HC Deb 15 July 1946 vol 425 cc932-43
Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "7½d.," and to insert "3d."

We are now dealing with that part of the Finance Bill which concerns the import of coffee essences. As the House will remember, under the Bill the statutory prohibitions on the import of coffee essences will come to an end, and in their place we are to have duties, with Imperial Preference. The Chancellor took credit for this, and said that he had always supported Imperial Preference, and had even, on one occasion at least, given a rebellious vote for it. As the overwhelming bulk of imports from the Dominions and Colonies are foodstuffs, and always have been, and as Imperial Preference demands a tax on foodstuffs which can be partially lifted in favour of the Colonies or Dominions, we on these benches are a little puzzled to reconcile this longterm loyalty on the part of the Chancellor with the frequent jibes that the bulk of the Government have made at the Opposition, of being food taxers. Perhaps the knowledge that his own Government would not only reduce the size of the loaf, but would also ration it, may have had something to do with persuading the Chancellor 20 years ago to adopt a more generous attitude in our approach to Imperial Preference. I and my colleagues are glad to welcome one right hon. Gentleman opposite to the support of Imperial Preference. We hope he will show to the United States the same resolution and toughness as he says he showed to his own party Whip, and to the late Lord Snowden in regard to Imperial Preference.

We are very anxious that the Imperial Preference conceded by this proposal, which we welcome, should be a reality and not a sham. I believe the Chancellor—his words certainly justify this belief—is himself anxious that this preference should be a reality. Some hon. Members may know that at the present moment we have, under a previous Finance Act, two forms of duty on coffee imports. There is the duty on roasted coffee, and the ordinary duty on raw coffee. In regard to the duty on roasted coffee, we have an Imperial Preference of one-sixth. As to the duty on raw coffee, we have an Empire Preference of two-thirds.

Mr. Scollan

Does the hon. Gentleman mean ground coffee, or coffee beans?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

By "roasted coffee," I mean coffee that has been treated in any way at all. By "raw coffee" I mean ordinary coffee, untreated. The duty on roasted coffee, or coffee treated in any other way, gives a preference of one-sixth, and the duty on raw coffee gives a preference of two-thirds. The Government having solved a technical problem which has puzzled the experts of the Treasury for the last 70 years—our own explanation is slightly more cynical than that—we are now concerned, for the first time in our history, in applying a duty on coffee essences. On the duty of the Chancellor, this preference on coffee essences is to be at the lower level; that is, at the roasted coffee level of one-sixth. The effect of our Amendment would be to raise that duty from one-sixth to two-thirds; that is to say, to raise it from the preference on roasted coffee to the preference on raw coffee. This matter has been twice discussed in the House already. In the Debate on 17th April, the Chancellor used these words: We are applying the preferential rebate of one-sixth on Empire products…which is the same as the rebate now applied on coffee itself. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, [946; Vol. 421, C. 2742.] No doubt quite unintentionally, that did, in part, mislead some hon. Members, including myself, because I do not think most hon. Members realised that we have two rates of Imperial Preference, one applying on raw coffee and one on roasted coffee. For the preference that the Chancellor has granted, the one-sixth preference is a preference on roasted coffee but not on raw coffee. Later on, in the second Debate which we had, on 19th June, the Chancellor, after listening to the arguments that had been advanced in favour of widening the Imperial Preference margin, said he would look into the matter and see if, in the light of our treatment of comparable products, any further preference could be granted.

Personally—and I would be interested to know the answer—I do not see why the preference on roasted coffee should be very considerably less than the preference on raw coffee. At first sight, it would appear that the method we have now adopted puts a premium on foreign imports, and puts Empire imports which have been processed at a certain disadvantage. It has not mattered very much in the past, because the imports of roasted coffee have been negligible; but it does matter now that we are applying this scale of duty and preference to imports of coffee essence. I hope the Chancellor will be able to meet this very modest but, I think, justifiable claim now, and not add it to the list of those other claims which he will consider in the course of the next 12 months. After all, I believe this represents the first case of Imperial Preference granted by a Socialist Government with full power. If the Chancellor is, as he claims to be, the real friend of Imperial Preference, and has been for many years, this is a very signal opportunity for him to make that preference a reality.

