Lords Sitting of 29 July 1957

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL
  Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE ST. JAMES'S THEATRE
  3.6 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg; to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the application for permission to erect an office block on the site of the St. James's Theatre was ever considered by the town planning committee of the London County Council before permission in outline was granted in 1954; if so, on what date the town planning committee met to consider it; or whether the decision was made by the then vice-chairman of the town planning committee acting alone.]
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my right honourable friend does not regard it as among his responsibilities to furnish information about the internal arrangements made by local authorities for dealing with planning applications. In the special circumstances of this particular case, however, the London County Council have been good enough to give him the information for which the noble Lord asks, and, by courtesy of the Council. I am able to say that the report on the application for planning permission to erect an office block on the site of St. James's Theatre was dealt with by the vice-chairman of the Town Planning Committee on October 29, 1954. I should go on to explain that the vast majority of the hundreds of applications received each week by the London County Council are dealt with either by a panel of three members, or by the chairman or vice-chairman of the committee, and
  222
  that all applications so dealt with are laid on the table at the next meeting of the committee so that any member may examine them or bring them to the attention of the full committee.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for that Answer? Am I right in understanding that that is the normal way in which the London County Council deal with these applications. or was this particular application thought of as of small importance?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I cannot go inside the minds of members of the London County Council committee, and I cannot say whether they thought it was of small or of large importance; but I do understand that, by their Standing Orders, this is the normal way of dealing with such matters.

  RAILWAYS MODERNISATION PROGRAMME
  3.9 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will state the estimated cost of the British Transport Commission's railway development scheme based upon current money values, costs and prices.]
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I regret that I cannot add to the Answer given by my noble friend Lord Mancroft on July 23. As he then said, the British Transport Commission are now making a re-assessment of the cost of their railways modernisation programme and no figures are yet available.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Lord that the British Transport Commission have no budgetary control audit to check the cost progress of the railways modernisation scheme which, so far as one can understand, was based on 1954 money values, costs and prices? May I ask him whether he is aware that in June last the British Transport Commission announced that one-third of this £1,200 million scheme was either in progress or had been authorised; and,

  223
  further, whether that was based upon 1954 costs and prices, or upon current prices, or whether it was authorised with no costing knowledge at all?
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I would ask him to remember that this is a big, important and intricate question, to which, as my noble friend Lord Man-croft said last week, not all the normal business practices would apply. In some ways it is different from ordinary business questions. It is true that the scheme is well ahead of schedule, but I am afraid that I am not able to tell the noble Lord upon what the work already done is based.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend the Minister that it was upon those facts and figures that he persuaded Parliament to underwrite the whole cost of the railways modernisation scheme? All I am asking is whether the British Transport Commission follow what is the common practice of all industry: that is, to have a very close budgetary control on the cost of all developments, in the inflationary period in which we live.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I should like to tell him that it is the responsibility of the British Transport Commission to balance their accounts, I should say, to break even by 1961–62; and that duty is in no way affected.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Lord, who talks about 1965, whether we are to go on as we are, and no cost investigation is going to take place, day by day, week by week, and year by year? If so, the liability which the State will have to meet in 1965 will soar far above any of the figures that have been given to Parliament.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I can only say that the reassessment is in progress, and I am afraid that I cannot add to that reply.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord listened to the one o'clock news, but if he did, I wonder whether his answer refers to canals as well as to the railways, or only to the railways.
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear the one o'clock news.

  THE 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT
  3.13 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government under which Act are the Statutory Instruments being made, and laid before the House, imposing a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on roads within the London Traffic Area which are at present unrestricted.]
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is the London Traffic Act, 1924, as amended by Section 63 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, while I accept the legal technicalities of what the noble Lord has said, may I ask him whether he would remind his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport that when this experiment of having a 40 m.p.h. limit on certain roads within the London Traffic Area met with such stern opposition in your Lordships' House, the Government never gave the slightest indication that it was their intention to give unrestricted roads a 40 m.p.h. limit? Might I ask him whether he would be kind enough to read the debate, because if the does so he will see that his noble friend Lord Selkirk, when presenting this proposition as an experiment to your Lordships' House, said that it was only a 30 m.p.h. limit, increased to a 40 m.p.h. limit? Would the noble Lord also understand that I doubt very much whether your Lordships would have agreed to the experiment at all if they had known it was going to take the form the Minister has now announced?
  LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I will certainly read the debate. The only thing I would say is that this limit is being imposed under legislation which was already enacted when the limit went through.

  WEST INDIES (FEDERATION) ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1957
  3.15 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the West Indies (Federation) Order in Council which is now before this House for approval has been laid in accordance with the provisions of the British Caribbean Federation Act of 1956. When that Bill came before the House about a year ago it was warmly welcomed for two main reasons: it was in accordance with the strong desire of the various Colonies of the West Indies to be joined together in federation; and, further, it represented an important step forward in the progress of the peoples of the area towards the goal of independence within the Commonwealth—which is their ultimate and loyal aim. That aim will not be achieved immediately, but the Federation now to be established will be a major move in that direction.
  Your Lordships will not wish me to go over once again the provisions of the British Caribbean Federation Act, 1956, for that was fully debated and welcomed in your Lordships' House on July 23 of last year, The Order in Council provides for the establishment of the Federation in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution contained in the Annex to the Order. The Constitution itself follows the 1953 Plan for a British Caribbean Federation (Cmd. 8895) as modified by the decisions of the London Conference of 1956 (Cmd. 9733). It is also in accordance with the detailed consideration which has since been given to it by the Standing Federation Committee, the body established in the West Indies by the 1956 Conference for the purpose of completing the constitutional and administrative arrangements necessary for setting up the Federation. In a word, the Constitution has the full support and is agreed by all the West Indians concerned; and, indeed, its main provisions have been worked out by them.
  It is an advanced form of Constitution on the Australian model, giving a very large measure of internal self-government in a form which they have worked out over the last twelve years. The Federal Constitution in the Annex to the Order in Council embodies the agreements which have been reached in those negotiations. I commend to your Lordships
  226
  the Resolution, the approval of which is sought, and I know that all the House will welcome this important stage in the constitutional advance of the Caribbean federation. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft West Indies (Federation) Order in Council, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 17th of July, be approved.—(The Earl of Perth.)
  3.18 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this is, in a way, a historic day in the history of the West Indies, and it represents the climax to a long period of negotiation and hard work by many people on both sides of the ocean. I should like to congratulate the Government, the West Indies Government, and the Standing Federation Committee on the Constitution which is an Annex to this Order in Council. The Order in Council, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, provides for the setting up of a Federation, and the Annex contains its Constitution. I feel that the names of the Colonies which will form the federation have a sort of poetry in them: Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago. Not only have the Colonies poetry in their names, but we in this country have had a long association with them. They include some of our oldest Colonies, and many of our greatest men have served in them or been concerned with them at some time or other. And not only ours: other people who have made a great mark in world history—Columbus. Nelson, Henry Morgan—have all left their mark on these Colonies and these islands. And even in fiction these islands have played their part. Those of us who are readers of Thackeray will remember Miss Swartz, the St. Kitts heiress, in Vanity Fair. In those days, the Sugar Islands provided not only great wealth, but desirable heiresses to aspiring young men in this country.
  From these names there are two missing, British Guiana and British Honduras, one in Central America and the other in South America, the two remaining mainland Colonies which we have on the American continent. It had long been hoped that these two would form part of the Federation of the West Indies but, for various reasons, that has obviously

  227
  been found impracticable at this stage. I am glad to see that in Section 5 of the Order in Council there is provision for the accession to the Federation of any further Colonies, and it is obviously possible for these two Colonies, or either of them, if they so desire, to become members of this Federation.
  From the time when the Bill came before us last year, and became an Act, the name of the Federation seems to have changed. In the enabling Act it was called the British Caribbean Federation; it is now to be known as the West Indies Federation. No doubt there are good reasons for that change—quite possibly it is the wish of the people in the Federation. Perhaps the noble Earl would give us the reason, however, because, from a geographical point of view, "Caribbean" is in some ways, of course, a better description than "West Indies".
  One of the problems which the new Federation will have to face at once is the difficult question of the seat of the Federal Government. Only last week, in another place, the Secretary of State gave the latest news of this question of the Federal Capital. He was, in fact, quoting from the Report, and he said [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Commons. Vol. 574 (No. 150). col. 838]:
  "Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago, the British West Indies, the United Kingdom and the United States have agreed to the establishment of a joint commission composed of representative technical experts to investigate all aspects of the British West Indies request to make Chaeuaramas available, taking into full account military and economic considerations. The joint commission shall be set up and shall report to the parties concerned as early as possible."
  It will be remembered, of course, that this base was one of the bases leased to the United States in the early part of the war, when neutrality was not looked upon with quite such disfavour as it afterwards became.
  The point now is that, according to the representatives of the West Indies, this particular base is the most desirable place for a Federal Capital. I feel quite certain that the United States will want to deal generously with the young Federation established near their boundary fence. I wonder whether they would be prepared at this stage to re-lease to the Federation this particular base and, as a handsome
  228
  gesture, to do so without requiring a large sum in compensation for improvement. The question of the Capital is not merely a matter of selecting one site from a number of sites. It is a difficult question where so many Colonies are concerned. The fact that they have all agreed upon this particular site is satisfactory, and such accord might not be obtained if this base were not available. So we look to the generous heart of the United States Government and people, and hope that they will be able to help the West Indies Federation to solve its difficulties.
  Another point concerns the status of the new Federation. Will the United Kingdom Prime Minister suggest to his colleagues that the Prime Minister of this Federation should be invited to attend the Prime Ministers' Conference? It is true that the new Federation will not have quite the status of Canada. Australia and so on; nor quite the status of a Colony. It will, in fact, have very nearly the same status as that of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Your Lordships will recall that the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is a member (if that is the right way to describe it) of the Prime Ministers' Conference here. At all events, he receives an invitation, and he attends. I should have thought that there would be no disadvantage, and in fact everything to be gained, if a similar invitation were to be extended to the Prime Minister of the new Federation. I realise that this is not a matter on which either we or the British Government can lay down the law: it is a matter for negotiation between all the Prime Ministers concerned. But if the Prime Minister would advance this suggestion to his colleagues, I feel certain that it would Rive great pleasure in the Federation of the West Indies.
  There is one final question that I should like to put. I gather from the terms of the Annex that assistance from both the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund and the Colonial Development Corporation will continue to be available to the new Federation after it starts on its career. We welcome that, and we welcome the fact that these props have not been withdrawn from the new Federation, as they have been withdrawn from one or two other Federations of which we can think, one of which we are

