HC Deb 31 January 1947 vol 432 cc1276-89
Brigadier Mackeson (Hythe)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert: Provided Mat, in the account showing the manner in which the last of the sums received by the Government of Malta, under this Act, has been expended, the Government of Malta shall show the amount (if any) of the expenses still to be incurred for the purposes of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act.", I think it was obvious during the Second Reading that there was some concern on the question of separating war damage and expenses in respect of war damage from other works in connection with the rehabilitation of Malta. It is certainly not easy to amend this Bill without producing an Amendment which could be construed as a wrecking Amendment designed to stop the Vote of £20 million. That, of course, is not the intention of any hon. Member on these benches. The fact remains, as my right hon. Friend said that, in regard to war damage and expenses in respect of war damage, we on these Benches consider—and it is the unanimous opinion of the people of Malta —that this country stands pledged. The effect of this Amendment will be that money expended under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1 (1) will be kept in a separate account, and when the final account is rendered to the Committee we shall see separately what money has been spent in making good war damage, making payments in respect of war damage, and carrying out other works incidental to making good war damage. That will exclude money paid in carrying out works in connection with general reconstruction and planning. I believe that this Amendment, will, if accepted, save the right hon. Gentleman—for whom I, personally, have some sympathy—a good deal of embarrassment and criticism in this country and in Malta. I cannot imagine that the Government would not desire to keep these costs separate. Therefore, in the earnest and sincere belief that this is a constructive Amendment, I beg to move.

Mr. Gammans (Hornsey)

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises why we have put down this Amendment. Quite frankly, it is to try to smoke him out, and to see whether or not he cannot, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, give some assurance beyond that which he was able to give last week; namely, that the pledge given by this country to Malta during the war will be honoured in the letter and in the spirit. If he is prepared to accept this Amendment I think it means, at any rate so far as we are concerned, that the Government are prepared to separate the various headings of expenditure. In, that way the Committee will know whether the pledge given to Malta to repair the war damage will be fulfilled or not. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept this Amendment, then it seems to me that it means we are fixing the United Kingdom contribution to the repair of war damage in Malta without knowing two of the most vital factors. We will not know, and cannot know, what will be the cost of the repairs, some of which will not be finished as the right hon. Gentleman said, for the next 15 years. We are also trying to predict in advance what will be the revenue of Malta, and, above all, the surplus of revenue of Malta during the whole of that period.

11.15 a.m.

The very last speech made by a Member of the Government to the Committee last night was to the effect that the Government could not be expected to know what they would get from one single item of taxation for the next five years. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest the Government know what will be the value of the pound and the cost of repairs for 15 years? Does he suggest they can predict what will be the revenue of Malta for the whole of that period? If he is capable of doing that, I suggest he is completely wasted in his present job; he would certainly make a very fine living as an astrologer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept this Amendment in the letter and in the spirit in which we put it down. We would like this Bill to go through the Committee with the unanimous support of all parties. If he can accept the Amendment, or can give us an assurance, in some other way that the pledge will be honoured, we will be prepared to support the Bill.

Mr. Rees-Williams (Croydon, South)

The arguments of hon. Members opposite show that curious division of opinion which is so often found nowadays on the Tory benches. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) said this was a matter purely to assist the Government, and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) said it was an Amendment intended to smoke out the Secretary of State. I do not see how they can have it both ways; they can have one or the other.

Mr. Stanley

Is it not possible that smoking out the Secretary of State might be of great assistance to the Government?

Mr. Rees-Williams

The right hon. Gentleman knows more, I think, about the killing of rats than I. In my boyhood, when I used to indulge in smoking out rats, I never found that the process was regarded as being helpful to the rats. Therefore, the analogy which is being employed —namely, mat the Secretary of State is a rat, which I do not accept for a moment —cannot be regarded by the hon. Member for Hornsey—he used the analogy, not I— as being helpful. He cannot have it both ways. What is the object of this Amendment? The object of it, surely, is to keep alive in the minds of the people of Malta the hope that we will pay more money than that which is proposed under this Bill. That is the object of it, otherwise it has no point.

Mr. Gammans

Or less.

Mr. Rees-Williams

If there is less, I should have thought that was the last thing the people of Malta wanted. What we are, in fact, saying to the people of Malta is, "We will give you this sum now, and it is for you to administer it, in the most economical way possible." If the possibility that the people of Malta will get more money from the British Government is kept alive, then there is no inducement to the Government of Malta to be economical in the management of this fund. We have always been told by hon. Members opposite that we must economise, and that taxation must be reduced. I heartily subscribe to that opinion. But I cannot believe the Amendment would be in the best interests, either of this country or of Malta.

