Skip to main content

New Clause—(Deferment For Apprentices And Students)

Volume 437: debated on Wednesday 21 May 1947

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

If the Minister is satisfied in regard to any person liable to be called up for service under this Act that, on the date on which he becomes so liable, he is serving an apprenticeship or receiving full-time education in a university, school or other institution, or that he will within one year from the said date be so receiving education, the Minister shall, if so requested by that person, direct that he may be called up at a date not later than six months after the completion of such apprenticeship or education; and accordingly Section one of this Act shall, in relation to that person, have effect as if for the reference therein to the age of twenty-six years there were substituted a reference to an age being the sum of twenty-six years and the period after such person became liable to be called up under this Act and before he was so called up.—[ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.45 p.m.

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

The object of this Clause is to put into the Bill a statutory right for apprentices and students to be permitted to conclude their apprenticeship or period of education before doing their military service, if they so desire. The House will recollect that a number of Members on this side pressed this point so long ago as the Second Reading, and that on the Committee stage there was considerable discussion on an Amendment to the then Clause 16, which now stands in the Bill as Clause 17. I would remind hon. Members that the attempt made in the Opposition Amendment on the Committee stage to put this statutory provision into the Bill was not resisted on its merits, but solely upon certain technical aspects of the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who bore the major part of that particular battle, will recollect that, on a number of occasions, he attempted to convince hon. Members on this side of the House that, from the machinery point of view, the Amendment would not work.

I do not think that I shall be challenged when I say that the merits of the proposal were not seriously challenged from any quarter of the Committee. It would have been surprising had they been, since, as long ago as the Second Reading, the Minister of Labour—reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 31st March, col. 1684—made it abundantly clear that it was the intention of the Government that such persons should be entitled to apply for a delay in the doing of their service. The Debate on the Amendment on the Committee stage concluded with an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour—who will find that undertaking in col. 860—to look at the Clause in question to see whether something could be done. No Amendment has been tabled by the Government to deal with this point, and, as my right hon. Friends and hon. Members feel very strongly on this matter, we have now tabled the present new Clause which, in our submission, not only does what most hon. Members want to do—to put this provision into the Bill—but does so in a manner to which no objection could be taken, on the grounds of machinery.

The new Clause will contain a provision relating to deferment, subject to one important qualification. This was done to meet the Parliamentary Secretary's objection that the previous proposal for postponement could not work because it involved bringing in the hardship committees. Deferment involves administrative action by his Department and no more. Accepting the advice which the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to tender to the Committee on the previous stage of the Bill, we have now put this proposal forward on the basis of deferment; but we have made one qualification. The Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that cases of deferment might involve not merely a delay in the doing of military service by the person deferred, but might involve a situation in which that person did not do his service at all, or, alternatively, did a shorter period than other people. It seems to us objectionable that persons who are to obtain the advantage of completing their education or apprenticeship without interruption should also gain the advantage—if it is an advantage—of doing less service than other people. Therefore, we have inserted in this new Clause a provision that, although these people will obtain deferment, it will be deferment shorn of that harmful aspect, and we have made it clear that the people so deferred will not, by reason of that deferment, do any less service than anyone else.

The House will recollect that the objection was made—I think under misapprehension—by hon. Members opposite to our proposals on the grounds that they would tend to establish a privileged class. It is very far from our intention to establish a privileged class, and that is why we have gone to the trouble of inserting the concluding three or four lines in the Clause, which will prevent any possibility of any person benefiting by being absolved from liability to any part of his service. So much for the technicalities. The new Clause surmounts the technical difficulties, and I would urge on the House the broad merits of the proposals

There is no dispute in any quarter of the House that it is desirable that the military service which we are asked to impose under this Bill shall cause as little interruption as possible to apprenticeship and education. If that is so, it is surely proper not to rely upon the discretion, however well exercised, of the Minister of Labour; it is surely essential to put it in the Bill It is essential for two reasons—one a practical reason and the other a psychological reason. The practical reason is that Ministerial discretion could be exercised in a variety of ways, and with perfectly genuine intentions, but could, nevertheless, be nibbled away by Ministerial action. By putting this in the Bill, there will be rights under Act of Parliament, which can be vindicated if necessary in the courts.

Then there is the psychological aspect. We are imposing a very serious sacrifice on an entire generation, and it is desirable that that burden should be as light as is consistent with the interests of national security. It would convince a great many of these young people that we were attempting to do that, if we put into the Bill this provision for their benefit. It would help also those who have to plan the careers and education of the young, in that they would know that, in planning those careers, they could rely on statutory provisions to whose benefit they were en-titled as a matter of absolute right. I therefore urge on the House that it is extremely desirable that some statutory provision should be made. If hon. Members accept that proposition, as I think a good many hon. Members do, then, in the absence of any other statutory provision being put forward on behalf of the Government, as in my opinion it should have been, ours is the only one for the consideration of the House.

