HC Deb 22 July 1930 vol 241 cc1977-87
Mr. MARJORIBANKS

I beg to move, in page 25, line 9, at the end, to insert the words: Notwithstanding anything in this Section or any repeal effected by this Act all rights of appeal given by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, with regard to any property to which that Act applies shall continue to remain in force. On the last occasion when we discussed this matter we considered the whole question of the relative merits of single and double valuation. The House will remember that by the Act of 1869 a single valuation was established in London both for rates and taxes; the valuation of the local authority was made conclusive for all purposes of the Income Tax Acts. We say this system was of very great advantage to London and ought to have been extended over the whole country, and every commission and every committee which has ever been called upon to inquire into this subject has recommended a single valuation, but here we find a Socialist Government going in for a policy of reaction and extending the system of double valuation in the provinces to London on the plea of securing uniformity. As a matter of fact, however no uniformity is secured, so that the change has not even that advantage, for whereas in the provinces real property is assessed by assessors who are appointed by the General Commissioners, who are an independent and judicial body appointed over and above the tax collector, and having no connection with him, in London the valuers are to be surveyors of taxes, who are the people who assess and collect taxes. In fact, the valuation of the most valuable and most changing property in the world, real property in London, is to be in the hands of the tax collectors at Somerset House. That this is the intention of the Government is obvious from the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated £15,000 only as the increased cost of the new machinery.

It is well known that Somerset House have long desired to get this matter into their own hands. They have long been dissatisfied with the assessments of the local authorities, although there is no reason why they should be dissatisfied, because they were made a party to every assessment by the local authorities and could have appealed to Quarter Sessions or to the Assessment Committees; and the only possible justification for this change is that they have neglected their duties in the past, or that they did not wish to put their case before an independent judicial tribunal. The chief grievance which will result from the change from the single to the double valuation is that the unfortunate taxpayer and the unfortunate ratepayer will have to go to two parallel courts of appeal to decide upon exactly the same subject matter. Every authority upon taxation has agreed that a piece of property is worth so much for the purposes of either rates or taxes; it is the taxes which are different, and not the value.

The most powerful argument adduced against the conclusive argument which we brought forward on the last occasion was the reactionary argument brought forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan), who is himself a General Commissioner. It was based upon arguments so fallacious that I wish he were here now to listen to what we have to say about it. His argument is that a property has got two values, one for rates and the other for taxes. What argument could be more absurd? He stated a reason which showed, I think, an abyssmal ignorance of the principles on which he himself should administer the high office which he holds. He said, in the first place, that the value of a property for rating purposes depended upon the annual value of the property, taking it year by year and comparing one property with another, whereas he said that for tax purposes the value of the property depended upon the income derived therefrom. That is a distinction without a difference. The hon. and gallant Member brought forward a sad story of how difficult it was to make a compromise between those two principles. The rules under Schedule "A" lay down that it is the annual value and not the rent or income which is the criterion, and that has been established and reinforced by judicial decisions over many years, including the Salisbury House case the other day. It would be monstrously unfair to decide it on what was the income derived therefrom. Supposing that were taken to mean the rent. In London a great deal of property is let at a huge premium and a small rent. You have to take the annual value of the property comparing one property with another and comparing one year with another; and so the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fulham simply falls to the ground.

There is the same criterion for each purpose, and the whole justification for double valuation really collapses. But we have a safeguard and a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman has insisted on bringing forward this change. He is obviously adamant upon it, and I think he has himself said that he hopes to raise £500,000 additional revenue. I want him to safeguard the taxpayer in the matter of appeal. I want him to say that there shall be an appeal from the surveyor of taxes to at least Quarter Sessions and, if possible, to the Assessment Committee. I want him to say that these valuable properties, which change from year to year almost out of all knowledge, shall be adjudged by a proper and competent court of law. I want the experts to be cross-examined, so that we can get the real value of the property. Under this Clause there is an appeal to the General Commissioners of Income Tax, of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fuham is a notable and ornamental example. You go to the hon. and gallant Member, and he decides the case, as he has told us, with the utmost competence and the utmost care, which I am sure is true, but it has been held that the General Commissioners of Income Tax can take into consideration their own local knowledge of the property, and so the judge is himself to be an expert witness. Or, again, if the taxpayer so desires, he can call for a valuation from a single expert, and that valuation is conclusive and we cannot go beyond it.

