§ 11.35 p.m.
§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid (Glasgow, Hillhead)I beg to move:
That the Rationing (Personal Points) Order 1947 (Amendment) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O, 1947, No. 2786), dated 24th December, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 20th January, be annulled.I think it will be agreed that the whole food position of this country has now become so critical that it is the duty of this House to examine very carefully any further food cuts to ascertain if there is an overwhelming case for them or whether there is any possible way to avoid them. The cut announced in this particular Order—the Rationing (Personal Points) Order—would be a relatively minor matter if taken by itself against a background of reasonably adequate food supplies for the people. But this order follows on two other sugar cuts of 20 per cent. in the domestic ration and—I think I am right in saying this—of 25 per cent. in the manufacturing sugar ration, and it comes into effect at a time when the total rations for any person in this country cannot exceed 1,600 calories a day and when the only unrationed foods, for all practical purposes, are fish and cabbages. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there are millions of people getting less than 2,000 calories a day and that they cannot get more. That position is so serious that we must be extremely careful with regard to the manner in which we reduce that inadequate amount of food still further.I said the cut was comparatively small but surely it must be accepted that the converse is that the saving is comparatively small. It only amounts, I think, to 50,000 or 60,000 tons of sugar a year and we know that there are enormous stocks of sugar in the country and that we are being asked to pay a further £10 million by way of a Supplementary Estimate for sugar. So far as can be made out the only excuse which is offered is the excuse relating to dollars. I think the Minister of Food was not very happy a little time ago on the occasion when he said the stock was to be regarded as dollars and when he got into a bit of a muddle. I think I understood what he meant, but I hope the hon. Lady, his Parliamentary Secretary, will be able to confirm this.
518 The right hon. Gentleman meant, I think, two things. He meant, first, that if we use our sugar now we can only get more sugar by spending dollars; and secondly, that there are no dollars available. I think that that is what he had in mind. [Interruption.] I see the hour but I do not mind how long we go on. I do hope that the hon. Lady is going to give us a very full statement on these points tonight. I am quite prepared to listen to her and to be convinced if the statement is a convincing one, but the time has come when the House and the country ought to be made aware of the complicated situation, so that we may see where we stand. The only way we can get more sugar, we are told, is from dollar countries.
Before the war we imported more than a million tons of Empire sugar. Now we import less than half—just about a third—of the quantity we imported prewar Surely, that requires some justification, particularly as the Minister owns the whole exportable surplus of all the Empire countries, with, it may be one or two minor exceptions. I do not think that the Empire production has fallen very materially. I know that there has been a setback in Australia, but, by and large, my impression is that the Empire production has not fallen; and I want to ask the hon. Lady whether she and her Department have done anything to increase Empire production. It takes some time for any increase to come about but we ought to know whether the Department has been long-sighted enough to provide for any increase which we hope to enjoy in the next year or so.
I come to the next point: What has happened to all this extra sugar that we used to enjoy and do not get now? It is exported from the Empire. A lot of it that used to come here is exported from the producing Dominion or Colony to other countries, and a very large amount is exported from this country—I think the figure is 272,000 tons, according to a recent answer. I have no objection to sugar being used within the Empire for the proper needs of our fellow countrymen. Of course, that is right. I have no objection to sugar being exported for dollars on the footing that those dollars in their turn will be used to buy other foods of calorific value and that on the transaction we shall gain. But is it not a fact that a great deal of 519 this sugar goes to places where we do not get dollars for it, and that we do not get foods or other essential raw materials for it? About 120,000 tons from Mauritius went to non-dollar, non-Empire countries. What did we get in exchange? I do not know. We do not have conferences now as formerly. There are many things we do not get.
