§ 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 498 under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, as amended by the National Economy Act, 1931, or any Order in Council made there under, 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. Batey.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
499§ 4.4 p.m.
§ Mr. BATEYI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
A similar Clause brought forward last year was not successful, but I hope that it is going to have a better fate this year. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in dealing with the last Clause which we discussed, said that it was easy to mention hard cases. We are not basing this Clause merely on hard cases, but upon fairness and justice. We believe that the present practice is monstrously unfair. Under the means test the whole of the income of a household is taken into consideration, and we find, in many cases, after that has been done, some member of the household is called upon to pay Income Tax. We say that if the income of the household has been taken into account in order to reduce or refuse transitional payment, then to that extent a member of the household ought not to be called upon to pay Income Tax. After the Budget Debate last year, I had a case sent to me by a nephew. He had been receiving 23s. 2d. a week for himself and wife as transitional benefit. He had a son whose earnings were taken into consideration, with the result that his transitional benefit was reduced from 23s. 2d. to 5s. per week. Afterwards the son was served with an Income Tax notice. That nephew could not understand how, on the one hand, his transitional payment should be reduced by such a large amount, and then, because of the son's earnings, the son should be called upon to pay Income Tax.
I submit to the Financial Secretary that the Treasury cannot have it both ways. They ought not to reduce transitional payment and then call upon some member of the household to pay Income Tax. I know that the hon. Gentleman may say that we are asking too much when we ask for an exemption of £50, but I would like to hear the hon. Gentleman argue that point. There is no question, however, that when transitional benefit has been reduced because of the earnings of a member of the household, some allowance ought to be made to that member when called upon to pay Income Tax. The chief argument of the hon. Gentleman on the last Clause was that successive Chancellors have rejected it, but he cannot argue in that way in regard to this proposed new Clause, because the only Chancellor of the Ex- 500 chequer since the means test has been the present Chancellor, who is responsible. Not merely on the ground of hardship, although we could argue on that ground, but on the grounds of fairness and justice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to accept this Clause, and relieve from the payment of Income Tax a certain amount of income which has been taken into account to reduce transitional payments.
§ 4.9 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKERI beg to second the Motion.
When this proposal was brought forward last time, I think it was argued that the new Unemployment Bill would soon be out, and naturally we hope that in that new Unemployment Bill the means test will have disappeared. But that is not so yet, and we are faced with this difficulty. My hon. Friend did not speak solely on the ground of hardship, but I am afraid that my contention will be on the sole ground of hardship. Many of our people are suffering unduly because they are suffering under two heads. They have to bear Income Tax and, if they have a dependent relative out of work, they have to contribute out of their earnings. Under the Income Tax law a sum up to £25 is allowed for the relief of a dependent relative, and the member of the family in a case such as this has the right to expect the same kind of treatment. I am expecting an answer from the Financial Secretary to the effect that it will be very difficult to assess this sort of case, as a man might not be out of work 12 months, and therefore the assessment of dependency could not be arrived at.
I agree that there is something in that contention, but could we get from the hon. Gentleman a promise that if the relative is out of work, say, more than a half of the year—seven, eight or nine months—he will consider putting him under the category of dependent relative. If we can get some concession at all, some regard from the Treasury as to hardship in this case, we will be satisfied, but we do think that the Financial Secretary ought not to be able to ride off, as on other occasions, upon the difficulty with which he has to contend if he allows any loophole with regard to this matter. My hon. Friend also used the argument, which needs emphasising, that no other 501 Chancellor had any need to deal with this question, as the means test question belongs entirely to the present Government, and, in view of the position which they have created, something ought to be done for these people.
I will mention some cases of hardship, because I know the House likes definite cases when a matter like this is brought forward. I know, from my own experience, many families where sons or daughters have cost a good deal of money to educate, and they have got teachers' salaries. They have to pay Income Tax out of those salaries, and also keep a dependent father who is out of work. I know some such cases in my own locality. I could mention three different cases where the father has been able to send a child to college, and did all he could in that direction. Then the son or daughter has got a teaching position, and the father, unfortunately, has got out of work and, because of the earnings of that son or daughter, has been knocked off transitional payment. There are many other such cases which should be treated as leniently as possible by the Treasury. I hope, therefore, we shall meet with some satisfaction from the Financial Secretary when he replies.
§ 4.14 p.m.
