HC Deb 27 March 1946 vol 421 cc518-31

11.1 p.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, That the Regulations, dated 13th March, 1946, entitled the Further Education Grant Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 352), a copy of which was presented on 19th March, be annulled. These regulations prescribe the conditions for the recognition of expenditure by an authority or responsible body in respect of facilities for further education. So far as I can see, subject to any questions my hon. Friends may raise upon the merits, these regulations are quite satisfactory except for one fault. That fault is that they are invalid, because, by No. 35, it is prescribed that these regulations shall have effect from 1st August, 1945. These regulations were dated 13th March of this year, and were made by the Minister of Education under Section 100 of the Education Act of 1944. The Education Act of 1944, in Section 100, authorises the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of grant. But it does not authorise those regulations to be made with retrospective operation. I have submitted before, and I submit tonight, that it is a well-established rule of law, that regulations cannot be made with retrospective operation without express statutory authority. I have little doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education will tonight produce precedents. supporting the action taken in making these regulations retrospective. I have no doubt that he has succeeded in discover- ing precedents where a Conservative Government made such regulations retrospective; I will argue that that is irrelevant. But, I would like now to say this. When a Conservative Government erred in this way, they have not the advantage which the present Socialist Government has: that is, a watchful and competent Opposition waiting and ready to keep them on a straight and narrow path. I raised a similar point on 19th February upon an Air Navigation Order, and in moving the Motion to annul that Order, I drew attention to the comments made by the Select Committee upon Statutory Rules and Orders. They said they felt strongly that Statutory Rules and Orders should not purport to have retrospective operation unless Parliament expressly provided that that should be so; and to show that, they referred to a case where Parliament had expressly so provided. That is Section 4 of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1939, which authorised Orders in Council to be made with retrospective effect. In the Debate which ensued upon the Order I have referred to— the Air Navigation Order— the Attorney-General entirely accepted the general proposition of law. He said: I entirely agree with the general proposition that unless a Statute expressly gives retrospective powers, delegated legislation ought not to take effect retrospectively. He also said: Subordinate legislation ought not to be operated retrospectively unless the Statute giving power so to do is abundantly clear in giving that power. In the same Debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation said: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has asked me to give a direct and clear answer to the question: Do I agree with the words in the report of the Select Committee to this effect, that they feel strongly that Statutory Rules and Orders should not purport to have retrospective operation unless Parliament has expressly so provided? I do give the clear answer that I accept that injunction, and so far as my Department is concerned I give a promise that it will be carried out in any future Orders."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1946, Vol. 419, c. 1055–1062.] That promise has been made by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and that Ministry at that time had a much stronger case than the Ministry of Education has here tonight. Rt. hon. and hon. Mem- bers opposite may ask what we are arguing about. They may say that on the merits of the case there is nothing wrong. That I admit. They may say "Let these cases come before the courts, and the courts will have to say whether they are ultra vires." I do not think that that would be the correct attitude for this House to adopt. It has been prescribed by Statute that these regulations shall be laid before the House. That implies a duty upon us to scrutinise these regulations. I think we should have little respect for our task, if we were prepared to allow regulations, which we are convinced are ultra vires, to pass without challenge here. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will say that if these regulations are annulled it will produce chaos and so on. No doubt that may be true, I do not know. I shall be quite prepared to withdraw this Motion if an undertaking is given that, as soon as possible, the Ministry of Education will bring in a Bill to give the requisite authority to justify retrospective operation in these matters. If the hon. Gentleman gives that undertaking, I shall be quite prepared to withdraw the Motion and all will be well, but I am not prepared to withdraw this Motion in any other circumstances. I am not prepared without challenge to allow regulations to pass which I am convinced are legally invalid.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

I beg to second the Motion.

