HC Deb 18 February 1953 vol 511 cc1380-91

10.30 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That the Draft Jewellery and Silverware Council (Dissolution) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved. On 11th December, 1952, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers), I informed the House that it had not been possible to secure agreement within the industry for the continuance of the Jewellery and Silverware Council after the end of 1952, nor for the setting up of a body to succeed it, and that my right hon. Friend had accordingly decided, subject to the approval of Parliament, to make an Order under the Act of 1947 for dissolving the Council. That is why I move this Motion.

As recently as 16th December, on another dissolution Order, I explained the view taken by Her Majesty's Government as to the circumstances in which these bodies are useful and the degree to which, in order that they should be useful, they should enjoy the support of the industry. In this industry, the Master Silversmiths Association, one of the two principal trade associations, has from the beginning been opposed to the Development Council, and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), in seeking the approval of the House for the Order on 8th December, 1948, frankly stated this opposition, but he expressed the hope that, once the House had approved the Order, all sections would forget their differences. That hope was widely shared, but it was never fulfilled.

The Board of Trade were required, by Section 8 (3) of the Act, to consult organisations in the industry by 1st January, 1952, on the question whether the Council should continue and, if so, whether the Order setting it up should be amended, and, accordingly, on 20th July, 1951, our predecessors in office asked for the views of the organisations in the industry. The replies showed a great cleavage of opinion. While the Development Council, with some trade union support, thought that it should continue, both the trade associations concerned wanted to end it.

When the present Administration came into office, my right hon. Friend asked the members to continue for another year in order that he might further examine the position. My right hon. Friend always made it clear that he would not impose a body on the industry without a full measure of agreement but that at the same time he thought that a central organisation for the industry was desirable. There were, therefore, long negotiations, which I shall not describe to the House, to see whether agreement could be secured. Those negotiations failed; it was impossible to secure the agreement of the industry.

In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend recommends the House to dissolve this Council. In doing so, I wish on his behalf and on behalf of the Board of Trade to express the thanks which are due to the members of the Council, not least to the independent members, who have generously given their time and ability. The Order follows the usual form and provides for those things which the provisions of the Act say must be provided. It only remains for me to say that there may be some surplus assets and under this dissolution Order they can be used for encouraging design and promoting exports.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

I think that the Minister has been a little disingenuous in the way in which he put the Order before the House. He has left out all the negotiations which preceded the Order, and the House would not have been informed about them at all unless there had been a short debate on this matter. This is what happened. First there was this Development Council, which cost £25,000 a year, of which £15,000 went on staff and only £10,000 was actually used for development, research and so forth in the industry. Then there were two proposals for a continuing body.

First there was the proposal of the Sheffield association, which only represents 25 per cent. of the whole jewellery trade. Broadly speaking, their proposal was that the Development Council should be altered to a body for which there should be a revenue of only £2,000 a year—and which would only last three years—out of which three offices should be staffed at Sheffield, Birmingham and London. Not only that, but the flatware industry, on which the Sheffield industry depends for 75 per cent. of its trade, was to be excluded from the levy under the new arrangement altogether. Therefore, Sheffield would be only paying the levy on about 30 per cent. of the industry in Sheffield.

This was obviously absurd; we could not have an arrangement with three offices paid for out of £2,000 a year. So the British Jewellers' Association put up to the Minister on 7th July last alternative proposals, which he has not mentioned. They are quite willing for a development council to go on and have told him so, and put forward alternative suggestions for a development council to deal with exports, design and researches into the industry. Their proposal was that there should be a 1s. 6d. per cent. levy on the industry as a whole, which would produce £11,000 a year.

The British Jewellers' Association have themselves offered to provide offices free of charge for this continuing body and to provide a staff free of charge, and the whole £11,000 would be available for research. In fact there would be £1,000 more available for the purposes of a development council than under the old scheme.

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

If the hon. Member is wanting to put the facts clearly, he will perhaps correct what I think is a mistake. The British Jewellers' Association offer did not include the provision of a design and research centre.

Mr. Wyatt

I did not say it did. I said they offered offices and to provide staff free of charge. I did not say anything about a design and research centre. I said they offered to provide offices and staff, and the £11,000 would then be available for research and the other purposes of the Development Council.

The President of the Board of Trade turned this offer down on the most extraordinary ground—that the industry as a whole had not agreed on the British Jewellers' Association proposal. In other words, while the majority—75 per cent.—are willing to continue the Development Council, because 25 per cent, of the trade in Sheffield do not want it and never associated with the Development Council in the past, he is going to deny the majority the right to go on with the Development Council. This is a most extraordinary proposal; and it is not only a minority which is only 25 per cent. of the trade, but also a minority of 25 per cent. which does not want to pay the levy on 70 per cent. of the industry of that minority.

