Skip to main content

New Clause—(Relief Of Income Tax Where Total Cost Of Education Is Borne By Taxpayer)

Volume 466: debated on Tuesday 28 June 1949

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

If an individual proves that he has living at the commencement of the year of assessment any child who is receiving full time instruction at an independent school recognised by the Board of Education he shall be entitled in computing his liability to income tax to a

deduction in respect of that child of seventy-five pounds.—[ Mr. Hollis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.30 p.m.

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

This new Clause asks, quite frankly, for assistance to independent schools and to those parents who send their children to independent schools. We can, without great difficulty, make out a case for the justice of some relief being given to those persons because, as is quite obvious, under the present system they pay education bills twice over, in the sense that they have to pay their rates and taxes for the maintenance of the free schools and they have to pay their personal school bills for sending their children to the independent schools. The only argument that could ever have been advanced, if it ever was advanced, against granting them some relief was that Government schools were available for them to make use of if they wished to do so; and if they were such snobs that they were not good enough for them, then they deserved to pay for it.

Well, if there ever was a time when it was possible to use that argument, it clearly is not possible to use it at the present moment, because it is notorious that there are not sufficient free schools available, and if all the parents who send their children to independent schools saw fit to, as it were, go on strike and demanded to send their children to the free schools, the educational policy of the Minister of Education would be thrown into complete chaos. Therefore, at this time at any rate, it cannot be pretended that it is in general a voluntary act, whatever it may be in the case of a particular individual, for people to make use of the independent schools.

I should not be content to rest my case on those comparatively negative and narrow grounds. I am prepared, and intend, to argue that the independent schools and the parents who send their children to those schools are performing a function of importance to the whole community which deserves encouragement. In support of that I shall read to the Committee a passage which I read to it some four years ago when discussing a somewhat similar Amendment, where it is said of such people:
"Nor is it certain that we shall replace him by a more admirable type.… The leader of the future seems not unlikely to be the remorseless one-idea'd man, who governs us by hewing his way to his goal. He has no time for the open mind. He takes clemency for weakness and difference of opinion for crime. He has a horror of various civilisation and he means by freedom only a stronger kind of chain. Where we would be peaceful, he calls us to the affirmation of power. For the music of idle dreams he offers us the hum of giant machines. The majesty of the forest is, for him, the volume of a timber supply, the rush of waters in the river the source of electric power. The gentleman scourged us with whips. We must beware lest our new masters drive us to our toil for sport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 1369.]

My noble Friend might not have said "Hear, hear" so vigorously if he had known that that was a passage from Professor Laski. Is it quite clear that there is a considerable volume of general support for our claim.

If the evidence of Professor Laski is not sufficient, there is the report of the Royal Commission on population, which was published quite recently. We read in that report that "the ordinary economic deterrents to parenthood are aggravated in the higher and upper-medium income ranges by an unfair incidence of taxation. Parents in those income ranges are entitled to such further tax relief as can be justified on the grounds of fiscal equity." It is fairly clear that there is an overwhelming body of support, by no means drawn from people who would vote for hon. Members who sit on these benches, that here is a genuine problem, which must be solved not only in the interests of individuals but in the general national interest.

The Population Commission tells us there are roughly speaking three great demographic problems which this country has to solve if it is to survive. With two of them this particular Clause is not specially concerned. On the one hand we must have sufficient population to replace the numbers and, secondly, there is the problem of the age distribution of the population. This Clause is not directly concerned with those two causes, but in the third place there is the problem of the quality of the population. I myself would not put the problem as one "in crude financial terms," as the Royal Commission would put it. By that quotation they did not do justice to themselves, because elsewhere they show in their report that it is by no means a crude financial problem. This great problem is sketched out by Sir Cyril Burt, one of the best known living eugenist, who said that first it was on the whole true that ability is hereditary, and, secondly, it is also on the whole true that the most intelligent people have the fewest children. The terrible and obvious and radical conclusion of that is that the population must inevitably get stupider and stupider, and that is the great problem we have to face and take some steps to prevent. Clearly, it will not be prevented by mere rhetoric or by demagogic appeals.

I want clearly to divide my speech into two parts. I am anxious to make it quite clear, first, that here is a very grave problem to be tackled, and then I am willing to be open minded about the particular solution which at the moment we are proposing. I want to make it clear that this is a very great problem, and I do not think there is any doubt that the preservation of the independent schools is a most important national objective. The Commission had no doubt about that at all in their unanimous report. The only reservation to that report was that made by Mrs. Jay. I do not know whether it is hitting below the belt—I have never done it before—to quote an hon. Member's wife against him, and I am not quite sure what is the rule of Privilege on the point, but Mrs. Jay, as hon. Members will know, so far from condemning the independent schools, admitted their quality, and was anxious that their quality should be maintained. Her argument is that they should cease to be fee paying, and should become places where children go as a result of an examination instead of as a result of a parent's income.

7.45 p.m.

Quite frankly I do not myself agree with that. It would be a retrograde step if it was made impossible for parents in any circumstances to benefit their children. I agree with the general verdict of the Commission in regard to a
"readiness to incur reasonable financial sacrifices for one's children as an indispensable element in the responsible code of values which must form the basis of a successful population policy."
Nobody has a stronger respect for the free schools than I. I sent my own child to one for a time, and I am very grateful I did so. I was fortunate enough to receive my education at expensive schools but entirely free, and for that I am extremely grateful, but my education would have suffered if I had had to spend it entirely in the company of people who had won scholarships. On the contrary, it would have become largely valueless had that been so. I would not have had the privilege of being educated alongside the Solicitor-General if that rule had existed, and I would have suffered from many other disadvantages.

We need not pursue the point whether Mrs. Jay's argument is right or wrong, because what we are talking about here is something which should be done here and now. Mrs. Jay herself admits that what she suggests should be done progressively. It is not practical politics or indeed desirable in the present state of the country that the nation should take upon itself the entire burden of maintaining the independent schools. And it is extraordinarily fortunate for the nation that there are parents who are willing to take their share of that burden off the nation's shoulders. Therefore, on Mrs. Jay's admission, on Professor Laski's admission, on Sir Cyril Burr's and on many other people's admission, here is a problem, which must be solved. At the same time it is of vital national importance, that that section of society should survive, which has made contributions to the general well-being of society far beyond the average of its numbers. It can only survive if amongst other things a certain policy of tax relief is followed. That is my first point.