I always feel that Prayers fall into two categories: those which affect the liberties of the subject, on which this House is well justified in sitting for a very long time, and those of lesser importance, which do not touch such deep emotions, and on which the House is not justified in sitting too long. I am bound to add that this Prayer falls into the latter category. I want, however, to make a few points with regard to it and I am sorry that there is no Law Officer in the House, because a considerable question of law arises here. The point of law is that the regulations purport to be made under Section 100 of the Education Act of 1944. That Section gives the Minister power to make regulations for three purposes and three purposes only. The first is for the payment by the Minister to local education authorities of an annual grant in respect of ex- penditure incurred by the local education authorities in the exercise of their educational functions; the second, for payment to other than local authorities in exercise of the same functions; and, third, for the payment of fees at certain establishments where those fees are payable. Those are the only powers contained in Section 100 of the Education Act. No one can look at this Statutory Rule and Order without realising that the regulations contained in it go far beyond those powers. That is the particular point to which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself. I say at once that there is nothing in the merits of these regulations at all. I make no complaint against them. If the regulations affected individuals in their daily lives, I should make considerable more fuss about them. I am concerned merely with the fact that here you have Section 100 of the Education Act, which gives a Minister certain powers, and I say that in my view— and that is why I am sorry a Law Officer is not present— these regulations go far beyond the power contained in that Section.

I am not in the least concerned with what the Attorney-General said on 19th February, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) referred, and the view which he expressed as to the extent to which regulations of this kind are good. As the hon. Member rightly said, the Attorney-General pointed out that in certain circumstances Regulations should not be retrospective. In these matters, however, neither the opinion of the Attorney-General nor the opinion of anyone else is of great importance. The question is: What is the law? My view, for what it is worth, is that the law does not permit regulations of this kind to be retrospective, unless the Act specifically authorises retrospection. There is nothing in Section 100 which allows retrospection, but, far more important, there is nothing in the Section which allows the Regulations to be made at all. I do not want to delay the House, because as I have said this is not a matter on which we can justify the spending of much time. But the question of principle is always important and if we let the principle pass on this occasion there would be nothing to prevent our letting it pass on another occasion. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this question of principle.

11.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman)

I hope Members will not expect me to deal in detail with the legal implications of the matter which has been raised tonight. I am no lawyer, but I want to make a statement on behalf of the Ministry I represent. First, I understand how anxious Members on both sides of the House are to guard the powers of Members of this House. Therefore, I shall explain, as briefly as I can, the position of the Ministry of Education in this matter.

In matters of this kind I think frankness, from our point of view, is the right line to take. The regulations which have been called in question, are grant regulations made under Section 100 of the principal Education Act, 1944. They relate both to local authorities and to other bodies and are made under paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 100 (1) of the principal Act. The first paragraph provides specifically that the regulations shall make provision for the payment, by the Minister to local authorities, of annual grants in respect of the expenditure incurred by them. The second paragraph does not specifically refer to the annual grants, but it is the common practice of the Ministry, both as regards local education authorities and other bodies, to provide for the payment of grants with respect of any complete year.

It is important to notice, in the first instance, that the year adopted for this purpose can either be the financial year, or the educational academic year, which normally begins on 1st August. In the case of the regulations, the year in respect of which grants are payable is the educational academic year, beginning 1st August. I admit that ideally the regulations ought to be established before the date on which the year in question begins, but owing to delay, for one reason or another, it is not always possible to do this. Where the regulations are established before or after the date on which the year in question begins they always indicate clearly that the conditions for such grant shall make it payable in respect of that year.

The method we have adopted in the Ministry is to provide that regulations shall have effect as from the date on which the year commences, whether the regulations are established before or after that date. If they are established after that date, they are retrospective in form. It does not appear there is anything in Section 100 of the Act which prevents regulations being established after the commencement of the year to which they refer. It may be right or it may be wrong, but this has been a long standing practice of the Ministry of Education. Here, I agree that I am making an explanation along the lines earlier suggested by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), because one can quote instances as far back as 1925. Far be it from us on this side of the House to wish to sin in company with hon. Members opposite, but the fact is that as long ago as 1925 we had an example in which regulations had effect as from 1st April that year, and were not sealed until 18th August.

I must admit that, in this case raised by the two hon. Members opposite, there has been rather a long delay in putting forward these regulations after the 40 days period of publication had expired. It is understood by hon. Members on all sides of the House that in a matter of this kind various branches of any Department have to be consulted. We in the Ministry, rightly or wrongly, follow a well-worn practice of getting the concurrence of various officers in the different branches affected before the regulations can be established. In this case, apparently, the papers were retained in connection with some other action, with the result that the regulations were not put forward for establishment by the responsible officer because he had not obtained the papers for that purpose. The result, I am sorry to say, was that there has been a long delay between the date of expiry of the 40 days' publication, namely, nth September, 1945, and the date on which the regulations were established, 13th March, 1946.So, quite frankly, I admit delay. I think it is unfortunate that there has been this delay, and I apologise to the House for it.

