As from the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six, Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920 (which imposes duties of excise in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles), shall have effect as if the rates of duty mentioned in sub-paragraph (e) (ii) of paragraph 4 and sub-paragraphs (c) (ii) and (c) (iii) of paragraph 5 of the Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act, 1933, were reduced by one-quarter.—[Mr. Parkinson.]
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause deals with a burden which rests very heavily upon the transport industry of this country at the present time. The present taxation on road transport is really an indirect tax on the industry of the country, from which every pound paid in taxation on road transport has to be collected eventually. Every mile that goods are carried represents a certain amount of taxation, only a small proportion of which is applied to the general maintenance of the roads of the country. Moreover, local taxpayers complain bitterly of the large sums which they have to pay for road maintenance, but they do not realise that their own transport is paying more than its fair share of the cost of the roads, and that, of the money collected from them in that way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes for general revenue purposes more than is expended on road maintenance. I think it may be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes something like 75 per cent., and that only 25 per cent. goes to the maintenance of the roads of the country.
There has been a large growth in the yield from vehicle duties and other forms of taxation on road transport. In 1925, the total yield of the vehicle duties was something like £4,750,000. In 1932, the Salter Conference, which examined these forms of taxation, certainly recommended increases, and those increases were applied, but they also laid down a kind of basis for the amount of taxation which should be paid by these people. In 1933, in accordance with the recommendations of the Salter Conference, increased vehicle duties were imposed, particularly on heavy vehicles, and a duty of 1d. per gallon was put on heavy oil; and in view of the increase that has been made in the duty on heavy oils, we consider that there should be a reduction in the licence duties on heavy commercial vehicles corresponding with the 25 per cent. reduction that was made in the horse-power tax on private cars last year. The increased vehicle duties yielded in 1934 nearly £11,000,000, and the petrol tax on goods transport yielded over £14,000,000. While I agree that some of this money must be taken for general revenue purposes, I do not think that any particular industry ought to be overtaxed in order to bring it into line with a greater transport industry. I cannot get away from the belief that the taxation of the road transport of this country bears a certain relation to the question of the railway companies.
After the Salter Conference, I thought we had arrived at a basis of allocation which would be fair and proper to everyone. The Salter Conference in 1932 based their calculations on a road expenditure of £60,000,000, but the expenditure on the roads has fallen to something like £52,750,000. The Salter Conference considered that a proper share for commercial vehicles to pay, having regard to their estimated figure of £60,000,000, would have been £23,500,000, but that amount has been very considerably exceeded, for we find that road transport is now paying £25,000,000 annually in taxation. This is out of proportion to what the Salter Conference suggested, and I think it ought to be carefully examined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not want to attribute to him any unfairness in regard to the imposition of this taxation, because I do not think that individually it matters very much to him, but, if we intend this line of industrial development to proceed at an even pace, we must treat it in an even way, in order that the proportion between the service rendered and the payment in cash may be fair. The taxation paid by road transport is £1,500,000 more than the amount recommended by the Salter Conference as its fair contribution to road expenditure, while, on the other hand, the actual expenditure on the roads has fallen by over £7,000,000.
We are all aware of the fact that the number of vehicles on the roads has increased. The number of vehicles on the roads in 1925 was 234,000, whereas now it is 413,000, or an increase of 70 per cent.; but the taxation paid by the road transport people has increased during that period by nearly 400 per cent., so that road transport is now paying five times as much in taxation as it paid 10 years ago. I think the Committee will agree that the industry ought not to be overburdened in this way, on account of the retarding effect that it must have on the extension of the business. I understand, from what I have read in the Press, that the road transport operators were eager to take advantage of the lower taxation and lower running cost of Diesel engines in order to reduce their operating expenses, and the local authorities also are affected. Many road transport operators, including local authorities, have changed over in this way in order to be able, by reducing their working expenses, to develop the business in which they are engaged. This has involved them in a considerable expenditure of money, which they have looked upon as a kind of deferred payment, hoping to get it back through cheaper running costs and taxation in the case of heavy oil fuel, but things have not worked out in that way. Many corporations are now losing money, and are likely during the coming year to lose to the extent of thousands of pounds. Only this morning I 'was told that the loss to my own corporation during the present year would be something in the neighbourhood of £4,000 as compared with the former basis of taxation.
