HC Deb 29 October 1956 vol 558 cc1167-85

After subsection (1) of section thirty of the principal Act (which provides that education authorities shall provide schemes for promoting pupils from primary to secondary schools) there shall be inserted the words— Provided that no scheme shall be approved which segregates children into separate schools of differing secondary groups."—[Mr. Hannan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hannan

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Under Section 30 of the principal Act, a local authority has the duty to prepare a scheme for promoting pupils from primary to secondary schools. That is all the duty that is laid upon the local authorities without any qualification. They also have to show the method they propose to adopt in so doing, so that they can form an opinion about which process is likely to benefit the pupils.

The method at present employed throughout Scotland is known as the "11-plus" method. In addition there are calibration tests, known as "intelligence-quotient examinations," according to the results of which children are allocated either to junior schools or to senior secondary schools. The proportion of the child population so allocated is about 70 per cent. to junior schools and 30 per cent. to senior secondary schools.

It is profoundly wrong that, after six years of comprehensive education in primary schools, children should be separated at the still tender age of 11-plus. This is now one of the most controversial topics in the world of education. That segregation is offensive to Scottish education susceptibilities which always, until the turn of the century favoured education which was comprehensive or omnibus, in character. The separation process seems to have grown up and was not planned. It is certainly not provided for in Section 30. The exact words there are that the education authority shall prepare and submit under section sixty-five of this Act a scheme… relating to the schools under their management and showing the method to be adopted for promoting pupils from primary schools or departments to secondary schools or departments. That is all. We have always taken exception to pupils of this age being separated. The educational interests of the children would be much better served could they be maintained under one roof.

This division goes further. In the senior secondary schools children are still further sub-divided into secondary S.1, S.2 and S.3. They are allocated courses according to the pass marks which they have obtained. A child with an extremely good pass in English but whose arithmetic is not quite sufficient to give an S.1 mark, provides an example of how this method works. The child may have only one language course when its ability and aptitude suggests that the S.1 mark would qualify for two or more languages. Children in junior secondary schools are subdivided into the three categories J.1, J.2 and J.3. This division has been carried to an absurd degree, and the sooner the segregation of children at these ages is ended the happier educationists will be.

9.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary may say, as he has frequently done, that the Government are only too glad to leave the matter to the local authorities. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, the hon. Gentleman adopts that pretext when it suits his taste. He was, however, prepared to take away from local authorities their duty to provide schemes for further education.

In case the hon. Gentleman is anxious to advance that argument, I would point out that subsection (2) reads : An education authority may at any time, and shall if and when so required by the Secretary of State, prepare and submit for his approval a revised scheme or modification of an existing scheme under this section. There the initiative can be taken by the Secretary of State if he is so minded. Because of the deteriorating situation in Scottish education, my hon. Friends are most anxious that the Secretary of State shall take action at an early date. We wish to impress upon him the urgent necessity for initiative.

Parents, teachers, educationists and, above all, children are most concerned about what is happening. It is more and more becoming recognised that the only way to eradicate the faults of the present dual system with its consequent selection and segregation is to give all children over the age of eleven the chance to con- tinue to work and play together with equal facilities in the one school. Such schools would cater for them by means of a core of subjects common to them all, from which would stem classes in specialised subjects taken according to the desires and aptitudes of the children. In such circumstances, transfers from one course to another would be very much easier.

The Joint Under-Secretary knows all these advantages. He was a signatory to the Advisory Council Report in 1947 which said : … we hold that school becomes colourful, rich and rewarding just in proportion as the boy who reads Homer, the boy who makes wireless sets and the boy without marked aptitude for either are within its living unity a constant stimulus and supplement one to the other. This is true if education is to be not merely an instruction but a preparation for life itself.

