§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, in page 28, line 32, to leave out Subsections (2) to (5) and to add:(2) Where the local authority have raised a loan wholly or partly for the purposes of their functions as authorised undertakers, or have advanced money for those purposes out of any consolidated loans fund or mortgage loans pool established by them or out of any other moneys held by them, and, in pursuance of the arrangements in force immediately before the vesting date for the redemption of the loan and the payment of interest thereon or, as the case may be, for the repayment of the advance and the payment of interest thereon, any amounts would, but for this Act, have fallen, on or after the vesting date, to be debited in the accounts of the local authority in their capacity as authorised undertakers, the Central Authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, pay those amounts to the local authority at the times at which, but for this Act, those amounts would have fallen to be debited in the accounts of the local authority in their capacity aforesaid.(3) Where the local authority have before the vesting date made arrangements for the making of financial adjustments, as between the accounts of the local authority in their capacity as authorised undertakers and any other account of the local authority, in respect of any other transaction or matter affecting both their functions as authorised undertakers and other functions of the authority, and in pursuance of those arrangements any amounts would, but for this Act, have fallen, on or after the vesting date, to be debited or credited in the accounts of the local authority in their capacity as authorised undertakers and credited, or, as the case may be, debited, in some other account of the local authority, the Central Authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, pay those amounts to the local authority or be entitled to receive those amounts from the authority, as the case may be, at the times at which, but for this Act, those amounts would have fallen to be debited or credited in the accounts of the local authority in their capacity aforesaid:Provided that this Subsection shall not apply in relation to any apportionment of establishment charges between the accounts of the local authority in their capacity aforesaid and other accounts of the authority.(4) The Central Authority and the local authority may agree or the Minister of Health may, on the application of either party in default of such agreement, determine that, having regard to the circumstances in which any such arrangements were made and the circumstances arising under this Act, the last foregoing Subsection shall not apply to those arrangements or shall apply thereto with such modifications as to the payments to be made by the Central Authority or the local authority as may be so agreed or determined, and the said Subsection shall have effect subject to any such agreement or determination.551Any other question arising under either of the two last foregoing Subsections as to the payments to be made thereunder shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Minister of Health.(5) Any payment made by the Central Authority or the local authority under the foregoing provisions of this Section which would, but for this Act, have been debited or credited as a capital payment, shall be deemed to be a capital payment, and any other such payment shall be deemed to be an annual payment.This rather formidable looking Amendment is designed to achieve the following purpose. If hon. Members will glance at Clause 19 as it stands, I think they will agree that its provisions, as contained in Subsections (2) to (5) are appropriate only to the cases where local authorities have borrowed from outside. This Amendment is designed to deal with cases in which they have made advances as between their own undertakings, that is to say, if one undertaking of a local authority has advanced to another, or if advances have been made from a central consolidated fund, or from a mortgage loan pool, to the electricity undertaking. Such cases would not be dealt with by the Clause as it stands. What we are here seeking to do, therefore, is to put these internal loans, as I may call them—loans as between another branch of the local authority and its electricity branch—on precisely the same footing as external loans, so as to provide that they shall be serviced in exactly the same way as external loans. We therefore seek to leave out the provisions contained in the present Subsections (2) to (5), which are inappropriate in that they deal only with external loans, and to substitute for them the new Subsections contained in the Amendment, which cover both internal and external loans.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."
§ Mr. R. S. Hudson
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 26.
An earlier Amendment to Clause 13 was described by the Solicitor-General as a drafting Amendment, and I asked why such a very large number of lines were 552 only a drafting Amendment. He explained that Subsection (3) had been taken bodily out of Clause 14 and is later to be placed in Clause 19. He did not tell us that in the process an important proviso had been tacked on, and that is the proviso which we are now seeking to leave out. It reads:Provided that this Subsection shall not apply in relation to any apportionment of establishment charges between the accounts of the local authority in their capacity aforesaid and other accounts of the authority.We should very much like to know what is behind the insertion of the proviso, because I confess that I do not know sufficient about the details of local authority finance to be able to follow all its ramifications, but some members of local authorities are worried about this proviso, because whereas, the new Subsection seemed to give the local authority certain departmental arrangements which would result in extra finance to them, this new Clause provides only one extra source of finance, namely, the establishment charges. These local authorities believe, rightly or wrongly, that the terms depart from the Minister's proposals which will come up under subsequent Clauses to make an ex gratia payment of £5 million. I shall be glad of an explanation. It may be that this proposal merely opens the way for the new Clause, but the point needs to be cleared up. It is so complicated that I will leave it there to hear what explanation the Minister may give, and my other remarks may be more appropriately made when we come to consider one of the Amendments which we have down to the new Clause.
