HC Deb 01 July 1947 vol 439 cc1271-85

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Spence (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central)

I beg to move: That the Casein Buttons, Buckles and Slides (Manufacturers' Maximum Prices) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 949), dated 15th May, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 22nd May, be annulled. This Order controls the price of a certain class of button which is made by a group of some 60 firms employing about 3,000 persons. Twenty-five per cent. of the output of these firms goes for export, and the whole of the combine which makes casein buttons is just one small section of the button manufacturing trade in the country. The objection we have to the Order is chiefly that it seeks to limit the price of the goods sold by these firms on what we know as a cost-plus basis. Paragraph 1 of the Order lays down that: The maximum price to be charged in the course of the business of a manufacturer with respect to casein buttons, buckles or slides (hereinafter called 'goods') shall be the manufacturers' costs of production and sale and 5 per cent of such costs. It is well known that the cost-plus basis leads to very inefficient production, whether it be on a contract or in ordinary business, and if you limit the profit that a firm can make to a percentage of its costs then, human nature being what it is, there is always a tendency for those costs to rise. I know that it is the intention of the Board of Trade to seek by this Order to set a reasonable limit on the cost of the particular goods produced in this industry. I suggest, therefore, that the cost-plus system is not a satisfactory one because it is inefficient and has been proved so. There are also other anomalies which arise. The firms that make casein buttons also make other buttons from such things as perspex and some of the newer forms of plastics, and all buttons of new types which were not made in 1942 are, under the standstill Order which preceded this one, automatically exempt from price control.

We therefore have the peculiar position that there may be a firm with half its production limited to cost-plus 5 per per cent. and the other half free of all price control. Here is one section of a very big trade—for the button trade as a whole is a big trade—which is, so to speak, picked on and put under this particular Order, and I do not think that it is quite fair to that trade. After all, the buttons are limited very narrowly and it will be very difficult for the particular people who specialise in casein to develop their industry. On those grounds the Order is a bad one.

The other thing not made clear in the Order is what happens when a loss is made. Is a loss carried forward? The button industry has had its ups and downs. It is very susceptible to foreign competition. The button industry has had some pretty rough times, and if the cost-plus system is to be carried through, some arrangement should be made about years in which a loss is made. There has been discussion between the Price Control Committee and the association of these firms for nearly a year. I think I can say with full justification that neither the Committee nor the firms are very pleased with the Order. No-one is satisfied. The Order is bad because it will encourage inefficiency and it will not give what I call the requisite "come-back" required to develop the industry; and both the Price Control Committee and the trade feel that it is not satisfactory and is a bad job. I am very hopeful that the Minister may give some assurance tonight that he will look into the whole matter again and see whether proposals cannot be made which are more equitable and reasonable and will operate more fairly.

I will not go into the complexities of the details of the articles made That would take a long time. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows the wide variety of goods, which is one of the chief difficulties. There are articles of different types, thicknesses and shapes and it is very difficult to determine any standard that can be recognised and which one can say is worth such and such a price The variety is so great that it is almost impossible to fix a satisfactory flat-rate all round which will cover the heavy costs of the business. The members of the trade have tried to work out something to satisfy the Price Control Committee, but so far they have failed. I feel that it is not a good thing to put through an Order which we know is bad and not equitable to the whole trade. In support of what I say I will quote from a letter which the association has received from the Central Price Control Committee. In effect it says that they inform the trade that after all the discussions, the Order will go through on a cost-plus 5 per cent. basis Then they say: While the agreed tolerance would be within the discretion of the Board of Trade"— that is, the question of profit— the Price Control Committee would take no action against manufacturers provided they were satisfied that they had tried to comply with the five per cent. programme and if in actual fact the profit had not been more than 7½ per cent. In other words, I might describe that not quite as a bribe but as an offer from the Price Control Committee to the trade saying, "We will accept this order and we will allow you another per cent. and no questions asked''? That proves this Order is not a good one, and I hope very much that when he replies the Minister will have an open mind on this matter and will indicate that he may reconsider the Order provided that evidence can be given him of a type to show that a new Order of a suitable type could be drafted.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

I beg to second the Motion.

