§ Section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918 (which relates to relief in respect of life insurance premiums, etc.), shall have effect as if paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) thereof were extended to apply to a voluntary contributor under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1936 and 1937.—[Mr. Tinker.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 7.36 p.m.
§ Mr. Tinker
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In 1925 an Act of Parliament was passed which caused people in certain employments to be compulsorily insured for pensions for widows and orphans. The same Act gave to those who were not in those employments 12 months to take advantage of the opportunity of becoming voluntary contributors. Later, anyone who left those employments was given 12 months to become a voluntary contributor, in which case he had to pay his own and the employer's contribution. It has been found since thot that who had to pay as compulsory contributors were able to obtain relief for Income Tax purposes in respect of the amounts they paid. Voluntary contributors, however, have not been allowed that benefit. In 1937 owing to much agitation in the country, another Act was passed which gave opportunities for a vast number of people who could not join under other circumstances to become voluntary contributors. A man had to pay is. 3d. a week if he wanted full benefit and a woman paid 6d. It has been discovered that people who joined under that scheme were also refused relief of Income Tax in respect of their contributions. We on these benches contend that both classes ought to be entitled to relief.
To emphasise my point I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what is being given to people who insure for large sums of money. This new Clause mentions Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which relates to relief in respect of life insurance premiums. Certain privileges are given to people who insure for large sums. We read on page 4 of the Income Tax return that, subject1018 to certain restrictions, allowances for premiums paid for a life assurance or for a contract for deferred annuities are given at the following rates of relief: Assurances effected after 22nd June, 1916, 2s. 9d. in the £ assurances effected before 22nd June, 1916, 2s. 9d. in the £where the total income does not exceed £1,000; where it exceeds £1,000 and is not more than £2,000, 4s. 1 ½d.; and where it exceeds £2,000, 5s. 6d. is allowed. That shows that the House had in mind giving some protection for those people who made provision for their families when they pass away. Not only that, but anyone who takes a life insurance policy when the amount insured is drawn after a certain number of years is allowed Income Tax relief. In my case I have a life insurance for £100. I pay £7 10s. a year for that and I am allowed seven times 2s. 9d. from Income Tax. At the end of a certain time I shall get that £100, and if I die before that time those who follow me will be entitled to It. I thus get relief for something which I pay to protect myself, yet these voluntary contributors, who are probably in worse circumstances, who pay is. 3d. a week, or £3 5d. a year, are not allowed any relief at all.
It is evident that the House has not examined the question thoroughly. If we felt it right to allow relief to those who become insured in order to get a pension of 10s. at 65, and also to those who pay big premiums, then we ought to give the same advantage to these voluntary contributors. In order to bring this anomaly to the notice of the Chancellor, I asked him on the 27th June why those who were compulsorily insured were exempt from Income Tax while the voluntary contributor was not. The Chancellor replied:Relief from Income Tax in respect of compulsory contributions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts is allowed under provisions of the Income Tax law which authorise relief in respect of certain payments which a person is liable to make under an Act of Parliament for securing a pension for himself or for his widow or children. The condition of allowance of this relief is not satisfied in the case of a voluntary contributor, and there is no provision of the law under which relief can be allowed in respect of such person's contributions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th JANUARY, 1939; col. 207, Vol. 349.]We have already passed an Act to bring these people within the provisions of the 1019 Pensions Acts, and I can only imagine that this point was overlooked at that time because we did not fully realise what it meant. I submit that it is a question that should be examined and put right by the new Clause which I propose. I put a supplementary question to the Chancellor asking whether he wasaware that life insurance premiums are subject to certain remissions of Income Tax? Surely, the older people are entitled to the same recognition?The Chancellor replied that he did not think the distinction was between one class of persons and another. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understood what was behind my question. Many times we have found in examining the Finance Bill that certain things have been overlooked, and when they have been explained the House has put them right. I think that this is such a case, and that the House will agree that something ought to be done in the direction I have outlined. My final word is that it is only persons with incomes below a specified limit who can become voluntary contributors, and so we are not granting any concession to rich people.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Ellis Smith
If the Committee believe in uniformity of administration and uniform legislation they must, logically, accept this proposal. Those affected by it are, generally speaking, men and women in industry who have been promoted to managerial or administrative positions, who have been put upon the staff. As a result they have improved their standard of living, and rightly so. They have sent their sons and daughters to secondary schools and taken on more commitments than they otherwise would have done. If we believe in promotion based upon merit we should be prepared to be as generous as we can to those who are promoted. Speaking generally the people affected are those who are earning between £5 and £6 a week. It is for those people in particular that we are speaking. Allowances are made for long term insurances, for endowments, for tools and in many other cases, and we say that when these people are maintaining their pension rights—and paying a relatively high contribution to do so, as they are—they ought to have this relief. We are not speaking critically of the contribution, because we believe our people would be will- 1020 ing to make a higher contribution in order to increase widows' and old age pensions. We hope the Chancellor will accept this proposal.
