HC Deb 01 March 1962 vol 654 cc1599-613
Miss Herbison

I beg to move, in page 8, line 11, to leave out from "grants" to the end of line 14 and to insert: by that amount which represents the exchequer contribution". This is the most important Amendment to the Scottish part of the Bill which we shall discuss today. It has the support of the Scottish Association of County Councils and the Counties of Cities Association. I have received a letter from Mr. Frank Inglis, the Secretary of the Association of County Councils in Scotland, who says: The amendment which you have put down is in line with the views of the Scottish Local Authority Associations in that the deduction to be made from the General Grant should be the Exchequer element of the appropriate expenditure on 'Anderson' bursaries for 1961–62 and 1962–63. The hon. Gentleman will be aware from that that every single local authority in Scotland supports the Amendment.

In paragraph 292 of its Report, headed "Consequences of Executive Functions", the Anderson Committee made three alternative suggestions about the operation of the executive functions of award-making. The Minister of Education chose the third and the Secretary of State for Scotland chose the second. The second is: the central departments might be the award-making bodies, in the sense that they would make the final decisions about making awards to individuals and would pay the grants, but the local authorities would act as their agents in performing some functions which can best be carried out locally. The final decision on the granting of an award now rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is important to remember this, because of what I propose to say later. Local authority associations in Scotland did not, and still do not, quarrel with this arrangement. Indeed, I believe that the choice which the Secretary of State has made in this instance is better than the choice made by the Minister of Education. The local authority associations do, however, quarrel with what the Secretary of State has decided must follow from his decision.

I welcomed the fact that local authorities in Scotland were ready to accept the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, which was not made until he had had full and proper consultation with them. Scottish local authorities have a much better record of service in relation to the giving of grants than do some local authorities in England and I pay tribute to them for the work they did over a long period in helping students in Scotland to develop their skills and talents to the full.

The sharp difference of opinion between local authorities in Scotland and the Secretary of State arises from the question of who will foot the bill for these awards. It is the Secretary of State who is to make the final decision about whether an award will be granted. It is usually accepted that the person making the final decision foots the Bill, but the Secretary of State does not accept this.

The objection of local authorities to the decision of the Secretary of State has been known since 29th July, 1960. There have been discussions. There has been a lot of correspondence between the local authority associations and the Department, and the final meeting—or, at least, I take it that it was the final meeting—was held in Edinburgh on Friday of last week. The Secretary of State intends to adhere to his original decision.

Paragraph 290 of the Anderson Committee Report says: The foregoing financial difficulties"— these are the financial difficulties which local authorities have been experiencing for a long time, not only over awards, but over the whole question of education— would, of course, not arise if all grants were paid in future by the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department. The whole cost would then be met by the Exchequer. The whole cost would then be met from the Exchequer. As the local authorities would thus be relieved of about£18 million of expenditure a reduction of the amount of the general grant would no doubt be appropriate. We accept that, and the local authorities accept that if the Secretary of State takes over the financial responsibility for these grants, or says that he will take them over, there should be a reduction in the general grant.

In the memorandum to which I have referred the local authority associations say that they have no objection to a reduction in the amount of the general grant. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State has had the memorandum in his possession for some time. It says, in paragraph 4: The Association, having been consulted as recommended by the Anderson Committee, made it clear in correspondence with the Scottish Education Department and at a meeting with the Department on 29th July, 1960, that the Association was of the view that the cost of the awards should be borne wholly by the Government, and that accordingly the Department should be the award-making body, and that local education authorities should act as their agents in performing those functions which can best be carried out locally. The local authority associations have adopted that attitude right from the beginning. They accept that the Secretary of State should make the awards, and they accept, too, that the general grant should be reduced. But what they object to is the determination of the Secretary of State for Scotland not only to reduce the general grant by the proportion of the Exchequer grant for Anderson-type bursaries, but to take from it that proportion of the cost of these bursaries that was financed from the rates.

