HC Deb 03 July 1953 vol 517 cc727-50

Order for Second Reading read.

11.8 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting)

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

As the House will recall, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 31st July, 1952, that Her Majesty's Government had decided to give effect to the proposals of the late Government to express the gratitude of the United Kingdom for the generous and far-sighted Programme of European Recovery, generally known as Marshall Aid, by founding at British universities 12 scholarships, to be competed for annually by United States students. My right hon. Friend added that General Marshall had agreed that these scholarships should be known as "Marshall Scholarships."

The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), the former Foreign Secretary, welcomed my right hon. Friend's statement, and said that he thought it was right that we should do this and that it would be helpful to Anglo-American relations. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said then, and I should like to acknowledge that the inspiration of this scheme came from himself and his colleagues in the late Government. I am both proud and happy that it should fall to my lot to introduce the Bill which is designed to give effect to the Marshall Scholarships scheme.

The purpose of the Bill is, quite simply, to approve the provision of the necessary monies by means of a grant-in-aid carried on an annual Vote under the administration of the Foreign Office; secondly, to give statutory blessing to the establishment of the Commission which will be charged with the administration of the scheme. There is no need for me to remind the House of the great, generous and far-sighted motives which inspired General Marshall and the Government and people of the United States in the creation of the European Recovery Programme.

We cannot, of course, hope to match such generosity through this scholarship scheme, but I believe and hope that these Marshall Scholarships will stand through the years to come as an expression and a token of our gratitude. I hope, too, that by bringing to this country year by year some of the finest products of the universities of America, this scheme will make its own contribution to the cause of Anglo-American understanding which was so well served in war and in peace by that great soldier and statesman whose name it bears.

We hope that the Marshall scholars who will come to our universities will be enriched by their experience, and also that our universities will profit from the new ideas and outlooks which these scholars will bring with them across the Atlantic. I do not propose to deal in any detail with the machinery whereby these Marshall scholarships will be administered. Full particulars were given in a White Paper (Cmd. 8846) which was laid before the House in May of this year. This machinery has been worked out in consultation with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the universities of the United Kingdom, and I should like to acknowledge with gratitude the advice and assistance which they have given to the Government.

Perhaps I might remind the House of one or two salient points in the arrangements set out in the White Paper and at the same time give some rough estimate of the cost. Twelve Marshall Scholarships will be paid for annually and will be open to American students of either sex, who will not be more that 28 years of age when they come here and who are graduates of a degree-granting college or university in the United States, accredited by the appropriate United States Regional Association. These scholarships will be tenable at any British university, and candidates will be able to choose their university, subject of course to there being the necessary vacancies. Awards will be available for two years in the first instance but may be extended for a third year. That will be at the discretion of a commission.

The value of a scholarship will be between £550 and £600 a year, according to the cost of living at different British universities. Married scholars will be eligible and their scholarships will be increased by £200 a year. These awards, as I understand is the case with all other scholarships held in the United Kingdom, will not be liable to Income Tax.

We hope that the first 12 Marshall scholars will come to Britain in October, 1954. The maximum annual expenditure will, however, not be reached until the first 12 scholars have completed their period of study and are returning to the United States, when the cost of their return passages will be incurred. Expenditure will therefore be spread out at an increasing rate over the next five financial years, beginning with the present financial year, 1953–54. After 1957–58 it will remain approximately constant.

Owing to the fluctuations in the cost of living and to variations in the amount and duration of the scholarships it is impossible to give the House any precise estimate of maximum expenditure, but at present day rates of living costs it seems unlikely that maximum annual expenditure will exceed £41,000, of which some £37,000 will be incurred in the United Kingdom and some £4,000, which of course will include some travel expenses of scholars, in the United States. In giving these figures I must repeat that they are a rough estimate. I would emphasise, however, that provision will be made for each financial year in the Foreign Office Estimates and the annual cost of the scheme will thus be kept under due Parliamentary control.

So much for the financial implications of Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 2 provides for the creation of the Commission which will administer the scheme and which will be known as the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission. In addition to administering the monies voted each year by Parliament, the Commission will approve the selection of scholars and, through its Executive Secretary, place the scholars in United Kingdom universities and supervise their general welfare. Subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) deal with the composition of the Commission and define the conditions under which it shall act.

