HC Deb 11 February 1958 vol 582 cc302-18

Order for Second Reading read.

8.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle)

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

The important purpose of the Bill, as the House is aware, is described in the Explanatory Memorandum as being …to provide for the vesting in the Trustees of the Imperial Institute of a new site for the Institute, and for the erection by them of a new building. The legislation under which the Imperial Institute is at present administered, that is to say the Act of 1925, confines the Institute to the buildings it at present occupies and it cannot be moved without amending legislation. The need to move the Institute derives from the decision of the Government that the Imperial College of Science and Technology should be developed on the South Kensington site to enable its student numbers to be raised from 1,650 to 3,000 and that the College should have first claim on other parts of the site as it becomes possible to release them from their present use. I hope the House will forgive me if I say a little more about this decision. I know that there are some people—I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) may be one —who are doubtful that public money should be spent in this way at all.

The original decision to expand the Imperial College of Science and Technology over the greater part of what one might term the South Kensington rectangle was announced in the House of Commons on 29th January, 1953. The decision to move the Institute was not taken until three years later and was announced by the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in another place on 25th January, 1956. From the point of view of the Imperial Institute itself it is obviously highly advantageous to secure new premises specially designed for its functions on a new site. There has been a certain amount of disagreement about the architectural merits of the Collcutt Building. It is not my function—I should not be so adventurous—to go into the subject tonight, but one must agree that the building is singularly ill-adapted for any current purpose. This point has been made in debates in another place.

The present dual occupation of what is generally known as the Imperial Institute dates from the end of last century when the Institute found itself in financial difficulties and was rescued by the Government who in 1899 took over the lease and discharged a substantial mortgage and floating debt, handing over to the London University those parts of the building which have been occupied by the University ever since. The decision to move the Institute taken two years ago by the Government meant, first, that a suitable new site had to be found and secured and, secondly, that a decision had to be reached about the size of the new building to be provided and how it should be financed.

After a very thorough search the Government were fortunate to find approximately three-and-a-quarter acres in Holland Park which they were able to lease from the owners, the Ilchester Estate, for a capital payment of £215,000 and an annual rental of £10. The negotiations were conducted by the Ministry of Works, in whose name the lease now stands. I need hardly assure the House that the Governors were consulted throughout the negotiations leading to a decision about the new site. They were strongly in favour of the site selected and this decision was endorsed by the trustees.

It was decided to provide the Institute with a building offering approximately equivalent space to that now available to it—that is to say, 102,000 square feet net and about 125,000 square feet gross. The Government believe that in this way proper compensation will be provided for the trustees and that the Institute should be able to use a well-designed and specifically planned new building to much better advantage than the old. The site and building will be provided at the expense of the Exchequer.

With some minor exceptions which I will mention, the Bill does not amend the Imperial Institute Act, 1925, in respect of the general pattern of responsibility for governing and managing the Institute. This pattern is a little compli- cated and it might perhaps be to the advantage of the House of I briefly outline the present pattern of government.

First, there is a body of trustees, some Ministers and some not, in whom is vested the building used by the Institute. Normally the trustees have no duties to perform except officially to safeguard the premises. Secondly, there is a responsible Minister, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education, who carries ultimate responsibility for the management of the Institute and who, with Parliament's approval, provides such moneys as are necessary to supplement the Institute's other sources of revenue. Thirdly, there is a body of Governors, some appointed by the Minister, some by the self-governing Commonwealth countries and some co-opted, to whom the responsibilities of management are mainly devolved. The Institute has a full-time director, whom my right hon. Friend appoints, and the rest of the staff are appointed by the director on behalf of the Governors.

The Bill proposes only two simple constitutional changes. The first is in the composition of the trustees, where the Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies replace the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council and the President of the Board of Trade. The second change is in the method of appointment of the private trustees. The present requirement for prior consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England and the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce is being dropped.

Perhaps I should say a word about the change of title to the Commonwealth Institute, because there has been some comment about this in the Press. This change was strongly recommended by the Governors and it has been agreed to in principle by all those Commonwealth Governments who have replied to the approach made to them. The Commonwealth is today the normally accepted title for what we used to think of as the Dominions and the Territories of the Empire which are not yet self-governing, and I cannot see that this change of title can be regarded in any way as controversial.

