§ 1.8 a.m.
§ Mr. Spence (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central):
I beg to move,That the Imported Pears Order, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946, No. 501), dated 5th April 1946, a copy of which was presented on 11th April, be annulled.
In asking for the annulment of this Order, I do so on grounds of substance, and because of the fact that I represent a constituency in the North East of Scotland. This Order is only of minor importance, but it is another of a long line of orders that has appeared in the past which has been unfair to 500,000 people living in the North and North East of Scotland. Before I criticise the Order, I will, with the permission of the House, explain briefly parts of it and the working of it, so that the House may know the particular sections to which we object. The Order, in general, covers the whole question of the import and sale by wholesaler and retailer throughout the country. There are two different categories of pears in the Order. One is the pear imported by the Ministry of Food, about which there is no complaint, because there is a level price all over the country. The burden of my complaint 2052 is in regard to pears imported by private enterprise, by the private trader, and I should like to give some factual evidence to the Government if I may. When the wholesaler in Aberdeen wants to buy pears, he has to pay what is known as the first selling price in London, 82s. 10d. per hundredweight. He has then to pay 3s. 6d. carriage to King's Cross plus the agent's commission of 1s 3d. and 10d. porterage. If he is bringing these pears by train to Aberdeen it will cost 11s. 7d., making a total of 100s. If any Member examines the Order and the Schedule to that Order at the end, he will find that the maximum price permitted for resale in Aberdeen is 99s. 2d., against 100s. which it costs to get the pears to Aberdeen.
That is the burden of the complaint we have to make against this Order. Like so many Orders we have had on green vegetables and soft fruits, because of officialdom—for it is nothing else—the cost of carriage cannot be recovered, and, therefore, we in the North of Scotland do not get what we consider is our fair share of fruit and vegetables. We feel that we contribute other things to the national food pool. We send meat, whisky, grain and oatmeal to the South, and surely we in the North are entitled to receive what I might call the fruits of victory. Some arrangement should be arrived at whereby an allowance will be made to cover the cost of carriage. Just before Easter, on 16th April, I moved a Prayer for the annulment of an Order on imported green vegetables and cauliflowers, and on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food, who will also reply on this occasion, said certain things to which I should like to reply tonight, because the burden of my complaint is the same. She said this:I am sure hon. Members will, agree that these Orders are necessary if we are to supplement our present rather meagre rations of fruit.
Because of these Orders we in the North of Scotland have been deprived of our fruit. They may supplement the rations of the South of the country, but they deprive us in the North of our share. Then again, on the same occasion, the hon. Lady said:The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen represents a constituency which is at the tip of the northern area. He is in a difficult position.2053 The Ministry of Food has a duty to every division in the country. I would also remind the hon. Lady that the Shetlands are another 200 miles further to the North. We are not by any means at the end of the world. Finally, I want to draw the attention of the House to this matter. The hon. Lady said:'The Ministry of Food is primarily a consumers' Ministry. It is unfair to increase the price of cauliflowers to consumers in any part of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 2646–7.]I should like to hear from the hon. Lady if that is the reason for these Orders, which are a hardship to the people in the part of the country which I represent. If this is primarily a consumers' Ministry then why is it unfair to increase the price to the consumer in any part of the country? Surely that doctrine cannot be justified. I hope that the hon. Lady will deal with the matter because it affects us very vitally in the North.
I do not move this Prayer for any personal reasons, but simply because of the way things are in the North and North East part of Scotland owing to Orders such as this. I hope that in the reply which we shall receive from the hon Lady we shall get a reassurance on the points I have mentioned. We feel that the time has come when we are entitled to consideration in these matters, when we might be given the opportunity of buying something we have not been able to buy for a long time. I can assure the House that in the North of Scotland, between February and June, it is very difficult to buy any of these things, which I see every day of the week here in London.
§ Mr. John Lewis (Bolton): Where?
§ Mr. Spence:
Well, I happened to be in the Baker Street district yesterday, and I walked passed a greengrocer's shop as I came here in the morning. In that shop I saw lettuces. [HON. MEMBERS "But what about pears?"] Well, they are not here yet as they are not ripe, but they will be when they are ripe. As I have said, I can assure Members opposite that I have moved to annul this Order because of the weight of opinion in Northern Scotland.
§ 1.18 a.m.