The present method of selection is making administrators fall over backwards in an effort to be fair to all the children. They are running riot over this business, and the educational interests of children are being sacrificed. Because of this, many children, despite an excellent record in the primary school, make a bad show at the examination through nervous disposition, sickness or strain. Despite its previous excellent record, the child may find itself at a junior secondary school and it concludes that it is really mentally inferior to those who have gone to the senior secondary school.

This division creates friction even within families, some members of which may go to a senior secondary school and others to a junior secondary school. It helps to implant in the minds of those who go to senior secondary schools a feeling that they are superior. It may happen indeed that, not having done quite so well as their comrades in that examination, what enables them to pass is their slickness of mind in the intelligence quotient and calibration tests. We all know of the child who, although anxious to do well and be selected and justify the faith and affection which its parents have in it, fails in this examination and takes its failure extremely hard. In response to the parents encouragement to pass the examination and out of love and affection for its parents, the child may actually strain itself beyond its mental capacity. This is something which the teaching profession and educationalists have recognised for sometime.

I can remember seeing on the television a film describing the ordinary activities of the police. One of the incidents concerned a child who had been seen to be picked up by the driver of a van. The child disappeared and suspicion rested on the driver of taking the child away with evil intent, but after inquiry it is found, when the child was brought back, that the explanation of its disappearance was quite simple. The father had been even more anxious than the child who felt that if she failed in the examination she would let her father down. She did fail and ran away. When she was brought back and explanations given, once again there was a happy family. These cases could be multiplied. It is something which is not good and healthy for the spirit of our child population.

Teachers are looking at this examination as a measure of their ability to teach. A record of successes in the examination is no doubt kept and promotion and other matters are probably judged by it. It is not the first time, I have been informed, that tears have flowed in many a staff room when the results have become known. Teachers have made certain estimations of the capability of the boys and girls in taking the senior secondary course and when they have failed the teachers have taken this as a great disappointment.

There are hon. Members on this side of the Committee who feel very strongly and sincerely about this matter. We are asking the Joint Under-Secretary to recognise that this examination is now becoming looked upon as a race and not an examination—a race in time, 30 sums in 30 minutes, 45 functional problems in some 30 or 40 minutes. Handwriting and figuration do not count. Even the ability to read is not taken into account. In this examination recent research has shown that there are considerable margins of error. When we are dealing with children this is too big a risk to take from the point of view not only of the individual child but of the educational advancement of the population as a whole and the future which Britain has to play in world affairs.

Mr. G. M. Thomson

I beg to second the Motion.

The new Clause was moved movingly and with a depth of personal experience by my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan), who quoted most persuasively the Report of the Advisory Committee on this subject—a Report which is very authoritative and which ought to have its authority made even greater by the fact that one of its signatories was the present Minister responsible for Scottish education. The trouble is that we are beginning to feel in the Committee that on educational matters the Joint Under-Secretary of State's heart is always in the right place but his seat appears to be on the wrong side.

If I may add another piece of his own evidence in favour of comprehensive schooling, I will quote to him the latest educational document which he, from his great interest in education, which we all admit, has given us. I refer to the Annual Report of the Department of Education for 1955, for which I assume he is mainly responsible. In page 11 he will find some comments on how the primary schools in Scotland are getting on. He will find a report on how new and more modern group methods are being very properly encouraged in Scottish schools. But the Report then gees on to say : It is, however, comparatively rare to find these methods used in classes PVI and PVII. This is probably due, in part at least, to the pre-occupation of the teachers with the tests of attainment which their pupils generally have to take before they are transferred to secondary education and to a mistaken idea that, as all have to take the same tests, all must profess the same work. In a subsequent paragraph, with which I will not weary the Committee, this point is argued in some detail, and I think very persuasively. I am bound to say that the conclusion which comes to me from this reading of the Secretary of State's own Report is that this very real problem of education in the primary schools can be met only by wiping out this quite artificial method of segregation at the arbitrary age of 11 plus.

