HL Deb 09 December 1952 vol 179 cc847-90

4.3 p.m.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH rose to draw attention to the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Imperial Institute, presided over by Lord Tweedsmuir, which has recently been published by the Ministry of Education; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the considerable change in the activities of the Institute envisaged in that report, they will consider the transfer of the Imperial Institute to a more suitable site, and thus free the present site for use by its neighbour, the Imperial College, in order to give much-needed additional facilities for the higher training of scientists and engineers; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have had this Motion down on the Order Paper for some time, so I will not trouble your Lordships by reading it. I believe that all those interested in the subject have had time to consider it. I am sure that we are all much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and his Committee, for the interesting Report which they have submitted. Anyone who reads the Report will re-echo the congratulations of the Committee to the Board of Governors of the Imperial Institute and their Director for the results which they have achieved and which the Committee point out in their Report have been obtained under conditions which at times have been both difficult and delicate.

It is clear that, as time went by, the high hopes which were originally formed in 1888 of the work to be carried out by the Imperial Institute have not been fulfilled. In 1899 the Institute ran into financial difficulties. The Government took over the buildings, and part of them were given to the Institute and the other part was assigned to the London University. In 1902 a further change took place in the affairs of the Institute, and an Act was passed whereby the management of the Institute was handed over to the Board of Trade. Again, a further change took place in 1907, when the management was handed over to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. This position was regularised by a further Act of Parliament which was passed in 1916. In 1923, a Committee was set up presided over by Mr. Ormesby-Gore, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and his Committee made various recommendations, one of which was for the closing of the galleries. This recommendation was, however, reversed in 1925. Following the Report of the Ormesby-Gore Committee, a further Act was passed giving control of the Institute to the Department of Overseas Trade. The last change in this complicated history was in 1949, when the Institute this time passed to the Ministry of Education, and to-day we have before us the Report of Lord Tweedsmuir and his Committee to the Minister of Education.

This Report, as many of your Lordships have no doubt seen, emphasises the great changes that have taken place, not merely since the Institute was founded, but since its activities were last reviewed by the Ormesby-Gore Committee in 1923. It is obvious that, through no fault of its own, but due to conditions entirely outside its control, over a period which has perhaps been the most eventful years of our history, the whole position of the Institute has greatly changed. When the ordinary man in the street thinks of the Institute it is of a great block of buildings in South Kensington, with its massive central tower facing Imperial Institute Road, and of the galleries behind it. But what are the facts? The whole of the eastern side of that great block of central buildings has, for many years, been under the control of the London University and has nothing whatever to do with the Imperial Institute. The London University uses that great block for its examination halls.

The western side of the main block is used by a number of different occupiers. For example, there is the chemical laboratory of the Chemical Products Advisory Board and there is also the laboratory of the Colonial Geological Survey. There is a large library dealing chiefly with scientific subjects. The actual floor space occupied for what one may call the proper function of the Imperial Institute is relatively small compared with the floor space of that great building. These, then, are the uses to which that one building, which occupies a site in one of the most educational areas in London, is being put. Many of those activities, I venture to think, are not in any way associated with the objects for which the Institute was founded. No wonder the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in his Report considers that drastic changes should be made if a continuation of the Imperial Institute is to be achieved.

The Imperial College of Science and Technology is immediately adjacent to the sites occupied by the main buildings and galleries of the Imperial Institute. This College has been referred to in a recent Report by the 1951 Commission as "the leading Institute of its kind in the Commonwealth." Last summer, as many of your Lordships will remember, there was a two-day debate in this House, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, which dealt very largely with this vital problem of scientific education. The Motion was supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House, and it was quite clear from a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wootton—whose absence from the House we so much regret and who, we are glad to learn, is now recovering from his recent serious illness —that this Motion of Lord Samuel was approved by Her Majesty's Government. This was apparent, not only from the speech made by Lord Woolton, but also from a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell; and it is quite clear that the Government were in great sympathy with any effort that could possibly be made to increase facilities for the training of scientists and technologists.

Indeed, as has been admitted on all sides, we in this country, both from the point of view of our industrial demand and from the point of view of educational claims, are very short of this class of highly-trained personnel. And not only in this country does this difficulty arise; we have, not only in the Colonial Territories but in the Dominions as well, new universities springing up, where there is a great demand for teachers of the highest calibre. If we in this country are not able to meet this demand, then we shall suffer a serious setback; British science, which rightly stands in very high prestige overseas, will suffer; and if we do not fill these vacancies other people will—there is no question about that. These vacancies have got to be filled soon. In addition there is the economic aspect. If we send overseas engineers and teachers trained in this country and imbued with British practice and British ideas, sooner or later we shall find them coming back, flooded with orders for British equipment and British machinery of all kinds. If we do not take the opportunity to enable young men to get the training that is required, we shall find sooner or later that other people will be stepping in and taking advantage of the great opportunities; and we shall be left behind in this great race for supremacy. I beg your Lordships, let us not be once more too late in dealing with a very serious matter of this kind.

I want now to say one or two words about the position of the Imperial College. There is a great demand at the present moment for places for young men to come into this college, but the places are not available because there is not sufficient space in which proper training can be carried out. There is also a great demand, which I think is even more important, not only for undergraduate but also for post-graduate students. The College has been building up a great international reputation for the high quality of the post-graduate work that is carried out. Now what is to be done to find additional accommodation? Any great expansion scheme would be extremely expensive to carry out. As we know, the national finances are strained, and I cannot conceive of a great deal of money being available for such a purpose at the present time. In addition, any large scheme for putting up new buildings will call for new sites. As I said a few moments ago, the demand is pressing; and if we postpone it and think that in ten years or so it may be that we shall be able to build a great new scientific college somewhere on the outskirts of London, we shall have lost ten invaluable years which would make a great difference to our position in the future.

My object in drawing your Lordships' attention to the Tweedsmuir Report is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give us some help in dealing with this vital matter of additional accommodation. I have already shown that the main block of the Imperial Institute is only in small part used for the purposes for which it was originally intended. Could not the more active part of the Institute be moved to some central position somewhere near the main Government offices? No doubt part of the reason why the Institute, over the sixty years during which it has been in operation, has been relatively ineffective, is due to the fact that it is banished to South Kensington, which must be very inconvenient to all concerned.

Another question which I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government is whether the London University could not be given some priority in obtaining the building licences, so that it may start building its new examination halls in Bloomsbury. The University has been pressing for this some time now, but I understand that in the ordinary course of events it will be many years before such licences can be granted. But if alicence of this kind could be granted, the effect would be that in a few years it could vacate the site in South Kensington and thus release a good deal of floor space there which could be occupied by the Imperial College. But, whatever happens, that will take a number of years yet, owing to delay in obtaining building materials at the present time.

There are a number of other suggestions which I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider with a view to enabling more space to be obtained in South Kensington in a relatively short time. Could not the library at the Imperial Institute be combined with the Science Library which is only just across the road? It seems to me a piece of rather bad planning to have two large libraries, dealing with more or less the same subjects, almost contiguous. I believe that a considerable increase in efficiency would be obtained if the two libraries were combined. A large amount of space could then be made available. And could not the Colonial Products Laboratory, which is mainly a chemical laboratory, be combined with another chemical laboratory, say, the Government one at Teddington? That would give probably increased efficiency with a considerable saving in space.

One other suggestion I would make is this. Could not the Colonial Geological Laboratory—which, again, is housed in the Imperial Institute Buildings—be combined with the Geological Survey Laboratory? Here, again, a great deal of space could be saved. I cannot help feeling that probably increased efficiency also would be obtained. If these buildings could be freed, the laboratory could easily be turned over for educational and research purposes and a good deal of room would be available in a very short time at a relatively low cost. Behind the main building, as your Lordships know, are the galleries of the Institute. These galleries have a large number of most interesting show cases, and those of your Lordships who have time to visit them no doubt realise what a great deal of effort and attention has been given to make them interesting and instructive. But who visits those galleries? They are largely attended by parties of school children. No doubt, the children enjoy a day or an afternoon off from their lessons, and we hope that they benefit from what they see; but I should like to ask the Government whether they can balance up the claims of these school children with the claims of the numbers of senior young men and women who require the space occupied by these galleries for pursuing their highly scientific and technical subjects.

