Sitting of 3 June 1930

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords].
Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [Lords].
Southport Corporation Bill [Lords].
Brixham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Wolverhampton Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Molton Rural) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the
1932
case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Great Torrington, Minehead and Taf Fechan Water Supply Board) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Uxbridge Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Bristol Cattle Market Bill,
Glasgow Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    ROAD STATISTICS (ROSS AND CROMARTY).
    Mr. RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the approximate population, the mileage of roads, and the amount of money expended on the said roads, on the mainland part of the county of Ross and Cromarty for the last year during which the late county council functioned; and the corresponding figures for the island of Lewis during the same period?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): As the reply involves a table of figures I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many roads still requiring improvement, and will he take steps to see that some improvement is made?
    Following are the figures:

    —

    Ross and Cromarty Mainland.

    Lewis.

    Approximate population

    40,500

    26,850

    Mileage of roads

    839·6

    304·2

    Road expenditure

    £95,189

    £24,850

    The figures applicable to burghs are included.
    The road expenditure in the year ended the 15th May, 1930, is not yet available and the figures quoted are for the year 1928–29. These figures are exclusive of a sum of £22,781 applicable to the construction of the Inverness, Invergordon, Bonar Bridge, Wick and Thurso Road, the total cost of which has been met by the Minister of Transport.

    HOUSING (WOODWORK).
    Major COLVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a large quantity of foreign manufactured woodwork is being used in State-aided housing schemes in Scotland; and, if so, what steps he is prepared to take to promote a greater use of articles of British manufacture?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): I am aware of the recent increase in the figures for imported builders' woodwork. Notwithstanding Sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, which, so far as housing schemes under that Act are concerned, prohibits the imposition of any condition which would prevent materials from being purchased in the cheapest market either at home or abroad, a circular was issued by my Department on the 23rd December last urging local authorities in Scotland to make use to the utmost practicable extent of goods and materials of home production in the case of contracts entered into by them not only for houses but also for all other works. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the circular.
    Major COLVILLE: In view of the large number of joiners who are unemployed in Scotland at the present time, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is time the Act was amended to make the use of British materials obligatory in these schemes?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The best answer that I can give to the question is to call attention to the terms of the circular of recommendations which I sent to the local authorities.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Has not the hon. Gentleman the power, in the case of imported goods made under unfair conditions, to deal with them in the same way as that which is provided by the Fair Wages Clause in respect of home work?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, Sir. In certain cases goods made under these conditions can be prohibited altogether.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: What are fair conditions of labour? Are they the conditions operating in this country?

    IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to state the names of the committee set up to inquire into the question of imprisonment for debt in Scotland?
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now state the personnel of the committee he has promised to set up to inquire into the operation of hire purchase agreements in Scotland and the imprisonment of debtors for failure to maintain their payments, and the terms of reference to that committee?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I am in communication with certain parties whom I propose to appoint, but have not yet received their consent to serve, and I am not therefore in a position to announce the personnel of the committee. The terms of reference will be "To inquire into and report on the existing law relating to contracts of hire purchase, with reference particularly to the conditions commonly inserted in such contracts and the sanction of imprisonment by which such contracts may in certain circumstances be enforced, and to report thereon and on the question what amendments, if any, on the law or administration relating to such contracts are desirable."
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will be in a position to give an answer if I put down another question in a week's time?
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Do Scotsmen ever get into debt?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to see to it that persons other than lawyers are appointed to this committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there are more of common humanity than just lawyers. That is the point.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that house

    1935
    factors in Glasgow are pasting notices inside rent books stating that the let is excluded from the operation of the Rent and Mortgage Restriction Acts, 1920 to 1925; and whether he will take steps to have such practice stopped?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): My attention has been drawn to one or two instances of the practice referred to, and the matter is receiving consideration.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the Lord Advocate, in view of the facts which are coming before him, say whether any steps are going to be taken by the Government to impose a penalty in cases where the Act is not carried out?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is one of the matters which are receiving consideration. I have no power, as Lord Advocate, to intervene; but, if it be the fact that in cases where no actual decontrol has taken place, notices have been pasted in the rent books to the effect that there has been decontrol, and if the tenants are being thereby induced to pay more than they ought to pay, the view of the Government is that it is the situation which calls for intervention, and the Government will take the necessary steps to deal with the matter.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it the opinion of the Government or of the Lord Advocate that the pasting of notices inside the rent books is an illegal act?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Undoubtedly. In every case where there is no decontrol, it is illegal in the sense that it is wrongfully inducing a tenant to pay more than he ought to pay, and it is an illegality for which the tenant has a remedy under the Statute as it at present stands. But the Government think that the tenants ought to have a further remedy by inserting some form of protection, and that is a matter which is receiving consideration.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it just a question of a tenant being compelled as his only remedy is to employ a lawyer, or are the Government going to see that he is not put to that expense?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: At the present time the tenant must take such remedies as he has in the Law Courts, but the Government are considering
    1936
    whether some other form of remedy can be devised to prevent the necessity of the tenant going to a lawyer at all.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not the case at the present time that the law provides for the prosecution of property owners who are taking more than the rent allowed under the Rent Restrictions Act? If that is so, is it not possible for prosecutions to take place under the direction of the Lord Advocate?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, it is not a question of taking more rent than is due. The Statute supplies a remedy for that. It is a question of pasting notices in a rent book which are calculated to mislead the tenant into a false impression as to the rent he has to pay. That is the matter with which we are dealing.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is not the Lord Advocate aware that in many of the cases where the notices have been pasted in the book, the property owner is taking more than the rent which is allowed, and why is the Lord Advocate not initiating prosecutions so as to give protection against such people.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member will bring specific instances to my notice instead of making general statements, I will have them properly investigated and appropriate steps taken.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ELECTRICAL GOODS AND APPARATUS.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware of the large increase in the quantity of foreign electrical goods and apparatus imported into this country during the last year; and if he will consider what steps can be taken to encourage a greater use of British appliances in the market that has been created by the Central Electricity Board?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. I am a ware of the increase to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. It is in the main due to increased imports of the smaller type of appliance bought by the private user of electricity and wireless. The desirability of giving preference to British goods subject to reasonable price relationship has already been brought to general notice, and I trust that the

    1937
    British manufacturers and distributors will be alive to the importance of this new and expanding market.
    Major COLVILLE: Does not the Lord Privy Seal consider that it is a serious matter that this market which has been created largely by the work of the Central Electricity Board, should be captured by foreign manufacturers, and can he consider taking any other steps which might help?
    Mr. THOMAS: The difference last year as compared with the previous year was approximately 2 per cent. It is true that the work of the Central Electricity Board has created a demand, and it is equally true that the Central Electricity Board have given all their contracts to British firms, as I have already said. In addition to that, I have drawn attention of the manufacturers to the importance of their taking advantage of the appetite which I created.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that British electrical appliances are the finest in the world?
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there will be a similar influx of imported lace when the duty is taken off that article?

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HERBERT GIBSONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the delay in proceeding with schemes of amalgamation in the Lancashire cotton trade; whether the causes for this state of affairs are to be found within the industry or in the policy pursued by the banks; and whether he will take steps to stimulate the efforts being made to place the cotton trade upon a sounder economic basis?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that, owing to financial obstacles, the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton trade on the basis of large scale amalgamations is being retarded; and whether, in view of his promises of financial assistance to such schemes, he is able to announce any measures for overcoming the difficulties at present encountered?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have no reason to think that any sound scheme for the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton industry
    1938
    is being retarded by lack of finance. The question of the provision of finance for schemes of rationalisation is dealt with in the statement which I made on the 15th April, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), regarding the Bankers' Industrial Development Company, Limited. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that statement. As the House will be aware, the Government appointed last summer a Committee to investigate the cotton industry, and their report is expected very shortly. I hope before the end of this week.
    Mr. GIBSON: When the report on the cotton trade is presented, will the Lord Privy Seal go to Lancashire with a view to calling together the employers and the employés to see what steps can be taken to implement the report and bring about a better state of things?
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: And when he goes down, as I hope he will, will he interview the leaders of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and take into account the vote they declared yesterday?
    Mr. THOMAS: The last time I was in Manchester I thought it wise to interview those engaged in the industry. That I shall continue to do. With regard to the first supplementary question, I think the right way would be to take into conference freely and frankly both sides engaged in the cotton industry. Whether that will be my task time alone will determine.

    ARGENTINE (COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any further steps have been taken towards the consummation of the projected commercial agreement between this country and the Argentine?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The agreement is awaiting the approval of the Argentine Senate.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with the Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates to ascertain how the scheme may affect them, in view of the possible extension of inter-Imperial trade in the future?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to previous questions in the House, I have indicated that in connection with this agreement all factors were taken into account.
    Mr. HANNON: Has there been any difficulty with the Argentine Senate in sanctioning the agreement?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would prefer not to offer an opinion. It is still awaiting the approval of the Senate, and I hope that it will be approved.

    PORTUGAL (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the programme of reconstruction recently approved by the Portuguese Government for the development of land and water communications; and if he will make appropriate representations to the Portuguese authorities that, in view of the material support which this country has rendered from time to time to Portgual, British manufacturing firms should have sympathetic consideration for contracts which may follow when the reconstruction scheme comes into operation?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Reports have been received in regard to this programme and British firms are being kept informed. While His Majesty's Government are always prepared to take what action they usefully and properly can in support of the interests of British firms, I do not think that general representations such as the hon. Member suggests would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. HANNON: If it comes to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that definite schemes are in process at the instance of the Portuguese Government, will he make representations so that British manufacturers are given a full opportunity for tendering?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have indicated in my reply that we are trying to do our best in connection with the terms. Certainly I shall spare no effort to that end.
    Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter to the notice of the Liberal party?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Chinese!

    UNITED STATES (TARIFFS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will
    1940
    state the nature of the representations which have been made through the British Ambassador at Washington to the Government of the United States during the process of the tariff debate at Washington, with the object of safeguarding, so far as possible, the interest of British exporters of manufactured goods to that country in view of the proposed increase of import duties?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: No formal representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States, but as I have previously explained to the House certain memoranda respecting the trade in specific commodities which had been submitted by trade associations or firms in this country were communicated by Majesty's Embassy at Washington to the United States authorities.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what is the procedure on the part of the Board of Trade when a foreign country takes steps to raise its tariff against goods from this country? Is there not some means of making representations?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have indicated that in this case the representation on which information is gained has been communicated to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, and put before the appropriate committees or sections of the legislative committees of the United States Government.

    CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
    Major NATHANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the present position as regards the census of production?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I anticipate that the first of the volumes of the Final Report on the Third Census, covering the textile trades, will be issued in from two to three weeks from the present time. The volumes dealing with other groups of trades are being prepared with the greatest possible speed, and I hope that no unforeseen circumstances will delay their preparation and issue.
    Major NATHAN: In view of the remarkably adverse change in circumstances since the census was set on foot, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the immediate setting up

    1941
    of a further census of production at the same time as the population census of 1931?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Preparations are now in hand for the census covering 1930, and I have already sanctioned much more than the preliminary efforts in that matter.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Do we understand that this production of the Government is out of date before it is issued?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, that would be a very erroneous assumption. On the other hand, very careful analysis is necessary in order that the volume may not be open to the charge of inaccuracy in a matter which is most important to our trade.

    EXPORT CREDITS (RUSSIA).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will ascertain and state what are the terms of credit accorded by the Soviet Government to British purchasers of Russian raw materials?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have no detailed information, but I understand that the Soviet Government usually stipulate for cash with order when selling their raw materials to foreign purchasers.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to understand that when the commercial Treaty was under discussion no arrangements were made that the Soviet delegation should give the same terms to our merchants as they asked from our merchants?
    Mr. GILLETT: I have never heard of any such arrangement being made.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is not that a case of laches on the part of the hon. Member?
    Mr. GILLETT: No, Sir, it does not strike me in that way at all.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is proposed to extend the Exports Credits Guarantee Scheme so as to guarantee the credit of the Soviet Government for a longer period than one year?
    Mr. GILLETT: It is not the practice to state in advance the conditions on which the Advisory Committee are prepared to recommend the granting of
    1942
    guarantees in respect of any country or any particular transaction.
    Sir H. CAYZER: Does the Minister say that the statements in the Press that the Government are contemplating extending the Export Credits Scheme in the case of Russia from one year to three years are not correct?
    Mr. GILLETT: It is impossible for me to be responsible for everything that appears in the Press.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Before any extended credits are given, will the hon. Gentleman see that our merchants receive similar treatment for goods sent to Russia?
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that unless the terms are extended our traders will be unable to compete with traders in other countries where the terms are extended?
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON-BROWNasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the total amount of money that has been advanced and promised under the Export Credits Act since 1st January, 1930, for credits to finance Russian enterprises and how much to finance Dominion enterprises, respectively?
    Mr. GILLETT: The object of the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme is not to finance enterprise overseas but to assist British exporters by enabling them to give credit. No advances are made, but on certain conditions the payment of a proportion of bills of exchange drawn in connection with the export of British goods is guaranteed. Contracts have been entered into from the 1st January, 1930, to the 31st May last, providing for the payment of a proportion of bills of exchange for £1,834,812 drawn on Russian, purchasers and £167,447 drawn on purchasers in the Dominions.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an impression that it is very much easier to get credits to do business with Russia than with our Dominions; and may I ask what is the policy of the Government on that point?
    Mr. GILLETT: I think the hon. Member has forgotten that this is an insurance scheme, and therefore the figures are what

    1943
    one would expect. One does not need to insure a payment which is to be received from the Bank of England.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether the candles may now be brought in?

    BOOT AND SHOE TRADE (RUSSIAN ORDER).
    Mr. REMERasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the length of extended credit required by the Soviet delegation to enable them to purchase 3,000,000 pairs of boots and shoes of Northampton manufacturers?
    Mr. GILLETT: No definite application has been received by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of this order; but in any case, it is not the practice to disclose particulars concerning any individual transaction.
    Mr. SAMUEL: If this order is still available, will not the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Soviet Delegation that they should try to raise a loan for capital purposes in the City of London?

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DEPRESSED INDUSTRIES (FINANCIAL FACILITIES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give the House any account of the success of his efforts in preventing factories, mines, etc., from closing down during the present trade depression; and if he has any estimate of the number of men and women he has prevented from being thrown out of employment as a result of such intervention?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am afraid that it would not be possible to give the information for which my hon. Friend is asking without disclosing particulars which it would not be in the public interest and certainly against the interests of employment to divulge. I may say that I am almost daily engaged in endeavouring to make financial provisions to prevent the closing of works, but obviously I cannot mention firms across the Floor of the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the Lord Privy Seal give an estimate in answer to the second part of the
    1944
    question, and also in reply to the accusations made by hon. Members opposite about putting people out of work?
    Mr. THOMAS: As far as those accusations are concerned, I am fairly thick skinned.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us of any work that this Government has given to the quarter of million of women who have been added to the unemployment figures since they came into power?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Noble Lady must know very well that there are training centres for women, and she also knows very well that neither this nor any other Government, even if she herself was at the head of the Government, could set out merely to provide for a sex as distinct from the general body of unemployed.

    GLASGOW COURT OF REFEREES (CHAIRMAN).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour when Mr. Semple was appointed Chairman of the Court of Referees in Glasgow; if the local working-class organisations were asked to make recommendations for such appointment; and, if not, what bodies were consulted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Mr. Semple was appointed as a Chairman of the Glasgow Court of Referees in June, 1928, and was reappointed on the 26th March this year. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 29th May to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question: whether any working-class organisations were consulted when this appointment was made?
    Mr. LAWSON: In this case, which was a re-appointment, there was no consultation at all, and my right hon. Friend knew of no objection to this re-appointment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this House various Members representing the trade union and labour movement in Glasgow voiced

    1945
    strong objection, and was not that a reason why the trade union movement should have been consulted?
    Mr. LAWSON: My right hon. Friend had no specific complaint against this appointment, and, if there is any specific complaint, she will have investigation made into it.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that the average number of claims disallowed monthly on the ground of not normally insurable previous to 10th September, 1929, averaged about 1,200, and that since they were included from that date with the disqualification "not a reasonable period of insurable employment," the average figure is about 10,000; and, since the new Act has abolished the latter disqualification, can she explain why the disqualifications on the former ground have not returned to somewhere about the average figure for the period preceding 10th September, 1929?
    Mr. LAWSON: The disallowances under the new Act were imposed by Courts of Referees, and those for the earlier period by insurance officers; in neither case, therefore, were they within the Minister's control. I may point out, however, that when the new Act came into force, there was a large number of new claims and this was likely to lead temporarily to a larger number of disallowances. I should add that as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend in her reply to my hon. Friend on 22nd May, the numbers of disallowances under these heads, taken by themselves, are not properly comparable with those for earlier periods.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Would it not appear that those who were formerly disqualified under the "not having a reasonable amount of employment in the preceding two years" condition, are now being dealt with under the "not normally insurable" condition, and that the intention of this House is being evaded; and will the Minister of Labour look into the operation of this condition?
    Mr. LAWSON: The local courts of referees with local knowledge have power to give definite decisions, and, as long as they give their decisions in accordance
    1946
    with the law, my right hon. Friend can do nothing in the matter. Many of these cases are, as my right hon. Friend has said, not comparable, because in many cases people claimed who are not insurable.
    Mr. EDE: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the gravest dissatisfaction exists in regard to this matter and will he have the matter looked into by his Department?
    Mr. LAWSON: My right hon. Friend is giving the closest possible attention to the matter, and has taken into consideration the representations made on this matter.

    CONSUMERS' COUNCIL BILL.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether representatives of the co-operative societies were consulted in relation to the provisions of the Consumers' Council Bill; and whether any representations have been received from any such organisations in reference to these proposals?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: A representation was received from the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress to the effect that the co-operative movement should be represented on the Consumers' Council.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that he has not received some protest from the co-operative societies about this Bill? Is not the Bill a grave reflection on the co-operative movement?
    Mr. GRAHAM: This is a Bill to protect the consumers; and we have a considerable measure of support for it.
    Sir K. WOOD: Have not the co-operative societies always been protecting the consumers?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not the case that the co-operative societies have financed the Labour Members?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who financed you? The working classes? [Interruption.]
    Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. Is that a fair question?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of staff at home and abroad employed by the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts; and to what number it is proposed to reduce the staff as at 1st July?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The staff of the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts) at present numbers 366. Three officers are under notice terminating their present appointments at the end of June.
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Can the President of the Board of Trade give any indication as to how long he considers it will be necessary to keep this Department in existence?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, there is always this difficulty. Many of the outstanding cases are very involved in character, but I have always thought, without committing myself to a date, that it should be finished in the near future. I cannot, however, name any date.
    Colonel GRETTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman been to the office to see for himself what is going on?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, but I became very familiar with the circumstances to which reference is made during the five years that I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

    P CLASS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state what reductions, if any, are made in the pay of P-class men in the Civil Service when they are promoted to the established class?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): An agreement has recently been reached with the staff associations concerned under which the temporary reduction in pay hitherto arising in some cases on the promotion of P-class clerks to established clerical classes will be prevented.

    WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY.
    Captain BALFOURasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost and numbers of the personnel of the Army and Navy staffs at the War
    1948
    Office and Admiralty; and the Civil Service personnel employed on duties within those services for 1929–30 and 1913–14?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The records kept by the Admiralty and the War Office are not altogether in the same form, but I think that the following figures, which have been supplied to me, will serve the hon. and gallant Member's purpose:

    Admiralty.

    —

    Naval Officers and Ratings.

    Civilians.

    (a) Numbers serving at Headquarters on 1st Jan., 1914.

    152

    1,910

    Cost

    £98,669

    £364,933

    (b) Average numbers borne during 1929–30.

    252

    2,780

    Cost

    £270,000

    £986,000

    War Office.

    —

    Officers and other Ranks.

    Civilians.

    (a) Numbers provided in Estimates, 1913–14.

    262

    1,579

    Cost

    £143,200

    £296,800

    (b) Numbers provided in Estimates, 1929–30.

    351

    1,947

    Cost

    £300,290

    £613,000

    PERSONNEL.
    Captain BALFOURasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the numbers and cost of the permanent and temporary personnel of the Civil Service in 1929–30; and the numbers and cost in 1913–14?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the 17th April last, giving the

    1949
    numbers and cost of Civil Service personnel in 1913–1914 and 1928–1929, respectively. Coresponding figures for the year 1929–30 are not yet available.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: When will these figures be available?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot say at the moment, but I will look into it, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down.

    COAST EROSION (NEWHAVEN AND WORTHING).
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increasing subsidence of land and consequent damage to property on the coast road between Newhaven and Worthing; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am aware that a certain amount of erosion has occurred on this section of the coast, and my Department has from time to time sanctioned the construction of protective works. The Board have, however, no power to initiate schemes for sea defence or to compel the local authorities responsible for the various areas to do so.
    Mr. DAY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors make a regular visit to this part of the coast?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I Cannot say offhand as to inspection, but I know that they are familiar with the whole question of coast erosion, which was the subject of a Bill introduced into the House, though I am afraid the Government cannot find time for the remaining stages.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask these inspectors to pay particular attention to this part of the coast?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I will look into the point to which the hon. Member refers.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it the intention to proceed with the Bill this Session?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No. The Prime Minister has already indicated that it may not be possible to make further progress
    1950
    with the Bill. I am afraid that is beyond doubt.
    Major COLFOX: Would it not be better to drop some of the other items in the programme of the Government?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    HEALTH STATISTICS (CREW SPACES).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if the health advisory committee on the mercantile marine have yet reported the results of their investigations into the statistics relating to the mortality of seamen and the hygiene of crew spaces on board ship; and whether the report will be published?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given on the 1st April to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) and on the 6th May to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), to which at present I am unable to add.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this body of men alone have been left out of the arrangements for looking after the health of the people, and that they are a most important body. Why has this selection been made? Why is no effort being made to overtake this melancholy lapse in our organisation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have never underestimated their importance, but at the moment the inquiry is taking the form of a review of certain-months of statistics, up to the end of September of this year, and until that is completed it is quite impossible to do more.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The question of the hygiene of crew spaces has nothing to do with statistics and will have to be dealt with by an entirely different body.

    WAR INJURIES.
    Mr. BELLAMYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of men who were engaged in the mercantile marine during the period of the Great War and who suffered the loss of a limb or limbs in consequence of such service and, of these,

    1951
    the number in respect of whom his Department have accepted financial responsibility?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that the desired information cannot be made available without a laborious investigation, but the number of cases in which my Department has assumed responsibility for the supply and miantenance of seamen's artificial limbs is about 20.

    COMPANIES ACT.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of public companies who on 2nd June were still in default in their statutory obligation to lodge annual accounts and balance sheets; and will he give the reasons why noncompliance with the provisions of the Act is permitted to continue for so long a period as five months?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The number of outstanding cases of default on the 2nd June was about 200. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the full answer which I gave him on 6th May.

    SAFEGUARDING DUTIES (LACE INDUSTRY).
    Sir HENRY BETTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state whether he is prepared to grant an inquiry into the position of the lace trade?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I do not consider that such an inquiry is necessary.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what date he communicated the decision to the trade?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think it was communicated to-day, not to the trade, but to the trade union deputation.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Why did the right hon. Gentlemen keep the whole trade in suspense during the Election? Now that the electors of Nottingham have given their verdict, will he reconsider his decision?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RATION ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now been able to reconsider the question of the proposed reduction in ration allowances to non-commissioned officers and men on leave?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): As I have already explained, this reduction in the rate of ration allowance issuable on furlough forms part of a general revision of allowances, which was nearing completion more than two years ago, and which was designed to remedy, by a redistribution of the money available on a more logical and equitable basis, a number of anomalies and hardships affecting all ranks. I have considered in every way and with the utmost sympathy the possibility of re-introducing the higher rate of ration allowance on furlough, but I very much regret that I cannot do so without upsetting the whole revision of allowances of which it forms an integral part.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this means a drop of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. to these men and officers? If my right hon. Friend cannot restore the original position, can he not do something to meet this serious decrease?
    Mr. SHAW: I am quite willing to go into the case and to reconsider the whole matter, but I cannot give any promise of any kind; neither can I give a promise that a very quick decision will be possible.

    WAR CEMETERY, ETAPLES.
    Mr. REMERasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the battered state of the Union Jack in the British War cemetery at Etaples; and what steps are taken to ensure that the national flag is maintained in a proper state?
    Mr. SHAW: The state of the flag had already been reported to the Imperial War Graves Commission and arrangements are being made to replace it as quickly as possible.
    Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps so that a tattered Union Jack does not exist in future in any of the British war cemeteries?
    Mr. SHAW: I think that the work of the War Graves Commission is exceptionally well done, and I am sure that they can be relied upon to see that these things are remedied as quickly as the damage takes place.

    TATTOOS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what are the reasons for the instructions by the Army Council to those responsible for the programmes of military tattoos forbidding the presentation of episodes illustrating modern warfare?
    Mr. SHAW: The Army Council considered that the memories of the Great War were too vivid and too recent to permit of representation, in pageant or tableau, of incidents connected with it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent great popularity of most realistic war plays, and does he not think that the public are entitled to see the heroic deeds of our Army in recent years instead of only those relating to long ago?
    Mr. SHAW: I can consider and have considered all that, but I cannot possibly agree to this demand, which is quite the opposite of other demands that I receive that no military display of any kind should be given.

    TERRITORIAL CAMPS (OFFICERS' PAY).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the nature of any alteration that has been made during the past few months in the rule that officers of the Territorial Army, whilst attending voluntary week-end camps, are entitled to pay equivalent to that of regular officers?
    Mr. SHAW: The hon. and gallant Member is, I think, under a misapprehension. Under the regulations, the decision whether pay and allowances should be granted at voluntary week-end camps rests with the General Officer Commanding, who has to meet the cost of such pay and allowances as he may authorise from the fixed sum allotted to him for the training of Territorial troops in his Command. There has been no recent change in this rule.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not the case that a change was made in September of last year in paragraph 625 of Territorial
    1954
    Army regulations and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a sergeant-major at a week-end camp in these circumstances would be getting more in pay and allowance than a major; and does he think that that is reasonable or right?
    Mr. SHAW: I can only reply to the question which has been asked me, and say that my advice is that no alteration has been made with regard to voluntary week-end camps.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the point to which have referred in connection with paragraph 625?
    Mr. SHAW: Certainly, with pleasure.

    FORTS, SOUTHERN IRELAND.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to improve the amenities of their stations for the soldiers stationed in the forts in Southern Ireland?
    Mr. SHAW: Services for the general improvement of the accommodation of the troops in the South Irish Coast Defences are considered on their merits with similar services for other stations. Considerable improvements have been made there in the past few years and provision has been made in the current Estimates for continuing this work.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Are the amenities and the housing conditions and so on equal to those which would be available in this country?
    Mr. SHAW: As I have not made a personal inspection I cannot say, but I am assured by my advisers that everything is being done to remedy any grievances which may exist.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider going over there and seeing these places for himself?
    Mr. SHAW: Certainly.

    RECRUITING.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to improving recruiting returns, he will consider the practice of recruiting marches by county regiments in their territorial areas during the summer months?
    Mr. SHAW: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that this method of recruiting has not been overlooked by the military authorities, but experience has shown that the direct results obtained are small: and the interference with training and the cost involved by these marches render unjustifiable their adoption frequently or on a large scale.

    MALTA (GARRISON).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for War what units of the Army are stationed at Malta; and whether it is proposed to make such changes in respect of the future as will avoid the duty of garrisoning Malta?
    Mr. SHAW: There are at present in Malta two British infantry battalions and one Maltese infantry battalion together with ancillary troops. Two additional infantry battalions, which form part of the normal establishment of the troops in Malta, are temporarily serving in Palestine. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Are there any changes in contemplation in the disposition of the forces?
    Mr. SHAW: No changes of a striking character are in contemplation at the moment.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Are there any changes, whether of a striking character or not?

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that service in the Harrow officers' training corps is compulsory; and whether he has had any recent report of its discipline and efficiency?
    Mr. OLIVER BALDWINasked the Secretary of State for War with regard to the trouble in the Harrow School officers' training corps, if he will inquire whether that officers' training corps is a compulsory organisation; and, if so, whether he will withdraw the State grant from the military organisation at that school?
    Mr. EDEasked the Secretary of State for War in how many schools to which he makes a grant for the officers'
    1956
    training corps membership of such corps is compulsory; if he sanctions such compulsion; and what steps he will take to bring his views to the notice of the school authorities?
    Mr. SHAW: Arrangements for recruiting for contingents of the Junior Division of the Officers' Training Corps rest with the school authorities. So far as the Army Council are concerned, there is no question of compulsion, direct or indirect. I am, at the present time, having the whole position examined, and I am not in a position to go into greater detail on those points which depend on the result of that examination. As regards reports on the Harrow officers' training corps, these are rendered annually; that for 1930 is not yet due.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it came about that during the discussion on the Army Estimates he assured us that there was no compulsion regarding these corps?
    Mr. SHAW: I did not do anything of the kind. I said that the War Office was not responsible for any kind of compulsion.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not aware of any?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the employment of the Eton officers' training corps in the event of further trouble at Harrow?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in taking the circumstances into his consideration, have regard to the question of whether grants ought to be given to officers' training corps where compulsion is made the rule?
    Mr. SHAW: I have already said that I am examining the whole position at the present moment.
    Mr. BROWN: May I have an answer to my question? Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Ede.

    WAR OFFICE LAND.
    Mr. EDEasked the Secretary of State for War how many acres of land his Department have in Selborne and Kingsley, in the county of Southampton; how many acres are unenclosed; how many were at any time subject to rights of common; and when the common rights were extinguished?
    Mr. SHAW: The War Department land in Selborne and Kingsley parishes consists of about 1,680 acres, of which about 630 acres are unenclosed. 1,068 acres were at some time subject to common rights, and of this area the common rights over 380 acres were extinguished by award under the Enclosure Acts prior to acquisition by the War Department and over about 58 acres by agreement with the commoners after acquisition. Such common rights as exist over the 630 acres still unenclosed have not been extinguished.
    Mr. EDE: Is it proposed by the War Office to retain the whole of this land in their occupation for the present?
    Mr. SHAW: I could not give a definite answer to that question, because the War Office deals with its land as the necessities of the case demand.
    Mr. EDEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will undertake that, in future, before the freehold of any unenclosed land owned by his Department is sold, he will consult with the local authorities as to the best use to which such land can be put in conjunction with their town-planning schemes?
    Mr. SHAW: It has been decided that in future, when it is proposed to sell the freehold of unenclosed land belonging to the War Department, the county or county borough council concerned shall receive the earliest possible intimation in order to afford them the opportunity of entering into negotiations for purchase by private treaty.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to take it, then, that the councils will have the first claim in regard to the purchase of land?
    Mr. SHAW: The hon. Member must take the answer exactly as I have given it—that councils will be given the earliest possible information and be given the fullest possible facilities for making any representations which they choose to make.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH TANKS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Russian Government is attempting to purchase tanks in this country for cash; and whether he has taken steps to safeguard British interests in order to see that plans for the latest modern tanks are not handed over into the possession of a foreign country?
    Mr. SHAW: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 28th May to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, a copy of which I am sending to him. As regards the second part, the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that steps are taken to protect British military interests.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: If the Soviet Government are able to pay cash for tanks why can they not afford to pay cash for other—[Interruption.]

    PROPAGANDA.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what action he proposes to take on the report furnished him by Scotland Yard on the result of their investigations into the recent sworn statement of M. Sava Popovitch, the Serbian artist, on the activities of Soviet secret agents in London?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My right hon. Friend cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave on his behalf on the 22nd May.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when he will be able to reply?
    Mr. SHORT: I cannot say.

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENSES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General the number of wireless licences at present in force; and the number of these that are for portable wireless sets?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The number of wireless receiving licences in force on 30th April last was 3,117,000. There are no statistics available showing how many licensees use portable receiving sets.
    Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the question of having on applications for licences for wireless receiving sets a statement whether they are portable or stationary sets?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: No, Sir, I see reason for doing so.

    INVESTIGATION BRANCH.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether the detective and police staff employed by the Post Office has been increased during the 12 months to the last convenient date; and will he give particulars?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: During the year ended 30th April last the staff of the Post Office Investigation Branch has been increased by an addition of four assistants.
    Mr. DAY: Has any special provision been made for mails travelling by train?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: We have since the beginning of the year instituted eight prosecutions, all of which have been successful.

    BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CHAIRMAN).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to intimate the name of the person to be the new chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Prime Minister has recommended the Right Honourable John Henry Whitley for appointment by the Crown as Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

    LONDON NAVAL TREATY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to ratify the London Naval Treaty?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Legislation will be required to implement some of the obligations
    1960
    assumed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under the London Naval Treaty, and I, therefore, cannot yet make a definite statement as to date of ratification?
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this Treaty is supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of this country?

    CHANNEL TUNNEL.
    Mr. L. SMITHasked the Prime Minister if he can now make any statement as to the decision of the Committee of Imperial Defence with regard to the Channel Tunnel scheme?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to do so.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman's promised statement on this important matter be much longer delayed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I promised to do my best to make a statement before Whitsuntide, and that holds good.
    Mr. MILLS: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that before the question is disposed of it will not be turned down merely on the report of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE NOTICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that notice No. 37 Sec. 41,831/1929 was sent out by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise registered to doctors; how many were sent out, and at what cost for registration alone; and what is the object of registering this leaflet?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The Commissioners were advised that it was desirable to ensure that the contents of the notice, to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, were effectively brought to the knowledge of the persons concerned, and they were therefore either delivered personally, where this was practicable, or were sent by registered post. Particulars of the numbers delivered by post and, in

    1961
    consequence, the cost of registration, cannot be ascertained without undue labour.

    TOBACCO DUTY.
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that nicotine for horticultural purposes is made of tobacco which has been subject to heavy duty, he will give a rebate of all or part of the tax on all tobacco used for this purpose?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The law already provides for the payment of a drawback of duty on stalks, shorts and other tobacco refuse used for the manufacture of preparations for horticultural purposes.

    ESTATE DUTY (INSURANCE POLICIES).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give a rough estimate of the total amount of Estate Duty received by the Exchequer in any one of the last five years, arising from the inclusion in deceased estates of the value of the life insurance policies due to deceased persons upon whose estates duty was payable; if so, to what extent the aggregation of life policies with estates has increased on average the percentage rate of duty upon deceased estates; and, if such information is not available, will he have an approximate estimate made for the guidance of the Committee before the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the yield of the Estate Duties is due to the addition to the total of the estate of the proceeds of insurance policies on the life of the deceased holder of the estate?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Table 18 of the recently published 72nd Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 3500) contains a classification of all property coming under charge to Estate Duty for the year 1928–29 and the amount of insurance policy moneys is shown separately, divided by ranges of estates. Of a total gross capital value of £563¾ millions
    1962
    coming under charge that year insurance policy moneys accounted for £18,650,000, that is 3.3 per cent. of the total. It is estimated that the amount of duty levied on the policy moneys was about £1,600,000, representing about 2.2 per cent. of the total yield of duty for the year. But I fear that it is quite impossible to frame any such estimate as is asked for in the latter part of the question by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel).
    Mr. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman admits that it has put up the average percentage of Death Duties?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly, but the argument is that there is no reason why these insurance policies should be separated from the total of the estate and charged separately. The hon. Member will surely realise, if that were done, what an opening for evasion there would be.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension; does he realise that the aggregation of increases in life policies does benefit the revenue?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Most certainly.

    INCOME TAX-PAYERS.
    Major NATHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the number of Income Tax-payers within each of the following or any other convenient income groups in the revenue year 1929–30: under £500, £500 to £1,000, £1,000 to £2,000, £2,000 to £5,000, £5,000 to £10,000, £10,000 to £25,000, £25,000 to £50,000, £50,000 to £100,000, and over £100,000?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No statistics are available of the distribution of incomes not exceeding £2,000 per annum. The hon. and gallant Member will find particulars of the incomes exceeding £2,000 in the Super-tax statistics given in Table 63 of the 72nd report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 3500).

    INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
    Sir B. PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the inquiry

    1963
    by the deputy industrial insurance commissioner at Cardiff into the allegations against the Royal Liver Friendly Society of not giving paid-up policy holders their rights under the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923; and whether, seeing that this society do not advise policy holders of their rights to free policies and surrender values on forfeiture notices served upon insurers who are in arrear in the payment of premiums, he will give further consideration to the question of introducing amending legislation to make this compulsory?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him last Thursday.

    ACCIDENTS BY LIGHTNING (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to an accident to Mr. Walter Price, the Rheol, Llandrindod Wells, Radnorshire, by a stroke of lightning which killed his two horses and seriously injured himself on 25th May, 1930; and whether he will consider instituting a fund from which compensation for this or similar accidents can be claimed?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I regret that I am unable to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

  AGRICULTURE.

    CIDER (NATIONAL MARK).
    Major COLFOXasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is intended to grant a National Mark for cider; and whether the use of this mark will be limited to cider produced only from apples grown in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The Ministry has now under discussion with the National Farmers' Union and with the National Association of Cider Makers a scheme
    1964
    for establishing, in association with the National Mark, grades of quality for cider made in England and Wales. It is proposed to limit the scope of the scheme to cider produced from fruit grown in England and Wales.

    CREDITS.
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the small amount of the loans granted by the banks under the short-term credit scheme of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928; whether he is aware that this amount is inadequate for the carrying on of the industry; and whether he will provide the banks with funds so that the amount available for short-term loans will be largely increased?
    Dr. ADDISON: The total number of agricultural charges registered under Part II of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, is slightly in excess of 2,000. I am not able to state the gross amount of the advances secured by these charges, but it represents only a fraction of the total amount of bank advances to farmers. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    LONDON BUILDING ACTS.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to review the London Building Acts so as to eliminate out-of-date provisions and restrictions which act as a clog upon building and employment in the building trades and their co-operant industries?
    Mr. PARKINSON (Lord of the Treasury): The London Building Acts are private Acts of Parliament, and it rests with the London County Council to propose to Parliament any measures for bringing them up-to-date.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member bring this matter to the notice of the London County Council, so that this obstacle to building and employment may be removed by the waiving of obsolete provisions?
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is my hon. Friend aware that the London County Council have introduced a Bill which is now under the consideration of a Joint Committee of both Houses?