5.0 p.m.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, whom I saw present a moment or two ago, knows perfectly well that in rating cases the opinion of one particular expert may be of comparatively little value. It can nearly always be shaken by cross-examination. It is essential for a judicial mind, without any special knowledge of the particular property, to consider the evidence brought forward from both sides as to the value of the property. The values in London are changing from day to day. One moment an old building is pulled down and a building of a residential or commercial character is erected on the same site. Under these changing conditions, a most careful examination is necessary to see what these new buildings are worth in regard to taxation in order that justice may be done. I think that we have made out an unanswerable case for this Amendment. The capitalist Press and members of the Socialist party are constantly declaring that London enjoys an unfair advantage in regard to the valuation of property, and it is contended that the Exchequer ought to receive an additional £500,000 every year from this source. London has been enjoying this advantage simply because of its good system, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer now desires to extend to London a bad system in order to create uniformity throughout England. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept my Amendment which gives a right of appeal to the citizens of London.

Mr. ATKINSON

I beg to second the Amendment.

We are dealing with a dual method of valuation, one by the overseers and another by the surveyor of taxes. Both those systems aim at the same thing, namely, the ascertainment of a fair annual value for taxation. Having made that valuation, is it not rather unfair to the ratepayer that he should have two different bodies to deal with, because in one case he must go to the quarter sessions and in the other case to the assessment committee. There ought to be one appeal to one tribunal, and that ought to be a legal tribunal. The argument in favour of this Amendment can be put into a nutshell. The whole point is to save the taxpayer two sets of appeals, and allow him to get his rights by going through one set of legal proceedings. The final decision should rest with the legal tribunal, which is accustomed, by long experience, to deal with these questions, and that tribunal should be the quarter sessions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) has already pointed out, this Amendment is a fair compromise. I think every person ought to have the right to support his valuation before an independent tribunal.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Majoribanks) had a skirmish with me on this question when Clause 3 was before the House. On that occasion, he moved an Amendment and expressed his approval of Clause 3, and at that time he had the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), who on this occasion has come to the aid of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Eastbourne has raised a good many points which were touched upon during the Committee stage, and I was rather glad that on this occasion he has spared the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and poured out the vials of his wrath on the head of the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan), who attacked most of the arguments which the hon. Member has brought forward to-day. I do not think this Amendment is the proper occasion on which to discuss the merits of a single or dual valuation of property in London. That point has already been settled. This Amendment deals with the one question—what shall be the nature of the appeal from the valuation for Schedule A tax? The point is whether we shall take the form proposed in the Bill, or that proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne in addition to the form proposed in the Bill? The hon. Member does not propose to do away with the normal appeal which already exists under the ordinary procedure of Schedule A, but he proposes to add to that the appeal which he suggests in his Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS

This Amendment was put down on Report in the hope that something might be done to meet our case.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The effect of the Amendment is to give the taxpayer the alternative of two types of appeal. My own opinion is that the taxpayer would not always avail himself of the particular appeal proposed by the hon. Member. The form of appeal in the Bill and that proposed by the Amendment are quite different. We propose to bring the appeal into line with the appeal which exists for Schedule A in other places. Under the procedure in the Bill the taxpayer has a right of appeal to the Local Commissioners. The taxpayer has also the right to ask for an expert valuation. Further, on a point of law, he has a right of appeal to the High Court. That is in accordance with the uniform practice which already exists in the provinces, and works very well there, and it is reasonable it should be applied to London when, in other respects, the valuation for Schedule A purposes is being made uniform throughout the country.

