HC Deb 30 March 1938 vol 333 cc2058-69

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

6.3 p.m.

Sir H. Seely

As I was saying, I support this Clause. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) stated that the Commission would interfere with the ordinary idea of work in the coal trade and with people sinking pits and so on, but the whole idea behind this Bill is the reorganisation of the coal trade. The Commission is set up with the idea of making some improvement in the general layout of the coalfields as a whole, and in fact in Clause 2, which really governs what they are to do, we find that they shall be charged with the duty of controlling and managing the premises acquired by them … by granting coal-mining leases and otherwise, in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act. … I agree that, as it stands now, the sinking of a new pit or mine would be governed by that, because they are in control of their new property, but they are governed by the words "consistently with the provisions of this Act." The way that will work is that, when someone wants to sink a pit, they will have to consider whether it will be a good thing or not, from a purely legal point of view, that that pit should be sunk, while if this Clause is passed, it will make it clearer that they ought to consider the question from a national point of view. As it stands, they have plenty of power in the matter, but they are tied by the provisions of the Act, and not by considerations of the national interest, and I therefore support this Clause.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

I support the Clause because of many things that have happened in our own experience. Every mining representative can visualise the closing down of pits, and knows the vast areas of coal that could be worked if only the market had not been overstocked by the opening of new pits. Unless we have this Clause, we can see the opening of new mines in areas where the coal seams are richer, and the argument may be used that it is necessary to develop a new coalfield, overlooking the fact that there are vast areas of coal that are being left undeveloped where mines are already sunk. I have in mind several areas where I come from in which the mines have been closed down for very poor reasons, but the tale has been, "Oh, we have got into financial difficulties, and we must give these pits up." We claim that if the Commission, set up to protect the coal-mining interests and the national interests, have regard to all the circumstances, they can, before they give power for the opening of new pits, find out, if they are areas that are already supplying, whether they cannot adequately supply the nation's need with what they are already producing. Coal seams are of vast importance, and if once a colliery is closed down and gets flooded out, it is very difficult to get that mine reopened, especially if the seams are a long way in and are not perhaps of the best quality; but we can visualise a time when these seams will be of importance to the nation.

My chief concern is this: It is a question of creating derelict areas, and from time to time Parliament has to deal with this matter. If some forethought had been given to the matter before these pits were closed, these derelict areas would not have been created. Durham Members may speak on that subject, and they can tell the House of millions of tons of waterlogged coal in Durham that ought not to have been allowed to get into that condition. If in the richer coal-fields they begin to sink new pits and draw men towards those pits, it can be seen quite clearly that the other mines will gradually cease to be able to make profits and will have to close down. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) used the argument that we were trying to bolster up inefficient pits. Perhaps, on the strict logic of profits and returns, he is right. If you were creating a Commission to supply the nation with cheaper coal, that argument might be a good one, but as against that it has to be realised that you would be creating a very bad state of things in other parts of the country, and we claim that all the points concerned should be taken into account. That is why we want the Commissioners to have full powers to see that before pits are opened regard shall be paid to all the circumstances. There can be nothing wrong in that.

If the Commissioners are satisfied that, in view of all the circumstances, it is necessary that new mines should be developed, then they will allow new mines to be opened, but we want all the circumstances taken into consideration. If the Commissioners think that by the present system of no planning at all a bad state of things is being created, and that it would be better to have a planned system of gradually utilising all the coal in the pits that are in operation, then we say that it is better for the nation that that planned system should be adopted. We are on the final stages of the Coal Bill to-day. It has taken a long time, and probably we shall not have a Coal Bill before the House again for many years to come. That being so, it is our duty to make the working of the coal system for the future as efficient as possible. It has not been efficient in the past, and we say that our Clause would help in that direction by giving the Commissioners full power to decide when new collieries should be opened. That is why I support the new Clause.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Dunn