Mr. Gammans

Does not the hon. Member realise that what may happen in Malta is what the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said last week, namely, that the cost of repairs and the cost of living may fall? If that is so, and we fix an arbitrary sum now, we may be paying too much.

Mr. Rees-Williams

Then that is all right, Malta gets the benefit. I guarantee that it is within human knowledge that.

if you have to administer a fund and you know perfectly well that you can get more when that fund is exhausted, there is no inducement to be economical in the administration of the fund. I think the party opposite are doing a great injury to the people and Government of Malta in not placing the responsibility firmly on their shoulders for the administration of this fund. After all, the sum proposed is £3 million more, as regards war damage, than is estimated to be the cost of making good that war damage; there is, therefore, that leeway for the Government of Malta to play with. In the progressive movement towards self-government in our Colonies we must see that they have full responsibility for their financial affairs, and there will be no financial responsibility, and no real understanding of what self-government means, if they feel that there is a Mother Hubbard at home whose cupboard is some what bare, but not entirely so, and from whose larder they can get a few bones when their own is empty.

Mr. Dodds-Parker (Banbury)

I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but apart from the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) in his personal reference to the Colonial Secretary—in which I for one will not intervene between him and one of the leaders of his party—there is this question of the pledge given some four years ago. Surely it is quite clear that this House, of which I was not then a Member, did give a pledge that war damage would be made good, as is set out in Clause I, paragraphs (a), (b)and (c). It is the introduction of paragraph (b)into this Bill which seems to some of us on this side to confuse war damage with certain plans for reconstruction of which we heartily approve. All we want to do is to make clear that these two should be kept apart, and when the final accounting is reached we may find that the sum to cover war damage is more or possibly less than the £20 million now proposed. I think it is only fair to the people of Malta to repeat what they stressed to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) when he was there recently: they do not regard the taxpayers of this country as a milch cow; they want to have the pledge made good, but they do not want to regard Britain as a country from which they can go on drawing for some indefinite period to keep them going. I support this Amendment with all the vigour I can.

Mr. Creech Jones

I regret that it is impossible to accept this Amendment. It was the intention of the Government that the £20million should be a final payment so far as their promise was concerned, and, in the view of the Government, they are faithfully fulfilling the pledge which was given. These payments may be made in two ways; they can be made either by instalments, which obviously would impose restraints on the Maltese Government and their realisation of responsibility, or alternatively they can be made in the manner set out in this Bill. We are anxious that the Malta Government should assume genuine responsibility in regard to its own affairs, and when the Bill was drafted we had it in mind that Malta was now entering upon a phase of responsible Government and that it must assume some responsibility for its own affairs in regard to reconstruction, planning and making good war damage. The purpose set out in the Bill is that payments should be made annually based on estimates by the Government of Malta of the amounts likely to be required in each year, the Government of Malta providing annual accounts of the application of the money, to be laid before Parliament. That really was to safeguard the British taxpayers, and see that the money they voted was being used for the purposes set out in this Bill.

Obviously, if all restraints are released, if one said to the Maltese Government that they might plunge and spend and in the long run the British taxpayers would foot the bill, that would not encourage either economic expenditure or responsibility in Malta itself. Accordingly, we desire that the Bill should go forward as drafted, and that this should be regarded as a final payment so that there may be exercised by the Malta Government a due sense of responsibility in regard to the reparation of war damage and the other social schemes upon which they hope to embark over the next few years.

If I may, I want to remind the House of the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he spoke on 24th January on this point. He said: No one can bind a future Government …that does not mean that if it were right, proper and just for a further allocation to be made, the allocation should not be made. It will be for the Government of the moment to decide when that moment comes, and we cannot legislate now for the hypothetical considerations which might arise.…To hold out the hope that they can keep coming back, and that this £10 million, which is, I think, generous, is not a final payment but only a bit on account, would be a disservice to them and to the people of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th Jan. 1947; vol. 432, c. 539.] In view of that statement I think the Opposition's point is very largely met. We feel that it is important that this development work should be carefully planed by the Maltese Government, and that they should not feel that, however extravagantly they may spend, however careless they may be in their planning, there is always the British Exchequer to meet any deficit in the long run. I think the House must agree, particularly in the light of our own finances, that this is a wise and prudent course for the Government to take, and it is for those reasons that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Stanley

I am extremely disappointed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept the extremely modest Amendent we have moved. I had hoped that he would have been in a softened or indeed chastened mood after the violent attack made upon him by an hon. Gentleman who up to now has proved in all circumstances his most faithful and indeed very often his solitary supporter. In the last Debate I compared the hon. Gentleman with Sancho Panzo—

Mr. Rees-Williams

rose—

Mr. Stanley

May I just finish, so that the hon. Gentleman may reply to everything at the same time? I shall have to withdraw now, I am afraid, what was meant to be an extremely complimentary epithet, because I must say that I am sure that a loyal squire would never have compared his knight to a rodent.

