HC Deb 06 July 1955 vol 543 cc1170-99

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

5.43 p.m.

Sir I. Horobin

I was just concluding a short argument to the effect that it seemed to me that, on the general problem before us in this new Clause, a reasonable compromise had been found which would secure the rights of local authorities, which would regularise and extend their powers to assist, where they thought proper, the various beneficient objects with which we are concerned and, at the same time, while not giving complete protection, would give the necessary protection for the danger period and would give reasonable warning and opportunity for making any necessary representations if, in the course of time, the position of the charities was being worsened.

The only point to which I want to direct a few observations further to the Committee is to take up what seemed to me, although it occurred in only a few sentences, to be one of the most important parts of the proposal of the Minister, although it will not involve legislation. My right hon. Friend said that he would take such steps as, after further consideration, he thought most expedient, to see that Parliament was fully advised in the future of what it has never been advised before, of exactly what the local authorities were doing in this important field. Of course, for informed discussion, and criticism if necessary, and still more if further legislation in this matter should be necessary, it is vital that we should have this further information in the best form.

If the Committee will allow me, in view of its importance I would like briefly to put forward one or two of the considerations involved in the choice of the method which the Minister may take for doing what he proposes to do, most of which I welcome. There are considerable advantages in it being an annual report to Parliament by the Minister. The Minister and his Ministry are in close, constant touch with local authorities. They can often put friendly, or even not so friendly pressure, on authorities who are being unreasonable in one way or another, or simply lax in using their powers and therefore not up to the standard of other authorities. It can be done privately and in the ordinary way of business. Local authorities are used to it and are perhaps less likely to resent anything of the kind.

5.45 p.m.

On the other hand, it has considerable disadvantages. I have an open mind on the matter, but the Committee ought to direct its attention to the advantages and the disadvantages. We all know the disadvantages which have arisen and which are strongly felt where, in somewhat analogous fields, the Minister's inspector holds an inquiry and observations are made. Nobody knows whether those observations are incorporated in the report to the Minister. Nobody knows whether the Minister has taken that into consideration. Nobody knows whether other observations, which have been impossible to check, have altered his opinion. We know there are genuine difficulties on both sides in this matter if we have up and down the country prob lems where one authority is thought to be unfair or one authority has acted quite differently in the same field to another. It will be unfortunate if nobody knows what is happening when observations are made, or may have been made on evidence which may or may not have been compelling.

On the other hand, if something in the nature of a Departmental committee were set up it would have some advantages which would get over the difficulties I have described, because in the first place it would be obvious that some body or some bodies on that committee would be persons of good authority in the local government world. Equally, they would be persons of authority in the charitable world. On the face of any document they presented to Parliament there would appear the evidence or representations—whether in the treatment of schools or universities or playing fields or almshouses. On that body persons who would see that the case was properly presented and, on the face of it, Parliament would have, when deciding the matter, the views —if necessary dissenting and different views—of all concerned. There would be no fear therefore, that the report to Parliament had, so to speak, been cooked-up and agreed so thoroughly by the interests involved that it would be impossible to get it altered afterwards.

The second advantage which we ought to have in our minds in this part of the Minister's plan is that, without any disrespect to local authorities, they are organised bodies, they are very properly powerful pressure groups, and we all know the effect of a sudden flood of circulars that reach this House from the A.M.C. or the County Councils' Association. I say that it would be unfortunate if, when the Minister was presenting any report and any suggestions for improvement or criticism, let alone impending legislation, the immediate reaction of the great organised local authorities was to gather themselves together to resist. On the other hand, if it had come before a Departmental committee and it was known that persons of standing and repute had already considered it all, they would not be automatically mobilising themselves to protect their interests.

This is one of the most important and most valuable parts of the Minister's schemes. It will be of immense value to local authorities and charities to have something which they have never had before, something in the nature of an annual report on the way in which the relations between them are being conducted. It is worth giving very serious consideration to the best way of doing it.

I express no final opinion, but these are some of the considerations on both sides which ought to be in our minds. I congratulate the Minister upon doing something to relieve genuine anxieties in many important and valuable pieces of work in the country, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Clause.

Mr. Sandys

It might be useful if I now replied to the points which have been made—

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

On a point of order, Sir Charles. Will the Minister's remarks close the discussion? I would draw your attention to the fact that there have been only two speeches from this side of the Committee, one from an hon. and learned Friend of mine who has just gone from the back benches to the Opposition Front Bench, and one from a right hon. Friend of mine who has just gone from the Opposition Front Bench to the back benches.

The Chairman

I do not think it will end the discussion. I was not proposing to accept a Closure Motion.

Mr. Sandys

If it would be more convenient for the Committee, I would gladly speak later, but I thought it might be a good thing if I intervened at this point. I want to reply to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that there might be some impropriety in extending the scope of the Clause as widely as it has been extended. I thought I ought also to reply to the Amendment which proposes that local authority schools shall be included in the scope of the new Clause.

The right hon. Member for South Shields said that there was great difficulty in defining exactly which were the organisations that we wished to help and that we ought to produce a definition which would include all the organisations we wished to help and strictly exclude all the organisations we did not wish to help. That is what we all want to do, but we have found great difficulty in doing so, and the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest any way out of the difficulty. However, he was good enough to say that he felt that, taking everything together, the Clause would probably be a fair and workable arrangement, and that, in any case, we could see how we got along.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned various possible rackets which might be developed under cover of the Clause, such as the preparatory school headmaster turning his private profit-making school into a company, giving himself a comfortable salary equivalent to the salary he would otherwise have got through running the school in the ordinary way, and qualifying under the Clause to be treated as a charity and receiving exemption from the local authority. If a local authority were a party to that sort of thing, a lot of other things could go wrong apart from that, but we must rely, as we have always been able to do in the past, on the good sense of local authorities not to be parties to rackets of that kind.