I also support the new Clause and beg the Minister to accept it. I think we on this side may claim to be quite as anxious about the future of the coal-mining industry in this country as is anyone on the opposite side of the House. Indeed, it seems to me that this new Clause is really necessary as a machinery Clause to make the common principles of the Bill itself work satisfactorily. Some of us have very peculiar pictures in from of us in our own divisions or immediately adjacent to them. In my own case, I do not say right in my division, but within a quarter of a mile of it, I have the spectacle of a new colliery which was sunk some two or three years ago at a cost, I understand, in the region of £250,000, and I think I am right in saying that not a single ton of coal has been drawn out of that pit right up to the present time. Having spectacles of that kind right under our noses, it seems to me that that is one reason why a Clause of this kind should be supported.

I do not take the view that this Clause means what some hon. Members opposite have sought to indicate. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who is not now in his place, took the view that the Clause really meant that no new mines, under any circumstances, would be sunk in this country in the future. I do not think that is a right interpretation of the Clause. All that it means is that no new mines shall be sunk unless certain considerations are first put before the Commission. If the Clause is accepted, there is nothing in it to say that no new mine will be sunk; all that it means is that under certain conditions, in the national interest, and indeed in the interest of the coal-fields themselves, the Commission may decide that it is inadvisable to sink a new mine in a particular case. Therefore, the argument put from the other side of the House does not seem to hold water. Surely the very background of this Bill, if it has a background at all, and I believe it has, is that some proper measure of planning for the coal-mining industry should be thought out. We who come from the coal-mining districts know perfectly well that there has been no real planning in the national interests at all, as far as this industry is concerned.

I had occasion in January, in my division, to go down a mine which was thought many years ago to be reaching the point of exhaustion. With new revolutionary methods of coal-winning, mines which were thought to be at the point of exhaustion lo or 20 years ago have had new hope given to them. Therefore, if this new Clause meant that in no circumstances could new mines be sunk, there would be some point in the arguments of hon. Members on the other side. All that the Clause means, however, is that the coal-mining industry should be planned upon proper lines in the interests of the areas they seek to serve and of the nation as a whole. I beg the Minister to accept it with a view to the proper planning of the coal-mining industry.

6.16 p.m.

Captain Crookshank

It would be unusual, unless some overpowering and overwhelming reasons could be adduced, for the House to change the opinion expressed on this new Clause by the Committee. It was before the Committee on the 8th February and was defeated by 241 votes to 122. The only difference, so far as I can see, between the circumstances on that day and those on this are that the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) on that occasion asked me not to accept the new Clause, using the words, "This is really an extreme Socialistic Clause," and this afternoon he asked me to fall in with the wishes of the Opposition.

Mr. J. Griffiths

He has seen the light.

Captain Crookshank

However that may be, apart from the reasons for the personal change on his part, I do not think that the general arguments which have been brought forward to-day are such as to support the view of the hon. Baronet that everything is different from what it was a month ago. The general object of the Clause, put in its widest terms, is to facilitate the better planning of the coal industry. That is a brief summary of the speeches which we have heard. While better planning of the coal industry is something we all hope to see achieved, this particular method of saying that no new mine of coal shall be sunk unless the owner of the mineral rights has first obtained permission is a method of approach to better planning which cuts right across the basic principle of the Bill. Under Clause 5 the existing rights of the leaseholders are maintained and the existing leases are continued. Let me remind the House that that Clause was accepted by the Committee without a Division. Therefore, the principle that those who have leases to-day should be allowed to get the benefit of them until their expiry was accepted as a right principle.

