– in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 5 Awst 1947.
I beg to move:
That the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1478), dated nth July, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 17th July, be annulled.
The Order is comparatively long, consisting of some six pages. I desire to raise a short but important point concerning a provision within the Order which affects the recently announced reduction in the tea ration. That is effected, as I understand the matter, by paragraph 4, which fixes the quantity of rationed foods which are permitted, and when it is read together with the schedule the net effect is to bring about a reduction in the tea ration. I would point out at this stage that both the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food have been notified that I intend to raise this matter. I have been in touch with both of them, but neither of them is here. That absence will inevitably prolong the proceedings upon this Motion. I hoped that it might be possible to get from one of those Ministers an answer to a simple question which, if satisfactorily answered, would restrict the length of the Debate, a result which I apprehend would not be unwelcome to the House.
In the absence of those Ministers, for whatever reason it may be, I am not unhopeful of obtaining from the Government—[Interruption]. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has just come in. She was notified of the point which I propose to raise concerning the restriction of the tea ration. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends will raise other points on this Order but the particular point of the tea ration is that about which the Parliamentary Secretary and her Ministry have been notified.
The matter arises in this way. On 14th July, the Minister of Food made a statement announcing this reduction, which is implemented by the Order under discussion. It will be fair to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman if I quote the reasons which he gave, as given in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister said:
The House will recollect that on 3rd April I warned hon. Members that, mainly owing to a dock strike in Calcutta, our stocks of tea were decreasing. The Calcutta strike ended after twelve weeks on 3rd May, but
a subsequent strike in Colombo which lasted four weeks and ended on 20th June meant that for a whole month no shipments of tea from Ceylon were possible.
The Ministry loyally assisted by the trade, have done everything humanly possible to maintain our supplies, but these two consecutive interruptions in shipments have now reduced our stocks to a point at which we must take action in order to safeguard orderly distribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 27.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain to the House the system under which the tea ration has been worked for some time; that is to say, whereas in one rationing period of four weeks the ration has been two ounces, in each alternate period it has been three ounces, per week. What the right hon. Gentleman went on to say was that as the result of these strikes the tea ration for the current rationing period—from 20th July to 16th August—which should have been three ounces under the alternate system, would be two ounces, and that it might well be that the next period but one—the September period—would also show a similar reduction. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he hoped that in the period after that—the November period—when it should also be three, it might be possible to reach that.
It is quite clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the reason for this reduction in the tea ration, was not, if I may quote the Ministry's familiar phrase, an overall shortage of supplies, nor was it a currency question. It was purely a difficulty arising from two particular strikes which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is perfectly clear from his statement, and I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that or not. But, taking the right hon. Gentleman's statement at its face value, the only problem which had arisen was the difficulty in effecting shipments owing to dock strikes at two Eastern ports.
That may well be a valid reason for the reduction during the current period—owing to the policy of the Ministry in not telling the House about stocks, it is quite impossible for hon. Members either to maintain or dispute that—but the point I desire to press tonight—it is the main point of this Motion—is this. If the real reason for this most unwelcome reduction in the tea ration is a delay in shipments owing to strikes, is it the intention of the Ministry of Food at a later stage—and, if so, at what later stage—to give the people of this country an additional ration of tea to compensate them for what they have lost? If the tea is there, and there is no reason from the Minister's statement to suspect that it is not; if there is no difficulty of currency, and no such suggestion was made in the Minister's statement; if it is purely a transport difficulty due to strikes, then there is no valid reason why at some later date, an extra issue of tea should not be made available to make up to the people for the four ounces which they lose during the current rationing period and also for the four ounces which they seem likely to lose during the September rationing period.
