HC Deb 21 March 1944 vol 398 cc761-74

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hugh Lawson (Skipton)

I had an Amendment down on this Clause— In page 27, leave out line 34, and add: 'by regular attendance between the ages of seven and twelve at a school maintained by the local education authority and during the remainder of the time that the child is of compulsory school age by regular attendance at a school or otherwise'"— but as it is not being called, I feel I must speak to the Motion which has been put before us, and try to persuade the Committee to reject this Clause. I may be misunderstood in asking that we should reject it, but it is the only way in which I feel I can protest against a principle contained in the Clause which is very bad indeed. The Clause says that parents must see that their children get efficient full-time education either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. I think there is a very bad principle contained there, and by urging the rejection of the Clause I am giving the Minister an opportunity of putting in a different Clause, which, I hope, will have a different principle. I think, therefore, I may be in order to indicating why I think it contains a bad principle and why we should reject the Clause. It contains a bad principle because it still leaves the two systems of education which we have in this country to-day, the free system, the State system to which ordinary folk can go, and the limited system, which is there for the benefit and advantage of those who can pay for it. We talk about the dual system but this is the real thing which is wrong in this Bill.

The Bill is a step forward, but it still leaves this principle of education for the ordinary folk and education for the privileged, and it is something against which I wish to protest very strongly indeed, this fact of the two systems of education, which divides the community into two classes. I do not think any hon. Members will disagree with me when I say that that is a fact which cannot be got over. Therefore, because I want to see a society in which there is more communal spirit, a classless society if you like, I wish to start having a classless system of education. I do not intend to waste a lot of time elaborating this point. I think it is well known to most Members of this Committee. We have to decide whether we are to regard education as a commodity, something to be sold to the highest bidder—because that is how this Clause leaves it—or whether we are to regard education as a public service available to all, in accordance with their need. If I might remind the Minister of some advice John Wesley once gave to his itinerant preachers, I would say, "Go not only to those who need you, but to those who need you most." I think that that is the principle on which we should distribute such educational facilities as we have.

A great deal has been made throughout the Committee stage of this Bill of the fact that we have not enough teachers, enough buildings, that there is a scarcity of educational facilities. In circumstances like these I think it absolutely essential that there should be really fair and equitable distribution of those facilities to all members of the community. While we still have this principle that some can buy a larger share, we have not got that fair distribution. So I am asking this Committee to reject this Clause. I know that many hon. Members will not agree with what I have said. It really does not depend on small arguments. It depends on a fundamental conception of what you think society ought to be. I would put it in a very few words in this way. Those Members who want to see the continuation of a society based on class privilege will support this Clause; to those who want a different system, those who want to see the abolition of class privilege, I shall give a chance of showing that they disagree with this Clause.

Viscountess Astor

Could I ask the hon. Member to define class privilege?

Mr. Lawson

As the Noble Lady has asked me, in this particular case, referring to education, I would say that class privilege is—

Viscountess Astor

I did not mean education, I meant in society.

Mr. Lawson

If I answered that question I think I should be ruled out of Order. I hope I may have an opportunity at some future date of answering the Noble Lady's question. Class privilege with regard to education is this: if you wish to find those who have got the best education, you have only to look at the number of people, for instance, who get university degrees. In the main, the people who get the best education are those who start by going through a school where they pay. I think the facts and figures prove that. You have, therefore, two ladders, and in the case of the class privilege ladder, because you are paying for it, you are getting better value. You are starting a couple of rungs up. I do not think anyone will deny that our present educational system does give great advantages to those who are able to buy a better education, and I am only asking the Committee to reject this principle and to say that education is not a saleable commodity and that everyone is going through the same door.

Mr. Messer

There are only two things I wish to say. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) would lead the Committee to believe that you cannot get good education under a public authority. I do not agree. The implication of all that he has said is that rich people, who can afford to pay for education, have their children better educated than poor people. It is not true that you cannot get as good education under the public authorities. I agree that you can get a lot of other very exciting things by paying money—you can, for instance, get the old school tie. My second point is that I do not want the hon. Member to be under the impression that he is the only one who believes in a classless society, or in the abolition of class privilege. But the rejection of this Clause will not secure that. What the rejection of the Clause, or even acceptance of the hon. Member's own Amendment, would secure is that the sort of child we have been speaking about earlier would not get education. Every child should be made to go to school. If we are to abolish private schools, that is another matter; but it cannot be done in this way. I agree with the aims of the hon. Member, but not with his methods.