This new Clause cuts right across that principle, and for that reason alone it would be contradictory to what the Committee has already decided. The position is that the existing leases are safeguarded till the valuation date, and between the valuation date and the vesting date the owners of the coal have full enjoyment of their property and can grant new leases to those who wish to develop the coal. During that period they have to make sure that the terms and conditions of the leases are such as are agreeable to the Commission to the extent that they do not deteriorate the property which is to come into the possession of the Commission on the vesting date. During that interim period, therefore, the Commission has to that extent got some say in the matter; but there is nothing to prevent the owners of the coal who may want to give leases during that period from doing so. What they must not do is to deteriorate the property. There is nothing to prevent them improving the property even if it is going to pass in a very short time. Therefore, until the vesting date the Commission has no locus standi in matters of this kind. If there is any question of new leases after the property vests in the Commission, when a lease expires or when a lease is desired in a virgin area, it is for the Commission to settle the terms. After the vesting date Clause 15 deals with the position of the Commission with regard to boring, always provided, of course, that it is not something which is already covered by the existing lease, which is safeguarded until the period when the lease comes to an end. I refer to these points in order to show that both on Second Reading and in Committee the House accepted the idea that existing leases should be safeguarded. If this new Clause is introduced in the Bill it will throw that right away; it will throw over something which in Committee the House accepted without a Division. There ought, therefore, to be very strong reasons to make it necessary to take that very unusual course.

The argument then comes back to this. Hon. Members say that this Clause is necessary for the better planning of the industry. It is true that the whole idea is gradually to bring about circumstances throughout the industry where everything will be better planned, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are very impatient. Here we are acquiring this property. That is the first step. We are setting up one landlord instead of a multiplicity of owners of coal, and as and when existing leases fall in, the Commission will act as provided in Clause 2 and will be guided in the granting of new leases by the requirement that they shall do it as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry. Taking a long view, the industry will gradually, no doubt, be put upon a better basis. In fact, it is the old difference between some hon. Gentlemen opposite and some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to be revolutionary and hon. Gentlemen on this side prefer evolutionary methods. I say, therefore, that there are already considerable powers and opportunities for the Coal Commission to start planning the industry on better lines. This suggestion that all existing leases should be liable to be thrown over merely to prevent any one sinking or opening a mine without the authority of the Commission, although they are fully entitled to do it under their leases to-day should they so desire, is a course of action which we would be unwise to accept. I advise the House to adhere to the opinion expressed in Committee and to refrain from adding this new Clause to the Bill.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not only been singularly unconvincing, but very ambiguous, and I found great difficulty in following him in the first part of his argument. If that was sound, I could not understand why he proceeded to the second part. If he was depending, as he appeared to be doing, on the invalidity of the arguments we presented in relation to the holders of existing leases under this Bill, there was no need for him to discuss the general principle of control. The rights of leaseholders under this new Clause will not be in any way affected, at any rate so far as the financial provisions are concerned. There is no interference with their financial rights. Therefore, if there be any doubts on the other side, as apparently there was, because it appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), as to the financial rights of leaseholders under this proposed Clause, I ask hon. Members to dismiss a consideration of that kind from their minds.

The proposal we are pressing is very simple. There is no express direction contained in the Bill in reference to the operations of the Commission regarding the general control of the industry. The second Clause of the Bill, which is the governing Clause, states that the Commission, first of all, are not to be empowered to engage in the business of coal-mining. That is specific. I do not agree with it, but that is what the Bill says and it has been accepted by the House. The Commission is charged with the duty of controlling and managing the premises acquired by them. That has nothing to do with central control or coordination. As regards the words "for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry" they are very general terms.

This new Clause is the first attempt to insert into the Bill a specific direction upon which the coal Commission should operate in the interests of the industry as a whole. Our proposal in this new Clause is a very modest one. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about revolutionary and evolutionary proposals, but there is nothing revolutionary in this proposal. What are the submissions we make in support of it? The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell), who generally speaks for the coalowners, said it was undesirable to give the Commission greater powers. Apart from the holding of leases, they have no powers at all. It is true that in another Clause powers are provided for the amalgamation of mining undertakings, but in respect of any general co-ordination which can affect the efficiency of the industry they have no power, and therefore I am not clear what the hon. Member for Chiswick means by asking us not to grant to the Commission greater powers than have already been proposed.

