HC Deb 16 June 1936 vol 313 cc947-62

If any person who is assessable to Income Tax proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that during the year of assessment he had a relative living with him who had been denied, wholly or in part, unemployment allowance under Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, or public assistance, on the ground that the relative was being maintained wholly or partly by him, he shall be entitled to a deduction of fifty pounds in respect of his assessment.—[Mr. Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.47 p.m.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is the fourth occasion on which an attempt has been made in the Finance Bill to amend the law with respect to the matter with which the present Clause deals. The Clause raises two issues, one of principle and one of practical importance. The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, creates a new category of dependants by saying that all the resources of the family shall be taken into account in determining the allowance to be given to any unemployed member of the family. It makes the unemployed member of the family dependent upon those members who may be earning a salary or wage. This is the first occasion in the history of legislation in any country when that category of dependants has been made, with the exception, of course, of the old Poor Law. It has always been the practice under the Poor Law to take the family income into account in determining the amount of public assistance, but the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, was the first Act of Parliament, for many years at any rate, to create a new category of legal dependants.

Income Tax law denies the existence of that category, because, if an employed member of a family is subject to Income Tax, and says to the Inland Revenue Officer, "I claim that my brother or sister, who is unemployed, is made a dependant of me by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, and therefore I claim a rebate in respect of that brother or sister," the Inland Revenue officer says, "There is no such provision in the Income Tax law of the country, and you cannot legally regard them as dependants." That is obviously a very anomalous position—where one law makes a brother or sister a dependant, and the other law denies provision for that. The Clause says in effect that if the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, is allowed to remain unamended and the unemployed member of a family is made the legal dependant of the employed person then the Income Tax law should make provision for that dependency.

I believe that it would be very difficult for Members in any part of the Committee to defend the anomalous position which I have described. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee would never permit such an anomaly to exist unless the consequence of this anomaly is to unload on the shoulders of those members of the working class who are still in employment part of the burden of maintaining those who are unemployed. I had a case in my own constituency of a young woman of 25 who was a school teacher earning a salary of between £3 and £4 per week. This young girl had two brothers unemployed, and, owing to the closing down of the Ebbw Vale steelworks, these brothers have been unemployed for a long time. She was assessed for Income Tax and had to pay it. At the same time one of her brothers was wholly denied, and the other partly denied, any unemployment allowance because of the salary she was earning. Therefore she paid Income Tax on a salary she did not receive. Not merely did she not receive it, but in law she was not entitled to it. That is the point which has to be borne in mind, that the law says that this salary could be alienated from her by the Unemployment Assistance Board and yet on that alienated salary she had to pay Income Tax.

A domestic relationship of that description is bound to create bitter friction in a home, and there have been many instances where brothers and sisters in employment have left home, not merely because of the burden of maintaining their unemployed brothers and sisters, but because of the bitter irony of having to pay Income Tax on a salary which they would not themselves be able to enjoy, and which was used in supporting their unemployed brothers and sisters.

Last year we had a very interesting discussion on this subject and the present Secretary of State for War, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, made a statement. He referred to the Debate on the Finance Bill of the previous year and said: The Unemployment Assistance Board has recently considered this question and has definitely decided that where, in determining the need of an applicant for unemployment allowance payments of Income Tax by a member of the household is claimed as a deduction from earnings, it will be allowed as a special expense in the assessment of household resources. I think that has gone far to meet the point raised and I hope my hon. Friend will be content with that this year.


Is that in force at the present time?


Yes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1935; col. 508, Vol. 303.]

I have only had the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board in my hands for a very short time—it was only available this evening—and what I say now is subject to correction, because I have not had an opportunity of considering it fully, but on page 44 it refers to the treatment of earnings. I looked in vain to find any mention whatever of this undertaking. In no part of the report do they say they are prepared to take into account, in assessing the family resources, the amount of Income Tax that any earner of the family may have to pay. My hon. Friends and I have been making inquiries and we cannot find out whether the officers of the board have in fact made this allowance.