  229
  to discuss this afternoon. We on this side should like to express our good wishes to the Federation, to bid them Godspeed and every success in the days ahead.
  3.27 p.m.
  THL EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the kind words he said. I know that I speak not only for Her Majesty's Government but also for the Governments of the West Indies in acknowledging his congratulations on this document; and this is, of course, a most happy occasion.
  The noble Lord raised one or two specific points, and I think it might be useful to your Lordships if I tried to answer those questions. He spoke of the position of British Guiana and British Honduras, which, of course, are not at this time members of the Federation. The position is that they can accede if they at some time so request, and if the Federation at that time give their approval. So one has to wait and see what time may bring.
  The noble Lord noted, quite rightly, that the name has been changed from that of the Caribbean Federation to that of the West Indies Federation. The answer is that that change was made at the specific request of the West Indians themselves. The suggestion which the noble Lord made as to the new Federal Capital will, I am sure, be considered; but the fact is that a tripartite Commission has been set up to look into various technical and other questions, and I feel that we can leave it to them to weigh up all the various points which arise. The question of status, again, is not an immediate issue. The noble Lord made an interesting suggestion, and I am sure it will be given consideration at the right time. Lastly, the noble Lord spoke about the position of Colonial Development and Welfare funds and the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation. The answer is that the funds can be used for the purposes of the Federation, and the Corporation can operate there. The reason for that, of course, is that this Order in Council does not make the Federation an independent self-governing body, but rather represents one stage in its constitutional progress.
  230
  It only remains for me once again to commend the Resolution to your Lordships.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1957.
  3.30 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I rise to move that these regulations be approved. Town and Country Planning legislation is notoriously complicated, and regulations governing mineral workings under the Planning Acts are, if anything, more complicated than others. Your Lordships may therefore welcome the assurance that the purpose of the regulations for which we seek approval to-day is only to correct an error in drafting which was not foreseen at the time the original regulations were made, and which has only recently been brought to light.
  May I remind your Lordships that the purpose of the main regulations, which were made in 1954, was to adapt the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts to mineral operations and, among other things, to regulate the payment of compensation when planning permission in respect of mineral workings is refused or granted under limiting conditions. The intention of the 1954 regulations was that compensation should be payable only in respect of commitments incurred before the 1947 Act. Regulation 10 (1), which relates to compensation for plant and machinery, is already so limited, but we are advised that doubt exists as to whether Regulation 10 (2), which relates to other loss or damage, such as, for example, loss of contracts, is so limited. It was always intended that it should be, and these regulations are made in order to put the matter right. With that explanation, I trust that your Lordships will see fit to approve these regulations, and I beg to move.
  Moved, that the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Amendment) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on 24th July, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS) (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1957
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: I rise to move that these regulations be approved. They correspond exactly to the regulations for England and Wales to which your Lordships have just given approval.
  Moved, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on 24th July, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FEDERATION OF MALAYA INDEPENDENCE BILL
  3.33 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE. EARL OF HOME): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill, I have it in command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places her prerogative and interest, so far as concerns the matters dealt with by the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
  My Lords, this is yet another example—and we have seen a number in recent years—of how the colonial policy of the United Kingdom brings countries to full self-government and to a point where they can assume full responsibility as independent nations in the international field. Malayan independence gives us all a particular satisfaction, as our association has been long and happy and has been guided by mutual consent and working to mutual advantage. The grant of independence to Malaya has presented constitutional problems of a special kind. The Bill had to create a situation in which a new agreement could be made with the nine Rulers of the Malay States; the transfer of Her Majesty's sovereignty over the Settlements of Malacca and Penang; and the substitution of a new Constitution to replace that which was fixed in 1948.
  That full agreement has been reached is I think a testimony to the skill and patience of those who have conducted
  232
  the preliminary negotiations. This House take particular satisfaction, that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, who, with his Commonwealth colleagues, devised a Constitution of sensible checks and balances so that Malays and Chinese and Indians could be satisfied in the highest degree and welded together into a workable Federation. I am sure that this House would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reid, on a most remarkable achievement. Our congratulations are due also to the negotiators of both our countries who, in a long series of meetings, have shown great patience and tolerance until the series was ended by the publication of the official agreement in Command Paper 210.
  I am not going to attempt to make a long, detailed Second Reading speech on this Bill. That has been done in another place. As I say, it withdraws the existing agreements and provides that a new agreement shall prevail when the new Federal Constitution has been approved by the Federal Legislature and by the States. It provides that Penang and Malacca will enter the Federation as equal partners with the other States, and that their Governors will take their places with the Rulers of the Malay States.
  There is another aspect of this Bill which I think will make a special appeal to your Lordships. The Federal Government in Malaya desire that appeals from the Supreme Federal Court should continue to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. After independence, Her Majesty will no longer be the Fountain of Justice in the Federation. So the Bill provides the necessary machinery for appeals to continue in a way which is compatible with Malaya's sovereignty. I am sure your Lordships will be glad that it has been found possible to do this, because these appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are a very valuable link between Commonwealth countries.
  So far as Federal citizenship is concerned, I think common sense and common purpose have prevailed. Basic liberties are preserved, which should remove any fears of discrimination which might be held by the Chinese, while so far as United Kingdom citizens are concerned, they will be Commonwealth

  233
  citizens, as will be citizens of the Malayan Federation. They will enjoy no special privileges but that common status which is enjoyed by all people who are citizens of a Commonwealth country. The House will note, too, with great satisfaction that the Constitution provides for an independent Judiciary and an independent Civil Service. Justice administered without fear or favour and integrity in administration are, as we know, the essence of democratic government, and it is good that this should be enshrined in the Constitution and that the Civil Service and system of law and justice should be well founded.
  Parallel with this political evolution, the United Kingdom and Malaya have made a new defence agreement which looks forward into the future when Malaya will be completely independent. As your Lordships know, we have been engaged for a good many years now in fighting together for Malaya's life against Communist terrorists—not alone, because Australia and New Zealand have been our partners along with the Malayans in this fight. So already the Commonwealth has assumed a ready obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of the Malayan peoples. In future the Commonwealth strategic reserve consisting of United Kingdom and Australian and New Zealard forces will be an essential element in Malaya on Malayan soil, ready to take an effective part in Malaya's defence.
  So, my Lords, with her territory, as we hope, secured from interference from without, with her economic prospects favourable, with the wisdom which her statesmen have shown in building the new political structure on which her independence will rest, Malaya's future is, we hope, assured. I should like to express on behalf of your Lordships and on behalf of the United Kingdom Government our congratulations to her on taking her place among the free and responsible nations of the world. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Home.)
  3.39 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Home, for the short but comprehensive survey he has made of the object of the Bill, and to congratulate all concerned. I
  234
  hope it will not embarrass the Government to have two congratulations from me in the same afternoon—something which is as rare as it is desirable—but they have, I feel, deserved it on these two occasions, and I congratulate them on this Bill. I congratulate also Their Highnesses the Rulers, the Government of the Federation of Malaya, the Alliance Party and all others who have brought this long process of negotiation to such a satisfactory conclusion.
  It is perhaps particularly suitable that the first Prime Minister of this Federation should be Tunku Abdul Rahman. He is a descendant of the Sultan of Kedah who, at the end of the eighteenth century, ceded Penang, which was the first of our settlements in the Far East, to Captain Francis Light of the East India Company. The Sultanate of Kedah in this way has seen the beginning of the British connection but not, I hope, the end of it, because I trust that the connection with this country will be a close and warm one for many centuries to come.
  In the last few years, we have had Bills of various constitutional kinds in this House relating to the independence or the constitutional development of a large number of territories—India, Burma, Ceylon, Ghana and now Malaya—as well as, not Bills of independence, but Bills of constitutional development in the case of Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Nigeria, the West Indies and others. Taken together and looked at as a whole, they must, I imagine, strike the unbiased observer as some of the most remarkable phenomena in history: that in this short space of time upwards of 600 million people can have achieved independence with the full support of the imperial Power and with the cordial good will of those who were formerly subject peoples and who have now become independent. I hope that those of our critics in the United Nations and elsewhere will take note of this measure, as they might, but apparently have not, taken note of its predecessors, and I trust that it, and its predecessors, will afford a complete answer to allegations about "colonialism" which far too often we hear in the United Nations and elsewhere and which, both in the time of this Government and in the time of the Administration of my noble friend Lord Attlee, have