In 1925 the total amount of vehicle duties and fuel tax was £4,750,000 in round figures, but in 1932 it was £21,500,000, and in 1934 it was £25,000,000. I do not think that any Member of the House believes that there ought to be an accumulation of balances in the Road Fund which can be taken out at any time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks fit, leaving the development of roads, bridges and so on to be dealt with in a haphazard manner. The object of the proposed new Clause is to do something on the lines of what was done for private cars last year. At the present time, in the case of the heavy commercial vehicle, the duty on its fuel is being increased from 1d. to 8d. per gallon, and it is only fair that it should receive some concession of this kind. I understand that such a concession would cost something like £2,750,000 a year, but, in view of the large increases which have been made in taxation in other directions, I do not think that this would be a very heavy burden to place on the Exchequer for the benefit of people who are earning their living and serving their country commercially and industrially by the use of heavy commercial vehicles.
We must all agree that road transport is an important and expanding business, and it is a business which has gone ahead even in the darkest years since 1929 or 1931. It has been extending, improving, adopting new methods and new machinery, and doing all that was possible to increase the transport services of the country; and it does not seem fair that it should be more heavily burdened than is necessary. We ought not to put burdens upon people in any industry who are doing their best; they ought rather to be encouraged; but I am afraid that in this case they are not receiving the encouragement which they ought to re- ceive to operate more cheaply in meeting the commercial and industrial requirements of the nation, and to be available when we succeed in bringing up to the full 100 per cent. the 80 per cent. of prosperity which in his Budget Speech the Chancellor said we had already recovered. These people are now overtaxed, and to relieve their burden would help the industry to go forward in more ways than one and attain greater efficiency in meeting our greater commercial and industrial needs.
This industry ought not to be considered too much in relation to the railway system of the country. The 25 per cent. reduction in licence duties proposed in the Clause would to some extent counterbalance the heavy increase which has been made in the taxation on heavy oils, which impose upon the industry a very heavy charge indeed. I appeal to the Chancellor to give full consideration to this matter, because I am sure that, in common with every Member of the House, he wants to see the greatest possible efficiency attained in every industry. There is no industry more expanding and enterprising than the road transport industry. It has its faults and weaknesses like every other industry, but it is growing continually, and we ought to encourage it and give it a full opportunity of serving the needs of the commercial, industrial and national requirements of our country.
My experience of many years of Chancellors of the Exchequer is that they do not easily yield to pleas for reductions of taxation. They have a habit of boxing up things very tightly. We have the usual and inevitable argument as to how much the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with the case of the taxpayer, but that he has to do his best to consider the needs of the revenue. It is about time that Members of Parliament kept a watchful eye on the constant demand of Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor of the Exchequer to tap this very convenient source of revenue. The fact that this is an expanding industry, and, up to the present, has been healthy and strong and able to stand all those in-roads, is a very strong reason for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go on in his wicked way. Perhaps next year he will make a suggestion for a further tapping of this convenient source. Fundamentally it is a bad tax. It is bad in principle, because it is generally against the well-being of industry. It is often said that we are a nation of shopkeepers; it is more correct to say that we are dependent upon our industry for our very existence. Road transport, in these modern times, is an essential part of the cost of production, and it is particularly so of those industries which are feeling the full blast of the world depression—the heavy industries. The progress that is being made in Belgium in competition with the great essential industries of this country, iron, steel, machinery, shipbuilding and so on, is very remarkable. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has at least powers under the tariff to give these industries protection, and no doubt he feels that he has done all that they are entitled to expect. The fact that these industries have been able to stand on their own legs, so to speak, in face of the full blast of world competition is because they have the advantage of cheap production. I was making inquiries the other day as to the reason why a small country like Belgium, with a very small home market and very small Dominions to exploit, has been so serious a competitor.