On such flimsy grounds, the President of the Board of Trade proposes now to revoke the Order and I say that it is astounding that this piece of planning should be done away with at such a time as the present. There is growing unemployment in the jewellery trade; there are restrictions on nickel-silver, and only 80 tons more nickel a year is needed to enable the electro-plating trade to work at full speed. Those are some of the problems, but the Council is not to be there to advise the President of the Board of Trade because a minority asks for it to be abolished—while a great majority wants it to be continued.

The goldsmiths' and silversmiths' trade is rapidly going into bankruptcy. Purchase Tax at 100 per cent. is having the effect that craftsmen are leaving the trade, and yet in none of these matters is the President of the Board of Trade to have the advice of this Council. This is a move which we should resist most strongly because we are being asked to do away with an essential piece of planning at a time when it is most needed. The Council is being abolished on the most flimsy of grounds put forward by a minority in the trade which has had nothing to do with the Council in the past, but which wants now to get rid of it altogether.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)

I rise briefly to support the Motion, and would stress that when the Council was set up by the Socialist Government that Government was told by those in the trade that one could not join silverware with jewellery. Those two trades are distinct, and if a mistake has been made, it was made at the very beginning. We in Sheffield are aware that we lead the world in silverware, as well as in cutlery, but we have associations which can quite properly deal quickly with matters which may arise. The Cutlers' Company in Sheffield can deal with any development and plans, and I suggest that we should stop a most stupid arrangement by which the jewellery and silverware trades are joined—an arrangement which never worked from the start. I have opposed this arrangement ever since the Council was established, and I give my support to the Motion.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, South-West)

I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should have come here tonight and dealt with this subject in so perfunctory a manner. He must surely be fully aware of the situation in which this small, but valuable industry finds itself at present. The Working Party which investigated conditions in that industry reported that if the industry continued to exercise as little control over its own destiny as in the past—that is, before the Council was established—it was likely to have an extremely precarious future. In the Party's judgment, it was not too much to say that, as an industry of size and importance, it was doomed.

That was the considered opinion of the Working Party, and the President of the Board of Trade should also know that there has been correspondence in our leading daily newspaper which has emphasised the precarious position of this trade. The Assay Master at Birmingham, in a letter to "The Times," wrote that One of our oldest and most famous craft industries, that of the silversmith, is fast sinking to extinction. He added: It is evident that, unless effective and swift action is taken, silversmithing here will soon be virtually at an end and an art in which this nation has excelled will be lost to us. They are grave words written by a person who knows the industry.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

Does the hon. Member really say that the trade of this particular industry has been lost and that a Development Council will restore it?

Mr. Evans

It is within the knowledge of anybody who knows anything about this industry that this small but precious craft trade is slipping to extinction, and the Minister comes here and confesses that he is not prepared to take any positive action. "The Times" this morning carried an article saying, in effect, that this craft was in danger unless something was done. I will not repeat the things said about the dangerous state of the trade, nor mention the many people who have been urging the Government to take some action to assist the trade at the present time.

The Minister has told us that the majority of the trade are opposed to the continuance of the Development Council. My information is different from that. It is true that the leading employers' trade associations have expressed an opinion that they can manage without a Development Council, but if the Minister knows the nature of this industry and the opinion of the thousands of the small craftsmen in small shops he will know that the leading employers' organisations do not speak for the majority of the craftsmen in the industry. The craftsmen who are not in the association, the independent members of the Council and the trade unions are all in favour of the scheme.

Mr. P. Roberts

They are not.

Mr. Evans

All the bodies I have mentioned except the two employers' organisations are in favour of this Council continuing.

Mr. Roberts

Surely the hon. Member knows that the majority of the craftsmen are not in the associations and they never liked this Development Council and they still do not like it.

Mr. Evans

It is impossible for the hon. Member to make that statement because the opinion of the craftsmen in the small shops has never been canvassed. The Minister has never taken the trouble to find out the opinion of these small craftsmen.

Mr. Shepherd

How then does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

We do not want an all-night Sitting on this.

Mr. Evans

The President of the Board of Trade, if he felt he could not get a majority on his own side in favour of this Council, should have appointed some continuing body under Section 9 of the Act. There is a design and research centre in this industry which will disappear within a year unless the Government take some action to save it. It is within the competence of the Minister, under the Act, to save that precious remnant of the Development Council and make certain that it continues the valuable work it is doing for the industry. If this industry slips back and our precious craftsmen and exports, which they manage to produce and send abroad, disappear, then the responsibility will lie fairly and squarely upon the Government.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards (Brighouse and Spenborough)

On 8th December, 1948, we agreed in this House, without a Division, to set up the Development Council which we are now asked to dissolve. If there was no great enthusiasm at the time, at any rate there was very little dissent; in fact, the only dissent came from the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings). The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in a very short speech of four sentences, somewhat frivolously said that he would rather give in quietly than make a fuss. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) said that the matter had the wholehearted support of the jewellery trade of the district in which he lived, and that he had very much pleasure in supporting the efforts of the President of the Board of Trade.

