HC Deb 04 June 1934 vol 290 cc671-87

8.24 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, to leave out "specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."

I hope I shall not be considered ungrateful in moving this Amendment. I appreciate that the Government are conscious of the serious position of the shipbuilding trade. There are certain industries, like that with which the Minister for Mines is so ably associated, which have been going through a very-bad and distressing time, but it is not unfair to say that shipbuilding, and British shipbuilding in particular, has felt perhaps as much as any industry the full blast of the world economic depression. Many of the shipbuilding areas are almost wiped out. It is only by the most careful co-ordination of interests, the cutting down of some yards, and the amalgamation and merging of various companies, that the industry is kept solvent. I realise that no doubt it is due to the influence of the President of the Board of Trade, for no one is better able to speak for the shipbuilding industry. In the various tariff duties special consideration has been given to the ship-building industry. Under the original Act of 1932 shipyards had certain privileges in regard to import duties which did not apply to other industries. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt as a concession, is arranging that the importation of goods of any class or description specified in the Second Schedule shall be exempted if the Commissioners are satisfied that the goods are being imported for use in the construction or repair of the boilers or propelling machinery of ships.

I turn to the Schedule and find a comparatively small list of goods, and I suggest that, as long as the Commissioners have discretion, it does not seem wise to limit it to these particular articles. If it is practicable in the construction of boilers and propelling machinery for ships to exempt articles from duty, the list should be as complete as possible, and should include everything the Commissioners find they can provide. That certainly applies in the original Act. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to Section 11 he will see that there is no limitation of the character now suggested. In that case it is limited to goods consigned to shipbuilding yards. I particularly press the point now, because when I turn to the trade returns for April, 1934, I find that the figures are most alarming and certainly indicate the necessity for drastic action if the shipbuilding industry is to be saved and put on its legs again. I find that in the first four months of 1931, which was not a good year, the exports coming under the category of ships or vessels amounted to £1,800,000. In 1932 it had gone down to £1,276,000 in the first four months, and for the same period this year it had gone down to the small figure of £602,000. The volume of business has been decreased owing to quotas, restrictions, tariffs, and all the unnatural hindrances to trade. The carrying trade of the world has been reduced, and naturally owners of ships are not inclined to give orders for the production of new ships. Therefore, with the severe competition for the limited tonnage required, prices are an essential factor. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his small concession, and I suggest that he should make the concession complete so as to include all articles required for the construction of ships.

8.30 p.m.


I do not say it is a coincidence that at this moment there should be a case for the Government giving further subsidies to shipping. Although there has been a tremendous world cause for the present condition of shipbuilding and the shipping industry, our own Government have very materially contributed to that position by having cut down the external trade of this country, not only by their tariff measures, but also by their sugar-beet industry proposals.


I think that the hon. Member had better confine himself to the Amendment.


I am giving the reason for this Amendment being exceedingly apt in; view of what had gone before. The Amendment brought forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is singularly apt at the moment when the shipbuilding industry is in such a dreadful condition. Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, as he said, gave the Tariff Commissioners power—it was merely permissive—to exempt imports going to registered shipyards. The proposal in the Finance Bill of this year is to make it obligatory to exempt from duty certain classes of goods used in shipbuilding. There does not seem to be any sufficient reason for leaving the provision where it is now proposed to leave it. What makes the Government propose that the goods enumerated in the Second Schedule of the Bill only should be exempted The Committee will be indebted to whatever Member of the Government replies, if he will say why these goods only are included in the Schedule, and why all goods necessary for the building of ships are not included. I do not profess to know all the details of the matter, but no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade does, and will be able to give a useful explanation. In the meantime I suggest that the words should be left out, and that the provision which is applied to certain articles only in the Schedule should be applied to all articles necessary for the building of ships.

8.33 p.m.


