HC Deb 16 June 1938 vol 337 cc557-71

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

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith

As my hon. Friends and I propose to go to a Division on this Clause, I will indicate briefly the rather intricate financial point which this Clause raises. It is covered in the first words of the Clause: The Treasury may accept any fully paid shares in Cable and Wireless, Limited, made over to it as aforesaid. I will summarise the explanation of the reasons for these words which is given in the Preamble of the Bill. The explanation is this. For some generations our system of overseas telegraphy was conducted through the great submarine telegraph cables. Some years ago, however, the beam wireless system of overseas telegraphy came into the field and it became clear to everybody that if free competition was permitted between the two systems the beam wireless system would completely destroy the submarine cable system of overseas telegraphy. It became clear also that in some way or other these two systems must be combined under the same control. The beam wireless system was under the control and ownership of the Post Office. There were two choices, either for the Post Office to buy out the submarine cables, which course was proposed by the Labour Opposition, and the other choice was the one which the Government made, to establish a great combine with the beam wireless, the Marconi Company, which controlled wireless telegraphy, and the submarine cable companies.

The Post Office handed over its beam wireless stations to the combine.

They made a certain financial arrangement that the combine should rent the Post Office beam wireless stations at an annual rental of £250,000. That is the background of this Clause, which proposes a change in this financial arrangement. Instead of having a rent of £250,000 a year the Clause proposes that the combine shall have the beam wireless stations as a freehold, that the property of the nation shall be transferred to the combine, that they shall pay no rent, that this £250,000 a year shall be lost to the State, and that in return the State shall obtain £,2,600,000 worth of shares out of a nominal capital of the combine of £30,000,000. That is to say that in future the State instead of obtaining £250,000 rent will get 8½ per cent. of the dividends which the combine will earn. That is the financial transaction contained in this Clause.

I will point out what this transaction means, taking the experience of the years since the combine was formed and since the arrangement was made. Last year on this new basis the State would have obtained £91,000; the year before £62,000, the year before because larger dividends were paid out of reserve £135,000, in 1934 £50,000, in 1933 £15,000, in 1932 £6,000 and in 1931 £6,000. The proposition which the Government have put before us is that the State shall give up a firm settled rent of £250,000 and obtain in return dividends from the company which can never be more than £100,000 and which for two years have gone down to £6,000. It cannot be disputed that this is a proposition under which the combine is bound to gain and, except by a miracle, the country is bound to lose. That is why we oppose it and why we shall divide against the Clause.

I am not going to repeat the arguments put forward on the Second Reading. I understand the point that the combine is lowering its imperial rates and that it has had great financial losses in the past, but I do not accept them as a sufficient justification. The combine has lowered its rates and every postal administration has lowered its rates, but it expects as a return to get an increased traffic. Indeed, at a meeting of the combine a fortnight ago the Chairman, Lord Plender, argued to his shareholders that a lower rate would lead to an increase in traffic and, therefore, the combine does not need to be compensated. Undoubtedly the combine has lost money, but it was formed by people who had their eyes open and who, in fact, insisted upon forming it. When they formed it, there was an enormous increase in the shares on the Stock Exchange. There was a gamble. It has turned out badly, I admit, but I do not accept the idea that when there is a gamble on the Stock Exchange and it turns out badly, the State should accept a share of the losses. That is really what this Bill is doing.

I would point out to the Committee what it is in which we are landing ourselves. Undoubtedly this seems to the Government to be a very simple way of getting over the next year or two, but let us look ahead a few years, when this problem will face us again. These communications are changing rapidly, and the system of beam wireless telegraphy and submarine telegraphy is very unlikely to be our main method of communicating with overseas countries 20 years hence. What is most likely to happen in overseas communications is what has already happened in domestic communications—the telegraph will he pushed aside by the telephone.

Let me point out what is the position in regard to overseas telephony. Overseas wireless telephony is in the hands of the Post Office now, and it is very likely that in a few years' time overseas submarine telephony will develop. When I was at the Post Office, we had practically decided to take part in the creation of a submarine telephone cable. It had been accepted by the Treasury, and I believe there had been a preliminary Cabinet decision. I may say that it was due to the invention of a remarkable method of load cable known as the perminvar, which I think came from the United States. That decision had been taken by the Post Office, and was under discussion by the Government. It was held up by the slump, which made it obvious that there would not be a return on the traffic from this country to the United States. But I have no doubt that a submarine telephone system will be developed, and from the information which I have, it is very probable that it would prove more certain and safer than the beam system, which is subject to all manner of interruptions.