  235
  been somewhat of an embarrassment to our delegates and representatives in the United Nations.
  My own association with Malaya goes back nearly thirty years, and it is an indication of how times have changed when I say that between twenty-five and thirty years ago I was for some years the honorary secretary of the Penang branch of the only political organisation permitted in the country. One can see in the multiplicity of Parties now the enormous political activity that goes on and the great change that there has been in a quarter of a century, a greater change in this respect in this area, I imagine, than in almost any other in the world. The people who did more than anything else to stimulate this change were, of course, the Japanese.
  There have been various crises since the war, some of which might have been avoided and some of which obviously could not, but eventually the Constitutional Commission. presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. delivered their recommendations, and those constitutional proposals were embodied in a White Paper (Cmd. 210). The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is, as we know, an eminent British jurist, and his colleagues on the Commission were also eminent jurists. There was one rather—I will not say odd, because it was a plan, but one unusual circumstance about this Commission: there was no Malayan of any kind on it. The Malayan people decided that they would have a completely independent Commission drawn from the independent members of the Commonwealth. That, I think, was an indication of the great political maturity of the Malayan people and also of the trust they felt they could show in the independent members of the Commonwealth.
  This Report was submitted on February 21. Then a Working Party from Malaya considered it; a delegation came to this country and discussed in this country with the British Government the substance of the Report of the Commission. So far, so good. But in the White Paper which has been prepared and issued to Parliament by the Government, there are two matters to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. First of all, no thanks of
  236
  any kind are expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and his Commission—indeed, they are not even mentioned by name. Not even the noble Lord, Lord Reid, is mentioned, which I should have thought was unusual in a case of this kind. Therefore, I was very pleased indeed when the noble Earl, Lord Home, this afternoon properly thanked the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and his Commission, who spent eight months on this task; it was not by any means a week-end task, and sometimes it was in rather a hot climate. They took a lot of trouble over it and received no thanks. There is nothing in the White Paper about it.
  My second point is that not only did they receive no thanks, but whoever drafted the White Paper seemed to go out of his way rather to insult them. He used these words:
  "While these discussions on the substance of the Constitution were going on its drafting was being scrutinised in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in the United Kingdom with a view to removing ambiguities and inconsistencies and, where necessary, improving its form."
  Then they go on at a later stage in the White Paper to say:
  "Many of the alterations are merely verbal and in a number of places articles and clauses have been rearranged or recast for purposes of clarity."
  Considering that the members of this Commission were some of the most eminent jurists in the Commonwealth, I really think it is a bit of a cheek for someone in the Colonial Office to prepare a White Paper which deals with their Report in that fashion. Even if they had not thought it was very clear—and I am not saying it was not, by any means; I have no knowledge—why say it? Why draw the attention of the world to criticise the Commission in this way? It is all on a par with the "ham-handed" fashion of dealing with these matters.
  I remember that in the case of Ghana we complained bitterly about what we regarded as insulting language in the Bill, and that was more or less admitted by the Government. I am glad to see that in this Bill they have taken notice of your Lordships' comments on that occasion and that the wording in this Bill relating to the matters of which we complained in the Ghana Bill, is very different. Therefore I hope that the

  237
  Colonial Office and whoever is responsible for the drafting—and the Government. because they, of course, are mainly responsible—will take to heart what I am now saying, as they took it to heart in the case of the Bill itself, and in future will not put this, I would say, not only tendentious but really rather insulting language in a White Paper, which has upset some, at least, of the members of the Commission.
  This Bill, and the proposed Constitution which we are now considering, is a compromise and I think it should be accepted as such. Any serious attempt to amend it at this stage might have grave consequences. We can all think with the greatest of ease of ways in which it could be amended or altered—there is no question about that—but it has been a difficult matter, in a country such as Malaya, which is roughly the size of England without Wales, and where there are 3,100,000 Malays, 2,500,000 Chinese and 800,000 Indians, to arrive at a Constitution which they all agree to work and which, broadly speaking, will satisfy the aspirations of a large number of them. There are, of course, certain issues such as citizenship, religion, language, the special position of the Malays, the status of Penang and Malacca, which are in themselves full of the possibility of contention; but I would suggest that, on the whole, this is a reasonable settlement for all concerned.
  One has to remember that Malaya is the Malays' only home, and that that does not necessarily apply to any of the other races who occupy the peninsula, or to people who live in it for a shorter or a longer time. We must remember, too, that in this Constitution the Malays are making far greater concessions to people of other races than is normally the practice in other countries. As I say, anyone could argue the issues that arise out of this Constitution—we can argue them separately and at length; but I do not believe that this is the time or the place to do so. I personally (and I am sure I have your Lordships' support in this), appeal to all the races and to all the peoples in the Federation of Malaya, to help wholeheartedly in the working of the Constitution.
  I should like to recall to your Lordships the words of Tunku Abdul
  238
  Rahman, previously Chief Minister of the Federation before independence, who will be the Prime Minister when the Federation in its new form comes into existence. This is what he said at the Federal Council in Kuala Lumpur this month, when dealing with the Constitution. After saying that he could not recall any other dependent country which had achieved independence in such a cordial and friendly atmosphere, he went on:
  "I believe that we are only now able to stand on the threshold of independence because of the tolerance of our plural community and their friendly atmosphere towards one another and their acceptance of Malaya as an object of their absolute loyalty."
  According to a newspaper report, the Tunku praised the part played by British people in Malaya, and went on:
  "They have devoted their lives to the advancement of this country. Whatever their faults may have been they have made Malaya the prosperous, happy place it is to-day".
  Many speeches were delivered in the Assembly during the day (the report continues). The majority welcomed the constitutional proposals as being
  "a fair and workable compromise, though not ideal."
  My Lords, there is one note of regret that I have—namely, that the Colonial Development Corporation will not be available to the new Federation, except as an agency. As we have lately had a debate on this question, which, as your Lordships will recollect, was pressed to a Division (we had a considerable amount of support from Back Benchers opposite, though, in most cases it did not materialise in the Lobby), I do not propose to say any more about it to-day. We simply register our protest, so far as the Colonial Development Corporation is concerned, and regret that Malaya which desires the continuance of the help and assistance of the Colonial Development Corporation, is. by the United Kingdom Government action, being deprived of it.
  There is only one point of detail to which I should like to refer, and it relates to Clause 2 (4), which brings in as a sort of "joker" Rhodesia and Nyasaland and also Southern Rhodesia. In practically every Bill on any colonial matter that ever comes before your Lordships, however remote from the shores of Central Africa it may be, there is nearly always a reference to Southern Rhodesia. Why Southern Rhodesia, as a sort of "King

  239
  Charles's head," has to appear in almost every Colonial Bill. I do not know—and it has scraped in here, in a Bill dealing with Malaya. We on this side should like to know why Southern Rhodesia appears again in a Bill which deals with Malaya, especially as Southern Rhodesia has always held this rather peculiar position, and as we know that the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is a member of the Prime Ministers' Meeting in London.
  There are many problems, social, educational, economic and political, which will face the new Federation, but I do not intend to touch on them, far less deal with them in detail, to-day. But there is one problem to which I would refer, and which may perhaps, if care is not taken, turn out to be the "Achilles' heel" of the Federation. I am well aware that Ministers in Malaya have given great attention to this particular question, but it is also a matter to which we here should give attention. I should like for the moment to refer to the Report of the Mission of the International Bank to Malaya, in regard to the economic development of Malaya, which was published in September, 1955. This is another of the Reports that I mentioned last week, when we discussed the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation Bill, as being a remarkable Report such as is rarely read in this country. This Report has been read and studied most carefully in Malaya and it deals with industrial finance, among other things.
  As we realise, Malaya is now in a new stage in regard to its development, and it will need to have a good deal of economic and industrial development. Its financial position is, of course, of the greatest importance. This is what the Mission say:
  "The Mission found great difficulty in obtaining any general picture of the availability and character of finance for industrial enterprise. It is predominantly a matter of private transactions which take place within circles of varying degrees of intimacy among the Chinese community. Most Chinese enterprises appear to have begun on a small 'family' basis, and to have been built up (where they have been built up on any scale) chiefly by reinvestment of profits. Many of the larger ones are constituted as private companies, and some of these include an element of capital contributed from wider circles. The relatively few European industrial
  240
  enterprises have mostly been established with overseas capital (even when they are incorporated in Malaya); in only a handful of cases were their shares issued on the Singapore stock market."
  A little later they say:
  "Except for limited financing by the Colonial Development Corporation and R.P.D.A., there appears to be no institutional source or regular channel for medium- and long-term capital for industry."
  We might pause there for a moment. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in this Report of the International Bank the Mission refer to the Colonial Development Corporation as one of the few mechanisms by which institutional finance can be obtained. This is one of the props which, under this Bill, the Government are now removing from Malaya, so there will be one prop less, so far as institutional finance is concerned, after August 31.
  Then the Mission go on to say:
  "We believe that new institutional arrangements for industrial finance will become necessary and have suggested elsewhere that the proposed Central Bank give early consideration to this need."
  Later they say:
  "In more indirect ways than the facilitation of industrial finance, the governments and the Central Bank should be able to help industrial development maintain a steadier course in the face of fluctuations in Malaya's main export markets. But any violent fluctuations in the price of rubber, and to a lesser extent in the price of tin, are inevitably unsettling for Malayan secondary industries competing with foreign industries; it is hard to prevent industrial wage rates moving to some extent in sympathy with the prevailing rates in the rubber and tin industries, and the competitive position of secondary industries against foreign suppliers tends to shift up and down accordingly."
  I cannot read the whole passage, for it is too long. I can only suggest to those of your Lordships who are interested in this matter that due consideration should be given to the information on finance and other matters contained in this very valuable Report, which has greatly impressed people in Malaya.
  We should proceed to assist them in every way we can, because if the United Kingdom is going to "cut the painter" at this stage and allow Malaya to drift out on an uncharted financial sea, then we are going to put Malaya in far greater difficulties as an independent country than she ever was in as a dependent country.

