HC Deb 07 July 1938 vol 338 cc666-83

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 21, at the beginning, insert: Where information is required by the Commission for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this Part of this Act and the Commission consider it necessary for the purpose of obtaining such information to cause an inspection to be made at any premises used in connection with the carrying on of a coal-mining undertaking the Commission may after serving upon the persons carrying on the undertaking a notice showing the general nature of the information required, authorise in writing.

Captain Crookshank

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

We now come to the powers of the Commission to obtain information. Under the Bill as it left this House any member or officer or technical agent appointed by the Commission and authorised by the Commission to make inquiries for the purpose of securing information, could enter premises and take copies of whatever might be necessary, and any person who obstructed him in the exercise of these powers to get information was guilty of an offence. This is a slight limitation and it is a limitation which, as a matter of fact, several hon. Members voiced in this House. They fear that the Commission might authorise some person who would have a kind of completely roving commission and be able to look at all sorts of information of great interest, but which was not necessary for the actual purpose in hand. Therefore, this Amendment says that where the Commission require information to discharge their duties and where they consider it necessary to cause inspection to be made, they shall serve notice on the persons carrying on the undertaking to say what is the general nature of the information required. That would seem to be a reasonable thing to do, and obviously it is what, in fact, the Commission would do. They would not be likely to swoop down on a colliery undertaking without giving any notice. This Amendment would not limit the Commission as to how often it made such an inspection; it would not limit it to any great extent; and in any case, if anybody obstructed the Commission or refused to divulge information, the powers which have been taken under the Bill to safeguard such a position are quite untouched.

6.31 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps

Hon. Members on this side strongly object to this Amendment. It was very interesting to hear the Secretary for Mines give all the reasons which were given in a former Debate by other hon. Members and which he so strenuously rejected then as being thoroughly unsound. Now, at the bidding of his master's voice, he becomes the parrot for those very arguments which at that time were turned down decisively by the Board of Trade and the Mines Department. There is one important matter which is contained in this Amendment. The opportunity of ascertaining by inspection the particular breach which is suspected—and probably the usual case in which there would be an inspection would be a breach of lease—

Captain Crookshank

I must make one thing clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are now discussing Part II of the Bill, and the powers of the Corn-mission for purposes of compulsory amalgamations.

Sir S. Cripps

Where the Commission is the sole lessor, as it will be in the case of all these properties, it will have powers, will it not, as lessor, under its leases, to enter upon the premises of its lessees in order to ascertain whether there has been a breach? This Amendment is cutting that down. It is not in this Clause that they have that power. This is an absolute provision.

Captain Crookshank

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman again. The provision says: the discharge of the functions to be performed by them in virtue of this Part of this Act.

Sir S. Cripps

It is contemplated that the Commission will have these inspectors. They will operate not only for one Part of the Act, but presumably for the Commission generally. They will not go to a mine on one day and say that they are acting under Part I of the Act, and on another day, under Part II of it; they will go to a mine for the purpose of making an inspection, ascertaining facts, seeing plans, or whatever it may be, in a dual capacity. They will not be able to divide up their functions between Part I and Part II, unless there is to be great expense placed upon the Commission. Therefore, I assume that if one of these inspectors goes to a mine in Lancashire, he will go there to carry out all these functions. He will not go to a mine on one day and say that he is a Part I inspector, and then go again on the next day and say that he is a Part II inspector. If that is done, it will lead to enormously increased expense. What this provision says is that the inspector, or the mineral agent, when he goes to a mine to carry out his functions equally under both Parts of the Act, will have to give notice to the lessee, who will be the lessee of the Commission. Therefore, the lessee will always be told in advance when the inspector is coming.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Commission is going to run its business so that the inspectors will be kept separate and will aways be operating either under Part I or Part II, the point which I am raising will not arise in practice; but if it is to be run as a practical business proposition, the inspector must carry out both functions when he is inspecting a pit. In that case, such an inspector or agent will have always to notify a pit or a colliery company in advance that he is coming and the general nature of the information which, under Part II, he requires. I cannot see why that notification should be given. Why cannot the mineral agent who is going round for the purpose of ascertaining facts as regards Part I or Part II, when he goes to a colliery on Part I business, also say to the manager, "While I am here, you might let me see the plans for the purpose of some amalgamation scheme." He will not be able to do that under this provision. I cannot see the value of this Amendment, except to hamper the Commission in the performance of their duties under Part II, which no doubt is the object of the Amendment.