Paragraph 288 of the Anderson Report, under the heading, "Financial con siderations if grants are paid by local authorities", says: But, from the authorities' point of view, if the general grant were merely increased by a proportion of the additional cost, the burden they had to bear might still seem a heavy one and they might still say that, as so much local discretion had been removed from them, and as the system of student grants was now conceived as a national one, the whole burden should be borne by the Exchequer. That position will arise if the Secretary of State adopts the method adopted by the Minister of Education, that if local authorities are to be responsible for these awards there will have to be a larger amount of money in the general grant to meet them.

The next paragraph says: If, however, the central departments cease to give awards, and all are made a local responsibility, we think it essential that the amount included in the general grant in aid of the cost of awards should be at least equivalent to the two-thirds of the present cost which is borne by the Exchequer …plus two-thirds of any additional cost; we emphasise that this is a minimum and that in our view, having regard to the predominating 'national' interest and the removal of so much local discretion, the proportion might be greater. In other words, the whole spirit of this part of the Anderson Report leads one to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be carrying, if not 100 per cent., very nearly that amount of the burden.

But what do we find here? The Secretary of State has decided that 62.4 per cent. of the appropriate figure, that is of the amount spent on the Anderson type bursaries, should be deducted from the general grant for 1961–63 and also that 37.6 per cent., which represents the rate-borne share of the bursaries, should be taken out of general grant. This is where the local authority associations in Scotland and the Secretary of State part company.

6.30 p.m.

In paragraph 9 of the memorandum, we read something with which I wholeheartedly agree: There is no real mandate for what the Government propose and the Association has submitted that the only possible construction which could be put on paragraph 290 of the Anderson Report (and, indeed, this was the construction put on it not only by the Scottish Local Authority Associations, but also by the English Local Authority Associations), was that there should be deducted from general grant the proportion of Exchequer grant given towards 'Anderson bursaries'. The proportion of the general grant given to Anderson bursaries is shown as 62.4 per cent. The local authority associations are perfectly willing that that sum should be deducted from general grant, but they are totally opposed to the 37.6 per cent., representing about£3 million, also being deducted.

As the Under-Secretary of State knows, the expenditure on these bursaries will no longer be considered as relevant expenditure for general grant purposes. If it is no longer to be considered as relevant expenditure for general grant purposes, then it seems to me that the Secretary of State has no right whatever to take something into account which is not concerned as relevant expenditure for those purposes. That is exactly what he is doing and what the local authorities are objecting to.

The Secretary of State must realise that it is wrong that expenditure on functions outwith the general grant should be taken into account to reduce the aggregate general grant payable to the local authorities. Again, these views were put forward very strongly by the Scottish local authority associations to the Minister of State on 3rd February, 1961.

I know that the Government love precedents. Time and again, when we have tried to make a case, we have been told either that the precedents are against us, or that there are no precedents at all to support our case. Fortunately, in this matter, we have very important precedents to support the contentions of the local authorities. It is not so very long ago since we had the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 and the Government in that Act accepted full responsibility for boarded out mental defectives. This responsibility was previously undertaken by the local authorities.

In this instance, when the Government accepted full responsibility for the boarded out mentally defective, the general grant was reduced by 62.4 per cent. of the expenditure that was taken over. The Secretary of State took from the general grant only that part which could be regarded as the Exchequer contribution for boarded out mental defectives. He did not also take the rate contribution. It would seem to me that that is a very recent precedent, a very important one, and one which is similar to the case with which we are dealing this afternoon.

But there is another precedent even more recent. In England, responsibility for Colleges of Advanced Technology, known as C.A.T., is passing from the local education authorities to independent governing bodies. They are to be financed wholly by the Exchequer. Indeed, the local authority associations in England, which keep closely in contact with the local authority associations in Scotland, were very worried. They had discovered what the Secretary of State was proposing to do about the position of the Anderson type bursaries. They were afraid that when the Minister of Education decided to take over the Colleges of Advanced Technology he would work the same trick on them. They wrote to the Minister of Education to find out exactly what would be their position.

