HC Deb 25 June 1952 vol 502 cc2374-91

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Rice (Amendment) Order, 1952 (S.I. 1952, No. 1112), dated 5th June, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th June, be annulled.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)

On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether these Motions are to be discussed together, because I have a particular reason for doing so? When, in March last year, we had five or six Prayers on the cost of textiles, the then Speaker ruled that they had to be discussed separately. I regretted that decision, but I did not challenge it,, because one cannot challenge a decision like that. It led to a most unpleasant debate, which went on until six o'clock in the morning. I hope that your Ruling may be different, Mr. Speaker, and that we may take all these Motions as one.

Mr. Speaker

I was about to listen to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).

Mr. Willey

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as these Orders, in the main, deal with price increases, it would be for the convenience of the House if we could have a general discussion on them, and, if necessary, the Question could be put separately on each of them.

Mr. Speaker

That is what I had supposed, and I am perfectly agreeable to that course.

Mr. Willey

I am told that one of the difficulties about the new long-playing gramophone records is that the needle is apt to stick in the groove and that the gramophone goes on repeating itself. That is equally true of the Parliamentary Secretary. Although the present Government have been in office eight months, he still goes on saying that he is doing what he is doing because he is governed by the actions taken by the past Government. That is not a very virile attitude for a Government to take, but, in any case, it is patently untrue. It is probably for this reason that the "Sunday Express" has described the hon. Gentleman as the "worst flounder in the Government," which, looking at the Government Front Bench, is a high distinction indeed.

Of the seven Orders against which we are praying, six provide for price increases and the seventh for a measure of decontrol which, in turn, is designed to lead to price increases. Some of the Orders will lead to a large number of consequential price increases, and all these price increases are in addition to the 27 price increases which the Parliamentary Secretary announced in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) only a fortnight ago.

The first Order increases the price of rice and rice products. It increases the price of whole rice by 3d. a 1b., and over and above this the charges for pre-pack-ing are increased. The Ministry of Food says that these increases are necessary because of the continued world shortage of rice and the resultant rises in price in the supplying countries. But this is not an adequate explanation for the Parliamentary Secretary to give. During the General Election he and his friends said that they were going to bring down the price of foodstuffs by sending business men combing the world.

There is not the slightest doubt that if we sent business men out for rice they could get more; they could certainly get better rice, and probably even cheaper rice. But if they did that it would be very unsocial; it would be disruptive of our influence in the Far East and damaging to our prestige among the countries of the Far East. I do not invite the Parliamentary Secretary to that and I never made any such promise. But it is for the hon. Gentleman to explain to his colleagues why he is not carrying out his promise, and it is for him to explain this particular increase.

Admittedly, there are world shortages today, but those shortages are less acute at the present time than they have been for the past six and a half years. Only a few days ago I noticed that Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, in addressing the people of India in his nationwide broadcast on the food situation, referred to the rice position. He drew attention to the improvement in rice supplies and justified the free market in Madras by saying that "there is a large stock of rice there, enough for more than a year on the present scale of rations," and he added that "the prices in the free market are also low."

But the increase we are discussing is the biggest we have had in the price of rice since control was introduced. Throughout the 6½ years of the last Government, when we repeatedly faced the situation of a famine in rice, we only increased the price of rice by a total of 3d. a 1b. Now within eight months and at one stroke the present Government, in much easier circumstances, are increasing the price of rice by 3d. a 1b., and I should like to know whether the Ministry of Food are making any profit out of it.

The second Order had to be reprinted. The Ministry of Food forgot to include in it Part III of the Schedule. We are getting used to this muddle. After all, the last order against which we prayed had to be reprinted. I can only hope that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will pay some attention to these persistent complaints about this needless cost and needless inconvenience to traders, and will see that they print these Orders properly the first time.