I do not know what attitude the Government intend to take to this Clause. I do not know whether they will object to it on technicalities or on its merits, but if the objection is on technicalities then hon. Members have something of a grievance against the Government. The view of the majority of the hon. Members in Committee as to the desirability of some such provision was made abundantly clear. The Government obviously have technical resources of draftsmanship not available to hon. Members generally, and if the Government's only objection to the previous proposal was a purely technical one, they should not have opposed the obviously clear views of the House that they themselves should put forward an administratively workable proposal at this stage. The fact that they have not done so has compelled us to put this Clause on the Order Paper.

I ask the Government to face up to this matter as one which concerns the serious principle that education and apprenticeship are valuable things which people are entitled to have safeguarded by Parliament. I hope that if the Government are not prepared to accept this Clause or offer any explanation of their own failure to put forward a similar one, they will at least face the issue and attempt to put before the House their views as to why these vital interests of apprenticeship and education should be neglected.

6.0 p.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

In so doing, I feel that we should recall the Debate which we had on this matter during the Committee stage. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke at considerable length on the question of deferment and postponement as they affected the age limit of 26, and I regret to say that there were some of us who, even at the end of that lucid explanation, were still confused in our minds as to what was the real intention of the Government. I can assure the Minister that there are also many people outside this House—the very students who are affected—who are equally still confused. As my hon. Friend has said, this affects the future of a very large number of the young people, and we feel strongly that a matter of this sort should not be left to Ministerial assurances because, after all, Ministers come and go and they are apt to change. It would be grossly unfair that with a change of Ministry in a year or two's time those regulations or assurances might be altered.

The Minister said that he would look into this matter again, and we rather hoped that there would be a new Clause introduced by the Government to cover the point. That has not been done and we have therefore tabled this new Clause. As my hon. Friend said, we do not set ourselves up as expert Parliamentary draftsmen, but I think that hon. Members will find that the Clause covers all the points which were discussed in the Debate and is a reasonable provision which will lay a statutory obligation on whatever Minister is in office.

I have been wondering what possible objections the Minister could have to this new Clause, although I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is very prolific in his objections, whether they are valid or not. One of the objections he made on the last occasion was that such a provision would give an advantage to the bad student who, if I may so put it euphemistically, deferred passing his examinations for a number of years and would therefore be over the age of liability by the time he had finished his scholastic career. The last lines of this new Clause deal with that point and make it quite impossible for such a person to take advantage of the fact that he is a dull student. I am afraid I do not know whether there is such a thing as a bad apprentice; I know there is in literature, of course.

I hope the Minister will view this Clause not only with sympathy, but with acquiescence, because it is necessary that students, in particular, should have something very definite to look forward to. University Members have had the experience of receiving many letters from their constituents stating that one kind of student was treated in a different way from another under exactly the same circumstances. The way in which they were treated differed from college to college and from university to university. One of the very worst things that could happen is that a feeling should arise among students that some have received favours which others have been denied. For that reason I hope the Minister will adopt, if not this Clause, something which will have the same object in view.

I think it might be convenient if I intervened at this point, not with the intention of curtailing discussion, but in order to explain the Ministerial point of view. This matter has been discussed at very great length on two occasions when I think the ground was covered very fully and, I had hoped, to the general satisfaction of hon. Members. I think we were then all agreed as to the desirability of deferment for students and apprentices to enable them to complete either their studentship or their apprenticeship. The point is whether or not a person liable to National Service should have conferred upon him a statutory right of deferment. That is the question that is really involved in the argument that has been put forward.

I do not think that I should be doing justice to my case if I did not indicate to the House that the arrangement under which this has been done since 1939 has been on an administrative basis and nut a statutory basis. It has been done by the machinery of the Ministry of Labour and, by and large, there has been very little complaint. Paragraph 9 of the White Paper on the call-up of Forces for 1947–8 contained a complete statement et the arrangements for the deferment of apprentices and students. There has been no pressure at all to suggest that that should have been embodied in legislation. The House has been quite content with the White Paper statement covering the position for the next two years without any demand that it should be embodied in terms of legislation.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a distinction between the kind of system which we have to operate in wartime and during the immediate aftermath of war, and one which is justifiable in a full-scale system of peacetime conscription?

There is some force in that argument, but I should have thought that in 1947–48 we were in a period where things were fairly well defined, and though I would agree immediately that the university position is extremely difficult, nevertheless it may well have eased considerably by 1949 as compared with today. I would ask the House to consider what the new Clause is intended to do. In the first place, the Minister must be satisfied that the person concerned is serving an apprenticeship or receiving full-time education in a university, school or other institution, or that he will within one year from the said date be so receiving education. It makes two definitions. One, with regard to the apprentice, is that the man must be serving an apprenticeship, but with regard to the student it says that he shall be a student or that he may be a student in 12 months' time. The same argument in connection with the student applies to the apprentice, and I was rather surprised that in a new Clause drafted with so much care there should have been this distinction.

Surely there is a difference, for, as far as I know, there is no rigid limit to the possible number of apprentices in any given year as there is to the possible number of entrants to the universities, crammed as they are now. Therefore, we did not wish to give a definite number when we were not sure that there would be room for the number which we would have specified. That is the difference.