§ Mr. WHITEI wish to support the Clause, and, in doing so, I have very clearly in my mind the words spoken by the Financial Secretary when the matter was raised last year. The Financial Secretary was then quite sympathetic with the object which the Clause seeks to secure; in. fact, it would be impossible for anyone who understands the Clause to be unsympathetic towards what it seeks to achieve. But the Financial Secretary pointed out, as indeed he was bound to do, that in making these allowances for Income Tax the Commissioners were dealing with periods of 12 months. In this particular case the liability brought about by the means test may be for a fluctuating period. It may run for months, and in many cases for years. But the Financial Secretary last year said that they were watching this matter, and that, so far as the machinery of the Income Tax law would permit, they would do everything they could to meet the situation, and, if I remember rightly, he said that in the case of a family supported by an employed member of that 502 family, where there were younger children in the family, they might be regarded as adopted children, and allowance be made for them. I should like to hear what it has been possible to do, administratively, to deal with that matter.
This is not merely a financial matter. Many important social problems arise from the administration of the means test as it exists to-day. Take the case of a printer who receives a weekly remuneration of between £4 and £5 per week. He has to maintain, under the operation of transitional payments, his father and mother, one older brother and two younger children; and he has been doing so for months. That is a very hard task. He cannot have any idea of marriage as long as he remains at home, his income is all absorbed in the maintenance of the family. To his consternation and dismay he receives a letter from the Income Tax people calling for the payment of an amount which is equivalent to about two weeks' remuneration. That is a situation which hon. Members will agree was not intended. In addition it is not good business from the point of view of the State. It is, of course, possible for him to contract out of the liability. He can leave home and, unfortunately, some of these people are being actually driven from home because the strain is too much. They can also contract out of it in another way. They can take their weekly wage and pay it over, and then present themselves to the public assistance authority and ask for relief.
This is clearly a case in which the administrative arrangements of the State are at cross purposes. It is not a question of sympathy; it is a matter which should be put right, and it is for the Treasury to find some way out of the difficulty. It is a great hardship and is having an important social effect, as it is putting a great strain on family relations. I hope the Financial Secretary will indicate that something will be done in this matter. I do not know whether this particular Clause is the best way in which it can be effected but I have no doubt that hon. Members are willing to accept another and better form of words. Hon. Members on these benches have a proposal on the Paper which we think is rather better than this, but it is really a matter to which the Treasury should give careful and sympathetic consideration.
§ 4.19 p.m.
§ Mr. BANFIELDI desire to support the Clause which embodies a principle that has been well recognised in finance by successive Governments; the principle of making allowances for dependents. A person who has a dependent relative is allowed £25, and allowances are also made for children who are dependent. But in respect of those who are thrown on the income of one member of the family it is hard that the particular member who happens to be in employment and above the Income Tax limit should have a double burden imposed upon him. It is a burden which is not fair, because it is a special burden imposed upon a special section of the community. This burden can only fall upon certain individuals in the community, that is, those who have a comparatively small wage and who are called upon, because of the operation of the means test, to contribute towards the support of other members of the family. Persons who are in that position who are being compelled to support other members of the family under the means test should, at any rate, be given some recognition by the State; some little encouragement should be given to keep the family together and the home intact. Sons and daughters are anxious to help their parents, to keep them under the same roof, but if taxation is made too heavy, if the burden is too hard, they have an easy way out, they can leave home and allow the old people to become a burden upon the community as a whole.
This is a new situation which has developed during the last two years; and no particular precedent would therefore be established. These people should not be subjected to too much hardship, and I appeal to the Financial Secretary to find some way of giving them assistance. He knows as well as I do that the people who are most concerned, that is, the old people, the parents, who are unemployed, are likely to be unemployed year after year. It is not like the old problem of a man being unemployed for a few months and then getting another job. It must also be borne in mind that many of these unfortunate people now on transitional payment have been good citizens, decent members of the community, and have made sacrifices in order to give their children a decent education and a better chance in life than they had themselves. 504 But things have turned out badly, and they are no longer wanted in the particular industry in which in days gone by they earned considerable salaries. Their children want to do something for their parents in return for the sacrifices they have made; and are willing to do so. Therefore, I think they have a special claim for consideration. I suggest that some rebate should be made in those cases where people have had to contribute towards the maintenance of a relative for 12 months. That would meet some of the hardest cases and be a great boon to many people.