I quite agree that there is plenty of room for differences of opinion as to what is the best form of financial relief. For instance, the Commission itself reports not in favour of helping school bills as such, but of granting Income Tax allowances for people, who have children irrespective of what schools they send them to, and in another part it advocates a scheme to be worked out within industry, by which there shall be larger family allowances granted in accordance with the principle of greater allowances for those with higher incomes, on the ground that as a general rule such people spend more upon their children.

If whoever is to reply for the Government would tell us that the Government will adopt one or other of those policies, certainly I should listen with sympathy to what he says. On the whole I prefer to relieve the education bill rather than the absolute income. I spoke in favour of increased family allowances before they were granted. The vast majority of parents in every walk of life are extraordinarily unselfish and self-sacrificing towards their children—it is one of the greatest things upon which we can build—and one of the first concerns of the overwhelming majority of parents who have good incomes is to give their children a good education. A small minority who have large incomes do not do their duty in that way but prefer to use their incomes for selfish purposes.

If the allowance is given on the income rather than on the education bill, the people we least wish to benefit are those who will benefit exceptionally under it. Again, when we come to education and educational reform, there is a great deal to be said for the remedy applied by some local education authorities of paying the cost of free places, which the parent does not take up, towards the school bill at an independent school to which he sends his child.

There remains the scheme advocated in the Clause of granting allowances in Income Tax. I am advocating this not because it is the only scheme but because it is the most modest scheme there is and one which would cost the country least. Although this is a time when it is desperately necessary that we should show that we have a policy on this subject, it is also unfortunately a time when it is desperately necessary carefully to count the cost of everything we do, however desirable it may be. It is for that reason that I and my hon. Friends have commended the Clause to the Committee. I do not know what reply we shall get from the Government but the Report of the Royal Commission on Population is published, and it is obvious that it is essential to have a policy on this all-important topic, and to talk about a planned economy when we are planning fiddling and secondary things and have no policy at all about the most important topic of all, which is population, is fantastic.

The lessons of history are alarming. The teaching of Professor Flinders Petrie shows that the general law of history is that when civilisation attains a certain pitch of material comfort, the birth-rate declines and after a time more fecund bar- barians burst in and overthrow the civilisation. According to mere mathematical probability, that is what is likely to happen to us, and we must face it. If we are talking about a planned economy in a large and sensible sense and not in a mere party sense, we have a great opportunity for the first time in history to avert that. I am not without hope that we may do so, but we cannot do so unless we have a Government with a definite policy on this subject which is incomparably more important than many of the things which fill the controversies of the day.

I generally find myself agreeing with most of what the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) says, but tonight I find it rather difficult to agree with anything that he has said. We should really do better to bring this discussion from population to education. Whatever the hon. Member may think about independent schools—he thinks very highly of them—at least he made it clear that he believes in independent wives. It is clear from what he said that we on this side believe in complete independence on the part of the wives of our own representatives on the Front Bench even on such a joint matter as children.

If the new Clause is accepted we shall encourage parents to regard maintained day schools as quite inferior to the independent schools. That seems inevitable, and it is completely unfair. The hon. Member said that a person was saving the authorities expense when he took his children to private schools and that it was a good sign of liberty in this country that a man could take his children elsewhere to be educated. I am a firm believer in independent schools and I would be no party at any time to wiping them out—it would be a very bad day for this country if we ever pursued such a policy—but that is an entirely different matter from talking about giving financial inducements to parents to send their children to independent schools.

If the parents are dissatisfied with the educational fare provided by the local authority, so long as we are prepared to allow freedom to send children elsewhere, they must be prepared to foot the bill. For 50 years we have been building up an efficient system of State secondary education, and we have made a remarkably good job of it. It is true that there is plenty to be done yet, but every educationist is astonished at the progress we have made. We have only to realise that for building some of our maintained secondary and modern schools we are paying £300 a place to appreciate what a good job we are doing at least so far as premises are concerned.

It seems to me that we should seek to encourage every parent to desire to take an interest in this State system of education. Surely none of us would want a parent to desire better for his children in education than he is prepared to see every other child get. If we accept this clause we say to a parent, "You need not attend these secondary schools of ours; you can send your children elsewhere and we will help you." Is that the way to encourage parents to take an interest in the schools provided by the local authorities? Our job should be to get every parent interested in the efficiency of the maintained schools. It is not the job of any Government, no matter what its colour, to do anything at any time to lessen the prestige of the maintained schools. This Clause would very definitely lower the prestige of the maintained schools in the eyes of many parents.

But there is something even deeper than prestige, that is, the whole question of boarding education. Before the State should be prepared in any way to finance any expenditure on boarding education, for normal children we ought really to know whether we believe in boarding education. No one has yet been able to determine which normal child should be given a boarding education for educational reasons.

Is not the hon. Member aware that the State is already subsidising boarding education by paying the contributions towards the fees of children sent by local authorities to these schools?

Of course, and I intend to deal with that later. I was saying that no one has yet been able to determine which normal child should be given a boarding education. It is not just a question of day school education versus boarding school education, but of a normal child with a good home, good parents, reasonable accessibility to a good secondary school and all the benefits a child gets from the give and take of home life and healthy social life, as against education in completely artificial surroundings.

8.0 p.m.

That is the problem, and that is why it is so difficult for any educationist to decide which child shall have a boarding education. Hon. Members will remember that the Fleming Report stressed strongly that one of the most difficult things to do was to decide which child should have a boarding education. I see, too, that the late headmaster of Rugby, Mr. Lyon, made the same statement. In fact he went further and said that it was an insuperable difficulty to select which child from a maintained school should have a boarding education. Hon. Members should be clear that public schools did not become boarding schools because anybody believed that boarding education was superior to that given in day schools. They became boarding schools first for geographical reasons, because the people in the middle of the last century who were doing well out of the industrial revolution wanted schools for their children and there were not good enough schools near their homes. They next came into being for social reasons, because of the prestige connected with them and the prospects they offered for future careers. It is only latterly that there has been any suggestion that even a limited number of them offer boarding education for educational reasons.

