§ Mr. Michael Higgs (Bromsgrove)
I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, at the end, to insert:(a) for requiring cream or separated milk to be subjected to a specified treatment before being sold for human consumption.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment, in page 11, line 5.
§ Mr. Higgs
This is the Clause that gives power to the Minister to make regulations regulating the sale and treatment of milk before it is sold. I am told that there has been discovered a portion of territory uncovered either by this Bill or previous legislation. In specified areas, which now include more than half the country, where only designated milk may be sold, of course there are powers to require full milk before it is sold to be treated—pasteurised, and so on; but in respect of anybody who wishes to sell skimmed or separated milk there are no powers.
Both sides of the trade, the producers and the retailers, feel that it would be much better that there should be powers to regulate not only full milk but also separated milk, and these two Amendments would enable the Minister to make such regulations for separated milk, and also for cream, which I believe is not covered in all circumstances by the existing legislation.
§ Dr. Summerskill
I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment. It is a curious anomaly that milk can be subjected to treatment and rendered harmless to human beings but that cream is not subjected to any treatment and, therefore, constitutes a danger. I must plead guilty. I feel I am responsible for this omission. In the days when I had the great honour of piloting through the 404 House the Milk (Special Designations) Bill, which I think finally cleaned the milk supply of this country, cream did not come to my mind.
§ Dr. Summerskill
I plead that excuse. Most of us had forgotten what cream was like. I remember standing at that Box day after day discussing that Measure, but cream never entered my mind. I think that now we have some cream again something should be done about it.
§ 4.45 p.m.
As the right hon. Lady has suggested, my hon. Friend has made an excellent suggestion that gives a power that is needed and that is likely to be needed more as specified areas are extended. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Somerville Hastings (Barking)
I should like to say a word of welcome to this Amendment because I remember a time, 30 years ago, when in children's hospitals and the children's wards of hospitals there were a good many cases of surgical tuberculosis due to tubercular milk. It affected the bones and joints of many small children, and kept children in hospital for long periods, and many were left with permanent deformities. Although not every case was due to the bovine type of tuberculosis, there was in the majority of such cases an enormous amount of discomfort and pain.
Now, because milk to a large extent comes from tuberculin-tested cows or is pasteurised, matters are very different, and we are very glad to note that; but what we want is to eliminate surgical tuberculosis of bovine origin entirely, and this Amendment will help in that final elimination from this country.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)
I beg to move, in page 10, line 41, after "description," to insert:(being a description which in the opinion of the Ministers making the regulations ascribes to the milk a quality higher than the minimum quality prescribed for milk under section ten of the said Act).What the Minister is seeking to do is to ensure that there are specified standards for milk. That is a right and 405 proper thing, and we are all for it. However, he will be aware that there are certain breeds of cows in this country which enjoy the ability to produce a higher quality of milk than ordinary quality milk, and for that higher quality milk special prices are paid. I am referring to the Channel Islands breed, and I think the South Devon breed is another. It is for milk described in the Bill as of "specified normal constituents," or, as we should say in ordinary words, better quality milk, that greater prices are paid.
What I am seeking to do is to prevent anybody from passing on inferior milk in the place of superior milk and of using for it a description of milk which does not tally with the milk produced from the Channel Islands cows. Let me give an example of what could happen. A dairyman may find that, through no fault of his own, he is unable to supply all of his customers with Channel Islands milk, and may be tempted to substitute for that Channel Islands milk milk taken, let us say, from Freisian cows. That would be a wrong thing to do, and, perhaps, the dairyman could be prosecuted for doing it. I do not know whether that is so, but the Amendment would strengthen the powers of control and, at the same time, protect the housewives and make sure that they get the sort of milk they order.
As I understand the hon. Gentleman's case, it is to give precision to the words used for an agreed objective, and I agree with him that the words in the Clause, "any specified description," may be too loose for the purpose intended. I therefore invite the Committee to accept the Amendment.
§ Captain Duncan
I have an Amendment on the Notice Paper in almost the same terms, and its object, as my hon. Friend has said, is to define more carefully the kinds of milk concerned and the words in the Bill, "any specified description." In making his regulations covering milk of any specified description, the Minister may be unfair to the type of milk which we have in mind—that over the specified amount of butter fat such as Channel Islands milk, which, as can be seen from the Dairy Show records last week, is giving 5 to 7 per cent. butter fat as against the Minister's probable specified description of 3.7 or 406 4 per cent. butter fat. It was to help farmers and others who are producing this higher quality milk that my Amendment was tabled. I therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer).
§ Mr. Anthony Hurd (Newbury)
I support the Amendment, but I do not endorse the rather loose phrases which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) used in differentiating between different types of milk. He spoke of "superior and inferior milk." It is true that Channel Islands milk is richer in butter fat than some other milk and that some people are prepared to pay more because of that. Their preference should be safeguarded, and the Amendment will safeguard it; but not everybody chooses to drink milk with a high butter fat. In the United States and Canada there is a growing demand for what is called fat-free milk. We may come to that here. I should not say that we are trying to differentiate between inferior and superior milk; we are differentiating between different types of milk and safeguarding the consumers' choice
§ Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 10, line 45, after "milked," to insert:
We have been thinking again about this and the next Amendment. The purpose is quite clear; it is to give the necessary powers where an animal is in transit. It is thought by some people, however, that in its present form it would cover circumstances, such as the beef farm, which it was never intended to cover. With permission, we will withdraw this Amendment and the next Amendment in order to re-examine the wording and to give it the precision which we want it to have, and we will then put down another Amendment for the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
- (i) at any place not registered in pursuance of regulations under that Act as a dairy farm; or
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed: In page 11, line 2, leave out from "is," to the end of line 3, and to insert "so registered."—[Dr. Hill.]
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.407
I beg to move, in page 11, line 4, to leave out "so obtained," and to insert:to which regulations in force under the last foregoing paragraph apply.This is a purely drafting Amendment to make it clear that the power to require the staining of milk applies only where the milk is prohibited under paragraph (b) of the subsection.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 5, at end, insert:
(2) Paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection so far as it relates to cream shall be without prejudice to the power of the Ministers under Section three of this Act to make regulations applying to cream.—[Mr. Higgs.]
I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, after "purposes," to insert "of paragraph (c)."
This is a drafting Amendment. It is intended to refer only to paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to which the definition would apply.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Captain Duncan
I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, to leave out subsection (4), and to insert:(4) Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section nine of the Act of 1950 (which prohibits a person from selling adulterated milk or having it in his possession for the purpose of sale) shall have effect as if after the words "or have in his possession for the purpose of sale," there were inserted the words "or deposit for collection for sale.This Amendment raises an interesting point, and I am not quite sure that I have the answer to it. The milk farmer takes his churns to the road-end and leaves them there. Later in the day a lorry arrives and the churns are either emptied into a tank or are taken away, or a retailer comes along and picks up the churns, the milk having been sold to him by the Milk Marketing Board.
With that background, the sampler comes into the picture. He is entitled to take samples of milk at any stage in its production and transit or at any stage in the wholesale or retail. Sometimes he tries to take a sample out of the churn. It has been found, in practice, that the sampler is in difficulty in discovering who is the owner of the milk at that point. One defence for the farmer could be that he intended to take the churns back to the farm to feed the milk to the pigs, in 408 which case there would be no sale and the sampler could not bring a charge against him on the grounds that the milk had been adulterated. Another defence could well be that the farmer had left the churns there and somebody else had put in the water. There have been difficulties in law in pursuing this matter of adulterated milk in churns at the road end.
The suggestion in the Amendment is that the farmer should lose control of the milk the moment the churn is at the collecting point. I believe that this would clear up a difficult point which I understand has been the subject of various court decisions, and I believe that it would make it fairer for the farmers. The method employed by the Government under the Clause is to say, "If you seal your churn you have a defence"; but the difficulty, I am told by the National Farmers' Union, is that it will be impracticable to induce farmers in every case to seal their churns. It is not practicable as a matter of farming procedure to seal the churns. In any case, the seal might be broken by someone else.
The object of the Amendment is to try to clear up this doubtful situation and to help the sampler. If the sampling officer wished to take milk from a churn at that point, he should come along the road at a time when he knew the farmer would be putting out the churns in the morning and he could take a sample while the farmer was still there. Obviously, he cannot do that at every farm, but, in fact, he does not try to do so. He may sometimes take the sample out of the tank later, when it is definitely in the ownership of the Milk Marketing Board.
It seems to me that it would be clearer in law and easier for the farmer if the sampling officer were on the spot when the churns were put out by the farmer so that there could be no doubt about it. I believe that my Amendment has the support of the farming community.
§ 5.0 p.m.
I recognise that the position as outlined by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) is difficult, but the effect of his Amendment would be to put on the prosecution the onus, in the case of a churn at a road-end, of proving that the farmer had deposited adulterated milk for collection for sale. We have given 409 anxious thought to this matter. It was intended, I understand, that the existing law should define possession, so as to secure that the churn at the road-end was still, in law, in possession of the farmer. The law went a step further, and in Section 71 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, provided a defence to which I will refer in a moment.
My hon. and gallant Friend said that the courts had put another interpretation on possession. After anxious thought, we have reached the conclusion that the only effective way to do this is to regard the churn at the lane-end as still in the possession of the farmer, leaving him the defence of Section 71 (2) of the Food and Drugs Act, which states:It shall be a defence … to prove that the churn or other vessel in which the milk was contained was effectively closed and sealed at the time when it left his possession, but had been opened before the person by whom the sample was taken had access to it.I know the difficulty about the sealing of churns, but recently the practice of sealing churns had grown.
On balance—I put it no higher than that—I think that public health demands that possession for this purpose shall be deemed to be that of the farmer, even if the churn is at the road-end. In an Amendment which we shall be discussing shortly, in order to remove all possible doubt about the defence to which I have referred, section 71 (2) of the Food and Drugs Act is reinstated in this Bill. That will remove any doubt that there has been any change in the defence.
In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the difficulty, I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance that we have considered it most carefully, we recognise the difficulty, but see no way other than this of making the law really effective.
§ Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Southall)
I tabled an Amendment designed to achieve the same objective, but especially to deprive the farmer of the defence that someone else has interfered with the churn on the roadside. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I gave that argument now, as it is related to this point.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Gentleman cannot elaborate on that 410 Amendment, because it has not been selected, and, therefore, he cannot deal with it.
§ Mr. Pargiter
Then I will confine myself to the Amendment which has been moved. The Minister held to the defence which the farmer has that someone else has interfered with the churn after he had sealed it. What, in practice, is likely to happen? If someone interferes with a churn of milk, that means that he will break the seal to extract milk from it and replace it with water. The defence is not a good defence, and I am surprised that the Minister wants to provide that defence to this particular Clause.
Once we have defined that the milk remains in the possession of the farmer until it is collected, it seems to me that the responsibility is the farmer's and must remain with the farmer to see that the milk is not adulterated in any way. I think that, in spite of what the Minister has said, the onus of proof is still put on the prosecution because the farmer will say that the milk left the farm sealed and that he can call his milkers and others to say that it was effectively sealed before it left the farm.
What is to stop the farmer himself, after having sold the milk, or someone on his behalf, breaking the seal and adulterating the milk before it is deposited at the roadside? The defence and the prosecution are put in a difficult position as a result of this defence, and I do not think that it should be permitted. I think, however, that the Amendment should be carried because it will define, first of all, the question of possession, and we can go on from that to define the question of the farmer's responsibility.
§ Captain Duncan
I recognise that this is a difficult question. I was not certain that I had the right answer, but I think that it is a point which requires consideration. I am not at all satisfied that the law as laid down in the 1950 Act and in this Bill will operate satisfactorily. I hope that between now and the Report stage my hon. Friend will have another look at this matter and consider whether he can devise something to help the sampler, and to make clear to the farmer where his responsibility begins and ends. In that case, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. G. Darling
I do not want to enter into the merits of the discussion, but I want the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that we have noted that it is his view that the farmer's responsibility for his products ends when they leave the farm.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'where' in line 41, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, to leave out from "but," to the end of line 47, and to insert:nothing in this subsection shall be taken as affecting anything in subsection (2) of section seventy-one of the principal Act (which provides a defence on a charge in respect of milk of which a sample is taken after the milk has left the defendant's possession).This Amendment deals with an associated point. Now that it has been made abundantly clear what possession is deemed to be, we turn to the defence. Our first effort was to re-writ the defence, to put it in other words, and to leave its essence unchanged. On reflection, we thought that it would be better actually to repeat the words of Section 71 (2) of the Act in order not to leave any ambiguity and to avoid the suggestion that we had sought in any way to vary this defence.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), I would suggest to the Committee that when we take steps in legislation to have it deemed to be in a man's possession, although, in fact, it would not be physically in that man's possession, it is not unreasonable that a defence of the kind that I read to the Committee earlier should be open to anyone so prosecuted.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us this time in whose possession the milk would be if it was not in that of the farmer and if this Clause were not there.