In the earlier Debates, grave doubts were expressed on this side of the House, as we were lifting the ban on coffee essences and allowing imports limited only by duty. It was freely suggested that it was due to pressure from outside. I do not think many hon. Members doubted but that the United States Government had represented to our Government that a complete prohibition of coffee essence imports was contrary to the new spirit of international trade. If, in fact, this change in our general import practice has been brought about by American pressure, I very much hope that giving the lower rate of preference for coffee essence imports to the Dominions and the Colonies has not also been brought about by American pressure. It would, I think, be a very improper thing if the Government did not settle this question on its merits, but allowed any regard for foreign nations, however anxious they may be to hold their goodwill in the international field, to interfere with what they believe to be right, judged by our own Imperial responsibility. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clear my mind of that doubt, and will be able to concede this point and give the higher rate of preference to essences imported from the Dominions and the Colonies.

Mr. Scollan

The Amendment is to leave out "7½d" and to insert "3d." During the course of the hon. Member's speech he has not given us a single iota of evidence why it should be 3d. Could the hon. Gentleman give us some supporting arguments why it should be 3d? Why should not it be 2d?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

If the hon. Gentleman would spend as much time b listening to speeches made in this House as he does to preparing his interruptions, I think he would have followed my argument. The point of leaving out "7½." and substituting "3d." was to bring it into line with the two-thirds preference now given to raw coffee, as opposed to the one-sixth preference. The bulk of my speech was devoted to making that clear.

Mr. Scollan

That is no justification at all for changing it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Perhaps the hon. Member will go away to the Library and work out that 3d. on a duty of 9d. represents a preference of two-thirds, whilst 7½d. represents a preference of one-sixth.

Mr. Scollan

That is not the point at all. The point is, how is the figure arrived at with justification? It is obvious to me the hon. Member has not gone into the question why there should be taxation of this kind at all.

Mr. Speaker

We cannot argue this matter now.

Mr. Bowles

On a point of Order. The Question has not yet been proposed.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am afraid I cannot oblige hon. Gentlemen opposite by going into the whole question of taxation. No very fundamental issue arises on this very small Amendment, and I do not want to detain the House long, but there are one or two points I should like to raise. This Clause now appears to be becoming rather more actual; as the House will remember, we were told before, that, in fact, no import licences would be granted, but it may be, now we have the American Loan, that import licences will be granted and chicory essences may be among the articles we are now promised. I therefore ask the Chancellor to think the matter over more seriously than he did before. I cannot see that it is at all unreasonable that the preference on coffee and chicory essences should be the same as it is on imported raw coffee. Rather, one could give very good reasons why it should be higher, but I cannot see why it should not be given at least the same preference. Not to put on a reasonable preference when we are about to enter upon international negotiations would be very foolish. Perhaps we shall be faced with a country which, in the course of these negotiations, will say "We are protected by a six-barred gate and we are prepared to take off the top bar," while we shall be in the position of saying "We are protected only by a very low hedge, and we are not really on equal terms." I, therefore, think that it is extremely foolish at this particular moment to put on a lower duty than would otherwise be reasonable, when we are going into negotiations with countries whose tariffs are immensely higher than our own.

Mr. Scollan

I asked the hon. Gentleman why, in his Amendment, he had left it at 3d. and my reason for doing so was this. If I were putting the case for 3d. instead of 7½d., I would do it for the purpose of showing that, in some way, those who go in for the manufacture of coffee essences in this country would be placed at an advantage, or were now placed at a disadvantage, and I would produce some figures to show that. Obviously you cannot treat this in the same fashion as you would treat the raw material. It so happens that I have some knowledge of the making of coffee essences, and obviously you do not want to put the same figure on the raw material as on the finished article coming in. If there is any advantage in this kind of tax at all, it is that it enables manufacturers in this country to compete on favourable terms against those who send imports into this country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that that is precisely what the Government are doing? They are, in fact, imposing the same rate of preference on the finished article as on one form of the raw material, which happens to be roast coffee, and not on the other form. We are anxious to discover why they have not done it, on the more generous level.