First let me say that I have no interest whatsoever in the button trade. My only interest is the same as that of any other hon. Member, and if one cannot get zipp fasteners one must have buttons, but not necessarily casein buttons. Wth regard to paragraph 1 of the Order my hon. Friend mentioned the cost-plus system. I thought it had been more or less accepted by all hon. Members of this House that the cost-plus system was a bad system; that it did not do anybody very much good; that it gave the inefficient firms a chance to make a profit to which they were not entitled; that it led to "wangling," and none of us like to see wangling about costs. All these things are used to the detriment of the honest firms, and that is seen very much in the modern legislation passed by this House. The honest firms are made to suffer because of a few dishonest.

Secondly, I suggest that in the Order there is no control whatsoever with regard to the export trade. In the export trade firms making casein buttons, it would appear, can charge anything they like. They can make any percentage of profit they like in the export trade and are not controlled by the hon. Member's Department. Surely it will be extremely difficult for any firm making both for the home market and for the export trade to differentiate between costs of manufacture for the home trade and export trade as, indeed, it will be difficult for that firm to say what profit accrues to its export market and what profit accrues to the home market in relation to the cost of production.

For my next point I would refer to the Schedule. I would suggest that items which are generally accepted as liable as a manufacturer's costs of production and sale are not included in the Schedule at present. I would suggest that under paragraph 5 of the Schedule such things as directors' fees might be included; that any fees paid to technicians in an advisory capacity might be included; that perhaps expenditure as far as a canteen is concerned might be included; that any expenditure with regard to laboratory tests or research, which already for taxation purposes has been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might be included. There are all sorts of other minor expenditures which might be included under the Schedule if you are really going to find out what are the manufacturer's costs of production and sale. In these days I know it is considered by some people immoral to make a profit, although goodness knows why. I think that 5 per cent. on the cost of production, if you are to have a cost-plus system, is a pretty small figure. Presumably there are shareholders. If the business of making buttons is a business or a profit-making company it would not be exorbitant to expect, or unreasonable to expect, that shareholders in such a business should be entitled to 5 per cent. in a business of this nature, which is by no means gilt-edged—

Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough) rose

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Member will have an opportunity later. There is no limit to this Debate. I will be very pleased to answer any questions when he speaks. It should not be unreasonable to expect any shareholders in a business of this nature to get a reasonable percentage on their investments. If on a cost-plus basis the manufacturer is to get 5 per cent. on the cost of production, how much will be left for ploughing back profits to meet any emergency, or further development? I feel that this is a bad Order because any Order which brings in a system on a cost-plus basis is bad, and leads to inefficiency.

10.27 P.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

I deplore the fact that there are no Lady Members present, because this matter concerns the ladies. For the benefit of the House perhaps I might explain that these buttons, buckles and slides are decorative items, rather than utility items of women's clothes. My objection to the Order is two-fold; first, because it is an extremely clumsy Order, as my hon. Friends have pointed out—the method of cost-plus is not the best method of conducting a business of this character —and, secondly, because it is restrictive in effect on those engaged in the manufacture of these commodities. The second reason is perhaps the more important. This industry manufactures a great variety of goods of this character, costing as little as 40s. a gross to as much as a guinea, or two guineas, each. It is desirable in an industry of this character, which is mainly decorative in intention, that there should be the greatest latitude and liberty in design. The Council for Industrial Design has taken a great interest in these matters under the stimulus of the Board of Trade. Many garments, particularly women's garments, would, perhaps because of style, be unacceptable to the export trade, but, if adequately decorated, they are given fashion and distinction which make them commendable to the market.