  241
  As I mentioned to your Lordships in the debate on the Colonial Development Corporation, there is always a tendency, in the case of dependent countries which are achieving independence, to equate economic prosperity with independence; and if there is no further economic prosperity when they get independence, there is great disappointment and frustration. Far from removing any financial assistance, props and aid from the Malayan Government at this stage, we should therefore be prepared to help them in every way possible, particularly as they have this, as it were, old-fashioned financial structure upon which to build up. In some ways it is a frail structure. It has been strong enough in the past, but we do not know whether it will stand up to modern conditions. At any rate, in my view, it is our duty to assist them with their financial structure in every possible way.
  Independence Day is August 31 next, and it will be celebrated at Kuala Lumpur in the presence of His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, Their Highnesses the Rulers, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and others; and we shall celebrate Merdeka (the name which the Malays give to independence) with glad hearts, and no doubt lively heels at times, too, in spite of the heat. We on this side of the House welcome this Bill and the proposed new Constitution. We welcome the new Federation of Malaya as an independent member of the Commonwealth, and we wish it and its peoples, under God, a long, happy and prosperous life.

  THE SITUATION IN CENTRAL OMAN
  4.2 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will again intervene to make a further report on the situation in Oman, in terms similar to those being used by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. Your Lordships might appreciate it if I gave some more particulars of the background to the present situation in Muscat and Oman. The Sultanate of Muscat and Oman is an independent Sovereign State. In 1913 a religious dignitary known as the Imam led a revolt
  242
  of some of the tribes in the interior, but in 1920 an agreement was reached at a place called Sib under which the tribes were given some autonomy but the sovereignty of the Sultan was recognised throughout the Sultanate. This agreement was broken by the tribes in the year or two prior to December, 1955, when the new Imam, with foreign help, sought to establish a separate principality. In December, 1955, the Sultan took steps to reassert his authority, and forces under his control entered the main inhabited centres of Oman, meeting no resistance. The former Imam was allowed by the Sultan to live in his village against a guarantee of his good behaviour from a local sheikh. His brother Talib escaped to Saudi Arabia and thence to Cairo. Since that time an "Oman Imamate" Office has been established in Cairo, while Cairo Radio disseminates pro-Imam propaganda.
  A month or two ago there was trouble with one tribal leader. The Sultan dealt with this successfully and the leader concerned surrendered on June 14. On that same date, however, Talib, the brother of the ex-Imam, is believed to have landed again in Muscat. About the same time a quantity of arms, including light machine guns and anti-tank mines, was also landed. Talib set himself up in the mountain area north-west of Nizwa and attracted to himself something like 200 followers. He then occupied certain villages, some of which had fortifications. Loyal tribes sent to deal with Talib were unable to cope with the automatic weapons and the land mines, and Talib's followers were able to inflict a reverse on the Sultan's forces backing the loyal tribes. This enabled Talib to persuade other local tribesmen to defect. In the primitive tribal society of the region, without some active reaction from the Sultan or his friends, there was always the possibility that disaffection might spread from tribe to tribe.
  It was in these circumstances that on the evening of July 16 the Sultan sent an appeal to Her Majesty's Government in the form of a letter to Her Majesty's Consul-General in Muscat. The terms of the Sultan's letter were as follows:
  "You have full knowledge of the situation which has now developed at Nizwa and I feel the time has now come when I must request the maximum military and air support which our friend Her Britannic Majesty's Government

  243
  can give in these circumstances, as on those past occasions which have so cemented our friendship and for which I bear lasting gratitude. I shall be most deeply grateful if such assistance can be given again to restore the position and to prevent further loss of ground and loss of confidence.
  "Events are now moving so fast that I need hardly add that the speed with which support can be given will be vital to its value, and I shall be very grateful if you will take up the matter with Her Britannic Majesty's Government accordingly."
  The decision of Her Majesty's Government to give help to the Sultan was made for two reasons. First, it was at the request of a friendly ruler who had always relied on us to help him resist aggression or subversion. Secondly, there is the direct British interest involved, and I have no need to stress to Your Lordships the importance of the Persian Gulf. In the Gulf we have certain formal and implicit obligations to the rulers of sheikhdoms under our protection to protect them against attack. This is generally understood throughout the area and it has always been assumed that Her Majesty's Government would honour their obligations. The difference between a formal obligation and the obligations of a long-standing relationship of friendship is not readily apparent to the local rulers and people. If we were to fail in one area it would begin to be assumed elsewhere that perhaps the anti-British propaganda of our enemies had some basis to it and that Her Majesty's Government were no longer willing or able to help their friends.
  The present position is that Royal Air Force aircraft have taken limited action after due warning against certain military targets, namely, forts in the dissident area. They have also droped leaflets on behalf of the Sultan, and I am arranging for a summary of the contents of these to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. No United Kingdom ground forces have been engaged in operations but, as a precaution, our troops in the Persian Gulf area have been reinforced from Kenya, and a detachment of the Cameronians are at Buraimi. The Political Resident has reported that the rebellion has only small active tribal backing. The military operations are on a small scale. Casualties in the conflicts between the Sultan's forces and the rebels have been very small indeed. There have been no casualties to British forces reported.
  Following is the Summary referred to:
  Summary of First Leaflet
  Talib, Ghalib and Suleiman bin Hamyar have stirred up trouble to serve their selfish ends. Necessary steps will be taken against them until they obey the Government's orders. As a demonstration aircraft will fire on selected targets after people have been warned to get out. If this is not sufficient further steps will have to be taken to punish the district harbouring the trouble-makers. The remedy is in your own hands: turn the traitors out, send your leaders to us and fly our red flag.
  Summary of Second Leaflet
  Omanis, you have now seen a demonstration of the fire-power of aircraft. Turn out the traitors to avoid further destruction. Omanis, your trade and prosperity are also in danger. During the last two years I have built you a new road to bring your produce to the sea, you have doctors living among you for the first time, a travelling hospital and the advice of agricultural experts. Above all, you had peace to enable you to go about your lawful business. Now the traitors have come, the road is blocked, trade is interrupted and every man goes in fear of his neighbour. Turn out the traitors and we will resume together the march towards progress and properity in peace and security.
  Summary of Warning Leaflet
  The Sultan of Muscat and Oman issues a warning that your fortresses will be attacked by aircraft the day after tomorrow. The object of the attack is not to destroy but to demonstrate that we have effective, powerful weapons.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to Her Majesty's Government for making before the Summer Recess the statement for which I asked them. This matter seems to be assuming smaller proportions than at one time perhaps appeared likely, but I still feel that, in view of the plain facts which are contained in the statement just made by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, it would be a good thing if Her Majesty's Government were officially to inform the United Nations of the action taken and the reasons for it, and put the matter forward officially. It seems to me that if we are to build up a sound United Nations view on these matters the best way to do so is to keep them fully informed of the facts and circumstances in which events have occurred, and to do so on our own initiative. I hope, therefore, that after the further consideration which must have been given to the matter since we first raised that point here (and I believe it was raised in another place) we may get a statement upon it.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as I informed your Lordships last week, Her Majesty's Government do not feel that the situation necessitates a report to the United Nations. I will, however, gladly draw the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary to the remarks of the noble Viscount.