It might be well if I replied to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He said he was pleased that the Clause retained the discretion of local authorities to reduce rate payments and that we were not attempting to prescribe it all by law. He also said that he agreed with the object of the Clause and that in practice the Clause would work. On the other hand—I assume that he was then addressing himself to the Amendment, although he did not refer to it specifically —he compared the positions of the public schools and the local authority schools. He said that public schools would get the benefit of the freezing arrangement and also the benefit of the local authorities' discretion——

Mr. Fenner Brockway

On a point of Order, Sir Charles. Does the fact that the Minister is now replying to the speeches which have been delivered mean that other speeches on the subject of the Clause and the Amendment will not receive a reply from him? I represent a constituency which is more affected by the Clause than any other constituency in the country. I should have hoped that before the right hon. Gentleman made the reply which he is now making about public schools he would have listened to the rest of the debate.

The Chairman

I have already been asked that point. The debate can only be brought to an end if a Motion for the Closure is moved, accepted and carried. I have no intention of accepting such a Motion.

Mr. Sandys

I regret speaking before listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He was not in the Chamber just. before I rose, and I did not notice that he had returned. I was expecting him to make a speech. If he raises any further points in his speech, I shall be very glad to reply to them.

Mr. Brockway

For the purpose of the record, I was in the Chamber when the right hon. Gentleman rose to begin his speech.

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber just before that, because I looked to see whether he was in his place, as I had expected him to make a speech on the subject. What I am saying may provide him with some more ammunition with which to make his speech.

It was said that the Clause would give the public schools the benefit of the freezing arrangement, which is, after all, only temporary, and also the local authorities' discretion. I think we must leave the question of discretion to local authorities and rely on their good sense.

So far as the freezing arrangement is concerned, as I said earlier in respect of all these organisations in general—the public school is in no different position from any other organisation, and some of them will not qualify for the benefit of the Clause at all—they will only receive the benefit of it if within its scope they have been receiving sympathetic treatment in the past. It is not a matter of conferring upon them something new. What we are doing in the Clause is trying to preserve the position of all those organisations so that, as I said earlier— the right hon. Member for South Shields repeated it—they shall not, by mistake in the process of changing over from one system to the other, lose the benefit which they have enjoyed, and so that they and Parliament will have plenty of warning if local authorities decide—I do not believe they will—to adopt a generally less sympathetic attitude towards educational bodies, charities and so forth.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said, "How about the local authority schools? They are not getting all these benefits which are being conferred upon universities, public schools, charities, and so forth." They are not, of course, but we must remember the purpose of the whole Clause. It is not to relieve rates in general; it is to help certain charitable organisations of various kinds which are considered to be an important and valuable part of our national life and to have made a great contribution to it, and which would be liable to suffer if there was a sudden increase in the rates which they had to pay. It is to prevent some sudden, unexpected prejudicial effect on these organisations which might cripple them and make their position difficult.

6.0 p.m.

I do not attach much importance to whether local authority schools should be treated similarly. I have an open mind on the subject. From the Government's point of view I see no objection to putting local authority schools in the same class, because it would make practically no difference. The only result would be to alter the book-keeping of local authorities. However, I consider that it would be a bad principle and tend to confuse the whole purpose of this Clause.

When I say that there would not be any difference, I should add that it would make this difference; if local authority schools did not pay rates their total expenditure would be reduced by that amount. Since the education grant is based primarily on a percentage of the expenditure they incur, to that extent—with one other adjustment to which I shall not refer, and which does not fully counterbalance it—local authorities would receive a lower education grant from the Exchequer as a result of not paying rates. It may seem strange, but that is what would happen, and if we wished to preserve their position, it would be necessary to make an adjustment in the arrangements for education grants.

Mr. Ede

They still pay 40 per cent. after getting the grant, and in the county areas it is not the same local authority.

Mr. Sandys

I am aware of that. But taking the simple case of the council of a county borough, the net result would be that it would receive a slightly smaller education grant and a slightly smaller equalisation grant.

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

Assuming that it was receiving an equalisation grant.

Mr. Sandys

Yes. If not, it would lose nothing. I think we shall get into some confusion if we go into the question of equalisation grants.

The point has been made about the effect on local authority education grants if public schools and other educational bodies receive remission. If they are exempted, the product of a 30d. rate will be reduced, because there will be a less amount of money raised in rates in the whole area. Therefore, the amount to be deducted from the expenditure before payment of the education grant will be reduced and the grant will be increased. Curiously enough, the effect of exempting public schools from rates would be to cause a very slight increase in the education grant payable to the local education authority. If local authorities were not to pay rates, they would lose a small part of their education grant, and if public schools are exempted to some extent from paying rates, the local education association will in fact receive a slightly higher education grant. I mention that to show that there is nothing in the argument that they will lose financially by anything in this Clause.

Mr. Lindgren

I appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman. He is dealing entirely with the question of education, and from that point of view many of his claims are correct. But in the counties there are two authorities, the county authority and the minor authority. The urban district, the rural district and the non-county borough are rating authorities, and there are other things in local authority expenses beside education. Even public schools need street lighting and cleansing and drainage and all the rest of it, which are expensive services.

Mr. Sandys

I dealt with the education grant, because that point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, and I was trying to reply to his speech.

Generally—apart from the question of exempting other organisations—and dealing solely with the question of whether it would be an advantage to local authorities to have their schools exempted from rates, in a county borough, where the whole thing is one unit, it would make no difference at all. Similarly, if county schools were evenly distributed over the whole county it would make no difference. But, of course, they are not, and the only effect of exempting county education authority schools would be to redistribute the burden in a rather haphazard way, which would work to the advantage of some authorities and to the disadvantage of others.