What will happen then? Once again it will be the old story of the telegraph being pushed aside by telephony. It will be the story of 1928 again, the new system killing the old system; but then the new system, telephony, will be in the hands of the Post Office. What will you do then? How will you protect the older system? You will be faced by the same problem, and will have to give the same reply. All these methods of overseas communications will have to be put under one control inevitably, and there will be the choice—either you will have to hand over the property of the Post Office to this combine, with more profit to the combine, or you will have to go back to the 1928 position, and acquire for the Post Office the overseas telegraphy and the beam stations.

When that choice comes to be made, as it may in 10 or 15 years, what will be our financial position as a result of the arrangement to be made under this Clause? The Post Office may want to take over the beam stations. At present they are rented for 25 years of which 10 have elapsed at a payment of £250,000 a year to the State. If the Bill is passed what will be the position? The combine will have the beam stations as absolute property, without any consideration at all in the nature of an annual payment. The Government are committing the country to a position in which we shall be compelled to take over the freehold of these stations, with no rent at all, and the purchase price which the combine will demand will be based upon this new fact. For that reason, we on these benches intend to vote against this Clause and for that reason I wish definitely to state the view which my hon. Friends and I take on this subject.

These stations are being given away to-night. National property is being given away to-night. Our view is that it the time comes, as I think it will, when we have to take this property back again the just basis will not be that of an inflated price, upon the freehold tenure, without any rent at all, which the Bill is establishing, but a price which will take into account the fact that these stations are to-day being given away to this combine for an inadequate, risky and fluctuating income.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Viant

When this Bill was considered on Second Reading, the financial aspect of the proposals was fully discussed, and it was evident that great sacrifices were being made to the cable and telegraph company at the expense of the public purse. That recalls to mind a statement once made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Referring to the members of his own party, he said that, when occasion served, they were prepared to hand out money from the public purse by the shovelful and the bucketful. The present proposals are on those lines.

I was interested during the Second Reading Debate to listen to the defence of the Assistant Postmaster-General. The hon. Gentleman was in a difficulty in defending these proposals. He knows as well as I do that the one organisation capable of giving the best results where communications are concerned is the Post Office itself. That Department is undoubtedly on top of its job, and I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will place before this Committee the reasons why he is prepared to back a Bill of this character in spite of the experience he has had at the Post Office. Whenever he has spoken at that Box he has always impressed the House with this fact, that he was proud to be assistant head of a Department of which he could truthfully say that it was on top of its job and was serving the State with a measure of pride and efficiency that stood out. It will be interesting to hear what sort of a defence he has in this regard.

During the course of the Second Reading Debate on 30th May the subject was raised as to where we should stand in connection with European and overseas cables in the event of hostilities, and I remember that the House was left under something of a misapprehension in regard thereto. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able this evening to explain to the Committee exactly where we stand in regard to these cables in the event of hostilities, because we are handing over to the control of this cable company very important communications. Another question that I want to put is with regard to the communications to Kenya. Since these were taken over by the cable company the Department has been endeavouring to arrive at an agreement in respect to these services. I understand that a price of £35,000 was suggested, but that no definite agreement has been arrived at. Are we to understand now that the price even of £35,000 is to be waived in connection with these services? Are we not to receive this £35,000? Is that to be given as another present to the Cable Company?

The next point is this: When the services are handed over to this company, there may not be a large staff affected, but none the less, whatever the number may be, they will be affected. This point was raised on the Second Reading, and the hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that he could assure the House that the interests and the future of the staff would be safeguarded. A measure of time has elapsed and the Committee is entitled to know what steps have been taken to safeguard the position of the staff which will be affected. Will the staff aet present operating these services be compelled to pass out of the Post Office service into a private company, will it be optional, and will their future be safeguarded in respect of promotion and security?