There are of course other reasons why some boarding schools give better education—smaller classes, better paid staffs and so on. The difficulty of selection for boarding education is so pronounced that, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) knows, many local education authorities are finding it almost impossible to implement Sections 61 and 76 of his great Education Act. It is a statutory duty on them to provide boarding education, and yet they are rightly running away from it because none of them knows how to select the children and, what is more important, none knows how to reject another child, whose parents desire it, and that is equally important when dealing with public money.

Those egregious Circulars 90 and 120 sent out by the Ministry, and the Administrative Memorandum 225 have completely failed to persuade education authorities to fill up the 580 places offered last year by the independent boarding schools to children from the maintained schools. And this is almost entirely due to the difficulty of selection. Although I have a great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, I was always puzzled as to why he set up the Fleming Committee. I could not understand why the Governing Bodies Association suddenly became so powerful. Nobody else asked for that committee to be set up so far as I can remember. It was heavily weighted with boarding school representatives. It is only since the Fleming Report was published that we have had these discussions and are beginning to consider which child should have a boarding education, and still very few of us know.

The hon. Member mentioned Professor Laski, and I thought he used the point effectively. May I draw the attention of the Committee to what happened at the Conservative Teachers' Conference in March, 1948, when they strongly opposed boarding education because it shifted parental responsibility on to the school staff and tended to undermine British home life. Surely the Benches opposite will not support any Clause that will undermine British home life and which will shift the parental responsibility on to school teachers? I often feel that many parents avoid their responsibilities and opportunities by sending their children to boarding schools. I sometimes feel inclined to agree with Karl Mannheim that the justification for a boarding school is to protect a child from the domination of his parents. So on those three counts alone I oppose the Clause and I hope sincerely that public money will never be spent in that way.

The hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) always debates fairly and I am extremely grateful to the luck of the game and to you, Sir Charles, that I should be called immediately after him. I hope he will not think that I am voluntarily or excessively litigious if I say that I think his general line of argument against boarding schools on two main grounds—first that it is awfully difficult to know which children ought to go to them and, secondly, that anyway they are not in the main probably good either for the children or the parents—

I am within the recollection of the Committee. I am not trying to parody the hon. Gentleman in any way. I think that was the second part of his argument, that it made him wonder whether family life was not being broken up, and the children presumably suffering in that way, and whether parents were not being deprived of their due responsibilities and enjoyments and opportunities. I think that is fair. At any rate I think that all hon. Members who are in the Committee now were in the Committee when he spoke—

And therefore if I have reproduced him unfairly, no substantial injustice will be done. Let me finish this paragraph and then I will give way. I do not think really that his general argument—that is to say, the general argument whether boarding school education is a good thing and, if so, for whom—I do not honestly think that general argument is really relevant to the specific proposal before us, and to that I will return in a second—I will now give way.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was merely putting the view of people who really do know something about this, and who say that we must know more about boarding education and which children should have it before we spend public money.

I was not distinguishing between the views of people who really know something about it and the view of the hon. Gentleman; that is a distinction which the Committee owes to him and I think he is doing himself less than justice.

His only other real argument against the thing was that we must not, at any cost, lower the prestige of the State system. I would invite the Committee to consider what a national system of education is for. Is the object of it to produce equality, egalitarianism, uniformity of the population? Is that what the object of the thing is, or is the object to produce as much as possible of as good an education as possible? I quite understand, Sir Charles, that I am rather begging a question there, the question what is or what is not a good education, but that question must be begged if any of us are to keep within the Rules of Order upon this new Clause. Which of the two is the object?

If the object is not merely the production of uniformity and egalitarianism—and I do not think the hon. Gentleman really meant us to believe that—then the object must be to produce the best education possible. And I would say that we should all be modest about this—and I certainly include myself in the matter. No one of us should be foolish enough to think—indeed it is a complete proof that a man is ill educated if he does think, that there is some one sort of education which is clearly so much better than any other sort that it ought to be the only sort. All I am pleading for is that the beginning of wisdom, after the fear of the Lord, in the educational field is the belief that there ought to be, is sure to be, more than one sort of education. That is all I am asking for.

That is the first step in my argument. The second step in my argument is that it is almost always agreed now, I think, that the independent schools do provide a good sort of education. I do not believe that any candid and informed person would say that on average they produce less good education than the average of the State system. I do not think that any candid and informed person would say that.

Is not one of the reasons why the cost of education in our independent schools is so much more is that the size of the classes is so much smaller? And is the hon. Gentleman then saying that the state should give money to help those parents who can afford to give that privileged kind of education?

I should hate to get into a bi-sectional argument on this matter, but I really do not understand why the hon. Lady puts that as an intervention rather than as a speech. [Interruption.] If any hon. Gentleman prefers an answer now rather than to make a speech, I do not think the point is a difficult one.

The second point in my argument, which I am trying to put, is that no candid and informed person denies that the independent schools provide education on the average, at any rate, not noticeably worse than that provided by the State system. That is all I want for the purposes of my argument, and for the purposes of that argument it is wholly irrelevant whether it is because classes are bigger or smaller, endways or sideways or anything else. That is the second point in my argument. But in practice—I should not like to let the hon. Lady think I am being discourteous or not paying attention to the point she has made—I would say to her that all she is doing is strengthening my argument, She is saying that the reason why the independent schools—she appears, apparently, to think—are better, is because the classes are smaller. The object of the new Clause is that persons should not be forced by financial need into the schools where the classes are larger, thereby making them larger still. Therefore, the purpose of her intervention, so far as I see it, cuts entirely against the thesis which, I think, she believes the right one. That is the second point in my argument, that nobody denies that the independent schools provide as much and as good education as the other schools. The first point in my argument was that nobody, I think, denies that there should be variety in education.

Does the hon. Gentleman maintain that there is no variety in the State system of education? There is a great deal of variety between one grammar school and another and between one secondary school and another. There is every scope for variety and choice within the State system of education.

I do not say there is no variety in the State system. What I do say is that if there is a single system, we have no guarantee that variety will continue to be allowed. [Interruption.] Certainly, that must clearly be true—it is merely a statement of a truism. That is all I need for the purposes of my argument.