Mr. Rees-Williams

It has been apparent in these Debates that it is only on occasions when the right hon. Gentleman and I do not agree that I am compared to the faithful squire, whereas on the occasions when we do agree I am then the man of sound and independent mind, whose opinion the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State ought to follow. I think the Committee ought to know that.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Stanley

Certainly, if ever the hon. Member does agree with me, I shall regard him as a man with a sound and independent mind, but those occasions, if ever, are rare. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no argument for the refusal of this Amendment. He reiterated what he said on the last occasion, with equal sincerity, I am sure, but with equal fallacy. With this Bill, the Government are fulfilling their pledge to Malta, and all this Amendment asks is that the country shall be able to ascertain over the course of years whether the statement he is now making is true or not. The effect of refusing this Amendment is to prevent the public and this House, or any subsequent Government, finding out whether, in fact, that pledge has been fulfilled. If he is certain that the pledge is to be fulfilled, why is he so frightened of a purely accounting arrangement, which will enable people to judge whether that prophecy is true or not? It is merely confusing the issue when the right hon. Gentleman repeats his words about the bad effect upon responsible government if the Maltese know that the British taxpayers are to foot the bill. When he says that, he is surely forgetful, as regards the payment of war damage, that we made the pledge that the British taxpayers would foot the bill.

Looking back, it may be that we were mistaken, and that the pledge should have been couched in a form which laid down that the British taxpayers should pay £28,500,000 towards meeting that bill, but the pledge was, in fact, given by a Government in which all parties were represented, and it was accepted by the House, and was to the effect that the British taxpayers would foot the bill. Therefore, however convenient it might be to have a different method, it is a contravention of the pledge. We made it perfectly plain in the last Debate that with regard to the subject matter for which no pledge was given, that is, reconstruction as opposed to repairs, we are entirely on the side of the right hon. Gentleman in wanting a final figure fixed. As we said before, we feel that the difficulty has arisen in this Bill because the Government have tried to treat these two wholly different factors in the Maltese problem on exactly the same footing. We must therefore press this Amendment, which will enable the public in Malta and this country to judge whether the right hon. Gentleman's boast that he has fulfilled the pledge is accurate or not.

Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western)

I had no intention of intervening in this discussion until after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The mover of the Amendment put forward his point of view in a very reasonable fashion, and I have not the slightest doubt that the sympathy of many Members on this side of the Committee was with him, but when Don Quixote jumped on his smoking Rosinante and started to charge my right hon. Friend, that introduced a new aspect into the Debate. The Committee will remember that when the Bill was introduced, a total figure of £33 million was mentioned, and that £10 million was in fulfilment of the pledge for restoration of war damage. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am speaking from memory and am liable to correction. That was my impression of what was said. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman, in challenging the Government that the pledge which was given some time ago is not being discharged, is asking us to get down to an actuarial valuation of the whole of the war damage, giving the precise amount not only on 1947 values, but on the values which will obtain in 1948, 1949 and so on.

Mr. Stanley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Scollan

We have to make up our minds whether we are to give them too much, or whether we are to take a chance and give them too little, so that they can come back and ask for more.

Mr. Stanley

The right hon. Gentleman has told the Maltese that it is no good for them to come back for more, because they are not going to get it.

Mr. Scollan

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government may last for only five years, and that the scheme of compensation to be paid will last for many more years, probably extending over 50 years. If another Labour Government were elected, which is almost a certainty, and if the Maltese Government found that the amount was insufficient, there is no reason why they should not come back for more.

Mr. Stanley

Perhaps the hon. Member will get his right hon. Friend to say that.

Mr. Scollan

I want the Maltese people to say that. It is for the Maltese Government to decide. There is no finality about any Act of Parliament, although there is finality on the possibility of a Tory Government ever coming back in this country. As far as the Amendment is concerned, sympathetic consideration might be given to what was said by the mover, but if he wants sympathetic consideration, I would say to him, in the words of the old adage, "For God's sake, save me from my friends."