Clause 2 (6) lays upon the Commission the duty of making an annual report to the Secretary of State which he shall lay before Parliament, and Clause 2 (7) lays down that the Commission's accounts shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. As to the composition of the Commission, nominations will be made to the Commission by the Secretary of State. They have not yet been made. The Bill provides that there shall be seven members, of whom not less than two shall be persons of eminence in academic matters, and that the chairman shall be designated from among the members by the Secretary of State. We intend that the Executive Secretary shall be Dr. Foster, the Secretary of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, and we also intend that one of the members of the Commission shall be representative of the trade unions.

As to the system of selection of Marshall scholars, the House is aware from the White Paper that an Advisory Council will be set up in the United States under the chairmanship of Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington. This Council will be assisted by four Regional Committees. In the selection of Marshall scholars preference will be given, of course, to candidates who combine high academic ability, integrity and intellect with the capacity to play an active part in the university life of this country.

With these few words of explanation of this simple and, I think, agreed Measure I should like to commend the Bill to the House as a Measure to give effect and expression to the gratitude of the Parliament and people of this country for the generosity and friendship of the people of the United States of America.

11.18 a.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison (Lewisham, South)

I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which I trust will be unanimous. I hope that the general purpose of this Measure will commend itself to the House. It is true that I originated the idea behind the Bill when I was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I was keen and enthusiastic about it, as were my colleagues in the former Government; and it was pleasing to know that it had the support of the present Foreign Secretary, as to whose progress we are glad to hear good news. He, on behalf of the then Opposition, supported the idea as I now do on behalf of the present Opposition.

I should like to refer to a few matters of detail. As I think that the Joint Under-Secretary will agree, as indeed is intended, that it is desirable that the Commission at this end should be as broadly based as possible and of as representative a character as possible, including people with different outlooks upon public affairs, so that it may have a good combined representative composition drawn from a cross-section of the community. It is clearly right that distinguished university people should serve upon the Commission because their advice will be of high value. I am very pleased that the Joint Under-Secretary has indicated that a representative trade unionist will be appointed because I daresay that a good many of the selected scholars will be working-class or middle-class people of modest means, and it will be well to have a trade unionist on the Commission to give helpful advice. I hope and believe that a woman member may probably be included.

The only doubt that I have about the composition of the Commission is whether seven members will give the Secretary of State a wide enough field of Choice, since he wishes to include these various elements. I appreciate the desirability of keeping this body small because it may have the delicate task of making a choice of scholars. On the other hand, there may be agreement at the United States end and there may be no difficulty about it. I was wondering whether it would not be wise during the progress of the Bill if the numbers were made not less than seven and not more than 10 in order that, if the Secretary of State was hampered by the numerical limitation in the way I have mentioned, he could go a little wider. At any rate while not being dogmatic on the point I commend the idea to the Joint Under-Secretary for consideration.

With regard to the United States bodies, I notice that the H.M. Ambassador at the United States end will preside over the whole body there and that Consuls-General will take part in the regional committees. I think that the idea of regional committees in that vast country is very sensible and should be most helpful. For the rest, I gather that the composition of these bodies, at any rate, the regional ones, will be entirely of United States citizens. I think that is absolutely right. It is clearly right that citizens of the United States should be easily the predominant voice in the selection of the beneficiaries for these scholarships. Therefore, I am inclined to think that, although the general machinery may be subject to improvement here and there, the idea is right.

In the course of my own university visits—I cannot say any more than that because I did not have a university education but I have visited a number of the universities—I have recently made rather extensive visits to the University of Oxford, apart from the distinction which that University was good enough to confer upon me. I have made many visits to Oxford and stayed at colleges, and in the course of those visits I have been pleased to meet American citizens who are pursuing studies at that University, as well as at other British universities.

I have always thought it pleasing that they should come among us to pursue their studies here or even, at times, to teach here. Indeed, the head of one of the prominent university colleges is an American, and a very fine head of that college he is. It is pleasing to me to know how much the students enjoy their visits to this country and their studies. This new development, while it is a modest one, will enable us as a country to make some contribution to the students by the financial aid which we shall be able to give them, and I think that is all to the good.

No doubt the subjects which they are to study will be a matter for consideration by them and their advisers, and possibly even by the Commission and by the university authorities. It would not be a bad thing, in view of the substantial but not widely understood differences between the British Constitution and the United States Constitution—not widely understood here and not widely understood in the United States—if political science, upon which I am engaged in another capacity at Oxford at this time on a book, might be one of the subjects. I think that anything which can educate both sides of the Atlantic about the differences in our two Constitutions is to the good. Most people are aware that we are both democracies, which is true, and I think, therefore, that we are the same, but they are not aware that in fact we are very different in our constitutional practices. I am not making any comment on that subject now, but it is a consideration.

