HC Deb 06 July 1938 vol 338 cc501-17

Lords Amendment: In page II, line 15, at the end, insert new Clause (Acquisition by the Commission of right to arrears of rent.)

"It shall be within the competence of the Commission to take from the person entitled thereto an assignment of any debt due from a lessee in respect of rent payable before the vesting date for premises that are to vest or have vested in the Commission, and, in the case of such rent becoming payable at any time within the twelve months next before the vesting date, the Commission shall, on being required so to do by notice in writing served on them by the person entitled thereto at any time before the expiration of twelve months from the vesting date, take an assignment of any debt due from the lessee in respect thereof at a price to he determined by agreement between that person and the Commission or, in default of agreement, by arbitration."

8.58 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Clause deals with the case in which rent is due from a colliery company to a royalty owner and it is unpaid in respect of the 12 months before the vesting date. In these circumstances the royalty owner up to the vesting date would have the right of distraint, but once his property is taken from him by the Commission that right of distraint will be lost. The Clause provides that if the royalty owner desires, the Commission shall take over the debt, not on its face value but at a price to be determined by agreement, or, in default of agreement, by arbitration. The reason for that provision is that the royalty owner loses his right of distraint and recovery, and unless you had a provision of this kind obviously the royalty owner might exercise his right of distraint or recovery before that right passed from him at the vesting date. Any doubt with regard to the debt will be reflected in the price which is determined.

8.59 P.m.

Mr. Pritt

This is surely an undesirable and probably unnecessary Amendment. In the first place, I suppose that in the mining community people normally pay their debts, and normally pay them without having their property distrained on for the purpose of enforcing payment. Therefore, we are dealing here with an exceptional case. I agree that legislation ought to cover exceptional cases, but let us see what is sought to be done here. I cannot recollect any previous attempt to apply the principle of saying to a body, "Here is a debt which 'A' owes to 'B' and it would be convenient and we insist on your buying and taking over the debt." If it is a good debt, there is no need to talk about it, but if it is a bad or doubtful debt, then it is difficult to assess the amount, and if you go to an arbitrator he may give more than it is worth. Surely, it is a wrong and very curious principle to say to the Commission: "You shall buy other people's debts and turn yourself into a glorified debt collector, and run round collecting debts which were not contracted with you, which you do not want, but which you have been compelled to buy." I do not know whether this is a Government Amendment or not, but I have no doubt that it commended itself to Noble Lords, who have been aptly described in the "Spectator," which description we cannot quote. It is certainly a wrong principle to ask the Commission to take over this responsibility, instead of the royalty owner being left in the ordinary way to collect his debts, secure or insecure, from the person who contracted the debt, assuming that he is a solvent debtor. I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths

This is an Amendment in which the royalty owners, who are so well represented in the other place, are once again looking after their own interests. If I understand the new Clause correctly, it says that they shall have the right to pass on their bad debts to the Commission. These people have for centuries enjoyed the certainties and escaped the risks of the industry. They have themselves described royalties as being the best gilt-edged securities in the country, and now they want to make sure that if there are debts at the time the Commission take over, they will have the right to compel the Commission to take over the debts and, if necessary, go to arbitration. The royalty owners have done a disservice to the industry throughout its history; they have never rendered any service, and now they want to pass on their bad debts to the Commission. They want to saddle the Commission with debts which they may never be able to collect. Under this Bill we are placing responsibilities upon the Commission on behalf of the nation. It is a national Commission, representative of the country, and we have no right to saddle this public Commission with something which we would not dare to place upon a private company.

I should like to know whether this Clause would apply to any debt that might exist. As I understand it, it relates to any debt from a colliery company or a leaseholder which falls due for payment within the 12 months before the vesting date. Surely, that does not mean a debt contract in that 12 months? If I am correct it means that the payment must fall due during that time. It is possible that there may be collieries that will owe two, three to four years' royalties and they have been postponing payment, and they may become payable in the 12 months before the vesting date, and the Commission will have to take them over at a sum to be assessed by the arbitrator. I should like to know whether the Clause relates only to a debt that will accrue in the 12 months before the vesting date. We view this and all the other Amendments from the other place with suspicion. I remember many speeches in which hon. Members talked about taking the unemployed out of politics. This is the royalty owners in politics. As representatives of the people it is our duty to be suspicious.