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I most certainly will not refer too much to the speech of the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). I might have intervened earlier, but for the fact that I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment. Earlier, we accepted his Amendment in sweet reasonableness. At the end of his speech on his Amendment he made a vague allusion, leading me to hope that he would accept this Amendment; even at this late stage we should like the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. Every Member is agreed, I think, on the matter of the pledge, but the reason why we dislike the limited sum is because, to put it mildly, it is left rather vague whether any Government in the future may or may not increase it. The sum of money is to cover the pledge which was given to meet the war damage, and this money cannot be expended for many years, but there is no human being who can tell what the pound will buy in one month's time, or five years time, and for that reason it is inadvisable that we should lay down the amount at this stage. It may well be that the Maltese will gain by it, and that they will have a surplus from this sum of money, in which case we have not, as a Committee, performed our duty to our constituents, which is to see that when we make a pledge, and we pay off the money to cover that pledge, we do not overpay.

On the other hand, if the Maltese are out of pocket on it, then equally we have not looked after the affairs of our constituents, because it is essential that any pledge should be fully paid—not overpaid or underpaid. From everything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and which the Government are saying at the present time, it is quite impossible for us to say what will be the value of this money at any time in the future. In those circumstances, I regret very much— although he may yet do it—that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Amendment, which would have eased the position from the point of view of the Government, the Maltese and the average Member of the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman for Western Renfrew seemed at first to sympathise with the Amendment.

Mr. Scollan

I did not say that. I said that it might receive sympathetic consideration from the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Williams

I will undoubtedly accept that, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman had given study to it from what he said, and had come down on the side of commonsense; so I will withdraw. It is quite obvious from this Debate that there is very considerable sympathy with this Amendment, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it, because it cannot do the Bill any harm, it cannot do the Maltese people anything but good, and it shows that this House is taking a much more vital interest in the finances and the affairs of the Maltese people than if the Bill went through without the Amendment.

Captain Marsden (Chertsey)

I am sure that the Colonial Secretary realises that every word that has been said in this Debate and in previous discussions will be followed with considerable care in Malta, and that every word will probably be reprinted in the "Maltese Chronicle." The people of Malta will remember the promise made by the last Government, that there should be a direct payment of £10 million, plus any payment beyond the capacity of the Maltese to pay. I think that it is taken for granted by all those who spoke on the Government side that the total amount is bound to be beyond the amount which we propose to give to Malta. But that is not necessarily so. It may be below. Considering all the money which we are sending to Malta, and the money which the Admiralty, the Air Ministry, and the War Office have to pay for war damage there, I should have thought that Malta would be one of the most prosperous parts of the British Empire for the next few years, and if they were to put on taxation, especially Income Tax and P.A.Y.E., on the scale which we have it here, Malta might have a considerable surplus.

It is not possible for the Maltese to spend vaguely vast sums as they please, thinking that the British will pay. The damage has already been estimated and gone over. A price has already been fixed, with the proviso that it is impossible to tell with any exactness how much it will cost, but there has been a certain amount of exactness as to what is to be done. That is clear from the report of the hon. Members who went out there for that purpose. I, like many other naval officers, have been in Malta, and we received at the hands of the Maltese tremendous latitude in the matter of credit. In the old days, you could go out there and run up bills. We had very little money, but the Maltese knew that we would come back, years after maybe, and settle our accounts. That was on the word of an officer of His Majesty's Forces. But this-is a Socialist Government. What a pity it would be if we were to lower the standard of our commercial morality which has always stood so high. Even at the present time we are extending legislation-which is rather in the nature of confiscation. At any rate, let us keep our word.

11.45 a.m.

The hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) said that one Government was not necessarily bound to carry out the acts of its predecessors. That is just as well. We shall have enough difficulty is the next Parliament to clear up the damage which has been done by this Parliament. We may regret the rash payments and rash promises made by previous Governments, but we always keep our word. It is the promise made by the last Government which this Government does not propose to carry out, and which this Bill will not carry out, I can see that the Government have made up their minds, but what a pity it is that, when we want to do all we can to ensure that the word of the Government shall stand high, whatever Government is in power, we should come to the position when the word of one Government is not necessarily carried out by the next.

Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington, South)

I must register my protest and my sincere regret that this Bill is going through, and that we are not fulfilling our pledges. It is no use hon. Members opposite saying that the Maltese Government can put forward, at some future time, a further application, when the present Colonial Secretary has already said that this is the final settlement. No one can say that this lump sum which we are now giving—good as it may be—will eventually enable the Maltese to foot the bill for war damage. That is our pledge. That is what the Maltese regard as our pledge today. Surely there is no body of people in the world who took part in the war who are more entitled to the fullest consideration of this Government for the part which they played. I regret this very much, because it is essential that this great country, when it gives its word and when it pledges itself to a certain act, should carry out that pledge to the full, and not act as this Government is doing with regard to Malta. They will lower the prestige of this country—there is not the slightest doubt about that. It may be that the Government are too fond of giving pledges, and when the times comes, if it is not convenient, of not meeting the pledges in full. That is very bad. The prestige of this country has gone down. The honour of this country is at stake, and I most sincerely regret the action of the Government in not meeting their pledge to the full.