If the Government felt that they could not give all those galleries to the Imperial College, it might be possible to come to an arrangement whereby perhaps one half of the galleries were used for scientific research and development, and one half for purposes of display, chiefly appreciated, as I say, by school children. If the Government could do that, a great deal of space would be obtained in a relatively short time, and the cost of this changeover would not be large.

The last part of my Motion deals with much the same subject—that is, the proper planning of that part of the South Kensington site which exists between Queen's Gate and Exhibition Road, on the one side, and Imperial Institute Road and Prince Consort Road, on the other. I have placed plans on the Table in case any of your Lordships are interested to see what is the exact position of this site. The site has the advantage of being practically entirely owned by the Government. As the result of there being one owner, you would think full advantage would have been taken of planning. If ever the word "Balkanising" was justified in any part of the world, it is justified in connection with this South Kensington site. Every conceivable user has been allowed at one time or another to enter upon it. There is no definite planning whatever and, as a result, nobody can expand, nobody knows how they can develop and nobody has any future scheme for developing the site on a big scale, because planning has been so neglected in the past. I am quite certain that if that very valuable and important site had been in the control of a private owner, he would have had much more sense of responsibility than has been displayed, I am afraid, by those responsible in the past for the development of this very valuable property. He would at least have seen that there was a uniform plan for the development of the land. I would therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will appoint a committee to consider the whole future of this South Kensington site. It is of great importance for the future of education in this country.

Just think what wonderful developments there could be on this site. One can conceive of the existing Imperial Institute building, provided another site is found for the activities of the Imperial Institute, turning into a great Commonwealth scientific library. One can conceive of the various untidy and somewhat purposeless buildings on the hinterland of the site gradually disappearing, and a great scheme of development emerging under which a scientific college, worthy of the site and worthy of the name, would be established. This is a great conception, a conception which was the dream of the Prince Consort many years ago after the 1851 Exhibition. I hope that the Government will do all they can to enable this great dream to become true. I beg to move for Papers.

4.26 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just spoken has put his case very clearly. We are left in no doubt as to what he wants. He has read the Report and he has come to certain conclusions about it. I have read the Report and I have come to exactly the opposite conclusions about it—which shows how difficult it is always to assume that a set of facts are going to lead to any particular conclusion that one desires. The genesis of the Exhibition, as your Lordships know, was in the Great Exhibition of 1851, the profit from which went partly into providing this Exhibition Hall, Institute and Centre. It was one of the few great international Exhibitions, I believe, that has made a profit. Certainly, it had not much competition in those days. It was a novelty. Few Exhibitions since that day have followed its example.

In the first place, I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and his Committee on a first-class piece of work in producing this Report. The conclusions that I personally come to are not all that they have come to, but they have given us the facts and they have certainly produced a very workmanlike Report. In view of the facts, and particularly in view of what they say on page 4, I am afraid that if the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, is agreed to, then, so far as the Imperial Institute is concerned, it will constitute what in Lord Chancellor Bacon's day was called a "killing decree" in other words, there will be no Imperial institute at all. On page 4 of the Report the Committee say: …we cannot ignore the fact that owing to financial and other difficulties the chances of obtaining premises as impressive and as spacious in a more central position may be regarded as negligible, and we recommend that the present building continue to be used for the new purpose. I do not think there, is any doubt in any of our minds—there should be none, at all events—that if we agree to the taking over of those premises by the Imperial College of Science or other learned bodies, then the Imperial Institute must die, as there is no other place, nor is there likely to be any other place, in this metropolis for such an Institute. In fact, the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, gave point to my conclusion, because he himself emphasised the fact that the Imperial College of Science could not get anywhere else and was not likely to be able to do so for at least ten years. And that I would say, is an under-statement.

There are two aspects of the work of this great Institute. The first is the scientific and technical aspect, now under the Colonial Office. In conjunction with the Colonial Aerial Survey, the work of this Institute in providing accurate data for explorers, prospectors and others concerned with minerals, cuts down the time of exploration not merely by months hut by years. It is quite possible, with the facts and data obtained from those two organisations, to have a fairly accurate idea nowadays, anywhere where the Colonial Aerial Survey has been, as to whether prospecting is likely to be successful or not. The work of that part of the Exhibition is not in question, except that the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, wants to turn them out to some place unspecified. Before we think of jettisoning them from South Kensington, we must realise that their work is of very great national importance, and they are not to be pushed aside into any cubby hole or half a shelf in a laboratory, such as appears to be the intention.

The main argument, however, is on the Exhibition, and attention in the Report has been concerned mainly with this aspect of the work of the Institute. As the Report quite rightly says, at paragraph 3 on page 2, the main emphasis should shift from products to persons. I think it is an absolute scandal that this Institute should have had to pay its way by letting out portions of its premises like some seaside boarding-house keeper. I think the centre of a great Commonwealth and Empire like this should have been able to do far more than it has done, not merely for the products side but for the personal side. I believe that very little at the present Exhibition is devoted to persons, it is mainly to products, and on that point, in a moment, I am going to hang my tale.

If I may criticise the Report, I would say that to my mind it has failed in one particular—though I hope the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir will not consider that I do not give him full credit for what he has done. The people who prepared the Report do not seem to have tackled the fundamental problem. They have not analysed it and, of course, they have not given an answer to it. To my mind, the fundamental question is: Why has the Exhibition failed? That question arises out of this Report. There is no doubt that it has failed, not completely, but to a large extent. If any of your Lordships were to go out into the streets of London andask anybody at all whether he had ever heard of the Imperial Institute I guarantee that he would say "No." There will be very few people in London who will say that they have heard of it. Why is that? Why, at the heart of a great Commonwealth, have not at any rate a large proportion of our citizens knowledge of this Institute? I would venture to give to your Lordships what I think are the reasons.

First of all, there is the general apathy of the public on Colonial questions. As your Lordships know, a few years ago the Colonial Office organised a "Gallup Poll" on Colonial matters, which produced some very extraordinary results—I am now going to shock Lord Sempill. Quite a number of those interrogated thought that Scotland was a Colony; some there were, ignorant people, who thought that Wales was a Colony; and 3 per cent. thought the United States was a Colony. When Colonel McCormick of the Chicago Tribune was told that, he said, "Why shouldn't they think so? We act like it, don't we?" But, however that may be, there was instanced a large mass of ignorance of the Colonies. I think some 46 per cent. of the people consulted were unable to name a single Colony. This is a factor which we have to recognise, but in itself it is a challenge. Public apathy should not be accepted; it should be fought.

I would say that the second reason why the Imperial Institute has failed in its purpose is because, for many years past, through no fault of those who have been dealing with it, it has lacked the right methods and the right persons to run it. Paragraph 8 of the Report suggests improvements. I agree with those suggestions; I think they are excellent. I would go further. I would suggest that we expand and develop the proposals made and make the Institute appeal to a wide section or strata of the population. After all, when we had the Colonial Exhibition in London in 1949 on the ground floor and in the basement of a shop in Oxford Street, over half a million people visited it in a matter of about two months. So it is possible to get people in if you have the right sort of facilities and the right sort of appeal. One thing we did was to station outside the door two Gold Coast policemen, in full uniform. They had a tremendous attraction. There are all sorts of ways in which one can get people in. I am not suggesting that the Colonial Office should provide a policeman all the time, but I instance that as the sort of thing that happened on that occasion.

I believe that it is very important, with an Institute of this kind, to have people possessing knowledge of and a flair for showmanship. On December 27, 1841, a young businessman, P. T. Barnum, took over the American Museum which had fallen on evil times. He knew nothing about museums; he knew very little about showmanship, but he had a flair for showmanship. Although I do not suggest that the Ministry of Education or the noble Earl should do the same things as he did, at least he quickly made that Exhibition the one place in New York which visitors, whether from Europe or from the far West, as it was in those days, visited—he put it "on the map" in New York. He managed to delude the people with various odd things, like mermaids and so on, but it was really an Institute of America—an Institute Americana. I should like to see the same sort of flair for showmanship used here. The Directors have been scholars, Colonial Office officials or Colonial servants. They have done their best; they have done a good job. But I am not really sure whether that type of person, for whom I have great admiration, is the type to run what is, or should be, a popular Exhibition in this country. As I understand it, it is not intended for pundits from abroad, but for the public of this country—to give them a real knowledge of what is going on in the Colonies. I take it that that is the real idea. So what we want as a director is a man with a knowledge of, and a flair for showmanship.