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Benson

The Committee stage of a Bill is generally for the purpose of examining the details of the Government's proposal, but as this Bill is drafted it is practically impossible to examine the details of what the Government propose to do with our beam wireless station. It is a Bill to enable the Government to make some kind of agreement, of which we have only the vaguest details, with the Cable and Wireless Company. Even the details in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill are so vague that one can make little of them. The Committee stage in these circumstances is little more than a farce. Take, for instance, Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which says: The Postmaster-General may enter into an agreement with Cable and Wireless Limited whereby the circuits agreement is, with certain alterations, continued for such period as may be determined by or under the agreement for the continuation thereof. What are those alterations? In the Financial Memorandum we are told that they are alterations of a similar value, but does the value of those services remain the same in changing circumstances? We are entitled to know what the Government propose to do. We get no information from the Bill. What is the proposal of the Government in respect of Sub-section (3) which refers to Kenya? We have three different statements. There is, first, the statement in the Financial Memorandum: It is proposed, as part of the present general settlement, that the Postmaster-General's claim should be waived. Secondly, Sub-section (3) says: The Postmaster-General may waive the Kenya claim. Thirdly, there is the statement on Second Reading of the hon. Gentleman the Assistant Postmaster-General, who said: We wanted the House to leave it open to my right hon. Friend and myself to argue it out with the company, and I think we can claim, at any rate, that the matter is in safe hands. I will try to see that your confidence is justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May; col. 1702, Vol. 336.] May I ask the hon. Gentleman what was said my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) or me that gave him the impression that we had any confidence in him at all? If he is under that impression I can assure him he has misunderstood us. Here the Assistant Postmaster-General suggested that they proposed to argue the point. Which is correct, the Financial Memorandum which says that it shall be waived, or this statement that they will continue the argument with the Company as to what shall be paid? Further, why have the Post Office allowed the claim to remain outstanding for seven years? Is it the custom of the Post Office to argue about claims for seven years? This is merely an example of how this Company treat a Tory Government. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Keighley told us of some of the discussions he had with this Company when he was Postmaster-General. The Company learned that they could not treat a Labour Government in the way in which they are apparently treating this Tory Government. It is simply ridiculous that a claim for £36,000 should be outstanding for seven years. The Company never intended to pay and they will not pay in the future.

As to Sub-section (4), again, we have only two details of the joint purse arrangement. The first is that it is taken on the basis of the years 1934–35–36, and the second that there is to be an annual maximum payment from one to the other of £25,000. No explanation is given of how the joint purse arrangement is going to work or why those three years were chosen and 1937 was left out. On Second Reading the Assistant Postmaster-General said that the arrangement was designed so as to give no financial advantage to either party as long as circumstances remain substantially unchanged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1938; col. 1704, Vol. 336.] Who expects them to remain substantially unchanged in a service which is changing with intense rapidity? To make an arrangement which gives no advantage "as long as circumstances remain substantially unchanged" is childish. Who will get the advantage when the circumstances do change? The best thing for the hon. Gentleman to do when he gets up to reply is to explain what the Government propose to do and to let us have some of the details which we have not had so far.

11.28 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley)

We have had a very interesting Debate—almost a Second Reading Debate—on this Clause.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

That is a reflection on the Chair.

Sir W. Womersley

I made no reflection on the Chair. If the hon. Member will keep quiet for a minute or two and allow the Chairman to conduct the business, we shall get on much better. I gave a very clear explanation of the whole of the provisions of the Bill on Second Reading, spending about 50 minutes in doing so, and I think I covered the points very completely; but it is my duty to clear up the doubts of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I will try to do so, and at the same time to see that they do not lose their last trains. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) complained that the House had been given only "vague details," but again I say that I feel that I gave a full ex- planation. He wants to know the meaning of the words "with certain alterations" in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. They refer to alterations which will be necessary in consequence of the fact that the company will in the future be the owners of the beam stations and not merely the renters of them. The only alteration in substance will be that provision will be made that if the company gives up its present leased circuits it will be entitled to obtain free of charge, land lines of equivalent value between other points. I explained on the Second Reading that we had, along with the beam stations, leased to the company certain land lines required for the working of the beam stations and for connecting them with the main cable system.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) raised a point about the Kenya claim. I am going to tell the Committee frankly that on the Second Reading I had not full and up-to-date information, the reason being that the Postmaster-General has this matter in hand. My information was that a decision had not been arrived at in the matter at that time. I have now had an opportunity of having a word with my right hon. Friend, and he wants me to convey to the Committee the fact that he had agreed to waive this claim in respect of which an hon. Member asked me why we had delayed so long. This claim was put in for the first time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was Postmaster-General, on the basis that the Post Office were going to lose a certain amount of revenue, and it was capitalised as £35,000. The company suggested that a substantially smaller sum should be accepted, and argument has gone on ever since. My right hon. Friend thinks that it is in the best interests of all concerned to waive the claim, which he would have a good deal of difficulty in substantiating.