The third step in my argument is that if it is desirable that there should be another system—"system," perhaps, is not a fair word—another nexus or category of schools besides the State system if that is desirable, then it is not right that taxation or rates—fiscal burdens— should kill them off. I thought, if I may say so, that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) was really a little less than fair on this point. He said he was all for parents freely sending their children to what are called the independent rather than the maintained schools. He thought they ought to have that alternative and thought it a great argument for the liberty of our country that they are allowed to. Yet he was arguing that parents who do so choose should be punished—I think it is a fair word; at any rate, burdened, have the thing made more difficult for them—by being compelled to pay for the State system as well as paying the charges of the schools which they, rightly or wrongly, prefer.

The hon. Gentleman has used the word "compelled." Does he say that anybody is compelled to send their children to the independent schools? Nobody is compelled to do so.

Quite honestly, the hon. Gentleman ought really not if I may say so, to intervene on such very slight authority, for this reason: That I did not say that people were compelled to send their children to the maintained schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you did."] No; I am within the recollection of the Committee. What I said was, that if parents do what the hon. Member for York commends them for doing as a sign of the freedom of our country—that is to say, send their children to independent schools—they are compelled to pay also the education rate for the other schools. That is what I said, and I think I said it quite plainly, as anyone would know who listened to me carefully—God knows, I don't assume I am worth listening to; but it is not fair for hon. Members to interrupt if they do not bother to listen. That is the third step in my argument.

8.15 p.m.

If each of those three steps is held to be fair, it becomes difficult to resist the new Clause. If it is true that we ought to make sure there is variety in education; if it is true that the main alternative kind of school to the State system is not, in fact, noticeably worse than the State system; if those two things are true, then surely we should not, by our fiscal and administrative arrangements, make it very difficult indeed for parents to choose that one of the two alternatives. It is difficult anyway, because they have got to pay very heavy fees; but to make it necessary to pay for both sorts of school, in order to take that half of the choice, seems to me to make it very difficult indeed. If the first two steps of my argument are right, then that imposition of difficulty upon the parents who choose the independent rather than the State system seems to me excessive. Therefore, I commend to the Committee the new Clause, which has been so convincingly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis).

I just want to say a word or two about the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). As it happened, in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning we had a Debate on education, which is a very important subject for the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member began by basing his claim on the ground that if there were not independent schools—fee-paying and boarding schools—we should create a sort of robot type, an egalitarianism, as he called it, with everybody alike. I know a very fine secondary school in my home town. Even if there were not another school in the country, it would have variety. It has turned out large numbers of very capable mathematicians; lads come out proficient in chemistry, in English, in music and the arts. What nonsense to talk about lack of variety because it is not an independent school! Do they teach a different kind of mathematics in the independent school?

All this is so much nonsense. I guarantee that in that secondary school, as in others, the finest possible education is being given; none better will be found in any fee-paying or boarding school.

Why do parents send their children to the fee-paying schools and the boarding schools? Is it to get better education? It has nothing to do with education. What the other side want us to do is to subsidise little snobs. [Interruption.] Yes. No justification can be given for the independent and the boarding schools. I do not agree with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) about the maintenance of the independent school. I do not think there is any justification now for the maintenance of fee-paying schools. In the Scottish Grand Committee the feeling generally is against such schools. As a matter of fact, in the recent Education Act it was decided to make an inroad into the fee-paying schools and that each of them should take a certain number of ordinary boarding-school children; of course, the fees for those pupils were paid. We have a situation, therefore, where some of the children are being paid for by their parents and others are paid for by the education authority. That is a very undesirable situation. It would be much better to remove fee-paying altogether and to use the schools for children without any distinction whatever.

There are parents who are not prepared to send their children to elementary or secondary schools, where they can get the very best education, but want to send them to a special type of school, although it is not because they will get a better education. Not even the hon. Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge University would make the claim that a better education is obtained in a fee-paying school; he would not even make the claim that as good an education is obtained; he put it in the negative form that it is not any worse than education in the secondary school. That is the argument he put forward. He had not the courage to come out and suggest that it was even—

The hon. Member is running a very serious risk; he is running the extremely serious risk of slipping into deviationism if he does not understand that the first rule of dialectic is that one does not at any step in the argument prove more than is necessary to get one on to the next step.

That is typical of Cambridge—[Interruption]—not agricultural Cambridge but educated Cambridge. I said in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning that I had received a letter from a keen student of 20 years of age, asking me questions. In it he makes the statement, and wishes to know how I stand in regard to it, that Marx advocated the liquidation of the family and was for "the community of women." That is what he asserted about Marx, an outstanding family man. I will bet any money that that student is from one of the fee-paying educational establishments.

Every encouragement possible should be given to parents, whoever they may be, to send their children to be educated in authority schools and there should be as little discrimination amongst children as possible. The taking away of certain groups and placing them apart from the rest will never be helpful. I strongly urge, if any urging be needed, that the Minister reject this new Clause.

I think that my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was in danger of deviation. I believe that that danger is really serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has just handed me a note quoting a letter from Karl Marx to Engels, in which he said:

"It would be against their interests—"
that is, Marx's children—
"that they should be brought up as proletarians considering the circles in which they move."
I do not want to be brought into this battle, but I can introduce the hon. Member to my hon. Friend, and they can go into the matter afterwards. If that is true, the hon. Member had indeed better look out.

Will hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Devizes, advise me to accept without demur everything said or written by Karl Marx?

It seems to me that an enormous part of the world accepts what he said as gospel truth, and it would be an extraordinarily good thing if they did not do so.

I should like to deal rather more seriously with the argument of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett). I am afraid that he has not really read this new Clause as carefully as he might have done. Had he done so, he would have seen that the amount which would accrue to the parent who claimed the exemption asked for, would not in any way meet the full fees of an independent school. I do not claim that this new Clause is in any way perfect, and it can obviously be improved; but all that we are asking is that the educational fees should be met, and not necessarily, or not at all, the maintenance fees. The hon. Member for York entered into an argument about boarding schools and day schools. That is entirely beside the point; it has nothing to do with the new Clause.