I cannot see the object of putting in this requirement that notice should be given in advance not only that the inspector is coming, but also of the general nature of the information that is required by him. When this matter was discussed in the House before, all sorts of limiting suggestions were put forward and the Government rejected all of them, because they said that it was necessary, for the efficient carrying on of the business of the Commission, that they should have powers as in Clause 44, Sub-section (1). Now the other place wants to make it more difficult for the Commission to work Part II, and the Government say that it is advisable to accept this Amendment.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made quite clear what he thinks should be the powers of the Commission. Surely, it cannot be suggested that if the Commission send a representative to a mine for the specific purpose provided for in Part II, namely, to make an examination from the point of view of an amalgamation, they should be able to use that power for every other purpose under the Bill. I should like to be informed by the Attorney-General whether the Commission would have the right, having got this power for the specific purpose which is made quite plain in this Part of the Bill, to make use of that power for any other purposes. This Part of the Bill deals specifically with amalgamations, and it should be made quite clear that those representatives will not have a roving commission which will enable them to do exactly as they like as regards every Part of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, in the speech which he has just made, made quite clear what are his political opinions; he wants the inspectors, under this provision, to be able to do almost anything. I should have thought that the power which we are now discussing had particular reference to amalgamations.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths

I think my hon.and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made it clear that, since the Commission are to be the owner of all the minerals, they ought to have the right to examine their own property without going through these formalities. Clause 44, as it left this House, gave to any member or officer of, or technical or professional agent appointed by, the Commission, the power to examine a colliery, and all that was required was that he should be authorised in writing by the Commission to represent it. Having such an authorisation in writing, he could go to the colliery and would be empowered to carry out all the examinations involved in Sub-section (1) or any part of them. Presumably, the Commission would do that when they were considering a project for reorganisation or amalgamation. In such a case, it would be essential for the Commission to have available to it all the information necessary to arrive at a sound decision.

Therefore, the Commission ought to be empowered to seek their own information in their own way, and to send their inspectors to ask for books to be produced when they arrive, and not to have to write and ask for the books to be produced two months hence. I remember that when I was in a pit, as a boy, there was on one occasion feverish activity; everything was being cleaned up. I asked what was going to happen, and I learned that it was in anticipation of an inspector arriving. If the Commission are to be compelled to give notice in advance and to say that in a week's time their agent is going to a colliery to examine the books or to look over the colliery, everything will be prepared. Surely, the Commission ought to have full power to make test audits and test inspections as they require, and I do not think they will be able to do their business properly unless they have such a power. We are setting up this Commission, and I have already expressed very grave doubts—

Mr. Holdsworth

Hear, hear.

Mr. Griffiths

I was not doubtful for the same reasons as the hon. Member; he is the only hon. Member remaining who wants no interference with private enterprise. I respect his opinions. He is the only real representative of private enterprise in the House.

Mr. Holdsworth

I do not object to the hon. Member's description of me, and I make no apology for believing in private enterprise, but I remember that on the Committee stage, the hon. Member was very doubtful about these amalgamations. He suggested to the House that at any moment a person representing the Commission might go to a colliery, take the books, and form an opinion about an amalgamation without the people concerned having a proper opportunity of putting the full facts before him, because they had not had notice beforehand. Seeing that the hon. Member was doubtful about these amalgamations for that reason, would it not be better that notice should be given so that the people concerned would have proper time to get everything ready?