I had practically finished what I wished to say in that connection. I was going to say that I was informed by experts that one of the primary advantages they had in competition had been cheap transport. During the last few years there has been this wonderful expansion in the heavy lorry which has enabled the producer to bring goods from the place of production to the market cheaply, efficiently, without manhandling and without any shifting from one vehicle to another, which is to the inevitable disadvantage of the railway as opposed to the commercial road vehicle. That advantage has been a very real one, and yet the Government come along year after year first with this, and then with that tax. This year we have been trying to discourage the expansion of the Diesel oil engine by putting an extra tax upon heavy oils. The right hon. Gentleman put up a very plausible plea in defence of the heavy oil tax that all that he was doing was to equalise and put on to the same plane the Diesel engine and the internal combustion engine. That was a very plausible defence.
The Clause of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) gets over that argument by proposing to give the same advantage to the two forms of engines. The case that may be put up is that this industry is so strong and efficient, and every year is so much improved that it can well stand any taxation. But there comes a line very near to breaking point, and I know from my own knowledge of this industry, which is largely centred in London, and particularly in East London and in my constituency, that it is feeling the draught. The severe internal position may have something to do with it, but every year the steadily increasing cost is making the use of the commercial vehicle in competition with railways more difficult, and there may come a time when this industry may cease to expand. It has expanded in spite of taxation because of the ingenuity of the inventor and the natural progress of mass production of engines, and the making of them more efficient. It has been impossible to stifle this industry with any amount of taxation up to the present, but now in 1935 the industry is getting on in years and the running costs are becoming very heavy and many companies are finding it very difficult to make ends meet or to meet the running costs. The right hon. Gentleman will have to consider sooner or later whether he has not come to the end of the amount of taxation he is entitled to put upon the industry.
It is not much good speaking, because I observe the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in a very interesting conversation, and I should not like to disturb him. No doubt it is something of great importance. Still I think that we are entitled to some courtesy. It is no use speaking or putting points if the right hon. Gentleman is not taking the slightest notice and engages in conversation all the time. If he cannot take notice, perhaps it would be better if we could have someone else present so that we might have the courtesy of some attention.
I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Knowing him, I did not think that he intended any discourtesy. I am trying to put up a case for an industry of great importance to my constituency, and I really wish that some attention should be given to it. I am quite satisfied. I was saying that the industry is now beginning to feel the draught of this very heavy taxation. There is a great deal of depression and unemployment among men engaged in the transport industry. If the files of the Employment Exchanges in London could be searched, it would be found that a very large percentage of the men out of work were registered as being carmen or engaged in the transport industry. The limit of taxation has been reached, and it is time that the Committee cried a halt to this steady and persistent attack on an important new industry which is essential for the prosperity of the country.
I think that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has very much overstated the value of the commercial vehicle, especially the one of heavy tonnage. The value of the railway compared with the modern commercial vehicle frequently seems to be forgotten in this House and elsewhere. Surely our roads would be safer, we should be doing better work, and studying the interests of the country far more and to better purpose if we taxed the heavy commercial vehicle out of existence, and especially the trailer. We should not only serve the railways, which are absolutely vital to the prosperity of the country, but we should also save money, and many lives and limbs. Anyone using the roads knows perfectly well what that big four, five or six-ton commercial vehicle, with a trailer, means to the man who is riding in a car or any other vehicle, and to the pedestrian crossing the road. We have certainly developed the commercial vehicle during the past few years at the expense of our railways. I am neither a shareholder in the railways nor in any commercial vehicle undertaking, but, as one interested in the commercial prosperity of the railways, which, after all, represent nine-tenths of the carrying-power of this country, which have a considerable amount of unemployment, and have been suffering not only in not being able to pay interest to their investors, but also in not being able to carry out necessary reorganisations, due mainly to the competition of the heavy commercial vehicle on the road, I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not give way on this point, but will indicate to the Committee that he has in mind the further taxation of every commercial vehicle over two tons.