I have done my best to secure the views of local authorities on this matter. I cannot claim to have had exhaustive discussions on the subject, but generally speaking local authorities are opposed to any Parliamentary restriction on their discretion in these matters. To that extent, what we have been discussing is not wholly acceptable to local authorities. I think I am right in saying that they have no desire to see local authority schools exempted from rates or treated in a special way because, as I have explained, it would create inequalities between different districts, and, on balance, would provide no advantage.

They do not wish their schools to be treated as charities, nor do they wish school buildings to be treated differently from other local authority buildings. Were we to treat local authority schools in one way, there would be no reason why other local authority buildings should not be treated in a similar manner and given whatever exemption is decided, because all the expenditure comes from the Exchequer.

Mr. Lindgren

This is an important point. This memorandum, issued by the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils' Association, the Urban and Rural District Associations and the Association of Education Authorities, states that the agreement with the valuers is on schools and school buildings. Other hereditaments owned by local authorities are treated in a totally different way. This is not a statement on the valuation for the whole of local authority undertakings, including the council offices, the depot for public works and the rest. It is merely an agreement about schools and school buildings.

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Gentleman did not say to which document he was referring, but I assume that it is the document entitled "Revaluation of Local Authority Schools," dated April, 1955.

Mr. Lindgren

Yes, that is right.

Mr. Sandys

The purpose of that document is to define how a school is to be valued, which is not always an easy thing to decide. I think I am right in saying —although I have not had the opportunity of detailed consultations about it—that local authorities would like to adhere to the agreement which was negotiated after a great deal of discussion. They would not like any new Clause or Amendment introduced which would upset the agreement. I think that those are the main points which I wanted to make at this stage, but, if any other points are made by the hon. Gentleman or by any other hon. Member, I will gladly consider replying to them.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I cannot feel that the Minister has replied very convincingly to the arguments advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in favour of the Amendments. The way in which the Minister dealt with those arguments was to say, "Let us examine what would happen if schools were exempt from rates." He then developed what would happen in that case, and argued that it would really mean no great advantage to local authorities or to local educational authorities if schools were exempt from rates.

My hon. and learned Friend did not suggest that schools should be exempt from rates, and neither has anybody else suggested it. What he suggested was that they should be given the same limited and temporary protection as is afforded to other institutions by the Minister's proposed new Clause. The question that we have to ask ourselves is not what would happen if schools were completely exempt from rates, but what would happen if this Measure came into operation with this new Clause embodied, but without the Amendments proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

Surely, what would happen is that the assessments of local authority schools would be decidedly higher than they are at the present time and that the amount of rates which a local education authority would have to pay in respect of its schools would be decidedly higher than at the present time. At the same time, the increase in the total rateable value of the area would have the result of reducing that local education authority's grant from the Exchequer. The local education authority, therefore, would "get it" with both barrels.

I am very happy indeed that I was called immediately after the Minister and while I could still remember the exact tenor of the argument which he put forward, because I am quite sure that I should not have been able to remember it after the lapse of some ten minutes. The Minister argued that the partial de-rating given to the independent schools by this Clause, by reducing the rateable value of the area, would tend to increase the amount of the education grant to the local education authority, and, consequently, that that authority would get some help. But the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that the amount of help which it would get would be very slight.

If local education authorities are going to be faced with the situation which I have just described, they will have increased education expenditure and reduced grants. The tiny help which they will receive as a result of what was contained in the argument of the Minister will not be worth taking into consideration. I hope that I have said enough to suggest that the local education authorities have good grounds for some concern about the effect of the Measure as it now stands, but to say what exactly will happen to their education expenditure and to their education grant is something upon which nobody could venture an opinion. There is great complication in it.

One of the arguments used by the Minister in support of his new Clause was that the matter was complicated, that it was uncertain how things would work out for a body like a great public school, and than, therefore, we ought to have this period of three years during which, in effect, one could wait and see how things worked out. If that argument holds good for the independent schools, then surely it holds good all the more for the local authority schools, in relation to which the matter is very much more complicated by the mechanism of grants for local authority expenditure, and in respect of which, therefore, the need to wait and see for a period of three years is, if anything, even greater than in the case of the independent schools.

6.15 p.m.

We are asking the Minister why, when he makes what seems a quite reasonable provision in respect of independent schools, he does not make it in respect of local authority schools, which may be in even greater need of it because they are faced with the prospect of increased assessments and reduced grants, or, at the very least, with a situation which nobody can describe with dogmatic certainty and in regard to which a period in which we can wait and see and observe is even more desirable than in the case of the independent schools.

It is really the more remarkable that the proposal to give to independent schools a form of help that is not given to local authority schools should be made in a new Clause dealing mainly with charitable institutions. In his reply, the Minister made a very strange comment. He said that the local authorities did not want their schools to be treated as charity schools. Are we to understand that the governors of the great public schools have approached the right hon. Gentleman saying that they wish their schools to be treated as charity schools?

The term "charity school" has, of course, been in use in our language, but one associates it mainly with the novels of Dickens. When we use that term, Eton, Harrow, Winchester, and the rest, do not immediately spring to mind. Of course, although a great public school is, in a sense, a charitable organisation, it is something very much more. It is an instrument for preserving a particular class structure in society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is one of the facets. I am quite prepared to admit that in another aspect the public school is in many ways an admirable institution, but if I am prepared to concede that, then hon. Members opposite ought to be willing to concede a perfectly obvious fact about public schools.