I can quite appreciate the position of the hon. Member, and I can assure him that though it was not his intention to do that, that is, in fact, what he has done. I know that it is probably done against his will and probably he is quite unconscious of it. It should be remembered that persons undertaking an apprenticeship do not find a completely open field. There are firm limits to the numbers of apprentices taken into a particular industry. The proportion of apprentices to skilled workmen is laid down in rigid agreements and rigidly enforced, and it is impossible for any apprentice to anticipate 12 months beforehand that he will get into that particular trade. This new Clause does anticipate that apprentices can go freely into what is a very close corporation. That is the first point I want to make, and I expect the hon. Gentleman would say that he was unaware of that. If that is so and he was not trying to make the distinction, he will appreciate now that he is, in fact, making a distinction between the manual worker and the academic student. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am trying to be fair to the new Clause as drafted.

The second point is with regard to the student who is obliged under the National Service Act to undergo 12 months' routine training. He can say, "I can have a place in the university in 12 months' time, and because of that I want to postpone my whole-time service for the 12 months." Is it really suggested that that statutory right ought to be given? If there is no place for him there is time for him to do his full-time training. We ought not in those circumstances to give the right either administratively or by Statute to postpone his whole-time service when he has enough time in which to do it before starting on an academic career. If he is called up when he is 18—and it is at 18 that we are looking—he has 12 months' service to do. If, however, in 11 months and three weeks he can get a place in the university, is it suggested that he should have a statutory right to postpone his whole-time service? I do not think that that is a position which can be justified.

With regard to the second arm of the new Clause, I think the hon. Gentleman destroyed the argument which was put up originally in connection with the previous Amendment on the Order Paper. I had better indicate to the House what machinery does exist in order that hon. Members can be satisfied, and in this I am reiterating what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said in a previous Debate. The intention is that the student of 18, for whom there is a place in the university, shall be able to get deferment provided he has achieved the necessary academic attainments which will entitle him to go to the university. As to advice on that, it is not a matter solely for Ministerial discretion, as hon. Gentlemen know. It is for the vice-chancellors of the universities and for the University Joint Recruiting Board who sit and examine every one of these cases, and who decide whether the educational attainment of the student is high enough to entitle him to a place in the university. In these matters of deferment of students we consult professional bodies that have been set up to give advice on the various forms of educational tuition.

6.15 p.m.

The point that worries me is when it ceases to be a right. I think the Parliamentary Secretary said just now that it is a right, and in the Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said we were not considering so much the national interests as the individual interests. Clearly when there are the two together—and I do not think that I am in sympathy with the whole year—there is not this right. If it is a question of three months, six months or nine months, who is to make a decision? Surely it is not the University Joint Recruiting Board but the Manpower Board that has to make the decision.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the point, but he should have let me finish. I have dealt with the University Joint Recruiting Board, which consists of the vice chancellors of the universities. They advise us and we accept their advice. When there is different treatment in different universities it is due to the fact that the vice chancellors have approached the exemptions in a different way. In those cases it would appear that the student in one place is having different treatment to the student in another, but in all these cases we accept the advice of the Joint University Recruiting Board. There are certain other departments of education where we have similar professional bodies of equal standing and they, as it were, adjudicate as between the claims of the student and the claims of the Ministry of Labour. In this connection the Manpower Board does not enter into the thing at all.

The Manpower Board deals with the cases of apprenticeships, and it seems to me that that Board is the right institution to deal with them. The Manpower Board will decide whether or not an apprenticeship is a genuine one. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember the Debate on this. The Board will examine each individual case to see if the apprentice has got the right technical education and the right opportunity, and is not just cheap labour in a factory or workshop. Also it will have regard to the fact whether there are not too many apprentices in a workshop to get proper tuition for them all. The Manpower Board will be able to grant deferment for the purpose of permitting a boy to conclude his apprenticeship. Thus, there are two different ways of dealing with these men who are called up. There is first the academic machinery to permit the student who is fully qualified to secure deferment if he is entering a university, and there is the Manpower Board which can defer the period of service in order to permit an apprentice to finish his apprenticeship in industry.

There is a second point which arises, and I would ask the House to bear this in mind. If this statutory right is to be conferred on every boy in this country reaching the age of 18 we fear that it would result in a very small intake into the Army in the first year or two, because many of those due for call-up would be undergoing an apprenticeship or would be entering a university. They would get deferment for a time, and if they were genuine apprentices they will get a deferment for a considerable time It is true that they would not eventually dodge their liability, but they would have it deferred and deferred in such a way as to give them a privilege over other boys of 18 who are in precisely the same position as themselves.

I do not want to keep interrupting, but the hon. Gentleman has just made a most important remark. If he will look at the new Clause he will see that this right is given if the Minister is satisfied with the various circumstances set out in the Clause. Surely he will agree with me that in the case of bogus apprenticeships the Minister would not be satisfied? If the Minister would be satisfied, there is something the matter with the machinery of his Department.

I quite agree, but if the volume of applications became so great as to overrun the machinery, there could not be that examination of each case which this House would expect us to make and we should have so many people going through the mesh as to cause criticism in this House and perhaps throw an undue burden upon the machine in trying to solve this problem.