Let us turn again to the Committee's Report. Suggestions have been made in paragraph 12 at page 16 of the Report as to who should constitute the Council of the Institute. Again, these are all official persons, eminent, reliable and responsible men; but men, probably, of a kind who would be aghast at some of the tricks that would have to be played to make this Exhibition popular in a popular sense. I should like to see somebody who has had experience with, say, Bertram Mills's Circus, or Madame Tussaud's, and the gentleman who has lately been knighted, Sir Herbert Joseph, who helped to pull the Battersea Exhibition out of its difficulties, and who runs a fairground at Porthcawl. That is the sort of man (not only that kind of man, of course) who should be on this Council. I am sure we ought to have that type of man represented, as well as those who know the Colonies and who know the business side of the Exhibition.

We have got to be careful about all this, because the attitude of the Colonial pundits in this country, whether in the Colonial Office or elsewhere, has sometimes been inclined to keep interest in the Colonies restricted to a narrow circle. When we had in London the Colonial Exhibition which I have mentioned, the authorities were going to charge a shilling a head entrance fee, until I stopped it. I said, "What are you charging a shilling a head for?" I was told that it was to "keep the mob out." I said, "We want the mob in. We want the woman struggling up Oxford Street with a basket on her arm and half a dozen children to come in. That is the sort of person we want in. We do not want to keep such people out." The shilling charge was dropped, I am glad to say, with the strong support of the Treasury and the Colonial Office. Even to-day we have had an example of that from the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth. He said—as if that were something in its disfavour—"Who goes to this Exhibition? Schoolchildren!" They are the very people to be encouraged. And, so far from being anything which is to the detriment of the Exhibition, I regard as a great thing in its favour the fact that schoolchildren, whether in parties or individually, go there. I think, too, that the attitude of Colonial societies is frequently restrictive. I believe that very often, and to a far greater extent than they should, they mentally "take in each other's washing," and they do not attract inside those people who ought to be encouraged to come in.

I would make one suggestion, if I may, on a matter of detail. In paragraph 5, on page 5, the Report suggests that the name "Imperial Institute" be changed to "Commonwealth Institute." I entirely agree with that suggestion as to "Commonwealth." But why "Institute"? Institute has a clear connotation. In this country it has a sort of smear of the Poor Law about it, for some reason, in most people's minds. Why not "Commonwealth Centre or "Commonwealth Exhibition"—or some word other than "Institute." I believe that success will come when a young man says to a young girl in London, "Where shall we go to-night; shall we go to the pictures" (meaning the films) "or to the dance hall?" and the girl replies, firmly "No, we will go to the Commonwealth Centre, where there is a grand show on." When that happens, then the noble Earl will be able to pat himself on the back and give half a pat to his noble friend of the Colonial Office, because then they will really have done what they should set out to do.

Finally, I would say that I regard this very useful Report as a challenge, and I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, put this Motion on the Order Paper, because by so doing he has brought it to our notice. We have to make up our minds what the future of our country is to be. Our future is either as the centre of a great Commonwealth or as a small, over-crowded, fog-bound island off the coast of Europe, living on the memories of its past and the charity of the United States. I think the Government, Parliament and the public have to choose between those two rÔles. If we fail to play our part in the development of the Commonwealth, then we must abdicate our leadership, and become camp-followers, beggars—not even on horseback. But of course we must accept the challenge. We must turn out the lodgers who are cluttering up the outer area of the Institute. We must build up and expand the work of the Institute, and ensure that in London we have a fitting centre for an Exhibition worthy of its subject.

4.42 p.m.

LORD HAILEY

My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in welcoming the Motion of the noble Viscount. I am glad, perhaps for reasons somewhat different from those put forward by the noble Viscount himself, but largely, I think, for the same reasons as were advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I regard the Motion as a useful one because it will enable the Government to explain what attitude they propose to take on this most valuable and interesting Report of Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee. That does not mean to say that one is in any way opposed to the interesting and constructive suggestions for the re-allocation of space in South Kensington which have been made by the noble Viscount. My interest, of course, like the interest of Lord Ogmore, is in the future of the Imperial Institute, and I, like others here, am anxious to know what is going to be the attitude of the Government towards the recommendations of the Report of Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee about its future. They do not propose that the Institute should give way to any other use, scientific or otherwise. They propose that it should be continued but that it should be given greater facilities in order to fulfil its functions—these are the words used in the Report: as a Commonwealth forum…. and as an agency for promoting further mutual understanding amongst the members of Commonwealth countries …. The Institute is to remain in its present building. It is to be allowed to resume occupation of space which it has been obliged to let out on account of financial exigencies—it is to be allowed, in fact, to turn out its lodgers, as Lord Ogmore has put it. It is also to receive greater financial assistance.

There is one concluding passage in the Report of Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee which has caused great apprehension and anxiety to the friends of the Imperial Institute. Because of their importance, I will give your Lordships the exact words. The Report says: If financial or other considerations render impracticable the carrying out in a reasonable time of our proposals as a whole, or will admit at best of only minor changes in the present organisation, we can only advise that the Imperial Institute be closed and the premises put to some other use. Those words have caused great anxiety to the friends of the Imperial Institute. Perhaps Lord Tweedsmuir, when he comes to speak, will explain exactly what interpretation is to be placed on those words. I hope that they mean nothing more than this: that they are a reflection of the Committee's sincere conviction of the necessity for the continued existence of the Imperial Institute—no doubt re-orientated in its objectives, revised in its methods and assisted financially—as an educational and cultural agency for dealing with Commonwealth affairs. I hope that that is what they mean, and, if so, then, of course, Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee were only following a long tradition.

It is true that there have been many changes of control. I need not reiterate them all to your Lordships, but at least four or five Departments of the Government have had control of the Institute since it was taken over in 1902 from the controlling body which first established it under charter in 1888. But though the building has been put to different uses—some of it at all events, for, as I have said, some parts have been let out for business reasons—it has nevertheless preserved Its character, the character originally given to it in 1888, the character it had when it was devoted primarily to the object of assisting in the commercial and industrial developments of the Empire, and secondly, to being an agency for the spread of knowledge of the resources of the Empire in this country. One wonders how it came about that Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee were able to commit themselves to the suggestion that in certain circumstances the Imperial Institute might be closed, and the building put to some other use. To my mind, in that recommendation they came dangerously near to suggesting an act of misappropriation.

Let me briefly consider the history of the Institute, as my version differs slightly, I think, from that given to your Lordships by Lord Ogmore. When a Committee was charged to collect funds for a memorial for Queen Victoria's Jubilee of 1887, it was undoubtedly influenced a great deal by recollections of an Exhibition held a good deal earlier than that to which Lord Ogmore referred, the Exhibition of 1886, a Colonial Exhibition, which perhaps some of your Lordships will remember gave us all great pleasure at the time and was certainly very successful. Together with the processions on the occasion of the Jubilee in 1887, that Exhibition was a means of opening the eyes of the British public to the existence of interesting and valuable sections of the Empire of which previously they had no knowledge.

When the Committee appealed for subscriptions, they announced that the objective was to set up an institution for those purposes which formed part of the charter in 1888. Half the money was subscribed in this country and the other half in India and what were then called the Colonies. India gave no less than £100,000. The Government themselves subscribed nothing to the capital cost and, as I shall show later, made very little help towards its cost of maintenance. But when the governing body got into difficulties, the Institute was taken over by the Government, under the Act of 1902, and handed over to the Board of Trade. I would ask your Lordships to observe the terms of this Act. The Board of Trade were to have the management of the property so far as practicable, for carrying out the purposes of the Imperial Institute and for such other purposes as the Board of Trade may determine having regard to the commercial and industrial interests of the Empire. The Act of 1916 merely substituted for the Board of Trade the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Secretary of State was clearly hound by the same conditions. So far, if not formally, at all events morally, the Government took over a trust. The bargain they made at the time was not entirely unprofitable because they had merely to pay off a mortgage of £55,000 and take control, indeed, possession, of a building which had cost £341,000. The endowment which at the time they took over was £114,000 and a very valuable site was obtained at a purely nominal rent from the Commissioners of the 1851 Exhibition on the ground that it was to be devoted to a memorial of the Jubilee of Queen Victoria. So that one would have expected, in return for this bargain, that the Government would make substantial contributions to the objects of the Institute.

