Motion made and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £70,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The additional amount which is being asked for under sub-head C is £70,000, and it arises from two causes. In the first place, the poundage of the local authorities has increased more than was anticipated when the Estimate was brought up. The Committee will appreciate that the Estimate has to be drawn up at the beginning of the year, and the local authorities fix their poundage afterwards, so that it is impossible for those preparing the Estimates to arrive with certainty at the amount of the rates. In the Metropolitan boroughs alone that has involved an additional expenditure on rates of about £25,000. There has also been an additional poundage in some of the provincial local authorities, counterbalanced by reductions in others, and the total additional expenditure on account of alterations in poundage is, roughly speaking, £22,000. That includes both the Metropolitan and the provincial local authorities.
The second item is due to the alteration in valuations. Crown property is not valued in the same way as private property. The Crown valuation is based on the private property valuation, and we endeavour to pay a reasonable sum comparable to what is paid by the private person. Owing to the revaluation in 1925, which took some time to carry through, there was a revision of the value of Government property. That revision could not be undertaken until after the valuation of private property was, in many cases, complete, and it was 2070 decided that when the revision of the amount of valuation of Government property took place, it should go back to the same date that applied to private property. In most cases, that was from the 1st April, 1929, but in 10 county boroughs it went back to the 1st April, 1928, so that we had to meet not merely the increased charge owing to the increased valuation during the current year, but to pay arrears going back in some cases one year, and in some cases two years. These arrears and the extra on the current year amount altogether to £78,000, but it was already estimated that some increase would be required, and the additional increase over what was estimated on this account amounts to about £48,000. That amount arising out of the increased valuation, together with the £22,000 arising out of the increased poundage, gives us the figure of £70,000, for which we are obliged to come to the Committee.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
Perhaps on this Estimate I may make use of an expression of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made use on two occasions, namely, "Turn about and wheel about." We see from the accounts that last year there was an Estimate of £1,711,825, as against an Estimate of £1,754,000. They turned about and took that amount off the Estimate based on the figures when Ii held the hon. Gentleman's office. They took off £42,000 and have now wheeled about again and added £70,000. It is not a very difficult thing to estimate.
§ Mr. SAMUEL
I take exception to that view with all due deference. In dealing with the estimated rates on Crown property, the figures are settled by the Treasury themselves. The Crown makes the estimate on the figures in front of it, and does not wait for the local assessors. The Crown takes the existing figures and makes its own estimate of what it ought to pay in lieu of rates. The Financial Secretary says it is impossible to know what it will be, but I do not see how he can defend that statement. It has the figures in front of it, and the Crown makes its own estimate. We are asked to put back an additional sum of £70,000 after the Treasury had removed £42,000 previously. They turn 2071 round and wheel about. Why they show such vacillation, I do not know. Has this difference first of £42,000 taken off and £70,000 put on anything to do with the contribution of Northern Ireland? I know Northern Ireland does make some contribution. There are the reserved services, and a certain amount has to be recovered from Northern Ireland. It is very unsatisfactory to find that the figures changed about. I cannot see how it is impossible to find out what the amount should be when the, Treasury themselves, to my certain knowledge, are the authorities who fix the figure. We ought to hear a good deal more from the Financial Secretary as to the reason for this.
§ Captain BOURNE
This is rather an unsatisfactory form of Supplementary Estimate. For some reason or another, the Government's Estimate for the current year was £42,000 below the estimate of the year before. I quite agree that it is difficult to foresee at the time the Estimates are made whether in certain parts of the country there will be a rise in the actual poundage on the part of the local authority. The Estimate is made somewhere in November and December, and finally settled in February. The hon. Gentleman has said that only £22,000 of the Estimate is accounted for by a rise in the rate, and the rest is on account of revaluation of Government property which he says is due to the valuaion lists under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. The valuation list under that Act had to be made up either by 1st April, 1929, or 1st April, 1929. That is now nearly two years ago. I quite agree that these matters are settled by negotiation between the Treasury and the local authority, but surely the negotiations must have been contemplated at the time the last Estimates were made up? The rise in the assessment had to take place by that date, and surely that information must have been available to the Treasury at least a year ago? If that was the case, there did not seem reason for an arbitrary decrease in the Estimate by £42,000 at a, time when, in view of the reassessment, we all know in various parts of the country that would result in a rise.
