§ If any person who is assessable to Income Tax proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that he has a relative living with him who has been denied, wholly or in part, transitional payment under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, as amended by the National Economy Act, 1931, or any Order in Council made thereunder, on the ground that the relative is being maintained wholly or partly by him he shall be entitled to a deduction of fifty pounds in respect of his assessment.— [Mr. Hicks.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. HICKSI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In so doing, I would urge that the principle contained in this Clause is both reasonable and just. The present position is that if a person has exhausted his statutory unemployment benefit and applies to a public assistance committee for transitional payment, and if the income in the home where the individual resides, providing he is a relative, averages in the London area—it may be varied in other parts—between 8s. and 10s. per week per person—and two children under 14 in this instance count as one adult—then the individual so applying for transitional payment receives the verdict of the public assistance committee of nil determination. Therefore, the person so contributing to the home has an additional liability in having to maintain the relative, providing that the relative is still remaining in the home. Our point is that the State is relieved of responsibility for any payment to that relative, because the member of the household becomes responsible for discharging that duty of maintenance, and we think the individual who now takes the responsibility of the State should not, in common fairness and justness, be charged Income Tax upon the amount of money that he has paid in relieving the relative in question. The Clause is self-explanatory in this respect and asks that such a person should have at least £50 less income assessed to him in respect of his liability to Income Tax.
§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKERIn supporting this proposed Clause, I want to point out to the Financial Secretary that a new set of circumstances has arisen in the last 12 months. Since the last Finance Act, the Government have thought fit to bring the means test into operation, and that has brought into being a set of people who have to take on the burden of keeping some member of the family. A person may have been drawing unemployment benefit, but, owing to the means test, the income of the family prevents him getting any benefit or transitional payments at all. The burden of keeping him has to be borne by some member of the family, and this new Clause is introduced in order to relieve that member of the family from some of his Income Tax. I know of cases where parents have put their children to the teaching profession. They borrow the money from the local authority in order to send the children to college, and the loan is paid back when the children enter the teaching profession.
I have in mind two cases of a boy and a girl from separate families who have passed through college and gone into the teaching profession, and the money which was borrowed for their children's training has now to be repaid. The fathers in each case are miners who are out of work and have been refused transitional payment because of the earnings of their children, who now have to bear the double burden of paying back the borrowed money and helping to keep their parents. We claim that those children should receive relief and the parents be recognised as dependent relatives as they are in other cases under the Income Tax provisions. The proposition is so fair that it only wants to be brought to the notice of the House to be recognised as such. It may be urged that this concession would upset the financial aspect of the Bill, but I do not think that it will make such a vast difference.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe proposed Clause is very reasonable and fair. A set of circumstances has arisen which has not been in operation in any other year. A number of men have to keep dependent relatives owing to the operation of the new regulations governing Unemployment Insurance. These people 1943 are also faced with the ordinary Income Tax calls, and it is an extremely hard and formidable burden to throw on poor people. I am not so much concerned about the teaching profession, because it may be argued that they have continuity of work, but I am concerned about those who may be employed during one year earning fairly reasonable wages and who follow an occupation which results in their experiencing a good deal of unemployment in the next year. They have to meet an Income Tax claim based on the previous year's earnings, and, owing to their unemployment, it is almost impossible to meet it. I lave a case which I sent to the Minister, who replied to it courteously saying that nothing could be done. The man is being called upon to pay Income Tax during a period when he has to maintain a wife and certain relatives. To make matters worse, he is on short time and not earning sufficient to pay his Income Tax demand.
We on this side have had no concessions in this Finance Bill at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody has!"] It may be that nobody has, but attempts are being made by the Government's own supporters to get certain concessions, particularly in regard to beer. I have no doubt that they will be rejected, but I heard the Chancellor say that he hoped that in any review that might take place beer would get a proper share of the rebate. We are putting forward a request for a reasonable concession which should be met. It has been granted in the case of men who have to maintain their mothers, and surely, where the State has thrown the added burden of maintaining dependent relatives on other members of the family, it ought to relieve them of some burden of their Income Tax.
