HC Deb 01 July 1935 vol 303 cc1634-49

8.59 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

I beg to move, in page 16, line 34, at the end, to insert: (2) The said Section twenty-one shall have effect as if the references in Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof to a child receiving full-time instruction at an educational establishment included references to a child undergoing training by any person (hereafter referred to as "the employer") for any trade, profession, or vocation in such cicumstances that—

  1. (a) a child is required to devote the whole of his time to the training for a period of not less than two years; and
  2. (b) the emoluments, if any, receivable by, or payable by the employer in respect of the child while undergoing the training, do not exceed thirteen pounds a year, exclusive of any emoluments receivable or payable by way of return of any premium paid in respect of the training;
For the purpose of paragraph (b) of this Sub-section all emoluments at any time receivable by, or payable by the employer in respect of a child in respect of whose training a premium has been paid, shall be deemed to be receivable or payable by way of return of the premium, unless and except to the extent that the amount thereof exceeds in the aggregate the amount of the premium. (3) In this section the expression "emoluments" means any salary, fees, wages, perquisites, or profits or gains whatsoever, and includes the value of free board, lodging, or clothing. (4) For the purpose of a claim in respect of a child undergoing training, the surveyor may require the employer to furnish particulars with respect to the training and the emoluments of the child in such form as may be prescribed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This Amendment arises out of an Amendment moved from these benches on 19th June. There was a lot of discussion on it, and every one agreed to it in principle. There were eight speakers apart from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and everyone, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal party in opposition, spoke in favour of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that there was something in it though he would not accept it. He stated that in 1920 an attempt was made to get a similar Amendment. His objection was that it did not come within the term "general education" and that it might lead to a very far-reaching thing. I cannot hold with the Chancellor on that, because education takes various forms. Education embraces more than going to a college or university. We argue that, if a child is being trained for a trade, receiving no payment, he is entitled to the same benefit as was given under the Act of 1920 to those receiving instruction at an educational establishment.

The Chancellor gave us no definite promise, but he gave us an understanding that we might meet officials of the Treasury and ask for their help in drafting our Amendment in another form. We have met them, and we got a lot of help from them. We now bring forward a form of words which we think might be acceptable to the House. The Chancellor's objection was that payment might be made, and another point that he made was as to the length of the term of apprenticeship. On that point we say that the child is required to devote the whole of his time to the training for a period of not less than two years. That means that a casual job or a casual apprenticeship will not come within the purview of what we desire. In our discussion with the Treasury officials, it was pointed out that there might be some kind of payment, perhaps 1s. or 2s. a week for pocket money. We realise that there must be a line drawn, so we agreed that, if the apprentice got no more than 5s. a week, or £13 a year, that should not be called payment of wages. It might be taken as being a kind of grant which did not prevent the parent from getting the exemption. It was said, what about premiums that are paid? It is known that premiums are paid in respect of apprenticeship which are sometimes paid back to the parent or to the apprentice during the time the service goes on. In some cases £100 is put down, or it may be £200, on the understanding that if the apprentice proves fairly efficient, or shows an aptitude to follow the training, the employer, if satisfied, may hand back during the period of apprenticeship at least some of the premium which has been paid. We have said that that cannot be called wages. If during the time of apprenticeship the money paid as premium is paid back to the child, it should not be termed wages. We arrive at this point, that if the apprentice does not get more than 5s. as pocket money, and, in addition, does not get more than the whole of the premium money paid in respect of him, there should be entitlement to exemption just as if the apprentice had instead been attending a university or college.

