HC Deb 15 July 1924 vol 176 cc296-309

Rule 13 of the General Rules applicable to Schedules A, B, C, and E, shall be amended by the addition at the end thereof of the following proviso:— Provided that the person who is chargeable in respect of an incapacitated person, or in whose name a non-resident person is chargeable, shall not, in the absence of his being party to fraud or collusion, be personally liable for sums chargeable against such non-resident person unless and until notice shall have been given to him by the Commissioners that he will he held personally liable for sums chargeable against such non-resident person in respect of profits or gains arising after the giving of such notice.—[Mr. D. Herbert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HERBERT

I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I hope it will not be necessary for me to make a long speech in introducing this new Clause, because the matter with which it deals was debated at considerable length in Committee, and it is totally different from the new Clause which was proposed in Committee. It is drawn with the intention of meeting the objections which were made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Amendment which was moved in Committee. May I first of all read Rule 13 of the general Rules, which provides that The person who is chargeable in respect of an incapacitated person or in whose name a non-resident is chargeable shall be answerable for all matters required to be done under this Act for the purposes of assessment and the payment of the tax. Our one quarrel in regard to that rule is that where a foreigner who cannot be got at has to be charged such revenue, in order to be able to get the money in the name of an agent you may be, if you make that agent personally liable, unjustly and unfairly making him liable to pay money which he never can recover, and although there may be cases of dishonest agents, there may be the case of the man who would be willing to do what he could, and has been carrying on a legitimate and bone fide business, and finds himself landed with a personal liability in respect of alleged profits of which he knows nothing and of which he cannot possibly know anything, and which he cannot recover. The Amendment which I ask the Government to accept is to add to Rule 13 the proviso contained in the new Clause I have proposed. The Financial Secretary, in replying to the Debate on the other Amendments in Committee, expressed the view that the Government was naturally anxious to do everything to encourage legitimate agencies and facilitate the volume of trade depending upon them. The answer which he gave was to this effect: If in fact we have no recourse against an agent in this country, then against whom have we recourse? We say by all means make the foreigner chargeable in the name of the agent, and make the agent personally liable, but do not make him personally liable unless and until you have given him notice that you intend to do so, and then only in respect of sums chargeable after that date. The reason is that the agent, having got the notice, generally takes one of two courses. He either says, "This is too dangerous, and I will not go on with the business," or he goes to his foreign principals and says, "I am to be held liable for certain taxation chargeable upon you. Therefore, if I am to continue to do this business for you, I must have a definite understanding and a definite arrangement with you that such sums for which I am made personally liable as payable by you shall be forthcoming and shall be paid by you." This proposed new Clause does two things. In the first place, it relieves the agent from personal liability unless and until he is given certain notice; and, in the second place, it preserves the right of the Government to recover the tax payable by the foreigner from and against the agent to the extent of making him personally liable, provided only that they give him notice beforehand that they intend to do so. I do most respectfully submit to the Financial Secretary that this is a very difficult request for him to answer, and I hope that, perhaps, he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see their way to accept this very much modified proposal, which preserves all their rights, except only that, unless there is fraud and collusion, they cannot recover against the agent until they have given him notice, which, of course, they can do the moment this Measure which we are now discussing comes into operation.