We normally associate the word "charity" with helping people who have decidedly less than the average of the good things of life, but one of the objects of the public school is to help a group of people, who already have a good deal of the good things of life, to remain in a social and educational position in which they will go on having them. I am not objecting—and this shows how generously I approach the problem—to the public schools having the assistance which the Minister proposes to give them under the new Clause.

None of us on this side of the Committee has argued against that. All we are saying is that the right hon. Gentleman has not made out the case for giving the assistance to them and not, at the same time, dealing with the undoubted difficulties and perplexities which will face local education authorities as the result of what is happening in the rating field.

I welcome the maintenance in the new Clause of the old subsection (4) of Clause 6 of the Bill, which gives local authorities discretion in the help which they afford to charitable concerns of all kinds.

Mr. Sandys

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument so that I may reply to him, but I have not understood what advantage he suggests that local authority schools would receive by having their rates either exempted or remitted. If I could see any advantage that they would acquire as a result of that, then I would gladly consider whether they should be included.

Mr. Stewart

The right bon. Gentleman should put out of his mind the word "exempt." Nobody is proposing to exempt local authority schools from rates. That is not what we are discussing. We are saying that the prospect now facing local education authorities is a rise in the amount of rates which they may have to pay in respect of their schools.

Mr. Sandys

Paying to themselves.

Mr. Stewart

Not necessarily in some cases, and by no means in all cases; and, at the same time, they will be faced with the prospect of a reduction in the education grant. That creates for them a position of some anxiety, and I should like the Minister to say whether he will give them the three-year respite which he is offering independent schools under the Clause. That is all that he is being asked to do.

I welcome the maintenance of the old Clause 6 (4), which gives wide discretion to the local authorities, because I am very much of the opinion that if we wish to help a charity out of public funds— and that is, in effect, what we are doing —we should make it, as far as possible, a matter of local discretion. We must not forget that whenever we say that any institution, however worthy and charitable, shall not pay the full amount of rates, what we are, in fact, saying is that the other ratepayers in the area shall make a contribution to that charity. It may be a very worthy charity, but it should be left as far as possible to the ratepayers in the area to decide whether or not they want to make a contribution to it.

That consideration will apply especially in the case of a small and not very well-off local authority which has in its area one or two very large institutions which may be affected by the operation of the new Clause. I do not think that the Minister has yet mentioned whether or not he has had consultations with some of the smaller local authorities which may be adversely affected. There may be a case for giving some form of public help to independent schools, but if we are to do so I should feel happier if, instead of doing so by means of a very involved process in a rating and valuation Bill, we did it openly and avowedly in a context in which the whole relationship of those schools to the community and to the national system of education could be fully discussed.

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

I thank the Minister for introducing the new Clause, because it makes the position of charitable organisations quite clear, especially in regard to playing fields, but I should like him to state what will be the position of shooting ranges, such as that at Bisley. The National Rifle Association is rather worried about the situation. It feels that it is faced with an increase in its rateable value of possibly five times the old assessment.

If the Minister cannot give me the necessary assurance now, I feel that the matter could be dealt with in another place by Amendments to subsection (1). It would be an advantage if, in line 5, after "education or social welfare," we could add or in the interest of defence because that is one of the objects which the Association was founded to foster. Its Charter states its objects to be: The encouragement of rifle shooting throughout the Queen's domains in the interest of defence and the permanence of the auxiliary forces, naval, military and air. Again, it would be of advantage if, in line 9, after the words for the purposes of open-air games or of open-air athletic sports there could be added the words or rifle or pistol shooting. We are concerned with this problem in Yorkshire, where we shoot annually for the Scorton Arrow. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about archery?"] I think we can take it that archery is included in open-air games or sports. I know that all those concerned with the shooting at Bisley would like to know how they will stand under the provisions of the Clause. I would remind the Minister that during this week hundreds of schoolboys will be taking part in the competition for the Ashburnham Shield, and they will all be anxious to know the answer to this point.

Mr. Houghton

I am sure that we could all add to the list of sports. I can think of one—bowling greens belonging to working men's clubs. They are generally played upon by those who are a little lower in the income scale than the people who are able to indulge in the pleasures of archery.

I commend the Minister for the clarity of his explanation of the new Clause, but some doubts still seem to exist about it. As I understand it, the Minister has substituted a statutory duty for what was previously a power of discretion. In the earlier debates we were discussing the merits of the alternative principles of statutory exemption and local discretion. A suggestion was made that a harmony between the two might produce the best results—if some hereditaments were exempted by Statute and others given relief by discretion of local authorities.

The earlier part of the new Clause, however, places upon a local authority the statutory duty of freezing the amount chargeable to rates at this year's level for those hereditaments falling within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1), which seems to me to place upon local authorities the responsibility for definition. Perhaps the Minister will say whether this will mean that those responsible for hereditaments which they claim to be covered by those paragraphs will have the power of proceeding against the local authority for the benefit of the relief which the new Clause would bestow upon such hereditaments if it could be established that they came within the definition of the new Clause.

That seems to open up fresh possibilities which local authorities will hardly face with equanimity. One can well understand, as the Minister has said, that local authorities would prefer to have the right of discretion rather than have imposed upon them this new and undoubtedly troublesome statutory duty. The hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) rather suggested that it would be clear whether a certain hereditament qualified for benefit under the new Clause, because if it did it would already be the subject of some concession. I doubt whether that is a proper interpretation.

Some of these bodies might not know whether or not they have any concession, because we understand that the term "sympathetic assessment" has taken, not the form of an actual and noticeable relief from the rates which would otherwise be levied, but the form of a deliberate fixing of the gross valuation below that which would be required to conform with the law. Some of these charitable bodies might not be sure whether or not their gross valuation was below or in parity with what may be required by the law. They may think that it had merely been the practice of the local authority in the past to put these valuations at a rather lower figure than might otherwise be the case.