I object to this Order because of its effect on fashion, and because it limits freedom of design. Obviously, the demand for these commodities is not a demand for mass production. It will not do for women to see each other wearing the same kind of ornament, and mass production in this conection is not desirable. A small quantity, well designed but neat, and then the moulds destroyed, is the best service the Government can give to those engaged in this industry. But this Order does not help that objective. If I manufacture a small article of which I have to sell more than a gross, 5 per cent. of my costs would probably be quite satisfactory.

If I am producing something, probably in all not more than a gross, and they are being distributed—a few to the home market, a few to the Canadian market, a few to the Argentine and a few to the Australian and South African markets, 5 per cent. will not cover the cost of my moulds nor indeed the expense of my design. This Order is calculated to defeat the object which I know the Board of Trade has very much in mind. It is defeating that individuality and distinction in character and style which we want to associate with women's dress, particularly for the export business. I would go further and on technical grounds draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this: that even accepting the cost-plus basis on the details on which I have to base my 5 per cent., there are as the House sees from (a)to (h)in the Order, factory overheads, and those members of the House who are familiar with the compilation of statistics will know what labour lies behind the preparation of these statistical analyses. To manufacture a few gross of buckles, buttons and slides I have to have an exact costing system which will relate the cost of those articles to the overheads. Included in these overheads we find rent, maintenance of premises plant and machinery, wear and tear of plant and machinery, which may only be a decimal point, heat, light and power, salaries and wages, cost of materials, transport and packing, and I submit at this stage it is almost impossible to find any factory costing an item such as that classified under 4 (h) Cost of Air Raid Precautions. That is no longer allowed, as I think the Minister must be aware, in the costing of any factory. I think this item, if the only one, should be regarded as redundant.

We pass to paragraph 5, dealing with general overheads Before I can arrive at the costing, 5 per cent. of which will be allowed under the Order, I have to have at least 30 overheads reduced to percentages before I can offer my goods to the public with the certainty that I am not contravening the Order by overcharging. It is like trying to bind an iron hoop round a rainbow. This is one of those commercially small businesses which is of an artistic character, and to fetter and hamper and restrict and tie it in this fashion is not in accordance with good business nor is it in the best interests of the Board of Trade itself. There may be many Statutory Rules and Orders which I could commend. I do not know who were the Parliamentary Secretary's advisers in this matter, but I feel certain that they were not persons of even ordinary business experience. Fashion is not a thing that can be managed in this way. If I had to choose between giving up a business as a manufacturer of buckles, buttons and slides and producing the statistics which this Order demands, I think I would prefer to retire from business and leave the carrying on of that business in the competent hands of the President of the Board of Trade.

10.34 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher)

I would have been quite hurt by the remarks of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) had I not been aware that what he has said about this particular Order, he has said on numerous other occasions about numerous other Orders. When he told the House that there might be some Orders about which he might find it possible to say nice things my spirit rose, and I looked forward to the day when I would find the hon. Member supporting an Order produced on the Floor of the House. So far I have not found any desire on his part to be helpful in supporting any Rule or Order produced by my Department. The hon. Member made one point which puzzled me. He said that this Order is calculated to defeat individuality by discouraging design and encouraging the production of statistics. I may, of course, have misunderstood him; but I did not follow his argument.

If the costs of the producer of buttons or any other article into which design enters are increased by the necessity of design, nevertheless he gets a constant five per cent. profit on costs, and his profit increases with the cost of the article. Therefore, I do not understand the argument that has been advanced by hon. Members opposite. The Board of Trade does recognise the importance of fashion and design and quality in goods, and we shall do nothing which is going to dis- courage those who are prepared to produce goods of the highest quality and the very best fashion. I will give the House a few facts. There are a small number of firms engaged in the industry and on the average they employ about forty people each. They are typical small producers. Up to the outbreak of war it was unprofitable. I recognise that. According to the accountants employed by this industry—and this is a rather important point—this profit of five per cent. on costs, in terms of capital employed, represents 11½ per cent. That was the figure accepted or advanced by the industry's accountants, and I do not think that that figure of 11½ per cent. on capital employed is a bad one in these days. It is not very high and it is not very low. In other words, it is reasonable.

