We were discussing where we should draw the line in these items and which should go for the mandatory solution and which should go for the permissive solution. I was developing the argument that it was most desirable that that line should be drawn in university education at the first degree point. Whether it is part-time or whole-time is wholly irrelevant. The difficulties to be found in practice are that if the circumstances of the students are different or if it is found for any other reason that this does not work adequately, the Minister is able to apply under subsection (3) whatever regulations he likes.
So far as the teaching training colleges are concerned, I accept, because one must, that the Minister has not had representations on this, but I do not accept that it is because he has really considered the matter. The A.T.C.D.E. and, perhaps, all the training colleges of this country would be up in arms and would refer to the Association of Education Committees and to Sir William Alexander this interference with their academic freedom, because it is interference unless, as the Minister says, it is a complete formality. If it is a complete formality and automatic, I cannot see why he cannot accept that because it is just as automatic acceptance of candidates by a training college as it is automatic acceptance of candidates by a university for admission to that university. On both these Amendments I feel very strongly and deeply, and I shall vote accordingly.
I should like to support the hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman). We appreciated his contribution in Standing Committee. He will agree that this is not a matter about which we need have party differences. We are trying to improve the Bill. When, not so long ago, I was fortunate enough to move an Amendment to the Minister's Motion, I was reasonably hopeful that we should have a helpful reply. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was probably labouring under the difficulties under which a Parliamentary Secretary labours in Standing Committee, but now that the Minister has had time to consider this matter I thought that he would agree in principle with us.
The right hon. Gentleman has not done that. That is bad enough, but what is worse is that he has given us the worst possible reasons for not agreeing with us. He says, first, that the Bill depends on agreement. This is absolutely incorrect. We would not have had the Anderson Committee's Report on Grants to Students if there had been agreement. The Bill depends on the Anderson Report. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong and is misleading the Committee. We have pursued our discussions so far on this assumption. The tenor of the debate has been that we are implementing the Anderson Report.
We must appreciate that it was the Government who defined that Committee's terms of reference.
The Anderson Committee was instructed by the Government:
To consider the present system of awards from public funds to students attending first degree courses at universities and comparable
courses at other institutions and to make recommendations
It is, therefore, no fault of the Anderson Committee that it could not pursue its studies further. The Government limited the Committee's work within those terms of reference, but, as I said in another context yesterday, the House of Commons is not bound by the terms of reference of a Committee.
As I remember saying in Standing Committee, the dissatisfaction about students' awards originally was concentrated upon those attending the training colleges. This was the major burden of complaint some time ago. We all recognise, on both sides of the Committee, that since those original complaints were made there have been considerable improvements. The Minister and his Department have considerably improved the situation by the pressure and persuasion which they have exercised and the circulars which they have issued. But we feel that what is dealt with in Clause 1 is too narrow and that, as we are providing legislation, we should go further and impose a similar duty on local authorities with respect to further education in a wider field. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman could not attend our discussions, but I am sure that he has read what we said in Standing Committee. We approached this matter through Clause 2, and the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we debated whether there should be a power or whether a duty should be imposed.
I should have thought that we are trying here to strike a happy compromise. I have corrected one incorrect statement by the right hon. Gentleman and I now have to say that it is equally untrue to say that we are filching anything from the local authorities by means of these Amendment, because Clause 2 remains. We are not interfering with it, and whatever the Parliamentary Secretary said on Clause 2 would be relevant to the present argument. We leave the powers as they are and I should have thought that this was a typically happy British compromise. We are saying that we should leave the powers as they are but that we should provide additional power to the right hon. Gentleman. I emphasise, as did the hon. Member for Bath, that we go no further than that.
These are enabling powers. The right hon. Gentleman can make such provision as he wishes when he makes the regulations. He is given wide powers to do so. It is never a convincing argument from a Minister to say that he would act stupidly in that situation. If that is the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's case, I reject it. I say that he would act responsibly in pursuance of these powers and that he would act only to assist the local authorities in the discharge of these responsibilities.
When the Minister deals with functions and the discretion of local authorities, the primary and most important question is to see that the local authorities have functions which they can properly exercise. If functions are imposed on local authorities and if they cannot properly exercise them, it does no good at all to the health of local government. As for the universities, we have said that it must be assumed for the purpose of the Bill that the best authorities to make a choice are the universities themselves. And what is the good of talking about our fine training colleges and saying that we treat them with parity if we cannot reach a similar conclusion about them?
There is no practical reason why the teacher training colleges should not be treated in the same way as the universities and, therefore, come within Clause 1 as we proposed.