The Bill includes a provision in Clause 5 which I think the House will consider useful because it enables objects to be disposed of or lent. The financial Clause, Clause 6, implies a small alteration of procedure for the running expenses because at present the Ministry of Works in accordance with the agreement of 1899, pays the ground rent to the 1851 Commissioners and also meets the cost of rates and external maintenance. That is a matter of detail which we can consider later if the House wishes.

The Bill in no way alters the purposes of the Institute which are defined in the Order in Council of 1949, nor does it alter the composition or method of appointment of the governing body. It brings up to date, I think the House will agree rightly, the list of self-governing countries of the Commonwealth who have to be consulted before any changes in this regard are made by Order in Council. After the Bill becomes law we can consider making an Order in Council under the procedure of Section 8 of the 1925 Act to give any new member Government acceding to the Commonwealth the right to appoint members of the governing body.

Clause 3 enables the Minister to require the trustees to surrender parts of the present building. Here, perhaps, I might say something about the continuity of the Institute's activities pending the completion of the new building. Plans are already well advanced for certain readjustments of the Institute's present accommodation, so that the Eastern Galleries can be surrendered as soon as the Bill is passed. These arrangements have been worked out, so far as we are able, in close co-operation with the Imperial College authorities and need not, we believe, seriously affect the scale of the Institute's activities. Certainly, we will make a promise of every effort to reduce any subsequent disturbance. I hope the House will not press me too hard in this regard because we have, to some extent, to plan as we go along.

To enable progress on the new buildings to be made without delay the trustees have already selected the architects whom they will formally appoint when the new legislation gives them power to do so. The firm which has been invited to undertake the work, Robert Matthew and Johnson-Marshall, were selected by the trustees on the recommendation of the Governors from a number of firms who applied to be considered or had expressed their desire to undertake the job when approached.

On the question of costs, the cost allowed for the building has been fixed at a figure which, we think, should allow for imaginative planning and good quality finishes, but will, nonetheless, offer, as any new project should, a challenge to economy in design and construction.

I believe that the work done by the Institute is of considerable value. It is possibly of rather wider scope than many hon. Members imagine. I am told that in the Exhibition Galleries the total annual attendance today is about half a million. Special arrangements can be made for parties of organised visits of teachers with school children. I am told there were about 1,500 parties in 1957, totalling about 42,600 teachers and children.

There have been a number of special exhibitions, mainly of Commonwealth art, but other subjects of contemporary interest are included. There are three cinema performances daily of Commonwealth documentary films. Leaflets, maps, film-strips and study kits are provided both for the public and for school use. A number of travelling exhibitions circulate throughout the United Kingdom, with the help of the Central Office of Information. Then there is a lecture service for schools. Lectures are provided, on payment, mainly for schools but also for adult groups. The Institute has a panel of 80 lecturers, while a total of about 7.000 lectures to audiences of about 700,000 in all was given in 1957.

There were 36 conferences for sixth-form pupils, teachers and training-college students organised in various provincial centres last year. Finally, there is the Commonwealth Students Club, a comparatively small-scale activity, founded in 1954. Its membership is now about 300 and it forms a useful supplement to the activities of the British Council, the Colonial Office and Commonwealth Governments in London. It can be a useful meeting place. No doubt the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) will remember the very happy occasion during the height of the heat wave last summer when I had the opportunity of speaking there, in company with much more distinguished people, to teachers who were going out to Canada.

Perhaps the House will permit a personal note. I have a personal interest in the Institute because I was born within sight of it, and the towers of the Institute are one of my earliest childhood memories. Commonwealth Governments have of course been kept in full touch with the Government's proposals for the Institute, and it is hoped that in future they will contribute their share by helping to complete the modernisation of the exhibitions when the Institute is able to move to its new premises.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones (Wakefield)

I think that most of us have some feeling of regret that the building with which we are so familiar in South Kensington will very soon disappear, with the exception of the famous tower. For that reason, one is inclined to regret the necessity for this Bill. On the other hand, we welcome, first, the change in the name of the Institute and secondly, the fact that a more satisfactory building will be forthcoming for the Commonwealth Institute, and that there will also be better accommodation for the Royal College of Science and Technology.

I sometimes think it unfortunate that only on rare occasions do we in this House give any attention at all to London's poverty of buildings concerned with Commonwealth ideals and purposes. One therefore hopes that the new building to be put up on the site in High Street, Kensington, will he completely worthy as a Commonwealth centre, will, to some extent, illustrate the contribution that Britain has made in transforming an Empire into the Commonwealth, and will express all those purposes for which that Commonwealth stands.

