HC Deb 07 June 1928 vol 218 cc479-91

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it is expedient that there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the execution of any Act of the present Session to make provision, with a view to the grant of relief from rates in respect of certain classes of hereditaments, for the distinction in valuation lists of the classes of hereditaments to be affected, and the apportionment in valuation lists of the net annual values of such hereditaments according to the extent of the user thereof for various purposes—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir Kingsley Woo.]


Before this Resolution goes through I think we are entitled to a statement as to what inquiries are to be undertaken by the Inland Revenue, who I understand are being voted £150,000. The House is at least entitled to the courtesy of an explanation from the Financial Secretary as to the purpose for which these officers are required and the functions they are to undertake.


I do not claim to be an expert on finance, but we on these benches have never yet had any explana- tion from those responsible for this Bill of the machinery which is to be employed in its operation. We are going to vote, blindly, £150,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I may be intellectually blind, but some hon. Members opposite seem to be physically blind. This £150,000 is to be voted for the creation of a new staff, who may be temporarily employed, for the purpose of discovering the real value of the properties which are likely to be benefited by this Bill. What has become of the cry about Mr. Dilly and Mr. Dally, about the manufacture of new civil servants, too many officials being on the back of the public? When it is a matter of relieving the landlords it does not matter how many officials you have. The more officials, the more relief. I come from a constituency fairly heavily burdened with rates. They are 24s. in the £, and in spite of that some of our industries are doing remarkably well.


That does not arise on this Resolution. It only authorises Parliament to provide the money for the provisions in the Bill.


I was giving that as an illustration. We are going to find money for officials who are to estimate the value of the property which these firms possess. An absolutely unnecessary procedure. It is throwing money away; paying officials for finding out what is already well known. These people are going to get the benefit of public money at both ends; in relief of rates to the extent of 75 per cent. of their rateable value, and in the shape of officials to enable them to dis- cover how they can escape their responsibility. I know that I am barred from speaking on the general question. I have been here all this afternoon listening to the Debate. I know some hon. Members who come here once a week, and as soon as they get into the Chamber they are on their legs speaking. Then they walk out, and we do not see them for another week. Some of us sit here for hours listening to the Debate, and when we speak we are looked upon with a certain amount of contempt by the intellectual geniuses on the other side of the House. We have had a marvellous demonstration this afternoon of intellectual acrobatics.


There again that question does not arise on this Resolution.


I was only trying to illustrate how public money can be spent for nothing. The OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will be full of that speech, 75 per cent. of which was like the flowers which bloom in the spring; it had nothing to do with the case. We are asked to vote a large sum, and we are supposed to be the custodians of the public purse. We are asked to vote a large sum for officials to relieve people who do not want relief. We are not told who those officials are to be, what qualifications they are to have, what examinations they have to pass. No doubt, they will be people who wear Oxford bags, who speak with an accent, and who ask questions which the ordinary workman will be unable to understand. The people who are to get relief are those who have been living on the backs of the workers all the time. They do not employ men for love, but for profit. If they could discover an animal to-morrow—


I would again remind the hon. Member that that does not arise on the Resolution.


While you are finding employment for some men you are to put other men out of work. We do not know how many officials are to be employed. One of the reasons they are to be appointed is to find more work for the industrial worker in our depressed industries. There is not an hon. Member of this House who can show me where a man will be put into work in consequence of this resolution except those officials. No industrial worker will get any benefit from it. I was just saying, when the Deputy Chairman called me up, that, if they could find an animal which was covered all over with hair so that it needed no clothing, and which had such digestive organs that it did not need food, they would employ no workmen at all.


I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Resolution.


In conclusion, I would say that I protest most emphatically against this machinery being provided to help those who do not want help. It would be far better to devise machinery to help those who need it.