  FEDERATION OF MALAYA INDEPENDENCE BILL
  4.10 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD REID: My Lords. I should like at the beginning of my remarks to acknowledge with gratitude the kind things that have been said in this House, and outside, about the work of the Constitutional Commission over which I had the honour to preside. And I should like to make it clear that we set out to work as a team. We did work as a team, and each and all of my colleagues is fully entitled to his full share of any credit that our work may have attracted. It may not be out of place that I should make some general remarks on this occasion. I would not pose as an expert on Malaya because I was there less than six months. But, of course, I did have. as did my colleagues, unusual opportunities of seeing a great variety of people and of hearing their views, formally and informally; and I think I can safely say that each of us left Malaya feeling that we had the personal friendship of a considerable number of people in that country—and people of all races. I think that, in those circumstances, perhaps, we got almost more help from our informal contacts than we did from formal representations.
  I can confess now that I went to that country with some misgiving. I knew, of course, that there were the ordinary problems that confront any country setting out on a career of independence, but in Malaya there were also peculiar problems inseparable from a multi-racial society—a society in which the Malays outnumber the Chinese (though not by very much), in which there are a large number of Indians and substantial communities of other races. Then there is a further matter which I felt might make difficulties. Seventy or eighty years ago. Malaya was
  246
  in many ways far behind most other countries. To-day, Malaya is far in front of many other countries in just those ways; and such tremendous progress in such a very short time must necessarily make it more difficult to establish a stable society. But there are a number of factors which undoubtedly make for stability, and I am bound to say now that when I left Malaya I felt a great deal more confident about the future of that country than I did when I went there.
  May I take first the economic side? If there is any truth at all in the view that a high standard of living means political stability, then Malaya undoubtedly has the highest standard of living, for the ordinary man, of any country in South East Asia and very probably has the highest standard of living of any country in the whole of that continent. That is due largely to natural advantages, but I think one must pay tribute to the progress which has been made, and to the great efforts which have been made by those who have built up the rubber and tin industries. The rubber industry has been built up over the last sixty years or so; the tin industry over a longer period. And the wealth those industries have produced has not only created a public service throughout the Federation of a character which is far superior to those in most other countries with a comparatively short history, but has filtered down to the ordinary man, the ordinary family, very far removed from any direct contact with those two industries.
  For the future, it would undoubtedly be unwise to rely on the continued prosperity of those industries as sufficient to maintain the economy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that industry must be developed, but I would say that even more important is the right use of the land of the country. We thought it necessary to devote a great deal of attention to that aspect, because there were certain unsatisfactory features about the present situation. We came to the conclusion that there was no reason why forestry, in particular, should not become a very great producer of wealth for the new nation. But that will, of course, require a great deal of skill and time and thought and money. Even with the rapidly rising population of Malaya, I think there are good hopes that the

  247
  present standard of living can be maintained, and even improved, over the coming years.
  But much more important than the economic side is the political side, because without political stability nothing else will really matter in the end. Here I think that Malaya starts with one great advantage. I could find no sign of personal ill-feeling between the members of the different races. Much credit is due to every race concerned, but I do not think we should forget the example that has been given by British officers who have devoted their lives over the last eighty years or more to the welfare of that country. I saw no sign of any social or racial intolerance, and I do not believe that there ever has been any in that country—I mean, personally, as between individuals—but, of course, that sort of thing can be stirred up. There are trouble-makers in the country, and trouble could be stirred up in Malaya. I do not think that it will be, however. I put that view on three grounds.
  In the first place, the ordinary Malay voter struck me as a person who had a surprising amount of political sense—I say a "surprising amount" because the apparatus of democracy is very new in that country. I think there are great hopes of the ordinary voter there showing pretty mature political judgment. Secondly, I would comment on the ability, the wisdom and the strength of character of the Alliance Party leaders, who have already, I think, contributed a great deal to the prospects for the future. I hope that Tunku Abdul Rahman will not consider me presumptuous if I mention him and say that, in my judgment, he has already put himself in the select company of statesmen of the modern world.
  It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of Malaya for the future. Success means a great deal not only to the inhabitants of that country, who are comparatively few, but to a far wider circle. It is very important for us and for the whole of the Commonwealth. Economically, Malaya is unique in the sterling area, but politically the success of the new Malaya is even more important. I do not think that we can hide from ourselves the fact that the political future of South East Asia is
  248
  precarious; and I believe that if Malaya makes a success of the future, as I think she will, her success will be an example to her neighbours. But if Malaya should not be a success, then to my mind the future of the whole of South East Asia is dark indeed. The march of progress has now brought us to a point when it is difficult to say of any country that its future is assured, but it seems to me that one can easily say of Malaya that its future looks more promising than the future of most other countries in that part of the world.
  That brings me to my next point. For many reasons but, put at the lowest, for our own selfish advantage, it is of the utmost importance that Her Majesty's Government should give every possible assistance to the new Federation, because so much depends on the success of the next few years, and it would indeed be a pity if it went wrong by reason of some lack of timely help. I should like to say a further word on a kindred matter. I have heard rumours—I hope that they are not well founded—that those who direct the investment of private capital are somewhat hesitant about the future of Malaya. I think that I can best express my own view in this way: I believe that Malaya is one of the minority of countries to-day where there is fair prospect that foreign capital will receive proper treatment. I hope that there will be an influx of such capital as is required for the development of the country; and if it is forthcoming, I believe that it will be wisely used.
  I pass to the problems that confronted us on the Commission more especially in drafting the Constitution. I do not wish to go into details about these matters (I do not think that it would be wise), only to make some general remarks. I think that we recognised the peculiar problems of the country. We certainly tried not to copy slavishly from other Constitutions, and I am happy to think that most of our recommendations have been accepted in substance. Of course, there have been a good many changes, but we all recognised that on political questions we should not have the last word. The greater part of the changes have been in the direction of giving more freedom to the Executive and to the Parliament of Malaya, and correspondingly less extensive guarantees of

  249
  individual rights than we had recommended. But, of course, holding the balance is a matter of political judgment, and it is a matter where, as we recognised, those who have the responsibility of governing the country ought to have a very large say in determining the final shape of the Constitution. I cannot speak for my colleagues, because I have not heard from them since the White Paper came out, but speaking for myself, I am not dismayed at the changes which have been made.
  The other changes, which do not come into the category I have described, are mostly of minor importance. I would mention only two. One is the establishment of Islam as the State religion in the Federation. As we set out in our Report, we were specifically asked by the Rulers, who are the guardians of Islam in their respective States, not to put anything of that kind in the Constituion. But they have changed their minds since we were in Malaya, and. speaking for myself. I see no objection in the change that has been made in the Constitution following upon that.
  The other matter that I think I must mention is citizenship. The changes with regard to citizenship of the Federation may be substantial, or they may be simply paper changes. I do not myself regard the changes as of vital importance, but perhaps we were more interested in Commonwealth citizenship, and I am glad to say that Commonwealth citizenship has been retained. I will not trouble your Lordships with the extremely technical matter of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. There has been a change made there, but I think I am safe in saying that the practical interests of those in the Federation who are at present citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—and they are in a much wider class than inside Penang and Malacca—will not be prejudiced in the long run by the changes that have been made. Therefore it seems to me that the substantial changes which have been made, although I recognise their importance, have not destroyed, though they may have shifted, the balance which we tried to keep.
  I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say a few words about the form of the new Constitution. We devoted a great deal of time to drafting the Constitution
  250
  and, as has been said, my colleagues are very eminent jurists, all but one of whom have had considerable experience in this matter of drafting Constitutions. Our draft has been extensively altered. In most cases there has been no change in either the substance or, I venture to think, the clarity of the articles. Drafting is largely a matter of taste, and some people may like the new form and others the old. With regard to the majority of changes, I do not think it makes a ha'p'orth of difference. Some improvements I readily admit, but I regret to say that in some cases, where no change of substance has been intended, the new form is considerably less clear than the form which we recommended. In one case, at least, a form which we considered, and deliberately rejected, for practical reasons, has now been inserted. Why, I do not know. I think that part of the explanation is that clarity has been sacrificed to brevity.
  I am bound to say that when I come to the drafting of the new provisions which have been made necessary by changes of policy, I am uneasy. There is one extremely important new article which is so drafted that I could not venture to prophesy what view a court would take of it. If the court takes one view, then an extremely important change has been made, of which there is not a whisper in the White Paper and which I am sure was never intended. To have an important article left in such a position of ambiguity and obscurity seems to me extremely unfortunate. That is not the only one. I realise that time was very short for the draftsmen, but I venture to think that if less time had been wasted on making unnecessary alterations, then perhaps the necessary alterations might have received further consideration. I regret to have to say it, but the drafting of this Constitution falls far short of the high standard of drafting to which your Lordships are accustomed in Government Bills in this House.
  I also regret the dropping of a clause which we included in order to enable fundamental rights to be more readily ascertained and defended. It is said in paragraph 53 of the White Paper:
  "Sufficient remedies can best be provided by the ordinary law".
  It appears to have been forgotten, however, that the ordinary law of this country grew up in a country where there is no