    DOMINIONS AND COLONIAL OFFICES.
    Mr. MATHERS(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he proposes to make any change in the administration of Dominion affairs preparatory to the meeting of the Imperial Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The approach of the Imperial Conference and the nature of its business necessitate a separation of the offices of the Dominions and Colonies, which has already been made by declaration but not in fact. At the moment there are two Under-Secretaries of State for these Offices, but they still have one head in common. I propose now to put a head over each Office. This ought to have been done before, but it was so inconvenient that my predecessors as well as myself delayed it. Now, in preparation for the Imperial Conference, it must be done.
    The economic relations between the Dominions and ourselves have always been a matter of great interest to this Government. There have been exchanges of views on the subject with the Dominions, and the whole question is being thoroughly examined in preparation for what will be one of the most important discussions at the Imperial Conference. I am anxious that the contacts already established between the Lord Privy Seal on the one hand and Dominion Ministers on the other should be further and more effectively used both for inter-Imperial purposes and in connection with our own unemployment policy.
    Sir F. HALL: Is that the way out? [Interruption.]
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have therefore decided to ask the Lord Privy Seal to take the Dominions, and he has consented. That will necessitate a readjustment of the machinery set up for dealing with unemployment, but that will be announced in due course.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to gather from the Prime Minister's statement that it is intended to create a salaried post of the first magnitude as an addition to the Cabinet offices?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It was intended some years ago that the Dominions, on account of their new position
    1966
    and constitution, should be separated from the Colonies, and after the decisions of the Imperial Conference of 1926 it is absolutely impossible for this country to meet another Imperial Conference without a division having taken place.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in making these important constitutional propositions to the House in due course, consider whether, by the suppression of other offices, he can assure us that no additional charge will fall on the Exchequer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that discovery has not escaped my observation.
    Major COLFOX: Are we to assume that the Lord Privy Seal is to get another job?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Sir F. HALL: Is that a reward for his success?
    Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I take it there will be a Supplementary Estimate this Session for the salary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That I am not very sure about. If it is necessary, it will be done.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: But you cannot get a penny out of the Exchequer without it.

BILLS REPORTED.
  EPSOM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GUILDFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill (Certified Bill),
  Croydon Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),
  Burnley Corporation Bill,
  Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill (Certified Bill),
  Coventry Corporation Bill (Certified Bill), with Amendments.
  Amendments to—
  Mid Kent Water Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill), without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend and consolidate the enactments relating to the drainage of land; and for purposes in connection with such amendment." [Land Drainage Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to streets and buildings in London." [London Building Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer to the county council of the administrative county of Southampton of the undertaking of the company of proprietors of Bursledon bridge and roads; and for other purposes." [Southampton County Council (Bursledon Bridge) Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Shoreham Harbour Trustees to construct works; to increase their borrowing powers; and for other purposes." [Shoreham Harbour Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Ascot District Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Torquay Tramways Company, Limited, to discontinue their existing tramways and to provide and run trolley vehicles; and for other purposes." [Torquay and Paignton Traction Bill [Lords.]
  London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill (Certified Bill),
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.
  Croydon Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.
  Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill (Certified Bill),
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.
  Coventry Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.
  London Building Bill [Lords],
  Southampton County Council (Bursledon Bridge) Bill [Lords],
  Shoreham Harbour Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),
  Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
  Torquay and Paignton Traction Bill [Lords],
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Further considered in Committee [Progress, 27th May].
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment with, respect to duties on licences for mechanically propelled vehicles.)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I am glad to see the Minister of Transport in his place, as I want to obtain some elucidation as to the actual effect of this Clause. It is one of those instances of legislation by reference which have recently become so common. Probably there is no other way of referring to a Section in a previous Act. At the same time, it does make it more difficult for the ordinary back bench Member to understand what the effect is likely to be. I therefore, particularly want to ask the Minister of Transport if he can explain exactly what the effect of this Clause will be upon the various classes of motor vehicles which will come under it. I have referred to the original Act, and it seems to me that there are three, or possibly four classes of motor vehicles which will be affected by Clause 6 of this Bill. The first class of motor vehicle which apparently will be affected by the Clause is the rather obsolete type of what used to be called the electric brougham, which relies for its motive power upon a storage battery carried in the chassis, which has to be charged separately and independently of the vehicle, and is charged almost invariably when the vehicle is at rest. The only tax for that vehicle has hitherto been £6 but as that type has almost become obsolete, and I think probably in future the only instances you will see of it will be found in local museums, probably parked with the old hansom cab and the chariot, I cannot see that this Clause, from that point of view is of very much importance.
    There are one or two other classes of motor vehicles upon which this Clause is likely to bear very heavily, and it seems to me that there is a chance that engineering initiative may be restricted,
    1986
    and this may have the effect of deterring enterprise and invention from bringing out an improvement in the type of motor vehicle which we see upon the streets to-day. A short time ago experiments were made with a motor vehicle with what was known as an electric transmission. Transmission in that case was conveyed from the engine to the drive by means of an electric cable, much on the lines of the American battleship. The petrol engine drives a dynamo, and the power is conveyed by an electric cable to a motor in the back axle, thereby dispensing with the cardan shaft type of drive. This Clause, in my opinion, will prevent any further development of that type of drive, and it seems to me, in view of the way in which this country has fallen behind in the motor manufacturing world, that it is rather a pity that anything should be done which will deter British invention and initiative from bringing out a new type of motor car, which might do much to re-establish the British motor industry in the position which it ought to occupy in the markets of the world.
    The effect of this Clause will be to charge a full rate of tax on that type of vehicle; in fact, it will charge rather more on that type, because it necessitates the use of a rather large slow-running engine, and you cannot obtain quite the same efficiency from a dynamo driven by a small quick-running engine, which is almost exclusively used to-day with the idea of avoiding as much of the road tax as is possible. This Clause will have the effect of checking any development of invention in that direction, and, in view of the unsatisfactory position which the motor industry holds to-day in the markets of the world, it seems to me a, pity that that should be the case. I should like to know from the Minister of Transport whether that is his opinion, and, if so, whether it is not advisable to give temporarily, at any rate, encouragement to the vehicle fitted with the electric drive by allowing it either temporarily or permanently to benefit by the reduced duty in the hope, as time goes on, that that may become a standardised form of motor vehicle. As experiments with this vehicle have been largely carried out in this country, I think the motor industry in this country would receive the full benefit of any concession which the hon. Gentleman

    1987
    might grant in the direction of not making this particular Clause apply to that type of motor vehicle.
    I should also like to know from the hon. Gentleman what are the reasons for perpetuating, under the Clause, as fax as I can see, the particularly favoured position which the electric tramcar occupies at the present time. In the opinion of many people to-day, the electric tramcar, if not obsolete, is at any rate obsolescent, and anyone who drives about London to-day must realise to what a large extent the traffic congestion from which we suffer is due to the electric tramcar, which is the only vehicle which has a right to stop in the middle of the road and disgorge its passengers to the imminent danger of those passengers, and causing great delay to the passing traffic. No other vehicle has a right to proceed slowly in such a position—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the points which are now being raised by the hon. Baronet are not in order on this Clause.
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I was simply pointing out that this Clause would perpetuate the favoured position of the electric tramcar.
    The CHAIRMAN: Tramcars are not dealt with in this Clause.
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: My argument is that this Clause perpetuates the position which the electric tramcar occupies with regard to freedom from Road Fund taxation.
    The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but the question whether or not tramcars should be taxed does not arise under this Clause.
    4.0 p.m.
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: In those circumstances, of course, I bow to your Ruling, and will not continue the argument. There was one other vehicle as to which I should like the position under this Clause defined by the hon. Gentleman, and that is the comparatively new trolley-car or trackless tram. I should like to know from the Minister of Transport whether that is specially included under this Clause, and, if so, what are his reasons for including it? It is possible that the electric tramcar, travelling as it does upon a line of rails, laid at the expense of the owners, might, or
    1988
    should, be favoured in the matter of the road tax, but I cannot see any reason why the trackless tram should be placed in the same favoured position, and I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reasons for introducing a Clause which will have those effects.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am very glad, Mr. Young, that you have not encouraged us to proceed with the discussion on the merits of the tramcar, which is a very excitable subject, but the hon. and gallant Member may be assured that it has nothing whatever to do with this Sub-section, and, as a matter of fact, the trolley omnibus has nothing to do with it either. They are taxed on the seating capacity, and are in a different category from the vehicles with which the Committee is now dealing. The Sub-section is related to quite a restricted point, and, in reality, a very simple point. The First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1926, which came into operation on 1st January, 1927, gave a concession to a certain class of vehicles, namely, a preferential rate amounting to 50 per cent. This concession was given—certainly it was intended by the framers of the Finance Act, 1926, only to be given—to electrically propelled goods-carrying vehicles, and the only ground of that concession was—and this is, of course, very important—that these vehicles were slow running, they had a very restricted radius of action, and their annual mileage was, therefore, substantially lower than that of the ordinary petrol-driven vehicle.
    In view of that fact—and it was admitted by everybody that the electrically-propelled vehicle was not doing the road damage that the petrol vehicle was doing—that concession of 50 per cent. was made, but, in the early part of 1927, the inventors got to work, and Messrs. Tilling-Stevens brought out their petrol-electric goods vehicle. Those vehicles were electrically-propelled, or, at least, it was claimed that they were electrically-propelled vehicles within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1926, and a test action arose, because the Kent County Council, under the instructions of the Minister of Transport for the time being, refused to recognise the Tilling-Stevens petrol-electric vehicle as an electrically-propelled vehicle within the meaning of the Act of 1926.

    1989
    As a result, an action was taken in the Courts on the initiative of Tilling-Stevens. The case was heard on 2nd May, 1928, when Mr. Justice Clauson gave the case to Messrs. Tilling-Stevens, and the Government of the day lost their case on the wording of the Finance Act, 1926. The case went to the House of Lords, where the Government did not win, although they did win in one of the Courts. Finally, therefore, the case was awarded against the Government of the day. It is an experience which frequently happens, that the intention of the Government and of Parliament in framing an Act sometimes goes wrong, because of a subsequent invention, or because of something which was not visualised at the time. As a matter of fact, the Tilling-Stevens petrol-electric vehicle is differentiated from an ordinary electrically-driven vehicle by the fact that the primary motor power is an ordinary internal combustion petrol engine. That engine is connected with an electric dynamo, and the electricity generated in the dynamo is transmitted to an electric motor. The electric motor drives the rear wheels of the car through a cardan shaft and differential gear, instead of the driving-power being derived from storage batteries charged from a source external to the vehicle. The vehicles affected do not include public service vehicles carrying passengers, which come under another category.
    It is clear that the concession is given only because of the lesser damage to the highway done by the electrically-propelled vehicle. As a matter of fact, the petrol-electric vehicle, which can move as fast as the ordinary petrol vehicle, and can go distances which the ordinary petrol vehicle can go, clearly is doing the same amount of damage to the highway as the ordinary petrol vehicle, and it is unjust as between one manufacturer and another for this vehicle to be placed in a different category; similarly, it would be unjust to treat vehicles differently because one man owned a petrol vehicle and another man owned a petrol-electric vehicle. Therefore, it seems to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself that they should be put in the same position. Hon. Members who were here will remember that in the last Parliament it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day that that should
    1990
    be done, but the second Finance Bill was not taken after the General Election.
    Under this Sub-section, the vehicles which will get the benefit are goods vehicles propelled by electrical motive power derived from a source external to the vehicle, for example, trolley vehicles used for the conveyance of stores, other goods or for repair purposes in connection with a trolley-vehicle or tramway system. Obviously, their operations are severely restricted, and, in fact, they do a lot of standing about, which does not do the road damage which moving about does. The second class of vehicle which will get the benefit are goods vehicles propelled by electrical motive power derived from electrical storage batteries which are not connected to any source of power while the vehicle is in motion. Therefore, the provision of the law, as we propose to amend it, will, in reality, be exactly the same provision as was intended by the Government in the Finance Act, 1926, and it merely puts right—I will not say right, but puts back the provision as intended, but which was affected by the legal derision to which the Courts, I have no doubt quite rightly, came.
    The Sub-section, as drafted, excludes from the concession in respect of electrically-propelled vehicles only the petrol-electric type of vehicle which is driven by electrical motive power derived from a dynamo carried on the vehicle. It being the desire of the Government only to revert to the intention of the Government in 1926, and as the last Government, I understand, would have brought in an identically similar provision, and, indeed, passed it into law before now, no change of policy is involved. After that explanation, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will be in a position to withdraw his Amendment which was moved, I believe, largely to get information, which, I trust, I have given with all the fullness I could.
    Captain GUNSTON: The hon. Gentleman referred us to the Finance Act, 1926. I have no doubt he referred to the First Schedule, but I cannot find any reference to the concession in regard to electrically-propelled vehicles. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the law he will find the definition "goods or burdens," and I rather think that

    1991
    passengers may be taken as a burden, and that trolley trams therefore can come in. May I further reinforce my argument by a question which I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I asked him previously whether, if a tramway company changed to trackless trolleys, they paid the duty, and he replied that he could not say. Therefore, I think the Minister has not satisfied the Committee that the trackless trolley would not be included. Personally, though it would be in order to argue the question whether the trackless trolley ought to get the benefit, I cannot help thinking that if they did so it would encourage the local authorities to transform their tramways to the trackless trolley system.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's explanation. He rode off on the assumption that this is the result of a sort of mistake which arose out of a previous bit of legislation, and a decision in the Courts. He also laid it down—and with this, I think, most of us will agree—that under this decision certain vehicles, by means of the decision in the Courts, escaped their fair share of the burden and the upkeep of the roads. Those who view this Government from a point of view of comparative innocence in this matter would think that that is all right, and be rather inclined to accept the Minister's statement, but the Minister in his statement pointed out that this provision had to be inserted because a certain firm had introduced an improved form of electrically-propelled vehicle.
    This is really what we are doing under this Sub-section. Because a firm has brought itself up-to-date and produced a new and valuable asset to British industry, we are going to place upon them the heaviest burden. That is what he said in effect, although he did not put it in that way. He tried to make out that the reason was that they did damage to the roads, but I suspect the real reason had little or nothing to do with that. Then the hon. Gentleman tried to ride off, and say that if it had not been for certain incidents last year, it might have been done last year. We have no confirmation of that. It might or it might not, but I would like to know for certain before I, at any rate, vote for this Sub-section. Perhaps my right hon. Friend in
    1992
    front of me may be able to say if there is any reason to suppose that in any circumstances this provision might have been brought in last year. I think it is probably done by the Ministry of Transport or some other section of the Government with very different motives at the back of their minds from what they put forward.
    Let me come to the actual definition as laid down here. There you have a complication of words, and I do think the Committee is entitled to have some clear explanation as to what they actually mean. Apparently it is being laid down here that there are two forms of vehicles—those which get their electricity from some external source, and those which are not connected with such an external source of power. Obviously, the words "not connected" are used in order to distinguish the two classes of vehicles, and I should have thought from that that the Government clearly had two different sorts of vehicles in mind. The Minister explained that the provision with regard to vehicles not connected to an external source of supply has been put in for a particular purpose, but I am not sure whether what are known as trackless trolleys would come in under this definition or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that some interest is taken in this important matter, because, if a mistake is made, it affects the travelling facilities of millions of people in the country, and it is the duty of the Conservative party to look after these matters.
    The Minister, as I understand it, laid it down that some of these vehicles would come under this Sub-section and others would not—that if they carried passengers they would be in one class, while if they carried materials for the roads, or anything of that kind, they would be in the other class. This confusion has worried a considerable number of people on this side of the Committee, and I very much doubt whether anyone on the other side, unless it be the Minister himself, could explain quite clearly exactly what is meant. It is a very bad case of reference back to an Act of 1920, and, if this legislation is to be of a permanent character, and if we are not to have to reorganise it again next year, I think the Committee would be well advised to get the best possible legal

    1993
    advice before going any further on this question. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will insist, before a Division is taken, or before the Amendment is considered to be satisfactorily answered, that we should have a proper explanation of the technicalities of this Sub-section, and that the Law Officers should be here to explain these complicated and difficult points. The Minister's excuse—I think it would be unfair to put it higher than an excuse—for bringing in this provision is that it is to correct a technical legal, difficulty. If that be the case, it is quite clear that it can only be explained properly from a legal point of view, and, unless that is done, I think the Government will be once again treating the Committee with extreme discourtesy by not giving us a proper and adequate answer. I never expected the Minister to be able to deal with the matter from a technical point of view. He has done his best, but I protest most vehemently that, on an occasion of this sort, the Government should be so discourteous at this early stage to the feelings of the Committee.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Minister gave us a most lucid explanation of this Sub-section. It was so clear to me that it revealed to my mind what I had not previously known, namely, that this is a piece of retrospective legislation which needs the most careful consideration of the House. Take the case of a trader who during recent years has purchased one of these Tilling-Stevens cars. When he bought it, the dealer probably told him that he would have to pay 50 per cent. less duty upon it than if it were purely a petrol vehicle, and behind that there was a decision of the House of Lords. Relying on the decision of the House of Lords, the man has altered his position by buying this vehicle, which he might not otherwise have bought. He has done that on the faith of the law as decided by the House of Lords, and, if Parliament now comes along and changes it, it is clearly a case of retrospective legislation which affects the position of an individual who has taken perfectly legal action in a perfectly legal way. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not meet the case if vehicles sold after the date of the introduction of the Budget were the only ones included, and if an exception were made
    1994
    in the case of all vehicles sold to private individuals prior to the date of the introduction of the Budget.
    Mr. PYBUS: I should like to say a few words in support of the point made by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). Not only has that point occurred to me, but I am sure also that the Minister is not aware that, by this restriction, he is retarding a very fine development in electric traction work. As the Minister knows, the object of this electric drive is to eliminate the gearbox, and everyone who lives in London knows that the real nuisance, the really noisy vehicle, is the vehicle which carries goods and which has a gear-box that is very inefficiently handled. Under the law as it stood the development of the electrically-driven vehicle, with transmission from dynamo to motor, was making good progress. It was developing in a remarkable way for goods vehicles, and not only will those who have already purchased these vehicles be hard hit by this change, but this new movement, which was making great progress, not only here but abroad, will be stifled. I hope the Minister will not, just for the sake of a cecrtain amount of revenue which will be secured from these vehicles, take a step which will hamper business, will prevent development, and will discourage those who in future set out to improve methods of traction in this country.
    Captain CAZALET: I should like to ask the Minister a question. He made it perfectly clear that this provision has been inserted because of the invention of a particular type of engine after the passing of the Act of 1926, but is there really any concrete reason why this concession should not be given? After all, it has encouraged a new kind of engine, and it might have started a new industry on a small scale. The arguments of the last two speakers certainly enforce everything that has been said from this side. I understand that under this Sub-section only two kinds of vehicles will get the benefit of the exception made in the Act of 1926, namely, certain trackless trolleys when they are conveying goods, and certain electrically-propelled vehicles, also when they are conveying goods. What I should like the Minister to make clear is how much a concession of this nature would cost the Road Fund, because that, surely, is the crux of the

    1995
    whole problem. If it is merely a matter of a few thousand pounds, why hamper all those industries which have bought vehicles of this kind, on the strength, as has been pointed out, of an Act of Parliament, supplemented by a decision of the highest Court of the Realm? In order to justify his case the Minister should let us know what it would cost to negative this Sub-section, and what benefit would accrue to the Road Fund.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Two points have arisen in connection with this matter, about one of which I should like to make representations to the Minister, and about the other to ask if he will kindly make the situation clear. As to the first point, I think there is a great deal of force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). It does seem very severe on any owner who has purchased, as some have, a fleet of Tilling-Stevens cars, to have an extra burden suddenly added to his running costs greatly beyond what he was legitimately entitled to expect at the time that he purchased them. In all these cases, everyone who sets out on a business takes care to ascertain as far as possible what will be the costs that he will have to meet, and, in view of those costs, what charges his customers are entitled to expect from him. Therefore, it seems, prima facie, to be rather unfair that people who have acted on the strength of a House of Lords decision, which might appear to have settled the case, to have that suddenly changed in a Clause which deals, as I gather, with one specific case. Whether it will be just so far as the future is concerned is quite a different thing. So far as these cars are more analogous to the ordinary petrol car than to a car driven by a storage battery, the case is quite arguable, and very likely the Minister is right. Upon that I express no opinion; but, as regards those who have founded themselves on the decision given in a previous case, I think there is a great deal in the contention that has been made, and I put it to the Minister that an exception should be made in the case of those cars which were constructed, licensed and in operation before the introduction of the present Finance Bill.
    1996
    The other point about which I should like to ask is with regard to the classification of the cars of which the Minister spoke. I have been through the Acts with regard to this subject since an Act passed, I think in the 80's, to establish hackney carriages. Such a task is, of course, extremely complicated, because during the past few years there have been, if I remember the dates aright, an Act of 1924, which was amended by one of 1926, amended again by one of 1927, and yet again by one of 1928; while even in the index to the Statutes in force there is not any one heading under which they can be traced, but you are badgered about from one heading to another, and it took about an hour's work even to trace the Acts of Parliament which are involved in this matter. I am sure that the Ministry of Transport knows that what I am saying is true. I used to be an expert in legislation by reference, and I acknowledge my fault, but I am bound to say that this is worse than anything of which I was guilty in past days. In those days, as I have remarked before in this House, I did issue a Paper, when I was asked to do so, stating what the changes were and endeavouring to make them clear.
    I gather from the Minister that you really get two categories of vehicles into which electrical propulsion enters. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the first category is one in which the vehicle is a trolley propelled by electrical power from outside, being a trolley which carries goods, and only goods, and of which, as the Minister says, the sphere of action is very limited. The other class under this same category has an electrical storage battery and carries goods. What is the degree of taxation? I have endeavoured to verify it from the Acts, and it is only because of their complexity to anyone outside that I ask. They are, I presume, in a different category from the trolley-omnibus, which is taxed according to seating capacity, if it is seating capacity? What is the comparative taxation of these two? The original tax on the electrically-propelled vehicle was £6 per annum.
    The CHAIRMAN: The comparative taxation does not arise on this Amendment. The point under discussion is the definition of "electrically-propelled,"

    1997
    and, according to the definition, the taxation will be.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not wish to travel beyond what you say is proper, but we are considering what classes of vehicles should come under this Sub-section, and whether a class of vehicles should or should not properly come under the Sub-section is really determined by the treatment it will receive if it comes under the Sub-section. Here we have words which define the classes to which the favourable terms of treatment apply, which are, first of all, propelled vehicles which get electrical motive power from an external source and the others which are driven by an electrical storage battery. The real point is whether you should have in this class of vehicles the third class to which the Tilling-Stevens kind of machine belongs. A point which is germane to this is what precise difference in advantage there is between coming within this class and the heavier taxation which they would have to bear if they were outside it. I submit that, if it is a difference between about £6 per annum and anything varying from £12 to £30 per annum according to the number of seats, it is a matter one wishes to consider in order to see how the difference is created.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I think I can clear up the points that have been raised, after which I should hope the Committee would come to a conclusion. I have very great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's observations as to the complication of these Schedules. We all admit it, whether present or past Ministers. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman knows why the previous Government have not before now consolidated these Schedules into one. The probable reason is that it would increase the time that would have to be devoted to the Committee and Report stages of the Finance Bill. Possibly one of these days, when we have a Government that has very little legislation before the House, they may be consolidated. We have tried to simplify it by the publication of documents, and what we call a church door poster, which gives all the scales of taxation up to date, and in as simple a way as they could be given if a revised Schedule were made.
    With regard to the relative advantage in taxation of the electrical vehicle
    1998
    proper, the answer is quite simple. The electrical vehicle proper gets a 50 per cent. rebate on the tax it would pay if it were a petrol-electric vehicle. Hon. Members may be certain that this is in no way related to the trolley vehicle, or any passenger vehicle at all. It deals solely with the goods vehicle which is propelled by electric power. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen these vehicles, but they are very slow-moving. They are used for refuse collecting and jobs where there is constant stopping. They are not particularly economical vehicles where long journeys have to be done and considerable speeds must be achieved.
    Clearly, the owner of a vehicle who bought it up to the date of the judgment has no grievance, because he bought it on the understanding that it would be taxed in the same way as the petrol vehicle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !'] The Minister of Transport—not I, but my predecessor—and the Treasury held throughout that the proper tax upon these petrol-electric vehicles was the normal tax of the petrol vehicle, and it was not until the Courts had upset the Government of the day that anyone had a right to suppose they would get through with a lower tax. Therefore, the only man who has a possible grievance—and I will shortly show that he has none—is the man who bought it between the date of the judgment and the introduction of this Bill. But he has no grievance, because he must have known that the Government of the day, whether the last Government or this, would bring in legislation at the earliest possible date to rectify the matter and, therefore, no one has bought a vehicle under the impression that he would get this 50 per cent. rebate for any material time. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member has any better knowledge than I have, but that is my information. Is it fair that a man who has a petrol vehicle is to be taxed 100 per cent. higher than a man with a petrol-electric vehicle, which can go as fast, do as much work and use up the roads as much as a petrol vehicle? I am surprised that it should be suggested that one vehicle, which is doing exactly the same class of work as another, should be taxed at 50 per cent. less. Clearly that would not

    1999
    be fair to the operators and to the manufacturers.
    I agree that the cost of such a concession, even the cost of the concession in this Amendment, would not be great at the moment, but if one looks ahead, clearly it would encourage the production of a particular type of vehicle, to which I have no objection on merits, but if it developed in a wholesale fashion, the revenue from this class of vehicle would be down by 50 per cent. within a few years' time. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should associate himself with the Amendment even in the distant way he has done, because there is conclusive proof that the last Government intended to do exactly what we are doing. There was presented to the House in April, 1921, by the then Financial Secretary, a White Paper which indicated the Clauses that would be incorporated in the Finance Bill (No. 2), and we find on page 7 the following:
    "At the end of the said Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
    'A vehicle shall not be deemed to be an electrically-propelled vehicle within the meaning of this Schedule unless the electrical motive power is derived either from a source external to the vehicle or from an electrical storage battery which is not connected to any source of power when the vehicle is in motion.'"
    If you compare those words with the Bill, they are exactly the same, and my reasons are exactly the same as impelled the last Government to make that proposal. Parliamentary tradition is accustomed to the knowledge that Members say in opposition things that they do not say when in office, and they say things when in office that they do not say when in opposition. I have never been in opposition, and I have no words to eat, but that is what I am told. This is really a startling example of that rather bad Parliamentary tradition. In view of the case I have made, which is really unanswerable, and in view of the fact that we are doing exactly what the last Government intended to do as recently as April of last year, I hope the Committee, having had a thorough explanation of what the provision means, will now come to a decision.
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should not have intervened had not the hon. Gentleman put forward
    2000
    an argument as if it were unassailable, which seems to me to be entirely beside the point. He was claiming that there was no hardship on those who already owned these petrol electrically-driven machines, because the Ministry of Transport decided that they ought to have been taxed in the same way as petrol-driven machines. The Ministry of Transport was wrong and the owner of the machine was right when he thought he was entitled to a 50 per cent. reduction. That is proved by the decision of the highest court in the land.
    Mr. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman is on a wrong point. I did not say who was legally right or wrong. If the House of Lords on appeal decided that the last Government was wrong, the last Government was wrong on that point, as they were on a good many other points. But that is not the point at all. What I have said is that no one had any reason to expect that the widespread concession consequent upon the decision of the House of Lords on law could possibly stand. Therefore, there is no grievance.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: How could anyone who was buying a machine know what the intention of Parliament was except by reading the Act passed by Parliament? The Act gave him a 50 per cent. rebate and, on the strength of having it, he may quite well have bought a fleet of these vehicles. Then the hon. Gentleman says he was wrong because the Ministry of Transport intended that these electrically-propelled vehicles should be taxed as if they were petrol-propelled. That is not right. The House of Lords decided that the owner was right and the Ministry of Transport was wrong, and whether that Ministry of Transport was the Ministry of the last Government or of this is entirely beside the point. The owner now finds that he is to be taxed 50 per cent. more than the law required him to be taxed at the moment when he bought the vehicles. I am not in the least concerned that he should get some benefit over others who are using petrol-driven vehicles. On the contrary I am glad that he should have a benefit.
    This electrically-driven vehicle is a new invention and we want to see it developed. It has many advantages over a vehicle which depends on gear-Changing.

    2001
    The streets are made hideous with the noise of these heavy vehicles changing their gears when they have to stop and go forward. The electrically-driven vehicle moves much more easily and more silently than the petrol one. We really require encouragement for these vehicles, so that the inventors and experimenters may improve and standardise them, and I am very glad that they should in the meanwhile get a 50 per cent. rebate of their taxation in order that invention may be stimulated. The hon. Gentleman has made the best of a very bad case but, notwithstanding his efforts, I do not think the Government have treated us properly. Here are these Acts, five of them. I confess that I have not spent an hour, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) in searching out the history of this particular Amendment, but I take it from him that there are five Acts, each one referring to the other, and there is some confusion as to whether one vehicle or the other is included. When we started on this discussion, I thought that, unless we had the Attorney-General present, it would be impossible to come to a decision upon so complicated a matter. I compliment the Minister of Transport on having made the point clear. What is it that he has made clear? It is, that here is a vehicle which in many ways is better for London traffic than the petrol vehicle. Here is an electrically-driven engine at present enjoying 50 per cent. rebate in order to encourage experiments in these vehicles, and now the Government propose to take away that rebate. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will go to a Division.
    Major COLFOX: I approach this problem with an unbiased mind. [Laughter.] That remark may seem singular to some hon. Members opposite, who are so prejudiced as not to allow themselves to be influenced by any debate. I am not of that kind. I came here to be influenced by the debate as it proceeds, and I am forced to the conclusion that the balance of justice is on the side of the Amendment. It is noteworthy that the justice of the Amendment has goaded even the patient oxen to rebel against their oppressive taskmasters or, rather, one of them. It is always a little difficult to know, because they are not always influenced by herd
    2002
    psychology, whether the patient oxen will move in a body, or turn and rend one of their—
    The CHAIRMAN: I should be obliged if the hon. and gallant Member would speak to the Amendment.
    Major COLFOX: The balance of justice is on the side of the Amendment. By resisting the Amendment it seems to me that the Government are giving us one more instance of the way in which they increase unemployment by hampering an infant industry, which would no doubt grow and employ a considerable number of people if this Amendment were passed. It would also give great scope to inventive genius to carry forward inventions to simplify road traffic. The Minister of Transport has said that the people who have bought these vehicles have no reason to complain if we alter the law. Not only this Government but any Government is in a very privileged position, because when a case is contested in the Law Courts and the Government find that the decision goes against them they immediately alter the rules of the game, they alter the law, thereby getting an unfair advantage over the ordinary litigant, the private citizen, who has contested the case against them. I suppose it is inevitable, but it always seems to me very unfair that the Government should not be compelled to abide by the same rules as the ordinary individual. For my part, lamentable as it is, I should be prepared to support an alteration of the law in regard to the future, provided the Minister would give an undertaking that the position in regard to these vehicles in the past should be safeguarded. Although I admit that that would not carry out the full advantage of the Amendment, it would be part of what we desire.
    Captain CAZALET: The Minister of Transport said that he could not give the exact sum that would be involved in this matter, but that it would be a small figure. Is it a matter of a few thousand pounds?
    The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the amount of the tax on any vehicle at the moment. This is a definition part of the Clause.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: It is only reasonable that we should know what amount of money is in question.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment relates to the definition, and the tax will be the same according to the class of vehicle irrespective of the definition part of the Clause.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The definition puts a limit on the tax. That is the object of the definition. The position is this, that there is a form of vehicle which has escaped a certain amount of taxation or, at any rate, it only pays 50 per cent. The object of the definition is to bring in that form of vehicle and to increase the tax by removing the 50 per cent. abatement. The question is, how much revenue that will mean.
    The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but that does not affect this Amendment.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is precisely what the Amendment is. Its object is to leave out the definition. If we leave out the definition, then 50 per cent. will be payable, and not 100 per cent. We want to know what is the difference between the 50 per cent. and the 100 per cent. In other words, what will the Amendment cost?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Sub-section limits the class of vehicles that can get the rebate. The Amendment would not limit it, but leave it as it is. Neither the Amendment nor the Sub-section in any way affects the scale of taxation.
    Captain CAZALET: The Minister of Transport in his argument for not accepting the Amendment said that it would cause a shrinkage of the revenue of the Road Fund. He said that the sum was not large, but he could not tell us how much it was. Can he say whether it is a matter of a few thousands or hundreds of thousands?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister cannot say beforehand. That is quite apart from what we are discussing now.
    Mr. SMITHERS Mr. SMITHERS rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have given my decision two or three times already.
    Mr. REMER: My object in rising is to ask the Minister of Transport why this Sub-section is put in the Finance Bill. We have a Bill dealing with road traffic which has passed through Committee, and it would seem that this Clause ought to
    2004
    be in that Bill and not in the Finance Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: Whether this Clause ought to have been in this Bill or in another Bill I do not know but, at any rate, we are discussing Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. REMER: If this Sub-section had been included in the Road Traffic Bill it would have been very much more to the advantage of the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is the Finance Bill.
    Mr. REMER: That is precisely what I was seeking to bring to the attention of the Minister. This is a Finance Bill, and under no circumstances should Clauses be put into the Finance Bill which have reference to another Bill which is before the House. The Minister of Transport has put many strange things into the other Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to this Bill. For the time being we have nothing to do with the other Bill or what is in the other Bill.
    Mr. REMER: I appreciate that, and I obey your Ruling. May I call attention to the fact that this Sub-section ought not to be in this Bill. Where it should be, I leave the Minister to explain to himself. I protest very strongly against putting into the Finance Bill matters which have no reference of any kind to finance. I think that your ruling a few minutes ago in reply to a question by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury showed conclusively that what I have said has a great deal of point. If I understood your ruling, it was to the effect that this is a definition Clause and, therefore, I do not think that it should be in this Bill. I enter the strongest protest against misusing the Finance Bill for matters which have nothing whatever to do with the finance of the year.
    Several HON. MEMBERS Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON Mr. HERBERT MORRISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 151.

    Division No. 327.]

    AYES.

    [4.59 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Montague, Frederick

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morgan Dr. H. B.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Morley, Ralph

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Harbord, A.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Hardie, George D.

    Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Arnott, John

    Haycock, A. W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Hayday, Arthur

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Muff, G.

    Ayles, Walter

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx. Enfield)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Herriotts, J.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Bellamy, Albert

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Hollins, A.

    Palin, John Henry

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Benson, G.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Perry, S. F.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Bromfield, William

    Isaacs, George

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Bromley, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Potts, John S.

    Brooke, W.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Price, M. P.

    Brothers, M.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

    Richards, R.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Eliand)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Ritson, J.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Rowson, Guy

    Charieton, H. C.

    Knight, Holford

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Chater, Daniel

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lang, Gordon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lathan, G.

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Compton, Joseph

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Sandham, E.

    Cove, William G.

    Lawson, John James

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Scott, James

    Daggar, George

    Leach, W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Dallas, George

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Scurr, John

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sexton, James

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lees, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Day, Harry

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shield, George William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Dickson, T.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Longden, F.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dukes, C.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Duncan, Charles

    Lowth, Thomas

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lunn, William

    Sinkinson, George

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Egan, W. H.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McElwee, A.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Foot, Isaac

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Freeman, Peter

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Snell, Harry

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillp

    Gibbins, Joseph

    McShane, John James

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Sorensen, R.

    Gill, T. H.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gillett, George M.

    Mansfield, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gossling, A. G.

    March, S.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gould, F.

    Marcus, M.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Markham, S. F.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Marley, J.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gray, Milner

    Mathers, George

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Matters, L. W.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Maxton, James

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Melville, Sir James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Messer, Fred

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Middleton, G.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Millar, J. D.

    Toole, Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mills, J. E.

    Tout, W. J.

    2006

    2007

    Townend, A. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Turner, B.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    West, F. R.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Viant, S. P.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Walkden, A. G.

    White, H. G.

    Wise, E. F.

    Walker, J.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Charles

    Watkins, F. C.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Edwards.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fermoy, Lord

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Albery, Irving James

    Fielden, E. B.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Astor, Viscountess

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Remer, John R.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Berry, Sir George

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Salmon, Major I.

    Boyce, H. L.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bracken, B.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Buchan, John

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Butler, R. A.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Tinne, J. A.

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Long, Major Eric

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Worthington, Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    England, Colonel A.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    O'Connor, T. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Sir George Penny and Major the

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided Ayes, 273; Noes, 156.

    Division No. 328.]

    AYES.

    [5.8 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Ayles, Walter

    Benson, G.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Alpass, J. H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Bromfield, William

    Ammon, Charles George

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Bromley, J.

    Arnott, John

    Bellamy, Albert

    Brooke, W.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Brothers, M.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Ritson, J.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Rowson, Guy

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Kirkwood, D.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cameron, A. G.

    Knight, Holford

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Lang, Gordon

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Charieton, H. C.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Chater, Daniel

    Lathan, G.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Sandham, E.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scott, James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawson, John James

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Scurr, John

    Cove, William G.

    Leach, W.

    Sexton, James

    Daggar, George

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Dallas, George

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lees, J.

    Shield, George William

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shinwell, E.

    Day, Harry

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Dickson, T.

    Longden, F.

    Sinkinson, George

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Dukes, C.

    Lowth, Thomas

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Duncan, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Egan, W. H.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McElwee, A.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Foot, Isaac

    McEntee, V. L.

    Snell, Harry

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    McKinlay, A.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Freeman, Peter

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Sorensen, R.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    McShane, John James

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Malone, C. L'Estranga (N'thampton)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gill, T. H.

    Mansfield, W.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Gillett, George M.

    March, S.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Marcus, M.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gould, F.

    Markham, S. F.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Marley, J.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Mathers, George

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Gray, Milner

    Matters, L. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Melville, Sir James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Messer, Fred

    Toole, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Middleton, G.

    Tout, W. J.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Millar, J. D.

    Townend, A. E.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Mills, J. E.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Montague, Frederick

    Turner, B.

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morley, Ralph

    Viant, S. P.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Walkden, A. G.

    Harbord, A.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Walker, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Mort, D. L.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Muff, G.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    West, F. R.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    White, H. G.

    Herriotts, J.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Holfins, A.

    Perry, S. F.

    Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Potts, John S.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Isaacs, George

    Price, M. P.

    Wise, E. F.

    Jenkins, W (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Richards, R.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Paling.

    2010

    2011

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fielden, E. B.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Astor, Viscountess

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Penny, Sir George

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Berry, Sir George

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Remer, John R.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Boyce, H. L.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bracken, B.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Buchan, John

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Butler, R. A.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Long, Major Eric

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Cot. Sir Godfrey

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    England, Colonel A.

    Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Ferguson, Sir John

    O'Connor, T. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fermoy, Lord

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Captain Wallace and Sir Victor

    Warrender.

    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I select is in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall).
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Was there not a manuscript Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask, with regard to the manuscript Amendment, whether it was not called because it was ruled out of order, or because it was not selected?
    The CHAIRMAN: It was not selected.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out the
    2012
    word "July," and to insert instead thereof the word "January."
    The reason for this Amendment is to be found in the fact that last year, when two separate Finance Bills were to be brought forward, the second one was dropped owing, as some of us think, to the regrettable episode which took place in the latter part of May when there was a change in the constitution of this Chamber. These particular provisions would have been put into the Finance Bill No. 2 of last year had there not been a change of Government. They are shown clearly in page 4 of the Finance Bill and affect motor bicycles which only have to pay a higher rate of duty if they exceed 224 lbs. instead of exceeding 200 lbs. They also make a

    2013
    concession in regard to motor vehicles between two tons and 2½ tons in weight, unladen. It is most unfair, if the new Government thinks, as did the old Government, that these particular concessions should be given, that unfortunate individuals should be penalised, as they will be penalised, for six months merely owing to the change of Government. The Minister of Transport made most eloquent appeals to this side of the Committee regarding the last Amendment, because, he said, it would have been the intention of the late Government, had they remained in office. If that argument applied to the last Amendment, it applies equally to this Amendment. If the concessions were to have been given in regard to vehicles of these particular weights a year ago it is very unfair now to deny the concessions until the 1st July, when they might just as well take effect as from the 1st January. It might be said that there would be difficulty in regard to those who have already paid, but Sub-section (3) provides that anyone who has already taken out a licence is entitled to have a proportion of his money back. Taxation bears very hardly upon these two particular classes. Motor cyclists are not the wealthy class of the community, and there is a saving of 30s. to those who have motor bicycles between 200 and 224 pounds in weight, unladen. It is only fair that this concession should be made. I understand that relatively the cost would be very small indeed, and that there is not much administrative difficulty in regard to it.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: It should be appreciated by the Committee that the agitation, so to speak, which led to this concession was not so much an effort by the licence-holders and users of vehicles but a very strong effort made by the manufacturers of these vehicles for certain trade reasons which appeared to the last Government and to this Government to have force behind it. Therefore, I think the Committee would be unwise to consider this primarily as a concession to the licence-holder. It gives certain advantages to the licence-holder and it is a concession to the licence-holder, but the Committee would be wrong to consider it otherwise than as primarily a concession to meet certain difficulties placed before
    2014
    the Government by the manufacturers of this class of vehicle. The Amendment, as the hon. Member has said, would make the concession in respect of motor bicycles, and of goods vehicles operate from the 1st January, 1930. I do not know that it is relevant to say that, as the last Government intended it to operate from the 1st January, therefore this Government, to be logical, should do the same. The actual date which the late Government intended if the Finance (No. 2) Bill had passed was the 1st January, 1930. The date which this Government have adopted is the date given in the Bill, and logically there is no difference and no inconsistency between the two. It is a difference of date, entirely accounted for by the fact that the Bill is being dealt with at a different period.
    If the Amendment were incorporated, a large number of refunds would be payable in respect of ordinary licences taken out in the first two quarters of the year. The sums involved, I agree, would be relatively small, but the extra work falling upon the local authorities which we must all consider in this very big and administrative task would be considerable. There would, no doubt, be complications by administrative difficulties arising from the fact that licences might have expired and in many cases might have been destroyed, and there might have been considerable changes in the ownership of vehicles. That is a material point as far as administration is concerned. The cost would not be great. I am advised that it would be something in the region of £35,000. I do not resist the Amendment primarily on financial grounds, although £35,000 is a sum at which no Chancellor of the Exchequer could sneeze in these hard times.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that it might well simplify and possibly abridge our proceedings if the hon. Gentleman told us exactly, to the best of his belief, what were the financial issues involved in this Amendment, and not only in the Amendment but in the Clause. This Amendment, obviously, is a modification of the Clause. Is it true that the Clause itself involves only a very small sum, and what is that sum? What is the sum which the Amendment takes away from the yield of the Clause? If we could have that information, we should know what are the dimensions of the problem with which we are dealing.
    Mr. MORRISON: The additional cost would be £35,000. The real point about this matter is that it is a concession to manufacturers in reference to things now regarded as necessary, like electrical equipment, and leg protectors on vehicles. I think that the result of the change we propose will be to enable manufacturers to add this useful equipment without moving the vehicle into a more highly taxed category. Therefore, I do not think that there is very much of the financial aspect about it at all. It is a concession to manufacturers in order to enable them to add certain desirable things to the vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the cost of the whole of the concessions in Clause 6, but they will amount to about £80,000 or £100,000 in a full financial year. I am sorry that I cannot for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate separate this particular item from the rest.
    I will come back to the main point which the Committee ought to consider. We have to consider this particular concession, not as a concession so much to the rider or the licence-holder, as a concession to the manufacturer to enable the manufacturer to add certain pieces of equipment which are useful in themselves without thereby automatically bringing the vehicle into the category of the higher taxed vehicle. For those reasons, it would not be wise to adopt the Amendment, especially in view of the very considerable administrative difficulties which would be involved not only to the Ministry of Transport but to all counties and county boroughs who collect the Road Fund licences on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. ALBERY: The Minister, in speaking against this Amendment, has given the very best argument possible in favour of it. He has said that the primary object is a concession, not to benefit the riders of motor bicycles but manufacturers. We should all of us perhaps on all sides of the House, if we could, like to confer a benefit on that large section of the population who ride motor bicycles, but, whatever our feelings are on that subject, they are very mild compared with the feelings which we ought to have at the present moment regarding manufacturers and trade. The Minister has explained that, in order to bring motor
    2016
    cycles up-to-date, the manufacturers consider that this concession is necessary. When I think of the condition of trade generally in the country, I can conceive of no better argument which the Minister or anyone else can possibly produce for accepting the concession than the one which he has just mentioned. It is desirable that our motor cycle manufacturers should at the earliest possible moment be enabled to produce the most efficient and up-to-date machines for sale in these markets and in other markets. Although the duty may only govern the machines in these markets, we have a large export trade, and no doubt under the present system of mass production it will also affect machines made for export. We always hear, when any Amendment is moved, that there are administrative difficulties. There probably are some difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. Although one can get any overpayment of taxation reimbursed it is never an easy matter, and in the present case a great many of these payments will never be reclaimed. The amount which will be lost to the Treasury therefore will be very much less than that stated by the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. REMER: I did not quite understand the Minister of Transport's reply to this Amendment. He based his estimate as to the amount which would have to be repaid on the fact that quarterly licences would not become payable at the end of the year. A very considerable number of licences are taken out for a year and fall due on the 31st December. The amount to be repaid would be infinitesimal. The trade should know beforehand what the position is going to be in order that they may be able to prepare for any alteration. They should have the fullest information six months ahead as to what is exactly in front of them. I think the 1st of January is a much better date to put in the Bill than the 1st of July. It would he more convenient to everyone, better for the trade and better for all people connected with the industry. I hope the Minister will explain how he arrives at this sum of £35,000. Obviously he must have made a mistake in his original statement. I presume that it will be open to me to move an Amendment that the date should be the 1st January, 1931. If I vote in favour of the word "January"

    2017
    going into the Bill I presume it will be in order for me to hand in a manuscript Amendment—
    The CHAIRMAN: This is going much too far. We must keep to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. REMER: I may have, perhaps, misunderstood the Amendment, but I take the view that the date should be the 1st January, 1931, and I hope I shall he in order in voting in favour of January instead of July.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is that the word "July" stand part of the Clause.
    Mr. THURTLE: May not the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) be ruled out of order for incoherence?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask whether that kind of discourteous interruption is likely to facilitate the progress of our debates?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is necessary; and I do not think that any reply is necessary.
    Mr. REMER: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection on this occasion. It is my view that the word "January" should be inserted in the Clause in place of the word "July," but instead of being post-dated I want to ante-date it; but I must support the Amendment now and reserve to myself the right to hand in a manuscript Amendment to make my meaning clear.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I think the Minister of Transport should accept this small Amendment. It is only a question of £35,000. In Sub-section 3 difficulties will arise in regard to rebates on licences that have already been taken out. The Minister of Transport says that the manufacturers have been pressing for this concession. If that is the case, surely in these times of difficult trade any assistance or help which can be given should be given.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The manufacturer has not the slightest interest in this Amendment, one way or the other. Vehicles on the road on the 1st July are already sold, and, therefore, he has no interest in them. We look after the manufacturer on the 1st July. He is all right; his problem will be met. The
    2018
    only person who will get an advantage under the Amendment will be the licence holder.
    Sir F. HALL: If money has been taken from the licence holder which should not have been extracted it will be something fresh for the Government to say that they will rectify a wrong which has been done and give a rebate. In view of what the Minister of Transport has said I cannot press the matter in regard to the manufacturer, but I still have my own opinion on that subject. I still think that some benefit would accrue to the manufacturer under this Amendment. The late Government, had it remained in power, intended this to come in on 1st January, and it is only fair and right and equitable to ask the present Government to adopt the same line. It was understood they would do so. It is such a small amount that surely the hon. Gentleman might accept it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) has said. This is really a case where a minor nemesis has overtaken the Government. The original proposal figured in the Budget of last year. Owing to our desire to take the sense of the country on the general political issues we divided the Budget into two portions; the main necessary and operative part and certain provisions of a non-controversial but desirable character which were left over so that they did not interfere with the convenience of the country when their electoral decision was recorded. It was assumed that as soon as the new Government was formed that these comparatively unimportant and non-controversial but nevertheless desirable provisions would be passed through the House in a second and subsidiary Finance Bill. They made their arrangements and adjusted their outlook to the new conditions. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who brushed all this aside. He wanted to slight the work of his predecessor. That was the mood in which he came to his office; to show how well he could do it; and he brushed it aside with an imperious gesture of contempt expressed by a brand new broom.
    Now a year has passed and the Government has to come forward and stand in a white sheet for their neglect.

    2019
    The Minister of Transport has to say that this is one of the proposals wanted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year and that it is a just, legitimate, necessary and desirable feature in our legislation; that it would have been right to do it last year. If it was right to do it last year it is all the more right to do it now. The Government have extended this anomaly, this unfair treatment, for the whole year and now, when we have this enormously complicated Finance Bill, with its almost limitless succession of Clauses and Amendments, they take up the best part of two hours of the time of the Committee in presenting an Amendment to the existing law which ought to have been done last year and which might have been done by general consent last year. In a moment of great embarrassment of Parliamentary business the Government presses it upon the Committee. The Government are entirely and absolutely to blame. The very mood and temper in which they have approached their duties is the cause of their misfortune at the moment. We could have got this without the least trouble.
    What is it that we ask in this Amendment? All we ask is that if the Government a year later, having seen the error of their ways, their education advanced by a year's contact with responsibility—or the best approach they can make to responsibility—when all the claptrap which they talked on public platforms has been worn off, come forward and indicate their desire to pass what we proposed, and what we should have passed into law last year, we say, "All right, we accept the Amendment; but if you consider accepting our proposal, you should reinstate the proposition in the exact form in which we originally proposed it." We proposed that it should date from January. We are willing to agree with the Government that it should be done at once, but we say that the Government should accept it in the form in which it was originally proposed. One cannot tell what expectations were raised or what arrangements were made. It is important that the legislation of this country should proceed on a definite and solid basis, and that what has been formally proposed by responsible Ministers should be carried into law.
    2020
    The second Finance Bill should never have been rejected and treated in that unceremonious manner, and if my hon. and gallant Friend chooses to go to a Division, I shall give him my vote in order to reinstate this law in the form in which it was originally proposed.
    Major COLFOX: It seems to me that the guiding principle on this Amendment must be which date, January or July, would cause the least administrative dislocation and difficulty. In default of any definite pronouncement to the contrary from the Minister, I think that the date of January would produce the least administrative difficulties, for the simple reason that most licences are taken out for a full year from 1st January to 31st December. Very much less difficulty would be incurred by the local authorities which have to administer this Clause if we were to insert the date of January. There is another reason which leads me to support the Amendment. It gives to the Government a chance to repair some of the disastrous effects that have befallen the country as a result of the General Election of last year. It allows the pledge which was given by the last Government to become operative—a pledge on which many people had built their hopes. I ask the Minister to tell us which of the two dates, January or July, will, in his opinion, impose the greater burden and difficulty on local authorities. I shall be guided to a very large extent by his reply.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I would like to know whether the Minister's first speech or his second was accurate, for the two speeches contradicted each other. In the first he led the House to believe that it was the manufacturers who would benefit by this Clause. In his second speech he said it was the licence holders who would benefit. A possible explanation of the contradiction is that in his first speech the Minister was meandering and out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must kindly leave the matter of order to me.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Certainly. I was merely trying to find out which of the Minister's two speeches was the correct one. I conclude that his first speech was accurate and that the manufacturers will benefit. I notice that the Minister was

    2021
    careful to use the term "manufacturers." He omitted to say what type of manufacturers they were. Is it that he has been approached by certain foreign or British manufacturers in respect of the Amendment? I should like to know. Is he being forced by some external ring to amend the Bill, or is he following out what I would call the half-Budget which was dropped at the latter end of last year? If there was pressure we are entitled to know whence the pressure came. Or is the explanation that Ministers are not as foolish as they were last year, and that they realise that their predecessors were wise. The introduction of
    this Clause does show a slight increase in sanity on the part of Ministers. Why cannot they go a little further and accept the Amendment? Some of those who are affected may not be alive by July. Purely from the point of humanity I ask the Minister, therefore, to grant this concession. It would give many of us immense satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman has not made any concession so far to-day.
    Question put, "That the word 'July' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 158.

    Division No. 329.]

    AYES.

    [5.55 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff,, Cannock)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Egan, W. H.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Ammon, Charles George

    England, Colonel A.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Arnott, John

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Kinley, J.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Foot, Isaac

    Kirkwood, D.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Freeman, Peter

    Knight, Holford

    Ayles, Walter

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Lang, Gordon

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Barnes, Alfred John

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Lathan, G.

    Batey, Joseph

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Bellamy, Albert

    Gill, T. H.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawson, John James

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Benson, G.

    Gould, F.

    Leach, W.

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Gray, Milner

    Lees, J.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Bromfield, William

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Bromley, J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Brooke, W.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Brothers, M.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Longden, F.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lowth, Thomas

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Lunn, William

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Harbord, A.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Cameron, A. G.

    Hardie, George D.

    McElwee, A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    McEntee, V. L.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    McKinlay, A.

    Charieton, H. C.

    Haycock, A. W.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Chater, Daniel

    Hayday, Arthur

    McShane, John James

    Church, Major A. G.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Clarke, J. S.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Mansfield, W.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Herriotts, J.

    March, S.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Marcus, M.

    Compton, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Markham, S. F.

    Cove, William G.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Marley, J.

    Daggar, George

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Mathers, George

    Dallas, George

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Matters, L. W.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Maxton, James

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Melville, Sir James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Messer, Fred

    Day, Harry

    Isaacs, George

    Middleton, G.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Millar, J. D.

    Dickson, T.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Mills, J. E.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Milner, Major J.

    Dukes, C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Montague, Frederick

    Duncan, Charles

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Morgan Dr. H. B.

    Morley, Ralph

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sutton, J. E.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Mort, D. L.

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Toole, Joseph

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Tout, W. J.

    Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Townend, A. E.

    Muff, G.

    Scott, James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Turner, B.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Scurr, John

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sexton, James

    Viant, S. P.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Walker, J.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Wallace, H. W.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Shield, George William

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Palin, John Henry

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Shinwell, E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Perry, S. F.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Sinkinson, George

    Westwood, Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    White, H. G.

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Potts, John S.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Price, M. P.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Snell, Harry

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Richards, R.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Sorensen, R.

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Ritson, J.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Romeril, H. G.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. William

    Rowson, Guy

    Strauss, G. R.

    Whiteley.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

    Albery, Irving James

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Atkinson, C.

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Balniel, Lord

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Long, Major Eric

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Berry, Sir George

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Boyce, H. L.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Bracken, B.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Buchan, John

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Butler, R. A.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Remer, John R.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Savery, S. S.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Cowan, D. M.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    2024

    2025

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Womersley, W. J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Sir George Penny and Captain

    Train, J.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Wallace.

    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out "224" and insert"250."
    This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper which is in similar terms, are consequential, the one upon the other and I may be allowed to deal with both at the same time. I feel rather conscience-stricken at the length of time which it took the Minister of Transport to explain the point raised in my earlier Amendment and I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time. It is a very fortunate thing that the integrity of His Majesty's Ministers and of our permanent officials stands as high as it does in this country because I am sure that in some other countries a Sub-section such as this would give rise to the suspicion that the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport had acquired a proprietary interest in bicycles which weighed more than 200 lbs. and that the Minister so interested was doing his best to promote the sale of that article. In this country, of course, such a thing is quite impossible but I wish to know whether the manufacturers are satisfied with the increase in weight which the Minister is giving them under this proposal.
    On a previous Amendment the Minister said that this allowance was being made in order to allow of further equipment being put on the machine. I always understood that equipment such as lamps and things of that kind were not taken into account when weighing the machine and that it was the strict weight of the machine itself upon which taxation was based, and I always understood that the manufacturers required a considerably greater increase in weight than the Minister is giving them under this Subsection. I do not think that it is a question so much of equipment, as of being able to construct a stronger and, to adapt a naval expression, a more roadworthy machine, with the idea of selling machines not only at home, but in the Dominions and Colonies and elsewhere abroad. It is only 20 years ago since
    2026
    the world was astonished at the manner in which motor transport could be driven over all kinds of roads. The world was astonished when the Ford car was driven over the veldts and through the desert and in all kinds of places, and where the Ford car could go, the motor bicycle can go—only to an even greater extent because it only requires a track of 1 foot or 18 inches wide and it can be driven in and out among rocks and almost anywhere. To do that sort of thing the machine must be well constructed and must have the necessary weight and strength to enable it to go over metalled tracks. That is the reason for the Amendment. I understand that many manufacturers are not satisfied with an increase of 24 lbs. but require more in order that they may construct machines which can be used both in this country and abroad.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: As far as I am advised the concession which we are making here is not related to any question of export trade or of the Dominion market. The manufacturers made representations to the effect that there had been improvements in the equipment of motor cycles and that there could be further improvements and that the 200 lb. limit was fettering the manufacturers in making the improvements which were desirable, or, alternatively, were imposing an unjust burden upon the users of bicycles by transferring those machines into the category of higher taxed vehicles. As an illustration of the equipment which is concerned and which involves a certain amount of extra weight I may mention electrical lighting apparatus, improved brakes, leg shields and other refinements which are regarded as essential for the modern motor bicycle. A discussion took place on the matter and the increase of 24 lbs. which is proposed in the Clause is, I am definitely advised, sufficient for the purposes of the manufacturers and traders who, have not asked for any greater increase. Therefore, I submit that this is a bona fide concession made for the purpose of meeting

    2027
    a legitimate point raised by the manufacturers and, the manufacturers having acquiesced in the Government's proposal, I can see no case for the Amendment. The Amendment would involve a loss of revenue although no definite estimate can be made of the amount. In these circumstances the hon. and gallant Member may see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    Captain CAZALET: I think it would be difficult to find a Clause in which the evils of legislation by reference are more amply demonstrated than in this Clause, because all the way through we are referred to the Second Schedule of the Finance Act of 1920 when, in fact what is meant is the Third Schedule of the Finance Act of 1928. To the Minister no doubt the reason for this is very obvious, but I had to search through all the Finance Acts from 1920 onwards to discover what is really meant by the Clause. We are referred to a sub-paragraph (d) but such a paragraph does not exist in the 1920 Act at all, and I wish to know if this paragraph 1 which we are now discussing refers to the Second Schedule of the 1920 Act or if that Schedule has been amended since, and, if so, in which Finance Act has it been amended. There are other items mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act of 1920 including tricycles—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I am not sure that a general question of that kind can be raised on this Amendment.
    Captain CAZALET: May I, then, limit my remarks to asking the Minister if this Clause refers to the actual paragraph 1 of the 1Second Schedule to the Finance Act of 1920 or is there a later amending Finance Act or Schedule which I have not yet discovered?
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am sure that it was not through deliberate discourtesy that the Minister failed to answer the simple and civil question which I put to him on the last Amendment and which I propose to repeat on this Amendment. When he speaks of manufacturers, why does he avoid stating whether he refers to British or to foreign manufacturers? We understand that he has been approached by manufacturers in regard to
    2028
    these matters, and we wish to know whether, in these proposals, he is acting in the interests of British manufacturers or in the interests of some outside body. If the manufacturers to whom he refers are British manufacturers, that strengthens the Minister's position enormously and he ought to inform the Committee on the point in order to save further time and trouble. I regret the rather slipshod way in which the Minister made his remarks on this Amendment. He is not very good at answering questions. I realise that he has not yet advanced to the stage of making a long series of consecutive answers but I should like him to give a definite reply to the point which I have raised.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: If, as the Minister said in his reply, there would be a loss of revenue by increasing the limit up to 250 lbs., it means that there are a large number of motor cycles in this country of a weight up to 250 lbs. We manufacture in this country the finest motor bicycles in the world, and we ought to encourage the manufacturers as much as possible. The Minister has said that they did not seem dissatisfied with the 224 lbs. which he has suggested. They would be much more pleased if the weight were increased to the amount suggested in the Amendment. We must remember why these weights were put on. They were put on not only far the purposes of revenue, but because of the destruction of the roads, and it is assumed that a motor bicycle of 224 lbs. will not do as much damage to the roads as one weighing 250 lbs. I do not think, however, that a motor bicycle does any real damage to the roads. This little concession might be given therefore, for it would help our export trade by giving our motor-bicycle manufacturers an opportunity of building a slightly bigger machine with a little more horse power. Besides that, the motor bicycle is becoming the poor man's motor car, and he takes his wife out on the back of it as a pillion-rider. Very often he attaches a side-car, and one often sees on the road a large motor bicycle of considerable horse power with a side-car carrying a whole family. If the Minister could see his way to give this little concession, he would give a fillip to motor-bicycle manufacturers in this country.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The Minister of Transport told us that the manufacturers would be satisfied with the 224 lbs. Are we to understand that they would not like the larger poundage? I can say as a former Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that the motor-bicycle trade was one where we were doing extremely well. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who has returned from the Protectorates in East Africa. I remember well we were doing an extremely good trade with motor bicycles in the uncivilised parts of Africa, and if by increasing the weight of these cycles we can make them slightly stronger, so that they will stand the rough roads and means of communication in East Africa and West Africa, where we have a pretty good business, it might, without hurting the revenue, bring us employment which would more than make up anything that might be lost to the revenue in raising the weight of the machines. Although the manufacturers were content with 224 lbs., does the Minister tell us that they have not assured him that a slight increase in the weight would increase their power to sell abroad? If he can assure us of that, we might take a different view; if he cannot assure us, we shall have to take this Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I really do not see that it is part of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give as a concession to people more than they are satisfied with. I have informed the Committee that the manufacturers are satisfied with the concession which we are giving. The hon. Gentleman asked us whether they would like more. Quite likely they would, but they agreed with this concession, and, having come to a business arrangement it would be unbusinesslike on my part and on that of my right hon. Friend to give people beyond that to which they have agreed. This has no relation to the Dominions or the overseas market. Presumably the manufacturers are already making cycles of the heavier kind which pay the heavier tax, and the question of which category the cycles fall into is beside the point so far as the overseas market is concerned. They are already making vehicles of the type to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and therefore, if the Dominion market wants
    2030
    them, it can have them without this Amendment being made. I do not think the Committee will expect me to deal exhaustively with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). The manufacturers were British. The other points of the hon. Gentleman's speech are rather a needless attempt to be superior at my expense, and I do not think any discussion with him on that point would be helpful, but I would assure him that in his presence I have not the slightest feeling of inferiority at all.
    Mr. MOND: If the Minister's theory were carried out manufacturers would have to make two kinds of cycles, one for the export market, and one for the home market. Everyone knows, however, that mass production is the only method of cheap manufacture, and the effect will be just the opposite to what he wants, for it will not encourage employment. There are not a great many manufactures in which England is dominant, but the motor cycle is one. We entirely dominate the world in the manufacture of this machine, and I appeal to the Minister not to say, "We have made a business agreement about this, and the manufacturers have not asked for any more." We all know what these Treasury deals are. Probably, under a severe threat of getting nothing at all, they were allowed to have a little bit. We ask him to take a different view of the position. He says that he will lose revenue by doing it. Perhaps he will, but if he does, it shows that we have a strong case. As a matter of fact, however, he will lose so little that he has not been able to calculate it. The Government are not being very generous to the manufacturers on this point, and I appeal to the Minister to make this concession.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Surely the Minister remembers what happened with regard to the motor car trade. We have always been told that our difficulties in exporting to the foreign market are due to the fact that this House interfered by putting the horse-power tax on motor cars. The Minister is now running the risk of falling into the same error with regard to motor bicycles. We have now got the great bulk of the world trade in motor cycles, and do not let us run any risk of restricting or hampering that trade. It is an extraordinary theory

    2031
    for the Minister to say that he is doing it because the traders asked him for a concession. So long as he is in such an accommodating mood in regard to the first 24 lbs. above the 200 lbs., why does he not go a little further and say that there will be nothing to restrict the size of motor bicycles? It is a simple problem. If there is any difficulty about definition that could be done in another way, but this is merely a question of weight, and do not let us put the motor cycle trade in the unfortunate position in which the motor industry has been put through the interference of this House.
    Mr. POTTS: I want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision on this point. I do so for quite different reasons from those put forward by hon. Members on the other side. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision in
    the interests of those who ride. Not long ago I went through the Ariel and A.J.S. works, and saw what was being done to strengthen motor bicycles. Many people have to travel to work on motor bicycles, and we want to make the tax as low as we can while enabling them to ride the stronger-made bicycles. The Chancellor might lose a certain amount of money by allowing this increase of weight, but we would get more safety for the rider. It would affect a large number of people, while not being a serious matter to the Exchequer. I am not concerned with the manufacturers, but with the people who ride motor bicycles, and I hope that the Minister will meet them in order to enable them to reduce their licence expenditure.
    Question put, "That '224' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided; Ayes; 286; Noes, 155.

    Division No. 330.]

    AYES.

    [6.30 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Daggar, George

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burniey)

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Dallas, George

    Henderson, Arthur. Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Dalton, Hugh

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Henderson, W. W. (Mlddx., Enfield)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Herriotts, J.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Dickson, T.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Arnott, John

    Dukes, C.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Duncan, Charles

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Ede, James Chuter

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Ayles, Walter

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Egan, W. H.

    Isaacs, George

    Batey, Joseph

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    England, Colonel A.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Bellamy, Albert

    Foot, Isaac

    Johnston, Thomas

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Freeman, Peter

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Benson, G.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Gill, T. H.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Gillett, George M.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Bromfield, William

    Gossling, A. G.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Bromley, J.

    Gould, F.

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Brooke, W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Kinley, J.

    Brothers, M.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Granville, E.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Gray, Milner

    Lang, Gordon

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Lathan, G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Cameron, A. G.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Lawson, John James

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S W.)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Charieton, H. C.

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Leach, W.

    Chater, Daniel

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Clarke, J. S.

    Harbord, A.

    Lees, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hardie, George D.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Compton, Joseph

    Haycock, A. W.

    Lonqbottom, A. W.

    Cove, William G.

    Hay day, Arthur

    Longden, F.

    Cowan, D. M.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Lowth, Thomas

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Sorensen, R.

    Lunn, William

    Perry, S. F.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Stephen, Campbell

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Stewart, J. (St. Roilox)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    McElwee, A.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Strauss, G. R.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Price, M. P.

    Sullivan, J.

    McKinlay, A.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Sutton, J. E.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Richards, R.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    McShane, John James

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Mansfield, W.

    Ritson, J.

    Toole, Joseph

    March, S.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Tout, W. J.

    Markham, S. F.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Marley, J.

    Rowson, Guy

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Mathers, George

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Turner, B.

    Matters, L. W.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Melville, Sir James

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Viant, S. P.

    Messer, Fred

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Walkden, A. G.

    Middleton, G.

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Walker, J.

    Millar, J. D.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Mills, J. E.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Milner, Major J.

    Scott, James

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Montague, Frederick

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Scurr, John

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Morley, Ralph

    Sexton, James

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Welsh, James (Palsley)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    West, F. R.

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N)

    Shield, George William

    White, H. G.

    Mort, D. L.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Shinwell, E.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Muff, G.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Sinkinson, George

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicesler, Loughb'gh)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Wise, E. F.

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Wright, W. (Ruthergien)

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Snell, Harry

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Palin, John Henry

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Palmer, E. T.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Ben Smith and Mr. Paling.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Albery, Irving James

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Atkinson, C.

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Balniel, Lord

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Berry, Sir George

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Dalrympie-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Boyce, H. L.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Bracken, B.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Buchan, John

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Long, Major Eric

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Christie, J. A.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    2034

    2035

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Savery, S. S.

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Remer, John R.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Tinne, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Captain Margesson and Sir George

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Penny.

    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE:
    In page 5, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(c) at the end of the Schedule shall be added the following:
    'If any person proves to the satisfaction of the authority charged with levying the duty that he has paid in respect of any motor vehicle the duty chargeable under this schedule, and that such vehicle is used only for agricultural or market-gardening purposes, he shall be entitled to repayment of 50 per cent. of the duty paid.'"
    Viscount WOLMER: May I ask whether the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) is out of order, or is it merely that you have not selected it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is another Amendment dealing with the question farther down on the Order Paper, and I am calling that as it appeared on the Order Paper first.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, after the word "who," to insert the words:
    "is the holder of a licence which was taken out."
    This and the following Amendment are really little more than drafting Amendments. The new duty under Sub-section (2) comes into operation on the 1st of July, and refunds will therefore be necessary on annual licences in respect of the second half of the calendar year. Refunds can only be made to the holder of the licence at the time, who is not necessarily the person who took out the licence originally. My Amendment has been put down to make it clear that it will
    2036
    be the holder of the licorice who will get the benefit and not the person who originally took it out, because there may have been changes in the ownership of the vehicle in the meantime. If this and the following Amendment be inserted the Clause will read:
    "Any person who is the holder of a licence which was taken out before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty, in respect of any vehicle to which Sub-section (2) of this section applies."
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: We do not propose to offer any opposition to this Amendment so long as we understand in plain English that these alterations are made to protect the interests of the present holders of the licence. Can the hon. Gentleman give us that undertaking?
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes; the Amendment is to secure the interest of the present holders of the licences.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 11, to leave out the words:
    "has taken out a licence."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
    "on surrendering the licence to the council of the county or county borough with which the vehicle is for the time being registered."
    The object of this Amendment is to secure that a person claiming a refund shall surrender the licence to the licensing authority for the county or county borough concerned. That is necessary for accounting purposes, in order to see that the licence is in the form commonly issued, and also to prevent any defrauding of the revenue. This Amendment

    2037
    will provide machinery for that purpose, and I am sure it will commend itself to the Committee.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Here, again, we do not propose to offer any objection to the Amendment, so long as we have an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman that the holder surrendering the licence will be in no way damnified by so doing.
    Mr. MORRISON: That is so.
    Sir W. BRASS: I wish to ask whether it is really necessary to put in these words; and I also wish to know what happens to the licence. When it is sent back to the Council and the Council have taken notice of it, is it then sent back to the owner?
    Mr. MORRISON: The licence is kept by the licensing authority which, however, will issue a new licence.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to add the words:
    "and Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 192G (which relates to the enforcement of repayments in respect of over-payments of duty on licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles) shall apply as if the holder of the licence were entitled to a repayment in respect of an over-payment of duty."
    This Amendment will prevent claims being made after the 31st December next year, and we are simply following the precedent set by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1926.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
    "Provided that the duty which shall be charged, levied, and paid in respect of all mechanically-propelled vehicles, while they are used for the purposes of agriculture or market gardening, shall be at half the rates chargeable under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as specified in paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to that Act."
    In the Finance Act, 1920, there are laid down certain rates of duty payable by mechanically-propelled vehicles, and the object of this Amendment is to reduce the duty by one-half for mechanically-propelled vehicles used for the purposes of agriculture or by market gardeners. During the past few months we have made attempts on this side of the House
    2038
    time after time to get the Government to do something to benefit the farmers and the market gardeners of this country, but up to the present we have not been successful. Therefore, it is necessary for us to make another attempt in this direction. We made an attempt on the beer Clauses to get a certain kind of beer brewed from home-grown ingredients, and now we are making an attempt to obtain some benefit for the persons engaged in the business of agriculture and market gardening.
    My own Division suffers very much from foreign competition. There is between my Division and the coast miles of market gardens, and the great bulk of the produce from those gardens has to come along the arterial roads of the county by motor lorries. Some of those gardeners employ two or three, and, in some cases, four motor lorries for this purpose. I put market gardening in my Amendment because, when a previous Bill was being considered and the late Minister of Transport was in charge, it was not made quite clear whether market gardening came under the definition of a farmer or a person engaged in agriculture. Here is a great industry not only in my Division but all round London and the big towns, in which a great deal of capital has been sunk in putting up glass houses. One man I know has premises which cover 11 acres of ground. These people produce an enormous amount of delicate produce for the food and comfort of those living in the big cities, and practically all of them send their produce to the markets by motor lorries.
    I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this slight help to the agricultural interest, because agriculture at the present time is suffering under very great difficulties. Unfortunately, the season in my county is a few weeks behind the season across the water, and one of our greatest difficulties is to compete with the early season produce which is sent over to this country by the foreigner. I am asking for this relief in order to help our market gardeners and farmers to compete with the foreigner. On Easter Monday I visited Salisbury Market, and I took particular notice of the large number of motor lorries in use by the farmers of that district. I am asking for this benefit for the farmer and for the market

    2039
    gardener, as well as for the man who grows the more perishable kind of produce. This Amendment would also give real assistance to the arable farmers. In the city of Salisbury on market day the roads leading to the market place are blocked with motor lorries bringing in cows and pigs and all kinds of produce alive and dead. I have several friends engaged in this business. One of them represents the Farmers' Union of Wiltshire, and they all say with the utmost sincerity—they are a, plucky lot and do not "grouse" unnecessarily—that they have had a very bad time, and any little help the Government can give them will be fully appreciated.
    It may be said that the number of these vehicles in use for farming purposes is not very great. If that is going to be the reply of the Minister of Transport, then I claim that it supports this Amendment, because one of the reasons why more motor lorries are not used for farming and agricultural purposes is the heavy tax upon them. I feel confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to halve the tax on motor lorries which are used mainly for agriculture and market gardening, and if he grants this concession I am sure he will not lose anything, because I feel confident that there will be a greater demand for this kind of transport in the near future, especially in the outlying districts. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the farmers and market gardeners a little encouragement, and help them to compete with the produce that comes over from France, Holland, and Belgium. We saw in the paper this morning that an old Savoyard had been given an honour by the King, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—there is nothing personal about this—not to come into the category mentioned by one of his characters of
    "Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
    All centuries but this, and every country but his own."
    I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to help our country by giving this concession to the farmers to enable them the better to compete with foreign produce, which is put upon the London market.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Chislehurst
    2040
    (Mr. Smithers) cannot have appreciated the very material concessions which have been made in the past on this subject, and the very good position which is enjoyed by the agricultural community. We have all listened with sympathy to the claims put forward by the hon. Member on behalf of agriculture, but, while I am clear as to the intention of the Amendment, I am not very clear as to whether it would be workable. May I inform the hon. Member that market gardening, in any case, is included in the legal definition of agriculture for this purpose. Clause 47 (5) which deals with this point provides that:
    "Any reference in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment, including this Act."
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is there any chance of the spirit of my Amendment being accepted? I have done my best to draft it by looking through the Act, and if I have drafted it wrongly, I hope that the Minister will not allow that to militate against an Amendment being introduced on the Report stage. I am not wedded to these words at all, and if the Minister of Transport can suggest some other form of words, of course I shall be willing to accept them.
    Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid it is worse than that. We are not only not wedded to the hon. Member's words, but we are not wedded to his ideas on the subject. The reference to paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1920, must be taken as a reference to paragraph 4 as finally amended by the Finance Act, 1927. That paragraph must be read in conjunction with the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1926. The Government are not responsible for these complications; in fact, we have a grievance because we have to explain them. This enactment provides a scale of duties for farm tractors from £6 to £10 in respect of tractors registered under the Act of 1920 in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and used by the owner for the haulage of produce or articles required for the purposes of the agricultural land which he occupies, and not for any other purposes.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is that under the Act of 1928?
    Mr. MORRISON: There are three Acts involved. They are the Acts of 1920, 1926 and 1927, and there does not appear to be any point with regard to the Act of 1928. It will be seen, therefore, that the duty on a tractor used for agricultural purposes is from £6 to £10, whereas the duty on an ordinary vehicle is from £21 to £60. I think the Committee will agree that £6 to £10 as compared with £21 to £60 is a very big concession to the agricultural industry which Governments have made from time to time.
    7.0 p.m.
    The Amendment refers to all mechanically-propelled vehicles, whether tractors or others, and without confining them to the period while they are being used for the purposes of agriculture. Therefore, the Amendment would include lorries as well as tractors. The scale of duties as set out in the Finance Act, 1928, which provides the scales of duties in respect of vehicles used for agriculture, subject to the definition I have already quoted, ranges from £10 to £25.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Which Schedule?
    Mr. MORRISON: I have not the Schedule by me, but the scale is, as I have said, from £10 to £25, and, in addition to scales for various special classes, there is a scale of from £10 to £60 in respect of ordinary goods-carrying vehicles. Therefore, we have the scale of £10 to £25, and for ordinary vehicles £10 to £60. It will be seen, therefore, that vehicles used for agricultural purposes receive a substantial preference. There is a further reason against the Amendment. It would extend a special concession, made to agriculturists as such, to any owner whose vehicle is used, by contract or otherwise, in connection with agricultural purposes, while so used. For instance, it would cover the merchant who carries the goods to market. It will be seen that the Amendment is much wider in its effect than the Committee might be led to think from the speech of the hon. Member who moved it. I think it might hardly be appreciated, from the hon. Member's remarks, what substantial concessions the agricultural industry already enjoys. For the reasons indicated, my right hon. Friend does not see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: When the Minister talked about the considerable
    2042
    advantage already given to agriculture under the Act of 1928, he contended that the tax on these vehicles went up to £20, whereas on the other vehicles it went up to £60, but if he looks at the scale he will see that for the scale on an ordinary vehicle, for agricultural use, which is £20, there is a corresponding duty on ordinary vehicles, not used for agricultural purposes, of only £25. Therefore, the advantage is not so great as might be thought by anyone hearing the figures which the Minister has quoted.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to accept this Amendment, even in a form of words which would be suitable to himself. It seems to be impossible to extract any concession for agriculture, no matter how small, out of the present Government. The sole reply of the Minister of Transport was to point to the concessions made by the last Government to help agriculturists. Those concessions, so far as they went, were very valuable, but it is no reply on the part of the hon. Gentleman merely to point to the help which his predecessors gave to agriculture, and to refuse to move a little finger himself to carry the good work any further. I will put to him briefly the reasons why we think this demand, in the present state of agriculture, is legitimate. If the agricultural industry was flourishing and prosperous, this request would not be pressed by representatives of agricultural constituencies, but in the present state of agriculture I submit that there is no little help that it is in the power of this House to give that we ought to decline to give. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any assistance he gives to farmers and to market gardeners in this respect may be of very considerable importance to them but have only an insignificant effect on his Budget as a whole. This is specially true of market gardeners, who, generally speaking, are small men, and the amount of money they have invested in a lorry and the amount they spend on running the lorry represents a serious item in their finances, whereas the relief for which we are asking in this Amendment would be an insignificant sum in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    The hon. Gentleman does not say how much it would cost the Government.

