HC Deb 30 May 1949 vol 465 cc1794-807
Mr. Hare

I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out Clause 8.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have been forced to this action because of what we considered the unreasonable attitude adopted by the Minister when the question of the sale of furniture by local authorities was discussed in Standing Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, during the Second Reading Debate we took the view that as long as proper financial safeguards were taken by local authorities to see that, if they went into this sort of business, they were in fact self-supporting, and that there would be no loss, private enterprise traders, with all their experience, and so on, could compete efficiently under those terms, and we raised no objection.

In Standing Committee we asked the Minister, in the first place, to impose the period of one year as being the time by which a local authority should be able, having started its business, to run it on a profitable basis. When the Minister felt that he was not able to agree to that suggestion—he thought that a year was too short a period—we said that we were quite willing to extend the period, if necessary, to two or three years. Once again the Minister refused to define what he considered a reasonable time during which a local authority should learn the business of selling furniture.

My hon. Friends would be perfectly willing to withdraw this Amendment if the Minister were now prepared to state a definite time in which he considered a local authority should be allowed to conduct this sort of business at a loss. We are left with the impression that the Minister is intentionally leaving this matter vague in order that local authorities may be able to continue from year to year to run a highly technical business at a loss without any sanction falling on them from his Ministry or Parliament that their accounts should be properly balanced. We think it is wrong that such trading should be carried out at the expense of the ratepayers of a particular local authority. In Standing Committee, the Minister suggested that it was likely he would issue a circular indicating in broad outline, that he wished that the accounts of a local authority who took up the selling of furniture should be properly balanced, and that the business should be self-supporting.

Just imagine the unfairness of allowing a local authority to continue to run a business at a loss for an unspecified period of years while, during that time, it is probably making bankrupt, unsubsidised private enterprise businesses in the same locality. That cannot be just, and it is because we feel that we must, in justice to the private trader who has no blank cheque on the local rates, insist that in this Bill a definite term of years is inserted by which it will be necessary for a local authority to publish its funds and to show that it is conducting its business on a sound and economic basis.

It is only right, in speaking in this connection, that we should make it clear that the furniture business is not something which can be run by amateurs. It is a business which has grown up in the last few years into a vast complicated organisation where the public, owing to the efforts and the ingenuity of the various firms in that industry, are allowed a wide and varied choice of furniture from which to select. It is an industry which has a selling organisation able to cope with the considerable difficulties of storage, and so on; it is a business allowing various terms of credit, and one which must require good management of a technical sort.

All those are difficulties which will have to be faced by a local authority if it takes advantage of the provisions which the Minister has provided under this Clause. Because of those difficulties, the Minister may say that he is prepared to give them six, seven or eight years in which to learn the business which is at present being run by private enterprise. I do not think that the House of Commons should take that attitude; it is not playing fair with the private enterprise concerns. I do not think it right, that for six, seven or eight years the ratepayers should pay out of the general rate considerable losses in order that a certain department within a local authority may learn how to run the furniture business. That is something on which it is in no way justifiable that public money should be spent.

As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to give us in terms of years what he considers a reasonable time during which a local authority should be allowed to make mistakes. He dismissed, in his usual picturesque and charming fashion, our suggestion of one year. He said that we were being too rigid by sticking to the seasons of the year, and that he wished to have some different method. I do not know whether he intends to alter the whole of the accounting methods of this country. He is full of energy and perhaps he has some valuable contributions to make on that score, but I suggest that without some guarantee from the Minister that local authorities who take up this right to sell furniture to people in their area will be set some sort of time limit within which to run their business efficiently, we have no right to give them a blank cheque on the rates with which to pay for their losses. Unless we get that assurance I am certain that my hon. Friends will have no hesitation in pressing this Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am concerned at the danger to the small trader of the continued invasion by municipal authorities on his rights and privileges as a citizen. In the past the small traders have made a valuable contribution to every phase of our social life, and it is a great blunder in statesmanship on the part of the Minister in trying more and more to permeate the organisation of business by introducing municipal trading on every conceivable occasion. The local authorities are invited to become manufacturers and salesmen of furniture for the equipment of houses built by local authorities. That means the dislocation of a very important and highly technical business which, so far, has been carried on with increasing vigour and success by private manufacturers and distributors of furniture. Notwithstanding his many commendable eccentricities, the right hon. Gentleman still has the quality of common sense, and I beg him not to inflict a further disability on this trading community.

Mr. Bevan

I have been highly amused listening to the two hon. Members. I was very interested to see how they would get themselves out of the very obvious embarrassment which has almost overwhelmed them. Perhaps it is not true to say that about the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), because it was perfectly clear what he wanted to do. What he wanted to do was to prevent the local authorities from selling furniture to the tenants; whereas the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), having been on the Committee, knew his position was much more difficult than that. He had to find an excuse to refuse local authorities the power to sell furniture.

What has happened is that the Opposition have got themselves into trouble with the Property Owners Protection Society. They have not been sufficiently vigilant on the Committee, and when the hon. Member said, "We are forced to take this stand," I agree; I am sure they are forced to take it. It is a most embarrassing situation for them. If hon. Members will look at the proceedings on Second Reading, they will realise what a delightful and ironic difficulty the Opposition are now in. I said: The existing law enables a local authority to hire out furniture but not to sell it. I am quite sure that I shall have the Opposition with me here when I say that it ought to be possible for the local authorities to enable the tenants to become possessors of the furniture. This is my contribution towards a property-owning democracy. I am sure that I shall have the enthusiastic support of the Opposition in enabling the public authority to sell furniture. Then the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said: The right hon. Gentleman is learning. Come along. Well, I came along. Then I said. I am indeed glad to have this enthusiastic support for substitution for private enterprise in the sale of furniture. I hope that the Opposition will not succumb to any Lobby pressure from any source whatever in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2127–8.] I anticipated that perhaps they had allowed themselves to be seduced by my blandishments, and that they would be rebuked by those who are so busy contributing to the party chest of the Opposition, because that is what is really wrong here. They are now suggesting that the reason why they will not agree to the principle is that we have not laid down for the local authority a limitation from which private enterprise is exempt. Nobody on the opposite side of the House will suggest a term of years at the expiry of which a private firm should learn the business of selling furniture. The fact is that it is not possible at the moment to lay down what is the period during which a local authority or any firm shall be asked to decide whether it has, in fact, made a success or a failure of the business.

I should like to tell hon. Members in all quarters of the House that the business of selling furniture is simple compared with the business of hiring furniture. The really complicated thing in the furniture world is hiring furniture, not selling it. It is the simplest business in the world to sell things. All one does is to buy something, stand between that and the customer who wants it and charge a profit. Hiring furniture, on the other hand, is a very complicated business—a very complicated law which involves all kinds of psychological considerations.

The Opposition are leaving alone the complicated business of hiring, but they wish to refuse local authorities the right to sell, because they do not want to alter the existing law. They do not want to enable the persons to whom furniture is hired to become the possessors of that furniture. The reason why they do not want it is because, as the hon. Member for Moseley said, it would be competing with private enterprise and preventing them from making a profit. That is a very simple, crude and understandable attitude, but the hon. Member did not realise the difficulties of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment.

It really is not good enough for the Opposition to take this line at this late stage. I know they will take it because they are compelled to take it, but they must now take it in the light of day so that everybody can see what they are doing.

Sir P. Hannon

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but in my view it is far more important from the point of view of the ratepayers of Birmingham to sell at a small profit than to be taxed for losses made by the local authority.

Mr. Bevan

I am coming to the question of loss in a moment. This is not a duty imposed upon local authorities; it is permissive. A local authority can do it, or it need not do it. The Opposition are taking steps to see, so far as they possibly can, that some of the local authorities are so composed that they will not want to do it. If the local authority makes a loss the ratepayers will know all about it. The accounts are published and the councillors will have to justify themselves to the citizens. That is perfectly reasonable. I agree that it would not be a good thing if over a long period of years the supply of furniture was subsidised from the rates. That would be unreasonable, but it might be reasonable over a short period until the local authority had had long enough to be able to balance its accounts and take the rough with the smooth. This is a matter for the local citizens to decide.

Why must the Opposition always try to deny functions to the local authorities? Why do they not leave the local authorities the power to decide for themselves?

Sir P. Hannon

We do not wish to deny them their legitimate functions.

Mr. Bevan

This is legitimate. Why on earth this insistence on the part of the Opposition that the tenants of council houses should not become the owners of their own chairs, cupboards, tables and other things? I do not understand it. I hope, therefore, that even at this late hour hon. Members opposite will repent and march along as happily as they were before their misfortunes were discovered by their supporters.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I am sure we all welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from an interlude of discussion which, whatever it was, has obviously freshened his power of argument and enlarged his stock of images. Of course, the Minister is in a very embarrassing position. Like ourselves, so he has just confessed, he desires that local authorities should not subsidise the sale of furniture out of the rates and he is with us in the argument which we have advanced, but it is necessary, in the pursuit of his peculiar ideological convictions, that he should conceal it as far as possible. Indeed, he hedged about that eminently satisfactory admission with a statement that it was not necessary at the present moment, no doubt thinking of the recent remarkable dictum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nationalised industries ought not to make profits.

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, bound to maintain his very peculiar ideas about trade, which are that the way to trade, the way to sell something, is to acquire an object, stand between it and its potential purchaser and charge toll. That is what he says. It certainly enables those of us on this side of the House to understand the difficulties in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other people promoting the export drive stand when dealing with colleagues who take up such a peculiar position. I can imagine that their difficulty with foreign trade is very great indeed; having the right hon. Gentleman standing between a foreign purchaser and something he desires to purchase, with the object of charging toll, might well deter a purchaser and, no doubt, has deterred a great many.

Mr. Bevan

As we are selling much more than 50 per cent. above what we were selling before the war, obviously my principle is more effective in selling goods than is that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I should have thought that fact was a remarkable testimony to the shortage of supply in the world. The reminders which are continually made to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sellers' market is coming to an end indicate that it is more the course of world events than the success of the right hon. Gentleman's policy of trade which is responsible for the increase in our exports. Certainly I have never heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopt that attitude towards trade and bring it forward as one which was most likely to produce the further expansion—the great and necessary further expansion—in our export trade.

The fact is that the Minister says local authorities should not use the furniture trade as a method whereby furniture is sold below an economic return. But he says it is impossible to lay down any limitation of any period in which this fact can be determined. It is exactly that point which, repeated upstairs in Committee and again upon the Floor of the House, made it necessary for us to suggest that in that case it would be better that they did not embark upon the trade at all. That seems very reasonable to us. There is no difference between private enterprise in this case and the local authority—no difference, except, of course, that the local authority is working with our money and private enterprise is working with its own. If a firm supplying furniture goes on supplying it below an economic rate, the firm goes into liquidation; but if a local authority goes on supplying below the economic rate, it charges the loss to the general rate, to the general citizen. There seems to us—but not to the Minister—to be a very fundamental kind of distinction. It seems to us to bring a sharp sanction upon uneconomic supply in the case of private enterprise which does not exist in the case of the collective enterprise which the Minister is recommending this afternoon.

We therefore stand most firmly on the proposal which we have put forward. The Minister, whose mind seems to be of a suspicious nature, thinks this is due to pressure by our supporters. In fact, we have indicated all the way through, on Second Reading of this Bill and upstairs in Committee, what was our view. It was on Second Reading and not in Committee upstairs, by the way, that the Minister declared his conversion to the principle of a property-owning democracy. He withdrew from that conversion a little as the Debate went on and he has, indeed, withdrawn from it very considerably just now. But on this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) said clearly and definitely that it was only if the property were to be supplied on due economic conditions that we would agree to it and he said there was no reason why the authorities should not sell furniture at the proper economic rate to people wishing to buy.

We made that quite clear on the Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee, but the Minister would not meet us at all on the point in Committee; he refused to insert any of the safeguards which we brought forward and it is because of that that we are now moving this Amendment, all the more so because during the Debate upstairs certain hon. Members indicated the strangest views about the sale of furniture. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish), whose local authority had engaged in this trade, said: The furniture is paid for by the council and we get our money back by increasing the rent in agreement with the tenant; … the only problem we found was that there was the difficulty of people escaping overnight with some of the furniture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee C, 28th April, 1949; c. 111.] That, of course, is one of the problems which does exist.

Mr. Bevan

That is private enterprise

6.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I should have thought it was rather of a nature of removing the more equal distribution of properties, and equal distribution is a view which is strongly pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is on this side of the House that we bring forward the simple argument: He who takes what isn't his'n, When he's cotched is put in prison. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the other hand, say that under those conditions he is exalted to a high position in the Government and given a job on the Coal Board.

The argument which we bring forward is the perfectly simple argument that it is highly injudicious to destroy by taxation a ratepayer who is providing an article in pursuit of some shadowy idea of the virtues of the municipality as against the citizen. The difficulties which the municipality discover, one of which is the difficulty of people levanting with their furniture, are precisely the difficulties discovered by private enterprise. The remedy of the municipality for it is the remedy which the trade unions have resented at all times and in all circumstances—the power of a property owner to put the screw on his tenant to make him purchase an article which the tenant might not otherwise wish to buy.

This method of raising the rent to obtain from the tenant payment for certain properties, which one has by the virtue of one's position as a property owner been able to push upon him, is the sort of thing which, in the Truck Acts, trade unions fought time and time again and on which they conducted many finally successful campaigns. The local authority is in an all-powerful position. Is it suggested that all this purchase would be done solely and entirely by voluntary co-operation between landlord and tenant. That is the sort of argument which hon. Gentlemen opposite would laugh to scorn if it were brought forward in the case of the private individual. I can imagine their attitude towards a private landlord who said, "I have thought of a splendid idea. I will make an arrangement with a furtniture firm and, if necessary, put pressure on my tenants to buy some furniture from this firm. Having the tenants in my houses I am then in a splendid position because I shall include the price of that furniture in the rent, putting the screw on to an indefinite extent." I can imagine what hon. Gentlemen opposite would say to that.

Mr. Bevan

This is the first time we have heard this one. In the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's search for an argument in the waste in which he is travelling, does he seriously suggest that a responsible local authority will use their power as a landlord to force the tenants to buy furniture from them? That is the kind of respect which an ex-Minister of Health has for the local authorities of Great Britain.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

First of all, if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to devote the same amount of attention to our remarks on the Committee stage all the way through as that which he is now devoting to them, he would know that I advanced this argument on the Committee stage. Why should the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a landlord would put pressure on his tenant to purchase property owing to the——

Mr. Bevan

I will answer it at once. A Committee of both Houses is now considering the final stages of a Bill introduced by me a few months ago—and resisted by the Opposition—to prevent landlords forcing potential tenants to pay exorbitant sums for their furniture.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Precisely. The right hon. Gentleman shows the utmost distrust of any individual by himself and the utmost confidence in any individuals acting collectively. He is too naïve in these matters. Large groups of people have shown themselves in the past quite as tyrannical as individuals, and will so show themselves again. The principle of the argument the right hon. Gentleman is now putting forward is that it is perfectly safe for a local authority to do so because it can recoup itself by raising the rent; and that is the very argument which he is trying to withstand in the case of the Measure affecting landlords and tenants of which he spoke.

The argument which we are bringing forward is that the local authority is in a dangerous position when it begins to sell articles of this kind to the tenant, and it is an argument which every remark of the right hon. Gentleman has gone far to strengthen today. The further argument that local authorities should, if they are embarking on this, carry on according to proper rules of accountancy, and should, within a period of time, make statements which would show clearly the position, is also an argument which, I think, he finds it difficult to rebut—all the more difficult since not only does he—or the Government—mention the term of three years in relation to civic restaurants, but the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) said that three years was the normal time over which hire purchase agreements should run.

Therefore, since it has been more than once stated that a period of three years should be sufficient, the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficult position indeed in resisting the argument we have brought forward, and in maintaining his. Since he has brought forward no argument to justify the contention he advances that local authorities in this matter are to be allowed to continue indefinitely in making a loss, and since he is not going to try to bring forward

any provision specifying the period in which they have to account to the electors, naturally we have no recourse left to us but to do our best to convince the House by weight of numbers, and that we shall proceed to try to do.

Question put, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 210 Noes, 100.

Division No. 155.] AYES [6.55 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Field, Capt. W. J. Murray, J. D.
Albu, A. H. Foot, M. M. Naylor, T. E.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Forman, J. C. Neal, H. (Clay cross)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Alpass, J. H. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Attewell, H. C. Goodrich, H. E. Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Austin, H. Lewis Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Oldfield, W. H.
Awbery, S. S. Grey, C. F. Oliver, G. H.
Ayles, W. H. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Orbach, M.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Balfour, A. Gunter, R. J. Palmer, A. M. F.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Guy, W. H. Parker, J.
Barstow, P. G. Hale, Leslie Parkin, B. T.
Barton, C. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Battley, J. R. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Bechervaise, A. E. Hardy, E. A. Pearson, A.
Berry, H. Harrison, J. Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Beswick, F. Hastings, Dr. Somerville. Popplewell, E.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Haworth, J. Porter, E. (Warrington)
Binns, J. Harbison, Miss M. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Blackburn, A. R. Holman, P. Pritt, D. N.
Blenkinsop, A. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Reeves, J.
Boardman, H. Horabin, T. L. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Bottemley, A. G. Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Hughe, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bramall, E. A. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Royle, C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Sharp, Granville
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Shurmer, P.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Janner, B. Simmons, C. J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Burden, T. W. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Skinnard, F. W.
Burke, W. A. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Smith, C. (Colchester)
Chamberlain, R. A. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Champion, A. J. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Snow, J. W.
Chetwynd, G. R. Keenan, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Cluse, W. S. Kenyon, C. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cobb, F. A. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Sparks, J. A.
Cocks, F. S. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Stokes, R. R.
Collick, P. Kinley, J. Stross, Dr. B.
Collindridge, F. Kirby, B. V. Sylvester, G. O.
Collins, V. J. Lee, F. (Hulme) Symonds, A. L.
Corlett, Dr. J. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Cove, W. G. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Daggar, G. Lindgren, G. S. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Daines, P. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Thomas, D. E. (Aherdare)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Lonsden, F. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Davies, Emest (Enfield) Lyne, A. W. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) McAdam, W. Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McAllister, G. Titterington, M. F.
Deer, G. McEntee, V. La. T. Tolley, L.
Dodds, N. N. McGhee, H. G. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Driberg, T. E. N. Mack, J. D. Viant, S. P.
Dumpleton, C. W. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Walkden, E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McLeavy, F. Walker, G. H.
Edwards, John (Blackburn) Mainwaring, W. H. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Warbey, W. N.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Mellish, R. J. Watkins, T. E.
Evans, John (Ogmore) Messer, F. Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Middleton, Mrs. L. Weitzman, D.
Ewart, R. Mitchison, G. R. West, D. G.
Fairhurst, F. Monslow, W. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Farthing, W. J. Moody, A. S. Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
Wilkins, W. A. Willis, E. Yates, V. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Wills, Mrs. E. A. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Williams, D. J. (Neath) Wise, Major F. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Williams, W. R. (Heston) Wyatt, W. Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Mr. Hannan.
NOES
Amory, D. Heathcoat Eccles, D. M. Odey, G. W.
Astor, Hon. M. Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Baldwin, A. E. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. O. (Pollok) Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Baxter, A. B. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke) Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Bennett, Sir P. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Birch, Nigel Grimston, R. V. Rayner, Brig. R.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Boothby, R. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Renton, D.
Bower, R. Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Bower, N. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hope, Lord J. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Howard, Hon. A. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Sanderson, Sir F.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hutchison, Col. J. R. Glasgow C.) Savory, Prof. D. L.
Butcher, H. W. Kendall, W. D. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Butler, Rt. Hn, R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Lambert, Hon. G. Smithers, Sir W.
Byers, Frank Langford-Holt, J. Spearman, A. C. M.
Carson, E. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Stoddart-Scott, Cot. M.
Chatlen, C. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Studholme, H. G.
Channon, H. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Low, A. R. W. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Touche, G. C.
Cole, T. L. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Turton, R. H.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Walker-Smith, D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Darting, Sir W. Y. Marsden, Capt. A. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
De la Bère, R. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Digby, Simon Wingfield Medlicott, Brigadier F. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Mellor, Sir J.
Donner, P. W. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Drewe, C. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Commander Agnew and
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Neven-Spence, Sir B. Colonel Wheatley.
Duthie, W. S. Nield, B. (Chester)