Mr. Barstow (Pontefract)

I am in the same difficulty as my hon. Friend, in wishing to oppose the Clause without supporting the Amendment on the Paper. The last two words in the Clause are "or otherwise." Although we are discussing the educational system of the future, we are not even concerned with whether the parent sends his child into a school, or keeps him at home under private tuition. We are going to continue the pernicious system of allowing one child to go to a village school, or a council school, and allowing another to go to a preparatory school. There is something peculiar which prevents us bringing all types of schools into this discussion. Under this Bill we cannot discuss the public schools, and we cannot discuss the private schools. I would ask the Committee to realise that democracy, obviously, should mean every child having an equal opportunity. This Bill does not give that, and the Bill is not designed to give it. This Bill does not matter two straws.

The Chairman

The hon. Member cannot discuss the Bill as a whole. The question is, that this particular Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Barstow

That, of course, is the difficulty. I am in a very great difficulty, because I cannot, under this Bill, discuss something that is entirely wrong. I would give warning, however, to the Government that we are not living in 1938. We may, in this House, voice our own opinions. Here we have a lot of elderly people discussing the welfare of children, but there is a volume of people outside who will sweep away all these inhibitions by which this Bill is restricted. I am sorry that I cannot make all the points I want to make, but I shall not delay the Committee any longer.

Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division)

I cannot for the life of me understand what differentiation there is in regard to classes in connection with this Amendment.

Mr. Butler

It has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Logan

Quite so. I should imagine that education is really a matter for the parents, and I do not see anything in this Clause with which one could disagree. If I had a child of tender years, and I thought that, from a moral point of view, it would be better for that child to have tuition in private, or at home, I would arrange such tuition. It can be done at home, and it used to be done in the Middle Ages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] And it was done remarkably well. I have not found anything better to-day in our public schools than some of the speeches for children which I have been able to read, which were produced some generations ago. Therefore, when I read about the duty of parents to secure the education of their children, I ask, If a child is up to the school standard, what more is required? Going to school does not make an educated child. I would consider, among the responsibilities of parents, that of bringing a tutor into the home.

If that tutor could be brought in, time might be found, and I am not unaware that, in the theatrical profession, this would hit very hardly against some people. I suppose it would mean that a penalty would be inflicted on the parents if the child did not go to school, and that, in, every town in which its parents might be situated, the child would have to go to school. Now that would interfere very largely with many travelling bodies that are giving public entertainment and I am convinced that tuition up to a certain age would be well met. I imply, of course, that every ordinary child should get the best education possible in a public school by the best teachers, but I do not want anything—

The Chairman

Hon. Members are not entitled to expatiate at length upon this matter. The fact is that this Bill has already decided that there should be different types of schools, and it is not open to hon. Members to have long discussions on some points.

Mr. Logan

With respect to that Ruling, Major Milner, what does "or otherwise" mean, then?

The Chairman

The hon. Member is not only dealing with the question of "or otherwise."

Sir Richard Acland (Barnstaple)

Two hon. Members have attempted to amend this Clause. The intention of their Amendment was to prevent rich parents from being allowed to send their children to paid schools. I am sorry that neither of the hon. Members succeeded in putting an Amendment which is in Order. This Clause says the Bill leaves it open for parents—

The Chairman

I think I ought to say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Hugh Lawson) was really too late, and inconsistent with what has already been decided by the Bill.

Sir R. Acland

It seems to me that this has been the only point at which we can bring a challenge against the whole conception of their being paid schools for rich people alongside different kinds of free schools—county council schools, Church of England and denominational schools. I agree that that has been decided upon, but where in the Bill has it been decided that you can have private paid schools for rich parents to send their children to? I know the thing has not come into the Bill very prominently at any point, and it seems to me that it is a rather ingenious point about it.