  251
  written Constitution and where there are no guaranteed rights. Therefore it is not very surprising if the ordinary law is hardly adequate for a Constitution which sets out to guarantee individual rights. I regret to trouble your Lordships with these technicalities, but I feel bound, in the interests of the reputations of my distinguished colleagues, to disclaim all responsibility for the form of the Constitution. I must just leave it at that.
  I would not end on a technical note. The best Constitution cannot ensure success. Success requires political steadiness in the electorate, and wisdom and forbearance in the leaders. But those qualities exist in Malaya, and I believe that they exist to such an extent that they will be able to cope with the problem in front of them. There is a very long task in building a united nation in Malaya after Merdeka Day, but I do not believe that it is beyond the powers of those who will have to shoulder the burden. I know that I speak for all Members of the Commission over which I presided when I say that we acquired, and we retain, a very personal and sincere liking for the peoples of that country—I should now say the people of that country—and we shall retain a keen interest in their future. I am sure that, on behalf of all of us, I may express our confident good wishes for the success of the new independent Malaya.
  4.32 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to support the Second Reading of this Bill which makes it possible to grant independence next month to Malaya. The people of Malaya have reached political maturity, and we now give them the key to their own future. We cannot anticipate easy days lying ahead for them, but if the Federation Government show the same statesmenship and tolerance, and if the people of Malaya keep faith with their Government, many of the problems will solve themselves. But the Government and the people of Malaya will find, as many other nations have found, that overnight, by a stroke of a pen, a nation is not created. The real worth of a nation is its people, more so than its own economic resources. Malaya is a country of many people—Malays, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Sinhalese, Eurasians and Europeans from many
  252
  countries—who are very different in language, custom, religion and temperament: yet they have succeeded in living in peace and harmony together.
  A statesmanship and tolerance has been obvious from the conduct of the leaders of the various racial groups in the Federation of Malaya. I think it quite remarkable that only three years ago the Federal Legislative Council was an entirely nominated body, and now Her Majesty's Government, with confidence in the leaders of Malaya, feel that they can grant them their independence. One of the dangers to stable government in Malaya is that the organisations and associations which make up the Federal Legislative Council and the Government are organised on communal lines; and there is an obvious danger that these associations will think on communal lines, and not nationally. This danger has so far been averted by the example set by the leaders of these various associations. In my view, it would be an advantage if the Alliance Parties gradually ceased from being communal associations and became a political Party. Faced in a Legislative Council and in the country by a political Party or an Opposition, they could offer alternative economic and political programmes.
  In the debate on the Colonial Development Corporation two weeks ago I urged help for Malaya in its early days of independence. I do not propose to pursue that subject this afternoon, but I think your Lordships will agree that a dependent country economically does not transform itself overnight by attaining political independence into an independent economic unit; there is bound to be a period before any country can attain the status whereby, in her own right, she can attract private capital. Malaya has a stable Government, a Civil Service second to none in South-East Asia, and a virile and intelligent people: in fact, as good a prospect as any for foreign investment. But, detracting from all these attractions, are the unsettled conditions in the neighbouring countries, and, of course, the brooding shadow of China. I trust that it is the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to give continued aid to Malaya in these early days of independence.
  I believe that we in this country are under some obligation to Malaya. Apart

  253
  from her contributions to the sterling account, Malaya has stood firm since 1948 against a Communist insurrection. My impression, being in this country, is that we here do not really appreciate the exact price that the people of Malaya have paid since 1948 in combating the Communist terrorists in Malaya. Our own forces and those of the Commonwealth have shown great courage and tenacity in the appalling conditions in the jungles of Malaya. The noble Earl, Lord Home, mentioned the Australian and New Zealand troops. I think at this stage we should pay tribute to those wonderful men from Nepal who make up, I believe, four or five battalions of Gurkha troops, and the wonderful soldiers from Fiji, the First Battalion, the Fiji Regiment. But I think your Lordships would be surprised, as I was, to find out what the casualties were, since 1948, among Malay troops and civilians in Malaya. I have figures for the period from the beginning of the insurrection to February of this year. The Police have lost in action against the terrorists 1,338 killed, and 1,579 wounded; the military forces have had killed in action 508, and wounded 924. These men all took up arms in protection of their country. But the price that the unarmed civilians had to pay was even greater. They have had killed 2,453 and a further 805 missing must be presumed dead; and wounded, 1,379.
  I think this is a good opportunity to remember three High Commissioners who each have played a great part in making this Bill possible to-day. I think of Sir Henry Gurney, who was killed by the terrorists at Fraser's Hill. I think of Sir Gerald Templer, who became High Commissioner on the death of Sir Henry Gurney and who brought about a change in the battle against the terrorists. I think also of Sir Donald MacGillivray, whose quiet work has done much, I believe, in making the present Constitution acceptable to so many different sections in Malaya.
  It is quite right that we should pay tribute to the great men of Malaya, and I think on this occasion we should remember also the more humble men. I think of the planters and the miners, who kept their vital industries open. I think we should remember the engine drivers, who kept the mail trains going through
  254
  the night, in spite of repeated mining and ambushing. I think we should also remember particularly those wonderful women of the Red Cross and the W.V.S. who, unarmed and unescorted, went into the jungle to bring medical supplies to the villages of Malaya. Many civilians have paid the great price. Apart from threats to their lives, they have had to face reprisals against their families. These people will not need any monument of stone. I believe that this Bill, which we hope to pass this afternoon, is their memorial; for if they had not stood firm against the Communist terrorists this Bill would never have been possible.
  We have a great obligation to Malaya, for if Malaya had gone Communist I believe all South-East Asia would have gone. Malaya is the key to South-East Asia, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will remember that fact on any occasion when they are approached for assistance. Just before he was taken from us, my father was preparing a speech on his visit to Malaya to deliver in your Lordships' House. I should like to say something that I know he would have liked to say. He was greatly impressed by the quality and calibre of the expatriate civil servant—that is, the British civil servant working in Malaya—his obvious devotion to duty and his affection for Malaya and the people. The wives of these expatriates and the wives of Europeans working in commerce and in industry all played their part in the many charitable organisations. Many of these faithful servants are now coming back to this country, their services no longer required. The Government of the Federation of Malaya have been, I believe, generous in the way of compensation and pension. But many of these people are in the prime of life. They come back to this country, looking for a home and employment. I would ask Her Majesty's Government and, through your Lordships' House, industry and commerce, to try to find openings for these people. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken or propose taking in assisting these expatriate civil servants.
  I have carefully avoided any comment on the problems of the Constitution. As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has said, we cannot pretend that it is perfect, and that all sections of Malaya are satisfied, but

  255
  I believe that, in the circumstances, it is the best that can be devised. The words and phrasing of a Constitution, however, are secondary compared with the spirit in which it is interpreted. I hesitate to give any advice to the people of Malaya, but this I will say. I believe that the leaders of U.M.N.O. and M.C.A., the main partners of the Alliance Government, are aware of the dangers of racial strife, and are determined to be fair to all sections of the community. But that is not enough. All sections, particularly the more militant part or section of the Malay and Chinese community, must show equal tolerance to each other and make no demands that they know will meet with bitter opposition and resentment from the others. If I may say so, they should follow the example of the British civil servant, who has worked so hard to make independence possible, thereby sacrificing his own personal career. Given tolerance, the constitutional problems will solve themselves.
  I am glad to have had the opportunity of speaking in support of this Bill. I should also like to take this opportunity of wishing the Rulers, the Government of the Federation and the people of Malaya good fortune and happiness in their new independence, and I am quite sure all ex-Malayans would wish to be associated with those good wishes.
  4.47 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, this Bill has been generally welcomed by the noble Lords who have spoken to-day, the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore, Lord Reid and Lord Shepherd. They all have one advantage over me, in that they have spent either a longer or a shorter part of their life in Malaya. I feel sure that what they have said is of particular interest to your Lordships' House, and will be remembered and commented upon in Malaya itself.
  The Bill is unique in that it provides for the independence of the Federation of Malaya, although nine out of the eleven States comprising this Federation were never colonial or British territories; rather have they always retained their own sovereignty under their own Royal Rulers. At the same time, for the last seventy years association between these States and the United Kingdom has been of the closest. We can share with the inhabi
  256
  tants of the territories in the pride of Merdeka Day, August 31, knowing that in partnership we have built and developed their country so that to-day, as has been pointed out, it enjoys the highest standards of living in that part of the world.
  It is less than ten years ago that the Federation of Malaya Agreement, which set the goal of eventual self-government, was signed. Since then, there have been steady and successive steps in the constitutional process towards that end, and despite all the efforts of the Communists, who, as noble Lords will remember, exerted every effort to disrupt this Agreement of 1948, we are now at the stage of its ending, and the Communists have failed to conquer the territory. The failure of this effort is, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, particularly a Malayan triumph. But it is also, in a real sense, a Commonwealth triumph, because it has been not only the Malayan forces and United Kingdom forces which have fought, but also Australian and New Zealand units and battalions from East and Central Africa and Fiji. This joint Commonwealth effort is to continue, for the Malayan Government have asked that the Commonwealth Brigade should continue to help wipe out the remaining terrorists.
  Not only is the success against the Communists a Commonwealth triumph, but the success of the constitutional instruments, as Lord Ogmore has pointed out, is also, in a sense, a Commonwealth success. The Commission which was set up under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, contained distinguished representatives of three Commonwealth countries, apart from the United Kingdom. There was Sir William McKell, from Australia, Mr. B. Malik, from India, and Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid from Pakistan; and from this country, apart from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, who was chairman, there was Sir Ivor Jennings. Indeed, if it had not been for illness, the representative of one other member of the Commonwealth—Canada—would have taken part in the Commission. It is indeed a great tribute to the Commonwealth, and to the impartiality and wisdom of Malaya, that the Commission has done its task. This Commonwealth effort is a cause of great satisfaction and promise for the future, and it has been convincingly crowned by