Surely the Treasury might have had the imagination to foresee that, and they must have had the information by this 2072 time last year giving an indication of a certain rise in the poundage rates I cannot see what justification there is for cutting the Estimate by £42,000 and then coming for a Supplementary Estimate afterwards. It has been said by more than one high financial authority that Supplementary Estimates are a very bad form of finance. They are justified on two suppositions only, namely, a new service or an unforeseen expenditure arising that could not possibly have been foreseen at the time of the original Estimate. I agree that the sum could not have been accurately foreseen, but as regards the possibility that owing to our own Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, in certain localities the amount that they might be reasonably asked to contribute is a thing they might reasonably have foreseen, they should have made provision for it in the original Estimate.
§ Captain GUNSTON
I should like to ask a few questions about the Estimate. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Royal Palaces. Do the House of Lords and the House of Commons come under the Royal Palaces, because the Estimates allow for a slight increase in the rates of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I should have thought that they would have known whether there was likely to be an increase in rates for these two buildings. A small increase is shown on the original Estimate, and I should like to ask if it has worked fairly well? Another interesting item about which we are entitled to ask is that of rents. In the original Estimate for 1929 the amount was £4,375, and in the Estimate for 1930 it is £1,760, which is a very considerable saving. It seemed to us at the time that the saving was rather over-estimated, and I am rather inclined to think, perhaps either through a mistake in poundage or because they did not quite realise what the rateable value would be, they have gone rather wrong under that head. Another interesting thing is the Estimate in regard to London. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman expected to save £50 on the Home Office and to pay another £1,000 on the Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. Did the Estimate work out correctly to that amount? Then he expected to have a small saving on the Registrar-General's Office.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is dealing now with the original Estimate. He has been long enough in this House to know that on this occasion we are dealing with Supplementary Estimates, and that he must confine himself to the Supplementary Estimate. It is not in order to go over all the details of the original Estimate, though he may ask for explanations.
As we have an increase in the Estimate in respect of rates, surely I am entitled to ask where the increase is to be found under the heads of the original Vote?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not object to that, but the hon. and gallant Member is going through all these separate items on the assumption that one particular item is responsible for the increase.
§ Captain GUNSTON
I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but while I have been a Member of the House I have paid a great deal of attention to the question of rates and took a great interest in the Rating and Valuation Bill, and I was anxious to know how the estimates of the Department had worked out. However, I will not pursue that subject, and I will go on to ask the Financial Secretary a question in regard to the royal parks. I see that the right hon. Gentleman who has the chief responsibility for looking after the pelicans is seated near him, and perhaps we may have a little information as to whether the rates on the royal parks have gone up owing to the activities of the right hon. Gentleman in making them more alluring to the public.
§ Mr. CULVERWELL
If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, £22,000 of this money is in respect of increased poundage and £48,000 in respect of increased valuation. With these additions the rates now amount to more than they did in 1930, although with the De-rating Act in operation we might have expected a lower charge for rates. It is an alarming sign of the times and of the growth of municipal expenditure that instead of the charge for rates being reduced by the De-rating Act the expenditure is some £25,000 more. I should be out of order, however, in dwelling on that point, and I will pass to another question to which I attach some importance. I 2074 notice that among the Government buildings for which rates have to be paid are the Stationery and Printing Office buildings. How much of the increased expenditure is the result of increased valuation following the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925? I ask that because the Stationery and Printing Office is a trading Department of the Government. When that Act was enforced a certain municipal corporation's electricity department found its valuation trebled as the result of reassessment, and then, instead of being able to contribute some £16,000 in relief of the rates of the city and boast, as hon. Members opposite would, of what a wonderful success they had made of their electricity undertaking, they found its operations involved them in a loss—because of the fair and proper valuation. I always believe that trading departments, whether they belong to a local authority or to the Government, should be made to stand upon their own legs, because when a trading department is being subsidised to a certain extent by the Government it is easy for hon. Members opposite to point out what a wonderful success it is.
