I beg to move, in page 45, line 36, to leave out the words "The rateable value of."This is the first of a series of seven Amendments which are designed to raise the issue of the apportionment of the relief to various industries. On the Classification Bill last year I moved an Amendment to exclude all industries which pay more than 7 per cent. dividend on their actual capital and I was told by the Minister in reply that it was a very unscientific proposal. I hope I have met that point by the series of Amendments my friends and I have put down by which we desire to provide for an annual classification of industries by the Board of Trade. We desire to classify them in three groups. First, those which pay less than 5 per cent. dividend on their capital we propose should have three-quarters relief as provided for in the Bill. The second classification is that where an industry is paying between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. it shall have 50 per cent. relief instead of 75 per cent., and the third category is that those which pay over 10 per cent. should get one-quarter relief; that is 25 per cent. That would be the effect of the Amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. There can be no doubt that the country does not desire that any of the money raised by the Petrol Duty, or any other impositions, should go to firms who do not want it, who ought not to have it, and who will not provide one extra job for one extra man if they receive it. Even if our proposals are no more scientific than the suggestion put forward last year they are put down with the firm belief that if money is to be given in order to meet the needs of necessitous areas, to increase the competitive power of our industries, then the whole of that money should go to produce more employment and to the relief of necessitous areas. The Minister of Health has admitted that a large proportion of the £24,000,000 for de-rating in England and Wales will go to people who are prosperous, and I observe with great satisfaction that certain hon. Members opposite regard some groups of industries, such as brewing and tobacco, from the point of view which I am putting forward now. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter. If we are to spend £24,000,000 in de-rating with the intention of helping the necessitous areas, if we are to spend £24,000,000 in order to increase productive employment, then we think that the whole of that money should go where these results will most certainly accrue. In our judgment, that would not be the case under the Bill as it is drafted. It has been a rather difficult task to draft Amendments to meet this point, and although the right hon. Gentleman brushed aside an earlier Amendment as being unscientific, I hope that this time he will meet us. The right hon. Gentleman frequently uses the Yellow Book when addressing meetings in the country —I prefer to call it the Golden Book— in support of his Bill. I venture now to call his attention to a particular passage in that book. He will find it on page 434. It says:
When the right hon. Gentleman next quotes from what he calk the Yellow Book, but which I call the Golden Book, perhaps he will remember that passage. The reason why those who took part in that inquiry turned down the method of giving a direct subsidy to industry, as is done under this Bill, was because they foresaw the anomalies which would exist; and one anomaly is that you are undoubtedly pretending that you are going to give new money from the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows quite well that on balance, apart from such money as is raised from the taxation of oils, he will not lose but gain by these proposals. If the prosperous industries get, as they will under the Bill as it is drafted at present, a full measure of relief, all that will happen in hundreds of cases is that this money will increase their profits and, therefore, increase the receipts of the Treasury under Schedule A of the Income Tax. May I ask if the Minister of Health has inquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any estimate of what he expects-to receive by way of additional Income Tax under the de-rating proposals from prosperous firms? I think the Committee is entitled to ask whether any such estimate has been made. There are many other things I should like to say, but I will not trouble the Committee any further. I am quite sure that if the form of words in the Amendment is not suitable, the right hon. Gentleman will do the best thing for his measure and his future reputation outside this House if he meets the principle which is intended to be covered by the series of seven Amendments which my friends and I have put on the Order Paper."Not only are rates heavy; their burden is spread most unequally between different industries and districts. The depression of the exporting industries during the last few years has led to abnormally heavy expenditure on poor relief, and correspondingly heavy rates in those districts where the exporting industries are centred. Thus the very industries which are the worst hit and have the greatest difficulties to overcome are by reason of the vicious incidence of rating subjected to the heaviest deterrents. In just those districts where there is the most unemployment, and where it is therefore most desirable that new industries should be established, a special discouragement is extended to any manufacturer who is looking out for a site for a new works."
There does not appear to be a chorus of approval in favour of the proposal. It is a very curious Amendment and hardly does justice, I think, to the undoubted ability of my hon. Friend. I noticed that he moved it with some hesitation. He said that it might possibly have been drafted better—
I was referring to the series of seven Amendments. They are of a complicated character and took many hours fro work out. The Parliamentary Secretary is not treating the House with his usual fairness.
As a matter of fact, I was referring to all the seven Amendments put down by the hon. Member and his friends, and I cannot conceive that he can have given many hours' consideration to them. A short examination will convince him that it would be very undesirable to accept some of them. The Clause we are now discussing enables productive industry to be relieved of three-quarters of its rates. The hon. Member now comes forward with what, I suppose, is the Liberal plan. He has referred to the Yellow Book as the Golden Book—paid for, I presume, by Lloyd George gold. Now we have the Liberal plan for productive industry. What is it? The hon. Member says that the Board of Trade must survey the whole field of industry and must classify industries. He adopts a most extraordinary classification, and although the officials at the Board of Trade are very capable, I think they will find it very difficult indeed to carry out the proposal. They have to find out what is the capital and the interest on the capital of certain industries in the country. I do not think the hon. Member can have given much study to this matter. He must know how difficult it is to arrive at what is the capital and the profits earned on specific undertakings, but the Liberal party this afternoon is asking the Board of Trade to decide what is the capital and what are the earnings of all industries. That is going beyond the borders of the Yellow Book itself. But, after the Board of Trade has divided industries into a, b, and c, it is proposed by the series of Amendments put forward on behalf of the Liberal party to include in category b, payments to industries which are included in category c.I do not want to speak disrespectfully of the hon. Member but, really, this Amendment is impracticable and impossible, and I do not think any hon. Member will really desire to support it. The simple fact is that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the plan of the Government. I suggest to him that he should content himself with his opposition to the Government's proposal, for he is on much firmer ground there than in putting forward any proposals of his own. We shall examine later the Liberal suggestion regarding the formula. It is a proposal very much of the same nature as this one. The answer to all these schemes is that if they are practicable they would stand examination. But the hon. Gentleman is treating this matter as if what was proposed was a dole to industry. The proposal of the Government is to put right what we think is unfair and unjust so far as productive industry is concerned. I say that apart altogether from other criticism which one could direct against such an Amendment as this, which I cannot ask the Committee to accept.
I am very sorry to find that an hon. Member should move an Amendment of this character. It looks to me as though he were trying to compound a felony, because if a thing is wrong in principle it is wrong in detail. Giving relief to people who are prosperous in proportion to the amount of profit that they are making, seems to me to bo committing the same offence as the hon. Member charges his opponents with. The small thief is just as bad as the big one, and neither has the right to take advantage of the public purse for his own purposes. Later we shall be discussing other Amendments to deal with our old friends, the Forty Thieves. More arguments will be advanced in favour of them. It will be said that because they are making only 5 per cent. profit they can dip into the nation's resources. We are prepared to relieve industry in a different way. We recognise that industries may be depressed, but the depression is a matter of economic circumstances.The Amendment seems to me to mean this: "If you are not robbing the people too much we are willing to meet you, and to find some public money to relieve you." If a firm is making only 5 per cent. the Liberals say: "You shall have 7.3 per cent. of relief." But who are the people who are to gel; the relief? They are people who have never done any work in the industry—shareholders, Tom, Dick and Harry, who may have invested some of their surplus wealth in an industry about which they know as much as a Connemara pig knows about astronomy. Then we come to those who have made 10 per cent. out of their investments. They are to have a relief of 50 per cent. of their rates; that is 50–50, "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours." Next we come to those who have made over 50 per cent. on their investments, and they are told, "You can have 25 per cent. of relief." So the merry game goes on. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment should realise that this is compounding a felony. It is against all the principles of the golden Yellow Book. I believe that the Liberal party had the jaundice when they got out that book. Thirty years ago I knew of all that is in it. The book is full of the old commonplaces of the Liberal and Radical party—how to have your eggs without taking the shells off.