Is the debt which they can pass to the Commission a debt which has accrued in the 12 months immediately preceding the vesting date, or is it a debt which may have accumulated in previous years and happens to fall due for payment in that period? My second question is this. A colliery company may become bankrupt and it may have a number of debts, including debts for royalties and arrears of wages and for compensation. We have known of cases where a colliery company has gone bankrupt where the royalty owners have got every penny and the workers and those who had been injured did not get a penny piece. If in this period a colliery company goes bankrupt and has arrears for wages, will the royalty owners get their debts by compelling the Commission to accept them, and will the people to whom wages are due or compensation is payable, those people who have sold their labour and received injury in their employment, local tradesmen who have supplied them with goods, receive no consideration at all, while the royalty owners are to be safe because the nation is to take over their debts? This point calls for some explanation, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

9.7 P.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

When we have been discussing the question of the vesting date we have been dealing with huge sums of money. We have been talking about the £66,000,000, but here we have an Amendment from the Lords which seems to me to reduce it to a most miserly level. Shakespeare's Shylock is always held up as the man who wanted his full pound of flesh, and the only thing which prevented him getting it was that he was likely to spill a drop of blood. Here we have a picture of the mind of the people in another place, people who have been lauded as an example of nobility and aristocracy and everything else that is fine in the British race, but when it comes down to filthy lucre they become so debased that they do not think in millions but actually think in coppers. Under the Agriculture Act, which prevents people from getting the potatoes they want, we can sell only those potatoes which will go through the mesh, but the Lords are prepared to put everything through the mesh. This for me is a most splendid thing for use in the next election; the mean and miserable way in which the Lords are afraid that they are going to lose a penny.

What do they propose to do? It may not be necessarily a bad debt. It may be a debt that has accumulated because a mine has been going through a bad period, and the royalty owner, who probably has £1,000 a year in royalties, may have been getting only £500 of that in order to allow the pit to get through the difficult period. That debt has accumulated. The company is not in a position to pay when the vesting date comes, but the people in the other place say, "We will not bother about the colliery company now, we will not go to the expense of getting that bad debt. Here is a better thing: a gilt-edged security. The nation is taking over the royalty rents. The Commissioners are doing well in Yorkshire and badly in certain portions of Durham and Northumberland, but what they are losing on the swings they are getting on the roundabouts. The Commissioners will be responsible for the debts of our company up to and within 12 months of the vesting date." This is a scandalous Amendment. It is mean, miserable and dispicable. It shows the depths to which Noble Lords are prepared to descend when they are chasing the almighty dollar.

9.11 p.m.

The Attorney-General

May I answer one or two questions which have been put to me. The Amendment applies to rent, and applies only to rent payable within 12 months of the vesting date. The reason for it is that by the operation of the Bill the remedy of distraint and re-entry will be taken away at the vesting date, and the substitute for that is not, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, a guarantee of the debt but a sum of whatever it may be found to be worth.

9.12 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

The only thing which really surprises me about this Amendment is that their Lordships have forgotten to put in the 12 months interest on the rent. There must have been some grave oversight for their Lordships to have forgotten that important item. The Attorney-General has told us that this operates in respect of the rent payable. We knew that, because that is what the Clause says. What my hon. Friend asked was, when does rent become payable? Is it the amount of rent accruing in the 12 months, or on the date on which rent is usually payable or the date upon which the rent is payable because it is rent in arrears? Rent is always payable. Rent 10 years in arrear is rent payable, and it is payable within the last 12 months of the date on which the vesting date closes. As far as I can see there is no reason why this should not cover any rent which has not been paid, and which is therefore payable within 12 months of the vesting date. It is not rent due, which would be a perfectly well understood term; it is not rent becoming payable. It is in respect of rent payable before the vesting date, and in the case of such rent becoming payable at any time within the 12 months before the vesting date.

