§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 3.45 P.m.
§ Mr. Charles Brown
We cannot allow this Clause to pass without some comment. These duties, however, have been referred to recently in the House, and I want to make a brief reference to the matter on this occasion. As the Committee were reminded on the Budget Resolutions, these duties were imposed first of all in 1925, and on that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said that in all probability they were the first step towards a scientific tariff. He little knew, I think, when he made that remark, how soon we should pass into the phase where we have a system of Protection in this country. The immediate proposal before us in this Clause is to renew the duties for another four years. I do not know what particular magic members of the Government find in the word "four," but the duties were first imposed in 1925, they were renewed in 1929 and again in 1933, and the proposal now is that they should be renewed once more for another four years. I do riot know why such particular stress should be laid upon the period of four years, and why certain members of the Government should attach such importance to that figure. The ex-Prime Minister, for instance, told us some time ago that Parliaments ought only to last for four years, although we have an Act on the Statute Book which permits them to endure for five years. I do not know what is the reason for continuing this four-year term.
During the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions, the Financial Secretary, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), used only one argument in support of the continuation of these duties. He suggested that their removal would unsettle the market. He used no other 1782 argument, but repeated that in one or two different forms. I can imagine something of what was in his mind when he said that, having regard to the recent experience of the Government in connection with certain proposals which they made. Hon. Gentlemen on the benches behind them laid such stress on the fact that those proposals had disturbed markets or had disturbed business that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is now Prime Minister, had to bow to their will and withdraw the proposals. We are to have other proposals in a little while, and I hope they will not disturb hon. Gentlemen opposite as the original ones did.
I think I understand why the Financial Secretary used that argument on the earlier occasion. He had no desire further to unsettle markets or disturb business by the withdrawal of these duties. But I cannot understand what force there was in his argument when the whole position is examined. Under the Hops Marketing Scheme there is an arrangement between the brewers and the hop-growers under which, as I think he told the House, the brewers agreed to import not more than 15 per cent. of their total requirements. If that agreement holds good, I cannot imagine how the removal of the duty will unsettle the market. The only basis on which there would be any force in the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that, if the duty were removed, the brewers would not honour the agreement that they now have between themselves and the hop-growers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley complained that this was one of the highest duties in our tariff system, and I think that that was a legitimate complaint. The building of a scientific tariff is an interesting process, and some parts of the tariff wall are obviously higher than others. This is very high, and in this case there does not really seem, when one examines every aspect of the matter, any reason for the continuance of the duty. Only one other Member attempted to justify its continuance, and that was the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who did so on the ground that the Marketing Bill originally was the product of a Labour Government and, by some curious mental twist, he imagined that it was an instalment of Socialism, and suggested that, if you co-ordinated that with the duty as 1783 well, you got a sort of ideal economic condition as far as the industry was concerned. I cannot agree with him at all and, having examined the question as well as I could, my hon. Friends and I are sure that, unless some more forceful argument can be adduced from the Treasury Bench, we shall feel justified in voting against the Clause.
§ 3.53 P. m.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville)
The hon. Member said that in moving the Financial Resolution relating to this Clause I used one argument only. If it was a good argument, it does not seem to me that it was necessary to supply any other. It seemed to me a very good one, and that view was endorsed by the majority of the House. The argument was, in short, that the removal of the duty would unsettle the market, and expose the trade to a flood of imports at cut prices. The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite is not to extinguish the duty at once—
§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The effect of removing the duty would, in our view, be harmful. It has yet to be proved that it has been harmful to interests in this country. In my belief it has had a steadying effect on the market, which cannot be shown to be anything but beneficial. It is true that the Brewers' Society have an agreement with the Hops Marketing Board, which regulates the price of English hops, providing for a standard average price and restricting imports. The agreement is of a voluntary character. He went on to say that human nature being what it is—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I think human nature is very general; it is not confined to one part of the population. Human nature being what it is, the hon. Member held the view that in the absence of some duty there might be a danger of this agreement not being strictly adhered to.
§ Mr. C. Brown
I said I hoped the brewers would be the last people in the world not to honour their word.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Colville
Perhaps it is the method of presentation about which we are in dispute. I have little doubt that the hon. Member's suggestion was, in fact, that one reason why the Government were applying the duty for a further period was to ensure that the agreement would be complied with. Quite apart from that aspect of it, our view is that to remove the duty would be to take an action which is not generally called for by the people of the country, and would have an unsettling effect on the market. We, therefore, think it right that it should continue for a substantial period. The hon. Member asks, why four years? Four is not necessarily a golden number, but four years, in our view, is a proper period to give stability to the industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "There may be another Government before then."] I hope that stability would not disappear with such a change, which might not be in the direction that the hon. Member hopes. The House discussed this proposition at some length on the Financial Resolution, and the hon. Member has not brought any new argument to support his case. I claim, therefore, that the principle which was accepted by the House, that the duty should be continued for a further period, should now be endorsed by passing the Clause.
