A.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Rowlands, G.|
|Crooke, J. S.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Royds, Admiral P. M. R.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Hunter, T.||Salt, E. W|
|Cross, R. H.||Hutchinson, G. C.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|De Chair, S. S.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Selley, H. R.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Kimball, L.||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Dodd, J. S.||Latham, Sir P.||Smith, L. W. (Hallam)|
|Donner, P. W.||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Spens, W. P.|
|Duggan, H. J.||Lewis, O.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Liddall, W. S.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Lindsay, K. M.||Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)|
|Eastwood, J. F.||Little, Sir E. Graham-||Storey, S.|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Loftus, P. C.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Emery, J. F.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Magnay, T.||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Errington, E.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Erskine-Hill, A. C.||Markham, S. F.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Fildes, Sir H.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Fleming, E. L.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.|
|Furness, S. N.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Watt, G. S. H.|
|Goldie, N. B.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Goodman, Col. A. W.||Morgan, R. H.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Gower, Sir R. V.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Granville, E. L.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T.(Hitchin)|
|Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Munro, P.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Nall, Sir J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Wise, A. R.|
|Grimston, R. V.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Wragg, H.|
|Gritten, W. C. Howard||Peake, O.||Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.|
|Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gunston, Capt. D. W.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Guy, J. C. M.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.||Procter, Major H. A.||Mr. James Stuart and Major Sir|
|Hannah, I. C.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||George Davies.|
|Harbord, A.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M|
§ Question put, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted."1188
§ The House divided: Ayes; 185; Noes, 99.1189
|Division No. 284.]||AYES.||[9.38 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Campbell, Sir E. T.||Dodd, J. S.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Cartland, J. R. H.||Donner, P. W.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Cary, R. A.||Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Duggan, H. J.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Christie, J. A.||Duncan, J. A. L.|
|Apsley, Lord||Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Dunglass, Lord|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Eastwood, J. F.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Colman, N. C. D.||Edmondson, Major Sir J.|
|Balniel, Lord||Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Elliot, Rt Hon. W. E.|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Ellis, Sir G.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Emery, J. F.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Entwistle, Sir C. F.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Cox, H. B. T.||Errington, E.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Cranborne, Viscount||Erskine-Hill, A. G.|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Craven-Ellis, W.||Fildes, Sir H.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Fleming, E. L.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Crooke, J. S.||Furness, S. N.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Cross, R. H.||Goldie, N. B.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Crowder, J. F. E.||Goodman, Col. A. W.|
|Brass, Sir W.||Cruddas, Col. B.||Gower, Sir R. V.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)||Granville, E. L.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)||De Chair, S. S.||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)|
|Bull, B B.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Gridley, Sir A. B.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.|
|Grimston, R. V.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)||Magnay, T.||Selley, H. R.|
|Gunston, Capt. D. W.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Guy, J. C. M.||Markham, S. F.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.||Marsden, Commander A.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Hannah, I. C.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Spens, W. P.|
|Harbord, A.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Stewart, William J.(Belfast, S.)|
|Hepworth, J.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Storey, S.|
|Higgs, W. F.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)||Morgan, R. H.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Hopkinson, A.||Nall, Sir J.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Peake, O.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Hunter, T.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Hutchinson, G. C.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.|
|James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Procter, Major H. A.||Watt, G. S. H.|
|Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Kimball, L.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Ramsbotham, H.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Latham, Sir P.||Ramsden, Sir E.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Rankin, Sir R.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Lees-Jones, J.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Rayner, Major R. H.||Wise, A. R.|
|Lewis, O.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Wragg, H.|
|Liddall, W. S.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.|
|Lindsay, K. M.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Little, Sir E. Graham-||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Rowlands, G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Loftus, P. C.||Royds, Admiral P. M. R.||Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Munro.|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Salt, E. W.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke||Garro Jones, G. M.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Adamson, W. M.||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Muff, G.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Noel-Baker, P. J.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Grenfell, D. R.||Parker, J.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Barr, J.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Batey, J.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Ridley, G.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Riley, B.|
|Broad, F. A.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Ritson, J.|
|Bromfield, W.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Holdsworth, H.||Rowson, G.|
|Buchanan, G.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Seely, Sir H. M|
|Cape, T.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sexton. T. M.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kelly, W. T.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Chater, D.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Lathan, G.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Leach, W.||Stephen, C.|
|Dalton, H.||Lee, F.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Leonard, W.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Leslie, J. R.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dobbie, W.||Logan, D. G.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Lunn, W.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Ede, J. C.||McEntee, V. La T.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Maclean, N.||Windser, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Mathers, G.|
|Foot, D. M.||Messer, F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Gardner, B. W.||Milner, Major J.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.|
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.