Does not the rent become payable if it is in arrears? I should have thought it did. Does it cease to be payable because it is in arrears? That was the question which was put to the right hon. Gentleman and which he has not yet answered. One of the real objections to this Clause is that it has been inserted. It was not considered to be necessary either by the advisers of the Government or by the House. This was not thought to be a matter in which it was necessary to protect the royalty owners. When the Bill left the House, it was considered that the risk was one which could properly be run. After all, what is the risk? The only risk is that the royalty owner might not be able to distrain for his rent for 12 months. He might not be able to distrain owing to the vesting date. That is the only risk he runs.

Mr. Stanley

I thought that the risk was that because he is going to be deprived of his rent he might distrain during that 12 months. Surely, that is a thing we all want to avoid.

Sir S. Cripps

I am dealing with the risk which the royalty owner runs. The only risk is that after the vesting date, he might not be able to distrain. I do not know how many cases there are on record of distraints on coal mines by royalty owners, but I think there are singularly few. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever heard of one. It is not a thing that is done very often, because the only property that could be got by distraint would be the machinery, the movable machinery at the pithead or possibly some of the tubs at the pit bottom, and that would inevitably stop the operation of the mine completely and therefore make it much less likely that any rent would ever be recovered. I should have thought that the remedy of distraint as regards coal-mining operations was a remedy that was seldom, if ever, employed, and that therefore the risk, as far as that was concerned, was very small.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this might be of convenience to the Commission, so as to avoid the possibility of distraint during the 12 months preceding. I have already pointed out that the risk is a very small one; but there are great difficulties which this would place upon, the Commission. For instance, there is the difficulty that will be created by the Commission going in as a landlord and starting its career as a landlord with a tenant who is indebted to it already. Obviously that is a very undesirable position for any landlord to take up vis-à-vis a new tenant. One would have thought that the whole benefit was that the Commission would start with a clean sheet rather than with all the past indebtedness. Obviously, if the Commission has to start by dunning the tenant for old rents which are not due to it but due to its predecessor, it will be a very unfortunate start as regards the relationship between the Commission and its tenants. We cannot see any earthly reason why, simply for the sake of benefiting hypothetically the royalty owners, the Commission should have to start its career with that very unpleasant onus upon it, which is very likely to upset its relations with its tenants.

In addition to that, there is the difficulty which the Commission will have as regards arbitration. I suppose it is well known to everybody that in all arbitrations of this type, the person who is claiming against a public authority which has masses of available money invariably gets a very good deal. In fact, he comes off much better than he would if he were making a claim against an impecunious tenant who could not pay the rent, and in the great majority of cases the valuation of the chance of getting that rent will inevitably be a valuation against the Commission; in other words, the Commission will pay more than the market value for this indebtedness, and taking it over all, they will never recover the amount of money which, in fact, they will pay.

There are many reasons why pressure would be put on a public body such as the Commission not to dun the colliery owners for these past rents. All sorts of excuses would be brought forward—that it would damage the industry, that it would stop this or that mine, and so on. Once it becomes a question of the Commission being owed the money and not the individual royalty owner, everybody will think it is only fair that the risk should be foregone. Consequently, it is absolutely certain that the effect of this Clause will be to give the royalty owners more than they themselves would recover and to make the Commission pay much more than they will ever recover by the process of law or by any other process. For those reasons, we think that this is another device to get another little bit for the royalty owners. The House did not think that this Clause was necessary when the Bill was brought forward, and we resent the royalty owners in the House of Lords putting it in for their own benefit.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General did not attempt to answer the very important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) as to what would be the position of a colliery going bankrupt during the year, and whether the royalty owners would be considered before the wage earners or the compensation. The other question which arises is that of the accumulated debt. The President of the Board of Trade, in an interruption, said that because of their going out of business at the end of the year, they might make a distraint on some mine in connection with which a debt was owed. I would like to encourage one of these royalty owners to make a distraint on a mine, for I am sure that it would be one of the outstanding exposures that could be made of the robbery which the royalty owners represent. What an effect it would have, not only in the area where the distraint was made, but throughout the country.

It is because they know the very weak condition they are in, because they know that there are debts which they cannot possibly collect, and because they know the exposure that they would make of themselves if they tried to get a distraint and force the matter into the public view, that they wish to put this Clause into the Bill. They have been tolerated because they have carried on their evil practices as secretly as possible, but once they came into the open and the people of the country got to know of what had been going on, the Commission would have very great difficulty in paying any of them, because there would be such feeling against the whole process of robbery on the part of those who have been exhibiting themselves recently in the other place.