As this matter is primarily one for the Ministry of Transport, I am replying to the Clause. It rather looked from the speeches of the two hon. Members that we might be going to have a repetition of the arguments which were used when the Road and Rail Traffic Bill was before the House. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will no doubt know that the present taxation was fixed in the Budget of that year on the recommendations made when that Bill was going through. The Clause, as it is drafted, would deal with tractors, steam and gas goods vehicles, petrol driven goods vehicles, and now, if the present Finance Bill is passed, with Diesel oil goods vehicles as well.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) was quite fair when he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put an additional tax upon these heavy oil goods vehicles without doing anything in return. It is true that it is a small amount, but in Clause 3, Sub-section (2) they get the benefit of the reduced licence duty, and, therefore, will come under the proposed new Clause. We reckon that with the present number of goods vehicles, the tax produced will be some £11,500,000, and in a full year, if this Clause were accepted, we should lose a sum to the Road Fund of no less than £3,000,000 or a little under, and for the current financial year the loss is estimated at some £2,000,000. The hon. Member for Wigan and his friends, and particularly the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), are always especially solicitous about the Road Fund, and I am rather surprised that they should bring forward a Clause which would have the effect of causing a loss of £3,000,000 to that Fund. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green said that by the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we were discouraging a great industry and people were going to be thrown out of work. I was rather surprised at that statement, and I had some figures got out for me and I find that the increase of these vehicles during the past year is no less than 12,000. I do not think he can say that our "discouragement" has done a great deal of harm to an industry which is expanding at such a rate. Furthermore, an Amendment very similar to this Clause, but of slightly wider application, was rejected last year.
I should like to deal with the argument of the hon. Member opposite that it is only fair that this Clause should be passed because of the concession given to private car manufacturers last year, when the horse-power tax was reduced by 25 per cent. I do not think the two things are at all comparable. These heavy goods vehicles are not taxed on horse-power but on unladen weight, and the concession given by the Chancellor to private cars last year was in order to help the manufacturers in the severe handicap that they had in turning out suitable machines for abroad and for our Colonies. It was for that purpose alone that the concession was given, and it does not apply to goods vehicles, which are taxed on a totally different basis.
The hon. Member also made great play of what the Salter Committee recommended. It is true that the amount of money which they visualised would be spent on the roads has not been reached. The reason for that is the financial stringency of 1931 and the time just after that. But surely the hon. Member is not going to advocate that these taxes should fluctuate according to the amount of money that is spent on the roads. That matter was considered by the Salter Com- mittee who themselves made a recommendation that the duty should be stabilised for a period of five years. If we ever accepted the idea that we should allow fluctuation of the tax and we were to spend a much larger sum on road development in years to come, we should have to consider whether the licence duty should go up, and I can imagine nothing more disturbing to an industry than to, have a continually fluctuating basis of taxation.
The Salter Committee also said—and it is true now—that a disproportionate amount is being borne at present by private vehicles as against the goods vehicles for which the hon. Member pleads. At that conference there were laid down certain amounts which it was considered that goods vehicles should pay. In nearly every case the amount that they now pay is very much less than the amount recommended by the conference. For instance, for five to six-ton vehicles the conference recommended £108, and the present tax is £90, and so on right through. Therefore, both on the ground that the Chancellor cannot afford to lose the revenue which would be lost if this Clause were accepted and also on the merits of the case, I am afraid that we cannot accept it.