I think that it was right that the institution of Marshall Aid should be commemorated, as this Bill provides. I remember when the announcement was made how quickly our late colleague, Mr. Ernest Bevin embraced the idea propounded by General Marshall, supported it, and saw that it did not get lost, as these international ideas sometimes do.

He supported General Marshall with great vigour. General Marshall himself launched the scheme with imagination and generosity. It was criticised in some quarters in Eastern Europe a little later as a scheme which had been calculated to corrupt and subordinate independent European States. I never thought that. I thought that it was one of those big, imaginative and generous gestures of which the American people and nation from time to time are so eminently capable.

Let us not be so modest as not to add that we ourselves made our financial and economic contribution to reconstruction in Europe and elsewhere which, within our means, was, I think, probably as great as that of the United States. But when one remembers the early viewpoint of the United States about keeping out of such things and not taking a hand in international assistance of this kind, in the duller days of isolationism, one does appreciate that this Marshall Aid proposal was in a way indicative of a second American revolution which has taken place in their attitude to foreign affairs. I think it was generous, it was fine; and both General Marshall and the Government with which he was associated, and the American nation, are to be congratulated upon the gesture; and it is right that we should commemorate it.

As the Joint Under-Secretary has said, this is a very modest commemoration. It will not cost a great deal, but it is not the amount of money that matters, it is the spirit that is behind it, and I cannot imagine a better way in which we could commemorate Marshall Aid than by this promotion of scholarships for young Americans to come here and study at our universities. I believe, therefore, that this Bill is a desirable Bill, that it will be helpful to United Kingdom-United States relations, not only because of the fact that it commemorates Marshall Aid, but because it will promote educational and cultural relations between two great countries, both of which have much to do for the advancement of mankind.

11.28 a.m.

Lieut-Colonel Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

I am sure that the House today welcomes the introduction of this Bill and the felicitous way in which it has been referred to, both by the Joint Under-Secretary and by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), whose name is very closely associated with the inception of this scheme, commemorating the generous impulse of the United States—the generous and unprecedented impulse—in the great aid which it gave to Europe and its recovery after the war.

I should like to say a word or two about the academic aspect of this matter, which, I think, is of very great importance. It is most interesting that the project should be that of having United States citizens to study, in our institutions and atmosphere, our way of life, and the contribution which we can make in the way of learning and scholarship to the progress of the world. I would point out, however, that there is, I think, a rather limiting phraseology in the Bill, as against the wider phraseology which, perhaps accidently, was used in the White Paper. The White Paper says: … founding at British universities twelve scholarships. These scholarships will be open to men and women and will be tenable at any British university. In the terms of the Bill, the scholarships are limited solely to the United Kingdom. In our universities we have university colleges spread far outside the mere limits of the United Kingdom. They are only in an embryo stage just now, but they are already affiliated to, and working in close connection with, the University of London. These are the great colonial colleges still, as I say, in a very embryo stage, but which will, I hope, develop tremendously in years to come. They afford unique opportunities to study, on the spot, problems which affect the new world as well as the old. I would particularly mention the university colleges at Accra and at Ibadan, in West Africa.

It is true that these are still in a very early stage, but the project with which we are dealing this morning is intended to run for many years. I trust that the colleges in the outer parts of what is still the British Empire will not be regarded merely as institutions which send people here. They are institutions to which people from this country may properly go, and they will have, I hope, so high a standard of scholarship that they may be expected to have post-graduate workers from here, and elsewhere. They will be working in conditions difficult to parallel in any other part of the world, and certainly impossible to parallel in this country.

I wonder whether it would be possible to use in the present Bill some such words as "university colleges in, or affiliated to, universities in the United Kingdom." It seems to me that the present wording might undesirably limit study in, say, certain medical subjects to persons actually resident in the United Kingdom. The Rockefeller Foundation itself most generously extended its facilities to undertakings and enterprises in tropical Africa, and the University of Liverpool has a school of tropical medicine which had some of its laboratories and technical buildings actually in Sierra Leone. That was obviously a great advantage to the University of Liverpool and to its students.