6.30 p.m.

According to my interpretation of the Clause, whether or not a body is conscious of having received the benefit of a sympathetic assessment in the past, it can claim to have its rates frozen at this year's level if it claims to come within the definition of the new Clause. Indeed, as one understands the proposed new Clause, some of the bodies, including their playing fields, can claim the benefit of it, although they may not have received or ever have claimed to receive, the benefit of sympathetic assessment in the past.

If this is the proper interpretation of the Clause it would be useful for the Minister to say so. Such an interpretation clearly takes away from the valuation officer any responsibility for saying whether or not a body is charitable or educational or is a playing field or whatever it may be, for the purposes of the proposed new Clause. That decision will now rest only upon the local authority. In lines 19, 22 and 25 of the new Clause the reference is to the amount of rates chargeable and not to the amount of the assessment. For that relief the valuation officer ought to be grateful. He will carry out his plain statutory duty of putting what is regarded as the proper valuation upon the hereditament, according to law. The rest will be in the hands of the local authority.

It would have been useful also if the Minister had given us a few examples. I do not know, for instance, whether public schools are at present valued upon a level lower than that which is likely to apply in the future. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) about it, and he did not know. If they have been the recipients of any beneficial treatment in the past, it would be useful to know from some examples, without mentioning names, whether any real benefit is to come under the proposed new Clause for some of those educational stablishments. We are assuming that they will get additional benefits but we do not know.

The discretion of the local authority is still retained in the latter part of the proposed new Clause, and it can still continue to be exercised in respect of newly-formed bodies or hereditaments which come within the jurisdiction of existing bodies and in respect of which the local authority may be asked to use discretion.

Obviously, the Clause is not free from difficulty in its administration. Nothing of this kind ever will be. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) was in rather a hurry to be getting on. He seemed pleased with his victory and went on at high speed to suggest what would happen three years from now. He made a few suggestions to the Minister for the permanent settlement of this difficult problem. I commend the hon. Gentleman for telling us that he has been awake since 1948. Whether the National Chamber of Trade went to sleep at any time during that period I do not pretend to know, but it will be wide awake indeed between 1st January and 31st March, 1956. That is one of the things which the Minister has coming to him—but it has nothing to do with the proposed new Clause.

I hope that the Minister will be able to correct or to confirm the construction which I have put on the duty of local authorities in this connection. It is a very heavy duty and may involve local authorities in a considerable amount of difficulty which they have not had before, and which will not be welcome in the future.

Mr. Fenner Brockway

My constituency will be more affected by the proposed new Clause than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. It is a double-double-barrelled constituency. It contains the great contrast of Eton, the home of the College, and of Slough, a great industrial centre. Eton is affected by the proposed new Clause itself, while Slough will be affected in a quite extraordinary way by the Amendments, because we are probably building more new schools than any other borough in the country, because of the expansion of the town.

What I am going to say about Eton College does not arise from any unfriendliness towards its staff or its boys. I have very good relations with both. During my Election campaign the meetings at Eton are attended by the staff and by 300 of the boys and are always the most enjoyable of the whole campaign. I hope that they are enjoyed by the boys and the staff as much as by the candidate. I was present there at the most graceful happening which has occurred in my political life. I had been attacking a speech made by a right hon. Member of this Government. A boy got up in the front row. He bowed to me, turned and bowed to the audience, and marched out. I have never seen anything more dignified or graceful.

Mr. Houghton

Or more eloquent.

Mr. Brockway

The right hon. Gentleman whom I was attacking was the Minister in charge of this Bill, and the boy who rose and made that graceful protest was his son.

The right hon. Gentleman knows Eton probably better than I do. It is a small urban area. There is a delightful little High Street which I hope will never be spoiled. I hope that the right hon. Gentle- man will seek to preserve it by urging one of his colleagues to construct a bypass road as soon as possible. There is the College and the College houses, the great open space of the Brocas at the edge of the Thames, the playing fields, and the small housing estate of Eton Wick. The district is absolutely dominated by Eton College. I have inquired from the clerk to the urban district council and am informed that the College meets between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the total rates.

The Minister has said that whether or not public schools are to have the advantage of the proposed new Clause will depend upon whether they had sympathetic assessments in the past. It is extraordinarily difficult to define a "sympathetic" assessment. That is why I was not able to reply categorically to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) when he put his question to me. It may be a matter of per capita assessment or of contractors' assessment. The Minister being aware, as he is, of the extent of Eton College in that urban district council area, not merely the College but its playing fields, and the ownership of the Brocas and of the agricultural areas, he will agree with me that 40 per cent. of the total rates is a very small proportion indeed.

I wish to make another point. The urban district council is dominated by members of the staff of Eton College. I am not suggesting that those members are acting primarily in the interests of the College. Indeed, I know many of them who have withstood demands which the College, as an institution, has made, because they desire to represent the area and population of the Eton Urban District Council as a whole. Many of them are my friends and I respect them greatly. I do say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that in a small area dominated as Eton is by the College, to offer the advantages which this new Clause offers to such a college in direct contrast to its treatment of public schools is a proposal which ought not to have the support of the Committee.

That leads me to the contrast of the other part of my constituency—the Borough of Slough. I think it quite likely that in the building programmes in the last three years we have had more schools than perhaps any other area. We have 17,000 of London's population coming to us on two great estates, and the last school building programme included seven new schools. Those schools are already being rated in a way that is intolerable compared with the rating of the industrial concerns in Slough.

I have in my hand details of the ratings of our schools and of our industrial concerns. Last year the Orchard Secondary Modern School paid £2,050 in rates. If the estimate of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is correct, that rating will, under the Bill, be increased to about £6,000. On the other hand, there are large industrial concerns in Slough which are paying no more than £2,000, £2,100, £3,600, £2,600. Indeed, I know of only one industrial company in the Borough of Slough which will, under this Bill, pay higher rates than the Orchard Secondary Modern School. That concern is Hawkers Limited. It pays £9,700 a year and every year under industrial derating is excused the tremendous sum of £29,000.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly justify that. He cannot justify the giving of privileges to what are called public schools—but which are the last institutions which should be so called—and, at the same time, refuse to grant to our real public schools—the schools under local authorities—similar treatment.

He may say, as he has done this afternoon, that it makes no difference; that either the borough, the county council or the Exchequer must pay the amount but, whoever pays, there will be an additional charge upon our educational cost, and every such additional charge will make it more difficult to get more teachers, more schools, smaller classes, better equipment and all that education requires.

I appeal to him to see that this problem is much bigger than the issues which we have been discussing during the debate on the Clause; that he really must put into operation as early as possible a revision of our whole rating system. Until he has done that he should not give privileges to the institutions included in this new Clause at the expense of shopkeepers and house occupiers in small areas such as Eton. He should look again at the Clause.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren

I think everyone will agree that we have had a most interesting debate on the proposed Clause and the Amendments to it. It is surprising how interesting we can make a debate on rating and valuation and the variations we can introduce. May I now indicate that I am moving the Amendment in line 2—

The Chairman

Before we take the Amendments we shall have to get the Second Reading of the new Clause. The arrangement was that we should take the new Clause and the Amendments together and that the Amendments could be put formally at the end of the debate.

Mr. Lindgren

Thank you, Sir Charles.

Though suggesting that he had no objection to bringing local authority schools within the scope of the Clause, the Minister asked, "Why do you want to bring them in?" We want to bring them in for exactly the same reason that the public schools want either to be brought in or to stay as they are. Both the Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) said there was no advantage to the public schools or these other bodies because they would have to pay the same rates, but the closing words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) rather emphasised the point which I am about to make.

Local authority education costs in 1954–55 are lower than they will be in 1955–56—and certainly lower than they will be in 1956–57. The reason is that the costs of labour, material and everything else are going up, and a service required by a local authority which cost £1 last year is quite likely to cost 22s. 6d. or 25s. this year. In Eton and Slough—or anywhere else where there are these institutions—that additional cost is being borne by the present domestic, shop-keeping and other ratepayers. I cannot see why that should be. No one has said exactly who is to come into and who is to be excluded from the provisions of the Clause. As for the schools which are included within the provisions of the new Clause, we are prepared to let that aspect go, but when it is proposed to include those schools there must also be included the local authority schools. They also are educational institutions and should be put on the same basis.

It appears that some public schools are rated on an assessment contract system and some on a school-place basis. This new system which has been agreed between the Inland Revenue and the local authorities puts the local authority schools on a school-place basis. Local authority administrators say that the effect will be to treble the existing assessment of local authority schools. If the other schools were put on exactly the same basis it is only fair to assume that their rates would go up to a similar degree. I do not mind that, but I am sure that my right hon. and hon. colleagues will say that what is good enough for the one class of schools should also apply to the other. If the present intention of the Clause is to freeze the amount of rates paid this year for the next three years for public schools, we say that principle should apply to the local authority schools.

The Minister's case is as follows. We do not know exactly what the extent of the existing valuation has been and we do not know exactly what the extent of the new valuation is to be. The new valuation will go on the rate book and then the local authority will remit all the difference between what it could have levied under the new valuation and the amount which was actually paid in the previous year. All we do is to freeze the amount to what is being paid now. If that is good enough for the public schools—Eton and the rest—is it not equally justifiable that a local authority should be able to see what the effect of this valuation is going to be?

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) mentioned the three times the existing value. The local authority which I got in touch with said exactly the same, particularly so far as the post-war schools are concerned. The local authority officer went to great lengths to make clear that this was only a guess on first looking at the scheme. He said, "This is what I think is going to happen, but I do not know what is going to happen. We shall have to wait and see how the Inland Revenue apply it." Is is not equally justifiable to ask that the local authority should be in exactly the same position to carry on with its existing payments and grant arrangements for the time being, so that it can see what the effect of this will be on the rateable value of the county, how it will possibly effect the Ministry of Education grants and any effect of the 30d. rate and the rest?

I am asking the Minister to give us an indication as to whether he is prepared to accept the Amendments when they are moved. The present intention of my colleagues is that if he is not prepared to do so we feel so strongly on this point that we should be prepared to divide the Committee.

Mr. Sandys

The last part of the debate has centred on the point that if independent schools are to be included within the scope of this new Clause, the local authority schools ought to have the same treatment. That is the point to which I wish to address myself. A good deal has been said about Eton, and I notice that at the moment Eton's representation on the Government Front Bench is outnumbered by two to one by that on the Opposition Front Bench. But that is not the issue this afternoon.

I think that there has been considerable misunderstanding about this matter because, as I made clear earlier, the Government have no objection in principle to the inclusion of local authority schools within the scope of the Clause. As I said, I think that it would be an untidy arrangement but in principle there is no objection to it. What I cannot understand is what advantage is claimed for this proposal. Frankly, I do not see that it would be an advantage. Such consultations as I have had with local authorities, through the local authority associations, indicate that they can see no possible advantage to local authorities in exempting their schools from the payment of rates.