§ 4.26 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGANOn the grounds of the charge which would fall on many of the poorer public assistance committees the Government should sympathetically consider this new Clause. At the present time, through sheer poverty, many young men, who are now the breadwinners, are being driven from home, and if any further burdens are imposed upon these breadwinners I am afraid it will mean that many more homes will be disbanded. We should endeavour to keep family life intact in this country. In industrial areas to-day many of the families are in extremis: it is deplorable to think that the breadwinner is being driven from home, bringing further demoralisation into our home life. He is bearing a burden which the State should at least attempt to alleviate. The Government should certainly make some concession. There have been numerous cases of men leaving home simply because they are not able to stand the strain. The concession would only be for a short time until things are better, I am an optimist; but until things do improve I think the concession asked for by the new Clause should be given. Is there anyone in this House who is not anxious to keep family life intact? This concession should be made from the point of view of equity, and from the point of view of keeping people from asking for assistance from the public assistance committee. Taking everything into consideration, I am convinced that it would prove beneficial, and, in addition, be an act of justice to the people concerned.
§ 4.28 p.m.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAIt is always difficult to resist arguments addressed to pity, and everyone will have the greatest 505 sympathy with all that has been said by hon. Members who are supporting the Clause. But most of those who have spoken in its favour have realised that in its present form, it cannot possibly be accepted. It would let in many cases which are undeserving and exclude many of genuine hardship. Furthermore, it would create a whole series of anomalies. The ordinary allowance in respect of an incapacitated relative is £25, while the allowance proposed here is £50. If a man were keeping his aged father, he would only get £25 allowance, whereas, if he were keeping a young son he would, under the new Clause, get £50. It is impossible to justify an anomaly of that kind. There are other anomalies which would be created, but I will not deal with them, because it is clear that the Clause cannot be accepted in its present form; and no one really suggests it.
This is really a matter concerning the administration of transitional payments by public assistance committees. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) recognised that in his speech. It is not an Income Tax matter, although hon. Members in pursuance of their right on the Finance Bill have drawn attention once again to a grievance which they consider exists in relation to the administration of transitional payments by public assistance committees. The most I can do, so far as the Income Tax aspect of the matter is concerned, is to give the assurance for which I was asked by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). He recalled that my predecessor in this office last year had referred to the possible leniency with which the Income Tax Acts might be operated in these cases. I can assure him that the Income Tax Acts are interpreted with the greatest possible generosity; I shall not use the word "elasticity," but I can say that they are interpreted with the greatest possible generosity. Where the parent is elderly and it can be shown that existing conditions in his trade effectively destroy his chance of employment on that account, it is possible to hold that he is incapacitated by old age within the meaning of the existing dependent relative provisions. Where the taxpayer's own brothers and sisters are being kept the Income Tax authorities treat them wherever possible as adopted children.
506 I think the House will agree that, although this is not directly an Income Tax matter, those charged with the administration of the tax have stretched the law to the utmost extent, and wherever they could grant the kind of concessions to which I have referred, within the ambit of the law, they do grant them. There is hardship in some of these cases and that hardship particularly arises in respect of unemployed persons. It arises not only in respect of those who are refused transitional benefit, but also in respect of persons who never qualify for transitional benefit. The benefit of this proposed new Clause would not be given at all in such cases nor in the case of other persons who have been above the Unemployment Insurance Act limit altogether and have been earning £5 per week. Such persons never qualify for transitional benefit.
§ Mr. TINKERWill the Financial Secretary deal further with the point of the elderly parent? The hon. Gentleman said that in some cases the elderly parent might be recognised, but his statement was rather indefinite. Could we not have something more concrete? Could these people apply for that concession? Would they have to be out of work for a long period or not?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThe words I used were these: "Where the parent is elderly and it can be shown that existing conditions in his trade effectively destroy his chance of employment on that account, it is possible to hold that he is incapacitated by old age within the meaning of the existing dependent relative provisions."
§ Mr. TINKERHave cases been dealt with on that basis?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHACertainly. I drafted this form of words BO as to be as exact as possible. As I said, many persons do not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act at all because their earnings have been above the limit. Therefore the new Clause would not really fulfil the purpose that its Mover has in view. That illustrates how difficult it is to draw Clauses which will include every case you want to include and exclude every case that you want to exclude. I must apologise to hon. Gentlemen that I have not been able to go further than the statement which I have made.