  257
  the welcome given to Malaya's forthcoming independence at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
  The Constitution that has emerged, was, as your Lordships know, first fashioned in a most skilful and comprehensive way by the Commission, and I want to echo the tribute of others of your Lordships to Lord Reid and the Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that there had been no thanks in the White Paper to the Commission, but I think we must remember what was the purpose of the White Paper. Its explanatory introduction begins:
  "It is the purpose of this White Paper to describe the more important changes in the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission which are now proposed."
  That in itself, if I may so put it, is praise and thanks to the Commission, because if the Commission's Report was not a substantial document in its own right it would not be worth while issuing a whole White Paper pointing out the various changes and why they have been made.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also said that there were no other thanks given, but, with your Lordships' permission, I will read out what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said in another place a little while ago. In particular I would refer to what he said about the drafting of paragraph 3 of the White Paper, which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said was unhappy and ungenerous. My right honourable friend said:
  "The intention of that paragraph"—
  that is paragraph 3—
  "was to make clear that the reviewing work of the draftsman did not involve any alteration of principle or policy, but was concerned solely with wording. In trying to make this clear, t tear that we may, unintentionally, have given the impression that the Commission's drafts did in fact contain substantial inconsistencies or ambiguities."—
  and this is what I wish to emphasise—
  "This was not so, and it was not our intention to suggest that it was. I apologise to the House and to the Commission if the White Paper in any way gives that impression".
  I have paid tribute, my Lords, to those who wrote the Constitution. I would only say that I am very sorry if anybody has been upset. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, made certain comments on the Constitution as it is now drafted. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to cross swords with him. I can only
  258
  express the hope that the Parliamentary draftsman, in whom I have full confidence, and he will both prove to be right, and that in fact the Constitution will work—because we all know that the spirit is more important than the word. Perhaps I might add, as further proof about the Constitution and its acceptance generally, that in the last few weeks it has been unanimously accepted by the Federal Legislature and the Legislatures of Penang and Malacca.
  This Bill does not grant self-government, but enables Her Majesty the Queen to enter into an agreement to establish an independent Federation of Malaya and to provide by Order in Council for its implementation. It withdraws United Kingdom protection and jurisdiction from the Rulers, and arranges for Penang and Malacca, at present part of Her Majesty's Dominions, to join the Federation as two new States on equal terms with all the other States. At the same time it preserves the United Kingdom nationality status of those, and particularly those who are known as the "Queen's Chinese," who are now citizens of these two States. After Merdeka Day, all citizens will look to the Federation as their nation to whom their loyalty is due. I do not believe your Lordships would wish me to elaborate further on the citizenship question. It has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and the happy thing is that it is accepted by one and all.
  I think at this moment it might be appropriate for me to answer a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about Clause 2 (4) of the Bill. He asked why mention has to be made of Southern Rhodesia. The answer is that this subsection is interpretative. It defines the laws which the United Kingdom Parliament is amending in consequence of in-dependence. The definition includes generally the laws of our dependent territories, but it was necessary to exclude the laws of the Central African Federation in order to avoid encroaching upon the self-governing powers of the Central African Federation. It is a technical, interpretative point, and I hope that what I have said will answer the noble Lord's question.
  Not only does the Constitution cover excellently the immense difficulties we all know about race, but it also deals with

  259
  religion, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out. Originally there was no thought of having a State religion, but subsequently those concerned felt that it was best, and it is now laid down, that Islam will be the State religion. Under Articles 3 and 11 of the Constitution, however, tolerance for other religions and freedom of religious observance are fully enshrined and safeguarded. So far as religious education is concerned, Article 12 lays down that there is to be no discrimination on the grounds only of religion, or indeed of race, descent, or place of birth, and every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for the education of children belonging to its own religion. So I feel confident that the religious safeguards in the Constitution are all that one would wish.
  My Lords, those two subjects, religion and race, are ordinarily material for great strife, but this Constitution has, I believe, avoided the pitfalls and is a triumph of good sense and tolerance. All concerned are to be congratulated most sincerely, and particularly the Chief Minister of the Federation. Tengku Abdul Rahman. I had the privilege of meeting him when he was over here with his colleagues a few weeks ago, when we were drawing up the finishing touches to the Constitution. I have seldom seen a more understanding appreciation of other points of view than was shown by those who were present at these discussions.
  Turning now to economic questions, I agree with the noble Lords who have spoken that it is of first importance that we should continue to help Malaya in building up her economy. Her Majesty's Government are to provide up to £20 million over the next five years to help deal with the emergency. They are also providing £14 million in cash and kind towards the cost of building up Malaya's army. This is a generous and continuing aid, and it will allow the Federation to use its own resources for its own economic development. We might have done it the other way. We might have left those expenses to the Malayans and ourselves provided the direct economic aid, or loans in one way or another; but, while that might have been more profitable for us, it would have been less generous to Malaya. So. although our aid takes this
  260
  particular form, I think your Lordships will agree that in fact we are doing a great deal towards continuing help to Malaya.
  Your Lordships all know the great economic strength of the Federation, which has been based largely on the rubber plantations and, to a lesser degree, on tin mining. It is hard to remember that at the beginning of this century all of this wealth was practically non-existent, and it is a great satisfaction to know that it was British enterprise which started it and took a great part in its development. I have little doubt that United Kingdom private capital will continue to play a great rôle and that Sir Henry Lee, the Federation Minister of Finance, and the Malayan Government will surely act wisely and well so as to encourage more investment from overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned the question of a capital market as recommended by the International Bank. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also stressed the importance of our giving advice and help. I can only say that I echo the importance of these developments and feel confident that not only the Government itself but private enterprise also will continue to help in every way possible.
  Turning for one moment to the Colonial Development Corporation. I would say to your Lordships that while it is true that it is no longer to put new funds into new enterprises, it is still available for management, and can still continue in relation to certain existing investments, where the necessity arises. The important thing for Malaya is that its credit will be of its own making.I have no doubt that its credit standing will be of the highest and that it will continue to be one of the great strengths of the sterling area and that the dollars that it earns will contribute generally to the well-being of the Commonwealth.
  LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Earl this question? It is a fact, is it not, that the new Malayan Government is welcoming finance from outside—external finance?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: Certainly it is a fact; and various statements have been made recently stressing that. Of course, in so far as we can help we will do all we can, but it is a delicate animal and needs to be nursed by Malayans themselves.

  261
  Some disappointment has been expressed in Malaya by certain groups at their position in the Constitution. Compromise, however, is the essence of a Constitution, and Her Majesty's Government are confident that all groups have been fairly treated. To-day, Malaya has a wise and multi-racial government. Its foundation has been laid not only by the Malayans but also by many British officers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said that they had been operating for eighty years, he thought, in Malaya. I think the time goes back probably 170 years.
  LORD REID: I was referring only to the Malay States.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: But, whatever the date, I feel that we should all wish to pay the warmest tribute to what has been done, not only by the three High Commissioners mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but by one and all who, by their devotion and hard work, have contributed to making Malaya what she is to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked what was to happen to the expatriates, who are coming back to this country. I think the answer is twofold. First, wherever possible, we are going to arrange to place them in other services overseas. Secondly, we are setting up over here a re-employment bureau. I would echo the wish of the noble Lord that those in industry and elsewhere here will do all they can to help those who do come home. It remains for me to commend this Bill for its Second Reading and to join with other noble Lords who spoke, and the whole House, in wishing the Federation a great and happy future as a full member of the Commonwealth family.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), House in Committee: Bill reported without amendment. Bill read 3a, and passed.

  TEACHING OF SWIMMING IN SCHOOLS
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider making the teaching of swimming obligatory in all schools. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before asking it, I wish to say a very few words. Your Lordships, no doubt, like myself, will have been shocked by the numbers of people, and children in particular, who are drowned, especially during the summer months. Even this morning I noticed two announcements of drownings. In a great many cases—I have not the figures; I do not know whether they are really available—the cause is that people cannot swim. Often one hears of the great courage shown by some people who cannot themselves swim. but who plunge in to try to save somebody struggling in the water and there have been cases where both have been drowned.
  I want to see whether we can do something about this problem. To me it is deplorable that, simply because an individual cannot swim and has never had a chance of learning to swim, should he meet with some minor accident which shoots him into the river, although quite close to the bank he has no chance of getting to the shore. Everyone who reads the daily Press notices these tragedies. As your Lordships are aware, there are a number of schools in which the teaching of swimming is a part of the curriculum. Certainly there are a great many schools where they have what are called "wet bobs", where they will not allow the students to go into the water at all until they have passed a swimming test. My own boy, had to pass such a test, and he could become a "wet bob" only by so doing. Could we not see to it that some sort of encouragement is given to all schools, national and otherwise, to teach students swimming?
  No doubt it will be asked, "Where are you going to get your swimming pools?" Well, there are few places in the country to-day where swimming pools are not within a reasonable distance. That is true of nearly all villages, and certainly of towns. In many towns there is more than one swimming pool. I hope that

