CLAUSE 5.—(Expenditure by local authorities.)

HC Deb 30 November 1937 vol 329 cc1960-99

7.23 p.m.

Sir John Mellor

I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, at the end, to add: (3) Any local authority incurring expenditure for the purpose of making provision on private property for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air may make arrangements with the owners of such private property for the reimbursement of the whole or part of the money thus expended by the local authority on such terms as may be arranged mutually by the local authority and the owner of the property and approved by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friends the Members for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and Yardley (Mr. Salt) have asked me to express their apologies to you, Sir, for their absence from their places to-day, and to explain that they are fulfilling a long-standing engagement to visit France to examine French air-raid precautions. The object of this Amendment is to enable a local authority to incur expenditure upon private property for the protection of persons and property in the case of air raids, and to make arrangements with the owners of such property for the reimbursement of the whole or part of the money so expended by the local authority on such terms as may be mutually arranged, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. This Amendment is not in any way intended to increase to an enormous extent the cost which is to fall upon the local authorities or upon the Exchequer, and the fact that any such proposals will require the specific approval of the Secretary of State should, I think, establish that point. It is most desirable that the responsibilities falling respectively upon local authorities and private individuals with regard to air-raid precautions should be defined. Clause r, Sub-section (1) of the Bill states that the local authorities are responsible for preparing schemes for the protection of persons and property in their several areas. Speaking in the House last Thursday, the Secretary of State said: The employer of labour and the householder will be primarily responsible for the protection of his own factory and the people in it and his own house."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1937; col. 1561, Vol. 329.] The word "primarily" surely implies that somebody else will be secondarily responsible, and I would like that matter to be cleared up? Who is secondarily responsible for it? We usually land that what is everybody's business in practice becomes nobody's business. I remember a village cricket club once had a rule that it was the secretary who was responsible for putting away the stumps after play, and the rule proceeded to say that if the secretary did not do so, somebody else was responsible. I feel that the respective obligations of the local authorities and of private individuals should be made more distinct. In the case of householders, I think the position is comparatively simple, and I entirely agree with the statement which the Home Secretary made the other day to the effect that only simple apparatus involving small knowledge or expense would be required to give to a house a large measure of security against fire and that only simple precautions would be required to give security against gas.

But when we come to factories, the proposition is on a very much more formidable scale. As far as security for life is concerned, a very expensive shelter may have to be constructed, and there may be in the factories machinery and instruments which, from a national point of view, are even more precious, in time of war, than life itself. It may be of the first importance in the national interest, that such machinery or instru- ments should be protected. I feel that this Amendment would assist in enabling local authorities and individuals to arrive at some convenient compromise in fulfilling their respective duties. Of course, a very big question will have to be dealt with somehow or another with regard to the position of railways, power stations, gasworks, docks, waterworks, and so on, in so far as they are in private hands. It is impossible to expect private individuals to undertake precautions at such enormous cost as to give adequate protection, in the event of air raids, to those whom they employ. They have to face a risk which is so incalculable that neither any insurance company nor, at the present time, the State is prepared to insure them against it. In such circumstances, it is of no use simply uttering pious admonitions about it being their duty to take precautions. We have to examine the question very carefully and to do something to assist them. I think that mutual arrangements between local authorities and private individuals concerning the sharing of the cost to be borne on each side will materially assist in that direction.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell

I want briefly to support my hon. Friend who has just sat down. No mention is made in this Bill of the possibility of assisting private individuals, whether householders or factory owners to supply their own equipment and appliances. I appreciate that there is a definite obligation on private persons to take their own precautions, especially if they be large employers of labour. At the same time, I think one must admit that there is a limit to the amount which you could expect private persons to spend in these matters, and although at the moment it may be that the Government do not anticipate very large expenditure on the part of private individauls, there may be a revision of air-raid precautionary ideas which will necessitate larger expenditure being made. Therefore, I think there should be some provision in this Bill to allow of financial assistance being given to private individuals to do so. It is not so much a case of householders as it is a case of factory owners or owners of large business premises, but even in the case of householders it may be that rather more expensive fire-fighting apparatus will be required than the shovel and bucket of which we have heard so much to-day.

I suggest to my hon. Friend that we ought not to minimise the part which the householder himself will play in putting out a fire. We ought not to imagine that for ever the main role will be played by the local authorities' fire-fighting services, and if we have to increase the appliances which the householder himself owns, it may be necessary to help him with finance. I realise that the Government desire economy in these matters and that it must be of primary importance, but I suggest that it is not necessarily extra expenditure which would be incurred by helping private persons; it might quite easily be alternative expenditure. For instance, in helping factory owners you may easily be saving the local authority in their air-raid precautions plans considerable expense, because I can well envisage a situation in which the factory owner would be asked under a local authority's plan to provide certain air-raid precautions, which, if he did not do so, would otherwise have to be supplied by the local authority. In that case it would only be fair that some form of financial assistance should be given him.

In regard to shelters, we do not know how far we may have to go on those lines, and although at the moment shelters are envisaged as reasonably cheap affairs, if we take the view later on that where large sections of the population are gathered together, as in a large factory, it may be necessary to give them proper shelter, in any case from the non-armour piercing bomb. Such shelters would cost far more than the ordinary factory owner could undertake without some assistance. Therefore, I suggest that this is a question which should be envisaged in this Bill and that there should be some provision for financial assistance when and if the time comes.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I wish to recall to the mind of the Under-Secretary of State a number of questions which I put on Clause I and to which the Home Secretary said he would give an answer when we arrived at this Amendment. I have considerable sympathy with what has been said in regard to factories. I think that many factories will have to have adequate systems of shelter in the interests of all concerned, and I think the cost to private firms might in some cases be actually prohibitive and that, if they had to bear it themselves, it would mean that there would not be adequate shelter provided and that the purposes in view would be defeated. Therefore, I think there is a strong case on that side of the question. In regard to the householder, if it is in the public interest that the householder should reduce the number of casualties by having a gas-proof room, by sandbagging his windows—and I hope the Under-Secretary did not mean to imply, in his speech just now on Clause 3, that the householder was not to sandbag his windows, because I should regard any such decision with great anxiety—by having an air lock on his door, and by having first-aid appliances, fire-fighting appliances, and so on, which evidently, after the speech of the Under-Secretary, must be in every house, it seems to us that it is unjust to expect the poor to pay for all that out of their own pockets.

I will take only one example. A soldier who is wounded on the field of battle does not provide his own field dressing, so why should a householder provide these things in his home? We consider that these appliances and all the equipment required ought to be furnished from national funds, out of taxation, and by national factories, and distributed to the householder precisely as gas masks are being distributed; and if gas masks are being administered on what is the correct plan, we do not see why that same plan should not apply to the other equipment of which I have spoken.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

The first two speakers on this Amendment referred to the local authorities as finding this money, and they were much more concerned with regard to factories and workshop than they appeared to be with regard to dwelling-houses. But surely if there is to be protection, and assistance is to be given towards it, it ought to be given to those in the dwelling-houses even before it is given to those in the factories, and I hope that if the Government accept anything in the way of providing these precautions, the Government will bear the expense. The new policy of the Government is to put the cost on the localities, and if they go on much longer, they will throw the whole cost of a war and of fighting on to local authorities, if they get the chance. Here we have this Amendment, which appears to ask that the already overburdened local authorities should find the money in order that factories may secure protection for their workpeople—

Sir J. Mellor

It is designed to enable them to make a bargain if both sides think fit.