What does the hon. Member for East-borne propose to substitute for that method? First of all he proposes an appeal to the Assessment Committee and then to the quarter sessions. That is proposed because it is an appeal which already exists for rating purposes and applies in London to Schedule A because that is at present based on the same basis as the valuation for rates. The hon. Member proposes to retain this appeal in the changed circumstances for Schedule A. The hon. Member for Eastbourne says that the taxpayer will avail himself freely of this form of appeal. I am not quite so sure about that. The appeal to the Local Commissioners may be made more cheaply than that to the quarter sessions. An appeal to the quarter sessions may be very expensive because in that case counsel must be employed, whereas if the ratepayer goes before the Local Commissioners he only needs to employ an accountant.

My opinion is that if this Amendment were carried giving the taxpayer an option he would often revert to the appeal provided under the Bill and would use it in preference to the appeal suggested by the hon. Member. If on the other hand the hon. Member's method were substituted for that in the Bill the taxpayer might find himself aggrieved by the change. The system in the Bill has worked very well in other parts of the country and I see no adequate reasons for making the change suggested. I only wish that the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham had been present to strengthen the arguments which he used on the last occasion with such determination that he seemed to overwhelm hon. Members opposite. I have done my best to clinch the arguments which have been put forward and I feel quite certain that the House will take the view that the uniform form which the Bill proposes is better than the alternative which has been suggested.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I am greatly disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment, because it seems to me that there is an unanswerable case in its favour. The Financial Secretary said that the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) had overwhelmed us, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has not overwhelmed us with the answer he has given to the case which has been put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Majoribanks). In the provinces the valuation is initiated by the assessor who is an independent person and in London the valuations are made by the surveyor of taxes who is a Government official. We want a uniform appeal between rate valuation and tax valuation. Under the rate valuation, we have now to go to quarter sessions. Why not under the tax valuation? It is exactly the same property that has to be valued. If you take No. 1 in such-and-such a street, that is going to be valued for the purposes of rating. If the owner does not like it, he has to go to quarter

sessions. It has also to be valued for the purpose of tax. Why not let the owner also go to quarter sessions on an independent appeal? There might even be in respect of the one house, two appeals, one to quarter sessions and one to the Commissioners, under the Bill as it is now.

The valuations might be quite different. Both might be made perfectly honesty, of course, but they might be quite different, and, if you want uniformity, you ought to get uniformity in the court of appeal. That is the ordinary way in which administrative acts are reviewed. This is to be an administrative valuation, and there ought to be an appeal to the same court. I suggest that that is fair to the rating authority, is fair to the taxing authority, and is fair to the taxpayer or ratepayer. It saves him, perhaps, a double appeal, for the appeal that has taken place in the one case will probably do for the second case, because, if the value is fixed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, it will probably become the adopted value with the rating authority or the taxing authority as the case may be, and the subject will not be forced to go to the expense of a second appeal. Surely, that is fairer to the authorities and fairer to the individual, and will bring about uniformity and simplification and save expense. The case that has been made by my hon. Friend is an unanswerable case. At least, it has not been answered, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot do better, I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 142: Noes, 258.

