HC Deb 12 July 1938 vol 338 cc1148-63

4.55 P.m.

Mr. Batey

I beg to move, in page 16, line 36, to leave out "one-fifth," and to insert "one-eighth."

In the 1932 Finance Act, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an additional allowance to employers of labour for wear and tear of machinery in factories. Now, in this Clause, the Chancellor is proposing to increase that allowance. I want to limit that increase as much as I can. If I could, I would prevent any increase at all. This Clause is altogether different from Clause 5, in which the Chancellor is taking from the people, and especially from the poorer people, an additional tax by which he expects to receive £3,000,000. In this Clause, he is proposing to give to employers of labour an additional sum. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us when replying what is the amount he expects to receive; I have heard that it is equal to the amount that the Chancellor is taking on the Tea Duty. We strongly condemn taking from the poor of this country £3,000,000 in order to give it to the employers of labour.

Why this generosity to employers at this time? In 1932, when the then Chancellor gave the additional allowance to employers, he argued that industry was in a bad way—and it was. But that argument could not be used to-day. I would like the Chancellor to tell us whether the employers have asked for this. I have not seen any public demand. I have not noticed any demonstration of employers in support of it. Does the Chancellor, by this action, want to encourage the installation of machinery and the dismissal of workers—because the more machinery is installed, the more workers are displaced. What was the amount by which the employers benefited from the allowance in 1932? This allowance in 1932 was not the only act of kindness that this Government has shown to the capitalists. There was the 1929 De-rating Act, by which industry was relieved of three-quarters of the local rate. I would like the Chancellor to tell us what was the amount of the concession that productive industry received in 1929. If my memory serves me aright, it was something like £29,000,000.

In addition to the 1929 and 1932 concessions, we have to remember, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer provided in the 1935 Finance Act for a deduction from profits in respect of contributions for rationalising industry. The Board of Trade was given power to certify schemes of which the object was the elimination of redundant machinery or plant in any industry in the United Kingdom. One was afraid that that encouragement might be taken advantage of to the disadvantage of the workers. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us what benefit that means to the employers, and now many schemes have been certified by the Board of Trade. I was reading the other day somewhere a statement that manufactures and industry enjoy privileges which are so complicated and varied that it seems impossible to assess their value. Before we make this concession to employers of a further increase on the wear and tear of machinery, we should know what have been the former amounts that employers of labour have got through this Government. The more relief that is given to employers in regard to machinery, the more machinery will be installed.

The Government ought not to encourage employers of labour to instal machinery. The time will come when this House will have to control the installation of machinery because so many men are being thrown out of employment through the use of machinery. The installation of machinery causes displacement of labour, and there is also danger to workmen through the use of machinery. We have had bitter experience for many years in the coal mines in regard to the installation of machinery. In 1930 the amount of coal cut by machines in coal mines in the United Kingdom was 75,000,000 tons, and last year it had jumped to 137,000,000 tons. In 1930 there were 933,000 persons employed in the coal industry, and in 1937 the number had fallen to 739,000, a decrease of 200,000, due largely, some of us believe, to the use of machinery. That reduction is equal to two of our biggest coal districts being completely wiped out. In 1920 the figures were more staggering still. There were then 1,249,000 persons employed, so that from 1920 to 1937 there was a reduction in the number employed in the coal mines of this country of over 500,000. Although there were 500,000 fewer persons employed in 1937, there were only 4,000,000 tons more coal produced than in 1920. From our experience in connection with the coal mines in this country, we believe that machinery is to blame to a large extent for that position. There is also the danger from the use of machinery, and the staggering fact is that last year in the coal mines of this country——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne)

The hon. Gentleman is now going on to say the thing he said he could not say without being out of order.

Mr. Batey

I want to argue that the Government by their action are encouraging employers of labour to instal machinery. The more we give rebates the more machinery will be installed. I was arguing that that was not a wise departure, and I was trying to illustrate that from the bitter experience we have had of the coal mines. However, I will leave the argument there. The late Prime Minister made more than one appeal to employers of labour to employ more men. That appeal fell upon deaf ears, and I submit that one of the questions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should always keep in mind in dealing with these matters, is the taking of such steps as will encourage the employment of workers, and not steps which will be the means of throwing more workers out of employment.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not agree with all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) as regards the use of machinery. I would like to see machinery doing the whole of the underground work of the mine and the sooner the better. But I want adequate provision to be made for displaced workers. All the hard and dangerous work in the world should be done by machinery, if possible, but my complaint is that, as it displaces labour to some extent, provision is not made for that displaced labour. I rise to second the Amendment because I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can really afford this concession at the moment. Yesterday he very generously made two fairly substantial concessions to appeals from this side for which we were all very grateful. In making those concessions he informed the House that he was going to lose substantially, and he could scarcely afford to do it. The Chancellor thinks that this is a concession that he ought to make in view of the burdens placed upon industry, but I have my doubts whether it is necessary to make this concession at this time.

