§ In paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section one of the principal Act for the words "comprehensive enough to provide adequately for," there shall he substituted the words "likely to promote."—[Sir T. Dugdale.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir T. Dugdale
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the comprehensiveness of schemes put forward under this Bill and under the Hill Farming Act. By and large, I think there have been cases during the past five years where schemes have been turned down because they were not considered comprehensive. Although in recent years, and certainly in recent months, I understand there has been much more flexibility of administration, we feel that words such as are proposed in this Clause would be useful in the actual statute itself, to give statutory guidance to the various committees who have to administer the scheme.
Its purpose is to amend the original Act so that farmers who wish to benefit from the principal Act or from this Bill need not put forward a fully comprehensive scheme, provided that the improvements are likely to increase the productive capacity of the farm for livestock rearing purposes. Further than that, we think, especially at this time when we are spending Government money, it behoves the House to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer to the greatest possible extent. We feel that if we retain the words,… comprehensive enough to provide adequately for.…there may be a waste of public money.
1620 The farmer may want a new road which might make the whole difference to the productivity of his farm, yet it may be suggested that, because he only wants a road, his scheme is not "comprehensive" and he may have to provide various things on the holding all good in themselves but not absolutely essential. We hope that the Government can see their way to accept this Clause, or can provide some different form of words between now and the Report stage to show that they accept the necessity of flexibility in approving schemes.
§ Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)
In a few words, I should like to support this Clause. I have been told that one of the reasons for which schemes have been turned down is because to make them comprehensive it was necessary that they should cover more than one farm and it was not possible for a small farmer always to carry with him neighbouring farmers. Improvements that he personally was quite willing to make on his own farm have been turned down on the ground that his neighbour was not willing to take, or could not find the money for, his share of similar improvements in the farm next door.
If that is the interpretation which is to be put on "comprehensive," it seems to me that we should make a little clearer the purpose which we have in mind so that a clear direction may be given to those who have to administer the Bill. I suggest, therefore, that the words in the new Clause would give sufficient direction to the Administration.
What is the question that has to be answered in each case? I suggest that it 1621 is this: will the suggested improvement increase the amount of livestock bred and maintained on the land, or will it not? If it does, surely that should be sufficient under this Measure, whether or not the scheme is entirely comprehensive. Surely that must be the test. If that test can be met, surely the scheme should qualify for a grant.
Second, it may not be possible, as it very often is not, for a farmer, especially a small farmer, to meet his share of a comprehensive scheme. If a scheme which he puts up will in itself contribute to the increase of stock, then surely he should be allowed to make little improvements as he can and as he can afford to make them, provided it is certain that the improvements will not be lost thereafter. It seems to me that those two points are absolutely vital to the small farmer, and that unless he is able to phase his own programme in accordance with his own pocket I do not think we shall get very far with this Measure.
§ Mr. Snadden
I, too, wish to add a word in support of this new Clause. I think that a weakness of this type of legislation is its voluntary nature—there is no compulsion about it—and that the landowners with small financial resources are those less likely to take advantage of improvement schemes under the Bill. Yet they are generally the people who generally look after their places fairly well. We do not want to encourage just the big man, with ample funds, to go in for those schemes. We need to encourage the smaller man also, who is hard up, or short of cash.
The comprehensive nature of the schemes granted under the Hill Farming Act tended, in general, to scale off quite a large number of people who felt that they could not face up to even a 50 per cent. demand because of the comprehensive nature of these schemes. I know of some instances where that was the case, and I hope we shall not have anything like that under the Bill.
I recognise that the general intention is to put holdings on an economic self-supporting basis, but I think it would be a great mistake if we placed too much emphasis on the comprehensiveness of these schemes, because by so doing we should deprive farmers and the country of many of the advantages which would otherwise 1622 accrue under this Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that his administration in this connection will be flexible, and that the smaller man with less financial strength will be able to play a good part and be encouraged to go in for these schemes.
§ Mr. Grimond
I should like to add a few words on this problem. There is no area in which this Measure might do more good than the Highlands. In the crofting counties and other Highland counties a good deal of land is held in small holdings or small crofts, such as common grazings and scattolds. I believe that under the Hill Farming Act the Department of Agriculture in Scotland took the initiative in encouraging crofters to draw up schemes. I do not think many of those were actually accepted, but I very much hope that that sort of assistance will be given as widely as possible. It is difficult for crofters or smallholders to get together and draw up a sound scheme unless they have assistance in drafting the scheme. That assistance could usefully be given by the Department, as has sometimes happened in the past.