But not at all. In 1903, they gave a grant of £1,800 a year for expenses which were incurred on work for the benefit of the United Kingdom. In 1913, this was increased to £2,500, but on the condition that an equal amount was obtained from the Dominions and Colonies. In 1920 Lord Milner obtained a promise from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that that grant should be increased to £10,000, but that was again made subject to the condition that others would pay their share and that the Colonies and Dominions would make a contribution of £30,000. This was equivalent to £40,000 in all, but I may say that that objective was not achieved at the time. I admit that of late years the Government have been more generous in their attitude towards the Institute. I have examined the accounts, and I find that during the years from 1936 to 1951 the payments from the Government have averaged between £15,000 and £16,000 a year.

Meanwhile, of course, the Government, clearly to their own advantage, have traded off part of the building to the University of London, in compensation for premises surrendered elsewhere. I am well aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, does not propose that the Institute should be extinguished, but merely that its building should be taken over by the College of Science and Technology while the Institute itself should be moved to a more suitable site. In a particularly generous and charming speech, the noble Viscount has said, in effect: Moab is my washpot. Over Edom will I cast out my shoe. He does not wish to do any harm either to Moab or to Edom. But to us who are interested in the Institute, the memory of the manner in which it has been treated by the Government in the past fills us with real misgivings about the kind of site to which it would be moved and the kind of provision which would be made for it when it got there. At all events, it has been subject to very cavalier treatment in the past.

It has often been suggested that the Institute has no particular interest to the Colonies and Dominions and has very little interest to the British public. That is a matter with which I shall not deal at length, because it has already been dealt with, in a most satisfactory manner from the point of view of the friends of the Institute, by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. But if it is a fact that it has not been popular in this country hitherto, then perhaps that is all the greater argument for giving it the new orientation, the greater facilities and the larger support that Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee have recommended. It is now the one visible centre in London of our connection with the Colonies and Dominions. One recognises, of course, the unfortunate prejudice there has been in some quarters of this country against anything that reminds the public of our Imperial history, but if ever that prejudice was justified, it certainly has no justification whatever to-day. But I do not want to make this into an issue of what I might call imperial and anti-imperial interests: there are other and much more substantial reasons for asking the Government to give a reply—and I hope a satisfactory reply—to the question we are asking them about their attitude to the recommendations of Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee.

These reasons are as follows. First, we believe that, on the whole, the recommendations made in the Report of the Tweedsmuir Committee are sound and would lead to giving a new life to the Imperial Institute. There may be variations of their recommendations, such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, but I do not want to deal with them now, because I think it is enough to say that we agree in recommending a new orientation of the objects of the Imperial Institute. Secondly, we hope that the Government will be able to make it clear to-day that they do not contemplate the abandonment of the present Institute building in favour of the College of Science and Technology. Not that we have any prejudice or feeling on the subject of the College of Science and Technology, but we have some strong feelings on the subject of the Imperial Institute. At all events, we ask that the Government shall state that they will not be prepared to make a change of that kind until they have provided the Imperial Institute with a new and suitable building and have secured the legislation (for it must be legislation) which will guarantee suitable finance for its future. Until then, we pray that the Government will continue to honour the trust which they took up in 1902.

5.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, for initiating this discussion to-day. As a strong supporter of the Imperial Institute, and for some four years the official head, I should very much regret to see it disappear unless or until some more satisfactory centre was provided; and, judging by the tenor of the speeches to which we have hitherto listened to-day, it would seem that that may prove to be the overwhelming view of your Lordships. I believe the practical matter that faces the country and the Government is what is to be the immediate future of the Imperial Institute. In that regard I feel that we are largely indebted to the Tweedsmuir Committee for their recommendations, but there are certain modifications which I venture to suggest. Although he did not make it very clear, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, meant to imply that the Imperial Institute should remain where it is unless and until some more central building is available. I hope he did not want to fly a kite the object of which was merely to prepare the way for shutting down the galleries of the Imperial Institute now, in the hope that some day, in the remote and uncertain future, another home would be found for them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, I was also a little disturbed as to the meaning of the Tweedsmuir Committee's statement that unless something much better can be done it will be desirable to close the Institute altogether. I am afraid I do not share that view.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in a speech with which I am sure most of us agreed, contrasted the success of his Colonial Exhibition in Oxford Street, where I gather he said some 500,000 people attended, with the record of the Imperial Institute in South Kensington, where only some 300,000 children a year attend. But, surely, the two are not comparable. In the first place, and most important, the Colonial Exhibition was a novelty. It ran for only a certain length of time, and from the point of view of the ordinary casual passer-by it occupied a far more favourable situation in Oxford Street than the Imperial Institute, tucked away in South Kensington, occupies.

LORD OGMORE

I am sure the noble Viscount does not want to misrepresent me. What I said was that, as against this apathy of the public, it was possible under certain conditions, if you had the right approach, to entice the public into a Colonial Exhibition in quite large numbers. That was my point.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

I quite agree. I was merely pointing out that the fact that the Colonial Exhibition which the noble Lord sponsored was in Oxford Street did materially affect the number of people likely to attend, as compared with the people who will go to a site in South Kensington. Therefore, taking the long view, I hope that when it becomes possible to provide a building—although that, clearly, will be a long time ahead—careful consideration will be given to the suggestion put forward that the proper place for the Imperial Institute is the South Bank. Meantime, having had a cursory glance through the Imperial Institute the other day, I venture to think that there is a great deal that could be done, without great expenditure, to make the Imperial Institute more useful and attractive. I venture to hope that that will be the final course the Government will adopt—indeed, they will almost be compelled to adopt that course if, as I hope they agree, the galleries are not to be closed in favour of the Imperial College of Science.

I think there is a great chance now to make some progress towards the ideal set forward by the Tweedsmuir Committee—namely, the substitution of persons for articles, and that without great expenditure. One of the drawbacks from which I feel the Imperial Institute suffers is the fact that each of the Dominions, and a number of the Colonies, have developed their own headquarters in London—Rhodesia House, Canada House, and so forth—which tends to detract from the original idea conceived when the Imperial Institute was set up, that we should have some central institute where the whole of the Dominions and Colonies could be represented. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that what is needed on the governing body, committee, executive, or whatever you choose to call it, is someone with an idea of what appeals to the public in the way of exhibitions. Having gone round the galleries—I say this in no way of criticism of the existing director—I venture to remark that some of the worst exhibits are those which have been put up quite recently by the Dominions and the Colonies themselves. To my mind, they all seem to suffer from the lack of a story.

In the exhibit for West Africa, for example, there is a long description of bauxite and how bauxite is extracted. The ordinary man in the street—and certainly the ordinary child—has no idea what bauxite is. But if you started the story the other way round, and talked about the aluminium kettle, which he sees every day on the hob, and showed how that goes back into bauxite, you would immediately establish a connection. In the case of Canada there was an exhibit which had three words. "evaporation." "condensation" and "precipitation." I venture to think that some of us might be in a difficulty to explain what those meant, and I am sure that they are beyond the comprehension, not only of the children, but also of many adults. When I was there, parties of schoolchildren, accompanied by teachers, were going round the galleries. I took the teachers on one side, and asked them: "Can you remember anything of what you have seen this afternoon?" They scratched their heads, and at last one man said: "I believe that in one of the dioramas of one of the Dominions or Colonies—I do not remember which—there were three lakes." That is all he had learned from an afternoon spent in going round the galleries.

Due to this lack of a connected story, to the fact that these long words which the ordinary man does not understand are used, and also to the fact that there is too much print in each of the exhibits, there is a general lack of interest. In the days when, as head of the Department for Overseas Trade, I was responsible for running exhibitions abroad, I was continually telling people that they must cut down the amount of print, make the exhibits simple and use words of one syllable. The great danger of putting experts on the job is that they know the thing so well that they cannot put themselves in the position of the ordinary man and keep the exhibits sufficiently simple. I believe that, without any great expense, a great deal could be done to improve the galleries and make them much more interesting.

I should like to see a start made on the suggestion of the Tweedsmuir Committee, that it should become a centre for overseas students living in South Kensington. I do not think it will cost a great deal. I do not think it is practicable to-day to ask the Government and the taxpayer to pay the full amount that would be required for the complete scheme adumbrated by the Tweedsmuir Committee, although I quite agree that it is desirable in the end. But I think it ought to be possible, with the help of the Dominions and the Colonies concerned, to make a start at all events in providing a social centre, an improvement in the Commonwealth lounge, and so forth. If I may sum up, I hope that your Lordships will agree to impress upon the Government that we want to see the Imperial Institute kept where it is, for the moment at all events, until the time comes when new and better buildings can be provided. Despite that fact, it should be possible, at no great increase of expense, materially to improve the presentation of the case for the Dominions and Colonies, as compared with what we see to-day.