In the local authority memorandum, we find, on page 12, a copy of a letter sent on 26th October, 1961 by the Minister of Education to the Association: On 5th July, I wrote to you in reply to your letter of 28th June"—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot)

I think that the hon. Lady is getting a little wide of the Amendment. She is entitled, of course, to refer to precedents, but not to discuss them in too much detail.

Miss Herbison

With due respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, I find that Ruling very difficult to accept, because here I am making comparisons with another educational matter.

The Temporary Chairman

If the hon. Lady is quoting precedents she is all right, but if she goes further than that she is in danger of getting too wide of the Amendment.

Miss Herbison

I shall try to limit my remarks to dealing with the precedents.

The sum total of the representations of the English local authority associations was that they received in writing a specific guarantee from the Minister of Education that when the Colleges of Advanced Technology are taken over they will lose from the general grant only that proportion of the general grant which represents the Exchequer contribution for these colleges. That works out at about 56.3 per cent. In other words, 56.3 per cent. of the cost of running these colleges was borne by the Exchequer and was represented in the general grant. The other 43.7 per cent. was carried by the local authorities on the rates.

The Minister of Education has said that he will take the 56.3 per cent. out of the general grant, but he has not said that in addition he will take the 43.7 per cent. He has given an assurance that all that is being taken out is the 56.3 per cent.

In view of that assurance, our local authorities just cannot understand the determination of the Secretary of State to adhere to his decision to take the whole cost of these grants—the Exchequer proportion and the rate-borne proportion—out of the general grant.

The local authority associations have made out a very strong case. Local authorities will be acting as agents. They will be doing the preliminary work, and sifting the information, and so on. That information will then be sent to the Department, which will make a decision—and whether or not that decision is one to which the local authority agrees it will be forced to help pay the bill. That is wrong.

I hope that the Under-Secretary has been able to give further consideration to the matter since Friday, and now realises that all freedom has been taken from local authorities in this matter. They have accepted that, but if we now take freedom of decision from them we have no right to place a financial obligation on their shoulders.

Mr. Hannan

One of the difficulties about debates on a Bill which covers the United Kingdom, but has separate Clauses affecting Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales, on the other, is deciding just how much discomfort is caused to those who are listening—because many of the points now being raised have already been discussed in Committee. I appreciate that Ministers and members of the Committee have already heard many of these points. Nevertheless, as one who had the privilege of serving on the Committee I want to utter a few words in support of the Amendment.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said and will be able to give us some information about the meeting that took place on Friday last. Are we to assume that the position is as it was, with both sides standing pat, and refusing to shift? We would all agree with the proposition that if the Government are going to accept responsibility for the payment of the Anderson awards they are entitled to deduct the relevant amount from the general grant, but exception is taken to the fact that, in addition, they are to ask local authorities to continue to make their rate-borne contribution to such expenditure, despite the fact that, apparently, an agreement was arrived at on paragraph 292 of the Anderson Report, and it was accepted that, as the Report says: the central departments might be the award-making bodies, in the sense that they would make the final decisions …but the local authorities would act as their agents … It is within the recollection of hon. Members that in some cases where local authorities act as agents, far from making a contribution they receive consideration from the Government for that service. I should have thought that if there was any service in respect of which local authorities ought to qualify in that sense it would have been this one. How can the Minister interpret paragraph 290 of the Anderson Report in this fashion? How can they say that when they take over this service, which will be a national service, local authorities should continue to make a contribution of about 37 per cent? It cannot be part of the Government's case that expenditure on a function outwith the general grant should be taken into consideration in order to reduce the aggregate amount paid by the local auhorities.

6.45 p.m.

As my hon. Friend has said, not only the Scottish local authorities, but those in England and Wales, have made precisely the same representations. In view of that fact the Government seem to be running counter to their oft-proclaimed policy of giving local authorities freedom. There is no freedom about this; there is an element of compulsion about it. As I understand, it has been agreed with the Scottish local authorities that the Department will be the principal and the local authorities the agents. That was the understanding as long ago as July, 1960, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that still is.

