HC Deb 07 May 1969 vol 783 cc601-17
Mr. Wright

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 25, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

This is a somewhat familiar phrase both in the House and in Committee, but I will try to ring a few changes on the usual form in which the proposal is made. In this Clause we reach what is, next to the unfortunate and contentious Caluse 1, the major Clause of the Bill, and one which I believe in history, if I may refer to that subject in the light of remarks this afternoon, will perhaps become a most important feature of this legislation.

There are some compelling reasons why the House should be reminded—members of the Standing Committee will not need reminding—of the reasons why we pressed this matter to a Division in Committee. Unless my colleagues and I are satisfied tonight, we shall press it again.

We are suggesting a single word change because we believe that it will strengthen the Act and the right hon. Gentleman's own powers under the Act. The Minister's explanation at the end of the Committee stage was somewhat tortuous—I think that I quote him correctly—that "may" really includes "shall". I can only say that to me that does not make grammatical sense, though it may make some sort of tortuous administrative sense to him.

May I suggest some reasons why I believe that the Act would be strengthened if the word "shall" were used? I accept that the Minister did not make this point—at least to my recollection—but it is the new Section 63, which follows this Section, which causes the difficulty about the choice of a compulsive word against a permissive word, because in Section 63 there is to be power as regards children who have not reached the age of five but a duty in respect of children over the age of five. I presume that it is the extension of an interest in handicapped children before the age of five which leads the Minister to have this rather general power rather than a power of compulsion.

May I rehearse for the Minister—he will not need too many of these reminders—some of the reasons why, in Committee, we said that this proposal would strengthen the Bill? In all the previous Acts, including the Act which we are amending—the 1962 Act, which was itself a derivative of earlier Acts—the word "shall" appears. I should like to hear the Minister explain—we were not told in Committee—why there should be this change, which, in our view, weakens his powers and what the authorities can do under the Act. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, used the same word.

Over the last 15 to 18 years—this is in no sense a partisan matter—there have been a great number of working party reports on the whole problem of handicapped and maladjusted children, and if a single theme has appeared from them, we all agree, on both sides of the House, that it has been in the direction of early diagnosis and treatment. I will specify only one tragedy for many families—deafness, which, if not discovered early enough, can often appear to be mental retardation. It is very important, particularly for Grade 3 deaf children, that they should be found to be deaf as early as possible.

Now, there is a phenomenon today. Wherever there is maladjustment, or physical or mental handicap, or deafness, maternal care somehow increases in proportion to the degree of trouble in the family, and sometimes I believe that parents—particularly mothers—are ultra-maternal. We are on an important point here. I believe that the Social Work (Scotland) Act, and the provisions of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be stronger if there is a chance, particularly for G.P.s, to be able to have contact with schools or school doctors before the age of 5 so that it is possible for some degree of early diagnosis to take place.

11.0 p.m.

Let me, further, put to the Minister a point which I put in Committee. It is very important that this piece of legislation should attract the interest of the teaching profession. I do not need to remind him of the gloomy statistics—the fact that as of January, 1968, there were 731 certificated teachers employed in special schools, whether education authority or grant aided, and that 53 per cent. of these were over the age of 50, and only 8 per cent. under the age of 30.

Again, in Committee we rehearsed this point. It would strengthen the Minister's powers of recruitment of teachers—and these figures will become steadily worse as the years pass—if there were this element of compulsion and the word "shall" were there instead of the word "may".