Now, we are asked to dissolve the Council, and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite scarcely appreciate the present position of the jewellery and silverware trades. If they did, I think they would not be so frivolous. There are people on the other side of the House who do appreciate it, and whose serious faces indicate that they know that we are talking about something that really matters.

In 1947, the procedure was conscientiously followed, and apart from the group in Sheffield it is true to say that there was a group which favoured the Development Council. I have not been convinced by anything the Parliamentary Secretary said tonight that there are valid grounds for dissolving this Council. We got rid of the Clothing Council, but, in that case, I am glad to see that a good deal has been saved from the wreck, and more than I thought likely at the time we debated the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary tonight can hold out no hope; there is nothing to come out of this. The situation will be even worse than it was before the Development Council was set up, and that is a tragic thing. The industry, I believe, needs help. If anyone doubts that it needs help, let him look at the ageing composition of the industry, and at the need for design help, for although our designs at their best are very good, in general they cannot stand up to the Scandinavian designs of today. We ought to do everything we can to help the industry, but this proposal to dissolve the Council is a retrograde step which will do harm, rather than help the industry, and I have no hesitation in urging my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide against the Motion.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

If I may occupy three minutes, I think it is necessary to answer some of the inaccurate statements made—

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

On a point of order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary in order in speaking again without the leave of the House?

Mr. Speaker

As the hon. Gentleman moved the substantive Motion, he has the right of reply.

Mr. Strauss

The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) gave the impression to the House that one of the most important trade associations was anxious that this body should continue. The fact is that both the main associations were against the Council in its present form. In response to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, various proposals were made I did not think it necessary to go through them—without securing the general assent of the industry. We believe in these development councils if they can be set up with the goodwill of all concerned, and that never proved possible in this case. If the hon. Member will study the report which is available in typewritten form in the Library, and which will be printed, he will find that the Council, in its last report, referred to the painstaking efforts of my right hon. Friend to secure agreement.

The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) quite rightly mentioned the very serious state of the industry to which "The Times" yesterday and today drew attention. I was not ignorant of that, and the only reason why I did not mention it was that it was not relevant to the Order we are discussing tonight. The sole reason for removing this Development Council is that it has not enjoyed the general support of the industry.

One inaccurate statement was made by the hon. Member for Islington. South-West with regard to the attitude of the independent members of the Council. If he will look at the report, when it is published, he will see that their support for the continuance of the Council was expressly made subject to the proviso that any such body must have the industry's support.

Mr. A. Evans

I stated that the independent members of the Council wished it to continue. I agree that they added the proviso that there should be general agreement. My statement was that the independent members were enthusiastic and wished that the Council could continue.

Mr. Strauss

I thought it was implied in the hon. Member's statement that what the Government were doing was contrary to the advice of the independent members.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen (Leyton)

I shall not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. I rather gathered from the Minister's statement that he regrets that the Development Council is not continuing, which is somewhat in contradiction to his other remarks, which seemed to indicate that the Council served no useful purpose. I would urge strongly that another endeavour should be made to see that this Council continues, or that its equivalent is established. I do so for two reasons. First, because this is one of the few remaining crafts in this country. It has had a long history, and world-wide renown. Any hon. Members who have been abroad know that British silverware and goldware are known throughout the world as having achieved a very high standard in the past. In spite of Scandinavian development, I still feel that British gold and silver hold a high position.

The second reason is more personal. It happens that my father was a silversmith and goldsmith, and at one time was president of his trade union. If the House will permit one brief personal allusion, I was impressed some years ago, when I visited Buckingham Palace, to see some of his ware on exhibition there. For that personal reason, and in particular because one of my hon. Friends who has spoken in this debate represents the district in which my father lived, I would urge that this craft, which still has large numbers of expert craftsmen, deserves every encouragement so that it shall still be able to maintain its standard. I earnestly trust that this matter will be reconsidered, and that if there cannot be this Development Council, some equivalent shall be established.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

It was my intention to make a speech on this matter, in which I have taken great

interest. However, I do not now intend to make that speech. I rise merely to protest against the incompetence and thoughtlessness of the Opposition. Here is an industry important to a number of towns and cities. In this debate the matter has not had the attention it deserves. It has not had that attention because the Opposition cannot use an elementary amount of common sense. The Opposition has put down for consideration, after a long day's business, four Prayers. If that is an example of how the Opposition behaves—

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing about that in the matter before the House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 160.