Mr. Griffiths

I was doubtful about the amalgamations because I did not want the Commission to arrive at a decision on information given to them which they had no means of checking and verifying. The Commission will have very grave responsibilities. They will decide upon schemes, and they will have to send a report to Parliament. Presumably, long before they take advantage of the powers under this Clause, they will have had reports before them and will have considered whether it is in the interests of the industry and the nation that there should be an amalgamation. They will have certain information before them, particulars of the output, and so on, and they will want to check that information. If this Amendment is accepted, will there be any power in the Bill which will enable the Commission to send an officer to make an examination on the spot without giving any notice? Surely, it is right that the Commission should have that power. As the Secretary for Mines knows, an inspector, for the purpose of safety in mines, has the right, which is essential for his job, to arrive at a colliery and to go down without asking anybody's permission. Surely, the representative of the Commission ought to have that power as well. Under the Clause, he must be authorised in writing by the Commission, and when he is so authorised, he will be representing the Commission, which represents the nation. I urge the House, in the interests of the Commission and the work which it has to perform that the Commission should have that power. The original Clause provides— Any member or officer of or technical or professional agent appointed by the Commission, authorised in writing by the Commission to make inquiries on their behalf as to any coal-mining undertaking … may for the purpose of obtaining information required by them for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this part of this Act enter any premises," etc. If the Amendment is accepted then where information is required by the Commission for the discharge of its functions and where the Commission consider it necessary to cause an inspection of premises to be made they may after serving upon the persons carrying on the undertaking a notice showing the general nature of the information required authorise in writing any of the persons previously mentioned to make inquiries on their behalf. We suggest that it is essential that the Commission should have the power to go to any undertaking and to make a test. Suppose that having asked for and obtained this information they are not satisfied that it is correct. Suppose that it is information about the pit itself, about its equipment, about the coal seams and so forth and that they are not satisfied of its accuracy. Then under the original Clause they would have had the right to authorise a person to make investigations on their behalf but if we accept the Amendment they will have no such right. In that respect the Commission will be handicapped. They ought to have the full power intended by the original Clause.

6.48 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis

This Part of the Bill relates to amalgamations and amalgamations alone, and from the practical point of view it is better, both for the person who is making the inspection and for those in charge of the colliery undertaking, that the details should be put down on paper before the inspector arrives. If that is done a great deal of trouble will be saved. The inspectors will not be prevented from getting information. On the contrary they are much more likely to get all the information they want and to get it more quickly if they put down on paper, clearly, what they want. As regards Part I of the Bill there are other powers and other means of getting information, but as regards this Part of the Bill the more clearly the Commission define what they want the more likely they are to get the information.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

Some of my hon. Friends are not in favour of amalgamations but I am in favour of them, and I am in favour of Clause 44 in the form in which it left this House. This Amendment is merely a delaying action on the part of those in another place. It would compel the Commission to notify the colliery proprietors of the information which they desire to have. Only if that information is refused, can they, under the Amendment, authorise a person to go to the colliery and get it, as they have a general power to do under the original Clause. What is wanted is the power to get firsthand information immediately and this Amendment is merely delaying in its character.

Further, this House thoroughly examined the Clause in its original form, and I object to another place seeking to exercise its power by putting Amendments of this character in a Clause which has already been fully considered in this House. Clause 44 as it left here covered every point which we desired to have covered in relation to the powers of the Commission. It gave the Commission full power to authorise persons on their behalf to get whatever information was desired in connection with amalgamations. This is one of the attempts which are being made by another place to kill the Bill and I am surprised that the representatives of the Government who expressed themselves satisfied with the Clause as it left this House, should now agree that a better way has been found in another place of expressing what they intended. I hope they will be firmer in their attitude, and will not give way on this question. I hope that the House generally will take a more definite stand and resist Amendments of this kind.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. H. Mitchell

Far from the other place having altered this Clause in a manner which is contrary to the view of the majority of this House, I believe that the majority of Members here will support the Amendment. I am aware that hon. Members opposite do not agree with the Amendment, but we must remember that the majority in this House do not believe in people being allowed to walk into anybody's office, at any time, without notice and to call for any documents they care to demand. I certainly wish to place on record my protest against any legislation of that kind. I think it forms a dangerous precedent and that all Members here who are not Socialists should oppose such legislation. As a matter of fact, great benefit is being conferred by this valuable Amendment passed in another place. An hon. Member drew an analogy between this case and the case of mines inspectors, who have an absolute right of entry without giving any notice but there is no such analogy.

Mr. Lawson

Is the hon. Member aware that when the proposal was made to appoint inspectors and enable them to visit mines, the gentlemen in another place tried to stop it, but the Government of that day took a firmer stand than the present Government are taking.

Mr. Mitchell

I submit that that is not what we are discussing at the present time and that I would be out of order in going into that question. As I say I wish to record my protest against any legislation which permits entry of this kind into premises without adequate notice having been given.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) has adduced an extraordinary argument. He takes strong exception to Government inspectors being empowered to enter premises without giving notice of their intention to do so, but I wonder what attitude he took when this House decided that inspectors should go into the homes of unemployed people for the purpose of carrying out the duties imposed on the Unemployment Assistance Board. I understand that in pursuance of those duties, those inspectors have to go, even into the bedrooms of the unfortunate people whose homes they are visiting, and I have never heard any protests from the hon. Member against Government inspectors going into the homes of the working class. The hon. Member is much behind the times. There are on the Statute Book many enactments which confer powers on Government inspectors to enter mines and factories, and I assure him that in no case are the factory or mines inspectors required to give notice of their intention to visit a factory or a mine. Those of us who, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and myself, have vivid recollections of the facts of the terrible disaster at the Gresford Colliery, will agree that the trouble there was not that the mine inspectors had not given notice of their intention to visit the mine, but that they had not gone there at all. It will not help matters to require these inspectors to give notice, and I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Wragg