I take this opportunity of saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that when I did not rise earlier I intended no discourtesy, but I did not want to disturb the speedy rhythm which was beginning to develop. In regard to his latest question, we are dealing with milk at the road-end. That milk is deemed to be in the possession of the farmer. I have not seen the precise point of difficulty to which the hon. and 412 learned Gentleman refers. This is milk which is subject to sampling, and under the Bill it will be deemed to be in his possession. If I have not clearly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, I shall be grateful if he will put it again.
§ Mr. Mitchison
I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for answering the question about what he said on the previous matter. I am not certain that this is necessary. I should have thought that if the farmer had left the churn at the roadside to be collected later by the dairy company, it should remain, if in anyone's possession, in possession of the farmer until collection. I see that the Solicitor-General is here, and I feel that this is one of the matters on which he might give us his advice.
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster)
Will the hon. and learned Member be good enough to take my assurance that, attractive as his view is, there is authority to the contrary?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Dr. Summerskill
I beg to move, in page 11, line 47, at the end, to add:(5) The Ministers may make regulations for controlling the use of milk churns, milk bottles and milk crates and for prohibiting or regulating the use of such articles by any person without the consent of the owner and for requiring any person who obtains permission or control of such articles to take reasonable care of them and not to retain them for an unreasonable time or wilfully to destroy or damage them.This Amendment, which is self-explanatory, seeks to protect the consuming public against the irresponsible and careless person who misuses churns, milk bottles and other receptacles which are used for milk and who by so doing endangers the health of the public. Not only can there be danger to the health of the public, but the authorities concerned with cleaning these receptacles tell me that they are caused a great deal of inconvenience, that it takes much longer to clean these receptacles and that all kinds of different bacteriacides have to be used in order effectively to cleanse them.
A similar provision was contained in a Defence Regulation. If it was necessary to put it in a Defence Regulation and to protect the public in those days, why is it necessary to omit it today? I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the matter with a view to embodying this provision in the Bill.
I agree with the right hon. Lady that a great deal of trouble and difficulty, and, possibly, even danger—but we are more concerned with the trouble and difficulty—is caused by the use to which milk bottles, for example, are put. I understand that they are used for a variety of purposes in connection even with the domestic operation concerned with the "home perm." We have discussed this question with the trade, who for some time pressed upon us something of the kind that the right hon. Lady includes in her Amendment. But the trade has, with us, faced the difficulties and does not now press us to do what the right hon. Lady asks.
How could a provision of this kind be enforced? This is no party point. None of us wants to impose requirements that cannot be fulfilled without a whole system of domestic inspection and right of entry that would be intolerable to us all. I appreciate the point that the right hon. Lady has in mind, and I am glad that she has made it, for perhaps the reasons which she and I have given today may do something in this direction. I suggest, however, that to empower the making of regulations which by their very nature, could not be enforced without domestic snooping, is something that the Committee generally would not wish to do.
§ Mr. Mitchison
The Parliamentary Secretary has forgotten the churn. Few people have heads so large or so hairy that a churn is required for the domestic operation to which he alluded. Generally speaking, people do not keep churns in their houses, so that any snooping about churns probably would not be of a domestic character. On the other hand, churns might be misused. I am very glad that the Minister of Health is present, and perhaps I can give him an illustration.
There are some cottages in my constituency which depend upon churns for their domestic water. Water for drinking has for years been sent down regularly in churns to these cottages. The water arrangements are not sufficiently developed in this country and in that part of it for anything else to be done. I would rather that water was provided in a proper way, that it did not go into milk churns and that the churns were kept for the solitary purpose of containing milk.
414 I should have thought there was no harm in seeing that that was done.
All that the Minister is being asked to do is, not necessarily to make regulations, but not to preclude himself from making them. If he does not object to making regulations about churns, let him make them about churns. That will not oblige him to make them about bottles or to enter into the intricacies of permanent waving. I can see difficulties about that, but that is no reason to deny himself a power which has proved necessary in the past—otherwise it would not have remained in the Defence of the Realm Regulations—and which probably still is necessary.