The Chancellor has based his Budget on very heavy expenditure, and I believe that he would have been justified in telling employers of labour that at the moment he could ill-afford this concession. My hon. Friend said he thought the concession was equal to the increase of the duty on tea, but I am not sure. If it is anywhere in that region, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been better advised if he had not put the increased duty on tea and had not made this concession. I hope that the Chancellor can satisfy the House to-day that there is good reason for this concession, and that it is to the advantage of the workers in industry that this concession should be made.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I take exception to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), seeing that he took some exception to some of the remarks of the mover of the Amendment, especially when he says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made substantial concessions yesterday. Very great consideration is always shown to the employers, as is evident in connection with this Clause that we are now discussing. There is never anything like the same consideration afforded to the workers. The so-called concession that was made yesterday was, in face of an argument that could not be met, to hide the fact that a deliberate and positive swindle was being carried out on a section of the working class. It is a swindle which should not be tolerated, and it would never be tolerated by the employers. If, instead of concessions to the employers, such an obvious and transparent fraud as that which was discussed yesterday in connection with the workers and the unemployed were perpetrated upon employers by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not last long in his job.

In this Clause we have the Chancellor deliberately and gratuitously offering a concession to the employers. In the course of the Debate on the Tea Duty one of the many employers sitting on the benches opposite—if they do not happen to be employers who sit on the other side, they are lawyers who represent the employers, so that there is never any fear of the employers not having their case properly considered or their profits properly looked after—told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the employers were quite surprised at the generous offer that he had made. I would like to see a situation arise where the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any representative of the Government would get up and make at any time an offer, however small, to any section of the working class which had not been strenuously fought for. I have never heard of such a thing. It takes years and generations to get the most modest concession for any section of the workers, but here, when the Tea Duty was being discussed——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Gallacher

I was on the point of repeating that a few nights ago an hon. Member of this House could make the statement that this concession was utterly unexpected and further that this Amendment was unnecessary. I ask you whether that is not in order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member certainly was not saying that when I called him to order.

Mr. Gallacher

I am prepared to accept your Ruling on any point, but I think that in putting forward an argument of that character, where an hon. Member on the other side who represents the employers said that this concession was not expected and that it was not necessary, makes it clear that the Amendment should be readily accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that is a very sound argument. I do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be prepared now to say that, in view of the fact that no demand had been made by the employers for this concession, that a representative of the employers had stated that it was not expected and was not necessary, he was prepared to accept the Amendment, and reduce the concession from one-fifth to one-eighth or, better still, go the whole hog and wipe out the concession.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come forward with a concession voluntarily offered to any section of the working classes—which is something that has never happened—and a representative of labour on this side had said that the concession was completely unexpected and quite unnecessary, I am certain that he would have had no hesitation in withdrawing the concession and in saying: "If it is not expected and it is not necessary, arid you do not want it, I will not give the concession. I have so much need for money, and there are so many other directions in which the concession can better be made, and where it would be more apppreciated." I ask him to accept the Amendment and to take into account the fact that no demand of any kind has come from the employers for such a concession, that we have had the statement from the employers' side that the concession was not expected and is not necessary, that he should save the money and then make a request to us, and we will advise him how to use the money in a concession that will be of benefit to the people of the country.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth

Sometimes I find it necessary to disagree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think someone ought to say a few words complimenting him on this Clause. The last speaker tried to make out that there has never been any demand for the concession. For years this concession has been asked for. I have for years had my name down to Amendments seeking such a concession, and I sincerely compliment the right hon. Gentleman on having put this Clause into the Finance Bill. I cannot understand why the Amendment should have been moved. Unquestionably, the concession is of advantage to the employers and unquestionably it is a tremendous advantage to the employés. [HoN. MEMBERS: "In what way?"] I will point out the way. I am surprised that anyone who is connected with the engineering trade should oppose the concession. If there is one thing that is needed in this country it is, surely, that we should keep our industries up to date so far as plant is concerned. Nothing in this Finance Bill will do more to enocurage the displacement of out-of-date machinery and the substitution of up-to-date machinery than this Clause. From that point of view it will give added employment to the engineering industry.

There is another point in regard to the export trade. If we are to succeed in this country we must have the most up-to-date plant and the latest things that can be obtained in order to produce goods to compete with other countries. Therefore, I regard this Clause as a very useful addition to the Finance Bill, and I am astonished to hear anyone from the Labour benches suggest that it is merely a one-sided Clause. In the long run it is no concession, because an employer, finally, when he substitutes machinery can claim for obsolescence. I sincerely thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession, and I am sure that any long-sighted representatives of the employés will equally thank him, because the Clause is an encouragement to employers to replace old plant by new plant and the latest machinery.

5.22 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) for what he has said. I realise that in any Finance Bill there are Clauses which are the subject of controversy and challenge, but I did think that this provision was one which would be recognised as being intelligently conceived for reasons and purposes with which we all have sympathy. Of course, if one takes the view that anything in the world which can be described as reducing the burden of a portion of the Income Tax on what are called the employers, is both necessarily evil and unjust, and that view is put forward by persons who claim to represent the workers, then that is an end of all argument. We cannot usefully discuss the matter any further. If, however, we are treating this fairly and squarely as a House of Commons matter and it is admitted that we are doing our best in the circumstances, it is a matter for argument.

I should have thought that it was generally admitted that in regard to Income Tax there should be proper deduction made for wear and tear of machinery. Wear and tear of plant and machinery means, of course, that year by year the machinery is wearing out and becoming less useful and less valuable, and that the day will come when it has to be replaced. It is not open to any sort of challenge from any economist that if you have an Income Tax it is right to make an allowance for wear and tear. Mr. Snowden, who was no mean economist in these matters, explained very clearly in 1932, when there was an increased rate of Income Tax, why he was adding to the deduction made for wear and tear.

It is not true to say that this is an unmixed concession to employers. It has the effect of accelerating the date at which new machinery will be put in; the plant will be written off more quickly. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) views machinery as an evil and is of opinion that the less machinery there is, the better. Presumably, from his argument, it is legitimate to lower a man down a pit by some piece of machinery and perhaps to permit him to dig with a shovel, but if you go further than that you are indulging in a very dangerous misapplication of machinery. That sort of objection to machinery was taken many years ago by people who were called Luddites. My hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor is a good representative of that honest point of view, but I do not agree with his economics. I prefer the economics of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), who seconded the Amendment.

When it was decided to increase the Income Tax for this year I had very grave concern as to what the effect would be in two directions, and I regret that the hon. Member for Spennymoor, who spoke so scathingly, seemed to have concentrated his attention entirely on one of these points and to have forgotten the other. One of my concerns was the effect of the increased Income Tax on the small man, the struggling man, and by an arrangement of the tax we were able to make provision so that 2,000,000 small Income Tax payers would not suffer what they would otherwise have suffered under the increased tax. The other concern that I had was this. It is perfectly just that if you need to raise more revenue you should seek to get a portion of it by direct taxation, and I felt that I was justified, in the circumstances in which I found myself, in putting up the rate of Income Tax. There is, however, one consideration in regard to Income Tax which is extremely serious for employment in this country, and that is that if you put too high taxation upon certain forms of industry, with the result that you reduce the reserves, you make it impossible for that branch of industry to expand and develop as one would like.

It is a delusion, a very foolish and ignorant delusion, to suggest that what I propose is to let off the rich taxpayer. As a matter of fact 5s. 6d. in the £ and no less is what is paid by every big shareholder in every one of the concerns affected by this proposal. I pointed out that if we increased the Income Tax from 5s. to 5s. 6d. and we did not increase the allowance for wear and tear, we were running a very grave danger that these big basic trades, trades which give a great deal of employment, would be seriously handicapped if we debarred them from that development which is essential if the people engaged in those trades are to be properly employed. I do not believe that that was a partisan view or a biased view. I think that it appealed very widely to people of all parties and points of view, and whatever else may be open to dispute I think that this particular provision is justified. The hon. Member for Spennymoor does not propose to reject the Clause.

Mr. Batey

Because I could not. I would if I could.

Sir J. Simon

He proposes a reduction to one-eighth. I can see no reason in that proportion at all. There is no relation between the two things. The object of the provision was to save the reserves which are connected with the carrying on of these important basic trades which give such great employment in this country. I am willing at all times to receive with good temper any criticism that is made, but I did really think that on this particular proposal I had a great deal of merit on my side. Anyone who looks at the interests of our engineering trade in its wider aspects must realise how impossible and futile it would be to accept the advice that really machinery in this country is a bad thing. We know how absolutely necessary it is to encourage the production of up-to-date plant. I do not think really that this particular provision is the worst of the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. G. Macdonald

Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what is the value of the concession?

Division No. 295.] AYES. [5.31 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cox, H. B. Trevor Hambro, A. V.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Cranborne, Viscount Hannah, I. C.
Albery, Sir Irving Craven-Ellis, W. Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Harbord, A.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Crooke, Sir J. Smedley Harris, Sir P. A.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Crowder. J. F. E. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Apsley, Lord Cruddas, Col. B. Heilggrs, Captain F. F. A.
Aske, Sir R. W. Davidson, Viscountess Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Assheton, R. Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeevil) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) De Chair, S. S. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) De la Bére, R. Hepworth, J.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Denman, Hon. R. D. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Denville, Alfred Higgs, W. F.
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H, Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Baxter, A. Beverley Doland, G. F. Holdsworth, H.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Donner, P. W. Holmes, J. S.
Beit, Sir A. L. Drewe, C. Horsbrugh, Florence
Bennett, Sir E. N. Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haek., N.)
Bernays, R. H. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Birchall, Sir J. D. Dugdale, Captain T. L. Hulbert, N. J.
Blair, Sir R. Duggan, H. J. Hume, Sir G. H.
Bossom, A. C. Duncan, J. A. L. Hunloke, H. P.
Boulton, W. W. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hunter, T.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Ellis, Sir G. Hurd, sir p. A.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Emery, J. F. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Keeling, E. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Erskine-Hill, A. G. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Bull, B. B. Everard, W. L. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Bullock, Capt. M. Fildes, Sir H. Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Burton, Col. H. W. Findlay, Sir E. Kimball, L.
Butcher, H. W. Fleming, E. L. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Foot, D. M. Leech, Sir J. W.
Cartland, J. R. H. Fox, Sir G. W. G. Lees-Jones, J.
Carver, Major W. H. Furness, S. N. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Cary, R. A. Fyfe, D. P. M. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lewis, O.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Liddall, W. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Lipson, D. L.
Channon, H. Gledhill, G. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Gower, Sir R. V. Loftus. P. C.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Christie, J. A. Grant-Ferris, R. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Granville, E. L. MoCorquodale, M. S.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Clydesdale, Marquess of Gridley, Sir A. B. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Colfox, Major W. P. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) McKie, J. H.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Macquisten, F. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Grimston, R. V. Maitland, A.
Cooper, Rt.Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs) Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Guinness, T. L. E. B. Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sir J. Simon

I think it will be not less than £2,500,000 this year, probably more in a full year.

Mr. Gallacher

Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer the slightest concern for the reserves of the working classes?

Sir J. Simon

Certainly, and if the hon. Member will acquaint himself at his leisure with the provisions of the National Defence Contribution he will find that it has nothing whatever in the world to do with their reserves. That is a charge on profits which are made in the course of business.

Question put, "That the word one-fifth' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 129.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Tasker, Sir R. I.
Marsden, Commander A. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Tate, Mavis C.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Rowlands, G. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Thomas, J. P. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Russell, Sir Alexander Titchfield, Marquess of
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Tree, A. R. L. F.
Moreing, A. C. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Morgan, R. H. Salmon, Sir I. Turton, R. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Salt, E. W. Wakefield, W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Sandeman, Sir N. S. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Munro, P. Sanderson, Sir F. B. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Nevon-Spence, Major B. H. H. Seely, Sir H. M. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Selley, H. R. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Warrender, Sir V.
Owen, Major G. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Peake, O. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Perkins, W. R. D. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Wayland, Sir W. A.
Petherick, M. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st) Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Smiles, Lieut-Colonel Sir W. D. Wells, Sir Sydney
Pilkington, R. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) White, H. Graham
Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Procter, Major H. A. Smithers, Sir W. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Radford, E. A. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Raikes, H. V. A. M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Ramsden, Sir E. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. Wise, A. R.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Spens. W. P. Withers, Sir J. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'id) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Rayner, Major R. H. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. Wragg, H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Remer, J. R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Captain Hope and Major Sir
James Edmondson.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pearson, A.
Adamson, W. M. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Poole, C. C.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Hayday, A. Price, M. P.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pritt, D. N.
Barr, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Batey, J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Ridley, G.
Bellenger, F. J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Riley, B.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Hollins, A. Ritson, J.
Benson, G. Hopkin, D. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Bevan, A. Jagger, J. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Sanders, W. S.
Bromfield, W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sexton. T. M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) John, W. Short, A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Silverman, S. S.
Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Simpson, F. B.
Burke, W. A. Kirby, B. V. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cape, T. Kirkwood, D. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Charleton, H. C. Lathan, G. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Chater, D. Lawson, J. J. Sorensen, R. W.
Cluse, W. S. Leach, W. Stephen, C.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lee, F. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cove, W. G. Leonard, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Daggar, G. Leslie, J. B Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Dalton, H. Logan, D. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Lunn, W. Thorne, W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Thurtle, E.
Davies, S. O.(Merthyr) McEntee, V. La T. Tinker, J. J.
Day, H. McGhee, H. G. Tomlinson, G.
Dobbie, W. McGovern, J. Viant, S. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) MacLaren, A. Walkden, A. G.
Ede, J. C. Maclean, N. Walker, J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Mander, G. le M. Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Marklew, E. Watson, W. McL.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Marshall, F. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Gallacher, W. Maxton, J. Westwood, J.
Gardner, B. W. Messer, F. Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Garro Jones, G. M. Milner, Major J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Montague, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Naylor, T. E. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Noel-Baker, P. J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Oliver, G. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Paling, W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Parker, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Parkinson, J. A. Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

5.43 P.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones

I desire to rise to a point of Order. I was one of a group of Members who came down from the Committee upstairs immediately on hearing the Division Bell, but I found myself with one or two other hon. Members locked in the doorway to the House by a large number of hon. Members who were grouped there. I tried to get into the "Aye" Lobby but was prevented from doing so owing to the fact that the door was locked. I know that one door must be locked before another, but it so happens that the door on the "Aye" side is locked first much more frequently than the door on the other side. I do not wish to lay emphasis on that point, but to say that I came down directly from the Committee room upstairs in conjunction with other hon. Members, but owing to the crowd in the doorway to the House I was unable to get through and was prevented from going into the Lobby because the door was locked.

Hon. Members

What is your point of Order?

Sir H. Morris-Jones

My point of Order is that I desire that my Vote shall be recorded in the "Aye" Lobby.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid that is impossible. The hon. Member must get as much consolation as he can from feeling that he would have voted in the "Aye" Lobby if he could.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

I have noticed that for the last three or four weeks the "Aye" Lobby door at the end of the Chamber has been closed first, and I would like to make the suggestion that the "No" Lobby door should be closed first.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think it is the usual practice for the "Aye" Lobby door nearest the doors of the House to be locked first, and then the "No" Lobby door. At this end of the Chamber it is the other way round.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

Further to the point of Order. Can you give any Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in regard to the congregation of hon. Members in the doorway as it completely prevents an hon. Member recording his vote in the Lobby. I should like to point out clearly and definitely that through no fault of my own I was prevented from recording my vote in the "Aye" Lobby.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think it would facilitate matters if hon. Members would recall that there are other hon. Members who wish to go through the doorway to the Division Lobby, and I think hon. Members should do their best to facilitate their access.

5.45 P.m.

Mr. Ede

Further to the point of Order. I wish to ask your Ruling on the following point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When you give the order "Lock the doors," should the attendant admit any other Members to the Lobby after you have pronounced those words? I was sitting on this bench during the last Division, watching the door, and when you gave the order, there were six or seven hon. Members standing close to the door, pushing one another, and they were allowed to proceed into the Lobby before the door was locked. I do not complain, but it seemed to me that those Members were obstructing the attendant in carrying out the order you had given to him to lock the doors.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I did not see that myself, but I have often noticed Members in all parts of the House taking advantage of the fact that one door into their Lobby was locked rather later than the other, and getting in by the later locked door.

Mr. Ede

I have observed the same thing, and practised it on occasion; but the point to which I wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was that the attendant was hindered in carrying out your order by the fact that there was such a press of Members that he could not close the door, let alone lock it.

Sir H. Morris-Jones

Further to the point of Order. I do not know whether there is any rule or regulation according to which one door must be closed before the other. If there is, in view of the fact that it is completely impossible for the one attendant to be present at both doors at the same time, I suggest that the State might provide another attendant to look after the other door.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point with which I can deal.

Mr. McGovern

Further to the point of Order. Is it not about time that some more intelligent system of voting was adopted?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That does not arise.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

Further to the point of Order. Could it not be made clear to all hon. Members in future that no door is locked until you give the order "Lock the doors," and has there not in the past been ample time for Members to come from all parts of the House to take part in a Division? Is not the time that is allowed given for that purpose?—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have always understood that that was so.