I expect the Minister is letting a good deal of sugar go out of his hands, not in exchange for dollars or to our fellow countrymen, but to someone in soft currency countries who is not paying us anything essential in return. If that is so the Minister is responsible for letting that sugar go. I suggest it would be very much better for the people, particularly for the children of Fulham and elsewhere, to have this sugar, rather than that it should be allowed to be sent away without getting anything valuable in return. I expect that is happening on a fairly large scale. I should like particulars of that. If we are sending sugar to certain countries which we saved during the war and which have stored up sterling claims against us, if we are sending sugar to them merely to meet those war debts and getting nothing in return, then the Government are highly culpable. I suggest that the hon. Lady should go to her constituents and say that she thinks they should go without sugar in order that people whom we saved should have it. What does the Department do with all the dollars it gets? Does it put them to good use? I am only going to talk of the hon. Lady's Department, although other Departments in the Government also, perhaps, use dollars on things that are not strictly necessary. But this is what the hon. Lady does with the dollars she has got. Last year, she spent, in the U.S.A. alone, £6 million worth of dollars on fruit, fruit juices and vegetables, whereas in 1946 she had only spent £1 million and a half. Was that provident? Would we not have been in a much better position if we had had these dollars today with which to buy sugar, or even in the last six months since the crisis was admitted by the Government—
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)I am not quite clear from where the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets the present argument. Would he explain how this is relevant to the order?
§ Mr. ReidI am saying, though perhaps I did not make the basis of my argument quite clear because I wanted to save time, that the hon. Lady's Department has wasted dollars during the last 12 months and I want to be assured that this wasteful practice has stopped.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerHow does the right hon. and learned Gentleman relate that matter to the question of the order before the House?
§ Mr. ReidIn this way. The only excuse that the Minister has given for not getting more sugar for us is that he has not got any dollars to spend. If I can show that he has the dollars but is spending them on the wrong things, surely, I can perhaps induce him to stop buying things that are not essential and start buying things that are essential and thereby avoid the cut in this Order. That is what I am seeking to do. I am showing that in the past the Department has been highly improvident in the way that it has spent money, and I want some assurance that it is being more provident today. During August, September and October, after the crisis broke, the Department spent £1 million and a quarter on fruit in dollar areas and all we want is £1 million and a quarter pounds.
§ Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, North)Is it possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to wander all over the field of the Department's expenditure in dollars?
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerThat is what I am waiting to see.
§ Mr. ReidI am showing concrete instances where exactly the sum required to meet this was wasted last autumn. It seems to me that that is a good argument to show that this cut would never have been necessary if there had been good management on the part of the Department. I could give many more but I do not intend, in view of the lateness of the hour, to give any more. But I will just say that I hope the hon. Lady does not think that the people of this country prefer to see expensive fruits in the shops rather than have sweets for their children, because that is what has been happening. I am perfectly willing to listen to a full account of the present position. If it turns out—as we say, through mismanagement in the Department, but, as no doubt the Department 521 says, through something that it was unable to foresee but, which nevertheless, has happened—that the Department cannot restore the amount and can prove that we have been brought so low, then, of course, we must be realists. But I ask the hon. Lady if it is as bad as all that?
Could she consider this? Those who suffer most in respect of the cuts in sweets are undoubtedly the children. It would not be at all difficult, administratively, to make a differentiation in favour of the children. The green and blue books are easily distinguishable from those which we have and it would not be in the least difficult to allow the holders of these books an extra sweet ration. I ask the hon. Lady, therefore, to consider it and tell us whether she thinks she can make this concession. It would require only a very small amount of sugar. There are, I believe, something like 13 million of these books in the country, and I assume that to give back the cut to the holders would cost something in the region of £300,000 to £400,000 a year in dollars. Have we really fallen so low that although we have this food in our possession in immense quantities, although people are down to 2,200 calories a day—that is the hon. Lady's own figure—nevertheless, we must deny them anything extra out of our own storehouse because that future is so black that we must keep back every ounce of what we can possibly deprive the people at the moment? Is the position really as black as that? if it is, then let us make an end to all pretence that the people of this country are properly fed.
§ 11.51 p.m.
§ Colonel Stoddart-Scott (Pudsey and Otley)In the few remarks I am going to make, I hope the hon. Lady will not think I am going to try to teach my grandmother to suck eggs. I am sure that she knows—and that every mother in the country knows—that children in this country are not getting enough sugar and sweets. Now, when there is so little sugar in a household to add to cakes and puddings, there is no doubt that in all children at the moment there is a carbohydrate starvation. Indeed, the hon. Lady's Department has realised this to such extent that they have arranged that on a doctor's prescription sugar and sweets can be obtained from any chemist's shop without having to give 522 up coupons. I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should extend that, and make it more fully known to the general public that when their children are short of sugar they can go to a doctor and get a prescription to obtain extra sweets without giving up coupons. Will she also make it known to all pharmacists and chemists in this country that they have to stock these sweets? On every occasion on which I have' written out a prescription for my own children to get sweets, I have never found a chemist who knew that he had to dispense the prescription. Even after it was brought to his notice, it was some weeks before one could get barley sugar. Will she make it possible for these prescriptions to be honoured at ordinary sweet shops?