There is a slight danger that when we come to interpret a selective Measure such as this Bill, it may go hard on the smaller man. He may not be able to say that he can make a big return, but if we could have a group of men in a crofting district, or a group of smallholders together tackling the problem of their roads and fencing, and draining and liming their land, I feel that immense wealth could be added to this country.
It is a very serious matter that the population is leaving the land in the Highlands and Islands. We shall never produce the food we require unless we persuade people to return to the land. I know that the Under-Secretary is sympathetic to us in this difficulty, and I hope he will look favourably upon what I understand is the object of the new Clause—to widen slightly the provisions of the Bill and make it possible to encourage groups of people to get together and draw up schemes in their own areas.
§ Mr. Fort
As the first English Member to discuss this problem after the last three Scottish Members, I should like to point out that we have exactly the same problem of the small man who is held back from entering these schemes because of 1623 their comprehensive nature, certainly in East Lancashire and, I believe, in other parts of England. I know from my own experience of farmers in my own locality who have been prevented from going ahead with schemes under the Hill Farming Act because they have not been able to raise the necessary 50 per cent. required for a full comprehensive scheme, although they would be able to put down the money for a smaller scheme.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate that he recognises that this difficulty is already with us. Certainly, in the poorer farming parts of England, such as East Lancashire, small farmers will be prevented from taking advantage of schemes under the Bill if only full comprehensive schemes can be proceeded with. I hope to hear that we shall have some relaxation on this question of comprehensiveness.
§ Mr. Turton
I wish to remove a misapprehension from the mind of the Minister about this new Clause. In the Second Reading debate he spoke of this as a good debating point but having no substance in fact. I can assure him that this is a factor which is really hindering development of hill farming throughout England. If the Minister went into any of these small farms in the North Riding of Yorkshire and spoke of a hill farming scheme, the first reaction of the farmer would be, "It will put up my rent. I cannot afford it because the 'war ag.' will order me to have a bathroom in my house, and that will not bring me any more profit." That is the common reaction.
I agree that the Minister has had a certain success with the Hill Farming Act, but if he will look at his own figures he will find that the average scheme is for over £2,000. That is quite all right for the large land-owner, but it shows that the small owner-occupier is not getting the benefit of that Act. Unless this alteration is made he will not get the benefit of this Bill either, and I attach tremendous importance to his inclusion within the scope of the Bill. I believe we could produce a great deal more meat in this country if we encouraged these small owner-occupiers to go ahead and improve their farms. With our present limited capital expenditure I believe it 1624 is far wiser to spend a small amount of money on a great number of farms than to have some big, comprehensive scheme for one or two estates.
The Minister said, earlier today, that he had adopted this line because it was recommended by the De La Warr and Balfour Reports. I have not the Balfour Report in my hand, but I have here the De La Warr Report and I think if the Minister re-reads it he will find that the word "comprehensive" does not occur once. It talks of co-ordinating schemes, but never about comprehensive schemes. I hope the Minister will try to meet what the Report said on this matter, which, I believe, is vital.
It is my view that if we could have expenditure on roads and covered yards in the hill areas of this country we could increase by 20 per cent. the livestock which is being carried—and that is a deliberate under-estimate on my part. I do not think we shall obtain the same increase in livestock through other branches of our expenditure. There are many of these improvements which are affected, and there are other Acts from which farmers can draw benefit—such as drainage and housing improvements. For instance, I should like to see covered yards on these very cold farms on the hills. That is the way in which we shall get the meat we require.
May I draw an analogy with Northern Ireland, where the Government of Northern Ireland have given specific grants of 50 per cent. for roads? When I visited Northern Ireland what impressed me was the way in which the small owner-occupiers had vastly increased their livestock production as a result of the 50 per cent. grant for roads—a grant which we, in this country, have been denied. I am not arguing the wider case from that, but it does show that a limited improvement scheme which satisfies the Minister will mean more livestock produced and will secure for us the meat which this country requires.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Spearman (Scarborough and Whitby)
I hope the Minister will accept this Clause, which will enable him to administer the Bill in a more flexible manner. There are many things on these hill farms which are very desirable in order to improve the social amenities, but 1625 which will not make much difference to the actual food production. On the other hand, there are a few things which are absolutely vital if we are to have maximum food production. I believe it is the inability of the Ministry to distinguish between those two which is causing damage today.
It is, I am afraid, in line with the lowest standards of the Minister's colleagues elsewhere, for I believe there is nothing more disastrous in the economic policy of the Government than their complete inability to measure priorities. It is this inability to put first things first which will cost the country so dear when we come to pay the price. Those of us who think rather better of the Minister of Agriculture than of some of his colleagues are sorry that in this small matter he has not shown a shining example instead of falling to the depths of other Ministries.