We have waited quite a long time, for instance, for the new Colonial Office to flourish on the site opposite Westminster Abbey. When we originally discussed the shape of that office, we were very anxious that it should be a genuine Commonwealth centre in which the British Government could act as host to Commonwealth visitors. We thought of it as a centre where people from the dependent territories could receive a welcome, and a place to house the library and all the rest of it, and have just those amenities that are at present altogether absent from a London that prides itself on being an important Commonwealth centre. I therefore hope that the new building will not only provide for exhibitions and lectures, but will also have the facilities for providing just those Commonwealth amenities that are, as I say, absent from London today.

In passing, I should like to refer to the destruction of the present building. I hope that the Queen's Tower of the Collcutt Building will be preserved in such a way that it will not be incongruous in the new building that is to be erected for the Royal College of Science and Technology. I felt that it was a piece of vandalism to suggest that that rather beautiful campanile should be destroyed, and I was more than pleased when public agitation persuaded the Government that this rather striking tower, so familiar to Londoners, should be preserved in the new building. I think it would have been something of a reproach in this scientific age if a building of some æaesthetic quality were to be ruthlessly destroyed merely in the interests of scientific teaching.

There are only a few things I want to say about the Bill, because we welcome the provision that is made in it for the Institute itself. I am one of those who believe that the Imperial Institute has done and is doing excellent work, though it is odd to recall that the Institute was founded in the heyday of British imperialism. It was not, of course, founded by governments; it was founded by private subscription. It is also of great interest to recall that many developments in our own imperial history and in our own colonial work have occurred as a result of private initiative and private money rather than Government initiative and Government money.

That was the case here, and in 1899, like Uganda, this Institute was the unwanted baby put on the doorstep of the Government, and it has since that time suffered various vicissitudes in regard to its purpose and control. As we know, there have been a number of inquiries as to how its purpose could be better defined. I think that now, as a result of the Order of 1949, it has reached more stability so far as its objects are concerned. The scientific work which it did was hived off after the war, and, at that time, was referred to the Colonial Office. Now, there is one responsible Minister—the Minister of Education—and the work of the Institute is primarily concerned with propaganda and educational work.

It is important to note that, although called the Imperial Institute, the Institute has not concerned itself with pressing on the public the rather blatant form of imperialism. I think it has worked to increase our understanding of colonial problems, Commonwealth problems, and the rest. It has served a great educational purpose, and has sought to promote good will. I quite agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the scope of the work, how important and how far-reaching is that work, how many people have enjoyed the facilities which the Institute has offered, and how, in so many new directions, particularly in recent years under the direction of Mr. Kenneth Bradley, the value of the Institute has increased.

The fact that it can act as host to Commonwealth visitors, that it can assist in the exhibition of the creative efforts of artists from various parts of the Commonwealth, the fact that it can send on the way these travelling exhibitions, besides holding important exhibitions in its own buildings, reaching school parties and the rest—all these are of the greatest importance.

There are several things I would wish to say in regard to the Institute as it at present works. First, I hope that the importance and value of its work will be recognised more fully, and that it will not be starved of the necessary funds with which to conduct its work efficiently and give greater publicity to its material. It is true that virtually all countries of the Commonwealth subscribe to it, but I hope that the Government will feel that its work is of such importance, much of it being directed to the people of Great Britain, that they will see that the necessary finance is forthcoming.

I make the further suggestion that we should have on the bodies responsible for the government and management of the Institute as lively and as imaginative people as can be got. There is a great tendency for institutions coming under the wing of the Government to put people of the "establishment" to serve on the governing bodies, with the result that little imagination or initiative is shown. I hope, therefore, that people of radical views—non-conformists, not in the religious sense, but people who feel strongly about the value and importance of the Commonwealth—will find a place on the committees responsible for the government of the Institute.

We welcome the change of name and are glad that it will now be the "Commonwealth Institute." The term "imperialist" is a little old fashioned. It is singular that our own phase of imperialism in this country was very short. We have not been a great imperial people. Although there was, for a short time towards the end of the nineteenth century, some excessive jubilation and jingoism and some extravagant and flamboyant talk about British domination over the years, these old notions about imperialism and imperial power are dead for ever now. It is, therefore, fitting, as the Parliamentary Secretary reminded us, that we should use the name "Commonwealth Institute" rather than retain the old name of "Imperial Institute."