§ Lord William Scott (Roxburgh and Selkirk):
I beg to second the Motion. My hon. Friend has explained the details so clearly that it is unnecessary for me to re- 2054 peat any of his arguments. This Order contains the same unsatisfactory features which made it necessary for certain Scottish Members to pray, about a month ago, against two similar Orders, Nos. 471 and 472, concerning imported feedingstuffs and imported cherries. We accepted the necessity for control of feedingstuffs during this period of comparative scarcity. We realise that these controls are necessary to secure equitable distribution, but we are moving to annul this Order tonight for two reasons: first, we believe, in fact we know, that it will not only fail to secure equitable distribution in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland, but will actually prevent it; second, we Scottish Members believe we have a duty to perform in this House to see that the interests of our Scottish constituents are properly looked after. The terms of this Order will prevent imported pears from reaching Scotland just as effectively as the Order No. 471 prevented cauliflowers and broccoli from reaching the Northern parts of Scotland, described by the Ministry of Food as the Northern Region, that is, North of the Forth and South of Aberdeen. We believe that it is up to us to see that it is brought home to other Scottish Members on the other side of the House who may not be willing to support us, and find it necessary to go into the Division Lobby against us. Later on, when we do not get the imported cherries and the imported pears, our constituents up there will know the reason why.
I admit that I have but a slight acquaintance with the imported pear trade, and personally I am not very much interested in imported pears, but as long as the Government believe that we should import pears, there is every reason why Scotland should get her fair share of them. We have been told that these Control Orders are for the special purpose of equitable distribution, and I do not know what excuse the Government will be able to put forward for an Order which prevents equitable distribution. I would remind the hon. Lady that we got very little satisfaction from the argument that she produced on the last occasion, that even if certain areas of Scotland failed to get their fair share, other areas benefited from the fact that they not only got their own share but the share of those parts of Scotland which did not receive any. That is not a great comfort to the people of Scotland. 2055 Some years ago in Scotland there was a political movement which firmly believed that Scottish interests were not effectively looked after at Westminster. I do not believe that there was at that time any great justification for holding that belief, but during the last few months we have noticed to an ever-increasing extent that the interests of Scotland do not receive the attention at Westminster that they did in the years gone by, and that under the present administration those in Whitehall seem to take greater interest——
§ Mrs. Nichol (Bradford, North):
On a point of Order. Have we not moved rather a long way from the question of pears?
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont):
As a point of Order has been raised, it is for me to answer. Had the hon. Lady not got up so quickly, I was going to inform the Noble Lord that I see nothing in the present Order which he is asking to be annulled dealing with the points on which he is now speaking.
§ Lord William Scott:
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have failed to make myself clear. The whole point about wishing to annul is that Scotland, under this Order, would be prevented from having its fair share of imported pears. These Orders are produced in Whitehall, and we have realised during the last few months that the interests of Scotland are not looked after in Whitehall in these Orders to the extent that they should be. That is why we Scottish Members are trying to see that the interests of Scotland are properly looked after. For some years we in Scotland have been very well looked after by the Ministry of Food, but we have, during the last few months, seen a very great falling off. In previous years, under the administration of Lord Woolton, we did not suffer.
The Noble Lord surely is conscious of the fact that he is getting very wide. We are not discussing the Food Ministry under a previous administration. The point we are discussing is an Order of the Ministry of Food.
§ Lord William Scott:
I accept your Ruling. We wish to annul this Order for the purpose of seeing that Scotland gets 2056 its fair share, the same as it has done in the past. We are Scottish Members, and it is our duty on behalf of our constituents to see that they get it. We are prepared to divide in justification of our Motion. I trust that when we do that, the Scottish Members from all sides of the House, irrespective of their party, will think of the interests of their constituents.
§ 1.25 a.m.