5.11 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, however controversial the main theme of this Motion, no one, I am sure, will quarrel with the first sentence which draws our attention to this admirable Report of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and his Committee. There is no doubt that it is time something was done about the Imperial Institute. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked why people did not go to the Exhibition Galleries in the old days. If he ever paid a visit to the Institute some years ago, he would have seen the reason very quickly. If there ever was something which could serve as a model for what exhibitions should not be, it was the Imperial Institute ten or fifteen years ago. Your Lordships may remember these vast Galleries, badly lit, cold and crowded with an indiscriminate collection of objects. They were things which, once seen, were never visited again.

I should like to join issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, because, having paid a recent visit to the Galleries, I was enormously struck by the improvement that has been made by the present authorities of the Institute. No doubt improvements are still possible, but they have gone a long way towards achieving something of modern exhibition technique, and the Galleries, though they are full, are divided up into sections each of which is suitable for one afternoon's visit by a party of school-children. They are well lit, and they have all the right gadgets, such as those where, when you press a button, a diorama lights up.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

No.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The noble Viscount does not agree. Perhaps I was influenced by my previous recollection of what the Galleries were like in the old days. In most respects, I would say that the Galleries are suitable for their present purpose. In one respect, I agree, they fall very short, and I was glad to see that the Committee put their finger on this point. There is ample material to show the climate, the products and the industries of the country, but very little about the people and nothing at all about the problems. On page 5 of their Report the Committee draw attention to this, and they say that they envisage arrangements designed to show not only the geological and geographical features of a country, but even more the social and cultural development of its people, the major problems which confront them, and the country's position in regional and world inter-relationships. It is no good shutting our eyes to the problems and the difficulties in the Commonwealth. Whether schoolchildren or adults, we must do everything we can to make the problems, as well as the possibilities, plain.

I think the Exhibition fails in one other respect at the moment, and that is in the hours of opening. I may be wrong, but I think the Galleries shut at half-past four in the winter time. That automatically restricts the public entirely to schoolchildren. No adult can go and see the Exhibition in the middle of the afternoon or in the morning. If the objects which the Committee envisage are to be attained, they must face considerable expenditure in staffing, lighting and heating the Institute over much longer hours, including week-ends, and possibly some days in the week up to about nine o'clock at night. That is the only way in which the ordinary young man or woman, or person of any age who is in the middle of his working life, can go and see these exhibitions.

The other feature to which the Committee very properly drew attention is the Commonwealth lounge and the facilities for overseas students. There is no doubt that there is a n immense need for something in the nature of a social centre for Commonwealth visitors—principally students, but no doubt others as well—to this country. South Kensington is not such an unfavourable locality. It is fairly well served by public transport, and it is in the centre of the museum quarter. I am sure that it would have considerable popularity and would fulfil a real need.

Nobody would want to cramp the scientific and technological education of this country—in fact, your Lordships will remember debates in which the lack of proper facilities for that education has been stressed very strongly, but I would quarrel with the noble Viscount for suggesting this act of piracy on the part of the University of London in the case of the Imperial Institute. The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, has drawn attention to the fact that the buildings are held under trust for a certain purpose and that they cannot be diverted to other purposes. Moreover, surely in considering the future of this Institute, the Commonwealth Governments themselves should at least be consulted and their wishes ascertained. For all those reasons, I cannot help thinking that this Motion is, to say the least of it, premature.

5.18 p.m.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, I join with your Lordships who have spoken in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, and I join with him in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for the work that his Committee have done, as set out in the interesting Report on the Imperial Institute. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, has devoted his life to the advancement of science and technology, and is specially qualified to initiate a debate on this vital question of providing greater education facilities in the scientific and technological fields.

During the last century, by the application of the inventive genius of the few and the work of all, we as a nation pioneered the harnessing of power to industry and were for many years the world's workshop. Of course, we cannot again achieve that unique position, but we can and must increase our annual production well beyond present values. Many of the first-line inventions and developments of to-day are British, and we should be more to meet the demands for them with less delay than now occurs. In order that invention, development and production may be stimulated, an increase in the number of those working in the scientific and technological fields is essential. Without that increase we cannot regain and retain our position as a nation. We engineers know too well that there is hardly an organisation in our country to-day that is not suffering from lack of skilled staff in the scientific and technological fields. I have the advantage of working very closely with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and know very well from its very active and effective Permanent Secretary, Sir Ben Lockspeiser, that whether it is fuel research in London, or fish handling, curing, and marketing in Aberdeen—my native town in what Lord Ogmore's inquirer calls "Colonial Scotland"—the difficulty is the same: slow progress due to lack of trained personnel.

The production picture is as follows, and I think it would be useful to compare it to that of the United States of America, since in that country the annual wealth production is of the order of £100,000 million. If we were producing in our country per head at the American rate we should be producing about £33,000 million. As it is, we are producing slightly in excess of £12,000 million. That shows but too clearly the immediate necessity for making available greater facilities for training in the scientific and technological fields. Therefore, I warmly support Lord Falmouth's suggestion that this matter should be looked into immediately.

5.23 p.m.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, the position of the Chairman of a Committee which has produced a Report is rather a strange one when that Report is being discussed in this House, because his and his Committee's views are on paper for the House to make up their minds about. However, I should like to say a few words of a general character to give a little background to what was in our minds when we wrote our Report. I thank all those noble Lords who have been kind enough to pay compliments to my extremely hardworking Committee. That Committee was composed, with the obvious exception of myself, of people highly distinguished in one or other spheres of the educational world. I do not think anyone would think I am myself apathetic towards Commonwealth affairs, but I must make this confession: that the first time I ever set foot in the Imperial Institute was the day after the Minister of Education, in the last Government, had appointed me as Chairman of this Committee. I think it is not particularly a question of apathy which has kept people away from the Institute; it is to a large extent its complete failure to make adequate publicity for itself.

I remember on my first visit there entering the portals of that massive edifice and going up those rather dark stairs where you see directional signs to the examination rooms of the London University. Passing down many corridors and through many doors, I came to some excellent exhibition of a Commonwealth nature. I passed signs denoting the dwellings of various public bodies who were tenants there. The work of some of these bodies was closely concerned with Commonwealth affairs; that of others was but remotely concerned, and some, like the British School of Art in Rome, were not even distantly concerned. I wondered then, and many others wonder, what thread of purpose runs through all the activities in this great building. Some of the witnesses whom we asked to give evidence before our Committee were men and women who take a close and continuing interest in Commonwealth affairs; and they demurred, when they received our invitation, because, they said, their acquaintanceship with the work of the Imperial Institute was so slight that they felt that they could not contribute very much. It was difficult, in these circumstances, not to be driven to the conclusion that the work of the Institute, though admirable in many ways, fell far short of the significance of the task which its founders had set it.

I will not go over the history of the Institute: that has been gone over already by other noble Lords. Its history is really of a movement from one Government Department to another. It has been the sport of successive Governments, and the help which those Governments have given has been almost uniformly disappointing. Members of the late Government in your Lordships' House need not look unduly embarrassed at that, for I refer to Governments going back over a space of fifty years. Consequently, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has pointed out, the Imperial Institute has had to alienate more and more of its space in order to make ends meet on its income. The use of half of its floor space has been alienated and it can hardly claim to own its front door, since its entrance hall is in other hands.

It is very plain, in dealing with this situation and in considering the historical background, that the Institute was fighting a losing battle and that the time would come when the question would be asked, what was the purpose in maintaining the Institute in a building which would be so costly to recondition and even more costly to maintain? Should not the buildings be put to some other use? London University has strong claims. Lord Falmouth has put forward a claim for the Imperial College of Science. It was against that background that my Committee deliberated. We interviewed witnesses, not only from the Commonwealth countries concerned, but also witnesses drawn from a cross-section of the political, social, and economic thought of Britain. At the end we came to the unanimous conclusion—in which we were supported by the vast majority of the witnesses who appeared before us—that the Institute could serve a highly valuable purpose in the future.