I therefore say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if' she is in a position tonight when she comes to that Box to say, "We appreciate that the people have lost a substantial part of a valued ration but that ration is available in the world and we will at such and such a date make it available by way of an extra ration"—if the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to do in connection with tea what she did this spring in connection with sweets—so far as I am concerned I should be perfectly satisfied and the object of this Motion will have been attained in obtaining that definite and welcome statement. If, however, the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to do that, then the matter becomes more serious because, if the only reason for this cut is that which the Minister gave of strikes, then there is no logical reason whatsoever why this amount should not be made up. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to say that it will be made up, then we are left inevitably with the suspicion that there must be some other reason, hitherto unstated, for that reduction. Therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared tonight to tell the House that at a particular date this amount will be made up, I hope she will be able to explain the reason for the cut, and also the misleading nature of the Minister's statement.
I am sure the House appreciates that this is a matter of considerable concern to many people outside who find the existing tea ration extremely small. It is a comfort to a large section of the population to be able to get a cup of tea, and for that reason we are entitled in this House to have full and frank explanations from the Minister of Food when a cut of this nature is imposed. I do not want to weary the House, but perhaps I might repeat the one point on which I desire an answer: will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House that the amount lost through these cuts is to be made up, and if so, when? If, on the other hand, she is not to tell us that, can she explain why a strike in these two ports should cause not merely a delay, but an overall loss of tea? I do not think one is being unreasonable in suggesting that the Parliamentary-Secretary should be able tonight to say when this cut can be made up. After all, the latter of the two strikes mentioned came to an end on 20th June. That is some weeks ago, and it must be possible for the Ministry of Food, with all its resources, to have by now some idea of the position as to shipments. It must, at any rate, know whether shipping space has been arranged and when consignments are coming forward. As far as I am concerned, I shall be satisfied if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that this will be made up and when, but if not, then we are entitled to a satisfactory explanation of why not.
I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has put his case so clearly that there is little left for me to add but there is one special point I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. During the last few years we have seen many beverages in this country alter in respect of their proof or gravity, and we must accept the fact that, for adults, tea is one of the most important beverages here. When the hon. Lady gives her explanation of the reduction of the amount allowed to individuals compared with what they were used to in the past, I would like to hear whether it is the intention of the Government that the gravity, proof, or however the density of tea in the pot or cup is measured, shall be reduced from what we have been used to. Of course, I am well aware that some of us take tea thicker than others, but I notice that on page 4 of this S.R. & O. it is noted in paragraph 13 that the correct ration for 280 hot beverages is reckoned as one lb.—in other words, I suppose we can anticipate that 14 largecups of tea go to one ounce. I would like to know whether that is the new modern rate, or the established rate accepted over a period of years in the old days before the various shortages inflicted themselves, or were inflicted, upon the British public?
I only intervene for a moment or two for two purposes. In the first place, after the extremely detailed statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I think the Parliamentary Secretary must give a definite answer now in regard to tea, and I hope very much that she is in a position to do so. I think the case there has been so amply demonstrated that I need add nothing to it.
But there is another matter to which I want to refer. This Order continues the existing level for a further year in regard to fats and cheese, as well as reducing the ration of tea. I want to ask the hon. Lady why we are continuing the existing fat ration, because I see in a document issued by the Central Office of Information quite recently this sentence:
If we could export to Argentina only one quarter of the coal we sent there in 1936, the British housewife would no longer have to contend with the shortage of fats.
I take it that the Central Office of Information makes accurate statements, and that the Ministry of Food must, therefore, have been consulted before that statement was made. That statement plainly means, if it means anything at all, that there are fats in the Argentine, which, if we were able to give Argentina the right goods in exchange, we could get in this country, and if we could get them we could increase the ration. This document says:
the British housewife would no longer have to contend with a shortage of fats.
—if we could find the right way of dealing with the Argentine. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has a copy of this document? It is called "Work or Want, Matters of Fact No. 2, Britain's Economic Position," and is issued by the Central Office of Information for His Majesty's Government. I can find no other sentence which in any way qualifies that particular sentence, which must have been prepared after consultation with the hon. Lady. I ask her, therefore, is it the case—it must be because the Central
Office of Information says so, but it should be confirmed in this House—that if we could get the Argentine people to give us the fats in exchange for the right goods—coal is suggested—British housewives would no longer have to contend with the shortage. If so, it destroys completely the idea of the world shortage, and means that the Ministry are not able to do a deal for the goods waiting for us in the Argentine, and that these goods are not under the allocation of the I.E.F.C., but are waiting for us. That is what the Central Office of Information has said, and I hope the hon. Lady will be able to clear up the matter.