Division No. 446.] AYES. [5.18 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Bracken, B. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Albery, Irving James Buckingham, Sir H. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Burton, Colonel H. W. Dalkeith, Earl of
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Butler, R. A. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover) Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Astor, Viscountess Carver, Major W. H. Davies, Dr. Vernon
Atholl, Duchess of Cautley, Sir Henry S. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Atkinson, C. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Duckworth, G. A. V.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Cayzer, Maj Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Eden, Captain Anthony
Beaumont, M. W. Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Edmondson, Major A. J.
Berry, Sir George Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Elliot, Major Walter E.
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Christie, J. A. England, Colonel A.
Bird, Ernest Roy Cobb, Sir Cyril Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Colfox, Major William Philip Everard, W. Lindsay
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Cranborne, Viscount Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Ferguson, Sir John
Ford, Sir P. J. Macquisten, F. A. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ganzoni, Sir John Marjoribanks, E. C. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Gower, Sir Robert Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Grace, John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Thomson, Sir F.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Muirhead, A. J. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Todd, Capt. A. J.
Hammersley, S. S. O'Connor, T. J. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Turton, Robert Hugh
Haslam, Henry C. Peake, Capt. Osbert Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Penny, Sir George Warrender, Sir Victor
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wayland, Sir William A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Power, Sir John Cecil Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ramsbotham, H. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Rawson, Sir Cooper Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hurd, Percy A. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Withers, St John James
Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Womersley, W. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Ross, Major Ronald D. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Little, Dr. E. Graham Savery, S. S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Llewellin, Major J. J. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Captain Margesson and Captain
Long, Major Hon. Eric Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) Wallace.
Lymington, Viscount Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Denman, Hon. R. D. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Dukes, C. John, William (Rhondda, West)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. Duncan, Charles Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Alpass, J. H. Ede, James Chuter Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ammon, Charles George Edmunds, J. E. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Arnott, John Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Aske, Sir Robert Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Attlee, Clement Richard Egan, W. H. Kelly, W. T.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Elmley, Viscount Kennedy, Thomas
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Freeman, Peter Kinley, J.
Barnes, Alfred John Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Knight, Holford
Barr, James Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Batey, Joseph George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lang, Gordon
Bellamy, Albert Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Gill, T. H. Lathan, G.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.) Gillett, George M. Law, A. (Rosendale)
Benson, G. Glassey, A. E. Lawrence, Susan
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Gossling, A. G. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lawson, John James
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Bowen, J. W. Gray, Milner Leach, W.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Broad, Francis Alfred Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Bromfield, William Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Lees, J.
Brooke, W. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Brothers, M. Groves, Thomas E. Lloyd, C. Ellis
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Grundy, Thomas W. Logan, David Gilbert
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Longbottom, A. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Longden, F.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Buchanan, G. Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Lowth, Thomas
Burgess, F. G. Harris, Percy A. Lunn, William
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Caine, Derwent Hall- Haycock, A. W. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Cameron, A. G. Hayday, Arthur MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hayes, John Henry McElwee, A.
Charleton, H. C. Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) McEntee, V. L.
Chater, Daniel Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Church, Major A. G. Herriotts, J. MacLaren, Andrew
Cluse, W. S. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) McShane, John James
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hoffman, P. C. Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Compton, Joseph Hollins, A. Mansfield, W.
Cove, William G. Hopkin, Daniel March, S.
Cowan, D. M. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Marcus, M.
Daggar, George Horrabin, J. F. Marley, J.
Dallas, George Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Marshall, Fred
Dalton, Hugh Hunter, Dr. Joseph Mathers, George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Matters, L. W.
Day, Harry Isaacs, George Messer, Fred
Millar, J. D. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Sutton, J. E.
Mills, J. E. Romeril, H. G. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Montague, Frederick Rosbotham, D. S. T. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Rowson, Guy Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Morley, Ralph Salter, Dr. Alfred Thurtle, Ernest
Morris, Rhys Hopkins Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Tillett, Ben
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Sanders, W. S. Tinker, John Joseph
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Sawyer, G. F. Townend, A. E.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Scrymgeour, E. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Mort, D. L. Scurr, John Vaughan, D. J.
Moses, J. J. H. Sexton, James Viant, S. P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Walker, J.
Muff, G. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Wallace, H. W.
Murnin, Hugh Sherwood, G. H. Wallhead, Richard C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Shield, George William Watkins, F. C.
Noel Baker, P. J. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Shillaker, J. F. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Oldfield, J. R. Shinwell, E. Wellock, Wilfred
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Welsh, James (Paisley)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Simmons, C. J. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) West, F. R.
Palin, John Henry Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John White, H. G.
Paling, Wilfrid Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Palmer, E. T. Sinkinson, George Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Perry, S. F. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Phillips, Dr. Marion Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Pole, Major D. G. Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Potts, John S. Snell, Harry Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Quibell, D. J. K. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Sorensen, R. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Rathbone, Eleanor Stamford, Thomas W. Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Raynes, W. R. Stephen, Campbell Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) Strauss, G. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Ritson, J. Sullivan, J. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.
Henderson.