As regards the joint purse arrangement for the European telegraph system, I explained it fully on the Second Reading. It is a very simple arrangement, which is entered into by many businesses besides that dealing with telecommunications, and is a question of competitors deciding that they will not overlap in services or advertising but will work so that there is a payment one to the other according to whether there is an excess or a deficiency. It is definitely laid down that £25,000 is the maximum payment in any single year. I can tell hon. Members also that I have implemented the promise I made on the Second Reading that I would communicate with the company as regards the staff. I made a definite statement that men who were dispossessed of their jobs under this arrangement would be found positions elsewhere. I told the House on that occasion that there would be no question of the men in the Post Office losing their jobs. In fact, the total number of people who could be dispossessed was not more than a dozen—at most. We made provision in regard to our men. I am glad to be able to announce to the Committee that I have received a letter from the chairman of the company—it is much better to have it in writing—in the following terms: With reference to the promise made by my colleague, Sir Charles Barrie, in regard to the displacement of staff as a result of the joint purse arrangement, I am, of course, prepared to give effect to this, and, though I do not myself anticipate that the joint purse will diminish employment, I am happy to assure you that, if it does cause any redundancy in our service, the staff who may be affected will be found equivalent employment in other departments. That is a promise in writing, and I again repeat that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and myself will see to it that the promise is carried out.

The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) wanted to know about a statement made during the Second Reading Debate, at column 1704 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th May, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley. He made it clear that he was talking about the Continental and not about the Imperial route, and he stated that in his opinion the Post Office had the right to take over these services at specified figures. He wanted to know why we entered into this joint purse arrangement when we could have taken over the services ourselves. We have, however, no such right; no such agreement was ever entered into. We have the right to take it over in case of national emergency, but not at any other time, without the consent of the company. We are not, therefore, in a position to be able to take over these services.

I have already explained our attitude with regard to Kenya, and I pass to the more important question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley, who once occupied the position of Postmaster-General, and, may I say in passing, did his job very well indeed. He referred to the 1928 settlement, and wanted to know what were the arrangements made at that time, and why those arrangements were entered into. I think he knows the history of that matter. It was a question of dealing with these overseas communications, and this country was not the only party affected; the Dominions had a say in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not take them over and carry on. But we could not have got agreement on that at that time. It is well known that this was a definite arrangement suggested by a joint committee of all interested, including the Dominions and our own country, and they recommended that these beam stations should be handed over to this company, who could operate, not only the services from this side, but also the services in the Dominions. Parliament at that time decided that it was a right and proper thing to do, and we have to carry on under that arrangement. Today we have to consider what it would mean to this country if it should happen that we had not the full use of the cables as well as the wireless stations.

It has been asked why we have agreed to waive the payment of £250,000 a year, taking in return shares to the amount of £2,600,000 of the existing £30,000,000. In the first place, it was felt that there must be a reduction in rates, and it is clear that, on the basis of the existing traffic, the company will lose £500,000 by this reduction of rates. As I said on Second Reading, we expect to get increased traffic as a result of reduced rates. That happened in the internal telephones and the telegraphs. But that has to be tested out. I am hoping it will be so, for the company's sake and for the sake of the British Government, which holds 2,600,000 shares. It was realised, after the matter had been carefully considered, that the company could not make big reductions and continue to pay these heavy charges. As far as the Post Office are concerned, we do not stand to lose all that sum, because the Treasury will pay to the Post Office Fund £150,000 towards the £250,000. For that expenditure we get this advantage to commerce and trade, and the company can compete with foreign concerns which have established services, and it is undoubtedly going to be a great binding link between this country and the Dominions.