I think I pointed it out in the discussion on the White Paper, and with some vigour, if I remember rightly. I suggested that this is a complete blot on the educational reform which the Minister is introducing, in that it preserves this bought education for the rich. Various people, on various matters, have said that the people feel very strongly. I have never detected that the public feel very strongly on any of the matters upon which other hon. Members have said the people feel strongly, but I have, detected that they feel very strongly about this. I think this is the only educational matter on which you could raise any great enthusiasm among the ordinary privates in the British Army. You would raise a very great enthusiasm among such people, and, in a modest way, I claim to have done so from time to time by the plain, straight statement that all children should be given their education at one or other of the free schools, and that their progress from school to school should depend solely on the ability and the needs of the child, and in no way at all on the purse or position of the parents. What I am saying allows different kinds of schools. The parents can choose between all the different kinds of free schools. The thing I am objecting to is the little snob "prep" school. These snob schools which deny—

Viscountess Astor

rose—

Sir R. Acland

This business of separating the children of the rich from the ordinary children of our country and fitting them into different schools is the beginning of the poison in the class system of this country, and I am quite prepared—although I have not worked it out in detail—to give a definition of class. A class system arises when there exists in any country one group of people who regard themselves as being a different kind of animal from the rest of the people, and that is what you have got now, and the noble Lady is a marvellous example of it.

Viscountess Astor

I am certainly a different animal from the hon. Member.

Sir R. Acland

I said a different species, and may I say—

The Chairman

I think we must avoid these personal references. I hope the hon. Member will keep to the point.

Mr. Reakes (Wallasey)

And will the noble Lady behave herself?

Sir R. Acland

In the Debate on the White Paper, when I raised this matter, I tried to point out that this business of sending one small lot of children, perhaps 5 or 10 per cent, of the whole, to one sort of school—the paid, "prep" school—while the rest go to the county council, denominational or free schools, begins at the age of 5 or 6, segregating our children and putting into their heads subconsciously, and very certainly into the heads of the 5 per cent., the idea "You are different because you are superior to the rest," and into the heads of the 95 per cent., "You are different, because you are inferior." The Parliamentary Secretary in replying to me in the White Paper discussion, said he was one of the 95 per cent, and that he had watched the 5 per cent, going to their privileged schools, and that he and his comrades despised this privileged 5 per cent.

Mr. Ede indicated dissent.

Sir R. Acland

I was one of the 5 per cent.

Mr. Logan

One of the superior?

Sir R. Acland

Certainly not. I have been given the kind of education which it is extraordinarily difficult for me to escape from, and I want more and more—

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

On a point of Order. The Clause we are discussing deals with the duty of sending children to school. What in the world has this to do with it?

Sir R. Acland

Certainly, I remember that the 5 per cent, were thoroughly despised by the 95 per cent. I remember, for example, that they could throw stones better than we could. Do not let us have any doubt about it. It is an important point. Whether we were looking down on them, or they on us, we and they were being taught that we were different kinds of children and that is the poison. That the hon. Member will not deny. This is the most absolute "Alice in Wonderland" situation. If we were to defeat the the Clause now and force the Minister to get busy and put in some new Clause which would end this rottenness of the private, paid, bought schools for the rich, then we would show educational progress in this country. Why is it that the Minister can come here and frighten us with the conception that 80 per cent, of the country's schools have not been reorganised, when, if anybody cared about them, you could reorganise that 80 per cent, in a couple of years? Nobody does care about them.

The Chairman

Reorganisation does not really come into this question. The hon. Baronet should keep to the point and deal with Clause 34.

Sir R. Acland

I am trying to point out how much the Minister could do for education, if the argument for which I am contending was accepted, by knocking out this Clause and putting in a different Clause at a later stage. How many Ministers have sent their own children to the schools which I am talking about? How many of the top people in education send their children to these free schools? How many chairmen and secretaries of county education committees send their children to the county schools which they control? Pretty few. They are all buying privileged education for their own children while pretending that the education they offer for other people's children is good enough. How many county councillors in the rural areas send their children to the school for which they have some responsibility? Very few.

They go on buying some privilege for their own children, and it is because of that that there is so little steam put behind it. If this Clause could be knocked out, and you could put in a Clause, which resulted in every gentleman's son going to the ordinary county free school; if every company director's son and every big landlord's son and every rich man's son had to go to the ordinary county free school, and if that persisted for five years, then you would get some steam behind education. Then some influential people would really begin to agree.

