HC Deb 15 June 1937 vol 325 cc241-67

(1) Subject to such excxeptions as may be allowed by special order made by the Secretary of State, no person shall be employed in the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or in any other process ordinarily carried on in a bakehouse, between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of any body representative of the employers or workers in the baking industry in any district, by special order prohibit any person who carries on within the district the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or any such process as aforesaid, whether he does or does not employ any other persons in his business, from being himself engaged in the manufacture or process between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.

(3) This section shall come into operation en the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine: Provided that if a joint application is made to the Secretary of State by any body or bodies representative of the employers and of the workers in the industry in any district the Secretary of State may, by special order, direct that this section shall come into operation in that district at such earlier date as may be fixed by the order.—[Mr. Banfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Banfield

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The proposed new Clause makes a good deal of provision for negotiation in the matter of night baking, subject eventually to an Order by the Secretary of State. I feel in considerable difficulty in moving the Second Reading of this Clause. For some time a Departmental Committee of inquiry has been sitting, and it was hoped that the report would be in the hands of the Minister by the time the Bill reached the Floor of the House. Unfortunately, owing to circumstances over which I presume no one has any control, the report is not ready. Consequently we are left in doubt as to what its substance might be. This matter might very well be settled by this House. For nearly 5o years I have been advocating the abolition of night baking, in season and out of season, at all times, in this country, at Geneva and in European countries. I have lived long enough to see night baking abolished in some form or another in every European country and in the Irish Free State, and to see this nation, Great Britain, the only European country which, up to now, has not abolished night baking. Wherever I go in putting this case, I receive a tremendous amount of sympathy. When I put this matter before the then Home Secretary, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was intensely moved and sympathetic. He was very much struck with the case that I put up, but I suppose he consulted the officials in the Department and they, being permanent officials, said, "Well, Sir John, the best thing you could do would be to appoint a committee of inquiry. You are not obliged to act upon any report it may give, and in any case it is satisfactory to everyone, especially in the House of Commons, to know that an inquiry is proceeding."

When I gave evidence before the committee of inquiry, once again I had every sympathy. The chairman and every member of the committee were very interested in the statement I put before them, so much so that I began to feel dread and fear about the result. I am beginning to feel, as George Bernard Shaw once said, that I would never be afraid of the verdict until the judge asked me to take a seat alongside him on the bench. With the knowledge of all the sympathy I have received, I want, if I possibly can, to put this case for the abolition of night baking before the House, so that it may at least receive the sympathy and support of Members of the House of Commons.

This is not a party question; it involves no party politics; it is a human question. I hold in my hand a report of a meeting held in Exeter Hall, a place which some of the older Members of the House will remember, on Wednesday, the 7th March, 1860. The Earl of Shaftesbury was in the chair, and the meeting was held to further the abolition of night baking. His Lordship, in speaking to the meeting, said one or two things that were re-echoed over and over again before the present committee of inquiry. Seventy-seven years ago, operative bakers in London were asking to be allowed to start work at four o'clock in the morning. I am asking now, seventy-seven years after, that they should be allowed to start work at five o'clock in the morning. Lord Shaftesbury said this: How simple is their request to begin labour at four o'clock in the morning. I say that to many of us this would be an intolerable hardship. They ask to be allowed to work 12 hours a day. I am rejoiced to find that a vast number of masters have already concurred in this arrangement, and find no inconvenience or detriment to their business. I believe many more would be glad to get rid of the system under which they live … but"— And this is the important point— they shrink from the trouble and inconvenience to which they might be exposed at the outset. Let them take the evil by the beard and put themselves on the same level as other good men. Lord Ebury, who also spoke at that meeting, said this—and here again he might have been using the words that I used on the Second Reading of the Bill: In walking about in rainy weather I used to be surprised to see a part of the pavement which was perfectly dry while all the surrounding portions were wet, and I thought there must be a canopy overhead, or someone must have been standing with a gigantic umbrella; but on passing on I found the same phenomenon occur a short distance further, and at last I noticed that it was always the same, wherever there was a baker's shop. If there had been a sufficient number of them you might have walked dry everywhere, and it appears that the heat rose from the bakers' ovens … These pale gentlemen arrived about eleven; and such a place as these bakers were in no words can describe … I often used to look down through the grating and see those unhappy fellows at work. I could just see these white sort of ghosts moving about in the cellars below. If Members of this House will take a stroll through the West End of this City to-night after the House is up, they will still see those dry patches on the pavement after the rain, and they will still be able to look down into the cellars and see men working practically naked, except for a singlet. They will be able to see these poor fellows, 77 years after the meeting that was held in Exeter Hall, working under precisely the same conditions.

I have been very much struck with the reports in the Press of the evidence that has been given before the committee of inquiry on night baking. I gave my evidence in my humble way, knowing that I was speaking for the tens of thousands of operative bakers in this country—not only for the members of my organisation, but for the thousands who stand outside my organisation. I spoke for them, for their wives and for their little children, before that committee of inquiry, and I asked that these men should be given to their wives and children, should be allowed to sleep during the night and work during the day. Mine was only one voice. There is only one organisation representing the workmen in this industry, and very many of them are not organised at all, but I spoke for them all.