There is a final matter. Normally the number of apprenticeships and studentships has a fairly even average. We can budget on that basis. The Forces budget on a basis of accepting 200,000 a year—that is round about the figure. If we create a situation in which 200,000 young men liable for service can make a claim that they are going to be students for 12 months or to be apprentices—that is intended in the Clause—it means that we should have a situation where there were so many claims that we could not examine them quickly and could do nothing with them, because once a claim had been put in, we could not call the young person up until we had sorted the whole thing out. This would cause very great administrative inconvenience and give rights where rights ought not to be given. The granting of a deferment should be on the basis that full advantage would be taken of it by the student or the apprentice, and it is important that we should have someone at the universities to tell us whether or not the student was really using his deferment for the purpose of his education and that the fellow who was playing the fool should not be allowed to have this advantage. The same thing should apply in industry. In those circumstances I regret that I must ask the House to reject the new Clause.

I do not think honestly that the hon. Gentleman has quite done himself justice on this occasion. He has debated this, I think, with great clarity and great fairness throughout all the stages, and we have been very grateful for that. It may be that I am misunderstanding him or not following properly, but I do not think he has quite lived up to his own standard. Perhaps I might, without excessive egotism, begin by saying that I am not personally at all excited over this thing. My belief is that in 99 cases out of 100, if a boy is going to a university he had better do his service first at the age of 18, like anybody else.

I do not wish to debate with the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) at the moment. As to my feeling, I have no sentiment in favour of making it easy for academic boys, so to speak, to put off this—no sentiment whatever of that kind. What we are asking for here is really the public interest. It was certainly in the public interest during the war, for instance, when trade union leaders were deferred. Under this Bill miners are going to be. Doctors and dentists are going to have the right to have their service as doctors and dentists and not to be called up until fully qualified. There are other things of that sort. Nobody throws it against them and says, "You are trying to shield the manual workers from the bullets," and so on. That is the last thing that would occur to us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must do us the same justice.

What we are trying to consider is it the postwar world—which we were all promised would be so much better than the chaos before 1939—really is to he got going at all, the most important thing about it is that the boys most likely to he the leading boys of the next generation should be educated to the limit of their educability and should with the least interruption to their normal careers get into their civilian employment. That seems to me to be the overriding principle. We must do each-other the justice of supposing that we are not in pursuing that principle chasing any kind of privilege or minor advantage. If that is the guiding principle, is it a good thing? I speak of university boys because I know most about them technically, but so far as I understand the matter my arguments can in the main be transferred to apprentices.

In pursuit of that general principle, is it a good thing that there should be some class—I do not mean that in any social sense—some section of academic boys who should be able, and should know at the ages of 16 and 18 that they are going to be able, to do the thing in this order—in the order of time provided by this Clause? Is that a desirable thing? I think everybody agrees that it is a desirable thing. It is also a thing difficult to arrange administratively, and that two things have to be weighed against each other. With respect to the Minister, all his arguments really amounted to no more than to say there would be considerable administrative difficulty about this. He said that this was all very well in normal times. He thought that 1946–47 were properly describable as mainly normal times, but in 1946–47 and still to this moment His Majesty's Government are holding boys under the pretence that the emergency—that is, the war against Germany—is still continuing. As long as the Government's military arrangements repose on that legal fiction, they must not use the argument of, "We have already had two years' experience of the way these things work in normal times." They cannot use that argument so long as they are holding boys under emergency provisions of—I will not say fraudulent, but—a fictitious kind.

The hon. Gentleman's only other argument was administrative inconvenience. Very well, I will admit that where the argument of administrative inconvenience is overwhelming, it is decisive, but it is the business not only of the Opposition but of all Private Members to be very slow to be convinced that the administrative inconvenience argument is overwhelming. I do not yet feel convinced by that part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Half his speech nearly seemed to be directed to saying that already under what he describes as normal arrangements and what he describes as these normal two years, all we are asking for, is being got, but it is being got by friendly arrangements between the Ministry and the vice-chancellors instead of a statutory provision. The other half of his argument was that the thing was inconceivably difficult from the administrative point of view and therefore could not be got.

I ask the House to consider that. The two parts of the argument do not fit very well. I am quite prepared to believe that the drafting of this may be wrong. If it is true that the drafting would give a greater advantage to the academy boys than to the apprentice boys, I certainly would be in favour of altering the drafting although I would ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that the ceiling of the possible number of academic boys is very small anyway. The whole number of these boys is much smaller still because it cannot be more than 10 per cent. of an entry at a university—the universities take 90 per cent. from the Services. It has got to be out of the 10 per cent.

The hon. Gentleman said 10 per cent. and 90 per cent. from the Services. Is he envisaging the situation when this Bill comes into operation?

6.30 p.m.

I do not want that to become a permanent fixed level. If I was arguing unfairly, it was inadvertently. If it were the fixed level I do not think there can be the least doubt that the Minister would wish to take those who had done their service. I do not think this ratio of nine to one would vary very much in the four or five years this Bill contemplates. You have to remember that the universities have a time lag in this matter in the fact that boys called up in 1945 and 1946 are held longer than those called up in 1946 and 1947, and they are being held longer than those who will be called up under this Bill. For that reason the universities are now choked, and will be choked for the next few years. This Bill only contemplates five years, and therefore I do not think really there is any risk of making a very high ceiling for boys of this sort.