    2043
    I cannot help feeling that he must have those figures in front of him, and if he gave the figures to the Committee it would be found that they were exceedingly small. Valuable as were the concessions which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made, I cannot think why they cannot be carried further. In the first place, the reduced duty that tractors pay is a concession which certainly might be carried further. A tractor used for ploughing and threshing makes practically no use of the roads at all. If farmers are careful—and most of them are—to use iron tyres while moving from field to field and using the road, they will do practically no damage to the roads. The whole of their life is spent on the farm, and they merely cross the roads occasionally for the purpose of going from field to field. Since the Motor Duties and the Petrol Duty are intended for the upkeep of roads, I do not see why agricultural tractors should make any contribution at all towards the Road Fund. With regard to petrol, it is true that a great many agricultural tractors do not go on petrol, but use mainly paraffin, but there are a great number that do use petrol, and I would bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman that every penny going to the Petrol Duty from the use of these agricultural tractors is payment towards the upkeep of the roads of which these tractors make no use. Agricultural tractors, therefore, are still too heavily taxed both in regard to licences and in regard to duty.
    Then we come to the lorries. It is quite a mistake to think that a farmer's lorry is used entirely on the roads; it is not. The lorry is used a great deal in going about from place to place on the farm, and the whole of that work imposes a heavy strain on the lorry itself, and can be taken to represent much more wear and tear than a similar mileage covered on the roads. Yet the whole of that work does no damage to the roads at all. That is a further reason why the duty on lorries should be reduced. I would like to put this point to the Minister of Transport, because it is one about which farmers feel keenly, that the whole of this high motor taxation and the great Road Fund it has produced, and the great arterial roads with their slippery surfaces, are of no use to the
    2044
    farmer. They are, in fact, a very great source of inconvenience, danger and loss to the farmers of this country. The amount of damage which farmers receive through horses and other animals slipping on these roads is very high, and, therefore, the farmer legitimately regards it as adding insult to injury that he should be taxed, even to the present extent, for the upkeep of those roads in a condition which may be desirable from the point of view of the motorist and the road-hog, but which is of no use to agriculture as a whole. Therefore, I express my disappointment that the Government, even on this minor question, have refused to move even a little finger to help the agriculturist of this country. As my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment said, we have waited for 12 months for their agricultural policy, and have given them every opportunity to help the farmer. We want to afford them an opportunity to give this help which the farming community, through their official accredited organisation, has demanded, and which would cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer very little indeed.
    Mr. HASLAM: I do not think we have to find any further argument to show the depressed state of agriculture at the present time. The Minister of Transport, in refusing this Amendment or anything like it, with such limiting words as he might have desired to put in, suggested that the concesions which were given by the last Government were sufficient. I would point out that the state of agricurture is even worse now than it was a few years ago. Bad as the times were then, at any rate we had the hope that things would be better, but, instead, they have become steadily worse, and year after year—it had now been going on for nearly 10 years—farmers have been losing and have found their capital resources depleted, in many cases almost to vanishing point. The Schedule, as I understood from the Act of 1928, gave practically no concession at all to the lighter forms of lorries, and the light lorry is one that is used very much by farmers. It is also a vehicle which does very little damage to roads. In the old days, when the duties on heavy vehicles were increased substantially, it was done very largely on the ground that these vehicles did a lot of damage to the roads. In those days that was true, but every year since, with the

    2045
    improvement of types, and with the greater use made of pneumatic tyres, the damage to roads by heavy vehicles has been considerably lessened.
    In any case, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, these lorries which are used by farmers are used a great deal on the farm itself. Finally, I would point out that a tax on transport is surely not a very wise tax. Our competitors abroad, particularly in France and Belgium, have at their disposal a very efficient and cheap form of transport in the light railways which run along the sides of the roads, and which are propelled, I think, very largely by steam. I would submit that on the face of it this tax on transport is, for a farmer, a very large sum of money. It was £25 under the old Schedule, but under this proposed Schedule, as I understand it, for vehicles exceeding two tons and up to 2½ tons, the tax will be from £28 to £35, while for vehicles exceeding 2½ tons and up to three tons it will be from £32 to £40. Considering the financial position of farmers in this country, I submit that these charges are, as a tax, altogether too high. They must considerably more than cover any damage to the roads which these vehicles do, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee to consider whether this is really a wise and sound method of raising money. I suggest that it is a most unsound method, and that to lighten the charges on transport is a legitimate way of helping agriculture, and one which, in the present circumstances, should be followed by the House of Commons.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to reinforce what was said by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). What the Minister of Transport said about there being an advantage to agriculture, is quite true in the case of heavy vehicles, but in the case of the lighter vehicles there is no advantage to agriculture at all. For vehicles not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen, the annual tax for each vehicle is £10. For vehicles exceeding 12 cwt. but not exceeding a ton it is £15, and for vehicles exceeding a ton but not exceeding 1½ ton it is £20 in each case. I think it is quite clear that the great majority of the ordinary lorries used by
    2046
    farmers, at any rate in my district, are either one-ton lorries or, sometimes, 25-cwt. lorries. They all come within these lower categories. On the whole, the farmers do not use them continuously, in the way that a merchant does who makes a business of conveying goods all over the place. I would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport that a concession on these vehicles would mean comparatively little money to the Exchequer, but, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to do it on Report, it would be extraordinarily appreciated, as some recognition of their position, by the farming community. They have been asked to be more scientific, and to carry out their business by modern methods, and it is precisely the most up-to-date of them who have lorries, and for whom some reduction in the tax on these three lower categories, on which they have now no advantage, would be of very great use indeed.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that in the second category—the non-tractor category—the relief is not felt until we get to the heavier type of vehicle, but in the first category, that is to say, the tractor type, the relief is a very real one all the way through. I quite agree that in the case of the non-tractor vehicle it is not such a real concession all the way through—
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not a real concession in the case of this class, of which these vehicles form the great majority.
    Mr. MORRISON: I have no doubt that the Government at that time, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, had a good reason for handling the matter in that way, and I gather that it was this, that in the case of the lighter type of lorry the tax was relatively low in any case, but, when you got to the heavier type, the tax became a real and substantial burden to the agricultural industry in the conditions of that time. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that Government made this concession in order to relieve the heavier type of agricultural vehicle. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time could not, for reasons which no doubt commended themselves to him,

    2047
    make the concession in the case of the lighter vehicles.
    The Noble Lord, however, is very much in error as to the position of vehicles which are used as agricultural implements on agricultural land, because it is provided, under the present system of taxation, that locomotive ploughing engines, agricultural tractors, and other agricultural engines not being engines or tractors used for hauling on roads any object except their own necessary gear, threshing appliances, farm implements, or supplies of fuel or water required for the purposes of the vehicle or for agricultural purposes, only pay a nominal registration fee of 5s. a year, and are otherwise completely relieved. Even though such a vehicle may go on a road, if it is merely there of necessity, for the purpose of carrying its own gear, threshing appliances, farm implements, fuel or water, it only pays 5s. a year. The Committee will see, therefore, that the concessions have been very real, and we do not feel like finding further concessions. The argument of the hon. Member appears to be on the basis that all the efforts of the late Government to improve the condition of the agricultural industry have left agriculture worse in the end than it was at the beginning. It further implies that the right hon. Gentleman, in making his concessions, did not make them big enough. Our own present feeling is that the concessions were real and, substantial, and my right hon. Friend, for the reasons indicated, does not feel that the Committee would he wise to accept the present Amendment.
    Mr. MacLAREN: I do not know how far one can influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, but I am in wholehearted sympathy with this Amendment. I think that it is a really serious Amendment, which ought to have some consideration, if not now, at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) complained that the heavy taxation on these vehicles was the cause of the scarcity of their use in agriculture, but I think that the Petrol Duty has more to do with it than the Motor Duty, and that the De-rating Act and its consequences are a greater hardship in regard to the use of motor vehicles than the immediate tax on the vehicle itself. While the wording of the Amendment
    2048
    would not very well suit the purpose for which it is proposed, I think that some form of words conveying the principle might be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I do not quite agree with the Minister of Transport in his comparisons with other vehicles paying heavier taxation, but I do not think it is a bad thing to say to anybody, "You are not so badly off as the other fellow; look how bad lie is." I think it would be a good thing for the Labour party if they took some such line as is indicated in this Amendment, and reduced as far as possible the taxation on vehicles used in industry. I do not want it to go out that, as has been alleged on the other side, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adamant in regard to any concession towards agriculture, and that is all the more reason why I ask him, though I do not know what success I shall meet with, for some consideration for this Amendment.
    We have heard a good deal about the hardships of agriculture, and it is interesting to notice that, when the Conservative party are in Opposition, they become very strong advocates for the un-taxing of industry and vehicles, though they are not so enthusiastic on that matter when they are on this side. However that may be, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider something along the lines of this Amendment and I would like to ask him this question: If the concession suggested in the Amendment were granted, what would be the cost? I was rather amused at the irate disposition of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when he was declaiming a few moments ago. He said that these very fine roads which were made by means of the Petrol Duty are too high-class for agriculturists, and simply become skidding alleys for these tractors. What does the Noble Lord want us to do? Does he want us to make them nicely rutted, so that he may get back to his old cart-tracks again? I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think that this is a new insurrection on the back benches, but will recognise that I am really quite serious in asking him if he will consider something in the spirit of the Amendment which has been put forward.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I merely rise to add my voice to the appeal to the

    2049
    Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, between now and further stages of the Bill, whether he cannot make some concession of this kind. I remember that a year or two ago this question of the taxation of motor vehicles carrying agricultural produce was brought forward again and again, especially by the small agriculturists, and I entirely agree with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). The position was undoubtedly seriously accentuated in the minds of the small agriculturists at the time of the Petrol Duty. That was bound to be so. We all object to taxation, and the only point of my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that, as has been shown today, the smaller vehicle really does not have any particular advantage. Agriculturists who use these one-ton or 1½-ton vehicles have practically no advantage, or only a very small advantage, and any small concession that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give would be a real consideration to the small agriculturist. Therefore, I would press him to consider the matter between now and report.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: To-day, as has been pointed out already, the position with regard to agricultural lorries is quite different from what it was 12 months ago. Lorries now have to be used more and more in order to reduce agricultural
    expenses. Agriculture to-day is in a far worse position than any other industry in the country. It has to meet more unfair competition than any other industry, and, therefore, it has a right to more consideration than any other industry. The taxation of motor vehicles in every other country is very much lower than in this country. In Normandy and the South of France, in Belgium, and in Italy, where they compete with our farmers in the early markets, they have a great advantage, and, therefore, taking everything into consideration, the question of a tax upon the farmer's lorry is one of great importance. When you ask the farmer to be up-to-date in his operations and to employ a motor vehicle in place of horses, especially in conveying his produce to the town, the tax upon the vehicle is to him a great consideration. The farmer does not employ his lorry more than a small part of the day, and he does not employ it every day of the week; and, therefore, again, he should be considered when compared with lorry owners who are running their lorries every day. I hope also, as every little helps, and it is a series of littles that make a muckle, that the Chancellor will agree to this reduction.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 252.

    Division No. 331.]

    AYES.

    [7.33 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Atkinson, C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Cowan, D. M.

    Granville, E.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Gray, Milner

    Berry, Sir George

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Boyce, H. L.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Bracken, B.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Dixey, A. C.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Elmley, Viscount

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    England, Colonel A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Butler, R. A.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Christie, J. A.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Long, Major Eric

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Remer, John R.

    Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Savery, S. S.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Scott, James

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Withers, Sir John James

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Penny, Sir George

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Captain Margesson and Sir Frederick

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Thomson.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Kinley, J.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lang, Gordon

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Egan, W. H.

    Lathan, G.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

    Freeman, Peter

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Arnott, John

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    Ayles, Walter

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Gill, T. H.

    Leach, W.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Gould, F.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark. Northern)

    Batey, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lees, J.

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Bellamy, Albert

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Benson, G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Longden, F.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Lowth, Thomas

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lunn, William

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Bromfield, William

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    McElwee, A.

    Bromley, J.

    Harbord, A.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Brooke, W.

    Hardie, George D.

    McKinlay, A.

    Brothers, M.

    Harris, Percy A.

    McShane, John James

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mansfield, W.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Hayes, John Henry

    March, S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Markham, S. F.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Marley, J.

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)

    Henderson, W. W. (Mlddx., Enfield)

    Mathers, George

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Herriotts, J.

    Matters, L. W.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Maxton, James

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Melville, Sir James

    Charieton, H. C.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Messer, Fred

    Chater, Daniel

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Middleton, G.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Mills, J. E.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Milner, Major J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Isaacs, George

    Montague, Frederick

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William (Rhondda. West)

    Morley, Ralph

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Dallas, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Mort, D. L.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Muff, G.

    Dickson, T.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Dukes, C.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Duncan, Charles

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    2052

    2053

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Shield, George William

    Turner, B.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Shinwell, E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Palin, John Henry

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Walkden, A. G.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Simmons, C. J.

    Walker, J.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Sinkinson, George

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Perry, S. F.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Potts, John S.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    West, F. R.

    Price, M. P.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Snell, Harry

    White, H. G.

    Richards, R.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Sorensen, R.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Ritson, J.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Rowson, Guy

    Strauss, G. R.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Sullivan, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Wise, E. F.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Young, R. S (Islington, North)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Scurr, John

    Tiliett, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Sexton, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Tout, W. J.

    William Whiteley.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Townend, A. E.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the Minister of Transport tell us what is the actual amount of cash obtained by this Clause? He said that it was only small, but I do not think he gave the exact amount.
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, was not here when I informed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that the financial equivalent of the concessions obtained in the whole Clause are estimated to be between £80,000 and £100,000 in a full financial year.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: What is the amount of the 50 per cent. rebate for electrically-driven vehicles?
    Mr. MORRISON: That information I was unable to give. On the existing number of vehicles it is an insignificant sum, but clearly, if the trade understood that the 50 per cent. rebate on the petrol-electric vehicle, which can do equivalent service to that of the petrol vehicle, was permanent, that class of vehicle would increase in numbers and the number of petrol vehicles would be reduced. In that case, the cost could be very big. We do not know the exact amount, but it is a small sum.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Under £1,000?
    Mr. MORRISON: I could not say that, but relatively a small sum.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Income Tax for 1930–31.)
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out the words "and sixpence."
    Before I embark on the general discussion on Income Tax which is raised by this Amendment, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would impart to the Committee his governing ideas as to the extent to which we should endeavour to progress tonight. We have had a discussion on Clause 6, in which the Minister of Transport has been most patient and has given us very full and lucid explanations of every point that has been raised. We have now reached one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill, and I think it would be advantageous, if the Government have any statement to make, to make it now.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am at all times very anxious not to harass the Committee, but I cannot say that I am satisfied with the progress that has been made up to the present time. I had

    2055
    hoped that we might at this sitting get as far as Clause 11, but, unless the Committee sits very late, I am afraid that we shall not get so far. I think, however, that we must get to the end of Clause 9. I have no wish that the Committee should sit late. I want to take into consideration the convenience of every Member of the Committee, and especially the inability of my predecessor in this office to sit late. It is true that we have now come to the Clause which relates to the Income Tax, and which raises very important matters, but as these matters have been debated at very considerable length in the previous stages of our discussions on the Budget, important as they are, prolonged discussion upon them would not serve any very useful purpose. I do not want unnecessarily to restrict the debate, but I feel that I must get Clause 9, and I think that I might ask for the co-operation of the Opposition in trying to make that amount of progress.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that, at first sight, anyone would say that the ambition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set before himself, to reach the end of Clause 9, is an unreasonable one in the circumstances, although it undoubtedly will involve very considerable contraction of our discussion upon Clause 7, which is the important Clause. I gather that it is the wish of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we should not be kept here until an unreasonable hour. We will try our best to accelerate the discussion, while at the same time doing full justice to the many important points which arise. There is one circumstance which may somewhat facilitate our task, and that is that you, Mr. Dunnico, have ruled that the extremely important Amendments which we had put down as Amendments to this Clause would be better considered as new Clauses. Therefore, our task is lightened in that respect by your interpretation and Ruling upon the procedure. That being so I will, without more ado, address myself, as briefly as I can, to the immediate issue before the Committee.
    This Clause is an extremely important and far-reaching one. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise the standard rate of Income Tax by 6d. That is a most melancholy event and one against
    2056
    which I have struggled year after year with every resource and effort open to me. If I had been told when the War came to an end that 10 years afterwards we should be reimposing 6d. on the Income Tax, and that after having gradually worked the tax down to the 4s. level we should have to retrace our steps, I should have regarded it with the keenest feelings of misfortune. The standard rate of the Income Tax is a matter which affects not only the large numbers of people who have to pay the tax but, in its way, casts its influence upon almost every form of our activities and social life. It has been explained how it affects business and enterprise. We know well how it affects the fortunes of individuals. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been well advised to make further efforts, for this year at any rate, when times are so hard and depression is so widespread, to avert the hardship of the re-imposition of 6d. upon the Income Tax.
    I do not believe that this reimposition was necessary. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer on succeeding to office had set before himself, with all his strong determination, an inflexible resolve not to allow the expenditure of the country to increase by one penny, and to make sure that automatic increases were counterbalanced and more than counterbalanced by fresh savings, imposed by his energy and care; if he had been a little less rigid and rigorous in the repayment of debt over and above what is required for the purpose of the fixed debt charge; and if he had set his face against indulgences in the sphere of unemployment and widows' pensions there would not have been any case this year for the re-imposition of this heavy burden. This is the year that counts, this is the year in which we are passing through, perhaps, the most difficult stage of our immediate journey.
    I have on several occasions spoken of the submerged areas of Income Tax, the large proportion of industries and businesses in which the profits yielded bear no real correspondence to what normally may be expected; businesses carried on on a much larger scale than is the yield to the Income Tax, because those businesses are not carried on upon a reasonable and profitable basis. The party opposite have, at the outset, to make up

    2057
    their minds whether they are going to welcome profits made by private industry and by private capitalists and tax those profits, or whether they are going, by every means in their power, to curtail and hamper those profits and then forego the consequent yield to the Excheqer. That is the choice and decision which really lies before them. But they have not clarified their minds; they have deliberately refrained from arriving at any clear mental or intellectual decision upon that point, with the result that we hear continued attacks upon the wealth of those who are called the idle rich, coupled with great regret when the yield of the Income Tax does not show its proper normal expansion. If you want an expansion of the Income Tax, so far from putting an additional 6d. upon it, the wise and shrewd course would be to effect a substantial reduction in the standard rate. No one knows what would have been the effects of a substantial reduction in the standard rate, if it were conjoined with a real re-establishment of national confidence and of enterprise throughout the country. It is quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman might have received from a lower rate of Income Tax, revenue greater than that which he will get from this additional burden.
    I speak particularly of the heavy trades, but the phenomena which are present in those trades are equally to be traced in many other aspects of our public life. This heavy taxation, more than any other invisible factor, is making us share in world depression to a disproportionate extent, and when the world lifts out of the depression, as it will lift, and when the prices begin to rise and business to expand, it is this deadweight burden of taxation which may make us the last country to emerge from the dark defile, and may make us the country to emerge in the most battered and exhausted condition. Therefore, far from extolling the virtue of taxation, far from glorifying in the imposition of this heavy burden, it should be the task and duty of a Government by every means in their power to nurse the country through its difficult periods and to lighten and reduce the demands which they make upon the taxpayers for the maintenance and upkeep of the State.
    2058
    The right hon. Gentleman, by so blithely placing this heavy addition upon the standard rate of Income Tax, and at the same time showing himself reluctant and unwilling to place any addition upon the indirect taxpayers, and also by restricting the scope of the Income Tax payers thus affected by the tax, has created an invidious condition and has invested his Budget with an unfair character which certainly has caused in this House and outside a distinct impression that he is not being guided by the true canons of finance and is not seeking with that broad impartiality that should belong to whoever holds his great office, to act evenly in the distribution of benefits or in the needful apportionment of hardships and evils; but, on the other hand, he is mingling politics at every step and at every stage in his financial decisions, and is vitiating the purity of the solutions which he offers us by the admixture of extraneous motives which are themselves part of the stock-in-trade of his political popularity.
    When we come to an Income Tax of 4s. being raised at a time of peace to 4s. 6d., the old Gladstonian canons of finance and the old views which were taken as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect taxation, must be reviewed and reconsidered. In those days when we were told of the grave injury done to the consumer by indirect taxation, and of the possibility that more would be taken from the pockets of the taxpayer than would be actually gathered into the public coffers, those evils were contrasted with increases in the Income Tax of 1d., or at the outside 2d., on an Income Tax of 5d. or 6d.
    8.0 p.m.
    I remember well hearing a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, the late Mr. Ritchie, reducing the Income Tax after the South African war, and he made a sort of auctioneer's gesture of it and took it off "One penny," "Twopence," "Threepence," and when he uttered the word "Fourpence," the House was almost in a state of collapse from hysteria, there was such enthusiasm and relief. But in those days, when the taxation was practically non-existent, when it was no real burden, when no man making business plans or laying down his own expenditure in the immediate future could be harassed by the inroad of the tax collector, then indeed you might use all the old arguments

    2059
    which may be properly applied to indirect taxation; but now that the first preoccupation of most of the larger Income Tax payers in this country is to find the money to pay their Income Tax, when that is the first charge, as it were, upon their resources and the main cause in many cases of their anxieties, in these days you inflict, in my opinion, a far greater deterrent upon business and enterprise by a further addition to the tax than could be argued even by the most strict Free Trader or economist would be inflicted by a moderate addition to indirect taxation, even though the yield might not in all cases be fully reaped by the Treasury.
    As I say, there are many processes which may be allowed to continue, although they have evil effects, because they are on a small scale and can be tolerated and borne, but as the burden rises, as the degree of intensity of taxation increases, so it becomes all the more important to examine all the anomalies, to dwell upon the special hardships, and to canvass with the most searching scrutiny the whole foundation, basis, and character of the tax. There are many aspects of this tax which we shall have to pass in review. Some few we shall deal with this evening, but others we shall definitely raise in the series of new Clauses which we have placed upon the Paper, and which, under the guidance of the Chair, must now be considerably extended. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will, in his speech, address himself to the main and broad considerations which arise upon the tax. We think that we could best assist him in making progress with his Bill if we have a very full discussion on the general question of the increase of the tax. A very full discussion, Mr. Young, with your permission, would, I think, be in accordance with the wishes of the Committee and its general convenience; and then, when we come to the Amendments, we will dispose of them as quickly as we can and divide upon them, so that we may register our opinions on each point, and at the same time have had the advantage of one general, comprehensive debate.
    I have only attempted to inaugurate an open and general discussion in these few remarks, which I have endeavoured to curtail as much as possible. But the
    2060
    right hon. Gentleman must be in no doubt about our attitude, which is one of emphatic protest against the policy of raising the standard rate of the Income Tax by 6d. at the present juncture; a policy which, we are sure, will add to our difficulties far more than it will relieve the revenue problem of the right hon. Gentleman and will, it is quite conceivable, prolong the period of misfortune through which we are passing and possibly leave us, when that period is over, definitely weakened for every purpose of domestic advance or of external progress.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On a point of Order. Ought we to continue our proceedings in this important matter without a single Member of the Liberal party being present?
    Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: The case of direct taxation has been so fully and ably put by hon. Friends of mine in this and previous debates, that there is little new that can be added from this side, but if it is difficult for us to find something new, it is at least easy for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find something new to say on this topic. If he would consent to abandon the taunts, jeers, and witticisms in which so far he has answered us, he would give us great satisfaction. I am the last man to decry the merits of his speeches—I recognise how good they are—but they are the kind which belong essentially to the politics of pre-War days, the kind which in those days were held to establish the reputation of the statesman, to encourage the enthusiasm of the party, and to enhance the prestige of the Government.
    But we must remember that in those days we carried on discussions such as this against a background of what we believed to be the inevitable and unassailable prosperity of this country. We might have surface commotions, this politician might be thrown out, this party might sink down, but the stream of British trade continued undisturbed. To-day things are different. To-day not even the optimists among us believe that British prosperity is unassailable, and the pessimists among us are beginning to believe that British prosperity is unattainable, but all of us are agreed that the time has gone by when there is any chance of this country muddling

    2061
    through, and it is no longer trusted that there is some special Providence which will see that everything comes right in the end. We believe now that things will only come right in the end if to-day we think right and do right and decide right, and one of the greatest decisions which we have to take, one of the decisions which may affect the whole of our future prosperity, is the view we are going to take towards taxation in general and the heavy increase of direct taxation in particular.
    It is interesting to see how this question affects our foreign observers. A letter was brought to my attention which shows the opinion of an American in regard to the effect that the general policy of this taxation will have on our industries. I must, of course, remind hon. Members opposite that, although the opinion I am going to quote is that of a foreigner, it is not necessarily right. This statement, from a letter which was sent out by a New York broker to certain clients in this country, and dated 15th April, the day after the Budget, starts as follows:
    "To-day the morning newspapers published the British Budget and showed the anticipated rise in taxes. After having read the Budget, it occurred to me very strongly that this should sharpen the appetite of the Britisher to want to invest in American securities."
    Mr. J. JONES: Good old patriots!
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member has given me the cue which I hoped would be given, but I may point out that, leaving aside for the moment the question of patriotism, with which I will deal later, this letter does at least show that the foreign observer believes that on purely economic grounds the investor will prefer to invest his money in America rather than here; and although patriotism may affect the investor in this country, it cannot, of course, be expected to affect the foreign investor, who up to now has found the securities of this country the safest and best means for the investment of his capital. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of the patriotism of the British investor. I wonder if he has ever considered that the patriotism of the investor may to some extent depend on the use to which the money which has been taken from him is put.
    Mr. J. JONES: All my investments are in this country. I have got four of them at home.
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member is like the brook, he goes on for ever. But it is worth while considering whether the patriotism which you are entitled to expect from the investor in this country does not to some extent depend on the use to which you put the money. I quite agree that, if the taxpayer is convinced that the taxes, however heavy, are being taken from him for purposes of national use, which are essential and vital to the restoration of prosperity in this country, that those taxes are being used as economically as possible, and spent as wisely as possible, then patriotism does demand that he should bear his fair share of the burden; and under similar circumstances during the War, when taxation rose to even higher heights than it reaches to-day, no one had any cause to complain of the patriotism of the taxpayer. But suppose conditions have changed, suppose the taxpayer believes that the taxes are being raised from him, not to be spent in a wise development of the prosperity of the country, but raised as part of the settled scheme of a particular political party, to eliminate a class of people who do not happen to fit in with their concept of a social and economic world, can you really blame him, or accuse him of a lack of patriotism, when he does not lend himself to the gentle schemes of hon. Members opposite?
    I hope that in the course of the debate this evening we shall get some reasoned statement of the case of hon. Members opposite, if not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then by some other Member opposite who speaks with authority on finance. I know that hon. Members have made up their minds, that they believe our case to be wrong, but I believe too that a great many of them recognise that there are two sides to the question, that although they have come down upon one side, it is well worth putting the reason for their decision and trying to get support for their case upon reason and not upon prejudice. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, only to-day, in a, message to some Labour body, made use of one of those mellifluous phrases which he employs. He said:

    2063
    "In this grave crisis the Government require the understanding support of the country."
    I cannot see how he can expect, in this instance, the understanding support of anybody, unless he is prepared to give the reasons and not the prejudices which force him into these courses.
    There are undoubtedly a great many questions which deserve an answer and which deserve discussion, but our case with regard to the ill-effect of direct taxation falls into two parts. I am leaving aside the question, which will be raised later, on the new Clauses, of the effect directly on industry owing to the taxation of reserves. Indirect taxation falls into two parts. We say, first, that it saps the energy and dulls the initiative of the individual, and, secondly, that it reduces the possibility of saving and, therefore, the capital available for use in industry. With regard to the first question, we are entitled to ask hon. Members opposite what they consider to be that effect upon the individual. We have had a good many divergent views expressed from the opposite side of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, made use of certain phrases which certainly suggested to us on this side of the House that he realised that direct taxation had a psychological effect upon those responsible for running trade and industry. It is true that since that time he has done everything he can to water down that announcement. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the little anecdote he told the House about the doctor in Yorkshire who said that poison was all right if it was administered in small doses cannot really be held to have increased the confidence of the investor or, in fact, to have upheld the prominence he gave to it in the Budget speech.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), who, I understand, to-day holds a great reputation for finance in the. Socialist party, clearly indicated in his speech last week that he recognised the taxable limit which, I rather gathered from him, had almost been reached already. I remember hon. Members on those benches who said that far from taxation being a damper upon the initiative of the industrialist it was actually a spur to his energy, and that
    2064
    the more you taxed the man the harder he worked. We are entitled to know which of these two views actually prevail. Surely, nobody argues that if out of every pound that a man makes you take 19s. 6d. in taxation it is really an incentive to enterprise and that, when faced with retaining for himself 6d. out of every pound in profit, he is going to make these extra sacrifices of health, comfort and leisure or run the extra risks to his capital which any extension of activity might ensure. Similarly, no one is going to argue that an Income Tax of 6d. in the or a Surtax of a shilling in the £ is going to have any effect on damping down the initiative of the business man. Surely, the effect of taxation is cumulative and it only has its ill-effect upon industry when it reaches a certain point. We are entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman if those are his views still, and what is the limit to which he thinks direct taxation can be put before those ill-effects become certain. We want that information in order to enable us to form our view of the expenditure which is going to be met.
    There is the other question of the effect of high direct taxation upon capital savings. Is the question of saving one which we have to consider? I know a good many hon. Members opposite who hold very strongly the view that too much attention is paid to saving and too little to consumption. Is that the view of the right hon. Gentleman? If saving is important, are we in this country saving enough? Is our position with regard to saving so good that we do not need to worry? If we were to discourage foreign investments, should we have sufficient for our own national uses? There is a further question. Apart from our own national uses, what is the position of world saving to-day? If we are to damp down foreign investments and to be concerned only with sufficient saving to run our own side of production, what effect will that have on the economy of the world? Who will take our place? Ts America saving so much that she can become the lender to the world? Is France, although her capital position is so good, ever likely to become a good lender in the markets of the world? Is there anybody, if we were to confine saving to this country and this country alone, who could take our part in the financing of world industry?

    2065
    Should we not suffer from it ourselves? Do not let us forget that we require capital just as much to buy as we require capital in order to save.
    If saving is important, what is the effect of high direct taxation, of the distribution of income and of wealth by means of taxation, upon savings? Does it have a discouraging effect? If you take away £100 from one man and distribute £1 each to 100 men, does that action decrease the likelihood of that £100 finding investment in the industries of the country? Again, does not the use to which this money is put have considerable bearing upon the problem? If the taxation you raise is put to real productive use to finance national schemes which it can be demonstrated will redound to the productive capacity of the country, then it may quite well be argued, if that £100 is not to be spent upon the schemes but is to be distributed to social services and to 100 different people, you are merely gambling on the fact that some of those hundred men will save that pound and in turn invest it in industry. All these are points which should be discussed and points about which we are entitled to receive answers.
    It may be said that this is academic; and in a way that is true. The right hon. Gentleman has presented his Budget and his direct taxation, and nothing said or done now will, I am sure, alter his opinion. But we have to remember the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves in this House. For 10 months in the year we discuss how we are going to spend the money, and for two months in the year we decide how we are going to raise it. The two things are never connected. We may spend weeks discussing a Bill which is going to entail an expenditure of £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, but we are never allowed to ask at that time how that money is to be raised. We never know whether that money is to be found out of savings or raised by this or that method of taxation. Therefore, it is essential that we should try now, during our only opportunity, to get some idea of what are the taxable limits of this country, to find out how soon all these limits will be reached, and to see if we cannot get some general survey of the financial requirements of the country and give preference to these needs which are most deserving.
    2066
    The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick made a rather apt simile of the whole Front Bench opposite trying to get through the wicket-gate first to get something out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was rather amused in the debate last week when the President of the Board of Education said how generous the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in giving him so many millions for education. It is true that on these benches we have an antiquated constitutional idea that the money is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's to give; that he is really the trustee of the taxpayer and that his generosity is at somebody else's expense, but it throws a light on our system of expenditure when those who are lucky in the struggle and get through the wicket-gate first call the Chancellor generous whilst those who are left in the rough call him cheeseparing. I am not concerned with any party advantage in this question of direct and indirect taxation; I am concerned with the state of the country. We are entitled to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any limit and, if so, what, to our taxable capacity, because that and that alone will enable us to discuss Bills involving expenditure which may be brought forward during the next year on any reasonable basis and with any intelligent analysis.
    Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: We have been discussing Budget matters in a somewhat different atmosphere from that which has prevailed during the last month, and it is a distinct advantage to the Committee that we should not start with fireworks and finish with fireworks. On the rare occasions on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has visited the City of London he has gone there evidently determined to impress the people in the City not only with his wisdom but with his desire to restore the country to a state of confidence. In the peroration to his Budget speech, he stated that his one aim was to restore confidence in the country and that everyone should understand for the future what their taxation was to be. As far as restoring the confidence of the country is concerned, I would not say for a moment that he has destroyed it, but it has been severely strained. It is all very well to say that it is unpatriotic for a Britisher to send his money abroad. He has always done so in the past in order to develop fresh markets all over

    2067
    the world, and it would be a sad thing if to-day those who are able to send their money abroad were to send it either for safety or because they thought that industries and factories abroad would be able to develop unhampered by unfair and unjust taxation.
    For a long time there has been a disinclination to put money into home industries. I am not referring to the struggles between masters and men, to lock-outs or to strikes, but to the incidence of taxation. The whole object of the Government should be to see factories and industries slowly developed, unhampered, until they had gained such a position that they were able to exist without feeling that the first little bit of profit they made would be taken from them. The difficulties of developing any industry or invention are that you may make mistakes, and ought to be prepared to make great mistakes, on the chance of making a great success, of finding some new development or invention which will bring great profit to the country and more employment. That is impossible on the lines of present taxation. I am not accusing the present Chancellor of the Exchequer any more than former Chancellors of the Exchequer, but the fact is that no one in this country to-day really understands how taxation is going to affect industry. It does not matter when the tax is only 2d. or 6d., but to-day it is four shillings and sixpence, a very heavy charge as now levied.
    In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there were two and a quarter million Income Tax payers, and he rejoiced to think that there were only 50,000 who were paying 4s. in the £. That 50,000 seemed to be the people whom the Chancellor 1S especially anxious to nobble. The tax is now to be raised to 4s. 6d., and I understand that even less than 50,000 people will be called upon to pay it. When we talk about having sent money abroad in the past, we must remember that the rich men in those days were nearly always landowners. Everyone considered that the rich landlords were the men who bought works of art and went about the country as the great financial potentates. To-day, the landowner is probably one of the poorest. He cannot
    2068
    send his house and his land abroad. But the rich man, with his knowledge of finance, and the fact that his assets are mobile can transfer his property abroad, and no doubt in certain cases men have done so, and will continue to do so. That is a distinct loss to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Money invested abroad may pay Income Tax and Surtax, but I think the Chancellor will admit that there is a considerable leakage in his receipts from money sent abroad as compared with what he would get from the same amount of income if it was earned here.
    I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not lose a great deal in that way. I am to a certain extent a banker and almost daily I am asked by customers about foreign loans and bonds, and how they can escape taxation. I will not tell the Committee what my answer is, but it is certain that clever people will devise methods for their clients to send their money abroad; and you cannot blame them. The Committee must remember that in the past, when there has been political oppression, the inhabitants of almost every European country have endeavoured to send their assets abroad and eventually have gone themselves. A large measure of prosperity was brought to this country by the Hugenot families who escaped oppression at home and provided us with some of the greatest industries we have to-day and some of our most honourable names. When there was oppression here certain people took themselves, not their assets because they had none, and went and founded our Colonies. If financial oppression continues here, or gets worse, there will not only be an export of capital, but an export of many of our citizens, and they will not be the poor element but the rich men. They may be no loss to the country, but I think the country will suffer greatly if they feel that they prefer to go and live abroad.
    I do not think that many people, especially hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, realise what a great asset the financial centre of London is to this country. The shipping trade just now is in strong competition with the foreigners. The banks in the same way are in strong competition with American and French banks. If there is the slightest distrust of our credit or the slightest dislike of sending funds here