The Committee has not yet reported, and I was wondering a little about the delay, when I saw in the Press the number of organisations that appeared before this committee of inquiry. The remarkable thing about it was that they were like Falstaff's ragged army—they used to appear in one guise, go out through the door, change their appearance, and come back again. One of the great firms here in London surpassed itself in this matter. There was "our Mr. Salmon," who appeared in the guise of representing the incorporated wholesale and retail bakers of London. Then there was "our Mr. Gluckstein," who came along as representing the roll makers; and there was "our Mr. Joseph," who came as representing the purveyors of light refreshments. It was the same dog, but with a different collar every time.

There were four great considerations in this matter. There was the consideration whether, if night baking were abolished, it would increase the cost of the loaf. An increase in the cost of bread is a serious matter to many millions of people. When this question was discussed at Geneva in 1925, the employers put forward the remarkable theory that the abolition of night baking would increase the cost of bread. I made a speech at Geneva, and a compliment was paid to me. The representative of the Ministry of Labour who was there got up and said: I have listened to Mr. Banfield's speech with a very great deal of interest—a typically British speech attacking the British Government. I pointed out at Geneva that a Royal Commission had been sitting lately which said that the abolition of night baking would raise the price of bread by ½d. per 4 lb. loaf. I am sure that the Commission never realised what it was doing, but, if the abolition of night baking gave to the employers of Great Britain another ½d. per 4 lb. loaf, it would mean a national endowment of the smaller employers to the extent of about £500 a year, and of the larger employers to the extent of almost £10,000 a year, simply because they were baking by day instead of by night. At the present inquiry the story that the abolition of night baking would increase the price of bread has not been seriously put forward by the employers so far as I can tell. From the reports in the Press it would appear that that, at any rate, has "gone West."

One great point that is immediately put forward against the abolition of night baking is that the public demand new bread—a very important point—and that the public demand new rolls. We have had the spectacle of a gentleman who is put forward as being the biggest adver- tising agent in the world writing to the "Times" and asking what on earth was going to happen to him if he could not get a hot roll for his breakfast. In the old days, when I worked in the bake-house, I could have told him very well indeed, in short language, what I thought of him. I took to the committee of inquiry certain specimens of bread. I thought they ought to have some actual evidence; I knew they were going to have a lot of theory, and a lot of stories about all the terrible things that might possibly happen. I got my friends in Scotland to send me down a loaf—a wrapped loaf—32 hours old. I put it before the committee, and we cut it. When I asked she committee how old they thought it was, they said that it seemed to be very good bread, quite fresh, and might be 12 hours old. They were astonished to rind that it was 32 hours old. I produced bread to them that was 16 hours old. It was unwrapped, and from the appearance and feel of the loaf it was at least as new as the bread that is delivered in your homes every day in the week. I produced to them bread that was five or six hours old, and not fit for people to eat, because it was too new. Whatever argument there may have been to the effect that the public would be supplied with stale bread if night baking were prohibited, that argument, to say the least of it, must have been considerably changed.

There are men engaged in this city at a quarter to six in the evening making bread which is delivered at your homes at any time between ten and one o'clock to-morrow and it will be sold to your good wives as new bread. Under night baking the public are supplied with stale bread and they cannot tell the difference. Is it not obvious that under a system of day baking, with a five o'clock start, the public can be supplied with all the new bread that it wants, and more than is good for it? I am positive that if night baking were prohibited the great majority of people could be supplied with more new bread than they can possibly get under a night baking system.

But I have to meet another point. Can the employers so alter their business that they can institute a day baking system? Last week I was in Aberdeen, and I found that every employer in the industry was using the day system, with a 45-hour week and wages of 72s. as a minimum. I was at some trouble to interview private employers. There is a co-operative society but the great bulk of the bread trade is done by the usual type of private employer that you will see in every town of that size in the country. They assured me that they would welcome a legal enactment. They did not want to start their men at four o'clock, as they were doing. They would sooner start them at five or six provided everyone in the trade was treated alike. The retail bakery would welcome wholeheartedly the abolition of night baking. It may be said that those representing the retail bakers went to a committee of inquiry and said they did not think they could do it. There is a natural disposition among all classes of people, employers and very often employed alike, instinctively to dislike anything that puts them to a little inconvenience. But there is no technical difficulty. There is no real difficulty.

According to a report in the "Times" a great number of small employers in Argyllshire insisted on being heard before the committee because they said their association had not represented their point of view. They were employers and they were, asking that night baking should be abolished. The real trouble is this: There have grown up, as a consequence of night baking, people who are not satisfied with selling their bread to their neighbours and fellow townsmen but send it 40, 50 or 90 miles away. Outside a lunatic asylum no one could imagine a system which compels men in Manchester to work all night to enable their employers to send bread to Liverpool, and men in Liverpool content to work all night so that their employers can send bread to Manchester and sell it. It is a foolish and wasteful system all along the line. There is neither sense nor reason in it. Men are to be dragged out of their beds at eight or nine o'clock in the evening year in and year out to enable a stupid system like this to continue.