I do not know what is the policy of the Conservative Party on comprehensive schools, if it has an official policy. So far as I can understand it, hon. Members opposite are completely against comprehensive schooling and are certainly against it as a general principle, although I am bound to say that practically every hon. Member sitting opposite tonight himself attended a comprehensive school, because the private school sector in this country is comprehensive in the sense that it is a school of all the talents even if it is not comprehensive in the sense that it is open to everybody, because unfortunately we still have a situation in which private education can be bought. If one buys a private education in an English public school system, one has a comprehensive education system, in which the boy who is brilliant at games works and plays side by side with the boy who is brilliant at lessons. That is the kind of secondary school education which we seek to bring about through the comprehensive school system.

One can only speculate what the Front Bench of the present Government would look like if, instead of enjoying the comprehensive school system which many of them enjoyed in the private sector, they had been compelled to go into the segregated State school system. Such a late starter as the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) might never have become Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State who, with his disarming modesty, has spoken to us at times in this Committee of his own educational setbacks during his youth, might well have found himself in a very different position today if he had been segregated at 11 plus by a controlled examination.

When one looks at the educational statistics in Scotland, all the mental agony which my hon. Friend described with such eloquence seems utterly futile—because what happens? We go through the painful process of separating the 30 per cent. of the brighter children by these very imperfect processes from the 70 per cent. of, at that age, rather less bright children, and then, a few years later, we find that out of the 30 per cent. who were sent to a secondary school, half have left at the minimum school leaving age in any event. Half of them leave at the same age as they would have done if they had gone to junior secondary school. This troublesome process of selection, with all the anxiety to parents, and all the stress that it causes, which may have serious after effects on the children, is wasted, considering what happens in the segregated secondary school system.

9.15 p.m.

We cannot be at all sure that the tests which are applied, with the best will in the world, are at all adequate. It is not only the haphazard nature of written examinations, but the intelligence tests. A most interesting paper was read to the British Association not long ago by a member of the staff of Glasgow University, showing that the response of a pupil to an intelligence test could be related to the social class from which he came, and that there was a great deal of unconscious class basis in the pseudo-scientific intelligence tests ; and they have to be watched with great care.

It is not merely a question of class bias. They can have all sorts of other hidden difficulties. I remember a friend of mine, a Highland teacher, complaining to me rather bitterly about an intelligence test her pupils had just undergone. She said, in her Highland voice, "It was so foolish that they gave a picture of a watering can and asked the children to identify it. Who has seen a watering can in the Isle of Lewis?"

Intelligence tests are a very imperfect method indeed of entering upon this fateful task of settling a child's future, of deciding not merely where the child should spend the next few years of his school life but—when the child entering the ordinary State school is only 11—what his adult life is to be, the kind of job he will be qualified for and the kind of life which he will be able to live. It is much too fateful a decision to rely, in making it, upon the present hit-and-miss methods of selection.

I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I hope he will not say again that this is a matter which must be left to the absolute discretion of the local authorities. As I said earlier, I grant him the genuineness of the way in which he applies the argument about the local authorities, but it is an argument which can be carried only to a certain point. If we were to carry it to its logical conclusion we might as well wind up the Education Department and sack the Joint Under-Secretary of State and allow the local authorities to run their own system. If the local authorities are to have absolute discretion in deciding the general principles of the educational framework I do not see what the purpose is of having a Joint Under-Secretary of State responsible for running Scotland's education.

There are certain general principles which it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to lay down, and I think that one so important as the question of how children are to spend their secondary school lives is one the Government should decide, not one which they should funk or try to pass on to local authorities. I hope that we shall have a much more favourable response from the Joint Under-Secretary to this new Clause than that we had to the last one which we moved.

Mrs. Mann

I am very glad to be able to support my hon. Friends this time, and I plead with them that this new Clause be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) said that he had some experience of examinations. Perhaps I have had more experience than any Member of the Committee, at any rate, than any Member on these benches, because I have had a family of five to educate. Therefore, I speak with close experience of the effects of examinations. I do not think there is anything wrong in having an examination at 11 or 11 plus, but I think there is something very wrong in allowing that examination to determine the whole future of the child.