§ 7.48 p.m.
§ Captain Crookshank
I am not sure that this point has been raised before in our Debates, and so we come once more to something that is new and refreshing in considering the new Clauses. The two hon. Members who have moved and supported the Clause are renowned in our discussions for always putting their case very moderately, and to-day they have run true to form. I think the only thing which has not emerged from their speeches, and which cannot emerge from mine is how much this concession is likely to cost, but the information available is insufficient for a proper estimate of the ultimate cost. All I can say is that from the very nature of the case it would not be a cheap concession. That must be obvious. As I understand it, the point which the hon. Member wishes to bring forward is this: An allowance is granted in respect of contributions under these Acts if the contribution is deducted compulsorily, but if it is a voluntary contribution there is no allowance. That, surely, is the exact distinction, and it is a distinction which has to be maintained. How could one justify the granting of some remission because this particular scheme to which a man is contributing voluntarily happens to be a State scheme?
There are two classes of persons concerned here. There is the class of person who at one time was a compulsory contributor and kept up his contributions when he passed into another layer of remuneration; and then there are a great number of other people—I do not know how many, but there must have been hundreds of thousands—who took advantage of the opportunity last year to come within the Act on a voluntary basis. They were people who had not been in the scheme before. Some merely came in because they happened to be in the next layer of income and took advantage of the very favourable conditions which the Act laid down for those who, for want of a better term, were called the "black coated workers." The provisions covered a larger field than that, but that was the term used during those Debates.
Therefore, I ask again, how can we justify the hon. Member's argument that 1021 because last year a certain man A has taken advantage of the voluntary provisions of that Act, and has come into the scheme and goes on paying his contributions, there shall be a remission of Income Tax, but in the case of somebody else, possibly with exactly the same income, who prefers to take out a deferred annuity policy with a company, the same conditions shall not apply? He may have had such a policy before the Act came in and have said: "I prefer to go on with the policy on which I have been paying all along." How can we justify not giving that man any kind of remission?
§ Mr. Tinker
Take my own case. I have voluntarily taken out a policy for £100 and I get a remission of Income Tax. Where is the difference?
§ Captain Crookshank
Indeed I had not. The insurance of which the hon. Member is talking is an insurance on his life
§ Captain Crookshank
That is the case of insurance for life or where the policy matures after so many years. What the Act provides in these cases is a payment of so much a week until death. It is quite a different kind of policy
§ Mr. Silverman
If we are to debate this, let us debate it according to the facts as they are and not as they are not. If a man voluntarily enters into a contract with an insurance company for an endowment for his old age, which may very well take the form of an annuity, how does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman distinguish between him and the contributor under the State Scheme?
§ Captain Crookshank
It is a different class of insurance, and the point I was making was how one could justify, in the same class of insurance, giving exemption in the case of a man who entered into a State Scheme voluntarily and the man who was taking out another form of insurance of the same nature with a company. That was the distinction which I was trying to draw, and it had nothing to do with the other point which the hon. Member had raised, which was the case 1022 of a policy maturing at death or providing for a payment at the end of a certain number of years in the form of a capital sum.
§ Captain Crookshank
This Clause deals with the voluntary contributor who comes into the widows', orphans' and old age pensions scheme. It is not a case which we think can be dealt with at the present time, and therefore I ask the Committee not to accept the argument which has been put forward. It is a new case, and no doubt hon. Members may want to argue it further, but, as we see it, it is not one in which we can make concessions, more particularly as we have no means of knowing at all what sum of money is involved. For that reason I ask the Committee not to accept the Clause.