May I just say another word or two in reference to this Clause, and particularly in regard to the matters which were discussed in connection with it during the Committee stage? There stands in my name on the Paper an Amendment which has not been called, because you, Mr. Speaker, said I must choose between that one and this. I chose this one, undoubtedly, because this is one which we hope will give practical relief to the perfectly honest agent who, at the present time, fears that he may be landed with a liability which is really none of his. The other Amendment which I put down was put down, not with the intention at all of pressing it, but in the hope that the Government would make some statement of policy which might reassure people in the City with regard to certain fears which are agitating them at the present time, and which I and some of my friends are very much afraid are already leading to certain valuable business in the City of London being closed down or taken elsewhere. These foreign people who, under our law, are chargeable through their agents, if and so far as they are chargeable at all, include a very large number of people, firms or companies, of the nature of what I may describe as produce companies—companies producing raw material—companies running sugar plantations and producing sugar, or running coffee plantations and producing coffee, or producing a number of articles of food of that kind, or, it may be, certain chemical or mineral substances, such as nitrate and so forth. Those companies probably incur the whole of their expenditure, do the whole of their work and business in merely producing those goods from the soil in a foreign country, and the only connection that they have with this country in the way of business is that the contracts for the sale of their crops are made on the London market. Possibly they are contracts for sale to foreigners, and not for sale in this country. In those circumstances—and I venture to submit to the Financial Secretary that this is a correct view of the law as it stands—that person, firm or company makes no profit in this country which is chargeable to tax. The agent who arranges the contract for them with a sugar broker or a coffee broker—he is called a produce merchant—makes a contract with a broker, who in turn makes a contract with some other wholesale merchant to sell the goods to him, and that wholesale merchant may be in Canada or anywhere else. My submission is that, under the law as it stands, no profit is, in those circumstances, made in this country which is taxable, except the profit of the agent who earns his commission. I hope the Financial Secretary will try and say whatever he can in order to prevent those foreign producing companies from taking away their entrepot trade from this country and establishing it in, say, Belgium or Holland. It is, of course, quite obvious that, if that trade is going to be driven away by a fear of taxation, this country and the national Exchequer are going to be enormous losers, and I can assure the Financial Secretary—and I know that many of my friends will back me up in this—that there is a very serious fear about that in the City at the present time, which is already having a very considerable effect. Therefore, I would ask him to accept an Amendment which will relieve the agent who is above suspicion, unless and until such agent has been given notice, and, therefore, has been given the choice of either giving up the business or making sure that he can get the money from his foreign principal, and which will relieve a perfectly innocent person of personal responsibility. I would also invite the Financial Secretary to make some sort of statement which will relieve these producing companies, who do nothing in this country except instruct merchants who make contracts with brokers, from the fear that they will be liable to heavy taxation in this country, which would lead them to make these great brokerage contracts abroad instead of in the City of London.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL

I beg to second the Motion.

I shall not detain the House long, because I spoke on this matter during the Committee stage. Since last week I have been given actual cases of demands which have been made by the Inland Revenue Department on London firms, which demands came, I may say, entirely as a bolt from the blue, because it was quite clearly understood, in view of what Mr. McKenna said in 1915, when this question was discussed at some length in the House, that unless there was a suggestion of collusive or quasi collusive arrangements between the importer abroad and the agent here, these questions would not be raised, and the agent would not be held personally liable. To the best of my knowledge there is no suggestion of any collusive or quasi collusive arrangement against either or any of these firms, who have been assessed to sums amounting, in some cases, to tens of thousands of pounds. What is the position in which firms find themselves who suddenly receive these demands, directed, through them, at their principals abroad? Their principals, I imagine, are quite at liberty to say, if they wish, "We had no idea at all, when we appointed you our agents a few years ago, that we should find ourselves liable, in addition to the Income Tax we have to pay where we are domiciled, to English Income Tax, and it may be Super-tax as well," and the obvious thing for them to say is, "With taxation so high as it now is in England we should prefer to make our agency arrangements abroad, and we will terminate, as from now, or in six months' time, or whenever it may he, our arrangement with you."

The English firm loses in two ways. It remains liable for the Income Tax on the profits made by its principals abroad. It also loses the agency business which it has been carrying on, and I do not think it is generally realised how much other business will be lost at the same time. All the shipping business, the insurance, and the financing of cargoes—all these different forms of profit will be lost to this country; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury will lose the Income Tax, and, it may be, Super-tax, arising therefrom. I ventured to point out last week that the actual amount of the commission business which now accrues to this country was shown in the Board of Trade figures six months ago as having reached last year a total of some £30,000,000. We want, in these days, to increase our exports in every way possible, and an invisible export of that sort is of the greatest possible value to us from the point of view of exchange and from every other point of view. I seriously suggest to the Financial Secretary that, while a strong case was made out for the previous new Clause which he could not agree to, there is an overwhelmingly strong case for this Clause, and I hope he will see his way to adopt either this Clause as it stands or some modification of it which will carry out its principles.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN

I rise to appeal to the Financial Secretary to allow this Clause to be adopted, and I do so because I have had personal experience of what will be the effect in the absence of such a Clause. I am heartily in favour of every foreigner who does a retail business in England being taxed, whether he is resident here or not, but the idea of taxing cost, insurance and freight cargoes in addition is going to do no end of harm. I will give the House a practical instance. For some years I was managing director of a large company which shipped cargoes from America. We had our agents here in London who sold the cargoes for us. We sold through them, and got a reasonable price for our cargoes. They did our insurance, chartered our steamers, and settled disputes, and they were very good agents. But if those agents had told us that we were to be charged Income Tax upon the business that we did abroad, we should simply have cut them off entirely, and should have sold our cargoes in foreign countries. They sold our cargoes for us to Germany, France, Italy, South Africa—in fact, all over the world. All the business came through London. It meant that the chartering was done here and the insurance was done here. But if the Government do not adopt some Clause like this, I can assure the Financial Secretary that dozens and dozens of firms will cut off their London agents and do their business either direct or through agents in New York or somewhere else abroad. It is far more serious than I think those who have not been interested in business realise, and I hope the Financial Secretary will see his way to adopt his Clause. If he does not, and if the agents notify the shippers that their cargoes will be liable to certain taxes, the shippers will provide for that in fixing their prices. It is merely another form of protection, but that it should only be applied to cost, insurance and freight cargoes would be extremely injurious, and would do incalculable damage to our business.

8.0 P.M.

Sir J. PENNEFATHER

I do not like this Clause quite as much as I did the one that was before us during the Committee Stage, but I think that this Clause is undoubtedly an easier one for the Government to accept, because it does not go quite so far. Last week, when I spoke on this subject, I expressed the views, which I am still entitled to express, of all the great trade associations of the Port of Liverpool, and that really means far more than Liverpool—it means trade associations which operates through a very large section of the North of England. I would ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind the fact that these people are by no means all what are called agents. Many of them are principals; they are all competitors, and they have conflicting interests of all kinds; yet, on this one point, they are all agreed that a Clause something like this should be introduced into the Finance Bill. I want to stress this again, that if the Government reject this Clause they will be rejecting something which all business men agree is absolutely required. It is a very modest proposal, very reasonable and very sensible, so much so that I do hope my hon. Friend will not find any reasons for rejecting it.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE

I hope the Financial Secretary will not give way on this. One thing has struck me in listening to the discussion on this proposed new Clause, and that is that the speakers might have done better if they had collaborated. The Clause itself only demands that agents should have notice. Is it not a fact that at the present time they have got notice? The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke about the cry in the North against this going on. Then why the necessity for the notice?

Sir J. PENNEFATHER

I am quite sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I think I said quite clearly that, while this might not be all that they desire, it was a step in the right direction, and was satisfactory as far as it went.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows me sufficiently well to believe that I would not wish to misrepresent him. But how are these agents to be discovered, and from whom are they to get notice?

Mr. D. HERBERT

In the same way that they are discovered at the present time, and my hon. Friend opposite serves them with notices.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE

Why should these gentlemen get notice in advance that they are to be responsible? They know it perfectly well at the present time.

Mr. HERBERT

No, they do not.

Lieut.-Colonel HODGE

Then I do not understand the reason for the Clause. If they do not understand that they are liable now, why do hon. Members come forward with this Clause to-day? I can well understand the difficulty the Exchequer is going to be in in trying to recover the tax if the agent is not to be held responsible for this money. We all know how slow the foreigner is in wishing to pay taxes in his own country, and if he thinks by an evasion of this sort the agent is not responsible, how is the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever to recover the huge amount of money that is bound to be involved? I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not give way on this

Mr. GRAHAM

The promoters of this Clause reminded the House of the Amendment which was discussed at some length in Committee on the Bill, and during that discussion I tried to indicate the view the Government took of the proposal before the House I am bound to say at once that I can hardly offer a message of any great encouragement to those who have promoted, admittedly, a more moderate proposal. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) referred to a certain class of trade which does not touch these shores or only just touches these shores. On that point in Committee I read two passages from the Act of 1918. It is very difficult to say whether or not any individual ease comes within the regulation, but I had a very strong feeling during the Committee stage of this Bill that the two passages in the 1918 Act safeguarded the position under that head keeping always in view our duty to the Revenue on the other side.