The second difference is that the university career really must begin in October. During recent years we have quite properly allowed it to start in other months, but, when that is avoidable, I beg hon. Gentlemen to take my word for it as a technician, so to speak, that it is a very great evil, even when it is unavoidable. That makes a difference from the apprentices and that weakens the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the 12 months. It would be 12 months only in the case of boys born in September. If he liked to cut it down to 10 months, I would be willing to accept it. Finally, I say this to him: He admits that in practice there is something almost amounting to a right of this kind, a kind of legitimate acceptance by way of agreement between his Department and the vice-chancellor's for a certain number of boys to get this sort of thing. That which is admitted to be tolerable, admitted to be useful, of which there is now some years of experience, is that something which his draftsmen could put into statutory form? If so, let us have it, and then we should all be contented that the right thing had been done. But I think it would be regrettable if we have to withdraw this Clause simply upon his argument, and I would suggest without disrespect, that there has been no other serious argument of administrative inconvenience.

We have covered a lot of ground in discussing this subject, both this evening and in Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that in dealing with this Clause, both tonight and in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary dropped from the high level that he otherwise maintained throughout the Debate. The reason for it is not far to seek because he really is in difficulties in dealing with the substance of this new Clause. On the first occasion he got the Committee into a bog of deferment and subtle differences between the technicalities of deferment and postponement, and we tried to bring him back to deal with the broad issue as to whether the right of deferment should be a matter for the individual to claim in his own interest or whether, as in wartime, what was conceived, by the Ministry to be the national interest could override the interest of the individual. That is the fundamental issue raised by this new Clause.

This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary has again sought to answer this new Clause by dealing primarily with technicalities. He discovered an unintended distinction between the treatment of apprentices and that of university students. The reason for this has been made quite clear, and I would point out to him that he was incorrect in saying that in the case of the university student who was wanting to go up within a year of the date of his call-up, it would be impossible for him to complete his year's full-time service in order to do that. That point really does not bear examination at all. His second point was as to the possible number of deferments, and the students in 12 months, or people who might become apprentices, would upset the whole planning of the intake for the Forces. I would concede straight away that in the second point there is much more substance, and it seemed to me that ultimately, towards the end of the Debate, we got the real ground for the opposition to this new Clause emerging.

I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his fears with regard to that are unfounded. If young people know that they have to do their whole-time service some time, and that they cannot avoid the liability under this Clause, I do not believe there will be a mass application for deferment; I think a great many young people will prefer to do their whole-time service before starting on their apprenticeship or their university education. Therefore, I think that the fears of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the effect of adopting the principle of this Clause are completely unfounded. It comes back to this: the Minister of Labour is nervous of giving up some of the power he has held throughout the war, the power of being able to say to a young man, "You must go into the Forces now." I would have liked to see a recognition by the Ministry of Labour now that the young man, on the advice of his parents, might say, "Well, having regard to this, that, and the other cause, it is in the interests of my future career"—whether he be a rich man or a poor man—"that I should defer my service for a year." In those circumstances, and only when the Minister is satisfied—as provided by this Clause at the beginning, which leaves the final decision with the Minister—I suggest that there should be a right to claim deferment.

The Minister of Labour on the Committee stage said that he would look at this again and consider it carefully. We have heard no word from him on it, and I hope he will say something. I hope he will be able to say that, on further reflection, he will accept the principle of allowing deferment where he is satisfied that it will not involve any avoidance of liability on the part of the person affected. If he can say that, I am sure my hon. Friends will be glad to withdraw this Clause and leave it to him to put down words to carry that principle into effect in another place. If he cannot go that far, I fear that we shall have no alternative but to show that we believe this principle should be adopted now that the war is over.

I am not happy about this wording, and, at the same time, I would like to get something a little more definite if possible. I remember clearly that in the previous Debate the Minister said he would look at it again. The reason why I interrupted my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) was this: I have taken a lot of trouble to find out what the students, as far as the schools are concerned, feel about this. My own feeling was that a boy would prefer to go off and do his service first, and I said so, but I am told from the schools that there is great division. It is all very well to consult vice-chancellors of universities where the boys go at 17½, but the schools look at this in a rather different way. I was told by the headmaster of one big grammar school in the North of England this weekend that he was doubtful whether he would advise his boys to go off to the Services first. I am talking of those with open scholarships to the universities. So it is not quite clear yet, and nobody in this House knows precisely what the position will be. I think it is the right of the boy to know quite clearly when he is 16 or 17 what is his position.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the whole thing rested with the University Board and they were the people to decide, that they have decided in the past and that, therefore, it is completely outside the scope of the Manpower Board as far as the universities are concerned. This Clause seeks to give a person a right for 11 months hence. Suppose the university says it has a place four months ahead, would the right be conceded to the student to defer? He may have won his scholarship, and be waiting to go up in March, April or May. Would he have the right to defer? At the moment it seems to be left completely vague, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can find a happier form of words to give effect to his own phrase that it is in the interests of the student and not so much the national interest, I shall be completely satisfied.