We have tried as far as possible to meet the objections which were put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that that would mean a big loss to the Exchequer. I have had one or two cases brought to my notice where in the same town or neighbourhood one child has gone to college or to a training centre, and another child has been put to apprenticeship, and one has got the exemption and the other has not. On the terms of equity, we ask the House to recognise the fairness of the plea which we are putting forward. We have tried to meet all objections. I do not know whether the Amendment has been made watertight or not, and I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to accept it, but I can assure him that I and those with whom I have been associated, the leader of the Liberal party the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), have done all we can to make it possible in the hope that we may secure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a small concession in a Budget in which he has given very little.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. CLEARY

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has, I think, proved that the difficulties outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a recent occasion have now been cleared up, due to the new wording placed before the House this evening. The difficulties advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not of a financial character. He did not attempt to place any argument before this House in opposition to our case on grounds of principle; rather did he say in all fairness that he considered that the Amendment was not practicable, and was unworkable in its state at that time. We have been able, due largely to his very good offices, to place before the House the Amendment which I think, clears away all the difficulties envisaged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we therefore anticipate that some concession will be made in respect of a claim, which now that these difficulties are no longer with us, is all the stronger. We know that the case of the Treasury bench is not on financial grounds, and that they are not opposed to our argument in principle. The Chancellor rather admitted that on grounds of principle he agreed that the child enjoying full-time instruction as an apprentice should be in the same category as the child at a secondary school or college from the point of view of Income Tax allowance. Therefore, now that all those difficulties have gone, we believe that we can put a stronger argument before the House.

Full-time apprenticeship in trade or profession is merely another form of education and should bring the child apprenticed, or articled in regard to a profession, into exactly the same category as the child at school, college or university. The parents of these two sets of children should enjoy exactly the same relief and concessions. The education, technical though it be, in a particular trade is just as valuable to the recipient and to society in general as in the other case. The training received by the apprentice to fit him for a certain trade or profession confers as much benefit upon him or her and society in general as the benefits derived from a general education in the secondary school, or college. Therefore, it is a question of one category, and that is our main case. In addition, in the case of children sent to learn a trade or articled to a profession the sacrifice made by the parent in many cases is the greater, and because of that the claim for this concession in order to bring them into the same class as the children enjoying full-time education is all the more justifiable. Differentiation is unfair, it savours of class legislation because of the arguments that we have been able to advance, and we think, that the difficulties of mere wording having gone, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer having admitted that he is not prepared to state a case against us on the ground of finance or principle, we have proved our case. It is difficult in these circumstances to anticipate or to visualise any argument being made against this simple plea for ordinary elementary justice, and we suggest that the simple Amendment before the House to-night is an easy way of adjusting something that calls for adjustment.

9.14 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS

In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), I have been asked by him to express his great appreciation of the facilities given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the drafting of this Amendment. If it is a token of his good will, I am perfectly satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is in sympathy with the purposes of the Amendment, and if he has to resist it, I assume that it can be only because of financial considerations. One of the most serious factors at the present time in modern industry is the decline in apprenticeship. In many industries it is going out of fashion. It is difficult to persuade many parents to make the considerable financial sacrifice, on the one hand, of having to pay a premium, and, on the other hand, to forego the wage. Taking the long view, it is not only in the interests of the child that apprenticeship should be encouraged, but it is equally in the interests of our whole industrial system. I do not suggest that education is not a substitute in many cases for apprenticeship or that education is in certain cases not a better way of arriving at results, but some industries do not lend themselves for equipping a child by educational means for industrial life.

There is another aspect which makes the case for the Amendment even stronger. In most important industries where apprenticeship still survives, part of the condition of apprenticeship is attendance at a part-time course of education. That applies particularly to the printing trade, and also to engineering. One of the industries that in recent years has made the most remarkable progress is the printing trade, where an elaborate system of apprenticeship is combined almost universally with compulsory attendance, usually a part-time course, at a printing school. The great printing schools of London have, in co-operation with the industry and with employers and employed, revolutionised the character and standard of the printing industry.