My final point is that it is also important that we should enlist in this field the voluntary societies that are very much concerned, and, indeed, have been the pacemakers where Scotland is concerned. I know that this is an issue which interests some hon. Gentlemen opposite in a very real sense—

Mr. Willis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your guidance on what is in order under this Amendment? All we are asked to discuss is whether there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations defining several categories of pupils, and to make special regulations, or whether it should be left to the Secretary of State. Instead of this we are getting one of these sweeping professorial surveys of the world in which nothing very definite is said on the specific point under discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that we are discussing whether it should be mandatory or not, but I have not yet decided that the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Wright

I was coming to my final point, that by introducing this element of compulsion the Act would be stronger. It would enlist the already active work of the voluntary societies. I was about to pay a tribute, before I was interrupted, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who put his name to this particular proposal during the Committee stage. I mention this simply to emphasise that this is a bipartisan indication of our wish to strengthen this bit of legislation. It is an important proposal. I shall be very interested to hear from the Minister, but without satisfaction on it I am bound to say that this merits a decision.

Mr. Hannan

On a point of order. I wish to make it clear that without any consultation, bipartisanship or agreement about names going to the Amendment, it just so happens that I did put down an Amendment quite unknown to the hon. Gentleman. There was no collusion. I want to make this clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that the House quite understands.

Mr. Woodburn

I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) is not going to subject us to the debate which I have heard for 30 years on "may" and "shall". As the Secretary of State I have had to defend the use of "may".

The hon. Gentleman's argument did not seem to have anything to do with whether it was "may" or "shall". He said that this would increase the power of the Secretary of State. How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion? By the use of "may", the Secretary of State has power to do something if he so desires, but the obligation is laid upon the local authorities to do something, and the hon. Gentleman is insisting that the Secretary of State should tell them how to do it.

The Secretary of State may have to do that if the local authorities do not do what they are required to do, but the duty is placed on the local authorities by the use of the word "shall". The Secretary of State is asked to intervene only if he finds it necessary to do so.

I hope that the House will not have to suffer this argument again. I agree that this side of the House has been responsible for many hours of debate on this subject, but hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that they have some intelligence, and some sense of business-like procedure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not business-like to waste time on this issue. The two words mean the same when used in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Millan

I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) put the matter very well, because in this context "may" and "shall" mean virtually the same.

What the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) said about early assessment, the rôle of voluntary societies, and so on, may be true and commendable, but it has little or nothing to do with the Amendment. I remind the House that what we are doing here is restating in modern form the provisions of the 1962 Act dealing with handicapped children.

The modern practice in legislation of this sort is to use the word "may" rather than "shall". I need not go into an authoritative statement by quoting references from other statutes, because we use the word "may" in other parts of the Bill. For example, in the new Section 2 of the 1962 Act, which deals with the standards and general requirements "to which every education authority shall conform in discharge of their functions under section 1 of this Act" the phrase used is that the Secretary of State "may make regulations". To allow that to go through and then to quibble about the use of the word "may" here, when all that we are dealing with is defining the categories of pupils requiring special education, seems extraordinary and quite absurd.

It is not as though there were not in existence regulations which do precisely what the Secretary of State is given power to do in this Clause. It is not a question of the Secretary of State being unwilling to make regulations and requiring an injunction of Parliament to force him, willing as he may be, to make these regulations. The present regulations date from as far back as 1954. I am referring to the Special Education Treatment (Scotland) Regulations, 1954. What is more, these regulations are specifically preserved by paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, which is the transitional Schedule. There is, therefore, no question whether the regulations may be made. They were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite as far back as 1954, and I think that that exposes the absurdity of the argument that we have heard this evening.

All that we are dealing with is the wording of the Clause, and we are here following modern practice in using the word "may" and not "shall". There is nothing sinister about this. This argument has been gone over many times in the past, and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not necessary to make the change they propose. If the wording is changed here, the Clause will be inconsistent with everything that is otherwise stated in the Bill, and as no good comes from doing that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Younger

The Minister has produced a most interesting doctrine. However, I am not completely sold on either word. On his argument, if the putting in of the word "shall" would make no difference because the regulations are made already, and if the regulations are preserved in Schedule 4, what is the point of the new Section 62? It would appear that it is providing for something which is already provided and which is preserved already in Schedule 4.

Mr. Millan

It is necessary because we are eliminating the previous provision in the 1962 Act and restating it in more modern drafting terms—and, as I understand it, with the agreement of the House. Therefore, it is necessary to have it, but the practical position is not changed.