§ 7.56 p.m.
§ Mr. Lees-Smith
The Financial Secretary has argued along a line which I do not think was the one followed by my hon. Friend. He has argued as though the main point made by my hon. Friend was to draw an analogy between those who were insured compulsorily and those who insured themselves voluntarily. That point was made, but it was not the main argument of my hon. Friend. The main argument was the parallel between an ordinary professional man who insures for old age by an endowment policy and the small people who insure against old age under this scheme. The point the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to make was that in the case of a professional man who insured—and normally he insures on a policy which is either an endowment policy under which he receives a certain sum at a certain date, or a life policy—unless he insures for a capital sum, he does not get any concession under the Income Tax law. I say that argument is too technical to bear the weight which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put upon it. A capital sum was included in the provisions as to exemption of insurance premium from Income Tax in order to correct certain abuses which had arisen, and not because 1023 it was felt that to insure simply for old age was a kind of insurance which ought to be discouraged.
The broad principle is this, that for years we have given these concessions in regard to insurance premiums because the State has wanted to encourage thrift, to encourage men to make provision for their old age. That is exactly the same principle as the State has tried to encourage in the case of these voluntary insurers under the various Insurance Acts. It is the kind of thrift which is suited particularly to smaller incomes and to the workers. We now have a provision in the Finance Acts by which thrift on the part of professional men is encouraged, whereas a corresponding form of thrift on the part of the wage earner or the small salary earner lacks such encouragement. That distinction cannot be defended on any ground of precedent and I am rather surprised that this is the first time the point has been raised. But the Committee will see that it is not the kind of thing which will be dropped in future years. We have now planted another hardy annual, and my experience is that after two or three years something begins to happen. Therefore I think my hon. Friends have performed an enormous service to the whole Income Tax system by having brought this subject forward for the first time, and I venture to predict that the successor of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who may easily be drawn from this side of the Committee, will give the concession which is now asked for.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Foot
I should like to wish this Clause a good start upon what I hope will not be too long a career and to congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for having drawn attention to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee referred to the case of the man who insured with a private company against old age and the other man who did so as a voluntary contributor. There is an even more striking analogy than that. The average man takes out a policy in order to provide for his wife and family in the event of his death. That is the main reason, I should suppose, why people carry on as voluntary contributors. In each case the motive is precisely the same. The 1024 Financial Secretary has failed to meet the main arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Leigh. In each case it is for precisely the same purpose that the insurer takes out his insurance policy.
We were told that this concession would cost a very great deal, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not venture upon any estimate. I should have thought it possible to arrive at an estimate. The number of voluntary contributors must be known and it should be possible to make a rough calculation of the amount which would have to be paid. It is not likely to be very great. I have not worked out the figures exactly, but I should think that the voluntary contributors would pay not more than £3 a year and that in the great majority of cases they would pay Income Tax only upon the lower scale, if they paid it at all. That means that the amount which they would pay in Income Tax would be small, and therefore that the amount in respect of which relief would have to be given would also be very small indeed. In justice and logic they are entitled to this relief. It was very surprising to me to hear that the cost would be very heavy to the Exchequer. Before the Committee accepts that statement some kind of estimate should be given.
§ 8.3 p.m.
§ Mr. Silverman
Considerations of what this concession, if it be a concession, would cost the Treasury, are entirely irrelevant. The point is, is the State entitled, in matters of penal legislation, to make what is nothing but a class distinction? I suppose most people think of Income Tax law as in one way or another penal legislation. It is all very well for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that this proposal might cost a lot of money; has he ever estimated what it would cost? If he has, would he tell the Committee what it would cost the Treasury to grant the allowances which are made in the normal Income Tax procedure to voluntary assurances of all kinds? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to say: "I cannot grant this concession to a very poor section of the community because it will cost us too much," unless he is prepared to follow that argument to its logical conclusion by withdrawing allowances from those who now enjoy them, thereby saving to the State the very much larger 1025 sum which the State now loses by making those concessions.