An hon. Member behind me asked how much did the industry want. I will tell hon. Members. They want to make a net profit representing 33⅓per cent.—about three times the average of other industries under control. The average for others is about 10 per cent. We are giving this industry 11 per cent. But they are asking for 33⅓ per cent. If anyone has been reasonable in this matter, it is certainly the Board of Trade. I would be inclined to agree that if it is possible to devise an alternative system to control cost-plus, then we ought to find it, but I am afraid that in this case there is no satisfactory alternative. As the hon. Member for South Edinburgh has pointed out, this is an industry which deals with a very great variety of different types of buttons and if we were to try to control the price in relation to a schedule of maximum cash prices, then this could quite easily be avoided by the very slightest variation in design, especially when you are dealing with an article of quality which could be the subject of infinite variety of design, and in such a matter it is quite impracticable to relate price to design.

Mr. C. S. Taylor

Why control the button-making industry at all?

Mr. Belcher

I doubt whether that naivety is deliberate or assumed. I can assure hon. Members that these price controls are maintained because it is essential in the public interest that they be maintained.

Hon. Members

What is the public interest?

Mr. Belcher

It is in the public interest, in the first place, that prices at the present time shall be kept to the lowest possible level with fairness to producers. An hon. Member says, "Leave it to competition." Possibly that might be right; that might work. If there was sufficient space, and raw materials, and labour—and in many industries in this country to-day there are not sufficient of those things—the position would be very different, but I claim that we should be courting disaster at the moment if we lifted price control. Moreover, despite what hon. Members opposite are saying tonight, I do them the honour of believing that, if they found themselves by any chance in our position—and I do not think that that is probable—then, in those circumstances, I have no doubt that they would allow themselves to be persuaded that it was necessary to continue price control. We fully realise that it is going to be difficult to estimate on the basis of this cost-plus system the price of any button, but we shall not apply this price control with rigidity, but with imagination.

Sir. W. Darling


Mr. Belcher

I would remind the House that, even if the hon. Member on the back bench does not know it, we shall apply this Order with understanding and imagination.

Sir W. Darling

Has the hon. Gentleman had any complaints on the operation of price control committees?

Mr. Belcher

This Order started not as a result of any complaint about price control committees, nor was it initiated at the request of the Board of Trade, but because of requests from the trade itself more than a year ago. This Order could have been produced earlier but it has been held up because of representations from the trade and because new discussions and negotiations were made in an attempt to see if there was any conceivable way in which we could act on behalf of the trade. I will deal with these specific points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Spence). The hon. Member has asked about losses, but I would ask "How can there be a loss on a cost-plus basis?" He is receiving for his article what it costs plus five per cent. When manufacturers are finding difficulties they may get losses in these post-war years, and perhaps this rather more charitable Government will do something to help this industry to remain on its feet. This was not done by pre-war Governments, and we shall not let this industry starve in the post-war years. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr, C. S. Taylor) appeared to dislike the absence of control of prices on export goods but so far as I know prices would go sky high.

Mr. C. S. Taylor

I did not object to lack of control in the export market, but how can the manufacturer say what his costs are separately for the home market and the export market?

Mr. Belcher

In fact, what would happen is that he would not need to find a difference for his goods for export and his goods for home use. He would average out his costs of production over the whole field of export and home trade, and if he was doing a substantial export trade, that should be adding to his total amount of production. This would reduce his costs on the home market, and should give him an advantage, and he should make in the export field a very handsome profit. The hon. Member asked for inclusion in the schedule of other items. But I should like to point out that this schedule follows very closely the pattern of other schedules in similar Orders. I do not know about air raid precautions. I do not know that even we should criticise a manufacturer for looking into the future and thinking that a little expenditure on air raid precautions would be justified. I do not know, but I do not think we should be criticised by the hon. Member for being generous in allowing something which he thinks is unnecessary. In fact, where the schedule to this Order departs from the normal practice is that, because of the small nature of this industry, we have included wages of a works proprietor.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

While the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the schedule, would he say under which heading the fees of designers of these artistic buttons are to be included ?