Division No. 100.] AYES [11.0 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Gammans, L. D. Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Godber, J. B. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Alport, C. J. M. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Gough, C. F. H. Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Gower, H. R. Markham, Major S. F.
Arbuthnot, John Graham, Sir Fergus Maude, Angus
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Grimond, J. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Medlicctt, Brig. F.
Baldwin, A. E. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Mellor, Sir John
Banks, Col. C. Harden, J. R. E Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Barber, Anthony Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Barlow, Sir John Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield) Nicholls, Harmar
Beach, Maj. Hicks Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.) Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Heald, Sir Lionel Nugent, G. R. H
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Heath, Edward Oakshott, H. D.
Bishop, F. P. Higgs, J. M. C. Odey, G. W.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenahawe) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Brown, Jack (Govan) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hirst, Geoffrey Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Bullard, D. G. Holland-Martin, C. J. Osborne, C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hollis, M. C. Perkins, W. R. D.
Burden, F. F. A. Hope, Lord John Peyton, J W. W.
Campbell, Sir David Horobin, I. M. Pitman, I. J.
Carr, Robert Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Powell, J. Enoch
Cary, Sir Robert Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Channon, H. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Hurd, A. R. Profumo, J. D.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Rayner, Brig. R.
Colegate, W. A. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Renton, D. L. M
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Jennings, R. Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Roper, Sir Harold
Cranborne, Viscount Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Repner, Col. Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Kaberry, D. Russell, R. S.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Kerr, H. W. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Crouch, R. F. Lambert, Hon. G. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Lambton, Viscount Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Davidson, Viscountess Lancaster, Col. C. G Scott, R. Donald
Deedes, W. F. Langford-Holt, J. A. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Leather, E. H. C. Shepherd, William
Donner, P. W. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Doughty, C. J. A. Linstead, H. N. Speir, R. M.
Drayson, G. B. Llewellyn, D. T. Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Fell, A. Longden, Gilbert Storey, S.
Fisher, Nigel Low, A. R. W. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Fort, R. Macdonald, Sir Peter Studholme, H. G.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Summers, G. S.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell McKibbin, A J. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C. Wood, Hon. R.
Tarton, R. H. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) York, C.
Vesper, D. F. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walker-Smith, D. C. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) Sir Herbert Butcher and Mr. Drewe.
Aeland, Sir Richard Hobson, C. R. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Adams, Richard Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Rankin, John
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Houghton, Douglas Reid Thomas (Swindon)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Robens, Rt. Hon. A
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Awbery, S. S. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Bacon, Miss Alice Hynd, H. (Accrington) Ross, William
Bartley, P. Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Janner, B. Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Benson, G. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Beswick, F. Jager, George (Goole) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Blackburn, F. Johnson, James (Rugby) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Blyton, W. R. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Snow, J. W.
Boardman, H. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Sorensen, R. W.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Sparks, J. A.
Brockway, A. F. Keenan, W. Steele, T.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Kenyon, C. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. King, Dr. H. M. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Burton, Miss F. E. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Swingler, S. T.
Callaghan, L. J. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Sylvester, G. O
Carmichael, J. Lewis, Arthur Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lindgren, G. S. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Champion, A J. MacColl. J. E. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Chetwynd, G R McGhee, H. G. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Coldrick, W. McInnes, J. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Collick, P. H. Mainwaring, W. H. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Corbel, Mrs. Freda Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thornton, E
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wallace, H W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Mann, Mrs. Jean Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Deer, G. Manuel, A. C. Wells, William (Walsall)
Delargy, H. J. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. West, D. G.
Driberg, T. E. N. Mikardo, Ian Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Mitchison, G. R. Wheeldon, W. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Monslow, W. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Moody, A. S. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Fernyhough, E. MuIley, F. W. Wigg, George
Fienburgh, W Murray, J. D. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Follick, M. Nally, W. Wilkins, W. A
Foot, M. M Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Willey, F. T
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Oliver, G. I. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Freeman, John (Watford) Orbach, M Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Oswald, T. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gibson, C. W. Padley, W. E. Wilson, RI. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Palmer, A. M. F. Wyatt, W. L
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Pearson, A. Yates, V F
Hale, Leslie Plummer, Sir Leslie Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Porter, G.
Hannan, W. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hargreaves, A. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Mr. Bowden and
Hayman, F. H. Proctor, W. T. Mr. Kenneth Robinson.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Pryde, D. J.

Resolved: That the Draft Jewellery and Silverware Council (Dissolution) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.