Lords Sitting of 25 April 1967

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

RAILWAY NETWORK: COST OF RETAINED LINES
2.35 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what traffic studies have been made which led to the conclusion that a further 3,000 miles should be retained in the basic railway network; what cost-benefit analysis was undertaken in respect of this mileage; what is their estimate of the cost, and how it will be borne.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the Chairman of the Railways Board made a fresh examination of the railway needs of the country taking proper account of social and economic factors. They had up-to-date advice from economic planning councils on the planning implications as well as information through the transport users consultative committees on cases earlier put forward for closure. They assessed all this against the Board's continuing review of traffic forecasts. But it would not have been practicable or worth while to undertake cost-benefit analyses of the whole network. We cannot give any estimate of the cost or how it will be borne until the Joint Steering Group which is now engaged in identifying and costing the Board's unremunerative passenger services generally have concluded their work. My right honourable friend has already made clear the Government's intention that all those unremunerative services which are retained
430
for wider social and economic reasons should receive a specific subsidy.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer and accepting that it is not practical to make an analysis of cost-benefit for the whole network, nor, indeed, is it perhaps necessary, may I ask him whether a cost-benefit analysis has in fact been completed in respect of the 3,000 miles of lines which the Minister proposes to retain? On the point of subsidy, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is proposed to seek to allocate subsidy only to these additional 3,000 miles of line, and on what principle that allocation will be made? Are we to assume from that, that the other 8,000 miles, the "Beeching 8,000", is now expected to be profitable?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question may I say that a cost-benefit analysis has not been made of the 3,000 miles. It is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that this is a time-consuming and costly procedure, and since it was considered necessary that an early decision should be made on the railway pattern for this country for the purposes of maintaining morale on the railways, it was decided to work in the manner described in my answer. Then, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he wished to know whether the subsidy would apply to the additional 3,000 miles which it was proposed to retain. Am I right?
LORD REDMAYNE: Yes, whether it would apply only to the 3,000 miles.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; it would apply to those particular stretches of line which, after study, were shown to be unprofitable. These lines would be mainly, or almost exclusively, for passenger use, and it was considered necessary to retain them because of the social purpose which they carried out.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, as there is such great interest in this subject and there are such large sums of money which the taxpayer has to pay, would the noble Lord say whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the Report of the Joint Steering Group when it is completed, so that every one can see just how the Government have evaluated the many conflicting factors and formed their own judgment?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are constantly evaluating the situation, because this is a developing process. If the noble Lord would care to put down another Question, I will try to get him a firm answer on the first part of his question.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that these travel studies can be extremely deceptive, for once the service on a line has been allowed to run down few people travel because it is so inconvenient, and then the figures that you get are quite unrealistic? Secondly, when he mentioned maintaining morale on the railways, will he say whether he had in mind the morale of the passengers or the morale of the staff?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In regard to the second question the answer is, of course, both; these are interacting factors.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware how much many people in this country will welcome this new line of approach? Many people are inclined to think that in cutting out so many thousands of miles of track the Beeching Report was not acting in the nation's interest, and this line of approach will be welcomed by those people. In assessing the type of cost analysis that has been referred to, would my noble friend give me an undertaking that the amount of traffic which previously used the lines will be taken into consideration, compared with new routeings that have been instituted? Often it is greatly suspected that this comparison is deliberately not made in order to increase a deficiency shown on particular lines.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question. I am afraid that I cannot answer that.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord? It may be all very well for Lord Popplewell to say that these decisions will be welcomed by a great many people, but they are probably the people who do not pay for them. Who is going to pay for these subsidies? Are they paid for by central Government—that is, by the taxpayer in general—or by the ratepayers?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the taxpayers of the country as a whole pay for the subsidies this must have Parliamentary approval. It is the intention of my right honourable friend to seek such Parliamentary approval. However, until such time as approval has been given, expenditure on uneconomic lines will be shown separately in the Railway Board's accounts.

WARBLE FLY CONTROL
2.43 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they will take steps to encourage the eradication of the warble fly.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, the best means of controlling this pest is by the preventive application of organophosphorous dressing in the autumn. This will reduce the annual level of infestation in a herd rapidly and spectacularly, but the treatment is not 100 per cent. effective and complete eradication of the parasite from this country would be very difficult and very costly. The dressing is simple to apply, and for several years the Agricultural Departments have been conducting publicity and propaganda each autumn to encourage farmers to dress their cattle as a routine measure of good husbandry. The Warble Fly Campaign Committee, established at the instigation of these Departments, advises and encourages farmers in the use of these dressings, and Departments give encouragement and advice to this Committee. They are quite willing to discuss with the National Farmers' Unions whether there are any other useful steps which could be taken to encourage the voluntary use of these dressings for the prevention of warble infestation.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. He knows the considerable damage and loss of value caused by the grub of this fly to hides, and the intense discomfort and pain caused to cattle, and will agree, I think, that between the months of March and June it is easy to discern the little