This Amendment reminds me of a burglar who goes to a policeman and says, "I am going in to rob that house, and I want you to come along with me and see that the owner does not hide anything away." That is the whole idea behind this Amendment and a whole series of these Amendments. "The robber gang have seized our land"—that is a line from one of our songs; they have seized the money coming from the coal mines, and now they ask that the Commission should have the responsibility of seeing that every penny is got, without any regard whatever to the welfare of the mining industry and of the miners. That should be the important thing, but the safety of the miners is the last thing that enters into the minds of those responsible for this Bill. But for the miners there would be no British Empire, no industry of any kind. We should concern ourselves with the miners and the safety of the miners, and reject this Amendment.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. David Adams

I am very much astonished that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. I can only think that they do so in order to assist another place in its determination to obtain the maximum amount of remuneration for the royalty owners from the Commission. It seems to me that the Government's attitude of profound sympathy with the Lords Amendment was indicated when a previous Amendment was being considered which was an infringement of the Privilege of this House and that Amendment was not rejected out of hand by the Government. That opened my eyes, and makes me look with great suspicion upon any support which they may accord to subsequent Amendments. The explanation given to justify this Amendment is that the royalty owners at a date subsequent to the vesting date might be placed under the disability of not having a right of re-entry into the mine. Surely they have the same legal protection that all other debtors have—the customary method of collecting debts through the county court. But instead of doing their own work they desire to turn the Commission into a debt-collecting institution on their behalf.

A very strong point against this Amendment is that pressure would be brought to bear in various directions upon the Commission in order that the debts which they have accepted should not be pressed too severely. We have an illustration of that in the district from which I come, Newcastle-on-Tyne, which is a large owner of royalties, and again and again the Corporation have been approached with a view to the reduction of rentals and the extinguishment of debts, on the ground that if those debts were pressed or there was not a reduction of the rentals, the mines might not work as successfully as they would otherwise do and there might be dismissals of workmen. That is a strong reason why the Commission should not be placed in the position of being debt collectors for the royalty owners. The royalty owners apparently have had extreme difficulty in collecting many of their debts, because this new Clause says that the Commission shall take an assignment of any debt due from the lessee in respect thereof at a price to be determined by agreement between that person and the Commission or, in default of agreement, by arbitration. It is quite clear that those who framed this Amendment had in mind some very large amounts of debts which they are going to ask the Commission to take over by agreement between the debtors and the Commission—debts which under normal circumstances probably would never be collected at all. It seems to me that this Amendment is just about as mean as the previous one. It is asking a public corporation to become a debt-collecting agency and to force unhappy clients, presumably by the power of the law, to pay what hitherto they probably have been unable to pay to the royalty owners.

9.33 p.m.

Sir H. Seely

Although I speak as a royalty owner, and this Amendment obviously is an advantage to the royalty owners, yet I cannot see any good reasons for accepting it. The idea that you would in the last period get an enormous number of distraints on the collieries by royalty owners seems to me a very poor argument. I do not believe it will happen, and I am surprised that the Commission is to be landed with these debts. As a trustee I have had a good deal to do with these debts and seen the various ways in which the debtors can be let off. These debts are personal debts and should remain, so that the Commission may start fair without having these debts hanging over them. I was very surprised when this Amendment was accepted by the Government. I cannot believe that the reason for its acceptance is the fear of distraint by royalty owners on colliery proprietors, and I cannot believe that it is a wise thing for the Government to accept it.

9.35 P.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins

I join with those hon. Members who have spoken in expressing surprise at the fact that the Government have accepted this Amendment. The last speaker said that he, as a royalty owner, was surprised at the Government's action. I suppose there have been few instances on record in which the other place has acted as they have acted in relation to this Clause. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) tells me that there is one case on record in which a Noble Lord declared that certain property belonged to him, and claimed the right to vote against certain action that was proposed by the Government in relation to it. Here we have the other place acting in relation to this Bill in a way which is directly to their own personal advantage. In local government that would be a very serious thing indeed. There is a provision in the Local Government Act, 1933, which prevents a member of a council voting or taking part in a discussion in which it can be said there is involved any pecuniary interest, either of his own or of his wife's. Apparently, the other place takes no notice of any provision of that kind, but go forward with these demands upon the country in, if I may so describe it, a most brazen manner. I feel sure that the people of the country will be not only surprised but disgusted with the attitude which has been taken up in another place on this question.