§ Mr. CULVERWELL
I quoted that instance to show the necessity of finding out whether a correct valuation had been placed on these buildings. I wish to know how much of this £48,000 which is attributable to increased valuation relates o the offices and buildings of the Stationery and Printing Department, because I have not the least doubt that hon. Members opposite take a delight in pointing to that undertaking as an example of collective enterprise. It is far more important, therefore, to know that this trading Department has every expense attributed to it which it should justly bear than to know the facts about Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum and our picture galleries and the various Government offices in Whitehall. If it is to be assumed that there has been an increase owing to a previous under valuation of the Stationery and Printing Department, then the expenses of that Department will present a very different picture in the future. I hope, for the sake of the Department, that the increase 2075 attributable to any increased valuation in respect of it will not be so great as, perhaps, I had anticipated.
§ Mr. DIXEY
Knowing the close relations which exists between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, one feels sure that the Financial Secretary will have realised that he has a peculiar responsibility to see that every penny of this money is property spent. I pay him the credit of acknowledging his loyalty and the great service he has rendered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the economic campaign which is being waged inside the party. Nevertheless, I have a question to ask as to how these assessments are arrived at. As I understand it, they are more or less settled between the rating authority for the area in which the premises are situated and the Treasury, and I take it that they are arrived at in all cases by agreement. If I am correct in that, I would like to know what proportion of this £70,000 is expended on paying the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department. Are any fees payable for valuation expenses, or are there no salaries outside the ordinary departmental salaries? Is this the best we can expect, in spite of the De-rating Bill? Are we to understand that this increased expenditure must be expected from year to year, or have we reached the maximum in rating values?
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I should like to ask if any of this £70,000 is to be spent in Northern Ireland. This Vote is required to cover:Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers.I should like to know whether any of that sum is to be used for Northern Ireland. I do not quite understand what is meant by the words "occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers." Does that mean, as regards the embassies in England, that a contribution is given in lieu of rates on those buildings. In other words, does the English Government give a contribution to the local authorities in those cases.
§ Mr. ALBERY
The £22,000 is required to meet the rise in the poundage of rates and the £48,000 is for the increased 2076 valuations. I want to know what relation there is between these two amounts and the actual totals of the additional poundage on rates and the increased valuation, on the basis of the original Estimates.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I think I can answer all the points which have been put to me very shortly. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has asked me if any amount of the £70,000 is to be used in Northern Ireland, and the answer to that question is "No." With regard to the question put to me about the rating of the Stationery Office, the answer is that there is no extra money asked for that purpose in this Supplementary Vote. I would also like to point out on the question of salaries that they do not come under Sub-head (C), but under Sub-head (A). With reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), in regard to the rise in the poundage of rates, I understand that the Committee has generally accepted my explanation. With regard to the other point of the charge on valuation raised by him, this matter was put very strongly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who said that nothing of the sort had happened in his time. But as I explained in my opening remarks, this increase has been brought about by the Re-valuation Act of 1925. We have not now the wise and guiding hand of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham at the Treasury, and since his departure, the time has come when the valuations have to be made. The Treasury foresaw that there would be an increase in this respect and they put down a sum of £30,000 to meet it. Instead of this, the sum has amounted to £78,000. I have already explained that this sum does not relate to a single year. After all, £48,000 is a serious item, but it represents an expenditure over several years, and is not a large percentage of the total Vote. In view of the uncertainty with which these valuations often work out, I do not think that any serious charge can be made against those who have made the Estimate. It is for more than one year, and I do not think the total shows that there has has been any carelessness on the part of the valuation department.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £48,000.
I have taken great interest in the Financial Secretary's reply upon the amounts and I do not like what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has called the Jim Crow policy of jumping about from figure to figure, first a reduction in the original Estimate and now an addition. I agree that the poundage explanation given about the increase of £22,000 is a good reason, but as regards the £48,000 I do not agree that it has been sufficiently justified, and, for that reason, I move a reduction of the Vote.