There are other arguments about status and other matters which are important and to which I shall come later. I was not tremendously impressed by what the hon. Member for Bath said about part-time, but I was sufficiently impressed to believe that provision should be made within the Clause. I can see that there may be cases where it might be right and proper to make this provision, and in the national interest such provision should be guided within regulations. As far as provision for part-time further education goes, it would be better to see that the Minister is armed with the powers.
The third limb of the Amendments—the question of the extension of further education—is a matter of primary national importance. I and some of my hon. and right hon. Friends so argued in Standing Committee. I should not like to be dogmatic and doctrinaire about it, but we are faced with the difficult problem of trying to meet within a free democracy the priorities which have established themselves in the national interest. This is a wider matter than first-degree courses in universities. In some of the provisions, we are concerned that we are losing ground in comparison with other countries. This is a matter for national solution and it cannot be discharged at local authority level. This is why we should provide that the Minister is empowered to deal with the expanded range of further education.
All this becomes far more important when we recognise that we are legislating in anticipation of the Report of the Robbins Committee. We are not saying that this or that will be recommended by the Robbins Committee. We are saying that we should see that we are in the position that if these recommendations are made, and if we recognise the urgency with which they are bound to be made, we can give the Minister power to act at once. We do not want the inevitable delay which is involved in seeking more legislative powers. These are the essential reasons why the Minister has failed the Committee in not giving a more constructive and more positive reply to our suggestions.
There are certain other immediate practical reasons why we should take some such action as we suggest in the Amendments. There are today, as we emphasised in Standing Committee, two different circulars, Nos. 5 and 7, the one applying to university and comparable awards and the other to the training of teachers. There are certain unfair differences between the circulars to which we drew attention in Standing Committee. We should emphasise again that we do not believe in this unfair disparity, that we do not accept it and that there is no pretext for continuing the disparity because different provision is made. While different provision is made in Clauses 1 and 2 we must expect some such disparity. I think we should say that it has been the burden of the debate throughout Second Reading, the Standing Committee proceedings and this afternoon that we should not disparage the status of teachers, but while different provision is made, this is bound to happen.
The second factor which is immediate is equally important, and that is that we have the evidence of the Anderson Committee Report, which is that there are still, in spite of the circulars, divergencies and differences between the ways in which the circulars are applied by different local authorities. There is far more uniformity, we concede, than there was a few years ago, and we recognise the work that the Department has done. Yet the Anderson Committee said, within its terms of reference, that although it knew that enormous advances had been made through circulars, the Minister must in future act by regulation.
We cannot leave the teachers and other branches of further education in the category of poor relations. It is no good talking about the discretion of local authorities. If there had been a special case about them and discretion could have been exercised more easily in one field than another, we might have accepted arguments to that effect, but there is none. What we are faced with is that, unless these Amendments are accepted, teachers and those pursuing other forms of further education will be at a disadvantage, certainly in status, and, worse still, some disparity will remain. Every one of the disparities is a personal tragedy. The difficulty that we have in education is that we cannot generalise; we cannot say that we are providing for far more students having equitable treatment than before. We have to think of the individual, even if there is only one, who has not the advantage that he would have had if he had lived in another authority's area.
Consequently, I ask the Minister to speak again. He still has time to improve the Bill. I urge him, even if he cannot take the steps at this stage of the Bill, to give an assurance that when the Measure goes to another place a real effort will be made to meet our three points. The first concerns part-time education and the national necessity that there may be to encourage further education in certain fields, even though that education be pursued part-time. The second is the necessity, in view of the overwhelming national demand, to ensure that teachers as members of a profession are not given inferior status. The third is the need for the Minister to anticipate, within the whole framework of further education, the possibilities that may be recommended by the Robbins Committee and to go further than the terms of reference of the Anderson Committee.
The hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) is one of the most loyal supporters of the Government, and a Minister who can argue in such a way as to make the hon. Member vote against the Government has indeed achieved something. We are deeply disappointed by the Minister's speech. While the Parliamentary Secretary could not in the Committee concede anything and had to stonewall, we thought that when we had the Minister with us we might be able to persuade him. The right hon. Gentleman has addressed some serious arguments to the Committee, and I should like to look at some of them.
The Minister has told us that a much more important problem than the one we are discussing is that of getting enough places in the universities and training colleges. We heartily agree with him. That has nothing to do with the issue that we are now discussing.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that finance has very little to do with this and that if we want to solve the problems of educational finance we must tackle a much bigger question in a bigger way. It is the favourite gambit of the Government to say that if we want to do something in this field we shall have to do it for a vast area. I agree with the Minister that the House and the country will have to examine the ever increasing burden of education on rate finance, for this is something that cannot for ever be tolerated. With the reforms which have been mentioned by earlier speakers, it is estimated that there will be an increase during the next ten years of 7s. in the £ in respect of education alone. It requires much bigger measures than the Amendment to grapple with the problem, but that is no reason for not giving local authorities a modicum of financial benefit, which they would get from the Amendment.