It is of great help to the Committee that we have had the Report on Population so recently published. I would remind the Committee that all the well-known national newspapers greeted that Report with extreme interest. They all commented on it and applauded it for its realism. I agree, and I would like to quote part of that Report, to which the majority agreed, to try to prove that point of realism. The Royal Commission say:
"More and more parents have been willing to incur the cost involved in these forms of education"—
that is, the form to which we are now referring—
"because in general they give to their children considerable advantages in after life."
Let us have no nonsense about it; that is true.
"To secure these advantages many parents have to make real sacrifices, to the point sometimes of cutting down expenditure on their food and other essentials of health. There is here a strong motive for restricting the number of children to be educated, since the fewer the children in the family the more can be spent on educating them and preparing them for a career; and it is not surprising that amongst responsible and intelligent parents this is one of the most commonly stated reasons for keeping the family very small."
That is a realistic approach, and whether we like it or not most of us would agree that in our innermost hearts it is true. But there are many families who, even though they have the minimum family of one, even though they themselves went to independent schools, and perhaps their fathers before them—officers serving in the Army or Navy, clergymen, junior Ministers and professional men of all sorts—simply cannot afford to send their children to an independent school. It is for this reason that we are asking the Committee to support this new Clause.

8.30 p.m.

I listened last week with interest to the rather virulent speech of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). It was a very good Parliamentary performance. I did not agree with it, but it was, as is always the case with the speeches of the hon. Member, a well-delivered speech. He said, and he placed tremendous emphasis on it, that we can, and we must, afford education. I believe that we must do that, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that particular point. It would be quite wrong, simply because they cannot afford it, to deny to the professional men and women in this country today this form of education which they desire and which the Report on Population indicates that they desire. This particular difficulty is recognised by many local authorities which make a grant in aid, perhaps with certain stipulations, to parents of children educated at independent schools, and I believe that the Ministry have recently turned down proposals by local education authorities to make these grants. I do not think that is right. Personally, I prefer the system of grants, because I think it would be economically fairer, but now is not the time to do it, and in any case it would need legislation and would take time to have any effect. That is the main reason why I believe this new Clause meets the point, because it does something at once and there is very definite evidence that something is needed at once.

One of the most astonishing anomalies is that, now that we have the Socialist Party in power, the value of being wealthy has never been so apparent as it is at the present moment in regard to education. It is only the really rich man who can afford to educate his children at these schools. The people of this country are not getting the best value from the public schools, and, therefore, the man of moderate means has to restrict his family and has to pinch in order to give his child the education which he chooses, or has to use his capital to have his children educated. I am quite certain that that principle is not one with which the party opposite agree, and it really is astonishing that there is at the moment a set of circumstances which deliberately gives the wealthy an advantage in this particular field.

If this new Clause is agreed to, many more people would be able to send their children to the public schools, and there would be more competition. There is already enormous competition for the public schools, but there are far too many rich people sending their children there, and this new Clause would enable the serving officer and other professional men to send their children to the public schools. I emphasise the great importance of the point which has already been made about the congestion in the secondary grammar schools. There is at present an enormous desire to send children to these schools, and in many cases there would be a speedier dispersal of this congestion if we were to accept the new Clause.

Finally, I think it is quite monstrous that, when we have a tried and valued system of education in this country, as we have in the independent schools, and when we have a system which has not done so badly—in spite of what was said by the hon. Member for York, they have produced very fine men and women, and will continue to do so—it is quite wrong not to use that great educational weapon to the best advantage. At the moment, it is not being used to the best advantage, and one of the objects of this new Clause is to see that we make the best use of the independent system.

I must say that I am entirely unimpressed by the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite, including the argument of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who said that the electorate were getting stupider and stupider. We do not accept that at all.

The position at the moment is that Income Tax payers get an allowance of £60 in respect of every child. What this new Clause apparently proposes is that they shall get a further £75 in the case of any child going to an independent school. They apparently would get that relief whether or not the parent paying the Income Tax was actually bearing the cost of the fees. The principle in Income Tax has always been that a flat rate deduction is granted in virtue of the existence of the dependant, whether it be a child or some other dependant. What is now proposed is that we shall get away from that and grant relief in virtue of a particular form of expenditure in which the Income Tax payer chooses to indulge. It seems to me that, as soon as we accept that principle, we get into all sorts of difficulties.

In the first place, expenditure on education is not the only form of expenditure. There are many other forms which people may have to meet, and I have no doubt that eloquent speeches could be made on their claims for Income Tax relief. Furthermore, there is a particular disadvantage involved in this new Clause in that it is proposed that we should give relief for a form of expenditure which is discretionary or voluntary and the Income Tax payer does not have to embark upon unless he chooses. I think it would create a very difficult position if the Government or the Treasury granted relief in virtue of a voluntary form of expenditure and refused it for other forms of expenditure which the tax-payer is bound to meet—for instance, rent and many other things we could think of.

When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) was Chancellor of the Exchequer and was presented with a proposal like this in the Finance Bill Debates of 1944, I think it was, he stated the argument and summed it up in these words, with which I entirely agree:
"I am bound to say to the Committee that, whatever the case may be for making provision which will bring higher or special educacational facilities more effectively within the reach of people in all classes of the community, this is not the appropriate way to do it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 2193.]
That was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities.

There is also, surely, an added, overwhelming objection to this proposal and it has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett). It is, of course, the case that certain parents choose to spend money on purchasing what they regard as special educational facilities for their children. That is a fact. I am not now arguing whether those educational privileges are real or whether or not it is a good society in which people are enabled to buy those privileges for their own children. One could argue a great deal on that, but I am not taking a view on it now. I do, however, agree with my hon. Friend that it certainly would be entirely wrong and, indeed, fantastic that the State should subsidise people in order that they could do so, and the position would be anomalous in the extreme, because it is only if they already had a large enough income to afford to pay these fees in the first place that they would come into the privileged class which would then get the relief. We should, therefore, be introducing into Income Tax a form of relief not for the person with the lower income but for the individual with the higher income.

In order that I might not have to intervene later in the Debate, would my hon. Friend also be good enough to confirm what is the position in my constituency—that there are many scholarship pupils at independent schools paid for by the State and that these people would get a subsidy, as against the parents of similar students at the other schools?

Certainly, that would be the case. It, therefore, seems to me that if we had this money to spend on education it would be far better to spend it on improving and increasing the facilities at the State schools. If the hon. Member for Devizes is right in saying that there are insufficient places now available in the State schools so that people are induced to send their children elsewhere, then this money should be spent on improving and increasing the facilities in the State schools.