But what to me is a more serious thing is this. Ought not the person who is liable to Income Tax to be able to plead, even in this small concession, some statutory right to have the Income Tax disregarded. For example, if it is true that the Unemployment Assistance Board has sent round to its officers an instruction that in these cases the amount of tax payable must be deducted from the household resources before the assessment of need is made, ought not the Income Tax payer to be able to produce the document where the officer has received such an instruction? Otherwise he is quite helpless. Unfortunately these instructions to officers of the board are private and confidential. We have not access to them. Although there may be an appeal to the Unemployment Assistance Board, the appellant is unable to produce any document showing that he is entitled to this relief. The Chancellor may repeat the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury last year that this is admitted as a hardship and that he has gone some way towards meeting the practical difficulties of the case by asking the Unemployment Assistance Board to disregard part of the earnings as the income of the family. If that is the answer to be made, we claim that the Committee has a right to be informed of the words in which that instruction is given to the officers of the board, because if we are not put in possession of the actual instructions, then the unemployed man or his working brother or sister is in fact not put in possession of the right to have that left out of account, but is completely at the mercy of the officer of the board, who may or may not deny that such an instruction has been received.

That is that narrow and practical point of some relief being given to the earner in a family of unemployed persons, but it leaves out of account entirely the question of principle to which I have already referred. It is not enough for the spokesman for the Government to say that they concede our principle but that it will raise great administrative difficulties. It was mentioned last year that at present, if there is an elderly dependant in the home, the Income Tax law provides for a rebate of £25, whereas the proposal in this Clause is for £50. You may say that that would create an anomaly and that it would be difficult in practice to administer, because the dependency might only be for a part of the year, whereas the Income Tax relief would be for the whole year. All that we say is that if these are difficulties of administration, they throw into sharp relief the impossibility of having a means test at all without inflicting great hardships. It does not bring the law into good repute among a large number of members of the community if the excuse is made that they have to suffer a grievous injustice in order that unemployed people may be subject to the petty persecutions of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

11.3 p.m.


I support the new Clause, and I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments used by the Mover of the Clause. It seems to me that the proposal is so reasonable and just that it is difficult to understand any opposition to it or the Chancellor of the Exchequer refusing to accept it. It would be wise if the Committee kept the principal point in the Clause in mind. We claim that where a young man or woman in a household has his or her earnings taken into consideration in deciding the unemployment benefit that should be paid either to the father or some other member of the household, the fact that those earnings have been reckoned should guarantee to the earner some relief of Income Tax. This matter has been raised for the last three or four years, but there is this difference between this year and former years. Since last year we have had a general election, and the Government issued a manifesto in which they pledged themselves to maintain the unity of family life. They must remember that, and here is a chance to carry that policy into effect, because there is nothing more destructive of family unity than the penalising of these young people who are in a household some member of which is unemployed. In view of the fact, that things are different this year from last year, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay some attention to that fact and give consideration to it in his reply.

11.5 p.m.


I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the new Clause. I am certain that every Member of the Committee would be grateful to him if he did accept it. I do not want to reiterate what was said by the hon. Member for Emmw Vale (Mr. Bevan), but Members of the Committee must agree that where a young person, either a young man or a young woman, is contributing to the family income, and no allowance is made in respect of Income Tax, there is a feeling of real hardship. Everybody would appreciate a little leniency from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point. It seems to me to be a very grievous hardship to be asked to contribute perhaps a great part of one's income in order to keep other members of the family, and then to have no allowance for Income Tax upon that charge. Members of the Committee understand the Clause. It has been brought up year after year. I have had cases brought to my notice in my own city, and the feeling of hardship that exists. People say to me that they have given their money to the family in order to keep brother, sister or father, and then they are taxed upon their full income. It would not be a very costly concession if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way on this point. It would please every Member of the Committee and would give a feeling to the people outside that they are being treated with something like justice.

11.7 p.m.


I would add my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every representative of an industrial constituency will have met with instances of this grievous injustice. The individuals who are affected and who suffer this injustice are those whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to help. Take the shipbuilding and engineering industry. An individual has struggled to get into a better job than that of a shipbuilder or engineer. The engineer today has such a huge salary that there is no Income Tax on him. By paying attention to his work, going to evening classes and so on, a man may become a foreman. As a result of the man's perseverance and thrift and playing his part and making himself a better citizen, he is penalised. His son may be out of work but he is not allowed to go on the unemployment fund, and the father has to support him. But the father is not allowed any deduction from Income Tax on that account. We ask that the deduction should be fixed at £50. I have been at the Ministry of Labour recently regarding two school teachers, one in Dumbarton and the other in Clydebank. Because they happen to be school teachers, they have to maintain their father, and there is no allowance made for that.