It would be a pity if, by accident, while considering this great departure, we put an unnecessarily narrowing definition into the terms of the Bill, for it will not be possible to alter the Bill once we have passed it. It would be an advantage if we could broaden the Bill to embrace institutions overseas which are affiliated to institutions in the United Kingdom so that a scholarship held at, say, London University, could also be held if the scholar were temporarily resident out-with the boundaries of the United Kingdom at an institution which was still part of London University. That should be carefully considered while we are dealing with this great and novel scheme.

I do not wish to do more than throw out the suggestion, but I do so because I have the greatest interest in the new university institutions which are growing up in tropical Africa, in the West Indies, in Eastern Asia and elsewhere, and the greatest desire that they themselves should be considered as worthy places where original work and research should take place at first hand, quite apart from the fact that certain scientific studies can be better carried out in the tropics than in this country.

I do not wish to expand that idea at the moment. I would merely say that I am sure that all who are interested in academic work welcome the new and imaginative departure which is proposed to the House this morning. I urge again that we should draw the bounds of the Bill wide, because this scheme, which will continue for a long time, will perhaps develop in ways which at the moment we cannot exactly foresee. As the initiative of the Marshall Aid which gave rise to this recognition was so noble, generous and far-reaching, so let our recognition of it be equally far-sighted and far-reaching. Let us not confine it merely to work in the United Kingdom; let us open it to all the work in universities of the United Kingdom, which have branches far outside the mere geographical limits of the United Kingdom, recognising the far-sightedness of General Marshall himself, and all those who supported him, in making possible, far faster than could otherwise have been possible, the recovery of the Western world and, in particular, of this country, from the ravages of the last war.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

As previous speakers have said, the Bill commemorates one of the greatest and most generous acts of State in history, and I think it is a very suitable commemoration.

Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), I believe there is a great field of study in the political institutions and political theories of this country and the United States, and that the general advance of democracy and our ways of life depends a great deal on the pooling of our experience and an understanding of the conclusions to which we have been led by that experience. I certainly hope that many American students will take advantage of the opportunity of coming over here, not only to study how we do things, but also to give us some information at first hand about how things are done in the United States.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) introduced what was, to me, a new point. It is certainly one which is very well worth considering. I do not know whether it was the intention that the fellowships should be tenable at universities in the Commonwealth, but I see no reason why the Bill should be limited on that point. We must bear in mind how the scholarships, which are to go on for many years, are likely to develop.

I hope the students will be encouraged to go further afield than Oxford and Cambridge. I hope very much that they will go to Scottish universities and to the provincial English universities. I express that hope not only for their sake. From their point of view it is very useful to get away from the round of London, Oxford and Cambridge and to see Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and the other great industrial areas, but that will also be very useful from our point of view. It is an excellent thing for the students in our universities to meet their fellow students from overseas and exchange ideas with them.

It may not be inappropriate to recall a great earlier foundation of this sort, the Cecil Rhodes Foundation. It is interesting that at this very moment a reunion of Rhodes scholars is taking place in this country. At the reunion there are not only old Rhodes scholars from America and the Commonwealth; German Rhodes scholars are also attending. They are Germans whose affection for the universities of this country has transcended the war. They have come here as our friends, and they have happy memories and respect for the institutions of this country which they learned from coming here on scholarships of this kind.

If any conclusive argument were needed to prove the benefit of this type of international scholarship, that is it, and I personally feel that we should welcome this Bill as the best possible way of commemorating the giving of Marshall Aid in a time of austerity and doing something, therefore, to cement the friendship between ourselves and the American people.

11.40 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

It gives me particular pleasure to support the Second Reading of this Bill because I am one of the many hon. Members in this House who have had the privilege of visiting and being entertained by a number of American universities. Some six years ago, in company with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), and Mr. Kenneth Harris, who now writes for the "Observer," I took part in a debating tour on behalf of the Oxford University Union, in the course of which we visited 60 universities and colleges in 40 States. How glad I am that the Consul-Generals are to be members of the regional committees, because it was certainly our experience from that tour that the Consul-Generals are respected figures in all parts of the United States and are doing a valuable work. They were of great assistance to us and they will be valued members of these Regional Committees.

I do not think it would be possible to think of a more suitable way of commemorating the Marshall Plan. Certainly from our experience in America, the great majority of American students are keenly interested in our university system over here. We always found that they were very conscious indeed of its merits and of what the English universities could provide which the American universities could not provide.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

British.