Mr. Kelly

A bargain, yes, which intends all the time that the local authorities shall bear the brunt of the expenditure, and if there is to be this protection, whatever form it takes, whether of underground shelters or otherwise, the Government should bear the cost of it. Incidentally you had better make up your minds that you will need to build underground shelters in order that the whole of the people may be protected in that way, but to suggest that this expenditure should come on to the local authorities is riot the right way to go about it. I hone the Committee will turn down the Amendment and that the Government will stand the whole cost.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland

It seems to me that if the Amendment is passed, no factory owner will make any provision of any kind until he has struck a bargain with his local authority. He will point to this Amendment. He will point out that it was put into the Bill as an Amendment, and he will go to the local authority and say, "How desirable it is, from your point of view, that the workers in my factory should be protected; I am not going to pay a penny piece until you give me a 75 per cent. contribution towards the expenditure." Therefore, I think this Amendment will tend to produce less protection and not more. It is said by the Government that it is the primary responsibility of householders and factory owners to provide protection for their houses or factories, but is it seriously suggested by the Under-Secretary that any factory owner is to-day spending a penny piece in this direction and that expenditure by factory owners is in any way to be assisted in the future, when the British Iron and Steel Federation are making such a grand thing out of this armament boom? What is the total expenditure of all the steel factories in this country on air-raid precautions and protection at the present time? I think this Committee would be interested to know, and to know also what steps are to be taken to see that these factory owners really do what is expected of them.

If there are factories which are so intensely valuable to the State, such as the one which has been mentioned so frequently, the Rolls-Royce factory in Cardiff, surely it is for the State and not for the local authority to carry the burden of protecting those specially valuable factories. If this goes through and the local authorities are to be called upon to bear part of the burden, why is it that the local authority which happens to have the Rolls-Royce factory in it is to be compelled to bear the burden, because a Rolls-Royce factory is so valuable in time of war, whereas another local authority, which merely has a treacle factory or some other kind of factory, will be allowed to get off scot-free? I hope the Amendment will be very carefully examined before it is put into the Bill.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Short

I hope the Under-Secretary of State will turn down the Amendment. I think we should be making a very great mistake if we introduced any measure of discrimination into this matter of air-raid precautions. In addition, the Amendment would throw an added financial responsibility upon the local authorities, because it is suggested that they may be reimbursed wholly or in part. We have decided that local authorities shall prepare schemes to be submitted to the Secretary of State for the protection of their respective communities, and the Secretary of State will give his approval, either to the schemes submitted, or to such modifications as may be desired. As the Under-Secretary has said that there is no complete security against air raids and the evils and disasters arising out of air raids, it is desirable that we should create in the minds of local authorities what I term a collective outlook, and that they should prepare schemes for the protection of the entire community, for the individual householder on the one hand and for the factory and the factory workers as well. We should not invite a local authority, in conjunction with a factory owner, to prepare a scheme for the mere protection of the factory itself. We do not want schemes to depend upon one aspect of protection, but upon a combination of the whole, and this Amendment, if it were carried, would, I say, encourage a measure of discrimination which would be to the disadvantage, financially and otherwise, of the schemes which we hope will be prepared by local authorities and receive the assent of the Home Secretary.

There is a further aspect of the matter, and that is that we have been assured up to now that some financial responsibility will rest upon the shoulders and the pockets of householders, and that they will be expected, even the poorest of the poor, to provide out of their meagre means some measure of self-protection. If that be so, why should the poor people within a local authority area provide not only some measure of their own protection but contribute under this Amendment to the provision of protection for factories? That is asking for a great deal. I cannot think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and those associated with him have seriously thought about the Amendment or its financial aspect. They cannot have had in mind the statements made from time to time by the Under-Secretary regarding what is expected of householders. I hope the Under-Secretary will oppose the Amendment and stand by what I would call the collective attitude towards this problem on the part of local authorities. We should like to have schemes which will afford protection to the members of the community irrespective of their status.

If we begin picking out employers here and there, great factory owners, unmindful of the financial charge that we shall be putting upon the poor householder, we shall get ourselves discredited and create a measure of ill-feeling and discontent among the populace. That is the very thing that we desire to avoid in dealing with this problem. We want unanimity of feeling and general confidence. Those of us who went through the last War and carried heavy responsibilities as members of local authorities know how certain incidents were exaggerated and played upon. We know how it was pointed out that there was a defence here for that interest or person, and that there was not adequate defence for the poor. I speak with intimate knowledge. I was a member of the Sheffield City Council and went through that period, and I know full well the attitude of mind of the masses of the people during air raids. I hope the Committee and the Under-Secretary will maintain the collective attitude on the part of the local authorities, because if we introduce any measure of discrimination we shall defeat our purpose.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I am utterly at a loss to understand the Amendment or to relate it to the purpose which the promoters have in view. If I may be quite frank. I cannot make head or tail of it. I understand from the speeches that the purpose of the Amendment is to relieve the owner of a factory from some part or the whole of the burden which the promoters of the Amendment imagine will be laid upon him by the Bill, but as I read the Amendment it does not read like an Amendment designed to relieve the owner of a factory or of other private property from expense, but rather to lay a charge upon him. It says: Any local authority incurring expenditure for the purpose of making provision on private property … may make arrangements with the owners of such private property for the reimbursement of the whole or part of the money thus expended by the local authority. Why should they do that? The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the local authority to go to the owner of a factory and say: "Because it is necessary that measures of protection should be taken for your premises we are proposing to make an arrangement whereby you should pay the whole or part of the cost."

Sir J. Mellor

By mutual arrangement?

Mr. Silverman

Why should the owner of the factory agree to any such thing? Why should any liability of that kind be placed upon his shoulders? I am all for laying upon the shoulders of employers every burden that legitimately arises out of his employment of labour, but I would not suggest that the protection of the lives, the limbs and the health of the workers in the factory from danger in an air raid is part of the legitimate risk which the employer by employing that labour has brought upon his shoulders. In my opinion, and I think it will be the feeling of the Committee, the first duty of the community, when the question of war arises, is to protect the limbs, the lives, the health and the properties of the civilian population at home. If that is not the duty of the community, why all this talk and urgency about air-raid precautions and rearmament? If such precautions are not for the protection of the innocent law-abiding civilian population at home from harm, what is the use of it?

I am violently against any proposal or any idea or suggestion which could possibly assist the Government in removing from their own shoulders, where the burden properly lies, the cost of protecting the civil population either in air raids or any other aspect of war. I cannot see otherwise than that the effect of the Amendment is to assist the Government in a policy and an attitude which have already gone too far. Having heard the speeches in support of the Amendment I feel sure that that is not the intention of the mover or his supporters. There is a wide chasm, an unbridgeable gulf between the object which one understands to be the object of the supporters of the Amendment and the object that would be obtained if their Amendment were accepted. This is a very dangerous proposal. The Measure needs drastic amendment but the amendment which it needs ought to be in the direction of putting the burden more and more upon the community as a whole and less and less upon the individual, who is neither able to discharge it nor morally liable to discharge it. If one has to choose between laying the burden upon the individual or the local authority, one would reluctantly say that it should be put upon the local authority, and I do not want the local authority, but rather the State, to bear it. I would not support any proposal which might even remotely remove the Government from liability, to enable them to place an ever-increasing burden upon the shoulders of private individuals and expect them to perform functions which are properly and always have been the primary duty of the State.

7.55. p.m.