That seems to be far from the proposal before the Committee.
This Bill is not the way to deal with the problem of depressed industry. Simply to give to those who do not want help is not a way out of our difficulties. We should not compromise on a matter of principle. The Government are responsible and should find a way out of our present troubles. They have not found a way out. If the Bill is carried out and, if this Amendment were made to it, I do not believe that one man more would be employed in industry. Some of us are opposed tooth and branch to the scheme. [Laughter.] I know I should have said "tooth and nail," but there are more branches than nails about this scheme. The Government are putting the cart before the horse. They are trying to buy over certain industries by a form of indirect bribery.
It is most interesting to find the new Coalition between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), especially when the latter puts his objection to the Amendment on the ground of moral philosophy. I shall not pursue him into that realm. When the Bill was drafted we believed that it went the wrong way, but the Bill has passed the Second Beading and we are now committed to it. When the hon. Gentleman claims a wonderful moral value for his own friends, let me say that I have not observed on the Paper any Amendment to exclude the mines or the railways from the benefits of the Bill. I did observe on the last classification pro- posal an Amendment to leave out agricultural land. I fail to understand the logic which says "Let mines have de-rating because they are depressed. Agriculture is also a distressed industry, but do not let it have relief." Our Amendment and others which appear on the Paper, if incorporated in the Bill, would provide a better way of spending public money and would go to the root of the rating problem. But the Bill has passed its Second Reading and we are here to do the best we can with the money provided by the Bill for the purposes of the Bill.I will look into the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to overlapping. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in that criticism. Part (b) refers to half of the annual value, but Part (c) to three-quarters. The right hon. Gentleman says it is impossible to carry out our proposal, but he knows quite well that industries are classified by the Board of Trade for the Census of Production, and in my judgment the classification could easily be done for the purpose of determining "profitability." The right hon. Gentleman referred to the intricacy of our proposal, but nothing could be more intricate than the inquiries that were made for the purpose of ascertaining Excess Profits Duty, or, at the present time, the inquiries made regarding Supertax and Income Tax. My proposal is simplicity itself compared with what is done every day by officials of the Treasury and the Board of Trade with regard to industry and taxation. The Parliamentary Secretary tells me that this Amendment and subsequent Amendments are very curious and illogical. I agree, and they are so for one reason—because the Bill is curious and illogical. When the right hon. Gentleman decided to take a certain method of discriminating between various ratable hereditaments as a basis of giving relief he led not only himself but the Oppositions and the country into a new mass of illogicalities and anomalies which, I predict, will call for six amending Bills in the next ten years. Therefore all the right hon. Gentleman's talk about the lack of logic in the Amendment leaves me cold. If money can be given to relieve industry in order to make an improvement, I believe the country as a whole will approve of that being done, but I do not believe that the country will approve of any of that money going to firms who will use the money solely to swell their profits and not make one job more for an extra man.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY and Captain WALLACE were named by the CHAIRMAN as Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. FENBY and Major OWEN as Tellers for the Noes.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
As there appears to be some delay in completing this Division, I must ask the Tellers to come to the Table.
Sir G. HENNESSY and Captain WALLACE attended at the Table as Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. FENBY as Teller for the Noes.
As no "No" Teller appeared in the "No" Lobby, the doors have not been opened.
In that event, I think I must put the Question again.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 45, line 37, after the first word "hereditaments," to insert the words:
I would draw the attention of the Committee to the leading article in our leading newspaper this morning which refers to this Amendment. The "Times" this morning says that this Amendment is in fundamental contradiction to the objectives of the Bill. Of course the main objective referred to is the relief of industry and it is to that point I would address my argument. In moving this Amendment I have no idea whatever of suggesting anything in regard to the profits made by these big breweries. I base my objection to the inclusion of these three trades in this Clause on one ground and on one ground alone, namely, that they do not conform to the main object of this Clause. Clause 55 is one of the principal Clauses of this Bill, which in many parts of the country is only referred to as the De-rating Bill and which seeks to relieve industry. The reason why these three trades do not conform to the object of the Bill is, in my opinion, because they are in no wise industries which are vital to the life of this country. These three trades are in no way concerned with the great exports of this country, and we must bear in mind that the export trade is one of the first considerations of the Government in bringing forward this Bill. That is shown by the fact that on 1st December, as a preliminary stage, the railway companies were de-rated in respect of certain goods. Of those goods the principal was coal, but the de-rating was not to be passed on to the coal for home consumption. It was solely to be passed on to coal for export overseas— thus showing that the Government had in mind, in introducing this de-rating proposal, the fact that it was to assist those industries which were vital to the life of the country and that no other kind of industry was meant. I would recall to the Committee a statement made by the Minister of Health during the Second Beading Debate on this Bill, which I am quite prepared to accept as a definition of the object of this Clause. The Minister said that the purpose which the Government had in view was to stimulate industry. I would ask whether in making that utterance he had in mind the stimulation of the consumption of stimulants in this country, because that is all that can be meant by the inclusion of these three trades in Clause 55. The suggestion has been made that if de-rating is to remove an injustice, why should it be limited to one section of trade only? It is argued that if it is to remove; an injustice, it is perfectly legitimate for many other trades, for the distributive and carrying trades, for example, and many other home trades to claim inclusion in the advantages of this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill last year, exposed the fallacy of that argument. He showed us the great distress occasioned in industry by the heavy burden of local charges. He pointed out that in the coal industry there was a ratio of rates to profits—not to turnover or to capital, but to profits—of 27 per cent. He pointed out that in the cotton industry—that great industry of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives in this House—the ratio of rates to profits was 23 per cent., and that it was with the intention of removing these heavy burdens that this Clause was introduced. 