    2069
    and using London as a great financial centre, irretrievable damage is done to this country. No one would challenge the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that to encourage the spirit of confidence and enterprise it was right that so far as was humanly possible the people should know the probable full extent of their tax burden in the immediately ensuing year. But the people do not know it now. They are unable to compute the sums that they will have to pay. We all realise, after the answer given yesterday to an hon. Member, that the authorities have failed after three years to devise a scheme of taxation that can be understood.
    A few years ago when the Income Tax was sixpence in the pound people did not mind, but to-day no one can understand the Income Tax forms, and they have to employ professional people to provide an explanation. So intricate is the system of taxation that expert accountants are lured away from the Inland Revenue at high salaries to explain the methods under which the Board of Inland Revenue works. No one believes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury or the Board of Inland Revenue intentionally cheats the poor taxpayer, but they are open to the criticism of obtaining money under false pretences when they send out forms that the taxpayer cannot understand, and when it is necessary to employ people to explain them.
    For many years the firm with which I am connected had no professional audit. The thing was simple then, merely a question of addition and subtraction, but when the taxes became extremely heavy and the intricacies so great that we could not understand them, for the first time we employed a professional man to help us. The result was extraordinarily satisfactory. We found that for several years we had been paying far more than we ought to have paid. An honest Government such as ours promptly repaid us. But that is not right. It hardly seems possible that officials should not be able to explain clearly what the taxpayer has to pay and how the taxpayer should have kept his accounts in the past. I would like to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the great difficulties that have prevented the Committee which
    2070
    has sat for three years from arriving at some simple story that can be understood. This extra sixpence of Income Tax falls on comparatively few people. Not all of them are wildly extravagant, or useless to the nation, but are people whom it would be a great loss to lose.
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I appreciate the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It is a most agreeable change to find ourselves discussing this important matter in a serene atmosphere. I appreciate as much as any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee the importance of this question, and I find myself in considerable agreement with some of the arguments which have been advanced in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) referred to a remark which I made, I believe in my Budget statement, about the psychological effect of increased taxation. There can be no doubt about that effect. There seems to be an assumption on the opposite side of the Committee that we take delight in imposing new taxation. I believe that my predecessor in office has said more than once, in the course of the Budget debates, that this is a penal charge in the imposition of which I have taken an almost fiendish delight. I want to assure hon. Members opposite that nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot imagine any Chancellor of the Exchequer taking a delight in putting on new taxes. A Chancellor's task at all times is very difficult. If he happens to be in a position to reduce taxation, he may please the people who are the recipients of his bounty, but he certainly gives dissatisfaction to those who do not benefit.
    I have been compelled to increase taxation this year under the dire necessity of meeting expenditure which has been incurred either by this Parliament or by the preceding Parliament, and I have done it in a way in which I believe the least injury will be inflicted. I have never believed that the mere imposition of taxation in itself is a desirable thing. The hon. Member for Westmorland gave expression to sentiments which I have repeated time after time during Budget debates. No one has denounced more strongly than I have the mere imposition of taxation in order to spend money on wasteful or unremunerative objects. I agree with what the hon. Member said

    2071
    —that we must judge taxation and increased taxation by the purposes to which it is to be applied. We must convince the people who have to pay the taxes that the purposes are not merely necessary, but desirable. Taxation is not justified when it is wasteful and unremunerative.
    The hon. Member for Westmorland repeatedly addressed to me in the course of his speech a question as to when I would consider that the limits of taxation had been reached. It is obviously impossible to give an answer in categorical terms to a question of that kind. I remember Budget debates in this House before the War when the Conservative party leaders, then in Opposition, urged that the limits of taxation had been reached with an Income Tax of 9d. and 1s. in the £. The limits of national taxation obviously must be determined by the needs of the National Exchequer or, in other words, by the expenditure of which Parliament has approved. The illustration which was given by another speaker as to what would be the effect of a tax of 19s. 6d. in the £ on saving and energy is, of course, reducing the argument to an absurdity, because I am sure that nobody would work hard to earn £1 if he thought that the State was going to take 19s. 6d. of it. I wish to put the matter in rather more reasonable terms, and I wonder if the Committee will bear with me while I illustrate this argument from my own experience of practical affairs. In the days when I earned an honest living by honest work, I had a certain expenditure to meet, and, therefore, I made an income which, after the deduction of taxation, was sufficient to meet that expenditure. If taxation went up or if my expenditure went up, then I undertook more literary commissions and worked harder in order to meet the increased taxation or the increased expenditure. I think a great many people are in the same position. I do not want to deny, and I have never denied, that there is a limit to taxation, but I believe that that limit can only be determined in relation to the needs of the State.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) gave expression to economic principles to which I
    2072
    think nobody could take exception. I should be in a much more fortunate position if he had put those principles into practice when he was in charge of the national finances. I do not wish in the least to deny whatever share of responsibility we may have for the increased taxation which has been necessary, but the fact is that a great amount of the taxation, by far the greater amount of the taxation which I have found it necessary to impose, is due to the deficit and to the financial position generally which was left to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to go into details about that matter. We have threshed it out across the Floor over and over again. Nevertheless, I must say this. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had struggled for years to avoid the need for reimposing the 6d. in the £ on the Income Tax. But he did so by methods the consequences of which are now coming home to roost, and I have very often regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not remain in office sufficiently long to have to deal with the financial situation which he created.
    He said that there was, of course, a fundamental difference between our views of the true methods of taxation and those of hon. Members opposite. He said that in seeking to impose this additional Income Tax I have been guided by no sound canons of taxation. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not very well acquainted with the classical canons of taxation laid down by Adam Smith more than a century ago which have been accepted as orthodox by every economist of our time. One principle of those canons is that taxation ought to be levied in accordance with the ability to pay. We have put this point before the House of Commons very often, but I may be pardoned if I repeat it. Taxation, in spite of the heavy taxation of the rich, is not generally levied in accordance with ability to pay. I admit that at once. If that were the only test, the poorer classes of the community, those who pay taxation through indirect taxes, would be relieved of a considerable part of the taxes which they now pay, and correspondingly increased burdens would be put on the wealthier sections of the community. To take 6d. or 1s. from a man with an income of £2 or £3 a week is a very different matter from taking £500 or £1,000

    2073
    of additional taxation from a person who has an income of £10,000 or £20,000 or £100,000 a year. That increase in taxation may have some of the indirect consequences in regard to saving and the like, to which the hon. Member for Westmorland referred, but at any rate such an increase upon such a large income will not deprive that person of any reasonable comfort or necessity. That cannot be said in regard to the taxation which is imposed on the poorer part of the community.
    I believe that I mentioned in the course of one of our earlier debates on the Budget proposals that something like four-fifths of the Customs and Excise Duties are paid by the wage-earning and the lower middle classes. That amounts to more than £200,000,000 a year, a sum which is nearly equal to the yield of the Income Tax. This has a double bearing, and it touches another point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland. We have to raise £355,000,000 a year for the Debt services and, assuming that the whole Debt is held internally, as of course by far the larger part is—I suppose the amount held abroad is a relatively small proportion—that payment is practically equal to the yield of the Income Tax, the Surtax, and the Death Duties. Let us assume for a moment—it is not so in all cases—that the people who hold War Debt are people who pay Income Tax and Surtax and Death Duties, then that sum of £355,000,000 which they pay goes back to them in interest upon their own holdings in War Debt and, therefore, in a sense, it is taken out of one pocket and put back into another. But this cannot be said of taxation which is paid in Customs and Excise Duties.
    That is the fundamental difference between ourselves and the party opposite. With increasing emphasis, the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor has in the last 12 months been advocating indirect taxation in preference to direct taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has not always held those views. If he held them 12 months ago, I should like to ask him why he abolished the Tea Duty, and thereby relieved indirect taxation by something like £6,000,000 a year? It is a mistake, too, I think, to assume that direct taxes are a burden on industry and that indirect taxes are not such a burden. My own view is, and I think a
    2074
    great majority of traders will agree with me, that indirect taxes are a heavier and more direct burden on industry and do more harm to industry than an addition to the Income Tax which would give an equal yield. I cannot, of course, say this in regard to the liquor and tobacco taxes, which I have always put in a special category. If we carried out the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman during the last few weeks on several occasions, and stopped this movement that has been going on for the last 50 years to raise a larger proportion of taxation by direct taxes and correspondingly less by indirect taxes; if we reversed that, and ceased to impose additional direct taxation and raised any revenue that might be necessary by means of indirect taxation, do hon. Members possibly maintain for a moment that this would not be a heavy burden on industry?
    The right hon. Gentleman has altered his views very radically during the last year or two if he would not agree that an indirect tax, a tax based upon commodities, takes out of the pockets of the taxpayer more, and imposes a burden upon the consumer, very much higher than the revenue that it brings into the Exchequer. I had some very remarkable figures given to me a week or two ago by an importer of an article which is taxed. He gave me the minutest details of the whole transaction. He gave me the price of the article in America, and the price that was paid by the purchaser in this country after the duty had been paid, after the transport charges had been paid, after allowance had been made for the insurance and the profits to various people through whose hands the article went before it reached the purchaser, and the price was more than double the price at which it had originally been bought. Indirect taxation must have this evil result among many other evil results, that it reduces the purchasing power of the people.
    Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the article was?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: No.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman hold that view if the article were a foreign-made article providing no employment here?
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not going to enter into an argument which involves King Charles' head. Nobody who knows anything about it, and least of all my predecessor in office, will deny that if you put a tax upon an article you raise the price, not merely by the amount of the duty, but by the profit which has been put upon the article in its various stages. I well remember the right hon. Gentleman saying, when he imposed the Silk Duty, that he expected that the consumers would pay; and in the following year, when he was giving in the Budget speech the effect of the taxation, he said that there had not been an increase in the price, but that no doubt the duty had intercepted a fall in price. However, I need not argue that, because the matter is beyond all argument. The point I made is that it is a mistake for the party opposite to maintain that direct taxation is a burden on industry, whereas indirect taxation is no burden at all. The opinion of the Colwyn Committee with regard to the effect of Income Tax upon industry has often been quoted in the House.
    I made a few rough notes of the speeches of hon. Members who preceded me, and I think that I have dealt with most of them; I have tried to deal with them in the spirit in which the speeches were delivered. I will conclude with what I said at the beginning of my remarks, that I am imposing this taxation this year under necessity. I do not contend for a single moment that it is going to have a stimulating effect upon industry in the present state of industry, but I maintain that the means by which I am raising the revenue which is absolutely necessary is, taking everything into consideration, certainly the least injurious. I dealt with the point of the hon. Member for Westmorland in regard to the future of taxation, and I can only repeat what I said then, that it is impossible to say what would happen. I repeat a statement which I have made more than once in the last year or two, that at a time like this the available resources of the nation should be directed to the encouragement of industry. We do not abate one item in our programme of social reform, but the carrying out of that programme must be determined by the circumstances. What I want to do is to get industry going again. I want
    2076
    to get industry making big profits, and then increased taxation would not be felt so much by them.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: They would be further taxed as "the idle rich."
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What I said just now is in words which are almost identical with those in a memorandum issued by the Federation of British Industries a few weeks ago in which they point out that it is only by increasing the income of the country that we can provide the means of revenue for the social reforms which are being undertaken. I have dealt fairly, I think, with the arguments which have been advanced, and, as we have got to some understanding as to how far we are to get to-night, I hope the further discussion on this particular Amendment will not be unduly protracted.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I wish to emphasise what has been said already in reference to the effect which this taxation is likely to have upon the industry and the prosperity of the country. There is an old saying, which no doubt everybody has heard, that money begets money; but this country is being slowly but surely bled to death by high taxation. We have gigantic Death Duties and very heavy taxation on incomes, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have an audit made to ascertain how long it will be before the surplus revenue or, rather, the accumulated mass of money there is in this country, will be exhausted. It would only be a matter of actuarial calculation to arrive at the answer. Under present discouragements it is utterly impossible for anybody ever again to accumulate money. Large incomes are taxed to the maximum. In the case of large fortunes, Death Duties claim 50 per cent. for the State, and 50 per cent. is retained by the relatives of the man who dies. Take the case of a man who leaves £1,000,000. That man would have had an income of £50,000, he would have been a very wealthy man. Out of that £50,000, however, the Government would to-day take £26,000 and leave him with £24,000—of course a very handsome income; and when the man died the Government would take from the estate £400,000.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are not dealing with Death Duties at this moment. We are dealing with Income Tax.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was only pointing out the necessity for an actuarial calculation to ascertain how long it will be before we have exhausted the funds at the disposal of wealthy people from which the Government derives the large sums it receives in Income Tax. When the Chancellor is making up his Budget, when the various Departments which spend the money of the taxpayer bring their estimates to him, I ask the Chancellor to consider how he can get anything like the income which he has at the present time from the remains of fortunes which have been dissipated by the extravagance of the Government. [Laughter.] It is easy to laugh, but the Government ought to take heed of this warning in considering the interests of the nation, which, after all, are the interests of the working class. Money has been dissipated by extravagance, and as a nation we must see how we are to live in the future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury ought to remember that this "Rake's Progress" cannot go on for ever. It will be the duty of this Government, indeed, of any Government, to keep a very strong hand on the spending Departments, because while they spend the money we have to provide it, and if the task of finding the money exhausts the resources of the country we prevent that revival of industry upon which we so much depend.
    We have, unfortunately, reached the stage where, owing to the extravagance of the Departments, unemployment is becoming greater and greater. We have to provide for unemployment, and with the wastage of the capital of the country which is going on we cannot make provision beyond a certain point. The only way in which the country can get the necessary revenue for this purpose is through an improvement in industry and in commerce. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I felt constrained to call the attention of the Government to the grave danger in which our industries are as the result of the extravagance on the part of the Government Departments not only under the régime of this Government but previously.
    Mr. TINKER: While listening to those who have been talking about dissipation and extravagance I have been wondering how they would raise the money necessary to meet the expenditure of the
    2078
    country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] An hon. Member opposite spoke about the addition of 6d. to the Income Tax raising nearly £30,000,000, and I was asking how otherwise hon. Members would have procured the money? No one has yet put forward any suggestion. If the burden has to be borne, where else could the money be found? The burden has to be placed on somebody's shoulders. The expenditure of the country must be met. Hon. Members sitting on this side of the House agree with the methods which have been adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money, and the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the only way in which the money could be obtained effectively. Hon. Members opposite have argued that the Government have spent money extravagantly. Do hon. Members opposite use that argument in regard to the great advantages which are being enjoyed by the unemployed, or in regard to the money which has been spent in providing widows' pensions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to find the money for these objects by additional expenditure. Is it the opinion of hon. Members opposite that we have been giving too great benefits to the unemployed and to the widows of this country? If that is their view, they had better face the issue and tell us plainly what they mean. If hon. Members opposite agree with us that the unemployed and the widows should be treated as generously as possible, then they must admit that the only way to find the necessary money is by higher taxation. All this talk about driving capital out of the country does not trouble hon. Members on this side very much. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In times gone by it suited wealthy people who support hon. Members opposite to invest their money overseas, and no question of patriotism was raised at that time. Large sums of money were invested in India and China—
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will address his remarks to me.
    Mr. TINKER: One is inclined, at times like this, to get rather warm, and speak directly to hon. Members opposite. That is a habit we have, and I agree that it is not in keeping with the Rules of the House. I will, therefore, address my remarks to you, Mr. Chairman, and through

    2079
    you I hope they will get to hon. Members on the other side of the House. The point I was dealing with was that in the past hon. Members opposite, and wealthy people, did not hesitate about investing their money overseas and no question of patriotism was raised at that time. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Grenfell) argued that if the burden of taxation became too great for the wealthy to bear patriotism would go by the board, and they would invest their money abroad.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: He never said that.
    Mr. TINKER: I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be upset by any argument of that kind, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that on this occasion he has pleased hon. Members on this side of the House by the manner in which he has dealt with taxation. When the other side get into power there is no question as to where they will place the burden of taxation. In 1923 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer remitted 1s. from the Income Tax, and in 1925 he remitted another 6d. On this occasion we want the money, and it must be placed on the broad shoulders of those who can afford to pay the Income Tax. If the time comes when those people cannot bear the burden of taxation any longer then we shall have to try some other method. By that time the money will have been distributed more evenly in the country, but until that time arrives I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will proceed on the lines which he has adopted in this Budget by direct taxation in the shape of the Income Tax, the Super-tax and the Death Duties.
    Sir GERALD HURST: I support this Amendment inasmuch as I represent a district which lives by trade, and in my submission the proposal to increase the Income Tax by 6d. is not only dangerous to trade, but it is totally unjustified by the conditions under which we are living to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the whole of his argument to the issue as to whether the class that was going to pay the extra Income Tax was the class best able to bear the burden of taxation. That, however, is not the real issue raised by this Amendment. The real issue is whether or not this increase of taxation is necessary. Taxation is, ipso facto, a bad thing, and,
    2080
    unless it is absolutely necessary there can be no virtue in saying that we are putting it on the people who are best able to bear the burden.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to satisfy the Committee that this increase in taxation is necessary. At the present time, nobody who knows the condition of our industrial districts can help realising that what is wanted as much as anything else is the provision of ample capital. A few weeks ago I happened to be in the corner of the Colne Valley Division which looks down on the great plain of South Lancashire between Oldham and Manchester. It is an area covered with mills, and at the present time there are scarcely any mills at work there. The whole district is absolutely desolate, and it is a necessitous area if ever there was a necessitous and destitute area.
    One way in which industry can be partially restored there and employment found for those who are out of work is by refitting and replacing the old-fashioned machinery in a great many of the mills in order to make them better able to compete with the newly-equipped and better equipped mills of their Continental competitors. Another and more important way to deal with that problem is by providing new industries, because there is no doubt that, at the present time, the Lancashire cotton trade has to support a greater population than the industry can bear, and the starting of new industries to provide more employment is the only way out of the difficulty. The only way in which we can find capital to replace the old machinery and to finance new industry is to utilise that margin of income which remains after a man has met his ordinary expenditure and his ordinary taxation. The real question which the Committee has to ask is whether this margin of income is best devoted to re-equipping industry, starting new trades and adding to the reserves of our trade, and whether that is not the better way of utilising the margin which is now diverted by taxation into unproductive expenditure?
    The last speaker has very truly said that we must see to what purpose the money is to be applied. Nobody can say that the additional need for taxation which has been created by the Socialist Government has in any way been productive

    2081
    expenditure. We know quite well why these new taxes are required. There is £14,000,000 required for increased unemployment pay, £4,000,000 to enable persons to draw unemployment benefit even if they cannot show that they are genuinely seeking work, and £5,000,000 to meet the cost of the new widows' and orphans' pensions which are given to people quite regardless of whether they need them or not. All this new source of taxation is, no doubt, very welcome to the recipients of these doles and bounties, but nobody can suggest that it is reproductive in the sense of giving life-blood to industry. It is a diversion of money from trade and industry to outlets of national expenditure for which there is no national return whatever. At the present time we need rigorous economy. If we have that, there is no need for any increased taxation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer often seeks to place our party in a dilemma by asking to which, if any, expenditure we object, because if we do not object to any we cannot logically reduce the taxes. I suggest the answer is that we believe that a great deal of this adventure in expenditure on so-called social services is unwarranted by the conditions of the times in which we are now living. The Prime Minister has deprecated a great many of the adventures in the nature of social services upon which his party suggests that the Government should embark. Those which he does not like he calls the "flashy futilities of Socialism in our time," and those which he likes he calls "social services." They are all really in the same category, and none of them can the country afford at the present time. The hon. Member who spoke last asked how otherwise could we provide for this new expenditure if we did not do it by 6d. on the Income Tax? As I understand it, this increase of Income Tax brings in a little more than £20,000,000. At the present time we have a revenue of £14,500,000 from the McKenna and Safeguarding Duties. If we doubled those duties, we should have £29,000,000, and that is the answer to the question. The view which is taken by people most concerned in industry is that that is a much better way of finding money. Hon. Members will have seen with pleasure the decision of a very large majority of the Manchester Chamber
    2082
    of Commerce on this subject. That is the conclusive answer to the question which the hon. Member asks. That is the way in which we propose to find the money.
    Mr. TINKER: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman then place the tax on the shoulders of the consumer?
    Sir G. HURST: The hon. Member knows quite well the consumer does not always pay. In the case of fully-manufactured foreign luxuries, it really does not matter if he does, because if he cares to buy such foreign articles he can very well afford to pay. I should like to point out what is really an illusion in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked how could Income Taxpayers complain, seeing that a great many of them had lent money to the Government during the War and got interest on their War Loan. What they paid out in Income Tax they got back again in interest on War Loan. That means that people have to be content to have lent their money to the State for nothing. If that argument were carried to its logical conclusion, it could justify repudiation, because it would mean that the State, having obtained loans, would be justified in giving no interest on them. That is an absolutely untenable argument.
    Quite apart from the effects of this increased Income Tax upon industry, I suggest that it is a bad thing to have brought it forward and supported it by the dialectics with which it is supported not only in this House but in the country. It is supported on a plea founded entirely on an illusion—that it is a bad thing in this country for a man to become rich, and that a man who obtains wealth for himself is doing an injury to the poor. That is preached up and down the country, and it really represents the argument upon which this increase in Income Tax has been justified in this House. There are no doubt bad types of rich men. It may, perhaps, happen that a man who acquires wealth in business may be selfish, and be a man who grinds the faces of the poor. There may be such types, but I would remind hon. Members that where men have acquired wealth through industry, they have not only acquired wealth for themselves, but for the people whom they employ.

    2083
    Up and down Yorkshire and Lancashire you may find hard types of wealthy employers, but the fact remains that it is they who have provided means of livelihood for a large portion of the working classes. Hon. Members must not forget that the desire to get on in the world may not be the highest motive, but it is certainly one which has made for the good of the people. The hope of the industrial world is that self-help should not die out, and that a man should still wish to get on in the world, because by getting on he will provide opportunities of well-being for those around him. That is a commonplace which hon. Members opposite are apt to forget. If you destroy the motive for getting on by penalising a man because he has gained a certain amount of capital, you are really destroying the root of those activities and ambitions which have led to all progress in industrial England. Quite apart from the immediate effects of high taxes upon industry, I suggest that these arguments which have been put forward are detrimental to the best interests of the whole country.
    Mr. J. JONES: To those of us who are not experts in finance, it has been very interesting to listen to some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon. The main burden of the speeches has been "Pity the poor rich." All these burdens are placed on them, and yet they still manage to escape taxation. One hon. Member representing the greatest financial centre in the world told us that if we dared to go so far we must not go any further, and that in certain eventualities they would take their capital abroad. They mean by "capital" simply the amount of money they may possess in the banks, but really the capital of this country is not the amount of money in the banks but the material, the land, the mineral wealth, the means of transport, all the amenities of living and the brain and sinews of the people. They are only gamblers in these things, which are the real capital, and they come to us with a lordly manner, with their pince-nez on and their big banking accounts, and talk to us as though they were the only people who counted—they are the only pebbles on the beach. But the ordinary workman in this country has done far more
    2084
    than they have to make the country what it is. [Interruption.] I am only answering the so-called arguments of hon. Members opposite.
    I am not well up in figures; I only know the figures in the streets. The figures in the books do not appeal to me very much, because anyone who is a good figure-twister can make them mean what he likes. In this case the question is, who has got to pay? What form of taxation are we to adopt, whether direct upon the people who have got the money, or indirect upon the people who have not? The hon. and learned Member who has just addressed the House—I wish I had learned so much and knew so little—has just informed us that we cannot afford to tax the people who have got it. The obvious alternative is that you must tax the people who have not got it—you must tax their brains and their bodies, you must tax their boots and their clothes. "Tax my father and my mother, my sister and my brother, but for God's sake don't tax me." I do not always agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In some things he differs from me, but all great minds do not always think alike. I agree with him, however, in this, that if you want any money you have got to go where it is. It is no good coming round to my house after it, when we have honourable millionaires sitting on the benches opposite. They object to paying another sixpence in the pound, but they will pay sixpence to-night for a cigar[Interruption]—putting it at the lowest possible price. They do not object to paying guineas for a dinner. I should have to look twice at a guinea before I could afford it for a dinner.
    Always, when it is a question of wanting money for national purposes, they say it cannot be done, that you are ruining the country and the people. Who are being ruined? They are the people who every year on the average increase their income by £100,000,000 per annum. Who is going to have to pay on the basis of this Budget? Nobody with an income of less than £2,000 will pay it a penny piece more than they paid before. Who is going to pay? The handful of people in this country who have got their hands round the necks of everybody else. They talk about transmitting their capital abroad. Lancashire has been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member. He

    2085
    talks about the capital in Lancashire. What has been the main cause of the Lancashire situation? Lack of capital? As a matter of fact, the Lancashire cotton industry has been the most over-capitalised industry in Great Britain. It is not for lack of money, but because they found it easier and more profitable to transfer their capital, as they call it, to other countries where labour was cheaper and profits were greater. Therefore, we found Japan, and China, and India, where labour is down to practically next to nothing as compared with Lancashire. All these places are being financed by the very people who are talking about the collapse of Lancashire in industry. How in the name of all that is reasonable can you compete against labour under these conditions? People talk about Imperial Free Trade. Are we going to bring India within the Empire from the standpoint of competition in the cotton industry? You know as well as I do that the Lancashire cotton operatives could not possibly compete against Indian labour in the production of cotton goods so far as the Indian market is concerned.
    What is the good of talking to us like this? I am only a labourer. I do not pretend to be an economist, except so far as I have had to practise economy. All the economics that I have ever learned has been the economics of having to tighten my belt and look for a job in London, and that has taught me more economics than hon. Members opposite ever knew anything about—the economics of how to live within your means. This country has the means if it has the will. All that we are doing now is just asking you for a little to save you from taking the lot. We say the time has arrived when taxation must be based on this principle: "Those who have got it will have to dub up." It is the truth now, as it always has been as far as I have been able to understand it, that the people who pay most taxation are the people who have the least to pay it with. Consequently, the screams from the other side do not upset me in the slightest degree. From the way in which millionaires opposite have been shouting, one would think that they were not going to the Derby to-morrow, just to show how economical they are; but to-morrow this House will be half deserted by gentleman who cannot afford to pay their Income Tax; and when they have
    2086
    exhausted the possibilities of luxury, they will come back and talk to us about economy. [Interruption.] I shall not be there. As far as I am concerned, I would rather go and see a football match.
    I want the Committee to remember that, after all, we are not so foolish as we look. When we are discussing matters of taxation, we know just as much as you do about them. We know economics as well as you do. We know that all wealth is the result of human energy applied to the raw materials provided by God and Nature for the use of mankind. That wealth is not the product of the people at the top who think themselves clever; it is the result of the human activities and social abilities of all the people working for a common end; and we claim that that wealth which is the result of the activities of all the people is a social product which must be socially controlled in the interests of all the people. At the present time all the chance that we have is, by Budgets such as this, to divert back to the stream that wealth which up to now has been ostracised into the hands of private individuals under their own control. [Interruption.] It is perfectly true to say that it has been ostracised. Some of those who have been talking have not been ostracised; they have been looked upon as products of the community, of which they do not form a part. They are parasites upon the back of industry, yet they think themselves absolutely indispensable. Nobody is indispensable. We say that here we are adopting the principle of taxing those who can afford to pay. Can anyone object to that? I would like you to come down to my constituency and talk to the people there. I would like some of those hon. Members opposite who have spoken to come and face an audience of dock labourers. They are not people who would attack you; they would listen to you. I could get young men of 25 or 30 who would beat you in argument on any platform in that constituency, who would show you something about economics, and teach you the facts of the industrial and political situation. Therefore, we are supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer as far as he goes. Our only regret is that he has not gone far enough.
    Mr. HASLAM: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) showed how this increased burden of direct taxation was going to prevent a very important industrial area in Lancashire from recovering in the way that otherwise it might do. I desire to draw attention to another aspect of heavy direct taxation—to the effect that it would have on British industries abroad. The party opposite have always treated this taxation as if it rested entirely on the individual, and as if it were simply and solely the putting on the individual who had the income the appropriate tax, but the Income Tax, as it is at present applied, is very much more than that. It does not only rest on the individual. The Income Tax, as applied to public companies, falls as a burden not only on the amount which they distribute in dividends to the shareholders, but it rests also on that amount which, as prudent managers, they feel obliged to apply to reserve. I do not suppose there is a single public company which does not place to reserve very considerably larger sums than are allowed by the Income Tax regulations for replacement and the various objects that are mentioned in those regulations.
    Mention has been made of English capital going abroad. English capital has gone abroad. It has established industrial works and enterprises in almost every country in the world. I doubt if there is a single country in which British brains and enterprise have not established one form of industry or another. Those industries established overseas provide a very considerable income coming into this country. They have to pay Income Tax not only on the money they transmit here as profits for their shareholders, but they have to pay the same tax on all those profits which they put to reserve for the purpose of expansion and holding their own in the countries in which they are established, and it is a very material point as to how this increase of Income Tax is going to affect them. In practically none of the countries where they are established is there any taxation comparable to that in this country, and the result is that they are bearing a burden which their competitors in this country do not bear. But they have a method of escape. If they are registered in this country, they pay British Income Tax. They can register
    2088
    themselves in the country in which they are, in which case they would immediately be relieved of British tax. Of course, a company in a foreign country has not only to bear British Income Tax, but the taxes of the country in which it is operating, as is obviously fair and just.
    It seems to me that this question should be studied from the point of view of arriving at some idea as to the point up to which they can be taxed before they begin to think of registering themselves outside this country, in which case the Revenue will lose quite a considerable amount. Private individuals who have built up businesses, when they return to England, in many cases take care not to domicile themselves in this country. They take care so to comport themselves and to live that they are not liable to Income Tax. I do not think those who have built up these businesses all over the world can be accused of lack of patriotism. It is a magnificent achievement that Englishmen have gone all over the world and established businesses in almost every country under the sun. It is one of the evils of this system of direct taxation that we may very likely deprive ourselves of the very large income that we are getting from those industries if we drive them to register themselves in a foreign country.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I rise to make an appeal. I think it is the wish of Members on all sides of the Committee that we should not sit unreasonably late. It is understood that we have still a considerable number of Amendments to cover, and, though I do not complain of the tone or spirit in which the Amendment has been discussed, I hope the Committee will now bring the discussion to a close.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: One quite appreciates the tone in which the debate has been carried on, and I am sure we should be anxious to expedite the course of business, but this is probably the most important Amendment of the whole Bill, and it seems to me to be asking a little too much to suggest that we should not be given some freedom of discussion on a matter which is of vital importance to the industries of the country. The, Chancellor of the Exchequer in his compendious reply, indicated that the policy

    2089
    he was pursuing was one that was, in his opinion, going to be to the advantage of the industry of the country. The case for the Government is simple. They say taxation has to be raised because of expenditure caused by the action of previous Parliaments. If this expenditure has to be raised, in their view it can best be raised by taxing that class of the community which can most afford to pay it. They say, further, that this form of direct taxation is of a character which will not hurt industry. It is that statement of defence which I should like to examine. They base their case almost entirely on the Colwyn Report, where it says that direct taxation does not enter into prices. That may be true, but we have to consider from the point of view of industry whether or not direct taxation enters into costs of production. In a competitive trade where your selling price is controlled by outside costs of production, you may not be able to sell in accordance with your costs of production, because you cannot pass the increased costs of production on to your selling price.
    Therefore, the result of direct taxation in this case may very well be that prices do not go up; you have not affected the general level of prices, but you have seriously affected the amount of profit that is being made. Competitive trades cannot carry forward their increased overhead costs on to prices, and any policy which this Government puts forward which does in fact increase the costs of production can rightly be condemned. The Government say that this policy does not do that. Let me take the general case of the basic industries. Hon. Members have been sent a pamphlet entitled "An Analysis of Rationalisation," published by the "Times." In that analysis there occur these words:
    "The three most vital needs of British industry to-day are the elimination of excessive competition by means of amalgamation, the reduction of the burden of debt incurred during the short-lived "boom" and the long years of depression which followed, and the provision of fresh capital for re-planting and reorganisation."
    It is this important point of the provision of fresh capital for re-planting and reorganisation to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee.
    2090
    The "Analysis" from which I have quoted goes on to say:
    "These three needs are all mutually interdependent and unless they can be satisfied simultaneously, little progress can be made."
    Quite clearly, the effect of very heavy direct taxation, at a time when the industries of the country are depressed is to narrow the field from which new capital can be taken for the essential process of reorganisation which, in the words which I have quoted, is so dependent upon our being able to draw new capital. The effect of this taxation is to prevent that new field of capital being drawn upon, and to prevent the reorganisation of these industries. The Lord Privy Seal is depending upon this new capital coming forward. This taxation, in the special circumstances of the time, is interfering with the work which the Lord Privy Seal still says is necessary in the policy which he is putting forward to deal with unemployment.
    Let us take the position of the trade with which I am so closely associated, the Lancashire cotton trade. I am addressing myself to the particular point of whether or not direct taxation is carried forward on to the costs of production. In the Lancashire spinning trade the production is financed in a unique way. They obtain loans, and the loan capital together with the share capital provide the means whereby production is carried on. The loan capital forms a very large proportion of the available capital resources of the company, and those loans are lent to the mills on terms free of Income Tax. They are lent at 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent., free of Income Tax. If the Income Tax goes up, the company has to pay more, because the person who lends the money receives a certain amount of interest free of Income Tax. Therefore, it is quite clear that in that special case, which deals with the largest exporting industry in this country, the amount of Income Tax is directly borne by the industry and, in fact, direct Income Tax is one of the costs of production. In cases where the loans are not lent on terms free of Income Tax, the investor requires to receive a certain net yield and, to the extent that the Income Tax is put up, he has to be offered more advantageous terms.

    2091
    10.0 p.m.
    I believe that if hon. Members will read the Colwyn Report wholly, they will not get the direct statement which is so frequently put forward that direct taxation is not carried forward into the costs of production. The circumstances under which the Colwyn Report was collected, militated against a very accurate analysis of present day circumstances. It should not be forgotten that when that evidence was collected we and other countries had not returned to the gold standard, and we had not arrived at the present circumstances of practically universal depression, when onerous taxation has a much greater effect on the problems of industry than normal taxation in a time of prosperity. The purpose of this direct taxation should be taken into consideration. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley) pointed out that we ought to bear in mind for what purpose the taxation is to be used. That is true.
    As far as I understand it, the Government consider that by direct taxation they can use Income Tax as a means of re-distributing wealth. That is a view that I should like to challenge. In my view, high taxation very frequently destroys wealth. You can have millions of capital sunk in mills, machinery and so forth, and if by means of taxation those industries are not prosperous, then the whole of that capital expenditure becomes valueless, and instead of assisting to produce wealth you have destroyed that wealth. It is the last 25 per cent. of production in the basic trades of the world that makes the previous 75 per cent. profitable or not profitable. Therefore it follows that if we are going to get out of our present depressed condition, we must pursue a policy which will enable us to augment the existing amount of production, and we have to do that by cheaper costs instead of endeavouring to re-distribute wealth by means of high taxation. I believe the proper policy to be followed is to re-distribute wealth through the lower prices of commodities, and we can get lower prices of commodities by the economies that come through mass production and through higher
    wages. If you will do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he wanted to do, and that was to put the whole of his financial machinery at the back of the producers of the country, you can arrive at a state of affairs in which commodities can be continuously cheapened, and you ought to be able to provide increased employment at higher wages. That would be the best way of redistributing wealth.
    Industrialists feel that what ought to happen in the present depressed condition of trade is that, as far as possible, the burden of their costs of production should be lightened. If, for example, it could be considered practicable to move the existing burden of taxation from direct taxation on to the taxation of imported manufactured goods and goods of a luxury character, to that extent you would lower the costs of production by reducing your taxation on the manufacturer and the benefit would be perceived throughout the whole community. It is not the case that putting an indirect tax on a luxury article is the same kind of tax as putting an Excise Tax on tea, coffee, or cocoa. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to twit my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) with having suggested in his speeches that it was desirable to tax manufactured imported goods, and that at the same time he had pursued a policy, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, of removing the Excise Tax upon tea; but these are kinds of indirect taxation of a very different character. From the point of view of the producer, if you could tax the manufactured commodities which come into direct competition with the goods which you make in order to provide employment for your people, and so build up the total volume of production, in that way you could re-distribute wealth in the best possible fashion, through lower prices of commodities and through higher wages.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 145.

    Division No. 332.]

    AYES.

    [10.10 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Arnott, John

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Ammon, Charles George

    Ayles, Walter

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Harriotts, J.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Bellamy, Albert

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Benson, G.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Palin, John Henry

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Perry, S. F.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Isaacs, George

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Bromfield, William

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Potts, John S.

    Brooke, W.

    Johnston, Thomas

    Price, M. P.

    Brothers, M.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

    Richards, R.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Ritson, J.

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kinley, J.

    Rowson, Guy

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Charieton, H. C.

    Lang, Gordon

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Chater, Daniel

    Lathan, G.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Clarke, J. S.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sandham, E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Scott, James

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Leach, W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Scurr, John

    Cove, William G.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sexton, James

    Cowan, D. M.

    Lees, J.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Daggar, George

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Dallas, George

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Shield, George William

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Shinwell, E.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dickson, T.

    Longden, F.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

    Dukes, C.

    Lowth, Thomas

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Duncan, Charles

    Lunn, William

    Sinkinson, George

    Ede, James Chuter

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    McElwee, A.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Egan, W. H.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McKinlay, A.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Foot, Isaac

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Snell, Harry

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Freeman, Peter

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    McShane, John James

    Sorensen, R.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Mansfield, W.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gill, T. H.

    March, S.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Gossling, A. G.

    Markham, S. F.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Gould, F.

    Marley, J.

    Sullivan, J.

    Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mathers, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Matters, L. W.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Granville, E.

    Maxton, James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Gray, Milner

    Melville, Sir James

    Tillett, Ben

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Messer, Fred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Middleton, G.

    Toole, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mills, J. E.

    Tout, W. J.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Milner, Major J.

    Townend, A. E.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Turner, B.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morley, Ralph

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Viant, S. P.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Walkden, A. G.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Walker, J.

    Harbord, A.