A previous speaker said that those in another place thought not only in terms of gold but also in terms of copper, and we have an instance in this Clause. They propose to pass on to the Commission the bad debts which may arise in depressed coal-mining districts where it is unlikely that the individual royalty owner will be able to recover. That simply means that if the Commission fails to collect the amount of the debt, the burden will have to be borne by the miners of this country. The Commission will have to charge royalties to the extent of its losses in connection with these bad debts. What has been proposed in another place is that these bad debts should be unloaded on to the miners of the country who are already suffering so much from low wages. It is a disgusting attitude for those in another place to take up, and it is even more disgusting for the Government to acquiesce in it.

This Amendment ought not to be tolerated by the House. I am sure it does not represent the views of the people and its acceptance is a most despicable concession by the Government to another place. I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that what has been done in regard to this Bill is sufficient justification for a very firm stand by this House against another place. We ought to make this a real test. I understand that 85 votes in the other place carried this Amendment. Why, then, should the Government accept it? In plain English, it means putting money into the pockets of the coalowners which they could not get under the other arrangements in the Bill. I hope that, even now, the Government will make a stand and refuse to accept the Amendment. I hope that that line will be taken by the House of Commons and I feel sure that no hon. Member would be able to justify to his constituents a vote in favour of the Amendment.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Batey

The President of the Board of Trade in an interjection which he made a short time ago gave the impression that he was anxious to speak upon this Amendment. I invite him now to explain this Clause more fully than it has been explained up to now, and if he accepts that invitation there is one point to which I direct his attention. This Clause proposes to make the Commission debt collectors. When the Bill was first brought before the House the right hon. Gentleman had in mind what the functions of the Commission were to be, and those functions were settled by the House during the discussions on the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had any idea that the Commission should include debt collecting in their functions, he ought to have included it in Clause 2 of the Bill. As a matter of fact, both this House and the other place have dealt with Clause 2 already, and no advantage has been taken of the opportunity to alter the functions of the Commission in this respect. The proposed alteration of the vesting date was bad, but I consider this proposal far worse. It is one of the most impudent things that even royalty owners could do, and royalty owners can be as bad as any men can be. Listening to the Debates in the other place I was pleased when I heard the royalty owners squeal seeing that they have made the miners suffer. If anybody in this country made the miners suffer in the past it was the royalty owners and one was glad to find a Bill before the other place which made them squeal.

There is another point. If this Clause is passed and the Commission is to be saddled with this responsibility, where are they to get the money to pay these debts? The vesting date is 1st July, 1942. Suppose that six months' rent is due by a colliery owner in December, 1941. The Commission take possession of the coal in July. If they say to the colliery owner,

"You owe six months' rent, due in December, 1941," the colliery owner can say, "What right have you to interfere? That debt is not owed to you. You were not then the owner of the coal. The royalty owners are the only persons who can claim that debt." Suppose one of my hon. Friends here was buying a house from me and I had a tenant in the house who owed me six months' rent. If I said to my hon. Friend, "1 will sell you the house but you will have to take over this bad debt as well," he would naturally say to me, "What have I to do with your bad debt? That is a matter between you and your tenant." Here are the Lords, the royalty owners. They come along and find a better way. They say, "Oh, we will not sue the coalowners for six months' rent; we will saddle the Commission with that debt." I submit that there could not be a more impudent thing for any body of men to ask in this world than what is proposed in this Clause. I should like to see hon. Members opposite who will vote for this Clause defending it in the House to-night, because the Clause, on the face of it, is very like what the royalty owners have always been; and in my opinion it ought not only to be rejected, but it ought to be rejected unanimously.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 141.