Mr. Scollan

Is it not perfectly obvious? One level is imposed on the raw material, and the other on the finished article.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

They are both raw materials.

Mr. Scollan

No, they are not. That is the trouble; hon. Members get up and talk on a subject about which they are not informed. They are not the same. Coffee comes into this country, as raw material, in the shape of coffee beans. When the beans are split and ground, you have something in the nature of the finished article. But making coffee essence is an entirely different process. Therefore, before making proposals of this character, I should want to know exactly what the process would be and what benefits would be obtained. The whole burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument has been that he wants the change to be made because the rate he proposes already applies to something else. That is no justification for it at ail, and I think the hon. Member might at least treat the House with some respect, by studying the subject before getting up to speak upon it.

Mr. Dalton

It is always very valuable when we get practicable knowledge applied to these arithmetical questions. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the observations he has made. I have no wish other than to ask the House to settle this question on its merits, and I hope that by giving a few facts from the past development of this matter, I shall be able to show that one-sixth is the right proportion, and that this Amendment should therefore not be accepted.

I think it was the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith)—who is not here at the moment—who raised the matter in an earlier Debate. He suggested that if the various products, chicory and so on in various stages of completeness were compared, it would be found that one-sixth was too low and that two-thirds would be about right. The history of the matter is that in the Finance Act of 1919 one-sixth was adopted as

being the preferential margin for practically the whole range of foodstuffs then affected. There have been various changes since 1919 in the preferential margins and in the range of goods admitted to preference, but at the present time the position is that the proportion of one-sixth applies to cocoa—I am only taking it as a similar or kindred article—it applies to coffee which is kiln dried, roasted or ground; it applies to coffee and chicory roasted and ground, mixed; it applies to chicory raw or kiln dried, and it applies to chicory roasted or ground. The one case which stands at two-thirds is raw coffee.

I think, therefore, there is reason to say, when we are introducing this new item into the preference list, that after all these essences are very nearly finished products—they only need, I suppose, the addition of hot water or whatever is required to make it the finished product—and that, if import licences are to be granted, the product belongs more to the range of finished products than to the raw coffee category. I can assure the House, however, that it is not at present intended to grant import licences. Moreover, it was in 1932, when the Ottawa discussions took place, that raw coffee was singled out from the rest of this list and the preference was raised from one-sixth to two-thirds. Up to that time it had been one-sixth for all categories. Since 1932 it has been one-sixth for all except raw coffee, and I hope the House will accept that it is not unreasonable to give the higher preference to the material more nearly in the raw state.

I would, therefore, suggest that, having regard to what has been done in other cases, one-sixth is the proper figure. Although this matter was ventilated at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Hertford, I would add that no representations have been made to the Treasury from any interested parties. No one has represented to us that their interests are being adversely affected as a result of the lower preference being given. Indeed, it might be argued—though I do not stress this, I hope I have made the case already —that if the preference were raised as suggested it might conceivably adversely affect home manufactures. I hope it would not, but it might be argued that it would. The short argument is that, having regard to the preference on these other articles of a kindred character, and having regard to the history of the matter, I have satisfied myself by a study of the facts, as I promised to do, that one-sixth is the proper figure.

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

The short Debate we have had on this subject has been notable for one thing, at any rate. We have now found what we on this side of the House have long been searching for, namely, what is the special subject of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). We have heard him speak on many subjects on which he has, obviously, not been an expert. Now we know that on the question of the manufacture of chicory essence we shall find him able and willing to advise the House. But I confess I was not very much impressed by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I could have understood it, in fact, had it been left at the case made by the hon. Member for West Renfrew—that there was a logical pattern which ran through these duties, and that one-sixth was the appropriate preference in respect of prepared articles, and that two-thirds was appropriate in respect of wholly raw material. But as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer began to give us the list, we found, of course, that that logical pattern did not exist, because, in fact, the only thing that gets two-thirds is raw coffee, whereas raw chicory—the subject of the hon. Member for West Renfrew—only gets one-sixth. Raw cocoa, I understand, gets only the same. We, therefore, cannot decide this thing on any logical conclusion at all, because there is no logic in the present system of duties. We, therefore, do say that, starting from that basis, the right hon. Gentleman had much better abandon logic, and substitute generosity; and that, at this present moment, when coming events have cast an ominous shadow over certain of our inter-Imperial economic relationships, generosity of this kind by the Chancellor of the Exchequer might do good far beyond the comparatively minor significance of the actual Amendment we are moving.