§ Mr. Archer Baldwin (Leominster)
I am sorry that the Amendment has not been accepted. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I suggested putting down an Amendment to deal with milk bottles and he assured me that the trade already had power to deal with the waste of milk bottles which now goes on.
It is not only the trade that is affected by the misuse of milk bottles. In my capacity as a farmer engaged upon production which requires a lot of casual labour, when I get casual labour for fruit picking or any other purpose I find milk bottles thrown all over the countryside. In addition, weekend parties from motor cars have their picnics on the roadside, and the most convenient place to throw these bottles seems to be in my hayfield or cornfield. Not only is this a nuisance, but it is extremely dangerous to stock when the bottles are broken.
I suggest that the trade should take steps to try to obviate this very big loss, which runs into a high figure each year. I should have thought that if the consumer was charged a halfpenny more for a bottle of milk and had the halfpenny refunded on returning the bottle in a clean or semi-clean condition, some of the waste would be stopped. I am sorry that something cannot be done to try to prevent this waste and danger.
§ Mr. Coldrick (Bristol, North-East)
I wish it were possible to devise some means of ensuring that milk bottles were used for their original purpose. From my experience with the distributive organisations, I know the enormous cost involved in distribution as a result of the 415 wastage caused by carelessness in the handling of bottles. But while I appreciate that so far, at any rate, it has been impossible in large organisations to do anything to ensure that the bottles are properly used, I believe that attention should be paid to the churns. I am not a medical man, but I believe that far more infection is caused through churns than by any other form of milk distribution.
Large-scale dairies, of course, have all the facilities for sterlisation, but I have been astonished to find that churns frequently go direct from small farms to hospitals. While it may be possible to ensure cleanliness in the case of bottles, if farms send churns direct to hospitals and the milk is scooped out into other receptacles, one can take it for granted that analysis by a good laboratory subsequently would show that large colonies of bacteria had developed in the churn. It ought to be possible for regulations to be drafted to ensure that churns are used properly and thus prevent this kind of infection.
§ Dr. Stross
I want to suggest that some method should be contemplated in order to give some protection to the special interests concerned. For example, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) has outlined the position in agriculture, and then we ought also to consider the trade itself. I have been informed that one of the most difficult things to get rid of from milk bottles is paraffin, and that to do so is a costly business. If it is obvious that paraffin has been put into a bottle, then it is not a suitable vehicle for milk. It needs special washing and cleansing.
I do not know whether a great deal of the misuse of bottles is not due to the fact that people are ignorant of the way they should behave towards these containers, and whether it might not be possible to put some wording on the glass container itself in the process of manufacture warning the public against the misuse of these bottles and the penalties that can be imposed for such an offence. Their attention could be drawn to it in that way.
Lastly, may I say that the words proposed to be inserted are interesting, particularly when they describe what should be done? The Amendment speaks of 416… prohibiting or regulating the use of such articles by any person without the consent of the owner …One of the most interesting as well as romantic uses of milk bottles is by boys knocking the caps off and putting a mouse into the milk. I find that heavy penalties are imposed on dairymen and on the owners of sterilising plants because it is assumed that the mouse got into the milk when sterilising was being done. Although we are assured by engineers that it is physically impossible for that to happen, heavy fines are again and again imposed in county after county, whether on such organisations as the co-operative societies or private enterprise. I cannot help mentioning this fact, because it might come to the attention of schoolchildren and they might leave the milk bottles alone.
Perhaps it would be convenient if I said a word now to help the Committee. The debate has largely centred on milk bottles, and the Dairymen's Association with them, but the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) have raised the question of churns. I wonder if it will satisfy the Committee on the subject of churns if I undertake to look into the matter. That would enable us to pass on to the next Amendment.