Mr. Younger

I appreciate that intervention, but it still seems very odd, and the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be slightly inconsistent.

It was delightful to see the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in the rôle of poacher turned gamekeeper. He has spent longer arguing "may" and "shall" than any other hon. Member on either side of the House. I take it that his new rôle means that never again will he feel it necessary to argue the merits of "may" and "shall". He has now said that it is a sterile and useless argument which should not be pursued.

Mr. Willis

I was always engaged in an argument of substance, and I always kept strictly to the point.

Mr. Younger

That is probably the most startling statement to come from either side. I could spend two hours proving with chapter and verse that the right hon. Gentleman's claim is quite unfounded, but I do not want to waste the time of the House.

The doctrine that "may" and "shall" mean the same will lead us into some very strange arguments in future Bills. It would be better to acknowledge that there is a difference, and state quite clearly that "may" is now the modern way of putting it. I am certain that we shall find a difference in future Bills.

Miss Harvie Anderson

The Minister is rather optimistic in using the covering phrase "modern drafting" for this wording. I have never believed that "may" and "shall" mean the same. In this case, it is true that the duty of local authorities is laid down by regulations, but what the Minister has failed to remember is that it is only a few years since the children with whom we are dealing came under these regulations for the first time.

There was a definite delay on the part of local authorities in making what was considered to be adequate provision, and some authorities took much longer to do so than others. I do not think that the Minister will quarrel with that factual statement. If the regulations applicable at the time had been in the permissive form of this Clause, there would have been further delay in identifying these children and getting special provision for them.

The Under-Secretary may assume that adequate provision is now made for these children and that the general public recognise the need for speedy identification, but I wonder whether he really thinks that to be the case. A whole range of new factors enters into the subject including, for example, defective children, for whom almost no provision has been made.

Some local authorities will be quicker than others in providing for these new factors as and when they come within the scope of medical knowledge, and it may well be useful for the Secretary of State to have in the Measure the word we suggest rather than the word already written in. If the change in the wording means a difference of even six months in the education of these children it is well worth making.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat this Amendment a little more seriously, and realise that there is substance in it.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Although I have not heard the entire debate, I have had the good fortune to hear both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and I am sure that most of the main points will have been covered by them. The word "shall" would place a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to do something very quickly, and to make sure that there is a regular requirement for this defining to be done.

I have in mind not so much the need to make special provision, but the question of where one should draw the line where special provision is required. Many hon. Members will have been interested in a very important case which has been considered recently in Glasgow to decide whether a child needed special education or could be accommodated in a normal school—

Mr. Millan

That has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Taylor

I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain how it does not have anything to do with the Amendment. The Bill states that the Secretary of State … may make regulations defining the several categories of pupils requiring special education …". I therefore think that the case has particular relevance. When one defines categories, one draws lines.

I am well aware of the very excellent facilities that are provided in special schools. I have been round some of them in Glasgow. Many of us are proud of the very special provision made for special individual cases of physical disability and other disabilities. Because of the great advances made in this direction in recent years there has been a tendency to try to draw lines in such a way that we do not make special provision for these children who have these disabilities, but who could attend normal schools.

If the Amendment were accepted, it would be a clear message from this side and, I am sure, from many hon. Members opposite, that we not only want these regulations brought forward, but, perhaps, redefined. There have been conflicting views in the Glasgow case I have mentioned, a great deal of sentiment and of reconsideration of the functions of the special schools, and a feeling that the time may have come for redefinition.

If we want to redefine it means making new regulations. If we incorporate in the Bill that the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations there will be an obligation on him to do this regularly as and when required. I hope that the Glasgow case will make the Government and those with special knowledge of these matters in the S.E.D. think carefully again about the question of defining the category. Our aim should be that as many children as possible, bearing in mind physical, mental and other abilities, should be in normal schools and as few as possible in special schools.