Sir E. Boyle

I apologise to my right hon. and gallant Friend—British universities. I am thinking especially of the tutorial system. I think it is fair to say that in the American university there is not the discipline of students having to exercise the intellectual discomfort of sorting out their ideas and writing an extended weekly composition for their tutors. I think that is a most valuable part of our university system, and it is certainly one for which I shall never cease to be grateful.

I very much agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that these scholarships should be held in very many British universities. However, because of the Rhodes Scheme there will be a tendency on the part of students to go to Oxford, and I quite agree with him that it would be a good thing if the greatest encouragement were given to a number of students to go to other universities, especially some of the newer universities in all parts of the United Kingdom. Most American students do not know there are any other British universities or colleges except Oxford or Cambridge. I remember very well one student whom I met over there and who had been awarded a Rhodes scholarship. He was asked which Oxford college he wanted to go to and his reply was "First Balliol, then Christchurch, then All Souls, and fourth Magdalen." I think that shows the very national ignorance about details of our universities which one finds on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

Why was it ignorance to put Balliol at the top of the list?

Sir E. Boyle

I thought that that might possibly bring someone to his feet, but it was the presence of All Souls third on the list to which I was referring.

I think it would also be a good thing if these scholarships were awarded for as wide a variety of subjects as possible. It is rightly said in the White Paper on this scheme: preference will be given to candidates who combine high academic ability with the capacity to play an active part in the life of the United Kingdom university to which they go. I suggest the wider the range of subjects the better.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) mentioned political science as one subject. If I might mention one other it would be music, and especially musical composition. Our ancient universities have always maintained the tradition and the discipline of vocal counterpoint and academic musical training. That is something which many American musical students would be very grateful for. If one looks at the history of British music, one can see the important part that our universities have played in it, especially a man like Sir Charles Stanford, who spent many years as organist of Trinity College, Cambridge.

The only question I should like to ask is why the age of 28 has been chosen as the upper limit. I do not know if there is any particular reason why that particular age should be selected, but it seems to me that it might well prove rather too high or too low. In any case I shall be extremely grateful if I can be told why that particular age was chosen.

I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South that the Marshall Plan was a great and generous gesture, and it is absolutely right that we should commemorate it in this way. Today we are thinking rather more about making ourselves independent of American aid, but let us not forget what has happened in the past. We should not forget that Marshall Aid, even though it did not solve the dollar problem of the sterling area to quite the extent we hoped, was a great and generous gesture. The more we and the United States can co-operate in this way, the greater the prospects for the free. Western world in the future.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

I welcome this Bill as one who spent his 22nd and 23rd years at an American university on a scholarship which was founded by American people on American money. Like the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), I should like to see more scholarships for the students of our two countries. We have a lot to offer the Americans, including the particular point mentioned by the hon. Member, our tutorial system. Often we do not recognise how much the American universities have to offer us. For instance, in a field like law I believe there are as many as 20 law schools in the United States, which are far better than anything we have in this country.

I have some detailed criticisms to make of this White Paper. Reading it, I formed the impression that the scheme had been conceived without remembering that each year nearly 300 students come from the United States on Fullbright and Rhodes Scholarships while we are offering only 12 a year. How can this possibly commemorate the great idea of Marshall Aid unless these scholarships are in some way distinctive? If these 12 are not distinctive they will be tacked on behind hundreds of others and will be swamped in public knowledge and public esteem. They will come to be regarded as consolation prizes for those who did not get another better known scholarship.

How are these Marshall Aid scholarships to be made distinctive? It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and it is also laid down here in the White Paper, that in awarding these scholarships regard will be had both to academic qualifications and to qualities of character and leadership. The Rhodes Scholarships have always paid attention to those aspects of character and leadership. If any evidence is required of that fact it is that at Oxford during the last few days five honorary degrees were given to former Rhodes scholars. Two were to university professors, but of the other three, one went to the Lieutenant-Governor of an Australian State, an ex-Rhodes scholar, one to the Chief Justice of South Africa, an ex-Rhodes scholar, and one to a Senator of the United States, Senator Fulbright himself.

These Marshall scholarships can be remembered only if they are distinctive. How can we make them so? I will offer a few suggestions and then come down in favour of one of them. First, if we stressed creative talent, they would be distinctive. We could say that Marshall Scholarships were to be only for men or women who had shown evidence of creative talents in one of the arts—writing, music, painting, or sculpture. That would fit in with the point made by the hon. Baronet of musical composition. These men and women would benefit from the atmosphere of our universities, particularly the older universities. Having said that, I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in hoping that these scholars will spread throughout the United Kingdom and not concentrate merely on Oxford and Cambridge.