These wholesale bakers say if night baking is abolished we shall lose some portion of our trade. One of the greatest of the wholesale bakers who appeared before the committee of inquiry, according to the Press, was the well-known Glasgow firm of Messrs. Beattie. I was in Glasgow a few months ago and I travelled by night train to Inverness. On that train was bread made by Messrs. Beattie some time during that afternoon and put on the train at 10.30 at night, and it went to Inverness with me. It was collected by vans and distributed over the whole of the Highlands. If baking were abolished between 11 at night and 5 in the morning what difference would it make to Messrs. Beattie, if the bread is not sent away before II o'clock at night? An ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. I have here the accounts of a Dublin firm which does a tremendous business, as big as any in the country. They sell their bread all over Ireland—Cork, Waterford and Limerick. They have abolished night baking for the last 10 years. They have made a profit of £28,260, they propose a dividend of 6 per cent. less tax; which is not so bad, I suppose, in these hard times, and on their preference shares 8 per cent. tax free. They carry forward £11,000 and put £37,062 to depreciation. That shows that profits can be made and business expanded in just the same sweet old way. I said to the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon) the other day, when we had a conversation on this matter, "You pay people for their brains in your business." He said, "Yes, we do." I said, "Well, just tell them to use their brains and they would have no difficulty whatever in solving this problem."

But there is another point that has to be answered. It is a surprising thing that, when you begin to talk about something to ameliorate the conditions of the workers, a certain class of employers say, "We must look into this. The workers might be worse off instead of better. We must look after their interests. It is all very well for Banfield to say these men want to go home and sleep in their beds at night. That might be a very bad thing for them. Among other things this was put up to me, they said, "If you abolish night baking your people will have to work on Sundays. That is a terrible thing." After all, I think I may claim that there is no man who has done more to abolish what was at one time one of the curses of the baking trade, the seven-day week. I have stood at street corners and have used every epithet I could think of in my efforts to stop Sunday baking. When they suggest that this would increase Sunday baking it strikes at my heart because, before everything else, I stand to give every man a chance to enjoy his day of worship and of rest. I found that, so far as retail bakers are concerned, the matter did not affect them at all. If night baking was abolished they would start at 5 o'clock on Monday morning and produce Monday's bread the same as usual. Messrs. Salmon and Gluckstein have worked their people 52 Sundays in the year ever since I knew the firm at all. The great wholesale houses which produce bread to sell 60 or 90 miles away have worked their people on Sundays and will continue to work them on Sundays. There will be less Sunday baking with night baking abolished than there is now. We cannot wipe it out altogether, but there will not be any more than there is now, and I think there must be considerably less.

I was struck by the remark of a great wholesale baker who, like the late Prime Minister, got into the way of thinking aloud. He was at a master bakers' meeting where they were passing with acclamation resolutions against the prohibition of night baking. He got up and, without stopping to consider precisely the effect of his words, said: "After all, if we have to do it:, we shall find ways and means of doing it and we shall not be much worse off." I quoted this before the committee of inquiry, and I am very sorry to say that this employer has been explaining away what he said ever since, and now he has not convinced anybody that he did not say it. I am the first to recognise that the great wholesale baking houses are by far the best employers that we have. They give better conditions of labour, and they can be depended upon to carry out their obligations. Is it likely that I, with my knowledge of the baking industry, after 25 years' experience at the bench, a craftsman who knows the industry from A to Z, should do anything really to injure people who are my best friends? That is not likely. I said to the hon. Member that I would not work for him at any price, but that if it were necessary I would be prepared to come and show him and the rest of them with what little trouble it can be done.

The opposition to the abolition of night baking comes from the usual sources, out of the selfishness of man and man's inhumanity to man. It is sometimes said that after all other people beside bakers have to work at night, and why should not they ask to be excused. Railway servants and printers have to work at nights. The difference is fundamental. In regard to the people who have to work a t night because trade and industry cannot be carried on without night work, there is a case for night work, but if you have a trade or industry which can be carried on without night work, which is not essential to the trade, the employer, the customer and the consumer, then, there is no justification for inflicting barbarities upon men by compelling them to a life of continual night work.

There are hon. Members in this House well acquainted with the three-shift system. They know all about their own people who work at nights. They know that a man is not continuously on the night shift; he gets alternate shifts. But the curse of the baking industry is from the time a man goes into the bakehouse at 16 and comes out of it wrecked and battered at 65, all his life he is condemned to work at night. Why should he have to do this? If it were suggested that the baking trade could not be carried on and that profits could not be made without it, there might be some justification for it. Nothing of the sort has been suggested. I look round and find that in every country in Europe, whether democratic or Fascist, they have abolished night baking, and in the Free State also. Here we are after all the years that I have been fighting and struggling for this thing I have to come at this time and plead to this House that this reform should be given to my people. Nobody knows the conditions of the life of the operative baker better than a man like myself who as had such a long practical experience. I do not think that people are willingly inhuman, and they do not willingly inflict these things upon other men. It is because of apathy, indifference and ignorance. These are the things that cause human misery.