§ The Solicitor-General
I ought to apologise to the Committee for not making reference to that proviso, but frankly it slipped my mind. The object of the proviso is that if the Committee accept the new Clause to pay compensation to the tune of £5 million, the object of the proviso will be to prevent what will be, in effect, double payments to local authorities supposing, for example, in respect of the joint establishment charges, a sum is owed by the Central Authority to the central fund. Compensation in respect of that sum should not be paid both by the British Central Authority by way of servicing and also again as part of the apportionment of the £5 million compensation which is being paid by way of severance. What this actually does is to take out estab- 553 lishment charges from the sphere of Subsection (3)—which, as hon. Members will remember, provides for this cross-accounting, if I may so call it—in order to prevent a payment from being made under Subsection (3) in respect of what is in fact severance, and then another separate payment when the £5 million comes to be allocated to the various local authorities which have suffered loss in consequence of the severance.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. R. S. Hudson
That explanation will perhaps help other Members of the Committee; it has certainly helped me. Do I take it that we are using the two terms "establishment charges" and "severance" to indicate the same thing?
§ The Solicitor-General indicated assent.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ Proposed words there added.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Major P. Roberts
I do not want this Clause to pass without making it quite clear that I, for one, am not satisfied that it gives a square deal to local authorities. I have held this view all along, particularly with regard to Sheffield, which I have the honour to represent. By paying some £5 million the Government would have in Sheffield in some five years' time an asset worth £11 million, and I am not at all satisfied that that is a fair deal. In point of fact, the council there, which has been a Socialist council, has for the last 20 years been paying £500,000 a year towards the reduction of its loan. If they had not done so they would be that amount better off. This principle will no doubt go through, but if local authorities and others follow it as a precedent in future in respect of gas or water, or whatever it may be, it will tend towards extravagance and maladministration. I did not want this Clause to pass without voicing that protest.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I think my hon. and gallant Friend was well justified in the protest he has made, because the new Clause which the Minister is to introduce later on dealing with severance does not go to the root of the complaint which the local authorities have against those pro- 554 visions. What is more, the Association of Municipal Corporations and others have brought it very clearly to our notice, and to that of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they have the strongest objections to the insufficiency of the sum which is being allotted to deal with their problem—and only a portion of their problem at that. The main gravamen of their charge that under this Clause publicly-owned undertakings are not receiving a square deal when being taken over by another publicly-owned undertaking still remains. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the municipality of Sheffield where, as he says, a Socialist council was in power. A similar complaint was made by the town council of Glasgow, where again a Socialist authority was in power, and it was thought that for its own compensation alone a sum of £12 million should be allotted, which is more than twice as much as the entire global sum offered to the whole of the local authorities of Great Britain to deal with this problem.
We know the arguments in favour of it, of course. The first is that it has been debated at previous Labour conferences and that resolutions have been come to saying that one public body ought not to be compensated by another public body; secondly, that it is all going into the one pocket anyhow and is public money; and thirdly, that as the ratepayers have been paid already, it would be a mistake for them to be paid twice over.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has been for many years an honoured member of Glasgow town council. If he finds that the submission that Glasgow ought to be paid £12 million is a waste of time, all I can say is that he has forgotten not only his membership of Glasgow town council, but his good Scottish blood. The fact is that we are proposing in a relatively few minutes to deal with and to dismiss this question of the very large sums of money claimed by local councils in Scotland, Yorkshire—
§ Mr. Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to produce more substantial evidence of the request from Glasgow for this £12 million.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I can quote the correspondence which I have had with Glasgow and the debates in the Glasgow authority. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that Glasgow would not be very glad of £12 million?