I would add, however, as a possible safeguard— naturally, one wants to be fair from every point of view— that these regulations were published in the "London Gazette" on 1st August, 1945. The, have not only received the publicity of the 40 days' publication, but they were discussed fully with local education authorities, and other bodies concerned before they were published. The watchful and competent Opposition, as it has been described tonight, may be rather punctilious upon a matter of this kind. They may, perhaps, press it to such an extent as to break up an agreement with bodies all over the country, an agreement arrived at before publication in the "London Gazette." I think it would be regrettable if there were an annulment tonight, of something which has worked extremely well. If that annulment took place, it would certainly produce chaos among the local authorities, and in the educational programme which we are establishing. It is, therefore, true to say that any authority or other body of persons who may be receiving grant under the regulations knew well in advance, because we had consultation with them, of the establishment of the regulations. They knew well in advance what the regulations would prescribe. I admit that this is only by way of a safeguard, and is no excuse for the long delay, but I have attempted to explain how this delay has occurred, and I hope the House will understand that we are sorry for it. Nevertheless, I hope the House will also on the bigger issue, decide that it will not stand in the way of further education regulations which, in my opinion, are sound in principle and which we find are already working admirably in practice with the concurrence of people. from all parties in local authorities throughout the country.

Mr. Marlowe

Perhaps it is scarcely fair to put this question to the hon. Gentleman, because he has only dealt with the delay point, which I quite well understand. But does he find in Section 100, which he himself said deals only with payments to local education authorities, the power to decide whether, if a teacher is convicted of a criminal offence, his engagement shall be terminated, or matters of that kind which are contained in these regulations? Could he say where the power in Section 100 comes from?

Mr. Hardman

I am afraid I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice. In the absence of legal background and training, I think it only fair that I should have notice of a question so erudite as that.

11.26 p.m.

Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

I am in a difficulty about this matter. It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that there is some illegality in this case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, and he is suggesting to the House that it would be most unfortunate to upset all the present arrangements because of this illegality. I, at least, cannot accept that suggestion unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared also to put forward some suggestion for remedying the position. If the proposition put forward so ably by my hon. Friend on this side is correct— all the legal authority we have had in the House tonight has supported it, and there has been no evidence to the contrary, and I am prepared to accept that legal advice— I submit that it is up to the Government to suggest some remedy, otherwise we are being asked to allow circumstances, which are obviously not correct, to continue. I think that unless we have some assurance, or some suggestion for remedying it, the matter may become serious.

11.28 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor

The Parliamentary Secretary has replied in a very courteous and apologetic manner, and I certainly have a good deal of sympathy with him, but he did not deal with the point at all. I think he cannot deal with it: I do not think there is any answer to it. He told us how disastrous it would be if these Regulations were annulled tonight, but he did not respond to my suggestion that I should be quite prepared to withdraw this Motion, if he would give an undertaking to introduce a Bill to put the thing in order. That offer still holds. I am quite prepared to give way if he would like to respond to that offer now.

Mr. Hardman indicated dissent.

Sir J. Mellor

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I feel that we must take this to a Division. [Interruption.] Certainly. We owe it to Parliament to see that we, as Members, do not allow shoddy work to go out as a result of statutory authority given by this House to Ministries. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was nothing in Section 100 of the Education Act to forbid regulations being made retrospective. That is quite true, but the whole point is that when regulations are made carry- ing retrospective operation, the parent Statute must convey express authority to that effect. I quoted three passages from the last Debate we had on this question, two of them statements by the Attorney-General and one by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. All of them categorically accepted that proposition, and now the Parliamentary Secretary tells the House tonight that his Ministry, in making these regulations with retrospective operation, may be right or may be wrong. What an attitude for a Ministry to adopt. If they are in doubt as to the legality of their own actions why have they not a Law Officer here to answer the point tonight? I quoted from the Attorney-General's statement, and the Ministry knew perfectly well I should do so. I believe the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were sent out of the way purposely, so that the Parliamentary Secretary could get up and in his own very charming and pleasant way, explain that he is not a lawyer.