§ 3.57 P.m.
§ Mr. Lees-Smith
The right hon. Gentleman has by no means dealt with the whole case that has been presented against the duty and I will fill up one or two of the gaps in his exposition of the subject. My hon. Friend pointed out that it was originally imposed because there had been control over the industry by the Government. In 1925 that control was withdrawn, and this duty was granted in its place. The fact that the industry was left without control was the whole reason and argument for introducing the duty. The Financial Secretary has not even mentioned the fact that the reason for the duty has now entirely passed away, because now the industry is subject to a control even tighter than that which was imposed upon it during the War. Under the Hops Marketing Board, producers of hops have about the tightest monopoly in the country. They can determine the output, they can prevent new entrants coming into the trade, they can sell licences and, as the result of 1785 determining output, they can practically determine prices.
I will mention an incident which has been told me since the last Debate to show what control they have. A gentleman bought a farm. There were a few hops on it, though he really had not realised the fact. When he entered into possession, he received a letter offering him £100 for his licence to produce hops. He took no notice. A short time afterwards he received a letter offering him £300. Then he got suspicious, and went to his solicitor, who finally entered into negotiations by which he got £800 for this power to produce hops. This is the industry to which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give additional protection on the ground that it cannot hold its own without this artificial aid.
§ Mr. Lees-Smith
It proposes to continue the completely abnormal degree of protection which it at present enjoys. There is another feature of their position which has not been brought out in the Debate. They have not only this complete control over the home market, but by entering into an arrangement with the brewers they have got practical control over the foreign market—the arrangement by which the brewers can only use 15 per cent. of imports. Therefore, in over 85 per cent. of the home market they have succeeded in eliminating competition.
That is the industry we are discussing. It is the most sheltered, most protected, and most monopolistic industry of the whole range of industries in this country. What is the nature of the duty? An average duty, if you work it out under the tariff system, I believe reaches rather less than 20 per cent. A very special exception was made in the case of the iron and steel trade, which was given a duty of 33⅓ per cent., except for a very short period. This industry, which has every kind of assistance that the Government can give to hops, has a duty of nearly 50 per cent., a duty higher than anything in the whole range of duties. The Financial Secretary has never attempted to answer this exposition of the accumulation of privileges and monopolies which are granted to this one industry. There is no answer. The only reason why the thing continues is that there is only one 1786 customer for this industry and the British public keeps no very close eye upon it. In fact the position of the industry now amounts to a ramp. It shows how far the present Government becomes the victim of vested interests in the case of an industry on which public attention is not concentrated.
§ 4.3 P.m.
§ Colonel Gretton
I speak with some knowledge of this subject for I am what is described in the old Statutes as a common brewer of beer for sale. The origin of the duty was that the hop industry during the War was hard-hit, and the quantity of hops required to make British ale had been very greatly reduced by the conditions of war, followed by the excessively high duty on the article produced. The hop growers, who suffered considerably, went to the Government and asked that there might be a duty imposed upon hops imported in order to allow them to recover that trade. Finally, the duty was settled by the Government at the amount at which it now stands in the proposal before the Committee. I would call attention to the fact that there was a preference on British Empire hops so that they paid only two-thirds of the duty. It is quite true that subsequent to that the hop industry was still dissatisfied and thought that it had not sufficient protection. The hop growers went to the then Minister of Agriculture and he set up a Hops Marketing Board, giving practically entire control over the industry of hop growing.
The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) is quite correct; it is a monopolistic business. No one can enter upon it who was not engaged and registered as a hop grower when the Board was set up, and those who are in business are able to sell to someone else their right or privilege to grow hops under the regulations of the Board. For a man to get into business in any other way than that is even harder than for the proverbial camel to get through the eye of a needle. As a matter of fact the British brewers are very anxious to have a full and adequate supply of good British hops and have always relied in their business on that quality and class of hops. The imported foreign hops only make up the deficiencies in the British supply. We as brewers offer no opposi- 1787 tion to this arrangement so long as it is worked in the way it is. The brewers might be very hard-hit indeed if there were a considerable failure of British hops in any year. At present we manage to carry on. The only reason we manage to carry on is that the hops are produced and that on the whole they are of the character and quality which suit the brewers. There is one matter in which we brewers have some anxiety, and that is as to whether the good quality of the best class of British hops will be kept up under this arrangement. There is undoubtedly a tendency for hop production to pass, as has been described, from one grower to another, and the right or monopoly which is sold does not necessarily require the growing of the highest class of hops. There is no reason why brewers should oppose this arrangement, which is working well enough, but it might happen in the period of four years that the whole conditions alter, and we should then come to the Government of the day, having regard to that position, and ask them to make some alteration in these arrangements to meet the new situation.