Mr. Ede

I regard this as a very wicked and selfish Amendment. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) in moving it used a phrase which gave me a shock, after I had listened to the greater part of the Debate on the Bill. He said that there were machinery and instruments that were more valuable than life itself.

Sir J. Mellor

During war.

Mr. Ede

I do not care whether it is during war or during peace. War is carried on, as I understand it, to protect life first and property a very bad second. If there is to be a choice between life and property this party stands for life first. I am very glad that from his interruption the hon. Member has enabled us to make quite clear what is his object.

Sir J. Mellor

Would the hon. Member fully justify in war time lives being sacrificed in order to save guns?

Mr. Ede

Now we are getting down to the position of a person who is under military orders. We have all along suspected, and I have said more than once, that we shall ultimately come to a position where this will be a military and not a civil machine. What a man may have to do to protect the lives of his comrades in the Army is a very different thing from what we are entitled to design in times of peace when we are having regard to the protection of the civil population and of non-combatants from the effects of war. We have heard a lot about the householder. The householder as such would get no benefit from this Amendment. It is limited to owners. Occupiers do not come into it. If there is a factory which is owned by one body of people and occupied by another you could not enter into any bargain with the occupier under this Amendment. This Amendment safeguards the interest of the investors and nobody else. We realise under this Amendment the difference that separates some hon. Members in the Conservative party who blurt out the truth by accident, and hon. Members on these benches. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell) laughs, but he said that the primary object of the Government in these matters must be economy.

Mr. Maxwell

I do not think I said "primary." I said, a very important object.

Mr. Ede

No, Sir; I commented at the time to my hon. friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly): "There is an hon. Member who is giving the show away without knowing it." Of course, the hon. Member may not like to say it now. When he was making his statement the truth welled out of him, instead of being carefully safeguarded so that only as little as possible of it should escape. Now he may desire to alter what he said.

But we maintain that this Amendment is designed in the interest of property and does not refer to the safeguarding of life, and I hope that the Government, on this occasion, will turn down the proposal of their own supporters.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Sexton

Just before the Second Reading Debate Members were bombarded, not from the air but through the post, with letters from local authorities who were apprehensive that air-raid precautions would add considerably to their liabilities, The authorities were up in arms because they were afraid that a very large addition was about to be made to local rates by this scheme, and they asked every Member of Parliament to vote against the proposals as they were put forward in the Second Reading Debate. If this Amendment were carried what would be the position of the local authorities? There would be added to their already heavy liabilities a contribution to owners of property. The local authorities were right when they said in their manifesto that there was no finality to this expense, and it is that question which concerns people already suffering from high rates. It was contended, as many still contend, that the whole cost should be borne by the Government. We put forward that claim in the Second Reading Debate, and we were defeated in the Division Lobby. Now we are faced with an Amendment which proposes to saddle the local authorities with an additional expenditure of an unknown and unlimited amount. This would involve a tremendous burden on local rates. The Amendment suggests some sort of mutual arrangement, but it does not say who is to decide the question, should no mutual arrangement he reached. No body is specified to which this question can be submitted. We believe that a proposal which aims at caring for property rather than human life should not be entertained. I have been asked, time and again, by local authorities in my district to oppose anything which would add to their present liability. I believe that this Amendment would do so, and I shall vote against it.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd

I think the sense of the Committee is clearly against this Amendment and I do not suppose that any hon. Member will be much surprised if I say that we hope that it will not be pressed. I take it, however, that the intention of my hon. Friends in moving this Amendment was to elicit a statement from the Government on some of the questions arising from it. With regard to the provision of air-raid precaution schemes in factories and business premises, our view is that, however much the Government and the local authorities can do in the provision of public services, there must remain a duty on the citizen to do what he can to help and a duty on firms to do what they can to help their employés as regards protection against air raids. In the case of factories and business premises, I think there may be a question for further investigation in this connection, but I do not think that that question arises on this Bill, in relation to the schemes of local authorities.

Probably what the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) would like me to deal with is the question of whether the Government are prepared to do anything, in the provision of fire appliances in the streets and for householders, in the same way as arrangements are being made for the provision of respirators. I agree that that is a very important question. The Government have not made any statement, so far, on the provision of these most important appliances. I must point out to the hon. Member, however, that there is a great difference between respirators and fire appliances, in that the respirators may be vitally necessary for the preservation of the lives of individuals in certain circumstances of gas attack, whereas in any case incendiary bombs, as opposed to high explosive bombs, and gas are more dangerous to property than to life. It is important that that fact should be appreciated. Apart from the ordinary possibilities of escape from fire, fires which are caused by incendiary bombs, certainly by those of the lighter type, tend to he in the upper stories of buildings, thus making them rather less dangerous to life—although of considerable danger to property—than the ordinary fire.

Mr. Ede

Does the hon. Gentleman sleep in the basement?

Mr. Lloyd

I do not wish to put the point any higher than this, that there is more danger from a fire which starts in the basement than there is from a fire which starts in the attic because the strategic avenues of escape are less available in the first case. I do not press that point any further but come at once to the attitude of the Government on the provision of these appliances. It is hoped that, as a result of the experiments carried out by the Home Office, in the control of incendiary bombs and the design of these appliances, that appliances will be manufactured by the trade to a simple uniform specification and marketed to the public at small cost. In those circumstances the Government must rely on a substantial proportion of the population providing themselves with this type of equipment. But we recognise that there remains a limited number of exceptionally poor districts in which the possibility of a reasonable quantity of these appliances being purchased privately by the residents is small.

It was stated in the memorandum published in January last that as a simple means of tackling fires, pending the arrival of the fire brigade, wardens or voluntary helpers would be provided with a form of fire-fighting equipment. In accordance with that arrangement, special consideration will be given to these exceptionally poor districts with a view to the provision of a reserve, on an approved scale, of hand pumps and other equipment at the wardens' posts so that some may be available for use in an emergency. While we do not feel it possible in these poor districts to provide appliances in every house we think it may be practicable and desirable to have a reserve available for distribution in the streets to deal with the smaller fires that may arise. I hope that with this assurance my hon. Friends may be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor

In view of the Under-Secretary's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members

No!

Amendment negatived.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Ammon

I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, at the end, to add: (3) For the purposes of defraying any expenditure of a metropolitan borough council under this Act the council may borrow money in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1893, as amended by the London Government Act, 1899: Provided that the Minister of Health shall, instead of the London County Council, be the authority for sanctioning the borrowing of any money under the powers conferred by this section, except where those powers are exercised with respect to land used or intended to be used partly for purposes for which money has been or may be borrowed with the consent of the London County Council under some other Act. This Amendment is put forward on behalf of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it. Its object is to enable metropolitan boroughs to borrow for the purpose of defraying any expenditure incurred under this Measure. Hon. Members may be aware that for some purposes, the metropolitan boroughs are under the county council as the governing authority and in other respects they have to apply directly to the Minister. For instance, where metropolitan boroughs want the right to build baths and washhouses they have to go direct to the Minister, but as regards the right to build a town hall they must act through the county council. It is thought that if, for example, the construction of a concrete floor or roof was necessary as a precaution against air raids it would be an undesirable piece of red tapeism that in one case they should have to go to the county council, and in another case, to the Minister of Health. The Amendment seeks to ensure that one authority in the first instance, shall be the authority for the whole of these proposals.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd

I need not follow the hon. Member into the details which he has given to the Committee. I entirely agree with his statement of the problem. There was a slight difference of opinion between the Metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council, but they got together, and after a discussion of the difficulties they proposed an agreed solution. I need only say that we at the Home Office hope that a good many of the problems arising in connection with this Bill will be dealt with by the method of consultation and agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Ammon

I hope we may receive an assurance from the Minister that expenditure on air-raid precautions incurred by the Metropolitan Police and the precepting bodies in so far as that is charged to the general rates of the local authority, will, for the purposes of this Measure, rank as approved expenditure of that local authority. I think that the Minister is familiar with this case. It has been put to him by the various local authorities, for it is one on which we want some assurance, because, as far as one can see from the Clause, there is no definite assurance that the position is safeguarded.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

I want to put one or two questions to the Under-Secretary. Under Sub-section (1) of this Clause local authorities may incur expenditure for the purpose of making provision for the protection of persons and property. Will that expenditure rank for any grant from national funds? It is conceivable that the Home Office may in time put additional burdens on local authorities, and those burdens may not be the same as those that have been outlined in the Bill, or in statements made by the Home Secretary or Under-Secretary during the passage of the Bill. If the local authorities may be asked to provide additional safeguards which may not be covered by the Bill, they ought to know not only whether they are entitled to spend local funds for that purpose, but whether they are to get any assistance from the Government in providing them. A local authority which is comprised of a considerable number of property owners might like to have some scheme of insurance of property against air-raid attack. Would that be a legitimate scheme under this Clause? Under Subsection (2) all expenditure that has been incurred since July, 1935, is legitimatised. Will that rank for grant from Government funds as any expenditure that is incurred after the passing of this Bill? If the hon. Gentleman can satisfy me on these points I have no further objection to the Clause.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Ede

I am not sure that this Clause ought to stand part of the Bill, because it is the only Clause which enables the local authority to spend money on this service. It has been the contention of my hon. Friends and I all along that the local authorities ought not to spend this money, and that it ought to fall entirely on State funds. It is a new principle since the beginning of the reform of local government in 1835 that expenditure on National Defence—and it is National Defence—should fall on the local rates. It establishes a highly undesirable principle. I can see no reason, if we pass this Clause, why the local authorities should not be made responsible in whole or in part for financing the local territorial regiments, especially the local units of the Royal Garrison Artillery defending such seaports as that which I represent, or the local Territorial units round London which are now so largely engaged in anti-aircraft services. No one would have contended a couple of years ago that any expenditure with regard to National Defence was properly chargeable to local rates. The incidence will be most unfair. Some parts of the country will escape any large burden. They will be in areas where no great amount of expenditure will be required for this purpose. I cannot make out exactly what proportion of the country the Government regard as vulnerable. There are over 40,000,000 people in the country, and a gas-mask is to be provided for every person who is believed to be in some area of danger. The total number of gas-masks which I heard mentioned the other night was 25,000,000.

Mr. Lloyd

When that figure was mentioned I corrected it because it is not the case that only 25,000,000 people will be provided. The number will be sufficient to provide for the total needs of the country in areas exposed to air attacks.

Mr. Ede

Could the hon. Gentleman indicate the proportion of the population who are supposed to live in areas where the danger may be?

The Deputy-Chairman

I hardly think that that arises on this Clause.

Mr. Ede

The exact fraction is not essential to my argument, but it is clear that there are some areas which are regarded as so remote from danger that gas-masks will not be provided there. Therefore, one may assume that most of the other expenditure to be incurred will also be small or non-existent. For the first time, as far as I can make out, since Feudal times some part of the country will escape from defraying the legitimate cost of public defence because that part is regarded as remote from the danger, whereas other areas, such as my constituency, which are in the first line of attack, will have to incur substantial expenditure in order to protect themselves and the property in their area from this form of attack. That is a preposterous proposal and one that strikes at the basis of national unity. I am surprised that a Government which calls itself National should ever have contemplated it. It is a good indication of the extent to which the title National is deserved by the Government. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) seems in rather a hurry to get up and speak. This is not the Family Inheritance Bill. If much of that which we contemplate comes about, there will be nothing left to inherit and no families to squabble over it.

It is an entirely novel proposition that this expense should be borne by the locality. We have contended all along that it should be borne by the Nation. The Clause has been slightly amended by the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), but if the local authorities escape making any payment, that machinery will not be needed. We have never had from the Government any real defence for putting this matter upon the shoulders of the local authorities. I am sure that it will not remain a local service the minute after the national emergency arises. It would be far better managed and there would be less likelihood of difficulties in the way of a complete scheme if it were taken over by the Nation, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said on Second Reading, if the local authorities were left as the agents of the Government to carry out their instructions. They may, it is true, find the machinery of local government services the appropriate ones to use, but during the latest war, the one from 1914 to 1918, it was not uncommon for officers of local authorities to be seconded for military purposes in their areas to great camps and similar places, and there is no reason why that should not be repeated. I shall see this Clause go into the Bill, if it be inserted, with the very greatest reluctance, and I hope that I shall have the opportunity of recording my vote against a proposal which I believe to be revolutionary and thoroughly objectionable.

8.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for drawing the attention of the Chair to the fact that I want to speak. In the first line of this Clause it states that "any local authority" may incur expenditure, and I should like to know what would be the position of a catchment board. Does a catchment board come under this Bill? It is obvious that catchment boards may have defensive works to carry out along their waterways. Banks might be damaged and have to be repaired if there were a breach. We all know the peril of flooding which arose in the Ouse Valley, and we all know how, during the War, banks were broken down by enemy action. If the Under-Secretary is not prepared to answer me on this point, I will not press it, but I should like to know whether catchment boards come under the proposals in this Measure or under any arrangements which may deal with waterworks.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I want to say in one sentence that I entirely agree with the point which has been argued so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and to add that we on this side shall vote against this Clause, because by so doing we shall be voting for the substance of our Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not that we are against expenditure for this purpose. We have said time and time again that we want schemes which will be effective and comprehensive, but the expenditure ought to be a national charge and the service a national service, and we think that in the end the Government will be driven to adopt that course.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

I should like to ask what is meant by this Clause? It says that Any local authority may incur expenditure for the purpose of making provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme. Do I understand that this Clause is inserted in the hope of putting on the localities a greater share of the cost of the Defence forces? If it is not to be expenditure incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme, local authorities may have imposed upon them expenditure incurred by the Navy, the Army or the Air Force for other purposes than air-raid precautions. If that be not so, what is the justification for these words? I hope the Under-Secretary will explain whether this is an insidious attempt by the Government to impose more and more of the expenditure for war upon the local authorities.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

The point which I principally desired to make has been stated in part by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). I should very much like to know in what way a local authority may incur expenditure on making provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air otherwise than in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme. The Clause gives a local authority power to incur expenditure upon such protection sometimes in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme, and sometimes not in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme, and the distinction was not explained on Second Reading or when we began the discussion of this Clause. In what way can money be expended on protection against air-raids otherwise than in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme? If there is the possibility of such double barrelled expenditure, obviously there must follow the result foreshadowed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, because that part of the expenditure which is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme will be largely covered—we hope more largely than has been promised so far—by the State, whereas any expenditure for the same purpose which is not in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme will have to be borne by the local authority.