No one is going to suggest that a small concession like this will make a vast difference, but it is the recognition by the State of the value of the sacrifice made by the parents on behalf of the child, by finding the money for apprenticeship and foregoing the money wages that would be forthcoming if the child went into other occupations, that would be appreciated. One of the real troubles of our industrial system, particularly in a place like London, is that the boy or girl likes to go into certain trades and immediately to earn good wages, but in two or three years time they are thrown on the scrap-heap, without any technical training and without any real, valuable industrial organisation behind them. There are tens of thousands of that class of labour in London and other great cities who in a few years time have to join the vast army of unskilled labour. Although this small Amendment would not revolutionise that state of affairs it would be a recognition by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a gesture to encourage parents to go through the slow and expensive system of apprenticeship in the interests of their children and industry.

9.19 p.m.

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM

A very sound principle is involved in the Amendment, and I need not take up much time in supporting it, because the case for its acceptance has been so well put by the Mover and Seonder of the Amendment and the hon. Baronet. There is no doubt that apprenticeship should be encouraged. We are in danger these days of losing our craftsmanship. Changes have taken place. We have more machinery, and science has advanced, but there is really more need for craftsmanship. I was very much impressed when I read a speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago in which he said that we were going to be short of craftsmen. I entirely agree with him. If he cannot accept this Amendment to-night I trust that he will bear it in mind for another Budget. I do not know how far the principle involved in the Amendment would upset the financial side of the Budget, but I agree that in these days when there is encouragement given to the youth of the country, we ought to accept principles such as are contained in the Amendment.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD

I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not defer coming to a decision on this matter, but will agree to the Amendment in the present Budget. This question of giving encouragement to parents who are willing to apprentice their children is one of vital importance, and ought to be dealt with as soon as possible. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say: "I do not know that this will be of any particular encouragement." He may say that there are comparatively few apprentices, but I believe that a gesture from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a recognition by this House of the importance of craftsmen and apprenticeship, and the importance of doing something to prevent children from going into blind-alley occupations, would be received with almost universal satisfaction throughout the country.

As one who claims as a trade union leader to speak for the people in his own calling, there is no one who is more anxious than myself to encourage parents definitely to give their children some trade or calling. One of the reasons why apprenticeship has fallen into disrepute is that parents are inclined, for economic reasons very often, to allow their children to undertake a job where comparatively big money is paid at an early age, and on the other hand there has been a disposition on the part of employers generally to believe that the machine can take the place of craftsmanship and workmanship. Out of my experience I declare that, good as the machine is and great as is the potentiality of the machine, craftsmanship and workmanship are just as much required to-day as in days gone by. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look upon this matter not from the point of view of its immediate effect, but because it will focus attention upon this matter, I shall be glad. I want him to remember those people of the lower middle class who go to great sacrifice in putting their children into professions. I hope that such people will reap the benefit of this Amendment. Anything that we can do to encourage parents to take the long view and not the short view, is well worth the consideration of the House. I sincerely trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us that he can see his way to accept the Amendment.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

When the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) moved an Amendment on this subject in the Committee stage, I pointed out certain practical difficulties in the way which seemed to me to render it quite impossible to consider the Amendment in the form in which it then stood. I suggested that he and his friends had better go and have another try and see if they could not find something more practical. On that, the Leader of the Opposition pleaded that they had not got a staff who were competent and experienced in matters of drafting and that it was hardly a fair thing to ask them to draft Amendments which would stand the examination of experts without the sort of assistance which we on this side are able to command. I was very ready to offer the assistance of the Treasury officials in drafting an Amendment to help in overcoming the particular difficulties which I had pointed out, and the hon. Member and his friends have taken advantage of that offer and have now presented an Amendment which I think is not open to the particular objections which I adduced in respect of the Amendment originally put forward. I take it then that the proposal which is now in front of us cannot be criticised on the ground that it is impracticable or unworkable. On the contrary, I think that the difficulties which I saw about the definition of an apprentice or the distinction between those apprentices who were unpaid altogether and those who were receiving a nominal amount have been got over.