Without seeking to detract from the excellent work done for handicapped children, it is very important for the welfare of all the children concerned that we should be seen to be trying to bring as many as possible, irrespective of minor handicaps, into normal schools. We have discussed comprehensive schools. It would not be in order to go into that again, but it was emphasised that the aim of education of all sorts in Scotland was to try to have a community type of school where children who are less gifted and those who are more gifted can come together and benefit. If we are looking for an ideal kind of community school, a basic feature should be that of having as many children with different abilities and differences in faculties both mental and physical coming in.

The implications of the important case in Glasgow should make the Under-Secretary think carefully again about whether there is a case for redefining categories.

Mr. Hannan

Is the hon. Member now prepared to admit the principle against which he and the Opposition argued earlier?

Mr. Taylor

I have been careful not to go beyond the boundary of order, but the hon. Member is trying to draw me over it. If he gained the impression that I said I was in favour of universal territorial comprehensive schools, that was not my intention. I pointed out that the hon. Member has put forward an argument for a community school—many hon. Members hold these views sincerely—and when applying the argument to ranges of ability, it should include ability of handicapped children.

Although the Under-Secretary replied in a courteous way as he always does to questions of this sort, he did not realise the full implications of what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) had said. We say that there is a case now for reconsidering the question of redefining. That is why I should like the word "shall" to be used. "May" is inadequate. We want to show a clear guiding light emphasising that the time has come for the Minister to make regulations, that he shall make them and keep in mind the possibility, desirability and significance of redefining the special categories of pupils who require special education. I hope that he will reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I have become increasingly impressed by the arguments which have been advanced in support of the Amendment, in particular by the arguments which have just been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). The Minister seemed to base his argument on the contention that it was modern practice to have "may" and old-fashioned to have "shall". That is not an adequate explanation or justification. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we must have "may" because it is trendy, ton-up and mod. There are many things which are trendy, ton-up and mod, but which some of us do not like—for instance S.E.T. I have no doubt that the Minister would justify that as being trendy, ton-up and mod, but it is not a sufficient justification for us. The Minister must produce a more logical reason why the House should reject the very reasonable case which has been made.

The Minister's only other argument—that it would be wrong to change "may" to "shall" in this Clause when the Bill is littered with "may's" elsewhere—is not valid, because this Clause is of special importance and sensitivity. There was much in the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart about the need to keep in the Secretary of State's mind at all times the possible desirability of redefining the regulations. I was especially impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the children who are on the borderline of being handicapped. This struck a special chord with me, because I have very direct personal involvement in such a case in my family with a child who, due to deafness, may or may not be over the borderline.

I agree with everything my hon. Friend said about the importance of trying to ensure, wherever possible, that such children should be able to be educated in the normal school. This is precisely the area where a need to keep a close watch on the regulations and a constant willingness to consider the case for redefining them by the Secretary of State is so important. That is why there is in this instance alone a good case for substituting "shall" for "may", to pinpoint in the mind of the Secretary of State and of the S.E.D. the importance of keeping this issue constantly under review.

For these reasons, I hope that the Under-Secretary will think again. I trust that he will advance a better explanation than that he advanced earlier, which was that "may" was fuddy-duddy but "shall" was with-it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Millan

I shall not go over the question of drafting practice, but I have two other points to make. First, on the question of flexibility and the need to keep the regulations up to date—which I entirely accept—it does not make the slightest difference whether we put in "shall" or "may". If we say here that the Secretary of State shall do something, rather than just have power to do it, all he would have to do to meet that injunction would be to produce regulations once. That is all. He would not have to keep them up to date or redefine them from time to time.

In any case, the regulations have already been made. Therefore, all that hon. Members are saying, in effect, is, "Have another look at the 1954 regulations and see whether they should be brought up to date". In fact, the matter is already under constant consideration. Moreover, we are providing a whole new Clause of about 11 pages to improve ascertainment procedures, to give better appeal procedures for parents, and the rest. It is absurd in these circumstances to suggest that we are not aware of the need to keep the regulations up to date.