  263
  the Government will take this matter into serious consideration, and will see whether they cannot introduce into the curriculum of the schools, and make compulsory, the teaching of swimming. It may be asked, "Why should this be done?" It is a splendid and healthy exercise, and it contributes greatly to the safety of our young people, particularly on holiday. I ask Her Majesty's Government to take this matter seriously into consideration and do all they can to see to it that our people, particularly the young people, are taught to swim, and that every facility is given throughout the country for them so to do. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  5.14 p.m.
  LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this matter. I think the point to which the noble Lord has drawn attention is a serious one. As is usual at holiday time, the number of lives that have been lost this season is most serious. There is a kind of illusion abroad in the country that if you live away from the seaside, inland, it is quite unnecessary to learn to swim, or that some barrier is going to be put in the way of swimming baths. Last week-end I had the privilege of opening a swimming bath and I was pleased to note the tiny tots who could swim, and who dived in after the baths were declared open. But it is a fact that, away from the sea and inland, there is an illusion that it is not necessary to learn to swim.
  Moreover, there are those "penny wise, pound foolish" people who, from the point of view of the rates, do not encourage the building of swimming baths. Your Lordships would be surprised at some of the objections that are not only taken, but effectively taken. This is an age when, if ever, physical exercise is necessary. That is so particularly in regard to the coming generation. I know of no better way of getting physical exercise than the learning of a great art which may be the means not only of saving the life of the swimmer but also the lives of others. That is a singular thing in this country: time after time a man or boy will dive in and save a life, almost taking it for granted, and will sometimes scuttle out of the way in case people want to ask his name. I trust that the noble Viscount the Minister will be able to give some encouragement
  264
  to this suggestion that we should encourage the great art of swimming. I hope, indeed, that he will say that he will give all the encouragement he can to those local authorities who want to make swimming baths for their people.
  5.17 p.m.
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, there is little doubt that everybody in this House will agree that this is a counsel of perfection: that it is highly desirable that every boy and girl who is physically capable should learn to swim. Undoubtedly, if that could be brought about, it would save a number of lives, because everybody who can swim well is a potential saver of the life of somebody who cannot swim. But there are, of course, great difficulties. I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, when he says that the possibility of learning to swim is within the reach of everybody who really makes up his mind—that is what it came to, I think. I am afraid there are many remote villages in this country where it would be very difficult indeed to find somewhere to swim—my own village in Worcestershire, for instance. We had to hunt far and wide before we could get any place in which to teach the boys to swim. We accomplished it in the end; but that is neither here nor there. There are many places where it would be most difficult.
  And how can it be organised? Of course, the Government can encourage it—that is very easily done. But if it is going to be organised on the basis of, and by, the Ministry of Education, it will mean careful instruction when they have managed to get the children to the swimming bath, or to such a place where they can be taught to swim. I do not suppose, for instance, that in these remote districts there are always schoolmasters or mistresses who themselves know the art of swimming and can teach it. It seems to me that it would require an enormous amount. not only of organisation in bringing the children in from the remoter parts to such swimming baths as may be within reach, but of instruction in swimming. which is an art and cannot be taught by everybody. I do not want to pour cold water on to an excellent idea, if only it could be accomplished, but I see the difficulties, and I shall be most interested to hear from the noble Viscount the Minister whether he, too, sees them.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? There is one further point to which I would ask the noble Viscount the Minister to pay considerable attention: that is, the state of the water in the baths when the children get into it. During my membership of another place a large municipal swimming bath was opened and for health reasons the water was heavily chlorinated. A friend of mine travelling in a train from London heard a lady in his carriage say to another: "I do like the new swimming bath. My asthma has been so much better since I have been bathing there."
  5.21 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Minister of Education will have gathered that there is considerable interest in this subject among the small number remaining in attendance to-day. It is a very important question and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was quite right to raise it. Perhaps there is nothing of real substance for us to debate except the point of compulsion, and I am wondering where compulsion in the general layout of education and physical training begins and ends. Is it compulsory for all the pupils for whom the Minister has ultimate policy responsibility to conform to every other form of physical training except swimming? What is the general regulation governing that particular aspect of school functions to-day?
  During the many years that I was on the administrative staff of a county education authority I was always interested in this subject and I could see all kinds of difficulties, such as those mentioned just now by a noble Lord in regard to certain districts. The education authority that I was with was a county authority, and the organisation of swimming education would in some cases necessitate perhaps a coach journey of a good many miles each way and would add considerably to costs. On the other hand, whilst it is true that we have lately seen a number of casualties which are very disturbing, it is only fair to say (and I have been a swimmer now, certainly, for about sixty-five years) that there is a much more widespread practice of the art of swimming than there was in my early youth. We owe a great deal to the voluntary organisers who have done so much to make swimming more widespread in the
  266
  country since those years. In this matter the Amateur Swimming Association and the various school swimming associations have been exceedingly good.
  On the other hand I suppose that this suggestion could be quite well extended in city, urban and semi-urban areas, in the new type of organisation of school education, if in every new school building, or even attached to an existing building if the site permitted, there was a school swimming bath, with the ordinary members of the staff qualified to instruct in general physical training being also qualified to instruct in swimming and lifesaving. Great results have certainly been achieved, as I am sure the noble Viscount the Minister will tell us, from many of the schools which have either their own swimming bath available or ready access to publicly-provided baths.
  If the noble Viscount the Minister had the general powers to make swimming instruction compulsory there would be not only the cost of travel in rural and semi-rural areas but also a considerable increase in administration costs if there were large numbers of objectors amongst parents who might feel that the particular eccentricities of health and physique of their children made swimming undesirable for them. Those objections would have to be administered with a great deal of care and sympathy and would involve a good deal in the matter of records, examinations, consultations and the like. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that while, as an old swimming official, I look a little anxiously at that side of the suggestion, if there is any method at all by which we can extend the knowledge and practice of swimming I shall be very glad to support it, provided that we can get round the difficulties. Finally, I must say that it does us good to-day, when we look at other sports, to see the upholding of the name and prowess of British citizens in the world's competitions. And it is quite magnificent to see the extent to which our representative young swimmers are to-day, if not leading the world, very nearly doing so.
  5.27 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords. I should first thank my noble friend Lord Teviot for putting this Question and also other noble Lords who have spoken to

  267
  it. In a sense, my noble friend has been pioneering, because, so far as I can recollect, although there have been numerous debates which I have found it my duty to answer since I have held my present post, this is the first debate relating directly to the administration of my own Department since I was appointed Minister of Education in January last. I have to exclude, for constitutional reasons, which I explained at the time, the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, relating to the Universities, and also that of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on public schools, because it has not yet been debated. This therefore is the only debate on education that we have had for some time.
  My noble friend, Lord Teviot, has really raised two distinct questions in his speech and in the Question which he has put down on the Paper, and they really demand quite different answers. The Question on the Paper suggests—and my noble friend reiterated it in his remarks—that Her Majesty's Government should consider making the subject of swimming obligatory in the school curriculum of all schools. To this the answer must be "No." This is not because Her Majesty's Government do not attach as much importance to swimming as does my noble friend. It is indeed important in every way, both as an instrument of physical education and recreation, equally suitable for normal children and many of the handicapped—as my noble friend stressed—and also as an insurance against accidents. But the curious fact is that in this country the Government have always set their face against prescribing the school curriculum. In our view this is a condition of public education in a free society. The curriculum is a matter for the teachers and the governors in each school; and for my part, as Minister, I say: long may it remain so!
  Yet (and this brings me to the second aspect of my noble friend's Question), whilst it is not the duty of the Education Ministers (by which I mean myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland) to dictate what should be taught, it is our duty to encourage and advise on what should be taught; and on this both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I would wish to see
  268
  swimming taught wherever staff and facilities are, or can be made, available. I am sure that teachers and local education authorities share our view on this point. The Departments have in fact done a great deal to encourage the provision of facilities. When the Standards for School Premises Regulations were last revised, which was in 1954, it was then prescribed for the first time that:
  "where approved facilities in swimming are provided, the area of playing field accommodation shall be such as may be approved in each case:"
  This, to me, rather obscure sentence means that facilities for instruction in swimming are no longer regarded simply as a desirable "frill", as they once were, but as so much a normal part of the school curriculum as to be acceptable to the Ministry as an alternative to part of the playing field area which otherwise would be needed. I should be happy if more authorities, particularly those in urban areas where land for playing fields is scarce and expensive, would take advantage of this option. Subject to certain safeguards, it is available not only where the local education authority themselves provide a bath for school use but also where arrangements are made for the use by school children of public baths.
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are also ready to consider proposals for building swimming baths as part of the premises of new secondary schools where this can be done within the ordinary limits of cost per place. I would agree that this is not easy to do, and that the school has to be fairly large for it to be possible at all, but I am glad to be able to report that within the last two years the provision of some fifteen new swimming baths has been approved on this basis in England and Wales. During the same period, approval has been given to the provision of seven baths in new Scottish schools.
  Perhaps this opportunity is not inappropriate in which to express the gratitude owed by us all to those groups of parents and teachers in various parts of the country who have got together to provide swimming baths by voluntary effort. In many cases, this has included most, if not all, of the building work. We have tried to develop in this country a

  269
  tradition of providing services by a combination of voluntary and public initiative. This tradition is particularly appropriate to the education service, and I hope that others will be encouraged by what has been said in your Lordships' House to-day to follow this tradition by the provision of swimming baths. I hope that all this will reassure my noble friend. I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government and the Education Departments share his views as to the value and importance of swimming. Indeed, I am most grateful to him for raising this matter and for allowing me to tell the House that; within the proper limits of our Constitutional power, which I have tried to explain, the Secretary of State and I will do our best to encourage the teaching of swimming to schoolchildren.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords. I beg to thank the noble Viscount for his very satisfactory answer.

  HOUSING BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

  BARRY CORPORATION BILL
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
  WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK (TRANSFER) BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  FINSBURY SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL(GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before six o'clock.