That Order increases the retail price of sugar sold for manufacturing purposes by a halfpenny a lb., and it also increases the delivery charges. In other words, it increases the wholesaler's margin. In this case the Ministry says that this increase is necessary because of increased cost of procurement. I want a fuller explanation than that. This is the first increase in the price of sugar for manufacturing purposes since 1947, and it will cause a whole host of consequential increases. It will lead to increases in the price of flour and sugar confectionery, of jam and of all food products which use sugar in their manufacture.

It has this further unfortunate effect, that the allocations of sugar to the manufacturers have been drastically cut, and that means that their overhead costs to turnover are proportionally increased. But at this moment the Ministry says, "You will not only get less sugar but you are to pay more for it." In this case the Minister of Food admits that he is making a profit out of it, and he uses it to offset the subsidies. I should like to know how much profit he is making and paying to peg the subsidies.

It is inevitable that pretty soon there will be a further Order increasing the price of sugar to the housewife. Generally on the question of sugar, what is the Minister doing? We have had far more sugar imported into this country in the first five months of this year than was imported in the same period last year. Everybody knows that we have substantial stocks. What is the Minister doing in cutting the allocations, cutting the rations and accumulating this sugar?

He is accumulating it apparently in the present world price position when I do not think anybody would dispute that it is quite clear that the price of Cuban sugar is weakening and is going to fall. What an opportune moment to put up the price of sugar to the manufacturers. I can only suggest that the Ministry is making what used to be called a "fortuitous profit" because it is alarmed at the rate at which the subsidy is running.

The third Order increases the prices of invert sugar by 3s. 9d. a cwt. The fourth Order increases the retail prices of syrup and treacle by ½d. a 1b. This will bear particularly heavily on the housewife. In the last Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) used to question me about syrup and treacle, and I pointed out to him that the consumption was above that of pre-war. I can only assume that this Order is in- tended to bring it down to below pre-war level.

We should like to know by how much and why the margin is increased to the wholesaler and the retailer. Recently we have complained of or rather called attention to the fact that grocers were getting an additional £10 million by way of increased margins. Why, on this occasion, is the Minister giving the grocers an increased margin?

We on this side of the House are getting the impression that to the Government it is all very well for everybody except the poor wage and salary earners to have an increase by way of margin of profit. We have repeatedly called attention to the fact that by the action of the Government everyone is being compensated for the rise in the cost of living except the wage and salary earners.

The fifth Order increases the retail price of condensed milk by 2d. a tin. The Ministry of Food say that this is due to the increase in the purchase price of condensed milk, but we had a Condensed Milk (Amendment) Order as recently as March. We discussed that Order when we were dealing with the increased margins. What has happened since March to increase the procurement cost of condensed milk? It must have happened since March or it would have been provided for in that amending Order. In fact, we had in October an increase of 2d. a tin in the price of condensed milk. What has happened since then to justify this further increase? Again, as in the case of syrup and treacle, this is a very serious matter for the housewife.

I have complained repeatedly that the consumption of fresh milk was falling. The Parliamentary Secretary was brave enough to deny that, but the Minister corrected him and said that it was falling but not significantly. It is falling significantly enough for me. Poor people who cannot afford fresh milk buy condensed milk because they think they can make that go further; but now the Ministry of Food is saying, "If you cannot afford milk because we have put up the milk prices you will now find it difficult to afford condensed milk."

The sixth Order increases the price of clotted cream by 6d. per 1b., to make sure that that is a luxury. The last Order deals with loaves, rolls of bread and baps not exceeding 10 ounces in weight. I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie to deal with baps. But let us have no nonsense about this Order. The bakers have been complaining persistently about the inadequacy of the bread margins, and it is quite clear that this is a backdoor way of allowing them to increase their margins. Increased prices have occurred and were, in fact, inevitable.

What is the position about the subsidy? Surely even the Parliamentary Secretary would consider that it is flagrantly offensive for bakers to receive a subsidy if the bread made out of the ingredient to which the subsidy is applied is free of control? I should like to know how the Parliamentary Secretary is going to ensure that bread being sold free of control is not being subsidised by the taxpayer. These Orders collectively not only demonstrate the failure of the Government, they also represent a callous contempt for the promises which they made so recently.

10.27 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I beg to second the Motion.

I notice that we have here seven Orders, relating to condensed milk, syrup and treacle, invert sugar, manufacturing sugar, rice and cream, and then there is the explanatory note to Order No. 976, which reads: This Order frees loaves, rolls and baps"— I take it that baps have a different definition according to where one lives in the United Kingdom. They may include parish buns, Chelsea buns, rock buns and so on— not exceeding 10 ounces in weight from the need to be sold in specified weights"— We are setting them free and depriving the housewives of a guaranteed weight for their money. The Order continues: and, if national bread in loaves of 14 ounces or a multiple of 14 ounces is on sale at the same time, from price-control. This was presumably what the Prime Minister meant when he talked about setting the people free. The Order goes on: (Loaves, rolls and baps not exceeding 2 ounces in weight remain free of price-control without any condition.) Since hon. Gentlemen opposite have come into power they have followed out the command in the leading article in the "Daily Express" to "make a bonfire of controls," and that bonfire of controls has raised the price of 38 different items. The hon. Gentleman gave me a figure last week of 27 items. Since then there have been four more and when he calculates that there are 27 items he does not calculate the consequences. For example, one of the 27 items was in relation to the increase in the price of flour —an increase of 25 per cent. But consequential upon that increase there was an increase in the prices of as many items as there are cakes in a baker's window, because cakes of every kind went up in price in consequence of the increase in the price of flour.

This has been going on continuously during the past six months whilst this Government have been in power; and it is being done behind the backs of the public. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rigged up the shop window and has peered into it and has said, "Look, I am putting up the prices by 1s. 6d. Take note T.U.C. Take note all who want increased pensions. I am putting up the prices by 1s. 6d. by my withdrawal of the food subsidy."

But the economist who writes in the "Observer" said last Sunday that, so far, only 4½d. of the 1s. 6d. has been imposed. Are we to assume, therefore, that the only increase in price in the last six months has been 4½d? Then the Chancellor ought to put a notice in the shop window saying, "Buy now before prices rise to 1s. 6d."

The back room boys have been busy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of food supplies and his hon. Friends have been busy in the back shop with these orders. They have imposed increases on 38 different items——

Mr. Speaker

I have to point out that we have seven increases here. That is enough for us to deal with, without the 38, if the hon. Lady can keep to these Orders.

Mrs. Mann

May I say, Sir, that one dozen imposed on the other 26 is just a little too much, and in the back shop they are going on raising prices. Every time a woman enters a grocer's shop to buy sauce, semolina—yes, even infants' food, she finds this is so. I am surprised that infants and invalid food prices have gone up.

In regard to condensed milk it is astonishing that hon. Gentlemen opposite should penalise the mothers of young children. I know that the children under one year are still getting free milk, for which we are duly thankful, but the young ones, as the hon. Gentleman well knows since he has a young family himself, do not get tea——

Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

Do they drink tea?

Mrs. Mann

Yes. May I say from my experience as a grandmother that I find little ones under five are very fond of a tea tipple, provided that it is well mixed with milk. There is no allowance for them in the tea ration. Therefore, mothers resort largely to condensed milk.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know anything about tipples of that sort.

Mrs. Mann

I deplore the fact that this concerns not only full cream sweetened—which is what we give to the children—but even evaporated milk, from which we make their milk puddings, and unsweetened evaporated milk, with which we enrich quite a number of the dishes we make for our children. One would have thought that machine skimmed sweetened milk might have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman, but there is not a solitary tin of milk in a grocer's shop which has not been increased in price.

Housewives who are keen, and study economy, and who have been having an eye on fruit preserving know that sugar will be scarce. They know that the hon. Gentleman opposite is not going to give the usual bonus of sugar for jam making, and so they have turned their attention to syrup and treacle for use in milk puddings and for sweetening fruit to save as much of the domestic rations as they can for any fruit there might be at the end of the season. One can imagine that the hon. Gentleman had snoopers in all their cupboards, watching the habits of the housewives, because he has discovered this habit of using syrup that has been adopted recently. Down he has come, and over the corpses of the housewives' needs he has fixed higher prices for syrup, treacle and condensed milk.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

They came to a sticky end.

Mrs. Mann

The Sugar (Prices) (Amendment No. 3) Order, No. 1148, will undoubtedly put an extra increase on the price of sweets, afternoon cakes, and possibly will increase once more the price of jam preserves and tinned fruit. These are the consequences of the acts which the hon. Gentleman opposite seeks to impose by these Orders which are being constantly brought before us. Likewise, the Rice (Amendment) Order, No. 1112, will affect the price, not only of ordinary rice, granulated rice and flaked rice, but of invalid foods which have their basis in flaked, granulated or rice flour.

There will be consequential increases arising out of almost all of these Orders. Instead of having 27 items which have been increased in price, one can foresee another 10 items which will go up. What will the actual increase be under these Orders? Today I had a reply which said that so far as these Orders were concerned it was 1s. 2d. a week. I do not believe that reply. I have read that the result will be 4s. a week.

I have made a careful budget myself, and I have one here for a family of four —father, mother and two children, and I find that the consequential results of these Orders amounts to 2s. 6d. a week, in addition to the Is. 6d. a week already announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That makes 4s. a week. I have another one which gives the result of these Orders at £1 a week for a family of five. I do not think that the estimate of the effect of the Orders so far, including these tonight, at £1 a week for a family of five is an inaccuracy or an exaggeration, and I implore the Parliamentary Secretary to retrieve his reputation. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is impossible."] He was held in such high esteem by the mothers of the country. I implore him to agree to our Prayer tonight and to withdraw this and the other Orders.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

It was a little unfair of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who moved the annulment of this Order, to refer to the "Sunday Express" last Sunday. We in the Conservative Party do not judge by what professional journalists say about our Ministers. We judge them by results. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We need no advice from a. "Cross Bencher," whoever he may be, about who the Government should appoint to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food.

But there is another paper, the "Sunday Dispatch," that publishes various stories about things, and I should liken the hon. Member who moved the Prayer to Katrina, in the "Sunday Dispatch"—a person who falls for everything and everybody.

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing about Katrina in the Orders.

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Member mentioned an article in the "Sunday Express," and I thought that I should retaliate by mentioning a story in the "Sunday Dispatch."

I well remember, when the hon. Member was sitting on this side of the House, when we taught him how to move Prayers. Had it not been for the advice we gave at that time, perhaps these Prayers would not have been moved tonight. The hon. Member has talked tonight about Ministry of Food Orders having to be retrenched. I am proud of the fact that the Ministry of Food can say, "Such and such an Order is not quite right. We will take it back. We will have it reprinted and renewed. We will not wait for the House of Commons to find fault with it. We will take it back and make a new Order which will be acceptable to the House." I am proud that the Conservative Government have done that.

The hon. Member also said that he believed that the Ministry of Food were making a profit out of their dealings in food. We all believed that in the days of the last Government. We all got up when we were on the benches opposite and we said so, and we believed it. We thought it was true. I still believe that it was true. But I now believe that the Ministry of Food, while they still exist— and I hope that they will not exist for ever, because I hope that there will be no need for a Ministry of Food before long—will be out to serve the community and not to make a profit, as I believe the Ministry of Food made under the last Government.

The hon. Member has accused the Government of importing more sugar. Of course they have imported more sugar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] It was one of our Election promises. We said that we would import more sugar. But I suggest that the sugar that has been imported has had to make up the reserves that had been completely spent and used by the last Government. Likewise, the reserves of tea which were squandered by the late Government have to be built up. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) talked about an allocation, or ration, of tea for those under five. I have a daughter who is under five years old, and a very attractive daughter, too.

Mr. Ede

She takes after her mother.

Mr. Taylor

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He has met my wife, and the child does. It is unnecessary to make an allocation, or ration, of tea to a child under five years old.

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing about tea in these Orders.

Mr. Taylor

I was only answering the case which, with great respect, you, Mr. Speaker, allowed the hon. Lady to make about tea.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Lady related that argument to the condensed milk Order. The hon. Member is not doing so.

Mr. Taylor

I shall not pursue that matter further, Mr. Speaker, but will merely say again that we on this side of the House taught hon. Members opposite how to raise these matters in the House, and suggest that when they have such a flimsy case as they have presented tonight they should leave matters alone.

10.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill)

I am going to take it that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), in moving this Prayer, was inspired by a genuine desire to know the reasons for these various increases in price. I think it will be convenient if I go briefly through the Orders stating these reasons.

I ought perhaps to say that the comment which the hon. Member made about the effect of our rice purchases and rice consumption upon the world rice situation was hardly justified when one bears in mind that while the world production of rice is 150,000,000 tons a year, of which about 4,000,000 tons goes into trade, the needs of this country are met by rather less than 100,000 tons of rice a year.

The price of rice, which we have been purchasing from Burma and Brazil and are now purchasing from Burma and Siam, has risen between October, 1950, and May, 1952, by approximately 60 per cent.—63 per cent. in the case of rice purchased from Burma. The hon. Gentleman knows that we purchase rice in lots as it becomes available, and the figure of a 60 per cent. increase relates to the whole Burma purchase. The increase might be higher or lower for individual lots.

The average consumption of rice in this country is just over three pounds a head a year; but the price has gone up by 60 per cent., and it is an inevitable consequence of that increase that the price increases set out in S.I. No. 1112 should follow. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the pre-packaging increase which, as he knows from his experience of similar increases when he held the office I now hold, is due to substantiated claims, as severely tested by the costing department of the Ministry of Food. He knows that this increase is justified.

We pass to the subject of sugar. I was surprised the hon. Gentleman made no reference to what he knows to be the cause of the sugar increase—that is the provisions of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. [Interruption.]I am seeking to give an objective description. The cost per ton of sugar in that Agreement was some £5 12s. 6d. per ton over and above the price paid immediately before the Agreement.

Bearing in mind that there is no subsidy on manufacturing sugar, this Order is the inevitable expression of this increase in price, which this country was glad to pay in the circumstances and bearing in mind the objectives of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I am certain the hon. Gentleman would wish to acclaim that Agreement as a substantial contribution to the prosperity of the sugar growing Colonies and I am certain he will recognise that, in the absence of a subsidy on manufacturing sugar, the increases in this Order are inevitable and proper.

The hon. Gentleman referred quite accurately to a fall in the price of world sugar, and made reference to the position of Cuban sugar. That is true, and I should say that I know nothing of the report in today's Press of Cuban sugar being offered to us for sterling. Cuban sugar is available, and can now be bought for dollars. I do not wish to pass to the other question we have hammered out here so often, but the position is that the limitation on our sugar supplies is shortage of dollars, for there is sugar available for those who have the dollars to spend.

The Orders which deal with invert sugar—the form of sugar that goes to the brewers—and syrup and treacle are the inevitable consequences of the increase of sugar prices which is the inevitable consequence of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I agree that there must be other consequential increases, bearing in mind the part manufacturing sugar plays in so many items of food.

If I pass lightly over clotted cream, it is because the hon. Gentleman appeared to have no powerful convictions on this subject. I am sure he recalled that when he held this office there was a period when price control was removed and the price rose to 10s.

The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) referred to the newer freedom given in this Order relating to bread. I would commend to her the desirability, on grounds of craftsmanship, palatability and local taste, of securing a return as early as possible to freedom for the bakers—particularly small bakers—to make a wide variety of special breads—or reinforced bread, as it is sometimes called—to meet the tastes of different areas.