I would have risen to explain the purpose of this Resolution, but for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health dealt with the matter at some length in his speech in moving the Second Reading. The necessity for this Resolution is occasioned by the association of the revenue officers with the rating authorities in two functions arising out of the Bill—first in the classification of properties and secondly, in the apportionment of values in the valuation lists which will be in force on 1st October, 1929. The expenses to be incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in this connection are to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament and therefore a Financial Resolution is necessary. The details of the proposal are contained in the Schedule to the Bill and if hon. Members refer to it they will see that it will be the duty of the revenue officer to get from the rating authority a preliminary list in which are included all the hereditaments in respect of which claims have been received, and in respect of which they have arrived at certain provisional conclusions. The rating authority will then consider the matter and come to a conclusion. The matter will then be considered by the revenue officer who has received the form of claim and he will then come to his own conclusion as to the inclusion or exclusion of certain hereditaments from the list and also as to whether any value entered therein is excessive or not. I emphasise that part of the provision because it differs fundamentally from the original proposal which was made in connection with the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925 and very largely limits the duties and the powers of the revenue officers. I do not think there is any necessity to emphasise the desirability of associating the revenue officers with this proposal, and I suggest that it is vital in the interests of the Exchequer—


On a point of Order. Is it quite in order, in the absence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, for this statement to be made by another Minister?


No point of order arises.


I would be very glad to give way to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but, unfortunately, this is a duty which devolves upon the Parliamentary Secretary. I was about to conclude by saying that as the Treasury will have to make good the remission contemplated in the scheme, the safeguard of the presence of revenue officers is, of course, needed. I wish to repeat what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, that the revenue officer does not become a permanent part of the machinery of assessment of local rates. He will only be there until 1st October, 1929. This proposal has received little or no criticism during the discussion. On the other hand hon. Members have rather assented to the necessity for the interposition of the revenue officer, and in view of all these circumstances, I hope the Committee will see their way to grant the Resolution.


I rise to seek an assurance that the Government, in dealing with this matter, will have regard to the change in policy which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech of last year. On 11th April last year the right hon. Gentleman announced that in future Schedule A collections would be made on one date and in one sum instead of in two separate collections. I understand that the effect of that change in policy has been to decrease the amount of work performed by local Income Tax collectors by between 40 and 50 per cent., and I want to ask the Government to give an assurance that they will not engage temporary assistants to perform Inland Revenue work while these Income Tax collectors are admittedly performing so much less work than they were prior to the alteration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget of last year. There seems to be less occasion for the engagement of temporary staff than the Government appear to think, and I call their attention to this point because I think it is a matter well worth their earnest consideration.


I want to protest against this expenditure of public money on the appointment of extra officials while the local authorities have highly trained officials who understand the work of valuation, have given years to it, and naturally have acquired and accumulated knowledge and experience. As I understand it, special officers cot so qualified are to be appointed at the expense of the National Exchequer in order to protect the Revenue from under-valuation, but temporary officers in a difficult work like valuation cannot be competent to do what requires special training and long experience. I think this is a real waste of public money. I can understand the importance of some check on local authorities, but it seems to me that a more clumsy, extravagant, unsatisfactory and inefficient way could not have been devised. I think we, in this Committee, the guardians of the public purse, ought to hesitate before granting this large sum of money for more officials.

Three or four years ago there was a real outcry against the multiplication of officials, and I remember the phrase at elections, in big headlines: "Sack the lot!" I believe the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. O. Nicholson) got in mainly because he was pledged to sack the lot, and I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Sir R. Hall) was net also an exponent of that policy.


I must correct the hon. Member. I did not say that.


Apparently he is in favour of increasing the number of officials.


That is equally unfair.


Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will explain his policy later, but I hope he will support me in the Lobby in keeping down the number of officials. Where it can be shown that money is going to be expended well and for the public benefit, I am in favour of it, but in this case we have throughout the country a highly trained, competent body of men, who know the job of valuation, and the Government are going to appoint a host of extra officials, not qualified or trained or possessed of the necessary local knowledge. I see the right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) sitting in his place. He claims to be a protector of the public purse, and I hope he will be prepared to support me in this protest against a flagrant case of duplication of officials.


