§ 10.10 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low)
I beg to move,That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1956 (S.I., 1956, No. 990), dated 29th June, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.On 28th February, I announced the Government's decision to apply the general ad valorem duty to imports of foreign bacon and pork when State trading ended, while continuing duty-free entry for supplies from the Commonwealth and the Irish Republic. This meant, as I explained, that we would be introducing a tariff preference instead of a quota preference for Commonwealth bacon and pork.
This step is within our international obligations, for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade specifically provided, in 1947, that we should introduce tariff preferences as soon as practicable in place of the pre-war quota preferences if they were not eliminated. The Order we are debating tonight implements the Government's decision.
I think it may help if, before I explain it, I briefly inform the House of the different names applied to parts of a dead pig—and not necessarily different parts. I hope that Members who are knowledgeable in these matters will forgive me, but I confess I had myself some difficulty in understanding all this.
First, there is pork; that is simple. It is just uncured pig meat. Secondly, there is bacon; and that is simple, too. It is cured pig meat. Thirdly, there is ham. Now, ham is also cured pig meat—the thigh and hind leg of a pig after curing. It may be cured by the same method as bacon or by other methods. So the fundamental difference between bacon and ham is anatomical rather than culinary.
Fourthly, there are whole hams. If the hindquarters of a carcase are cut off and separately processed, that is a whole ham. Finally, salted or pickled pork, is the name for a more or less obsolete commodity formerly delivered in barrels for consumption mainly by seamen and lumberjacks, but apparently, in these days of refrigeration, their tastes are different.
§ Mr. Charles A. Howell (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what gammon is?
§ Mr. Low
I would rather confine myself to the words in the Order. If the hon. Member looks at the Order he will find all the other names I have mentioned, but he will not find gammon, so I think it would be out of order to discuss that.
The Order implements the decision to impose a 10 per cent. duty on foreign bacon and pork. That is done by removing bacon and pork from the First Schedule of the Import Duties Act, which contains the list of goods exempt from the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty. We have also removed ham from this Schedule, because it is impossible for the Customs to distinguish between different methods of curing pigmeat. For example, ham has been imported into the United Kingdom recently as part of the bacon carcase. Ham coming in like that will pay the 10 per cent. duty.
We are not taking immediate steps to extend the 10 per cent. duty to whole hams and salted or pickled pork. There is no logical reason for this differential treatment, and it is our intention that in due course similar tariff treatment will be extended to all uncanned pigmeat, excluding offals. But for the moment we have international obligations in respect of the tariff on whole hams and on salted or pickled pork, and these will, first, have to be renegotiated. I can tell the House that there have, in fact, been no imports recently of these things.
To help the House to understand the full picture, I think I ought now to say a word about the proposals for the import licensing of pigmeat effective from 1st October. Imports of all forms of pigmeat from the sterling area will be allowed without restrictions as to quantity. Existing quota arrangements for the import of pork from Argentina will continue subject, of course, to renegotiation.
Where appropriate, arrangements for imports of pigmeat from Japan, Korea and Soviet bloc countries will be a matter for negotiation. Imports of most kinds of pigment will be allowed from the relaxation countries, that is, Western Europe and other countries which I have not mentioned, without restriction as to 1535 quantity. No imports of any kind of pigmeat will be licensed from the dollar area for balance of payments reasons. Details of these arrangements will be announced in the normal way in a short time.
I now turn to the facts about bacon imports and supplies, and then I will say a few words about policy considerations. Imports of bacon and hams, costing £70 million in 1955, formed just over one-half of our total bacon supplies compared with about two-thirds before the war. Before the war, Denmark supplied one-half of our imports. She has recently been supplying two-thirds. Before the war, Canada supplied 15 per cent. of our imports, but for balance of payments reasons none has been brought from Canada recently. Other suppliers are the Irish Republic, the Netherlands and Poland.
Imported supplies of pork, which, in 1954–55, were between £8 million and £9 million and amounted to only about 10 per cent. of our total pork supplies, came from the Irish Republic as to about 40 per cent., from New Zealand as to about 25 per cent. and from Denmark as to about 15 per cent., the Netherlands, the Argentine and Australia supplying the rest.
