HC Deb 11 July 1939 vol 349 cc2161-89

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 4, at the end, insert: and, without prejudice to any powers transferred or made exercisable as aforesaid, the powers of the Minister under this Sub-section of manufacturing or otherwise producing articles shall not be exercised after the expiration of a period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, except in respect of such classes of articles as His Majesty may specify by Order in Council made not earlier than the commencement of the last six months of that period.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I have to point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Burgin

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

While the Bill was in another place, two Amendments were made in it with my consent, one to fulfil an undertaking given to this House and the other to deal with a more substantial point which I should like, in a few words, to explain. When the Ministry of Supply Bill was drafted, it was felt, in view of the fact that the Military Training Bill was limited to a period of three years, that the more exceptional powers proposed to be given to the new Minister should themselves be limited to a duration of three years. Consequently the Bill was divided into two parts, and the second part was made temporary, limited to three years. Then came the question how much of the Bill should be in the permanent structure of the Ministry, and Clause 2, which is the main operative Clause, giving the Minister power to buy, acquire, manufacture, produce, store and transport, was put into the permanent part of the Ministry. The object of the Bill is to enable the new Minister effectively to see to the supplying of the aimed forces of the Crown, and to provide for whatever may be their needs. The object is not to introduce State trading by a back door; nor is it intended to give to the Ministry of Supply power to compete with established industries. It is intended to give to the Minister power to supply the armed forces of the Crown.

It is not easy to set out in detail what powers of manufacture are possessed by the Defence Services, and, in order to be perfectly certain that during an emergency the powers of the Ministry should not in any way be curtailed, Clause 2 was originally drafted in very wide terms, giving the power to manufacture without limit articles required for the public service. In another place it was suggested that probably the powers of manufacture possessed by the Defence Services themselves would prove sufficient to enable the new Minister to fulfil every need of the Defence Services. I am unable tosay whether that will be the case or not, and, therefore, I desire to have power to manufacture over and above whatever powers the existing Defence Services now possess.

This Amendment—a Government Amendment made in another place—does two things. It enables the powers of any Defence Service that have been transferred to the Minister to be exercised indefinitely, without any limitation of time, but it says that, for manufacturing powers other than those possessed by a Department of State at the present time, there shall be a limit of three years. In order, however, to prevent a factory which is in existence and is making goods that are essential to the State from suddenly being obliged, by the mere arrival of a calendar date, to shut down, there is a further provision that it shall be open by Order-in-Council to continue the manufacture, even outside the rights of manufacture now possessed by Government Departments, of such classes of articles as may be specified in the Order-in-Council; and the Order-in-Council is not to be made for 2½ years. In the event of the House accepting my suggestion that this Amendment can safely be agreed to, the result would be that the Minister of Supply would have all the powers to manufacture which are possessed by any Government Department whose powers are transferred by Order-in-Council. For instance, that would include all the Royal Army Ordnance Factories, Woolwich Arsenal, and every factory put up by the War Office, making almost every conceivable thing one can think of, in connection with the armed forces of the Crown; while, in addition, for three years one would have power to manufacture any articles required for the public service without limit.

Mr. Dalton

The right hon. Gentleman has taken the illustration of what the War Office can do. Would he explain what the Air Ministry might be permitted to do?

Mr. Burgin

Certainly. I was taking the War Office because it will be within the recollection of the House that it is proposed that the first Order-in-Council should be primarily concerned with the War Office. I was merely taking that as an example; by all means I will take the other Departments of State in their turn. One would be able to manufacture, without limit of time, anything which can now be made by the War Office; and one would be able to manufacture for three years any other articles required for the public service without any limit at all, and would be able to continue beyond the three years manufacturing without limit any of the articles specified in an Order-in-Council, which, however, would not be made until 2½years from the passing of the Act. I wanted first to give an analytical explanation to the House, and then to argue it later.

I was asked what would the Air Ministry have power to make. I will begin by saying that it is not simple to state with any degree of precision what manufacturing powers are possessed by Government Departments at the present time. I know of no limit, in the case of the Air Ministry, to manufacture anything required for the aircraft of the country. [Interruption.] I do not want to accept the word "military"—

Mr. Montague

Was the right hon. Gentleman present during the Debate last night?

Mr. Burgin

Certainly, but I do not think that has any reference at all to what I am saying. If I understand the interjection correctly, an undertaking was given by the Secretary of State, in connection with the amalgamation of Imperial Airways and British Airways, that he was not proposing to manufacture civil aircraft; but we are talking now about powers, not about the exercise of powers, and I am saying that I am not personally aware of any limitation on the Air Ministry in regard to manufacture. I am endeavouring to speak extremely accurately and clearly to the House, because I have tested my own inquiries as to whether there were any particular kinds of scientific instruments which conceivably might not fall within the powers of manufacture. I am not aware of any; so far as I know, the Air Ministry have power to manufacture anything that is wanted for the Air Defence and counterattack of the country. With regard to the Navy, hon. Members will hardly require any description by me of what the Navy has power to build. Therefore, if I were asked conscientiously to give an instance where I thought the powers of manufacture possessed by the State Departments fell short of anything that the country would require, I should be unable to give an instance, and it was ex abundante cautela that I put into Clause 2 of the original Bill power to manufacture without limit, in order that one should not be, during an emergency, in the ridiculous position of suddenly finding that by reason of some invention, some entire change of circumstances, there might possibly be some new article or substance or chemical compound as to which there was some doubt whether any Government Department possessed the right to manufacture it.

If the House accept this Amendment, as I invite them to do, the Minister of Supply will be left with all the powers which he thinks are necessary, because he has all the powers that existing Government Departments possess, he has in certain cases an unlimited power for three years, and he has power himself to define, at the end of 2½ years, what powers of manufacture he desires to continue indefinitely, even after the expiration of the period of three years. Let it be clearly understood that I think the temper of the country is that those powers should be large, and that curtailment of powers, if they interfere in any way with the Minister's efficiency, would be regrettable. But it would be a mistake to read into the words meanings which the words do not themselves carry. This House has not been invited to pass this Bill for the purpose of giving the Minister power to run a farm or to run any establishment outside what the Bill provides.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Why have you put that interpretation on it?