I have in my family three who have gained the M.B., Ch.B., at their universities and who have had scholarships to the Royal College of Surgeons and diplomas in laryngology, otology and in radiography, not one of whom was anything but wild and careless at the ages of 11, 12, 13 and 14 years and not one of whom at 14 years had even contemplated what his or her future was to be. All of them brought home reports until they were past the age of 14 showing that they were either second or third from the bottom of the class. When I kicked up a row and demanded an improvement I had an improvement. One had moved to fifth from the bottom in a class of thirty-three, and I do not want to mention here what degrees he holds today.

I am merely pointing out that my close experience of children has shown me the utter inhumanity of determining at 11 years of age what a child's future is to be. There are late developers. It is quite true, as my hon. Friends have said, that in the public schools of England, which we regard as private schools, such a choice is not to be made. That is where we reach the hard core of inequality ; and that is what gives us the two nations of which Disraeli wrote.

It may be merely because we are long past the age of schooling that we do not realise the acute feelings roused in young children when they approach examinations. I do not think that any of us can realise how examinations affect them for all time, leaving them probably with inferiority complexes and perhaps robbing the nation of hundreds of very great scientists and technologists. It would be better that a millstone be put round his neck than that such damage should be done to a little child at 11 years of age. How many of us do not have regard for the wild, harum-scarum boy of 11 and like him better than the little swot? Yet we are telling these little children before they are 11 years of age that they must get down to it when they really should be playing and enjoying themselves.

I know that parents have said to a child, "There will be a wristlet watch for you if you pass the qualifying examination." I know also from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press that most of our journalists failed to pass their qualifying examination. I remember, too, that one child, when told that he would get a wristlet watch, said to his parents, "The worst of it is that most of the other boys in the class have been promised a wrist watch, too." In many parts of Scotland, even when the children pass the examination the determining factor is not their attainment but the number of available places.

This is the darkest page in Scotland's history. It belongs to a bygone age. The sooner we get rid of it the better for all of us, and for the children. The establishment of a comprehensive school is the one important step today. If it is not practicable at first, the words of the proposed new Clause must do— Provided that no scheme shall be approved which segregates children into separate schools of differing secondary groups. I hope that something will be done in the way of accepting the Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

We are now discussing an intensely interesting subject, which I admit is of the greatest importance to our Scottish schools. I have no prejudices about this matter. Not long ago I had the pleasure, at the request of the Glasgow Corporation, of opening the new comprehensive school at Crookston Castle. I said then, as I say again to the Committee tonight, that there is much to be said for the comprehensive school. I have no prejudices against it. In practice, however, we have found that circumstances vary in different areas; indeed, this was mentioned in the circular sent out by the hon. Lady's Government in 1951.

In Glasgow, the view is that in all the circumstances there it is wise to aim at the comprehensive school. I said to the Corporation, "If it is your confirmed view, I approve." In Fife, which I know better than Glasgow, it has been the long confirmed view of the education authority—which is not a Tory authority—that the junior secondary school arrangement is the better suited for that area. Who am I to lay down for Fife that it is wrong? I am not in that position, nor is any hon. Member of the Committee.

Mr. Ross

But surely the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is no real conflict in purpose there, that it has been in the view of the Scottish Department that junior secondary schools should develop a third year, and should develop in those three years a course which would enable pupils, after that, to go to the secondary schools?

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman is saying what I would have liked to say myself. There is no conflict. Both systems have grown up in our country, both systems have their merits. I do not think it is in the tradition of Scottish education to arrive at one fixed arrangement. It is the variety of our educational process that is its great value.

