HC Deb 12 July 1939 vol 349 cc2332-47

7.29 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "and twenty-five."

This Amendment seeks to reduce by 25,000,000 gallons the amount of 125,000,000 gallons allocated for butter and cheese for which the subsidy can be collected. I had better make it clear at once that there is not a great deal of money involved in this Amendment. It is concerned Infinitely more with principle than with money. I listened with interest to the very fine speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) on valuation and distribution and variations, and the grave and profound difficulties which would beset the Milk Marketing Board when this Bill came into operation. I have made a rapid calculation based on the known facts and the Financial Memorandum, and I find that for the present year the amount of money likely to accrue from the Treasury to the Milk Marketing Board is about £50,000. There are 150,000 producers and the amount is 6s. 8d. per annum, or 3s. 4d. per half year, and if that is not divided into monthly periods I can appreciate the shock which the Milk Marketing Board will get.

The point of the Amendment may be explained thus. From the commencement of the milk subsidy scheme, it has always been my opinion that, to the extent to which Parliament subsidised milk for manufacturing uses, unless simultaneously with any new production which was encouraged we found an outlet for the increased output in the liquid market, then to that extent, the liquid milk consumer is called upon to subsidise manufacturing milk. We have always argued with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, and we repeat the argument to him, that it is wrong policy on the part of any Government to subsidise milk that goes into manufacture, until they have explored every conceivable avenue to find a way of increasing the consumption of liquid milk. I recognise that Clause 2, which continues the school milk scheme and makes provision for the extension of similar facilities to expectant and nursing mothers and children under five, is all to the good, but as long as we permit the Milk Marketing Board to divert 250,000,000 gallons of milk to the factories, at an average of about 5¼d. per gallon, while the liquid milk consumer is paying 2s. 4d. a gallon, we are operating in the wrong direction. Lord Astor, in a statement circulated to Members of Parliament some time ago, worked out the figures, and after careful calculation, reached the conclusion that as the result of a large volume of milk being diverted to factory use, the liquid milk consumer in this country is virtually subsidising factory milk by 3d. a gallon. That is a considerable item. If we were to put that 3d. per gallon on to the potential saving which could be made by an efficient distributive system, and if we were to add the results of elimination of the most uneconomic producers, the chances are that the price of liquid milk would reach a point at which millions of families who cannot at present buy enough for their elementary needs would be able to obtain liquid milk at a suitable price. That would in turn be reflected in the pool price to the farmers and would put them on a better financial basis than they are on, even with this subsidy.

The right hon. Gentleman may say, if we are willing to subsidise 100,000,000 gallons to go into the manufacture of butter and cheese, why not subsidise the additional 25,000,000 gallons? The answer is readily given. We think there ought to be some limit on this subsidy for manufacturing milk. We recognise that there is a period in the spring when, as a result of climatic conditions, the output of milk is in excess of what the liquid milk market can absorb under present conditions and at present prices. Therefore, some temporary arrangement might be made for dealing with that surplus during that exceptional period. But to reach a figure of 250,000,000 gallons and to subsidise that amount, attracting milk to a market which is unable to absorb it at present prices and with the wages of workpeople and unemployment benefit and old age pensions what they are to-day—that, we say, is to operate in the wrong direction. We do not want to amend the Bill fundamentally. We agree with the broad, general principle of Clauses 1 and 2. We recognise that there may be something in Clauses 3, 4 and 5, but to go to excess as theśe Clauses do is entirely wrong. I regard this as a serious Amendment and if my hon. Friends agree, I shall not hesitate to go into the Division Lobby in support of it as a protest against the principle of subsidising manufacturing milk before having examined all the possibilities of increasing liquid milk consumption in this country.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Price

I support the Amendment, which I regard as an important part of the campaign to put the Milk Marketing Board in a sound position, and at the same time to help the dairy industry in the only way in which it can be helped. As things are, one of the reasons for the high price of liquid milk is undoubtedly the fact that we are subsidising manufacturing milk. All steps that can be taken towards encouraging liquid milk and discouraging manufacturing milk are steps in the right direction. There must be a surplus owing to natural conditions during the spring and summer, and that surplus must be dealt with in some way, but we should regard any arrangement to deal with the surplus only as temporary and as a means to keep things going until there is a better consumption of liquid milk than there is at present. That alone will put the Milk Marketing Board in a sound position and also assist the dairy industry.