I do not understand why the Parliamentary Secretary should be surprised that we are raising this question at this stage and not on the Second Rending.


The hon. Member misunderstood me. I expressed no such surprise.


Then I apologise. There are one or two questions I should like to ask him. Am I right in understanding that the provision of these officials is to be made only for the first year, and that after that date the valuations of the local bodies will be accepted without any investigations by the Government?


indicated assent.


Is there any idea of what money will be required; and can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea whether £100,000 or £200,000 or £500,000 will be required for the payment of these officials? The third point I should like to put is this. It seems to me that one of the most difficult questions is not simply that of the officials going in and satisfying themselves as to the valuations where you can have a case that is perfectly clear, but there will be an enormous number of border-line cases. I can imagine that the constituency I represent will afford the right hon. Gentleman a very large number of difficult cases as to whether a special industry is entitled to exemption or not. This will be the case with small in- dustries, where a man is carrying on a retail industry with a small personal manufacturing industry. What arrangements are going to be made, so that the principles laid down in one place are also going to be applied in another? How is a man who has a small industry, say in Finsbury in London, and who makes application and is told that he is entitled to exemption, to make certain that a similar instance in Birmingham is also to get exemption? How are the Government going to satisfy themselves that, with these border-line cases, one man might not be turned down here, whilst an exactly similar case has been granted in another place?

This seems to be the most difficult question these officials will have to face, and I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have told us how these cases will be dealt with, so that the whole system can work as uniformly as possible. I am not going into the difficulties, which I think are insurmountable, but how does the right hon. Gentleman think he is going to get over this difficulty of the law being administered in different ways in different towns?


I rise to protest against the cursory way in which the Minister has dealt with this matter. We are asked calmly to vote £150,000 for the purpose of paying officials that have become necessary by reason of the Bill that has just been given a Second Reading. We on this side of the House are of the opinion that this addition to the ordinary valuation, namely, separating it into the valuation of agriculture, industry and transport services is entirely unnecessary. However, the Bill has been carried. I understand that this separate valuation is not to be the work of the Inland Revenue at all. It is to be done through the local authorities in the ordinary way, and we are asked to give £150,000 to pay watch-dogs upon the local authorities. That is really what it comes to. I do not think it is courteous to the Committee to ask it blindly to vote a large sum of money not for the purpose of doing the work but merely to see that others do it correctly. I hope the Minister will condescend to explain to us why it is necessary to expend so large a sum.


I want to assure the hon. and learned Member that I meant no discourtesy to him or the Committee in not developing a longer explanation. I do not think the hon. and learned Member was present when this matter was discussed, otherwise I feel sure he would not have made a suggestion of that kind, because the point he raised has been dealt with at considerable length by my right hon. Friend. I will deal with the points put by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) and by the other two hon. Members. As regards the staff, of course it will necessitate some temporary addition to the staff of the Inland Revenue. It will be of two kinds: Additional temporary clerical assistance will be required, and additional temporary officers with some professional training, who can at least make inspections and ascertain the necessary data, and exercise certain professional skill in estimating and valuing.


Will they be qualified surveyors?


I am carefully choosing my words in addressing the Committee, and I think the hon. Gentleman can rely on it that the best assistance which is available will be obtained in this

connection. I certainly will have regard to what the hon. Member for East Bristol has said in that connection. I know that he will not expect me to give him a definite undertaking, but I will see that what he has said is conveyed to the officials of the Inland Revenue. With regard to the points put by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), these officials will be required for the first valuation only, and the sum of money which is involved in this Resolution is, as indicated in the memorandum of the Bill, £150,000. On the more important point he raised, as to how to get a certain similarity of decisions in practice up and down the country, of course that does not arise on this Resolution so far as the action of the assessment committees are concerned, but so far as concerns the revenue officers they will, of course, be acting under the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and therefore, I hope, there will be uniformity of practice so far as their decisions are concerned. I hope that with these explanations the Committee will now see their way to let us have this Resolution.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes. 103.