§ Mr. Carmichael
It is important, because a public statement is being made that Glasgow town council want £12 million. I think I know the facts equally with the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). He says that Glasgow, a Socialist-controlled municipality, is demanding from a Socialist Government £12 million. A statement of that kind should be substantiated in more solid a way than I have yet noticed.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
If it were backed up by other Scottish Members, it would be better than it is. I am fighting a lone hand on behalf of Scotland. Indeed we on this side of the Committee are fighting a lone hand on behalf of all the municipalities, both Conservative and Socialist. I should like to reply briefly to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael). Of course, when the whip has been lightly cracked with the authority of the Government, the demand, which has been vigorously made during the debates in the town council, has not been persisted in. I never heard that it was not unanimously supported, in spirit at least, by all the members that £12 million ought to be paid by the Government. I rest on this, that in addition to demands for specific sums, very large specific sums, which were made during the debates in the local authorities, the Association of Municipal Corporations itself—and this is something which the hon. Member for Bridge-ton will not deny—has communicated with us and with other Members of the House in the most formal manner, saying that they do not regard the sum proposed by the' Government as being in any way adequate as a settlement of their claim.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Then we are at one in saying that, in the opinion of the local authorities of Great Britain as a whole, the sum proposed is grossly inadequate. The exact scale of its inadequacy may be left to subsequent discussion when the hon. Gentleman and I meet outside the Committee. I am not anxious to do it in the Committee. This is the moment at which the Committee is deciding on the taking over of the assets of the local authorities upon what the local authorities themselves consider to be totally inadequate compensation. I have recapitulated very shortly the main arguments why it is said that these sums are inadequate. The contention which is being put forward is fallacious. It is a matter of bookkeeping which ought not to be persisted in. I think I carry hon. Members with me that that is a fair statement of the claim. What I consider that hon. and right hon. Members on that side of the Committee have not fully realised is that the great authorities have produced a sort of entity or corporate body of their own. They are not now merely satisfied with considerations of bookkeeping. They now regard themselves as great, real entities which are being destroyed. We shall have more to say about this at a later stage.
These great public enterprises—local government enterprises—which have built up great constructive schemes and under which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee—particularly on the Government benches—learnt the technique of modern business enterprise and business management have acquired a personality all their own. The local authorities feel that the destruction of those corporate bodies—
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I ask the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to appreciate that it is very difficult for me to limit this discussion, which I am trying to do, if I am to be led away into what might be called a rough and tumble across the Floor with the Communist Party. I am in no way unwilling to 557 embark on that but it would take time. Since both of us are Scotsmen, it would take a long time. Let us pass over it. The English ar quietly waiting until these discussions are passed.
The great local authorities consider that on this they are not having a square deal and that new psychological considerations have arisen which are not being taken into account by the Government of the day. This is merely one example of the Government, working on an arithmetical basis, totally failing to grasp and solve the real problems with which they will find themselves increasingly confronted when they press forward along the path which they have set themselves.
§ Several Hon Members rose—
§ The Chairman
As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a new Clause on this matter which has, indeed, already been discussed upstairs.
§ Mr. R. S. Hudson
May I respectfully point out to you, Major Milner, that this Clause has not been discussed at all in the earlier stages. We have had no discussion on local authority compensation—
§ Mr. Hudson
—so far during the Report stage, because obviously this was the appropriate stage at which to discuss it. It is quite true, as you indicated, Major Milner, that there is a subsequent new Clause, but that Clause is of a very limited character and only deals with the allocation of the £5 million sterling. It does not deal with the major point of this Clause, which is to enable the Government to take over all the assets of the local authorities, merely paying them for the amount of their outstanding loans. With great respect, I suggest that as this Bill consists of two parts, one taking over private companies and the other taking over local authorities, it is reasonable that we should raise our voices here on behalf of the local authorities whose voices have in this matter been so very largely suppressed.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Birch
I shall speak for only one moment to put our point of view. When 558 my right hon. and gallant Friend the Memberfor the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was speaking, he became rather entangled on the subject of Glasgow. Glasgow has a Socialist majority. Socialist majorities have responded against the interests of their towns to the crack of the Socialist whip, and whatever they may have thought, they have not seen lit generally to oppose the Bill. However, many local authorities have passed resolutions and forwarded them to the Ministry of Fuel and Power protesting against the way they have been treated. At least two have done it in my own constituency, and there is no doubt that many municipalities are suffering great financial loss. This procedure puts a premium on the improvident and the whole of Government legislation is tending to do that. We want to register our protest at the way the improvident have been treated, and at the way Socialist town councils are neglecting their duty to their constituents.
§ Colonel Clarke
I support what has been said regarding the losses that municipalities, particularly among local authorities, are suffering under the proposed provisions of this Bill. I saw some figures the other day regarding the 365 odd municipal undertakings. Out of 69 of them taken at random, 42 per cent. were losing half their assets; 35 per cent, were losing two-thirds of their assets; 10 per cent., three-quarters of the assets; 11 per cent., more than three-quarters of their assets without compensation. It is appalling. I want to emphasise again what has been said by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch), that the municipality run on sound financial lines is prejudiced in this case; that is to say, the municipality reducing its debt year by year will now be penalised compared with the one which is less provident.