I think there is sufficient machinery to get deferment for those who are entitled to it. There seems to be a desire in this House, not so much to secure reasonable terms of National Service, but means of deferring, postponing, and getting out of service. At the best there have only been approximately 200,000 liable to be called up each year. What I am concerned about is that for nearly two years this House has been expressing a great deal of dissatisfaction at the length of time men are remaining in the Forces, and there has been growling about demobilisation, but now we have come to a time when we have to do something about it. We have to introduce National Service primarily to keep up the strength of the Services, and to get out those who are in. Yet, here we are trying most of the time to get deferment for one class or the other, so that they can escape National Service.

I hate National Service. I never was a militarist, although I agree that the last war disclosed factors of which we did not know before. But if it is to be National Service, let it be National Service. We have the machinery for the student and apprentice to get deferment But the Opposition want to make it a statutory right; what for? The effect of it will be, as the Minister rightly stated, if not today, certainly a week ago, that the opportunity would be given for a very large number of people to get out of service—

I take the responsibility of saying that there are some who will get out of it, if they can. This Clause would give a great deal of encouragement and help to them. I hope the Minister will resist this Clause, because I believe the Bill is good enough as it is

6 45 p.m

We have heard a lot about the educational side of the question, but I would like to come back to the question of apprentices. I am rather concerned at the feeling of uncertainty which seems to have crept into this matter I make no complaint about what has happened in the past in regard to the Manpower Board, but we are facing this question in cold blood. We have no heat of war, and are not concerned with any rush I was very sorry to hear the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that there was something wrong with the apprentice having a statutory right, and that he must be quite prepared for administrative action to take care of his future. As a boy approaches this period, he and his parents will be considering what his future is to be I would like an assurance that the matter will be clear and certain without any peradventure.

To suggest that this will mean that large numbers will conspire together to avoid service or to postpone it, is quite a mistake. The idea of the youth will be to get on with it, and get it over. He looks forward to it with a certain amount of excitement, and does not want to postpone it. There will be no sort of conspiracy with the object of dodging it altogether. He and his parents would like to be quite certain, so that they can form their plans for the future. I am thinking of the ordinary apprentice, and I would like to hear the Minister say that he can take steps to make the future absolutely clear, without any suggestion that at a later date it will be settled by some administrative action and that the boy will not know until the last minute what is to happen.

It has been mentioned that in the previous Debate I gave an undertaking. I gave an undertaking, and I will read the words:

"We want to see that nobody escapes their military service. That is the first thing. We will certainly look at the Clause, and, if we are satisfied that anything more can be done

Division No. 219.

AYES.

[6.48.p.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)Cunningham, P.Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. VDavies, Edward (Burslem)Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Allen, A. C (Bosworth)Davies, Harold (Leek)Hardy, E. A
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)Harrison, J.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)Deer, G.Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Attewell, H. Cde Freitas, GeoffreyHicks, G.
Austin, H. LewisDelargy, H. JHobson, C. R
Awbery, S. S.Diamond, JHolman, P.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.Dodds, N. NHolmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Bacon, Miss ADonovan, T.House, G
Balfour, A.Driberg, T. E NHoy, J.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. JDugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)Hubbard, T.
Barton, CDurbin, E. F. MHudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Bechervaise, A. E.Dye, S.Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F JEdelman, M.Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Berry, H.Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)Irving, W. J.
Beswick, F.Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)Evans, John (Ogmore)Janner, B.
Bing, G. H. C.Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)Jay, D. P. T
Binns, J.Ewart, R.Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Blackburn, A. RFairhurst, F.Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Blenkinsop, A.Farthing, W JJohn, W.
Blyton, W. RFollick, M.Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Boardman, H.Foot, M. MJones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Brook, D. (Halifax)Forman, J. C.Jones, P. Aslerley (Hitchin)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)Foster, W. (Wigan)Keenan, W
Brown, George (Belper)Fraser, T. (Hamilton)Kenyon, C.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. TFreeman, Maj. J. (Watford)Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E
Burke, W. A.Freeman, Peter (Newport)Kinley, J.
Castle, Mrs B. A.Gibbins, J.Kirby, B. V
Chamberlain, R. AGibson, C. WLavers, S.
Champion, A. J.Gilzean, A.Lee, F. (Hulme)
Chater, D.Glanville, J. E. (Consett)Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Chetwynd, G. R.Gooch, E. G.Leonard, W.
Clitherow, Dr. RGordon-Walker, P. C.Leslie, J. R.
Coldrick, W.Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)Levy, B. W.
Collindridge, F.Grey, C. F.Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Collins, V. JGriffiths, D. (Rother Valley)Lindgren, G. S.
Colman, Miss G. MGriffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng Univ.)
Comyns, Dr. LGuest, Dr. L. HadenLipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Cook, T. F.Gunter, R. J.Logan, D. G.
Corvedale, ViscountGuy, W. HMcAdam, W.
Cove, W. G.Haire, John E. (Wycombe)McAllister, G.
Crawley, AHall, W GMcEntee, V La T

with it, we will try to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 860.]

We are satisfied that nothing more can be done. We are-satisfied that if we start statutory deferments for one section as against another we shall only land ourselves into further difficulties. It is quite true there will not always be the same Minister at the head of the Department, but the Minister has to lay it down that we shall follow the intention of the House. This has worked with the greatest smoothness in the period just passed, and we feel that to make a change now, to swop horses while crossing the stream, would lead to a great deal of confusion. We cannot accept the Clause, nor undertake to make any further proposals.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 128.