A good many Parliamentarians and others, in reading a Report, turn straight to the recommendations—just as one did in one's schooldays with arithmetic books which had the answers given at the end, when one invariably took a look at the answer before beginning to work the sum. Some of those who read the recommendations may have come to the conclusion that we have put forward some extremely expensive proposals, in view of the hard times in which we live. Well, my Lords, until the plan or something like it has proved its success, I think it would be rather much to expect that Commonwealth contributors would be prepared to raise their subscription. Then, of course, the great majority of the public that benefit will he drawn from the United Kingdom; and it will be the United Kingdom which will have to supply a very large amount of these extra funds.

The whole history of the Commonwealth is one of transition and change. The trouble with the Institute in the past has been its lack of resources, and its lack of encouragement to keep abreast of these changes. If we take up what Lord Ogmore calls—and rightly—this challenge to make it a vibrant, live centre, I believe the value to be derived from it will be something more than can be computed in mere pounds, shillings, and pence. The greatest danger to the Commonwealth, as I see it, is apathy, a far greater danger than hostility from without. Ignorance of the Commonwealth has been commented on by several speakers to-day. Nowhere is it greater than in Britain, and nowhere with less excuse. It is down this particular avenue that we, as a Committee, believed that the Institute could play a very great part. We believed, too, that it had a future as a Commonwealth centre, particularly for Commonwealth students, as a place which they could call their own, where they could get to know each other; for some of them, when they return to their own countries, will one day be those countries' leaders.

The Motion before us calls for consideration of the removal of the Institute to a more suitable central site; but its present site is really one for which there is quite a lot to be said. It is in the heart of a large university population, a substantial component of which comes from the Commonwealth. It is accessible. It is in the midst of "museum land," and anyone who goes there can take in several shows in one afternoon. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, made an eloquent claim for the Imperial College of Science. I will not follow him into any argument concerning the comparative merits of those two bodies. I do not think any comparison is valid. I should be the last to belittle the value, to Britain and the Commonwealth, of the scientists and technologists that the noble Viscount's college turns out. He, I am sure, would be the last to say that any body that could make a considerable contribution to Commonwealth understanding, to knowledge of the Commonwealth and to a feeling of its conscious association of races, is of an importance that can be exceeded. We think that the Imperial Institute can have a great future in its present site. We believe that its present building, if the tenants will submit to a certain amount of re-distribution and re-allocation—in other words, to a grouping together of the Imperial Institute space—will be adequate.

I now come to that remark in our Report to which the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, took a good deal of exception, apparently with the support of a number of other noble Lords. We felt very strongly—and on this, my Committee were completely unanimous—that the Institute as it was at the moment was not adequate to its task. We felt it had a great part to play if it was largely altered and changed over, as we recommended. But we went so far as to say that, if it was not possible to carry out a drastic reorganisation, in our view it should be closed down. That has not had a very favourable reception in your Lordships' House, but it was the unanimous view of my Committee and myself, after a year's work, for the simple reason that we felt that, if the Institute, as constituted, was not equal to its task, its very existence belittled the importance of the task which it was trying to do.

Before I sit down, I should like to say that we laid considerable stress on the qualities needed for a new director. We were, therefore, all the more delighted when a new director was appointed who possessed all those qualities in high measure. But let me say at this juncture that any strictures we made in this Report about the past conduct of the Institute, cast no slur or stricture of any kind on the extremely distinguished administration of Sir Harry Lindsay and his predecessors before him. They did all that was possible within the limit of their means and the limit of the encouragement they received. I do not expect an answer to-night about how far the Ministry of Education are prepared to go in meeting our recommendations, but I profoundly hope that this Ministry, which more than any other is concerned with the coming generation, will feel that there is some force in what we say, and that this—as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said—is a challenge that this country must take up.

5.37 p.m.

LORD HEMINGFORD

My Lords, there is little I can add to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who, of course, is closely informed on this subject through the labours of the last year or two. But I must say that, when I read the Report which his Committee produced, I felt how terrible would have been the story of Cinderella if, instead of having one stepmother, she had been shuffled from stepmother to stepmother; how much more gruesome her plight would have been if, instead of having two ugly sisters, she had been hustled about in the house by many, many sisters, none of them ugly. But that a great imaginative conception such as inspired the foundation of the Imperial Institute should have so failed that we could allow, in the centre of the Commonwealth, conditions such as these for the Institute, seems to me some- thing that we should note, and note with sadness; it should lead us to appeal to Her Majesty's Government to adopt the imaginative conceptions which we now find in the Tweedsmuir Report.

In spite of the difficulties of the past, the Institute has received large parties of schoolchildren in increasing numbers, approaching, in the first ten months of this year, near to the figure of 300,000. Who knows how many of the children in those parties have, at an impressionable time of their life, been inspired by the pictures of Commonwealth scenes that they have been shown? And now, if they are to be enabled in the future to get an understanding, not merely of Commonwealth products and Commonwealth scenes, but also of the other peoples who share the Commonwealth with them, then surely it is for us to make every effort to see that the Institute is given every kind of opportunity, so that, both for the Commonwealth visitors and for the people of this country, it may be developed. An understanding of the peoples of the Commonwealth is surely essential, not only for the unity of the Commonwealth but for the future of civilisation.

5.39 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, my only regret about this debate is that the quality of the speeches has been so high, and the importance of the subject is so great, that it seems a pity that it has taken place at the tail end of a busy afternoon, instead of taking place early in the afternoon when it would have attracted even more interest and attention. There has been complete unanimity among all speakers this afternoon about one matter—that is, that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and his colleagues, have produced a remarkable Report and have thereby rendered a real service to the Commonwealth. I myself feel that what makes this Report remarkable, and what distinguishes it from the Report of the ordinary Departmental Committee of Inquiry, is that its suggestions are not limited to improvements in the administrative machinery but are directed to matters of high policy. Its recommendations have an important bearing on Commonwealth policy, for its conception of a Commonwealth Centre in London, an institution that has never yet existed in any Commonwealth capital in any part of the world, is surely a practical contribution to the policy which we in this country and those in every other part of the Commonwealth desire to see followed—namely, a policy which seeks to foster the unity and cohesion of the Commonwealth.

I personally would make very modest demands of the Government this afternoon. I hope the Government will not be persuaded to make any statement about the future of the Imperial Institute. After all, the Report was published only in September, just about three months ago. The other Commonwealth Governments cannot possibly have had time to digest it and to inform the United Kingdom Government of their views. Moreover, as your Lordships will be aware from reading the Report, a new director, Mr. Kenneth Bradley, takes over at the beginning of next year from Sir Harry Lindsay, the present director, whose work I know we all appreciate, and I am very glad that reference was made to it by my noble friend Lord Lucan. It seems only fair, therefore, that Mr. Bradley should be given a chance of commenting on the proposed changes which he will be mainly responsible for carrying out. I therefore hope the Government will refrain from expressing any final opinion at this stage about the merits of the Report. I also believe that any unilateral decision of Her Majesty's Government would be the greatest possible mistake, because here we are concerned not with a British Institute for the Commonwealth but with a Commonwealth Institute—a Commonwealth Centre, which must, if it means anything at all, be a co-operative effort by all the members of the Commonwealth. After all, the essential thing in a matter of this kind is that we should be able to carry the other Commonwealth Governments with us in whatever decision is finally reached. Therefore, my Lords, speaking for myself (I do not know whether other noble Lords will be so easily satisfied) I shall be entirely satisfied if the Government say this afternoon that they have lost no time in starting negotiations with other Commonwealth Governments, and that they will do all they can, and with the utmost possible speed, to obtain agreement about some practical scheme, based in the main on the recommendations of the Report.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, has asked the Government to consider handing over the Imperial Institute build- ing to the Imperial College of Science. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, will consider any suggestion that is made from any quarter in this House. I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, in his desire that there should be more accommodation for the teaching of science and technology in this country, but I also agree with the majority of noble Lords who have spoken in objecting very strongly to the suggestion that the Imperial Institute should be moved from its present site. My reasons are these. To put the Imperial Institute on a new site, such as, for instance, the South Bank, would surely mean a delay of many years while the new building was being completed; and to acquire another large building on a central site, which is the only suitable place for a building of this kind, would be far more expensive for the Government than to turn the present building, as the Report suggests, into a Commonwealth Centre. I should therefore much prefer the Government to examine very carefully the feasibility of converting the existing premises of the Imperial Institute in the mariner suggested by the Report, into a real center—a unique centre in the Commonwealth for propagating the gospel of Commonwealth.