§ Mr. ALBERY
I am sorry to have to trespass on the Committee's time again. When the Financial Secretary got up to reply just now he assured the Committee that he could easily answer all the questions put to him, and he did answer with great ease and great courtesy for the most part, but he forgot to answer my question as to the relationship between the two amounts of this Supplementary Estimate and the actual total increase which has taken place under these two heads.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am sorry that I did not answer the hon. Member, but I confess that it was difficult for me to understand his difficulty. Clearly, when one is making rates everything depends on two facts—first of all upon the valuation on which the rate is made, and, secondly, upon the rate in the pound which one has to pay. I have explained that owing to the change in the rate in the pound which one has to pay £22,000 additional is required, and that owing to the change in the valuation £48,000 is required. Added together, those figures make £70,000.
§ Mr. ALBERY
The Financial Secretary has still not seized my point. I understand that the £22,000 is on account of extra poundage and that £48,000 is on account of extra valuation. There was an original Estimate, and presumably it allowed for some increase or no increase—I am not clear which. Was some increase in poundage allowed for? As regards valuation, I am not clear whether there was some increase or no increase allowed for. Can the Financial Secretary give us some idea of what was the total extra charge in poundage owing 2078 to increased rates, and what was the total extra charge on valuation owing to increased valuation?
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I have to explain the difference between the revised Estimate and the original Estimate. All that I am concerned about is to show why, having secured that Vote for the original Estimate, I now have to come to the Committee and ask for a revised Estimate. So far as poundage is concerned you have to take the country as a whole. In some cases poundages are higher, and in some cases they are lower. All that I can be called upon to say is that, taking the poundage as a whole throughout the country, the reason why we have to ask for £22,000 more is the change or difference in poundage between what was anticipated and what it is to-day. With regard to the alteration in valuation, I have explained that £30,000 was allowed for, but owing to re-valuation the amount is larger than was anticipated; it is £78,000 instead of £30,000, and that means an additional £48,000.
§ Mr. ALBERY
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to answer. What I am trying to ascertain is what the Treasury anticipated. To what extent was there any real need for having this Supplementary Estimate?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I think I can answer the question of my hon. Friend. There has been an increase in this poundage because the rates have gone up, and the rates have gone up because we have a Socialist Government.
§ Mr. REMER
Everyone will agree that the Financial Secretary has failed to make the Estimates clear in any way. A few nights ago I said that there was a lack of scrutiny in all these Estimates. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has come here with an Estimate which he has seen for the first time, and that he has no real knowledge of it at all. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Mint, and said that there had been a saving of the rates paid in that case because it was a productive industry. Surely, the proper way to have presented the Estimate would have been to have shown the extra rates where more have been paid, and under the various subheads to show the savings where there have been savings. Then we could have 2079 understood quite clearly where the extra expenditure or savings were. In the case of the Royal Mint, what is the saving?
§ Mr. DIXEY
I cannot think it is a pleasurable sensation for the hon. Gentleman to hear very serious allegations made against him for coming to the Committee with an improperly prepared Supplementary Estimate. If I know anything of his character and general esteem in this House, he will see there is reason for our complaints and do his best to remedy them. Very serious charges have been made that he does not quite appreciate the importance of his own Estimate. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this Estimate and represent it in the proper form, so that hon. Members on this side of the Committee and on the other side—[Interruption]. In the whole of these Supplementary Estimates we have not had one speech from the other side of the Committee. Yes, just one. We are voting large sums of money on improperly prepared Estimates, and, quite frankly, as far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman does not understand portions of his own Estimates. Members opposite are ignorant—
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON
On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman not displaying his own ignorance by asking the questions that he is asking?
§ Major COLFOX
On a point of Order. Is there no way in which hon. Members opposite can be prevented from submitting bogus points of Order?