Mr. Belcher

I am afraid I could not at the moment—unless they were included under wages and fees.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

But specialists fees?

Mr. Belcher

Specialists fees would be taken, I think, as liable to be included under the heading of wages and salaries. I think people generally would accept that, under that heading, payments out to anybody for services rendered to the company in the course of production would come under that heading. I think that would be the commonsense interpretation. Whether it would be a lawyer's or an accountant's interpretation I cannot say. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen asked me to have another look at the matter. As he knows, I always try to be reasonable about these affairs; and if I thought that there had been any skimping, if I thought this matter had not already been given due consideration, I should be prepared to say to him, "We will take it back and have a further look at it." But, after all, the matter was first broached I think, as far away as the Spring of 1946.

As I told the House, the Order could have been ready by July of that year. As a result of representations from the trade the whole thing was reopened and gone into. There have been discussions between the accountants representing the trade and accountants representing the Central Price Regulation Committee—long drawn out discussions, with every attempt on our part to meet the case made by these people. Having regard to the length of those negotiations and the attempts made by both sides to reach an agreeable solution, I really do not think that at this late date I could be expected to take the Order away and have a further look at it.

May I just say this? The figure I have given of the percentage which would be made by the industry on the 5 per cent. basis was 11½ per cent. To show how generous that can be in some circumstances. I would point out that there will be firms under this Order whose profit will be nearly 80 per cent. To ask that the figure of 5 per cent. should be increased to 14 per cent. on a cost-plus basis means asking for a fabulous profit to be allowed to those firms who, because of their efficiency or other reasons are at present able to make 80 is asking for something very big, indeed. I hope the House will support me in this Order. I do assure the House that in all these price control Orders all we are seeking to do is to protect the consumer with fairness to the manufacturer, and, on the whole, I think, we are succeeding in doing both. I would point out in this regard that the consumer of these articles is often not a purchaser buying only for herself or himself, but a purchaser buying in order to incorporate the articles in some other manufactured article, and we should not be assisting the thousands of manufacturers of women's outer garments and other articles of clothing if we were to allow the prices of these articles to be higher than they ought to be in all the circumstances.

Mr. Spence

I want to ask the Minister if he would deal with the question of perspex buttons and other types of plastics. I suggest that there are sufficient manufacturers providing the country with buttons at an economic price, and that the casein industry, which produces a very wide variety of articles, is unsuitable for this type of control because you have, in the same industry, a new article and destructive article, and a common one. There is a wide diversity of selling prices, and because of the work that goes on it would be unfair to apply a rigid rule. Would he reply particularly on the buttons not made of casein?

Mr. Belcher

They were not free of control but subject to control in 1939.

Mr. Spence

But these buttons did not exist then.

Mr. Belcher

But these buttons are not new lines in that sense. They were previously controlled on the June, 1942, level, and to say that they could not be controlled because they did not exist is not to state the fact. The fact is that they did exist.

10.53 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

It is a sad commentary on the state that we have got into that this great House of Commons of England has been discussing the control and prices of casein buttons. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he wishes to restore fairness between the producer and consumer of buttons. The best way he can restore fairness would be to remove price control and allow the producer of buttons to get on producing his buttons and allow the purchaser to buy them freely at whatever price they agree to. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he wishes to assist the industry to remain on its feet, but the best way he can do that would be to call off his Board of Trade hounds from this stricken deer. I wonder how many civil servants and officials of his occupy themselves with this simple little trade? I suppose there is some deputy secretary of the Board of Trade who concerns himself from time to time during the day with this. Under him there are no doubt a horde of officials, possibly some Button Restriction Order enforcement officers and a number of other people. What a lamentable state of

affairs. In this situation tonight, the button producing industry epitomises the whole of the plight of this country. What applies to buttons applies to shoes and clothing and food and everything else. Until this Government realises that it has the whole economic system of this country wildly disordered we shall never get back to sanity and sense.

Question put, That the Casein Buttons, Buckles and Slides (Manufacturers' Maximum Prices) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 949), dated 15th May, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 22nd May, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 181.

Division No. 291.] AYES. [10.56 p.m.
Barlow, Sir J. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Scott, Lord W.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Stanley, Rt, Hon. O.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Challen, C. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Studholme, H. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Maclay, Hon. J. S. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Crowder, Capt. John E Manningham-Buller, R. E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Darling, Sir W. Y. Marlowe, A. A H.
Drayson, G. B. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Maude, J. C. Mr. Spence and
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Neven-Spence, Sir B Mr. C. S. Taylor.
Hogg, Hon. Q. Raikes, H V.
Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South) Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Lindgren, G. S.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Evans, John (Ogmore) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Longden, F.
Attewell, H. C. Fairhurst, F. McAdam, W.
Awbery, S. S. Farthing, W. J. Mack, J. D.
Baird, J. Femyhough, E. McKinlay, A. S.
Balfour, A. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) McLeavy, F.
Bechervaise, A. E. Foot, M. M. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Belcher, J. W. Forman, J. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W
Berry, H. Foster, W. (Wigan) Mann, Mrs. J.
Blyton, W. R. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mathers, G.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Gibbins, J. Middleton, Mrs. L
Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Gibson, C. W. Mikardo, Ian
Brook, D. (Halifax) Glanviffe, J. E. (Consett) Mitchison, G. R
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Goodrich, H. E. Monslow, W.
Brown, T J.(Ince) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Moody, A. S.
Burden, T. W. Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood) Morley, R.
Burke, W. A. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S) Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side) Moyle, A.
Callaghan, James Hale, Leslie Murray, J. D.
Champion, A. J Hall, W. G[...] Nally, W.
Cooks, F. S. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Neal, H. (Claycross)
Coldrick, W. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Collindridge, F. Harrison, J. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Collins, V. J. Hastings, Dr Somerville Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Colman, Miss G. M. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Orbach, M.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G Herbison, Miss M Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N. W.) Holman, P. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Corlett, Dr. J. Hoy, J. Pearson, A.
Corvedale, viscount Hubbard, [...] Peart, Thomas F.
Crossman, R. H. S. Irving, W. J Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Paneras, S.E.) Porter, E. (Warrington)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Price, M. Philips
Delargy, H. J Keenan, W Pryde, D. J.
Diamond, J Kenyon, C. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Dobbie, W. King, E. M. Randall, H. E.
Denovan, T Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Ranger, J.
Driberg, T. E. N. Kirby, B. V. Rankin, J.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Lang, G. Reid, T (Swindon)
Dumpleton, C. W. Leonard, W Richards, R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lewis, A. W. J, (Upton) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Robens, A. Stross, Dr. B White, O. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Reberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Swingler, S. Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Symonds, A. L. Wilkes, L.
Royle, C. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wilkins, W. A.
Scollan, T. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Willey, D. G. (Cleveland)
Segal, Dr. S Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Shacklelon, E. A. A Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Sharp, Granville Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Wills, Mrs. E A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (St Helens) Tiffany, S. Woodburn, A
Silverman J (Erdington) Timmons, J. Woods, G. S
Simmons, C. J Titterington, M [...]. Wyatt, W.
Skeffington, A. M Ungoed-Thomas, L. Yates, V. F
Smith, S. H (Hull S. W.) Usborne, Henry Zilliacus. K
Snow, Capt J. W Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Solley, L. J. Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Sorensen, R W Watson, W. M. Mr Michael Stewart and
Sparks, J A Weilzman, D. Mr. Popplewell.
Stamford. W West, D. G.
Forward to