Surely it is confusing the issue to bring in the case of factory inspections. What we are dealing with here is obtaining information required in connection with compulsory amalgamations. That persons should be authorised to go into offices and demand to see books and documents seems to presuppose that the undertakings already belong to the public instead of being in private ownership. As long as they are in private ownership, I suggest it necessarily follows that notice should be given before a demand is made for private information about these businesses. As an ordinary matter of business and in order to save time, notice should be given in these cases and I suggest that the opposition to this Amendment is all a storm in a teacup.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Ede

In view of the spirited protest made by the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell), it seems to me that if he had been doing his duty in the Committee stage he would have voted against this Clause in the form in which it appears in the Bill. In connection with these amalgamations the normal way of doing business will be to give notice of inspections, but cases may arise in which it is desirable that inspection should be made quickly and without notice, in the interests of the Commission, who represent the public. If we accept this Amendment we preclude the Commission from taking that step. Hon. Friends of mine who have a closer acquaintance than I have with mining inform me that it is possible, in a week, to alter the underground conditions so as to cause a pit to appear a much more valuable property than it really is. One can hardly call it "window-dressing" since it is underground, but I think hon. Members understand the idea. I understood that such a practice was not unusual in gold mines in other countries, but until this afternoon I was not aware that it had been attempted in the coal mines of this country. The Commission should be in a position to send in inspectors where they have reason to suspect such practice. If we pass this Clause in the form which satisfied the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick in the Committee stage, we may rest assured that notice will normally be given, but at the same time the Commission will not be precluded from making inspections without notice where they consider it in the public interest to do so.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

It seems to me that those who are in favour of the Amendment may be divided into two categories, and it is somewhat significant that two separate arguments are sometimes to be found in the same speech. The first is that the intention of the Amendment is to facilitate the work of the Commission, and the other is that the work of the Commision ought not to be facilitated in that way because it is an unwarrantable interference with the rights of the owners. The two arguments cancel out each other. I hesitate to believe that those who are responsible for putting in this Amendment did it with the intention of assisting the Commission and facilitating compulsory amalgamation. It seems to me in the highest degree unlikely, and from that point of view the interruption which referred to the power of inspection of mines without notice under other legislation was fully justified. It is said that it will be very much better if notice is given, it will allow people to know when the inspector is coming and what kind of information he desires, and time will be saved when he comes. There is nothing in the Clause, as it stands, to prevent the Commission from working in that way. In instances where prior notice will be helpful, the Commission may be trusted to give it. You do not need to legislate in order to compel it to give what is in its interest to give. But if the Commission feels that there are occasions on which it might be better not to give facilities, why should the over-riding power to send an inspector without giving notice be withheld except in the interest of those who do not want the Commission to carry out its work?

Those who desire the work of the Commission to be facilitated may accept the Clause unamended with a free conscience and a clear mind, and no harm will be done. Those who do not, ought not to be assisted. There are dozens of instances under existing legislation where the power of inspection without notice must be possessed by the State if the intentions of Parliament are to be carried out. Who could imagine an inspector of weights and measures, or one under the Food and Drugs Act, giving notice to a shopkeeper that he is coming on such and such a day to see whether his scales are correct? The power may never need to be used. The more power of that kind there is, the less it will need to be used. But there is no reason why this over-riding right to inspect should not be given. Those who drafted the Amendment do not appear to have done their job very well even from their own point of view, because there is nothing to say when the notice is to be given. A general notice might be served the day after the vesting date on every concern, giving some indication of the general nature of the information that might be required. It is clear that the authors of the Amendment had only one intention in their mind, and that was to obstruct the work of the Commission, as far as they could, in defiance of the will of this House. I should have thought in those circumstances that the House would not hesitate to reject the Amendment.

7.6 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely

This seems rather a storm in a teacup. I do not agree with the Amendment. I do not see that it has any great advantage and I certainly do not see that there is any great safeguard in the idea that you are going to stop people prying. The Amendment does not seem very well drawn if that is the intention. We should perhaps be wiser to reject it, because it is all dealt with in Clause 44, and anyone who thinks that it provides a safeguard is being deceived.