As long as you are all talking about a perfectly marvellous and adequate system of education for the ordinary people of this country, while 95 per cent, of the hon. Members on both sides of this Committee are seeing to it that their children and their grandchildren do not go to any of the schools that we are talking about to-day, we in this Committee, particularly hon. Members opposite, will not give half an hour per week or even half a day per year of real thought and anxiety about how well these schools are managed. Once our own children can go to the schools for which we are responsible, and to those schools only, then hon. Members will agree about them, and you will get a concerted drive from this House, and you will get the teachers. It is all fiddlesticks to pretend that you cannot train any number of teachers in three years.

It is the same with regard to reorganisation. You can build thousands of acres of aerodromes, and all the rest of it in a year or two, because you put drive into it. If you put the same drive into education, you could do these things. The reason why you have no determination, is because you leave people to go on to the county council with the cry "Save the rates." This Clause, which allows parents to buy privileged tickets, is the supreme blot on this Bill. I propose to divide the Committee on it, and then we shall see who is in favour of one kind of education for the rich and who is in favour of a system of universal education for rich and poor alike.

Mr. Ede

I am sure that the Committee would not desire me to stand very long-between it and the Division which the hon. Baronet has promised us. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) are themselves at variance on this matter because the hon. Member for Skipton does not support the regular attendance of children until they are seven years of age.

Sir R. Acland

Surely, the hon. Member is not discussing the Amendment which has not been called.

Mr. Ede

I am drawing attention to the views of the hon. Member for Skipton, which, fortunately, we have in front of us in writing.

Sir R. Acland

But which we are not discussing now.

Mr. Ede

I am pointing out the reference to seven years.

Sir R. Acland

If the hon. Member is going to criticise an Amendment which you have not called, Major Milner, we must have the right to defend that Amendment, which we worded in such a way as to provoke as little opposition as possible. It was not called, and if the Minister goes on criticising that Amendment, we must defend it at length.

The Chairman

I understand that the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) was making the point he had wished to make on the Amendment, on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If that is so, the Minister is entitled to reply.

Mr. Ede

Let us realise that what the hon. Members are asking is a State monopoly of education. Surely we have seen enough in Europe during the last few years to indicate the danger of that.

Mr. Barstow

Does that remark apply to the Soviet?

Mr. Ede

I was making a clear statement. I do not believe, and the Government do not believe, that they have the right to prescribe the only form of education that shall be given in this country.

Sir R. Acland

They do for the ordinary working class.

Mr. Ede

If the hon. Member lived in a London suburb for a few weeks, he would know that nowhere is the problem of class education more acute than in the areas almost entirely populated by the working classes, where there is the small private school conducted in the front room of a suburban villa. This is a far greater evil in the education system than all the schools to which the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) has alluded.

Mr. H. Lawson

That is just the sort of school with which my Amendment was dealing.

Mr. Ede

I listened to the hon. Member and did not interrupt him at all, and I think I might be allowed now to proceed with the answer to the arguments that have been addressed to us. We have taken powers in the Bill—for the first time—in Part III in order to deal with the problem of the independent schools. The Departmental Committee reported n years ago on this subject and we have now taken the trouble to deal with it. The parents in this, country who can give an efficient education to their children at home should still be allowed to do so. Parents who desire that their children should receive a particular form of education that is demonstrably efficient should be allowed to give it to them, even if it is not inside the State system. What we are determined is that they shall not make those wishes a cloak for giving a child an insufficient education in an insanitary room, in circumstances that make education very difficult. In Part III of the Bill we take steps to protect the children in the future against parents and teachers who give education in these circumstances. We have been appealed to throughout the discus- sions on the Bill to recognise the rights of the parents. We have in this Clause altered the duty of parents from a narrow one to a very wide one, to give efficient full-time instruction according to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, instead of the present very narrow provision that it shall be efficient elementary education in reading, writing and arithmetic only. I hope that the Committee will feel that we have endeavoured, simultaneously, to strengthen the efficiency of our education service, to secure the rights of the child to an efficient full-time education and to preserve the right of the parent to give the child education in accordance with his wishes, so long as it is efficient.