I see the point that some children may find the examination trying but, with great respect to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), because she speaks as a mother and knows, I really think she is exaggerating. I have visited primary schools time after time in the last few years and have asked headmasters, women and men teachers this question : "Do you find acute anxiety caused by this examination?" I have been told, No. In one school in Fife I was told, "It does not arise. We bring in the children. They do not know the examination is taking place—" [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh!"] No. I was told, "They arrive one morning and I put the paper in front of them. They get no notice and it goes through like an ordinary test." Many others have said to me that there is a gross amount of exaggeration about the anxiety which this examination may cause.

Mrs. Mann

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the teacher is the last one to whom the pupil goes and says, "Please, I am afraid I am not going to get through this examination." She has no idea of what the parents are saying. The teachers do not know, but we M.P.s find our "surgeries" filled constantly with heartbroken parents who bring their children because the child's future has been determined by that examination.

Mr. Hannan

Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there are some parents who have threatened teachers with physical violence because the teacher's estimate did not concur with the parents' estimate? It is true that the junior secondary school has a great part to play and is doing a good job. It caters for 70 per cent. of the pupils. It is not the examination which is complained about so much as the fact that the children are separated.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Lady has touched on an important point. I quite agree, as a parent. I know that what the child says to the parent is not always what the child says to the teacher, but we are not without knowledge of this in the Department. All this information percolates through to us as well. We get complaints from parents that the decision about their child is not what they would have wished, but we get very few of them. I speak from memory, but I think that in the last year there were fewer than one dozen.

In each instance we send our chief inspector to examine the child's record from the start, the teacher's estimate of the child, the little tests that it has done, and so on. When there is doubt we recommend that the child should be given the opportunity to take the senior secondary course. The fact that in Scotland we have room in our so-called senior secondary schools, enables us generally to give the benefit of the doubt. If there is anything wrong with our senior schools it is that too many people get in. That is why there is such a wastage at the top, as hon. Members will understand.

I should like hon. Members to realise that, even if we had only comprehensive schools we should still have to have a test, because in those schools they have to decide into which stream to put the child. A test, an examination, an inquiry and a division has to take place. I fully recognise that it is easier, if a mistake is made, to demote a child from class A to class B within the same school than it is to take the child from one school and place it in another. I recognise that, but I hope that hon. Members opposite, because of their passion for the comprehensive school, will not do anything to denigrate the supreme importance of the junior secondary school.

The problem here is far more important than that of merely deciding what is to be the test and what kind of school a child should go to. The problem is so to improve our Scottish education that children are given instruction according to their ability—the best instruction possible. I know junior secondary schools which are not as good as we should like. On the other hand, I know others which are performing a first-class job. We have taken a great deal of trouble. Our inspectors recently examined the whole matter and we issued a Report on junior secondary schools which has had a wide circulation and which received a warm reception from the teaching profession. It has been dealt with on the B.B.C. and on films and it has been demanded by countries all over the world. It gives an inspired picture of what can be achieved in this type of school.

I do not say that that is the right and only answer, or that the comprehensive school is the right and only answer. I am merely pleading with the Committee that the variety that has so marked and distinguished Scottish education should not be destroyed now simply because we want one kind of method only and because we are a little troubled about the test.

If hon. Members would assist me in improving the test and making it less of an anxiety I should be exceedingly grateful. It may be that we should have a little talk about this. I have tried my best to see whether we can improve the test, and I am open to advice. Again, on the ground that we must trust our local authorities, I say that it is not wise or in keeping with Scottish tradition to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Woodburn

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the arguments and the whole case which has been put to him. All the speeches which have been delivered were well thought out, and I should have thought he would have realised the point at issue, and that no one was discussing or condemning the junior secondary school as a school. As a matter of fact, I understand that in my constituency the junior secondary schools have done well and have found a method of giving a very good education. Indeed, the teachers in the junior secondary schools which I have in mind have a far better opportunity to give a broad, cultural education than in a school where they are training the children to jump through educational hoops.