Mr. Burgin

I have been asked whether I have any desire to use powers in that direction, and I have naturally and conscientiously replied, "No." I want power to use these powers for three years, and power to see, at the end of the three years, which of the powers I want to use indefinitely. This Amendment gives me all those powers.

Mr. Kirkwood

Is this the Amendment which you and I heard Lord Gainford move in another place?

Mr. Burgin

The hon. Member is right in saying that in another place an Amendment was moved. This is the Government Amendment to give effect substantially to what was moved, but in such a way as not to curtail the powers of the Minister of Supply, and to give him the powers he requires.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Dalton

My hon. Friends will oppose this Amendment, and carry it to a Division. We regard this as the most reactionary and unjustified Amendment to the Bill. The history of the Bill is that it took a long time to get the Government to introduce it, they have had to be pushed every inch of the way, and at frequent stages they have failed to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman has correctly said is the temper of the country, that the powers of the Ministry should be large. This is another instance of diminution of powers which, in our view, are not too large. It would be out of order for me to recapitulate criticisms which have been made on the earlier stages of the Bill, but on a number of detailed points we have urged that powers should be strengthened rather than weakened. Here is a case where, although the temper of the country is that powers should be large, the temper of another place is that they should be restricted.

Mr. Burgin

In point of time.

Mr. Dalton

I am going to say a word about "in point of time "as I see it. Representatives of private interests are desirous to see restrictions, superficially in point of time, but, in fact, imposed to prevent power being exercised, if the Minister should think fit, for the provision of requirements of National Defence. The Minister was careful, as a lawyer, to exercise some caution when he was telling the House what might and what might not, under his permanent powers, be manufactured through his agency. He said, when I asked him about the Air Ministry's transferred powers, that he was not aware of any limitation which would be imposed on him in that respect, but I gathered that he would not be surprised if there were to be debate between lawyers after the Bill is passed as to how far those powers extend. Under this Clause, if the Amendment were rejected, the distinction between the two classes of powers would not emerge. The Minister has full and satisfactory power to buy or otherwise acquire, manufacture or otherwise produce, store and transport any articles required for the public service …. That is reasonably satisfactory to my hon. Friends and myself, but now we have this limitation imposed. Although the Minister is not aware of such limitations, they might afterwards become evident to him. Therefore, in passing this Amendment we should be giving hostages not only to private enterprise but also to the legal profession, in regard to what might subsequently transpire. Why has it been demanded in another place, by spokesmen of private industry, that this limitation shall be imposed? It is because they fear that, as the powers now stand, the Minister may embark upon extensions of public enterprise and public manufacture, desirable from the point of view of the Minister, in the interests of national Defence, but undesirable from the point of view of those who want to make private profit out of supplying the necessities of their country. This Amendment has been crudely and blatantly passed from a desire to restrict the sphere of production for use and to extend the sphere of production for profit. Therefore, it raises, in the clearest possible way, the conflict of view between my hon. Friend and those forces which stand on guard behind the right hon. Gentleman, carefully watching lest his foot should slip even an inch or two in the direction of Socialism. [Interruption.] They are in the guardroom in another part of the building.

The right hon. Gentleman, desiring to put at its minimum the significance of this Amendment, said that it was a restriction only in point of time. Let us look at it from a practical business point of view. With this limitation, is it to be expected that the Government will set up, even if it is necessary for national Defence, substantial new plant and instal expensive machinery in newly-constructed factories, in order to produce requirements for the nation, if at the end of 2½ years these new installations will have to be abandoned altogether or sold to private enterprise? The right hon. Gentleman understands the line of argument I am following.

Mr. Burgin

I cannot myself think of an article which cannot at present be manufactured by one of the Defence Services. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give one or two examples when he talks of a hesitation to manufacture goods or instal machinery? If there is any doubt about the fact, that power will be one of those which are inserted in the Order in Council to be continued indefinitely. I am endeavouring to secure the powers that are wanted, but there are quite obviously a number of powers that I do not desire to possess. The hon. Member appreciates that the three years period applies to all my priority powers already. We are talking of manufacture, but I have to regard it in the framework of the Bill. The three years period will be no greater handicap to me than the deprivation of the powers of priority, which are left to this House in another capacity to extend year by year. Perhaps the hon. Member can give some examples.

Mr. Dalton

I shall endeavour to suggest one or two, although the right hon. Gentleman, seated in his Department, has a much better opportunity of imagining such articles which I have been called upon at short notice to illustrate. It will not rest with this House—and this is one of the main points I am placing against the Amendment—to determine whether or not these powers should be continued. If an Order-in-Council is required to be laid, it must receive the approval of both Houses, and at the end of the passage the same forces which have imposed this Amendment upon the right hon. Gentleman may obstruct and refuse an Order-in-Council at the end of two and a half years. Therefore, we take the very greatest objection to the Amendment.

You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have drawn our attention to the fact that this Amendment is technically an invasion of Privilege. I judge that what has been done in another place is seriously to limit the powers which this House proposed to give to the right hon. Gentleman and his successors in office in order to retain for themselves the right of veto to be imposed two and a half years hence or subsequently on any Order-in-Council proposed to be passed. Who knows what will be either the international or political situation two years hence? Who knows how long this strain of rearmament will continue? What prudent person will dare to limit it to two and a half or three years, or say whether on the benches opposite there will not be a Government towards which persons in a majority in another place may not take a much more hostile attitude than they take towards the present Government? My hon. Friends are not disposed to hand over to the denizens of another place two and a half or three years hence the power further to limit the provisions which in our judgment should be made for National Defence.

I have been asked for examples, and I offer these two tentatively. There are many chemical substances which might be described as all but armaments required for explosives and other purposes. Sulphuric acid may not be manufactured upon any great scale within any of the present manufacturing powers of the three Defence Services. I should doubt it. I offer that as one example of a considerable class of chemical substances which I should expect, looking at it from the best knowledge I can command, to fall definitely outside the powers now residing in any of the three Defence Services. The second example of a somewhat different kind is taken from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech. Certain classes of scientific instruments are not perhaps primarily armaments, but he himself expressed a certain hesitation and doubt when I asked him about the Air Minister's powers, whether certain scientific instruments might not lie on the borderline of what was and what was not within the powers of the Department of the present Minister.