I feel that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who moved this Motion, did so in a rather lighthearted fashion, without giving due attention to all those events which have led up to the imposition of this cut. My right hon. Friend explained to the House in some detail what the world position is so far as tea and other commodities are concerned. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has raised the question of fats. There may be oils in different parts of the world, but there is no method known to any country as to how to extract those oils. If there was not a world shortage of oils my Department would not have embarked on this scheme for the planting of groundnuts in East Africa. We hope, as a result of that scheme, to acquire a large amount of fats in the future, but for the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead to say that the oil is waiting for us in the Argentine is quite frivolous.
I did not say so. It was the Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the oil was there, and that my Department was apparently not using its powers to the full to acquire it. I can assure him, as has been said at this Box time after time, that in every exporting country in the world we have business men, who are there to secure as much fat and tea and every one of those commodities dealt with by my Department as possible, and we are doing that today. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that there is not a world shortage of these things is quite wrong. It has been proved that there is.
I will explain to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that there is a world shortage of tea. I would not be so foolish as to stand at this Box and commit my Department to restoring the ration, and restoring it in such a manner (hat the people who have suffered by this cut will feel that they have been adequately compensated. He reminds me, quite rightly, about when I announced the cut in the sweet ration, and the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me whether, when we restored the sweet ration, we would compensate those people who had lost by the cut. One cannot compare the cutting of the sweet ration with the cutting of the tea ration. All that the sweet factories had to do was to increase production, but once a shipload of tea is lost it is difficult to replace, because that ship may have been used for other freight. We can only hope that we shall be able to get more ships in order to increase imports. I cannot today commit myself to promising the people of this country that they will be compensated later.
So far as the tea cut is concerned, I would remind hon. Members opposite that between 1940 and 1945 the people of this country enjoyed a two-ounce ration of tea. In 1945, that ration was increased to 2½ oz. I am told that the Caretaker Government were warned that it might be that the Department could only maintain that 2½ oz. ration until April, 1947. I think that hon. Members opposite will agree with me that the experts in my Department were not far wrong in their prophecy. The date they told the Caretaker Government was April, 1947; we carried on for a month or two longer, and had recently had to cut the tea ration to two ounces. In spite of that warning, the tea ration was increased to 2½ oz. before the General Election.
Between 1940 and 1945 we were able to build up a large stock of tea. The United Kingdom quota was 75 per cent. of our prewar imports, and our stocks were quite sound, but after the increase of the ration to 2½ ozs. our outgoings exceeded supplies. From 1940 to March, 1947, the United Kingdom secured its quota through the Combined Food Board and its successor, the International Emergency Food Council. Under this scheme', this country was appointed the sole agent for obtaining the exportable surpluses from India, Ceylon and East Africa. As the House well knows, some months ago the Government of India informed my Department that they were no longer prepared to enter into further bulk purchase arrangements after March, 1947. I confess that this information was disturbing. We entered into protracted negotiations with the Government of India and we obtained permission to enter into contracts with producers for teas manufactured during 1947 for delivery in 1948. As similar arrangements had been made already in Ceylon, we felt that the Ministry's buying programme was substantially covered and that the two and a half ounce ration could be maintained.
I would remind hon. Gentlemen who raised this matter that the world's tea supply position still favours the seller. This position may continue until the end of 1948. The world's exportable surplus of tea falls short of the world's consumer demands by about 120 million lbs. There are other countries who were large exporters of tea but, unfortunately, supplies are not yet available. For example, before the Japanese invasion of the Netherlands East Indies, considerable quantities of tea were exported from Indonesia. As hon. Members know, that market is closed today. As I have already said, before 31st March, 1947, tea was allocated to this country by the Combined Food Board and later by the International Emergency Food Council. This arrangement came to an end on 31st March.