When countries build tariff systems round them there is, as a rule, some special care taken with regard to items necessary in the building and construction of ships, and if those who are interested will look at the tariff walls of the United States of America, of Germany and of other countries they will find that when a tariff wall is put round a country, very tender regard is paid to items necessary for the construction of a ship. Consequently, when the Import Duties Act, 1932, was brought before this House, Section 11 was inserted with a view to favouring the very old established British superiority in shipbuilding, and to see that articles essential for shipbuilding consigned to registered shipyards should be able to come in free from the duties which Parliament was asked to impose. It was thought that the task could be achieved by registering shipyards, that is to say, by registering the premises. It is very difficult when an article is brought into this country in one form and undergoes many processes, and is subsequently found in a ship, to know whether it is an article imported for the purpose of shipbuilding or one which will find itself ultimately in a ship. The way to assist the Commissioners of Customs and Excise who have to operate the Act when a particular consignment arrived, is to say there shall be shipbuilding yards which shall be registered, and goods consigned direct to those yards shall be exempted by the commissioners. In some shipbuilding yards not only do they build a ship and make its hull, but they also build the propelling machinery. In those cases where the propelling machinery works happens geographically to be within the curtelage of the shipyard, it followed that everything required by the makers of the ship-propelling machinery came in dutyfree. If, however, entirely as a matter of geography, instead of having the marine engine works within the curtelage of the registered shipyards they were across the street, then the goods could not be imported duty-free, because they were not consigned to a registered shipbuilding yard. Therefore, the position of the marine engine works differed according to the amount of land available on the sides of the rivers and estuaries where shipbuilding is carried on.

We have had representations made to the Government constantly about the inequality that was produced in regard to people handling substantially the same thing, because of the mere accident whether or not the ship could come alongside the yard. It was the test of a registered shipbuilding yard that you should be able to bring your boat alongside the actual yard and that it could either be built on, in, or attached to the actual shipbuilding yard. On some rivers, the Tyne for instance, there are a number of deep water wharves where you can bring a vessel alongside, but on the Clyde, curiously enough, for the greater part the marine engine works are not possessed of quays actually alongside the river and consequently you cannot bring your ship alongside the marine engine works on the Clyde. If there is a centre where marine engine works have secured very great prominence it is on the Clyde, yet many of the great firms of marine engine builders have been unable to secure the consignment of goods duty-free under Section 11 to their marine engine works.

Let the Committee understand that there is a new ship being constructed and tenders are put in for the propelling machinery. A foreign firm could send a complete engine unit consigned direct to the shipbuilding yard, and it would come in duty free, but a British marine engineering firm building a competing engine and wishing to tender for the supply of the propelling machinery for that ship and wanting to import certain parts to make up its whole engine was unable to get those parts without paying the duty. This proposal in the Finance Bill is, therefore, nothing more than a proposal to endeavour as far as possible to overcome an administrative difficulty in the working of Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932. The new Clause endeavours to put right the grievance of the marine engine builder by saying that those parts which the marine engine builder may want to import duty free shall, under the circumstances set out in this Clause, be allowed to come in free. It is not a general enabling power. It is not a reversal of policy. It is an administrative attempt to overcome a difficulty which has been found to exist in the past, and it is thought, with the co-operation of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, to be a way to achieve the desired result.

The hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu), half jestingly and half seriously asked whether the six items specified in the Second Schedule, to which this Clause refers were complete, whether they were all necessary and whether they were all the types of articles which the marine engine builder requires. The answer is in the affirmative. This is a Clause drafted in co-operation with the best advice we could procure from those engaged in the industry which it is desired, with common accord, to help, namely, that there shall not be a positive premium on introducing a whole engine complete from abroad into a shipyard as distinct from introducing a part by a British marine engine maker to be built into an engine here. The Clause is designed to secure that, and it is not an attempt at the general extension which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Sir P. Harris) is seeking to give to it, by suggesting that once the Import Duties Advisory Committee have made a report anything in an engine can be allowed to come in free. That is a much wider proposal than the Government have in mind. In the first place, you have a registered shipyard which includes a marine engine works within the yard itself, and this Clause is to level up the case of those marine engine builders whose premises are not geographically within a registered shipyard. That is the Clause to which the Government adhere.