Division No. 275.] AYES. [9.47 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Ellis, Sir G.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Clarry, Sir Reginald Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's) Clydesdale, Marquess of Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Apsley, Lord Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Errington, E.
Aske, Sir R. W. Colfox, Major W. P. Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Assheton, R. Conant, Captain R. J. E. Everard, W. L.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Findlay, Sir E.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Craven-Ellis, W. Fyfe, D. P. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Critchley, A. Gledhill, G.
Beechman, N. A. Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Birchall, Sir J. D. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Goldie, N. B.
Bossom, A. C. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gower, Sir R. V.
Boulton, W. W. Crowder, J. F. E. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Culverwell, C. T. Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Boyce, H. Leslie Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Gridley, Sir A. B.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. De la Bère, R. Gritten, W. G. Howard
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Denman, Hon. R. D. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Donner, P. W. Hambro, A. V.
Bull, B. B. Drewe, C. Harbord, A.
Bullock, Capt. M. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Butcher, H. W. Dugdale, Captain T. L. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Cartland, J. R. H. Duggan, H. J. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Carver, Major W. H. Duncan, J. A. L. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Cary, R. A. Dunglass, Lord Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Eastwood, J. F. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Eckersley P. T. Hepworth, J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Higgs, W. F. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Hopkinson, A. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Simmonds, O. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Hulbert, N. J. Moreing, A. C. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Hume, Sir G. H. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hunloke, H. P. Munro, P. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Hunter, T. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Spens, W. P.
Joel, D. J. B. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Storey, S.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.) O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Keeling, E. H. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Porritt, R. W. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Procter, Major H. A. Tate, Mavis C.
Kimball, L. Radford, E. A. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Law, R. K. (Hall, S.W.) Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Leech, Sir J. W. Ramsbotham, H. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Lees-Jones, J. Ramsden, Sir E. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Rankin, Sir R. Titchfield, Marquess of
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Touche, G. C.
Lewis, O. Rayner, Major R. H. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Liddall, W. S. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Wakefield, W. W.
Lindsay, K. M. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lipson, D. L. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Wells, Sir Sydney
Loftus, P. C. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Lyons, A. M. Ropner, Colonel L. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Rowlands, G. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Maclay, Hon. J. P. Russell, Sir Alexander Womersley, Sir W. J.
Macnamara, Major J, R. J. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Wood Hon. C. I. C.
Magnay, T. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Wragg, H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Salt, E. W. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Marsden, Commander A. Selley, H. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Mr. Furness and Major Sir
James Edmondson.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Gardner, B. W. Leonard, W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Garro Jones, G. M. Leslie, J. R.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Logan, D. G.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Gibson, R. (Greenock) Lunn, W.
Banfield, J. W. Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Barnes, A. J. Green W. H. (Deptford) McEntee, V. La T.
Barr, J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. McGhee, H. G.
Batey, J. Grenfell, D. R. McGovern, J.
Bellenger, F. J. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) MacLaren, A.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Mander, G. le M.
Benson G. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Marshall, F.
Broad, F. A. Groves, T. E. Mathers, G.
Bromfield, W. Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Maxton, J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Messer, F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Milner, Major J.
Buchanan, G. Hardie, Agnes Montague, F.
Burke, W. A. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Cape, T. Hayday, A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Cassells, T. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Charleton, H. C. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Naylor, T. E.
Chater, D. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Noel-Baker, P. J.
Cluse, W. S. Hicks, E. G. Oliver, G. H.
Cooks, F. S. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Owen, Major G.
Collindridge, F. Holdsworth, H. Paling, W.
Cove, W. G. Hollins, A. Parker, J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Jagger, J. Parkinson, J. A.
Daggar, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Pearson, A.
Dalton, H. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) John, W. Poole, C. C.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Price, M. P.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pritt, D. N.
Day, H. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Quibell, D. J. K.
Dobbie, W. Kelly, W. T. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Ridley, G.
Ede, J. C. Kirby, B. V. Ritson, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Kirkwood, D. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Seely, Sir H. M.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Lathan, G. Sexton, T. M.
Foot, D. M. Lawson, J. J. Silverman, S. S.
Frankel, D. Leach, W. Simpson, F. B.
Gallacher, W. Lee, F. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Smith, T. (Normanton) Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Stephen, C. Walkden, A. G. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Walker, J. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith Watkins, F. C. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Watson, W. McL.
Thurtle, E. Welsh, J. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Tinker, J. J. Westwood, J. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.