§ 4.35 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESWe have listened to a number of remarkable statements from the Financial Secretary. The one that he has just made is the most amazing of all. He has practically told us that the Income Tax collector is evading the law in order to get over this difficulty. We must either have legislation to tell the gentlemen at the Treasury clearly what they have to do, or we shall land ourselves into very serious difficulties in connection with Income Tax. What the Financial Secretary has said really is that the means test is now applied by the tax collector when he is assessing the Income Tax that is to be paid in the case of a member of the family. If the hon. Gentleman will read his words to-morrow he will find that this is Income Tax plus a means test for the family. What he said was that the Income Tax collector was now taking into account the liability of the family in assessing the amount of Income Tax payable by a member of the family.
It is indeed a very strange situation in which we have landed ourselves. If what he now tells us has been going on for the last 12 months, which I can well believe, it was the duty of the Treasury to take note of this new orientation in our social life and to bring forward an Amendment to this Finance Bill that would meet these new cases. The Treasury cannot get away with the argument that this is not an Income Tax matter. Every item is an Income Tax matter if the person assessed for Income Tax finds that his income is dissipated for purposes other than those to which it used to be applied. We have a new Income Tax situation since the imposition of the means test. Every hon. Member knows of cases very much like that mentioned by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White). I know of the case of a man in my division who is earning about £3 a week. He has three or four persons in the family dependent on him. Lo and behold we are told to-day that if this gentleman can make out a case before the tax collector he need not pay Income Tax on an income above the limit imposed under the law. Surely we have reached an extraordinary stage when we have to listen to arguments of that kind.
But the most extraordinary argument of all was that the new Clause as worded 508 will not work. When the brewers come to the Government with any demand they can draft a Clause to suit them; the brewers can get a Clause drafted to suit themselves at any time when they can bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government. Those who want to be relieved of the oil tax in connection with ships in home waters can also get an Amendment drafted that fits the case under the law. If the Treasury wanted to meet the case that we have put forward they could easily get over the difficulty and frame the appropriate words. They know better than we do what actual words are required.
Apart from party politics altogether, the case is made out without a shadow of doubt for some relief for these people who have had a new burden placed upon them by the administration of the means test. I do not think any Member of any party will quarrel with that proposition. The Government ought to have done something beforehand to meet a case of this kind. I do not know whether it is too late for them to act now. They can always do things for their own friends here or in another place. If our words are not good enough the principle of the new Clause is good enough. In view of the fact that the Government are fully aware of what is happening in the home life of our people, I appeal to the Financial Secretary to consider the matter further. I am certain that disaster can come to family life in many cases because of the way in which the Income Tax law is now administered. We shall, therefore, have no hesitation in taking this matter to a division.
§ 4.40 p.m.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSBefore going to a vote, I would put to the Financial Secretary a couple of specific questions relating to specific cases. The hon. Gentleman said that the new Clause will not have the effect desired by the Mover and the Seconder. Secondly, he said that he himself is fully convinced that a case has been made out, and he bubbled over almost with sympathy for the wretched victim of the means test. His legal experts could give effect to what is desired. He told us that the Income Tax collectors, understanding the difficulties of the means test and presumably understanding the difficulties of the legal fraternity of the Treasury, adopt a most sympathetic attitude towards the victims 509 of the means test, and to that extent confer certain benefits on individual Income Tax payers whose income is dissipated by the maintenance of dependent relatives. I ask him to reply regarding two cases in such a way that his reply will be an instruction to Income Tax supervisors as to what they must do.
Take the case of a single man still resident at home and earning £180 per annum. The father is unemployed and the mother is alive. The father is not an aged person, beyond work, say 79 years of age. He may be only 53; physically fit and mentally alert, and capable of rendering good service if the opportunity presented itself. Because the son resides at home and the father is unemployed the father can receive no transitional payment because of the income of his son. The son, therefore, is responsible for the maintenance of father and mother. Under the existing law that person is chargeable as to £80 of the £180 income, less parent allowances and insurance and other odds and ends which may amount to £15 or £20. The remaining £60 is chargeable to Income Tax. Does the Financial Secretary mean that where the parent has been unemployed during any period and the son has been compelled to maintain the parents, the Income Tax surveyor must relieve that single son of Income Tax liability? Unless that question is replied to specifically it really means that the Income Tax surveyor may or may not make the concession. If he makes a concession he does an illegal thing. It may be that that is typically and characteristically British. I ask the Financial Secretary to give us a straightforward reply.