Most of us welcome also the additional provision made in the Bill for the circulation of exhibitions of material not only in this country but to territories overseas also, and the provision that material which is surplus can be sold off or given to the Commonwealth.

We welcome the Bill. The Institute is doing a first-class job in spreading knowledge and understanding and promoting sound race relations, keeping alive in the public mind and the mind of the rising generation the great principles and ideals for which the Commonwealth stands. The Institute is doing an excellent job, and one hopes that it will flourish in the new building and in the new conditions which will come as the result of the working out of the provisions of the Bill.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

I also welcome the Bill. I enjoyed a morning at the Institute in the company of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I say at once that, although he suggested in his opening speech that he was the least distinguished speaker that morning, he most certainly was not.

We all welcome the change of name. The word "Empire" is, of course, now completely anachronistic, and a change was long overdue. When I was at school some years ago in a mining village of Northumberland, we had Empire Day. We all voted the best-looking girl in the school to be the queen to sit upon a dais or platform, like Britannia on the penny, and we sang our songs and marched past on a beautiful sunny day.

Although the old-fashioned idea about the Empire is now gone and although no one can be jingoistic, it would not be bad to think today of Commonwealth Days, with the changed nature of our association with all these dependent peoples. We have now many coloured Dominions—Ghana and the like—which are now on an equal footing with the Anglo-Saxon Dominions of New Zealand and Canada. I think there is a case for having a Commonwealth Day instead of the old-fashioned Empire Day. I put that suggestion in an all-party spirit. At election time and other times, one is amused by the Conservative Party members who have Union Jacks on their election platforms. It is amusing to think that they still claim to have a monopoly of what I might term vision and almost ownership of our Commonwealth territories overseas. The Attlee Government of 1945–50 changed all this, in Asia particularly, and we also can put our Union Jacks on our platforms and rejoice in a Commonwealth Day like hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I now come to the question of teaching in the schools. There needs to be a much bigger push. The Ministry, perhaps, can put out a circular to teachers teaching Commonwealth affairs in schools. I have just been to America and I was staggered at the ignorance I found there among the English-speaking peoples of the new world of North America, apart from the ignorance to be found in our own schools and society. It is as bad, of course, with our overseas connections, not merely in North America, but in Australasia and Africa. This year for the first time a sixth-form party has gone to, I think, Ghana, as distinct from those which in the past have gone to Scandinavia and the continent of Europe.

Sir E. Boyle

I myself took that very party over the House of Commons and they had an extremely good time.

Mr. Johnson

We should welcome many more of these tours, particularly to West Africa and the new coloured Dominions, although I know that expense is a problem. However, the start which has been made is encouraging.

If one looks at the Annual Report of the Institute from page 22 onwards, one is heartened to find the work done by Mr. Kenneth Bradley and his enthusiastic staff. I was particularly intrigued by a course in North Devon where the subject chosen was the Commonwealth in Africa. A number of North Devon schools, some six or eight, covered Africa in this way. One is equally pleased by the number of lectures, courses and other activities in the schools conducted by the staff. Let us encourage this.

I hope that the Minister will not in any way feel parsimonious about this matter and will give the Institute as much financial help as is possible. Education such as this is most important. Today far too many people, both in and out of school, particularly in the Commonwealth and indeed in America, are plagued about the bogy of Communism. I have not been bothered about it so much as has capitalism in other parts. The big issue in the world, as I find it, is this matter of colour and Colonialism, of anti-Imperialism.

I hope that the Minister, by means of an institution such as this, will endeavour to get in the schools as much knowledge, fair-mindedness and fair thinking as he can about our coloured Dominions. The Suez Canal issue has gone. The Bandoeng Conference has gone. The significance of Bandoeng was not political. Bandoeng was the first cultural conference of coloured peoples and it was the first conference where coloured peoples had gone together with no white men, no imperialists such as the Dutch, ourselves or others, to keep them to a time-table, to take the chair and to tell them when to have their discussions. This today is the significance of colonial development overseas.

Any work that the Institute can do among our own schools and our own school population to widen their knowledge of the overseas coloured Dominions will be work well done. I am very happy to see the Bill before the House and I welcome all its provisions.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

This is not a party or partisan Measure, and it should not therefore be dealt with in a party or partisan manner. I hope that the few observations of a critical character which I have to make will not be regarded as being made in other than a constructive spirit.