The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked what was the purpose of our educational system. Was it, he asked, to establish some sort of formal egalitarianism? I would say, quite simply, that presumably it is to establish equality of opportunity. Surely that is what we are after. I am not sure whether he would understand that, but I think it is the first thing we are seeking. Secondly, we are surely seeking to see that the best education is given to those who are best fitted to take advantage of it. I am not sure that he would understand that either. But we shall not do that by making our selection according to the income of the child's parents and not according to the ability of the child.

Finally, it is not a small sum that we are discussing here. This relief would amount to about £10 million a year. If we adopted this Amendment, therefore, in effect we should be diverting £10 million from the improvement of the State schools for the great mass of the children of the community, to paying this subsidy to certain classes to enable them to buy special educational facilities for themselves. I am quite sure the Income Tax should not be used for any purpose of that kind, and I really feel that this Amendment shows how completely hostile are the Tory Party to the whole idea of equality.

I had not intended to take part in the Debate had not the Economic Secretary made these purely class remarks at the end of his speech. I think we have had quite enough of those in the course of our Debates. The standard of the Debate before the hon. Gentleman rose was uniformly high and was devoted to educational subjects. The hon. Gentleman opened his speech with a reference to the next election, taking advantage of a statement made on this side that the electorate was no longer intelligent—or some such remark—and attempted at the end of his speech to import into the argument a purely class argument which I have always believed it right to keep out of education. I do not believe we can decide any educational issue in this country if we are obsessed with the class question. Nor do I think we can decide any educational question of this kind if we refer to snob values or anything of that sort.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he regards it as a class issue to say that we believe in equality of opportunity?

No. I referred only to the opening and closing portions of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and if he will allow me to continue my very short speech he will be surprised to find that I have something quite agreeable to say about certain other parts of his argument. Perhaps he will allow me now to continue my very short speech? When deciding educational issues, for goodness sake do not let us decide them on a class basis. Let us realise that many Members of this Committee have attempted to keep education out of the clash of party politics in the course of this Parliament. Personally, I do not intend to be dragged away from that determination, which I share; and although I do not agree with everything this Government have done in education, I do agree that they are in general attempting to carry out the spirit of the 1944 Act. On that understanding I have no desire to drag this matter any lower than it need be dragged in the ordinary cut and thrust of Debate.

As to this particular issue, I am very glad my hon. Friends have raised it, because there is behind it a very serious problem. Whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that in 1944 we all agreed that the independent schools were an integral part of education in this country. Reference to them forms a part of the Act. I am particularly glad that the Minister of Education has decided to put into force inspection of those schools, because without inspection of those schools we can have no certainty about standards. We also have to face the fact that, unfortunately, the State system is very much over-crowded. One of the great problems of the day, which has been a problem for several years, is the question of the overloading of the size of classes, which makes it quite impossible to establish that relationship of teacher to taught which is the only basis of all true education. In this respect the independent schools are very valuable as an addition to the education provision in this country.

The hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) raised a very important point. He talked with regret of the inability to link up the local authorities and the pupils they can find, with the boarding school system of this country. I believe that that is a most unfortunate thing. I have always believed that what we call the public schools, what we call the small preparatory schools, should try to link themselves up with the State system, and the pupils coming from the State system should by any method that can be devised, be admitted to them, which would build a bridge between these two sections of the educational provision in the country.

From the point of view of education it would be a great pity to reduce the standard of the independent schools, and from the point of view of the country it would be intensely valuable to have as many people as possible entering the independent schools and taking advantage of them. I therefore hope that, whether or not this Clause can be accepted by the Government, some solution can be found of this problem—that with the very heavy tax burden today those people who have been using the independent schools are finding it very difficult to send their children to those schools. Looking at it educationally, there is some chance that these schools will not receive the support they deserve. In some way a solution has to be found by this country whereby we link up the various types of education, whereby we do not destroy any good school that has a good form of education, and whereby our people may take advantage of whatever provision is most suitable to each child's individual character.

8.45 p.m.

Looking at the terms of the new Clause, I think there is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says about the use of the Income Tax law. There are certain traditions behind the Income Tax law, and it would be very difficult to go against them. I am aware of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have studied this subject very closely, and I personally think that it would be very difficult to find an easy solution on the lines proposed. Nevertheless, I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously interested in education and has a fine educational record himself, to investigate whether any other solution can be found which is equitable to all concerned. I would only add that the Preparatory Schools Association and the Headmasters' Conference have both been very exercised about this matter. At some date, no doubt, they will be making their own official representations to the Government. They have already been in touch with the Ministry of Education, and when their official representatives meet the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, perhaps he will encourage them to find some solution which can be regarded as entirely equitable to all concerned. I do not think it will be easy.

I would make one further observation about this new Clause. In the discussions on the Education Act we laid down that it was impossible for the State to pay for a whole-time type of education given independently of the State schools. The taxpayer could not bear that particular burden. This encouraged a crisis with the Roman Catholic community, but I was obliged for reasons of principle to stick to my guns, and the House of Commons supported me at that time. My hon. Friends may feel inclined to take their views as far as they like, but in view of the position that I have been in on the education Debates, I do not think it would be right in principle to allot State money to a section of the population for a particular type of education, although I think in equity there is a case for so doing, because in equity it is possible to say that if a person takes his child out of the State system and yet pays taxes for the State system he should be rewarded.

Tonight, without the whole knowledge of experts behind me and without the resources which are at the disposal of the Economic Secretary, I cannot find an absolutely certain solution to this problem. It may work out in the form of some sort of children's allowance; it may work out in some other way; but I wish to say that I hope we shall continue to decide educational matters in this House without regard to snob issues or social considerations, that we shall not think

Division No. 186.]

AYES

[8.50 p.m.