Whatever may be said, the rates are paid to the local authority. Therefore, the rates paid by one local authority to another local authority are rates paid out of one pocket into another. In the case of a county borough the payments are by the same local authority to the same local authority—it is paying itself, exempting itself or remitting itself. I think that we can accept that, apart from the very nice points which we were discussing earlier about the slight effect on the education grant and equalisation grant which, as I said earlier, do not amount to very much. I only refer to them because the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had himself referred to them earlier.

I am not making a point of that. I think that the amount involved is very small I only want to point out that it would not have the opposite effect. It would not have a prejudicial effect on the finances of the local authority. Leaving that aside, in a county borough this Clause would merely be a book-keeping transaction within the offices of the local authority. When we come to the county education authority, I agree that it is a case of one local authority paying rates to another local authority—

Mr. Mitchison

Even that is not quite correct, is it? Would it not affect the amount of the deduction from the main grant for the education authority in the county borough?

Mr. Sandys

Yes, but I pointed out earlier that, so far as I could calculate, on balance it will be to the disadvantage of the local authority. I do not want to go into this matter again.

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present when I gave the explanation, but the effect of not paying rates reduces the expenditure of the local authority and since the education grant is a percentage payment on the expenditure incurred, a reduction would in that respect be a disadvantage. The 30d. rate issue works on the other side, but, on balance, there will be a very slight disadvantage. I think, however, that we can both accept that this is not an issue of importance.

What I want to do is to convince hon. Members opposite that there is nothing to be gained by their proposal. As I have said, in the case of a county borough, I think that it is agreed that there is no issue involved. When we come to a county education authority then, although the payments are being made by a local authority to a local authority, there is more than one local authority involved. Taking the picture as a whole it balances itself.

The question is what is the effect of this redistribution as between one authority and another on the burden of the rates. The only effect that it can have in a county is to redistribute in a different way the burden of the rates. No one has suggested that as the result of this proposal the rates are to be redistributed in a way which will be fairer than the present distribution. All we know is that it will result in some change in the distribution of the rate as between the authorities in different districts and the county council.

As I have said, if the schools were distributed absolutely evenly as between all county districts, the effect of this proposal would be as little as it is in the case of a county borough. But where schools are not evenly distributed—and that is the normal situation—the effect of including the local authority schools within the scope of this Clause would be merely to work to the disadvantage of the areas which have more than the average number of schools and to the advantage of those which have less than the average number of schools in their area. I cannot see that there is any virtue in doing that. I assure hon. Members that that would be the only practical effect of accepting this Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

I am anxious to go forward with the agreement of the Committee, especially on a matter which I cannot see has any political or other importance. All this argument about public schools and local authorities has nothing to do with this issue. I understand that the Committee as a whole is agreed on, and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) says that he accepts, the inclusion of the categories of organisations which are set out in the Clause. All he asks is that local authority schools should get similar treatment. This is really a matter in which we should be guided by the wishes of local authorities themselves, and I am certainly prepared to be guided in that way.

What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that up to now such consultations as I have been able to have indicate that local authorities are quite definitely against the proposals contained in the Amendment; but if, after they have had time to consider the matter further and perhaps to read the arguments that have been advanced in support of the Amendment, they feel that there is some advantage to be gained, and they care to make representations to me between now and the time when the Bill leaves another place, I will undertake to consider most sympathetically any proposals which they may put forward.

I must, however, say frankly to hon. Members opposite that in view of the letters and the representations which I have already received as a result of my consultations, I think it highly improbable that I shall have to implement that undertaking in any way or to do anything except leave the Clause as it stands. That seems to me to be a fair offer. If local authorities really want what has been advocated for them by hon. Members opposite—which I am sure they do not— the Government will look sympathetically at any proposals which are made.

Mr. Ede

Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to say anything in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), whether this new Clause imposes a duty instead of merely conferring a power on the rating authority?

Mr. Sandys

I am sorry if I did not deal with that point, but it was outside the general flow of the debate. If I remember correctly, the point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby was this. He asked who would be responsible for deciding whether or not an organisation came within the scope of the Clause. He was quite right in saying that this was not the duty of the valuation officer. It is a question of fact. The question whether an organisation had a sympathetic assessment in the past is not relevant to this issue. The question is whether it is an organisation which comes within the definition of this Clause. If it is, it will automatically receive the benefit of the Clause. I pointed out earlier that such an organisation would receive very little benefit if it had not, in fact, had sympathetic treatment in the past.

In reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), per- haps I should say that I have looked at figures for the public schools, and as far as one can see from a preliminary review of the position—I am not mentioning names—very few of them indeed, and so far none of the most internationally known ones, have received what would appear to be sympathetic assessments or anything that is very marked in that way. I think that that will perhaps give the hon. Gentleman a quieter night.

On the other point relating to the ascertainment of the category to which an organisation belongs, in the first place it will be the responsibility of the local authority to decide that. If it decides in a way to which the organisation objects, it can in the last resort take the matter to court, but I hope that will not be necessary.

Mr. Mitchison

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that whether or not it has had a sympathetic assessment in the past, it gets the benefit of the discretionary reduction or remission of rates under subsection (4)?

Mr. Sandys

Yes, but I thought we were all proceeding on the basis that we have confidence in the good sense and good judgment of local authorities.

Mr. Drayson

Could my right hon. Friend say anything about Bisley?

Mr. Sandys

I am afraid it is not possible to attempt to extend the scope of this new Clause any further to archery or rifle shooting. Either they come within the terms of the Clause or they do not. I am not going to attempt a definition of precisely what organisations come within the terms of this new Clause. I do not know about archery, but I should have thought that rifle shooting was not included.

Mr. Ede

Do I understand that the plea made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) the other night, specifically addressed to the question of the public schools, was entirely misdirected and that he had nothing to fear?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed: In subsection (1) (a), after "purposes" insert: of a local education authority or."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 178, Noes 218.