Mr. D. HERBERT

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he says, and, if he will make it clear, I think it will assist the Revenue very considerably, if the Revenue do intend to act—I hope I am not putting this offensively—in that spirit of the Rule which he quoted the other day, because in the City they say an attempt is being made to render a non-resident person chargeable, in the name of a broker, and so on. The uneasiness which is going on is because of an idea, which I want the hon. Gentleman to say is a mistaken one, that the Revenue, apparently, are disregarding that Rule, or trying to treat it as a Rule which can be overcome

Mr. GRAHAM

I know representations to that effect have been made, but I am bound to say, while I have, not, of course, looked into any of the individual cases, my own impression was very distinctly that there were safeguards in the two passages, but I find it hard to believe that the Inland Revenue authorities are going to proceed—for that is what it amounts to—in violation of the terms of the Act of Parliament. In any case, I will undertake to look at that again, because I do not think there can be any real difference of opinion between us that these provisions certainly do afford safeguards. As regards the actual Clause before the House, I agree that, from some points of view, it is much more moderate than the proposal put forward on the last occasion. Reviewing the Debate in Committee, no hon. Members suggested that that trade should not be taxed, and I think a great many hon. Members, including those who voted against us, admitted that we had no real remedy if the Amendment they were promoting had been incorporated in the Bill. The hon. Member for Watford on this occasion, supported by two or three other Members, makes a proposal which comes to this, that an agent here is not to become liable until he has been given notice, and is only to be liable from the time he has received that notice in respect of this trade. I am bound to agree, to a large extent, with what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Lieut.-Colonel Hodge), because it is true to say that this has obtained a very large measure of publicity, and I find it hard to believe that agents are not aware of a Rule which has been applied for a very long' time. This is taxable trade, and any agent engaged in it is surely bound to ask himself where the liability will lie if he undertakes the agency, keeping very clearly in view the fact that this country can have no recourse to a foreign country.

Taking another point, which I believe to be more important, it is quite conceivable that a very large part of the year might elapse before, in fact, notice was sent, but in the Clause as it stands the Exchequer would never have a remedy in this country for that part of the trade which was undertaken before the service of the notice. It would have, as this proposal stands, no recourse against the agent here, and, of course, none against the foreign principal as regards that trade which was undertaken before the serving of the notice. I say nothing about the practical difficulties which might arise in the serving of the notice by the Commissioners,

although I think that is a point which should not be forgotten by the House. I have made it perfectly plain—and I speak for my right hon. Friend also in this connection—that we have no desire whatever to interfere with legitimate agents' trade ire this country. We recognise it is a very important business, and we also know that a very large amount of British employment depends upon it, but, at the same time, we have, first of all, a clear duty to the Revenue, and, secondly, a clear duty to other British taxpayers carrying on trade who are exposed to all this burden of taxation.

My difficulty is, frankly, that of opening the door, to however small an extent, through which people are going to escape, and although this has been modified by the hon. Member, I am by no means satisfied that it would not provide a chance for abuses of the kind. This matter has been considered by the Royal Commission, or, at least, by other bodies concerned in Income Tax, and the tendency has been not to weaken this but to strengthen it, and I dare say, if I were in order, I could mention a good many suggestions which have been made with a view to tightening up this provision. In any event, my right hon. Friend feels that, in view of the protection under the Act of 1918 and of our general attitude towards agencies, there is not a case for this Clause. These agents are hound to know, or will know, of these provisions, and, with the best will in the world, I am afraid I must resist this Clause.

Question put, " That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 253.