§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne):
I am not a Scottish Member, but I feel I should say that I am surprised that after the Motions to annul Orders 471 and 472 dealing with cauliflowers and cherries, bringing up the same points as have been brought up tonight, this further Order should be brought before the House showing considerable unfairness to certain parts of the British Isles. I did hope that we might perhaps have taught the Ministry of Food a lesson, that the House would not accept without a very serious challenge, Orders which were unfair to certain parts of the country. I hope that tonight the Minister will agree that this Order should be annulled, and will reconsider it to see that it is made a little bit fairer to parts of the British Isles which will not, undoubtedly, under this Order, get their fair share. I would like to refer hon. Members who have the Order with them, who have taken the trouble to get it from the Vote Office, to paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (2), which reads:No person shall sell or buy pears mixed with any other article or with pears of another group classification.I can understand that that restriction should be placed upon the seller of pears, but I cannot conceive that such a restriction should be placed upon the buyer; because when I turn to the first Schedule, which gives the food classification of pears, I find there are three classifications. The first is "Doyenne du Comice". The second is "All other varieties (other than pears classified under group 3)," and the third is:Pears of a diameter of one and three-quarter inches or less, other than pears classified under Group 1. (In this paragraph 'diameter' means the longest diameter taken at right angles to a line from stalk to blossom end.)This Order says in paragraph to that infringements of the Order are offences against the Defence (General) Regulations 2057 of 1939. I do not know what the imprisonment is for breaking the Defence (General) Regulations of 1939, but I would like to suggest that it is quite impossible for any buyer of pears whether they buy in Scotland—when they are lucky enough to get pears in Scotland—or whether they buy pears in England, to look at the pears he is buying and say, "I cannot buy these pears because there is an orange mixed with them." Or, "I may not buy these pears because there are in the pears some Comice pears, and there are also some pears which are of a diameter of 1¾ins. or less, and that means 'the longest diameter taken at right angles to a line from the stalk to blossom end.'" This putting of the onus on the buyer is fantastic. If you like, put the onus on the seller of these pears, make him fall into line with the regulations, make him see he does not sell a basket or box of pears contrary to the regulations; but is it fair to ask the housewife to take her tape measure—I do not know how she measures the diameter—or whatever measuring instrument she may find, to measure the pears she buys, or otherwise she risks breaking regulations and is probably condemned to very severe penalties?
§ 1.30 a.m.
§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan ( Perth and Kinross, Perth):
May I support my hon. Friend? I do not intend to mention the word "pears," but it is fairly well understood that that is the subject under discussion. I do think that this Order is a very serious matter so far as Scotland is concerned. In fact, it is a typical example of the relegation to distant officialdom when that officialdom has very litttle interest with the far off areas we are discussing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members may say "Nonsense," but this is obvious in this case. This fruit and similar vegetables are much wanted in Scotland at a time of the year when Scotland cannot grow them. The Government are always urging us, by posters and otherwise, to "Eat more green vegetables," "Eat more fruit," and so on. The inhabitants of these areas in the North and North-East of Scotland are quite willing to pay a reasonable price in order to carry out that instruction, but the Order of the Ministry cuts out the possibility of people in the North of Scotland from doing this very thing. 2058 The primary cause of that is that the maximum prices are in no way related to the cost of transporting fruit to this part of Scotland. If the situation is bad in the North East it is even worse in the North. All this fruit must come from the South of England at the time of the year we are discussing. There is no fast goods traffic between England and anywhere North of Glasgow and Edinburgh. It takes five to seven days, if not more, for this stuff to arrive in the North of Scotland, by which time the bulk of it is quite uneatable, and much excellent stuff is wasted. It is true we are trying to get through goods carriages put on passenger trains at Inverness, but even if we get that there will still be an addition in cost which will make it impossible for the retail trader in the North and North East of Scotland to sell these pears at anything but a loss. That has to be faced. There will be a loss. I do think that when an addition is allowed on account of conveyance charges in the case of bread and sugar, it should be allowed in the case of fruit. Surely the Minister, with her professional knowledge, does not suggest that fresh fruit and vegetables are not just as important as bread and sugar.
I do hope that the hon. Lady will give earnest consideration to this point because from the point of view of North and North East Scotland it is important. I can assure her that the Minister's own officials in the North and North East of Scotland agree with me in what I am saying, and if she does not believe that, she has only to ask them to confirm what I say. The matter is pressing. Supplies will shortly be available in the South, and we ask that we shall get some decision from her to the effect that she will give consideration to it, not for next year's crop, but for the supplies we hope will he arriving shortly.
§ 1.35 a.m
§ Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox (Henley):
I propose to support my colleagues in this Prayer, not only so that my friends in Scotland can have some pears, but also because I think there are one or two things in these regulations which are wrong. I would like to ask the Minister why, in the first Schedule in which Doyenne du Comice pears are included, are in the first classification, she has not included Conference pears. Doyenne du Comice is a rather thin skinned pear. It has been 2059 proven that it is delicious to eat, but it does not easily travel far. The Conference pear is a good pear, travels well, and eats almost as well as the Comice. I see that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) is here, and he will see that his friends who produce pears in the Fens—where they produce very good pears—will find that the Conference pear will be in classification two. There is another matter which is alarming us. I am horrified that the Minister is importing pears into this country when we hear that less than 10 per cent. of the pears will be sound pears. I should have thought it would have been better not to import these, and I hope the hon. Lady will tell us why it is expected that such a small percentage of good pears will be in the second Schedule.