The Minister has told us that the training colleges have made no representation on this subject. Neither have the universities done so. Indeed, the sublime indifference of the universities to educational progress is one of the marked features of the last century, and it has not changed since the days when university Members of the House of Commons were quite indifferent to education and many of them voted against educational reforms.
Training colleges are not interested in local government versus central Government finance, but I can assure the Minister—I am certain that he knows—that today the training colleges passionately require and demand parity with the universities. Their criticism of him was pungent when he refused to appoint representatives of the training colleges as such on the Committee which was examining higher education. They have long felt that the things that we said earlier in the debate about their inferior position in the hierarchy of education needed to be said. If they have made no representations along the lines of the Amendment, I am certain that I am speaking for all the training colleges when I plead for parity between them and the universities.
Let us examine the myth about the discretion which is left to local authorities, an argument which comes strangely from a Minister whose Government established the block grant, a Minister who has a tight and tremendous financial control over the building programmes of local authorities and Who has within the last twelve months shown his respect for the discretion of local authorities by tearing up the Burnham Committee negotiation proposals.
What discretion does the right hon. Gentleman want the local authorities to have about the training colleges? He knows very well that every candidate admitted to a teacher training college today is admitted through the clearing house scheme of the training colleges. The candidate applies to that magnificent co-operative institution which the training colleges have set up, and, if he is accepted by a training college, there is no question, as the Minister pointed out earlier, of any local authority having discretion to refuse him. I am sure that in this age nobody would want to give a local authority discretion to say, "Although this candidate has the academic and personal qualifications and has been accepted by a training college, we shall refuse the grant." That discretion no longer exists. The decision is actually already in the hands of the training colleges.
As the Minister pointed out, there is very little discretion in the grant of the award. The bulk of the financial aid given to a candidate by the training college comes from the training college in the way of free lodging, free tuition and so on.
I shall come to that in a moment. Even the supplementary aid which local authorities give students at training colleges have to be of a pattern approved by the Minister. The bulk of the training college expenditure is pooled, and the local authority pays its portion of the pool not according to any discretion or lack of discretion which is exercised by it in the recruitment of people for training colleges but according to mathematical formulae drawn up by the Minister in which no local government discretion is left.
I was distressed when the Minister suggested that what we might be in danger of doing was depriving the local authorities of their interest in the further education of children if we moved the students out of Clause 1 into Clause 2. If his argument means anything, then the local authorities will no longer be interested in the university candidates because by this Bill we shall have removed every vestige of discretion from local authorities in respect of university candidates.
As we have said to the Minister again and again in Committee, provided that the local boy or girl has the right qualifications and is accepted by the university, no local authority can interfere with providing that student with an award, and an award of an amount which is fixed by the Minister. I know the local authorities well enough, as, I am sure, does the Minister, to know that they will still be as keenly interested in the well-being of their university students although their financing and discretion about them has been taken from them.
What discretion do we leave to the local authorities? If we move teachers from Clause 2 to Clause 1, there is still a large field left in Clause 1 (4). In university education, the local authorities can supplement the education of worthwhile students even if they do not have the qualifications as laid down in the rest of Clause 1. If we take teachers out of Clause 2, there is still a vast area in which local knowledge is of value and in which it might be impossible for the Minister to prescribe the utterly variegated pattern of the other forms of further education.
We on this side of the Committee stick to our point that a fully-qualified candidate for entry to a teacher training college has a right to go there. That right is as fundamental as the right, which we have won in the House of Commons by fighting for it over the last ten years, to secure uniformity of provision for university candidates. I hope that it is still possible to persuade the Minister to change his mind.
We got off to a bad start this afternoon. We are meeting here today to discuss this Measure exactly 300 years after the time when, according to Sir Arthur Bryant, who is a greater authority on the Stuart period than I am, in the book that has recently been re-published and is now known as Restoration England,
the germs of our educational caste system were being sown
I was sorry that so enlightened a person as the hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) should have said that London University was the poor man's university and that Oxford and Cambridge were the rich man's universities.
I hope that the hon. Member will look at what HANSARD says about what he said, because it provoked in me immediate hostility which I do not often feel towards the hon. Member.