It seems to me that the Committee agree with our point of view and that if the Whips were not on there would be no dispute about it at all. The Financial Secretary has entirely failed to establish the distinction which he tried to draw. You have only to look at the Income Tax form to see how lamentably his distinction falls to the ground. The allowances on life assurances are referred to and I would draw attention to this passage: "Subject to certain restrictions, allowances for premiums paid for life assurances or contracts for deferred annuities …that is to say, contracts with insurance companies to pay so much a year during a man's life beginning at some agreed age. What is the difference? I hope that I have the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ Mr. Silverman
I hope that they will result in the necessary enlightenment. What is the difference between the deferred annuity referred to there and what is done by the voluntary contributor under the State scheme? Does not the voluntary contributor enter with the State into precisely the same contract for a deferred annuity? It must be so, and if it is, the distinction which it was sought to draw fails completely. There are no doubt cases where a man has been a voluntary contributor from the start. He has decided for himself whether he will join this scheme or not. The State goes to a considerable amount of expense in order to induce people to join the scheme. The State makes representation about the value of the scheme and brings a good deal of pressure to bear upon people to join. Apparently we think it is good that people should join and take some part in making provision for their old age. There is no distinction between what is being done by such people and what is done by people of greater means when they enter into a contract with an insurance company for a deferred annuity.
A great many so-called voluntary contributors are not voluntary contributors in any real sense. They began by not being voluntary. Their circumstances changed in such a way as to leave them 1026 the right to continue their contributions or not, as they chose. Suppose they had chosen not to continue. A man's circumstances have changed and he may say: "Very well I will not continue any more. It is entirely within my own will and choice." What happens? He loses the whole of the benefit of the contributions which he has already made. If he is a prudent man and likes to take some thought of what he is doing by making provision in the way that he is invited by the pamphlets to do, he is bound to say: "Although not legally compelled, I can decide for myself whether I will continue or not. I have to take into account that up till this moment I was compelled to contribute, and that unless I go on I shall lose the benefit of everything I have already paid. Therefore, although they tell me that I may go on paying or not, I am, in fact, compelled to do so." There is also this: not only is he compelled, in this economic sense, to continue to pay, but he now loses the Income Tax relief.
The only attempt made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to justify this position has been the distinction which he tried to make between the contract of an insurance company and that of the State. At one time he was inclined to think that they were contracts for different things, and that whereas it was in one case a contract for a pension it was a contract in the other case for a lump sum at the end of a period or a lump sum to the contributor's estate when he dies. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is satisfied now that that is not so. There is no distinction, and there ought not to be a distinction in the Income Tax reliefs. If, in face of these facts, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman persists in granting relief to those who have large insurances, pay large premiums and have large incomes, and persists at the same time in refusing Income Tax relief to the people at the bottom of the scale who save their meagre coppers in order to safeguard themselves against the inclemencies in our social system, he must not complain if it is said up and down the country that the Government are quite happy when they relieve the rich at the expense of the poor.
§ 8.13 p.m.
§ Mr. Dunn
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give further and more detailed consideration to our proposal, which seems to have been brushed aside without careful con- 1027 sideration of its implications. It seemed to me that the Financial Secretary was very badly briefed when he replied for the Government. There are several types of people involved in the proposal which we make and our case is certainly entitled to a little more consideration than has been given to it. I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend who has just put a legal argument and who has made out a very strong case, but I would ask the Financial Secretary whether, at this late hour, he will not give further detailed consideration to our proposal.
Who are the people involved in that proposal? It has been stated that they axe key men in industry, and that is true. The key men whom I have in mind are the responsible men in industry, such as miners' secretaries in local branches of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the class known as checkweighmen at collieries. There is also a numerous type of professional man slightly above the ordinary wage-earner. Many of these people have entered into commitments which will keep them very poor for the remainder of their lives. They like to lift themselves a little bit beyond the ordinary wage-earner and they have entered into considerable commitments. This small concession would be a very real help to them. The kind of person I have in mind is represented by those engaged in the big local government services of the country, men whose salaries may be anything between £250 and £400 a year. They have to dress well; they have to live in a decent house; and these people have now had an extension from the old system into the new voluntary system of contribution. It seems to me that they are a type of people who ought to be considered, and not brushed aside in a haphazard way as the Financial Secretary has done up to now. He comes down here to-night, briefed very badly, I think, because surely no one here is going to believe that the Treasury have not full information with which to supply him. These people who were brought within the scope of the new legislation from 1st January, 1939, are an entirely new type of people, and the Treasury must know how many there are under this heading.