Mr. Scollan

On the point of the differentiation between the finished article after manufacture in this country, and the raw material, I should have thought that would have been obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that its substitution for tea, which carries very heavy taxation, would have been an additional reason. Additional taxation on the finished article was proposed to give a chance for creating a new industry in this country.

Mr. Stanley

I was most impressed when the hon. Gentleman made that speech the first time. But his whole case was then destroyed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is for that reason that, I think, we had much better abandon logic, which, I agree, is with the hon. Gentleman, and appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for generosity.

Mr. James Hudson

There has been a tendency during this Debate to assume that everybody in this House is prepared to accept the whole process of Imperial Preference as the right sort of thing to apply in taxation of this sort before us. I should like to remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, who take that attitude, that I, for one, some years ago, when this question of Imperial Preference was discussed, was opposed to it utterly in principle. I remain utterly opposed. I think, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) has just said, that if the only way to get a concession with regard to this matter is on the basis of generosity, there is—

Mr. Stanley

I do not want to be misunderstood. The right hon. Gentleman and I are wholly at one with regard to the merits of Imperial Preference. The only dispute between us is just the small thing: what is the amount that is to be charged? I am not saying that the only argument for Imperial Preference is, that there is no logic in the Chancellor's case.

Mr. Hudson

It is precisely when we get into this sort of difficulty in deciding the amount of taxation in order to give Imperial Preference, that one is driven, as the right hon. Member for West Bristol has been driven, to base his case merely on generosity. There is no logic in the matter. This is a process of logrolling in the matter of taxation, to which we used to take the strongest objection in the years gone by when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side were pushing forward these principles of Imperial Preference. I shall not now go into the whole issue of Imperial Preference, because this is not the time for it. I feel, however, that this little interlude by the right hon. Member for West Bristol may, perhaps, lead some hon. Members on this side of the House to reconsider the whole of this issue. A great mistake has been made in connection with this matter since the days of Ottawa. I hope that, because something was done at Ottawa, and that in those days some support was given to Ottawa by hon. Members on this side, we are not assumed to be satisfied that these taxes should remain. I am very glad the concession has been made by the

Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. I want to hold on to the concession and use it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What concession?"] The concession of the lower preference, which will be used, I hope, later on, to get rid of the preferences entirely.

Question put, "That '7½d.' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 131.