On 3rd April my right hon. Friend came to this House and informed hon. Members that it might not be possible to maintain the ration. There is no question of this House not having been informed and warned. They were warned in 1945 and they were warned again last April that the ration might not be maintained. But, of course, we hoped that in view of the contracts which we had entered into, the ration might be maintained. Unfortunately, two strikes intervened. There was a strike in Calcutta which lasted 12 weeks during which time no tea left the port. That was followed by a strike in Colombo which lasted four weeks.
Hon. Members will agree that this delay happened at a very crucial time. What have we done? We have pressed producers to get their tea to the ports as soon as possible. Shippers have been asked to make freight available. We are watching very closely the labour position in Calcutta and Colombo. I am very sorry to tell the House that the position is unsettled. Only recently, since the strike in Colombo, another strike was averted. I have no need to remind the House that there are communal differences in India today which make our difficulties even worse. There is no question of our not being alive to the serious position. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames need not remind me of the needs of the housewife. I am fully aware of them. They are the tea drinkers of the country. I can assure them that when the position improves, when greater supplies are available, we shall increase the ration.
Before the hon. Lady sits down, can she answer the specific point whether one pound of tea to 280 beverages—whatever that means—is the old established practice?
If the hon. Member visits any cafe in the vicinity of this House, he will be quite satisfied that it is possible to make an acceptable cup of tea by using that quantity of tea.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? Why was it that a ship left Colombo in ballast of sand and was refused permission to load tea in the first week of this month?
I could not answer that question without notice, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me all the details, I will look into it.
But I have given notice. I have put a Question on the Order Paper, and have had no reply for some time.
I can only suggest that inquiries have been made and that we have not been satisfied with the result.
I do not think the hon. Lady has given us an answer that we can regard as in the least satisfactory. It is one of the most confused statements of the many confused statements that have been made on behalf of her Ministry. She started off, to my great surprise, by criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for having raised the matter in a light-hearted fashion. My hon. Friend made a perfectly plain statement of the facts, and proceeded to ask a number of questions, and I do not understand how the hon. Lady could take any exception whatsoever to the manner in which this important question was raised by him. Then she jerked off to refer to what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), who had raised a question about getting fats now from Argentina. The hon. Lady answered him by talking about getting fats at some future time from East Africa, and, in fact, she did not deal with this point at all. The question whether or not the East African scheme is successful in ultimately enabling us to get fats and oils for the consumers of this country is entirely disconnected from the problem of obtaining fats from Argentina now, and the hon. Lady did not attempt to deal with that question.
On the question of tea, she managed to tangle up—and I could only think that she was rather anxious to avoid a clear-cut issue in this matter—two questions, the question of an alleged world shortage of tea, and the consequences of the dock strikes at Calcutta and Colombo. I do not think these two elements are necessarily connected. At any rate, whether they are connected or not, on 14th July the Minister of Food attributed this situation entirely to the dock strikes at Calcutta and Colombo. If, in fact, they are to be attributed partly to these strikes and partly to the shortage, why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so? In fact, he thought fit to rest his explanation on the strikes at Calcutta and Colombo. I want to know now whether it is sought to amend that explanation. If the Minister does seek to amend his explanation, what has occurred between 14th July and the present date to require such an amendment, because the hon. lady was at pains to tell us that the House has been consistently warned for many months past about the world shortage of tea and the difficult prospect that lay ahead?
Therefore, I cannot see that any aggravation has taken place in the world shortage since 14th July, and it is very difficult to understand why the Minister of Food made no reference to it on 14th July, when he relied entirely for his explanation on the consequences of these dock strikes in Calcutta and Colombo. A clear issue has been put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. We are entitled to have an equally clear answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, but we have not had it. She has merely sought to confuse the consequences of the strikes mentioned by the Minister of Food with the more general question of a world shortage.
