§ Subsection (2) of section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1925 (which, as amended by subsequent enactment, provides in a case where an individual or his wife has attained the age of sixty-five years and his total income does not exceed five hundred pounds for a deduction of tax on an amount equal to one-fifth of his income), shall have effect as if the words "six hundred pounds" were substituted for the words "five hundred pounds."—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd (Wirral)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This raises a matter to which many of my hon. Friends and myself attach very great importance. It deals with the allowances to be given to elderly people of limited means. As is set out in the Clause, at the present time such a person—either a man or his wife—on attain 2220 ing the age of 65 is entitled to a sort of earned income allowance up to one-fifth of his unearned income, provided his total income does not exceed £500. That is putting it fairly crudely, but I think it is the effect of the present allowance and, of course, it is very important that such an allowance should be made because it is a recognition of the fact that unearned income very often is a complete misnomer and that what is called unearned income, very often represents income upon the hard-earned savings of a lifetime.
I therefore suggest that it is reasonable that, subject to certain limits, an extra allowance should be given in respect of the incomes from those savings. At the present time the limit is £500. This very modest proposal which I place before the House would raise it to £600. The total income beneath which such an allowance would be given would be raised from £500 to £600 and as, of course, the allowance would be only one-fifth of the amount, the cost would be correspondingly reduced.
I suggest that there are special reasons at the present time for giving favourable treatment to people within the limits of age and income to which I am referring. First, their costs have gone up very much indeed. They do not benefit from increased wages although, if they must have someone to look after them, they themselves often have to pay increased wages. Their costs of travelling, of fuel and light and all the rest are going up all the time. Very often the cost of their accommodation has gone up. In all the circumstances at the present time, I suggest that it would be a very reasonable step for the House to take if it increased this sort of earned income allowance for such people. Not only would it give relief to people who are being very hard hit and are having great difficulties, but it would also be what I think is equally important—an incentive to people to continue to save.
I believe that every additional allowance which is given in respect of income from savings is a very sound thing for the country. I do not think we shall get out of our present economic difficulties until we have re-created the belief that savings are really worth while. Every additional measure, however small, whereby we can give people some 2221 encouragement at the present time to believe that they will get additional benefits and consideration in respect of income from savings is helping the country as well as giving relief to people who, I believe, are hard hit.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Jay
I think that the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) are good arguments for having an age relief of this kind, but they are not conclusive arguments for increasing the figure from £500 to £600. As he said, the purpose of this age relief was to ensure that someone over 65 who was living in old age on an investment income, which he might very likely have saved out of his earnings during the earlier part of his life, would not be worse off than somebody living on a pension which, of course, counts as earned income for this purpose. It was because there would be a limit to the income under which one would get earned income relief that, when this age relief was introduced, it was thought fit also to set a limit to this additional form of relief.
I do not think the hon. and learned Member would contest the fact that there must be some limit, and the only question before us is whether £500 is the right limit or whether we should raise it. The hon. and learned Member argued—and I think this was his main argument—that the cost of living had risen since this age relief was first introduced; but I do not think that is a very good or sufficient reason for selecting this particular Income Tax allowance as one to be raised at the present time.
As a matter of fact, this age relief now stands at £500, which was the exact figure at which it was set when the present Leader of the Opposition introduced it in 1925. If we compare that, for instance, with the single allowance, which stood in 1925 at £135 and stands today at £110, or with the married allowance, which stood in 1925 at £225 and stands today at £180, this allowance is in a favourable position. It appears, therefore, that as a result of reductions in allowances during the war, with some subsequent reliefs, this old age relief stands more favourably by 2222 comparison with what it was in the 1920's than do some of the other allowances, For that reason there is, in our view, no case for singling out this allowance for relief this year.
There is one other argument against this proposal which, I think, is cogent and it is, as I expect the hon. and learned Gentleman realises, although he did not mention it, that there is what is known as a marginal provision under the old age relief which assists people whose income is actually over £500. That works roughly in the following way. An individual over 65 with an income exceeding £500 gets the additional allowance of one-fifth for the first £500 and has to pay tax also on an amount equal to five-eighths of the excess over £500. The result of that is that, if his income is over £500, he gets some relief, although it is a relief on a diminishing scale.
Until last year this additional relief disappeared altogether at £650 for a single person and £635 for a married couple. Last year we gave further relief to people in that, as the hon. and learned Member may recall, we lowered the proportion on which the relief above £500 was based from three-quarters to five-eighths. The effect was not merely to increase the relief given for all those previously receiving it, but also to raise the level of investment incomes to which the relief applied. It raised the maximum to £757 in the case of a single person and £731 in the case of a married couple. Therefore, a concession was given last year to people in this category for very much the reasons which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given, and we do not think that it is necessary to give further relief this year.