§ Mr. PIKEThe House is entitled to an explanation of the underlying requirements of the Mover of this proposed Clause before we decide on its merits. I am inclined to agree with the principle of it, but I am rather suspicious of its actual meaning. If a man has a relative living with him, all that he will have to do under this new Clause is to prove that that relative has been living with him at his expense during some period of the year in order to 1944 receive the relief of £50. The relative might live with one member of the family for one month, and with another for another month, and so on round the family, and 12 branches of the family might make claims for relief. The result would be 12 distinct inquiries into one case. In consequence, the Commissioners would be involved in expenditure, which at this time we are not in a position to afford. The Clause also refers to a relative who has been
denied, wholly or in part, transitional payment under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.What exactly does that mean? We understand the word "wholly," but what does denied "in part" mean? Certain ranges of allowance are made according to the financial condition of applicants, and if every applicant's condition has to be investigated there will be a lot of unnecessary inquiry. Before we are asked to accept this Clause hon. Members opposite should state their case much more clearly, telling us for exactly how long a relative must live with a person and be dependent upon him in order that the abatement of Income Tax may be granted, and exactly what they mean by denied "in part" so far as transitional payments are concerned.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANI am afraid that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has not properly understood the Clause, and that his misunderstanding of it must be due to his misunderstanding of the conditions prevailing amongst unemployed people even in his own constituency. If he were taking a greater interest in the unemployed, and trying to push their interests in a little warmer manner than he seems to be doing, he would have a wider knowledge of the conditions among them and would understand clearly the reason for moving this new Clause.
§ Mr. PIKEI think I do understand the purpose for which the Clause is being moved, but what I am asking hon. Members opposite to do is to let the House have their own explanations of it, so that we may understand it as they would desire us to understand it.
§ Mr. MACLEANI have merely taken what the hon. Member has said as indicating that he does not understand the circumstances of the unemployed. He talks about an unemployed person 1945 living a month with each member of the family in turn, and each member of that family—12 in all—afterwards sending in to the Treasury applications for a reduction of £50 from the amount which they have been assessed for Income Tax. If there were many such cases as he imagines the Ministry of Transport would have to provide additional facilities to enable people to travel round among their relatives. I think the purpose of this Clause is clearly understood by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has told us that he has sent him a case or two, and I also have sent him cases dealing with this particular point. There are young men or young women who have been educated at the expense of their parents—working people —who have made many sacrifices in order to send them to a university. At that time the father was in good work, but now, with the economic depression from which we are suffering, the father has become unemployed. The son or the daughter is regarded by the public assistance committee as being able to maintain the unemployed parent out of the income derived from teaching or the Civil Service, or whatever the occupation followed; but when the son or the daughter makes application to the Income Tax authorities for a rebate because of supporting their parents the Income Tax authorities refuse to regard them as maintaining their parents, and say they are not entitled to an abatement of Income Tax.
Therefore we have this curious situation: the public assistance committees and the Employment Exchanges, which are Government or public departments, look upon these young men and young women as being capable of maintaining their parents and compel them to do so —though in using the word "compel" I do not want to suggest that the young man or young woman seeks to escape the obligation. The public assistance committee says, "With your income you must support your father and mother; we will not give them any transitional payment in view of the income which you enjoy." Those young people are regarded by one Department of the Government as being wholly responsible for the support of their parents, and yet the taxing authority, another Department of the Government, tell them they are not 1946 supporting them, and therefore are not entitled to receive an abatement of Income Tax. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. Let him ask the Financial Secretary if that is not the case. Letter after letter upon this one point has been sent to the Financial Secretary, and the replies we have had, while quite courteous, have stated that under the law as it stands at present nothing can be done in the matter, that no abatement of Income Tax could be granted in respect of the expense to which they were put in maintaining their relatives.
The purpose of this new Clause is to say that where a son or daughter is looked upon by the public assistance authority as maintaining the father and the mother, who on that account are getting no transitional payment, they shall be regarded as supporting their parents, and that the amount of the allowance which the public assistance authorities withhold, whether it be the full sum of 15s. 3d. plus the allowance for the mother, or whether it be a part of that sum, shall be regarded by the Income Tax assessors as being the amount of the abatement in respect of Income Tax to which the son or daughter is entitled. The people on whose behalf we are putting forward this claim arc not many in number, and to grant it would not mean any large sacrifice on the part of the Treasury. I doubt whether throughout the whole country more than 2,000 to 3,000 people would be affected. We have a very good case, a very fair case. It is a new situation, one that could not have been foreseen in any previous Finance Act, not even the Act brought in last autumn. The situation has arisen entirely out of the legislation passed in view of the economic proposals of the National Government. I hope that the National Government will consider this as a perfectly fair and legitimate request, and that this little injustice from which a number of people are suffering will be put right.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot)I readily admit that, in the first instance, this seems a very reasonable proposal. Certainly from those letters, when they came in to me, as they did from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and from their constituents and from my own 1947 constituents and those of other hon. Members, it seemed at first that there was an injustice which ought to be remedied. Then when I examined the matter it seemed to me that the following points arose which I should now like the House to consider. In the first place, we all agree that this is not a case of officials refusing anything, but is the present state of the law. In the second place, these special circumstances have arisen in the case of one set of persons only. The proposed new Clause would relieve this one set of persons and not the others, and persons who have had to maintain uninsured relatives in the past, and will have to maintain them in the future if those relatives do not fall under the statutory provisions with regard to old age and infirmity, would receive no relief. Under these proposals, no relief is given in respect of anybody except the ex-insured persons, and the relatives of the middle-class, who suffer as much as anybody from such circumstances, and the relatives of agricultural labourers, who also suffer under those circumstances, would not receive any relief whatever under the proposals. I do not want to do more than just make the point. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do agricultural labourers pay Income Tax?"] I am talking now of such people as the small shopkeeping class who pay Income Tax. There are people engaged in small farming occupations, perhaps a little higher than agricultural labourers, who feel very keenly at present in regard to the maintenance of relatives. Their burden could not be relieved under the proposed new Clause. Perhaps the term "agricultural labourer" was a mistake. The relief proposed here is double the amount allowed in the case of a dependent relative, which is £25, and here it is £50, but I do not want to found myself on that.
The present state of the law is that a person may have relief on account of a dependent relative living with him if the relative is incapacitated by reason of old age or infirmity. Under this proposed new Clause that provision is to be extended to relatives who are not incapacitated in that way. Let me tell the House why I think it is an unsound proposal for such a small number of people. The 1948 Income Tax authorities can only make an annual determination, but the public assistance committees make a monthly determination. If a determination is made by a local authority it is made in the case of what is admittedly, in theory, a temporary condition. A person is unemployed, and, though unfortunately by the circumstances of the case unemployment may continue for a very long period, it does not continue as long as old age and infirmity which are permanent disabilities. Unemployment, especially in the case of younger people, is a thing which may vary from month to month. In that case, the question asked by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) is a perfectly reasonable one. Who is to carry out the investigation which would be necessary in order to make sure that the relative was being maintained to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue? Obviously, that must be ascertained throughout the whole period of the year during which the person was either wholly or partly dependent upon the relative by whom that person was being kept. Those authorities would need to have investigating machinery to enable them to satisfy themselves that in cases which would no doubt be lodged, cases either of fraud or of infringement of this provision, the person was in fact during the whole of the 12 months in respect of which the claim was made being wholly or mainly maintained by the relative for whom the reduction of Income Tax was being asked. The hon. Member for Gorbals will agree that that is not a difficulty which arises in cases of old age or infirmity, in both of which there is permanent disability which can be easily verified. For the reason that the proposed new Clause only applies to ex-insured persons, and therefore cuts out large sections of the community altogether; for the reason—
§ Mr. MACLEANMay I put this point? The point that seems to present difficulties to the Financial Secretary is that of investigation. Could not the same method be adopted as is used at present to rule people out of transitional payments? Could not the investigating authority be the public assistance committee which at present investigates the need of people in regard to transitional payments?
§ Major ELLIOTThe hon. Member will see at once that that could not apply. In the case of the Inland Revenue, a claim is made for a period of 12 months, and it would involve us in an inexplicable tangle of administrative complications if relatively small sums of 35s. or £2 had to be reclaimed by the Inland Revenue from the persons who had received exemption, and if a series of claims and correspondence were to go on for a small sum for the period of a year.
§ Mr. BUCHANANCould not this be done: Every man who is refused unemployment benefit by the public assistance committee is supplied with a form by the authorities. The form says that his claim is nil. Could not the responsibility be put upon the man who was claiming in respect of a relative of supplying forms for a particular period, and handing them to the authorities after they have been duly authenticated and signed? Would not that be sufficient evidence to cover the period without any investigation at all?
§ Major ELLIOTSurely the hon. Member for Gorbals will realise that these are determinations and investigations which are proper to the consideration between the person claiming benefit and the public assistance committee. The local committee have investigating machinery. To bring the Inland Revenue authorities into this is a wholly unnecessary complication. If the person is not receiving adequate relief, then that is the business of the public assistance committee, which is not asked to find out the facts out of its own money; it has been put into funds by this House, and their investigations are carried on out of funds provided by this House. It is the business of the public assistance committees to ensure that due and adequate relief is given. To complicate that with a series of claims which would be matters of shillings rather than of pounds is to import undesirable complications into the Inland Revenue system of this country.
4.0 p.m.
Let me go further. The Inland Revenue realise that certain circumstances are operating as far as these people are concerned, and that there is a class of case with which previously we have not had to deal. We are anxious, and I will give a pledge that we will do our utmost to 1950 mitigate by administrative action the difficulties that have arisen. For instance, in the most difficult cases where a parent is being assisted, and where there are younger brothers and sisters, it has been found possible to give Income Tax relief by reference to the younger brothers and sisters, treating them as adopted children. There is a class of case running over a long period of time in which it is right and reasonable that such relief should be given. Furthermore, in every case where it can be shown that existing conditions in an elderly man's trade effectively destroy his chance of employment on that account, he is to all intents and purposes incapacitated by old age, and therefore is brought within the meaning of the dependant relatives provision. But I would ask my hon. Friends in all parts of the House to realise that it is not possible to deal in the Inland Revenue with every class of case which arises in the course of a year. The Royal Commission on Income Tax, on which Members belonging to all parties sat, went into this question very closely and very sympathetically, and they said:
These claims, while differing in degree, all arise out of the personal or domestic circumstances of the taxpayer, and although we are conscious that in particular cases the operation of the general rule may result in individual hardship, we feel that we cannot advise any general relaxation of the principles on which the tax is levied.That report was signed, as we know, among others by Mr. William Graham. That was in the year 1920. The fact is that it is not possible to adapt the Income Tax provisions to the circumstances of every case, and particularly an annual determination is not adapted to temporary circumstances. That was true in 1920, and it remains true to-day. The public assistance committee have a very important duty to perform. That duty must be primarily the responsibility of the public assistance committees. This House has gone a very long way in placing vast sums at the disposal of the public assistance committees which they have to administer to obviate these cases of hardship, and I would ask the House to leave the machine of the Inland Revenue to operate, as in the past, on an annual determination, and to leave the short determination to be carried out by the public assistance committee. That, I think, will be found in practice much more satisfactory, and much less liable 1951 to give rise to a double set of means test investigations—which would be the worst thing that could happen to these people—than a system brought in under such a Clause as this.
§ Mr. ATTLEEThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us a large number of reasons, including many weak ones, for not accepting this Clause. After all, Income Tax is based on the income of the previous year, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes the line that family circumstances have not changed, and that the system is a perfect one. That, is not so. He says that the facts are ascertainable. There may be an aged person supported in one year, and who may die in that year. There may be children who are born and die in the course of a year. You do not make these adjustments. Your Income Tax regulations are only an approximation at best, and when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes the line that you must have it absolutely perfect, I think he is quite wrong. As a matter of fact, the Income Tax takes the broad circumstances of a person, and you do not get a readjustment of injustices. Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that we cannot do justice in this case, because if we try to do it we shall have to do justice in every other kind of case, and bring in all kinds of persons. That is a very familiar argument coming from the Treasury Bench and from the representative of the Treasury, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has ignored that this particular set of circumstances is the creation of the Legislature. It is the creation of the action of this Government with its specific means test. It is quite possible to avoid this by a process, which the National Government are so actively carrying on, of breaking up the family.
§ Major ELLIOTMy hon. Friend will agree that that would not obviate the real difficulty, that this would apply only to one section of the community.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI quite agree, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot charge that against this Clause. It is a fact that the Government do not insure agricultural labourers against unemployment, but does that mean, therefore, that the doing of justice to any class must beheld over until the Government choose 1952 to give unemployment insurance to agricultural labourers? Of course, the social system is full of anomalies. If we are to wait until justice is done all round, we shall never get anywhere. But in this specific case you have an elaborate system of means tests, under which committees are charged with taking into consideration the means of certain members of a family. The right hon. Gentleman's Department is already removing those means, and therefore it is entirely unfair that an amount of money which is coming into the household should be estimated on an income which is not the income at all, because it is subject to deduction of Income Tax.
§ Major ELLIOTAny deductions made from income would certainly be a perfectly legitimate thing for the public assistance committee to take into account.
§ Mr. ATTLEEBut do those committees, as a matter of fact, take into account Income Tax in every case? Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman given such instructions? I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that they do; but here is the point. These persons are having a burden put upon their income of keeping a relative, and they are being charged with Income Tax on that part of their income which, in fact, they are not receiving. I consider that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments with regard to the practicability of this Clause are extraordinarily weak, because they postulate a state of completeness and accuracy in Income Tax which does not exist, and I think that his argument that it is impossible to do anything for these people because we cannot bring in everybody, is really only the sort of argument we always get on a point like this. If we tried to bring in everybody, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would say, "If it had only been a case of a few hundred people, we might have done something, but we cannot afford this." It is a good old Treasury retort. On the merits of the case, I think the attitude of the Government is quite unreasonable, and we shall press this Motion to a Division.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVANThe Financial Secretary, I know, finds himself this afternoon in a difficulty. He had to admit the principal case which the Opposition has put up, namely, that a new class of dependants has recently been created. He 1953 must have had in mind that the Government of which ho is a member has declared that a person who is in receipt of transitional payment, and who is living as a member of a family where there are persons who are earning wages, is, in fact, a dependant of the wage-earners. The case which he cited, where large numbers of people would not have relief if this Clause were added to the Bill, is that of a voluntary association. The law has not declared, in fact, that they are legal dependants, and, therefore, it cannot be held that they are entitled to relief. But this is a class which the law has declared is a new class of legal dependants.
§ Major ELLIOTSurely my hon. Friend is not quite accurate. The determination, according to the Poor Law standard, has not been in any way altered. We are dealing, not with the question of dependants as regards the Inland Revenue, but as regards the Poor Law. The definition of dependants as regards the Poor Law is in. no way altered.
§ Mr. BEVANI accept the statement made by the Financial Secretary that this set of circumstances could have arisen, and did arise, with respect to the Poor Law before; but a new class of dependants, notwithstanding, has been created, because you have now transferred to the Poor Law machinery a large number of persons who were formerly insured. You have, in fact, created a new class of dependants, and you have declared that any persons in a household in receipt of transitional payment shall be legal dependants of the other members of the household. All that we desire by this proposed new Clause is to carry the logic of the position to the Inland Revenue, and to say that if the law declares that these persons are dependants for the purpose of assessing transitional payment, they shall be dependants for the purpose of assessing Income Tax in regard to the members of the family, That is a perfectly reasonable and logical stand to take.
What is the actual nature of the injustice which the Financial Secretary is defending? The law up to now has said that it is unjust to tax an income below £120 a year. The law said that it was unreasonable to pay taxation to the State when living at a standard of life represented by less than £120 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "£135."] £135. That is precisely what the law has said. 1954 I know of the case of an uncertificated school teacher receiving as such teachers do receive, very low wages, paying a very small amount of Income Tax because her earnings are just above the taxable level. There is a brother living with her who had 15s. 3d. a week, and the transitional payment people have taken 10s. a week from that relative on the ground that his sister must now keep him. That has lowered her annual income well below the level at which the State has said it is unreasonable to levy Income Tax. That seems to be a rank injustice, because the State has said, "We think you ought not to be taxed, because your income ought not to be less than a certain amount." The law has said in another of its Departments, "You must live upon a lot less than this, because we shall make your brother chargeable to you." That is a powerful case which has not been met, and we earnestly submit that this is carrying the whole thing a little too far; indeed, it is levying so high a tax upon the earnings of some members of families as gravely to reduce the incentive to earn wages at all. I do submit, in view of these considerations, that the Financial Secretary might reconsider the position. If he does not like our form of words, perhaps he can suggest a form of words to meet the main gravamen of the charge which we are bringing against this Bill.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWith regard to what is called the legal position in this matter, I always understood that legally an able-bodied person was obliged to support a non-able-bodied relative, whether living with him or not, but I always understood, also, that no person was obliged under the Poor Law to help to maintain an able-bodied relative. I do not know of any legal right by which the Government, through the public assistance committees, are compelling relatives to maintain able-bodied persons who are out of work. [Interruption.] I have been helping to administer the Poor Law for nearly 40 years, and I always understood that that was the law. The other night in the House I asked if anyone could contradict me on that point, and no one has done so yet. The position is brought about in this way: The public assistance committee say: "There is enough coming into the house, and you must share it and must bear the burden of the unemployment of your relative." 1955 They have not any legal right to do that. If the relatives say, "No, we are not going to do this," then the public assistance committee reply, "Well, your friend, or brother, or whoever he is, must go into the workhouse." They have that weapon which they hold over both the applicant and the relative. There is no legal obligation to do this, and I believe that, if the House of Commons really understood the terrible burden that is being put upon quite hard-working people by this family income test, it would be removed. I only rose to say
§ this because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about the legality of it. There is no legality at all for making relatives maintain able-bodied relatives, though there is in the case of non-able-bodied relatives. It is an innovation that has been brought into the working of the Poor Law, and it is made to work because the alternative is the workhouse, which very few people will accept.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 323.
1957| Division No. 218.] | AYES. | [4.18 p.m. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, F, (York, W. R., Normanton) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Healy, Cahir | Price, Gabriel |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Hicks, Ernest George | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Buchanan, George | Hirst, George Henry | Thorne, William James |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Janner, Barnett | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, William G. | Jenkins, Sir William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Daggar, George | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross) | Kirk wood, David | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Leonard, William | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Logan, David Gilbert | |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lunn, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Groves, Thomas E. | McGovern, John | Mr. John and Mr. Cordon |
| Macdonald. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Duggan, Hubert John |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Chalmers, John Rutherford | Duncan. James A.L.(Kensington, N.) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) | Dunglass, Lord |
| Allen, William (Stoke-an-Trent) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) | Eden, Robert Anthony |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Apsley, Lord | Chotzner, Alfred James | Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Christie, James Archibald | Elliston, Captain George Sampson |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Elmley, Viscount |
| Balley, Eric Alfred George | Clarke, Frank | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Clarry, Reginald George | Emrys-Evans, p. V. |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Clayton, Dr. George C. | Entwistle, Cyril Fullard |
| Balniel, Lord | Clydesdale, Marquess of | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Colfox, Major William Philip | Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) |
| Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel | Collins, Sir Godfrey | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Colman, N. C. D. | Faile, Sir Bertram G. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Colville, John | Ferguson, Sir John |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Conant, R. J. E. | Fermoy, Lord |
| Borodale, Viscount | Cook, Thomas A. | Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Cooke, Douglas | Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Copeland, Ida | Ford, Sir Patrick J. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Courtauld, Major John Sewell | Fuller, Captain A. O. |
| Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.) | Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | Ganzoni Sir John |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Cranborne, Viscount | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Craven-Ellis, William | Gillett, Sir George Masterman |
| Brockiebank, C. E. R. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Crooke, J. Smedley | Gledhill, Gilbert |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) | Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie) | Glossop, C. W. H. |
| Buchan, John | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Gluckstein, Louis Halle |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Culverwell, Cyril Tom | Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. |
| Burghley, Lord | Curry, A. C. | Goff, Sir Park |
| Burnett, John George | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Davison, Sir William Henry | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Bromley) | Denville, Alfred | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Dickie, John P. | Graves, Marjorie |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Dixey, Arthur C. N. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Donner, P. W. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Drews, Cedric | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Duckworth, George A. V. | Grimston, R. V. |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Salt, Edward W. |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Magnay, Thomas | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Word) | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Hamilton, Sir H. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd) | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Scone, Lord |
| Hartland, George A. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Selley, Harry R. |
| Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Milne, Charles | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness) |
| Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw- | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimeford) | Mitchell, Harold P.[Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Hepworth, Joseph | Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale | Soper, Richard |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Hoare Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Moreing, Adrian C. | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Hornby Frank | Morrison, William Shepherd | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Horobin Ian M. | Moss, Captain H. J. | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. |
| Horsbrugh, Florence | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Stevenson, James |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Munro, Patrick | Stones, James |
| Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N. | Storey, Samuel |
| Hurd, Sir Percy | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) | Newton, Sir Douglas George C. | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Jackson, J. C (Heywood & Radcliffe) | Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Jesson, Major Thomas E. | North, Captain Edward T. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Joel Dudley J. Barnato | Nunn, William | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | O'Donovan, Dr. William James | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Ker, J Campbell | Ormiston, Thomas | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.) |
| Kerr, Hamilton W. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Templeton, William P. |
| Kimball Lawrence | Palmer, Francis Noel | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Knatchbull Captain Hon. M. H. R. | Peake, Captain Osbert | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Knebworth, Viscount | Pearson, William G. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Knox Sir Alfred | Percy, Lord Eustace | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Law, Sir Alfred | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Thorp, Union Theodore |
| Law Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Petherick, M. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Leech, Dr J. W. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) |
| Lees-Jones John | Peto, Geoffrey K. (Wverh'pt'n, Bliston) | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| Leighton Major B. E. P. | Pike, Cecil F. | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Potter, John | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Levy Thomas | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Liddall Walter S. | Powell, Sir Assheton | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Lindsay, Noel Ker | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- | Pybus, Percy John | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Llewellin, Major John J. | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) | Warrantor, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Ramsbotham, Herwald | Waterhouse, Captain Charles. |
| Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n) | Ramsden, E. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Ray, Sir William | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. |
| Loder Captain J. de Vere | Rea, Walter Russell | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Reid. William Allan (Derby) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Mabane, William | Remer, John R. | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| McCorquodale, M. S. | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip | Wills, Wilfrid |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Robinson, John Roland | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| MacDonald Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Rosbotham, S. T. | Womesley, Walter James |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ross, Ronald D. | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| McEwen Captain J. H. F. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Mckeag, William | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| McKie, John Hamilton | Runge, Norah Cecil | |
| Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| McLean, Major Alan | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) | Sir George Penny and Lord |
| McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Salmon, Major Isidore | Erskine. |