The hon. Gentleman talked very apologetically about the extent of the delay. This may or may not have been the cause. I was not interested in that point today. I was not interested in whether the delay amounted to two days or 12 months. I was interested in the question of principle that if there was retrospective operation even to the—

Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western)


Sir J. Mellor

If the hon. Member will wait until I have finished my sentence I shall be very glad to give way. I was calling attention to the fact that if these regulations had retrospective operation even to the extent of only two days they were illegal; that was the point to which I wanted a reply, and I received none.

Mr. Scollan

May I ask the hon. Member if he is still anxious about the principle? It has been in operation since 1925 and surely he should have protested before.

Sir J. Mellor

I thought I made my point clear when I said that this House and the Government now have the advantage of a watchful Opposition. I was not in this House in 1925, and if I had been, I might not have noticed it, being on the Government side. I repeat my offer, because I think it is a very serious question upon which we shall have to divide if we do not get satisfaction. I am prepared to withdraw the Motion if the Parliamentary Secretary will undertake to take steps to give legal validity to these regulations. So far as I can see, the only way in which he could do so would be by introducing a Bill. Will he do that or not?

Mr. Hardman indicated dissent.

Mr. J. Mellon

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head so I am afraid that in due course, after my hon. Friends have spoken, we shall have to divide.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have here a very important constitutional point and a matter of legality. Ought there not to be a Law Officer of the Crown present to give an answer on this very important point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

That is not a point of Order. I have no power to direct that any Minister shall be present.

Mr. Marlowe

On a subsidiary point of Order. Is it possible for the discussion to be postponed until a Law Officer can be present? I am not in the least anxious to raise the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary and I realise that he is not in a position to deal with it. There is, however, an important legal question involved and if a Law Officer were present I should be quite prepared to debate it with him—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

As I have said, I have no power to give such a direction.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) raises what he says is a very important point of law, and he wants the Law Officers here. If it is of such importance, why did he not inform himself of some argument on the law in advance? So far as I know, there is absolutely nothing in the point—

Sir J. Mellor

May I ask the hon. and learned Member whether he has taken the trouble to read the Orders—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston upon Thames)


Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it in Order to continue a Debate of this kind, after the hon. Member who moved the Prayer has made a second speech?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is quite in Order.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The Parliamentary Secretary, in his usual charming and pleasant manner, has frankly confessed to the House that he cannot deal with the points raised by my hon. Friends. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary regards these regulations as of the first importance. They are, manifestly, of great importance in the implementation of the 1944 Act. May I suggest to him that, that being so, he should be the first to feel anxiety when the question of their legality or otherwise is raised, and as he is, unfortunately, deprived of the assistance of the Law Officers, he should take the opportunity tomorrow of consulting them, of getting an opinion as to the legality or otherwise of the regulations, and then, at the earliest possible opportunity, that he should make a statement to the House. If the verdict was that, notwithstanding the apprehensions of my hon. Friends, these regulations are valid, that would relieve the apprehensions of those who regard these regulations as important and are alarmed at the possibility of their being invalid. If the ruling of the Law Officers is that these regulations are invalid, it would be the duty of the Government to introduce a Measure to validate them. I therefore make that suggestion. It would be a more helpful attitude than that which the Parliamentary Secretary has so far adopted of saying merely that he cannot answer points. We appreciate that he cannot, but equally the House is entitled, either tonight or subsequently, to some reassurance as to the validity or otherwise of these vitally important regulations.

In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite who referred to certain regulations of 1925, may I say that those regulations have no more to do with this case than "the flowers that bloom in the spring." These regulations are made under the Act of 1944. It is manifest that their validity or otherwise depends on a correct interpretation of the Act of 1944. As that Act was not in existence when the 1925 regulations were made under some other Act, that point is quite irrelevant. The Parliamentary Secretary has had the opportunity, during this diversion, to consider the suggestion I have made. I appeal to him in the interests not only of the dignity of this House, but also of these important regulations, of which he is the custodian tonight, to ask permission to speak again, and to tell the House he is prepared to take that course.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

We have had a lot of legal obscurity from the other side on this matter. There are only two points here— whether the Minister can make a grant on certain terms, and whether, if he makes a grant, it will be retrospective. The first point is clearly covered by Subsection (3) of Section 100