I want to mention some anomalies arising from the Bill and in the Minister's speech and the circumstances in which the Bill comes before us. For certain parts of the Bill, the Minister did not make a good case, while there are other parts that speak for themselves and for which he made a good case. I refer particularly to the economics of the situation. In 1954–55, the total income of the Institute from all sources was £77,439, while the total outlay was £75,372. The House will thus see that the margin was very small indeed for any organisation, and particularly small for a public institution.

In the year 1955–56, the total income from all sources was £83,206, while the total outlay was £82,570. The margin was still small. It was only £635 19s. 10d. for the year. I am quite sure the House will agree that that is a very small margin for any public institution and justifies our taking into account the figures in considering the future of the Institute.

The Government deal with that situation by bringing in this little Bill, which seeks to discard the Institute's present house, which cost £354,000 to build and which has been found useful for many years. But that is not the end of the story. The Government propose to build a new house that will cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds and will be particularly expensive at the present time, having regard to the high cost of materials and labour.

The Institute urgently needs more money, as the figures which I have indicated show. It needs more money to carry out the excellent work that it has carried out up to the present. I am not saying one word of a critical character of the work carried out by the Institute. It has been doing very good work, but it does not have enough money to continue it. Still less has it sufficient money to expand.

A heavy burden rests upon the Minister to justify the provisions of the Bill. It has five main objects. The first is to alter the name of the Institute. That is good, and it accords with the times in which we live, because although we still have a dependent Empire, it is diminishing as the Commonwealth grows, and "Commonwealth" is a much more appropriate word for the title of the Institute. Secondly, the Bill proposes to change the membership of the trustees. That speaks for itself, and on that point at least the Minister has made his case. The membership of the trustees is to be brought more into accord with the times in which we live.

Thirdly, the Bill proposes that the Institute be moved from a seven-acre site to a three-and-a-quarter acre site, and that is a very questionable proposal. The Minister has said that the Institute needs expansion. If it does, why pull down the house in which it now lives? Why not extend it over some of the seven acres which are available to it? This proposal to discard the present house while there are acres over which it could expand is more than questionable. It is proposed to discard this fine building which cost £354,000 and to build another one at the present expensive building rates. That is a very improvident proposal. The Minister will be hard put to it to justify it in this day and generation. Indeed, he has not attempted to justify it. His speech gave no adequate reasons in justification.

In answering these questions, we must consider the aims of the Institute, whether they have been carried out, what must be done to carry them out, whether they cannot be carried out effectively in the present building, and whether Treasury money should be spent in this way when there is open to the Institute the possibility of continuing to use the building which has been so effective up to the present and to extend it over the available seven acres. I know that the main purpose of the Bill is expressed as to improve the usefulness of the Imperial Institute to the Empire and Commonwealth. I am in complete agreement with that purpose. I am all for giving information and instruction about the Empire and Commonwealth. The Institute has been doing this, and doing it well, in the present building. Therefore, in my submission, a case has not been made out for the Bill in that respect.

Let us look at what the purposes are, how far they have been implemented, what obstacles have been met, how they have been dealt with, whether they have been overcome, in what way the Bill will assist these purposes in the future, and whether the Measure is really necessary. The Minister has not made out a case for the Bill. I should not be at all surprised if a case could be made out for it, but the House is entitled to have that case made out here and now.

The purposes of the Institute are set out clearly under four heads. The main one is to promote the educational, commercial and industrial interests of the Commonwealth. The other three are subsidiary. They may be set out in general terms as spreading relevant information, co-operate with other relevant organisations and doing whatever else is necessary. These purposes have been carried out very well by the Institute up to the present.

Addison, the essayist, said that when he was a boy his father and mother had a large family Bible. At the foot of each of its pages there was the note, "Foregoing text: Doubts raised and answered." He said that the doubts were always effectively raised in his young mind but the answers were not always persuasive. The Minister's speech, coupled with the Bill, has raised more doubts than it has solved. I for one am not persuaded by his speech, and by reading the Bill, that a case has been made out.

For the Institute, it can be said that its purposes are high, its performances are efficient, its administration is excellent, but all in the existing house, all in the existing premises. Why, therefore, change? Why discard the existing expensive house, which cost over £354,000 to build, and build a new one when there are seven acres over which to expand?

Against the Institute, it can be said that its name is out of date. I am with the Minister on that point, and the Bill is good because it makes the requisite change. Further, it can be said that the accommodation is inadequate. That has not been proved. The Minister has not taken us room by room through the building to show how inadequate it is. He has made no effort to show that it is inadequate for the various purposes for which it was designed, and no case has been adduced to show that it is inadequate.