Young men and women who have given evidence of creative talents in the arts might well benefit from a few years at one of our universities, because they provide an atmosphere which is lacking in all but a few American universities. The University of Virginia and one or two other colleges, especially in New England, have something of the atmosphere of green lawns and mellow buildings. But the atmosphere is sought often. I remember being in a modern American university building and being awakened early one morning by what I thought was a woodpecker pluckily carrying on in a hurricane. It was a little time before I discovered that outside this very new building there was a man solemnly nailing ivy on to the walls while someone with a blowlamp, or some other device, was mellowing the stone. I shall not go into the merits of the different Oxford colleges, but I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, as a fellow Cambridge man, will join with me in recognising that, although with the industrial development of Oxford the colleges are now no more than the Latin Quarter of Cowley, they still have a lot to offer in the way of atmosphere.

Secondly, to make these scholarships really distinctive, they might be confined to men and women who have given evidence of the character and leadership mentioned as one of the qualities to be considered. Here we are up against the great difficulty the selectors have in distinguishing between real leadership in a young man and other qualities which may have come from being extremely aggressive or extremely lucky in holding undergraduate offices. So it is almost impossible to restrict the choice in that way. The Rhodes Scholarships have been successful on the whole in managing to select men who are the future leaders as well as having a high academic standard.

Therefore I come to the third suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) mentioned the political sciences as a subject for study. I offer as a third method of making these scholarships distinctive that they should be restricted to men and women who want to study British political institutions, the institutions which have produced our characteristic political virtues of tolerance and compromise.

In the next generation, even if there is not a revolution through war, we Western countries could turn ourselves gradually into totalitarian States merely by confusing tolerance and compromise with appeasement. I believe it would be of great advantage to the Western World if some of the ablest young men and women from the United States could come to this country to study our political institutions and learn how we have developed the political characteristics of tolerance and compromise. Of course we have much to learn from them as well.

I now come to more detailed points in the White Paper. My hon. Friend referred to an American head of one of the colleges in the University of Oxford. If we look at paragraph 4 on page 2 we see that all Members of the Commission shall be British subjects. Why is it necessary to lay that down? Surely a man like Professor Goodhart would make an admirable member, yet he is an American citizen. The Members of the Commission will nearly always be British subjects, so why limit the Commission in that way?

In paragraph 10 on page 4 we see the way in which the Ambassador is to select his committees. It is important that, since they will be more than research students buried in a lab, or library, the committees chosen in the United States should be much more than academic committees and should reflect the industrial life of the community—the professions, the trade unions and, of course, the commercial side too.

In paragraph 15 there is a reference to what happens if there is a married man on one of these scholarships. Surely it is not right to have married men? First, it is unduly expensive to have a man with a wife and, perhaps, a family. Apart from that, does it not destroy one of the real advantages of these international scholarships? A man with a wife and perhaps a family is not as free to mix with his fellow students and to take part in the life of the university, thus getting to know about this country. He is not so likely to marry a citizen of this country, and one of the important results about these international scholarships is that the student coming from abroad may marry a citizen of that country and return to his own with a real token of friendship between the two countries.

Paragraph 17 gives the age as 28 which the hon. Baronet said was either too high or too low. I should be more emphatic and say that it is too high, because these men and women should be able to play a full part in the university, and every year over 25 makes it more difficult. Even allowing for two years' military service, there is still plenty of time. I wonder if the age could not be reduced from 28 to 25?

In paragraph 7, on page 7 of the Paper, is something which I cannot emphasise too much, and I am very glad that it is in the Paper, because other scholarships have had difficulty with this point. It is expressly laid down that no scholarship shall be transferred from one region of the United States to another. I mention that because as time passes and these Marshall Scholarships become an institution, the vices of these institutions will creep in and there will be a tendency for the selectors to play for safety by concentrating more and more on the easy method of selection on the academic records which they have before them. If they do that, there is always the danger that the Eastern region of the United States, in which most of the leading universities are situated, would tend to have a high standard by this test, while some in, say, the Pacific or Southern region might tend to have a relatively lower standard. If once it was contemplated that these scholarships should be transferable from region to region, one of the purposes of these scholarships would be defeated and they would not be geographically and truly representative of the United States.