These are two illustrations given on the spur of the moment in response to the right hon. Gentleman's request, and I have no doubt that on further reflection and research he could multiply the number considerably. I can imagine substances and instruments which are useful and may, in some respects, be necessary for armaments or use on armaments, but which are not exclusively or predominantly of a military character. In regard to all that class of objects and articles, I think that the powers of the Minister will evaporate at the other end of the passage 2½ years hence.

I have tried to illustrate in little detail the general reason why we are not disposed to accept the Amendment without protest and without an adverse vote. I now come back to the point I was dwelling upon when the right hon. Gentleman intervened. I was suggesting to him that examples could be found of commodities which he can produce only within this limited period of time, unless we are to assume that an Order in Council is to be forthcoming at the end of the period. I have given reasons why we can make that assumption. If that is so, it would seem a very rash thing for the technical advisers of the right hon. Gentleman to embark upon the manufacture in different establishments of any of these commodities because at the end of 2½years it may well be that extensive plant, establishments and machinery will have been set up under public ownership. If an Order in Council to continue these processes of manufacture is not forthcoming these factories or plants will have to be closed down altogether or sold at knock-down prices to the same persons who have imposed this Amendment upon the Government in another place. Therefore, on the ground of principle and of practical efficiency, the Amendment appears to be thoroughly retrograde, and I trust that the House will go into the Division Lobby and vote against it.

9.12 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) describe this Amendment as reactionary, but I believe that the stable from which it came was that of the Federation of British Industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is no reason to get excited about it. I happen to be a member of the Executive Committee of that body, but, despite that fact, I had not the faintest idea that my Noble Friend Lord Gainford was going to move an Amendment in another place. But actually the Amendment was moved by the Government. We must not let ourselves be influenced by phrases and prejudices that all things suggested by the Trades Union Congress must be wrong and that all things suggested by the Federation of British Industries must be right, or vice versa. I was very interested the other day to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) suggest that the plant in the Royal dockyards was inferior to that in private dockyards, and that he thought that ships could be better built by his constituents.

Mr. Kirkwood

I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining the matter to the House. On two different occasions during the last six months I have put down questions regarding the obsolete machinery that is in the Royal dockyards—machinery which is not capable of meeting the demands at the moment. I was not bolstering up private enterprise as against Government dockyards, but the very opposite.

Sir H. Williams

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has said that, and I entirely agree with him that it is all wrong that Portsmouth, Woolwich, Devonport, Chatham, and Sheerness should have rotten plant compared with plant which the hon. Gentleman himself admitted is in the private yard of John Brown and Company, Limited. Of course, the plant is rotten in Government dockyards. What do you expect? I remember that when the Great War broke out one Government factory had machinery which was installed at the time of the Crimean War. The hon. Member opposite, who knows a great deal about Bishop Auckland and economics but less about the running of an engineering establishment, has not had opportunities of studying Woolwich Arsenal or Portsmouth Dockyard. I remember when I was in the office of the Ordnance Store Department having a special course at Woolwich in the autumn of 1918, and part of the instruction which we were having took us into the Arsenal. I was frankly horrified at the inefficiency and idleness which I saw at a most critical time in our national history. [Interruption.]

Mr. R. J. Taylor

What did you do?

Sir H. Williams

I was suffering from the disability of wearing a uniform which for the time being did not allow one to express his views as a Member of this House is able to do. From time to time, in order to keep these naval establishments balanced and moderately busy, the Admiralty place a certain number of shipbuilding orders with the Royal Dockyards and from time to time the cost of these ships is reported to the Public Accounts Committee of this House, on which I have not yet had the privilege of serving. The information is available to all hon. Members. Naturally the results vary from time to time, but the broad proposition I am going to put forward is that a ship of war built in a Royal Dockyard costs 10 per cent. more than a similar ship built by private enterprise, although the costs include a profit to the company. If you really want to waste public money you will get these munitions of war produced in Government establishments. I notice that there are not many cheers among hon. Members opposite at that statement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who comes from Durham, where they have a lot of coal mines, is not very familiar with this problem, and therefore he is reduced to the condition of making irrelevant interruptions.

Mr. Batey

I am not speaking.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I must ask the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) to deal with the Question before the House.

Sir H. Williams

I apologise. I was drawn away by interruptions which I frankly thought were a little irrelevant to discuss the problem of private enterprise instead of concentrating on the problem of the production of munitions in establishments under the control of the Government. The Minister is in rather a curious position. I spent two hours recently one afternoon in the Library trying to find out on what authority the Secretary of State for War ran Woolwich Arsenal at all. I found a great number of Acts of Parliament stretching back into the remote ages, 200 years ago. At that point I gave up the search, but I found an Act authorising the Ordnance Board, which preceded the Secretary of State for War, to buy land and all the rest of it, but I could not find any statu- tory authority whereby the Secretary of State for War made guns or anything else at Woolwich Arsenal, and I came to the conclusion that the present position was a product of the institution which we call the Royal Prerogative. It had been done from the time of Henry VIII, they had always done it, and nobody had stopped the Crown from doing it. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite are as familiar with this institution as they think they are. [Interruption.] At this moment what are we discussing? We are discussing the fundamental difference between the party to which I belong and the party opposite; we are by chance engaged in a first-class challenge whether it is better to produce things under private enterprise or under State control.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I must point out to the hon. Member that I do not quite agree with his definition of what is under discussion.

Sir H. Williams

I apologise; I was wrong. We are discussing whether Socialism is to cease in three years' time from, now on the narrow issue of producing munitions of war. If I thought for a moment that the party opposite ever studied this problem without prejudice, my approach would be a little different. I have no direct interest, so far as I am aware, in the production of munitions, except that I happen to be associated with one company which I think has put some device for burning coal in boilers which ultimately will produce steap, which in due course will have something to do with the filling of shells. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a good advertisement!'"] I have not mentioned the firm; not belonging to the Co-operative Society I am rather sensitive on these matters. The real issue is this. Hon. Members opposite think that they will get these things cheaper three years from now if the Minister is not checked. I take the opposite view. I hope the Minister will exercise his manufacturing powers to the smallest possible extent, and in the interest of the public purse. After all, you describe profiteering as a device whereby the capitalists charge too much for the things they sell to the State in connection with this rearmament work. It is just as much profiteering if an incompetent management allows the workmen, because their outlook is wrong and because they are employés of the State—

Mr. George Griffiths

That is a libel on the British worker.