Mr. Martin (Southwark, Central)

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a sincere question? Where a parent has a child at a school—it may be a village where there is only one school—which he does not think efficient, what, under this Clause, is the proper course for him to pursue in order to give his child an efficient education?

Mr. Ede

If the allegation is that the school is inefficient, he should draw the attention of the Board of Education and the local education authority to it, so that it can be inspected and put right. If the dislike of the school arises from religious or other feeling, my hon. Friend will find that in Clause 53 and elsewhere in the Bill we are taking steps to ensure that the parent's wishes shall be met.

Mr. Martin

I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might draw the attention of parents to their rights and duties in that respect, because I think very few parents, in the ordinary way, would think of approaching the Board of Education.

Mr. Ede

Our correspondence does not indicate that. We frequently receive such letters and, as an ex-chairman of an education authority, I know that very considerable interest is taken by parents in communicating with the local education authority to make complaints, some of which turn out to be legitimate, with regard to the education of their children.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216, Noes, 4.

Division No. 9. AYES.
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock) Glanville, J. E. Parker, J.
Albery, Sir Irving Glyn, Sir R. G. C. Pearson, A.
Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (So'h. Univ.) Goldie, N. B. Petherick, Major M.
Apsley, Lady Green, W. H. (Deptford) Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Greene, W P. C. (Worcester) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham E.) Greenwell, Colonel T. G. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Prescott, W. R. S.
Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Price, M. P.
Barr, J. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Pritt, D. N.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. Gruffydd, W. J. Quibell, D. J. K.
Beanie, F. (Cathcart) Gunston, Major Sir D. W. Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Guy, W. H. Rankin, Sir R.
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley) Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h) Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Beech, Major F. W. Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A. Roberts, W.
Beechman, N, A. Harvey, T. E. Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)
Beit, Sir A. L. Henderson, J, J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.) Rothschild, J. A. de
Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston) Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P. Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Benson, G. Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan Salt, E. W.
Bernays, R. H. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham) Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. Savory, Professor D. L.
Boulton, W. W. Holdsworth, Sir H. Schuster, Sir G. E.
Bower, Norman (Harrow) Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown) Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R. Hopkinson, A. Shephard, S.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham) Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Bull, B. B. Hulbert, Wing Commander N. J. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Bullock, Capt. M. Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Burden, T. W. James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough) Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.
Burke, W. A. Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D. Sorensen, R. W.
Burton, Col. H. W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. Jewson, P. W. Spearman, A. C. M.
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley) Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W. Stokes, R. R.
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim) Keir, Mrs. Cazalet Storey, S.
Cape, T. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Cary, R. A. Key, C. W. Strickland, Capt. W. F.
Chater, D. King-Hall, Commander W. S. R. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cobb, Captain E. C. Kirby, B. V. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Colegate, W. A. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Suirdale, Viscount
Conant, Major R. J. E. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Sutcliffe, H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Leslie, J. R. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Culverwell, C. T. Linstead, H. N. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Lipson, D. L. Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Little, Dr. J. (Down) Thomas, I. (Keighley)
Denville, Alfred Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley) Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Dobbie, W. Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.) Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)
Douglas, F. C. R. Loftus, P. C. Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Drewe, C. Logan, D. G. Tinker, J. J.
Bribers, T. E. N. Longhurst, Captain H. C. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Turton, R. H.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich) Mack, J. D. Wakefield, W. W.
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond) Magnay, T. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Dunn, E. Makins, Brig,-Gen. Sir E. Watson, W. McL.
Eccles, D. M. Mander, G. le M. Walt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)
Ede, J. C. Manningham-Buller, Major R. E. Wayland, Sir W. A.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Markham, Major S. F. Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Mathers, G. White, H. (Derby, N.E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)
Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
Ellis, Sir G. Molson, A. H. E. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale) Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge) Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Erskins-Hill, A. G. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities) Woodburn, A.
Fermoy, Lord Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Foster, W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Woolley, Major W. E.
Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G. Mort, D. L. Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)
Frankel, D. Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor) Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. York, Major C.
Gates, Major E. E. Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Gibbins, J. Oldfield, W. H.
Gibson, Sir C. G. Oliver, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—
Capt. McEwen and Mr. Pym.
NOES.
Buchanan, G. Maxton, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
McGovern, J. Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey) Sir R. Acland and Mr. Hugh Lawson.