It is also worth looking at paragraph 285 of the Report, which says: The prime objection likely to be raised against handling the awards system wholly centrally is the claim that it would involve an unwelcome amount of bureaucratic remote control "— and I am inclined to agree— or, put more specifically, that the functions of an award-making body, particularly those which are discretionary, could not be handled so satisfactorily from London, Edinburgh, and Cardiff as from a number of local centres. That is the correct decision, but we profoundly disagree as to the method of financing it. If the local authorities regard this as a good method the Government should accept the whole responsibility and should not make this alteration.

The sum involved is about£3½million this year—1961–62. It was larger than was estimated. In 1962–63, it will be£3.78 million. The Government mean to reduce the general grant by those amounts. Local authorities, on the other hand, say that only two-thirds of the general grant should be retained for that purpose. I do not want to belabour the argument, which has already been well stated, but local authorities feel very strongly about this. We regard this Amendment as the most important one to be discussed tonight, and we hope that the Minister will be able to give us some hope that at least all has not yet been lost, and that there is a possibility that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I want to put one question to the Under-Secretary. Most of my hon. Friends have welcomed the provisions for centralising awards. In my view, this is like the curate's egg—good in parts.

Miss Herbison

We have not welcomed the Clause.

Mr. Dempsey

I am referring to the application of centralised grants.

I agree that local authority contributions should be exempt, and that if the Government are to run the scheme they should pay for it. I know some local authorities who would be much more generous in applying awards of this nature than would the centralised agency in St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh—and they are the authorities who, with the recipients, will be penalised.

It is very ironical that we should now be discussing the nationalisation of these awards by a Conservative Administration. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee, naturally, welcome that type of principle. What they take exception to is the fact that the Government, in addition to taking their contribution, should forcibly extract from the local authorities a rateable contribution towards the awards. We are bound to complain because, after all, people elect their own local authority to manage their own education services, and its finances.

I am sorry that many speeches have not been made in this debate to refer to this important point. As a result of this centralisation in issuing awards, there is discrimination against married applicants who are under 25 years of age, and who are being refused allowances for their wives. That was never done in the past under the local authority scheme of administration. I direct the attention of the Under-Secretary to this practice. He has had brought before him a case from Coatbridge, which I represent, and he is aware of this departure in principle in the application of these awards. When he replies to the debate, I ask him, in view of the fact that the Government are forcibly extracting from local authorities their rateable contribution, to allow the local authorities' practice to operate in the case of young students by giving the allowance for a dependent wife.

Mr. Brooman-White

I appreciate the moderation with which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) fairly stated the attitude which the local authorities have been adopting in the long discussions that we have had on this subject.

I should like, first, to express everyone's appreciation of the original approach by local authorities to the whole problem. They saw that, because our problem in Scotland was of a size which could conveniently be managed centrally, there would be great advantage to students in having it so managed. That has been recognised in the debates we have had upstairs in Committee. The local authorities said, "We shall accept the principle and work out the finances later."

The Government said throughout, at that time and later, "We appreciate this Our attitude to the financial question is that the local authorities should be neither better nor worse off as a result of the change." The local authorities said they would not accept that. They would argue in favour of being better off, but they said, "Let us go ahead with the administrative organisation". That is the pattern as it has developed

All general grant questions are complex, but it would be tidier to deal, first, with the two precedents the hon. Lady raised. The first had to do with the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960. I shall endeavour to deal with that in general terms. The mental health arrangement was made at the time when the new general grant formula was under discussion. The rate-borne expenditure was disregarded, but in those discussions the Minister of State made it clear to the local authorities that he could not accept this as a precedent.

The second had to do with the C.A.T.S. I cannot accept that as a precedent for this suggested arrangement. Broadly speaking, the C.A.T.s are coming into line with the financial arrangements which apply to the central institutions in Scotland. The C.A.T.s have been doing work analogous to that of the central institutions. The central institutions have been 100 per cent. Exchequer aided and C.A.T.S will be 100 per cent. Exchequer aided. To that extent, they will catch up with an advantage which our central institutions hitherto have enjoyed.