I think there is an improvement in this direction at present. The latest figures which I have received show that the quantity of manufacturing milk in the year which ended in March, 1937, was 342,000,000 gallons. In the following year that figure fell to 250,000,000 gallons, largely owing to the effect of drought. It rose again in the year which ended March, 1939, but not to the figure of earlier years, the quantity being 317,000,000 gallons. There appears to be a tendency for the quantity of manufacturing milk to decrease. At the same time the average price of liquid milk rose from 15.25d. to 16.08d. which shows that the subsidising of manufacturing milk tends to keep the liquid price too high. I have here a report of the Children's Minimum Council containing a statement which was sent to the Minister of Agriculture a few days ago. They state definitely, and I think with considerable justification that: In present circumstances any expansion in production is likely to act as a check on consumption. It means simply that there is more milk to be disposed of. The bulk of it goes to the manufacturing market, and the price of liquid milk to the consumer is raised in order to compensate the farmers for the proportion sold at a loss. The expansion of demand and ultimately of production is thus checked. This vicious circle must be broken.

Mr. MacLaren

Hear, hear.

Mr. Price

I think many of us will agree with that statement although we may not all agree with the method by which it is to be done, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has his own particular method to deal with it. We are justified in moving this Amendment, if only to call attention to the undesirability of encouraging too much production to go into manufacture. I suggest that we must put a ceiling on the amount which goes into manufacture and that any step towards reducing the quantity used for manufacture and forcing the Government to encourage by all sorts of schemes the consumption of liquid milk, is a step in the right direction.

7.42 p.m.

Captain Heilgers

I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) taking the line which he has taken. I represent a division of an Eastern county, and we should be only too glad if the Milk Marketing Board's operations were confined to liquid milk. As it is, we have to carry milk for manufacture in the West and get in consequence a lower price for our milk. Almost all the manufactured milk comes from counties in the West. I think it is reckoned that the surplus in the industry is about 10 per cent. in the winter, but in the flush months of May and June, the industry may have to carry a much bigger surplus. Everyone will agree with hon. Members in wanting to have more liquid milk drunk, but I would remind them that the more liquid milk is drunk, the bigger surplus there must be. The making of butter and cheese is, after all, the work of fanners in this country, and at agricultural shows one can see this work being done by skilled operators. I should be very sorry to see those crafts dying out and if we are to put our nation on to an A.1 basis—or in present circumstances I should say if we are to continue our nation on an A.1 basis—we should encourage not only the consumption of liquid milk, but also the consumption of good farmhouse butter, than which nothing could be better for the younger generation.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin

I rise to ask for information. I am sorry that I cannot understand the Amendment. As the Clause stands the position seems to be this: The Government say to the farmers, "You produce milk which satisfies the liquid milk market, and 250,000,000 gallons beyond that which goes into manufacturing, and we will pay you a subsidy.

But if by any chance you produce more than that you produce it at your peril and must like the price which you can get for it, which will be very small." As I understand the Amendment it says, "We desire to lower the amount on which you are paid from 250,000,000 gallons to 200,000,000 gallons." That will make it all the worse for the farmer, in this sense, that the Government will then say, "We do not desire you to produce any more than 200,000,000 gallons for manufacturing purposes." But is not that a policy of scarcity, is not that just the opposite of what we really want? The only alternative that I see to putting the subsidy on the manufacturing milk is to say to the farmer, "Produce as much milk as you like and we will see that you shall not lose by it." Having set out on a policy of plenty the Government will be equally well able to say, "We will see that the greater part of this milk goes to feed the women and children who most want it."

I should have thought that that would have been the policy; to reduce the amount on which a subsidy is paid would be a policy of scarcity. An increase of consumption in the liquid milk market is the thing we all desire, no matter in which part of the Committee we sit, but is there any hon. Member who can tell the Milk Marketing Board of any method which they are not employing to increase the liquid milk market? Is there any portion of the manufacturing milk now being used for chocolate, for ice cream, for condensed milk, for milk powder, which could be used in a better way? I do not think so. Therefore, the amount of manufacturing milk which is carried to-day by the Milk Marketing Board is the absolute minimum, unless, of course, we want to see the amount that is produced all through the country cut down, and that, I think, is not a policy which would commend itself to Members of this Committee.