§ Mr. R. S. Hudson
I would not have intervened, Major Milner, but for the interjection of the Minister, who seemed to indicate that he thought, because the question had been raised upstairs, there was no reason for raising it down here. If he will cast his mind back to what happened upstairs he will remember that in answer to suggestions by us that local authorities objected to this confiscation of their local electricity undertakings, the right hon. Gentleman said that the bodies 559 which spoke for the municipalities had raised no objection. Quite frankly, at the time it seemed to be a very strong argument, which I was not in a position to rebut, but I made certain inquiries subsequently and I found that on the occasion the vote regarding matters of this sort had been taken, it was on a purely party line, and that representatives of Socialist controlled municipalities had voted down representatives of Conservative municipalities who wanted to protest.
It is quite clear, in fact, that a number of authorities especially, as my hon. Friend behind me said, the more provident—in which I include my own constituency of Southport—will be penalised for the benefit of the Treasury compared with those who have been spendthrift. I gave the figures for Southport upstairs but, for the benefit of hon. Members who have not heard it down here, not only are the Government taking over the electrical undertaking of Southport, but they are also taking over the reserve fund. As it so happens, the reserve fund amounts almost exactly to the outstanding debt— £146,000 debt and £134,000 reserve fund. The net result of that is that the Government and the new central authority are taking over the Southport Corporation electricity undertaking for nothing.
Does anyone seriously suggest that anyone who has the interest of the ratepayers or the electricity consumers in Southport at heart is going to be pleased at the idea that this is to happen to an undertaking in which they take a great pride, and which has been built up over a series of years? Of course they are not. In the course of the next year or two, when it begins to dawn on local ratepayers and electricity consumers in towns which have the misfortune to have a Socialist majority what the Socialist Government have done, they are going to find this out to their cost. The time is coming when they will realise it, and it is intolerable that hon. Members should
§ think that there is no call for discussion of a Clause which is doing for municipalities what a Clause we discussed earlier does for public companies—depriving them of compensation except to a totally inadequate extent.
§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)
I wish to disclose at once that I have an interest in an electricity undertaking. The reason why I have not previously taken part in the Debate is because of my association with an electricity undertaking. This is a very important matter affecting the ratepayers of this country. It is planting upon them a measure of compensation which is wholly inadequate to the amount expened by the ratepayers in the organisation of electricity undertakings. In Birmingham we have one of the most successful electricity undertakings in the country and I challange hon. Members opposite who represent other constituencies in Birmingham to say that they are prepared to put an additional three shillings of four shillings on the rates by this means. I ask them to say how this figure has been arrived at. Was there consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations, or with anyone competent to advise the Government on how this sum of £5 million has been fixed? I suggest this sum of £5 million to compensate municipal authorities for the amount they have expended in developing municipal undertakings is a travesty of fair play and fair dealing. This Clause should not be embodied in the Bill. The whole of this Bill is calculated from one stage to another to sacrifice the interest of this country for the development of an ideology introduced by His Majesty's Government for the first time in deplorable circumstances.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 99.563
|Division No. 286.||AYES.||[9.54 p.m.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Ayles, W. H.||Benson, G|
|Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)||Ayrton Gould, Mrs B||Berry, H.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Bacon, Miss A||Beswick, F.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Baird, J.||Bing, G. H. C|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Balfour, A||Binns, J|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven||Barstow, P. G.||Blenkinsop, A.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Battley, J. R.||Blyton, W. R.|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)||Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W|
|Awbery, S. S.||Bechervaise. A. E||Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)||Hobson, C. R.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Braddock, T. (Milcham)||Holman, P.||Pryde, D. J.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Horse, G.||Randall, H. E|
|Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)||Hoy, J.||Ranger, J.|
|Brown, T J. (Ince)||Hubbard, T.||Reid T. (Swindon)|
|Buchanan, G.||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Rhodes, H.|
|Burke, W. A.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.|
|Carmichael, James||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Champion, A. J.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Chater, D.||Irving, W. J.||Rogers, G..H. R.|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Janner, B.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)|
|Cobb, F. A.||Jay, D P. T.||Royle, C.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Sargood, R.|
|Collindridge, F.||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Scollan, T.|
|Collins, V. J.||Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)||Segal, Dr. S.|
|Caiman, Miss G. M.||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Shackleton, E. A. A|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Sharp, Granville|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Corvedale, Viscount||Keenan, W.||Shinwell Rt. Hon E|
|Cove, W. G.||King, E. M.||Shurmer, P|
|Crawley, A.||Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Daggar, G.||Kinley, J.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Daines, P.||Kirby, B. V.||Skefington, A, M.|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Kirkwood, D.||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Lang, G. Lavers, S.||Skinnard, F W.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Leonard, W||Smith, S. H. (Hull S. W.)|