London University was not founded for the poor. It was founded for the Nonconformists because since 1662 they had been excluded from Oxford and Cambridge. The caste system that we had in 1662 was created to get a conformist society and it has worked for 300 years with that object in view. We have now reached the stage when there is no home in England that does not think that the young child is entitled to an equal chance with every other child in the country of developing his faculties to the full.
The duty of the Minister is to formulate a national policy to be carried out by local education authorities under his control and direction. It is too late now to adopt the kind of line that the Minister did in his reply today. It is notorious that, even now, a great deal depends upon the area in which a child is normally resident as to what its opportunities for any real advance in higher education will be.
The thing that recommended the Bill to us on this side was the enactment in Clause 1 that if a child, no matter where he lives and no matter in what home, can get two passes at Advanced level and can secure acceptance by any university, the local authority in whose area he resides must see him through the university course, subject to a means scale that will be laid down by the Minister and administered by the local authority in accordance with what the Minister says. I am not proposing to accept the means test. At least, that is what the right hon. Gentleman has done.
The hon. Member for Bath, who is a fairly loyal Member, gave the Parliamentary Secretary no trouble in Committee. What the Parliamentary Secretary did was to say that he had consulted his right hon. Friend but was unable to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for Bath thereupon said that he would wait until the Report stage, when, of course, the trouble would not be for the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is the best stonewaller I have ever known. I commend him to the esteem of his right hon. Friend. In Committee he got away with a lot of things that the Minister would not have got away with.
We now come to the problem of the teacher training college, which is not subject to the rule I have just described. A good deal will depend upon the status of the teacher training college as to whether the Minister will get the right people to enter the teaching profession through the front door rather than some of the back doors which have been opened in the past, and whether the Minister will get the number of teachers that he will require to carry out even the reforms that he has announced up to the present. They are contained in Clause 2. They do not have the advantages which I have described as apper-taining to the children of people who come within the scope of Clause 1.
We have had no explanation of why that should be, although the Minister was pressed for one. He said that there had been an agreement. What agreement was it? It was an agreement made by the Minister with the local education authorities. The Minister's agreement with the local authorities does not bind the House of Commons. This assertion has been made over and over again in the course of history. Pencil scribbles on bits of paper in which one side gives a little and the other takes a little, while they may give great satisfaction for the time being, are subject to subsequent ratification by the House of Commons. Only then can it be said that an agreement has been reached.
I did not hear from either the Minister or from anybody else during the Committee stage that there was any reason why the recruitment and training of teachers for the vastly expanded system of education that everybody agrees we have to contemplate should be conducted other than in accordance with the rules under Clause 1, by which an intending teacher will not depend on the wish of the local education authority as to what the grant should be.
Some counties produce a large number of teachers, and when certain other counties get a large increase in population they have to rely on the products of the counties that produce teachers to staff their schools. Between the two wars I was once accused of attempting to turn Surrey into a Welsh-speaking county. With the tremendous influx of people that we had into Surrey from the distressed areas, the only places in which we could find teachers to staff the schools were in the distressed areas, largely in South Wales. One borough told me that if I kept going a little harder it would make me a freeman of the borough for my services to its teacher-training output.
This Clause represents what I understood was a national ambition, which was certainly endorsed by both sides of the House in 1944, that a child's chances should not depend on the location of his home. Having established this principle with regard to universities, and with regard to institutions comparable to universities on the technological side, I see no reason why it should not also apply to the teacher training colleges, because the right hon. Gentleman has to get from there the inspiration that will make the schools of his whole system.
To put them on a lower grade than the technological colleges, which for some astounding reason in this industrial nation we have excluded from the universities, seems to me to be a poor start on an increase of the system that most of us hoped we should be able to carry through with unanimity. I rejoice that I shall for once be in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Bath. We had certain rumblings of a threat from the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) and I hope that on this occasion I shall have the pleasure of seeing him there, too.
I am sure that the Committee is obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for his eloquent interruption. My daughter has a hamster. It has a habit of retiring into its box and chattering. We have made further persuasive appeals to the right hon. Gentleman, and all that he has done is to mutter from a sedentary position. We have had no reply, and I think we have to accept the position that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to carry the matter further. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bath, and, though this is not a condition, I hope that in return he may support our Amendments.