The hon. Member for Leigh was very fair in saying that I had completely safeguarded my own position and that in offering the assistance of the Treasury in drafting an Amendment I had not committed myself in any way to accepting an Amendment even if the perfect Amendment were framed. I have now been endeavouring to give my mind to the Amendment as it appears on the paper and to trying to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of a proposal of this kind. In the speeches to which we have listened the matter has not been treated in a party spirit. It has been discussed very fairly from the general point of view of the advantages to the country of the encouragement of apprenticeship. It is impossible for anybody who has had any personal acquaintance with business not to feel a good deal of sympathy with that point of view. But the questions which I have had to ask myself were: In the first place, is this really going to help to get apprenticed children who would not otherwise be apprenticed, and, in the second place, is this, when removing an anomaly, going to put an end to the question of anomalies here or is it going to raise a fresh series of anomalies? The difficulty in so many of these cases is that one goes from step to step. A concession is asked for, and a case is made out, a moderate case, a persuasive case. It is perhaps shown clearly that there is an inconsistency in the law as it exists, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is persuaded to give way, and he grants a concession. Immediately he is confronted with a fresh demand because what he has given in one case has created a fresh injustice in another. I think that it was considerations of that kind which influenced the Royal Commission on Income Tax when they were considering a number of suggestions which had been made to them and when in the course of their report they made these observations: We have been asked to recommend allowances for expenses arising out of illness or disability, such as the travelling expenses of attendants of disabled persons; or to give compassionate rebate to persons who are compelled to maintain and pay personal attendants; or special relief to disabled persons in view of their decreased earning capacity. These claims, while differing in degree, all arise out of the personal or domestic circumstances of the taxpayer, and, although we are conscious that in particular cases the operation of the general rule may result in individual hardship, we feel that we cannot advise any general relaxation of the principles on which the tax is levied. That is the sort of classic passage which one continually has to bear in mind when considering proposals of this character, even though they naturally stir sympathies in our minds. If I may go back again for a moment to the first question I proposed, is it to be expected that a concession of this kind would effect the purpose which hon. Members really had in view. I gathered from what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) said that he had not a great deal of hope that it would. He said rather that it would give an indication that apprenticeship is viewed with favour by the Government and that at any rate it will focus attention on the subject. Although hon. Members have spoken about apprenticeship, I have very grave doubts as to whether apprenticeship is going to be affected at all by proposals of this kind. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) said that he did not think there were many unpaid apprentices in many districts. I think he is right. The cases of which the hon. Member for Leigh spoke are not really apprenticeship as we know it. They are cases rather of the young professional man who is articled to a solicitor or another professional man. These are really the cases, I think, which would be affected by this Amendment if it were to be accepted rather than the general case of apprentices in industry.

If it be a fact—I rather think that it is—that this would not touch the question of apprenticeship in general, but would only give some relief to parents who are in a position to apprentice their children to a professional man, that is really a very much weaker case, because I am inclined to think that parents who are in a position to do that are not likely to be influenced very much by a contribution in the shape of an extra allowance on Income Tax. The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Cleary) spoke of this as an ordinary act of justice and an instance of class legislation. I do not think that that is quite a fair description of the present position. But if it is class legislation which he has in mind the Amendment might fairly be described as class legislation, because it gives a greater advantage to the richer man than it does to the poorer man; the advantage is Income Tax on £50. If a man is well enough off to be paying the full 4s. 6d. on the £50 he is going to get a great deal more than a poorer man, who is only going to get the advantage of 1s. 6d. on his £50. So that I think that between the richer and poorer recipient of this benefit it favours just in the wrong direction; it gives the greater favour to the people who have the least need of it.