I will take the figure which has been put forward of £3 or £3 5s. per person 1028 per year, and will take also the figure quoted in the House by the Minister of Health, who told us he was glad that 500,000 had contracted in readiness for 1st January, 1939. I do not think that that figure would meet the case, because I understood that there would be approximately 2,000,000 if the full field was covered. As I work it out, this small remission to a very noble set of people in this country would not be likely to cost the Treasury more than from £100,000 to £150,000 a year. If that is anything like the figure, and I am advised that it is, it seems to me that we are perfectly justified in pressing the Financial Secretary to reconsider the question, even at this late hour. I feel sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is by no means satisfied in refusing this Clause, because one has seen his anxiety on the matter; one has seen his consultations with the gentlemen under the Gallery, and the movements which have been taking place. It seems to me, having regard to the number of people involved and the small cost to the Treasury, that even now we are justified in asking him to reconsider the matter, and I hope that on reconsideration he may find it possible to accept the Clause.
§ 8.18 p.m.
§ Mr. Peat
I do not want to delay the Committee for more than a very few moments, but I would like to put on record the fact that I personally think that a very good case has been made out by the Opposition. It is a case in principle. The arguments which have been put forward from the other side have been largely unnecessary, except that they stressed the principle involved; the first two speeches were quite adequate as far as I was concerned. This is one of those situations which arise almost unobserved. It comes very largely as the result of a better distribution of the wealth of the community, of better education, perhaps, and a desire to save and look after one's children, in a class of people who probably until recent years were not in a position to do this. Although I sympathise with my right hon. and gallant Friend in not being able to accept the new Clause immediately, I did not read into his remarks a blank negative, but rather expect that, if he has an opportunity or is desirous of addressing the Committee again, he will say that in principle he sees that there is a good deal of right within the 1029 new Clause, and I should like to try, if I can to persuade him not to shut the door, because I think it would be a bad thing to have a Division on the Clause.
We do not want to divide on it and have a definite negative if we can avoid it, so I would press my right hon. and gallant Friend, if he can, to accept the principle, to have another look at it, to struggle hard against the deadly inertia which is always discovered when one tries to do anything in the nature of reducing taxation, and to look into the matter again. I do not believe, personally, that it is going to cost very much money. I think that probably the figure mentioned by the last speaker is a little below the mark, but it probably would not be in the nature of many millions. I would press my right hon. and gallant Friend to leave the matter open.
§ 8.21 p.m.
§ Captain Crookshank
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said in a jocular way that a new hardy annual was being planted, and from that I inferred that he did not expect anything in the way of fruit now. I certainly could not at this moment accept the principle off-hand; that would be far in excess of anything one could do at this stage. The expectation that this would be a hardy annual implies, I think, by inference, that the matter will have to be considered further before next year, and, if that is what hon. Members opposite have in mind, I should think the very fact that this discussion has taken place to-night will ensure that that is the case. I do not find myself in a position to go any further than I did before. Obviously, if the matter is to come up year by year, we shall have to consider it in the light of the arguments which have been submitted. There is only one thing that I would say at this stage. Broadly speaking, these voluntary contributions can be classed as deferred annuities, and it is the fact that premiums paid to an insurance company to secure a deferred annuity are not normally subject to relief
§ from Income Tax. Premiums payable to an insurance company are not normally admissible for relief, unless they are payable on a policy securing a capital sum at death, whether there is any other benefit or not. When that was brought in the Act of 1916, it specifically exempted cases which arose before 22nd June, 1916. That is the existing position, and, therefore, I must ask the Committee this year to reject the Clause.
§ 8.23 p.m.
§ Mr. Batey
The Financial Secretary, in his first speech, referred to my colleagues on this side as having run true to form. Since all that has been said from this side of the Committee has had no effect on him, I am not going to attempt to repeat any of the arguments, but will simply content myself with saying that we shall run true to form and go into the Division Lobby against the Government.
§ Mr. Silverman
I do not want to delay the Committee for more than a moment or two—[Interruption.] Is it in order, Major Milner, for people who are outside the Chamber to try to take part in the Debate?