Even if the world shortage in tea is a serious problem, none the less, as far as I can see, there can be no reason why the tea held up at Calcutta and Colombo should not be speedily shipped to this country, at least to provide some alleviation of the consequence of the world shortage. Tea is a fairly easy cargo to handle. In proportion to its immense value to the community in this country, it does not require a great amount of shipping space. It is not a perishable commodity, and it is about as easy a cargo to deal with as the Ministry of Food could have. Therefore, why cannot we have the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked, that this tea which has been held up in Calcutta and Colombo should be shipped at an early date, in order to alleviate, to some extent, the shortage from which people in this country are now suffering?
The hon. Lady chided my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for treating this subject lightheartedly. In fact, of course, as any hon. Member in the House realises, he dealt with it completely, effectively and lightly. If we were all called upon to deal as heavily and as gloomily with the failures of the present Administration at this eleventh hour—according to their own Lord President the sands are running out—as we should, then the national morale which we want to sustain would suffer a very severe setback.
I can assure the hon. Lady that even if she charges—and unjustly—that any of us are dealing with the matter light-heartedly, no housewife in the country is dealing with it lightheartedly. Everybody is remembering, in regard to these proposals, that two years and one month ago, almost to the day, we were exhorted by her colleague, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, to vote Labour, and to prevent any lowering of the standard of life through reduced rations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That cheer may give some temporary comfort tonight to hon. Members opposite, but it will be remembered when settling day comes at a very early date. In this particular Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Order, we have, indeed, a partial answer to the vain boast made by the right hon. Gentleman then, though he, in common with many other people, had had some experience of responsible government even before the Election.
Fats, cheese, and now, through this Order, tea, are to be less for millions of our fellow citizens than they were at certain moments at the height of the U-boat campaign, when every convoy was being attacked on the Seven Seas, and when we were fighting for our life. I do not believe that anybody minds privations, or will fail to face them resolutely, if they feel that they are inevitable, and come from playing our part as a civilised nation in seeing that other countries get their fair share, given good government and prudent housekeeping. But nobody feels that the present set of proposals, to which the hon. Lady has so lightheartedly lent her support tonight, falls into that category.
Are these proposals inevitable? Are they the result of good planning by a Government which, we were told, would give us the planning without which we could not lead our postwar life? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has referred to an official Government publication. We are all asked—Government and Opposition alike—to go into the factories and the fields of England and read out publications of this kind. From time to time, appeals are made, even by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary that we should act as a Council of State and all try to help England in her emergency, and these are the materials which we are given: "Britain's Economic Position," prepared by the Central Office of Information—not a Government publication, nor an Opposi
tion publication, but a fact finding objective study. This is the material on which the Government are asking for the Dunkirk spirit from all of us, in the temporary cessation of the other battle which some of the hon. Lady's colleagues are now fighting. What do we find in this paper?
If we could export to Argentina only one-quarter of the coal we sent there in 193b, the British housewife would no longer have to contend with the shortage of fats.
That suggests that there is no world shortage of fats, that we can get some if we can export something in return. How then can the hon. Lady ride away on the argument that there is a world shortage of fats, and that whatever we do, or whatever the world may do, we cannot meet the shortage of fats?
Again, only recently, on 14th July, when dealing with the tea ration and the proposed tea cut, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food attributed that cut in tea solely to the strikes in Calcutta. If that is so, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Sir J. Mellor), the tea must be there. If it was only the strikes which held up the tea, the tea must be available Why cannot it be delivered? Our citizens will accept anything if they feel that it is inevitable, and if they feel there is good government and good planning behind their privations. But now they are becoming, in a rapidly increasing number, wedded to the idea that the Government are using non-existent world shortages and strikes as an excuse for their own bungling and incompetence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked two specific questions. Many of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who now find themselves in what is, no doubt, often unwelcome authority, got a great deal of their reputation by asking questions. It is true they asked them at the height of the war when to disclose the answer would have harmed our Armed Forces. Now, in peace time, we ask them, and we are entitled to an answer. My hon. Friend asked whether the amount of tea would be made up, and if so when. To that question we are entitled to an answer. He also asked, if it is not going to be made up, why should a strike, or these two strikes, cause delay and, in addition, an overall loss to the hard taxed British housewife in her tea resources. We are entitled to answers to these questions, and it is treating the House of Commons in an extremely light-hearted way to deny us the answer.