6.0 p.m. The right hon. Gentleman went on to complete his analogy by pointing out that the ratio of rates to profits in these three industries of breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories was 2 per cent. Where then is the injustice; where is the hardship? In view of the increased profits which have been made since, if any injustice at all ever existed, that injustice is now even less than it was at that time. The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that at any rate the advantages of this Clause must reach the consumer—that this £400,000 which he particularly selected must reach the consumer of the beer—and we have had it on high authority to-day that this means, as a matter of fact, 4d. on a 36-gallon barrel. I think it will be a difficult thing for any economic law to operate which will distribute 4d. on 36 gallons of beer. Then we had another authority, the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates), speaking in this House before the Adjournment, and saying that it would be an impossibility to pass it on to the consumer; and the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), speaking in his division only the other day, said he did not want it and that it would be an impossibility to pass it on to the consumer. Then we had other authorities. We had that well-known paper, issued in the interests of the licensed victuallers, the "Morning Advertiser," which, in its issue of 18th December, said that the amount was too small to make any alteration in retail prices and that the smallest reduction in the retail price over the counter that could be made would cost the brewers £30,000,000 a year. I suggest that the economic law in this case would entirely fail, and that means, of course, that we are making a mere gift to these three industries, these prosperous trades, these trades which are not vital to the life of this country in any degree. I am not arguing the point on moral grounds, but I am saying that there is no justification whatever for including these three trades in this Bill. One of the greatest sections of the opposition to this Bill has come from an entirely new group in our political life. The women of this country have unanimously condemned the health Clauses of this Bill, because of their inability to increase the opportunity to develop the two services in which they are interested, namely, maternity and child welfare. [Interruption.] The women of this country say that under this Bill there is no opportunity for the development of these two services. I say that, that being so, on the one hand here is a service which the Minister of Health said, in reply to a question by me some time ago, costs roughly £1,000,000 per annum, and, on the other, as the right hon. Gentleman then said, he himself would be glad of any means of increasing that £1,000,000, but he had no means. Here you have a pool in which is practically another £1,000,000—it is £750,000 at least—to be handed over to these three trades. Therefore, without costing the Chancellor of the Exchequer one penny, because the money is in the pool, you could transfer it from the intended objective of these three trades to these maternity and child welfare services, and you would thereby satisfy the whole of the women of this country. I fail to see any reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. There is only one thing I can think of, and that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he has got in this Measure a perfect vessel, and that he will not alter one line of it. I suggest that that perfect vessel, which we all acknowledge is an almost perfect vessel. [Interruption.] I support this great Bill, and I say that this almost perfect vessel could be improved and completed if the right hon. Gentleman would let out the foul odours it contains. I ask, in conclusion, is the voice of the people of this country to be entirely ignored? I wonder whether hon. Members have done what I did soon after the White Paper was published. I had a series of meetings in my Division last October, in strong support of this Bill, and at more than one of those meetings, and particularly, I remember, on the first occasion, the question was put up to me: "Why do you advocate a Bill which permits of taxpayers' money being given to brewers and tobacconists?" The question was perhaps a natural one, but its value lay in this, that that audience, which consisted of 80 per cent. of my own Conservative supporters, before I had time to reply cheered that question as one man. That is the question that every hon. Member on this side will have to face next June, and if this Amendment is not accepted, I do not know how they will answer it. I shall not have need to answer it, nor will any of those who support this Amendment, because they will be able to say: "At any rate, we did our best." What I would ask the Government is that they should take off the Whips to-night. There will be other speakers to follow me, far more capable supporters of the Amendment than I can be, but I would ask the Government to take off the Whips; and as, at that meeting of mine and at many other meetings, you have the true voice of the people, if you take off your Whips to-night, you will have the true voice of this Committee."(other than hereditaments used for the purposes of a brewery, distillery, or tobacco factory)."
I hope we are going to have some statement from the Minister of Health on this Amendment.
I wish to support the Amendment. First of all, I should like to say that I do not do so from any prejudice against these estimable people who are mentioned in the Amendment. I am an enthusiastic supporter of beer and tobacco, I hope in moderation. Nor do I support the Amendment because these trades are prosperous. If we were to differentiate between prosperous and distressed trades, we should be doing what is wrong, for we should simply be penalising the people who are able and willing to carry on their business with profit.The third point I wish to make is that it is impossible to provide for this benefit to pass on to the consumer, for two reasons. First, it would be impossible at this stage to set up the machinery that is to be found in Clause 113—I think it is—applicable to the railway companies; and, secondly, it would be quite impossible to translate the small amount of rates affected into terms of cigarettes and glasses of beer. Having got rid of those points, I may be asked why I want to differentiate in the case of these particular trades, and the answer, I think, is this, that these trades do not really come within the ambit of the industrial, productive industries which this Bill is intended to benefit. De-rating, it is said, will facilitate employment and help us in competition in the markets of the world, but is it reasonable to say that if you cannot pass on the benefit, these things can possibly happen? As a matter of fact, these trades are not really industrial trades at all; they are semi-luxury trades, and I do not think they ought to come within the de-rating proposals. I may be asked if it is possible to differentiate against these people and to put them in a class by themselves, and my answer is "Yes." You already do it. You tax the raw material in the case of tobacco factories and you tax the products of the distillers and brewers, and, therefore, there is no possible difficulting in differentiating further. This question of itself is undoubtedly of importance, and it has an importance also from a different angle altogether. With a new proposal such as de-rating before the public, the man in the street comes to a conclusion in a very matter of fact way. He gets the idea of what the principle is, and he then applies it to various instances. When he applies it to brewers, distillers, and tobacco manufacturers, he is brought face to face with the question, "Is it reasonable in these cases?" and he says, "No, it is absurd." There, of course, he immediately uses the argument of reductio ad absurdum. The danger is that the man in the street applies it to brewers and distillers and tobacco manufacturers and, finding it wrong, thinks the whole thing is wrong. I therefore ask the Government most earnestly, in their own interests, to remove this absurdum in order that there shall be no reductio.