The first point I want to make on the general principle is that the proposed Clause does not affect existing coal-owners, who can continue their operations as at present. The second submission is that the proposed Clause will protect existing owners in a competitive world, will, in fact, to a very large extent arrest competition in an industry which cannot afford more competition. Let me fortify that argument with this illustration. It will be generally admitted, because it is implicit in the Bill, that there are too many units in the mining industry, that there is too much competition, and it is proposed to effect a measure of amalgamation. If in a particular coal district a number of pits are operating, some intensely and others not so intensely because of various economic and other factors, surely we ought not to permit some person to come along, with the authorisation of the holder of a lease, and sink another shaft to produce coal, thus intensifying the competition and making it more difficult for the pits which are only working to, say, 50 per cent. of capacity.

That is the position we present to the House. It is argued that we ought not to give the Commission the powers asked for because private owners know best what is good for the mining industry. If that be conceded, what is the reason for the Bill? Surely the very purpose of the Bill demonstrates that private owners, however well disposed to promote efficiency in the industry, are incapable of functioning as the Government would desire. Therefore, it is idle to pretend that we ought not to give the Commission the modest powers contained in the Clause. The fact is that private owners do not know what is best for the industry, and even if they think they know best surely the overriding consideration should be what is best for the nation as a whole. No body of private owners, in the mining or any other industry, can determine what is best for the nation, and some power must be vested in an organisation such as we have in this Bill.

There is another point which I regard as one of substance. There is in the Bill a provision, which has been carried over from the Act of 1930, in reference to selling schemes. The basis of the selling schemes is that there should be a standard tonnage, which is determined by the Central Council of Coalowners, and not by individual coalowners, and that there should be a quota of outputs. We lay down that there should be a restriction of output, and everybody agrees that that is a desirable thing, but if that is a good principle why not adopt it in respect of the powers of the Commission to determine what is to happen before we get the actual output of coal? If coalowners are entitled to organise output the Commission should have the power to determine the measure of control before the point of production is reached.

There is a further point which I wish to submit. It is assumed that the Commissioners will operate this provision harshly. If I may say so with great respect, I do not attach much importance to the opinion of the hon. Member for South Croydon, because on all these matters he takes a somewhat peculiar view, but I gather that the hon. Member for Chiswick represents the general view of the coalowners, and is it really supposed that the provision will operate to the detriment of the coalowners as a whole? The Commission have to pay regard, according to Clause 2, to the general efficiency of the industry. There will be frequent negotiations between them and the coalowners, and it may be between the Central Council of Coalowners and the Commission, and I cannot believe that a Commission vested with such modest powers as appear in this Bill are likely to operate a provision of this kind harshly and to the detriment of the coalowners. If we are to introduce any measure of planning at all, however modest, this is the way to do it, and I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that if the Government are not prepared to accept this proposal there will not be the slightest vestige of a plan in the Bill at all.

I believe, and I speak with some experience of matters concerning the general administration of the mining industry, that unless some provision of this kind is accepted the Bill will be valueless; at any rate the Commission will be considerably hampered in their operations. Some of us have views about the modest character of the Bill, but we do want to

make it a good Bill, and if the Commission are to operate satisfactory and efficiently they ought to have reasonable powers and not to be restricted at every turn. Because we on this side believe that some reference to a plan, however modest, should be inserted in the Bill; because we believe it will not operate to the detriment of the industry but to its advantage; and because we believe that local authorities, social services and social capital are all affected by the sinking of new shafts without the authorisation of a central organisation, we ask the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider this matter—if the Government do not like the words we suggest let them bring up some other words—and support the modified principle contained in the Clause.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 213.