Finally, I come to home production. As I think hon. Members know, pigmeat production at home has increased from 435,000 tons before the war 745,000 tons in 1954–55 and 650,000 tons forecast for 1955–56.
Now a word about policy considerations. It has long been our policy in relation to pigmeat production to secure, first, development of home production and, secondly, to give preferential treatment to Commonwealth producers. The Ottawa Agreements provided for this by the use of quotas on foreign imports of bacon and ham and pork. During the war and since, throughout State trading, the quota system has been in suspense. With the end of State trading we had to consider how we should achieve the same purpose, that is, home producer first and the Commonwealth producer preferred to the foreigner. The alternatives before us were quota or tariff preferences.
From the international point of view, we have an obligation entered into by 1536 right hon. Gentlemen opposite to move away from quota preferences to tariff preferences. If we wished to keep a preference from the domestic point of view, the tariff has considerable advantages over the quota, as I mentioned in answering Questions on 28th February. Tariffs have not the rigidity of the quota. They allow for variations in demand, which quotas do not. Tariffs allow competition between our suppliers, with all that means for the price and quality of the bacon the housewife buys. Individual country quotas do not secure that. From the producer's point of view, the tariff protects him and provides a good way of avoiding violent fluctuation in market conditions. Finally, from the taxpayer's point of view, the tariff provides revenue.
We therefore chose the tariff as the best instrument, and after full consideration decided upon the 10 per cent. general ad valorem rate. We consulted the members of the Commonwealth who have rights in this matter—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—and we negotiated with Denmark, with the results which I announced on 28th February. We then informed the contracting parties of the G.A.T.T. of our negotiations with the Danes, and of our intention to impose a 10 per cent. duty on bacon; not one of them has objected.
It was not necessary to negotiate with any of the G.A.T.T. contracting parties about pork, but we were bound to consult the Argentine, with whom we made an agreement in 1936 about pork. That we have done.
In this way, the change-over from State trading to private importing, and the alteration of quota preferences to tariff preferences, will have been accomplished, despite the complications, without altering the principles of our policy affecting the home producer and the Commonwealth producer, without breach of our G.A.T.T. obligations, and without damage to our trade relations.
§ 10.22 p.m.
§ Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)
We are bound to complain that this matter has been taken at this late hour. The Order is an extremely important one, which introduces important matters of principle; it ought to have a full day's debate devoted to it. Instead of that, it is being rushed through at this time of night, which, in my opinion, 1537 is extremely unfortunate, having regard to its importance.
We on this side of the House have no dogmatic approach to this question of tariffs. We believe that there are some circumstances in which the imposition of these duties is justifiable. For example, in 1953 we did not divide the House on the increases which were then put upon certain horticultural products. It is true that all my hon. Friends did not agree with what I said on that occasion, but, nevertheless we did not divide the House. I say that merely to show that we have no ideological or dogmatic approach to this matter. It is a question of taking each suggestion by the Government, examining it, and making our decision upon it.
What are the Government doing in this connection? They are replacing a bulk buying arrangement by private buying by private importers of bacon, supplemented by a 10 per cent. duty. What will be the effect of all this? As I see it, it is unlikely that for a long time to come we shall be importing less bacon and less pigmeat from abroad because of the imposition of this duty. That means that the foreign pig producers, the Danes in particular, will get just about the same price as they are getting now for the bacon that they sell to our importers. The private importer, having bought the bacon at the same price, will sell at cost plus the 10 per cent. duty which is being placed upon this food, plus his own profit.
As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Government will get a rake-off of 10 per cent. in the form of the duty which is being imposed. As I see it, the taxpayer will gain by this arrangement by the amount of the tariff which will come to the Government as a result of the imposition of the duty; and the taxpayer will gain because of the lessened amount of subsidy which the Government will have to pay to the pig producer here because, the margin between the home-produced bacon and pigmeat and that which is being imported will have considerably narrowed.
What will be the effect of this upon the consumer? I believe that the whole cost of this tariff and of the importer's profit will be placed upon the consumer. The buyer of bacon, the man who gets his bit of bacon for breakfast, will have to pay more for it as a result of this Order which 1538 is being forced through the House by the Government tonight.
I disagree entirely with the Minister of State's suggestion that there might be a compensating advantage to the British pig producer. I cannot see that anything of the sort is likely to happen. Certainly, the Order will not provide any stimulus to the pig producer at home to produce better bacon and pork. The improvement must come in some other way.
The fact is that our producers are guaranteed an average price of nearly 50s. per score deadweight as against the price being paid to the Danish producer of 41s. 10d. and to the Dutch producer of 38s. 4d. If one adds the tariff to the price to be paid to the Danish producer—I mention him because he is this country's biggest supplier—the price received by the British farmer will still be about 4s. higher than the cost of the pigmeat brought in from Denmark.
I mention these figures because I cannot see that anything will result from the Order to provide a stimulus to the home pig producer. Certainly, no advantage will accrue to the farmer to compensate in any way for the fact that by this Order the Government are tonight adding another item to the list of foods the prices of which have been deliberately raised this year by Government action. Following bread and milk, now comes bacon. It is all the direct result of Government action which is not only ridiculous, but deliberate. I suppose that the Government will say that they are bringing greater reality to food prices. That is the sort of phrase that they use so easily in this connection.
What the Government have failed to grasp is that their supreme task at this time is to prevent our economy floundering on the rock of uncontrolled inflation. Perhaps I am wrong in suggesting that the Government do not realise that that should be their job, because from time to time they pay lip service to it. They talk about the necessity for doing something to prevent inflation continuing, with its disastrous effects upon the economy.
What is the use of the Prime Minister telling the country, as he did last week end:Each one of us will benefit far more if we are able to halt inflation and stabilise prices, than from any further reductions in taxation, given from the surplus. That is the reality, and 1539 it has to be faced, most of all by those with fixed incomes, for it is they who suffer most as the purchasing power of money falls."?I hope it will be noticed that the Minister of State said that one of the main benefits would be to the taxpayers. He made a special point of the lessening in taxation. Yet, last Sunday, the Prime Minister told us that this does not matter half as much as the danger to our economy resulting from inflation. What is the use of saying that sort of thing on Sunday if, on Thursday, one supports an Order which, while it will save a little taxation, will give another upwards twist to the prices-wages spiral?
I would not say so much about this if I thought that it would benefit British farmers, but, as far as I can see, it will do nothing of the sort. The Prime Minister said that the job of curbing inflation is one for the "many". There is something in that, but the lead must come from the Government, for they have the power to control inflation. While the "many" must certainly do something about it, the Government of the day, who happen to be the "few" in this connection, have no right to talk in these terms of the responsibility of the "many" and, at the same time, take actions which deliberately force up the cost of living and inevitably bring about all the things that the Prime Minister says we must try to avoid.
For these reasons, which I have stated as briefly as I can in view of the lateness of the hour, the Opposition will divide against the Order, to which we strongly object.
§ Mr. W. T. Williams (Barons Court)
Did not the Minister say that no objection had been raised from any source to the imposition of the import duty? Can my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that when negotiations took place the Danish Government resented and expressed opposition to the imposition, which they regarded as a violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade?
§ Mr. Champion
All I can say is that it appeared that the Danish Government objected to it strongly, but accepted it under the considerable pressure which was brought to bear upon them.
§ 10.32 p.m.
§ Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
We do not know in what capacity the right hon. Gentleman appears here tonight. He has been going around the country—we support him in this—trying to encourage the manufacturing industries to export more. Now he brings forward a proposal for the Danes to pay a tariff on the ground that we want to export to Denmark. If this was being done in such a way that it would bring benefit to the British farmers, we should look at it differently, but it will bring them no benefit. I cannot see how our economy will be helped by the argument that, by imposing the tariff, we shall import less bacon and that our balance of payments situation will be eased. We feed our pigs largely on imported feeding stuffs. Even if less imported bacon is consumed because the price rises, imports of feeding stuffs will counteract any balance of payments benefit.
The tariff should be postponed until the reorganisation of the pig and bacon industry has been put in hand. Whatever form the reorganisation proposals take, we shall need some organised marketing dealing with imports and also the home market. It is a very retrograde step to propose a tariff which will benefit nobody and merely put up the price of bacon.