At this time of the evening I propose to make very few remarks about the Report itself, but I should like to say a few words because I think it may not be unhelpful to the Government, while the Report is under consideration, to have, as they have already had this afternoon, the views of noble Lords with some experience of the work of the Imperial Institute and its bearing on Commonwealth relations. I believe the essential thing about this Report is its emphasis on the urgent need for an up-to-date Commonwealth Centre in London which, after all, is not only the capital of this country but the metropolis of the Commonwealth. I believe that this should be put forward on the highest ground of policy. Such a Centre would be a practical expression of Commonwealth unity and. at the same time, an instrument for preserving that unity in face of the strain and stress of the modern world.

I often think that we in this country are far too apt to take the unity of the Commonwealth for granted. As other noble Lords have said, ignorance is prob- ably the greatest difficulty we are up against. Many people seem to assume as a matter of course that the Commonwealth will continue indefinitely in its present form, whatever we may do or leave undone. But in fact the Commonwealth connection will be as liable to change in the future as it has been in the past. Four countries have left the Commonwealth since the war, and there are powerful separatist tendencies at work within the Commonwealth at the present time. After all, we are bound to remind ourselves that in both India and Ceylon the Opposition Parties are pledged to secession, and that an important section of the majority Party in the South African Union is in favour of a Republic outside the Commonwealth. In Africa, several of our dependencies are getting nearer to self-government. The future of their relationship with the rest of the Commonwealth will hinge largely on relations between the white and the black races—relations which are, unhappily, worsening at the moment in both East and South Africa. I think we are bound to recognise the unpleasant fact that the Commonwealth countries and British dependencies in Asia and Africa are far less firmly attached to the Commonwealth connection than are the old English-speaking countries in North America and the Pacific.

These are harsh and very unpleasant facts, but public opinion should know them and should face up to them. It would then recognise that the strength and unity of the Commonwealth, which, if it is to be safeguarded anywhere, must be safeguarded here in this country, can be preserved only by a constant and determined effort on the part of individuals and Governments. That is the only way to counteract the separatist tendencies of nationalism and race. I can hardly think of a more useful or appropriate governmental effort than the establishment of a Commonwealth Centre in London on the lines of, though with some modifications, the recommendations of the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. We urgently need a place where the contemporary Commonwealth can be seen as a whole, and not in parts, with each of its members displaying its own history and culture; but always (and this is the unique characteristic of the Imperial Institute) as a unit in what we all regard as the most beneficent association of nations and peoples which the world has known. It would surely be extremely fitting that we in this country, as the head of this world-wide family, should take the lead in proposing a fresh contribution to a wider understanding and appreciation of the Commonwealth.

Among other things, the Report also suggests that the Imperial Institute should change its name and become the Commonwealth Institute. Of course, this proposal has already attracted a good deal of attention. I am sure the Government will agree that it deserves to be very carefully considered, not only here but by all concerned. I think most people nowadays will take the view that the epithet "Imperial" is something of an anachronism. After all, when the Imperial Institute was founded Queen Victoria was Empress of India as well as Queen of this country and of the territories and Dominions overseas. Indeed, it was founded the year after Queen Victoria became Empress of India, and this new title must have been very vividly in people's minds. But the Imperial title has now lapsed, and our present Queen had adopted a much more appropriate title—namely, "Head of the Commonwealth."

Moreover, apart from this matter of history, the fact is that, rightly or wrongly, the word "Empire" rouses unhappy associations in many minds; it has a flavour of subordination and arbitrary authority which makes it unpalatable in many parts of the Commonwealth. I do not say that this is a right view, but it is a view that is actually taken. Therefore, whether you look at this question of the title or name from the standpoint of historical accuracy, as a description of the association of these nations and peoples, or from the point of view of popular choice, or merely as a suitable name for a centre of this kind in London, "Commonwealth Institute" seems preferable to "Imperial Institute," though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I should have preferred the expression "Commonwealth Centre" to either "Commonwealth Institute" or "Imperial Institute." But I hope that we shall not lose our sense of proportion by forgetting the Shakespearean tag about the relative unimportance of names. If the re-baptism of the Imperial Institute would involve legislation—perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to tell us whether that is the case, though he may not have had the time or the occasion to look into this matter—and if legislation would mean delay in adapting the present premises to their new use, it would certainly be better to carry on, for the time being at any rate, with the present nomenclature.

There are just two other matters to which I should like to refer briefly. One of these has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Lucan, but I attach very great importance to it. That is the proposal that the new centre should run a non-residential students' club for Commonwealth and Colonial students. I think that this proposal is particularly important and valuable. When I was at the Colonial Office, a special responsibility which I was allotted was that of keeping an eye on Colonial students in this country—a responsibility now discharged by the noble Earl, Lord Munster —and I was greatly struck (and I am sure that everyone who has occupied the same position at the Colonial Office has had the same impression) by the lack of places in London to which these young people could go in their spare time. Adult visitors have, amongst other places to which they can resort, the establishments of the Royal Empire Society and the Overseas League, or the clubs to which many of them belong. But these young people have nowhere to go, apart from the hostels or private homes in which they happen to be staying. A comfortable club where students could meet and enjoy themselves with a minimum of official supervision or interference, might properly, I should have thought, be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as an essential requirement of the educational provision that is made for these students while in this country. It is our duty to make these people feel really at home while they are with us. And incidentally, if we do so, they will, of course, be far less liable to fall under undesirable political influences.

The other matter to which I should like to refer briefly is this question of the adequacy of the accommodation at the Imperial Institute. At the moment, as the Report says, more than half the floor space of the Imperial Institute has been handed over to other users, some of whom have not the remotest connection with the Commonwealth—for instance the School of Art at Rome. How the School of Art at Rome ever got a footing in the Imperial Institute I do not know. It is essential that much of this space which has been handed over to other users, and which would include at least the entrance hall and the big Jehangir Hall, should be recovered if anything in the nature of a Commonwealth Centre is to be developed in the near future I do not know whether any of your Lordships has recently been to the entrance hall of the Imperial Institute. It is a tremendously impressive marble entrance hall. I was there a day or two ago and I observed that a marble statue of Queen Victoria had alongside it a small blackboard on an easel containing details, written in chalk, showing where examinations were taking place, and when. A little further along, at the bottom of a majestic flight of steps, there was e stone lion standing upright, and suspended from its paws was a notice indicating where visitors could leave hats and umbrellas. This impressive entrance hall which, after all, is a monument of the Victorian era, is being completely disfigured by its present use, and it should surely be handed over to the Imperial Institute, for the use for which it was intended, at the earliest possible moment.

Of course, there are legal problems that arise in matters of this kind, but I hope the Government will examine the possibility of recovering these essential parts of the Imperial Institute at the earliest possible moment. Without this, even a moderate extension—and almost every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate has asked for that—would be impracticable. I suppose that the main objection to the recommendations in this Report is that of finance. I feel sure, however, that if it is treated as a matter of high Imperial policy, of high Commonwealth policy, and is dealt with at Cabinet level, these financial objections can be overcome. It seems to me unthinkable that a matter of this kind, which is of such cardinal importance to this country and to the whole of the Commonwealth, should be decided on business grounds. It must surely be regarded as a matter of the highest moment from the point of view of Commonwealth and Imperial policy.

5.57 p.m.

EARL WAVELL

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the relation of this Report to the subjects of the fine arts and emigration. I have to confess that, like many other people, I have been in that building this year only to see the Army Art Exhibition, which was run in the Imperial Institute. I then went on to see the other exhibits. If, as Lord Ogmore has suggested, a man with a flair for showmanship, will be able—as I am sure he will—to persuade some of our leading artists and actors to give performances in the Jehangir Hall, when it is set up as a concert hall and theatre, many people will go into the building, and after attending a play or a concert they will go to sec the other exhibits. Then we shall have more people taking an interest in emigration. Furthermore, I feel that one of the things that makes a reflective man consider seriously whether he will emigrate is the shortage of cultural activities—plays, art exhibitions and concerts—which exists in the Dominions. This Report contains the proposal that Dominion artists, actors and musicians should exhibit and play in the concert hall in the Institute. If that suggestion is adopted people will then realise that the arts are not as limited in Commonwealth countries as they may have thought.