A friend of mine, who owns many farms in the North Riding of Yorkshire, was anxious to improve them, and he met three or four Ministry officials to discuss with them improvements which might take place. At that meeting it was made quite clear to him that he would receive a grant only if he did all sorts of things which he had never intended to do. He refused to do them for two reasons—and this is an example of many cases which I could give from the North Riding.
His reasons were, first of all, that the cost of carrying out the requirements of the Ministry would increase the price enormously—and that meant, of course, the price a year ago; prices would be higher today. To pay 5 per cent. on his share of the cost and 2½ per cent. on the total cost, in order to have that reasonable requirement from his tenant in increased rent, he would have to increase the rent of one farm by over 50 per cent. and of another farm by over 60 per cent. and, in the case of a third farm, he would have had to more than double the rent. These farmers are quite prepared to pay a considerably increased rent for projects which will earn money, but they are not prepared to pay a bigger rent for those things which the Minister of Agriculture thinks will be nice for them to have but which they do not think are necessary. They just cannot afford it.
Another reason why this landlord refused to undertake the scheme was this. He has a number of other farms. If he 1626 proceeded to spend £5,000 on nonessentials on certain of his farms all the other tenants would come to him and say, "What do you mean by putting in w.c.s, concrete pathways and things like that, which they do not need, when you do not give us the hay barns and the covered yards we need?"
The Ministry's action in this matter has had the most unhappy effect on food production. This friend of mine wrote to the Minister pointing out these things, and this is the reply he received:Any scheme approved by the Ministry under Section 1 of the 1946 Act is required to he comprehensive and to provide for the complete rehabilitation of the holding concerned both as regards fixed equipment and also the land. It is unlikely that the Ministry would readily agree to any deletions.Another constituent applied for a grant to do certain work. He was told that he could receive a grant only if the tubing involved were put in by hand, which would add enormously to the cost, and if there was a concrete and brick building, which he thought unnecessary. He found that the cost of doing those things would mean that his share would be more than the total cost of doing the job in his own way without a grant. In this case he was able to afford it and, therefore, no harm was done; but in other cases the farmer cannot afford it.
I should not like to compare the Minister of Agriculture with the former Minister of Health, because if I did so in a public place I might be involved in a libel action—and I do not know who would be the first to act; but it seems to me that the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter would be rather like that of the Ministry of Health if they said to a man suffering from appendicitis, "We will get you into a hospital and deal with your appendicitis, but we have got to make a job of it and we will only do it provided we take out your tonsils, which are enlarged, straighten your nose, which has a disagreeable curve, and decrease your weight by 15 lb."—and, no doubt, carry out other physical improvements.
That seems to me to be the attitude of the Ministry in these comprehensive grants, and I do ask the Minister to look at the matter again, and to see if he cannot look at it from a horizontal rather than a vertical angle, with a view to the 1627 tackling of the necessary jobs on each part of a farm one at a time.
§ Captain Duncan
I regard this matter as of very considerable importance, particularly in the part of Scotland that I come from, because I know it is holding up, in spite of what has been said, the submission of applications for schemes under the Hill Farming Act. I want to stress one point. When that Act was passed there was a certain set of conditions. Now there is a different set of conditions, because the demands for working capital for the farmer are very much heavier today than they were when the Act was passed.
I am not talking about the large farmer at the moment. He can look after himself, more or less. It is the small man with whom I am concerned at the moment, whose working capital has had to be increased in many cases to maintain the profitability of these farms. With the increased costs—abolition of fertiliser subsidies things like that—the increased costs of farming today do mean an increased amount of working capital, and working profitability has to be maintained, and the accretion of capital can only be slow. Therefore, if the small farmer is to put in a scheme, as we all want him to do, he must not be asked to put in a scheme that is too expensive, and if it is too comprehensive it will be too expensive. Therefore, I do regard this as of some great importance in the farming conditions of today.
§ Mr. G. Brown
There has been a lot of talk about scaring folk off—I think that was the expression used by one hon. Member—by the comprehensive requirement. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that it hindered the working of the Hill Farming Act. We have had all sorts of things of that kind said. I must tell hon. Members that all the money allotted under the original Act has been bespoken—the whole of it. We have, in fact, come to an end of our discretionary million, and it means that from between £8,000,000 and £10 million has, in fact, been mortgaged. So it is quite reasonable to assume from our present experience that we shall have little difficulty in using the money provided by the new Bill.