There are other points of detail, but I sum up in this way. I do not think there is any evidence that those who drew up these regulations realised that we were offering only 12 scholarships each year, when from the United States hundreds of men and women are already coming here. Therefore, if the scheme is to mean anything and is to commemorate a great political act, it must be distinctive.

I have suggested three ways in which the scheme could be distinctive, and there may be others. I believe that my third and last suggestion is the most appropriate. That is to say, that the men and women coming on Marshall scholarships should study British political institutions. I should like consideration to be given to the minor amendments that I have suggested, because they are designed to ensure as far as possible that Marshall scholars should be young enough and sufficiently free from family responsibilities to be able to mix with British students in games, in argument, in the libraries, in the lecture room, in the "pubs.", in the laboratory or wherever it may be. Secondly, the Marshall scholars should be geographically representative of the United States, and thirdly, the Marshall scholars should have a chance of learning our way of life and especially the value of our political characteristics of tolerance and compromise.

For nearly 20 years I have been looking for some way of repaying the American generosity which allowed me, to spend two years at an American university. I have not yet found it, but the very least I can do today is to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

12.3 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I am all in favour of international scholarships and any measure which will help to promote greater understanding between ourselves and the great continent of America. I am, however, wondering whether the Bill goes far enough. I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that in Committee we might improve the Bill so that it will be a really generous gesture.

I am inclined to wonder what Senator McCarthy might think of the Bill. Here is a proposal to invite from America 12 innocent young American students under the age of 28 and to set them loose in English and Scottish universities, which a lot of people in America think are hotbeds of Communism. Senator McCarthy might take the view that this is a rather insidious proposal. When my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln says that he wants not merely 12, but 300 scholarships——

Mr. de Freitas

That is not quite what I said. I said that these 12 had to be compared against nearly 300 and that, therefore, they should be distinctive.

Mr. Hughes

I rather assumed that my hon. Friend wanted a greater number, because I believe in the 300. I think we should do the job properly.

One of the difficulties under certain of the restrictions in America is whether we can be quite sure that these students will be able to come here and will be able to go back again. So far as I can see, in the present state of American affairs there is quite a restriction on the free passage of human beings from America to Europe. The position seems to be summed up by the fact that Charlie Chaplin cannot get in and Paul Robeson cannot get out.

What guarantee have we that when these American students are over here, going to places like Glasgow University, they will not pick up all sorts of pernicious doctrines which the American authorities might not be able to regard as distinguishable from something terrible called Communism? I can foresee some of the difficulties. These 12 persons may choose to go to the London School of Economics, and they may choose to listen to speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). Indeed, they may be corrupted by coming to the House of Commons and listening to speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is not regarded in America as a proper person to visit the United States.

I do not think, therefore, that the scheme will be quite so popular in certain circles in America as we might hope from the spirit in which the House has accepted it this morning. When the 12 students are over here, they might even listen to speeches by, for instance, the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), and they may return home having imbibed doctrines which Senators McCarthy and McCarran suspect to be something akin to Communism. So that although we are doing something which I believe to be very good, certain people in America may, perhaps, regard it as very bad.

Why cannot we make a really good job of this? Why only 12 scholarships? Twelve scholarships are the equivalent of the cost of a tank, or one-tenth that of an American bomber. That is all that we can do to show our generous appreciation of Marshall Aid. There are certain restrictions which we shall need to alter in Committee. For example, why should students be chosen in such a way that there is apparently no opportunity for the very large number of Americans in this country to have the opportunity of applying? We have many thousands of young Americans over here at present who could benefit by the educational facilities which would be available if the money is to be granted. I do not see why the American airman and soldier in this country should not get the advantage of these educational facilities or why the scheme should be confined merely to academic courses in the universities.

What earthly use is it to invite Americans over here to study music at a British university? I appreciate music as well as anyone, but we want educational facilities which will lead to international understanding. I do not think we should be commemorating General Marshall in any special or distinctive way if we invited American students over here to follow musical courses which are available to them in the United States.

There are other rather niggardly proposals. For example, the American students will be given third-class boat and rail fare. I have a number of Americans in my constituency at the American base at Prestwick, and they come by air. Why cannot we be as generous? Most Americans like to travel by air in these days. Why should we say to them, "If you come to this country you can only have a third-class fare on the boat. You cannot come by air. You cannot come from New York to Prestwick like the people who go to the naval or military bases in this country." So that I think in the Committee discussions we should do away with a lot of these restrictions and make this gesture a really generous one.