|Davies, S. O (Merthyr)||Leslie, J R,||Solley, L. J.|
|Deer, G.||Lindgren, G S||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Logan, D. G||Soskice, Maj. Sir|
|Diamond, J.||Longden, F.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Dodds, N N||Lyne, A. W.||Stamford, W|
|Donovan, T.||McAdam, W.||Steele, T.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||McEntee, V. La T.||Stephen, C.|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||McGhee, H G||Stewart, Michael (fulham, E.)|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||Mack, J. D.||Stross, Dr. B.|
|Durbin, E. F. M||McKay, J (Wallsend)||Stubbs. A E.|
|Edelman, M.||McKinlay, A. S.||Sylvester, G. 0.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Maclean, N (Govan)||Symonds, A. L.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||McLeavy, F||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)|
|Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Ewart, R.||Mallalieu, J. P. W||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Fairhurst, F||Mann, Mrs. J.||Thomas. George (Cardiff)|
|Farthing, W. J||Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Marquand, H. A.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Field, Capt. W J||Mathers, G||Tiffany, S.|
|Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E.)||Medland, H. M||Timmons, J.|
|Follick, M.||Mellish, R. J.||Titterington, M. F|
|Foot, M M.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Tolley, L.|
|Forman, J. C.||Mikardo, Ian||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G|
|Freeman, Maj. J, (Watford)||Millington Wing-Comdr E. R||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Gaitskell, H. T. N||Mitchison, G. R||Ungoed-Thomas, L|
|Gallacher, W.||Monslow, W.||Vernon, Maj W. F.|
|Ganley, Mrs C. S||Moody, A. S||Viant, S. P.|
|Gibbins, J.||Morgan, Dr H. B.||Walkden, E.|
|Gibson, C. W||Morley, R.||Walker, G. H.|
|Giizean, A.||Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C)||Wallace, G. D, (Chislehurst)|
|Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Mulvey, A.||Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Goodrich, H. E.||Murray, J. D||Watkins, T. E.|
|Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Nally, W.||Watson, W M.|
|Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)||Neal, H (Claycross)||Webb, M. 'Bradford C.)|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Weitzman, D|
|Crey, C. F.||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||West, D. G.|
|Grierson, E.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F, E. (Brentford)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J (Derby)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Wigg, Col, G. E.|
|Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)||Oldfield, W. H.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Oliver, G. H||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Gunter, R J.||Orbach, M||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Guy, W. H||Paget, R T.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Hale, Leslie||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Williams, W R. (Heston)|
|Hall, W. G.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Willis, E.|
|Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Palmer, A. M. F||Wills. Mrs. E.A|
|Hannan, W (Maryhill)||Pargiter, G. A||Woodburn, A|
|Hardy, E. A.||Parker, J.||Wyatt, W.|
|Harrison, J.||Parkin, B T||Yates, V. F|
|Hastings, Dr Somerville||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Haworth, J||Pearson, A.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Henderson, A (Kingswinford)||Peart, Thomas F.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell|
|Hewitson, Capt. M||Price, M. Philips|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Hannoh, Sir p. (Moseley)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R||Haughton, S. G.||Orr-Ewnig, l. L.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir C||Osborne, C.|
|Baldwin, A, E.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Bennett, Sir P,||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Pickthorn, K|
|Birch, Nigel||Hollis, M. C.||Ponsanby, Col. C. E.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells;||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)||Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hurd, A.||Prescott, Stanley|
|Bower, N.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hutchison, Col. J. Ft (Glasgow, C.)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Jarvis, Sir J||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Keeling, E. H.||Roberts, Maj. P. G (Ecclesall)|
|Challen, C.||Lambert, Hon. G||Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Lancaster, Col. C. G||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Langford-Holt, J.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Crowder, Capt. John E||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Scott, Lord W.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Lipson, D L.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Spearman, A. C. M|
|Digby, S. W||MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.||Spence, H. R.|
|Codds-Parker, A. D||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Stanley, Rt Hon. C|
|Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W.||Maclay, Hon J. S.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Dower, Lt.-Col A. V. G. (Penrith)||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Dower, E. L. G (Caithness)||Maitland, Comdr. J W.||Thornton-Kemsley C. N|
|Drayson, G. B.||Marples, A. E.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F|
|Drewe, C.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Marshall, S. H (Sutton)||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Foster, J. G (Northwich)||Mellor, Sir J.||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)||Molson, A. H E.||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D P M||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Gage, C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S (Cirencester)||York, C.|
|George, Maj. Rt. Hn G Lloyd (P'ke)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.|
|Grant, Lady||Neven-Spence, Sir B||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gridley, Sir A||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Mr. Studholme and Majo Conant.|
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.