Division No. 156.] AYES. [11.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Burton, Colonel H. W. Drewe, C.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Butt, sir Alfred Edmondson, Major A. J.
Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Elliot, Major Walter E.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Carver, Major W. H. Ellis, R. G.
Apsley, Lord Cassels, J. D. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Cautley, Sir Henry s. Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Everard, W. Lindsay
Atkinson, C. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Fielden, E. B.
Balniel, Lord Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.) Forrest, W.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood) Fraser, Captain Ian
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Chilcott, Sir Warden Galbraith, J. F. W.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Christie, J. A. Ganzoni, Sir John
Bennett, A. J. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Gates, Percy
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cohen, Major J. Brunel Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Colman, N. C. D. Goff, Sir Park
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Couper, J. B. Gower, Sir Robert
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Courtauld, Major J. S. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Brass, Captain W. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Briggs, J. Harold Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Grotrian, H. Brent
Briscoe, Richard George Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Gunston, Captain D. W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hacking, Douglas H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Curzon, Captain Viscount Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Dalkeith, Earl of Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Buchan, John Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Davies, Dr. Vernon Hamilton, Sir George
Bullock, Captain M. Dawson, Sir Philip Hammersley, S. S.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hanbury, c.
Burman, J. B. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Harrison, G. J. C. Margesson, Captain D. Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Hartington, Marquess of Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Mason, Colonel Glyn K, Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Meller, R. J. Shepperson, E. W
Haslam, Henry C. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Meyer, Sir Frank Skelton, A. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Smithers, Waldron
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph Sprot, Sir Alexander
Hilton, Cecil Nelson, Sir Frank Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Neville, Sir Reginald J. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Storry-Deans, R.
Hopkins, J. W. W. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N Oakley, T. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) styles, Captain H. Walter
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Penny, Frederick George Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Templeton, W. P.
Hume, Sir G. H. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Perring, Sir William George Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Jephcott, A. R. Pilcher, G. Tinne, J. A.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Power, Sir John Cecil Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Preston, William Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lamb, J. Q. Price, Major C. W. M. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Raine, Sir Walter Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Ramsden, E. Warrender, Sir Victor
Little, Dr. E. Graham Rees, Sir Beddoe Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Remer, J. R. wells, S. R.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Loder, J. de V. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Looker, Herbert William Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Lougher, Lewis Ropner, Major L. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Rye, F. G. Wolmer, Viscount
Lumley, L. R Salmon, Major I. Womersley, W. J.
Lynn, Sir Robert J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
MacIntyre, I. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
McLean, Major A. Sandeman, N. Stewart Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Macmillan, Captain H. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Sanderson, Sir Frank
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sandon, Lord TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Major Sir William Cope and Captain
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Groves, T. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Grundy, T. W. Oliver, George Harold
Ammon, Charles George Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Paling, W.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hardie, George D. Ponsonby, Arthur
Baker, Walter Harney, E. A. Potts, John S.
Barnes, A. Harris, Percy A. Purcell, A. A.
Barr, J. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Batey, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hayes, John Henry Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Briant, Frank Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Broad, F. A. Hirst, G. H. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Bromfield, William Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Scrymgeour, E.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Scurr, John
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Sexton, James
Charleton, H. C. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Compton, Joseph Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Dalton, Hugh Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sitch, Charles H.
Day, Harry Kelly, W. T. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Dennison, R, Kennedy, T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Duncan, C. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Snell, Harry
Dunnico, H. Kirkwocd, D. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Fenby, T. D. Lansbury, George Stephen, Campbell
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Lawrence, Susan Sullivan, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph Lee, F. Sutton, J. E.
Gillett, George M. Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Greenall, T. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Tinker, John Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) MacNeill-Weir, L. Tomlinson, R. P.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Townend, A. E.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Montague, Frederick Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Varley, Frank B. Whiteley, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Williams, David (Swansea, East) Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Wellock, Wilfred Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Charles Edwards.
Westwood, J. Windsor, Walter
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.