I do not know how the Treasury or the Foreign Office fixed the age at 28. I have heard of 21 and of 19, but I do not know what arithmetical calculation resulted in the age of 28. The hon. Member for Lincoln said it was too high. I think it is too low. He mentioned a Senator who was included in a previous scheme, and I am all in favour of inviting American Senators. There was Senator Fulbright——

Mr. de Freitas

He was a Rhodes scholar many years ago, that is the point.

Mr. Hughes

I agree. But I would invite American Senators over to take advantage of any educational facilities available. I will not mention any names—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—but I think I could mention several distinguished and well-publicised members of the American Senate who could very well do with a refresher course on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

This is a Bill to commemorate Marshall Aid. I appreciate that Marshall Aid was a generous gesture, although, in view of some of the ways in which Marshall Aid has been employed in Europe, I am not sure that it can be regarded as far-sighted and really statesmanlike. But I do not want to pursue that point. I would say of General Marshall that, in my view, he was one of the best of them—he was not the most harmful of the American Generals. He had a sense of economic statesmanship and of the need for international reconstruction which marked him out as a distinctive figure, and so his name will probably go down in history.

He did look further than many statesman on both sides of the Atlantic. On one occasion he made a very remarkable speech which, I think, showed the essence of what we should all strive for in these difficult days. He made this speech on 31st May, 1950, at Arlington Cemetery. He surveyed the post-war world and the task confronting us. These are the very wise words he said: It would be unwise, it seems to me, to console ourselves with the thought that we would ultimately win if hostilities should break out again, because I fear that the victorious Power in another war will stand amidst its own ruin with little strength left to re-establish itself or to offer assistance to its neighbours. It will only enjoy the empty triumph of inheriting responsibility for a shattered and impoverished world. To one who follows the current trend of thought among the Western Powers it is evident they are well aware of this. They realise that, whoever wins another war, this generation will lose it. They realise that peace is a condition necessary to survival and they look to this country, not only for material and military strength to offset the probability of war, but, more important, I am sure they look to us for a clear re-statement of the moral principles we feel are essential to a peaceful international security. General Marshall concluded: Our greatest tribute to our dead will be a resolve that war must not happen again. I would say that if there is to be anything distinctive about the opportunities offered to these American students it should be that they should be able to devote themselves to the study of conditions in this country and conditions in Western Europe; so that America and Europe may co-operate in a way which will build up society and which will make the wars of the past impossible in the future.

12.17 p.m.

Mr. Nutting

May I reply, very briefly, to this debate? First I would say how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) for the welcome he gave to this Bill. Indeed, I would say also how grateful I am for the welcome it has received from all parties. It is notable that in the most helpful speeches and suggestions which we have had nearly everyone has asked for a broadening and a widening of the scope and application of this scheme.

Some of the suggestions made fall within the scope of the Bill and some outside it. The suggestions about the range of subjects to be taken up under these scholarships and the choice of the universities and so on, fall, of course, outside the scope of the Bill. But I will consider them carefully and draw them to the attention of the Commission in this country when it is set up; and also of our Ambassador in Washington so that he may draw the attention of the Advisory Council to the helpful suggestions which have been made.

The speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) was a most helpful contribution based on considerable experience of this question. But I do not think it will be as difficult to make the scheme distinctive as the hon. Member thinks. When one is drawing up a White Paper it is difficult to express precisely in terms how it is intended that the scheme should work out. When we get the scheme working the hon. Member will find that it is a good deal more distinctive than the rather barren words in the White Paper would make it appear.

I was asked by several hon. Members why 28 is the upper age limit. Of course, the answer is that some limit really had to be imposed. If it is fixed too low the field of choice is too small. If it is too high, the natural inclination will be to have more married and mature men coming over here who may not be able to play such a part in the communal life of the universities to which they go. But I will say that it is intended that the majority of these scholars who come over here shall be of the age 25.

Turning now to the suggestions which fall within the scope of the Bill, I give the House an assurance that I will consider them between now and the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham South made what I thought was a very useful point about the composition of the Commission and suggested that the words of the Bill might be altered so as to make it possible to increase it beyond the limit of seven. I think we shall be able to accept that suggestion in Committee, as well as the consequential alterations involved.

I have much sympathy with the suggestion made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), but that is a much more difficult proposition, and I cannot hold out any hope that we shall be able to broaden the scheme in that way. I will consider the point between now and the next stage of the Bill.

After this short reply, which I hope has dealt with most of the points raised, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Committee upon Monday next.