Division No. 250.] AYES 6.45 p.m.]
Adams, Richard (Balham) Durbin, E. F. M. Medland, H. M.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Dye, S. Mosser, F.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Edwards, John (Blackburn) Middleton, Mrs. L.
Allen, Scholefiold (Crewe) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Mikardo, Ian
Allighan, Garry Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R
Alpass, J. H, Follick, M. Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Foot, M. M. Monslow, W.
Attewell, H. C. Forman, J, C. Montague, F.
Austin, H. L. Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Moody, A. S.
Awbery, S. S. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Ayles, W. H. Gibbins, J. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Gilzean, A. Mort, D. L.
Bacon, Miss A. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Murray, J. D.
Balfour, A. Goodrich, H. E. Nally, W.
Barstow, P. G. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Naylor, T. E.
Barton, C. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Neal, H. (Claycross)
Batlley, J. R Grenfell, D. R. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Bechervaise, A. E. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Bellenger, F. J- Gunter, Capt. R. J. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Benson, G. Guy, W. H. Oldfield, W. H.
Bing, G. H. C. Hale, Leslie Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Binns, J. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Palmer, A. M. F.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R Pargiter, G. A.
Boardman, H. Hardy, E. A. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Harrison, J. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Paton, J. (Norwich)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Haworth, J. Pearson, A.
Brook, D. (Haifax) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Peart, Capt. T F.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hicks, G. Perrins, W.
Brown, George (Belper) Hobson, C. R. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Holman, P. Pritt, D. N.
Buchanan, G. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Proctor, W. T.
Burden, T. W. House, G. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Burke, W. A. Hoy, J. Randall, H. E.
Callaghan, James Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Ranger, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rees-Williams, D. R.
Chamberlain, R. A. Irving, W. J. Reeves, J.
Champion, A. J. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Chater, D. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Rhodes, H.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Richards, R.
Clitherow, Dr. R. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Clue, W. S Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Robens, A.
Cobb, F. A. Keenan, W. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Cocks, F. S. Kendall, W. D. Rogers, G. H. R
Coldrick, W. Kenyon, C. Royle, C.
Collick, P. Kinley, J. Sargood, R.
Collindridge, F. Kirby, B. V. Scollan, T.
Collins, V. J. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J Scott-Elliot, W.
Colman, Miss G. M. Leonard, W. Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A A
Comyns, Dr. L. Levy, B. W. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Shurmer, P.
Corlett, Dr. J. Lindgren, G. S. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Crossman, R. H. S. Lyne, A. W. Simmons, C. J.
Daggar, G. McAdam, W. Skeffington, A. M.
Davies, P. McEntee, V. La T. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. McGhee, H. G. Skinnard, F. W.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Mack, J. D. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Maclean, N. (Govan) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) McLeavy, F. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Deer, G. Mainwaring, W. H. Snow, Capt. J. W.
Diamond, J. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Solley, L. J.
Dobbie, W. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Sorensen, R. W.
Dodds, N. N. Mathers, G. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Dumpleton, C. W. Mayhew, C. P. Sparks, J. A.
Stamford, W. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Wilkes, Maj. L.
Steele, T. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Wilkins, W. A.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Viant, S. P. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Swingler, S. Walkden, E. Willey, O. G (Cleveland)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Walker, G. H. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Wallace, H. W. (Wallhamstow, E.) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Warbey, W. N. Willis, E.
Thomas, John R. (Dover) Watkins, T. E. Wise, Major F. J
Thomas, George (Cardiff) Weitzman, D. Woodburn, A.
Thorneycroft, H (Clayton) Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Woods, G. S.
Thurtle, E. Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Wyatt, Maj. W.
Tiffany, S. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Titterington, M. F Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Tolley, L. Wigg, Col. G. E. Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Turner-Samuels, M Wilcook, Group-Capt. C. A. B Mr. Hannan
NOES
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W (Armagh) Hope, Lord J. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Anderson, Rt, Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.) Howard, Hon. A Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R Hurd, A. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Astor, Hon. M. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Baldwin, A. E. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Ross, Sir R.
Beamish, Maj T. V. H Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr Hon. L. W Savory, Prof. D. L.
Beechman, N. A Keeling, E. H. Shephard, S. (Newark)
Bennett, Sir P. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Birch, Nigel Lambert, Hon. G. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Bowen, R. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Bower, N. Lennox-Boyd, A. T Smithers, Sir W.
Boyd-Carpemer, J A. Linstead, H. N Spearman, A. C. M.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Lipson, D. L. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W Low, Brig. A. R. W Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Butcher, H. W. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Strauss, H. G (English Universities)
Byers Lt.-Col. F Macdonald, Capt, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Challen, C. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Studholme, H. G.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Mckie, J. H. (Galloway) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'ddt'n, S.)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Macphersan, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Teeling, William
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Manningham-Buller, R. E Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Marples, A. E. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F
De la Bére, R. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Touche, G. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Turton, R. H.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W. Medlicott, F Vane, W. M. T.
Drayson, Capl. G. B. Mellor, Sir J. Wadsworth, G.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Molson, A. H. E. Wakefield, Sir W. W
Duthie, W. S. Morris-Jones, Sir H. Walker-Smith, D.
Eccles, D. M. Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Neven-Spence, Sir B Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Orr-Ewing, I. L. Wheatley, Colonel M. J
George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke) Osborne, C. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Glossop, C. W. H Peto, Brig. C. H. M Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Glyn, Sir R. Pickthorn, K. Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.
Gridley, Sir A. Pitman, I. J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Grimston, R. V. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. York, C.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Poole, O. B- S. (Oswestry) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge) Prescott, Stanley
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Raikes, H. V. TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Headlam, Lieul.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead) Mr. Drewe and Major Conant
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Renton, D