My third point is this. Just as we are very short of trained scientists, so there is an increasing excess of actors and artists being turned out from the universities, the schools of drama and schools of art, who cannot be employed in this country. I believe it would be a great help to emigration if the Ministry of Education, who run this Institute, could work out with the Commonwealth Governments a scheme for sending out to the Dominions young artists, actors and musicians as touring companies and orchestras. I do not mean that they should go out for just a few months, as a leading British actor, Sir Laurence Olivier, took a British company out to Australia, but for a considerable period, for three or four years. We should then be justified in subsidising their passage out there and back. The proposals in this Report would do a great deal towards developing these cultural activities in the Dominions and thus stimulate emigration.

6.0 p.m.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, we shall all agree that we have had a most interesting and useful debate. Everybody has thanked the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, for raising this question, but, on the whole, that is really all he has got out of it. All but the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, promptly turned on him for his piratical proposals. I should imagine, however, that he has had some slight encouragement lately from seeing my noble friend Lord Cherwell come into the House. I could not help wondering whether when he put down this Motion be realised what a hornets' net he was stirring up. On the whole, it has turned out to be a debate between the claims of the Imperial Institute and those of the Imperial College, with practically nobody speaking in favour of the Imperial College. I should like to try and balance the question a little more. Whilst giving full appreciation to all that has been said about the value of the Imperial Institute—and I do not think there is any noble Lord who would dispute that for a moment—may I tackle the other side of the question, because the genesis of this debate is the question of the best use that can be made of a certain limited site. Therefore, there has to be a certain balancing of values.

May I stress the need, from the point of view of our Commonwealth and Empire as well as ourselves, for the development of the higher education of scientists and technologists? Indeed, in my view the background of the question that we are discussing to-day must be the need for the Government to provide new and greater facilities for the training of more scientists and engineers for this country and the Commonwealth and Empire. I think that that was much in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has helped me by saying that he hoped that I was not going to say anything very definite at the moment. I can certainly meet him in that request, because I am not in a position to say anything for the moment. This applies both to the Government's future schemes for higher technological education and to their consideration of the very valuable Report of Lord Tweedsmuir's Committee. But that does not belittle the value of this debate. It actually increases its value, because it means that the Government now have before them the views of your Lordships on these subjects in the consideration they have to give to them. And who could be more qualified to speak than noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon? Whilst, however, I cannot make any statement at the moment, I think your Lordships will be glad to hear that it is hoped that the Government will be able to make a definite statement on their views on higher technological education in the early part of the New Year.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but will the noble Earl be able to make any statement about whether the Commonwealth Governments are being consulted in regard to the recommendations of the Tweedsmuir Report?

EARL DE LA WARR

I am coming to that side in a moment. I am dealing for the moment with higher technological education rather than with the Tweedsmuir Report. The real reason why we cannot make a statement of our policy at the moment is not because we have not a good idea of what we should like to do, but because, as your Lordships will be the first to realise, it is undesirable to make piecemeal statements on a subject like his. In our consideration of higher education we must guard what is a precious heritage in this country, the full independence of the universities; and it is most important that we should have the full views of all other interested parties before we make any statement. From this your Lordships will guess that the Government are already some way on with the consideration of their own line. If your Lordships were to go further and guess that it must have some effect on the future development of the Imperial College, it would be safe for me to say that they would not be far wrong in thinking this also. The noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, has stressed the importance of the work of the College and its value. May 1 assure him that it is unnecessary for him to stress the value of its work, because the Government fully appreciate it? It would, indeed, be difficult for us to make the developments which I think we all agree are necessary for higher technological education, without assisting the work of the Imperial College so far as we can.

Here we come up against the real practical and physical problem that we have to face. I have here a brief that speaks of this being "a question of space for development." That is a masterly understatement. What we are faced with is ajig-saw puzzle, as anybody who has gone round the site or studied the plans well knows. The trouble is that every piece we are trying to fit into the picture is just a little larger than the space provided for it. We have the Imperial College, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Science Museum, the School of Art Needlework and the British School at Rome, which uses a portion of this site for its exhibitions, all within this area. All are doing good work, but there is no room for any of them to develop. This applies particularly to the Imperial College. It is because of the jumble on this limited site that we are faced with the problem which concerns the noble Lords who have spoken to-day. Inevitably, therefore, the idea of the expansion of the work of any one of these units must raise anxiety in the hearts of those interested in other users of the site—and for that reason your Lordships have expressed anxiety about the future of the Imperial Institute.

We are fortunate in having before us to-day a Report on which your Lordships have expressed many views but about which I will express no views—namely, the Report of the Tweedsmuir Committee. May I join others of your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for a wise, balanced and courageous Report? Some of your Lordships regretted that the Tweedsmuir Committee went so far in saying that unless their recommendations could be carried out the Institute should be closed down. Whatever may be thought of that particular proposal, I am sure every one of us will agree that the Report contains recommendations of the highest value. We have had other interesting proposals put forward. Whether we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that we need Mr. Bertram Mills on the Council, I am not sure; but certainly we all agree with the spirit of the noble Lord's speech, that the Imperial Institute, if it is to continue, must continue as a much livelier instrument of Colonial and Dominion education than it has been hitherto. I should also like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson (he apologised for having to leave) for a really interesting and constructive speech. While I cannot give your Lordships the considered views of Her Majesty's Government on the Tweedsmuir Report, I can say something that should reassure some of your Lordships who have expressed anxiety.

Let us consider the facts of the situation. The Imperial Institute, after all, is on its own site and it is in fact the only definite and concentrated Imperial effort in London at the present moment. Incidentally, I interrupt my remarks to tell the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that it would require legislation to change the name. As the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, stressed, the Institute is financed and supported by Commonwealth and Colonial Governments—by forty-nine Governments in all, counting the home Government. How could its work possibly be wound up without a very great deal of discussion and consideration? I really think that what I have said should remove much of the immediate concern of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Halley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said it might be that in the future, if certain developments took place, possibly of the type proposed by the Tweedsmuir Committee, this Institute, after full consideration and discussion of the whole project, might itself like to move to a new site. That is an open proposition, but it could occur only after discussion with the Institute itself and with all those Dominion and Colonial Governments who are joint partners and joint maintainers of this great institution. If I may be allowed to express my own view, I cannot help feeling that a great deal of the concern expressed to-day, although it is immensely valuable to the Government to have your Lordships' views, is, in fact, somewhat premature.

Let me sum up the position. As soon as it is possible to discuss definite proposals, the Government, having control of so much of the land adjoining the College buildings at South Kensington, will be very much concerned to help the development of the Imperial College in the best way that they can. How far that will involve the Imperial Institute I cannot say in advance. I certainly cannot say that the Institute will be removed to another site, although I can say that its removal to another site cannot even be considered until the whole matter has been thoroughly discussed with all those bodies I have already mentioned to your Lordships. Meantime, I come back to the point with which I started, that one essential part of the background of the consideration of this problem must be the Government's policy with regard to higher technological education. A statement of that policy will be made early in the New Year, and the time will then come to consider the merits of the Committee suggested by the noble Viscount. Lord Falmouth, or possibly some simpler and speedier method may be found for dealing with the matter. I am not convinced that the noble Viscount's proposal is the best one. However, the Government are convinced that this isan urgent and important problem which must be faced. Even though it may be physically impossible to embark on the new building schemes that may be necessary before anything can be done physically, that makes it none the less important to have our plans laid, so that everyone concerned can have full knowledge of developments that are intended. May I, on behalf of the Government, welcome this debate, thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, for introducing it, thank all noble Lords who have joined in it for giving us their strong expressions of opinion and, finally, ask the noble Viscount whether he is prepared to withdraw his Motion?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Before the noble Earl sits down, can he answer the question that I asked earlier: Whether Her Majesty's Government are consulting the other Governments concerned about the recommendation in the Tweedsmuir Committee's Report?

EARL DE LA WARR

I cannot tell the noble Earl how far they have gone with their consultations, but certainly they will be consulted, if consultation has not already taken place.

6.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this most interesting debate. Until the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, spoke, it seemed that it was a meeting of the friends of the Imperial Institute, because hardly a word was said about the importance of science. Now we have heard from the noble Earl who has replied on behalf of the Ministry of Education and who exercises an even more important function as Postmaster General. Without telecommunications, where would the Post Office be? Without telecommunications where would the Empire be? All I am asking is that young men should be trained in these high and very difficult sciences. And not only that, but that research should be carried out in our own laboratories, so that we may be able to hold our own against the excellent work that is being carried out in America and elsewhere on these very difficult problems. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past six o'clock.