It is absolutely impossible to apply a system of price control, even if we wished, to the wide range of such special breads. The price inevitably depends on the constituents. What is more, in the last few months, Members on both sides have been urging on my right hon. and gallant Friend the position of the smaller baker. It has been possible to help him in many ways. We believe that this is a small but useful contribution to the small baker's freedom to make his own special kind of bread. As the hon. Lady will know the loaf of 10 oz. or less cannot be sold unless national bread is on sale at the same time. These special breads are unsubsidised.

Mrs. Mann

I appreciate the need to give a certain amount of freedom to produce a lighter and smaller loaf. In Scotland, before the war, we did that, but there was a restriction that the lighter and more airy loaf should not be more than a ½d. or¾d. dearer than the heavier loaf.

Mr. F. Willey

How does the hon. Gentleman police it?

Dr. Hill

The use of flour for the manufacture of bread and for other purposes is policed now. There may have been dissatisfaction with the method in the hon. Gentleman's time, but no new problem is created by this freedom. The definition is still necessary.

On the hon. Lady's point, the roll, bap, or bread of less than 2 oz. remains free of price and other control. This extension is to permit a special kind of loaf to be made. The figure of 10 oz. was not selected because of any particular attachment on our part to 10 oz., but because the weights and measures authorities insisted on it to permit of a sufficiently clear distinction between the 10 oz. and 14 oz. loaves.

I shall not be drawn into argument on the desirability of adding a condensed milk tipple to tea, nor into the condemnation of condensed milk for the infant. Perhaps the hon. Lady will agree with me that we should not give any kind of impression that condensed milk is an appropriate food for the very young child.

Mrs. Mann

I made it plain that I was referring to children over one year and under five.

Dr. Hill

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that quite clear.

There are three elements in this increase. One is the elimination of subsidy which creeps from time to time into this field. The second is the increased cost of milk for manufacturing. The hon. Gentleman asked me what had happened since March. What has happened since then is the Price Review. The third element is the increase in the wholesalers' margin. It is most undesirable that anyone should seek on principle to condemn an increase in a margin without a knowledge of the case which was put up.

It was demonstrated here, for example, that this commodity was being handled at the wholesale level at a loss. The Ministry insists on high standards of proof —as high as when the hon. Member who moved this Prayer was in office—and it has been demonstrated in this case that the increase was justified. The Cooperative movement joins with its fellows on the other side of the table in demonstrating increases in costs, in search of increases in margins at wholesale and retail levels. I ask hon. Members not to indulge in wholesale condemnation of increases in margins which are made only after the most careful scrutiny.

I am not going to compete with the hon. Gentleman in his outbursts of anaemic and rhetorical violence, but prefer to give the House the facts behind these Orders. Any who may propose to divide the House against the sugar price increases, and those Orders following from it, are, in fact, condemning an agreement of substantial value to the Colonies. If there is an increase in price, it follows inevitably, in the absence of subsidy, that that increase must be passed to the consumer.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect us to be satisfied with his answer because the theme song throughout has been "inevitable." There was a well-known leader of this party who talked of the "inevitability of gradualness," but tonight it is the "inevitability of excessiveness." We shall divide the House on the first Order, because, after all that was said at the Election last year, the hon. Gentleman can say no more now than that this is inevitable.

Question put,

The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 175.