433
lumps on the backs of cattle. Does he not think that, with the new and very effective organophosphorous dressing that is now available, it would be a simple matter to secure eradication by forbidding the sale of affected animals in markets?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am aware of the discomfort to animals, and the damage done to hides as a result of this pest. But so far as the latter part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, there are no regulations which prohibit the sale at auctions of cattle infested with warbles. Such an order could be made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, but I would remind my noble friend that there would be great difficulties. In the first place, such an order would have only a limited application; it could be effective only during the relatively short period when infestation is apparent. At other times, infested cattle might be sold which would later develop visible infestation in the herds to which they were moved. Secondly, the order would be very difficult to police. Thorough enforcement would require inspection at each market. The Ministry have not the staff to undertake this, and it is unlikely that local authorities would be able to carry it out.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, as with this new dressing eradication is at last possible, could serious thought be given to ways of seeing that farmers get their cattle warble-free? If it is too difficult for local authorities or the Ministry to police such a regulation could the onus for inspection and rejection be put upon livestock auctioneers?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I note what my friend has to say about the point. This is a different aspect. I can promise my noble friend that I will inform my right honourable friend of the further suggestion made by my noble friend, and will ask him to give it what attention he can to see whether it is possible to find some such solution as advocated by my noble friend.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been a pretty good response to the campaign in this country, and would he ask the Eire Government whether they would assist in the campaign? Is the
434
noble Lord further aware that the importation of Irish cattle, which is a very important part of the beef herd, brings in a great deal of warble as a rule and that a little co-operation from Eire would be very welcome?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I am aware of that fact, and I promise that I will once again draw my right honourable friend's attention to this problem.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, am I right in thinking that if the approved dressing of cattle were universally applied for two years, it would break the life-cycle of the warble fly and the pest would be eliminated?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, it would certainly go a long way towards eliminating the pest altogether. I would point out that a good deal of attention has been given to the problem of trying to eradicate this completely, but so far, despite all the attention given to it, it has not been possible to get a 100 per cent. cure. But my right honourable friend the Minister is keeping on with it.

SIERRA LEONE
2.47 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they will now make a statement on the present political position in Sierra Leone, with particular reference to the question of official recognition of the Reformation Council headed by Colonel Juxon Smith.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, I said in this House on April 18 that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the internal political affairs of an independent country within the Commonwealth. There has been no change in the Head of State of Sierra Leone, and no formal act of recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the new Government of Sierra Leone is therefore necessary.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Could he tell the House whether the Reformation Council are showing signs of wishing to make Sierra Leone a republic within the Commonwealth, as I believe was the intention of the now incarcerated Sir Albert Margai? Should I be correct in thinking that Her Majesty's Government have no say whatsoever in the future of the Governor General?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not for me to comment upon the relationship of the people of Sierra Leone to Her Majesty the Queen, but the noble Lord will probably be aware of the announcement made in Freetown last week. The Chairman of the National Reformation Council sent a message to Her Majesty the Queen presenting his humble duty to Her Majesty and informing Her of the arrangements made by the National Reformation Council for the interim administration of Sierra Leone, and assuring Her Majesty that she will be kept informed of all major developments regarding the interim administration of Sierra Leone. The message went on to say that Her Majesty had been advised that Sir Henry Lightfoot-Boston would be proceeding on leave prior to retirement.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, has my noble friend any information as to the present whereabouts of Sir Albert Margai, who is well known to many Members of this House?
LORD BESWICK: No, My Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while recognising the independence of Sierra Leone and of other Governments whose democratic institutions have been overthrown by military coup. may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the grave concern felt by many of us about these developments in Africa? Would it not be possible for the Commonwealth Secretariat, perhaps in association with the Organisation of African Unity to try to get consideration of the whole of this problem so that we may be able to avoid the overthrow of democratically elected Governments?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am bound to call attention again to the interesting fact that my noble friend,
436
who has spent so much of his life trying to dissuade us from interfering with the affairs of African countries, now seems to be devoting himself to persuading us to take an improper interest in the affairs of those countries since they have become independent.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LAWS
2.51 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave 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, and if so when, legislation is to be introduced in accordance with the evidence of the Political and Economic Planning Report on racial discrimination.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Government will review the need for and the practicability of strengthening the existing law in the light of the P.E.P. Report, the Report of the Race Relations Board which will be laid before Parliament shortly, and any other available evidence about the extent of discrimination in this country and the effectiveness of the Race Relations Act.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether the Government will pay attention to the urgency of this issue, which has been emphasised not only in the P.E.P. Report, and by the Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, of which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is Chairman, but also in the Report of the Race Relations Board which is now in the hands of the Minister? Particularly in view of the position of the school-leavers, will he urge that this should be done very urgently in the new Session of Parliament?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have already given in my original Answer an assurance that the Government will most carefully consider not only the P.E.P. Report, which we regard as a very valuable contribution to the information available on this subject, but all other