§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)
I like this new Clause. I think it is a good Clause, and I am very disappointed indeed with the reply we have had from the Economic Secretary. I do not think that the Economic Secretary's argument is very good, because I am quite sure that there is no analogy between the fall in the personal allowances for Income Tax which has taken place since 1925 and the old age allowances that we are discussing here. They are two completely different things, and I do not think that is a fair comparison at all.
2223 The real, basic point is that in 1925 Parliament considered that this relief was applicable to people of that age who had an income of up to £500. If we still maintain that view, it is obvious that the figure of £500 should be increased, because what was worth £500 in 1925 was certainly something completely different for what is valued at £500 today. I am no mathematician, but I should say that, on the most favourable calculation possible to the Government, £500, the value of which Parliament had in mind in 1925, is probably represented today by £1,000.
Therefore, if we are really trying to help that class and category of people whom Parliament had in mind in 1925, we certainly ought to raise the limit of this allowance at the present time. To raise the figure to £600 seems to me to be a very fair and proper step in the right direction, and I frankly do not think the alternative reliefs to which the Economic Secretary has referred, given by Parliament to elderly people last year, have any bearing on this particular aspect of the matter. I hope he will have an opportunity of reconsidering it at some future date.
§ Mr. Eccles
I should like to support what my hon. Friend has said. Not only has the value of money gone down, but—and this is what I believe is more important in this case—interest rates have gone down very much. Therefore, the income that a person over 65 gets from having saved £5,000, let us say, is much less today than it would have been in 1925 when this allowance was first brought in. The people who are in employment, married couples and single persons, have their salaries and wages and means of adjusting themselves to the price level, and those means are very much greater than those open to the old people. Old people really are caught with whatever their savings will yield them.
I do not wish to detain the House long, but I would point out that in places like Bath, for instance, which is very close to my constituency, and where I go very often, the problem of the old people is very great indeed. I think that any hon. Member who is associated with any of those towns where there are large numbers of retired people will know that the cost of their rooms has gone up, and that 2224 when they have paid for their accommodation, they really have very much less money left to them than they had before. I hope the Chancellor will think again. I do want to protest that continually we are not told what these things for which we ask will cost.
§ Mr. Eccles
I thank the Economic Secretary. We know that this would cost £1,500,000. The House may consider whether a small loss of revenue from dog licences, or from any of the other sources where a little concession has been given, is much better incurred than that which would be incurred in giving some concession to the old people.
§ Mr. John McKay (Wallsend)
I have been very much interested in the arguments put forward in favour of this Clause. I come from a constituency where, I think, there are very few people who have as much as £10 a week, and particularly few retired people with that amount. Although we have not in my constituency the class of people who have that amount of money, we have a very big section of the community comprised of retired people who have possibly £2 a week. I think that what obtains in Wall-send is obtaining largely throughout the country; and those poor people, who are aged also, are crying out for some improvement in their position. I note that hon. Members opposite, while they are attempting to obtain the support of the working people of the country, seem to have in their minds people whom we consider to be fairly well off already.
In considering whether this allowance should be made, we have to ask whether the Exchequer is in a position at the present moment to give away anything more. If we pass the judgment that we could possibly stretch a point and give a few millions away, then the next thing we must decide is, to whom shall we give help? To whom shall we give these few millions? Ought we to give these few millions to the people who are retired, who have no families to support, who have £10 a week income, and who, having been able to provide themselves with that amount, probably also have houses of their own? Or shall we, in giving these few millions away, give them to the poorer community, which is so great and numerous in the country?
2225 To my mind there is no question at all as to what we ought to do, and it is surprising to me that we continually have Amendments and new Clauses to help, not those poor people, but the people whom we should consider to be already fairly well off. We had a proposal last week suggesting that we should give several millions to help people who are about as well off as those we are considering in this Clause. I think there is no question that the judgment of the people would be, without considering sectional ideas but simply as a matter of justice, that if we have any millions to give away, they should go to help those with only £2 a week income, before help is given to those with £10 a week income.
§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
I think the House must be very grateful to the hon. Member for Walls-end (Mr. McKay) because he has given me an opportunity to answer what he has said. Did the hon. Member take the opportunity he had one or two nights ago to support the Opposition in proposing that we should give £5 million, which was the cost of the match tax, to the working class? I did not notice his name in the Division list supporting the Opposition. Nor did I notice that the hon. Member for Wallsend supported this side of the House when we protested against the taking away from the working class of £10 million in National Insurance. The hon. Member has had ample opportunity to deal with these matters, and he enters this Debate today, I think, in rather a difficulty, because we are not discussing the match tax, nor increased contributions to National Insurance, but a middle-class problem of a very narrow and limited character.