§ Mr. DIXEY
No, I am not. I am putting a very definite and pertinent point to the hon. Gentleman, with no bitterness and with proper respect to 2080 yourself and the Committee. A very critical Estimate such as this, embracing large expenditure, comes before the Committee and very vital information is missing. I would strongly press the hon. Gentleman, whatever may be the position of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at this stage for his own benefit and the benefit of his Government to withdraw the Estimate and re-introduce it with the proper information.
May I ask your advice on this point, Sir Robert? As there is such a discrepancy of opinion about the righteousness and propriety of this Estimate, would it be in order if I were to propose to report Progress, so that the Estimate might be withdrawn and revised?
§ Mr. CULVERWELL
May we assume from the fact that no Supplementary Estimate is brought in in the case of Scotland or Northern Ireland—
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is the fault of hon. Members not being in the Committee and not paying attention to the Estimate. If the hon. Member will look at the Estimate, he will find that neither Ireland, Scotland nor other parts of the original Estimate is included. It is confined to "C."
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Gentleman would look at the Estimate he would know that it is not included.
§ Mr. CULVERWELL
I was asking why, if a correct Estimate can be made in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, it cannot be made in the case of England.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted for the said Service."2082
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 224.2083
|Division No. 168.]||AYES.||[10.13 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Ganzoni, Sir John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Albery, Irving James||Gault, Lieut.-Cot. A. Hamilton||Penny, Sir George|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Remer, John R.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T,||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Somerset, Thomas|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Davies, Maj- Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Train, J.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Marjoribanks, Edward||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Captain Sir George Bowyer and|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Captain Wallace.|
|Fremuntle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Foot, Isaac||Lathan, G.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Freeman, Peter||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Alpass, J. H.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglessa)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Gibbins, Joseph||Lawson, John James|
|Angell, Sir Norman||Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Arnott, John||Gill, T. H.||Leach, W.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Gillett, George M.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Glassey, A. E.||Lees, J.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Gossling, A. G.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Barr, James||Gould, F.||Lindley, Fred W.|
|Batey, Joseph||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Gray, Milner||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Benson, G.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Longden, F.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Groves, Thomas E.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lunn, William|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Bromfield, William||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Brothers, M.||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||McElwee, A.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||McEntee, V. L.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Hardie, George D.||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)|
|Burgln, Dr. E. L.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Calne, Derwent Hall.||Haycock, A. W.||McShane, John James|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hayday, Arthur||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Manning, E. L.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Marcus, M.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Markham, S. F.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Herrlotts, J.||Marley, J.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Marshall, Fred|
|Compton, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Mathers, George|
|Cove, William G.||Hoffman, P. C.||Matters, L. W.|
|Cowan, D. M.||Hollins, A.||Melville, Sir James|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Hopkin, Daniel||Middleton, G.|
|Daggar, George||Horrabin, J. F.||Milner, Major J.|
|Dallas, George||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Montague, Frederick|
|Dalton, Hugh||Isaacs, George||Morley, Ralph|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Jenkins, Sir William||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Devlin, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Mort, D. L.|
|Dukes, C.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Duncan, Charles||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Murnin, Hugh|
|Ede, James Chuter||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Kelly, W. T.||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Egan, W. H.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Elmley, Viscount||Kirkwood, D.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Palin, John Henry||Sexton, Sir James||Tout, W. J.|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Townend, A. E.|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Viant, S. P.|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Sherwood, G. H.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Phillips, Dr. Marion||Shield, George William||Walker, J.|
|Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Watkins, F. C.|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Shillaker, J. F.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Potts, John S.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda).|
|Price, M. P.||Simmons, C. J.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Quibell, D. J. K.||Sitch, Charles H.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Raynes, W. R.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||White, H. G.|
|Richards, R.||Snell, Harry||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Ritson, J.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Romeril, H. G.||Strauss, G. R.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Sullivan, J.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Rowson, Guy||Sutton, J. E.||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Sanders, W. S.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Sandham, E.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Sawyer, G. F.||Thurtle, Ernest||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Scott, James||Tillett, Ben||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Tinker, John Joseph|
Original Question put, and agreed to.