The teachers are not subject to working towards a target. That is possible in some parts of Scotland, and there is no doubt that a new type of education is developing which is of a different character. That can be done in a comprehensive school just as in a secondary school. What we are worried about and what people object to is that there comes a time in school life when children are automatically separated into "gentlemen and players" groups in education. The one group are supposed to be the educated group and the others are the "players".

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that children are not the same, that their gifts are not all the same. But they do not fall into two categories alone. Those gifts are widely varied, and a boy who may not be good at Latin or Greek may be the best footballer in the school or the best athlete. His gifts may lie in that direction, but we do not want him to be playing football in a different team because he does not have the same standard in Latin and Greek. We do not want one section of people to be playing Rugby and the others soccer as if it were a class distinction.

There is no reason why people who have to live in the same community should not learn in the same community. That is the first part of education, that they should grow up and learn and live in the same community. We should not create a class distinction. The whole idea of multilateral or community schools, as I understand it, is that children should live and work together, even though they may be following different educational directions.

I realise that there are great physical problems about creating community schools. It will be noticed that the new Clause does not ask that it should be done immediately but that no scheme shall be approved which segregates children into separate schools of differing secondary groups. In other words, the situation which worries families and parents and probably the children too, is that when the examination takes place one child is sent along one street and another child along another street and "never the twain shall meet." That is wrong from the point of view of the psychology of the children. It is just as wrong as separating children at school into those compelled to apply for free milk because of the poverty of their parents and those who do not need it. It is wrong to make a division among children. They are much more sensitive than grown-ups, and they are much more hurtful to each other.

Although they may be in the same school, living, working and playing together, they may not have the same educational ability. That is our idea of a comprehensive and multilateral school. I am glad to say that I was brought up in such a school. It was not a fee-paying school. I went to school in Edinburgh, and I could have remained there from 5 years of age to university level. That school was as comprehensive as anything that we are asking should be done today. There are schools like that in Scotland today.

It may be that the buildings have to be separated because the children cannot all be contained in one, but there ought not to be this distinction, which is so clear for the public to see, of James on the one side going down the street and Willie, on the other, going up it. We should avoid that, and it is because we on this side of the Committee cannot believe that education can be satisfactory unless the children are educated to be citizens of the same community that I am bound to say that we must register our feelings in the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Ede

I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will have a conversation with the Lord Privy Seal on this matter, because he was the author of the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction in 1943. The Joint Under-Secretary is the first man I have heard who, having had experience of educational administration, denies that there is any great strain for children taking the 11-plus examination.

Mr. Stewart

I said that the statements about the strain had been exaggerated.

Mr. Ede

The hon. Gentleman went a good deal further than that. I want him to listen, if he will, to what the Lord Privy Seal said in the Report of 1943. He said : There is nothing to be said in favour of a system which subjects children at the age of. 11 to the strain of a competitive examination "— the Lord Privy Seal, of all people, says that there is nothing to be said for it— on which, not only their future schooling, but their future careers may depend. Apart from the effect on the children, there is the effect on the curriculum of the schools themselves. Instead of the junior schools performing their proper and highly important function of fostering the potentialiaties of children at an age when their minds are nimble and receptive, their curiosity strong, their imagination fertile and their spirits high, the curriculum is too often cramped and distorted by over-emphasis on examination subjects and on ways and means of defeating the examiners. That is only putting more magniloquently what was said in the recent report made to the Scottish Education Department, an extract from which my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) read.

I have a great-nephew. He wrote to me saying, "Mother has promised me a bicycle if I pass the examination." I wrote back to him saying, "What has your father promised you if you fail?" I have never had an answer to that one—and he failed. As the Lord Privy Seal said, nothing can defend a system that drives parents to such means in order to induce their children to do their best on one particular day. It is a totally unfair system. Some children have the examination temperament, and run a little above themselves—

Mr. Stewart

What the right hon. Gentleman says may apply in England, but it is not what happens in Scotland. This matter is not settled by one examination on one day. As his hon. Friends know perfecly well, the record of the child over the years, the views of his teachers and a great many other things like that, are taken into account. The test on the one day is only one of many criteria.