8.42 p.m.


While thanking the hon. Member for his explanation, I might say that what we were afraid of was that this proposal was a limitation of the scope of Section 11 and not an extension of it. We do not mind how much it is extended but we are afraid that there is some limitation here. Under Section 11 the powers were permissive. The Import Duties Advisory Committee could impose certain conditions. I do not, say that I do not accept the explanation of the Minister, but when the Import Duties Act was being discussed in the House there was an outcry against the importation of certain materials for shipbuilding. Will the hon. Member say that there is no question of limiting the purpose intended by Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, that the items in the Second Schedule include everything necessary for the building of ships and that they shall be free from duty? If he would give me that assurance, I shall be much obliged.

8.43 p.m.


I can give the hon. Member an immediate assurance that the whole object of the Clause is to extend and not to limit the operation of Section 11. Let me again put the position to the Committee. So long as you have premises which are a registered shipyard anything consigned to them for incorporation in the ship is duty free, under Section 11. It is only in a comparatively small number of cases that the marine engine building works are actually within the registered shipyard, so that Section 11 does not apply at present to the great majority of marine engine builders' works. It is not possible to register all marine engine works as shipyards, because in addition to making marine engines they often make other things. You could not have, little works all over the country in a great number of inland places being registered as shipyards. For example, the British Thomson-Houston Company, of Rugby, supply a great deal of material used in ships, but it could not be registered as a shipyard. It would be something ironical, when Great Britain is an island, that we should have registered shipyards in inland places. We could not do that, but we can go to the marine engine builders and say: "Make a list of the things you rightly want to import." We are only dealing with things which they cannot get here, which they must import from abroad in order to put them into their engines, which are subsequently to be put inside the ship. We say: "What are you likely to import which would be under a duty unless we give you special exemption." This list of articles required for shipbuilding purposes has been made up with the co-operation of the interests concerned, and while one can never hope to please everybody with any formula, you can be tolerably sure, when you have investigated a matter in the way this has been investigated, that the ground is substantially covered. The Clause is designed to remove an anomaly which it has been impossible to explain—namely, why shipbuilding yards in certain cases are registered shipbuilding yards and others making marine engines elsewhere because they are not registered do not come under the provisions of Section 11. The grievance will be met and the importation of the specified parts will be free of duty if they are for marine engines.

8.46 p.m.


We have had a most remarkable statement from the Parliamentary Secretary and an illustration as to the extraordinary difficulties of administering the import Duties Act and the injuiry which is being done to the shipbuilding trade. The hon. Member has admitted that the Clyde area, one of the worst hit areas in the country, has been seriously hampered by the difficulty of importing essential articles in the construction and repair of boilers and propelling machinery. We are asking that the principle in Section (11) of the original Act should apply in this case. It would be more reasonable, in the case of goods imported for the manufacture of boilers and propelling machinery of ships, that where the Commissioners are satisfied that these goods should be exempt, the exemption should not be limited to a few articles. That is not an unreasonable request. If they are able to satisfy the conditions that the goods are really required for the purpose. I suggest that they should without exception be exempt. I hope the Government will be able to grant this small concession. We are supposed to be discussing a Finance Bill, but so far we have had no intervention by the Financial Secretary. A few well chosen words would be welcome. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, except in the case of insulin, has been sitting in sphinx-like silence. We are really discussing a Tariff Bill, finance has been pushed into the background. We are debating how we can placate this industry and that by a concession here and there, or by a lowering of the duty.


The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Clause under discussion.


That is all I want to say. It would be a justification of his distinguished occupation and responsibility of guiding a Finance Bill through the Committee if the Financial Secretary could make some concession to this distressed industry, which is crying out for help, and which has been suffering from a clumsy wording of the Governments' own Act.

8.50 p.m.


I confess that the last observations of the Parliamentary Secretary have come as a revelation to me. It may be that I am disclosing a colossal ignorance, but I acknowledge that I do not know much about shipbuilding. At the same time, I have always understood that the steel trades of this country claim that they are efficient and up to date, and able to meet the needs of the country, but I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that there are certain types of work, sections of completed articles, which they are not able to provide.