Take another case of a married man still working. The father may be employed and receiving £200 per annum. He is subject to Income Tax for 50 per cent., apart from any earned allowance, insurance and odds and ends. He may have one or two sons at home, well beyond the allowance age, who have passed out of ordinary benefit and are entitled to transitional payment, assuming that the income of the home justifies that payment. Do we understand that when it can be shown that the father for a period was obliged to maintain the two unemployed sons, for whom no Income Tax allowance is made, the Income Tax surveyor can refrain from levying 510 Income Tax on the amount involved. If the hon. Gentleman tells us that there is to be an instruction on this point to surveyors of Income Tax we can accept his statement. Otherwise, I am afraid, a "hit or miss" situation will exist. The surveyor in Birmingham, for instance, may be a very humane person who will make concessions while the surveyor in Sheffield may be much more hardhearted, much closer to the Tory conception of individual and collective obligations than his Birmingham colleague, and may make no concessions.
The hon. Gentleman considers that, if this Clause or a similar Clause were accepted, certain anomalies would crop up, but we submit that its effect would be to remove anomalies. Under this Clause, instead of the £25 allowance for an aged person fully dependent on the wage-earner, £50 would be allowed. If a father is called upon to maintain one or two sons and that maintenance costs in excess of £50, then his allowance ought to be in excess of £50. If a son is called upon to maintain his father for whom the nation refuses to provide work and wages, then the son ought to have the full benefit of any allowance that can be made. I think the House is entitled to know from the Financial Secretary whether the anomalous position which I have indicated is to remain. Are person afflicted by the means test to be dependent in this matter on whether an Income Tax surveyor happens to wake up in a pleasant mood after a good night, or whether he has a disturbed morning following a bad night? Surely that position is even more anomalous than the suggestion made previously by the Financial Secretary. I ask him therefore to give a definite reply on the two cases I have submitted. Where a parent maintains a son, or a son maintains a parent, over a certain period, will it be an instruction to Income Tax surveyors that the cost of that maintenance is to be allowed for in respect of Income Tax —if not in the present financial year, at any rate as a rebate to be made on subsequent application? If the Financial Secretary cannot accept the proposed new Clause, will he at least give us the consolation of knowing that Income Tax surveyors are instructed to make this concession as and when it is proved to their satisfaction that the parties concerned are entitled to it?
§ 4.50 p.m.
§ Mr. McENTEEWould it not be possible to add to the table of exemptions accompanying the forms sent out by the Income Tax authorities? The Financial Secretary admits that there is an injustice here, although he claims that this is not really an Income Tax matter. He says that in certain cases, where there is an aged person, not yet old enough to come within the ordinary Income Tax exemption, but not likely to obtain work in his own occupation because of age, and the conditions prevailing in the industry, the Income Tax surveyor may stretch a point to enable that man to be brought within the exemptions. Why not extend the table of exemptions to cover any person who can prove that he is called upon by a public assistance committee to maintain a relative over a reasonably long period of time? Such a person should be entitled to claim exemption from Income Tax in respect of that imposition.
If as the hon. Gentleman suggests this is not really an Income Tax matter at all, can he then give us a guarantee that he will consult the head of the Department which is to some extent responsible—although its responsibility in that respect appears to be very limited—for the work of the public assistance committees with a view to getting those bodies to take into consideration Income Tax paid by a person whom they require to maintain a relative? The Government cannot reasonably have it both ways. They cannot claim that no exemption should be allowed to a man in respect of Income Tax by the public assistance authority, and on the other hand that no allowance is to be made by the Income Tax commissioners in his case. The public assistance committee ought to make some allowance in respect of Income Tax when assessing the income of a person who is being made responsible for the maintenance of relatives or the Income Tax authorities ought to make a concession. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to give us some assurance on this matter. He admits that there is an injustice and if this is not, as he claims, an Income Tax matter, will he promise at least to consult with the Department responsible for
§ public assistance, so that if no allowance can be made from the point of view of Income Tax some allowance will be made from the point of view of public assistance.
§ 4.53 p.m.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSIt ought to be plain to the more intelligent Members of the House that public assistance committees are already bound to take into account the question of Income Tax in a case, say, where a man is earning £200 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is the general opinion that they do take it into account.