The sands are running out. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Lord President of the Council. The hon. Lady said, in regard to tea, that this is now a sellers' market, and that any tea producer can sell what he likes. It is also a sellers' market in regard to exports, but despite that fact, the gap between our exports and imports is widening tragically every day. It will soon cease to be a sellers' market in tea, and that may give us temporary aid, but it will also soon cease to be a sellers' market in regard to our exports, and when that happens, the full danger of the impending Nemesis which is approaching this country will be apparent to all citizens. This is only one comparatively small illustration, but it touches the homes of our people. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite show incompetence in the small things, it is not unreasonable to assume that they will do likewise in the big things. We have no alternative but to vote in favour of the Prayer.
Before the House comes to a decision, I should like to say one personal thing in reply to the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary. She was good enough to open her observations by suggesting that I raised this matter in a light-hearted manner. If she is unable to distinguish between moderation in argument and light-heartedness, let me tell her that neither I nor my hon. and right hon. Friends regard the deprivations her Government are imposing on the British people with anything but horror and repugnance. But I will confess to having made one mistake, for which I apologise to the House. I made the mistake of believing that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, when he made his statement on 14th July to which I referred, was giving an accurate picture of the position to the House. As that explanation has now been thrown overboard, I shall not make the mistake of believing him again.
Division No. 369.] | AYES. | [9.1 p.m |
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H |
Amory, D. Heathcoat | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. RI. Hon. Sir C. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. |
Baldwin, A. E. | Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. |
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. | Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. | Pickthorn, K. |
Bennett, Sir P. | Hurd, A | Pitman, I. J. |
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Ponsonby, Col. C. E |
Bullock, Capt. M. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. | Prescott, Stanley |
Challen, C. | Kerr, Sir J. Graham | Raikes, H. V. |
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G. | Langford-Holt, J. | Ramsay, Major S. |
Cole, T. L. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Rayner, Brig. R. |
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) | Sanderson, Sir F. |
Crowder, Capt. John E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) |
Cuthbert, W. N | McCallum, Maj. D. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
Darling, Sir W. Y. | MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) |
Digby, S. W. | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Sutcliffe, H. |
Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) |
Dower, Lt.-Cot. A. V. G. (Penrith) | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) | Manningham-Buller, R. E. | Touche, G. C. |
Drayson, G. B. | Marples, A. E. | Vane, W. M. F. |
Drewe, C. | Marshall, D. (Bodmin) | Wadsworth, G. |
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) | Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) | Walker-Smith, D |
Duthie, W. S. | Maude, J. C. | Wheatley, Colonel M. J |
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter | Mellor, Sir J. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) | Molson, A. H. E. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. | Morris-Jones, Sir H. | |
Gammans, L. D. | Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
Glyn, Sir R. | Nicholson, G. | Lord William Scott and |
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. | Nield, B. (Chester) | Mr. Boyd-Carpenter. |
Grimston, R. V. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P |
NOES. | ||
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R. |
Allen, A C (Bosworth) | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hardy, E. A. |
Alpass, J. H. | Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Harrison, J. |
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Deer, G. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) |
Attewell, H. C. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) |
Awbery, S. S. | Diamond, J. | Herbison, Miss M. |
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Dobbie, W. | Hobson, C. R. |
Balfour, A. | Dodds, N. N. | Holman, P. |
Barstow, P. G. | Donovan, T. | House, G. |
Barton, C. | Driberg, T. E. N. | Hoy, J. |
Battley, J. R. | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Hubbard, T. |
Bechervaise, A. E. | Durbin, E. F. M. | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) |
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J | Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) |