McGhee, H. GProctor, W. T.Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Mack, J. D.Pursey, Cmdr. HThomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)Randall, H. E.Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)Ranger, J.Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
McKinlay, A. S.Rees-Williams, D. R.Thurtle, Ernest
Maclean, N. (Govan)Reid, T. (Swindon)Timmons, J.
McLeavy, F.Richards, R.Titterington, M. F.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)Tolley, L.
Mallalieu, J. P. WRogers, G. H. R.Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Marquand, H. A.Ross, William (Kilmarnock)Turner-Samuels, M.
Medland, H. M.Royle, C.Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Mellish, R. J.Sargood, R.Viant, S. P.
Messer, F.Scott-Elliot, W.Walkden, E.
Mitchison, G. R.Segal, Dr. S.Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Montague, F.Shackleton, E. A. A.Warbey, W. N.
Moody, A. S.Sharp, GranvilleWatson, W. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)Shurmer, P.Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mort, D. LSilverman, J. (Erdington)Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Moyle, A.Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)Wigg, Col. G. E.
Mulvey, A.Simmons, C. J.Wilkes, L.
Murray, J. DSkeffington-Lodge, T. C.Wilkins, W. A.
Nally, W.Skinnard, F. W.Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Naylor, T. E.Smith, Ellis (Stoke)Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Neal, H. (Claycross)Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Snow, Capt. J. W.Williamson, T.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F E. (Brentford)Sorensen, R. W.Willis, E.
Noel-Buxton, LadySoskice, Maj. Sir FWoodburn, A.
Oldfield, W. H.Sparks, J. A.Woods, G. S.
Orbach, M.Steele, T.Yates, V. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Pargiter, G. A.Stross, Dr. B.Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Paton, J. (Norwich)Stubbs, A. E.Zilliacus, K.
Pearson, A.Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Peart, Capt. T. F.Swingler, S.TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Porter, E. (Warrington)Sylvester, G. O.Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Porter, G. (Leeds)Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)Mr. Popplewell.

NOES.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)Harris, A. WilsonPickthorn, K.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.Pitman, I. J.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.Head, Brig. A. H.Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Baldwin, A. E.Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. HHerbert, Sir A. P.Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Beechman, N. A.Hollis, M. C.Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Bennett, Sir P.Howard, Hon. A.Raikes, H. V.
Birch, NigelHurd, A.Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Bowen, R.Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Jennings, R.Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. BrendanLambert, Hon. G.Ropner, Col. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. TLangford-Holt, J.Ross, Sir R. O (Londonderry)
Butcher, H. W.Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.Sanderson, Sir F.
Byers, FrankLegge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Savory, Prof. D. L.
Challen, C.Lindsay, M. (Solihull)Scott, Lord W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.Linstead, H. N.Shepherd, S. (Newark)
Clarke, Col. R. S.Lipson, D. L.Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.Low, Brig. A. R. W.Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Crowder, Capt. John E.Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.Snadden, W. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. OSpearman, A. C. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y.McCallum, Maj. D.Spence, H. R.
Davidson, ViscountessMacdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)Mackeson, Brig. H. R.Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
De la Bère, R.Maclay, Hon. J. S.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.MacLeod, J.Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)Studholme, H. G.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.Maitland, Comdr. J. W.Sutcliffe, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. WalterManningham-Buller, R. E.Teeling, William
Fletcher, W. (Bury)Marlowe, A. A. H.Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)Marples, A. E.Touche, G. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.Marsden, Capt. A.Wadsworth, G.
Gage, C.Marshall, D (Bodmin)Walker-Smith, D.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)Ward, Hon. G. R
Gammans, L. D.Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Gates, Maj. E. E.Morris-Jones, Sir H.White, J. B. (Canterbury)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)Neill, W. F (Belfast, N.)Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Glyn, Sir R.Nicholson, G.Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Grant, LadyNield, B. (Chester)York, C.
Gridley, Sir A.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Grimston, R. V.Nutting, AnthonyTELLERS FOR THE NOES
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.Mr. Drewe and
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)Peto, Brig. C. H. M.Commander Agnew.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Division No. 220.]

AYES.