During the war we were able to produce in this country sufficient beet sugar to provide the whole of the domestic sugar ration. Indeed, during wartime we were able to grow enough to be able to send some hundreds of thousands of tons of sugar to Russia, and the 1946 crop was the largest beet sugar crop ever grown in this country. Therefore, I want to suggest that if we are going short—if our ration is cut down in this country—it is because the hon. Lady's Department was exporting sweets and chocolates at the expense of our own children. I sincerely hope that on the blue and green ration books it will be possible to restore the 1 lb. per month ration of sweets. Therefore, I suggest that, in respect of the blue and green ration books, the order be amended tonight.
§ 11.55 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill)The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has on many occasions stood at that Box and raised questions concerning food. I must confess, after listening to him, that he displayed a deplorable ignorance of the procedure which my Ministry has adopted. It is difficult to believe that he has sat in this House and heard Questions answered from this Box on Mondays and Wednesdays each week, and yet has not got any answer to some of the simple questions which he has asked. I must admit also that it surprised me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a responsible Member of this House, should 523 pray against this order at this particular time, knowing full well that it was designed to reduce our adverse balance of payments. He comes to this House, and asks us to ignore the difficult position with which this country is faced today, and quite lightly says, "What is this small amount; reverse your decision?" May I ask him to recall that he has asked why certain sugar is exported to different parts of the world? Has he forgotten that the International Emergency Food Council asked this country to distribute sugar to the Dominions and Colonies?
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidI agree that that was right.
§ Dr. SummerskillWhy is it, he asks, that this sugar is going to different parts. Has he forgotten—and I believe he has studied this question for some years—that we do an excellent business in the processing of sugar? When he looks at the Trade and Navigation Accounts—and I remember he referred me to them when I was new to this Bench—
§ Dr. SummerskillI agree it is an important thing, but when he looks at the import figure in those accounts he will see it is a global figure and is not broken down to help him. It is unfortunate that there is not a postscript to give him the information which I now want to give him. That global figure is of imports of sugar covering the full amount which the International Emergency Food Council allocated to the Dominions and Colonies. A good deal of this leaves the country. He must also remember that we earn a large number of dollars by importing large quantities of sugar, processing it here and exporting it. The total exports of refined sugar were 286,700 tons of which 180,900 tons were supplied to the importing Dominions and Colonies from the raw sugar supplies allocated by the International Emergency Food Council. The balance of 105,800 tons was shipped to various European and Middle East countries.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said this sugar is going to countries where we cannot earn dollars, that it is not going to our friends, or to the sterling area. He asks why we are being so improvident to send it to people who do not matter. 524 To him, perhaps, Switzerland does not matter. But we do an excellent business in importing sugar, refining it and exporting it, and this sugar is sent out of this country on a replacement basis. I am not ashamed to tell the House that we are economising in this country. We have reduced the domestic ration for sugar from 10 to 8 0z. and have cut the manufacturing allocation by 25 per cent. in order to earn dollars.
The House will recall that the Cabinet decided that this cut should be made in October and the cut was imposed in January. I thought that members here would perhaps raise the grievances of the manufacturers who felt possibly that we should not have imposed a cut on the sweets at the same time as we imposed the cut on sugar; but the manufacturers, I think, together with other people who use sugar in their industry, have accepted this cut quite generously. When we were told to make this cut in order to utilise the sugar for export we decided that the best thing to do this year was to supply the Colonies and Dominions with the savings which would be effected from the domestic ration and manufacturing usage this year. The result is that by the end of 1948 we should only have a bare working margin. So far as the exports to other countries are concerned, an hon. Member asked, "Why are we sending the children's sugar abroad?" We are sending chocolate and sugar confectionery abroad to the extent of 17,000 tons compared with a home consumption of about 270,000 tons. This total includes provision for the Colonies and Dominions at the lowest level consistent with maintaining our markets.