I desire to support the Amendment, and I desire to do so rather on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Withers). Like him, I have no prejudice whatever against the trades which are mentioned in the Amendment. Like him, and like the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Briggs), I am a strong supporter of the general principles of this Bill. If I thought that this Amendment were in any sense hostile, or one which could not be accepted without prejudice to the general structure of the Bill, I should take no part in supporting it. I have said in this House, and many times outside the House, that I believe that these Measures—the Local Government Bill and the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act—constitute a very important instalment of constructive reform which is long overdue. Therefore, I shall strongly oppose anything which is likely to interfere with the general beneficent effect of these Measures.I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University that there is nothing in this Amendment which will interfere with the beneficent purposes of the Bill. On the contrary, there is something in the Amendment which will greatly reduce the prejudice against the Bill as a whole. I will make another preliminary confession. I received this morning from, I believe, the United Kingdom Alliance a reprint of an article which was headed "Brewers' Belief Bill." If I had received that article a little sooner, I might have withdrawn my support from this Amendment for the reason that I do not like to be associated, however remotely and unwittingly, with a grotesque and malevolent misrepresentation of the Bill. This Bill taken as a whole is not a brewers' relief Bill, and it is an absurd misrepresentation to apply that description to it. The very small measure of relief which, under the provisions of the Bill, will go to brewers and distilleries is merely an incidental effect of a much larger scheme, and I wish to separate the incident from the general body of the Bill. In the first place, it is a very small measure of relief. Out of the £35,000,000 odd which it is calculated to give to the relief of industry, only about £400,000 will go to the relief of breweries and distilleries. The brewers themselves, so we have been repeatedly informed, do not want or desire that they should be included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley said that this relief could not be translated into a sum which could be handed over to the consumer. I believe that it would work out at about 4d. a barrel of 36 gallons. That, obviously, is much too small a sum, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, to enable the relief to be passed on to the consumer. The brewers have no desire to be relieved of rates at the expense of the taxpayer. The real point, as I understand it, of this Amendment is that the inclusion of breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories, so far from being vital to the general structure of the Bill, really violates the principles on which the Bill is constructed, for it is built up on a series of coherent, interdependent and interlocked propositions, into which you cannot fit breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories. In the forefront of these propositions is the haunting problem of unemployment. We have had for six years a vast army of unemployed because our great basic industries are profoundly depressed. Everybody knows that the large factor in depressing them is the cruel and unfair incidence of local rates. This in turn raises the cost of production, and the high cost of production impedes export and handicaps British producers and labour in their competition with the foreigner in the neutral markets. Moreover, the depression in productive industries is responsible for nine-tenths of our unemployment. On which of these interlocked and interdependent principles does the de-rating of breweries react? Not one of the industries of brewing, distilling and tobacco is depressed to-day, and none of them, as far as I know, contribute in any degree to the volume of unemployment. None of these industries is subjected to very heavy rating disabilities. I believe that the total of rates which falls upon breweries is a great deal less than 1 per cent. of the total of the rates. Finally, not one of these industries has to face fierce competition either in the home market or in the markets abroad. I ask, therefore, on what grounds these industries are to be included in the Bill? I can see only one valid argument in favour of their inclusion. I do see the difficulty of discriminating between one industry and another. It is said that if we exclude breweries, why not artificial silk, and if artificial silk, why not cocoa? There is a very good reason for not excluding cocoa; it is that the best cocoa is produced in the city of York. I frankly admit the force of the argument about the thin end of the wedge. I have always understood that it is difficult, and I believe impossible, to discriminate, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) just now desired to do in the ambit of one industry, between a prosperous concern and an unprosperous one. To attempt to do that would merely put a premium on the inefficient concern. While admitting that that is impossible, I do not think that that particular objection applies in any degree to the Amendment which we are now discussing. The strongest case for de-rating is in favour of those industries which fulfil all the conditions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down. There is a great deal to be said for de-rating those industries which conform to some of the principles which the Chancellor laid down; but I can see no reason for applying the principles of de-rating to industries which conform to none of the principles. It is because I believe that breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories conform to none of these principles that I support the Amendment.
The last Amendment which we discussed found but little support in the Committee, and I must say that I feel a certain sympathy for the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), first in the fact that he failed to get his party to give him that support in the Lobby which he might reasonably have expected from them, and also because his series of Amendments, though in my view they would have been impracticable in operation, were yet at any rate logical and consistent with the view which he had put before the Committee. The hon. Member opposite—[Interruption.]
I was objecting to this post mortem. I want the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this Amendment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not showing his usual courtesy. I was about to make a comparison between the Amendment which we have been discussing and the Amendment now before the Committee. The proposal was, in effect, the partial exclusion of certain industries from the benefits of the Bill, and I was saying that, at any rate, the Amendments of the hon. Member for Leith appeared to me to have some logic and consistency about them. He does not regard this part of the Bill in the light in which I regard it. I regard it as rating reform. He regards it as a dole to industry. Other Members may also regard it in that light. If so, they are perfectly logical in taking up the view that the dole to industry ought not to be given to those industries which do not require it. The object of the hon. Member then was to parcel out his dole in proportion to the need of the industry, if I may put it in that way. I do not think that it is possible to do that, and I am sure it is not possible to do it in the way the hon. Member suggested.What I cannot see is the logic of hon. Members who have moved or supported the Amendment which is now before the Committee. There does not seem to me to be any principle of any kind. There is plenty of prejudice, but no principle, in the selection of three particular industries for exclusion from the benefits of the reform. I notice that of the three speakers who supported the Amendment, there was no agreement between any two of them as to the motives which prompted them to support it. The hon. Member who moved it, did so because at a meeting in October, before the Bill was printed, and before any explanation had been given by me or anybody else of what the Bill was about to do, a question was put to him which was cheered as one man by an audience which consisted entirely of the hon. Gentleman's supporters. That was enough for him.
I would point out to my right hon. Friend that that point came somewhat late in my remarks. I started my remarks by explaining that I moved this Amendment because those three industries do not conform to the principles of the De-rating Bill.
It is quite true it came rather late in the hon. Member's remarks, but it seemed to me that it came rather early in the history of his opposition. It is quite true that the arguments which he employed in this Committee were that these trades were prosperous, and that that was the ground on which he was opposing any relief being given to them. That is the same argument as the argument of the hon. Member for Leith, but it has not the same logic or completeness. The hon. Member picked out three prosperous trades. I ask: Why pick out these three prosperous trades when there are many other trades which are equally prosperous in their way, and which, if you take that line, ought certainly to be included in the Amendment? Then I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). He disclaimed any idea that he was moved by the fact that these trades were prosperous. He said specifically that he was not asking for the exclusion of prosperous trades, and so he had to find another reason, and his reason was that they were semi-luxury trades. I ask him, Why did he pick out these three semi-luxury trades? Are there not other semi-luxury or wholly luxury trades which might have been included in his Amendment? What about gramophones? Are not they luxuries? I could name dozens of other industries which would come under his definition of semi-luxury trades. I see no reason for picking out these three trades except that they are three trades which are likely to appeal to a certain class of electors who have a prejudice against them.Next I come to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York (Sir J. Marriott). I must say that I was surprised to find him in this school. He described the Bill in terms of laudation which I could not hope to emulate, and said it was founded on sound and solid principles, and then said he was going to support the Amendment because it appeared to him to violate the essential principles of the Bill. It is a matter of very sincere regret to me to find my hon. Friend, of whom I should not have expected it, had not taken the elementary precaution of examining what are the principles upon which this Bill is founded. If he had done so, he would have seen that this reform, which provides for the de-rating of agriculture and of industry, is not founded on a consideration as to whether articles which are produced here are also produced in other countries, or whether they are better produced in the City of York than in other cities, but that it is founded on the conclusion, to which the Government have come, that industry is unjustly rated to-day, that agriculture is unjustly rated, and that we are demanding from agriculture and from industry a larger contribution to local expenditure than is justified by the benefits which they derive from that expenditure. Incidentally, we have pointed out that the removal of what we believe to be a fundamental injustice is going to bring about certain other results. We hope it is going to bring about greater employment, that it is going to bring about a reduction of local charges, and that it is going to give a fresh stimulus to industry which will be generally of benefit to the country. I would go further, and say that it is the fact that certain industries are so depressed to-day and have felt so deeply the burden of the rates upon them that has particularly drawn our attention to their necessities; but that is not the theoretical basis of the Bill. It is based on a much wider principle than that. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York will not forget that, and will not confuse the advantages which may arise out of this reform with what is really the theoretical basis of it. The Committee will see that once you take the view that the present system of rating industry and agriculture is not fair to them, and that you produce this reform, then the exclusion of a particular industry because it is prosperous or because it is a semi-luxury industry is no longer justified. You may say that an industry is too well-off, that it does not pay its proper contribution to national resources, that it ought to be taxed in some further way, or that existing taxation should be increased—those are all matters on which you can make a case without interfering with this Bill, but the particular method of dealing with these particular industries suggested by my hon. Friends does, I put it to them, traverse fundamentally one of the main principles of the Bill, and for that reason it is obviously quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
I had put down an Amendment on this point, but I was very glad to allow hon. Members opposite, whose persuasive powers are greater than mine, to move their Amendment. Members on all sides of the Committee will have heard with regret, I think, the decision of the Minister, and after his speech I find myself in another difficulty on this Bill. We are told that the real reason why the Amendment cannot be accepted is that it cuts across the vital principle on which the Bill is based. This Bill is now to be regarded as a measure of rating reform. If that be so, it is worse as a measure of rating reform than it was as a measure for the assistance of industry. When the scheme was put before the House the justification for it was that it was going to improve the state of trade, it was intended to be a stimulus to trade, and I feel, therefore, that it is competent for hon. Members to point out that as regards certain trades, including breweries and distilleries and tobacco factories, the effect of it will not be to stimulate industry. No one can pretend that the relief which will go to either of the two great industries referred to in the Amendment can stimulate trade, even if it were to increase consumption. It is perfectly obvious that £650,000 a year of public money—£400,000 to the breweries and distilleries, and £250,000 to the tobacco factories—is to be devoted to purposes from which the community will get no return in the way of increased industrial activity. If that be so, the original idea of this Bill is not being carried out.The sum of £650,000 may not seem large, and the Minister may say that in order to preserve the unity and completeness of his Bill he can have no contracting-out; but it is difficult for him to take that line during, this time of great financial stringency. He is virtually throwing away £650,000. That sum is going to the brewers and distillers, who never asked for it. Only last week an hon. Member of this House stated in public that he did not want this relief, and that his friends in Burton did not want it. As far as I know, the tobacco industry have not asked for it; they do not want it. The relief given will only be an infinitesimal fraction of the profits that industry is making; it will merely go to swell the already substantial profits. As the hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out, the Ministry of Health grants to maternity and welfare services amount to about £1,000,000 a year. a sum which is far below what is necessary to give our local authorities an effective maternity and child welfare scheme. There is room for a considerable expansion of expenditure on that service. If the right hon. Gentleman were to devote this £650,000 to the maternity and child welfare services of the country, instead of damaging them in another direction, as this Bill is going to do, he would increase the amount of work which can be carried on by those services by over 50 per cent. Comparing these two ways of spending money, it is clearly advantageous to divert £850,000 from these industries into the social services, and particularly to the maternity and child welfare services. I do not think any Minister is entitled to throw away £650,000 a year, and particularly a Minister who this year has driven local authorities to reduce their expenditure upon the provision of milk, so as to save £12,000. This year he is saving 12,000 miserable pounds by bullying local authorities into curtailing the provision of milk. This year, next year, and every year, 54 times as much as that is to be given to the breweries and distilleries and the tobacco factories. There can be no defence to his disposing of public money in this way when he is curtailing very vital public services. I cannot understand why the Government should not have acceded to the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that the arguments from the opposite benches were contradictory. I am not so sure that they were; I think they were supplementary. At any rate, I think they were convincing, and I am driven to the conclusion that the real reason why the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment is that if he did so the whole of his ramshackle scheme would fall to pieces. I think he feels that if we took these two or three industries out of this scheme there would be no logical argument against not taking out many more. Therefore, it is not on the merits of the case, but as self-protection for his scheme, that the right hon. Gentleman has been driven to decline to accept this Amendment.
May I say, on behalf of my hon. Friends who support this Amendment, how very grateful we are to the hon. Member opposite for having withdrawn his Amendment and allowing us to raise this question. I think the Minister tried to laugh this matter out of court, but the point raised in this Amendment is a very serious one. We are always delighted with his speeches, whether they are directed against us or not, but it struck me that on this occasion his lucid and logical mind was not functioning as usual. I agree with him about the general principle which he laid down, that industry to-day is unjustly rated, and the point he made would have been quite true if it were also true that every industry in this country started fair. They do not start on the same level. It is the case with the brewing and the tobacco industries that they do not start on the same level as other industries. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) pointed out that not only are the products taxed at the source and a heavy duty paid on those manufactures, but it is true that they cannot sell their produce without a licence. If those conditions applied to gramophones and other luxuries, then there would be a case for bringing them within the ambit of our Amendment. I support this Amendment because the industries dealt with in it are not on the same basis as other industries, and in dealing with them we should bear in mind that differentiation. I know the Minister of Health said that the supporters of the Amendment do not agree as to their reasons for supporting this proposal, but that does not affect my argument in the least, and my point is that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment.Like the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), we strongly support the Bill, but, if we find a flaw in it, I think we are entitled to point it out. We may be acting foolishly, but, if we think we have discovered a flaw in this Measure, it is our duty to voice it in this House. I hope that between now and the later stages of this Bill the point we have raised will be reconsidered. I think it is a great pity that the Minister of Health refuses to leave this question to a free vote of the Committee, because I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be greatly astounded at the result of such a free vote. I am aware that the learned Solicitor-General has stated that you cannot distinguish in this Bill between industries which are prosperous and industries which are not prosperous and we all agree with him there, but I think there is a case for distinguishing between these three industries and other industries on the ground that there is already a differentiation by the imposition of duties and the issuing of licences. That is why we say, frankly, that if you want to give a benefit to these particular industries it should only be done in such a way that the relief given should be passed on to the consumer by a reduction in the cost of the articles consumed. We cannot debate that point now, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not indicate what he proposes to do in the next Budget, but in the past a relief in the scale of duty has always been conditional on a reduction in cost. I want the same again. For these reasons, I ask the Minister of Health to reconsider this point. He has already told us that there is plenty of prejudice in this Amendment and no principle, but sometimes prejudice carries us a very long way. In view of the fact that these three industries, through their licences, have for many years been plaeed on an entirely different basis from other industries, I ask that they should now be placed outside the ambit of this Measure. Our proposal will not cost the Government anything. It is seldom we can ask for something that is not going to involve a charge. By taking these three industries out of derating there will be a corresponding amount less for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find. For these reasons, I think the Minister of Health would be very well advised to accept this Amendment, which I shall support, and which I know a great many of my hon. Friends will also support in the Lobby.