Miss Herbison

The hon. Gentleman, of course, knows that local authorities will still be bearing a financial burden in Scotland in some instances for work that is being done in the C.A.T.S in England.

Mr. Brooman-White

If any point arises in which local authorities feel that there is a discrepancy between England and Scotland in the treatment of technical institutions, it is perfectly open to them to raise that point on its merits. I do not think that that is a parallel with student grants.

On student grants, the English pattern is that the distribution between the Exchequer and local authorities will be as hitherto. In Scotland, we are deducting from the grant the amount which the Exchequer would normally have contributed. The original estimate for local authority expenditure over the period was about£9½million—I am rounding the figures. Under the present arrangements they have been left with expenditure of about£2 million, and the problem we are discussing is what is to happen about the£7½million.

I may add that the Exchequer is taking over the whole of the increase which arises out of the improved scale. This is not the case in England. We are advantageously placed as compared with England in that connection. We deduct£4½million, which is the contribution the Exchequer would have made, and we are arguing whether the local authority should or should not carry the£2¾million they would have carried in any case.

The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)—who ingeniously brought in a constituency case—have argued that because the local authorities hitherto admitted the merits of centralisation, and kindly offered to assist in it, they should be relieved of this expenditure, and the rates would benefit to the extent of£2¾million. We have not accepted that view, and I state clearly that we do not accept it.

In comparison with England, that would place us in an unjustifiably advantageous position. The English local authority is carrying a share, as hitherto, of the bursaries and a share of the increased bursaries. We are carrying the increase on the Exchequer, and we feel that it would not be anywhere remotely within the concept of "neither better nor worse off" to make a reduction which would in fact leave the local authorities£2¾million better off. This is the argument we have sustained throughout the negotiations.

I appreciate the way in which the case has been put, but this is the position on which the Government stand. In due course, we shall promulgate a general grant Order. If the House does not like it, it will take the normal action in those circumstances. The question the Committee is discussing is: should the local authorities of Scotland benefit to the extent of£2¾million of expenditure which they no longer incur? We do not think that that is justified.

Mr. Dempsey

I do not think that the Committee should allow the hon. Gentleman to get out so lightly. Now you are forcibly extracting a rateable contribution from local authorities in Scotland—

The Temporary Chairman

I am not extracting anything.

Mr. Dempsey

Pardon my unparliamentary vocabulary, Mr. Arbuthnot. Now that the Minister is forcibly extracting a rateable contribution from Scottish local authorities will he say that the recipients of awards will not be worse off as a result?

Mr. Brooman-White

I shall certainly look at the question whether we can do anything to help anyone who is substantially worse off. My general impression is that cases previously dealt with by local authorities have been generously treated hitherto.

7.0 p.m.

Miss Herbison

The Under-Secretary took the first comparison I made as a precedent and brushed it aside by suggesting that when the Government did this they made it quite clear to the local authorities that this would not be a precedent, and that was all. Then he said that, compared with England, the Government must not allow the Scottish local authorities to be better off. We cannot make an exact comparison with England. Although there are to be much tighter regulations than previously, and perhaps regulations where there were none before, English and Welsh local authorities will have certain matters of decision. These matters of decision have been completely taken out of the hands of the local authorities in Scotland, and that is a very important matter when

we are discussing the financial arrangements.

This is where the difficulty has arisen all along in the discussions with the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman said that the question before us is quite a simple one: should the local authorities benefit to the extent of between£2 million and£3 million? That is not the only question before us. This is a matter of very important principles. The first principle is: should they have to pay the piper when they have no controls at all? That is an important one.

The second principle, which is also very important, is: can the Secretary of State take into consideration something that is not now liable for relevant expenditure under the general grant? The Under-Secretary has left these issues completely untouched. They have not been dealt with in discussions with the local authority associations, and they have not been dealt with tonight. It has been a most unsatisfactory reply, and we propose now to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Commitee divided: Ayes 162. Noes 112.