§ 4.7 P.m.
§ Sir Percy Harris
We have just had an interesting side-light on this very remarkable industry. We could not have a better representative of the brewing industry than the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). At the risk of giving him an advertisement I would say that he brews beer of the best quality and that its character is beyond suspicion. The whole Debate is significant of the state in which we live now. I would remind the Committee that this is a Finance Bill, a Bill to provide the necessary revenue for carrying on the Government of the country. This particular Clause is not a revenue tax at all. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say how much he anticipates it will bring to the Exchequer this year. It is, of course, a protective duty, to give a special privilege to a few people so that they can enjoy a monopoly in the provision of a certain crop of hops grown on certain lands which have been given the monopoly. I have a very vivid memory of the last Parliament and the setting up of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The whole idea was that in future, when a tax was levied not for the 1788 purpose of revenue, when it was to be renewed, altered, modified or added to, it was to be submitted to that Advisory Committee.
To-day we have no memorandum before us. We have not had the opportunity of knowing the views of these highly qualified gentleman whom we are asked to trust, to decide on the advisability of modifying or renewing the tax. We have no memorandum and no report and we do not know what inquiry has gone on. Has there been any inquiry by experts or has it been a put-up job between the two vested interests, the brewers and the hop growers? The right hon. and gallant Member for Burton is a little restless, I notice, and quite rightly. He is beginning to wonder whether the quality of the hops essential in the brewing of good beer is to be maintained. The Financial Secretary talked about human nature being what it is. He did not define human nature very closely, but I understand his suggestion is that human nature is not of a very high standard and generally looks after its own interests. That is his doctrine. Accepting that doctrine, is it not reasonable to assume that the hop growers, having a complete monopoly and guarantee for four years, will not make any special effort to improve the standard and quality of their crop? I hope that my hon. Friends of the Labour party will divide against the Clause. If the Clause is defeated I do not suppose that anyone who is a consumer of beer will suffer very much, although it has been suggested that some brewers produce beers that have not a very close acquaintance with hops.
§ Colonel Gretton
I do not want my hon. Friend to mislead the Committee. These matters are stated in precise terms and he can see exactly how much hops substitutes are used in the brewing industry. It is an insignificant quantity.
§ Sir P. Harris
I am not very worried about the beer drinkers. They can look after themselves, though in some rural districts, where there are tied houses, they have no choice of beer; they cannot for instance call out for a Bass, and they have to take whatever the publican chooses to give them. In some cases there is suspicion about the quality; at any rate I am told that that is so. I suggest that if we have to pass this Clause now the matter should be referred 1789 to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and we should have a report on the operation of this duty, on how it affects the supply of hops on the one hand and on the other hand how hardly it hits a great number of farmers in Kent with land suitable for hops—land which they grubbed up during the War as a result of the appeal to their patriotic instincts. They put their land under other crops of which there was a dire need then.
The question whether this Clause has been before the Import Duties Advisory Committee I do not think has the slightest effect on the Hops Marketing Board.
§ Sir P. Harris
If this monopoly goes on under this protection obviously other farmers will not be able to produce hops. What I suggest is that if this duty is to be continued all farmers in England should have the advantage of it and it should not be limited to a privileged few. We are imposing a tax to protect the market and it is only fair that the advantage of it should be applied to every farmer who likes to produce hops. In the meantime I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee—there are precedents for it—for a report on the whole working of the duty as a protectionist system, particularly in relation to the Hops Marketing Board.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft
I intervene for a few moments because there appears to be a good deal of misunderstanding on this matter. As I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), it was clear that there was some idea that this was a ramp in connection with the brewing industry as a whole. I do not think that he meant the hop industry, but the brewing industry.
§ Sir H. Croft
The hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) also seemed to indicate that this was a deal between the brewers and the hop growers. That appears to
§ be a complete misunderstanding. I belong to neither of these classes, but I know something about it. I venture to think that if anyone had reason to complain of any disadvantage, which has not been indicated, it would be the brewers who found themselves with a limited market and increased price. The truth of the matter is that the hop-growing areas of this country during the War and immediately afterwards were in a very parlous condition. A great deal of the hop land had been actually grubbed, and when once hop land has been grubbed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a most expensive process to get it under cultivation again. The result was that the British share of hops was likely to depreciate very much at a time when a large quantity of foreign hops was coming into the country. The consequence was that this Measure was instituted. It was not part of the general scheme, but it has undoubtedly been an astonishing success, because the hop-growing industry of this country is once more really prospering.