§ Dr. Summerskill
The Parliamentary Secretary has not satisfied us, for this reason. The argument he advanced that it was not enforceable might have been acceptable 30 years ago, but he agrees with me that the education of the public in measures of public health has advanced considerably. In my opinion, they are ready for this. He said it is not enforceable. He would also agree that many provisions are embodied in Bills to constitute a guide to the public in the code of conduct we expect them to follow.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that many people use these bottles for oil, permanent waving material and so on, simply because they know it is not an offence. If they knew it was an offence and that the stuff they put into the bottles might prove injurious to consumers, they would not do it. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary refuse to take action at this stage when I say that the public are ready for it? I suggest that we divide against the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."418
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 246.419
|Division No. 224.]||AYES||[5.25 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Hannan, W||Peart, T. F.|
|Adams, Richard||Hardy, E. A.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Hargreaves, A||Popplewell, E.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R||Hastings, S.||Porter, G.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Hayman, F. H.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bacon, Mist Alice||Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Balfour, A.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J||Herbison, Miss M.||Reeves, J.|
|Bence, C. R.||Hobson, C. R.||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Benson, G.||Holman, P.||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Beswick, F.||Holmes, Horace||Rhodes, H.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Houghton, Douglas||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hoy, J. H.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Boardman, H.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Ross, William|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Brown, Thomas (lnce)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Burke, W. A.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)||Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Snow, J W.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Sorensen, R, W.|
|Carmichael, J.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Chapman, W. D.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Chetwynd, G R||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Steele, T.|
|Clunie, J.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Coldriek, W||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Collick, P H||Keenan, W.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Collins, V. J.||Key, Rt. Hon C. W.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||King, Dr. H. M.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Lawson, G. M.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Daines, P.||Logan, D. G||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||McGhee, H. G.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Mclnnes, J.||Timmons, J.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||McLeavy, F.||Usborne, H. C.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Viant, S. P.|
|Deer, G.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Warbey, W N.|
|Delargy, H. J||Mainwaring, W. H.||Walkins, T. E.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Manuel, A. C.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A||West, D. G.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mason, Roy||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Mayhew, C. P||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Mellish, R. J.||While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Mitchison, G. R||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Monslow, W.||Wigg, George|
|Fienburgh, W.||Moody, A. S.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Fineh, H. J.||Morley, R.||WilIey, F. T.|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Follick, M.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. S)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Foot, M. M.||Mort, D. L.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Forman, J. C.||Moyle, A.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'v)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mulley, F. W.||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Murray, J. D||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Nally, W.||Willis, E. G.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Oldfield, W. H.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Oliver, G. H.||WinterboMom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C||Oswald, T.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Gray, C. F.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Yates, V. F.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Pannell, Charles|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Pargiter, G. A||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Paton, J||Mr. Arthur Allen and|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Pearson, A||Mr. John Taylor.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Arbuthnot, John||Banks, Col. C.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Barber, Anthony|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Astor, Hon. J. J||Baxter, Sir Beverley|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Baldwin, A. E.||Beach, Maj. Hicks|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Heath, Edward||O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Higgs, J. M. C.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Osborne, C.|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Page, R. G.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Partridge, E.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hollis, M. C.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Boothby, Sir R. J. G.||Holt, A. F.||Perkins, Sir Robert|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Bowen, E. R.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Horobin, I. M.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Gurney||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Hurd, A. R.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Billiard, D. G.||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)||Ramsden, J. E.|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Campbell, Sir David||Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Carr, Robert||Iremonger, T. L||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Channon, H.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Kaberry, D.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Keeling, Sir Edward||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Cole, Norman||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Colegate, W. A.||Kerr, H. W.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Conant, Mai Sir Roger||Lambert, Hon. G.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Lambton, Viscount||Russell, R. S.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Sandys, Rt Hon. D.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Leather, E. H. C.||Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas|
|Crouch, R. F.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Scott, R. Donald|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Lindsay, Martin||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Longden, Gilbert||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Digby, S. Wingfield||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Spearman, A C. M.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||McAdden, S. J.||Speir, R. M.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.||McCallum, Major D.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Donner, Sir P. W.||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Duthie, W. S.||McKibbin, A. J.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Storey, S.|
|Fell, A.||Maclean, Fitzroy||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)||Studholme, H. G.|
|Fisher, Nigel||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Sutcliffe, Sir Harold|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Teeling, W.|
|Foster, John||Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Tilney, John|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Glover, D.||Marples, A. E.||Turner, H. F. L|
|Godber, J. B.||Maude, Angus||Turton, R. H|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Maudling, R.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Gough, C. F. H.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Gower, H. R.||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Mellor, Sir John||Vosper, D. F.|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Molson, A. H. E.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Grimond, J.||Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Watkinson, H. A.|
|Harden, J. R. E.||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Hare, Hon. J. H.||Neave, Airey||Wellwood, W.|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Nicholls, Harmar||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Harvie-Wart, Sir George||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Hay, John||Nugent, G. R. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Oakshott, H. D.||Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Wills.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.