I think it has been agreed that my Ministry, which is a big business concern, should maintain these markets and, therefore, we do make these token exports. The balance, giving a target of some 10,000 tons is destined to reach hard currency areas, particularly in the Western hemisphere. The hon. and gallant Member opposite asked about the children's sweets. Does he realise this simple fact—that by exporting sugar as confectionery in this form to hard currency areas we get dollars which can then be translated into animal feedingstuffs which become meat and eggs for the children?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether we were conducting our 525 affairs in a more businesslike fashion than we did last year. I think you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ruled that question out of Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy-Speaker questioned this and so I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman carefully because I found no relation between the question about what we did last year and the Prayer against the order. What I want to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that the prices of the foods we imported from the United States increased by 50 per cent. If he examines our programme for 1948 he will find that we are importing the very minimum.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel StoddartScott) is a medical man, and he surprised me by getting up and charging us with taking the children's sweets and thereby reducing their resistance to disease. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what the Government are doing."] Indeed, I give only one answer. I am not pitting my knowledge as a doctor against that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough)He has a very different practice anyway.
§ Dr. SummerskillI have only one answer to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Has he looked at the infantile mortality rate for the last quarter? It was the lowest on record. That is my answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who charges us with starving the children.
§ 12.6 a.m.
§ Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)We have had a most unsatisfactory reply. The hon. Lady was asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) to alter this cut so that the people holding green ration books and blue ration books should be given 1 lb. of sweets, which they had before the last cut. The only answer the hon. Lady can give is that the infantile' mortality rate has gone down in the last quarter. Where is the connection? If she wants to leave out, in considering the green ration books, the expectant mothers—
§ Dr. SummerskillThe hon. Gentleman does not apparently know that expectant mothers have grey ration books.
§ Mr. TurtonWe should give the holders of grey ration books, the extra 4 0z. as well. I do not see why expectant mothers 526 should not have that little extra, notwithstanding the current infantile mortality figure. What would it mean? According to my calculation, 14,000 tons. The hon. Lady should have dealt with that point when she was answering my right hon. and learned Friend. Why cannot we spare 14,000 tons of sugar to give the children 1 lb. of sweets a month?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Grey ration books."]—It is early in the morning and we can go on until much later. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to jeer. Let them go to their constituencies and tell their constituents that they are denying the children 14,000 tons of sugar, while the Government export 17,000 tons to children abroad. That is the answer to hon Members who jeer. The Government they support peg wages and cut the sweet ration. That is what the Socialist Government do.
I am not asking for more sweets for grown up people. I believe the sweet ration at the moment is making adult people eat far more sweets than they ever ate before the war. I do ask that the children should have all the sweets they require. That is what this Government are denying them. They are giving them now the same amount they had when we had the submarine menace during the war. I hope the House will vote for the Prayer to reject the Minister's argument.
§ 12.11 a.m.
§ Mr. Dodds-Parker (Banbury)I want to put one point to the Minister and ask her for a reply. Throughout her speech she insinuated that there is a shortage of sugar and, therefore, presumably her Department is making every effort to get as much sugar as possible. When I was in Uganda recently, I myself saw 40,000 bags of sugar in store waiting to find a market and the reply of everybody I asked there was that the Ministry of Food had made no effort in Uganda to step up production of sugar and bring it to this country. I would put it to the Minister most seriously that the figure given by my hon. Friend only represents some 14,000 tons. If the Minister had made any sort of effort, it would have been perfectly possible to step up the production of sugar in this one place, without mentioning any of the other sugar production areas in the Empire, so as to have enough sugar to meet the amount for which we are asking in this Prayer.
§ 12.13 a.m.
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidThe right hon. Lady took all her time in answering points I did not make. She completely failed to answer the points I did make and, therefore, I shall certainly advise my friends to show their protest against her attitude in the Division Lobby. I would like to say one other thing. I should have thought that, whatever divided the two sides of the House at this time, we should all have been conscious of the extremely serious position of the feeding of the people of this country. It surprises me a great deal,
§ and it is right the public should know the way—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentlemen opposite, far from realising the situation, are contented to greet it with ribald laughter.
§
Question put:
That the Rationing (Personal Points) Order, 1947 (Amendment) Order, 1947 (S R. & O., 1947, No. 2786), dated 24th December, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 20th January, be annulled.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 205.