Acland, Sir RichardCollindridge, F.Grey, C. F.
Adams, Richard (Balham)Collins, V. J.Grierson, E.
Albu, A. H.Colman, Miss G. M.Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Cook, T. F.Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Alpass, J. H.Cooper, G.Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Attewell, H. C.Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Austin, H. LewisCorlett, Dr. J.Gunter, R. J.
Awbery, S. S.Cove, W. G.Guy, W. H.
Ayles, W. H.Crawley, A.Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.Crossman, R. H. S.Hale, Leslie
Bacon, Miss A.Cullen, Mrs.Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Baird, J.Daggar, G.Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Balfour, A.Daines, P.Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.Davies, Edward (Burslem)Hardy, E. A.
Barstow, P. G.Davies, Ernest (Enfield)Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Barton, C.Davies, Harold (Leek)Haworth, J.
Battley, J. R.Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Bechervaise, A. E.Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)Herbison, Miss M.
Benson, G.Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)Hewitson, Capt. M.
Berry, H.Deer, G.Hobson, C. R.
Beswick, F.Delargy, H. J.Holman, P.
Binns, J.Diamond, J.Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Blackburn, A. R.Dobbie, W.Horabin, T. L.
Blenkinsop, A.Dodds, N. N.Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Blyton, W. R.Driberg, T. E. N.Hoy, J.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)Hubbard, T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)Dye, S.Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Bramall, E. A.Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Hughes, Hector [Aberdeen, N.)
Brook, D. (Halifax)Evans, John (Ogmore)Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Ewart, R.Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Brown, George (Belper)Fairhurst, F.Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)Farthing, W. J.Jay, D. P. T.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.Fernyhough, E.Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Burke, W. A.Follick, M.Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)Foot, M. M.Jenkins, R. H.
Callaghan, JamesForman, J. C.John, W.
Carmichael, JamesFraser, T. (Hamilton)Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Champion, A. J.Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Chetwynd, G. R.Ganley, Mrs. C. S.Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Cluse, W. S.Gibbins, J.Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Cobb, F. A.Gibson, C. W.Keenan, W.
Cocks, F. S.Gilzean, A.Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Coldrick, W.Glanville, J. E. (Consett)Kinley, J.
Collick, P.Gordon-Walker, P. C.Kirby, B. V.

that education is a tool which can alter society. I believe that education normally in most countries reflects the society which exists at the time. English society is in process of change and we are moving into a new period. At the same time, in this change I sincerely trust that the very high standards of the independent schools will be preserved, that a link may be built up between them and the State system, and that the Government, if they are approached by sincere and devoted bodies on behalf of these schools, will give their representations every consideration.

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

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 125.

Lang, G.Oliver, G. H.Sorensen, R. W.
Lavers, S.Orbach, M.Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Lee, F. (Hulme)Paget, R. T.Sparks, J. A.
Leonard, W.Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Stubbs, A. E.
Leslie, J. R.Palmer, A. M. F.Sylvester, G. O.
Levy, B. W.Pargiter, G. A.Symonds, A. L.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)Parker, J.Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)Parkin, B. T.Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Lindgren, G. S.Paton, Mrs. F. (Rusholiffe)Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Logan, D. G.Paton, J. (Norwich)Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Longden, F.Pearson, A.Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Lyne, A. W.Peart, T. F.Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
McAdam, W.Poole, Cecil (Liohfield)Thurtle, Ernest
McAllister, G.Popplewell, E.Timmons, J.
McEntee, V. La T.Porter, E. (Warrington)Titterington, M. F.
McGhee, H. G.Porter, G. (Leeds)Tolley, L.
McGovern, J.Proctor, W. T.Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Mack, J. D.Pryde, D. J.Turner-Samuels, M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)Pursey, Comdr. H.Ungoed-Thomas, L.
McKinlay, A. S.Randall, H. E.Vernon, Maj. W. F.
McLeavy, F.Ranger, J.Walker, G. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Rankin, J.Warbey, W. N.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)Rees-Williams, D. R.Watkins, T. E.
Mainwaring, W. H.Reid, T. (Swindon)Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)Rhodes, H.Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mann, Mrs. J.Ridealgh, Mrs. M.West, D. G.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)Robens, A.Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.Rober's, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mathers, Rt. Hon GeorgeRobertson, J. J. (Berwick)Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mellish, R. J.Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)Wigg, George
Messer, F.Rogers, G. H. R.Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Middleton, Mrs. L.Ross, William (Kilmarnock)Wilkes, L.
Moody, A. S.Royle, C.Wilkins, W. A.
Morley, R.Sargood, R.Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)Scollan, T.Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)Scott-Elliot, W.Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Mort, D. L.Shackleton, E. A. A.Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Moyle, A.Sharp, GranvilleWilliams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Murray, J. D.Shurmer, P.Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Nally, W.Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.Willis, E.
Naylor, T. E.Silverman, J. (Erdington)Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)Simmons, C. J.Yates, V. F.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)Skinnard, F. W.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Noel-Buxton, LadySmith, C. (Colchester)Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.
Oldfield, W. H.Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)Marlowe, A. A. H.
Amory, D. HeathcoatGlyn, Sir R.Marples, A. E.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.Maude, J. C.
Astor, Hon. M.Grimston, R. V.Mellor, Sir J.
Baldwin, A. E.Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.Harden, J. R. E.Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Birch, NigelHarris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Bower, N.Headlam Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountNutting, Anthony
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.Hogg, Hon. Q.Odey, G. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Hollis, M. C.O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)Howard, Hon. A.Osborne, C.
Challen, C.Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Clarke, Col. R. S.Hurd, A.Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)Pickthorn, K.
Cooper-Key, E. M.Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)Jeffreys, General Sir G.Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.Raikes, H. V.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Kendall, W. D.Rayner, Brig. R.
Cuthbert, W. N.Kerr, Sir J. GrahamRenton, D.
Darling, Sir W. Y.Langford-Holt, J.Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Digby, Simon WingfieldLaw, Rt Hon. R. K.Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Lennox-Boyd, A. T.Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)Linstead, H. N.Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Duthie, W. S.Lipson, D. L.Ropner, Col. L.
Erroll, F. J.Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)Low, A. R. W.Sanderson, Sir F.
Fox, Sir G.Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.Savory, Prof. D. L.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.Scott, Lord W.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)Shephard, S. (Newark)
Gage, C.McFarlane, C. S.Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)Snadden, W. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Maitland, Comdr. J. W.Spearman, A. C. M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.Williams, C. (Torquay)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)Touche, G. C.Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Studholme, H. G.Turton, R. H.York, C.
Sutcliffe, H.Wadsworth, G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)Wakefield, Sir W. W.TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Teeling, WilliamWalker-Smith, D.Mr. Drewe and
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)Brigadier Mackeson

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

Division No. 187.]