§ Mr. Silverman
I should be very sorry, in what I consider to be a good case, to make a false point. If I have made one, I would like to be corrected; but I do not think I have. The form distributed by the Treasury itself and the Income Tax Commissioners says that subject to certain restrictions, an allowance for premiums paid for contracts for life assurance and for deferred annuities is given. It seems to follow that a contract entered into to-day for a deferred annuity will get relief of Income Tax. I do not think there is any doubt about that.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 186.1033
|Division No. 216.]||AYES.||[8.27 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir R. T. D.||Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Cluse, W. S.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Benson, G.||Cocks, F. S.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Bevan, A.||Collindridge, F.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Broad, F. A.||Cove, W. G.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford|
|Bartlett, C. V. O.||Buchanan, G.||Daggar, G.|
|Batey, J.||Burke, W. A.||Dalton, H.|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Chater, D.||Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)|
|Day, H.||Lawson, J. J.||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Leach, W.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Ede, J. C.||Lee, F.||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Leslie, J. R.||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Logan, D. G.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Lunn, W.||Shinwell, E.|
|Foot, D. M.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Silkin, L.|
|Frankel, D.||McEntee, V. La T.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Gardner, B. W.||McGhee, H. G.||Simpson, F. B.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||MacLaren, A.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Maclean, N.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Mander, G. le M.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Mathers, G.||Sorensen, R, W.|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Maxton, J.||Stephen, C.|
|Groves, T. E.||Montague, F.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Hardie, Agnes||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Thorne, W.|
|Harris, Sir P. A.||Muff, G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Hayday, A.||Naylor, T. E.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Oliver, G. H.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Owen, Major G.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Hopkin, D.||Paling, W.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Isaacs, G. A.||Parker, J.||Westwood, J.|
|Jagger, J.||Parkinson, J. A.||White, H. Graham|
|Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|John, W.||Poole, C. C.||Wilmot, John|
|Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Price, M. P.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Pritt, D. N.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Ridley, G.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Riley, B.|
|Lathan, G.||Ritson, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Eastwood, J. F.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Eckersley, P. T.||Kimball, L.|
|Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.||Edge, Sir W.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Lees-Jones, J.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Lewis, O.|
|Assheton, R.||Ellis, Sir G.||Liddall, W. S.|
|Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Little, J.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Errington, E.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.|
|Balniel, Lord||Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)||Locker-Lampson, Comdr.O. S.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Loftus, P. C.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R, E, B. (Portsm'h)||Fleming, E. L.||Lyons, A. M.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Fox, Sir G. W. G.||M'Connell, Sir J.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Furness, S. N.||Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Gluckstein, L. H.||Magnay, T.|
|Bossom, A. G.||Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest|
|Boulton, W. W.||Gower, Sir R. V.||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)||Granville, E. L.||Marsden, Commander A.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Moreing, A. C.|
|Bull, B. B.||Grimston, R. V.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)||Munro, P.|
|Cary, R. A.||Guinness, T. L. E, B.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Hambro, A. V.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Hammersley, S. S.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Hannah, I. C.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Colville, Rt. Hon. John||Harbord, Sir A.||Pilkington, R.|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Plugge, Capt. L. F.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Radford, E. A.|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Hepworth, J.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)||Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Croft, Brig-Gen. Sir H. Page||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Holmes, J, S.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Hopkinson, A.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Horsbrugh, Florence||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Remer, J. R.|
|Denville, Alfred||Hunloke, H. P.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Doland, G. F.||Hunter, T.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Drewe, C.||Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Rosbotham, Sir T.|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L,||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Spent, W. P.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Russell, Sir Alexander||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.|
|Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Salt, E. W.||Strickland, Captain W. F.||Wayland, Sir W. A.|
|Samuel, M. R. A.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)||Webbe, Sir W. Harold|
|Sanderson, Sir F. B.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Scott, Lord William||Tasker, Sir R. I||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Selley, H. R.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)||Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Shakespeare, G. H.||Thomas, J. P. L.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.||Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)||Titchfield, Marquess of||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||Touche, G. C.||Wragg, H.|
|Smithers, Sir W.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)||Turton, R. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.||Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.|
Question, "That the Schedule be read a Second time," put, and agreed to
§ First Schedule agreed to.