Are we going to put anything right if we accept the Amendment? Would it not be clearly inconsistent to say that an allowance shall be given to a parent who is going to put his child to a vocational training and at the same time deny it to a man who is apprenticing his child to a trade? The boy who is articled has got a career in front of him; he has his foot on the lowest rung of the ladder. What about the boy who would like to have that but cannot find the position; the boy whose parents would be very glad to pay a premium if they could get someone to take him. Are you not going to set up fresh injustices and anomalies if you give this allowance in the case of one who has his foot on the ladder and deny it to the one who cannot get his foot on any ladder at all. If you were to grant this concession, would you not have a claim to extend the provision to the parent of an unemployed boy? I do not think that I am stretching my imagination when I suggest that that would be the next thing to be asked, because it has been put forward by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in an Amendment he has put down to that effect, which has not been discussed.

Suppose the concession were given would it stop there? Can you distinguish between the parents of a child who is unable to find employment and the parents of a child who does not want to find employment, whose parents prefer him to stay at home? Shall we not presently come to a position where all unemployed juveniles, whatever be the reasons for their unemployment, would be the subject of a claim on behalf of their parents for the allowance? If you get to that position, then it would be extremely difficult to resist the further claim that the allowance for a dependent relative, which is £25, should be raised to £50. That, again, is the subject of another Amendment.

I give these cases as an illustration of the way in which one is almost inevitably led from one concession to another and the way in which each concession raises a fresh set of anomalies and difficulties, which would really make the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer almost impossible. I do not say that these difficulties, although serious, would have prevented my listening with a favourable ear to the Amendment of hon. Members couched in the form in which it is put if I were satisfied that it would achieve anything really substantial and valuable. For the reasons I have given, I have not been able to make up my mind that it will really affect the general question of apprenticeship. I think its application would be very difficult and would only occur in those cases where there is the least need for it. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that I must, although with some regret I confess, resist the Amendment.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I am sorry to hear the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, I desire to associate myself with the thanks of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and to say, on behalf of the Labour party, that we were treated with the utmost cordiality by the Treasury officials, who did their best to focus in a few words what they considered to be the point which we desired to place before the House. We fully appreciate the fact that neither they nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer were committed to the substance of the Amendment, although it appears on the Order Paper in the way in which it was drafted by them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be attempting to answer two questions. The first was whether the proposal in the Amendment would help and, secondly, if it would help, would it give finality? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his level best to scratch up every possible argument he could use against the proposal. If he had spent another fortnight he could not have found any more. He has been extremely diligent in finding objections to it. Take the question of finality. It may be that the Amendment, if it were accepted, would not achieve finality; I am prepared to grant that point. But that is not our fault. The difficulty in this matter did not begin to-night but when this principle was adopted by this House, whenever that was. The moment this House set out to make a concession in respect of education, it thereby laid itself open to the charge that if it gave a narrow interpretation of the word "education" it was creating inequality.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not contested the justice or the substance of our case. He implies that there is inequality in so far as we do remit Income Tax in respect of those who undergo a formal kind of education and resist it in respect of those who go in for the type of education referred to in the Amendment. If there is no finality, the fault lies at the door of a previous House of Commons when it first gave expression to this principle. May I say that as far as I am concerned I regard it as the duty of this House to keep on dealing with these inequalities so long as they exist. That is an elementary principle of taxation. We are not entitled to tax one lot of people in relation to the same subject differently from other people, who make a similar claim on other grounds. It is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove inequalities wherever they may show themselves. He cited one or two possible developments of the principle. He talked about the young person who may have his foot on the bottom rung of the ladder, who is entering upon a career. That is true; but, as a matter of fact, this remission of Income Tax is now given in respect of boys and girls who may never have a career at all, who may enjoy education up to 20, 25 and 30 years of age. There is no limit to the number of years in respect of which it may be given. At the end of that time, though the State may have granted this exemption in respect of Income Tax, they may not do one single day's work for the good of the State; and yet people who are equipped by reason of training of a more practical kind and who do enter into some form of industry or profession and do serve the State, are deprived entirely of the advantage of this remission.