Division No. 110.] AYES. [11.40 p.m
Baldwin, A. E. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J
Barlow, Sir J. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Studholme, H. G.
Bowen, R. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Byers, LI -Col. F. Neven-Spence, Sir B. Turton, R. H.
Challen, C. Nicholson, G. Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Walker-Smith, D.
Crosthwaite-Eyce, Col O. E Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Hope, Lord J. Scott, Lord W. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hurd, A. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Spence, H. R.
Keeling, E. H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Sir John Mellor and Mr. Mar'owe.
Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Allen, A C. (Bosworth) Deer, G Herbison, Miss M.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) de Freitas, Geoffrey Holman, P.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Delargy, Captain H. J Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Attewell, H. C. Diamond, J. House, G.
Austin, H. L. Dobbie, W. Hoy, J
Bacon, Miss A. Douglas, F. C. R. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Barton, C. Driberg, T. E. N. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Bechervaise, A. E. Dugģdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Bellenger, F. J. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Irving, W. J.
Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Edwards, John (Blackburn) Janner, B.
Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Binns, J. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Blyton, W. R. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Boardman, H. Fairhurst, F. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Bottomley, A. G. Farthing, W. J. Keenan, W.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Key, C. W.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Foster, W. (Wigan) King, E. M.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Freeman, Maj. J (Watford) Lang, G.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Gibbins, J. Lavers, S.
Brown, georģe (Belper) Gibson, C. W. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Gilzean, A. Leonard, W
Champion, A. J. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Levy, B. W.
Clitherow, Dr. R Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Collindridge, F Grenfell, D. R. Lindgren, G. S.
Collins, V. J. Grierson, E. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Colman, Miss G. M Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Logan, D. G
Comyns, Dr. L. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Longden, F.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Lyne, A. W.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R, McEntee, V. La T
Corlett, Dr. J Hannan, W. (Maryhill) McGhee, H. G.
Corvedale, Viscount Hardman, D. R. Mack, J. D.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hastings, Dr. Somerville McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Haworth, J. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

of the Act. Anyone of any intelligence who reads that Subsection will see that, so far as terms of grant are concerned, they are all clearly set out. As regards retrospective provision, if is clear from Subsection (1, a) that the Minister can make a grant for a certain period, and has power to make that period operate even if it is retrospective. It is clear as can be. The other side have done nothing else, in my humble submission, but try to obscure this matter for the purpose of making some capital out of this Debate.

Question put, That the Regulations, dated 13th March, 1946, entitled the Further Education Grant Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 352), a copy of which was presented on 19th March, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 202.

MoKinlay, A. S. Pritt, D. N. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
MoLeavy, F. Proctor, W. T. Thorneycroft, H.
MacMillan, M. K. Ranger, J. Tiffany, S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Rankin, J. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Reid, T. (Swindon) Turner-Samuels, M.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Robens, A. Vernon, Maj, W. F.
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Walkden, E.
Mathers, G. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Warbey, W. N.
Mayhew, C. P Royle, C. Watkins, T. E.
Medland, H. M. Sargood, R. Watson, W. M.
Middleton, Mrs. L. Scollan, T. Weitzman, D.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Scott-Elliot, W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Morley, R. Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S. While, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Wigg, Col. G. E.
Moyle, A. Shurmer, P. Wilkes, Maj. L.
Nally, W. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wilkins, W. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross) Skeffington, A. M. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Skinnard, F. W. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Willis, E.
Noel-Buxton, Lady Smith, T. (Normanton) Wills, Mrs. E. A.
O'Brien, T. Snow, Capt. J. W. Wilson, J. H.
Oldfield, W. H. Steele, T. Wise, Major F. J.
Oliver, G. H. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Woodburn, A.
Palmer, A. M. F. Stokes, R. R. Woods, G. S.
Pargiter G. A. Stross, Dr. B. Yates, V. F.
Paton, J. (Norwich) Swingler, Capt. S. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Pearson, A. Symonds, Maj. A. L. Zilliacus, K.
Peart, Capt. T. F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Perrins, W. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Platts-Mills, J. F. F Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Captain Blenkiosop and Mr. Simmons.
Popplewell, E. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Price, M. P. Thomas, georģe (Cardiff)