7.48 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb

I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment. It does not actually determine the amount of milk which shall go for manufacturing purposes, but it puts a ceiling to the amount and, in fact, reduces the ceiling, and there might be a reduction in production if the quantity of surplus milk became so great that the ceiling was reached. The Com- mittee must not think that the Milk Marketing Board have any desire to divert to manufacturing purposes milk which could be sold for other purposes. It is to their advantage to sell as much of it as possible as liquid milk, because there they have the higher market. There is no danger of the Milk Marketing Board diverting milk to the manufacture of cheese and butter if they can dispose of it for any other purpose. An hon. Member said that an arrangement should be made for a temporary manipulation, and that is true to a certain extent, but when the quantity of liquid milk is so great that there is a surplus, we cannot say that that surplus must be used for butter and cheese, because factories have to maintain a certain nucleus of staff, otherwise they will not be there when we require them on other occasions.

If there is a surplus above the 200,000,000 gallons what are we going to do with it? The milk is there. If it is not going to be utilised even for butter and cheese, which is the least profitable manufacturing use, there will be a further loss, and in that case the Milk Marketing Board will have to consider increasing the price of liquid milk, and we do not want that. It will be seen, therefore, that there is a danger of defeating the object we all have in view, and that is to obtain cheaper liquid milk.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan

I suppose that had we put down an Amendment to increase the quantity of milk it would have been ruled out of order on the ground that we were adding to the financial commitments of the taxpayer, and therefore my hon. Friend will understand that a discussion of the surplus milk problem could only be obtained by putting forward an Amendment in these terms. How to deal with the surplus milk is really the crux of the milk problem. That a farmer should have to sell one-third of his milk for manufacturing purposes at a price which in no case covers his costs of production is thoroughly unsatisfactory, especially when thousands upon thousands of people cannot afford to buy liquid milk at its present price. It is admitted that milk at 2s. 4d. a gallon is too dear for quite wide sections, and necessitious sections, of the community, and the point of this Amendment is to draw attention to the problem, and to suggest that there are better ways of using that surplus milk than turning it into even chocolate or cream. To overlook that is to miss the whole point of the argument.

Why have the Government put in a ceiling figure? Obviously they want to put a restriction on the production of butter and cheese in this country. That may be satisfactory from the point of view that New Zealand and other countries are better suited to produce butter and cheese, and can at the same time be squeezed out of a market in which we can, perhaps, utilise the milk more satisfactorily than in the production of butter and cheese, which are in the lowest category of milk products. Import restrictions have now been placed upon processed milk products, presumably to drive more milk from the production of butter and cheese into the production of processed milk commodities. If that is so the Government are admitting that they are trying to increase the manufacture of processed milk products and they are not showing as real a desire to shift some of this surplus milk into other categories than manufacturing, as we should like to see.

We gratefully acknowledge the provision which is made in the Bill for special schemes but we regret very much that there seem to be difficulties, outside the control of the Minister, over the development of those schemes. Presumably milk for those schemes will be available at anything between is. and is. 4d. a gallon and will represent a very definite economic increment to the farmer, while at the same time meeting the requirements of large sections of necessitous people, including children. We hope that these schemes will go forward speedily and will remove the necessity for diverting so much of this milk to manufacturing purposes. After all, there should be no need to carry more surplus than the Milk Marketing Board require as a reserve supply for the liquid milk market. We admit the need for a surplus, anything up to20 per cent., to carry the daily and seasonable variations in demand, but over and above that steps should be taken to try to force this extra milk to be used for more economic purposes. The Amendment suggests that the quantity of milk for butter and cheese should be reduced to 200,000,000 gallons. Automatically that would force the Milk Marketing Board to get that milk into some other market. We have no objection to the board putting pressure upon the Government; they have exercised useful pressure in the past. In my opinion they are as anxious as anybody else to have surplus milk used more economically and more sensibly.

The point is, have the Government any other reason for fixing this ceiling figure than that of getting milk used more economically in the processing sections? In other words if they want to build up an emergency reserve of tinned milk they ought to indemnify the Milk Marketing Board for that service, not so much supporting the butter and cheese market as supporting the processed milk market if they are trying to get the board to supply milk to manufacturers who have some sort of understanding with the Government to build up reserves. That is another point arising out of this Amendment—that if the Government are interested in any way in promoting reserves of processed milk it is a service for which they are not paying the Milk Marketing Board and they should look into the matter. Over and above that we see in this Bill elements of hope that the surplus milk is going to be dealt with in a better way both from the point of view of the public and the producer. While we on this side are dissatisfied that such a large volume of milk should be going into manufacturing use, our attitude to other Sections of the Bill indicates our whole-hearted support of the plea of the Minister that milk should be used more sensibly and economically in any other direction.

7.57 p.m.

Sir E. Shepperson

I think every Member of the Committee is only too anxious to see the' consumption of liquid milk increased. Hon. Members opposite ask whether we are doing all we can to increase the consumption of liquid milk. I submit that we can increase its consumption if we cheapen the price to the consumers. Can we cheapen the price to them? I submit that we can if we remove the levy that is now charged upon liquid milk and pass the levy on to the manufactured milk products at present coming into this country.

7.59 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith

It is true that nobody wants to put more milk into manufacture than is absolutely essential. I think we are all agreed upon that. I think, also, the Bill does hold out hope that a good deal of milk will be used in the cheap milk schemes. No limit has been set on the amount of money which can be expended on them. But there is more to it than this. If you are going to have a prosperous liquid milk market and you are going to get your producers to produce enough to serve that market, you must have a reserve pool, variously estimated, but let us say round about 20 per cent. all the year round. It may go up to very much more in some periods. If you are going to have that reserve you must have some method of dealing with it as time goes on; therefore you have to maintain some manufacturing industry, otherwise goodness knows what will happen to your reserve. You must have a certain amount of milk going into manufacture the whole time in addition to that 20 per cent. in order to keep the manufacturing industry itself working, or else it will probably close down. It is not just a question of saying, "We want to sell liquid milk and we shall go on selling it so that there will be no surplus at all." It is not quite as easy as that. If you increase the amount of milk going into liquid consumption you also increase not the percentage but the volume which you have to deal with in manufacture in some process or other.

Mr. Morgan

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the farmer should carry subsidies in order that the manufacturers may be kept in business?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith

The committee of investigation found that the cost of the reserve up to 20 per cent. was in fact borne by the consumer, and that over that amount the producer was bearing the burden. Therefore I do not think the consumer has any complaint on that. We are trying to allow for all the possible contingencies that may come about so that the producers can carry on and perform their full function in keeping this reserve pool, and we arrived at this figure of 125,000,000 gallons for butter and cheese based on past experience of what may happen if in fact we go on increasing liquid milk consumption. We hope we shall not have to get up to this figure. We are taking such steps as we can to enable the Milk Marketing Board to get the milk into higher categories of manu- facturing commodities. We are doing that by making the market for our home producer by restricting imports from overseas and I think there is a lot in what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Morgan) said. If we can do that and keep our producers out of the butter and cheese market all the better, but if by any chance they have to go there it is only fair that the country should say they will provide for this amount of 250,000,000 gallons in case it needs to be used.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

I think we should come back to the principle behind the Amendment. I take it, although the Ministry is moving in short spasms of temporary legislation from time to time, they are still supposed to have a long-term policy for agriculture in view and, if there is a long-term policy in view, it surely ought to be a well-balanced policy. In the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) put, he certainly implied to me, and I am sure must have carried that implication to many others, that there is a point beyond which it is entirely uneconomic, not only from a national but from an agricultural point of view, to encourage milk for manufacture. A very able pamphlet published recently on the problems of agriculture cites a White Paper issued by the Baldwin Government in 1926 which says that this policy of subsidies was bound to be inequitable, bound to work out unevenly, and that the subsidy was bound to be given to people who had no need for it because of the variety of the character of land and of production in different varieties of circumstances, and it therefore came down against it.

Here is a case in point. You deal with this problem of what is now termed surplus milk. Take the figures prior to the introduction of the milk marketing scheme. As far as I have had experience of dealing with the balancing of supplies for the liquid milk market, prior to the milk marketing scheme there was far less milk available. What happened? There has been first a rise in price plus a guaranteed market provided by the Milk Marketing Board. If you examine the returns between 1932 and 1937 the figures speak for themselves. At the very time when we were hoping to get a better price for producers for the liquid market they had to face the increasing amount of milk put into the board's hands, for which they are bound to find a market under the scheme and which has been continuously pulling down the pool price. But to suggest that the amount which has been put on the market as surplus is necessary is quite another thing. In fact, if we were having a proper consumption per head of the population of liquid milk, you could find a market for a much larger supply. But to deal with the economics of the situation, which is what the Minister is trying to do in this proposal, it has diverted a great deal of general agricultural effort into one channel of production of milk where it ought to have been properly carrying on its functions in a wider sense. That is the position, and you might just as well face up to it.

Take the question of the variety of costs—the thing that the Conservative Government had in mind in 1926. I appeared for 36 days before the Committee of Investigation, from whose report the Minister quoted. I had passing through my hands all the costs of production of milk so far as they were available to the committee. So far as they were reliable is another matter, although we owe them a debt of gratitude for much of the excellent, and in some cases voluntary, work done by representatives of the universities. But the actual figures of costs of production on the farms varied from a figure below 6d. a gallon up to is. 2d.—an enormous margin. You are guaranteeing a price backed up by a subsidy to whoever is producing milk, whether they require a subsidy or not. That is one of the inherent difficulties that you have to deal with. We know that the Minister has difficulties to face and we are not quarrelling wholly in principle with the method, but we say that in detail he really should begin to so set his limit to the subsidy to be paid that there is some prospect of reducing the surplus milk diverted into manufacture at the cost of keeping up the price of liquid milk. That is the intention of the Amendment.

This is not a party issue. We have had charming speeches, and well put, from the hon. Member for Don Valley, who has become such a tower of strength to us, from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) and from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin)—I sometimes wonder where he really stands—but the variety of speeches on this side indicates that this is not a party issue as such. It is a problem for which we all want to find a solution. Unless you make some better beginning you are not going to find the solution that you ought to find. It is suggested that it would be a good thing to go on increasing the production of milk even if you had to have a larger amount of manufacture. I should say, speaking from my knowledge of those who are the largest and best customers of the Milk Marketing Board, that the percentage required is nothing like 20 per cent. Surely we ought not to sit down under the assumption that we must encourage the farmer to produce a surplus equal to 20 per cent. of the whole liquid market. It becomes far too big a charge upon the general liquid market at the expense of the consumer. It is said that by putting on tariffs we can do this without it becoming an extra charge on the consumer. How are you going to deal with such a restriction unless you are going to deal with Dominion imports? No one knows better than the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) what an enormous proportion of dairy products comes from the Dominions. Is it going to be the policy of agricultural Members to limit not merely the comparatively small quantities imported from foreign countries but imports from the Dominions?

Sir J. Lamb

Encourage secondary industries in the Dominions.

Mr. Alexander

What about your own secondary industries? What about engineering? What about our cotton? What about our heavy industries? The fact is that the true solution is to have as soon as you can a really balanced policy of agriculture on a long-term view. Ministers have for a long time said that they were going to produce such a policy, but they have not done so yet. I have no doubt that the Minister will have the Whips on and that the Division will go against us, but I hope that he will keep in mind the facts that we have put to him. We do not quarrel with much of this Bill, which the Minister says is a temporary one. Nearly all the policy of the Minister is temporary, and perhaps before he produces his next Bill he will have a more rational, sound and economic policy to submit.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. David Adams

I do not propose to occupy more than a moment or two, but I come from a Special Area which looks forward with some hope and anticipation to the cheapening of liquid milk. Whilst we are grateful for what the Bill proposes with regard to certain sections of the community, such as aid for expectant mothers and school children, there is a large section of the community who are being continually assailed in one way or another to increase their consumption of liquid milk. We have in this proposition neither more nor less than a decision to diminish the possible means of the great industrial population of this country to obtain this prime foodstuff at a reasonable price. The Government have already decided to put certain tariffs upon all processed milk coming in from overseas and in that way deliberately to increase the cost of certain classes of milk to the industrial population. I have already said in this House

that the corporation with which I am associated has expended nearly one penny in the pound on rates in giving free milk.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman appears to be making a Second Reading speech on the Bill.

Mr. Adams

All that I am desiring to do is to express the profound disappointment that I and my constituents have that the policy embodied in this Measure and as defended by the Minister who has just spoken is, in fact, although he will not admit it, to increase the price of milk to the consuming public—

The Chairman

The hon. Member has confirmed me in my opinion that he is trying to make a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Adams

I was making a protest, Sir Dennis.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 129.

Division No. 239.] AYES. [8.20 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Harbord, Sir A.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cross, R. H. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Albery, Sir Irving Crossley, A. C. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Aske, Sir R. W. Crowder, J. F. E. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Cruddas, Col. B. Hepworth, J.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Culverwell, C. T. Higgs, W. F.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Davies, C. (Montgomery) Holdsworth, H.
Barrie, Sir C. C. De Chair, S. S. Holmes, J. S.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Denman, Hon. R. D. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hume, Sir G- H.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H. Hunter, T.
Bennett, Sir E. N. Drewe, C. Hurd, Sir P. A.
Bird, Sir R. B. Dugdale, Captain T. L. Hutchinson, G. C.
Blair, Sir R. Duncan, J. A. L. Jennings, R,
Boothby, R. J. G. Eastwood, J. F. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Boulton, W. W. Eckersley, P. T. Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Kellett, Major E. 0.
Boyce, H. Leslie Ellis, Sir G. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Brass, Sir W. Elliston, Capt. G. S Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Emmott, C. E. G, C. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Leech, Sir J. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Entwistle, Sir C. F. Lees-Jones, J.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Erskine-Hill, A. G. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Bull, B. B. Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan) Levy, T.
Butcher, H. W. Fildes, Sir H. Liddall, W. S.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Fleming, E. L. Lindsay, K. M.
Carver, Major W. H. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Lipson, D. L.
Cary, R. A. Furness, S. N. Little, Sir E. Graham-
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Channon, H. Goldie, N. B. Lloyd, G. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Gower, Sir R. V. Loftus, P. C.
Christie, J. A. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Granville, E. L. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Colfox, Major Sir W. P. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. McKie, J. H.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Maitland, Sir Adam
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Gridley, Sir A. B. Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Guest, Maj. Hon. 0. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Manningham-Bufler, Sir M.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Craven-Ellis, W. Hannah, I. C. Marsden, Commander A.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Ropner, Colonel L. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Rosbotham, Sir T. Thomas, J. P. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Moreing, A. C. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Titchfield, Marquess of
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Salmon, Sir I. Touche, G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Salt, E. W. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Munro, P. Samuel, M. R. A. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Nall, Sir J. Sandeman, Sir N. S. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Sanderson, Sir F. B. Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie
Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Schuster, Sir G. E. Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Selley, H. R. Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Palmer, G. E. H. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Parkins, W. H. D. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Pilkington, R. Smithers, Sir W. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Procter, Major H. A. Snadden, W. McN. Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.
Radford, E. A. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald York, C.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H. Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Ramsden, Sir E. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) TELLERS FOR THE AYES —
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Strickland, Captain W. F. Mr. James Stuart and Mr.
Romer, J. R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Buchan Hepburn.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Sutcliffe. H.
Adams, D. (Consett) Harris, Sir P. A. Pearson, A.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) Hayday, A. Price, M. P.
Adamson, W. M. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pritt, D. N.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Quibell, D. J. K.
Ammon, C. G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Banfield, J. W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Barnes, A. J. Hollins, A. Ridley, G.
Barr, J. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Riley, B.
Batey, J. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Ritson, J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W, W. John, W. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benson, G. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sexton, T. M.
Broad, F. A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Shinwell, E.
Bromfield, W. Kirby, B. V. Silkin, L.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Kirkwood, D. Silverman, S. S.
Buchanan, G. Lathan, G. Simpson, F. B.
Burke, W. A. Lawson, J. J. Sloan, A.
Cape, T. Leach, W. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cluse, W. S. Lee, F. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cooks, F. S. Leonard, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Collindridge, F. Leslie, J. R. Sorensen, R. W.
Cove, W. G. Logan, D. G. Stephen, C.
Daggar, G. Lunn, W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Dalton, H. Macdonald, G. (Incs) Stokes, R. R.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McEntee, V. La T. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Day, H. McGovern, J. Thorne, W.
Dobbie, W. MacLaren, A. Thurtle, E.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Maclean, N. Tinker, J. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Mainwaring, W. H. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Mander, G. le M. Watkins, F.C.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Marshall, F. Watson, W. McL.
Foot, D. M, Mathers, G. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Gardner, B. W. Maxton, J. Welsh, J. C.
Gibson, R, (Greenock) Messer, F. Wastwood, J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Milner, Major J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Montague, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Grenfell, D. R. Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Wilmot, John
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Groves, T. E. Noel-Baker. P. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Oliver, G. H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hardie, Agnes Parkinson, J. A. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.