Division No. 154.] AYES. [8.14 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hartington, Marquess of
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Dalkeith, Earl of Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Beamish, T. P. H. Davidson, Major General Sir J. H. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Hillary, A. E.
Betterton, Henry B. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Blades, Sir George Rowland Dawson, Sir Philip Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Bourne, Robert Croft Deans, Richard Storry Hughes, Collingwood
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Brittain, Sir Harry Elliot, Walter E. Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Buckingham, Sir H. Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Jephcott, A. R.
Burman, J. B. Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray King, Captain Henry Douglas
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Ferguson, H. Lamp, J. O.
Caine, Gordon Hall Forestler-Walker, L. Lord, Walter Greaves-
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth S.) Gates, Percy Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham McLean, Major A.
Chapman, Sir S. Gould, James C, (Cardiff, Central) Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Clayton, G. C. Greene, W. P. Crawford Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Meller, R. J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mitchell, W. F (Saffron Walden)
Cope, Major William Harland, A. Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Ropner, Major L. Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)
Pease, William Edwin Roundell, Colonel R. F. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Pennefather, sir John Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Watson, Sir F (Pudsey and Otley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wells, S. R.
Perring, William George Sandeman, A. Stewart Wheler, Lieut. Col. Granville C. H.
Plelou, D. P. Savery, S. S. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Shepperson, E. W. Wise, Sir Fredric
Raine, W. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wragg, Herbert
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Remer, J. R. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Remnant, Sir James Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Captain Hacking and Major Hennessy.
NOES.
Ackroyd, T. R. Gilbert, James Daniel Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke Gillett, George M. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Gosling, Harry Maden, H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Alden, Percy Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) March, S.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Marks, Sir George Croydon
Alstead, R. Greenall, T. Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)
Ammon, Charles George Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Aske, sir Robert William Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maxton, James
Attlee, Major clement R. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Middleton, G.
Ayles, W. H. Groves, T. Millar, J. D.
Baker, Walter Grundy, T. W. Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)
Banton, G. Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Montaque, Frederick
Barclay, R. Noton Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Morel, E. D.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Barnes, A. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Batey, Joseph Harbord, Arthur Morse, W. E.
Birkett, W. N. Hardle, George D. Moulton, Major Fletcher
Black, J. W. Harris, John (Hackney, North) Muir, John W.
Bondfield, Margaret Harris, Percy A. Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Bonwick, A. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Murray, Robert
Bramsdon, Sir Thomas Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) Nichol, Robert
Briant, Frank Hastings, Sir Patrick Nixon, H.
Broad, F. A. Hastings, Somerville (Reading) O'Grady, Captain James
Bromfield, William Haycock, A. W. Oliver, George Harold
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) Hayday, Arthur Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hayes, John Henry Owen, Major G.
Brunner, Sir J. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Paling, W.
Buckle, J. Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) Palmer, E. T.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Cape, Thomas Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex,Enfld.) Perry, S. F.
Charleton, H. C. Hindle, F. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Church, Major A. G. Hirst, G. H. Phillipps, Vivian
Clarke, A. Hobhouse, A. L. Potts, John S.
Climie, R. Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Raffety, F. W.
Cluse, W. S. Hodges, Frank Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hoffman, P. C. Raynes, W. R.
Compton, Joseph Hogbin, Henry Cairns Rea, W. Russell
Cove, W. G. Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie Rees, Sir Beddoe
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Isaacs, G. A. Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Crittall, V. G. Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) Richards, R.
Darbishire, C. W. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Davies, David (Montgomery) Jewson, Dorothea Ritson, J.
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) John, William (Rhondda, West) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Robinson, S W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby) Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)
Dickson, T. Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) Romeril, H. G.
Dodds, S. R. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Royle, C.
Duckworth, John Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.) Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Scrymgeour, E.
Dukes, C. Kay, Sir R. Newbald Scurr, John
Duncan, C. Kedward, R. M. Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Dunn, J. Freeman Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Sexton, James
Dunnico, H. Kenyon, Barnet Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Kirkwood, D. Sherwood, George Henry
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern) Lansbury, George Shinwell, Emanuel
Edwards, John H, (Accrington) Laverack, F. J. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Egan, W. H. Law, A. Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North) Simpson, J. Hope
England, Colonel A. Leach, W. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Falconer, J. Lee, F. Smillie, Robert
Foot, Isaac Livingstone, A. M. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton) Lowth, T. Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas Lunn, William Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) McEntee, V. L. Snell, Harry
Gibbins, Joseph Mackinder, W. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Spence, R. Thurtle, E. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South) Tillett, Benjamin Whiteley, W.
Spero, Dr. G. E. Tinker, John Joseph Wignall, James
Stamford, T. W. Tout, W. J. Williams, A. (York, W.R., Sowerby)
Starmer, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Stephen, Campbell Turner, Ben Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Varley, Frank B. Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)
Stranger, Innes Harold Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Sturrock, J. Leng Vivian, H. Willison, H.
Sullivan, J. Wallhead, Richard C. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Sunlight, J. Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth) Windsor, Walter
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent) Wintringham, Margaret
Sutton, J.E. Warne, G.H. Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.
Tattersall, J. L. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Wright, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Allen Parkinson.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Welsh,J. C.
Thornton, Maxwell R. Westwood, J.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.