Division No. 19.] AYES [7.8 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Padley, W. E.
Allaun, F. (Salford, E.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Griffiths, William (Exchange) Palmer, A. M. F.
Anderson, Frank Hale, Leslie Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pargiter, G. A.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Parkin, B. T.
Balfour, A. Hamilton, W. W. Paton, J.
Bartley, P. Hannan, W. Pearson, A.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hastings, S. Peart, T. F.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Hayman, F. H. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Benson, G. Healey, Denis Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Blackburn, F. Herbison, Miss M. Probert, A. R.
Boardman, H. Hobson, C. R. Proctor, W. T.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C. Holman, P. Pryde, D. J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Holmes, Horace Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bowles, F. G. Houghton, Douglas Rankin, John
Boyd, T. C. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Reeves, J.
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth Howell, Denis (All Saints) Rhodes, H.
Brockway, A. F. Hubbard, T. F. Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hunter, A. E. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Burke, W. A. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Ross, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Callaghan, L. J. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Carmichael, J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Champion, A. J. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Skeffington, A. M.
Chapman, W. D. Jones, T. W. (Merloneth) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Clunie, J. Kenyon, C. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Coldrick, W. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Sorensen, R. W.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) King, Dr. H. M. Sparks, J. A.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Lawson, G. M. Steele, T.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Ledger, R. J. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Cove, W. G. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Stones, W. (Consett)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lewis, Arthur Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Cronin, J. D. Lindgren, G. S. Swingler, S. T.
Crossman, R. H. S, Logan, D. G. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Cullen, Mrs. A. MacColl, J. E. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Daines, P. McGhee, H. G. Tomney, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Mclnnes, J. Viant, S. P.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) McKay, John (Wallsend) Warbey, W. N.
Deer, G. McLeavy, F. Watkins, T. E.
Dodds, N. N. Mahon, S. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mainwaring, W. H. West, D. G.
Dye, S. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Wheeldon, W. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mann, Mrs. Jean White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mayhew, C. P. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Mikardo, Ian Willey, Frederick
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mitchison, G. R. Williams, David (Neath)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Moody, A. S. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Fernyhough, E. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Fienburgh, W. Mort, D. L. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Fletcher, Erie Moss, R. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Forman, J. C. Moyle, A. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Winterbottom, Richard
Gibson, C. W. Oliver, G. H. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Greenwood, Anthony Oram, A. E. Zilliacus, K.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Orbach, M.
Grey, C. F. Oswald, T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. James Johnson and Mr. Short.
NOES
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Chichester-Clark, R.
Altken, W. T. Bidgood, J. C. Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Bishop, F. P. Cole, Norman
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Black, C. W. Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Body, R. F. Cooper-Key, E. M.
Arbuthnot, John Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Armstrong, C. W. Boyle, Sir Edward Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Ashton, H. Braine, B. R. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.
Atkins, H. E. Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Crouch, R. F.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Baldwin, A. E. Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Balniel, Lord Bryan, P. Cunningham, S. K.
Barber, Anthony Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Currie, G. B. H.
Barlow, Sir John Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Dance, J. C. G.
Barter, John Burden, F. F. A. Davidson, Viscountess
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Cary, Sir Robert D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Channon, H. Deedes, W. F.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Rawlinson, P. A. G.
Doughty, C. J. A. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Redmayne, M.
Drayson, G. B. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Remnant, Hon. P.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Renton, D. L. M.
Duthie, W. S. Jones, A. (Hall Green) Ridsdale, J. E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M. Kerby, Capt. H. B. Rippon, A. G. F.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kerr, H. W. Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Errington, Sir Eric Kershaw, J. A. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lagden, G. W. Robson-Brown, W.
Fell, A. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Roper, Sir Harold
Finlay, Graeme Leavey, J. A. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. P. Leburn, W. G. Schofield, Lt.-Col. w
Fort, R. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petertfield) Shepherd, William
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Freeth, D. K. Linstead, Sir H. N. Soames, Capt. C.
Galbraith, Hon, T. G. D. Llewellyn, D. T. Spearman, A. C. M,
Glover, D. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Speir, R. M.
Godber, J. B. Longden, Gilbert Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kensg't'n, S.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Gower, H. R. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Steward, Harold (Stockport S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus Macdonald, Sir Peter Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Green, A. McKibbin, A. J. Stewart Henderson (Fife, E.)
Gresham Cooke, R. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Storey, S.
Grimond, J. McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Studholme, H. G.
Gurden, Harold McLean, Neil (Inverness) Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maddan, Martin Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Harris Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Teeling, W.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Markham, Major Sir Frank Thomas. Leslie (Canterbury)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Marshall, Douglas Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Mathew, R. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Maude, Angus Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Mawby, R. L. Touche, Sir Gordon
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Medlicott, Sir Frank Turner H P L.
Heath, Edward Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Moore, Sir Thomas vane, W. M. F.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Nabarro, G. D. N. Wade, D. W.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Nairn, D. L. S. Walker-Smith D. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Neave, Airey wall, major patrick
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Nicholls, Harmar Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Holt, A. F. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Webbe, Sir H.
Horobin, Sir Ian Nugent, G. R. H. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Howard, John (Test) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Osborne, C. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Page, R. G. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Wood, Hon. R,
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Peaks, Rt. Hon. O. Woollam, John Victor
Hulbert, Sir Norman Peyton, J. W. W. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Hyde, Montgomery Pott, H. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Price, David (Eastleigh) Mr. Richard Thompson and
Iremonger, T. L. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Mr. Wakefield.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)58 Raikes, Sir Victor

Clause added to the Bill.