The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know something about the proposal which was put before him when he was at the Post Office in regard to a telephone system by cable. That was put forward by an American company. They were not prepared to hand it over to the British Post Office. They wanted a partnership with the British Post Office—and I can imagine any foreign company wanting to have a partnership with the British Post Office. The financial arrangements, in our opinion, were not at all satisfactory, so the matter was allowed to drop. I can imagine what would have happened had we come to this House and suggested such a partnership between the Post Office and an American company. This is a British company with which we are making this arrangement, and an all-Empire company. I do not want to enter into a general discussion on the question of private enterprise versus state control. I could say a great deal—and I have said a great deal at by-elections—about it. I I hope on future occasions to have an opportunity of stating my views on that particular subject, but we are now on the Committee stage of a Bill. I think I have explained all the points about which hon. Members have asked. If any more information is wanted, I shall be pleased to oblige.

Mr. Viant

I put a question with regard to the employés, as to whether it is going to be optional for those in the employ of the Post Office at present to be transferred to the cable company, or whether it will be compulsory. That is very important.

Sir W. Womersley

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I forgot that point. But I dealt with it on Second Reading. I said definitely then—and my right hon. Friend said so also—that none of the employés of the Post Office would be transferred to the company; they would be taken into other departments. The employés of the company have now had assurances that they will be found employment in other of their departments.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 90.