[6.58 p.m

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.Nield, B. (Chester)
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.Harris, H. WilsonNutting, Anthony
Baldwin, A. E.Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.Head, Brig. A. H.Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Beechman, N. A.Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.Pickthorn, K.
Bennett, Sir P.Herbert, Sir A. P.Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Birch, NigelHollis, M. CPoole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)Howard, Hon. A.Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Bowen, R.Hudson, Rt. Hon R. S. (Southport)Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. AHurd, A.Raikes, H. V.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. BrendanHutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Butcher, H. W.Lambert, Hon. G.Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Byers, FrankLangford-Holt, J.Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Challen, C.Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.Sanderson, Sir F.
Clarke, Col. R. S.Lindsay, M. (Solihull)Savory, Prof. D. L.
Crowder, Capt. John E.Linstead, H. N.Scott, Lord W.
Cuthbert, W. N.Lipson, D. L.Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Darling, Sir W. YLow, Brig. A. R. WSnadden, W. M.
Davidson, ViscountessLucas-Tooth, Sir H.Spearman, A. C. M.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. OStanley, Rt. Hon. O.
De la Bère, R.McCallum, Maj. D.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.Mackeson, Brig. H. RStuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)Maclay, Hon. J. S.Studholme, H. G.
Drewe, C.MacLeod, J.Sutcliffe, H.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Teeling, William
Elliot, Rt. Hon. WalterMacpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)Maitland, Comdr. J. W.Touche, G. C.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)Manningham-Buller, R. E.Wadsworth, G.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. MMarlowe, A. A. H.Walker-Smith, D.
Gage, C.Marples, A. E.Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.Marsden, Capt. A.White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Gammans, L. D.Marshall, D. (Bodmin)Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gates, Maj. E. E.Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)York, C.
Glyn, Sir R.Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Gridley, Sir A.Neill, W F (Belfast, N.)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimston, R. V.Nicholson, G.Commander Agnew and
Major Conant.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)Chater, D.Foot, M. M.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.Chetwynd, G. R.Foster, W. (Wigan)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Clitherow, Dr. R.Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Coldrick, W.Freeman, Maj. J. (Walford)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)Collindridge, F.Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Attewell, H. C.Collins, V. J.Gibbins, J.
Austin, H. LewisColman, Miss G. M.Gibson, C. W.
Awbery, S. S.Comyns, Dr. L.Gilzean, A.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.Cook, T. F.Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Bacon, Miss A.Corvedale, ViscountGooch, E. G
Baird J.Crawley, A.Goodrich, H. E.
Balfour, A.Cunningham, P.Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.Davies, Edward (Burslem)Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Barton, C.Davies, Harold (Leek)Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Bechervaise, A. E.Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)Grey, C. F.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.Deer, G.Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Berry, H.de Freitas, GeoffreyGriffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Beswick, F.Delargy, H. J.Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)Diamond, J.Gunter, R. J.
Bing, G. H. C.Dodds, N. N.Guy, W. H.
Binns, J.Donovan, T.Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Blackburn, A. R.Driberg, T. E. N.Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Blenkinsop, A.Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Blyton, W. R.Durbin, E. F. MHardy, E. A.
Boardman, H.Dye, S.Harrison, J.
Brook, D. (Halifax)Edelman, M.Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)Hicks, G.
Brown, George (Belper)Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Hobson, C. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)Evans, John (Ogmore)Holman, P.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Burke, W. A.Ewart, R.House, G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Fairhurst, F.Hoy, J
Chamberlain, R. A.Farthing, W. J.Hubbard, T.
Champion, A. J.Follick, M.Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

The House divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 234.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)Morgan, Dr. H. BSoskice, Maj Sir F
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Mort, D LSparks, J. A.
Irving, W. J.Moyle, ASteele, T.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. AMulvey, AStewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Janner, BNally, WStross, Dr. B.
Jay, D. P. T.Naylor, T. EStubbs, A. E.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)Neal, H. (Claycross)Summerskill, Dr. Edit
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St Pancras, S.E.)Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Swingler, S
John, W.Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)Sylvester, G. O.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)Noel-Buxton, LadyTaylor, R. J (Morpeth)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)Oldfield, W. H.Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Jones, P. Asterley (HitchinOrbach, M.Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Keenan, WPaling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Kenyon, CPargiter, G. AThurtle, Ernest
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.Parkin, B TTitterington, M. F
Kinley, J.Paton, J. (Norwich)Tolley, L.
Kirby, B. VPearson, A.Tomlinson, Rt Hon G
Lavers, S.Peart, Capt. T. F.Turner-Samuels, M
Lee, F. (Hulme)Porter, E. (Warrington)Ungoed-Thomas, L
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)Porter, G. (Leeds)Vernon, Maj. W. F
Leonard, W.Proctor, W. TViant, S. P
Leslie, J. RPursey, Cmdr. HWalkden, E.
Levy, B WRandall, H. EWallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)Ranger, JWarbey, W. N.
Lindgren, G. SRees-Williams, D RWatson, W M.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng Univ.)Reid, T (Swindon)Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col MRichards, RWells, W. T. (Walsall)
Logan, D. G.Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
McAdam, WRogers, G. H. R.Wigg, Col. G. E
McAllister, G.Ross, William (Kilmarnock)Wilkes, L.
McEntee, V La TRoyle, C.Wilkins, W A.
Mack, J. DSargood, RWilley, F T. (Sunderland)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)Scott-Elliot, WWilliams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)Segal, Dr. SWilliams, W. R (Heston)
McKinley, A. S.Shackleton, E. A. AWilliamson, T
Maclean, N. (GovSharp, GranvilleWillis, E.
McLeavy, FShawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)Woodburn, A
Macpherson, T. (Romford)Silverman, J. (Erdington)Woods, G. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. WSilverman, S. S. (Nelson)Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Marquand, H. ASimmons, C J.Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Modland, H. MSkeffington, A M.Zilliacus, K
Mellish, R. JSkeffington-Lodge,
Messer, FSkinnard, F. W.TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Mitchison, G. RSmith, Ellis (Stoke)Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Montague, F.Smith, S. H. (Hull, S W)Mr. Popplewell
Moody, A SSnow, Capt J W