Individuals who have tens of thousands of pounds with which to play get deductions on less justifiable grounds than we are submitting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night. I hope that he will not harden his heart to-night as he has done upon every previous occasion. There may have been some justification for his attitude when things were not going as well with us financially as they are today, but trade is now supposed to be on the turn. Everything is going better with us than was the case a few years back. We are not in the habit of appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because we have previously been turned down so often. We now come to him again, and we are knocking at the door. We hope that our knocking will not be in vain. There are thousands of decent folk who are affected in this way. They are not the rag-tag and bob tail of society, but comprise a most decent section of the community. We are appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or, behalf of that section of the community whom he and his party are always boasting that they represent. Now is the day and the hour to try and justify the claim that they are always putting forward in this House.

11.12 p.m.


I am not going to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to appeal to the Committee as a whole. Reference has been made to promises made at the General Election. A very large number of Members in all sections of this House stated at the election that they were prepared to consider the hardship of the family means test. We on this side of the Committee are entirely opposed to the family means test, but a great many Members who are not on these benches, without going as far as that, said that they were prepared to consider the hardship. I suggest to them that this particular hardship is a very real one. It is surely bad enough that a member of a household should be compelled to contribute to the whole of the members of the household and that they would not get any Unemployment Insurance benefit as long as one hand covered the whole of the family. It really is outrageous if, in addition to that, the person who is making that contribution and is supporting any or all of the other members of the family should not be allowed to have any deduction of any kind in consequence of that support from their Income Tax. During various other Amendments the Financial Secretary has said that we are not dealing with the small income allowance of a single man. In the case of unearned income a man with a wife and three children has to have £400 or £500, which he has earned, before he begins to pay tax. That is correct, but in this case there will be nothing of the kind. There may be a person with three or four dependants in the household and yet he will be treated as a single person and only get the exemption of a single person. This is a very grave injustice, and I hope Members will not allow their desire to finish and get home prevent them from attempting to rectify this injustice. I do not know what the Chancellor is going to say, but if he does not accept the Amendment I appeal to the Committee as a whole to put pressure upon him to do this simple justice to people who are in great need of some provision of this kind.

11.16 p.m.


This Clause does not lend itself to the comments of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) on a previous Amendment, the precise meaning of which escaped me, but it is one which deals with cases which in particular instances involve hardship. I will admit that the case on the face of it appears a plausible one, but nevertheless one has to remember that no system of taxation such as Income Tax can be drafted so as to provide for all possible individual cases of hardship. I make no excuse for again quoting the words of the Royal Commission in 1920, an impartial authority who gave a profound study to the whole subject and came to this conclusion: We have been asked to recommend allowances for expenses arising out of illness or disability, such as travelling expenses to 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 passage is applicable to the present case.




May I point out that the new Clause before us if it were carried would create fresh anomalies and fresh inequities. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has quoted the fact that, already the case of the dependent relative who is incapacitated by age or infirmity from earning his own living is met to the extent of £25, which, of course, is only half the amount mentioned in the new Clause. The hon. Member did not quote what, I think, is a still more striking case of anomaly if this new Clause were carried. These hardships are not merely confined to members of the wage-earning class, but the new Clause deals solely with persons who have been in employment which would entitle them under the Unemployment Insurance Scheme to obtain unemployment benefit; but these are not the only people who maintain dependent relatives and who do not get any allowance. Surely it would be an even greater anomaly if in one case the taxpayer whose dependent relative is eligible for unemployment benefit should receive this allowance of £50, whereas in the other case the man whose dependent relative had been in trade and not eligible for insurance should receive nothing at all.