Not necessarily steel.


The materials are referred to in the Second Schedule. The question which strikes me is this. Now that we are about to have tariffs imposed are we still to be in the position of having to admit that our steel trade will yet be so inefficient as to be unable to provide essential parts in the building of a ship? The whole argument has been, protect us from unfair competition from outside and we will show you how competent we are. Yet, here we are, in spite of the fact that we are to consider measures for protecting this industry, being told in advance that whatever we may do in that direction there must be free trade in regard to certain specified products of the steel and allied trades. I did not expect to hear so bland and open a confession that this wonderful country of ours, which is so advanced in the matter of steel products, has still to admit that other parts of the world are more advanced in respect of certain articles.

8.50 p.m.


I listened with great interest to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the position of registered shipyards. I have very little knowledge of the shipbuilding industry but I should like to know whether it is the fact that within this tariff-ridden country of ours there are little areas which are a kind of free trade state, and that these free trade states are registered shipyards. May I ask whether it is true that registered shipyards within the meaning of the Act enjoy a kind of extra territorial right to import free of duty any kind of goods which are required in the construction of ships?


The Section speaks for itself. Section (11) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, permits materials which are imported into registered shipyards for the purpose of shipbuilding to be imported free of duty. The whole point is that administratively the control by the Customs is by consignment direct to a yard which has produced a certificate of registration. In other words, it is to premises.


I am obliged for the explanation, but it is a surprise to me, and I have no doubt to other hon. Members, to learn that any kind of material required in the building of ships may be imported into a registered shipbuilding yard free of duty. In these circumstances it seems rather remarkable that the Second Schedule to which this Clause refers should be such a short one. One would have expected that ash trays and smoking room curtain materials, oak planks and sail cloth, would have been among the materials used in the construction of ships, and that the special extra territorial privilege which attaches to a registered shipbuilding yard would have been extended to the unfortunate people who are manufacturing these other materials used in shipbuilding but whose works or factories happen to be situated at some place geographically remote from a registered shipbuilding yard.

It would seem that if this Clause is to become law the Government will be faced with a new procession of importunate claimants up another set of backstairs, and these will be persons claiming to be manufacturers of materials used in the legitimate building of ships, claiming that they are at an unfair disadvantage as regards the foreigner, because the foreigner can bring his material and dump it straight into a Free Trade, specially privileged, registered shipbuilding yard, while they are endeavouring to manufacture their material in some place where these special privileges do not apply. I would draw attention to the extraordinary sets of circumstances that are growing up as a result of our experience of tariff conditions. It seems very extraordinary that, having imposed a tariff ostensibly for the reason that the industry established in this country is capable of producing all that is required and at a price which is fair to the consumer, it is then necessary to issue wholesale licences in all sorts of directions to get behind those very provisions.

8.57 p.m.


Really the last speaker is getting so wide of the mark that as one who knows a little about engine building I would like to bring him back to the Amendment. The provision in the Bill refers only to engine works not within the shipyard. This is a right and proper action to take to correct something that had not been foreseen. An engine works which is going to supply engines to a ship and does not happen to be within the shipyard is to be on all fours with the engine works that is within the shipyard. Why the hon. Member should put all that long string of words together about something which was really introduced to help his own people in the early stage of the steel industry, I cannot think. I hope that the simple explanation which I understand was previously given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be a little clearer even than what I have said.

8.59 p.m.


I want to ask a question of some importance before we leave this matter. I understand that the purpose of the Government is to extend to those industries that supply engines to ships the privilege of free admission which is already given to shipyards which are engaged in the construction of ships. There are defined in the second Schedule to the Bill those articles which are to be admitted free, no matter to which part of the country they go. The purpose of the Amendment is to assist the Government to obtain what they desire, which is that the construction of ships in our yards shall not be enhanced in cost by the imposition of a tariff upon any article which is essential to the building. The case which I have in mind is that of insulation. The people who are engaged in the work of insulation of pipes and other things upon ships, I understand, have to import certain portions of the material used in the process of manufacture, and at the present time they have to pay a duty, and yet when they are engaged on the insulation of a ship that duty is in their costs. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether this particular case has been thought about by the Government, and if so why it is not included in the Schedule.