After the long Debates on Second Reading nobody expects that the Government will once again launch into a defence of their attitude to the general question whether the whole cost ought to be borne by the State or whether some part should fall upon the local authorities, but in discussing this Clause I cannot refrain from once again calling attention—and one cannot do it too often—to the extraordinary differentiation which the Government desire to make between one kind of defensive warfare and another. I use the term "defensive warfare" advisedly, because whatever I may think of the foreign policy of the Government I am certain that they would never intentionally engage in any warfare which they did not deem to be defensive.

Mr. Ede

That is what all countries say.

Mr. Silverman

I suppose that is so, if we are to believe what they say in public.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member cannot pursue that subject on this Clause.

Mr. Silverman

I was led aside by the tempting bait thrown out to me by hon. Friend. The point I want to make—assuming that any war in which we were engaged was a defensive war—is that the Government make a difference according to the locale or venue of the conflict. If this defensive warfare is being pursued on the sea or on a foreign shore or between army and army, between navy and navy or between air force and air force, the State will bear the whole cost of it, but once the enemy bomber has got through, once the defensive war is a war on our civilian population within our own shores, then the Government say, "We will no longer as the State bear the whole cost. Because we have failed to keep the enemy from our shores, because the Army, the Navy and the Air Force have failed to keep the civilian population secure, some part of the consequent cost shall fall upon the civilian population.' That is an extraordinary line for any Government, particularly a National Government, to adopt. It is certainly new, at any rate in modern times.

I was interested to hear the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to feudal ideas. I had in mind the point that not since feudal times has there been a parallel to this kind of local defence when the task of defending land and property as well as the life and limb of the individual citizens, is to devolve from the central authority to some extent to the locality in which the war is for the moment being waged. I hope that the Committee will defeat the Clause, because the effect of doing so would be to throw the responsibility for the defence of property, life, limb and health back to where it belongs, and from which it ought never to have been separated—the central authority. The first task of government is to protect the civilian population within their shores from hostile attack, and it is wrong in principle that any share of that cost should come back upon the individual.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd

Sub-section (1) reads: Any local authority may incur expenditure for the purpose of making provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme. I hope to show the Committee that this is not an insidious scheme on the part of the Home Office or the National Government for doing something not contemplated in the general purpose of the Bill. The explanation is simple. It is desirable to legitimate the expenditure that has already been incurred by many local authorities; it may not be very large expenditure, but it is expenditure. The Committee will appreciate that any expenditure which has been incurred—

Mr. Silverman

Is not that point sufficiently covered by Sub-section (2)? If from Sub-section (1) were left out the words whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme, and left Sub-section (2) in, would not the point made by the Under-Secretary of State be amply covered?

Mr. Lloyd

I will come to that point. It is desirable that Sub-section (1) should be thoroughly in tune with the purpose of the Bill. It is a technical fact that any expenditure that has been incurred in this way is not part of an air-raid precaution scheme, in any technical sense approved by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, it is desirable from that point of view alone to have those words in. On the general question of expenditure in the past, as hon. Members will see, Sub-section (2) legitimates the expenditure since 9th July, 1935, the date of the issue of the circular. Hon. Members wanted to know about grants. The position is slightly different. Under an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend earlier this year, all expenditure since 1st January this year will rank for grant. All approved expenditure under this Clause will rank for grant.

Mr. Bellenger

Am I to understand that all expenditure incurred before 1st January this year will not rank for Government grant, if the Clause is passed?

Mr. Lloyd

Yes, expenditure before 1st January this year will not rank for grant.

Mr. Ede

That merely means that people who got on with the job when you were asking them in 1935 are to be fined for it.

Mr. Lloyd

That would not be the right assumption at all. The circular of 1935 pointed out quite clearly to local authorities that we did not expect at that time that what we were asking in the circular would involve great expenditure. It was more a question of the time of certain officials in preparing certain schemes. The undertaking given in regard to 1937 covers a period of more substantial expenditure. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the gas-mask position. The remote authority in the West of Scotland which was not receiving gas-masks is not a favourable illustration at all. The hon. Member was saying that that authority would escape the burden of air-raid precaution in respect of gas-masks, but gas-masks are provided by His Majesty's Government as a national charge. The authority would be bearing the share of the burden of providing gas-masks but would not be receiving them. The position would therefore be the other way round.

As to the position of catchment boards, I am advised that drainage authorities are not local authorities within the limits of Clause 9. Catchment boards are in a somewhat peculiar position in that they have express powers of precepting upon councils which makes it possible to contend that they are local authorities within the meaning of the Bill. Their position is similar in many respects to public utility undertakings, which were dealt with in a statement made to the Committee by my right hon. Friend on 25th November. That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) about approval of Metropolitan Police expenditure on air-raid precautions. The answer is that the machinery of the Bill does make provision whereby local authorities can get air-raid precaution grant on expenditure incurred by them in meeting approved air-raid precaution expenditure of all precepting authorities. If the grant went direct to the precepting authorities it would cause complications, so it will be payable to the constituent authorities. Unless the Committee wishes me to describe the precise machinery I shall not further weary hon. Members. I think this arrangement is much more satisfactory.

Mr. Shinwell

Does the Minister maintain that the Clause relates solely to past expenditure?

Mr. Lloyd

No, of course not, and I hope I have not given the Committee an impression of that kind.

Mr. Kelly

Which is the constituent authority for the local police in London and to whom will the money be paid?

Mr. Lloyd

The money will be actually paid to the local authorities upon whom the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police precepts in regard to Metropolitan Police expenditure.

Mr. Kelly

What happens in the case of other authorities?

Mr. Lloyd

That covers those authorities.

Mr. Shinwell

I wish to pursue the point I put to the hon. Gentleman in the form of a question. I hope he will correct me if I misunderstood him, but my interpretation of his observations was that we were dealing with expenditure already incurred by local authorities. If that is not the position, will the hon. Gentleman explain the nature of the activity to be undertaken by local authorities outwith air-raid precaution schemes? That question was addressed to him by one of my hon. Friends, but he has not given any answer. Unless there is some clear explanation of what is meant by schemes other than those specified in the Bill, we are in some doubt as to what is intended.

Mr. Lloyd

I am sorry if I have not been sufficiently precise. I do not know whether all hon. Members are in the same difficulty as the hon. Gentleman. This Clause is a general Clause, which deals with the expenditure of local authorities. A particular question was addressed to me—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the time—with regard to certain parts of the expenditure and the position with regard to that expenditure. Therefore, I rather naturally confined my reply more particularly to that past expenditure.

Mr. Shinwell

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and understand his meaning to be that it relates to Sub-section (2). He answered a question which was put to him, and I now want to ask what is the nature of the expenditure to be incurred on schemes other than those intended to operate in pursuance of air-raid precautions?

Mr. Lloyd

I am sorry if I have not been sufficiently clear. I thought I had made it clear that expenditure incurred by a local authority, for example, at the present time, before the passage of the Bill, cannot be part of an air-raid precautions scheme, because it has not been approved by my right hon. Friend. That is why it is necessary to make it clear that the Clause legitimates, not only expenditure incurred in connection with air-raid precaution schemes, but also certain other expenditure. One of the types of other expenditure that we have in mind is expenditure which is incurred at the present time, but which cannot be part of an air-raid precautions scheme.

Mr. Shinwell

Is it not clear that, if it does not relate to the remote past, it relates to expenditure preceding the passage of the Bill, that is to say, at the present time? Obviously, the Bill has not yet become an Act. Therefore, according to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it is expenditure incurred immediately before the passage of the Bill, and, therefore, not approved by the Home Secretary. We are dealing with expenditure which precedes the passing of the Bill, and I would like to know what is the nature of that expenditure.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I asked the hon. Gentleman what expenditure could be incurred by local authorities, for the purpose of making provision for protection from injury or damage in the event of a hostile attack from the air, that was not incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme. I understood him to reply that it is expenditure incurred by local authorities prior to the passing of the Act, and, therefore, not on an air-raid precaution scheme within the meaning of the Act. I intervened, when he gave that explanation, to point out that without these extremely ambiguous words Sub-section (2) would cover that. May I now put the point to him again, and call his particular attention to the fact that words at the end of Sub-section (1) are, not "has been incurred," but "is incurred." One would suppose that, if all that the Government had in mind was to cover expenditure which was by its very nature air-raid precautions scheme expenditure, but not technically so, because it had already been incurred, they would either have been content with Sub-section (2) or, if they thought that something more was necessary, would not have said "is incurred," but rather, "has been incurred."

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Ede

Is it not the fact that the words in Sub-section (1), down to the word "air" in line 10, will be the authority under which, from the passing of this Act and for the future, air-raid precautions expenditure will be rightly chargeable to local authorities' accounts, arid will be the authority to be produced at the Ministry of Health audit in defence of such expenditure? That will be the ordinary normal expenditure. I would prefer that points of law should be explained verbally by the Solicitor-General, instead of by nods and signs which I understand, but which cannot be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The words are due to the fact that some of this expenditure has been incurred before, but. I want to point out the danger that they might he produced in future at the local government audit to cover future expenditure, not in pursuance of a scheme, but in pursuance of some whim of the local authority outside the scheme. I do not know that they might not even be used to cover the raising and equipment of a local antiaircraft unit.

Mr. Lloyd

As there is some danger of misunderstanding with regard to this matter, we should like to deal with it as fully as possible. The Committee have probably followed what I said with regard to the use of this Clause in reference to expenditure which may have been incurred already by local authorities. It is advisable to have it, not only with regard to past expenditure, but with regard to future expenditure of the same order, because there may be a desire that certain expenditure should be incurred by a local authority for air-raid precautions before the final approval of the scheme by the Secretary of State has taken place, and hon. Members will appreciate that it is necessary to have these words for the purpose of legitimating that expenditure.

Mr. Shinwell

That is all it refers to?

Mr. Lloyd

It refers to the general question of expenditure, but I am dealing with this specific point. The Clause also makes it possible to permit expenditure on air-raid precautions to be incurred by authorities other than scheme-making authorities. This is a complicated question of the construction of the Clause. It is largely a question of machinery, and, as it has a legal aspect, I think that perhaps the Committee would like to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the point.

8.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor)

My nods and jerks were only to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I desired to make the point clear, supplementing what my hon. Friend has said. The Clause permits expenditure on air-raid precautions by local authorities which do not make schemes. Not all local authorities as defined in the Bill make schemes. In Clause 9, the definition Clause, the expression will be found: 'Local authority' includes any authority having power to levy a rate as defined for the put poses of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, or for whose expenses a precept may be issued"— and so on. These local authorities include different kinds of authorities from those which have to make schemes under Clause 1. Under Clauses 1 and 2 the scheme-making authorities are the councils of counties, county boroughs and London authorities, or, in some circumstances, the councils in the county districts. Those are the only authorities to whom grants are payable under Clause 6, but there are other local authorities to whom that definition applies: for instance, joint hospital boards, joint drainage boards, and joint sewage boards; and they, by Clause 5, are permitted to incur expenditure in respect of air-raid precautions. So that is the meaning of the words; that is one of the reasons, in addition to the reason given by my hon. Friend, why there is a reference in the last line to whether or not such expenditure is incurred in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme. I gather from the symptoms of irritation that these remarks promote that it may have occurred to some hon. Gentlemen to ask, "How, then, are the local authorities in the different categories defined in the Act to get any money for the purposes defined in their schemes?" They derive their income by precepting on their constituent authorities, and the constituent authorities then make a rate on their ratepayers. The proposal is that expenditure incurred by the precepting authorities should rank for grant under Clause 6, under the conditions laid down. That is a reason, additional to the one given by my hon. Friend, which will, I think, make it clear to the Committee that it was necessary to provide power by Clause 5 to enable local authorities to make air-raid precaution schemes.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

The Under-Secretary will remember that I raised this point originally when I spoke on this Clause. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken us a little further, he has not cleared up some of the misconceptions. For instance, the rural districts will presumably be carrying out air-raid precautions; will they get grants under this Clause? Secondly, it says that local authorities may incur expenditure. I take it that that means that they may incur expenditure in future which will not be under an air-raid precautions scheme. If they do, will they be able to get any grant from the Government?

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman with very great care, and I confess, however unreasonable it may sound, that I am not entirely satisfied with the explanation. It seems to me, having listened first to the Under-Secretary and now to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that insufficient attention has been paid to the drafting of these words. I do not know whether I am doing an injustice to the Under-Secretary if I say that the explanation he gave did not contain a single hint of the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave. The explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have little enough to do with the explanation of the Under-Secretary in the first place. But may I draw attention to the wording of the Clause as it now is? If it be true that the wording is perfectly innocent, and that no authority will be called upon to make any expenditure for anything in the nature of an air-raid precaution scheme without getting anything for it, surely it would be better to take the whole Clause back, and re-draft it drastically. It seems to me that in the way it is drafted it goes far beyond what is necessary to cover the very small point which was given as an explanation.

Look at the first word of the Clause, where it speaks of "any local authority"—not a special type of local authority, not a local authority of a joint nature or a limited nature, or only limited functions, but "any local authority may incur expenditure," whether or not "in pursuance of an air-raid precaution scheme." On that wording, what is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he says, "Suppose South Shields decided to equip and run an anti-aircraft section of its own, under the orders of the town clerk or mayor, would it be prevented under this Clause?" Could not any local authority incur expenditure which the Home Office did not sanction as part of the air-raid precaution scheme? Further, whatever the intention of the Government may be, have you not the result that gaps exist, through which it would be possible to force the local authority to incur heavy expenditure, designed to do the same thing as the air-raid precaution scheme is designed to do, without getting any proportion of the cost from the Government? If that is not their intention, the only safe thing is to take the Clause back, and put it down again later in a drastically altered form.

9.3 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I cannot help thinking there is some misapprehension here. This is a Clause which enables local authorities, as defined in the Act, to incur the expenditure—nothing more or less than that. It is not a Clause which enables or authorises the Secretary of State to contribute. That is put in Clause 6. The point the hon. Gentleman was making a moment ago is entirely dealt with by the definition of approved expenditure in Clause 9, which says: 'Approved expenditure' means, in relation to any local authority, so much of the expenditure of the authority as is approved by the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations made under this Act. Only in these circumstances will the local authority rank for grant. The local authority must comply with the regulations which the Secretary of State has made under Clause 8, and only then will it rank for grant. Clause 5 does not say, as the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, that duties can be imposed on local authorities. It only empowers them to undertake duties. That is the only function of Clause 5. If the local authorities are of the kind that have a duty imposed on them—that is the schemes authorities—then they COME under Clause 6 and rank for grant for approved expenditure.

Mr. Noel-Baker

It would be possible for the local authority to go outside the scheme and carry out some works of its own without the sanction of the Home Secretary, and I take it it would not receive a grant?

The Solicitor-General

I am really a make-weight in this matter on account of the fact, as my hon. Friend has said, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is unable to be here, and I do not pretend to have any knowledge of the policy that lies behind this Bill. All that I am trying to do is to explain to the Committee to the best of my ability what the Clauses

mean. I am really pointing out that there are two kinds of local authority contemplated, one of which is not responsible for preparing a scheme and yet may incur expenditure and collect its money in the way I have described. It would be possible, theoretically, as was said a moment ago, for local authorities to make particular schemes which had no authority and to incur expenditure which was not approved expenditure. As far as merely the wording of this Clause Is concerned, there is nothing in the Clause to prevent it, but I apprehend that there are a good many other administrative methods by which the local authority might be prevented.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

A remarkable situation has developed. A few moments ago the Under-Secretary made way for his hon. and learned Friend on the ground that he was better equipped to deal with this Clause. Certainly he did not appear to have equipped himself because he was quite unable to furnish any explanation of what this Clause means. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself has found some difficulty, indeed, on his own admission. We are well aware of the reason that delays the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary presented the spectacle of the hon. and learned Gentleman beside him as a means of elucidating the point at issue, and having regard to his own admission, I feel that the time has arrived when we should move to report Progress. I therefore beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 202.

Division No. 32.]	AYES.	[9.9 p.m.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Chater, D.	Gardner, B. W.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Cluse, W. S.	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)	Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.	Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Ammon, C. G.	Cove, W. G.	Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Dalton, H.	Grenfell, D. R.
Banfield, J. W.	Dobbie, W.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (W'ddl'sbro, W.)
Barnes, A. J.	Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Bellenger, F. J.	Ede, J. C.	Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Benson, G.	Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Broad, F. A.	Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Harris, Sir P. A.
Bromfield, W.	Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Burke, W. A.	Gallacher, W.	Hayday, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Messer, F.	Short, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Milner, Major J.	Silverman, S. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Montague, F.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Hopkin, D.	Muff, G.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Noel-Baker, P. J.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Oliver, G. H.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Kelly, W.T.	Owen, Major G.	Thurtle, E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Paling, W.	Tinker, J. J.
Kirby, B. V.	Parker, J.	Viant, S. P.
Lathan, G.	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Watson, W. McL.
Leach, W.	Quibell, D. J. K.	Welsh, J. C.
Lee, F.	Richards, R. (Wrexham)	Westwood, J.
Leonard, W.	Ridley, G.	White, H. Graham
Logan, D. G.	Ritson, J.	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
McEntee, V. La T.	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
McGhee, H. G.	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Maclean, N.	Seely, Sir H. M.	Young, Sir R. (Newton)
MacNeill, Weir, L.	Sexton, T. M.
Marshall, F.	Shinwell, E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.
NOES.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)	Elliston, Capt. G. S.	Markham, S. F.
Aske, Sir R. W.	Emery, J. F.	Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Emmott, C. E. G. C.	Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Entwistle, Sir C. F.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Errington, E.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Erskine-Hill, A. G.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Everard, W. L.	Moreing, A. C.
Beechman, N. A.	Fides, Sir H.	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Bernays, R. H.	Fleming, E. L.	Munro, P.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Ganzoni, Sir J.	Nall, Sir J.
Bossom, A. C.	Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Gledhill, G.	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Boyce, H. Leslie	Gluckstein, L. H.	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Bracken, B.	Gower, Sir R. V.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Brass, Sir W.	Grant-Ferris, R.	Palmer, G. E. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Perkins, W. R. D.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Gridley, Sir A. B.	Peters, Dr. S. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)	Grimston, R. V.	Petherick, M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Gunston, Capt. D. W.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)	Hambro, A. V.	Porritt, R. W.
Butcher, H. W.	Hannah, I. C.	Procter, Major H. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Hannon, Sir P. J. H.	Radford, E. A.
Carver, Major W. H.	Harbord, A.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Cary, R. A.	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Ramsbotham, H.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)	Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Gazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Channon, H.	Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Higgs, W. F.	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Christie, J. A.	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)	Holmes, J. S.	Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Clarry, Sir Reginald	Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)
		Rowlands, G.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)	Hopkinson, A.	Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Colfox, Major W. P.	Horsbrugh, Florence	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Russell, Sir Alexander
Conant, Captain R. J. E.	Hudson, R. S. (Southport)	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)	Hutchinson, G. C.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)	Jones. Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Scott, Lord William
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)	Keeling, E. H.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Cox, H. B. Trevor	Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Craven-Ellis, W.	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Shopperson. Sir E. W.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page	Kimball, L.	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Crooke, J. S.	Lamb, Sir J. O.	Smithers, Sir W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Lees-Jones, J.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cross, R H.	Levy, T.	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Crossley, A. C.	Lewis, O.	Spens. W. P.
Crowder, J. F. E.	Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Cruddas, Col. B.	Lloyd, G. W.	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J
Davies. C. (Montgomery)	Loftus, P. C.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
De Chair, S. S.	Lyons, A. M.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
De la Bère, R.	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Tacker, Sir R. I.
Dodd, J. S.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.	Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Duggan, H. J.	Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Duncan, J. A. L.	Macquisten, F. A.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Eckersley, P. T.	Magnay, T.	Turton, R. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Wakefield, W. W.	Wells, S. F.	Wise, A. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)	Wood, Hon. C. I. C,
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)	Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Warrender, Sir V.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Waterhouse. Captain C.	Wilson, Lt.-Col, Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Wedderburn, H. J. S.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl	Mr. Furness and Major Herbert.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Ede

By the explanation of the Solicitor-General we have reached a truly extraordinary stage on this Clause. In his last explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced the words approved expenditure." There is no justification for his contention that expenditure under this Clause is limited to approved expenditure. This is expenditure which any local authority as defined in the definition Clause may incur, and many of the authorities, indeed the great majority of them, are not authorities which are authorised under the Clause to prepare schemes. Take, for example, the county of Surrey. In the geographical county of Surrey there will be two scheme-preparing authorities, the Croydon County Borough Council and the Surrey County Council. Inside the area of Surrey there are 32 other local authorities, and unless they are given special permission none of them may prepare a scheme, but any of them may incur expenditure under the Bill whether that expenditure is in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme or not.

Suppose one of the boroughs or urban district councils or rural district councils considers that the county scheme, even after it has been approved by the Secretary of State, does not contain sufficient precautions to cover their area. They can then incur expenditure under the scheme for making such provision as they think fit. It is not approved expenditure because they are not a grant-claiming authority and, therefore, there is no need for them to get the approval of the Secretary of State. That expenditure is authorised under the scheme, and it is a good example of the way in which the absence of national control and using local authorities as the agents will produce a state of chaos in regard to the schemes. If such expenditure is challenged by a ratepayer at the Ministry of Health's audit the clerk to the council will produce this Sub-section as his authority for the expenditure, and unless it is totally un- reasonable expenditure the Ministry of Health auditor, whatever he may think of the wisdom of a rural council to embark on such a scheme, will pass the expenditure. If it is only a question of £50 or £100 it is unlikely that the auditor will surcharge, or if a surcharge is made the Ministry of Health would then remit it.

Mr. Croom-Johnson

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ede

I am a layman explaining the legal implications of a Clause which the make-weight of the Government did not do, and I should have more confidence in the Government if the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) sat on the Government Bench instead of the make-weight. From his encouraging cheers I should regard his promotion with the greatest amount of approval. I have endeavoured to put as simply as I can the difficulty which confronts us in this Clause. I ask the Solicitor-General to recognise that whatever the Clause may mean it does not affect the case I am putting forward. There is here an opportunity for any local authority, whether it is a scheme-preparing authority or not to incur an expenditure of money and have this as a defence at the Ministry of Health audit. The whole case of hon. Members on this side is that these proposals ought not to be capable of these local excrescences, which may be received by the Home Secretary at a time of national emergency, as a great surprise, and might in fact cut across the proper equipment of man-power for the general scheme under which all these local schemes may have to be amalgamated to meet an emergency. The Clause clearly needs revision and redrafting, and the explanations we have had have been totally unsatisfactory. It is clear that this part of the Bill has never been thought out by the Government in the structure of their scheme.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

After the really extraordinary speech of the Solicitor-General we are in this dilemma; either it is possible for a local authority to spend money on schemes which reasonably make provision for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of a hostile attack from the air without getting any contribution from the State at all, or we are in the position that Clause 5 makes it lawful for a local authority to spend money for such purposes unreasonably. The Solicitor-General drew our attention to Clause 6, which deals with approved expenditure and defines what proportion of approved expenditure on an air-raid precautions scheme strictly so-called shall be paid by the State. Well then, Clause 5 as at present drafted permits local authorities to spend more and other moneys on air-raid precaution scheme objects, which however are not included within an air-raid precautions scheme strictly so-called. That must mean that this Clause is designed to give authority to a local authority to spend money which without the Clause it would be unlawful for it to spend at all. The whole discussion arose out of a question I addressed to the Home Secretary on Clause 5 as to how it is possible for a local authority to spend money on these purposes otherwise than in pursuance of an air-raid precautions scheme; and after the various conflicting explanations given by the Under-Secretary and the Solicitor-General at any rate we are left with this, that either this is an extremely mischievous Clause or it has been so badly drafted that it will effect mischiefs which no one, not even the Government, wishes to effect, and the only safety is for the Government to withdraw it and draft it in such a way that it can be understood by lawyers and laymen alike.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

I have asked more than once a question which has not been answered yet. If it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, that rural councils who may desire to formulate for their own

localities air-raid precautions schemes which are not approved schemes, then am I to understand that they do that entirely at their own cost? If that is so, I ask the Government to reconsider this matter. It may be that schemes adopted by the county councils for these areas may not be considered entirely suitable by these rural councils, and it seems to me entirely unfair that they should be deprived of a grant from the Government if they proceed to adopt other precautionary measures to protect them, additional to what the county authorities may desire for them. If that is a true statement of the facts, can the Government give us some assurance that they will not be precluded from getting the appropriate Government grant?

9.29 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot)

In reply to the question just put, the position is simply that if the local authority spends money in pursuance of an approved scheme it will get the grant. If it spends money over and above that, it spends it out of its own pocket. The answer is very simple. There is no question of any conflicting explanation having been given; the explanations are perfectly consistent. The Under-Secretary explained one part of this Clause and the Solicitor-General explained a further portion of it. [Laughter] Does that seem very funny? A lot of things seem funny to the hon. and learned Member which are not funny to the rest of the House. A further point is, can a local authority spend money on air-raid precautions out of its own pocket? The answer is, yes. That is all.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 97.

Division No. 33.]	AYES.	[9.30 p.m.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)	Bracken, B.	Christie, J. A.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)	Brass, Sir W.	Clarke, Lt.-Col. F. S. (E. Grinstead)
Aske, Sir R. W.	Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Clarry, Sir Reginald
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)	Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.	Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)	Colfox, Major W. P.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)	Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Butcher, H. W.	Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Campbell, Sir E. T.	Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Beechman, N. A.	Carver, Major W. H.	Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Bernays, R. H.	Cary, R. A.	Cox, H. B. Trevor
Birchall, Sir J. D.	Castlereagh, Viscount	Cranborne, Viscount
Boothby, R. J. G.	Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)	Craven-Ellis, W.
Bossom, A. C.	Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Channon, H.	Crooke, J. S.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hudson, R. S. (Southport)	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Crossley, A. C.	Hutchinson, G. C.	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Crowder, J. F. E.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)	Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Cruddas, Col. B.	Keeling, E. H.	Ropner Colonel L.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)	Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)	Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
De Chair, S. S	Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
De la Bère, R.	Kimball, L.	Rowlands, G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Dodd, J. S.	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.	Lees-Jones, J.	Russell, Sir Alexander
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Levy, T.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.	Lewis, O.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Duggan, H. J.	Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.	Scott, Lord William
Duncan, J. A. L.	Lloyd, G. W.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Eckersley, P. T.	Loftus, P. C.	Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Lyons, A. M.	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E	Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)	Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Ellisten, Capt. G. S.	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Smithers, Sir W.
Emery, J. F.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Emmett, C. E. G. C.	Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.	Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Spans. W. P.
Errington, E.	Macquisten, F. A.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.	Magnay, T.	Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Everard, W. L.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fildes, Sir H.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Fleming, E. L.	Markham, S. F.	Tacker, Sir R. I.
Ganzoni, Sir H.	Masan, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.	Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)	Maxwell, Hon. S. A.	Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Gledhill, G.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Gluckstein, L. H.	Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)	Tree, A. R. L. F.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.	Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Gower. Sir R. V.	Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)	Turton, R. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.	Moreing, A. C.	Wakefield, W. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Gridley, Sir A. B.	Munro, P.	Ward, Irene M. B. (Waltsend)
Grimston, R. V.	Nall, Sir J.	Warrender, Sir V.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.	Neves-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Waterhouse, Captain G.
Hambro, A. V.	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)	Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Hannah, I. C.	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Wells, S. R.
Harbord, A.	Orr-Ewing, I. L.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Palmer, G. E. H.	Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.	Peters, Dr. S. J.	Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Petherick, M.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Higgs, W F.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)	Porritt, R. W.	Wise, A. R.
Holmes, J. S.	Procter, Major H. A.	Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.	Radford, E. A.	Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Hopkinson, A.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Horsbrugh, Florence	Ramsbotham, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Mr. Cross and Mr. Furness
NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)	Gardner, B. W.	McGhee, H. G.
Adams, D. (Consett)	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	Maclean, N.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)	Gibson, R. (Greenock)	MacNeill, Weir, L.
Ammon, C. G.	Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Marshall, F.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Mathers. G.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Grenfell, D. R.	Messer, F.
Banfield, J. W.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)	Milner, Major J.
Barnes, A. J.	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Montague, F.
Bellenger F. J.	Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Benson, G.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Muff, G.
Broad, F. A.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Noel-Baker, P. J.
Bromfield, W.	Heyday, A.	Oliver, G. H.
Burke, W. A.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Owen, Major G.
Chater, D.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Paling, W.
Cluse, W. S.	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Parker, J.
Cove, W. G.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Pethiek-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Hopkin, D.	Quibell, D. J. K.
Dalton, H.	Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.	Richards. R. (Wrexham)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Ridley, G.
Dobbie, W.	Kelly, W. T.	Ritson, J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Ede, J. C.	Kirby B. V.	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellly)	Leach, W.	Seely, Sir H. M
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Lee, F.	Sexton, T. M.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Leonard, W.	Shinwell, E.
Foot, D. M.	Logan, D. C.	Short, A.
Gatlacher, W.	McEntee, V. La T.	Silverman, S. S.

Smith, E. (Stoke)	Tinker, J. J.	White, H. Graham
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)	Viant, S. P,	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)	Watkins, F. C.	Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)	Watson, W. McL.	Young, Sir F. (Newton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)	Welsh, J. C.
Thurtle, E.	Westwood, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.