1628 I will deal with the argument about the comprehensive scheme. I want to make it clear that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the comprehensive requirement is holding up schemes because of the capacity of the money we have available. The arguments against it, I think, can very easily be dealt with. First of all, one must remember that we are here using public money to grant aid on a very generous scale for improvements of privately owned, privately farmed, land.
I think it would be held to be quite wrong on both sides of the Committee that public money should be used on this very generous basis unless we were quite sure that the result would be to rehabilitate the land on which the money was being spent. Various little things that want doing, can, after all, be assisted under various other schemes—the marginal production scheme, the lime subsidy, and things of that kind. Here, we are dealing with a different thing. It is intended to rehabilitate land to which the money is applied.
I am rather glad I have the opportunity of catching up the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who almost caught me on one foot a little earlier in the debate, by pointing out what the Balfour of Burleigh Report states, at the bottom of page 86 and the top of page 87. It is on that excellent Report that the Bill is based. That Report stated:The State must be prepared to pay a substantial part of the cost, but should make its contribution only in respect of ordered programmes of improvement of a comprehensive character.A very strict admonition is given not to use money in any other way. It is quite true that in the De La Warr Report the word "comprehensive" is replaced by the word "co-ordinated," but if the hon. Member will read paragraph 49, where it is stated that these schemes should form part of a co-ordinated scheme, I think he will agree that it is not unfair to say that "co-ordinated" there has much the same meaning as "comprehensive" has in the Balfour of Burleigh Report, although the words are not the same. Certainly, the Balfour of Burleigh Report was talking in terms only of comprehensive schemes. But the first justification for using a lot of public money must be that the results will, or are likely to be, beneficial, and so we should use the money really to 1629 promote the sorts of schemes we have; and that to say we should use the money really to promote rehabilitation of land seems to me to make the wording rather more vague, and to take away from the spirit of the intention of the thing.
I have great sympathy with those who say we want this money to go to the small chaps as well as the bigger chaps. Some hon. Members have expressed anxiety about whether the small men will be covered by the new Bill. The small men are covered. Somebody talked about crofters coming in, and a number of schemes. I have said that small men are covered. We can, I hope—and certainly will—provide assistance for those small men technical assistance by way of drawing up schemes which, one recognises, they cannot do themselves.
One hon. Member complained that schemes have rather fallen down because neighbours would not or could not play their parts. That is a difficulty, but, here again, one would want to be sensible about it. One could hardly justify using public money on a scheme which, for its success, depended upon the next door fellow's also coming in. In some circumstances that could lead to a wicked waste of public money. That is obviously a difficulty. However, our experience has shown that there is little difficulty about this, and I think that much of the difficulty may be conjured up in one's imagination, and that one can, in fact, expect much more trouble about getting the comprehensive scheme than we have found, in practice, we do get.
In so far as it is thought that these comprehensive schemes will not benefit a man who has a lot of capital immediately available, let us remember that we pay grant as the work progresses bit by bit, and so, although the total cost of a scheme may look rather frightening, there is no reason why that should hold up the
§ job. A man does the job in bits, and, naturally, gets the grant in bits, and is covered just as if it were not a comprehensive scheme; and we shall have made a real contribution to the rehabilitation of the land.
§ The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) has raised before some details of cases in which he thought we had not been as sensible as we might have been. I am looking into those, and I shall be glad to look into the case he mentioned today, although I may say that my researches do not so far back up any extravagant claims he might make against us.
§ I hope the Committee will not depart from the scheme as we have outlined it in the Bill. It might not be so valuable were we to depart from this. I can assure the Committee that we shall administer the requirement as reasonably, sensibly, and practically as we can, and that if anyone at any time feels that one of our people administers it in a way that is not sensible we shall be glad to investigate the case. I hope the Committee will not press us to depart from what. I think, is a valuable part of the scheme.
§ Mr. Grimond
The Minister has shown some sympathy with the difficulties of small farmers and crofters, and has suggested that they may be helped to draw up the schemes. In view of the fact that they have the very greatest difficulty in finding the balance of the money necessary for these schemes, is there any chance of their being able to get assistance by way of loan?