Indeed, the more we think of this matter, once it is admitted that in order to keep our place in the shipping industry of the world we must have a free market in which to purchase materials—once that is admitted by the Government, there is no halting place between this and Free Trade in the building of ships. The purpose of the Amendment if to extend what the last speaker seemed to desire, namely, that the anomaly should be done away with and that things required in the construction of ships, not the accessories in. the furnishing of ships, must be allowed into this country free. The Government admit that, and for appearance sake they seem to endeavour to indicate that the whole of these articles can be included in any Schedule. I submit that they cannot be, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say specifically whether the case of insulation material has been considered, and whether he cannot extend the Schedule to include such material.

9.2 p.m.


I have listened to all the discussion, but I was not able to understand the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) caused me to rise because he corrected my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), and said that what was meant by this Clause was to allow engine works to supply these materials. Having looked at the Schedule I do not see that the hon. Member for Platting had made the matter clearer. I can, perhaps, understand some of the items mentioned, but I cannot understand No. 3. It allows to come in, duty free, iron and steel plates not less than one-eighth of an inch nor more than two inches in thickness. I cannot imagine any engine works supplying those.


For the boilers.


This is far wider than the boilers. These are iron and steel plates used in the shipyards, which means any iron and steel plate used in the building of the ships, that are allowed in duty free. Nor was the matter made clear by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that the proposal was to bring in marine engine works that are not within a registered shipyard. It seems to me that No. 3 ought not to have been included here. It is simply used to bring in marine engine works. There have been more than 12 months' experience of the working of these exemptions. It certainly does not seem to have helped the shipbuilding industry very much. On the Tyne shipbuilding has not revived or become prosperous because of these exemptions. After all, is the exemption of these articles worth while?

9.5 p.m.


In reply to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) the experience of the operation of Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, has been this—that goods required for the building, repairing or refitting of ships have been imported into registered shipyards for the express purpose of avoiding duty. Those builders who happen to have engine-works within their registered shipbuilding yards, have imported their engines, sometimes complete, from abroad because, by so doing, they have avoided paying duty on the whole or any part. Of course no exemption can overcome depression in trade. The hon. Member expressed astonishment that the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne had not yet revived as fully as it might have. This section has made greater the possibility of British shipbuilding yards competing with abroad, but the experience of the working of the section has been that all these marine engine builders who, for reasons laid down by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, were not able to procure registration under Section 11 have felt an acute sense of grievance because they have found themselves in competition with completed foreign engines consigned direct to shipbuilding yards. It is to remedy that state of affairs that this new provision is introduced.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) asked had the Government considered the case of insulating apparatus and its parts. The answer is "yes" and hon. Members will find that this Schedule can, with the approval of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and the Treasury, be extended. It is a question of making out a claim. Subsection (2) of Clause 9 provides that the Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and after consultation with the Board of Trade, add to or withdraw from the Schedule—in other words vary the Schedule.


Why have the Schedule?


Because the whole point is to endeavour to deal with the grievance to which I have referred. Having attempted to legislate for shipbuilding in Section 11 of the Act of 1932 and having found the difficulty in practice regarding marine engine works which are not in shipbuilding yards, this is a Clause designed to meet that difficulty. It is a specific Clause to meet a particular difficulty and if it were made general the result would be that it would cease to have the very effect for which it is designed.

9.9 p.m.


The longer this Debate continues the more interesting it becomes. I do not know that the successive speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary throw further light on the subject, but they certainly provide interesting revelations of a change of attitude on the part of a person who once held views entirely different from those which he now expounds at that Box. In his last statement he has made a very interesting admission. He has laid down the dictum that tariffs are not going to cure depression of trade. That is a very interesting statement coming from the Government Front Bench. As far as we on these benches are concerned, we duly note that statement and on appropriate occasions and in appropriate places we shall make full use of it.