Division No. 184.] AYES [11.2 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Foot, M. M. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Pargiter, G. A.
Awbery, S. S. Freeman, John (Watford) Pearson, A.
Bacon, Miss Alice Gibson, C. W. Peart, T. F.
Balfour, A, Gooch, E. G. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Grey, C. F. Popplewell, E.
Bence, C. R. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Benn, Wedgwood Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.)
Benson, G. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Proctor, W. T.
Beswick, F. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hall, fit. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Rhodes, H.
Bing, G. H. C. Hall, John (Gateshead, W.) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Blackburn, F. Hamilton, W. W. Ross, William
Blenkinsop, A. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Royle, C.
Blyton, W. R. Hayman, F. H. Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Boardman, H, Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Short, E. W.
Bowles, F. G. Herbison, Miss M. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Holman, P. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brockway, A. F. Hubbard, T. F. Slater, J.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Sparks, J. A.
Burke, W. A. Jeger, George (Goole) Steele, T.
Burton, Miss F. E. Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Johnson, James (Rugby) Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Callaghan, L. J. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Sylvester, G. O.
Carmichael, J. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Champion, A. J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Chetwynd, G. R. Keenan, W. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)
Coldrick, W. Kenyon, C. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Collick, P. H. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Craddock, George (Bradford, S) King, Dr. H. M. Wallace, H. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Watkins, T. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Weitzman, D.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lewis, Arthur Weils, William (Walsall)
Davies Stephen (Merthyr) Logan, D. G. West, D. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey McGhee, H. G. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Deer, G. McInnes, J. Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Delargy, H, J. McKay, John (Wallsend) Wigg, George
Donnelly, D. L. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Wilkins, W. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Mann, Mrs. Jean Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Manuel, A. C. Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Edelman, M. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mellish, R. J. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Moody, A. S. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Morley, R. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Nally, W. Wyatt, W. L.
Ewart, R. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Yates, V. F.
Fernyhough, E. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Field, W. J. Oliver, G. H.
Finch, H. J. Orbach, M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Oswald, T. Mr. Bowden and
Follick, M. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Mr. Kenneth Robinson.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Bowen, E. R. Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Dormer, P. W.
Alport, C. J. M. Boyle, Sir Edward Drayson, G. B.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Drewe, G.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Brooman-White, R. C. Dulhie, W. S
Arbuthnot, John Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Erroll, F. J
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Bullard, D. G. Fell, A.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W) Burden, F. F. A. Finlay, Graeme
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Butcher, H. W. Fisher, Nigel
Baldwin, A. E. Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Banks, Col. C. Channon, H. Fort, R.
Barber, A. P. L. Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)
Barlow, Sir John Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Baxter, A. B. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Godber, J. B.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Cole, Norman Gomme-Dunoan, Col A.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Colegate, W. A. Gough, C. F. H.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Cooper-Key, E. M. Gower, H. R.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Cranborne, Viscount Graham, Sir Fergus
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Birch, Nigel Crowder, Petre CRuislip—Northwood) Harden, J. R. E.
Bishop, F. P. Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Black, C. W. Deedes, W. F. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Boothby, R. J. G. Digby, S. Wingfield Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Heath, Edward Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Waller
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Markham, Major S. F. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Marlowe, A. A. H. Speir, R. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maudling, R. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Stevens, G. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Medlicott, Brig F. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Hollis, M. C. Mellor, Sir John Storey, S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P. Molson, A. H. E Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Horobin, I. M. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E Summers, G. S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Nabarro, G. D. N Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Howard, Greviile (St. Ives) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, B.) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Noble, Cmdr A H P. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Oakshott, H. D. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Thornton-Kemsiey, Col. C. N.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon. N) Tilney, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Osborne, C Touche, Sir Gordon
Joynson-Hicks, Hon, L. W Partridge, E. Turton, R. H.
Kaberry, D. Peto, Brig. C. H. M Vosper, D. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Peyton, J. W. W Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G Pilkington, Capt. R A Walker-Smith, D. C.
Lambton, Viscount Pitman, I. J. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Powell, J. Enoch Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon C
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Watkinson, H. A
Llewellyn, D. T. Raikes, H. V. Wellwood, W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Redmayne, M. White, Baker (Canterbury)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.) Renton, D L. M. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Roberts, Peter (Heeley) Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Roper, Sir Harold Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Russell, R. S Wills, G.
McKibbin, A. J. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Scott, R. Donald Wood, Hon. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Shepherd, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.
Mr. F. Willey

I do not propose to move the other Prayers which stand in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.