I am moved to rise in support of my hon. Friend because of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in calling upon his hon. Friend to answer, and also because of something arising out of the argument that he has addressed to us. The right hon. 'Gentleman may hereafter be known as the persecutor of the motor trade. The hon. Gentleman behind me expressed his heartfelt desire with remarkable frankness that the Chancellor should tax the commercial vehicle out of existence in the interest of the railways. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is far too subtle and far too experienced a politician to avow reasons of that kind, but, whatever may be his reasons, the effect of his action is certainly in that direction, and I think he ought to have answered for his own sins and not called upon his junior colleague to do so. The hon. Gentleman said how disastrous it would be for industry if it was subject to a fluctuating system of taxation and did not know for years together what was going to happen to it. I am sure we all agree with him. It is an excellent argument, but, unfortunately, this Budget violates it. In this self-same Bill the taxes on heavy oils are increased many times. I should imagine that those who conduct this industry, those who have been struggling for some years past with remarkable ingenuity and persistence to perfect the Diesel oil engine, were aghast at the announcement—
I was not discussing the merits of it, but its relation to the argument addressed to us. The argument was how necessary it was that there should be continuity of method in taxation, and that the motor trade should know what was going to happen to it for a long period of years. I am only suggesting that that argument, however good it is in itself, is certainly not appropriate to this Bill, because the Bill violates it. I think there is a very strong case for the Chancellor of the Exchequer making a concession to this class of vehicle similar to that which he made last year to another class of vehicle. I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's ingenious argument, but he invented some distinction between a vehicle that uses petrol for the purpose of carrying goods and one that uses petrol for the purpose of carrying people, even perhaps joy riders. If there be any distinction at all, it is surely in favour of the commercial vehicle. It is at least carrying goods. It is rendering an industrial service to the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done more than enough to heap burdens upon the industry, and I appeal to him to relent a little bit and to give it some concession in this direction.
I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to assent to what he is being asked to do by the Opposition. To talk about the heavy weight on the transport industry is rubbish. I do not wish to be offensive, but I was particularly struck by the total absence of any kind of facts in the wild statements of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) as to the heavy weight pressing upon the industry as the result of taxation. If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should be tempted to put even more taxation than now rests upon it. If he takes the trouble to look at the dividends paid by some of these cruelly crushed transport concerns, he will get a very real surprise. I am sure he will not listen to the appeals which have been made to him.
I am very much surprised at the hon. Member who has just spoken. Apparently he considers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should inspect the Income Tax returns of a large number of industries, look up those that are doing well and put a particularly high tax on them. This is, no doubt, a contribution to 20th century economics, but I cannot help thinking that it is not altogether a sound fiscal principle. I share the surprise of my right hon. Friend at the Chancellor not replying to the case that has been put forward, but assigning to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport the task of defending the proposal to maintain the taxation on the transport industry. Surely the function of the Ministry of Transport should be to encourage road transport, to encourage the employment that it gives, and to encourage the great service that it renders to agriculture and to industry, especially these heavy vehicles. The heavy floats that carry animals to the sale ring and to shows have been of enormous value to farmers in Scotland, and no doubt in England, too. It is a, most unfortunate thing that the Chancellor cannot see his way to yield to the very reasonable suggestion that has been made.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not go the whole way, but he went some way with the hon. Member who spoke last. He said there has been an increase of 12,000 of these vehicles this year. See how well they are doing on the taxes that the Chancellor is imposing. That, again, is obviously a perversion of an argument. If the taxes on this or any other industry were relieved, obviously it would receive favourable impulse and encouragement. Surely hon. Members opposite will not argue that taxation is good for industry. Surely they are not going to abandon the plea which I have often heard them urge, that the best way to encourage industry and to give a stimulus to employment is to take taxation off industry. That, surely, is the argument that we hear from them, and it is a sounder argument than that put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman said it is very surprising that gentlemen above the Gangway, who are always in favour of having a good sum of money in the Road Fund for road improvements, should be advocating a proposal which would diminish the Amount in the fund. As a matter of fact, it would diminish it by less than the amount of the raid that the Chancellor is making on it this year. If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to meet us in that Argument all that he has to do, and it would be a very simple matter, is to engage in conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and persuade him not to pursue his present intention of raiding the Road Fund to the extent of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. The only way in which we can really make headway with very necessary improvements is to do what we suggest. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary was right in saying of hon. Members above the Gangway and those who sit on these benches that we think that an immense amount of improvement ought to be effected in the road system of this country, and that it is not a matter of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 for a year that is required, but that a very great effort should be made—