This concession, were it granted, would cost the country £1,500,000. Frankly, it is a concession to what I think was the defrauded class. Those are the people who have lived through three wars and have seen their income and savings reduced to a third of what they were when they earned them. They are the backbone of the country. This side of the House is asking for a small measure of justice for people who worked long and saved hard. Most of them have given their sons in the country's service in two wars. At the end of all that experience they find that their income, in the earning 2226 of which they served not only their own interests but the interests of the State also, is reduced to one-third of its former value.
This concession, would, I submit, not cost the Treasury anything. If I were in the position—as I may well be at the age of 65—of not having the rebate asked for under this Clause, what would I do? I have no hesitation in telling the House what I would do. I would spend my capital. Would that be more profitable for the Treasury than giving me an allowance? I submit that it is in the interests of His Majesty's Treasury to encourage those few people who have the foresight, the prudence and the thrift to save, and that this Clause is an encouragement to them to save. If I have this Clause in my favour, I shall be content. If it is not in my favour, I shall decide how long I am going to live—and it may not be so long under a Socialist Government as it would be under a more advantageous one—and, after working out the number of years I expect to live, I shall spend my capital. Is the Economic Secretary going to tell us that he is in favour of the reckless spending of capital rather than the use of one's income? This is a question of the prudent management of the State's resources, and I beg him to reconsider it, because the encouragement of thrift is not a thing which the Treasury can lightly set aside.
§ Mr. R. A. Butler
My hon. Friends and I feel that this Clause deals with the position of a particularly important section of the community. We do not underrate the claims of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), but perhaps he would be willing to reply, if he had the chance to speak again—which I regret, he has not—to the objections made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). We on this side of the House have tried throughout the discussions on this Bill to represent all sections of the community, and it has been a matter of great regret to us that when we have stood for the interests of the poorer sections of the community we have not had the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, notably in the case of the £10 million extra, added in an indirect and, we think, particularly evil way, to insurance contributions. Particularly 2227 on such questions as maternity benefit, and so forth, we were not only not supported by them, but voted down by them.
I do not want to renew old sores or spoil the amicable atmosphere in which we are considering this Bill today. I wish, however, to refer the House to the case of this particular section of the old people. I should like most strongly to support the arguments put from this side and to draw them to the attention of the Financial Secretary. He seems to be in a benign mood, and perhaps he will follow up the intellectual argument of the Economic Secretary with a more warm-hearted approach. The Economic Secretary put before us a consistent, understandable and intellectual argument. His main point seemed to be that because single people and married couples had not had their position improved since the pre-war period, in 1925, when this sort of proposal was introduced, we should not pay attention to old people. That does not appear to be an intellectual argument which can be sustained. We should consider these old people on their own merits, and it is upon their own merits that we propose to pursue this matter to its logical conclusion.
I am sorry that the hon. Member who originally put down a similar Clause has unfortunately had to be absent today, but we support the object of this Clause which seeks to raise the limit of old age relief on unearned income by £100. We claim that this section of the community who have saved deserve our consideration. They are not a section of the community who have been able to enjoy the considerable increase in wage level which has taken place during the last few years.
When we were discussing earlier the question of the profits of companies, I drew attention to the considerable rise in the wage level that has taken place. These
§ old people cannot profit from that. They are existing on savings, and it is an important and remarkable fact how little attention the Government have paid in these Debates to the need of encouraging savings at the present time. Here is an opportunity for the Government to give an indication of their interest in savings and of their interest in the old people who have had the foresight to put by for their older years, and who are finding now, with the decline in the value of money—due to the financial policy of the Government—that they are unable to sustain the sort of life to which they have been accustomed.