It has been argued that there is nothing to be said against the point made by the Minister of Health that it would be very difficult to exempt from de-rating any trade from this Bill. May I point out that a very great deal of British law is not built on strict logic but on common sense, and I suggest that the common sense of this country, and especially the women, will be against handing over this large sum of public money to the liquor and tobacco trade at a time when the Government are cutting down grants for maternity and child welfare. Whatever logic you bring to bear on this question, you cannot get away from the fact that by this Bill you are subsidising a trade which the moral sense of the country feels should not be subsidised. It does outrage the moral conscience of the people of this country that the drink trade should be subsidised by public money in view of the large profits that particular trade is making and the mischief it is doing to the people of this country. Even the Queen herself has written saying that she is disturbed by the appalling increase of maternity fatalities. It is one of the outstanding scandals of our present time that the number of deaths in maternity cases has not been reduced.I would remind the Minister of Health that during a previous Debate, just before the House adjourned for the Christmas Recess, a number of hon. Members on this side of the House pleaded with the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Education for extra grants of boots and clothing for the necessitous area, and we were told that no money could be found for that purpose. Consequently, there was a danger of those areas being left in great distress for the want of boots and clothing. Now we are told that £650,000 is the sum which is going to be given to subsidise the highly lucrative trades represented by breweries, distilleries and tobacco factories. I do not envy the Conservative Members opposite who will have to face the women electors on this subject. The finance of this Bill is so very contradictory and complicated that I am aware that a large number of voters are not taking the trouble to understand it, but it is a plain fact, at any rate, that at a time when you are cutting down and stabilising grants for maternity and child welfare you are subsidising breweries and distilleries. That is a fact which the women of this country will thoroughly understand, and they will make their voices heard in a way which I am sure will not be to the advantage of hon. Members opposite. In many necessitous areas the authorities are paying out relief on loan, and as soon as a man gets a job he has to start paying off that loan. I am going to tell those men that at the same time that they are being called upon to pay off their little loans the Government are contributing £650,000 to the tobacco and distilling industries. There is no common sense about that performance. I say to the Minister of Health that if he wishes to save the wrecking of this Bill he had better listen to common sense.
While many hon. Members on the Conservative benches feel some sympathy with the objects which the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have at heart, I think they are trying to achieve their objects in a wrong way. They are proposing to cut breweries, distilleries, and tobacco factories out of this Bill, and they are introducing by their Amendment something which cuts at the root of the whole Measure. I think they are being misled in trying to distinguish between prosperous and non-prosperous industries. One of the objections raised to giving these benefits to the brewers and tobacco manufacturers is that it is so small that they cannot pass it on for the benefit of the consumer. Surely the reason for the inability to pass this benefit on to the consumer lies in the fact that these two particular industries are of a special nature.As compared with other industries, it is contended that they are subjected to a very heavy excise duty and that that duty is so enormous in proportion to the cost of production that it is impossible for them to pass on to the consumer the £400,000 they will get under this Bill. Surely that fact indicates that there is another line of approach to bring about the result. If you object to breweries and tobacco manufacturers receiving £400,000 because they cannot pass it on to the consumers, surely the proper way to get over the difficulty is to increase slightly the Excise Duty by a corresponding amount on the occasion of the next Budget. That is the proper way to get over the difficulty and that is the way my hon. Friends should have gone about their task instead of introducing an Amendment which strikes at the root of the whole principle of the Bill and which will prevent them going on to any public platform and defending the principle of this Bill whenever there is any Liberal opposition at their meetings.
I interrupted the Minister of Health when he began to speak, and I apologise for it. When he referred to a post Mortem I thought he was going to hold the Liberal party up to ridicule for an incident that happened just before, and I thought it was not fair. I understand now that he was blessing the principle of the Liberal Amendment, and I apologise for interrupting him, which I should not have done in any ease. This Amendment has been supported, among others, by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and by the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Lumley)——
My hon. and gallant Friend is misinformed.
I read in our excellent local paper that the hon. Member had made a speech in which he said that it would be a mistake to give this relief to the breweries. I am sorry if I made a mistake. I leave him out of the same category as the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough, and the other Members who have supported this Amendment. Their mistake is that they have shown their independence two years too late. They could have exercised enormous influence in this Parliament by a show of independence on their benches. If they had carried their convictions with them into the Division Lobbies, they could have altered the whole economic history of this country by bringing pressure to bear upon the Government, but always, though they talked bravely on the benches, they ran away in the Division Lobby, and the Ministers were able to defy them. The result is that you see the spectacle of the Minister of Health flaying his own Friends, who have dared to make this suggestion to him, even more adroitly and painfully than he attempts to flay me and my Friends. It shows the contempt in which the hon. Members supporting the Government are held by the Government. They know that they will all the time do what the Whips tell them. Their show of independence has come too late. Well may the Patronage Secretary benignly smile ever the scene. He never had so easy a task or so docile a team to drive.On the merits of the Amendment, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted it. I am sorry, too, on political grounds. It may give us a cry in the country, but we have many other things to criticise in the Bill besides this. If he had accepted it, it would have shown up the hollowness of the whole of the Government's proposals. It is because I think the Bill is a bad one that I want it to fall to pieces. I object to the taxpayers' money being expended in subsidising either the breweries or the gramophone factories. We were told at the beginning, in the original Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the object of the Government was to help the great basic industries which are depressed, iron, steel, coal and agriculture. We never dreamt at that time that such industries as—making gramophones has been mentioned—distilling perfumes, in which you use alcohol, which would be exempted. If you are going to cut the whisky distilleries out of relief under this Bill, how can you leave the perfume distilleries in? Gramophones have been mentioned and so has artificial silk. In addition to those, the Government are giving relief to makers of cosmetics, of face powders, and aids to the complexion. Are they harmful? No. Are they luxuries? Yes. Are they necessary? No, except in the case of poor actresses or workers on the films. Why should you relieve manufacturers of cosmetics? Some people, of course, say that these aids to the appearance do far less harm to women than the drinking of strong spirits, and strong beer. I am sorry that the Minister of Health suggested that the hon. Member for York had not read the Bill, because it is the kind of document he delights in, the sort of thing he lives on. I am sorry he is accused of not understanding it. I wish I understood it as well as he does; I wish I had his profound intelligence. When, however, we get an attack upon this section of the Bill from such a quarter, we know then that the whole of the Bill is absolutely rotten. I will give one example from my own constituency. There is a great and successful firm of sweet manufacturers there. They do a very large home trade and export trade, and employ workpeople living in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for East Hull. They will get £1,500 relief on rates under the Bill. For the purpose of helping their home trade or export trade that will be absolutely useless, because their turnover is so great. They employ hundreds of workpeople and use hundreds of tons of sugar and chocolate. They will be in the same position as the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and his friends. They will not be able to pass it on by reducing prices. It is simply a free gift, which they have not asked for and do not want. Does their factory represent one of the great basic industries of the country? Of course it does not. I agree with the Minister of Health that you cannot really partition off the prosperous from the non-prosperous industries, because there are breweries, for example, losing money to-day. Neither can 600 Members in this Chamber decide which are luxury trades and which are not, because there will be 600 different opinions. That being the case, why did not the Government stick to what are admittedly the industries in need of help, such as iron and steel, coal and agriculture? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman attempt something simpler instead of this grandiose scheme? Must he have this great monumental Bill in spite of its blemishes and blunders? It does not run on the lines of the simple Measure we ought to have. I hope the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. Briggs), who moved this Amendment, will come into the Division Lobby with us, and he will find that he has done a good thing for the country.
I am interested in this Amendment, and perhaps not from an entirely unprejudiced point of view. But it has been put so fairly and so logically by members of our party that I am sorry the Minister did not accept it. When he brought the Bill in, he asked the House to do all that they could to improve it, but, when a real effort is made to improve it without any injury to its fundamentals, I am sorry he will not agree to it. I appeal to him from the point of view of the country. We all know that we are going to find it very difficult to fight against the misrepresentations of the Bill. I am not in the least frightened; I am not upset by the fact that some people say that it is going to penalise maternity and child welfare work. I do not believe that for one moment. I do not believe that we have ever had a Minister who cared more about public health or knew more about local government than the one we have now. I am not saying he is infallible, but on the whole we Could not get a better man. I can quite understand the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) being annoyed with the Minister for bringing in so good a Bill, and so complicated and vast a Measure that he does not understand it all. It is naturally irritating. He wants something simpler. I agree that our intelligence cannot grasp it all. We want something simpler.