It is often the case that hon. Members who have their eyes fixed on a particular case of hardship which has come to their attention draft their Amendments to meet that particular case and do not see that if they were to remedy the anomaly in that case, they would only create a fresh one somewhere else. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said there is no allowance in these cases, but I think he has gone a little beyond the facts in making so wide and unqualified a statement, because we attempt in the administration of the Income Tax to put the most generous interpretation upon the Statutes in order to give some relief to persons in such conditions as those we are considering. We do that, for instance, in the case of an elderly parent whom it is impossible to bring under the provision to which I have alluded, that referring to a dependant who is incapacitated by age or infirmity from earning his own living. Where there are younger brothers and sisters, it is often possible to treat them as adopted children and to obtain allowances on their behalf as well. I think we really have stretched the provisions of the Income Tax Act as far as is possible to meet cases of hardship which may arise in the circumstances which the hon. Member who moved the new Clause had in mind.

But the case which this Clause seeks to cover is not one of an injustice under the Income Tax system. If there is any hardship at all, it arises out of the operation of the means test, and it is irrelevant to bring it up on a Finance Bill and to attempt to make a change in the structure of the Income Tax. It is a question which would be more appropriate on a discussion of the arrangements to he made for the provision of public assistance. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale quoted some words from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War last year, in which he intimated that this matter had been taken into account by the Unemployment Assistance Board, and I think the effect of what he said was that the board had given an instruction that where a wage-earner paying Income Tax claimed a deduction from earnings, the deduction should be allowed, as a deduction from the resources of the household in making the assessment of the particular applicant for relief. The hon. Member threw some doubt upon whether that instruction was in force or whether it had ever been put into operation. He said he could not find any mention of it in the Board's Report. I am not in a position to challenge that, but I can give him a definite assurance that that instruction, or words to that effect, was issued by the Board about a year ago, that it has been in operation ever since and is in operation at the present time. This shows that in the administration of the means test the Unemployment Assistance Board has endeavoured to meet this particular case of hardship. That is the appropriate place for a remedy to be found.

11.24 p.m.


Last year I do not think there was a Division on this matter because of the assurance given by the Secretary of State for War, which, of course, met only the narrow and small part of our objection. A Division was not challenged on that occasion, because the present Secretary of State for War said that the Unemployment Assistance Board had given that assurance. Is it not possible for the instruction to the officers to be made available to Members? If not, no unemployed person has any document which he can quote in his appeal against an officer who refuses—as is done in some cases—to take this concession into account. There is no reference to it in the report. One would have thought that, if this had been done at the special request of the Treasury in consequence of three Debates in the House, at least some reference would be made to the relief in this report. But there is no reference of that kind, although other and smaller categories are mentioned. A great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said was, I thought, not relevant. These dependants would still be left in an anomalous position. These unemployed people are made the dependants of the employed worker by another Statute, which is a different thing entirely from the case of those who are not made dependants by

a Statute. Nevertheless, if we could get a copy of the instruction, though it would not deal with the anomaly, it would go some way towards meeting our objections.

11.27 p.m.


I can see the hon. Member's point. I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Board on the subject, but it is very likely that some difficulty might be found in agreeing to the publication of the instructions which they give to their officers and which are private. If it was once admitted that they were bound to publish these instructions, it might lead to difficulties. However, I will communicate with them on the subject. In the meantime, considering that I have publicly given this assurance and it therefore becomes a matter of public knowledge, surely, if the hon. Member or any of his friends hear of any cases which they think contradict that, it will be possible for them to raise the point in this House by means of questions, and that would make it perfectly clear that the instruction is actually in force.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 202.