7.7 P.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

I was amazed at the simplicity of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) in accepting the point of view that the Commission would only deal with certain books and figures and certain aspects of the mine. If the Commission is inspecting a mine from the point of view of amalgamation, it will have to satisfy its mind upon every aspect. It will have to take in tonnage, the conditions of the mine, the output, and every question that applies to mining operations. This question of amalgamation has been brought forward by the Government because of the refusal of the owners to carry out any successful policy in this respect. The mine-owning interests are more heavily represented in another place than they are here and it is, therefore, right that the Commons, when dealing with Amendments coming from such an interested source, ought to inspect them very carefully and not accept them with the simplicity of the hon. Member for South Bradford, which to me is amazing but consistent.

Hon. Members opposite talk about a certain brand of Socialism prying into the affairs of people. Socialists have objected most strenuously to interfering with the liberties of people in their houses and in many other spheres of public life. But this is not prying into private affairs at all. It is a question of dealing with a national industry which is necessary for the good of the nation, and we are dealing with a section of the community which has forced the Bill upon the Government because of their refusal to assist amalgamation schemes in the national interest. Now hon. Members are saying that the Commission should be restricted so that they must state definitely in writing exactly what they want to see or to do and must not ask questions about anything else. If they did, the owner would say, "Really, in our circle that sort of thing is not done."

The suggestion that is put forward means that we are to have a Commission composed of people who are either very stupid or who are not going to do their work in the way that the House of Commons desires. I believe the Minister is extremely unhappy. I believe he is divided between standing by the House of Commons and accepting the Amendment. He has placed his arguments before his masters. They have turned him down and sent him back to support a position in which he does not believe. If we want the Commission to be efficient and able to carry out their duties, we ought to extend to them the fullest powers possible.

7.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

I should be very unhappy if I thought that the arguments that have been adduced were really convincing, but I am only unhappy because I cannot have made myself clear in introducing the Amendment. Perhaps it is that the word "inspection" has brought a line of thought to hon. Members which it does not really connote. Hon. Members have spoken as though this was a case of somebody wanting to rush down a pit without any notice because he wanted to make an inspection of something or other. The cases of the inspector of weights and measures and the inspector of mines and the like have been cited, but this provision has nothing to do with that kind of inspection. The only point of this Amendment is that the Commission should give notice when it wants to inspect certain things, and that in doing so it should give a general indication of the kind of things it wants to get. The question was asked why notice should be given, and it was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) when he said that that would be the quickest way of getting what was wanted.

Let me again remind the House that the Commission have two entirely different functions although they may merge in some directions. First, it will be the universal landlord and will own all the coal. In so far as many of the speeches we have heard were concerned with the problems which were raised, I dare say the kind of inspections that the Commission will require as landlord will be governed by the clauses of the leases, I have yet to learn that a royalty owner to-day has any conceivable right, rhyme or reason under his lease or in any other way to go and make inspections of the books and the ordinary financial accounts of the colliery company which is his lessee. He may inspect the colliery for certain reasons, because he is the landlord, but this Amendment deals with information of quite a different kind. The second function with which the Commission starts is the reduction of undertakings, and in order to make up its mind whether it is necessary to close an undertaking, it has to get some of the kind of information on which it would naturally have to rely; and would also want a good deal of other information, financial information and the like. These are rights which the Commission as landlord has not got, and the Clause makes it possible for it to get that kind of information.

The only question is whether it should do it without notice and without giving any indication of what it wants. The common sense of it is that if there is a question of amalgamation and the Commission wants information of a financial and technical nature, it is not possible to go and pick it up on the spur of the moment. It is, therefore, desirable in everybody's interest for the Commission to say, "We want this information and we are coming down on a certain day; will you please have it ready for us." If that is not enough it can get further information and if there is any obstruction to getting the information, that is provided for in the Clause. Some of the arguments on this Amendment have been based on a false analogy. It does not have the result of hampering the Commission or making it difficult for it to get information. What it does is to remove the fears of certain of my hon. Friends that this Commission will have what they call a roving commission to go and look at all sorts of matters in which it is not directly concerned. I hope it will be convenient for the House to come to a decision on this point now because the business is to be interrupted.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 146.