It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised an issue which remains where it is in cases where that injustice is allowed to remain without attention. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would help. I do not wish to cover the same ground as others have covered, but I will develop one point briefly. Everybody who has studied our educational system is aware of the fact that the development of our secondary school education tends to overfill certain types of calling. We have so over-developed the less vocational form of education, the academic form, that we have over-supplied the market with that type of person and under-supplied the market with the type of person who is endowed with a more vocational training. I am sure that if the Chancellor would give this small concession it would help. Possibly the number of people who would get benefit would be very limited indeed, but I am sure it is worth while for the Government of the day to make a gesture in favour of vocational training, so as to encourage people to believe that from the standpoint of the State vocational training and education are just as important and significant as the more academic sort.

If the right hon. Gentleman will take that long view, as I will call it, I think he will feel that he is answering his first question in the affirmative—would it

help? I am sure that it would help very substantially in the years to come. The right hon. Gentleman contends that the number of people who would benefit immediately would be very limited. That is probably true. In that case the cost would not be very great. But the benefits that would accrue would be two-fold. First, there would be social consequences of considerable value; and, secondly, we should have taken one more step in the direction of removing an obvious injustice and inequality.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 184.

Division No. 255.] AYES. [9.50 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R. Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Milner, Major James
Banfield, John William Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Cleary, J. J. Grundy, Thomas W. Owen, Major Goronwy
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen
Cripps, Sir Stafford Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Rathbone, Eleanor
Curry, A. C. Harris, Sir Percy Rea, Sir Walter
Daggar, George Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Tinker, John Joseph
Dobbie, William Lawson, John James West, F. R.
Edwards, Sir Charles Leonard, William Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Lunn, William Wilmot, John
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur McEntee, Valentine L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. Groves and Mr. T. Smith.
NOES.
Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Aske, Sir Robert William Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Atholl, Duchess of Denman, Hon. R. D. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Dickie, John P. Horobin, Ian M.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Drewe, Cedric Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Duckworth, George A. V. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Eastwood, John Francis Iveagh, Countess of
Blindell, James Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Boulton, W. W. Elliston, Captain George Sampson Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Ker, J. Campbell
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Broadbent, Colonel John Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Kerr, Hamilton W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Everard, W. Lindsay Kimball, Lawrence
Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Kirkpatrick, William M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Fraser, Captain Sir Ian Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Burghley, Lord Fremantle, Sir Francis Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Ganzoni, Sir John Leech, Dr. J. W.
Burnett, John George Gluckstein, Louis Halle Lees-Jones, John
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Goff, Sir Park Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Gower, Sir Robert Lewis, Oswald
Carver, Major William H. Greene, William P. C. Liddall, Walter S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Grimston, R. V. Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Clarry, Reginald George Gunston, Captain D. W. Llewellin, Major John J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hales, Harold K. Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Conant, R. J. E. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Cook, Thomas A. Hanbury, Sir Cecil Mabane, William
Cooper, A. Duff Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Craven-Ellis, William Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) McCorquodale, M. S.
Crooke, J. Smedley Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles) Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
McLean, Major Sir Alan Ramsbotham, Herwald Spens, William Patrick
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Ramsden, Sir Eugene Stones, James
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Rankin, Robert Storey, Samuel
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Stourton, Hon. John J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- Strauss, Edward A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Reid, William Allan (Derby) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. Rickards, George William Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Robinson, John Roland Sutcliffe, Harold
Milne, Charles Ropner, Colonel L. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Thompson, Sir Luke
Moreing, Adrian C. Ross, Ronald D. Train, John
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Tree, Ronald
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Norle-Miller, Francis Salmon, Sir Isidore Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
North, Edward T. Salt, Edward W. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney). Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Orr Ewing, I. L. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Palmer, Francis Noel Selley, Harry R. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Patrick, Colin M. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Penny, Sir George Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Perkins, Walter R. D. Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Petherick, M. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.) Sir Walter Womersley and Major
Power, Sir John Cecil Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) George Davies.
Radford, E. A. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.