I never complained that I did not understand the Bill.
It is quite obvious from the hon. and gallant Member's speech that he does not. I am a supporter of the Bill, and it is not from the point of view of some of the Members opposite that I criticise it. When the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) spoke he showed that there were three industries which were different from any other industries in the country. They are the only industries which are penalised by all governments, because it is to the interest of the country as a whole to do so. The hon. and gallant Member for Whitehaven (Mr. K. Hudson) said that, if we wanted to get the money back from these industries, we might put on a slight increase in the excise duty by the Budget. If the Minister had said that, that would have satisfied all of us. But I do not trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Interruption.] If the Minister had only said that, we should have been quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, because it would have satisfied us, and I hope very much that Members on this side of the Committee will go into the Division Lobby with us.We are supposed to follow Cabinet decisions, but I have known some very bad Cabinet decisions, which it would have been far better for our party for us to oppose. It is not too late to mend now. It will not wreck the principle of the Bill, and the proposal of the Government is going to do us tremendous harm in the country because it is a very difficult thing on which to fight. I appeal to the Minister to listen to reason, and not to stick so solemnly to logic. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) says that we are not supposed to be a very logical people, but I am convinced that what the movers of this Amendment are proposing is quite logical and will not wreck the Bill, but, on the other hand, will help us in fighting for the Bill, because it will remove one of the causes of a great deal of misrepresentation. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is quite different. It proposed to penalise flourishing industries, but that cannot be done satisfactorily. I am not prepared to vote against this Amendment. I have the courage of my convictions. I would appeal to hon. Members opposite, in fighting against this Bill, to fight fairly, and I appeal to the Government to give us a chance to meet the great opposition that we have to meet, and not to make decisions in Cabinets and then come down and tell those who are anxious to improve the Bill that we cannot vote against it. I do not believe it will help the Government if we all troop in behind them; I think it will help them far more in the future if we do not. Many a time I have voted against the Government, and, when we have gone to the country, I have rejoiced in it, and the people in the country themselves have been pleased. We have the courage of our conviction that, in voting for this Amendment, we shall not only be helping the Bill, but shall be helping the Government, and I hope very much that, when the fight comes, they will be returned with some younger additions to the Front Bench.
I support this Amendment. The Minister in his reply showed the respect that he has for those behind him by the light and airy way in which he rode off on the question of logic. There may be some decent principles in the Bill, but every one of them is illogical, for there is no logic throughout the whole Bill. We here are supposed to represent the views of the people, and the Minister knows that, if he were to call a meeting of his own supporters in his own constituency, they would be opposed to him on this matter. If he were to call a meeting, in secret, of his own supporters in the House, they would be opposed to him on it, but, in the superiority of his own intellectual correctness, he claims that logic is on his side. He says that this must not be regarded as a sop or a dole to certain people, but that this is a Measure which is to remedy an injustice, and, in remedying that injustice, he himself has discriminated between various classes of ratepayers.The whole system of the imposition of a national responsibility upon citizens in relation to the property that they occupy has no foundation in justice whatever. It has no relation to the value they receive from the services in question, or to their ability to pay. The Minister says that he cannot discriminate, but he has discriminated particularly between various classes of ratepayers. He has discriminated between various classes of businesses, and, even if he gets the Clause through as it is to-day when he comes to apply it he will have very great difficulty in deciding which are productive industries and which are not productive industries. Therefore, he will have to discriminate, as he has discriminated all the way along. He is going to make this concession to his friends the brewers, regardless of the opinion of the House of Commons and regardless of the opinion of the people of this country. He is going' to stick to that position simply because he is so superior that he believes that no one can suggest to him an improvement in the Measure which he has brought forward. There is a very distinct line that we can draw with regard to these particular industries and the rest of productive industry, and that is that the industry of producing alcoholic drinks is so dangerous and very often so harmful that the nation has restricted it and bound it and ruled it in regard both to its production and to its distribution. That is the kind of industry which is to have this sop. The Minister says that he cannot distinguish between it and any other kind of industry. There is another kind of industry in regard to which he has made a distinction. He has made a distinction between the industry of agriculture and the rest of productive industry. He says that the incidence of rating on productive industry is unfair, and he is going to reduce it by three-fourths. I suppose he thinks that 25 per cent. is a fair proportion of the rates that such industries ought to pay in return for the services they receive or in respect of their responsibility to the community. But agriculture also makes a demand on the public services, and agriculture is to pay not a penny of contribution. I defy the Minister to say how otherwise that can be regarded than as a sop to try to satisfy the agricultural interests which have been so much prejudiced by the action of this Government. It is nothing more or less than a dole. There, therefore, the Minister has made a discrimination, and I think that in this instance, having regard to the opinion of the country, and having regard to the honest opinion of Members behind him, he ought to concede this point with regard to these particular industries, since, however much their profits are increased, it is not going to increase the welfare or employment of this country. Those profits are inflated by the very fact of the industry being restricted. It is able to create a monopoly, and to-day it claims ungodly profits beyond any fair return on the money invested or the ability that has been put into the business, simply because it is a monopoly; and, on the top of that, it is to be granted a further sum of £650,000. That money could well be used to assist those necessitous poor law areas where the unemployed or partially employed man has to pay his full amount of rates, very often up to 30s. in the £. That money could be used to assist the local authorities, and it will be a pitiful position when the Minister will have to say, "I could not find money for milk for babies, but I can find £400,000 for my friends the brewers." I hope that hon. Members will use their votes to interpret the views of the electors who sent them here. If they do that, the Minister, when the result of the Division is announced, will find himself in a very small minority of the Committee.
In the few minutes before the Division is taken I should like to say that, as an opponent of the Bill, I am quite prepared to support this Amendment. At the same time, having listened to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman and of those who have been criticising him, I think he has taken up the only logical position that he could take up. His argument is that he wishes to have a complete rating reform, and that, to my mind, precludes him from accepting the Amendment; but, at the same time, it brings out the fact! that the basis upon which the Bill has been founded is entirely mistaken. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment stated that at a meeting of his own supporters the proposal to give these allowances which would benefit the brewers was evidently disliked, and in other meetings and in other places exactly the same thing will be found. One could easily go to a meeting and ask why the rates of the Mond chemical works should be relieved, or why the works of Messrs. Morris at Oxford should be relieved, and in many other cases probably the same opinion would be expressed as has been expressed to the hon. Member with regard to the brewers.When this Measure begins to work, difficulties will be found to an increasing extent all over the country, and this is a fundamental defect in the Bill. A man in one street is going to ask why his neighbour who happens to be engaged in one kind of industry is having his rates reduced, while he himself is struggling with the difficulties of his own business, and it will be found increasingly difficult to explain the difference between a productive industry and the other industries around it. The same difficulty will also be found in regard to those who are living in working-classes houses, the rents of which are already heavier than they can bear. This discrimination only brings out the defects of the Measure in trying to differentiate as regardstaxation on the line that the Minister is taking, and, while he himself has taken the only line that was possible to him on this Amendment, the hon. Members who support the Amendment have shown a certain amount of knowledge of what people are feeling. There is no shadow of doubt that the weak part of the Measure, from the popular standpoint, is that which relates to the very question with which the Amendment seeks to deal. This question is going to be debated over and over again, and I think it will be found, in the final working of the Measure, that the right hon. Gentleman has made a fundamental mistake.