§ The right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that he is wrong in stating that there is no reason why the hop growers should try to get a better crop. It is well known by those who have studied the matter that there are different grades. The man who grows the good grade of hops gets a very much higher price than the man who grows the lower grades. The question I ask is whether there is anybody in this country who has really complained of the results of this duty. I should have thought that it was one of the outstanding financial successes of the last few years. In Sussex, Kent, Hampshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, they are grateful for this policy, because it has given stability to the industry, and we could not commit a more ghastly blunder than turn the whole of the fortunes of these counties back again, as would be the case if the duty were not continued.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 118.1793
|Division No. 223.]||AYES||[4.17 p.m.|
|Aoland Troyte, Lt. -Col. G. J.||Anstrulher-Gray, W. J.||Atholl, Duchess of|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Apsloy, Lord||Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)|
|Allan, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Assheton, R.||Balniel, Lord|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Aster, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)||Barrio, Sir C. C.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Patriok, C. M.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)||Grimston, R. V.||Peako, O.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)||Peat, C. U.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Gunston, Capt. D. W.||Petherick, M.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Guy, J. C. M.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Hannah, I. C.||Pilkington, R.|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Harbord, A.||Radford, E. A.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)||Hartington, Marquess of||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.|
|Bull, B. B.||Harvey, Sir G.||Ramsden, Sir E.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Butler, R. A.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.||Rayner, Major R. H.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Higgs, W. F.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)||Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Holmes, J. S.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. H. (Edgb't'n)||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Channon, H.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Horsbrugh, Florence||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Chorlton, A. E. L.||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Sandys, E. D.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hudson, R. S. (Southport)||Savery, Sir Servington|
|Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Scott, Lord William|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.||Selley, H. R.|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Colfox, Major W. P.||Joel, D. J. B.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Keeling, E. H.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Smith, L. W. (Hallam)|
|Cooke, J. O. (Hammeismith, S.)||Kimball, L.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crew)|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cox, H. B. T.||Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Lees-Jones, J.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Critchley, A.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Levy, T.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Crooke, J. S.||Lewis, O.||Storey, S.|
|Cross, R. H.||Liddall, W. S.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)|
|Cruddas, Col. B.||Lloyd, G. W.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)||Loftus, P. C.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Davison, Sir W. H.||Loval-Fraser, J. A.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|De Chair, S. S.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Denville, Alfred||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Doland, G. F.||Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Donner, P. W.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Dower, Major A. V. G.||McKie, J. H.||Touche, G. C.|
|Drewe, C.||Maclay, Hon. J. P.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J||Tufnell, Lieut. -Commander R. L.|
|Duggan, H. J.||Macquisten, F. A.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Magnay, T,||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Markham, S. F.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Mason, Lt. -Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Ellision, Capt. G. S.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Elmley, Viscount||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Emery, J. F.||Meller, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G.|
|Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mills, Major J. D. (Now Forest)||Withers, Sir J. J.|
|Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Findlay, Sir E.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Fremantle Sir F. E.||Moreing, A. C.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Fyfe, D. P. M.||Morrison, G. A. (Soottish Univ's.)||Wragg, H.|
|Ganzoni, Sir J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.|
|Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otloy)||Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Munro, P.|
|Gluckstein, L. H.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —|
|Gower, Sir R. V.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Mr. James Stuart and Captain|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Waterhouse.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyka||Bellenger, F. J,||Chater, D.|
|Adams, D. (Conselt)||Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Bromfield, W.||Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.|
|Adamson, W. M,||Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Cove, W. G.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Daggar, G.|
|Amman, C. G.||Burke, W. A.||Dalton, H.|
|Barr, J.||Cape, T.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)|
|Batey, J.||Charleton, H. C.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)|
|Day, H.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Lathan, G.||Sexton. T. M.|
|Edc, J. C.||Leach, W.||Short, A.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Lee, F.||Silkin, L.|
|Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)||Leonard, W.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Fletcher, Lt. -Comdr. R. T. H.||Logan, D. G.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)|
|Fool, D. M.||Lunn, W.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Gallacher, W.||McEntee, V. La T.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Gardner, B. W.||McGhee, H. G.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)|
|Garro Jones, G M.||MacLaren, A.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Mander, G. le M.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Montague, F.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Noei-Baker, P. J.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Oliver, G. H.||Thorne, W.|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Owen, Major G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Parker, J.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Parkinson, J. A.||Viant, S. P.|
|Harris, Sir P. A.||Pethiok-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Walker, J.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Price, M. P.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Handerson, A. (Kingswinford)||Pritt, D. N.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Quibell, D. J. K.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)||Westwood, J.|
|Holdsworth, H.||Richards, R. (Wrexham)||White, H. Graham|
|Hopkin, D.||Ridley, G.||Wilkinson, Ellon|
|Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Riley, B.||Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)|
|Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Ritson, J.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Rothschild, J. A. de||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rowson, G.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Kelly, W. T.||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Sanders, W. S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.|