Mr. Creech Jones

A number of statements have been made with regard to the Government not fulfilling their pledge. I fear that the hon. Members who have made these charges have not read the pledge which His Majesty's Government made in 1942. The pledge did not say that the British Government would meet all the cost of war damage. What it did say was that we would make a free gift of £10 million, and we added that if the total liability of the Malta Government for compensation to rebuild, after allowing for contributions from private owners, exceeded the sum of £10 million, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to make available such further sums as might be required to meet the liabilities which are found in the circumstances as existing after the war to be beyond the capacity of the Government of Malta to

meet from their own resources, having regard to all the other calls on those resources at that time. That was the condition, and what His Majesty's Government are asking at the moment is that the Malta Government should fulfil its side of the obligation, that it should tax its own people directly and that it should plan with some responsibility. For that purpose the Government undertake to make available a further £20 million.

The British Government are making available sums to the tune of more than £33 million of money and the estimate, as far as war damage is concerned, when prices were at their highest point, was in the neighbourhood of £28,800,000. Therefore, there is a fairly good margin in the event of prices soaring very much higher than they are at the present time. Further, in this contribution we still find the estimates which have been furnished, but if we want responsible government in Malta the only way to achieve it is to say to the Maltese, "We are prepared to assist you, but it is your responsibility to plan economically with a sense of responsibility, and you should exploit your own taxable resources in order to build up the life of your country". That is the view which His Majesty's Government take. We are not violating any pledge whatever; we are fulfilling our pledge to the letter, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, if in the distant future it should ever happen that there is some situation which the Maltese themselves cannot overcome, then His Majesty's Government of that day—and it is a purely hypothetical situation—will be prepared to think again. For the moment there must be a finality in regard to payments in order to create a sense of responsibility in Malta. I reiterate again that this is complete fulfilment of the Government's pledge in 1942.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 107.

Division No. 66.] AYES. [11.54 a.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Gammans, L. D.
Beechman, N. A. Cooper-Key, E. M. Grant, Lady
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Grimston, R. V.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Carson, E Drewe, C. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Challan, C. Duthie, W. S. Head, Brig. A. H.
Headlam, Lieut-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C. Manningt am-Buller, R. E. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Hogg, Hon. Q. Marsden, Capt. A. Teeling, William
Hollis, M. C. Mellor, Sir J. Walker-Smith, D.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Nicholson, G. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Williams, C. (Torquay)
Lipson, D, L. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Low, Brig. A. R. W. Pitman, I. J. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Lyttellon, Rt. Hon. O. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Smithers, Sir W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and
Maitland, Comdr. J. W Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) Major Ramsay.
NOES.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Farthing, W. J Paton, J. (Norwich)
Alpass, J. H. Field, Capt. W. J. Pearson, A.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Freeman, Mai. J. (Watford) Peart, Capt. T. F.
Austin, H. Lewis Ganley, Mrs. C. S Piratin, P.
Awbery, S. S. Gibson, C. W. Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Bacon, Miss A Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Popplewell, E.
Barton, C. Grenfell, D. R. Randall, H. E.
Battley, J. R Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Rees-Williams, D. R
Berry, H. Gunter, R. J. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Beswick, F. Hale, Leslie Rhodes, H.
Bing, G. H. C. Hall, W. G. Ridealgh, Mrs. M,
Boardman, H. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R Royle, C.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Hubbard, T. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Simmons, C. J.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.) Skefnngton-Lodge, T. C
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Champion, A. J Janner, B. Sparks, J. A.
Clitherow, Dr. R. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) Stubbs, A. E.
Cooks, F. S. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Swingler, S.
Collindridge, F. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Symonds, A. L.
Colman, Miss G. M Kenyon, C. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Corvedale, Viscount Kirby, B. V. Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)
Crossman, R. H. S Longdon, F. Tiffany, S.
Daggar, G. McAdam, W. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Daines, P. McKay, J (Wallsend) Turner-Samuels, M.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Mallalieu. J. F. W Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Diamond, J Mikardo, Ian Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Dobbie, W. Montague, F. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Dodds, N. N. Moody, A. S Wise, Major F. J
Driberg, T. E. N. Morley, R. Woodburn, A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn) Moyle, A. Yates, V. F.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Neal, H. (Claycross) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Noel-Buxton, Lady TELLERS FOR THE NOES :
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Fairhurst, F. Palmer, A. M. F. Mr. Coldrick.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.