I crave the two minutes which the hon. Member has kindly left me to express my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut-Commander Kenworthy) for enabling me to make up my mind on this Amendment. I am bound to confess that I was in some doubt to begin with, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the Mover of the Amendment, but the fair and accurate and logical way in which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull proved that, if you once exempt these industries, you will have to exempt also such industries as the scent industry and many others which he detailed, and thereby destroy the whole basis of the Measure and make the whole position ridiculous, convinced me, and I hope and believe a number of my hon. Friends who may also have been in doubt, that it is desirable to support the Government.
Division No. 103.]
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Groves, T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Grundy, T. W.||Riley, Ben|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland]|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Barnes, A.||Harris, Percy A.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Batey, Joseph||Hayday, Arthur||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Bellamy, A.||Hayes, John Henry||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Berry, Sir George||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Scurr, John|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Hirst, G. H.||Sexton, James|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shinwell, E.|
|Briant, Frank||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Broad, F. A.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Bromfield. William||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Kelly, W. T.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kennedy, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buchanan, G.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Lansbury, George||Sutton, J. E.|
|Cape, Thomas||Lawrence, Susan||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lawson, John James||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lee, F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Connolly, M.||Lowth, T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cove, W. G.||Lunn, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Townend, A. E.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Dalton, Hugh||Mackinder, W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||MacLaren, Andrew||wallhead, Richard C.|
|Dennison, R.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Duncan, C.||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Edge, Sir William||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|England, Colonel A.||March, S.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Morris, R. H.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Forrest, W.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Mosley, Sir Oswald||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Naylor, T. E||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Owen, Major G.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Gillett, George M.||Palin, John Henry||Windsor, Walter|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Paling, W.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Ponsonby, Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley||Potts, John S.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Buckingham, Sir H.||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Bullock, Captain M.||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)|
|Albery, Irving James||Burman, J. B.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)|
|Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Caine, Gordon Hall||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Campbell, E. T.||Davison, sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cassels, J. D.||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Drewe, C.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Cayzer, Sir C (Chester, City)||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.s.)||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Balniel, Lord||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Ellis, R. G.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith|
|Bethel, A.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm, W.)||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Bevan, S. J.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Fermoy, Lord|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Clayton, G. C.||Fielden, E. B.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Foster, Sir Harry S.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cope, Major Sir William||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Ganzoni, Sir John.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Gates, Percy|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 219.
|Goff, Sir park||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman||Sandon, Lord|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie|
|Greene, W P. Crawford||MacIntyre, Ian||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||McLean, Major A.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Balfst.)|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D 'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Malone, Major P. B.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Hamilton, Sir George||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Margesson, Captain D.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Harland, A.||Meyer, Sir Frank||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Streatfelld, Captain S. R.|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Honn, Sir Sydney H.||Morden, Colonel Walter Grant||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Hills, Major John Waller||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Hilton, Cecil||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Tinne, J. A.|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Nuttall, Ellis||Waddington, R.|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Oakley, T.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Watson, Sir F, (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Penny, Frederick George||Wells, S. R.|
|Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Perring, Sir William George||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Pitcher, G.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).||Radford, E. A.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Raine, Sir Walter||Womersley, W. J.|
|King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Ramsden, E.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Rentoul, G. S.||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Ropner, Major L.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Loder, J. de V.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Long, Major Eric||Sandeman, N. Stewart||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lucas, Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Sir Victor Warrender.|
It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the. Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
Division No. 104.]
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)|
|Albery, Irving James||Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Layton)||Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cant'l)||Brass, Captain W.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Briscoe, Richard George||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Brittain, Sir Harry||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Astor, Viscountess||Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.|
|Atkinson, C.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Clayton, G. C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Buckingham, Sir H.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bullock, Captain M.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Balniel, Lord||Burman, J. B.||Cohen, Major J. Brunel|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Conway, Sir W. Martin|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Cope, Major Sir William|
|Berry, Sir George||Caine, Gordon Hall||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.|
|Bethel, A.||Campbell, E. T.||Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Carver, Major W. H.||Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)|
|Bevan, S. J.||Cassels, J. D.||Crooke, J. Smedlay (Deritend)|
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 117.
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Ramsden, E.|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Renter, J. R.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hurd, Percy A.||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Hurst, Gerald B.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworthm, Cen'l)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Drewe, C.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Edge, sir William||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Ellis, R. G.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)|
|England, Colonel A.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Skelton, A. N.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Lamb, J. Q.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Fairfax, Captain J G.||Loder, J. de V.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Long, Major Eric||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Fermoy, Lord||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Fielden, E. B.||Lumley, L. R.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Forrest, W.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Streatfelld, Captain S. R.|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord c.|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||MacIntyre, Ian||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||McLean, Major A.||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Gates, Percy||Maitland, Sir Arthur D steel-||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Malone, Major P. B.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Goff, Sir Park||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Grant, Sir J. A.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Meller, R. J.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Meyer, Sir Frank||Waddington, R.|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Hamilton, Sir George||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Wells, S. R.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Harland, A.||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Nelson, Sir Frank||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Withers, John James|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Nuttall, Ellis||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Oakley, T.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Hills, Major John Waller||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Hilton, Cecil||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Penny, Frederick George||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Perring, Sir William George||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Pilcher, G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Captain Margesson and Sir Victor|
|Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Radford, E. A.||Warrender.|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Cape, Thomas||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Charleton, H. C.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Cluse, W. S.||Gillett, George M.|
|Barnes, A.||Compton, Joseph||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Batey, Joseph||Connolly, M.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Bellamy, A.||Cove, W. G.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Griffith, F. Kingsley|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Crawfurd, H. E.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Briant, Frank||Dalton, Hugh||Groves, T.|
|Broad, F. A.||Dennison, R.||Grundy, T. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Duncan, C||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Bromley, J.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Fenby, T. D.||Harris, Percy A.|
|8uchanan, G.||Gardner, J. P.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Hayes, John Henry||Naylor, T, E.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hirst, G. H.||Owen, Major G.||Stewart, I. (St. Rollox)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Palin, John Henry||Sutton, J. E.|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Paling, W.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Potts, John S.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Riley, Ben||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Kelly, W. T.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)||Townend, A. E.|
|Kennedy, T.||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles.|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Viant, S. P.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Saklatvala, Shapurji||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Lawson, John James||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Lee, F.||Scurr, John||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Lowth, T.||Sexton, James||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lunn, William||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Mackinder, W.||Shinwell, E.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|March, S.||Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Windsor, Walter|
|Morris, R. H.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Mosley, Sir Oswald||Stamford, T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. B. Smith.|