I speak on behalf of the co-operative pig producers and bacon curers who deplore what is behind this policy and wish to see quality of production in this country greatly improved. They believe that to shelter farmers and bacon curers behind a protective tariff of this kind without doing anything else will not improve pig or bacon production in this country in quantity or quality. This Order is a retrograde step and we should all oppose it.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 162.1543
|Division No. 267.]||AYES||[10.35 p.m.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Arbuthnot, John||Baldwin, A. E.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Armstrong, C. W.||Balniel, Lord|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Ashton, H.||Barber, Anthony|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Atkins, H. E.||Barlow, Sir John|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Barter, John|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Harvey, John (Walthamstow E.)||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Hay, John||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Bidgood, J. C.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)|
|Black, C. W.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Osborne, C.|
|Body, R. F.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Page, R. G.|
|Boothby, Sir Robert||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Hirst, Geoffrey||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Pitman, I. J.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hornby, R. P.||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Horobin, Sir Ian||Pott, H. P.|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Bryan, P.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Hurd, A. R.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Ramsden, J. E.|
|Channon, H.||Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Iremonger, T. L.||Redmayne, M.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Cole, Norman||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Joseph, Sir Keith||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Crouch, R. F.||Keegan, D.||Sharples, R. C.|
|Cunningham, Knox||Kerr, H. W.||Shepherd, William|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Kershaw, J. A.||Speir, R. M.|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Kimball, M.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Kirk, P. M.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Lagden, G. W.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Leather, E. H. C.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Leavey, J. A.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Drayson, G. B.||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.||Teeling, W.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Longden, Gilbert||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Low, Rt Hon. A. R. W.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Erroll, F. J.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Finlay, Graeme||McKibbin, A. J.||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Fort, R.||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Forrest, G.||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Freeth, D. K.||Maddan, Martin||Vickers, Miss J. H.|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Vosper, D. F.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Mathew, R.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Glover, D.||Maude, Angus||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Godber,||Mawby, R. L.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Grant, W. (Woodside)||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Williams, Paui (Sunderland, S.)|
|Green, A.||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col, R. G.||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Gurden, Harold||Nairn, D. L. S.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.||Neave, Airey|
|Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Nicholls, Harmer||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'oh)||Mr. Oakshott and Mr. R. Thompson.|
|Nield, Basil (Chester)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Deer, G.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Brockway, A. F.||Delargy, H. J.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Dodds, N. N.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Baird, J.||Burke, W. A.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)|
|Benson, G.||Champion, A. J.||Fernyhough, E.|
|Beswick, F.||Chetwynd, G. R.||Fienburgh, W.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Clunie, J.||Finch, H. J.|
|Blackburn, F.||Coldrick, W.||Fletcher, Eric|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Forman, J. C.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.|
|Boardman, H.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Gibson, G. W.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Gooch, E, G.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. G.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Greenwood, Anthony|
|Grey, C. F.||Logan, D. G.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Short, E. W.|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||MacColl, J. E.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Hale, Leslie||Mclnnes, J.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Hannan, W.||Mahon, Simon||Sparks, J. A.|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Hayman, F. H.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Healey, Denis||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn, A. (Rwly Regis)||Mellish, R. J.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Mitchison, G. R.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Moody, A. S.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hobson, C. R.||Moss, R.||Thornton, E.|
|Holman, P.||Moyle, A.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Holmes, Horace||Mulley, F. W.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Howell, Denis (All Saints)||O'Brien, Sir Thomas||Weitzman, D.|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Oram, A. E.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Orbach, M.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Oswald, T.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Hunter, A. E.||Owen, W. J.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Paget, R. T.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Irving, S. (Dartford)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Janner, B.||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Pargiter, G. A.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St.Pncs, S.)||Parker, J.||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Pearson, A.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Pearl, T. F.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Popplewell, E.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Kenyon, C.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Woof, R. E.|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Probert, A. R.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Proctor, W. T.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Pryde, D. J.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Simmons.|
|That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 6) Order, 1956 (S.I., 1956, No. 990), dated 29th June, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.|