§ 1.37 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill):
As with some other Orders, I think Scottish Members are labouring under a grievance which is not real, but imaginary. I think the hon. Member who has prayed against this Order believes, as he did in the case of the Green Vegetables Order, that certain traders should be given a bigger transport allowance in order to encourage them to take more imported pears into Scotland. I want the House to understand that the carriage allowances prescribed in the Order and the railway rates from the ports of entry do allow privately imported pears to be sold in those areas at a reasonable profit to the trader, and if pears are properly packed, there should be no fear of deterioration. There is a daily service running between Holland and London, a three times a week service to Hull, and a weekly service to Leith. The goods rates to Aberdeen from Leith are a third of the rate from London, and two-fifths of the rate from London to Inverness.
The arguments used by the hon. Member are the same as he has used before, and again I must remind him of the consequences of increasing transport rates. The price to the consumer would have to be increased, and instead of the majority of consumers benefiting, these pears would be out of their reach, and would become a luxury enjoyed only by a fortunate few. If the hon. Member will look at his figures and work out that 2060 little bit of arithmetic, he will see that his friends the wholesalers—whom I think his informants represent and not necessarily the consumers—do quite well.
§ Mr. Spence:
Is the hon. Lady aware that the retail price of first quality pears is 1s. 6d. per pound and that a penny per pound would cover the whole of this?
§ Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know it, but the housewife in Scotland does not like giving extra pennies for fruit when he knows the housewife in England is not called upon to do so. Furthermore—and this is a very important point—it would mean making a number of Orders for, without doubt, there would be other demands. Wholesalers from different parts of the country would come along and say, "Now, increase our transport rates by another halfpenny here and a penny there." This would confuse the trader and the public and would inevitably lead to what we are trying so hard to avoid. This would tempt traders to send their produce to those areas where the retail price is greatest. Then we should have other hon. Members which would be justified in coming to the Ministry and saying "We have no pears in our area because the traders send them all to Scotland where they get a higher price."
§ Lord William Scott:
Does the hon. Lady realise that this would go on the freight charges if it was properly done?
§ Dr. Summerskill:
The hon. Member perhaps has not a great knowledge of finance. We do like the country to remain solvent. We might put pennies on here and there and give them to the wholesalers, but we would have to save it elsewhere. This would mean it would come out of the pockets of the consumer. Another point I want to raise, which perhaps hon. Members do not realise, is that these pears will come from Holland and France in mid-July and mid-October. The hon. Gentleman has overlooked, or perhaps his friends have not told him, that probably the total imports from those countries will not be more than a few hundred tons. The whole question of transport to the North of Scotland is, therefore, somewhat theoretical as the quantity concerned is so small.
I want to show the House that Scotland is not being deprived of its vitamins. The 2061 major part of the pears imported into this country will be imported by the Ministry of Food and these will be brought within the allocation system. The North of Scotland will receive more than many other parts of the country in order to compensate for the lack of home grown fruit. Therefore, when the Ministry imports its pears—and we shall import more than two or three hundred tons—Scotland will receive more favourable treatment than many other parts of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] So far as home grown pears are concerned, I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) that he is a little confused about Conference pears. This Order deals with imported pears and, of course, Conference pears are home produced——
§ Mr. Speaker:
Hon. Members should speak only once on these matters. I want to allow hon. Members to get home. Therefore, I am prepared to keep to the Rule strictly. For myself, I do not want to sit up unnecessarily. I have to sit here every night, and I would point out that every interruption means more time lost. I think I am entitled to say that I have reasons for sticking to the Rule strictly.
§ Dr. Summerskill:
Mr. Speaker, may I, from my medical experience, endorse what you say? I am very surprised that hon. Members who are trying to support their arguments by medical illustrations do not appreciate your point of view. So far as homegrown pears are concerned—and the reason I mention them is to assure the House that Scotland is being treated fairly—they are enjoyed by the whole country during the season, and wholesalers receive a fair rate for pears from the South of England. There is little risk of deterioration if they are properly picked and properly packed. I must say something about homegrown apples. The United Kingdom produces 250,000 tons, and Northern Ireland exports——
§ Dr. Summerskill:
The reason I have mentioned apples is because the Scottish Members have already said they are being deprived of fruit.