In answer to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) may I point out that the Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything of the kind——


The hon. Member is raising a matter which was not improperly referred to as the reference has been replied to; but it is a matter which I cannot allow to be debated on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217: Noes, 53.

Division No. 265.] AYES. [9.12 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Fuller, Captain A. G. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Ganzonl, Sir John Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Gillett, Sir George Masterman Moss, Captain H. J.
Albery, Irving James Gledhill, Gilbert Munro, Patrick
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Gluckstein, Louis Halls Nation, Brigadler-Goneral J. J. H.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Gower, Sir Robert Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Apsley, Lord Greene, William P. C. Peake, Captain Osbert
Atholl, Duchess of Grimston, R. V. Pearson. William G.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Gritten, W. G. Howard Penny, Sir George
Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M. Gunston, Captain D. W. Percy, Lord Eustace
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hales, Harold K. Petherick, M.
Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J. Hammersley, Samuel S. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Balniel, Lord Hanbury, Cecil Radford, E. A.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Harbord, Arthur Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Rankin, Robert
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C) Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Ray, Sir William
Bllndell, James Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Borodate, Viscount Hepworth, Joseph Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Boulton, W. W. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Remer, John R.
Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Broadbent, Colonel John Hornby, Frank Ropner, Colonel L.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Horobin, Ian M. Rosbotham. Sir Thomas
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Horsbrugh, Florence Ross, Ronald D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Howard, Tom Forrest Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Browne, Captain A. C. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Runge, Noran Cecil
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)
Burnett, John George Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Jeeson, Major Thomas E. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Salmon, Sir Isidore
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Salt, Edward W.
Carver, Major William H. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Kimball, Lawrence Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Knight. Holford Selley, Harry R.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Knox, Sir Alfred Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Clarry, Reginald George Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinten Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Clayton, Sir Christopher Law, Sir Alfred Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Colfox. Major William Philip Leckle, J. A. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)
Conant. R. J. E. Leech. Dr. J. W. Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dine, C.)
Cook, Thomas A. Lees-Jones, John Smithers, Sir Waldron
Cooke, Douglas Levy, Thomas Somervell, Sir Donald
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Craven-Ellis, William Loder, Captain J. de Vere Soper. Richard
Crooke, J. Smedley Loftus, Plerce C. Sotheran-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Mabane, William Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard McCorquodale, M. S. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Dawson, Sir Philip McKie, John Hamilton Spens, William Patrick
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Dunglass, Lord McLean, Major Sir Alan. Stewart, J. H. (Fife. E.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Stourton, Hon. John J.
Elmley, Viscount Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Strauss, Edward A.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Manningham-Bulter, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Emrys- Evans, P. V. Margeseon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Marsden, Commander Arthur Summersby, Charles H.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool) Martin, Thomas B. Sutcliffe, Harold
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Tate, Mavis Constance
Everard, W. Lindsay Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Moniell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Thompson, Sir Luke
Fremantle, Sir Francis Morgan, Robert H. Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles
Thorp, Linton Theodore Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingtwinford) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. Wise, Alfred R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeoar. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Train, John Wells, Sydney Richard
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. Weymouth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Turton, Robert Hugh Whyte, Jardine Bell Captain Austin Hudson and Sir
Wallace, John (Dunfermline) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) Walter Womersley.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Milner, Major James
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Groves, Thomas E. Owen, Major Goronwy
Banfield, John William Grundy, Thomas W. Rathbone, Eleanor
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rothschild, James A. de
Bernays, Robert Harris, Sir Percy Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Brown. C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Holdsworth, Herbert Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas Jenkins, Sir William Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, William G. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) West, F. R.
Curry, A. C. Lawson, John James White, Henry Graham
Daggar, George Leonard, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles Lunn, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Macdonald. Gordon (Ince) Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter McEntee, Valentine L. Wilmot, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Grenfell. David Rees (Glamorgan) Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Mr. Walter Rea and Sir Robert
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Hamilton.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.