Mr. Speaker, before you came into the Chamber I urged that a heavy burden rests upon the Minister to justify large expenditure of this kind. A very heavy burden rests upon the hon. Gentleman to show why the present expensive house, which has been used satisfactorily for so many years for these excellent purposes, should be discarded and why a new one should be built. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will answer some of the questions I have asked before the House is invited to give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

My sole reason in rising to speak briefly is that, despite what the Minister said, I was born closer to the Institute than he was. In fact, I have lived within yards of the Institute all my life, and geometrically midway between the Institute and the site of Holland House, where the new Institute will be built.

I was not impressed by what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). Whenever I have tried to intervene in a debate concerning Scottish matters, I have noticed a certain reluctance to listen on the part of Scottish Members. I can only say, having heard the hon. and learned Gentleman this evening, that I am surprised he has intervened in this London matter, because it is clear from what he said that he does not know the Institute.

It was built at the worst period of English architecture. I refer not to the quality of building but to the design. Although I know that the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) are supported by many people, with all respect I do not think the tower has any beauty and I would happily see it come down. It is a Victorian monstrosity, and the sooner something better is put in its place, the better. If the Government have given way to pressure or propaganda on this point, I am sorry, and I hope they will think again.

The Institute was built on a large number of acres at a time when land was easily available. The rooms are too large and I imagine they are difficult to heat and keep clean. Except that I shall see the passing of an old friend, one I have known all my life, I shall not be sorry to see that Victorian building come down. If a better building can be erected on a smaller acreage, so much the better, and if in doing so we encourage the teaching of science, which is so necessary these days, in the new building, so much the better. If I may say so, we are killing two very good birds with one stone, the one stone being the Bill.

I regret the passing of the name. I see nothing wrong in talking about the "Imperial Institute," the British Empire" or the "imperial heritage". I am not in the least ashamed to talk about those things. In fact, I am proud of them. I look upon those people who talk about anti-imperialism—not in this country but in other countries—as being excitable people who get slogans into their heads without knowing in the least what they mean. If it is in the fashion of modern trends to call a rose by any other name, let it be so; I shall not object in any way.

I rose only to pay this public tribute on the passing of an old friend. I could not let it go, knowing it very well, and living so close to it, without saying a few words. I have said those few words, and I will now resume my seat.

9.21 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle

By leave of the House, I want very briefly to respond to some of the points raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) welcomed the Bill in a very agreeable speech and raised three matters to which I want to reply. He first raised the question of the future of the Collcutt Tower. The Government have studied a report on the stability of the Collcutt Tower as a free-standing campanile. This shows that it will be technically possible to keep the tower, and it has therefore been decided that the planning of the rectangle site in South Kensington should proceed on the assumption that the tower is to be retained. I do not want to become involved in the aesthetic dispute, because inevitably we do not all have the same tastes.

The right hon. Gentleman hoped that we would have a lively and imaginative Board of Governors, not all necessarily drawn from the "establishment". I have no quarrel with that remark, which was perfectly fair.

He hoped that the Institute would not be starved of funds. I have the figures which show that in the last four financial years, starting with 1954–55 and ending with 1957–58, the Ministry of Education in grants-in-aid provided respectively £8,000, £ 16,000, £24,000 and £30,000, so that in real terms there has been an increase in the last four years.

The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) made what might be called a slightly intemperate speech in places. The need to move the Institute, to which he took strong exception, derives from the Government's decision that the Imperial College of Science and Technology should be developed on the South Kensington site, and after a very careful examination of the requirements of the College and those of the Institute the Government concluded that the College could not expand as intended unless the Institute were moved elsewhere. I ask him to accept that assurance and obviously at this hour of the night we need not go through a room by room examination of what is provided in the Institute.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) hoped that schools would not neglect Commonwealth Day. There is a Question on the Order Paper about this and I must be careful to keep in order. By circular letter to local education authorities my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has drawn attention to the fact that the Commonwealth is suitably celebrated on 24th May. My right hon. Friend has also drawn attention to United Nations Day and he will continue annually to draw the attention of authorities by circular letter to this matter. I fully agree with what the hon. Member for Rugby said in his interesting speech and I entirely agree with him about the very great importance of knowledge in our schools about the realities of the Commonwealth today.

Perhaps with those words the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole — [Colonel J.H. Harrison.]

Committee Tomorrow.