§ The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) raised the question of the decline in interest rates. This is a very relevant matter in considering the way of life of these people and the burden that falls upon them. It is a remarkable fact that in all periods of economic stringency, particularly when there has been loss of financial control by any administration in any country, that the class which suffers most are the people of this type. In fact, it may well be said that unless we can right our financial affairs, the rentiers and middle-class and those who have saved a little, may find that their lifelong efforts have been thrown away, due partly to the world situation and partly to the maladministration of the finances of the country. It is in the interests of such people who may be crushed between the upper and nether millstones that we ask for the sympathetic consideration of the Financial Secretary. We implore him to consider this case as an instance of a class who may well be crushed by present circumstances, and to show them his sympathy today by making this small concession and giving an answer worthy of him and of this House.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 260.2231
|Division No. 199.]||AYES||[7.7 p.m.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Bullock, Capt. M.||Darling, Sir W. Y.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||De la Bère, R.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Carson, E.||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Channon, H.||Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)|
|Birch, Nigel||Clarke, Col. R. S.||Drewe, C.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Duthie, W. S.|
|Bower, N.||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Eccles, D. M.|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Elliot, Lieut,-Col. Rt. Hon. Watter|
|Buchen-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Cuthbert, W. N.||Erroll, F. J.|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Low, A. R. W.||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Fox, Sir G.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Scott, Lord W.|
|Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.||Shephard, S. (Newark)|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||McFarlane, C. S.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Glyn, Sir R.||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Spence, H. R.|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Gridley, Sir A.||Manningham-Bullet, R. E.||Strauss, Henry (English Universities)|
|Grimston, R. V.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Marples, A. E.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Mellor, Sir J.||Teeling, William|
|Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Nield, B. (Chester)||Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.|
|Hogg, Hon. Q.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Touche, G. C.|
|Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Odey, G. W.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Hope, Lord J.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow. C.)||Pickthorn, K.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Prescott, Stanley||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Jennings, R.||Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Ramsay, Maj. S.||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Keeling, E. H.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Renton, D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Brigadier Mackeson and|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)||Colonel Wheatley.|
|Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Cove, W. G.||Haworth, J.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Crossman, R. H. S.||Hobson, C. R.|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Cullen, Mrs.||Holman, P.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Daggar, G.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Daines, P.||Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hoy, J.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Hubbard, T.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Balfour, A.||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)|
|Barstow, P. G.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Barton, C.||Deer, G.||Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)|
|Battley, J. R.||Dobbie, W.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Dodds, N. N.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Benson, G.||Donovan, T.||Janner, B.|
|Berry, H.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Jay, D. P. T.|
|Beswick, F.||Dye, S.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)|
|Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)||Jenkins, R. H.|
|Binns, J.||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)|
|Blackburn, A. R.||Evans, John (Ogmore)||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)|
|Boardman, H.||Ewart, R.||Keenan, W.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Fairhurst, F.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.||Farthing, W. J.||King, E. M.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Fernyhough, E.||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Field, Capt. W. J.||Kinley, J.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Kirby, B. V.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Follick, M.||Lang, G.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Lavers, S.|
|Brown, W. J. (Rugby)||Freeman, J. (Watford)||Lee, F. (Hulme)|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Gallacher, W.||Leslie, J. R.|
|Burden, T. W.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Burke, W. A.||Gibbins, J.||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Gibson, C. W.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.|
|Callaghan, James||Gilzean, A.||Lyne, A. W.|
|Carmichael, James||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||McAdam, W.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||McAllister, G.|
|Champion, A. J.||Grenfell, D. R.||McEntee, V. La T.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Grey, C. F.||McGhee, H. G.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Grierson, E.||McGovern, J.|
|Cobb, F. A.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Mack, J. D.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Guest, Dr. L. Haden||McKay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Coldrick, W.||Gunter, R. J.||McKinlay, A. S.|
|Collick, P.||Guy, W. H.||Maclean, N. (Govan)|
|Collindridge, F.||Hale, Leslie||McLeavy, F.|
|Collins, V. J.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Colman, Miss G. M.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Cook, T. F.||Hardy, E. A.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)|
|Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)||Harrison, J.||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Hastings, Dr. Somervills||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)||Proctor, W. T.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Pryde, D. J.||Tolley, L.|
|Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Pursey, Comdr. H.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Mathers, Rt. Hon. George||Randall, H. E.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Ranger, J.||Usborne, Henry|
|Messer, F.||Rankin, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Middleton, Mrs. L.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Walker, G. H.|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Rhodes, H.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Monslow, W.||Richards, R.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Moody, A. S.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Morley, R.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Watson, W. M.|
|Nally, W.||Royle, C.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Sargood, R.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Scollan, T.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Scott-Elliot, W.||West, D. G.|
|Noel-Buxton, Lady||Sharp, Granville||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)|
|O'Brien, T.||Shurmer, P.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Oldfield, W. H.||Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Simmons, C. J.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Orbach, M.||Skinnard, F. W.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Paget, R. T.||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Sorensen, R. W.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Parker, J.||Sparks, J. A.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Parkin, B. T.||Steele, T.||Willis, E.|
|Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Paton, J. (Norwich)||Stubbs, A. E.||Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Pearson, A.||Swingler, S.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Piratin, P.||Symonds, A. L.||Woods, G. S.|
|Popplewell, E.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)||Yates, V. F.|
|Porter, E. (Warrington)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Porter, G. (Leeds)||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Price, M. Philips||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Mr. Joseph Henderson and|
|Pritt, D. N.||Timmons, J.||Mr. Hannan.|