§ Dr. Summerskill:
No. Hon. Members have mentioned "fruit." I was trying to prove that Scotland has been very fairly treated by the Ministry of Food. Obviously we cannot promise every part of the country the same allocation of fruit. Therefore, we take the country as a whole, and to those parts which we think have not been fairly treated we arrange to send more when we have an opportunity. I think I am entitled to mention homegrown apples, because Northern Ireland exports 14,000 tons of apples, a large part of which is shipped to Scotland.
§ Dr. Summerskill:
So far as apples are concerned, Scotland is receiving very favourable treatment. The apples imported by the Ministry of Food are not sufficient to enable an allocation to be given to all parts of the country. Again I say we give an extra allocation to Scotland. I hope, therefore, I have been able to convince hon. Members tonight that this Prayer was quite uncalled for, and that Scotland has been very fairly treated.
§ Mr. C. S. Taylor:
May I ask if the hon. Lady will reply to the question about the onus being placed on the buyer?
§ Dr. Summerskill:
I feel that at this time of night I am not called upon to answer a frivolous question.
§ Mr. Taylor:
The first Schedule in the Order deals with group classification of pears. I think we are entitled to an answer, because paragraph 7 (2) does place the onus on the buyer of this fruit to see that he or she does not buy pears contrary to the regulations laid down in the first Schedule. I would like to ask the hon. Lady whether she would withdraw that, and whether she would place the onus only on the seller of this fruit? Can I have an answer?
§ 1.50 a.m.
§ Mr. R. S. Hudson (Southport):
If I may be allowed to say so, the hon. Lady has not quite appreciated the point of objection that we have to this Order. The essence of our objection is that the Ministry of Food are taking what we 2063 think to be a far too rigid and narrow view. They lay it down in this Order that the country is divided into two groups, and the permitted price is the same over the whole area in group one, and the same over the whole area in group two. These groups are very large indeed—it is inevitable, if you divide the whole of the United Kingdom into two groups—and we really see no reason, except possibly some administrative convenience for the Ministry of Food, why they should not have made a greater sub-division of the country into, instead of two areas, possibly three or even four.
The hon. Lady said that the Ministry of Food was a consumers' Ministry, but surely the essence of a consumers' Ministry is that it should make some attempt to provide the consumer equitably with the goods that come into the country. In this case of imported pears, the overwhelming bulk—I do not think the hon. Lady will deny this—are French Williams, coming from France in refrigerated tonnage to Southampton and then to Covent Garden, from where they are subsequently distributed through wholesalers to the various parts of the country. Therefore, in this case, inevitably the great bulk of the pears concerned are in fact subject, if they are to arrive in Scotland in a decent edible condition, to high railway charges, because they have to be sent by passenger train; they cannot be sent by goods. The amount that comes in through Leith from Holland is a negligible proportion of the whole.
In this case, as in the previous one of broccoli mentioned by the hon. Lady, surely the Scottish public would be perfectly willing to pay a very slightly increased price in order to get these things. At present they are not getting them. It may be said that they are having a completely equitable treatment, because they are all being charged the same price, but the result is that they do not get them. Therefore the consumer is not being catered for as the Ministry suggest and as the hon. Lady claims to be the duty of the Ministry. But she went a good deal further. In the previous Debate on 16th April on the cognate question when we were dealing with cherries the hon. Lady said: 2064It is unfair to increase the price of cauliflowers to consumers in any part of the country. We believe that there should be a uniform price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1946; Vol 421, c. 2647.]In the Debate this evening the hon. Lady said, if I heard her correctly, that the housewife——
§ Mr. Speaker:
This is an Imported Pears Order; it does not mention cherries or anything else. The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into other matters.
§ Mr. Hudson:
With respect, Sir, I was merely replying to the point made by the hon. Lady, who herself referred to the previous Debate at the very commencement of her speech.
§ Mr. Speaker:
That was merely an illustration. It does not mean that we can reopen the whole Debate.
§ Mr. Hudson:
I am not going to. I am merely giving it as an illustration. May I also remind you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that the hon. Lady talked about apples, which are not in this Order at all? The hon. Lady said in the course of her speech that the housewife in Scotland does not like giving extra pennies, and should not be asked to do so. She used that as a justification for denying the proposition that different parts of Scotland should have different prices based very largely on the difference in the cost of transport.