529| Division No. 77.] | AYES. | [12.14 a.m. |
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Hope, Lord J. | Studholme, H. G. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Langford-Holt J. | Thomas, P. L. (Hereford) |
| Challen, C | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Thornton-Kemsley, C N |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow) | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Turton, R. H. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Sir W. W. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Marshall, D. (Bodmin) | Wheatley, Col. M J. (Dorset, E.) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Mellor, Sir J. | White, J. B. (Centerbury) |
| Drewe, C. | Neven-Spence, Sir B | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) | Odey, G. W. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Grant, Lady | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Haughton, S. G. | Spence, H. R. | Lord William Scott and |
| Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. | Mr. Boyd-Carpenter. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Sir R | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Deer, G. | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Delargy, H. J. | Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) |
| Attewell, H. C. | Diamond, J. | Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Baird, J. | Dobbie, W. | Janner, B. |
| Barstow, P. G. | Dodds, N. N. | Jeger, G. (Winchester) |
| Barton, C. | Driberg, T E N. | Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Dumpleton, C W | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) |
| Beswick, F. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) |
| Bing, G. H. C. | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Keenan, W. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Evans, A. (Islington, W.) | Kenyon, C. |
| Bottomley, A. G. | Evans, John (Ogmore) | King, E. M. |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Kinley, J. |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Ewart, R. | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) | Farthing, W J | Lindgren, G S. |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Fernyhough, E | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. |
| Bramall, E. A. | Field, Capt. W J. | Longden, F. |
| Brock, D. (Halifax) | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Lyne, A. W. |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Foot, M. M. | McEntee, V. La T |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | McGhee, H G. |
| Burke, W. A. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Mack, J. D. |
| Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.) | Gibson, C W. | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) |
| Callaghan, James | Glanville, J. E. (Consett) | McKinlay, A. S. |
| Carmichael, James | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) | McLeavy, F. |
| Champion, A J. | Grey, C. F. | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) |
| Cocks, F. S. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Coldrick, W | Gunter, R. J. | Macpherson, T. (Romford) |
| Collindridge, F | Guy, W. H. | Mallalieu, J. P. W. |
| Collins, V. J. | Haire, John E. (Wycombe) | Mathers, Rt. Hon. G. |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | Hale, Leslie | Medland, H. M. |
| Cook, T. F. | Hardy, E. A. | Mellish, R. J. |
| Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. | Hastings, Dr Somerville | Middleton, Mrs. L. |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Mikardo, Ian |
| Corlett, Dr. J. | Herbison, Miss M. | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Cove, W G | Hobson, C. R. | Monslow, W. |
| Crawley, A | Holman, P | Moody, A. S. |
| Crossman, R H S. | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Daggar, G | House, G. | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Hoy, J. | Moyle, A. |
| Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Nally, W. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Neal, H. (Claycross) |
| Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Segal, Dr. S. | Tiffany, S. |
| Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) | Timmons, J. |
| Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Telley, L |
| O'Brien, T. | Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. | Ungoed-Thomas, L. |
| Oliver, G. H. | Silverman, J (Erdington) | Walkden, E. |
| Orbach, M. | Skeffington, A. M. | Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst) |
| Paling, Will T. (Dawsbury) | Skinnard, F. W. | Warbey, W. N. |
| Palmer, A. M. F. | Smith, C. (Colchester) | Watkins, T. E. |
| Pargiter, G. A. | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) | Watson, W. M. |
| Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Snow, J. W. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Paton, J. (Norwich) | Sorensen, R. W. | West, D. G. |
| Pearson, A. | Soskice, Sir Frank | Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Platts-Mills, J. F. F. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Popplewell, E. | Stokes, R. R. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Porter, E. (Warrington) | Stross, Dr. B. | Wigg, George |
| Porter, G. (Leeds) | Stubbs, A. E. | Willey, F T (Sunderland) |
| Price, M. Philips | Summerskill, Dr. Edith | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Proctor, W. T. | Swingler, S. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Sylvester, G. O | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Randall, H. E. | Symonds, A. L. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Ranger, J | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) | Willis, E. |
| Robens, A. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Wills, Mrs. E. A. |
| Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) | Woodburn, A. |
| Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) | Yates, V. F. |
| Ross, William (Kilmarnock) | Thomas, George (Cardiff) | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Royle, C. | Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) | |
| Sargood, R. | Thurtle, Ernest | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins. |