Sir H. Williams

Whether the worker is efficient or not does not depend so much on himself as it does on the management. Management is much more important than anything else, and if as a result of the State taking too active a part in this matter the salaried officers of the State and the wage earners of the State force the State to pay too much for munitions, they are as much profiteers as any capitalist.

Mr. Montague

What is the evidence?

Sir H. Williams

I say that a ship of war built in a dockyard where no profit is involved costs 10 per cent. more than when it is built on Clydebank, and I would ask hon. Members to read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee on the point. I say that if the employés of the State soak the State 10 per cent. more than private enterprise, those employés of the State are profiteers of the worst possible character. The hon. Gentlemen opposite want profiteering to continue, provided the profiteering is for people who are directly employed by the State. Again I do not observe as many cheers as there were in the earlier part of my speech. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who has himself been a Minister of the Crown in a Defence Department and who I am certain did his job very efficiently, so far as he had an opportunity, and for whom, as he knows, I have great respect, knows perfectly well that a Department of State is dilatory and incompetent. Why is it, if you write to any Minister of the Crown, that it takes three weeks to get an answer to your letter?

Mr. Montague

The hon. Gentleman knows nothing of the kind. I was much impressed by the efficiency of the particular kind of work done by the Air Ministry and I saw a great deal of it.

Sir H. Williams

I am very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman, who had not previously much experience of that kind of administration, thought that it was very good. When I went into a Department of State—and it was quite a good one—I was not so impressed. [An HON. MEMBER: "They did not keep you there long."] It was not my fault. I was not sacked. [An HON. MEMBER: "You would like to be taken on again."] If I send a letter to an ordinary commercial undertaking and ask them a question about a job with which they are familiar, I expect to get an answer by return of post or a day later. All the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite write many letters to Departments of State. How long is it before they get an answer? They get an acknowledgment by return of post, but when do they get a real answer? In a fortnight or three weeks? [An HON. MEMBER: "That is your Government."] It was just the same when the other Governments were in. It does not make any difference who are the Ministers, so far as this is concerned. I think there is a better chance when our fellows are in because we have some idea of how to run the show, but the hon. Gentlemen opposite have not the slightest idea. Whatever Minister is in charge this remorseless Civil Service will go on being slow. Intellectually they are marvellous. We can always judge that when we have Amendments put before us. We cannot understand their meaning. They do, because they have drafted them, and those are the gentlemen you want to make munitions. I have the greatest respect for the Civil Service. They are incorruptible and patient.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I must warn the hon. Gentleman that unless he keeps more closely to the Lords Amendment before the House I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Sir H. Williams

I am terribly sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I admit that I have wandered rather away. If the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been a little more patient in listening to me instead of provoking me by their interruptions to say things which are out of order, I should not have incurred that rebuke, which I admit quite frankly I entirely earned and which was justified. I always respect the Chair and I apologise most sincerely for wandering astray. The real issue at stake is not very remote from what I have been saying. I was only remote because I got away from the question of manufacture in Government Departments to the status of civil servants. I am of opinion that Government Departments are inefficient in running an industrial operation. I have always held that view and I hold it to-day. I want the powers now being conferred upon the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect and who, I am quite certain, will do his job with great competence, exercised merely for the period of difficulty through which we are passing. I strongly support the Amendment made in another place, not because the institution which prompted it has communicated with me in any way but because I have always stood from the day I was an apprentice in an engineering works against the principle that the State can run a job better than a private individual.

9.32 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps

May we now pass from the realms of imagination to those of facts? The hon. Gentleman has spoken a lot about his views as regards manufacturing, but his views are not related to the facts at all, and they merely arise out of the imagination of himself and the supporters of the F.B.I. I want to speak as regards the facts of the situation within my own knowledge during the last War. I was for a considerable period of time in a position of management in what was, I think, the largest Government factory in this country. It was a factory which was erected at a cost of £7,750,000. It was a factory which was destroyed at the end of the War at the request of the people who have put this Amendment on the Paper. Among other units in this factory at Queens ferry were the two finest sulphuric acid plants in the world at that time, and part of my job was to deal with the cost accounts of that factory. In order to deal with them efficiently I had access to the cost accounts of every other sulphuric acid manufacturing plant in England, France, Italy, Canada and the United States of America to compare the standard at which we were manufacturing and to see where economies could be made. We had to start with an entirely unskilled staff. Not a single person either of the management or the operatives had ever worked in a chemical or explosives factory before that factory was started up in war time. It was started up on war prices. We had to pay very heavy prices for our sulphur, which came from Sicily, owing to war insurance and freights, and for other war materials as well. Our cost figures were lower than any pre-war sulphuric acid manufacturer in this country. In fact they were so much lower that a year or two after we had started up a deputation of the sulphuric acid manufacturers of England came to the Minister of Munitions and said, "We ask you to give an undertaking that you will destroy this factory at the end of the War as otherwise every sulphuric acid manufacturer in England goes out of business."

Colonel Arthur Evans

May I interrupt to inquire if the system of costing took into consideration the capital cost which a private enterprise would have to do?

Sir S. Cripps

Of course we did. We had a very elaborate system of cost accounts. In fact, we had a system which we inaugurated and which was afterwards adopted very largely by private enterprise which had not any cost account at all at that time. Nobel's had no cost accounts of any value that could be produced as regards that pre-war manufacture. They had accounts, of course.

Sir H. Williams

The hop. and learned Gentleman told us first that he had access to the cost accounts of all private enterprises, and then a moment later he said that private enterprises had not got them.

Sir S. Cripps

I am speaking about two things. One is a technical term, which the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Colonel Evans) called "cost accounts," and the other is "accounts of costs."

Sir H. Williams

What is the difference?

Sir S. Cripps

If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference, it is no good trying to enlighten him now. I do not propose to give him a lecture on accountancy now, because it would not be in order, but if at some other time he likes to take some lessons, I will see what I can do. I was saying that the other manufacturers asked the Minister of Munitions whether he would consent to close down those two plants for sulphuric acid manufacture, and that consent was given; and as a result, immediately after the War, those two plants, the most efficient in the country, became derelict, and I presume that the remains of them are probably to be seen to-day on the site at Queensferry where they were put. That was a tremendous loss to the industry of this country. For the first time, oleum manufacture had been started; that is to say, a high concentration of sulphuric acid was available for sending in railway trucks to any manufacturer in the country at a price that was very much lower than anything that could be quoted by other manufacturers. In normal times, when there was not an acute crisis or a war, would they have contemplated putting up such a factory if they knew that at the end of two and a-half years there was the danger of having to close it down as a result of pressure from these very people?

Mr. Burgin

I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to make a false point. I am sure it will have occurred to him that the fact that oleum and sulphuric acid were manufactured by a Government Department in war time is not without importance to me. I gather that those powers are possessed by the War Office to-day, and that when the War Office powers are transferred to me, the power to manufacture sulphuric acid would continue indefinitely and not come under the 3 years rule.

Sir S. Cripps

The point is that the War Office did not do it. The Ministry of Munitions did it. Manufacture was initiated by the Ministry of Munitions and not by the War Office. I do not know whether the War Office could have afforded such a plant merely for its own purposes; I very much doubt whether it could. I am familiar with, and have worked in, the War Office plants at Waltham Abbey and know what was done there. These were the only sulphuric acid manufacturing plants put up by the Government during the War, and they were not put up by any of the Defence Departments, but by the Ministry of Munitions. That is exactly the sort of function which, I imagine, the right hon. Gentleman is likely to perform. Suppose that he contemplates spending £2,000,000 on putting up a sulphuric acid plant in order to be ready for the very great need for sulphuric acid for the manufacture of explosives if there is a war; will he look upon that prospect as cheerfully if he thinks that the people who have put forward this Amendment are likely, at the end of 2½ years, to refuse the continuance of those powers unless the plants are handed over to private enterprise or unless, as the demand was in the last War, the plants are destroyed for the benefit of private enterprise? I venture to suggest that this Amendment has been put forward by precisely the people who took that step during the War, and who were prepared to sacrifice, not only the convenience of other manufacturers in getting cheap sulphuric acid, but the interests of the community, which had spent that enormous sum in putting up this plant, to their own competitive interests in the sulphuric acid trade. In my view there can be no other reason for the insertion of this provision. There can be none, except giving a protection to those private interests, and it would be an absolute scandal, at a time such as this, when everybody is urgently pressing that the maximum efficiency should be developed, when the Bill itself has been brought forward by the Government because they admit at last that it is necessary in order to increase the maximum efficiency, to permit those in another place to insert a provision such as this to protect their private interests as against the interests of the community. I suggest that we should do all in our power in order to demonstrate to the people of this country that we, at least, put the public interest before private interests in these matters.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Mander

I should like to ask for a little further information as to the history of the original Clause and the Amendment that is now before us. I assume that what happened was that, as in the ordinary course, the matter was considered in the Department, approved by the Minister, brought before the Cabinet, and found to be wholly in accordance with the strict tenets of the Conservative party; and that then it was brought before the House of Commons as being a Measure that was needed for the protection of this country in this period of emergency. A very serious charge is now being made by hon. Members opposite against the right hon. Gentleman and against the Government. It is being said that the right hon. Gentleman, belonging presumably to the more revolutionary wing of the Liberal party, associated with the revolutionary National Labour members of the Government, secretly introduced into this Measure words which were dangerously and unnecessarily of a Socialist nature. That is the charge that is really being made.

I should like to have some explanation from the Minister. Why did he originally bring forward proposals of this kind if it is now said that they possess all the objections and dangers which those in another place say they do? Is it true that proposals which were thought necessary for the protection of the country a month ago are now wholly unnecessary? I think the Government have got themselves into a very awkward position and that we ought to have some explanation with regard to the serious charges that are made against them. In a matter of this kind, we assume that the Government, whatever Government it may be, will act in a reasonable and sensible manner, and exercise such powers as Parliament has given to them in the national interest. We all know the immense forces and pressure of capitalism and how difficult it would be for any Government to stray far from the narrow capitalist path. I find it very difficult to see the grave dangers that are visualised. I should have thought that the Government were probably right in the first instance, until they got frightened of what happened in another—

Mr. Burgin

I would point out to the hon. Member that he is under the great disadvantage of not having heard my statement.

Mr. Mander

I apologise. I am aware of a good deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I say that some additional explanation is required. It seems to me that the reasonable course would be to give the widest possible powers to any Government that might be in power during such difficult days, trusting in them to act reasonably in the interests of the State.

9.45 P.m.

Mr. E. Smith

I was very pleased at the tone of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and the reasons which he put forward in opposition to this Amendment. The spirit which has been introduced into the Debate by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), is regrettable. Those of us who have had any contact with civil servants know that, generally speaking, they are as efficient as it is possible for men to be and that they carry out the policy determined by the Government which happens to be in office at the time. I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side will all associate themselves with me in deprecating the attack which has been made by the hon. Member for South Croydon upon the civil servants. He also charged us on this side with being prejudiced. We are not prejudiced from the people's point of view. I would invite the hon. Member or any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in the House to go to the Library and ask the Librarian for a book by Mr. C. E. Lloyd, a distinguished civil servant, who has placed on record in that book his experiences during the last War. If they read that book there will be no need for any further reply to the hon. Member for South Croydon.

The hon. Member only proved that he is not familiar with modern conditions in industry. If he knew anything about the wonderful Royal Ordnance Factory which has been built at Nottingham, he would never have made the statements which he made to-night. That factor is the admiration of engineers and scientists from all parts of the world. Big industrialists, trade union representatives and workers who have had the opportunity of going round that place recognise the efficiency with which it is managed and the spirit of comradeship which exists in all grades of those engaged in it, from the managerial and administrative staffs right through to the manual workers. The spirit which animates the workers there is that they are working for the defence of the country which they hope will ultimately belong to them. That is the spirit which exists in many factories throughout the country, and the spirit which has been introduced into this Debate by the hon. Member for South Croydon is absolutely out of date. We are living in serious times, and it is wrong at such a time to introduce such a spirit into this House. We differ fundamentally from hon. Members opposite. We do not accept the present social system, but, having said that, we realise that what exists in the world to-day is a fundamental challenge to humanity as a whole, and we are prepared to sink our political differences to a certain extent, in order to support the preparations that are being made to enable the people of this country to defend themselves.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that this Bill was in keeping with the temper of the country. We admit that, and we say that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is in keeping with the spirit of the people of the country. We hope it will only be a matter of time before the people of the country have a Government which will be really worthy of them and which will reflect the spirit of patriotism which animates the people to-day. When we have such a Government there will be no speeches from the Government benches such as that which we heard to-night from the hon. Member for South Croydon. I say without hesitation and I would like this to go down in the Official Report in bold type, that it is an unpatriotic and small minority in this country which is responsible for this Amendment. Representatives of the Federation of British Industries put forward this proposal in another place and we know the history of that body from 1918 onwards. If it were in order to do so I would be only too delighted to go into it, but there is a book coming out now called "Tory M.P." which everyone in this House ought to read. They will get the history of the Federation of British Industries in that book.

The spirit of the people is to be seen in the way in which they have received the Military Training Act, and the way in which they have rallied to the Territorial Forces. That spirit of patriotism could be harnessed behind a people's Government in this country, but at present the interests of the people are being subordinated to narrow vested interests of the kind reflected in this Amendment. You, Mr. Speaker, are considerably older than I am. I do not mean that in any uncomplimentary sense. I mean that you can remember the industrial history of this country longer than I can, but I have read sufficient of it to know that the people mainly responsible for many of the large industrial disputes, for locking-out our people in the mining industry, and for sending them out on strike, have been a small minority of coalowners. It is a small minority of that kind which is responsible for this Amendment. We younger people of today have been handed down a legacy that is worth preserving. Even within the framework of the present social system we have a better standard of social conditions and of social services than we had before, as a result of the sacrifices made by our people in days gone by. We have something worth preserving, but we would not have achieved those standards if it had depended upon the kind of people who are behind this Amendment.

The Amendment as I say is not in keeping with the spirit of the people. If this House is to show itself worthy of the people hon. Members will unhesitatingly support my hon. Friend in the Division Lobby against the Amendment. I would like to see the House better filled on this occasion, but I put it to every hon. Member who is here that if the House is to reflect the true feeling of the country it will vote against this Amendment. I know how a proposal of this kind would be dealt with in most of the constituencies to-day, especially in the north. I am not speaking of those relatively backward places which are satisfied to be represented by ex-admirals and ex-generals and ex-colonels and people of that kind. I am speaking about the constituencies which reflect the real spirit of the country and I have no hesitation in saying that if you were to go on any platform in the north of England you would find the people, even supporters of the present Government, ready to vote against this Amendment. This Bill received a Third Reading here without opposition. It was evidently satisfactory to the Government then. But on 4th July the Federation of British Industries had been at work. A certain small section sent a letter to the Prime Minister. To the credit of a great number of Government supporters let it be said that they were not associated with that letter. But a small section had got to work by the time the Bill had gone to another place, and they introduced this restriction which we are now considering. The object is to restrict the powers of the right hon. Gentleman. The procedure by Order-in-Council will create uncertainty and in serious times like this we cannot afford uncertainty. The right hon. Gentleman should have sufficient power to defend this country, and to deal with anything right away in order that he can organise the armed forces on the basis of maximum efficiency. I hope that every hon. Member will follow us into the Division Lobby in order to show to the world the patriotic spirit of our people.

Mr. Burgin

I can only intervene again with the leave of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood

Will you wait a bit?

Mr. Burgin

I will give way to the hon. Member.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood

I want to say a few words on this subject. I listened to the Debate in the House of Lords and I said to the Minister of Supply, who was standing beside me, that the Lords were doing their utmost to trammel every power he had. That was the aim and object of practically every one who rose. The only one who was standing up for the right hon. Gentleman was Lord Addison. When Lord Gainford got up I said to the Minister that he was making the most reactionary speech I had heard in my visits to the House of Lords. I will just quote one or two words he said: Industry is very much perturbed by certain permanent powers which are included in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member is quoting from a speech in the House of Lords he is out of order.

Mr. Kirkwood

Can I say what was said, as far as I can?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must not quote from the speeches made in the House of Lords in order to influence debate in this House.

Mr. Kirkwood

It is very difficult. I Have heard the Members in another place quote at length speeches delivered in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker

I have nothing to do with that.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Sexton

When this Bill was before the House of Commons the first part of it was referred to as the "permanent powers" part. Now we find that it is like some of the cheap permanent waves that are advertised—the curl has been taken out of it. This Amendment from the House of Lords will destroy the basis of the authority of the Minister. The Army and Navy have permanent power to manufacture, and who would scrap the existing ordnance works and Government dockyards? Is it because there is a fear of general nationalisation under Clause 2? A high legal authority has said that there is no fear of general nationalisation, or even of the nationalisation of one industry under that Clause. The fear is that of certain people outside the House who think that the Clause may introduce Socialism. Fancy anybody being afraid of the National Government introducing Socialism. Some people say that a Socialist majority would surreptitiously use the power in this Clause to bring about nationalisation.

Why should such allegations be made? There is nothing secret about our policy. We have openly said that we would nationalise certain industries and services. Nationalisation always has been and is still included in our policy. Having obtained a majority in the House of Commons the people would expect us to carry out nationalisation, for which we would have a democratic mandate. It is Tory and Liberal Governments, Coalition and National Governments, that pass Measures without mandates and even Measures in defiance of their published policy. I need refer only to going off the Gold Standard, and to the recent legislation on conscription. Is this Amendment another example of pressure from outside interests? A letter from the Federation of British Industries has been referred to. They are strongly opposed to Clause 2. Yet it is a Government Clause in a Government Bill. It was supported by Ministers in this House, and passed by this House. I will read from the Official Report of 19th June what the right hon. Gentleman said: The powers that a Minister of Supply wants differ in peace and in war. He must at all times, as part of the permanent machinery of State, have power to buy and sell and to make and to store. Those powers are given in clause 2. Later on he said: The opinion of the Government is that the earlier part of the Bill is part of the permanent fabric of the Ministry, and that the power to buy and sell and make and store are among the powers that must be permanent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1939; cols. 1919 and 1920, Vol. 348.] Why this change? The Government had considered it, the Clause had been carefully drafted, it had been strenuously supported by the Government, and passed by the House. Now we are asked to reverse the policy and make it temporary. Is this the policy of appeasement being introduced into home legislation? Is it to appease these vested interests outside? Little leniency was shown to the Opposition Amendments on this Bill, and surely the Government are not going to be afraid of anybody at the other end of the passage, or of anybody outside the House, but are going to stick to their guns and carry the Clause in its original state.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Burgin

Things have been said in this Debate which I think may create a wrong impression abroad, and one hon. Member said things disparaging of the equipment and plant in Woolwich Arsenal and the Royal Dockyards. I cannot allow that to go on record without a protest from one who knows. Woolwich Arsenal has a distinguished past and no doubt you could find gates put up before the Crimea, but if hon. Members knew something about the millions of money that have been put into new plant, some of the finest in the land, they would be slow to lend themselves to any cheering of criticism or disparagement of the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards. I am advised that the War Office has power to manufacture sulphuric acid as an essential part of explosives manufacture, and that both the War Office and the Air Ministry claim the right to manufacture scientific instruments of any range they require. It is no part of my task to defend those who hold different opinions and I need not, in commending this Amendment to the House, refute the suggestion that it was put forward by some unpatriotic body of people.

In my opening remarks, in endeavouring to explain how this had come about, I tried to show that a rather narrower issue is really presented by the Amendment. When the Bill was in Committee there was an Amendment on these lines on the Order Paper, but it was not selected, and consequently the House did not have this particular matter discussed. It must be obvious to everyone that a general power to manufacture is wider than the Minister of Supply would require. There must be a great deal that the Minister would not want to manufacture. I have never had any doubt that there was a great realm of industry into which I should never wish to penetrate. This is really a matter of definition. In answer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), this is a Government Amendment put down because in my judgment it does not in any way interfere with or hamper the full development of a Ministry of Supply as I conceive it. The reason I say that is because under the Amendment all the powers which Government Departments have to manufacture, remain permanent. All powers without limit remain for three years, and 2½ years from now it is possible to introduce an Order-in-Council specifying those of the undefined powers which it is desired to continue either indefinitely or for a period of time. The whole function of the Amendment is, in the undefined class of powers, to put a period of three years, with an obligation not earlier than 2½ years to define what those powers should be. I hope the House will see its way to feel that the Amendment does not, although in terms it seems to, restrict powers in point of time so as to reduce or affect efficiency.

Mr. Benn

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Amendment as a defining Amendment, as if he meant a spontaneous improvement that accurred to the Government. Is that the case? Did they make the Amendment proprio motu—spontaneously?

Mr. Burgin

I do not think that anything that I said would carry with it that impression at all. [Interruption.] I should not think that was accurate. The Amendment moved in another place was different in character. The date of the Royal Assent is perhaps more important than the actual wording of the Bill at the moment in the interests of the nation and, in order to secure its passage into law very quickly, I assented to the drafting of this Amendment in a form which in my judgment does not restrict essential powers and which complies with the wishes expressed in another place.

Mr. Benn

Should I be right in saying that another place, knowing that in the national interest the Bill had to be passed by a certain date, took advantage of that to force the Amendment on the Government.

Mr. Dalton

Is it or is it not a fact that on 14th June the President of the Federation of British Industries addressed to the Prime Minister a letter—it would not be in order to quote it because it has been quoted in another place—protesting against this Clause as it left this House.

Mr. Burgin

I do not wish to be thought to be quibbling, but I know nothing more than appears in the Debate in another place, to which the hon. Gentleman has access.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 125.

Division No. 235.] AYES. [8.34 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Dugdale, Captain T. L. Kellett, Major E. o.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Duncan, J. A. L. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Albery, Sir Irving Edge, Sir W. Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Kimball, L.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Ellis, Sir G. Lamb, Sir J, Q.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Lancaster, Lieut.-Colonel C. G.
Aske, Sir R. W. Entwistle, Sir C. F. Leech, Sir J. W.
Assheton, R. Errington, E. Lees-Jones, J
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Erskine-Hill, A. G. Levy, T.
Balniel, Lord Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) Liddall, W. S.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T, P. H. Everard, Sir William Lindsay Locker-Lampion, Comdr. o. S.
Bennett, Sir E. N. Fildes, Sir H. Loftus, P. C.
Blair, Sir R. Findlay, Sir E. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Bolton, W. W. Fleming, E. L. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Fremantle, Sir F. E. McCorquodale, M. S.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose) Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness) Gluckstein, L. H. Magnay, T.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Gower, Sir R. V. Maitland, Sir Adam
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R. Making, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Granville, E. L. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Markham, S. F.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. Gridley, Sir A. B. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Butcher, H. W. Grimston, R. V. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Carvor, Major W. H. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Cary, R. A. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Christie, J. A. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. Nall, Sir J.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Harbord, Sir A. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Colfox, Major Sir W. P. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Hepworth, J. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Higgs, W. F. Pilkington, R.
Craven-Ellis, W. Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Holdsworth, H. Porritt, R. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Holmes, J. S. Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Crossley, A. C. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Procter, Major H. A.
Crowder, J. F. E. Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J. Radford, E. A.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Hume, Sir G. H. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Hunter, T. Ramsden, Sir E.
Denville, Alfred Hutchinson, G. C. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Ropner, Colonel L.
Doland, G. F. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Rosbotham, Sir T.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H, Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Rowlands, G. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. p. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Wayland, Sir W. A
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Strickland, Captain W. F. Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Salt, E. W. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Samuel, M. R. A. Sutcliffe, H. Wells, Sir Sydney
Sanderson, Sir F. B. Talker, Sir R. I. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Schuster, Sir G. E. Tale, Mavis C. Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Scott, Lord William Thomas, J. P. L. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Selley, H. R. Thomson, Sir J. D. W. Wise, A. R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Thorneycroft, G. E. P Womersley, Sir W. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Wragg, H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Touche, G. C. Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) Tufnell Lieut.-Commander R. L. York, C.
Smithers, Sir W. Wakefield, W. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Mr. Munro and Mr. Buchan
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L. Warrander, Sir V. Hepburn
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Waterhouse, Captain C.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Owen, Major G.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hardie, Agnes Paling, W.
Ammon, C. G. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parker, J.
Banfield, J. W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Parkinson, J. A.
Barnes, A. J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pearson, A.
Barr, J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bartlett, C. V. O. Hollins, A. Price, M. P.
Batey, J. Hopkin, D. Pritt, D. N.
Beaumont, H. (Batley) Jagger, J. Quibell, D. J. K.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Richard, R. (Wrexham)
Benson, G. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Ridley, G.
Bevan, A. John, W. Ritson, J.
Broad, F. A. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Roberts. W. (Cumberland, N.)
Bromfield, W. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Seely, Sir H. M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Buchanan, G. Kirkwood, D. Shinwell, E.
Cape, T. Lawson, J. J. Silverman, S. S.
Charleton, H. C. Leach, W. Simpson, F. B.
Chater, D. Lee, F. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cluse, W. S. Leonard, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Collindridge, F. Leslie, J. R. Sorensen, R.
Cove, W. G. Logan, D. G. Stephen, C.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lunn, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Daggar, G. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Dalton, H. McEntee, V. La T. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Thorne, W.
Dobbie, W. McGovern, J. Tinker, J. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) MacLaren, A. Tomlinson, G.
Ede, J. C. Maclean, N. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Mainwaring, W. H. Walkden, A. G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty) Mander, G. le M. Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, N. (Caerphitly) Marshall, F. Watson, W. McL.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Mathers, G. Welsh, J. C.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Maxton, J. White, H. Graham
Frankel, D. Messer, F. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Gardner, B. W. Montague, F. Wilkinson, Ellen
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Moreing, A. C. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gibson, R, (Greeneek) Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster) Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'dd'sbro, W.) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Nathan, Colonel H. L. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Naylor, T. E.
Gritten, W. G. Howard Noel-Baker, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—.
Groves, T. E. Oliver, G. H. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adamson
Division No. 236.] AYES. [10.11 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col, G. J. Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Gridley, Sir A. B. Peat, C. U
Albery, Sir Irving Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Perkins, W. R. D.
Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Grimston, R. V. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Gritten, W. G. Howard Pilkington, R.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Porritt, R. W.
Aske, Sir R. W. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Procter, Major H. A.
Assheton, R. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Radford, E. A.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Gunston, Capt. Sir 0. W. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Balniel, Lord Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. Ramsden, Sir E.
Barrie, Sir C. C. Harbord, Sir A. Rankin, Sir R.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. 6. (Portsm'h) Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Remer, J, R.
Bennett, Sir E. N. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Ropner, Colonel L.
Boothby, R. J. G. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Rosbotham, Sir T.
Bolton, W. W. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Rots Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Rothschild, J. A. de
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose) Hepworth, J. Rowlands, G.
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness) Higgs, W. F. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hogg, Hon. O. McG. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) Holdsworth, H. Salt, E. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Holmes, J. S. Samuel, M. R. A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Nawbury) Hopkinson, A. Sanderson. Sir F. B.
Browne, A, C. (Belfast, W.) Howitt, Dr. A. B. Schuster, Sir G. E.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Scott, Lord William
Butcher, H. W. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Selley, Sir H.M.
Cartland, J. R. H. Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J. Selly, H. R.
Carver, Major W. H. Hume, Sir G.H. Shaw, Captain W.T.(Forfar)
Cary, R. A. Hunloke, H. P. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Christie, J. A. Hunter, T. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Clarke, Colonel Ft. S. (E. Grinstead) Hutchinson, G. C. Smithers, Sir W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Jarvis, Sir J. J. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Colfox, Major Sir W. P. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Colman, N. C. D. Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Keeling, E. H. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Kellett, Major E. O. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Craven-Ells, W. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Craft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Kimball, L. Sutcliffe, H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Crossley, A. C. Lancaster, Lieut.-Colonel C. G. Tate, Mavis C.
Crowder, J. F. E. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Culverwell, C. T. Leech, Sir J. W. Thomas, J. P. L.
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Lees-Jones, J. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Leigh, Sir J. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Denville, Alfred Leighton, Major B. E. P. Touche, G. C.
Doland, G. F. Liddall, W. S. Train, Sir J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Lindsay, K. M. Wakefield, W. W.
Duncan, J. A. L. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. o. S. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Eckersley, P. T. Loftus, P. C. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Edge, Sir W. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Warrenderm Sir V.
Ellis, Sir G. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Elliston, Capt. G. S. McCorquodale, M. S. Wayland, Sir W. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Magnay, T. Wells, Sir Sydney
Erskine-Hill, A. G. Maitland, Sir Adam White, H. Graham
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. H. Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Markham, S. F. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Everard, Sir William Lindsay Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Wise, A. R.
Fildes, Sir H. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Findlay, Sir E. Moreing, A. C. Wragg, H.
Fleming, E. L. Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E. Morrison, G. A, (Scottish Univ's.) York, C.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Gluckstein, L. H. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Munro, P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Goldie, N. B. Nall, Sir J. Captain Waterhouse and Major
Gower, Sir R. V. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Sir James Edmondson.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Bellenger, F. J. Chater, D.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Cluse, W. S.
Adamson, W. M. Benson, G. Collindridge, F.
Ammon, C. G. Broad, F. A. Cove, W. G.
Banfield, J. W. Bromfield, W. Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Barnes, A. J. Brown, C. (Mansfield) Daggar, G.
Barr, J. Buchanan, G. Dalton, H.
Batey, J. Burke, W. A. Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Beaumont, H. (Batley) Charleton, H. C Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Dobbie, W. Lawson, J. J. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Leach, W. Sexton. T. M.
Ede, J. C. Lee, F. Shinwell, E.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Leslie, J. R. Silverman, S. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty) Logan, D. G. Simpson, F. B
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Lunn, W. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Gallacher, W. McEntee, V. La T. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Gardner, B. W. McGhee, H. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Garro Jones, G. M. McGovern, J. Stephen, C.
Gibson, R. (Greerock) MacLaren, A. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Maclean, N. Stokes, R. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Mainwaring, W. H. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Mander, G. le M. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Marshall, F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Groves, T. E. Mathers, G. Tinker, J. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Maxton, J. Tomlinson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Montague, F. Viant, S. P.
Hardie, Agnes Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Walkden, A. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watkins, F. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Naylor, T. E. Watson, W. McL.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Noel-Baker, P. J. Welsh, J. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract) Oliver, G. H. Westwood, J.
Hollins, A. Paling, W. Wilkinson, Ellen
Hopkin, D. Parker, J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Jagger, J. Parkinson, J. A. Wilmot John
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Pearson, A. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
John, W. Pritt, D. N. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Quibell, D. J. K. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Ridley, G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Kirby, B. V. Riley, B. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.
Kirkwood, D. Ritson, J.