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Hardie, George D.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Muff, G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    2094

    2095

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    West, F. R.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    White, H. G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Peaks, Capt. Osbert

    Albery, Irving James

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Atkinson, C.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bowdley)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Balniel, Lord

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Remer, John R.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Boyce, H. L.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bracken, B.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Butler, R. A.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Long, Major Eric

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Womersley, W. J.

    England, Colonel A.

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ferguson, Sir John

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

    Fermoy, Lord

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wallace.

    Fielden, E. B.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that, in view of the wide discussion on the previous Amendment, there is an arrangement that on the subsequent Amendments on the Clause debate shall not be unduly prolonged.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out from the word "pound," to the end of the Sub-section.
    This is a manuscript Amendment, and, before dealing with it, I should like to have your guidance in the matter. It has been indicated to me that two subsequent Amendments standing in my
    2096
    name and in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) and the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford City (Captain Bourne) will be ruled out of order. I do not desire to proceed with this manuscript Amendment if I have an opportunity of raising the point I desire to raise on the two later Amendments, and I should like to ask whether you will be good enough to tell me, if I do not proceed with this manuscript Amendment, that you will call me in respect of the later Amendment. If you do not propose to call me perhaps you will indicate to me why you rule the later Amendments out of order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment of the hon. Member is contrary to the Money Resolution and the second Amendment is consequential, and I therefore do not propose to call them.
    Sir D. HERBERT: May I put the point to you as to whether your ruling is not due to a misapprehension? If you will be good enough to refer to the Money Resolution, it says that Income Tax shall be charged:
    "in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds £2,000 that such higher rates.… as Parliament may hereafter determine."
    That is, such rates as Parliament may determine after the date of the Resolution. I submit most respectfully that the Money Resolution expressly authorises Parliament at any time after the passing of the Resolution to settle the tax at "such higher rates as Parliament may determine."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am advised that the term "hereafter" means next year, not this year.
    Sir D. HERBERT: Although it is in the Resolution?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member should proceed with his Amendment.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper of a similar character, and I should like to put this point to you. The Financial Resolution declares that in the case of Surtax—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss these Amendments at this point. I called upon the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) to move his Amendment, because I thought he had agreed to do so in place of the one ruled out.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I was speaking on the point of order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A point of Order does not arise now. We have not reached the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member yet.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has handed in a manuscript Amendment, but he does not desire to proceed with it if the later Amendments on the Order Paper in his name are in order. It is upon that point
    2098
    of Order that I desire to say one or two words.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have called upon the hon. Member for Watford to move his Amendment. After discussion with him this manuscript Amendment was accepted in place of other.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: And it is upon that point that I want you to hear what I have to say on my Amendment, which appears later.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We can deal with that when we come to the Amendment.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I accept your interpretation of the Financial Resolution, but I must respectfully say that the point is one which I cannot quite follow, and I desire to reserve any rights I may have to raise the question at any subsequent stage of the Bill. I made some reference to the discussion that took place on the Financial Resolution in regard to the meaning of these words, the reason for inserting them here, and the effect of them. I am afraid that it will be necessary for me, in discussing this Amendment, to refer to Clause 8. I do not propose to discuss Clause 8 now, because there are on the Paper Amendments to it in regard to the fixing of what is known as Surtax for the year 1928–29; but I think it is necessary to explain to the Committee what I take to be the reason why the apparently meaningless and ineffective words appear in this particular Clause. All those who are acquainted with the Income Tax law know that Surtax under the Act of 1927, by which it was first created, is a deferred instalment of Income Tax. The Surtax for any particular financial year is not payable until the 1st January of the following financial year. Therefore, the Surtax payable on 1st January of next year will be the Surtax for the financial year which ended on 5th April last.
    It will be observed that Clause 8 deals with Surtax for the year 1928–29, which will be payable on 1st January next. Therefore, it will be received within this financial year, although it is last year's tax. Clause 8 proposes to deal with the tax which was last year's tax but payable in this year, and to increase it. I imagine, therefore, that the intention, in putting these words into this

    2099
    Clause, is to give a lead to Parliament to the effect that it shall generally be regarded as the customary thing to deal with the rate of Surtax for any particular year, not in the Finance Act of the year for which the tax is levied, but in the Finance Act for the year in which the tax is collected and received by the revenue. It seems to me that under Clause 8 the Chancellor of the Exchequer is contemplating the unforgivable Parliamentary and Constitutional sin of endeavouring to increase a tax for a past year which has been fixed by a past Finance Act. That, however, is a matter to be discussed when we come to Clause 8, and I only wish in passing to point out that these words which the right hon. Gentleman admits are put in more or less as a sort of lead to Parliament as to what it should do in the future, are, in fact, a lead to Parliament to be guilty of what I have already described as an unforgivable Parliamentary and Constitutional sin.
    There is another point of considerable importance which arises on this Amendment, and to which I frankly believe that I shall get the answer which I hope for from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Much as I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in many things I will, if I may respectfully do so, pay him the compliment of saying that I believe that he desires to uphold in every way the protection of those old Standing Orders which deal with our financial procedure. I can hardly hope that the Government will agree to the Amendment but if they do not, I wish, at least, to have an expression from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not contemplate and the Revenue do not contemplate, if this Clause is passed in this form, that it will then be competent for Parliament in next year's Finance Bill—this Clause being founded on a Financial Resolution—to impose a higher rate of Surtax, in pursuance of this Clause, without founding it upon a new Financial Resolution during next Session. If one could get a definite expression of opinion from the Front Bench, to that effect, it would dispose of a certain amount of the anxiety which is felt on this side.
    I pass to the main point of the Amendment, and I respectfully but very earnestly urge that these words cannot
    2100
    have any effect—that they are a mere indication to Parliament. We all know that Parliament may do whatever it chooses to do, and, as there is a considerable body of opinion which considers that Surtax for a particular year ought to be fixed in that year, and as the present Government, however notable they may be, do not, I am sure, regard themselves as immortal or as always to rule, I hope that they will leave out of this Clause what I have described as an indication to Parliament that in future Parliament ought to take a course which in the opinion of many would be the wrong course for Parliament to pursue. Parliament ought not to commit itself unnecessarily to a Clause indicating a course of action which does not find favour with a great body of opinion in this House. I do not desire to prolong the discussion, and having, I hope, made my point clear I await a reply to the question which I have raised.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member has raised three separate points. The largest point of all, the decision of the Government to impose a Surtax for the year 1929–30 in the present Budget, is one which, I understand, he does not wish to discuss on this particular Amendment, because it will come up later. The two other points with which he has dealt are these. In the first place, he asked a question whether the passage of the Clause in the form in which it appears in the Finance Bill will still necessitate a Financial Resolution next year before any higher rate or any rate of Surtax is imposed. The answer to that is in the affirmative. It will still be necessary, assuming that the Clause is carried in its present form, to have a Financial Resolution—
    Mr. SMITHERS: Whatever the rate?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, it will still be necessary to have a Financial Resolution, certainly for a higher rate.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Supposing the rate is not changed?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It will still be necessary under any circumstances to have a Financial Resolution. The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) then asked why these words have been inserted. The reason is somewhat peculiar. It is because of the precise

    2101
    form of Section 38 of the Finance Act of 1927. The words used in that Section imply that the Income Tax of any given year shall be at two different rates, one for people below a certain figure of income, and varying rates for people above that figure—
    Sir D. HERBERT: Additional varying rates?
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The essential part of Section 38 is that there shall be a standard rate, and for persons above a certain amount of income there shall be an additional rate. I am advised that, unless these words which we are proposing are retained in this Clause, some doubt will arise as to the right to carry through the necessary regulations with regard to Income Tax. It is not a question of the Surtax next year. It is a question of the standard rate of Income Tax for the current year, and, in order to secure that the necessary provisions in regard to Income Tax apply to the standard rate for the current year, it is necessary that these words should be retained in the Clause. That is the purely technical reason why the retention of these words are necessary.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his reply, which entirely satisfies me. I asked the question not so much for any fear that I might have, but because I was anxious in the interests of our financial procedure to get a definite pronouncement from the Front Bench and on that matter I am quite satisfied. I am sorry, however, that the hon. Gentleman does not by any means satisfy me with regard to the second point. He showed how he is likely to be misled over this matter and how, if I may say so, he does not really grasp the case, judging by the words that he used in the beginning of his speech, where he appeared to infer that Income Tax was charged at a varying or graduated rate. It was there that I interrupted him, because this is a mistake which appears in other parts of the Bill. Income Tax most definitely persists in two separate parts. One is Income Tax commonly so-called, which, according to the legal language of the statute, is the standard rate of Income Tax. It is important to remember that Income Tax, apart from Surtax, is not a graduated tax. There are reliefs, it is true, but even those reliefs
    2102
    do not make it a graduated tax. It is a, standard tax, and it is payable by all the taxpayers, and the relief that is given is given in the form of relief from the tax which is payable. Then we come to the Surtax, as it is called in the statute, which is Income Tax at a higher rate than the standard rate and is charged upon incomes above a certain amount. In dealing with this point the Financial Secretary said, "I am advised," but he must forgive me for saying that that is no answer to us unless he can explain the advice.
    We have the advantage of the presence of the Attorney-General on the Treasury Bench, and I hope he will go into this point. I listened to a speech by him elsewhere some time ago in which he spoke of the necessity of getting this tax legislation in a form in which it could be understood by persons of ordinary intelligence; but it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's answer to my question has only increased the fog. How can the leaving out of these apparently meaningless words interfere with the due imposition and collection during the present financial year of the standard Income Tax for this year? If there be a difficulty about that I would like to have it explained. I thought I had pointed out in my earlier remarks that if it is to be the custom of the House of Commons to fix the Surtax for the year in respect of which it is assessed not in the year for which it is assessed but in the following year, in which this deferred instalment of Income Tax is to be actually received, we shall be taking a course which we do not want to encourage and one which I have ventured to describe as an unforgiveable sin from every point of constitutionalism and Parliamentary procedure.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman feels really arises from half-a-dozen words in Section 38 of the Finance Act of 1927. Those words are:
    "where Income Tax is so charged."
    Where Income Tax is so charged certain consequences follow and certain enactments apply. The meaning of the words "so charged" is plain from the first part of the Section, and where in any year you charge Income Tax at the standard rate you also charge Surtax, then certain

    2103
    consequences follow, certain enactments apply, and certain machinery is operative. Unless you use some such words you do not comply with the condition in Section 38 so as to get the benefit of the machinery which Section 38 provides, because it is necessary that the Income Tax should be so charged, that is to say, that you should charge both Income Tax and Surtax. It is simply reason to bring ourselves within the words of Section 38 of the Finance Act of 1927 that the machinery therein provided may apply. That is why the words are used.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: There does not seem to me to be any reason whatever for the inclusion of the words to which we are objecting, and which are quite meaningless.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I desire to ask the Attorney-General a question. In the Bill under discussion the word "Surtax" is not, mentioned until we reach Clause 12. Clause 38 of the Finance Act of 1927 refers to Income Tax so charged for any year at the rate or rates exceeding the standard rate. In the Clause under discussion it says "at such higher rates." I look at the Finance Bill of 1929, and there is no scale in that Act, because, I take it, there was no change in the rate. Therefore, you have to refer back to the Finance Act of 1928. In the Finance Act of 1928 the table reads:

    "For every pound of the first five hundred pounds of the excess.

    Four shillings and nine-pence.

    being the amount of the standard rate plus the excess Surtax. That applies also to the 1929 Act, the table for the Surtax being given in full with the standard rate plus the addition. In this Bill, in Clause 8, it is given as "one shilling, one shilling and threepence," etc., to which you have to add the standard rate. Why has that different method been adopted in this Bill as compared with the Act of 1928 and is that the reason why the words "such higher rates" have been put into this Bill?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether the whole confusion does not arise owing to this different setting up of the increased rates of Income Tax, or what used to be known as the rate of Income Tax plus Super-tax. If in Clause 8 the rates had been set out in full, i.e., the standard
    2104
    rate plus the Surtax, then surely the words in Clause 7, paragraph 1, would have read, not
    "as Parliament may hereafter determine,"
    but
    "as set out in the Clause which follows."
    That would have made the whole matter quite clear.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I say I do not withdraw one single word of what I said before, but I do think that all sections of the House ought to do everything they can to simplify not only this but all other legislation in order that we may have some idea of what it is all about. With regard to the question which I have been asked and which seems to arise on Clause 8, I do not think that there is any great difficulty. There are set out in Clause 8 the rates which exceed the standard rate. All you have to do is to add the sums therein mentioned to the sum of 4s. I do not suppose that has been done to make it more difficult. I frankly say I do not know what is the reason why it is done in that way, but it is not difficult to arrive at the result. With regard to the question arising under Clause 7, if we stop at the word "pound" we should be holding out undue expectations to the taxpayer, because nobody really supposes that Income Tax for the year 1930–31 shall be charged at the standard rate of 4s. 6d. only. Unfortunately, we all anticipate that in the year 1931 Income Tax will be charged at some higher rate. Surtax is a part of Income Tax. Income Tax consists of the standard rate plus surtax. We all know perfectly well that Income Tax for the year 1930–31 will be charged not only at the standard rate, but at some rate of Surtax. It would be entirely misleading to leave the taxpayers to suppose that the only Income Tax payable for that year is the standard rate. With regard to the point about specifying the rates, I agree that this is a highly technical point, but I think that, if hon. Members consider Section 38 of the Finance Act of 1927 strictly and technically, they will find it specified that there is to be a higher rate, and, although what it is is not specified, we do comply with Section 38 so as to render possible the rest of the machinery therein provided. That, at any rate, is the view of the Income Tax experts, and it is a view with which I am not disposed to disagree, after having gone into the matter.
    Mr. MOND: I really think that this matter ought to be made clear. We have had several speeches from the Front Bench, but they have not thrown very much light upon it. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has sheltered himself behind a form of words which we are proposing to leave out, but in which he is advised there is some virtue; and the Attorney-General is sheltering himself behind some machinery in Clause 38 of the Finance Act, 1927, which he has not explained to the Committee at all. It is impossible for hon. Members to follow the course of the discussion if the whole matter is not put plainly and clearly before them. We have to pass this evening legislation which is imposing a grievous burden upon the country, and it is right that we should at least understand what we are doing. I think we might have a speech from the Front Bench making it quite clear how we are to relate this particular mumbo-jumbo which we are trying to leave out, because no one can explain it to us, to the machinery, which has not been explained to us either, in a Finance Act of three years ago. I appeal to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite to make the position sufficiently clear to us to be able at any rate to take up a reasonable position on the matter. We are asked to pass this Clause, which says:
    "and, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine."
    That is clearly leaving an obligation upon Parliament to increase the rate at some future date, without considering any of the causes or effects that may be appropriate at that time. I would ask the Attorney-General or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or, possibly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, to make clear to us exactly what he proposes to do.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I think that perhaps the proper way of ending this discussion would be for me, if the Committee will give me leave, to withdraw the Amendment, because there does not seem to be any particular point in proceeding with it. I feel, however, that I cannot do that until I have said just a word or two on the Attorney-General's defence with regard to this Clause. I quite understand his point as to the necessity,
    2106
    under Section 38 of the Act of 1927, of charging Income Tax for one year at the standard rate and at an increased rate—that is to say, a Surtax; but, if he will allow me to say so, the fact that he has to do that under the Act of 1927 is about the best proof that I can want of the suggestion that I first made, namely, that the Government are committing a sin in endeavouring to alter this particular tax for last year, and are equally committing a sin in avoiding the charging of the tax for this year at a particular and specified rate, whatever they wish it to be, during this year.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman's defence, therefore, clearly is: "According to the law as it stands I am doing something, or attempting to do something, which the Income Tax law does not allow me to do. I must, therefore, resort to some sort, of shift in order to do it, and I therefore propose to put apparently ridiculous words into an Act of Parliament to say that this particular Surtax shall be charged at a rate which shall be determined hereafter." The only possible thing to be said about it is that this Clause proposes to charge, not only Income Tax at the standard rate, at a particular figure, but the increased Income Tax called Surtax, also at a particular figure.
    11.0 p.m.
    I venture to remind the Committee that is was my wish originally to move Amendments to fix the increased rate of this Surtax for the present year in this Bill. You, Sir, have ruled that out of order and, therefore, at this stage at any rate, we have no remedy and we cannot move that particular form of Amendment. But I propose to raise the question again on Report, because I regard it as one of immense importance and, in the meantime, we shall probably have further light thrown upon it, or we must have some further discussion which will bear on the point when we come to the next Clause, where the Government propose to alter the rate of Surtax which was fixed by last year's Finance Act.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to ask the Attorney-General to answer this point. Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1927, on which he relies, requires that the Finance Act for the year should specify the standard rate of Income Tax,

    2107
    and should also specify the rate or rates for the Surtax for the particular year. Are not these words which are sought to be included in this Clause directly contrary to the wording of Section 38, and is it not really an attempt to alter the Act of 1927 without informing Parliament about it? Is it really the way our finance ought to be conducted? Ever since 1860, Income Tax has been levied and collected as a yearly tax. Income Tax and Super-tax have always been for the particular year for which it was levied. There is a good deal more substance in the Amendment than the Committee have yet realised.
    Major NATHAN: It is clear that, to put it no higher, this matter is by no means free from difficulty. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow me in the practical application of the Sub-section and of Clause 8, from which it cannot be dissociated. It seems to me that the way the matter will work out in practice will be this. Under Clause 8, Surtax for 1929–30 is to be charged at certain rates. The returns for assessment for the Revenue of the year 1929–30 have already been made, the rate has been fixed, and the tax will become payable in January, 1931. One position as regards the Revenue year 1930–31, therefore, is that no tax can be levied in respect of Super-tax until after a new Financial Resolution has been passed. I may have misunderstood the Financial Secretary. The question which I should like to ask is, should the Financial Resolution be passed before the ordinary time of producing the Budget or at that time.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I apologise for keeping the Committee, but this is a very important point. Will the Attorney-General look up the Finance Act of 1928, Section 15 (1, b)? I ask the Committee to note the words:
    "(b) in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at the following higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds."
    Then follows the various rates. Why in this Finance Bill is it necessary to alter that wording and to put in the words:
    "in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of excess" etc.
    2108
    Why is it necessary to change the method? In the Finance Act of 1928 "the following higher rates" are very definitely fixed, but in the present Finance Bill the words "at such higher rates" make a subsequent change possible.
    Mr. REID: May I ask the Attorney-General what this Clause means? The words are:
    "whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds."
    The "higher rates" cannot refer to Clause 8. Does it mean that the rate of Surtax to be payable on the 1st January, 1931, is to be unknown? Is the rate which a person liable to Surtax will have to pay not to be known until the Budget Resolution for next year has been passed, or will it be possible for the individual so to regulate his expenditure this year that he will be in a position to pay the tax by the 1st January next year without having any subsequent demand in respect of that year made upon him?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I suggest that the Financial Secretary should give some clear indication of the intention of the Government to re-examine this matter before the Report stage? We are anxious to facilitate the progress of business, but the point that has arisen is one of real substance and difficulty. It seems not at all unlikely that the words inserted do not achieve the object they have in view or, if they do achieve it, they raise other difficulties of a constitutional character which it is desired to avoid. I suggest that, instead of carrying the matter further at this moment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary should make it clear that it is going to have the concentrated attention of the Government and the Law Officers of the Crown, and that we shall have an opportunity on report of going into it in full detail and, we trust, in a more satisfactory form.
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No one knows better than does the right hon. Gentleman, after his experience of two years ago, what a complicated matter this is and how difficult it is to make it clear. I have no objection at all to taking the matter into further consideration, and seeing if we possibly can bring it forward in a way

    2109
    that is more comprehensible to those who are not lawyers, but I am advised that it will be difficult to put it in a plainer form than in the words of the Clause. However, we will apply what ingenuity we have between now and the Report stage to seeing what can be done.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not know whether I quite understand what we are doing here, but I understand that we are not fixing the amount of tax to be paid by a taxpayer except what is due on 1st January next. The Income Tax payable on 1st January would be at the standard rate of 4s. 6d. on the income of the current year, 1930–31, but Surtax would be payable on the income of the preceding year, that is, on the income of the year 1929–30, which is already ascertained. That is to say, we are dealing with taxes which are payable on 1st January, 1931, but on incomes of different years, and we are not increasing now any rate of tax which is to be payable at any later time than 1st January, 1931.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has indicated that in all probability he will withdraw his Amendment, but I want it made clear that, if no Division is taken, we reserve all rights to raise any question on the Report stage.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I hope I have made it clear already that we are not in any way prejudiced by withdrawing this Amendment, and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. C. WILLIAMS:
    In page 5, line 30, to leave out Subsection (2).
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As this Amendment raises the question of the whole of the enactments under which the Income Tax is collected and is of great importance, and, owing to various factors, it is not convenient to discuss it at adequate length, I do not wish to move it. I shall put down the Amendment again on the Report stage, when I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that we have adequate time in which to discuss the enactments under which the Income Tax is collected.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
    "but subject to all amendments of, or alterations in, such enactments made by this Act."
    The Amendment is a simple one put down with the intention of improving the drafting and making the matter clear. The Sub-section applies all existing enactments referring to the Income Tax to the Income Tax charged for the present year. Considerable alterations are proposed to be made in these enactments in the course of this Bill, and I suggest that in order to prevent the Act from being misread the proposed words should be added.
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member's Amendment is unnecessary. For instance, it is enacted in Sub-section (5) of Clause 47 of this Bill that:
    "Any reference in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment, including this Act."
    I think that that makes the Amendment of the hon. Member unnecessary.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I agree that, according to the words suggested, my Amendment is not necessary. It is only a question whether the words will apply to it. That may be a, matter of opinion, and one may be entitled to differ, but, in the circumstances, I will not press the Amendment, but ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment in the following terms: In page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding sub-section, the first sub-section of Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1925, shall have effect as if for the words 'equal to one-sixth of the amount of that income' there were substituted the words 'equal in the case of an individual whose total income does not exceed fifteen hundred pounds, one-fourth of the amount of that income, and in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds fifteen hundred pounds and does not exceed two thousand pounds, one-fifth of the amount of that income' and for the words 'two hundred and fifty' there were substituted the words 'five hundred' and as if for the words 'one-sixth' in the second sub-section there were substituted the words 'one-fourth.'"
    Mr. SNOWDEN: On a point of Order. You have ruled, Mr. Dunnico, that a number of Amendments on the Paper are not appropriate as Amendments to the Clause, but should be moved as a new Clause. May I submit that the long Amendment just read by the right hon. Gentleman is hardly suitable as an Amendment to a Clause which deals with enactments to carry out the Income Tax Acts and which does not raise the question of a revision of those Acts? Further, may I say that we have had no copy of the Amendment, and it is unreasonable to ask us to discuss it without having had an opportunity of considering it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was about to conclude by saying that I do not propose to move the Amendment to-night and was going to suggest that I should bring it up on Report. But I think the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the better one and that it would be more appropriate to move it as a new Clause.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 147.

    Division No. 333.]

    AYES.

    [11.25 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Lawson, John James

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Leach, W.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Gill, T. H.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gillett, George M.

    Lees, J.

    Arnott, John

    Gossling, A. G.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Gould, F.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Ayles, Walter

    Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Granville, E.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Gray, Milner

    Longden, F.

    Bellamy, Albert

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Benson, G.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Lunn, William

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    McElwee, A.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Bromfield, William

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    McKinlay, A.

    Bromley, J.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Brooke, W.

    Harbord, A.

    McShane, John James

    Brothers, M.

    Hardie, George D.

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Mansfield, W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Marcus, M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Markham, S. F.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Marley, J.

    Buchanan, G.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

    Mathers, George

    Burgess, F. G.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Matters, L. W.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Maxton, James

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Herriotts, J.

    Melville, Sir James

    Cameron, A. G.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Messer, Fred

    Cape, Thomas

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Middleton, G.

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Milner, Major J.

    Charieton, H. C.

    Hollins, A.

    Montague, Frederick

    Chater, Daniel

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Morley, Ralph

    Clarke, J. S.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Isaacs, George

    Mort, D. L.

    Compton, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Daggar, George

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Dallas, George

    Johnston, Thomas

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Dalton, Hugh

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Muff, G.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Dickson, T.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Dukes, C.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Duncan, Charles

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Kinley, J.

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Egan, W. H.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Palin, John Henry.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lang, Gordon

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lathan, G.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Foot, Isaac

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Perry, S. F.

    Freeman, Peter

    Lawrence, Susan

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Walker, J.

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Price, M. P.

    Sinkinson, George

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    West, F. R.

    Richards, R.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring>

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    White, H. G.

    Ritson, J.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Sorensen, R.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Rowson, Guy

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Strauss, G. R.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Sullivan, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Sandham, E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wise, E. F.

    Scott, James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Tools, Joseph

    Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

    Sexton, James

    Tout, W. J.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Townend, A. E.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Turner, B.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Shield, George William

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Viant, S. P.

    William Whiteley.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Albery, Irving James

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Atkinson, C.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Balniel, Lord

    Fielden, E. B.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Remer, John R.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Boyce, H. L.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bracken, B.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d'., Hexham)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Savery, S. S.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Butler, R. A.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Stuart, Hon. J. (M'oray and Nairn)

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Train, J.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Long, Major Eric

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Macdonald Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Dalrymple White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Marjoribanks, E. G.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    England, Colonel A.

    Penny, Sir George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Sir Frederick Thomson.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Alteration of higher rates of Income Tax for 1929–30.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), in page 6, line 11, to leave out the words "one shilling" and to insert instead thereof the word "Ninepence." As there is a series of Amendments dealing with the same point, it may be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: On a point of Order. Is my Amendment—to leave out "1929–30" and insert "1930–31"—out of order, or is it not selected?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not selected.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. That particular Amendment raises an important point of substance, and I would invite you, as you have not selected it, to inform us at what point in the discussion of the Bill it will be proper to raise this matter because it clearly raises a great deal of public interest in the country.
    Mr. REMER: May I ask you to repeat in a louder voice what Amendments you are selecting?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I try as far as possible to select Amendments of relatively greater importance and substance than those passed over. The particular Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is not out of order, and if in his opinion it is one of great importance, I am willing to meet the wish of the Committee and select it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that the general discussion that we are to have upon this Clause might just as advantageously take place on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), as the one which you had previously selected, and, if you are willing in pursuance of what you have just said, to allow it to be taken on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, that would be more in accordance with the wishes of those who sit on this side of the House.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am willing to permit that.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out "1929–30," and to insert instead thereof "1930–31."
    This clearly raises an important point of principle. Under the Finance Act of 1929, Section 1—
    "Income Tax for the year 1929–30"—
    that is, for the year expiring on 5th April this year—
    "shall be charged at the standard rate of four shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at the same higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as were charged for the year 1928–29."
    That complies with Section 31 of the Income Tax Act of 1927, which was referred to on a preceding Amendment and which required the Income Tax to be fixed on a higher rate for Surtax payers. Until the passage of the Finance Act, 1929, every Surtax payer and Income Tax payer, in accordance with what had been the custom since 1860, knew the amount of his liability, and he was in a position to provide for it and raise the taxes by the time they became payable. Payment of the Surtax is deferred to the 1st January following. The Surtax for 1929–30 becomes due on 1st January 1931. This Clause seeks to alter the rate of Surtax levied by the Finance Act for 1929. A year after the rate was then fixed, it is seeking to fix a different and, as it happens in this case, a higher rate. The preceding Clause, Clause 7, instead of fixing a definite rate of Surtax, left it to be fixed by a succeeding Session of Parliament. This is an entirely new method of procedure. According to the history of our financial legislation, His Majesty the King in his Speech from the Throne, asks the House of Commons to provide for the revenue of the particular year, and in each single year there is a separate Finance Bill dealing only with the revenue of the year.
    If this alteration is allowed it will make it immensely more difficult for the tax-payer to provide for his liabilities. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members call out and ask me to speak up, and other hon. Members make it difficult for me to be heard by talking so loudly among themselves. Take the case of a Surtax payer who died on 1st June this year. He is liable to pay Surtax on his income

    2117
    for the year 1930–31, which cannot be calculated until 5th April, 1931, and the amount he has to pay is not payable till 1st January, 1932. His estate cannot, therefore, be wound up, because they do not know the rate of tax which will be levied. It may not be this Parliament which is going to fix that rate of Surtax. That Surtax is to be fixed in the next Parliament, or in the next Session of this Parliament, and the amount cannot meanwhile be calculated. I submit to the Chancellor and his advisers that the administrative difficulties are almost insuperable, and that there will be immense hardship on Surtax payers. Surtax is an extremely oppressive tax, whatever view one may take of its justice. It requires a great deal of foresight to prepare for it, and the taxpayer is in a difficult position in preparing for it if he does not know the amount and if his executors are not going to know, in some cases, until long after he is dead. That is an absurd method of procedure in a civilised country, and I will leave it to be developed. I am not in the habit of using strong language. I am now proposing that we should revert to what has been the existing procedure since the Super-tax was first initiated, and fix the rate of the Surtax for the actual year with which we are dealing, and I am seeking, by my Amendment, to alter "1929–30" to "1930–31."
    Sir D. HERBERT: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). I observed that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury shook his head when my hon. and learned Friend made a certain statement of the position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I think the Financial Secretary must have been under a misapprehension. Let me repeat that statement in order to see how far the hon. Member agrees with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I am speaking quite loudly, and hon. Members opposite who do not hear me can carry on their conversations much more conveniently to themselves as well as to us in the Smoking-room. I am suggesting to the Financial Secretary that under this Bill, as it is drawn at present, the Surtax at the increased rate for the present year 1930–31 is not payable until January, 1932. Is that plain? [Interruption.]
    2118
    According to the provisions of this Bill, the tax for the year 1930–31 will be payable in 1932. Is that right?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Gentleman has not read Clause 21, which makes the matter plain.
    Sir D. HERBERT: My point is not affected by that clause. It is far more important than that particular argument. I hope the country will take notice of what is being done. The tax for the year 1929–30, i.e., the financial year ending on 5th April last, was fixed perfectly properly, as it always has been, by the Finance Act of last year. The tax for the previous financial year was fixed by the previous year's Finance Act. This year the Chancellor is proposing to say that the tax for last year, which was fixed by last year's Finance Act, shall be altered and increased. In this Bill, it is proposed to pass a Clause which says that the tax for last year shall not be at the rate at which it was fixed in last year's Finance Act, but shall be at a higher rate. Let me put this matter in perfectly plain language. Parliament, within limits, can do what it chooses. It can be honest or dishonest. A man can enter into a contract to render certain services or transfer certain property to somebody else for the sum, let us say, of £5,000. That is governed by the ordinary law of contracts, and, when that bargain is concluded, he cannot come the next year and say that he is not going to do it for less than £6,000. The Government made a bargain and the liability of the taxpayer for last year was fixed. The whole matter to any honest intelligent person was closed and done with. Now the new Government comes along and in another Finance Bill makes provisions for another financial year and goes bank on last year and says, "You people who were taxed under last year's Act for last year at a certain rate are to be taxed for last year at a higher rate. We are going to take advantage of the fact that a certain part of your tax for last year is described in the Act of Parliament as deferred, and the deferred Income Tax which has not yet been paid will be increased." Is that honest? In all the many wrong things which the House of Commons has done I do not think it has ever done anything which is so dishonest to the taxpayer.

    2119
    There is another point which I shall wish to refer to again in connection with this Bill, for we shall not finish all its stages to-night. I might say a word about the Section in the Act of 1927 which created this tax in its present existing form, known as the Surtax. The Attorney-General has explained to us most lucidly and clearly that that Act, which first created Surtax as an increased rate of Income Tax, and a deferred instalment of Income Tax, in Section 38 expressly provides that the Income Tax at the standard rate and the Income Tax at the increased rate shall be charged together for each year; and the Attorney-General says that, if you do not charge them both, you are not complying with the terms of that Section. Therefore, the Attorney-General ventures to defend a scheme by a method which I can only suggest might well have certain well-known slang terms applied to it—a "dodge" to "get out of" this Section of the Act of 1927 by saying: "It seems that we have got to charge both Income Tax and Surtax, but we propose to charge Income Tax at the standard rate, which we are stating, and we propose to charge the other as an unknown amount." Parliament, according to the Attorney-General, is actually proposing to charge the taxpayers of this country with a tax—that was the Attorney-General's own defence, his own explanation—for this year, the amount of which they are not to know until next year. It is no use the Financial Secretary shaking his head. I am prepared to stick to it, and I am perfectly certain that if the Attorney-General were here he would agree with me that the explanation I have given is perfectly and absolutely correct; it is nothing more than the explanation which the Attorney-General has already given himself on the previous Clause.
    May I put this further point? These two taxes, if I may call them two taxes, or two portions of the Income Tax—I do not care how they are described—are so thoroughly one tax that the assessment for the purposes of the standard rate of Income Tax in any one year is made conclusive on the taxpayer for the purposes of the Surtax. Therefore, again you have the clearest evidence that Parliament intended, in passing the Act of 1927
    2120
    —and, indeed, one could only suppose in those days that Parliament did intend—to do something which was perfectly honourable. And let it be remembered that Income Tax, whether it be the standard rate of Income Tax, or whether it be Surtax—the increased rate of Income Tax—is an annual tax. There is no Income Tax and no Surtax imposed upon the taxpayers of this country except from year to year, and for that particular year. [Interruption.] We know, of course, that we shall get it every year, but my point is that the fact that these two taxes, or two branches of one tax, are, under our financial system, re-imposed every year, and each year only for one year at a time, is an additional argument to show that the two branches of the one tax ought both to be dealt with together, and that it never was the intention of Parliament that the standard rate of tax should be fixed for one year in one year, and that the increased Surtax should be fixed for that same year in another future year. I support the Amendment, and I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will see something of the kind of mess into which they are leading our financial procedure by a course of this kind.
    12 m.
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This difficulty arises out of the alteration that was carried out by the right hon. Gentleman three years ago when he changed the Super-tax into the Surtax. The old Super-tax was charged for the year in which it was assessed and collected and, therefore, no such difficulty as the one in which we are at the moment could have arisen under those circumstances. But the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that this Super-tax was not a tax for the year in which it was assessed but that it was a deferred part of the Income Tax upon the previous year, that it was really a tax paid in respect of the previous year and, therefore, he called it a Surtax. The Surtax, being regarded as a deferred payment of Income Tax for the previous year, had its rate fixed in that year. The result is that the Surtax is taken out of the purview of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last year we fixed the rate of Surtax for this year. It would be just as reasonable

    2121
    to apply that to the ordinary Income Tax and fix the rate not merely for one year but for any number of years.
    Sir D. HERBERT: For an annual tax?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman in the earlier part of our debates failed to realise that Income Tax and Surtax were part of one tax.
    Sir D. HERBERT: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is mixing me up with someone else. I never did otherwise than believe and know—it is my business to know—that Income Tax at the standard rate and Income Tax at the increased rate, otherwise known as Surtax, are both Income Tax. Of course, they are separated and distinct from one another in certain respects, but I never suggested that they are not both part of one and the same tax.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I apologise, and I unreservedly accept what the hon. and and learned Gentleman has said. The point I am making is that the Surtax has now been taken out of the immediate control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, unless there can be some alteration of the law, it will be impossible, whatever the needs of the nation may be in the current year, to make any contribution to that need from an increase in the Surtax. This involves a revenue of something like £60,000,000. We might as well apply it to the Income Tax. That would be an utterly impossible position.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of money involved in the change that he is making in the previous incidence of the tax?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I am speaking from memory, but I think the revenue will be about £3,500,000 increase this year, and £7,000,000 in a full year. I have taken power to increase the tax upon this deferred part of the Income Tax which is called Surtax, and I am reverting to the position as it was with the old Super-Tax, so that the charge will be fixed in the year in which it is assessed. Apart from that, there is no material change. I must correct the figures I have given. I said it would be £7,000,000 in a full year. It is estimated to be £79,500,000 this year and £12,500,000 in
    2122
    a full year. On the 1st January, 1930, taxpayers paid Surtax for the first time. That was Surtax for 1928–29, and was charged on the statutory income of that year. If there had been no change such as the change made in 1927 by the right hon. Gentleman they would have paid just the same. They would have paid Super-Tax for 1929–30, but it would have been charged on the statutory income of 1928–29. I am, making an annual review of the Surtax.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I think that much of the indignation is due to some misunderstanding. I would recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult the phraseology of his Income Tax Clauses. We are dealing with tax payable on the 1st January, 1931, but we have not settled what Income Tax is to be paid on that date. The Income Tax payable on the 1st January, 1931, ought to be called Income Tax for 1930–31. There is a lag of two years in one case and one year in another. A great deal of confusion would be avoided if we called the Income Tax payable on the 1st January, 1931, the tax at the standard rate of Surtax for the year 1930–31. I submit that if that were done, there would be a good deal less confusion in settling the tax, but it cannot be alleged against the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in this Budget he is doing anything unfair to the taxpayer in opening this matter of the Surtax. It is, in my view, far better to simplify these things.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I want to make an appeal to the parties of the Opposition, and I take full responsibility myself in saying that we under-estimated the gravity and complexity of the problems which arise on these two Clauses. I must admit that, taking full responsibility for any part that I had in that miscalculation. The right hon. Gentleman proposed earlier in the day not to proceed beyond Clause 9, and it was my belief that, while we might sit on till the very late hours of to-morrow morning, Clause 9 would probably be within the compass of the Government to achieve by that time, but its difficulty has undoubtedly been borne in increasingly on the Committee this evening, and a number of extremely difficult and complicated questions have arisen which have not been adequately discussed. Nevertheless, I did say, taking full responsibility myself, that we

    2123
    did not consider that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was unreasonable. Therefore, I must appeal to hon. Members on this side to facilitate the termination of our discussion at the period which was considered to be in accord with the general convenience of the Committee. But I must say that it is clear, from our survey of Clauses 7 and 8, that these issues must be raised in the fullest possible manner upon Report, and I trust that you, Sir, in the Chair, will also bear in mind the abridgement of the discussion on this occasion, which has arisen from a perfectly sincere and natural error, and that you will, in your
    capacity in the Chair, also guard us from any abridgement of the discussion when the Report stage is reached.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir A. POWNALL: I do not propose to move any one of the next 10 Amendments standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, but I wish to reserve my rights to raise very important questions regarding the Surtax on the Report stage.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee Divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 127.