Division No. 284.] AYES. [7.21 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Goldie, N. B. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Gower, Sir R. V. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Grant-Ferris, R. Ramsbotham, H.
Albery, Sir Irving Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Rankin, Sir R.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Gridley, Sir A. B. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Rayner, Major R. H.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Aske, Sir R. W. Hambro, A. V. Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Assheton, R. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Haslam, Henry (Horneastle) Remer, J. R.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Ropner, Colonel L.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A
Bennett, Sir E. N. Higgs, W. F. Russell, Sir Alexander
Bernays, R. H. Holdsworth, H. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Blair, Sir R. Holmes, J. S. Russell, S, H. M. (Darwen)
Bossom, A. C. Horsbrugh, Florence Salmon, Sir I.
Boulton, W. W. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Salt, E. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Samuel, M. R. A.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Hume, Sir G. H. Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hunter, T. Scott, Lard William
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hurd, Sir P. A Selley, H. R.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Bull, B. B. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Campbell, Sir E. T. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cartland, J. R. H. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Cary, R. A. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Leech, Sir J. W. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Channon, H. Lees-Jenes, J. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Lewis, O. Spens, W. P.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Liddall, W. S. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Clydesdale, Marquess of Loftus. P. C. Storey, S.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Colfox, Major W. P. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John M'Connell, Sir J. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Conant, Captain R. J. E. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cooper, Rt.Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs) McKie, J. H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Craven-Ellis, W. Maclay, Hon. J. P. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Tate, Mavis C.
Cross, R. H. Maitland, A. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Crowder, J. F. E. Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Culverwell, C. T. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Marsden, Commander A. Touche, G. C.
De la Bère, R. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Turton, R. H.
Denville, Alfred Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Doland, G. F. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Donner, P. W. Morgan, R. H. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Drewe, C. Munro, P. Warrender, Sir V.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Slde) Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Duncan, J. A. L. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Wells, Sir Sydney
Eastwood, J. F. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Ellis, Sir G. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Emmott, C. E. G. C. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Palmer, G. E. H. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Errington, E. Peake, O. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Peters, Dr. S. J. Wragg, H.
Everard, W. L. Petherick, M. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C
Fox, Sir G. W. G. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Furness, S. N. Porritt, R. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fyfe, D. P. M. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Captain Dugdale and Major
Gledhill, G. Procter, Major H. A. Sir James Edmondson.
Gluckstein, L. H. Radford, E. A.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Batey, J.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Bellenger, F. J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Banfield, J. W. Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Ammon, C. G. Barr, J. Benson, G.
Bevan, A. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Price, M. P.
Broad, F. A. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Pritt, D. N.
Bromfield, W. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Quibell, D. J. K.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hicks, E. G. Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ridley, G.
Buchanan, G. Hollins, A. Riley, B.
Burke, W. A. Hopkin, D. Ritson, J.
Cape, T. Jagger, J. Roberts. Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Chater, D. John, W. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Cluse, W. S. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Seely, Sir H. M.
Cocks, F. S. Kelly, W. T. Sexton, T. M.
Collindridge, F. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Silkin, L.
Cove, W. G. Kirby, B. V. Silverman, S. S.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kirkwood, D. Simpson, F. B.
Daggar, G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Dalton, H. Lathan, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Lawson, J. J. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Leach, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, F. Stephen, C.
Day, H. Leonard, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Dobbie, W. Leslie, J. R. Stokes, R. R.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lunn, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Ede, J. C. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) McGhee, H. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) McGovern, J. Thorne, W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H MacLaren, A. Tinker, J. J.
Foot, D. M. Marshall, F. Tomlinson, G.
Gardner, B. W. Maxton, J. Viant, S. P.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Messer, F. Walkden, A, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Milner, Major J. Walker, J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Montague, F. Watkins, F. O.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Morrison, Rt. Han. H. (Hackney, S.) Watson, W. M,.[...]
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Welsh, J. C.
Grenfell, D. R. Naylor, T. E. Westwood, J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Noel-Baker, P. J. White, H. Graham
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Oliver, G. H. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Groves, T. E. Owen, Major G. Wilkinson, Ellen
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Paling, W. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Parker, J. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parkinson, J. A. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Hardie, Agnes Pearson, A. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Harris, Sir P. A. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Hayday, A. Poole, C. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr.Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 44, line 26, agreed to.

Lords Amendment; In page 44, line 42, leave out "the Commission consider" and insert "are reasonably."

Captain Crookshank

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

This is a slightly more important matter.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.