§ Mr. G. Brown
We cannot provide that in the Bill, but there may well be various other means. I will look into that though.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 195.1633
|Division No. 30.]||AYES||[8.2 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)||Channon, H.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)||Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)|
|Amery, J. (Preston, N.)||Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Clarke, Brig. T. H (Portsmouth, W.)|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Bossom, A C||Clyde, J L.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G||Colegate, A|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Browne, J. N. (Govan)||Conant, Maj. R. J. E|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)|
|Baldock J. M.||Bullock, Capt. M.||Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Burden, Squadron Leader F. A||Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.|
|Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)||Carson, Hon. E||Crouch, R. F|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)||Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)|
|Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lambert, Hon. G.||Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Roper, Sir H.|
|de Chair, S.||Lindsay, Martin||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Deedes, W. F||Llewellyn, D.||Russell, R. S.|
|Digby, S. Wingfield||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. O|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Scott, Donald|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M||Low, A. R. W.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W|
|Drewe, C||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||McCallum, Maj. D.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Duncan, Caps. J. A. L.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Duthie, W S||McKibbin, A.||Spearman, A. C. M|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Stanley, Capt. Hon R (N. Fyde)|
|Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Walter||MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)||Stevens, G. P.|
|Fisher, Nigel||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Stoddart-Scott, Col M|
|Fort, R.||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Storey, S.|
|Foster, J. G.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Studholme, H. G|
|Gage, C. H.||Marples, A. E.||Summers, G. S.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||Teeling, William|
|Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Glyn, Sir R.||Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Thompson, K. P. (Walton)|
|Gridley, Sir A.||Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)||Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)|
|Grimond, J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Thornton-Kemsley, C N|
|Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.|
|Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Nabarro, G.||Tilney, John|
|Harris, R. R. (Heston)||Nugent, G. R. H||Turton, R. H.|
|Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)||Nutting, Anthony||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Oakshott, H. D||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Heald, L. F.||Odey, G. W.||Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Ward, Hon. G R. (Worcester)|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Webbe, Sir H. (London)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Pitman, I. J.||Williams, C (Torquay)|
|Hollis, M. C.||Powell, J. Enoch||Wills, G.|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Price, H. A. (Lewisham, A.)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Profumo, J. D||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Raikes, H. V.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Hurd, A. R.||Rayner, Brigadier R||York, C|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Redmayne, M|
|Hylton-Foster, H. B.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.|
|Major Wheatley and Mr Vosper.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Deer, G.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Delargy, H. J||Hayman, F. H.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Diamond, J||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Bacon, Miss A||Dodds, N. N||Hewitson, Capt. M|
|Balfour, A.||Donnelly, D||Holman, P.|
|Bartley, P.||Dye, S.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)|
|Benson, G.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C||Hoy, J.|
|Beswick, F.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Boardman, H.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Ewart, R.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Fernyhough, E||Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Field, Capt. W J||Jenkins, R. H|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Finch, H. J.||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E)||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)|
|Burke, W. A.||Follick, M.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Foot, M M.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)|
|Callaghan, James||Forman, J. C.||Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)|
|Carmichael, James||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Keenan, W.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A||Freeman, J. (Watford)||Kenyon, C.|
|Champion, A. J||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||King, H. M.|
|Chetwynd, G R||Gibson, C. W.||Lever, L. M (Ardwick)|
|Clunie, J.||Gilzean, A||Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham. N.)|
|Cocks, F. S||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Coldrick, W.||Grey, C. F.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M|
|Collick, P.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Logan, D. G.|
|Collindridge, F.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Longden, F. (Small Heath)|
|Cooper, J. (Deptford)||Gunter, R. J.||MacColl, J. E|
|Cove, W. G.||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||McGhee, H. G.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hale, J. (Rochdale)||McGovern, J.|
|Crawley, A||Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)||McInnes, J.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Hamilton, W. W.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Daines, P.||Hannan, W.||McLeavy, F.|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Hardman, D. R||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Davies Harold (Leek)||Hargreaves, A.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Harrison, J.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Pryde, D. J.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Pursey, Commander H.||Timmons, J.|
|Manuel, A. C.||Rankin, J.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Reid, W. (Camlachie)||Usborne, Henry|
|Messer, F.||Richards, R.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Middleton, Mrs. L||Robens, A.||Viant, S. P.|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Moeran, E. W.||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Moody, A. S.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B||Royle, C.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Morley, R.||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)|
|Mort, D. L||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Moyle, A||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Mulley, F. W.||Simmons, C J||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B|
|Murray, J. D.||Slater, J.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Neal, H.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Oldfield, W H||Snow, J. W.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Oliver, G. H||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Padley, W. E.||Sparks, J. A.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)||Steele, T.||Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)|
|Pannell, T. C.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J||Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)|
|Pargiter, G. A||Stross, Dr. B.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Parker, J.||Sylvester, G. 0.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Pearson, A.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)||Yates, V. F|
|Peart, T. F.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Popplewell, E||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Porter, G.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Proctor, W. T||Thomas, I. R. (Rhondde, W.)||Mr. Bowden and|
|Mr. Kenneth Robinson.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.