AYES

[9.0 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.Hogg, Hon. Q.Rayner, Brig. R.
Amory, D. HeathcoatHoward, Hon. A.Renton, D.
Astor, Hon. M.Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Baldwin, A. E.Hurd, A.Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)Ropner, Col. L.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Bower, N.Jeffreys, General Sir G.Sanderson, Sir F.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.Savory, Prof. D. L.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.Keeling, E. H.Scott, Lord W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Kerr, Sir J. GrahamShephard, S. (Newark)
Channon, H.Langford-Holt, J.Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Clarke, Col. R. S.Law, Rt Hon. R. K.Snadden, W. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.Linstead, H. N.Spearman, A. C. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.Lipson, D. L.Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Low, A. R. W.Stross, Dr. B.
Cuthbert, W. N.Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Darling, Sir W. Y.MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.Studholme, H. G.
Digby, Simon WingfieldMcCallum, Maj. D.Sutcliffe, H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Drewe, C.McFarlane, C. S.Teeling, William
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)Mackeson, Brig. H. R.Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Duthie, W. S.Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Erroll, F. J.Marlowe, A. A. H.Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)Marples, A. E.Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Fox, Sir G.Maude, J. C.Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)Mellor, Sir J.Touche, G. C.
Gage, C.Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.Turton, R. H.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)Neven-Spence, Sir B.Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Walker-Smith, D.
Glyn, Sir R.Nutting, AnthonyWheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.Odey, G. W.White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.Williams, C. (Torquay)
Harden, J. R. E.Osborne, C.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)Peto, Brig. C. H. M.Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.Pickthorn, K.York, C.
Headlam Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hinchingbrooke, ViscountRaikes, H. V.Commander Maitland and
Mr. Hollis.

NOES

Acland, Sir RichardBlyton W. R.Colman, Miss G. M.
Adams, Richard (Balham)Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.Cook, T. F.
Albu, A. H.Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)Cooper, G.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Braddock, T. (Mitcham)Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Alpass, J. H.Bramall, E. A.Corlett, Dr. J.
Attewell, H. C.Brook, D. (Halifax)Cove, W. G.
Austin, H. LewisBrooks, T. J. (Rothwell)Crossman, R. H. S.
Awbery, S. S.Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Cullen, Mrs.
Ayles, W. H.Brown, George (Belper)Daggar, G.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.Brown, T. J. (Ince)Daines, P.
Bacon, Miss A.Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Baird, J.Burke, W. A.Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Balfour, A.Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)Davies, Harold (Leek)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.Callaghan, JamesDavies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Barstow, P. G.Carmichael, JamesDavies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Barton, C.Champion, A. J.Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Battley, J. R.Chetwynd, G. R.Deer, G.
Bechervaise, A. E.Cluse, W. S.Delargy, H. J.
Benson, G.Cobb, F. A.Diamond, J.
Berry, H.Cocks, F. S.Dobbie, W.
Beswick, F.Coldrick, W.Dodds, N. N.
Binns, J.Collick, P.Driberg, T. E. N.
Blackburn, A. R.Collindridge, F.Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Blenkinsop, A.Collins, V. J.Dye, S.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 280.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)Lee, F. (Hulme)Rhodes, H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Leonard, W.Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Evans, John (Ogmore)Leslie, J. R.Robens, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)Levy, B. W.Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Ewart, R.Lewis, J. (Bolton)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Fairhurst, F.Lewis, T. (Southampton)Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Farthing, W. J.Lindgren, G. S.Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Fernyhough, E.Logan, D. G.Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Follick, M.Longden, F.Rogers, G. H. R.
Foot, M. M.Lyne, A. W.Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Forman, J. C.McAdam, W.Royle, C.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)McAllister, G.Sargood, R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.McEntee, V. La T.Scollan, T.
Gallacher, W.McGhee, H. G.Scott-Elliot, W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.McGovern, J.Shackleton, E. A. A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)Mack, J. D.Sharp, Granville
Gibbins, J.McKay, J. (Wallsend)Shurmer, P.
Gibson, C. W.McKinlay, A. S.Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Gilzean, A.McLeavy, F.Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.Macpherson, T. (Romford)Simmons, C. J.
Grey, C. F.Mainwaring, W. H.Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Grierson, E.Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)Skinnard, F. W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)Mann, Mrs. J.Smith, C. (Colchester)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.Sorensen, R. W.
Guest, Dr. L. HadenMathers, Rt. Hon GeorgeSoskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Gunter, R. J.Mellish, R. J.Sparks, J. A.
Guy, W. H.Messer, F.Stubbs, A. E.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)Middleton, Mrs L.Sylvester, G. O.
Hale, LeslieMoody, A S.Symonds, A. L.
Hall, Rt. Hon. GlenvilMorley, R.Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Hamilton, Lieut -Col R.Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hardy, E. A.Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Hastings, Dr. SomervilleMort, D. L.Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Haworth, J.Moyle, A.Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)Murray, J. D.Thurtle, Ernest
Herbison, Miss M.Nally, W.Timmons, J.
Hewitson, Capt M.Naylor, T. E.Titterington, M. F.
Hobson, C. R.Neal, H. (Claycross)Tolley, L.
Holman, P.Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Turner-Samuels, M.
Horabin, T. L.Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Houghton, A. L. N. D.Noel-Buxton, LadyVernon, Maj. W. F.
Hoy, J.Oldfield, W. H.Wadsworth, G.
Hubbard, T.Oliver, G. H.Walker, G. H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)Orbach, M.Warbey, W. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)Paget, R. T.Watkins, T. E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)Palmer, A. M. F.Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Pargiter, G. A.West, D. G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)Parker, J.Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.Parkin B. T.White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Jay, D. P. T.Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)Paton, J. (Norwich)Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)Pearson, A.Wilkes, L.
Jenkins, R. H.Peart, T. F.Wilkins, W. A.
John, W.Poole, Cecll (Lichfield)Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Jones, Rt Hon. A C. (Shipley)Popplewell, E.Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)Porter, E. (Warrington)Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)Porter, G. (Leeds)Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)Proctor, W. T.Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Keenan, W.Pryde, D. J.Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Kendall, W. D.Pursey, Comdr. H.Wills, E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Randall, H. E.Wills, Mrs E. A.
Kinley, J.Ranger, J.Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Kirby, B. V.Rankin, J.Yates, V. F.
Lang, G.Rees-Williams, D. R.
Lavers, S.Reid, T. (Swindon)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.