    Division No.334.]

    AYES.

    [12.18 a.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Gould, F.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Longden, F.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Granville, E.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

    Gray, Milner

    Lunn, William

    Alpass, J. H.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Arnott, John

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McElwee, A.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McKinlay, A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    McShane, John James

    Bellamy, Albert

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Benson, G.

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Mansfield, W.

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Marcus, M.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Harbord, A.

    Markham, S. F.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Hardie, George D.

    Marley, J.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Mathers, George

    Bromfield, William

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Matters, L. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Maxton, James

    Brooke, W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Messer, Fred

    Brothers, M.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Middleton, G.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

    Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Milner, Major J.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Montague, Frederick

    Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Herriotts, J.

    Morley, Ralph

    Buchanan, G.

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Mort, D. L.

    Burgin, Dr. E. L.

    Hollins, A.

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Cape, Thomas

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Muff, G.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Chater, Daniel

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Isaacs, George

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Oliver, George Harold (IIkeston)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Compton, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Daggar, George

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Palin, John Henry

    Dallas, George

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Dalton, Hugh

    Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Day, Harry

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Perry, S. F.

    Dickson, T.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Dudneon, Major C. R.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

    Dukes, C.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Potts, John S.

    Duncan, Charles

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Price, M. P.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Kinley, J.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lathan, G.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Egan, W. H.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Elmley, Viscount

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Ritson, J.

    Foot, Isaac

    Leach, W.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Freeman, Peter

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Rowson, Guy

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lees, J.

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Gill, T. H.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Sandham, E.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Scott, James

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    White, H. G.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Stephen, Campbell

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Shield, George William

    Strauss, G. R.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Sinkinson, George

    Tout, W. J.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Townend, A. E.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Turner, B.

    Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh).

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Wise, E. F.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, W. H. (Norwich)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    William Whiteley.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Remer, John R.

    Atkinson, C.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Balniel, Lord

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Savery, S. S.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Bracken, B.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Butler, R. A.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Christie, J. A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Train, J.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Long, Major Eric

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Dixey, A. C.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Euan Wallace.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment of s. 40 (2) of Finance Act, 1927.)
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smithers.
    Mr. SMITHERS: I had a long speech to deliver on an important constitutional point, but, owing to the lateness of the hour, I do not now propose to move my Amendment to postpone this Clause until after the new Clauses.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and
    2126
    ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes after Twelve o' Clock.

  GOVERMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL CLASS PROMOTIONS).
  GOVERMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL CLASS PROMOTIONS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  MUSICIANS.
  MUSICIANS.
  CHATHAM.
  CHATHAM.
  ROAD-MAKING.
  ROAD-MAKING.
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FOREIGN TARIFFS.
  FOREIGN TARIFFS.
  SHELTERED INDUSTRIES.
  SHELTERED INDUSTRIES.
  RUSSIAN PEASANT WARES.
  RUSSIAN PEASANT WARES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  "DEFIANCE" ESTABLISHMENT.
  "DEFIANCE" ESTABLISHMENT.
  BATTLESHIPS.
  BATTLESHIPS.
EDUCATION.
  CARNEGIE UNITED KINGDOM TRUST.
  CARNEGIE UNITED KINGDOM TRUST.
  REORGANISATION SCHEMES.
  REORGANISATION SCHEMES.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE, WILLESDEN.
  SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE, WILLESDEN.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
POST OFFICE.
  ADVERTISEMENTS (ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES).
  ADVERTISEMENTS (ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES).
  ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
  ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
  NEW BUILDING, REDCAR.
  NEW BUILDING, REDCAR.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  TUBERCULOSIS (CALMETTE TREATMENT).
  TUBERCULOSIS (CALMETTE TREATMENT).
  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  SMOKE ABATEMENT.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  KENYA (ANTI-LOCUST MEASURES).
  KENYA (ANTI-LOCUST MEASURES).
SCOTLAND.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (ALLOWANCE).
  LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (ALLOWANCE).
  EDUCATION (STATISTICS).
  EDUCATION (STATISTICS).
  GREATER LONDON AND COUNTIES TRUST.
  GREATER LONDON AND COUNTIES TRUST.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RECRUITING.
  RECRUITING.
  BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
  BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
  MARRIED QUARTERS, DEVONPORT.
  MARRIED QUARTERS, DEVONPORT.
  MEAT PURCHASES.
  MEAT PURCHASES.
  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  WHEAT (EXPORT, UNITED STATES).
  WHEAT (EXPORT, UNITED STATES).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chaworth (E. Meath)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TEES (NEWPORT) BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON BUILDING BILL. {H.L.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL (BURSLEDON BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps you would allow me to ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House a question about business. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to ask your Lordships to adjourn to-morrow for the Whitsuntide Recess. I would like to ask the further question When the noble and learned Lord expects us to reassemble, and, lastly, on what day he proposes to take the decisions of the House of Commons upon the Lords Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I propose that we should adjourn tomorrow. We shall not be able to meet in the morning because the Cabinet meets on Wednesday, but I am told that there is no reason why we should not meet at three o'clock. There will be very little business I think beyond the adjournment. There is one other matter and also there will be a Royal Commission. I say three o'clock for the time of meeting in order that those noble Lords who are going away may have an opportunity of getting away as early as possible. I hope that will be to the general convenience. We return on Tuesday, June 17, that is the Tuesday after Whitsun week. My own view was that we should that day take the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill, but, of course, if the noble Marquess has any reason for thinking that that would not be convenient, I should give great weight to his opinion. In all these matters, I desire and we desire to meet the general convenience of your Lordships' House. If it is thought that for the general convenience some other date would be preferable, it is not for me to object to that, but my own view would be to take the next stage of the Coal Mines Bill on Tuesday, June 17.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having given us the in-
1322
formation he has given. So far as my knowledge goes, there is no reason why the suggestion he has made with regard to the adjournment to-morrow should not be carried through. Neither would I suggest to your Lordships that June 17 is an undue day upon which to ask us to reassemble after the Whitsuntide Recess. I am afraid, however, that June 17, which the noble and learned Lord suggested, will not be at all a convenient day for us to consider the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments on the Coal Mines Bill. The Bill is of very great importance and, judging from a report which I read this morning of a speech by the President of the Board of Trade, it is likely that questions of great difficulty and importance will be raised on the further stages of that Bill. I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that June 24 would be a better day. That would give a week after the reassembling of your Lordships' House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I regret to hear the views of the noble Marquess as to the day on Which the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments on the Coal Mines Bill should be taken, but if he tells me that after consultation with those with whom he does consult, and after ascertaining the feeling of the House on his side, he thinks that June 24 is the right day, I am very unwilling to take any objection to the day which he tells me in his view will suit the general convenience of the House. I do not know Whether the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has any views on the subject.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord is good enough to consult me, may I say it is entirely a matter of indifference to me? I am prepared to come any day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure that after what the noble Earl has said it may be taken that it would be for the general convenience of the great number of your Lordships that the Bill should not be taken earlier than Tuesday, June 24.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps, as I am not myself immediately concerned with the Bill, I may ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to tell your Lordships whether, from his point of

1323
view, June 24 will not be too late. If that is his view, I will assent to the noble Marquess's suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, may I say that June 24 will suit me?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, may I remind the noble and learned Lord who leads the House that when, about a fortnight ago, I at his request postponed my Question, he chose the day on which I should put it down again, and he promised me to tell the Clerks at the Table that no Government business should be put in front of that Question? I see that Government business has been put in front of it. Of course, I do not for a moment suggest that any blame attaches to the Clerks at the Table, who have to take instructions from the Government. I presume a mistake has arisen, but I would point out to the noble and learned Lord that bargains made in this House should be observed. It is no use making bargains and agreements if afterwards a bargain or an agreement is broken.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord and no one regrets more than I do that anything has been put in front of his Question. He is perfectly correct. I told him that if he postponed his Motion to this date it would come first. I can only say that I am not responsible, and that I regret that any Bill has been put down before it. I thought I had made arrangements that the day should be left quite free. I do not want to say more, but I am told that the Government business which has been put down will not take long. I apologise quite sincerely to the noble Lord because the promise I made him has not been kept, but I assure him it has not been my fault.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I can only say with regard to the Land Drainage Bill, that I put it down without being aware of the understanding to which the noble Lord has referred. I put it down to suit the convenience of your Lordships' House. I am quite in the hands of your Lordships, but I understood that it would suit the convenience of the House, owing to some engagements on the part of some of your Lordships for
1324
to-morrow, that we should take the Bill to-day. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can only say, as I was one of the few members of your Lordships' House who were present at the conclusion of the proceedings yesterday, that it was the act of the Under-Secretary of State for War, acting of course on his own responsibility, to put the Bill down, and nobody else was responsible except the noble Earl. I did suggest to him that it was not a very wise course, but he took a different view. No doubt, having great experience, he thought that it was wiser to act in a different way. I left it in his hands.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FYLDE WATER BOARD, OLDHAM AND ROCHDALE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, unfortunately I was not in the House yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition agreed to the Third Reading of this Bill being taken to-day. If I had been able to be present—and the noble Marquess knows why I was unable—I should certainly have protested against a Bill of this magnitude, which has been so much amended on Report, being put down for Third Reading without your Lordships having had an opportunity of seeing the amended Bill. It was not available until we came down to-day and was not circulated in the usual way. This is a Bill of great magnitude which affects local authorities very considerably. I have been asked, on behalf of the County Councils Association of which I am the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, to protest most strongly against the action of His Majesty's Government

1325
in taking the Third Reading without allowing us an opportunity of seeing the Bill as it was amended on Report. That seems to me to be a procedure which is hardly conducive to the dignity of this House. We have had no opportunity of considering the Bill in its new form or of consulting our advisers outside.
I had been given to understand that the idea was that there should be a full dress debate on the Third Reading and that, if the Government were not prepared to give some better assurances than they have already given as regards the effect of taxation falling upon the local rates, this Bill might not be allowed to go through your Lordships' House. At any rate a very strong protest has been made, and the County Councils Association is very strongly represented in this House. The association feels very strongly on this matter, and only last Wednesday their agricultural committee passed a very strong resolution which was confirmed by their executive. Let me just read to your Lordships the terms of that resolution. It was resolved:—
"That, as regards finance, the sub-committee are not prepared to depart from the position taken up by the agricultural advisory sub-committee, and they cannot, therefore, accept the clause proposed by the Government. Further, the sub-committee desire to make it clear that their demand for a grant of at least 50 per cent, of the total expenses of catchment boards is without prejudice to the right of the county councils to receive such higher grants as are now or may hereafter be payable in respect of certain land drainage schemes."
I understand that this resolution was passed practically unanimously by the executive of the County Councils Association.
There is a further point on which, I understand, there has been a great deal of discussion. Owing to illness I was not able to be here on the previous stages of the Bill. The point concerns the proposed grants. Does the Government intend to give any grants in respect of administration and maintenance, which may be very serious items indeed? I may remind your Lordships that in 1928–9 the Ouse Drainage Board spent £13,491 in administration and £24,194 in maintenance, showing that this involves a very heavy expenditure, which would fall entirely upon the county council. Those
1326
of us who are members of county councils know that there is very strong feeling regarding the way in which rates have been going up lately, and we are not at all inclined to have any further expenditure put upon us. Yesterday the noble Earl said in effect that the whole of this question was going to be left vague, and that in some cases the Government were going to give more than 50 per cent. I suppose he thought that there were so many rich county councils that the statement was justified. I do not know whether his own county council is a rich one, but I understand that it is not. We find it a very heavy burden when we have a county rate of 10s. in the £ instead of 5s. I am told that in some counties the rate has actually gone up to 14s. in the £ I think there are very few rich counties, and that all the counties will want at least 50 per cent., and some of there more.
With regard to the question of unemployment, we want to know whether the percentages are going to be greater than 50 per cent. in relation to unemployment. At the moment it is not at all clear what the Government means to do in another place. Speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, I can say that we felt that we ought to have an opportunity, after the Bill had been so much altered on Report, for further consideration of the matter, and we wanted seine declaration on the part of the Government as to what they mean to do regarding the financial clause. Evidently that is not the view taken by the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps, with this new shuffle, we may have a Minister of Agriculture in this House, for the present Minister is to be a member of this House. We know that the noble Earl opposite does very well and understands the Bill thoroughly, but of course he is not able, as Under-Secretary of State for War, to give the assurances that a great Minister would be able to give to this House. The presence of a noble Lord representing the Ministry would make it much easier to carry through a Bill of this kind. I am asked by the County Councils Association to say, in consequence of the manner in which this Bill is being hurried through by the noble Earl—I know that he has the support of the noble Marquess, who can do exactly what he likes in this House—that when the Bill

1327
gets down to another place the County Councils Association will oppose it at every stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord is entitled to some kind of reply from the noble Earl.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was going to reply, but I thought the noble Marquess intended to rise. I think a great number of the points have already been dealt with very fully on other stages and I will not venture to repeat things which have already been said. I am sure that we all regret very much the reasons for the noble Lord's absence from our debates up to now. We should very much have appreciated his advice and assistance on this Bill at an earlier stage, if he had been able to attend. The noble Lord has referred to the number of Amendments that were passed yesterday. Not a single one of those Amendments was on a new point, and every single one was passed with the full agreement of the House.
LORD GAINFORD: May I remind the noble Earl that a new provision giving power to exact tolls for navigation purposes was pressed, and was not passed?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that particular point was not included in the Bill, but every insertion made in the Bill was made with the full agreement of the House, excepting one or two Amendments which were inserted at the instance of noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House against the desire of the Government. The only other point mentioned was the question of the County Councils Association. Perhaps the noble Lord, who has been unfortunately absent from our debates, has been able to be present lately at the discussions of the County Councils Association, but I rather got the impression that he was not up-to-date in his knowledge of what the County Councils Association are thinking about. I am given to understand, quite definitely, that we are in full agreement on every point in this Bill with the County Councils Association, excepting on the question of rating and the financial clause, which will, as the noble Lord said quite rightly, have to receive very full discussion in another place. I do not know whether the noble Lord is actually making any proposal, but I have endeavoured to deal
1328
with the points he has raised, and I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading. There is only one further point. I quite realise that in the last two stages of the Bill we have rather tried to hurry matters, but on another occasion I read out the course of this Bill and showed the tremendous amount of time which we wasted on this Bill in its earlier stages.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Not wasted, devoted to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: Whether it was wasted is a matter of opinion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the first place I would like to say, as the noble Earl has said, how very glad we are to see Lord Strachie once more amongst us and taking part in our debates. I listened to him with attention, and the only criticism which I venture to make upon his speech is that he attributed to me far greater influence and power than I possess. I deprecate very much that point of view. We are placed in a rather difficult position by the action of the Government on this Bill, in the manner in which I will describe. Let me first of all say that in every other respect except the matter of fixing the time for taking this Bill we have been treated very well indeed by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I have sat through the very long discussions upon a subject which is not very thrilling, and I am bound to say that I have never heard a Bill conducted with greater consideration than has been shown by the noble Earl.
That is what makes me inclined to take a rather lenient view of the actual proceedings this afternoon. The noble Earl said that the Bill dawdled a good deal in its earlier stages. I have here the facts in that respect, and I do not propose to trouble you with them, but a good deal of the reason for the delay was want of full admission by the Government, or rather announcement by the Government, of their intentions in regard to the money which was to be supplied by the Treasury. There was also a White Paper which it was necessary to circulate, and which the Government had not circulated. Those were matters in which it was the fault of the Government, and not the fault of your Lordships, that there was delay. Then the Bill got

1329
into Committee. It was a laborious process, and there was a large number of Amendments. I will not say that the House was unanimous, as the noble Earl rather suggested, about the Amendments. That was not quite the case, but I think that on the greater number of matters on which your Lordships took a strong view the Government gave way. Perhaps I might say that they had no other course open to them than to give way, but they did give way and did it in very pleasing language.
So the Bill, in so far as major portions are concerned, is largely modified in the direction which your Lordships thought fit. I will not say that the Government went the whole way, but the result is in the nature of a compromise. Then, finally, came the question of the Report stage of the Bill. The noble Earl has always been very sanguine as to the time it would take to make the necessary arrangements between the stages of the Bill. He tried to take the Report stage too soon, and found it was necessary to adjourn and take a few more days before the Report stage. He thought he was ready, but oddly enough, taking advantage of the extra time, a whole row of Government Amendments appeared on the Paper. It was no surprise to me. I was too familiar with the process of getting Bills through to be in the least surprised at the misfortunes of the noble Earl. We have now come to the last stages of the Bill. I begged him to put it off to the last possible day before the Recess, that is to-morrow. He would not do that, and consequently the Bill is now before your Lordships.
What course ought we to take? I confess that after the great courtesy of the noble Earl and the great success of the Opposition in many of their Amendments, I feel very reluctant to refuse him his Third Reading before Whitsuntide, because in those valuable conversations which take place in other parts of your Lordships' House than this Chamber there was a sort of understanding that the Bill should get through before Whitsuntide if it could possibly be managed; and, therefore, I should be reluctant to prevent it. But I hope he will not think me too patronising if I ask him to let the Opposition, on another occasion when they are well disposed, advise him as to how many days the thing really takes, and to profit by their advice.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not quite understand that. Of course, we are always grateful to the noble Marquess for his advice, but does he think that we can take the Third Reading now?—because that is the one point. I hope it will be taken now; it was put down for to-day. But that entirely depends on the attitude of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The understanding I referred to was that the Bill should get through before the Whitsuntide Recess; but, as regards that, I do not wish to pronounce any opinion between to-day and to-morrow. I do not think it matters much.
LORD PARMOOR: You think the Third Reading really may be taken now?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is really for your Lordships' House.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the Government draftsman has had time to look through the very numerous Amendments made yesterday and to consider whether they will not necessitate some further Amendments after the Third Reading. I have looked through the Bill in the few minutes allotted to us since it was published, and I find some undoubted cases where there ought to be Amendments. I do not think they are of great importance, but they are proper verbal Amendments.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can assure your Lordships that the Government draftsman has been through the Bill, and is satisfied with its state.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Extent and short title.
78.—(1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge."

1331
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is only a matter of form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 78, after subsection (3) insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT AND THE PRESS.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that in moving the Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill on December 2, 1920, the then Attorney-General stated that it did not deal with the Press; whether the present Attorney-General was aware of this when he directed the police to take action against the Press; whether the Government will state what was the information obtained by the police, and whether that information was obtained from or through indiscreet persons; and to move for Papers.
I do not wish to impute any blame to the police in this matter; they were only acting under instructions. Neither do I wish to suggest that, when an offence has been committed and the police are informed of that fact, the police should not take steps to ascertain from people who, they think, have same information upon the matter, whether or not they can give evidence on the question. But, of course, they should do it under the ordinary law and in the ordinary way. In this particular case they took action by the direction, I think, of the Prime Minister, who communicated with the Attorney-General, who then gave instructions to the police. They took action under the Official Secrets Act, 1920, which is an Act which gives special power of a very drastic nature to the police.
When this Bill was before the House of Commons in 1920 some remarks were made by the then Attorney-General, Sir Gordon Hewart. I need not say that he is a man whom we all know, and whom we all believe to be a man of exceptionally brilliant powers and qualities. He is certainly a very fine speaker. He said this:—
"May I add one word more upon a particular kind of objection which, oddly enough, has sometimes been taken to this
1332
Bill? It is said that this Bill deals with the Press. That seems to me to be an astonishing statement, and it is very strange that persons connected with the Press should say that this Bill deals with them."
Well, the persons connected with the Press seem to have had more of the gift of prophecy than Sir Gordon Hewart. He went on:—
"How can it possibly be said that it is the function of a journalist to retain for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State an official document that he has no right to retain, or which it is contrary to his duty to retain? So far from asserting that that is something aimed at journalists, I should have thought that the first comment of a journalist reading that provision would be this: 'Whoever may be the persons referred to, they are certainly not journalists.' It is proposed to put in the Bill, as I understand at the suggestion of some gentlemen connected with the Press, certain words in Clause 1 (c). There the Bill refers to forging, altering, or tampering with any passport or any naval, military, Air Force, police or official pass, permit, certificate, licence, or other document'. It is said that that is too general, and it is desired that the words 'of a similar character' should be inserted. I am going to propose that in Committee, but may I pause to say this, that the criticism directed against those words seems to me entirely to ignore the fact that the governing words are, 'if any person for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place' does these things, and that part of the Bill is not aimed at the alteration of a document as such. It is aimed at the alteration of a document of a certain kind for the purpose of gaining admission to a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. Again, I should have thought with great respect, that that is a class of document and a kind of purpose with which the Press of this country has nothing, and will never have anything to do."
Those words were inserted during the Committee stage or the Report stage—I forget which—but, as the then Attorney-General said, they had very little effect on the question as to whether or not the Press is affected; as he wound up by saying:
"this is a class of document and a kind of purpose with which the Press of this country has nothing, and will never have anything to do."
I think we ought to learn a lesson from that. When noble Lords bring in Bills, and when we are told that it is not necessary to insert an Amendment because it is quite absurd to suppose that anything covered by the Amendment will ever be dealt with under the Bill, I

1333
think we must remember that, and have all these things put into the Bill, so as to make it quite clear that certain things shall not be done. It is no use trusting to the words of hon. and learned gentlemen or of noble and learned Lords that such-and-such things will not take place. New people come and old people go; the undertakings given in a speech in the House of Commons or in this place are forgotten.
The result is what we see—that powers which were never contemplated by the introducers of the Bill which became the Official Secrets Act of 1920 have been exercised against the Press. When this ease was brought forward in another place the present Attorney-General stated that the powers were very drastic. He said:—
"The House will observe that this offence differs fundamentally from an ordinary charge "—
and so on. Then he went on to say:—
"This drastic power should, in my view, be used sparingly and only where serious issues are involved. On Thursday, 1st May, there appeared in three newspapers statements to the effect that Gandhi's immediate arrest had been decided on. The Prime Minister informed me that he took the view that … this was a gravely serious publication "—
and that there must have been some leakage of confidential information, either in India or here. He then went on to say what steps were taken, and pointed out that three editors were seen and, finally, that the correspondent of one newspaper was seen. He was interviewed at his private house.
The Attorney-General then continued:
"The House would not desire me to make any statement as to the extent or nature of the information I have received, nor would it be proper to do so."
Why not? Here is an offence which is supposed to have been committed. Here are drastic powers which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said ought only to be used under very exceptional circumstances. Yet when those powers had been exercised we are not told what the result has been, whether there was any foundation for exercising them, and whether anybody is going to be proceeded against for the offence which undoubtedly was committed because information in some kind of way did leak out. It has been said that some person was indiscreet or was not so discreet as he might have
1334
been, and I think in the debate the name of the Home Secretary was mentioned. Whether the Home Secretary was discreet or indiscreet, I think we ought to have some explanation as to what really took place, why the police were instructed to exercise these extraordinary powers and, when they had exercised them, what they found out, and whether or not they are going to take action in the matter. The question of the liberty of the Press is a very important one, and I do not think that drastic powers which were granted to the Government under certain conditions should be used in contravention and contradiction of the understanding arrived at when those powers were granted. I beg to move.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I certainly find no fault with the noble Lord for bringing this matter forward, and I should like to assure him again that I regret that the undertaking given about the arrangement of to-day's business was not fully kept to. It was no fault of mine and, as you see, his speech has not been long delayed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord was acting without knowing. I do not impute any motive.
Loan PARMOOR: A full explanation of this matter has already been given, I think, in another place by the Attorney-General and before replying to the specific matters to which the noble Lord has referred, I am sure he is aware that the putting into force of the powers of the Act of 1920 to which he has referred, founded on the Act of 1911, is a matter wholly within the responsibility of the Attorney-General and that in reference to those questions he acts really in a quasi-judicial character. The responsibility rests on him and on no one else. That I think was fully explained by the Attorney-General in another place and there can be no question about it.
There is one other point to which the noble Lord referred. I admit that I entirely agree with him and I am sure that every legal authority would. After an Act has been passed, on the question as to what it means, how it should he interpreted and how it should be used we are guided by the words of the Act itself and not by statements made by either one side or the other at the time

1335
the Bill was before your Lordships' House or another place. In addition to that, the Attorney-General explained, and I might add one or two words to the explanation, that in moving the Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill on December 2, 1920, the then Attorney General did not state that it did not deal with the Press. I forget whether the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, was at that time a member of your Lordships' House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No.
LORD PARMOOR: The Bill was originally introduced in your Lordships' House by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who was in charge of the Bill. The question was raised whether and to what extent it did or did not affect the Press. The Press on that occasion was represented by two noble Lords well able to look after the interests of the Press—the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Riddell. After discussion the consideration of the Bill was adjourned in order to allow of discussion and an arrangement was made. The result of the arrangement was—the noble Lord has the Bill before him—that in subsection (2) of Clause 1 these words were inserted in order to safeguard the position of the Press:
"for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State …"
I dare say the noble Lord will see those words in Clause 1 (2). When those words were accepted no objections were raised on behalf of the Press, nor was Clause 6, as far as I can find, ever under discussion in any form in your Lordships' House at all.
Let me refer to what was said by the then Attorney-General, now Lord Hewart. I think it is quite clear that the only matter he was referring to when he used the somewhat general language, no doubt, to which the noble Lord has referred, was the operation of subsection (2) of Section 1. He pointed out that the Press would not be affected, as no one would think that they would act for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord but may I say that what the then Attorney-General said was: "It is said that this Bill deals with the Press"—and not any particular portion of it.
LORD PARMOOR: It is always rather difficult to try to eliminate one phrase. If you look at what he was dealing with—I will read the words in a moment—it is clear that he was dealing, and dealing only, with subsection (2) of Clause 1. The words he used are as follows. I will read sufficient to show in what context he used the words to which the noble Lord has referred:—
"It is said that this Bill deals with the Press. That seems to me to be an astonishing statement, and it is very strange that persons connected with the Press should say that this Bill deals with them."
Why does he say that?
"How can it possibly be said that it is the function of a journalist to retain "—
these are the words which have been inserted so that it should not apply to the Press—
"for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State an official document that he has no right to retain, or which it is contrary to his duty to retain?"
I think it is quite clear that what he was referring to there was subsection (2) of Clause 1. By agreement, and after compromise in this House, the words "for some purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State" were included. It could not be said, so far as that subsection is concerned, that the Press were in any way interested.
Let me come to Clause 6, for it is only Clause 6 which is in question in the present matter. Clause 6, as was pointed out by the Attorney-General—I dare say your Lordships will not mind me reiterating what is practically his statement—is limited to the power of obtaining special information if there is ground for suspecting a breach of the Acts of 1911 and 1920. I recollect that when that clause was in this House I was one of the few Peers who then referred to it in the discussion. I certainly entirely agree with what the Attorney-General says, that this power ought to be used only in serious cases and not in any trivial case. The Attorney-General, in expressing that view, expressed the absolute truth in this case. It is not a trivial matter. It was a very serious matter. I think that was acknowledged on all sides. If I may use his own expression, he said that the power should be used sparingly and only where serious issues are involved. There is one other question that the noble Lord

1337
asked me in reference to that—namely, as regards the information on which the Attorney-General acted. The words of his Question are to ask whether the Government are aware of the statement made by the late Attorney-General, and whether the present Attorney-General was aware of this when he directed the police to take action. He was aware of what had been stated by a former Attorney-General. It is quite clear that the statement has not the wide meaning which the noble Lord has attached to the words.
The noble Lord's Notice further states:—
"whether the Government will state what was the information obtained by the police, and whether that information was obtained from or through indiscreet persons; and to move for Papers."
Certainly information of that kind cannot be disclosed, and ought not to be disclosed. If I may take the case of the particular journalist—I certainly will not mention his name, nor do I know him—he asked that the matter should be dealt with in as private a way as possible and without undue publicity. There is no mystery here. The Attorney-General has a responsibility. He receives information which makes him think it is his duty to put into operation Clause 6 in order to obtain certain information. He is satisfied, and he takes no further proceedings. No crime has been perpetrated by any one. The only question is one about disclosure. He got the disclosure which he wanted, and so the matter ended. Are we to re-open it on a plea which the noble Lord has brought forward? Are we to re-open matters which from every point of view ought to be treated as private, and which, if they were tested by publicity—there is no question of any offence having been committed—might really create extreme hardship against individuals? That is the very thing which ought not to be done, and in my view the Attorney-General was absolutely right when he refused to give any further information of that kind. He did state that the method of his inquiry was in accordance with the desires and wishes of the person who might have been implicated. No one was implicated, as a matter of fact, and it was at that person's desire that the method which was adopted in this particular case was adopted.
I am rather sorry about one other matter which I had hoped the noble Lord
1338
would not refer to. He brought in the name of a Minister in a very high position. I think, after the explanation of the Attorney-General, it was admitted on every hand in the other place that no blame of any kind or sort could be attached to that Minister in regard to this particular matter. I was glad when I read the Question on the Paper that no suggestion of that kind was made. It was completely answered elsewhere, with the assent, as I understand, of every one who heard the explanation given by the Attorney-General. Therefore, I sincerely hope that no further suggestion will be made in connection with the Minister. I think that I have answered the Question and there is nothing left to say, except this. The procedure under Clause 6 has been utilised several times since the Act of 1920 was passed. I dare say noble Lords opposite know better than any one else that it has been utilised in various cases. The expression used by the Attorney-General was "a very proper procedure." It is a useful procedure to use in a serious case, after great care and consideration. Fortunately for every one, it was not found necessary to go further, because the explanation he received was, in his opinion, satisfactory. I hope the matter will end there. I am certain that is where it ought to end in a case of this kind.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has answered my Questions, but not, as it seems to me, in a very satisfactory manner. The noble and learned Lord has shown, with the great command of language which he has, that when a former Attorney-General said that this Bill did not apply to the Press, he did not mean this Bill but he meant something else.
LORD PARMOOR: No. It is important that you should read it in the context where you find it. You will then find that it is perfectly clear he referred to subsection (2) of Clause 1, and not to Clause 6.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: When any ordinary person takes up a debate and sees that a person in the position of the Attorney-General states in plain and simple English that a Bill does not apply to the Press the natural inference is that the Bill does not apply

1339
to the Press. He does not know that the phrase "this Bill" must be understood to mean some particular section of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said that the present Attorney-General was aware of this when he directed the police to take action against the Press. That seems to me to be a very extraordinary admission—that one Attorney-General should go directly contrary to the statement of a preceding Attorney-General. It only emphasises the fact that I alluded to a short time ago, that it is very necessary to put into every Bill that comes before us words that can be understood by the people, and cannot be interpreted by lawyers into meaning something which the ordinary person on reading them thinks they would not mean. Then the noble and learned Lord says, in answer to my Question whether the Government will state what was the information obtained by the police, that he is not going to state it, that it would be quite wrong to do so. Why would it be wrong if an offence had been committed? This is not the day of the Star Chamber. When persons are tried for an offence to-day they are tried in open court and everyone knows what is going on. If there has been an offence, why on earth was not the person who committed the offence proceeded against?
LORD PARMOOR: I thought I had explained to the noble Lord that there was no offence.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If there was no offence, why on earth was action taken? There must have been some ground. It look to me as if the real facts were that some suspicion was aroused, and when those suspicions were found to be correct, it was thought advisable not to proceed any further. Being probably of a somewhat suspicious nature, I cannot conceive that anything else can be the case. I do not understand people in the position of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General taking this very drastic step, and then finding out that they had no reason to take it, and no business to take it. Have they apologised to the correspondent of the Press whom they questioned for three or four hours at his private house and threatened with imprisonment and all sorts of penalties? They ought to have apologised and they
1340
may have done so, but I should like to know if they have apologised. I must say I am not at all satisfied with the answer of the noble and learned Lord and the only hope I have that some good may arise out of this debate, and out of the debate in another place, is that these powers will not be taken advantage of in the future unless there is really some ground for taking advantage of them, and that they will not be used against the Press. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has anything further to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Motion?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I will not withdraw it, but I will not divide. I will have it negatived.
On Question, Motion for Papers negatived.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fifth Report of the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:—
1. PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER.
The attention of the Committee having been called to an application by Mr. C. W. Maidment, principal doorkeeper, in respect of his age on retirement, it was decided that the age shown by his birth certificate should be accepted as the age applicable to the date of his retirement.
2. HOUSEKEEPER.
The Committee approved a payment of £40 in respect of furniture for the housekeeper's rooms.
3. JUDICIAL OFFICE.
The Committee sanctioned the continuation to Mr. V. M. R. Goodman, M.C., Clerk in the Judicial Office of a special allowance of £100 per annum, as from the 6th of March, 1930, consequent on the appointment of the present holder to the office of Clerk Assistant.
4. REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Committee approved the following recommendations submitted by the subcommittee on the Refreshment Department:—

(i) That the contract with the present contractor should be renewed at the existing rate of subsidy;

(ii) That a circular should be issued to Peers, as on previous occasions, in connection with the maintenance of the Department.

5. CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND CLERK ASSISTANT.
A sub-committee was appointed to consider recommendations of the House of Lords Offices Committee of the 4th August, 1921, and to report thereon.
6. ESTIMATES.
The Estimates for the House of Lords Offices for the year ending 31st March, 1931, were laid before the Committee and approved.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE rose to ask His Majesty s Government whether the route of the Indian air mail has now been definitely settled; whether any improvements or extensions in respect to this service are contemplated, and if they can give any information regarding other new or projected British services overseas; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel I must ask for indulgence in asking this Question because I have no qualifications what ever to speak about the air except as a member of the ordinary public. I may perhaps be excused, however, because in the first place nobody else, at any rate for a considerable time, has asked any Question as far as I am aware on the important matter of civil aviation, and because, secondly, I know that the Air Ministry are anxious to enlighten, as far as they can, ordinary public opinion.
I think no one who has actually had experience of the Indian air mail can fail to be impressed by what our Imperial Airways Company has achieved in maintaining a regular service between Cairo and Karachi. Although they fly for the most part over great expanses of barren desert, where other means of communication are practically non-existent, and although they have to contend with dust storms and sandstorms and all kinds of temperatures and weather, nevertheless they have kept up this weekly service for over a year, which is not only very useful to people wishing to travel to or communicate with India, but is also valuable to our great commercial interests
1342
in Persia and Iraq. Indeed, I believe that a demand exists for a double service between Cairo and Baghdad. But the point I want to make is that if you compare what has been done in this middle part of the route between Egypt and India with what has been achieved at either end, I think one cannot help noticing a most disappointing contrast. Although a service was started across Europe, and I believe exists again to-day, it completely collapsed for five months last winter. In India, where we have such great interests and where for several months during the year travel by ordinary methods is very unpleasant and sometimes even dangerous, owing to the great heat, and where one may almost say a developed civil aviation might revolutionise the conditions under which our people live, no company, as far as I am aware, either British or Indian or foreign, has been able to do anything except over a short stretch of line between Karachi and Delhi.
I know the question of air finance and air subsidies is a very complicated and very thorny one, but, speaking quite broadly, the condition seems to be this. It seems to be worth our while to keep up a service between Egypt and India, and I understand that we are now proposing to start a new service from Cairo right down Africa to the Cape. If it is worth while keeping up a service for Persia and Iraq and Baluchistan and through Central Africa, it does not seem that either the technical shortcomings of aeroplanes or lack of money really stands in the way of our flying anywhere we want, provided the countries over which we fly are prepared to co-operate with us. I have been myself a passenger not only on the Indian air mail but also on the Nile section of the proposed African route, and I know that in Africa you have some of the wildest country in the world, with great swamps thousands of miles in extent to contend with, and a very scattered European population. I am sure that if we manage to maintain a service there, it will be something of a triumph for the Air Ministry, and I am sure many thousands of British subjects, scattered though they may be, will be grateful to the Ministry for their initiative and enterprise. But it will be a triumph that will not show us how to solve what seems to me to be the much more considerable difficulties that we

1343
appear to be experiencing in flying over countries which are not prepared to give us all the facilities we want.
Last December—I think it was in consequence of an accident—it was decided, I understand, to change the route that had been originally followed by Imperial Airways across Europe, and some new arrangement had to be made with Italy. I remember reading in the newspapers that the company had not been able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with the Italian Government. I do not know what the difficulty was, and I do not ask the Minister to tell me—I am sure that the Italian Government were absolutely within their rights—but I want to draw attention to the fact that for five months in consequence our service across Europe ceased. It entirely collapsed. On the Asiatic side, we have never had this sort of interruption as far as I know. There has been no interruption of this sort, though an interruption has been threatened. I understand the Persian Government will not allow us to send more than one aeroplane a week in either direction across Persia, and will not give us sufficient security of tenure to enable our company to put up permanent buildings. That is probably the reason why, good though the aeroplanes are, the ground accommodation for passengers—I mean at the places where they have to spend the night—is really rather rudimentary.
I do not desire to exaggerate these matters. It is not a very serious matter if our passengers are not as comfortable as they might be just at present, and it is not even a very serious matter if for a few months they have to go as far as Athens by train. But I think anybody might wonder what is going to happen in the future, whether these are merely temporary set-backs or an indication of a growing tendency to restrict international flying. At any rate, now that we have a new service through Europe, I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether the contracts or agreements under which our company operates have been established on a basis of sufficient permanence to enable it to provide regular services the whole way to India and to justify the expenditure of money on putting up proper accommodation for passengers and, perhaps, even starting new features, such as night flying.
I do not believe that our business people will ever use the air as it is used in foreign countries unless they can really rely upon the companies keeping to certain routes and maintaining regular schedules. I notice that Germany has nearly 18,000 miles of regularly operated air routes, that France has 20,000 miles and America as much as 46,000 miles. I particularly noticed, in regard to America, that in 1929 they carried 3,427 tons of mails. I know that the words "regularly operated air route" are capable of very wide interpretation, but I think the figures are sufficient to show that aeroplanes are obviously becoming, if they are not already, an essential factor in competitive industry. Our Dominions and Colonies have just under 15,000 miles, but the only air link that we have with any part of our Empire is this Indian route, which covers, I believe, about 5,000 miles. I am only expressing that which I have been able to observe, but it seems to me that, whereas the services of other countries are largely internal services and can develop under stable conditions, our air service goes almost entirely over foreign countries and is entirely dependent upon their good will.
Some days ago your Lordships passed by a large majority a Resolution in favour of Imperial economic unity, and I suppose that, if this is ever to come to anything, the question of air communications will become more important than ever. That is really why I am anxious to know how far this vital and apparently very vulnerable link in our air communication is going to be safeguarded, whether by a general diplomatic convention common to a number of countries or by private contracts or agreements with the countries over which we fly, or whether it is the intention of those responsible to make modifications in the route to suit political conditions. Of course no one can expect the Minister to say anything that is likely to endanger the success of any negotiations that he may have in hand at the moment, but I think these questions rather force themselves on the attention of anybody who has been out to those places, and I for one should be very interested in anything which he has to say on the matter.
The second part of my Question deals with the future of British commercial aviation, and I feel that this is such an

1345
immense subject that I can do no better than to invite the Minister to tell us anything that is likely to be of interest. He might like to say something about this new African route or about the airship position, but the only specific question that I should really like to ask him concerns the immediate development in India. I must explain that I have no special knowledge of these matters, but I understand that the intention of the Government of India is that commercial aviation in India shall be developed by a kind of equivalent of our Imperial Airways. If that is so, can the Minister tell us anything about the intentions of this company in regard to linking up Bombay and Calcutta with Karachi? I know that India has been much in the limelight recently, but I understood from the debate a little time ago that the ordinary functions of government were not being seriously interfered with, and the advantages of these two extensions seem to me so obvious that one rather wonders that they have not already taken place. Apart from the advantages to India, it is obviously a link in our chain with Australia and also in the communications between the Dutch East Indian possessions and the French possessions in Indo-China.
I said at the beginning that I was not going to presume to offer any criticism, because I think that no one who is not an expert has any right to do so, but perhaps I might offer one suggestion which is so small that I do not think there is any harm in my making it. It has to do with publicity. While all these alterations are being made and new services are being started and others stopped, I think it would be of great advantage if the most up-to-date information could be made readily available to anybody who is interested, regarding not only our own services but also the services of foreign nations. I know that in Paris, London, Berlin and the great capitals it is easy enough to get such information, but I do not think it is easy to get information in the East. So far as I know, there are two timetables, one a French publication and the other issued by the Deutsche Luft Hausa, and although I know that it is not the business of the Ministry to distribute time-tables, I think it would be a great advantage if these publications, or something like them, could be made available
1346
at any of the centres served by our company. I think it would also be a great improvement if notices of alterations and the opening of new services could be given as soon as they occur and in whatever country they originate. It may be that the improvement of international flying information is very difficult to arrange but I do think it could be improved in those parts of the world and, as this seems a comparatively small matter, perhaps the Minister would consider it.
On the general question of publicity, it seems to me that the exploits of ladies such as the Duchess of Bedford and Miss Johnson, which everybody acknowledges to be very magnificent, tend to concentrate public opinion more and more on what can be done by aeroplanes and perhaps to obscure a little what actually is being done by the regular services that run every week. Of course we can look on these air companies as purely financial propositions in themselves and say that—for all I know this may be the case—our Imperial Airways service to India is running to full capacity already, and therefore it would be waste of money to spend anything extra on advertisement. If, in the opinion of those more qualified to judge than myself—and I think there are a good number of them—there are perhaps more intangible advantages both to commerce and administration to be derived from linking up British interests by air, I think perhaps one of the best ways of making sure about the future success of these companies would be to spread as far as possible the knowledge of what is being done at present. I know that Imperial Airways is a private company, and I know that the Minister has pointed out in another place that agreements which they make with foreign countries are really their own concern, but they are a monopoly company, which we subsidise, and everything which they do, it seems to me, is of the greatest importance to the public. I beg to move.
LORD TRENCHARD: My Lords, although I was not directly responsible in any way for civil aviation during my time at the Air Ministry, I have always been enormously interested in the subject of civil aviation, owing to its vital importance to this Empire, and not only to the question of the defence of this Empire. Before the noble Lord, the

1347
Secretary of State for Air, Lord Thomson, replies, I would just like to say one or two words as to the principles upon which I think civil aviation ought to be run. I cannot help feeling that a great number of people are continually asking: Does civil aviation pay? Does it pay 5 per cent, on the money invested? Is this altogether fair to civil aviation? Would it not be more far-seeing to look at civil aviation from the point of view of how much it is going to benefit the Empire as a whole, owing to its help in the direction of quicker communications? I think nobody will fail to admit that quicker communication between different parts of the Empire is becoming more and more a vital matter every year, and I would like to ask: What is civil aviation worth to the Empire? What is it worth to the political life of the Empire? What is it worth to the industrial life of the Empire? What is it worth on the administrative side? What is it worth to the defence of the Empire?
Can its value be put into figures? Perhaps not, but surely it touches a much wider field than is apparent at first sight. One can only say that in the years to come its value to the Empire will be very great. A system of rapid inter-communication between all parts of our Empire would mean an enormous speeding up of civilisation and industrial progress. It would mean that countries and districts which at present are only just beginning to be opened up would be quickened into life in a fraction of the time, if people could get to them quickly. Experts, men of great ideas and enterprise, hesitate to go from one part of the Empire to another if it means the wasting of weeks and months in travelling. They cannot afford the waste of time, but surely they would go if the means of communication were quickened, and that would help in the development of the Empire. Not only would empty spaces be filled, but places which are now being developed would quickly be improved enormously. Industry would be quickened, and by quickening industry greater markets would be available. As it was put in another place, communication with civilised centres means civilisation. This question has been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, from a little different angle but it comes to the same
1348
thing, that civil aviation by quickening up communications is vital, and will become more vital.
The money necessary for civil aviation is not in my opinion in the nature of a subsidy to civil aviation until civil aviaton pays. Surely we should look upon it more in the nature of a payment for what I may call, for lack of a better name, "unforeseen benefits"—benefits that will certainly accrue from a thorough development of our communications. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is very keen to see civil aviation developed—nobody is keener—and therefore I am confident that he will not take my remarks as being in criticism of the present or any other methods. On the contrary, my only object is to ventilate the subject, so that it may perhaps be realised that there are benefits to accrue from the development of civil aviation which cannot be set forth in terms of a percentage on the money laid out.
With regard to the other point which Lord Gage raised, freedom of the Air, that is to say, liberty to all to fly anywhere, no matter what lies below them, I would like to point out that this question has been debated constantly ever since 1919, when the Air Convention was first signed. It is well known that a certain number of Powers chose to regard the provisions of the Air Convention as signifying the right of any one Power to fly over the land of any other Power on certain specified routes. A large number of Powers, however, took the opposite view, and maintained that freedom of the air was only conditional; that is, conditional on an agreement with the Power whose land was flown over. As far as I remember this point was again debated last year, or the year before, at a full meeting of the Air Convention, and I believe that twenty-seven nations voted against freedom of the air being absolute. In other words, if aeroplanes of one Power wished to fly over the land of another Power an agreement must first be made. That decision, made At a full meeting of the Air Convention, secures to each and every Power what I may call the "flying rights" over its own territories. Any Power can, of course, assign these "flying rights" to another Power, or to any flying concern, on Any terms they choose, but the fact remains that these "flying rights" exist, and to my

1349
mind, taking human nature for what it is, no other decision would have been practicable.
Freedom of the sea is possible because the sea does not pass over or under any nation's country. The air, on the contrary, does, and after all the air is as free as the sea for there are no limitations on the flying of any Power over any part of the sea. Where the sea is free for ships it is free for aircraft. To ask for absolute freedom of the air, therefore, is to ask for something very much greater, and far in excess of the freedom of the sea. We are peculiarly well situated outside of Europe with regard to the making of flying agreements with foreign Powers, should they wish to fly over our territories. Should we be justified in considering for one moment the jettisoning of a right which is a most valuable asset to the British Empire? I feel that we gain most by upholding the decision which was made last year or the year before by the vote of twenty-seven nations, and we have most to lose by overthrowing it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, for having raised this question. Civil aviation is a fertile field and needs constant weeding because of its fertility, and any one who, like himself, has taken the trouble—I will not say the risk—of flying over our air routes and expresses an opinion in this House will always be heard gladly, at least while I occupy my present position, and his suggestions, which are most constructive, will be most welcome. Civil aviation is quite one of the most important functions of the Air Ministry. Personally I put it second to none, and it is a question which cannot be ventilated too often and one on which too much information cannot be given.
The noble Viscount has put certain questions with regard to our air route to India and with regard to the permanence of arrangements which can be entered into on that route. I would like to remind him of a fact which he probably knows extremely well already—namely, that we are situated in rather a difficult position in this matter. We have our own small island with excellent railways, and roads which are really motor race tracks, and here we cannot develop
1350
civil aviation to quite the same extent that larger countries with less good communications can develop it. On the other hand, we have a far-flung Empire which we can only reach by crossing other people's territory, and to do so we have to enter into a variety of agreements with the Governments of those countries.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard has referred to that very delicate subject, the freedom of the air. It is rather a misleading phrase. Generally speaking, the freedom of the air is really a freedom to operate along certain air routes. We British have always held the view that any civilised State to-day will and should possess an international air route across its territory, and by freedom of the air we mean that any country, a member and a subscriber to the International Convention, would be able to fly along such an international air route in the territory of another member of that international body. That, unfortunately, is not quite the case. The whole dispute at the present time turns on the interpretation of Article 15 of the International Convention, and Article 15 no one quite understood.
I cannot help thinking it must have been drawn up by some great international jurist, because so little did any one understand it that various countries put up their own interpretations of this Article, and the interpretation put up by the French representative, now a member of the French Government, was this:—
"Every contracting State may make conditional on its prior authorisation the establishment of international airways and the creation and operation of regular international air navigation lines, with or without landing on its territory."
The words I would like to draw your attention to are, "may make conditional on its prior authorisation." That is to say, any country in Europe has, we will say, an air line, and other members of this international body are not allowed to use that air line freely: they can only do it on the prior authorisation of the State concerned. That interpretation was accepted by 27 votes to 4 on the international body. Twenty-seven countries voted for that very restricted interpretation of the freedom of the air, and four countries voted for a wider interpretation. Those four countries were Great Britain, the United States, Sweden and, I think, Holland or some other

1351
Scandinavian country. We were in the fortunate position of having voted for the wider interpretation, but were voted down.
My own policy ever since that date has been to adhere loyally to the majority's decision, but I would like to add that our representative on that body then and there moved an addition to the clause I have just read out, and the words he proposed to add were:—
"Such authorisation may be refused only on reasonable grounds."
That proposition was turned down by eighteen votes to eleven, but on this occasion the French Government voted with us. That is the position; and when the noble Viscount says to me: "What assurance can you give us of permanence of arrangement and regular travelling on the route to India, which inevitably must cross Europe?" I can only tell him that that permanence will entirely depend upon the local arrangements we make with each territory we pass over.
I may say this, that so far as Britain is concerned we have not the least difficulty in reaching agreement with the countries that the air line to India now passes over—not the least. France has always been most kind to us in this respect, and indeed it was only last summer that I was able to conclude a general agreement on a reciprocity basis with the Secretary of State for Air in France. All through now to the Balkans, to Salonika, and to Athens, we experience not the least difficulty in concluding arrangements on a reciprocity basis. The noble Viscount has referred to certain difficulties with Italy, and to the breakdown of our communications with Egypt in the latter part of last year, which he attributed to an accident. I need hardly say that I am not in a position to go into our difficulties with Italy, but from the point of view of the Government I can assure him that there has been no real friction of any sort, kind, or description, but a certain amount of rivalry between Imperial Airways, our company, and the company that operates the line for Italy. That was a rivalry largely of a trade character. And the difficulty in regard to it is that Italy stands out for the restricted interpretation of freedom of the air, and when we come to make a special arrangement with Italy it is rather difficult to find a basis of re-
1352
ciprocity because we have nothing to give Italy in return for the privileges we enjoy on Italian territory. We have offered them various facilities, but they really do not require those facilities. The consequence is that we shall have to continue to negotiate in the same friendly spirit with Italy as that in which we have conducted our negotiations in the past, and I have not the least doubt that in the end we shall come to a satisfactory arrangement.
But in the meantime the existing arrangement is by no means bad. It is now an established route across the Balkans to India, the Mid-European route, and that is functioning with the greatest regularity and, indeed, with remarkable punctuality. The route to India now passes from London to Cologne, Nuremberg, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, a place called Uskub in the Balkans, down to Salonika and, since April 15, the whole of that route has been by air. Without intermission the service has functioned really with remarkable precision. I do not deny that in the winter months, when there is snow on the Balkan mountains, that route may be dangerous on occasions and it may be necessary to resort to a train service over certain sections of it. The loss of time will not be great; but, of course, it would be preferable to have a through air service, as is being maintained at present with extremely satisfactory results.
I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the times taken. The route goes from London to Egypt entirely by air in three days; from London to Iraq, with one small rail journey from Alexandria to Heliopolis, in four days; from London to Karachi in seven days, sometimes in six and a-half days, and from London to Delhi in eight days. It is no mean performance when you come to think of the vast variety of territory that is passed over and the number of agreements that have to be entered into with all those countries. When you leave Europe you reach Arabia; when you leave Arabia you reach Persia. The noble Viscount complained, and I have no doubt he has some reason for so doing, of having possibly passed a very uncomfortable night at Jask or somewhere else, and of insufficient accommodation, and he asked me, I think, why

1353
we could not arrange for more permanent buildings there. I want to speak quite frankly. Our concession from the Persian Government expires, I think, in twenty-two months and until we are certain that we can renew it, it would not be worth while for the company to build permanent structures for the reception of passengers by the air route. I need hardly say that every effort is being made to persuade the Persian Government, or to come to some definite arrangement one way or the other with them. But in the hot season in Persia diplomatic deals go slowly. I hope we shall have a satisfactory solution of this matter some time about next October. As soon as that deal is settled one way or the other—we cannot press people, we can only make a fair offer, we can only offer to a Government like the Persian Government some advantages from this communication which should be obvious—when that deal has been concluded, at once the accommodation will be improved by the company.
The noble Viscount referred to possible extensions of our civil aviation system and I should like to refer very briefly to that. I would point out that at this present moment there are in the British Empire something like 22,350 miles of air route in regular operation. As a people we rather decry our own efforts and make little of our achievements, but I would like to point out to the House that that is the second largest mileage for air routes in the world. It is second only to the United States, which enjoys unique advantages in this respect from the extent of its territory. The British Empire has more miles of air route in regular operation than either Germany or France, and Germany, it must be remembered, is singularly favoured in a geographical sense. It is the sort of focal point of Europe on the highway to the wide spaces of Russia and, so to speak, the link between Europe and Asia. But in spite of those advantages, the British Empire has at this moment 22,350 miles of air route in regular operation, equipped, I think we may say without undue national pride, by some of the finest flying machines in the world and certainly piloted by some of the best pilots. It is a feature of travel on the Continent by air how every traveller of whatever race will always go in a British aero
1354
plane if he or she can. That, I believe, is largely due to the excellence of our pilots. But it is in some measure due to the ground organisation and the care that has been taken to eliminate all possible risks through faulty structure.
The extensions that we anticipate are twofold. One, through India to Australia. The exact date when that extension will be effected depends to a very large extent on the Australian Government, but I have hopes it will be at the end of next year. At the present moment discussions are going on with the Government of India regarding the route across India. The air mail is functioning as far as Delhi, Karachi to Delhi, by charter rates and not under the general system that we are all aiming at, of one overhead establishment, the great trunk route to Port Darwin and on to Australia under one management. I am afraid that ideal has not yet been achieved. Whether it will be achieved or not I cannot tell you for the moment; I am anyhow a little doubtful. The other extension that we contemplate is through Africa from Cairo to the Cape. That should be completed as far as the Great Lakes in Central Africa by the end of this year and to Capetown itself by the spring of 1931. I should like here and now to pay a tribute to the Government of South Africa, who have been most helpful in this matter and have practically agreed to their share of the subsidy. Those are the extensions that I think the noble Viscount asked me about.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord tell us how long it will take to go to Capetown by that route via Egypt?
LORD THOMSON: I am afraid I could not say exactly but I will have that looked up. I could give a guess but I would rather give an exact answer. It is a point that I have not looked up, but I will let the noble Viscount know. The question raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard in regard to subsidies is the next point to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. I frankly confess that if I could have dictatorial powers in this matter for a short time I would endeavour to work along the lines he has suggested and plan Empire air routes, not so much from the point of view of whether they are paying propositions or not, whether they are commercial or not, but

1355
with a long view to the future and with the idea of really linking up the Empire both for communication and strategical purposes. I should like to do that, but it would cost a great deal of money. What has been done up to date is that with a view to securing contributions of a private nature and capital from private sources, subsidies have been given to companies to operate certain lines. In the end it has come to this that a monopoly of the subsidy has fallen into the hands of a given company.
That company in this case is Imperial Airways, and it is no good concealing the fact that a great deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed at this monopoly of subsidy given to one company. I do not myself quite like subsidies, and especially a monopoly of subsidies. I think it is wrong. In fact, I do not like subsidies paid out of public funds being used to pay dividends to private investors. I do not think it is right, but that system is one which I inherited, and, while I have expressed my personal point of view, in common justice to the arrangement that has been entered into, and to Imperial Airways, I have to say this, that it has been found necessary in every country that operates commercial air lines to follow our example. I would like to give you the case, for example, of the different European countries that are doing exactly the same thing as ourselves. In Germany one monopoly company, the Luft Hausa; in Holland, one monopoly company; in France, three monopoly companies, with special provision to avoid competition between them; Belgium, one monopoly company; Sweden, one monopoly company; in Italy it is proposed to merge the six existing companies into two monopoly companies, one for service over land and the other for service over seas; in Spain, one monopoly company.
Your Lordships may well ask: "Why is this?" I think the answer is that unless the Government assistance is concentrated on one company, if it is distributed among several, there is a very considerable danger that all those companies will go bankrupt. It sounds magnificent to have a lot of companies competing with one another, but the whole process of rationalisation—and this is in a sense rationalisation—is to eliminate competition as far as
1356
possible, and especially in an industry like civil aviation. So precarious are the commercial prospects of any aviation company at the moment that it is necessary, and has been proved necessary in all those cases I have quoted, to give one company, or a group of companies, a monopoly of the subsidy. Therefore, against my better judgment, I might say certainly against my predilections, I find myself the inheritor of a system, whose good points I feel it my duty to point out.
Now I would like to give your Lordships some figures with regard to our monopoly company, and the monopoly companies of two or three other countries, because here we do shine. I would like to point out, first, that I do not suppose any one with a responsibility for civil aviation would justify the granting of subsidies unless there was a fair prospect that in the end the company would be self-supporting. If I felt sure that civil aviation would never pay, would never be a commercial proposition, I think I would be more strongly opposed than I am to the granting of a subsidy at all. I would then be much more definitely determined to see to it that civil aviation was an affair of the State, for State running. But, though I can give you no really good reason, I do believe that, somehow or another in process of time, either by a reduction in the cost of running, or some new invention, we shall see commercial aviation on a self-supporting basis; but in the meantime I have had figures worked out so as to afford a fair basis of comparison between the value received for our subsidy and the value received in other countries, and these are the final figures.
In Germany, which is a very leading country in commercial aviation, 68 per cent. of the receipts of the Luft Hausa, the monopoly company, are represented by subsidy. When you travel as a passenger in a German aeroplane 68 per cent. of your ticket is being paid for by the taxpayers in Germany, or the ratepayers of some municipality. In France, 77 per cent. of the receipts are paid for out of public funds. France is actually spending nearly £1,600,000 a year on subsidies to civil aviation. I have been charged, not by any one in this House or any one in my own Department but by the Treasury, with being a little grasping in the matter, yet I have not reached

1357
£500,000. In Great Britain only 50 per cent. of the receipts of Imperial Airways are paid for out of subsidies-50 per cent. compared with 68 per cent. in Germany and 77 per cent. in France. I think that is a good showing, because to hear people talk about our civil aviation one would think it was a most wasteful, crazy concern. As a matter of fact, those figures are very convincing as regards the businesslike manner in which our monopoly company is managed.
There is another basis of comparison which I would like to give, and, indeed, it is more searching—the cost per ton mile of the machines. The cost per ton mile—that includes passengers, goods and mails—in France is 16 s. 9d. paid out of subsidy; in Germany it is Os. 4d.; in Britain it is only 6s. 9d. If you take our European routes, and they are the fairest comparison, because none of these other countries go quite so far afield or to the same extent afield as we do, it is only 3s. 4d. per ton mile on our European services. That is another tribute to the businesslike manner in which our civil aviation service is conducted. I have given your Lordships those figures with the special purpose of proving that the system, which I do not really like myself, thanks to the highly efficient method in which it is worked, should justify itself in the eyes of all business-minded people.
There is one other point which may interest the noble Viscount. He talked about extensions. We are now discussing, and I think we are seeing the light at last, the opening up of what are called Atlantic Airways in the Western Atlantic. I need hardly say that such a development call only be carried through in cooperation with the Canadian Government, but we are meeting with the most sympathetic response. A great deal of work in that connection has been done by the Consultative Committee which was set up last July, and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the members of that Committee for the very excellent public service they have rendered. When I mention their names, you will realise haw busy these gentlemen are. One is Sir Alan Anderson, representing shipping. Another is Mr. Quirey, representing railways, and a third is Sir It. Nugent, representing the Federation of British Industries. The Members of Parliament are Sir William
1358
Brass from the Conservative Party, Sir Archibald Sinclair from the Liberal Party and Mr. Snell of my own Party—all very busy Members of Parliament, you will admit. The three gentlemen from business life are well known for their activities. In addition, we have Colonel O'Gorman, a well known authority on aeronautical science.
These gentlemen have made many reports. They are continually putting up reports to me which are of the greatest value, and I need hardly say, in view of the character of these gentlemen—as I warned them from the first—I have the very greatest difficulty in turning down any scheme they recommend. In fact, their recommendation would carry weight with any one. They have reported most sympathetically on this Atlantic Airways scheme, and I repeat that I am fairly confident now that we shall be able to do something of that kind. We shall then have established something on the far side of the Atlantic independent of the monopoly subsidy, something new, something which I trust may lead to the sale of British aircraft in South America and other parts of the world, something which will certainly develop and quicken our communications.
There has been a Bill introduced in another place called the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Bill, and I was amazed to find that many people thought that Bill meant that the Secretary of State had a Million pounds a year to play with for civil aviation. I wish it were so, my Lords. That Bill has been introduced merely with a view to giving the Secretary of State for the time being statutory authority to enter into longterm agreements. That statutory authority makes the agreements binding on succeeding Governments. We are continually entering into such agreements, as I have already indicated, and we shortly will be entering into another rather large one with regard to South Africa. The Bill is there, but I am afraid that the Air Ministry have got to go through the usual process before they can extract a single farthing out of the Treasury.
They have to go through negotiations with the Treasury first, every penny expended is shown in the Estimate, and the debate on the Estimate affords an opportunity for a thorough discussion of subsidy policy. So I can reassure your Lordships if you were afraid that in

1359
any sense of the word I had "got away with it," because I have not. There is really only a difference in form and not in substance. I would remind your Lordships that the sum of £1,000,000, which sounds rather large in view of the moderate Estimates this year, is not so large as appears at first sight. It includes contributions from the Dominions and Colonies. It is quite possible that the contributions from those sources may within the next few years amount to something like £370,000, so that with £400,000 odd we have already we are in the neighbourhood at once of £750,000. That leaves only £250,000 for developments, some of which are not yet even in sight. It also includes anything which may be done with regard to subsidising airship navigation.
I have answered nearly all the questions, but if your Lordships will allow me to inflict myself on you for a little longer, I would like to say a few words in conclusion on the subject of airships, because I am aware that there has been a great deal of disappointment in regard to the airship programme. I would like to remind your Lordships that the airship programme, which I had the honour to introduce in this House in 1924, was then described by me, not once but several times, as experimental and tentative. It was never claimed that we were going to build two commercial airships which would at once take the air as their native element, and fly to all parts of the globe. That was not so at all. If you will allow me to re-enumerate the stages of that programme, I think you will see that there is some justification for my remark. It was to begin with experiments and research, and then to go on with full scale flying with an old airship, reconditioned. There was then to be the construction of an experimental section. The fourth stage was meteorological investigation of the most searching character on the Indian route. The fifth stage was the provision of ground organisation, and the sixth stage was the building of two ships. The building of those two ships was only started three years ago.
Now many of your Lordships may wonder at the insignificant character of the results achieved. Well, I repeat it is an experiment and the final stages of that experiment will only be made this month in regard to one ship and in
1360
September in regard to the other. If there is any blame to be imputed in this matter, I would like to take it at once. This is one of the most scientific experiments that man has ever attempted, and there is going to be no risk, while I am in charge, of the thing being rushed or of any lives being sacrificed through lack of foresight. It is far too scientific and important a matter for that. I am grateful to the Press for the advertisement they have given to it, but as a matter of fact this scientific experiment really does not need advertisement. Sometimes undue publicity is a little inconvenient, as when people get the impression that you are building an airship which will take one hundred M.P.s all over the country. That was the greatest error of all my life. I was punished by weather. These are scientific experiments, and they will not cease to be experiments until these supreme tests of the airship have been completed.
One will take place at the end of this month to Canada, and the other to India in September. I regret extremely the disappointment that has been caused in Canada by the delay. Hopes were raised in Canada that early this month there would be the ship over Montreal where the Canadian Government, at their own expense, have built a mast. No one deplores more than I do their disappointment, but it cannot be helped. We are not going to send that ship while there is anything perceptibly wrong with her, and though what was wrong was of a very minor character, it is going to be put right before the ship goes. Until the test flights have been finished it is impossible to give an idea of what future airship policy is going to be. If the almost unthinkable happened and these ships failed on their final flights, there might be a strong movement towards scrapping of the programme. That would be heart-breaking. I cannot tell you what magnificent work has been done by the airship men. There are officers in that work to-day who have sacrificed promotion and many other advantages in order to get on with this great experiment. We have a body of enthusiasts at work there, and only the worst of luck could interfere with the success of the experiment. If we have bad lack I should have thought it was in the British character to stick to it still and triumph over temporary adversity.

1361
Supposing—and I think this is very likely to be the case—that these two final flights prove satisfactory, it may be urged that the construction should then proceed forthwith of a 7,500,000 cubic-ft. ship, as that would be about the size for a ship that would be a commercial proposition. Whether that ship would be constructed at Cardington by the Government constructors is an open question. It is certainly one of the policies open to the Government. The second policy is to invite the collaboration of the big shipping companies. If, for example, during the course of this year several flights take place over great distances and careful records are kept of the expenditure of fuel, the running costs, the risks to be avoided and the methods of navigation to be pursued, I have many good reasons to believe that the great shipping companies would be interested, and not only shipping companies at home but shipping companies on an international basis. I have always regarded airships as an international means of navigation. My object has been to make British ships the best and safest in the world, because I feel that we ought to take the lead in this matter, this being essentially an Empire problem.
The third course is the one that I think is most likely to be pursued in the event of our having a good record of achievement during the autumn of this year. This is a point which may interest some of your Lordships. You may well ask why it is that the "Graf Zeppelin" can go round the world and make enormous flights while our two ships spend their time mainly in their sheds. That is a very easy question to answer. The Germans have 30 years' experience of building airships. They ran commercial ships from Lake Constance before the War. I do not wish to decry the virtues of our own people, but in view of that experience I think it is only natural that we should accept the fact that there are very few Dr. Eckener's in this world. We have not had time to produce our Dr. Eckener—one of the most remarkable men I have ever met. They are not found in every generation.
Then again, though I wish to say nothing in depreciation of the "Graf Zeppelin" as a ship, I do not think you could compare it as a structure with R.101, or even R.100. We have started out on the design of these two ships on
1362
a basis of first principles. We have not copied any well-known model, but we have produced two ships that are the strongest in the world. One of Dr. Eckener's principal experts, after seeing R.101, said to me: "That is the safest conveyance on land or sea or in the air." He was enthusiastic about its qualities. During the construction of these two ships we have never attempted to secure a gain in lightness at the expense of solidity. We have produced two almost unbreakable ships in any foreseeable weather conditions, and providing they are properly navigated. There are improvements to be introduced into both of those ships which will considerably lighten their loads, but those improvements will be on the basis of "Safety first"—exactly on the same basis as that on which the ships were originally constructed. "Safety first" may not be a very paying proposition in regard to politics, but I am sure it is the right thing in regard to airships.
What have we achieved? We have those two ships, and we have a magnificent ground organisation and design staff. We have spent £2,300,000 odd on the whole programme. I read in the newspapers about a £1,000,000 ship. Those two ships put together only just cost £900,000. There is no £1,000,000 ship. The figures are certainly rather interesting. The cost of the two ships together was £894,000, research cost £305,000, and then we have a ground organisation which includes two of the largest sheds in the world, three mooring masts—one of the great developments due to British enterprise—and, last but not least, an immense amount of knowledge. Personally I believe the knowledge we have gained, which we could not have gained unless we had built the ships and had practical experience, is alone worth £2,300,000. There are various improvements in sight, and if we can only keep our design staff going I have not the least doubt that our experiment will have been amply justified.
There are three conditions of safety, as my advisers tell me, in airship navigation. The first is sound construction and first-rate material. Those, I think, we have. The second is good navigation and well-trained crews. Good navigation is necessary to avoid thunderstorms and electric discharges, and well-trained

1363
crews are as necessary on airships as, or even more necessary than, on any seagoing ship. It is amazing how the men are training in airship practice. They take to airships like a duck to water, I was going to say, or like an eaglet to the air. They seem to be at home in it at once. The third condition of safety in an airship is good meteorological information, communicated promptly and systematically, and that also is being attended to and, I think, is satisfactory.
The hour is late and the faithful few have listened to me with a patience for which I am indeed most grateful. I wanted to make a statement about this new experiment. I wanted, if I could, to reassure people as regards the progress that is being made and the success that we have achieved hitherto. I have always been an enthusiast in these matters. I take a special pride in the fact that I introduced this programme and I want to see it through to ultimate success. I can only add this, that in spite of many setbacks and some disappointments my faith is absolutely undimmed, and I am sure the people of this country will be right in continuing these experiments. They can continue them on the basis of research alone and they will find that their money has been well expended. It is unnecessary to point out what the airship may mean to our race and to our Empire. It is essentially a vehicle for going over wide ocean spaces. It is not much for going over land. It would link up our Empire in a way that, so far as I can see, no other means of transport can approach. It combines speed, safety and indeed amenities, because to travel in an airship is by far the most delightful form of travel that I personally have ever experienced. I hope I have answered the questions put to me sufficiently. The noble Viscount has moved for Papers. I do not know what Papers I could give him. I could give him an advertisement for the publicity of Imperial Airways future movements, but that he can secure for himself. If there are any Papers that I can, without disclosing confidential information, supply to him, I need hardly say that they shall be supplied.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord opposite
1364
I am enthusiastic in this matter. I think I was a member of the Civil Aviation Board at the Air Ministry before he became Secretary of State for Air, and I should like in a few words to congratulate my noble friend Viscount Gage for having brought this question forward and for having elicited the most interesting statements to which we have listened. I did not expect, being used in another place to Ministerial evasions, so clear and full a statement as has been given by the noble and gallant Lord. I am grateful to him and I am sure that the country will be equally grateful when it reads his statement to-morrow morning. Whether I should go so far as to join with him in the hope that he will be Minister for Air sufficiently long to see the fruition of these experiments I can hardly say, but at least I hope he will live to see the result of these experiments under some Government equally concerned with their development as he is himself. Perhaps it is only fair I should have made that remark, as a tit for tat for his remarks about "Safety first."
There are one or two points of importance to which I should like to refer. First of all, with regard to the Convention and the question raised by Lord Trenchard about the right of flying over any country in the world. Personally, I think, I should have been inclined to vote with the majority on the Air Convention. It might become in the future, when the air becomes as densely populated as many people think it will, desirable to allow free and unlimited flying over all countries. I should, on the other hand, have voted for the modification—namely, that the right of flying over air routes should not be unreasonably withheld. While that was not passed I think the noble and gallant Lord has given us sufficient information to show that most countries are reasonable, and that Great Britain is not finding any great difficulty in getting through the air routes connecting our country with outlying parts of the Empire. I should like, of course, to see the extension of air services made as rapidly as possible. I was struck by one point referred to by the noble and gallant Lord—namely, that Germany is the focal point of general air transport. I think he will agree with me that Egypt is the focal point of air transport for our Empire.

1365
There was one point not raised by the noble Lord, but which is of very great interest as confirming what he said with regard to the ability of our pilots and the excellence of our machines. He did not mention the new industry which has sprung up, that of surveying by aircraft. I believe one company has conducted air surveys during the last seven years, with fees amounting to £133,000. This survey from the air is an entirely modern invention. Eleven thousand square miles of our own territory on the Zambesi have been surveyed, 1,000 miles around Iraq and 2,000 miles in India, and quite recently, when I was travelling in Egypt and the Sudan, I found that a very large and important area was being surveyed by British machines—something like 20,000 miles over a part of the country which could not be surveyed by any other means.
LORD THOMSON: I might add that 90,000 miles of territory in Northern Rhodesia have been surveyed, and the work completed in two years.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I should like to add one word of testimony to the bravery of the young men flying these machines through the Sudan. It is a very dangerous country, if any unforeseen accident occurred and the machine had to come down. All this work of surveying is being done by air, and it could not have been done five or six years ago. I may mention another point in confirmation of what was said by the noble and gallant Lord with reference to the excellence of our machines. I think it is on record that in the export of aircraft we beat all other countries in the world. During 1928 we exported 352 aircraft, as compared with America, the nearest other country, 102; and we exported 432 engines against 179 by America. All through the War we raced ahead in the desire to improve aeroplane engines, and last year we exported 1,148 aeroplane engines against 321 exported by America. The total value of aircraft and engines exported was over £2,000,000 sterling. That does show that under the fostering care of the Air Ministries of various Governments and the skill and ability of our aircraft constructors and engineers, we have got far ahead in this matter.
I do not like to criticise, and it is not by way of criticism that I say one word more in regard to subsidies. Like the
1366
noble Lord opposite, I confess I do not like subsidies. I should like to see some other companies, perhaps, taking a share of the great work. I can understand that in Germany, Italy or France, which are self-contained countries, it is perhaps desirable to have some sort of monopoly for air services, but we have no air services in England at all. We are either too small or our railways are too good. We have no air services in this country, say, from London to York, or from Manchester to London. All our air services are run to different parts of the Empire, and I should have thought that, allotting as we have done to the Imperial Airways our great route to India, it might be quite possible to institute, or permit the institution of, some other company to take air passengers to some other part of the world, say Africa. I only throw out that suggestion for the consideration of the Secretary of State himself. But even then he told us that Great Britain only spent last year in subsidies something like £465,000. Our own Dominion of Canada spent a great deal more—nearly £750,000 in subsidies; Australia £250,000; and India £178,000; while France spent nearly £1,600,000, Germany £500,000, Italy something over £500,000 and the United States of America, including their air mail subsidy—which, of course, the noble Lord will agree is a subsidy to the air services—well over £3,500,000.
Now, if your Lordships know anything about me, you will know that I am not an extravagant Minister. Having had the privilege of serving for some few months at the Treasury, I am all for the utmost economy. But I do want the noble Lord to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, said in regard to the benefits to be derived from subsidies. It is not merely the fact that we can carry a ton of food or a ton of passengers at a particular price. The benefit is in the enlargement of the communications of our Empire. I see the noble Lord is not inclined to disagree with me in that respect. I think he will agree that, with a far-flung Empire such as ours, we must depend upon communications. The greatest Empire before ours which the world ever knew, the Empire of Rome, was built up by road transport. Her communications were through that marvellous system of roads which was instituted by the Roman Empire. We had a hundred years ago the inception of

1367
the great railway system, and now we see the era of what I think will develop into an enormous system of air transport. I want this country to be well in advance of other countries, and I especially desire that the utmost effort should be made to link the Empire together by air transport. There are, of course, other methods of linking the Empire together, and I am not going to draw a red herring over the interesting debate we have had to-day by mentioning any other methods; but I am satisfied that one of the best possible efforts we could make to link the whole Empire together would be by an intensified development of the air services of this country.
I congratulate the noble Lord on the statement he made in regard to airships. Again, I am not going to criticise. Again, I feel that it would be foolish to break off the experiments before they have been thoroughly tried out; and I sincerely hope and trust that the experiments which have taken so many years to perfect will prove to be successful, and that we shall have airships second to none in the world. But these, on the other hand, cost a vast amount of money, and,
1368
compared to the ordinary aeroplane of commerce, they are a very expensive method of transport, and are bound to be for some years at all events. I do not know whether I could ask the noble Lord to plead with the Treasury, perhaps in the early future, for a larger grant for the development of civil aviation. It is not money thrown away. It will be money well spent, and particularly in the development and improvement and the closer building together of our Empire.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have spoken for the information they have given, and I regret that your Lordships have not been in attendance in larger numbers to hear what has been said. No doubt in years to come the attendance at debates on civil aviation will be larger. I do not wish to press my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes before seven o'clock till tomorrow, three o'clock.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from, the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  SUTTON COLDFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; tie said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Ashby-de-la Zouch and Slough),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aylesbury, Chesham and Guildford),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hexham).

  Also that Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Brentford and Chiswick and Ramsgate),

  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Chippenham and Grimsby).

  And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

  Manchester Corporation (General Powers) (No. 1),

  Bournemouth Corporation,

  Stockton-on-Tees Corporation (No. 2).

  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  MANCHESTER EXTENSION BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

  E. Minto,

  L. Erskine,

  L. Annesley (V. Valentia),

  L. Russell of Liverpool,

  L. Cushendun (Chairman):

  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 24th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL. ROCHDALE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
  DARTFORD AND PURFLEET (THAMES) TUNNEL BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

  E. Westmorland,

  E. Haddington,

  E. Wharncliffe,

  L. Hindlip,

  L. Loch (Chairman):

  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday, the 26th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA TION (QUAY EXTENSION, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
  RIVER LEE (FLOOD RELIEF, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  EAST KENT DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
  The Kings Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

  EXMOUTH GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1930.
  Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Exmouth Gas Company:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
  Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas Company:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  SWAFFHAM GAS ORDER, 1930.
  WOKING DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
  ASHBORNE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
  REDCAR GAS ORDER, 1930.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.