Mr. Ross

The effects are the same, according to the report.

Mr. Ede

The Joint Under-Secretary could not have been listening while my hon. Friend was reading the report, for which I understood the hon. Gentleman was partly responsible. Let us face the

fact that Britain now needs to keep intellectual activity alive in children for as long as possible. There is nothing more disheartening to a child than to find itself, at this early stage, regarded as among the rejects and not able to have the best opportunities of the educational service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the conversation I have suggested with the Lord Privy Seal, for I am quite certain that he will then take a very different view.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time :—

The Committee divided : Ayes 94, Noes 152.

Division No. 294.] AYES [9.45 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Holman, P. Pentland, N.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Holmes, Horace Popplewell, E.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Awbery, S. S. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Probert, A. R.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Proctor, W. T.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Hunter, A. E. Randall, H. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irving, S. (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Champion, A. J. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Ross, William
Chapman, W. D. Johnson, James (Rugby) Royle, C.
Coldrick, W. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Skeffington, A. M.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kenyon, C. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lawson, G. M. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Stones, W. (Consett)
Deer, G. Lindgren, G. S. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Delargy, H. J. Logan, D. G. Sylvester, G. O.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McGhee, H. G. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McInnes, J. Weitzman, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) McKay, John (Wallsend) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wheeldon, W. E.
Gibson, C. W. Mann, Mrs. Jean Wilkins, W. A.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mikardo, Ian Willey, Frederick
Grey, C. F. Mitchison, G. R. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Monslow, W. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hannan, W. Mort, D. L. Winterbottom, Richard
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Orbach, M. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hayman, F. H. Owen, W. J. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Herbison, Miss M. Palmer, A. M. F. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Parker, J.
Hobson, C. R. Peart, T. F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES :
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons
Aitken, W. T. Bryan, P. Farey-Jones, F. W.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Fell, A.
Arbuthnot, John Campbell, Sir David Fisher, Nigel
Armstrong, C. W. Channon, H. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)
Atkins, H. E. Chichester-Clark, R. Freeth, D. K.
Balniel, Lord Cole, Norman George, J. C. (Pollok)
Barber, Anthony Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gibson-Watt, D.
Barlow, Sir John Corfield, Capt. F. V. Gough, C. F. H.
Barter, John Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Gower, H. R.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Grant, W. (Woodside)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Crouch R. F. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Cunningham, Knox Green, A.
Bidgood, J. C. Currie, G. B. H. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Dance, J. C. G. Gurden, Harold
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Bishop, F. P. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Black, C. W. Drayson, G. B. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Body, R. F. du Cann, E. D. L. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Boothby, Sir Robert Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Errington, Sir Eric Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maddan, Martin Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Holt, A. F. Markham, Major Sir Frank Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hope, Lord John Marlowe, A. A. H. Studholme, Sir Henry
Hornby, R. P. Marples, A. E. Summers, Sir Spencer
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Marshall, Douglas Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Hughes Hallett, Vice Admiral J. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Teeling, W.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nabarro, G. D. N. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Nairn, D. L. S. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'oh) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Oakshott, H. D. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Touche, Sir Gordon
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Page, R. G. Vane, W. M. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Partridge, E. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Kershaw, J. A. Peyton, J. W. W. Vosper, D. F.
Kirk, P. M. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Wall, Major Patrick
Lambton, Viscount Pitt, Miss E. M. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pott, H. P. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Leather, E. H. C. Powell, J. Enoch Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Price, David (Eastleigh) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Ramsden, J. E. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Redmayne, M. Wood, Hon. R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Ridsdale, J. E. Woollam, John Victor
Longden, Gilbert Rippon, A. G. F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES :
McKibbin, A. J. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Mr. Edward Wakefield and
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Russell, R. S. Mr. Hughes-Young.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Shepherd, William

Question put and agreed to.