I expect that the right hon. Gentleman will get up and say, "We have not had the report of the committee, and, therefore, I am unable to give you any indication about the matter." If I had the report of the committee in my hands, and it was against me, I would come to this House as a court of appeal, and I would take their arguments one by one and show where they were wrong. I ask this House to give justice in the name of humanity. It is sometimes said that this is simply sob stuff, but the case that I am putting here this afternoon is not sob stuff. It comes from the bottom of my heart on behalf of tens of thousands of men in the baking industry who are unable to speak for themselves. It was suggested that the men in the baking industry did not want night baking abolished. Here is proof that 77 years ago they demanded it. I have been in the baking trade for 50 years, and every man to whom I have spoken, whether in the union or out of the union, and every baker's wife to whom I have spoken, has said, "Do, if you can, abolish night baking." I wish it were possible for some of the wives of operative bakers to come to this House and say what they think about night baking. I will quote what has been said by a far better master of the subject than I am. He said: Come with me. I am about to start work. The time is eight o'clock on Sunday night. Church bells are pealing. Into the dressing room, off with the clothes, into the singlet, the old trousers, the old boots and apron, and over to the bakehouse, not much better than the dressing room. He describes the heat, the work, and what they have to do, and says: It is now eight o'clock in the morning. We have done a 12 hours' stretch, with about three-quarters of an hour break—not bad. Then home to bed to sleep in God's good daylight. You do not pick up much beauty sleep. Four hours through the night are worth so through the day. By day you hear the least sound. Up about tea-time, a look at the newspaper, a talk with the wife and kiddies. Eight o'clock something good on the wireless. Duty calls to the old dressing room. Same old routine. Another 12 hours. And it goes on night after night, and year after year. That is the baker's lot. People may get up in this House, as I dare say they will, and suggest that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that the baker is content and must go on with his night work because the trade cannot be carried on without it. I hope that for once the interests of big business will not be allowed to dominate this position and that it may receive some defeat. We cannot injure big business very much if bakers do not work by night. If the interests of big business depend upon this system that I have described, then it is a pity that profits have to be wrung out of the very sweat and lifeblood of the decent men who work inside the bakeries.

I hope that the House will forgive me for making this rather long speech. I have attempted to put the case as moderately as possible and to show that this thing can be done without injury to anyone, given the will and determination and courage to do it. This Bill, with all due respect, has not been very noticeable for either courage or determination. It has been a Bill of compromise, perhaps inevitable to a very great extent, but there is an opportunity here to do something which would make the Bill remembered for ever as the Measure which abolished night baking in Great Britain. May I make an appeal to the new Home Secretary? I am satisfied that he, after having heard me, is also full of sympathy, as everybody else always is, when I talk about this matter. But sympathy is not enough. Give me something practical; hold out some hope to these men. I do not ask for the moon. I have waited for this reform for 50 years, and if I have to wait another two, or indeed, three years I shall be content, if I am spared to see this curse of the baking trade removed from our midst.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Ridley

In rising to second the Motion, I cannot bring to my aid the practical experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), nor bring to it the kind of devotion that almost tempts me to refer to him as my right hon. and Noble Friend. It would, in every sense, be a fitting thing if this House could do what my hon. Friend desires after 50 years of devoted service to a great social reform. I have just listened to a speech which by its very character must have touched Members in every part of the House, and I wish to add a very few words to the appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the new Clause. My view obviously is not the view of the practical baking operative, but that of the man who desires to see the problem through the spectacles of social peace and well-being. May I ask for the general assent of the House that night work is an undesirable form of employment and that it should never be required except for reasons that are imperative and unavoidable? I ask the House to test night baking by that standard. There are industries and occupations, such as transport and others of that character, where night work is imperative and unavoidable, but its imperativeness and its unavoidability in night baking is completely denied by the unique experience which my hon. Friend has brought to our notice. We are now in this matter in a position of thoroughly undesirable isolation, and I hope that, by the will of this House this afternoon we shall bring ourselves into line with European countries.

6.14 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare

I am sure that all of us were greatly moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), who gave the kind of speech that rightly always impresses the House. It was a speech, first of all, by someone who knows the question about which he is talking in every detail, the practical side as well as the side of theory. It was also the speech of an hon. Member who has devoted many years of his life to what he believes to be a very great cause. I tell him at once that as I listened I was very much moved by the appeal that he made to me and to the Government, but I must point out certain considerations which make it impossible for me to respond to the appeal to-day.

First of all, the House must remember, however effective and however strong and moving the speech of the hon. Member may have been, and in many respects it was strong and impressive, that there is another side to the question. For many years past—it is evidenced by the fact that we have been talking about this question for 30 or 40 years—there have been complexities. I have made it my business during the time at my disposal to begin a study of this question. In recent years there have been a series of inquiries, some of them in favour of the abolition and some of them, for reasons good or bad, against the abolition of night baking. The view has been taken at more than one of these inquiries that the abolition of night baking would put up the price of bread, which, as the hon. Member himself said, would be a very serious matter for a great portion of the population. The view has also been taken that such an abolition would mean that the public would not be supplied with new bread. I have very little sympathy with that particular objection, because I am one of the few people who very much dislike new bread. Be that as it may, there is the fact that this is a very complex question, raising a good many issues outside the scope of the Factories Bill.

When the Factories Bill was introduced the view was taken that this was a question that had better be dealt with, if it had to be dealt with, specifically by a Bill devoted to that particular question. The view was held that a question of this kind, raising the issue of the restriction of hours of adult males, and founded, for the most part, as I think both hon. Members admitted in their speeches, upon social grounds rather than upon grounds of health and safety, should be dealt with not in the Factories Bill but in a specific Measure. At the time when the Bill was introduced there was a discussion as to whether it was better to have this question in the Bill or outside, if action was to be taken, and it was thought that, if specific action was to be taken, although on the grounds I have mentioned it might be more appropriate to deal with it in a special Bill, there were reasons to justify including a provision in this Bill. But before any provision could be included it was necessary to clear up the points of dispute between the two different views. Accordingly, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury knows better than anybody else, because he took a very prominent part in the earlier discussions, my predecessor set up a committee of inquiry to inquire into the whole question, hoping that we might have the report when we reached this stage of the discussion on the Factories Bill.

The committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Alness, but the committee, unfortunately—I am not making any criticism of the committee—has not issued its report. I can assure hon. Members that, as far as I am concerned I have done my best to expedite the report. I am not giving away any confidences when I say that as soon as I came to the Home Office and saw the position I ventured to write to the chairman, impressing upon him the importance of our having the report when we reached this stage of our discussions. I am sorry to say—again I am not making any sort of criticism—the report is not ready, and as it is not ready I am not in a position, and I do not think that anyone in my place would be in a position, to make a statement either for or against the case that has been put to us this afternoon. I am afraid that we must wait until we get the report. I can assure the House that when we do get the report, the Government will at once give attention to it, and we must then decide what action, if any, we should take. I cannot say whether it will be possible to take action in this Bill, if we do decide to take action. Obviously the Government must consider the report and the best way of dealing with the matter. That being so, I feel I can go no further to-day. I can, however, assure the hon. Member in all sincerity that I listened with great interest to the very effective case that he made, but I cannot give any undertaking in view of the fact that we have not yet got the report of the committee of inquiry.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Mander

I rise only for the purpose of putting a question to the Home Secretary. I appreciate the difficulty of his position in view of the fact that he has not received the report, but in the event of the report being received during the next few weeks, before this part of the Session ends, will he consider the advisability of including provision in another place? Would not that meet the difficulty if the report is received within a reasonable time?

Sir S. Hoare

I wish not to exclude any possibility, but we must have time to study the report and decide what action, if any, we are going to take. All that I can say is that we will study the report without delay, and we must then decide, if we are going to take action, whether it is better to take action within the four corners of this Bill, or by a special Measure.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Marshall

As a member of the committee, I should not like the Home Secretary unwittingly to give the impression that the absence of the report at this juncture is the fault of the committee of inquiry.

Sir S. Hoare

I specifically said that it was not.

Mr. Marshall

Obviously, I cannot take part in the discussion to-day, but there is this to be said on behalf of the committee, that they understood that the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Factories Bill would have taken place later, and they were frantically endeavouring to have their report ready by that particular time. However, owing to the exigencies of Government business the discussion of the Bill has been brought forward seven to ten days earlier, and the consequence is that it has been absolutely impossible for the committee to get out its report in time. I should like it to be understood that there is no blame attaching to the committee. It has had a very onerous duy to perform and a very complicated matter to inquire into, and it has worked very hard to have its report ready, but owing to Government business having been expedited it has not been able to get its report ready for this advanced time.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

I rise to support the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). The speech that he made had a tremendous appeal to the heart.

Mr. Lansbury

And the intellect.

Mr. Maxton

I am glad that interruption came from the right hon. Gentleman, because he knows perhaps more than anybody in this House that there is always a tendency to suggest that a speech that makes an appeal to the heart is not so appealing to the intellect. I think the case put by the hon. Member is unanswerable, not on sentimental grounds but on the grounds of common sense and business efficiency. He has spoken of the long years that he has been engaged in this propaganda. He is probably aware that I have as one of my leading constituents a gentleman who has done in Scotland similar work to what he has done in England among bakers. I refer to Councillor W. D. Hunter, of Glasgow, who is now 80 years of age. He has come to me at every election, and the only test question he has put to me has been whether I am in favour of the abolition of night baking and whether, if given the opportunity, I will vote for it in Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an opportunity of voting for it to-day.

I know the case from A to Z, not from practical experience but from having it put to me. It has been put to me clearly and definitely, and I do not need any Royal Commission or committee on the matter. I do not need the expert advice of Lord Alness, great as is my respect for his legal and judicial knowledge. It is a question for the ordinary commonsense man who lives in the ordinary way and meets bakers in the ordinary course of life. I have a bakery immediately behind my home in London. I go home at all hours of the night, as many hon. Members do, and whenever I am going to bed these fellows are working at the bakery. When I go home in the early hours of the morning I run into them going in or out of the bakery. It is an unusual and exceptional thing for us to be walking the streets at five or six o'clock in the morning, and we think we are very hardly done by when we have to do that, but these men are doing it for a lifetime, tens of thousands of them, not on account of any exceptional emergency but on account of the day-to-day routine of their life.

The right hon. Gentleman could have saved himself the trouble of examining the committee's report. He could have applied his own common sense, which we know is very great. The reports of Royal Commissions or committees are not always very sensible. The right hon. Gentleman could simply have used his own common sense, his own judgment, his own power. He is the one man in this country who has the power. He could decide this question now, on the spot, and save himself trouble and save the House of Commons further legislation by making the decision which would abolish this blot from our social life.

The hon. Member referred to Messrs. Beattie who, he said, have a special interest in this baking business. My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) represents a constituency in which their bakery is situated, and he is prepared to make any opprobrium which may arise on the part of Messrs. Beattie through the abolition of night baking. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has, I think, the biggest bakery in Great Britain in his constituency, the bakery of the United Co-operative Baking Society, a huge concern, the directors of which have declared again and again that for their thousands of employés they are led to urge that this bit of legislation should he put through, and that they are prepared to face the consequences, dealing as they do with a huge working-class population as their customers. They are prepared to face the baking of bread for hundreds and thousands of people in the West of Scotland under these conditions, quite satisfied that they can provide a good wholesome commodity to their customers at reasonable prices and provide a more humane way of life for their employés.

For these reasons I shall support the hon. Member in the Division Lobby, but wish that the Home Secretary would give it active consideration. He has come quite recently to a new job. Admittedly he has to face a different type of problem from that which faced him in his previous terms of office at the India Office, the Foreign Office or the Admiralty. We know that in these jobs he has not been afraid to exercise his independent judgment, that he has not been unprepared to take risks and to stand the racket, which he has had to stand on occasion. This is a case where it is worth doing so again.

6.32 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg

I rise only to ask one question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I entirely agree with him that this is not a subject which is best dealt with in a Factories Bill, and I was also impressed by his argument that it would be better to await the report of the committee which has been set up. But while I agree with him in those two respects I am bound to say that I was deeply impressed by the case made for this reform, and among the many arguments which have been advanced the most cogent and appealing was the fact quoted by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), that every other country in Europe has already introduced this reform. That is a very striking fact, and if it is the case then for the first time I feel a little compunction as an Englishman. It is an astonishing fact that every other country in Europe should have made this reform if all these difficulties are supposed to be attaching to it. The question I want to ask is this: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the committee will consider what has been done in other countries and the result that has followed in other countries, so that we may really know why this country should be in this exceptional position?

6.34 p.m.

Dr. Salter

The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) addressed the House from the point of view of the operatives, the workmen. I am in a position to deal with the question from the point of view of the employer. I have been on the board of a large bakery for 20 years and I know the details and con- ditions which apply in the trade. I should like to tell the Home Secretary that a very large number of employers and employing firms are looking to him and to this House to give them deliverance from night baking which they cannot secure for themselves. The firm with which I am connected are prepared, whatever the fate of this particular Clause, to abolish night baking and take the consequences. We know that there will be certain intensified competition but we are quite prepared to take this step, because after an experience of 20 years, and the advice of managers and experts of even longer and greater experience, we are convinced not only that the abolition of night baking is practical but that there is really no justification whatever for its continuance.

Some evidence was given before the committee of inquiry by an experienced manager of private businesses and co-operative business in this country and abroad, and in Canada, and he stated quite definitely The abolition of night baking is entirely devoid of difficulty from the operative point of view. Any readjustment necessary can be overcome with ease by the management. The whole business is simply a matter of organisation. The hon. Member for Wednesbury talked about purchasing brains and putting them in charge of the business. I am perfectly satisfied, from my large experience of the baking trade, that this matter is merely one of reorganisation in 99 cases out of 100, and that managers and firms hesitate to act upon their own and take steps to abolish night baking, before it is compulsory on all, because it would mean a certain amount of disturbance for a few weeks while the reorganisation was actually taking place. The Home Secretary referred to the question of costs. Where night baking has been abolished it has not been found to put up prices. That is not a matter of theory. In the case of my own firm we are satisfied that it will certainly not increase our costs but will diminish them, and that there will be no necessity for any augmentation of plant.

There will be many other advantages from the public point of view. There is certainly a higher percentage of illness among men who have to work at night than among those who work during the day. In my own firm we have had a day and a night shift, and we have found that 75 per cent. of the total absences through illness has occurred among the night staff, and this figure has been consistent for a number of years. There is also a much higher percentage of accidents among men who work during the night than among those who work during the day, and we have also found that there is a higher standard of output as well as a greater quantity of output on the part of the day staff than there is on the part of the night staff.

I put it to the Home Secretary that in spite of the absence of this report the case is overwhelming for the adoption of this reform. It is not merely the desire of the operatives but the desire of a large number of employers. Individual firms feel themselves more or less helpless to bring this reform about unless and until it is the law and compulsion is applied to other competitors. I beg the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. The comfort, health, happiness and domesticity of 30,000 men are at stake, and I beg the Home Secretary to have regard to the overwhelming evidence there is in support of this change.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Denman

The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has succeeded in drafting a proposal so like one which came from the Government side that I was deceived into thinking that it was an Amendment put down by agreement. He has got almost the precise phraseology. In the Committee upstairs we were led to hope that we should be able to insert some Clause of this kind during the passage of the Bill, and we now understand that we may have the report of the committee within to days. If that is so, we may still have that hope, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us——

Mr. Marshall

I hope the hon. Member will not say that. I said that the discussion on the Factories Bill has been brought forward seven to 10 days.

Mr. Denman

Yes, and also that the committee hoped to produce their report in time for the Report stage. It is not an unreasonable inference to draw that the committee hoped to present their report within a fortnight.

Mr. Marshall

It is the hon. Member's own inference.

Mr. Denman

I agree, but before this Bill gets through another place, we may have that report, and the Government may have such a clear indication of what is desirable that it may still be possible to insert a Clause on these lines in another place. If the report makes such a Clause impossible of course we shall not expect it, but if it is reasonably possible to fulfil the expectation given in committee that a Clause on these lines would be inserted if the report justified it—if we could have that assurance I think the House would be ready to accept it.

Sir S. Hoare

I hope I have made the point clear. The Government must have time to consider the report and decide what action to take. If the Government have time and decide that action should be taken, and the Bill is not through another place, certainly we should abide by the undertaking given in Standing Committee. If the Government still decide to take action but there is not time to insert the provision in this Bill, then we shall have to take action by an ad hoc Measure some time in the future. In giving that undertaking, quite obviously, I do not exclude the possibility of the Government deciding not to take action. I speak with an absolutely open mind. I have tried to study the detailed history of this question. It is a complicated question, but I think I have made my own position and the position of the Government quite clear to the House.

6.44 p.m.

Sir John Haslam

I rise because I feel myself in a somewhat difficult position and I ought to explain it to the House. I have been connected with this trade for many years and I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). But the matter has been complicated by the appointment of the committee to inquire into the whole subject and, therefore, it would be almost an insult to the committee to pass legislation before it has reported either for or against. Although my heart, my intelligence and my experience of the trade all tend to take me into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, my common sense and feeling of justice to the committee and to the Home Secretary tell me that I must refuse to be tempted into that particular Lobby on this occasion. I thought I must explain my position to the House.

At the same time there is no real logical argument against the abolition of night baking. I represent one of the most industrial areas in the country, and I am always opposed to industry being penalised, especially if it has to compete with and suffer from foreign competition. That can never be said about the baking trade, except in so far as foreign competition has come into this country, and ought to abide by the laws and conditions here. All my life I have been a supporter of private enterprise, of the little man as opposed to the big man. There have grown up in this country huge combines which have utilised the conditions in the baking trade to their own ends. The result is that we see an increase in night baking, and naturally the individual trader has to follow. If the abolition of night baking injured anybody—I deny that it would, but if there were the possibility of its injuring anybody, it would be the huge combines, and I think they can well afford to be hit a little, if anybody has to be hit.

I am making these remarks as a result of a lifelong experience of the trade. One never gets unanimity in this country, but speaking in a general sense, the individual master bakers are in favour of the abolition of -night baking. I wish to impress that upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Some of us have admired the right hon. Gentleman's administration in various Departments. During the time I have been in the House, I have watched him in the three previous positions which he has occupied in the Government, and I have looked with admiration upon the way in which he has left his mark on those particular Departments of State. Who were the people who left their mark on history at the Home Office? Were they people who were afraid to bring forward legislation for the benefit of the working classes, or were they people who came out, perhaps a little before their time, who resisted the pressure of officialdom and interested parties and who said of any subject, "Is it right, is it decent, is it in the interests of the people who cannot achieve a right system of living without legislation?" It is the second type of people who have left their mark. I want my right hon. Friend to leave his mark on the legislation of this country as a great Home Secretary, and I do not think he could do anything that would be more conducive to that than seriously to consider the report when it comes to hand. I hope the report will be in favour of the abolition of night baking. If it is, I hope my right hon. Friend will introduce the necessary legislation and that this long-standing grievance will be put right in the interests of all.

6.48 p.m.

Captain Sir William Brass

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not answer any of the arguments put forward by the advocates of the abolition of night baking, and he was quite right not to do so. He said that this was not the sort of Measure in which to include such a provision, although he explained that if he could do so and if the report of the Committee were satisfactory, he would be prepared to do it. Not having received the report of the Committee, my right hon. Friend obviously had to resist this particular Amendment, although from his remarks I gathered that he was really sympathetic towards the objects of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). All of us have great sympathy with those objects. The difficulty in which we are placed is that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam). I do not want to vote against this new Clause, but as the Home Secretary said, the Committee is now sitting, and he is awaiting its report. If that report is favourable to the abolition of night baking, my right hon. Friend is prepared to do one of two things, either to put a Clause into this Bill or to bring in some legislation later on which will deal with the matter. I think we ought to leave the matter in that way. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to withdraw the new Clause, on the undertaking which has been given by the Home Secretary that he is prepared to deal with the matter on its merits when the report is presented.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Short

I do not propose to delay the House by restating the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the proposed new Clause, which has as its object the abolition of night baking, particularly after the very convincing and human appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). My hon. Friend's speech was of such a nature as to appeal both to our finer sentiments and emotions and to our reason, and if the matter were left to a free vote of the House I think we should find, I hesitate to say a majority, but at any rate those who heard my hon. Friend's speech, in the Division Lobby with us. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not argued this matter, and realising his position, I do not blame him for not doing so. He said that the committee is sitting, that he expects a report at a later date, and that when that report is presented he will, in certain circumstances, take suitable measures. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we are not concerned only with the decision of the committee, whatever it may be, but with the decision of the Government.

While the Government may well take into consideration the report of the committee, I appeal to them, having regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury, to look at the matter on its merits, to take into consideration not merely the final conclusion of the committee, but he arguments that have been put forward in support of the abolition of night baking; and to remember that this country, as has been pointed out, is in a position of splendid isolation on this matter, as every other European country has abolished night baking without any of the evil results to the community which it has been suggested might arise in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury dealt clearly and convincingly with the arguments made against the abolition of night baking. He told the House that the employers had not in recent years argued that the change would involve any increase in the price of bread, and he dealt with the question of the public's demand for new bread. I do not know what is the policy of the wives of hon. Members, but when I worked in a workshop—and I think it is the same to-day—the workmen did not take new bread for their breakfast, but wanted bread which was some hours old. I cannot believe that the argument that the public demand new bread has any weight. My hon. Friend also pointed out that certain firms had abolished night baking and that no adverse financial results had followed. I hope that when he receives the report of the committee, the right hon. Gentleman while taking that report into consideration, will examine the matter on its merits, for we are convinced that not only the opera- tives but a large number of employers, and indeed the community as a whole, would benefit from the abolition of night baking.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes 125; Noes 228.

Division No. 214.] AYES. [6.57 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Parkinson, J. A.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Adamson, W. M. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Pritt, D. N.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Quibell, D. J. K.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Ridley, G.
Banfield, J. W. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Riley, B.
Barnes, A. J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ritson, J.
Bellenger, F. J. Holdsworth, H. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hopkin, D. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Bevan, A. Jagger, J. Rowson, G.
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Bromfield, W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sanders, W. S.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sexton, T. M.
Buchanan, G. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Shinwell, E.
Burke, W. A. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, A.
Cape, T. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Silverman, S. S.
Charleton, H. C. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Simpson, F. B.
Chater, D. Lathan, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cluse, W. S. Lawson, J. J. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Leach, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cocks, F. S. Lee, F. Sorensen, R. W.
Cove, W. G. Leonard, W. Stephen, C.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leslie, J. R. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G. Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dalton, H. Lunn, W. Thorne, W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Thurtle, E.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McEntee, V. La T. Tinker, J. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Viant, S. P.
Dobbie, W. MacLaren, A. Walker, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Mander, G. le M. Watkins, F. C.
Ede, J. C. Mathers, G. Watson, W. McL.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Maxton, J. Westwood, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Messer, F. White, H. Graham
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Milner, Major J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Montague, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Foot, D. M. Muff, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gardner, B. W. Nathan, Colonel H. L. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Garro Jones, G. M. Naylor, T. E. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Noel-Baker, P. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Oliver, G. H.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Owen, Major G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Parker, J.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Campbell, Sir E. T. Denman, Hon. R. D.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cartland, J. R. H. Denville, Alfred
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Cary, R. A. Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Castlereagh, Viscount Drewe, C.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Duggan, H. J.
Assheton, R. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Duncan, J. A. L.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Dunglass, Lord
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Channon, H. Eckersley, P. T.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Choriton, A. E. L. Ellis, Sir G.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H. Christie, J. A. Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Clarke, F. E. (Dartford) Emery, J. F.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Clary, Sir Reginald Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Beit, Sir A. L. Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Bennett, Sir E. N. Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Bernays, R. H. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Everard, W. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Furness, S. N.
Blaker, Sir R. Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Fyfe, D. P. M.
Boulton, W. W. Cox, H. B. T. Ganzoni, Sir J.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Critchley, A. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Crooke, J. S. Gledhill, G.
Brass, Sir W. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Gluckstein, L. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gower, Sir R. V.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Cross, R. H. Granville, E. L.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Cruddas, Col. B. Gridley, Sir A. B.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Culverwell, C. T. Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Gritten, W. G. Howard
Bull, B B. Dawson, Sir P. Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Bullock, Capt. M. De la Bère, R. Guy, J. C. M.
Hannah, I. C. Magnay, T. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Maitland, A. Simmonds, O. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P Markham, S. F. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Hepworth, J. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Higgs, W. F. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Spens, W. P.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'ld)
Holmes, J, S. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Moreing, A. C. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Hopkinson, A. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Horsbrugh, Florence Munro, P. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Nall, Sir J. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Hunter, T. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Tate, Mavis C.
Hurd, Sir P. A. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Palmer, G. E. H. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Patrick, C. M. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Keeling, E. H. Peake, O. Train, Sir J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Peat, C. U. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Perkins, W. R. D. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Turton, R. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G Procter, Major H. A. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Latham, Sir P. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Lees-Jones, J. Ramsbotham, H. Wayland, Sir W. A
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ramsden, Sir E. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Rawson, Sir Cooper Wells, S. R.
Lewis, D. Rayner, Major R. H. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Liddall, W. S. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Lloyd, G. W. Ropner, Colonel L. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. D. S. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Loftus, P. C. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Rowlands, G. Wise, A. R.
Lyons, A. M. Russell, Sir Alexander Withers, Sir J. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Womersley, Sir W. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Salmon, Sir I. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
McCorquodals, M. S. Salt, E. W. Wragg, H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Samuel, M. R. A. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Sandeman, Sir N. S. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Sandys, E. D.
McKie, J. H. Selley, H. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Captain Dugdale and Mr. Grimston.
Macquisten, F. A. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)