Division No. 153.] AYES. [6.40 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Paling, W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parker, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hardie, Agnes Parkinson, J. A.
Ammon, C. G. Harvey, T. E. (Eng, Univ's.) Pearson, A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hayday, A. Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Banfield, J. W. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pritt, D. N.
Barnes, A. J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Quibell, D. J. K.
Barr, J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Bellenger F. J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Holdsworth, H. Ridley, G.
Bevan, A. Hopkin, D. Riley, B.
Broad, F. A. Jagger, J. Ritson, J.
Bromfield, W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Buchanan, G. John, W. Seely, Sir H. M.
Burke, W. A. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Cape, T. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Shinwell, E.
Cassells, T. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Silverman, S. S.
Chater, D. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simpson, F. B.
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T Smith, E. (Stoke)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Cocks, F. S. Kirby, B. V. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Cove, W. G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leach, W. Stephen, C.
Daggar, G. Lee, F. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leonard, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leslie, J. R. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Day H. Logan, D. G. Thorne, W.
Dobbie, W. Lunn, W. Thurtle, E.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Tinker, J. J.
Ede, J. C McEntee, V. La T. Tomlinson, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) McGhee, H. G. Viant, S. P.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) MacLaren, A. Walkden, A. G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Maclean, N. Walker, J.
Foot, D. M. Mainwaring, W. H. Watkins, F. C.
Frankel, D. Mathers, G. Watson, W. McL.
Gallacher, W. Maxton, J. White, H. Graham
Gardner, B. W. Messer, F. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Milner, Major J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Montague, F. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wilton, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Muff, G. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Grenfell, D. R. Naylor, T. E. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Noel-Baker, P. J.
Groves, T. E. Oliver, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Owen, Major G. Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.
NOES.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Grant-Ferris, R. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Albery, Sir Irving Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Pilkington, R.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Porritt, R. W.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) Gridley, Sir A. B. Procter, Major H. A.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Gritten, W. G. Howard Radford, E. A.
Aske, Sir R. W. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Assheton, R. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Ramsdan, Sir E.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Rankin, Sir R.
Balniel, Lord Guinness, T. L. E. B. Rayner, Major R. H.
Baxter, A. Beverley Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Hannah, I. C. Raid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Harbord, A. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Boechman, N. A. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Birchall, Sir J. D. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Bossom, A. C. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Ropner, Colonel L.
Boulton, W. W. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Higgs, W. F. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Bull, B. B. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Russell, Sir Alexander
Bullock, Capt. M. Horsbrugh, Florence Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Campbell, Sir E. T. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Cartland, J. R. H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Salmon, Sir I.
Carver, Major W. H. Hulbert, N. J. Samuel, M. R. A.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Hume, Sir G. H. Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hunter, T. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Hurd, Sir P. A. Savery, Sir Servington
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Shakespeare, G. H.
Channon, H. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Christie, J. A. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Clarke, Frank (Dartford) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Clarry, Sir Reginald Leech, Sir J. W. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Lees-Jones, J. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Levy, T. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Lewis, O. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Liddall, W. S. Spans, W. P.
Cox, H. B. Trevor Lipson, D. L. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Loftus, P. C. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Cross, R. H. Lyons, A. M. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Cruddas, Col. B. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Culverwell, C. T. M'Connell, Sir J. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Tasker, Sir R. I.
Dawson, Sir P. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Titchfield, Marquess of
Denville, Alfred McKie, J. H. Touche, G. C.
Dodd, J. S. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Toes) Tree, A. R. L. F.
Donner, P. W. Maitland, A. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Turton, R. H.
Eckersley, P. T. Markham, S. F. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Marsden, Commander A. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Ellis, Sir G. Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Warrender, Sir V.
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Emery, J. F. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Wells, S. R.
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Everard, W. L. Morgan, R. H. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Fildes, Sir H. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Findlay, Sir E. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Fox, Sir G. W. G. Munro, P. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Furness, S. N. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Withers, Sir J. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Gledhill, G. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wragg, H.
Gluckstein, L. H. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Goldie, N. B. Peake, O.
Gower, Sir R. V. Perkins, W. R. D. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Petherick, M. Major Herbert and Mr. Grimston.