Division No. 112.] AYES [7.2 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Allason, James Doughty, Charles James, David
Ashton, Sir Hubert du Cann, Edward Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Atkins, Humphrey Duncan, Sir James Jennings, J. C.
Balniel, Lord Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Barlow, Sir John Eden, John Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Batsford, Brian Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) Kerby, Capt. Henry
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Farey-Jones, F. W. Kershaw, Anthony
Berkeley, Humphry Farr, John Kimball, Marcus
Bitten, John Finlay, Graeme Kitson, Timothy
Bishop, F. P. Gammans, Lady Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Box, Donald Gardner, Edward Langford-Holt, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Gilmour, Sir John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Braine, Bernard Glover, Sir Douglas Lindsay, Sir Martin
Brooman-White, R. Goodhew, Victor Linstead, Sir Hugh
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Grant, Rt. Hon. William Litchfield, Capt. John
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Longden, Gilbert
Buck, Antony Green, Alan Loveys, Walter H.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Gresham Cooke, R. MacArthur, Ian
Burden, F. A. Gurden, Harold McLaren, Martin
Chataway, Christopher Hall, John (Wycombe) McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Chichester-Clark, R. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Cole, Norman Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Marten, Neil
Collard, Richard Hastings, Stephen Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Cooper, A. E. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hicks Beach, Mal. W. Mawby, Ray
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hiley, Joseph Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Corfield, F. V. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Coulson, Michael Hirst, Geoffrey Osborn, John (Hallam)
Craddock, Sir Beresford Holland, Philip Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Critchley, Julian Hollingworth, John Page, Graham (Crosby)
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Curran, Charles Hughes-Young, Michael Peel, John
Dance, James Hutchison, Michael Clark Percival, Ian
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Speir, Rupert Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Pilkington, Sir Richard Stanley, Hon. Richard van Straubenzee, W. R.
Pitman, Sir James Stevens, Geoffrey Vane, W. M. F.
Pitt, Miss Edith Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Vickers, Miss Joan
Pott, Percivall Stodart, J. A. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Rawlinson, Peter Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Walder, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Studholme, Sir Henry Walker, Peter
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Ward, Dame Irene
Ridsdale, Julian Talbot, John E. Whitelaw, William
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.) Tapsell, Peter Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Roots, William Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'str, Moss Side) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Russell, Ronald Teeling, Sir William Wise, A. R.
Scott-Hopkins, James Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Woodnutt, Mark
Sharples, Richard Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Woollam, John
Skeet, T. H. H. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Worsley, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Smithers, Peter Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Spearman, Sir Alexander Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Mr. Gordon Campbell and
Mr. Michael Hamilton.
Ainsley, William Herbison, Miss Margaret Peart, Frederick
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Holman, Percy Proctor, W. T.
Beaney, Alan Holt, Arthur Randall, Harry
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Houghton, Douglas Rhodes, H.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Blyton, William Hunter, A. E. Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.) Janner, Sir Barnett Ross, William
Brockway, A. Fenner Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jeger, George Skeffington, Arthur
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Snow, Julian
Callaghan, James Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Sorensen, R. W.
Chapman, Donald Kelley, Richard Steele, Thomas
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kenyon, Clifford Stonehouse, John
Davies, Harold (Leek) King, Dr. Horace Stones, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Deer, George Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Dempsey, James Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Swain, Thomas
Dodds, Norman Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson Symonds, J. B.
Driberg, Tom McInnes, James Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McLeavy, Frank Thorpe, Jeremy
Evans, Albert MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Fletcher, Eric Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Tomney, Frank
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Marsh, Richard Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Forman, J. C. Mendelson, J. J. Wainwright, Edwin
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchlson, G. R. Warbey, William
Galpern, Sir Myer Monslow, Walter Weitzman, David
Ginsburg, David Moody, A. S. White, Mrs. Eirene
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Morris, John Whitlock, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Moyle, Arthur Willey, Frederick
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Mulley, Frederick Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Oliver, G. H. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oram, A. E.
Hannan, William Paget, R. T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hart, Mrs. Judith Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead.
Hayman, F. H. Parker, John

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.