I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and I wondered whether the arguments from this side had been considered at all. When we were told that the representative of the Ministry of Transport would reply I wondered whether it would be a mechanical reply or a reply based on the arguments put forward. On Amendments of this kind we expect the Treasury Bench to pay some regard to our arguments. One does not like to think that the reply has been cut and dried by some Under-Secretary. We know that the reply has been put to the Parliamentary Secretary and he cannot move one iota from it. The Committee ought not to be treated in that way. The Opposition is entitled to some examination of the arguments put forward. If when an Amendment it put on the Order Paper a reply is given without reference to the argument, the whole case goes by the board. I think the Chancellor of the
Exchequer has been somewhat lacking in his duty and in courtesy to the Committee in not replying to the arguments. We are certainly entitled to something more than we have had to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to reply to what we have said. I hope that he will give an answer, even if he has to say that he has made up his mind to balance the Budget and that no change can take place. He ought to give some reply.
|Division No. 245.]||AYES.||[5.18 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gardner, Benjamin Walter||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Banfield, John William||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbrough, W.)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Batey, Joseph||Harris, Sir Percy||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||John, William||Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)|
|Cape, Thomas||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Cleary, J. J.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Thorne, William James|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Daggar, George||Lawson, John James||West, F. R.|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)|
|Dobble, William||McEntee, Valentine L.||Wilmot, John|
|Edwards, Sir Charles||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Gledhill, Gilbert|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)||Glossop, C. W. H.|
|Albery, Irving James||Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgb, S.)||Gluckstein, Louis Haile|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Goff, Sir Park|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Clarke, Frank||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)|
|Assheton, Ralph||Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Conant, R. J. E.||Grigg, Sir Edward|
|Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Cooke, Douglas||Grimston, R. V.|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.||Cooper, A. Duff||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Hales, Harold K.|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Cranborne, Viscount||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Crooke, J. Smedley||Hanbury, Sir Cecil|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Beit, Sir Alfred L.||Cross, R. H.||Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Crossley, A. C.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Bernays, Robert||Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Davison, Sir William Henry||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Denville, Alfred||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Dickie, John P.||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Doran, Edward||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Drewe, Cedric||Howard, Tom Forrest|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Duggan, Hubert John||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Elmley, Viscount||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Burnett, John George||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Essenhlgh, Reginald Clare||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Kerr, Hamilton W.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Fuller, Captain A. G.||Kirkpatrick, William M.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Galbraith, James Francis Wallace||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Gibson, Charles Granville||Leckle, J. A.|
|Leech, Dr. J. W.||Orr Ewing, I. L.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Palmer, Francis Noel||Storey, Samuel|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Pearson, William G.||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Levy, Thomas||Penny, Sir George||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Percy, Lord Eustace||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.|
|Lloyd, Geoffrey||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Loftus, Pierce C.||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles||Rankin, Robert||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Tree, Ronald|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Remer, John R.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Rickards, George William||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)|
|Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Runge, Norah Cecil||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemonth)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Salmon, Sir Isidore||Watt, Major George Steven H.|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour|
|Mellor, Sir J. S. P.||Savery, Servington||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)|
|Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)||Skelton, Archibald Noel||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.||Womersley, Sir Walter|
|Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.||Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)||Worthington, Sir John|
|Munro, Patrick||Smithers, Sir Waldron||Wragg, Herbert|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Nunn, William||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||Major Davies and Lieut.-Colonel|
|O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Llewellin.|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Spens, William Patrick|
Resolution agreed to.