However, if it helps the House, I give an undertaking that when the Bill goes through I shall look at the regulations again. If I feel that they need redefining, I shall be happy to do that. But, as I say, whether we put in "may" or "shall" makes no difference whatever in the long term from the point of view of keeping the regulations up to date.

Now, a word about the case in Glasgow to which the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred. Lest there be any misunderstanding or any suggestion that changing the wording here would make the slightest difference in a case of that sort, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I know that case very well. I have read the lengthy note and interim judgment of the sheriff on the case. It is a long and interesting document, and I have read the entire note. I assure the House that the argument with which we are dealing now is absolutely irrelevant to what might have happened in the case of the boy Charles Dornan of Glasgow. That ought to be put on record in case there is any feeling that, by sticking on this point, one is in some material regard making it more difficult to deal with borderline cases. That is not so at all. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

The point is a narrow one. For the reasons which I have already explained, we ought to stick to the wording as we have it in the Bill.

Mr. MacArthur

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for referring so sympathetically and helpfully to the Glasgow case, a very worrying case, to which my hon. Friend referred. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman also for saying that he will look at the regulations again in response to the debate tonight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) reminded us that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had trodden this ground before. It is a well trodden path indeed. I recall his long speeches, delivered so quietly, on the great question of "may" or "shall" in a Bill. When he himself referred to those many occasions in the past, I was reminded of the medieval chronicler who recorded the appearance of a creature from a loch in the West of Scotland, concluding his note by writing, "This creature has been seen before, and always great trouble for Scotland thereafter". This creature has been seen before many times in Scottish Committees, with great and lengthy troubled debates thereafter.

The question before us is of a different order. This is not a trivial game of words. There is here a matter of very real substance which the House should consider sympathetically. The point the Minister and other hon. Members opposite have perhaps overlooked is that what we are doing in the Clause is not to introduce a new proposal. We are not now considering a new Bill, which was the case when the right hon. Gentleman caused all the trouble in days gone by. We are considering what is in effect an amendment to an existing Statute. The opening words of the Clause remind us that what follows replaces Sections 62 to 66 of the principal Act, the Act of 1962. It is for that reason that I believe the Amendment has special merit.

The Clause deals with a particularly sensitive part of the Bill—the problem of handicapped children and the sort of education they should receive. As we enter this part of the Bill we all recognise that no question of principle divides the parties; on this part of the legislation we are at one. It is because this is so important and so sensitive an area that the opening words of the Clause should not in any way represent a weakening of the Secretary of State's involvement with this essential aspect of education.

In Committee I referred from time to time to the difficulty that would confront local education authorities, officers of local authorities, and people outside generally—not least, perhaps, parents of handicapped children, who will study the Bill when it becomes an Act. They will turn to Section 10, and it will refer them to the 1962 Act. They will at once see a change in the wording. That change may seem trivial to us in the House who understand these things so well, but it will be critical to people outside when they see that the obligation on the Secretary of State has been removed. The "shall" has been changed to "may"; the requirement has become a matter of permissiveness, and no more.

It is just because those words appear at the beginning of this critical part of the Act that I believe we should take particular care before we change them. If the Minister is trying to be trendy as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) suggested, this is not the moment, and this is certainly not the part of the Bill in which to be trendy. The moment for that might well come when we have the consolidated legislation to which all of us look forward.