Benson, G. | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
Bing, G. H. C. | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) |
Binns, J. | Evans, John (Ogmore) | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) |
Blenkinsop, A. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
Blyton, W. R. | Ewart, R. | Jay, D. P. T. |
Boardman, H. | Fairhurst, F. | Jeger, G. (Winchester) |
Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W | Farthing, W. J. | Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) |
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Fernyhough, E. | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) |
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Jones, J. H. (Bolton) |
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Follick, M. | Keenan, W. |
Brook, D. (Halifax) | Foot, M. M | Kendall, W. D |
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Foster, W (Wigan) | Kenyon, C. |
Brown, George (Belper) | Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | Kinley, J. |
Brown, T. J (Ince) | Gaitskell, H. T N | Kirby, B. V. |
Buchanan, G. | Gallacher, W. | Lavers, S. |
Burden, T. W. | Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Lee, F. (Hulme) |
Burke, W. A. | Gibbins, J | Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) |
Chamberlain, R. A. | Gibson, C. W. | Leonard, W. |
Cobb, F. A. | Gilzean, A. | Leslie, J. R. |
Cocks, F S. | Glanville, J. E. (Consett) | Levy, B. W. |
Coldrick, W. | Goodrich, H. E. | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) |
Collick, P | Gordon-Walker, P. C | Lewis, J. (Bolton) |
Collindridge, F | Grenfell, D. R. | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. |
Collins, V. J. | Grey, C. F. | Logan, D. G. |
Colman, Miss G. M | Grierson, E. | Longden, F |
Cook, T. F. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Lyne, A. W. |
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly) | McAllister, G. |
Corlett, Dr. J | Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) | McEntee, V. La T. |
Corvedale, Viscount | Gunter, R. J. | McGhee, H G |
Cove, W. G. | Guy, W. H. | McGovern, J. |
Crawley, A. | Haire, John E. (Wycombe) | Mackay, R W. G (Hull, N. W.) |
Maclean, N. (Govan) | Pritt, D. N. | Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) |
McLeavy, F. | Proctor, W. T. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Pursey, Cmdr. H | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
Mainwaring, W. H. | Ranger, J | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Rankin, J. | Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) |
Mann, Mrs. J. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Thurtle, Ernest |
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) | Reeves, J. | Tiffany, S. |
Marshall, F. (Brightside) | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Titterington, M. F. |
Mathars, G. | Rhodes, H. | Tolley, L. |
Medland, H. M | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Usborne, Henry |
Mellish, R. J. | Rogers, G. H. R. | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
Messer, F. | Ross, William (Kilmarnock) | Viant, S. P. |
Middleton, Mrs. L. | Royle, C | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) |
Mikardo, Ian | Scollan, T. | Webb, M. (Bradford, C.) |
Mitchison, G. R. | Scott-Elliot, W. | Weitzman, D. |
Moody, A. S. | Shackleton, E. A. A. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sharp, Granville | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) | |
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lawisham, E.) | Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens). | West, D. G. |
Mort, D. L | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E | Westwood Rt. Hon J. |
Nally, W. | Shurmer, P. | White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
Naylor, T E. | Silverman, J. (Erdington) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B |
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) | Simmons, C. J. | Wilkes, L. |
Noel-Buxton, Lady | Skeffington, A. M. | Willey, F. T (Sunderland) |
Oldfield, W. H | Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. | Williams, D J. (Neath) |
Oliver, G. H | Skinnard, F W. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
Orbach, M. | Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
Paget, R. T. | Solley, L. J. | Willis, E. |
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. | Wills, Mrs. E. A. |
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Sparks, J. A. | Wise, Major F. J |
Palmer, A. M. F | Stamford, W. | Woodburn, A |
Pargiter, G. A. | Steele, T. | Woods, G. S. |
Parkin, B. T | Stephen, C. | Wyatt, W. |
Pearson, A. | Strachey, J. | Yates, V. F. |
Peart, Thomas F. | Stross, Dr. B. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
Platts-Mills, J. F. F | Summerskill, Dr. Edith | Zilliacus, K. |
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) | Swingler, S. | |
Porter, E. (Warrington) | Sylvester. G. O. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
Porter, G. (Leeds) | Taylor, H. B.(Mansfield) | Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell. |
Price, M. Philips | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |