§ Where it appears to the Treasury that any duty of customs imposed under this Act on any commodity may prejudice the export of goods in the manufacture of which such commodity is used, the Treasury may, pending an inquiry by the Import Duties Advisory Committee under the provisions of Section nine of the Finance Act, 1932, by order provide for drawback to be paid in respect of the exports of such goods at such rates as it may think fit.—[Mr. H. Williams.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.1858
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time." This new Clause is for the purpose of conferring upon the Treasury a temporary power. The Committee may remember the discussion which took place a few days ago on the subject of linseed. In that Debate I urged the possibility of the situation being met by means of a drawback. That is contemplated by Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1932, which is applied in the Second Schedule of this Bill. That Schedule also says:The enactments set out in this Part of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to goods chargeable with a duty of customs under Section one of this Act as they have effect in relation to goods chargeable with a duty of customs under the Import Duties Act, 1932,Therefore, the Bill contemplates the possibility of drawbacks being granted in respect of any goods which are made from any of the articles which are dutiable under this Bill. As I pointed out when we were discussing this matter previously, the procedure under Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1932, may be somewhat slow in existing circumstances. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are doing their job with great efficiency—that does not necessarily mean that I agree with every decision they arrive at—but it is also obvious that they are having a tremendous job. You cannot introduce an Act like the Import Duties Act, which raises the position of practically every commodity, in respect of a great many of which applications have been made to the committee, without that committee being for the moment literally overburdened and overwhelmed with work. Accordingly, if the important industries which use linseed as their raw material should be greatly hampered in their export trade because the duty on Argentine linseed has had the effect of raising the price of linseed, owing to the circumstances which exist at the moment in the production of tax-free linseed in India, it will be deplorable. If the important linoleum-making industry, the important paint industries, and very important industries producing oil and cake by crushing linseed are embarrassed in any way, and if there is any growth of unemployment in those industries, because they find it difficult to compete with the rest of the world in the export markets, it will be very regrettable.
1859 So far as internal competition is concerned, the matter is to some extent taken care of by existing protective duties on the products made from linseed. It is more particularly in respect of competition all over the world that the traders and manufacturers concerned are very perturbed, and it was in the hope that a way out of the difficulty might be found that I put down this new Clause, which will confer for a short period the very autocratic power on the Treasury to prescribe by Order, not only in respect of linseed, but of any commodity that may be affected, such rates of drawback as the Treasury may think fit to impose. If any trade concerned really felt that it was aggrieved, it would make an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for a scheme under Section 9 of the Finance Act, and while the Advisory Committee was working out a proper scheme of drawback the Treasury could grant such drawback as it thought fit. It is only a temporary power. I realise that I am contemplating something which would not have that precision which the Treasury generally likes in connection with draw. backs. In these matters the Treasury thinks always in revenue, but in the administration of tariffs they ought to bear in mind the fact that the primary purpose is employment, and not revenue. I should not be much concerned if under this temporary arrangement someone got a little more than he was entitled to and someone perhaps got a little less, as long as the general effect was to protect an export trade which in favourable years amounts to £5,000,000 in respect of one product or another made from linseed.
Another respect in which this new Clause might be useful is in respect of flour milled from imported dutiable grain. From time to time it might be necessary, as I indicated on another Amendment, to use dutiable grain, and the seller of that dutiable grain might be aware that the miller had to use that grain. In those circumstances, it might well be the case that the duty would be passed on to the user, with the result that the export trade in flour would be prejudicial. In regard to copper, it might be necessary, an an alternative to the utilisation of the powers to suspend the duty, to prepare for some scheme of 1860 drawback. The emergency may not arise, but it would certainly be useful if this power was immediately at the disposal of the Treasury. Lastly, certain fruits are preserved, canned and tinned, and if there was any prejudice to the export trade of such preserved fruit because of any conceivable rise in price caused by any of the duties, then there would be at the disposal of the Treasury a weapon of relief which they could use at once. It is in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to consider this Clause, or to indicate some alternative method whereby the real fears of the people concerned might be quickly relieved, that I have pleasure in moving it.
§ Mr. J. WALLACE
I am very anxious that the principle of this new Clause should be inserted in the Bill, either in this or some other form. When I agreed to support the Clause I had in mind the question of linseed oil and it is for that specific commodity that I should like to see the Clause added to the Bill. I am aware of the powers of the Tariff Advisory Committee and fully cognisant of the ability and fairness of the gentlemen who compose that committee to deal with an important matter of this kind, but, having regard to the extraordinary amount of legislation during this Parliament relating to tariffs of various forms which have affected industries in this country, and also having regard to the very varied trade interests and many complications arising from those interests which come before the Tariff Advisory Committee, it is impossible for those gentlemen to avoid considerable delay in coming to a decision. I am sure that they address themselves with very great ability and in a judicial manner to any problems with which they are faced, but it is a very narrow bottle-neck through which all these inquiries have to pass, and however able those gentlemen are, however brilliant the experts who advise them may be, delay at first hand is un-avoidable.
We wish to avoid delay which will injure trade in several important industries affected by the tax upon linseed. Certain important trades have been prejudiced as the result of the imposition of that tax. The tax is an accomplished fact and we must accept it as such, but any consequent injury which has been done to industrial interests in this 1861 country is the responsibility of the Government. It has been done by Government action under conditions which have no parallel so far as I am aware in our inter-Colonial relations. I am sure that the very last thing in the world which the Government desire is that the legislation which they have introduced should be unfair in its incidence upon any particular industry. For that reason it seems to me that legislation to give relief to any particular trade is a question for the Government, not for the Advisory Committee. I should like to see the new Clause go somewhat further than it does. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows a great deal about the trading interests of this country, and I feel sure that if a departure from precedent is necessary he would be the last to argue against the proposal in this new Clause.
I want to emphasise the point that this is not a. revenue tax. The Ottawa Agreements are not only trading agreements but are in a large measure political, and this tax, under normal conditions, would never have been imposed except to benefit. India. It is not, therefore a revenue tax in the strict sense of the word. If we can have the machinery of a drawback introduced it is no argument to say that its administration is difficult and that the Government may lose a certain amount of revenue if the drawback fails to function with perfect efficiency. It will be far better to lose a little revenue if we can provide a weapon by which various trades may he able to fight for the export trade the neutral markets of the world. That is a vital consideration. It cannot be too frequently repeated that other countries which are not taxed in this way are competing not only on the continent of Europe, and in America and else-where, but also in our own Colonies, and I feel sure that if this relief in the nature of a definite drawback on consignments of goods to be exported abroad was given it would relieve a real anxiety which is now felt by many important concerns in England and Scotland. I hope that the proposal will not be turned down on the ground of difficulty in administration. Difficulties are there to be overcome, and I cannot imagine that the brains which composed the Ottawa Agreements will find themselves inadequate to deal efficiently and simply with a drawback, which is urgently required by all 1862 the industries concerned with linseed as a raw material.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN
I hope that the new Clause will be accepted by the Government. It does not apply only to linseed but to flour, and flour-milling is a matter of great concern to my: constituency. The flour millers do not seem to have entered into the Ottawa Agreements to any great extent and I hope, therefore, that under this new Clause they will be able to obtain more benefits than they have hitherto received. They assisted the Government in regard to the Wheat Quota Act, but there is no allowance for the exports of manufactured flour. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take this opportunity of considering their case, and will consider it favourably.
§ Dr. BURGIN
This proposal is intended to be helpful, and I am glad to hear that the Mover and Seconder realise that if the Clause cannot be accepted, yet, provided there is some alternative which substantially meets the point they raise, they will be satisfied. The point behind the proposal is the suggestion that the ordinary machinery of applying for a drawback through the Import Duties Advisory Committee might be a lengthy process and that injury to the trade might happen in the meantime. Whether or not there will be delay largely depends on the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and with a view to being able to make a statement to the Committee an approach has been made to the Advisory Committee. Informal conversations have taken place and we are informed that if the trade interests themselves will present to the Advisory Committee detailed proposals for drawback schemes, the committee will be ready to give the proposals immediate consideration. There seems no reason why the preparation and examination of these proposals should be deferred until this Bill becomes law. They can be submitted by all the interests concerned immediately. A drawback is very largely a matter for the trade. There must be some understanding with the trade interests themselves as to how an article upon which duty has been paid is to be dealt with when it has been made up into articles of a different character for subsequent export. Take linseed. There must be quantities 1863 of duty-free linseed in this country. Obviously there is no suggestion in the new Clause that there should be drawback in regard to linoleum made from duty-free linseed.
§ Dr. BURGIN
The hon. Member has not seen the point. There are stocks of duty-free linseed in this country at the present time, and I am pointing out that it must be a matter for the trade to say how far, when linseed is made up into linoleum, an operation for fixing a drawback is feasible. It is because the Import Duties Advisory Committee are a knowledgeable and skilled body that we think the ordinary procedure of Section 9 of the Finance Act is applicable, and having secured from the Advisory Committee an assurance that they are prepared to receive applications for drawback immediately, it remains for the trade itself to make the demand. In these circumstances, the proposed new Clause is unnecessary.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONE
I should be glad if we could have a definition from the Parliamentary Secretary of what he means by the word "immediate." The Import Duties Advisory Committee, I understand from an answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave, are in process of considering, or are about to consider, or are immediately going to consider, the application of a duty to a list of 50 different kinds of articles. Is it suggested that they will be able, upon an application from a trade concerned in the new Clause, to give what may be called immediate attention to it? Are they going to be asked to put aside duties with which they were originally trusted under the Import Duties Act to consider a scheme for a rebate, or are we going to wait until the whole of this immense list of articles has been considered by the committee, and any other articles which are daily being put upon the list for their consideration? If that is the case, then "immediate" does not mean much. If it means what it ordinarily means, they will have to hear such application and give a decision within a few days. That is no doubt what the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) would like, but, I think we 1864 should know, as the whole tenour of the hon. Members reply depends on what the word "immediate" means.
§ Mr. WALLACE
I really must ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he means by his reply. He must regard some of us as simple-minded. He said that any application made to the Advisory Committee will be immediately received. What does he mean by that? It will most certainly be received to-morrow morning. But what kind of assurance is that to give to people who are very much in earnest on this matter? What we fear is delay. I know something of this delay at first hand, and yet my hon. Friend tells me as a business man that any application will be immediately received by the Tariff Advisory Committee. I know that quite well. What I want to know is when it will be dealt with. I confess to a feeling of disappointment at the reply. I thought that the Government would have realised that this is no idle request. To my mind the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, given in a perfectly friendly way which I acknowledge and appreciate, is certainly no answer to the case which I attempted to put to the Committee. I think the Government, who are deeply concerned from the point of view of revenue and in other ways, should have dealt with this new Clause in a more serious manner, because I can assure them that we are very serious on this question.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MANDER
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, whether we regard it as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, has opened out an entirely new aspect of the position of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We have always been informed that it was entirely detached and free from all political contact and influence; that it was not within the power of Members of Parliament or of the Government to go to the Committee and ask them to deal with this or that subject. To my mind, we have here clearly a case where, however it may be disguised, political pressure has been put upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee. No doubt it will be said that conversations took place and, in the agreeable atmosphere created, certain information, in reply to questions put, was obtained. That is merely covering over the fact that the Government have intimated in the 1865 clearest manner that they desire immediate attention should be given to this particular question, which has been very properly and very wisely raised. But there are a very large number of other industries in this country which have had applications before the committee for many, many months, and have not been able to get any satisfactory reply, no doubt owing to the vast amount of work which has to be done. Because it happens to suit the convenience of the Government, why should the Import Duties Advisory Committee be asked to some extent to put aside this work? It is an invitation to other trades to come to their Members of Parliament and the Government and intimate to them, in the sort of manner in which Members of the Conservative party intimated so strongly their wishes on meat taxation, and make it, clear that the Members of the Government are expected to press forward not only linseed oil but other things.
We ought to have some clear statement to explain the attitude which has been taken up. I do not see how you can possibly disguise the fact that here, possibly for the first time—I do not know—pressure from the Government, of an indirect manner, has been put upon the committee to suit the purposes of the Government. As to the merits of the question itself, I entirely associate myself with what has been said. It is extremely important from the point of view of many workers that a drawback system should be put into operation. The matter of immediate moment is which is the quickest way and the most effective way of getting what we desire?
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I should like to associate myself with what has been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that we should get some full and better reply to the appeals which have come from various sections of his supporters, and semi-detached supporters. The business position was admirably put by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the plea of honour was put by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace). He pointed out the great sacrifices the supporters of the Government made—that they ought to have some quid pro quo on that account. Hon. Members have pressed this matter on business lines and on political lines, and I hope this is to be dealt with in the 1866 Bill. I think that the Under-Secretary was unconvincing in suggesting this should be dealt with in some hole-and-corner way by the trades running round and getting their case put before the committee. The particular way is put down by the hon. Member for South Croydon, and we have already heard from him that the Advisory Committee is not quite up to scratch, and that he has not been able to approve everything they have done. This proposed new Clause is supported by the two varieties of Liberals and not opposed by the Labour party, so that if they accept it the Government will have an opportunity to meet political sentiment on business grounds.
§ Mr. WALLACE
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is misrepresenting me, no doubt unintentionally, and I would be sorry if he thought I was talking about a question of honour. My reference to sacrifices was to the trades which had to make sacrifices now owing to the passing of this Bill. Any sacrifice of my own party was not even mentioned or hinted at.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I will at once withdraw. The hon. Member made some cryptic references to some undisclosed sacrifices and I thought it meant sacrifices they made in joining the Government.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I do not think that the position is quite satisfactory. I rather regret that the Member for East Wolverthampton (Mr. Mander) should have suggested that there was any impropriety in addressing this question to the Advisory Committee. The question: "If an application is sent to you, can you deal with it promptly?" is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. It does not indicate any form of political pressure. The Government are entitled to ask that question. I want to express my view that tile Government have acted with complete propriety. What I am disappointed about, and need an answer regarding, is "immediately." "Immediately," means imperfectly. They cannot work out immediately a completely satisfactory drawback scheme for linseed, because it will take some time for the trade to compile the information and for the committee to consider it. That is why I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1867 to be able to do it crudely and imperfectly so that industries will not be prejudiced in the meantime. I want to give him a big axe which he can use with freedom, knowing that his strokes will not be as good as they might be because the axe is heavy, but people will be secure. We ought to have some explanation from the Front Bench.
§ Dr. BURGIN
I am afraid, from the remarks of hon. Members, that I have not been as clear as I wished in the first reply I gave to this proposal for a new Clause. Since the question of drawback was raised, in the Debate of 31st October, very considerable trouble has been taken to look into the whole of the circumstances of this matter, and conferences between the Treasury, Customs and Board of Trade have taken place. The words I read of the Advisory Committee were not idle words; they were words which were intended to have their full and complete meaning. I would say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) that I said nothing about the application for a drawback being "immediately received." The words I used—I have them here, and I am expressly anxious to read them—wereThe Committee will be ready to give the proposals immediate consideration There seems no reason why the preparation and examination of these proposals should be deferred until the Bill becomes law.They can be submitted by the trade interests concerned immediately. The Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) says that "immediately" means "imperfectly." The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) gives it some other meaning. "Immediately" means at once. The committee will be more immediately ready to deal with the application than the trade will be to submit it. I am anxious to show that inquiry has been made of the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the state of their business, and as to whether they could receive an application. Let this Committee understand that this new Clause is not as to whether there should be a drawback, but purely as to the body which should deal with the application for a drawback. That is the whole point. The whole point is one of time. The Movers of the new Clause suggested that it would be quicker if the Treasury were 1868 to have some rough-and-ready power. The Treasury have neither the staff nor the technical assistance at their command to deal with this matter as quickly as the Import Duties Advisory Committee, who are in existence precisely for applications of this character. Now as to the time that would be taken. Let me point out, if for the purposes of an interim drawback you are going to cover precisely the ground which you would have to cover if you were making a permanent decision, you will not be likely to do it any quicker. These words, carefully chosen after consultation with the Departments concerned and with knowledgeable inquiry made as to the state of business, are that there is no difficulty in the application receiving immediate consideration. I hope they will submit their application.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONE
I cannot believe that my two hon. Friends can be more satisfied with the second reply than with the first. I quite agree that "immediately" in the hon. Gentleman's mouth does mean immediately and at once. But I venture to think he has depreciated unduly the ability not only of his own Department, but the Treasury, Board of Trade and Customs and Excise, in saying they are not able to work out a scheme for drawbacks as quickly, efficiently, and with as great knowledge as the Import Duties Advisory Committee. That committee, as I mentioned a few moments ago, is very overworked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply of 25th October gave a list of:Applications which have been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for the imposition or modification of additional duties, or of variations in the Free List, of which public notice has been given and which are still under consideration.He said that in the list he gave, the applications had not yet been dealt with, and I would have thought that the trades which had submitted these applications would have great cause for dissatisfaction if in the middle of this the committee—or the three gentlemen who have no particular qualifications for working out a scheme of drawbacks—were asked to interrupt their proper work and set to work, imperfectly as it may be, upon the preparation of a very elaborate scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us the information that the 1869 Import Duties Advisory Committee had before it at this moment application for additional or increased rates of duty from industries dealing with fresh white fish, hacksaws, fresh herrings, certain pottery products, iron and steel wire netting, iron and steel wire and iron and steel wire nails, precision and manicure files, and cordage under ¼ inch in diameter. The list is interminable. It contains such other items as bentwood furniture and parts thereof, baskets, common salt, yeast, carpets, carpeting, tinsel and tinsel string, hand-driven grass and lawn mowers, bolts, nuts and screws, iron and steel rivets, boot studs and hobnails, shoe nails and rivets of iron, steel or brass; firearms, air guns, air rifles, air pistols and parts thereof, curtains, lace and embroidery, vacuum flasks and parts thereof, manufactures of alabaster—I do not see my Friend the President of the Board of Trade here—and rice starch. The answer states:In addition the Committee have given public notice that they are considering the question of additional duties on dredgers, barges, tugs, launches, pleasure craft and other small vessels and boats, including their accompanying equipment. No application for additional duties has been made in respect of these commodities.Then there is:For addition to the Free List, citrate of lime, bismuth metal, non-precious stones, artificial stones and pearls, and beads not mounted, set or strung, dressed and prepared bristles, tantalum metal.I should be sorry for myself if I were a member of a committee charged with the duty of investigating the proper duty upon innumerable articles such as these. If at the same time I were asked to prepare, on behalf of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), a most elaborate scheme of drawbacks, I should be horror-struck, and very likely I should resign. I cannot help thinking that in those circumstances my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would do well to reconsider the answer he has given, and to give a little more
§ encouragement to the hon. Member for South Croydon, who has always treated the Government so well, who is one of their staunchest supporters and one of the best in the country on the subject of Protection.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
Before asking leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause, there are two things I want to say. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Treasury has neither the staff nor the expert knowledge to prepare a provisional scheme. He may get that over quite honestly, but he must not expect me to swallow it. If the Treasury knew that they must have a scheme by to-morrow night, it would be ready by to-morrow night. We remember what happened over silk and artificial silk. We-have in operation a system of Protection for silk and artificial silk introduced into the Finance Act by a separate Financial Resolution, and in the meantime the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Advisory Committee to work out a permanent scheme. They have been at that task for some time. That is the difference between "immediately" and "imperfectly." I want some imperfect method. I think the second reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, with the emphasis he gave it and the way he read his statement, is a fair answer. The obligation is transferred now to the industry. There is something in the Parliamentary Secretary's point that the industry may be longer in preparing a case than the Advisory Committee would be in deciding it. I hope that the industries concerned will take advantage of the very fair offer made, and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 320.1873
|Division No. 350.]||AYES||7.18 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W)|
|Banfield, John William||Edwards, Charles||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pantypool)|
|Bernays, Robert||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Cape, Thomas||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Cove, William G.||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Curry, A. C.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Hicks, Ernest George|
|Dagger, George||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Hirst, George Henry|
|Holdsworth, Herbert||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Thorne, William James|
|Janner, Barnett||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jenkins, Sir William||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|John, William||Mender, Geoffrey le M.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Maxton, James||White, Henry Graham|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Milner, Major James||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Kirkwood, David||Nathan, Major H. L.||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Parkinson, John Allen||Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)|
|Lawson, John James||Pickering, Ernest H.||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Price, Gabriel||Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Lunn, William||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|McEntee, Valentine L.||Rea, Walter Russell||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|McKeag, William||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)||Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cooke, Douglas||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.|
|Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)||Copeland, Ida||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Courtauid, Major John Sewell||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)|
|Albery, Irving James||Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Cranborne, Viscount||Hepworth, Joseph|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Craven-Ellis, William||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Crooke, J. Smedley||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Apsley, Lord||Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Hornby, Frank|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Dickle, John P.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)|
|Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.||Donner, P. W.||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Drewe, Cedric||Hurd, Sir Percy|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Duckworth, George A. V.||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)|
|Balniel, Lord||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Duggan, Hubert John||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Duncan James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.|
|Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey||Dunglass, Lard||Jamieson, Douglas|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Eastwood, John Francis||Jesson, Major Thomas E.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)|
|Beaumont. Hon. R.E.B. (Porlsm'th,C.)||Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Ellis-Ion, Captain George Sampson||Kerr, Hamilton W.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Elmley, Viscount||Kirkpatrick, William M.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.|
|Borodale, Viscount.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Knebworth, Viscount|
|Bossom, A. C.||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Boulton, W. W.||Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George|
|Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Latham. Sir Herbert Paul|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tattoo||Falle Sir Bertram G.||Law, Sir Alfred|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Boyce. H. Leslie||Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)||Fox, Sir Gifford||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Fremantle, Sir Francis||Levy, Thomas|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Fuller, Captain A. G.||Lewis, Oswald|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Ganzonl, Sir John||Lindsay, Noel Ker|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gibson, Charles Granville||Llewellin, Major John J.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lloyd, Geoffrey|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Glossop, C. W. H.||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)|
|Burghley, Lord||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Loder, Captain J. de Vere|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander|
|Burnett, John George||Goff, Sir Park||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||McCorquodale, M S.|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Gower, Sir Robert||MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Caine, G. R. Hall-||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Greene, William P. C.||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.|
|Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)||Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)||McKie, John Hamilton|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||McLean, Major Alan|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Grimston, R. V.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Macmillan, Maurice Harold|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Magnay, Thomas|
|Chalmers, John Rutherford||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Maitland, Adam|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)||Guy. J. C. Morrison||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Hall, Capt. W, D'Arcy (Brecon)||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.|
|Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Hanbury, Cecil||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Christie, James Archibald||Hanley, Dennis A.||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)|
|Clarke, Frank||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Clayton Dr. George C.||Harbord, Arthur||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hartington, Marquess of||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hartland, George A.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)||Milne, Charles|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale||Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.||Storey, Samuel|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Robinson, John Roland||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Moss, Captain H. J.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Muirhead, M[...] A. J.||Ross, Ronald D.||Stuart, Hon. I. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Munro, Patrick||Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Nail, Sir Joseph||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Runge, Norah Cecil||Templeton, William P.|
|Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Merpeth)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Thompson, Luke|
|Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|North, Captain Edward T.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Nunn, William||Salmon, Major Isidore||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Peake, Captain Osbert||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Pearson, William G.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Train, John|
|Penny, Sir George||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Perkins, Walter R. D.||Savery, Samuel Servington||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Scone, Lord||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Petherick, M.||Selley, Harry R.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'rverhpt'n, Bi'lst'n)||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Pike, Cecil F.||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Skelton, Archibald Noel||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Procter, Major Henry Adam||Slater, John||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Pybus, Percy John||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)||Smith, Sir Jonah W (Barrow-In-F.)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Ramsbotham, Herwald||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Ramsden, E.||Smithers, Waldron||Withers, Sir John James|
|Ratcliffe, Arthur||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Soper, Richard||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.|
|Remer, John R.||Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Womersley.|