I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not been as well briefed by her Department as she might have been. The housewives in Scotland, under her administration, are giving extra pennies in respect of a considerable range of products according to the part of Scotland in which they live. Therefore, her own Department has knocked from under her feet that particular argument. Perhaps I may be allowed, by way of illustration, to give one or two differences which the housewives pay in Scotland. If you live North of the Caledonian Canal, as compared with South of the Caledonian Canal, you pay one farthing more for sugar, one halfpenny more for jam, and one farthing more for cereals. The hon. Lady's Department is, in fact, when it suits it, carrying out precisely the policy we say they ought to have adopted in the case of pears. The hon. Lady's action is wholly illogical, and we say she ought to do something to amend this distribu- 2065 2066 tion. I hope that even now she will take back this Order.
Question put,That the Imported Pears Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 501), dated 5th April, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 11th April, be annulled.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 173.
|Division No 173.||AYES.||1.57 a.m|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G||Hope, Lord J.||Nield, B (Chester)|
|Bowen, R.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Prescott, Stanley|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E||Lambert, Hon. G.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Cuthbert, W N.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)|
|Drewe, C.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Wadsworth, G.|
|Duthie, W S.||McCallum, Maj D||Wheatley, Colonel M. J|
|Fox, Sqn.-Ldr Sir G||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Williams, C (Torquay)|
|Fraser, Maj. H C. P. (Stone)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Gage, Lt -Col. C.||Manningham-Buller, R E||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G.||Marshall D (Bodmin)|
|Houghton, S. G.||Mellor, Sir J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Mr. Spence and Lord William Sco'|
|Adams, Richard (Balham||Ganley, Mrs. C. S||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Gibson, C. W.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Noel-Buxton, Lady|
|Alpass, J. H.||Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Grierson, E.||Orbach, M|
|Attewell, H. C||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Baird. Capt. J.||Griffiths, Capt W. D. (Moss Side)||Pargiter, G. A|
|Barstow, P. G.||Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Pearson, A|
|Barton, C||Gunter, Capt. R. J.||Peart, Capt. T. F.|
|Bechervaise, A. E||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Perrins, W.|
|Berry, H.||Hannan, W (Maryhill)||Piratin, P.|
|Bing, Capt. G. H C.||Hardy, E. A||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.|
|Binns, J.||Haworth, J.||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Herbison, Miss M||Popplewell, E.|
|Boardman, H.||Hobson, C. R.||Porter, E. (Warrington)|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W||Holman, P||Proctor, W. T|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Hoy, J.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Hudson, J H (Eating, W.)||Ranger, J.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)||Rankin, J.|
|Brown, T J. (Ince)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen. N.)||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Castle, Mrs. B A||Irving, W. J.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Champion, A J||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)|
|Chater, D||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Clitherow, Dr R||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Sargood, R.|
|Cobb, F. A||Keenan, W||Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A|
|Cocks, F. S||King, E. M.||Shurmer, P.|
|Coldrick, W.||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Collinbridge, F.||Kinley, J||Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)|
|Collins, V.J.||Lavers, S.||Smith, S H (Hull, S.W.)|
|Colman, Miss G M.||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Snow, Capt. J. W.|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Levy, B. W||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Lewis, J. (Bolton)||Stokes, R. R.|
|Daggar, G.||Lindgren, G. S.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Summerskill, Dr Edith|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Logan, D. G.||Swingler, S.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lyne, A. W.||Symonds, Maj. A. L|
|Deer, G.||McAdam, W||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Mack, J. D.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Delargy, Captain H. J||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Diamond, J.||Mackay, R W G. (Hull, N.W.)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Dobbie, W.||McLeavy, F.||Thomson, Rt. Hn G R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)|
|Dodds, N. N.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Tiffany, S.|
|Douglas, F. C. R.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Tolley, L.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.||Medland, H. M||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Middleton, Mrs L.||White, C F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Mikardo, Ian||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Ewart, R.||Mitchison, Maj. G. R.||Wigg, Col. G E.|
|Fairhurst, F.||Monslow, W.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Farthing, W. J||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Foot, M. M.||Murray, J D||Willey, O. G (Cleveland)|
|Forman, J. C.||Nally, W.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Foster, W. (Wigan)||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Willis, E.||Yates, V. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Wilson, J. H.||Zilliacus, K.||Mr. Joseph Henderson and|
|Wise, Major F. J.||Mr. Simmons.|