§ Mr. McENTEEDefinitely, they do not.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI am told that they do. There is one serious flaw in this new Clause. It only applies to the cases of those affected by transitional payments but there are much worse cases of grievance. It is easy in these matters to make appeals for leniency and to point out this, that and the other hardship, of which we know already. But there are other people very much worse off than the people contemplated by the new Clause. For instance there is the agricultural labourer. Why not bring in a proper proposal dealing with the matter in a proper way? It is utterly impossible to deal with it in this way, taking up one grievance after another.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESCan the hon. Member give us any idea of how many agricultural labourers are paying Income Tax?
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI never said they were. Evidently I did not make my meaning plain to the hon. Gentleman, but what I did suggest was and what I think will be appreciated by the more intelligent section of the Socialist party was that an agricultural labourer might be a dependant in some of these cases. From that point of view only, I would say that the position of the Government on this question is strong and that it is not in the best interests of the finances of the country that we should deal with this matter in a piecemeal fashion.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 238.
515| Division No. 226.] | AYES. | [4.55 p.m. |
| Banfield, John William | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Cowan, D. M. |
| Batey, Joseph | Clarke, Frank | Cripps, Sir Stafford |
| Bernays. Robert | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Daggar, George |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) |
| Dobbie, William | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Leonard, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Logan, David Gilbert | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | McEntee, Valentine L. | White, Henry Graham |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Mainwaring, William Henry | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Harris, Sir Percy | Parkinson, John Allen | |
| Holdsworth, Herbert | Rea, Walter Russell | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Janner, Barnett | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves. |
| John, William | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Eden, Robert Anthony | McCorquodale, M. S. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Elmley, Viscount | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | McKie, John Hamilton |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander |
| Apsley, Lord | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst | Martin, Thomas B. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Fox, Sir Gifford | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Fuller, Captain A. G. | Meller, Sir Richard James |
| Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell | Ganzonl, Sir John | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Goff, Sir Park | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.) | Gower, Sir Robert | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres |
| Belt, Sir Alfred L. | Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Bilndell, James | Greene, William P. C. | Munro, Patrick |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph |
| Borodale, Viscount | Grimston, R. V. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Normand, Wilfrid Guild |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nunn, William |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Peake, Captain Osbert |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Hales, Harold K. | Peat, Charles U. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Penny, Sir George |
| Bracken, Brendan | Hanley, Dennis A. | Perkins, Walter R. D. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Hartington, Marquess of | Petherick, M. |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Hartland, George A. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Brockiebank, C. E. R. | Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n) | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y) | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Pike, Cecil F. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Burnett, John George | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Ramsbotham, Herwald |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.) | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Ratcllffe, Arthur |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) | Horobin, Ian M. | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- |
| Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) | Howard, Tom Forfeit | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Remer, John R. |
| Clayton, Sir Christopher | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D, | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Rosbotham, Sir Samuel |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Hurd, Sir Percy | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Rose Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Cooke, Douglas | Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Copeland, Ida | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury) |
| Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Ker, J. Campbell | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. do Windt (Bootle) | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Kimball, Lawrence | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Cross, R. H. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Shute, Colonel J. J. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Lees-Jones, John | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Davison, Sir William Henry | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd, Gr'a) | Soper, Richard |
| Denville, Alfred | Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Doran, Edward | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Drewe, Cedric | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Mabane, William | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick) | Spens, William Patrick |
| Dunglase, Lord | Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Storey, Samuel | Train, John | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Stourton, Hon. John J. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Strauss, Edward A. | Turton, Robert Hugh | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Strickland, Captain W. F. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kanyon | Withers, Sir John James |
| Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hormey) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. | |
| Summersby, Charles H. | Watt, Captain George Steven H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Sutcliffe, Harold | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour | Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. |
| Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | Weymouth, Viscount | Womersley. |
| Thorp, Linton Theodore | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
§ 5.4 p.m.
§ Mr. CAPORNWith regard to the new Clause (Amendments as to residuary legacies to charitable institutions) standing on the Paper in my name and in the names of several of my hon. Friends, I wish to move it with the omission of the last paragraph.
§ Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)I think the hon. Member has forgotten the fact that on the Report stage notice must be given of a proposed new Clause. If the hon. Member's Clause were to receive a Second Beading, he could then move to omit the portion of which he wishes to get rid, but he cannot move the Clause on the Report stage in an amended form.