Division No. 236] AYES [10.20 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Groves, T. E. Paling, W.
Adamson, W. M. Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Parker, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Parkinson, J. A.
Ammon, C. G. Hardie, Agnes Pearson, A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Harris, Sir P. A. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Barnes, A. J. Hayday, A. Price, M. P.
Barr, J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Quibell, D. J. K.
Bellenger, F. J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Benson, G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Ridley, G.
Bevan, A. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ritson, J.
Broad, F. A. Jagger, J. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Burke, W. A. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Cape, T. John, W. Sexton, T. M.
Charleton, H. C. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Shinwell, E.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Cove, W. G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kelly, W. T. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Daggar, G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Sorensen, R. W.
Dalton, H. Kirby, B. V. Stephen, C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Lathan, G. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lawson, J. J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dobbie, W. Leach, W. Thurtle, E.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lee, F. Tinker, J. J.
Ede, J. C. Leonard, W. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Logan, D. G. Walkden, A. G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Macdonald, G. (lnce) Welsh, J. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H McEntee, V. La T. Westwood, J.
Gardner, B. W. McGovern, J. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Maclean, N. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Maxton, J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Messer, F. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Milner, Major J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Naylor, T. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Noel-Baker, P. J. Mr. Mothers and Mr. Anderson.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Oliver, G. H.
NOES
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Barrie, Sir C. C. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Albery, Sir Irving Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Bull, B. B.
Aske, Sir R. W. Beechman, N. A. Butcher, H. W.
Assheton, R. Birohall, Sir J. D. Campbell, Sir E. T.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Boyce, H. Leslie Carver, Major W. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Brass, Sir W. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Balniel, Lord Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Colfox, Major W. P.
Colman, N. C. D. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O.J Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Hopkinson, A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Hulbert, N. J. Remer, J. R.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Hume, Sir G. H. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Hunloke, H. P. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Ropner, Colonel L.
Cox, H. B. Trevor Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Crooke, Sir J. S. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Rowlands, G.
Groom-Johnson, R. P. Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Cross, R. H. Law. R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Crowder, J. F. E. Leech, Sir J. W. Russell, Sir Alexander
Cruddas, Col. B. Lees-Jones, J. Salt, E. W.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Lewis, O. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Lipson, D. L. Sandys, E. D.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Soott, Lord William
Dodd, J. S. Loftus, P. C. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Doland, G. F. McCorquodale, M. S. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Donner, P. W. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. McKie, J. H. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Duggan, H. J. Macquisten, F. A. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Duncan, J. A. L. Magnay, T. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Dunglass, Lord. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Spens, W. P.
Eastwood, J. F. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Eatersley, P. T. Markham, S. F. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J
Ellis, Sir G. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Emery, J. F. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Turton, R. H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Wakefield, W. W.
Everard, W. L. Munro, P. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Fleming, E. L. Nall, Sir J. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Furness, S. N. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Fyle, D. P. M. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Gluckstein, L. H. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Grant-Ferris, R. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Gridley, Sir A. B. Patrick, C. M. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Grimston, R. V. Peake, O. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Perkins, W. R. D. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Petherick, M. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hannah, I. C. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Harbord, A. Procter, Major H. A. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Radford. E. A. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Higgs, W. F. Ramsbotham, H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Captain Dugdale and Major Sir
Holmes, J. S. Rayner, Major R. H. James Edmondson.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 237.] AYES [11.44 p.m.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Entwistle, Sir C. F. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Albery, Sir Irving Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Procter, Major H. A.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Fleming, E. L. Radford, E. A.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Asks, Sir R. W. Fyle, D. P. M. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Assheton, R. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Ramsbotham, H.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Gluokstein, L. H. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Rayner, Major R. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Grant-Ferris, R. Reed, Sir H.S. (Aylesbury)
Belniel, Lord Gridley, Sir A. B. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Barrie, Sir C. C. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Remer, J.R.
Baxter, A. Beverley Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Richard, G.W.(Skipton)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Hannah, I. C. Robinson, J.R.(Blackpool)
Brahman, N. A. Harbord, A. Ropner, Colonel L.
Birchen, Sir J. D. Harris, Sir P. A. Ropner, Colonel L.
Boyce, H. Leslie Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle) Rothschild, J.A. de
Brass, Sir W. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Rowlands, G.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Royds, Admiral P.M.R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E.A.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Higgs, W. F. Russell, Sir Alexander
Bull, B. B. Holmes, J. S. Salt, E.W.
Burghley, Lord Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Sandys, E.D.
Butcher, H. W. Hopkinson, A. Scott, Lord William
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hulbert, N. J. Selley, H.R
Carver, Major W. H. Hunloke, H. P. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Sinolair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Colfox, Major W. P. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Colman, N. C. D. Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Leech, Sir J. W. Southby, Commander Sir A.R.J.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Lipson, D. L. Spens, W.P.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Cox, H. B. Trevor Loftus, P. C. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Crooke, Sir J. S. McCorquodale, M. S. Stourton, Major Hon. J.J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M.F.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Tasker, Sir R. [...]
Crowder, J. F. E. McKie, J. H. Thomson, Sir J.D.W.
Cruddas, Col. B. Macquisten, F. A. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R.L.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Magnay, T. Turton, R.H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Wakeheld, W.W.
De la Bère, R. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Doland, G. F. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Donner, P. W. Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick) Ward, Lieut.-col, Sir A.L. (Hull)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Ward, Irene M.B. (Wallsend)
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Waterhouse, Captain C.
Duggan, H. J. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Watt, Major G.S.Harvie
Duncan, J. A. L. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Wickham, Lt-Col. E.T.R.
Dunglass, Lord Munro, P. Williams, H.G. (Croydon, S.)
Eastwood, J. F. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A.T. (Hitchin)
Eckersley, P. T. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Edmondson, Major Sir J. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Womersley, Sir W.J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wright, Wing-Commander J.A.C.
Ellis, Sir G. Palmer, G. E. H. Young, A.S.L. (Partick)
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Patrick, C. M.
Emery, J. F. Peaks, O. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Emmott, C. E. G. C Perkins, W. R. D. Mr. Grimston and Mr. Furness.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Adamson, W. M. Debbie, W. John, W.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.) Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ammon, C. G. Ede, J. C. Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Barnes, A. J. Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Kelly, W. T.
Barr, J. Gardner, B. W. Kirby, B. V.
Bellenger, F. J. Gibson, R. (Greenock) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Benson, G. Grenfell, D. R Lathan, G.
Bevan, A. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Lawson, J. J.
Broad, F. A. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Leach, W.
Buchanan, G. Groves, T. E. Logan, D. G.
Burke, W. A. Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Cape, T. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) McEntee, V. La T.
Charleton, H. C. Hayday, A. Mathers, G.
Cluse, W. S. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Maxton, J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Messer, F.
Dagger, G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Milner, Major J.
Dalton, H. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Jagger, J. Noel-Baker, P. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Oliver, G. H.
Paling, W. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Tinker, J. J.
Parker, J. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Viant, S. P.
Parkinson, J. A. Smith, E. (Stoke) Westwood, J.
Pearson, A. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Less- (K'ly) Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. Sorensen, R. W. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Poole, C. C. Stephen, C. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Quibell, D. J. K. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Richards, R. (Wrexham) Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Ridley, G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ritson, J. Thurtle, E. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.