We are making for so much confusion now. We are making life more difficult for the people outside who must handle such legislation. We shall make for greater confusion if we make a change of wording which, first, is totally unnecessary, and, second, is substantially misleading to those who have to interpret the laws passed by this House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 201.] AYES [11.38 p.m.
Astor, John Hawkins, Paul Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Holland, Philip Royle, Anthony
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Hunt, John Russell, Sir Ronald
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hutchison, Michael Clark Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Silvester, Frederick
Braine, Bernard Jopling, Michael Sinclair, Sir George
Brewis, John Kershaw, Anthony Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Kirk, Peter Speed, Keith
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Kitson, Timothy Stodart, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Knight, Mrs. Jill Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) McNair-Wilson, Michael Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Carlisle, Mark Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ward, Dame Irene
Clark, Henry More, Jasper Weatherill, Bernard
Clegg, Walter Murton, Oscar Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Dalkeith, Earl of Neave, Airey Wiggin, A. W.
Eyre, Reginald Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Osborn, John (Hallam) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Glover, Sir Douglas Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Wright, Esmond
Goodhew, Victor Page, Graham (Crosby) Younger, Hn. George
Gower, Raymond Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Grant, Anthony Percival, Ian TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Pounder, Rafton Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Mr. Hector Monro.
Harvie Anderson, Miss Pym, Francis
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Grey, Charles (Durham) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Barnett, Joel Hannan, William Newens, Stan
Bishop, E. S. Harper, Joseph O'Malley, Brian
Blackburn, F. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Oswald, Thomas
Booth, Albert Hazell, Bert Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Heffer, Eric S. Pentland, Norman
Buchan, Norman Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hooley, Frank Rhodes, Geoffrey
Coe, Denis Horner, John Richard, Ivor
Coleman, Donald Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rose, Paul
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Hoy, James Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Huckfield, Leslie Sheldon, Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Hunter, Adam Slater, Joseph
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Small, William
Dempsey, James Lawson, George Tinn, James
Dewar, Donald Leadbitter, Ted Urwin, T. W.
Doig, Peter Lestor, Miss Joan Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Luard, Evan Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Watkins, David (Consett)
Eadie, Alex McCann, John Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Macdonald, A. H. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Ellis, John Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mackintosh, John P. Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Fernyhough, E. Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mendelson, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Millan, Bruce Mr. Alan Fitch and
Ford, Ben Miller, Dr. M. S. Mr. Neil McBride.
Forrester, John Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Motion made, and Question put, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Millan.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 70, Noes 82.

The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 72.

Forrester, John Luard, Evan Richard, Ivor
Grey, Charles (Durham) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Rose, Paul
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) McCann, John Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Hannan, William Macdonald, A. H. Sheldon, Robert
Harper, Joseph Mackintosh, John P. Slater, Joseph
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Small, William
Hazell, Bert Mendelson, John Tinn, James
Heffer, Eric S. Millan, Bruce Urwin, T. W.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Miller, Dr. M. S. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Hooley, Frank Milne, Edward (Blyth) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Horner, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Watkins, David (Consett)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Hoy, James Newens, Stan Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Huckfield, Leslie O'Malley, Brian Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Hunter, Adam Oswald, Thomas Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Lawson, George Pentland, Norman TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Leadbitter, Ted Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Mr. Alan Fitch and
Lestor, Miss Joan Rhodes, Geoffrey Mr. Neil McBride.
Astor, John Harvie Anderson, Miss Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Hawkins, Paul Royle, Anthony
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Holland, Philip Russell, Sir Ronald
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hunt, John Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hutch son, Michael Clark Silvester, Frederick
Brewis, John Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Sinclair, Sir George
Brinton, Sir Tatton Jopling, Michael Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Kershaw, Anthony Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Kirk, Peter Stodart, Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Knight, Mrs. Jill Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Carlisle, Mark Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Clark, Henry McNair-Wilson, Michael Ward, Dame Irene
Clegg, Walter Monro, Hector Weatherill, Bernard
Dalkeith, Earl of Murton, Oscar Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Neave, Airey Wiggin, A. W.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Eyre, Reginald Osborn, John (Hallam) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Glover, Sir Douglas Page, Graham (Crosby) Wright, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip Page, John (Harrow, W.) Younger, Hn. George
Goodhew, Victor Percival, Ian
Gower, Raymond Pounder, Rafton TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grant, Anthony Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Mr. Jasper More and
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Pym, Francis Mr. Timothy Kitson.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.