Division No. 240.] AYES. [11.30 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Gallacher, W. Leslie, J. R.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Gardner, B. W. Logan, D. G.
Adamson, W. M. Garro Jones, G. M. McGhee, H. G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) MacLaren, A.
Ammon, C. G. Glbbins, J. Maclean, N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Aske. Sir R. W. Green, W. H. (Deptford) MacNeill, Weir, L.
Banfield, J. W. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Mander, G. le M.
Barnes, A. J. Grenfell, D. R. Marklew, E.
Barr, J. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Maxton, J.
Batey, J. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Messer, F.
Bellenger, F. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Milner, Major J.
Benson, G. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)
Bernays, R. H. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Bevan, A. Hardle, G. D. Muff, G.
Broad, F. A. Harris, Sir P. A. Oliver, G. H.
Bromfield, W. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parker, J.
Brooke, W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Parkinson, J. A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Buchanan, G. Holdsworth, H. Potts, J.
Burke, W. A. Holland, A. Price, M. P.
Cape, T. Jagger, J. Pritt, D. N.
Charleton, H. C. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Compton, J. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Riley, B.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Ritson, J.
Daggar, G. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Dalton, H. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kelly, W. T. Seely, Sir H. M.
Dobble, W. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Kirby, B. V. Silkin, L.
Ede, J. C. Kirkwood, D. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Lathan, G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Lawson, J. J. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Foot, D. M. Lee, F. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Frankel, D. Leonard, W. Scrensen. R. W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng) Viant, S. P. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Watson, W. McL. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Taylor R J (Morpeth) Westwood J
Thurtle, E. White, H. Graham TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Tinker, J. J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Fleming, E. L. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Fremantle, Sir F. E. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Gibson, C. G. Palmer, G. E. H.
Albery, I. J. Gluckstein, L. H. Patrick, C. M.
Assheton, R. Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral) Peake, O.
Atholl, Duchess of Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Peat, C. U.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Gridley, Sir A. B. Penny, Sir G.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Grimston, R. V. Perkins, W. R. D.
Balfour, Capt. H. H..(Isle of Thanet) Gritten, W. G. Howard Petherick, M.
Balneil, Lord Gunston, Capt. D. W. Pilkington, R.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Guy, J. C. M. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Belt, Sir A. L. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Radford, E. A.
Bllndell, Sir J. Hanbury. Sir C. Ralkes, H. V. A. M.
Bossom, A. C. Hannah, I. C. Ramsbotham, H.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rankin, H
Brass, Sir W. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hepworth, J. Rayner, Major R. H.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Remer, J. R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Holmes. J. S. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Bull, B. B. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Ropner, Colonel L.
Bullock, Capt. M. Horsbrugh, Florence Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Burghley, Lord Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Butler, R. A. Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hulbert, N. J. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Carver, Major W. H. Hunter, T. Salmon, Sir I.
Cary, R. A. Jackson, Sir H. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Castlereagh, Viscount James, Wing-Commander A. W. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Savery, Servington
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Keeling, E. H. Selley, H. R.
Channon, H. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Christie, J. A. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Clarry, Sir Reginald Latham, Sir P. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Colman, N. C. D. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Smithers, Sir W.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Leckie, J. A. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Leech, Dr. J. W. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.) Lennox- Boyd, A. T. L. Spens, W. P.
Craddock, Sir R. H. Levy, T. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Craven-Ellis, W. Lindsay, K. M. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Critchley, A. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lloyd, G. W. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Cross, R. H. Loftus, P. C. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Crossley, A. C. Lumley, Capt. L. R. Sutcliffe, H.
Crowder, J. F. E. Lyons, A. M. Tate, Mavis C.
Cruddas, Col. B. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Culverwell, C. T. McCorquodale, M. S. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. McKie, J. H. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Davies, Major G. F, (Yeovil) Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Tufnell, Lieut.Com. R. L.
Dawson, Sir P. Maitland, A. Wakefield, W. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Wallace, Captain Euan
Dugdale, Major T. L. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duggan, H. J. Markham. S. F. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Duncan, J. A. L. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Warrender, Sir V.
Dunglass, Lord Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Waterhouse. Captain C.
Eastwood, J. F. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Wells, S. R.
Eckersley, P. T. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J, Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Elliston, G. S. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Emery, J. F. Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Wragg, H.
Emmott. C. E. G. C. Moreing, A. C. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Erskine Hill, A. G. Munro, P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Everard, W. L. Nall, Sir J. Mr. James Stuart and Dr. Morris-
Fildes, Sir H. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H. Jones.
Findlay, Sir E. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Question put, and agreed to.

11.38 p.m.


I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I am anxious to divide up the business so far as possible without asking the Committee to sit up late on any particular night. It is now after half-past 11, and I think we have made very good progress to-day, and on the general understanding, to which I hope hon. Members opposite below the Gangway have no difficulty in agreeing, that we finish our business to-morrow—the new Clauses and Schedules—without sitting to an unduly late hour in the morning, I am moving to report Progress.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.