|Division No. 95.]||AYES||[6.55 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Balniel, Lord||Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton|
|Aitken, W. T.||Barlow, Sir John||Bell, Ronald|
|Allason, James||Barter, John||Berkeley, Humphry|
|Arbuthnot, John||Batsford, Brian||Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Biffen, John|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Perclval, Ian|
|Bishop F. P.||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Peyton, John|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hastings, Stephen||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Bossom, Clive||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Pilkington, Sir Richard|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Hendry, Forbes||Pitt, Miss Edith|
|Box, Donald||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Pott, Percivall|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.||Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Brewis, John||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Brooman-White, R.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Profumo, Rt. Hon. John|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Hobson, Sir John||Pym, Francis|
|Bryan, Paul||Hocking, Philip N.||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Buck, Antony||Holland, Philip||Ramsden, James|
|Bullard, Denys||Hollingworth, John||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hopkins, Alan||Rees, Hugh|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hornby, R. P.||Renton, David|
|Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)||Hughes-Young, Michael||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Jackson, John||Russell, Ronald|
|Chataway, Christopher||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Sharples, Richard|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Shaw, M.|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Shepherd, William|
|Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)|
|Cole, Norman||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Smithers, Peter|
|Collard, Richard||Kirk, Peter||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)|
|Cooke, Robert||Kitson, Timothy||Stanley, Hon. Richard|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Corfield, F. V.||Leather, E. H. C.||Stodart, J. A.|
|Costain, A. P.||Leavey, J. A.||Stoddart-Scott, Cot. Sir Malcolm|
|Coulson, Michael||Leburn, Gilmour||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Critchley, Julian||Lilley, F. J. P.||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Litchfield, Capt. John||Tapsell, Peter|
|Curran, Charles||Longden, Gilbert||Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Loveys, Walter H.||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn||Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)|
|Deedes, W. F.||MacArthur, Ian||Temple, John E.|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||McLaren, Martin||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Doughty, Charles||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|du Cann, Edward||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Duncan, Sir James||McMaster, Stanley R.||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Maitland, Sir John||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Turner, Colin|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest||van Straubenzee, W, R.|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Marshall, Douglas||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Farr, John||Marten, Neil||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Finlay, Graeme||Mathew, Robert (Honlton)||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Mawby, Ray||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Mills, Stratton||Walder, David|
|Gammans, Lady||Montgomery, Fergus||Wall, Patrick|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Morgan, William||Webster, David|
|Gilmour, Sir John||Morrison, John||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)||Nabarro, Gerald||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Godber, J. B.||Neave, Airey||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Wise, A. R.|
|Gower, Raymond||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William||Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Green, Alan||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Woollam, John|
|Gurden, Harold||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.|
|Ainsley, William||Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Bowles, Frank|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Benson, Sir George||Boyden, James|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Blackburn, F.||Braddock, Mrs. E. M.|
|Awbery, Stan||Blyton, William||Brockway, A. Fenner|
|Beaney, Alan||Boardman, H.||Brown, Thomas (Ince)|
|Bence, Cyril||Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Chapman, Donald|
|Cliff, Michael||Jennings, J. C.||Rhodes, H.|
|Cronin, John||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Kelley, Richard||Ross, William|
|Delargy, Hugh||Kenyon, Clifford||Royle, Charles (Salford, West)|
|Dempsey, James||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Diamond, John||King, Dr. Horace||Short, Edward|
|Dodds, Norman||Lawson, George||Silverman, Jullus (Aston)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Lipton, Marcus||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Evans, Albert||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Small, William|
|Fernyhough, E.||McCann, John||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Fletcher, Eric||MacColl, James||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||McInnes, James||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Forman, J. C.||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)||Steele, Thomas|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||McLeavy, Frank||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Stones, William|
|Gooch, E. G.||Manuel, A. C.||Symonds, J. B.|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mapp, Charles||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Grey, Charles||Marsh, Richard||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mason, Roy||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mayhew, Christopher||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Griffiths, W. (Exchange)||Mendelson, J. J.||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||Millan, Bruce||Thornton, Ernest|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Milne, Edward||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Mitchison, G. R.||Timmons, John|
|Hannan, William||Moody, A. S.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Hart, Mrs. Judith||Morris, John||Wade, Donald|
|Hayman, F. H.||Moyle, Arthur||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Neal, Harold||Warbey, William|
|Herbison, Miss Margaret||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Watkins, Tudor|
|Hilton, A. V.||Oliver, G. H.||Weitzman, David|
|Holman, Percy||Oram, A. E.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Houghton, Douglas||Owen, Will||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Whitlock, William|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Parker, John||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Hoy, James H.||Paton, John||Willey, Frederick|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pavitt, Laurence||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Williams, LI. (Abertillery)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pentland, Norman||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Hunter, A. E.||Pitman, Sir James||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Popplewell, Ernest||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Probert, Arthur||Woof, Robert|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||Randall, Harry||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Rankin, John||Zilliacus, K.|
|Jeger, George||Reid, William|
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Reynolds, G. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.|