I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may at the discretion of the local authority."
The Amendment will soon be understood when I explain that the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading pointed out that where any house has been reconditioned the recipient of the grant, who accepted the whole of the conditions laid down before a grant was obtained, had to preserve the house in a decent state of habitation for a minimum of 20 years. At the end of that time, presumably, he could break one or all of the conditions attaching to the grant. The right hon. Gentleman said that the English Rural Housing Sub-Committee had made a recommendation that the whole of the grant need not be repaid, assuming that the conditions had been carried out for
some years. He rather thought that this House ought to be satisfied with a portion of repayment, if the conditions had been carried out for a long time. He took an extreme case when he said:
For example, an owner who wished to free himself from the special conditions 19 years after the receipt of a grant would be compelled to repay the whole original sum, with compound interest, from the date of payment, notwithstanding that the special conditions had only a few more months to run. Obviously this Amendment should be made, in justice and fairness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1938; col. 1258, Vol. 335.]
I think that, in justice and fairness, that alteration ought not to be made, because, having accepted a Treasury grant and a grant from the local authority, the owner of the property ought not to be permitted to escape from his responsibilities, unless he repays in full the grant he receives for the reconditioning of his house. I have here a letter from the West Riding County Council about this Bill. They say:
Instances have come to the notice of the West Riding Public Health and Housing Committee that attempts have been made by owners of reconditioned houses to let them to tenants who are not agricultural workers or people of similar economic condition, and the committee are of opinion that all houses in respect of which a grant is made call for careful oversight.
I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, in the course of 12 years or so, a
large number of rural houses have been reconditioned, and that when the owner of the property finds a week-ender willing to pay two or three times the rent that an agricultural labourer can afford to pay he is willing to break his contract and repay all the sums received from the Treasury and the local authority. That results in the dehousing of the rural population, and I think that such owners ought either to be made to repay the whole of the advance or, as the Amendment suggests, it should be left to the discretion of the local authority, which could ascertain whether there were special reasons to justify them in demanding not full payment, but only the proportion outstanding, according to the number of years to run.
I am sure that most hon. Members who reside in rural areas can recall cases where rural dehousing has taken place; where reconditioned houses have been diverted to other tenants, who can afford to pay two or three times as much rent as the rural occupant should pay; and where the owners have broken the contracts and re-let houses. In these circumstances I do not think it is asking too much to insist on the maximum conditions being carried out over the 20-years period. If an owner of property, failing, on his own initiative and out of his own resources, to keep his house or property in decent condition, applies to the county council and secures a grant from them and another from the Treasury, and accepts certain conditions, he ought to be made to fulfil his part of the contract, and there ought to be no relinquishing of the conditions.
I hope that the Committee will accept the advice which has been tendered by the biggest county council in this country. If the West Riding County Council has seen cases where reconditioning has taken place and the house has then been relet to somebody other than an agricultural worker, at a higher rent, what must be the condition in the Southern counties, all of which can be termed holiday places. In spite of all the nice things I could say about the West Riding, I could not call it a holiday centre. Other hon. Members may have other views on that. If this weakness has been discovered in the West Riding, it probably exists to an infinitely greater degree in the Southern counties.
There is one point on which I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). It is true that the West Riding is industrialised, but it has some of the most beautiful spots you will find in the world. I can quite understand the hon. Member for Don Valley; he is so busy outside the county very often; but I am always in it, and I find all these beautiful spots. One that I have in mind, for instance, is Cawthorne. In my division, while there are the pits and muck heaps and burning fires, there are nice spots all round. My county council is very perturbed about this. I sat on the Public Health and Housing Committee for years, and these cases used to come up. We found that people were making an attempt to evade the Act. We had an application for three houses to be reconditioned, but they were not wanted for agricultural workers; they were wanted for other workers, receiving higher wages. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment. If people who receive the grant break the conditions they should return every penny piece with interest. I do not think that we are asking for too much. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, now that the Minister is away, at least to pay attention to what the West Riding County Council say about this matter, and I hope that he will get up straight away and say that he will accept the Amendment.
I support the Amendment, although it scarcely goes far enough to meet my point of view. I cannot see either the wisdom or the good sense of making an alteration in the previous Act. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill suggested that in equity, where only a portion of the period had to run, only the remaining portion should be paid for. Money is obtained from the State and from the local authority under certain definite conditions. It may be that the property owner at the time is not in a position to repair his property without assistance, and as a result of receiving assistance from the State and the local authority he is able to recoup himself financially, and, after a time, find himself in a position to turn what was an uneconomic unit into an economic unit and wish to break the conditions under which be obtained the amount under the Amendment proposed by the Government in this Bill. He will be in a position to take advantage of the fact that he has recouped himself, to break the conditions and pay back a portion of what he received.
The only justification for this Measure suggested in the Committee this afternoon—as was the case on Second Reading—and for the making of grants, is the provision of houses for a certain class of people. Every justification put forward from the benches opposite have been on that basis, but it is suggested in the Clause that if the individual wants to turn out of a house a member of that class for whom it has been reconditioned and put in another individual, he can do so simply by repaying a portion of the money he has received, calculated on the time which is unexpired. If he has kept the conditions for 10 years, he pays only a 10-years' fine, as it were, in order to be relieved from those conditions. I contend that he is not entitled to do it either legally or morally. The individual—and the Government would be assisting him—would be getting the money under false pretences, and, by taking advantage of this provision, would be breaking not only his word but the word of the Government to the individual who occupied the house.
It would be well nigh impossible to determine what period of time had to run. At what period of time do the conditions, which have to be maintained in respect of the house, fall below the standard under which he has received the money? It may be that the inspector visits the house and finds that it is not being kept up to standard, that the conditions are not being complied with, and that it is not in all respects fit for human habitation. How long has it been unfit before discovery by the sanitary inspector? I know of houses which have been scheduled as unfit for human habitation for the last 10 years but which have only just been discovered. Why is that? Because somebody has suddenly wakened up. Is a man to be let off payment of the money because he has not kept the conditions? He will be, if the position is left as it is at present. Certainly the Amendment will leave it to the discretion of the local authority to decide whether or not he should pay the whole or a prtion of the money.
The arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) are good and legitimate. The Amendment will enable the local authority to inquire as to the period for which the conditions are being framed and enable it to safeguard the interests of the individual in the house. The only reason that the Government have put forward in favour of the Bill is the safeguarding of that individual, and without the Amendment he cannot be safeguarded. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
I cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) and speak of breaches of faith and so forth, but for once in a way I find myself in sympathy with the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). It is rather a pity to make this entirely mandatory. I have in my hand an account of a meeting of my own county council, at which there was an application from the owner of a house who stated that he was unable to obtain a tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He therefore wished to sell the property and asked for permission to repay a grant of £50 made to him in 1934. The Act had operated, as far as that house is concerned, for only four years, and it ought to have operated for 20 years. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will perhaps be able to say that he will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage. This Measure is not one concerned so much with the owner, but is primarily one for the housing of the rural worker.
It was somewhat of a surprise to me that this Amendment should have been moved and supported by hon. Friends connected with the industrial counties of the West Riding of Yorkshire and of Lancashire. I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that there are no holiday spots in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I once spent a very delightful holiday at Sedbergh, which I found to my surprise was under the West Riding of Yorkshire County Council, and there can be few more typically English rural places to be found. I support the Amendment, having had administrative experience in a very different county from either the West Riding of Yorkshire or Lancashire. One of the difficulties of dealing with rural housing in Surrey is the way in which a block of three or four agricultural labourers' cottages have been converted into one week-end residence, and let with a very substantial reduction in the amount of accommodation for the rural population. If the Clause goes through as it is worded there will be a great temptation to people, when they get offers from residents of London who want some rather smart cottage, as they call it, in the country, to part with three or four of these cottages which may have been reconditioned under the original Act.
The local authority should be able to exercise a reasonable discretion in this matter of repayment. I can see a man making a very handsome profit out of reconditioning his cottages with the assistance afforded to him by the Act, and allowing the rural workers to live in them for only a year or two and then parting with them to some musical comedy actress or somebody else who wants to bury herself in the country for the weekend. The demand of these types of person for these old rural buildings is very astonishing, and the prices they are prepared to pay are still more astonishing. Unless the local authorities are protected in this way, I can see them really becoming little more than people who are assisting rural landowners to put their cottages into a condition which will enable them to dispose of them for almost fabulous sums. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
Mr. David Adams:
I wish to support the Amendment, and I consider that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has put forward an unanswerable case. It is clear that the intention of the Government, so far as the Bill is concerned, is to make liberal concessions almost in every Clause to the owners of such property. There is a vast number of cottages which require renovation and bringing up to modern standards, and 12 months is quite enough for the purpose and not four years. I would say in passing that I know of certain cottages in country districts both in Northumberland and Durham, which if they had been in the towns would have been condemned long ago as unfit for human habitation.
I said "in passing." I was referring to the concessions which are being made to the landowners and owners of these cottages in the different Clauses submitted to us. In this Clause we are placing a premium upon the speculative owner and inducing him to get rid of his liabilities under the Act. There is a new class who have come into the market for country cottages. I refer to those who feel that they ought to have air-raid defence cottages away from the centres of population. There are continuous and repeated inquiries for cottages in the county of Northumberland for this purpose. Owners of cottages who have them renovated under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of housing rural workers have a financial liability, and now a premium is being offered to them to enable them to get rid of their liability. The person who desires a convenient cottage in the country or one for the purpose of air-raid defence has an opportunity provided for him under this Measure. It is immoral to allow any such latitude. It is a variation of the entire spirit of the Act and contrary to all that the Minister has stated, and the Committee undoubtedly ought to assent to the Amendment.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will make this very small concession, not because it is his last will and testament, but because, I understand, he is to be transferred to a much higher post, or a much airier post, and it would be appropriate, before he shakes the dust of his present office from his coat, to make this very reasonable concession on this Bill. It is common knowledge that there is a kind of landlord—I know that he is not general—who is making a business of appealing to the sentimental side of the general public, who like to live in thatched cottages, and he sells cottages to towns people at a very big profit. It is obvious that if these landlords can borrow money from the local authority and modernise these houses and bring them up to date, their opportunity to sell the cottages and to transfer them from their original purpose is increased. They may get a grant of £50, or whatever it may be, from the local authority, and if they do that and later they offer to pay back the subsidy, it is a direct incentive for them to do the very thing that we wish to avoid in the rural districts, namely, pushing out the agricultural labourers in order to make way for town dwellers, middle-class people, who have their flats or houses in towns. I hope that in order to prevent that most undesirable practice the right hon. Gentleman will make some concession.
This question can be viewed from two aspects. It is true that there may be a number of cases such as the hon. Baronet has indicated, but even in those cases I do not think it can be said that the local authority is in any way penalised, because the owner pays back the grant which he has received. There is a counter-balancing argument which is provided as a result of the inquiry which was made by the Rural Housing Sub-Committee who, after hearing a large number of witnesses, definitely came to a conclusion which is reflected in their recommendation that:
On a breach of the special conditions on which a grant has been made the owner should be required to repay a proportion only of the original grant, calculated by reference to the proportion of the 20-year period during which the conditions have been observed.
They made that recommendation, and I would remind hon. Members that it was not a suggestion, as has been hinted, which came from the Government with a view to doing something for the landlords as against tenants. It was a recommendation which came from a Committee anxious to do all they could for rural housing and anxious, if possible, to suggest Amendments by which the existing Acts could be improved. They definitely came to the conclusion that if, say, at the end of the nineteenth year when the grant condition had been breached the owner was compelled to repay the whole amount, it would be unreasonable and would be a deterrent to the working of the Act.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the nineteenth year case in his Second Reading speech, and he repeats it now in Committee. since the Act has been in operation for only 12 years and no such case can ever have happened, why does the right hon. Gentleman quote such a case, and how came the Committee to make this recommendation and to visualise a 19-year case when no such thing has happened?
I do not regard that point as being very serious, and I am prepared, if the hon. Member desires, to amend my statement and say at the end of 10 years or 12 years. The point is that the Committee definitely stated that that would be a deterrent to the operation of the Act and they recommended to the Government that the alteration should be made. I think that was a wise recommendation. It was not done for the purpose of benefiting the landlords. It was the proposal of a Committee of which the Bishop of Winchester was the chairman. Lord Crawford was another member. Another member was Mrs. Dollar, whom hon. Members opposite must know quite well. Other members were the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), Mr. A. L. Hobhouse, the chairman of one of the leading county councils, who has had a life-long connection with work of this kind; Mr. Simpson; Sir Raymond Unwin, who is not a man likely to make a recommendation which was unfair; and the Rev. Schomberg. That was the body which made the recommendation, and the Government adopted it. Although there may be some cases such as hon. Members have pointed out, I submit that on the whole what is proposed is the wise thing to do and that by adopting the recommendation we shall make the Act more generally useful.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to meet this Amendment, which has been put down in all good faith as representing the view of a very large county authority, and it may be that it represents the views of other local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has been misleading us to-day, and now he is running away from us. Before he leaves us I hope that he will do something to meet this case. These grants are made for 20 years and there is nothing in the original Act as far as I know—I have not consulted any legal experts and perhaps I am wrong—which says that the conditions under which a grant is given permits that to be done of which complaint is now made. I should say that the intention of this House was that once a cottage had been reconditioned for an agricultural worker or persons of a similar class it should remain in use for that purpose. There is nothing in the law which implies anything else, but the Government proposal enables persons to contract out of their moral obligations before the expiration of the 20 years.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers), who spoke in support of the Amendment. It is unfortunate that houses reconditioned for a particular purpose and for a particular class of people should at the end of a certain period be allowed to fall into the hands of other people. The people who are going to get this new advantage were never contemplated in the Act; they will get a financial advantage which was never contemplated. They have been allowed to use this capital for all this period, and then on repayment they can get out of what Parliament intended was to be a permanent legal obligation. Where there has been a breach of the conditions under which the grant was made the person guilty of the breach ought to be required to repay the whole of the grant, with compound interest, unless the local authority are satisfied that there may be special circumstances which would justify them in taking that point of view. All we are asking is that the local authority with knowledge of the circumstances in its own area should exercise its discretion in the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman has not made any effective reply to the case put forward by the hon. Member for the Don Valley. Have not these views been indicated to him by members of other local authorities besides the West Riding local authority? If the West Riding authority takes the view that this is a serious case, there must be some substance in it. I am sorry that I have had my private row with one of my hon. Friends on the point as to whether the West Riding of Yorkshire is a holiday resort. I regard it as one of the most beautiful parts of Britain. A large county council like the West Riding Council may not be in exactly the same position as an authority in Somerset, Surrey or Sussex, but if an industrialised county like the West Riding has had cases of this kind, how many more cases will there be in the area of the purely rural county council? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley assures us that the West Riding County Council say that cases of this kind have happened, and that there has been breach of the spirit of the Act, and it is perfectly clear that there may be a very large number of other cases. I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman flies off he will be good enough to accept the Amendment, otherwise we must carry it to a Division.
The right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied us on these benches that speculation in houses designed for agricultural labourers and others of similar occupation in the countryside will not go on. He has pointed out that the State and the local authority will not lose, but what we are most concerned about in regard to this Amendment is the fate of the agricultural labourer, and the right hon. Gentleman has not proved that the agricultural labourers may not be deprived of their houses in consequence of the tendency to convert country cottages into week-end residences. It is not only rich people or middle-class people from London who are going out into country surroundings near London, for the same thing is going on all over the Provinces. Persons engaged in business in the smaller provincial towns are going out into the country. Although it may be a very healthy movement it undoubtedly interferes with the housing accommodation of the indigenous rural population. It is going on, and steps must be taken to prevent it.
I know of several cases in recent years in which agricultural labourers have had to leave their cottages and go elsewhere, paying a much higher rent, 5s. and 6s. per week, with no increased pay, and consequently they were in a much worse economic position than before. The Amendment is reasonable. As one who has actually been engaged in availing himself of this provision to recondition country cottages in the last few years, I am naturally interested in the question. I do not want at the end of 20 years to have the right to let the cottage at a much higher rent. It is only reasonable that if State money is used for this purpose it should be confined solely to assisting the indigenous agricultural population to get better houses. It is possible that it will not solve the main problem of housing the rural population, but it may make some small contribution towards it, and the Amendment will assist in the direction of preventing the obvious abuses which are going on. I think the Government should accept the Amendment.
I can only regard the speech of the Minister as one of the most extraordinary performances I have heard for a long time. He addressed himself to the Amendment as thought it was drawn in quite different terms. His speech was addressed to an Amendment drawn in such overriding terms as to impose on local authorities the obligation in all circumstances to recover, whereas, in fact, it is drawn in permissive language and requires that the local authority shall examine each case and reach its determination according to the terms of each case. It seems to me that the Amendment is sheer equity, if anything with a little generosity towards the landlords, certainly in those cases where a landlord has been guilty of not continuing to observe the decencies. Three simple points are involved. The first is that the declared purpose of the Bill is to add to the quantity of decent housing accommodation available for the agricultural labourer. We should resist anything which will allow cottage property made available by State money for occupation
Reference has been made to the weekend habit. I do not suggest that the week-end habit can be described as evil or pernicious, but it comes dangerously near to it. It is a piece of middle-class snobbery. It certainly is evil in the sense that in many normal beautiful English country villages, what were once charming cottages are being refurnished in a garish fashion, and painted in the most glaring colours. If we want to preserve the amenities of the countryside I think it is necessary to keep these week-enders away. If a landlord has acquired a State grant to develop his property and to add to its attractiveness and capital value, desires for his own pecuniary gain to take advantage of the opportunity presented to him, I hope the local authority will at least be able to consider such a case and determine what the landlord's obligations are. The Amendment errs not only on the side of generosity but is heavily tinctured with it. A landlord who gets a substantial grant from the State on an undertaking that he will do something and then fails to do it, is not required to repay the whole of the grant but only some portion of it. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment as merely equity and that he will give local authorities the right to do what they think fit, having full knowledge of all the local circumstances.
|Division No. 205.]||AYES||[6.38 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Cross, R. H.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)||Crossley, A. C.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Crowder, J. F. E.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Davies, C. (Montgomery)|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Bull, B. B.||De la Bere, R.|
|Assheton, R.||Campbell, Sir E. T.||Denman, Hon. R.D.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cary, R. A.||Denville, Alfred|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Dugdale, Captain T. L.|
|Balniel, Lord||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Edmondson, Major Sir J.|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C.M.||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Elmley, Viscount|
|Barrie, Sir C, C.||Channon, H.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Erskine-Hill, A. G.|
|Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.||Chorlton, A. E. L.||Fox, Sir G. W. G.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Christie, J. A.||Fremantle, Sir F.E.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Clarke, Frank (Dartford)||Furness, S. N.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N.||Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Fyfe, D. P. M.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Clarry, Sir Reginald||Gluckstein, L. H.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Goldie, N. B,|
|Boulton, W.W.||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.|
|Bracken, B.||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Gridlay, Sir A. B.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Cox, H. B. Trevor||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Crooks, Sir J. S.||Gritton, W. G, Howard|
|Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)||Maclay, Hon. J. P.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Macquisten, F. A.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.||Maitland, A.||Scott, Lord William|
|Hannah, I. C.||Makings, Brig.-Gen. E.||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Manningham-Bullar, Sir M.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Markham, S. F.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Mayhow, Lt.-Col. J.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Holmes, J. S.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Storey, S.|
|Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)|
|Hopkinson, A.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hudson, Capt. A, U. M. (Hack., N.)||Munro, P.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Nall, Sir J.||Tasker, Sir R. 1.|
|Hulbert, N. J.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Nicholson. G. (Farnham)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., s.)|
|Hunter, T.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Hurd, Sir P. A.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Hutchinson, G. C.||Palmer, G. E. H.||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.||Patrick, C. M.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Joel, D. J. B.||Peters, Dr. S. J.||Wakefield, W. W,|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Petherick, M.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Plugge, Capt. L. F.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Watt, Major G. S. Harvie|
|Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Procter, Major H. A.||Wayland, Sir W. A.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||Wells, S. R.|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Ramsbotham, H.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Leech, Sir J. W.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Rayner, Major R. H.||Wilton, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Levy, T.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Lindsay, K. M.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Wise, A. R.|
|Lipson, D. L.||Remer, J. R.||Withers, Sir J. J.|
|Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Lloyd, G. W.||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)||Wood, Hon. C. l. C.|
|Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Rots Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Rowlands, G.|
|MaCorquodale, M. S||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Russell, Sir Alexander||Mr. Grimston and Major|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Herbert.|
|McKie, J. H.||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Owen, Major G.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Paling, W.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Groves, T. E.||Pearson, A.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Poole, C. C.|
|Ban field, J. W.||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Price, M. P.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Barr, J.||Hardie, Agnes||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Batty, J.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Ridley, G.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Riley, B.|
|Benson, G.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Ritson, J.|
|Broad, F. A.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Bromfield, W.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsay)|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Hopkin, D.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Cape, T.||Jagger, J.||Shinwell, E.|
|Chater, D.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Simpson, F. B.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Kelly, W. T.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Kirby, B. V.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Cove, W. G.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly>|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Leach, W.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Daggar, G.||Leonard, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Dalton, H.||Leslie, J. R.||Stephen, C.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Logan, D. G.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Day, H.||Lunn, W.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Ede, J. C.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Summerskill, Edith|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||McEntee, V. La T.||Thorne, W.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||McGhee, H. G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||MacLaren, A.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Foot, D. M.||Maclean, N.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Gardner, B. W.||Maxton, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Messer, F.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Montague, F.||Walker, J.|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Naylor, T. E.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Oliver, G. H.||Welsh, J. C.|
|White, H. Graham||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)||Woods, G. S. (Finshury)|
|Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)||Wilton, C. H. (Attercliffe)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Chorlton and Mr. Anderson.|