437
relevant evidence. We are anxious to deal with this problem, but it would not be proper to deal with it until careful consideration has been given to all the evidence and, I must emphasise, when that has been given, to the practicability of introducing legislation to deal with any need that may be found to exist.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider. when the Report of the Race Relations Board is received, giving time in this House for discussion of the Motion on this subject which stands in my name on the Order Paper under, "No Day Named"?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Business of the House is not a matter for me. Obviously, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party is in a much better position than I am to make representations on this subject, when the Report has been published in a few days' time.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I may have his full support when I make representations to his noble friend who is sitting on his right?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend the Government Chief Whip, that it will not do any good. But the noble Lord will have my full support in the matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand, when my noble friend says that the Government are going to inquire into the question of discrimination, that they will also include discrimination on grounds of sex in regard to equal pay, which is equally immoral?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in this matter the Government will have regard to any evidence of discrimination on the grounds of colour, race or religion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I find it very difficult to understand why the Government pontificate on this aspect of inequality and discrimination and exploitation, and fail to tackle the, as I say, equally immoral discrimination on grounds of sex with regard to equal pay. Will my noble friend give me a simple answer, because, as he knows, the trade unions supported the principle in 1881?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are dealing with this question of racial discrimination, and I am well aware of the attitude of the Trades Union Congress to the possibility of legislation on that subject. I am sorry if my noble friend thought I was pontificating on this matter, but I assure her that I shall most certainly make representations to my right honourable friend on the point that she has raised, and, indeed, will give my own personal support in this matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank my noble friend very much.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if the P.E.P. Report mentioned in the Question may be of importance in considering legislation, could it be made available, perhaps in the Printed Paper Office?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can most certainly consider that, or at least see whether it is possible to have it made available in the Library.

THE ROYAL MINT
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on the new site for the Royal Mint.
EAST KILBRIDE BURGH BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. This is a Consolidation Bill which has come back from the Joint Consolidation Committee. I am told that some noble Lords are in a good deal of doubt as to exactly what the Consolidation Committee does. Therefore perhaps your Lordships would allow me to take advantage of the occasion to explain shortly what it does. It is in truth like any other Committee. Before it meets it has the Bill and it has a copy of the notes on clauses which the Parliamentary draftsman has prepared. It then meets and deals with the Bill as it would be dealt with, in effect, in a Committee of the Whole House. The draftsman adds anything he wants to add on the Bill as a whole, the Title is postponed and the Bill is then taken clause by clause.
Of course, it is open to any member of the Committee to move any Amendment he wishes, and it is extraordinary what abstruse points can arise, even on a straight consolidation. If it is a consolidation under the 1949 Act minor corrections and improvements can be made, and in that case the Committee has a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor in relation to those Amendments which are sought to be made as "minor corrections and improvements". This is a phrase which, I am afraid, from time to time gives rise to a good deal of semantic argument, as to whether something is a minor correction or improvement—a position which I am now considering.
The whole of the proceedings are recorded and the Reports are available in the Paper Office, as is the current one headed:
Seventh Report of the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the present Session appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills"—
and so on. I understand that the Joint Committee have recently decided that it would be right if, before they met, the draftsman's notes on clauses were also
440
available in the Paper Office, so that if any noble Lord is interested in any particular consolidation but is not a member of the Consolidation Committee he will have every opportunity to express his view.
My Lords, this particular Bill, the Development of Inventions Bill, is a straight consolidation which simply consolidates the Development of Inventions Act 1948, the Development of Inventions Act 1954 and the Development of Inventions Act 1965, but it has the merit of substituting one measure for three. Of course, it saves a lawyer's time if all the Statute Law on one subject is in one place—and not only the time of lawyers. I see that in this particular case the Ministry of Technology and the National Research Development Corporation particularly welcomed this consolidation as being a considerable convenience to them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This is another consolidation Bill—a straight consolidation of the Air Corporations Act 1949, the Air Corporations Act 1953, the Air Corporations Act 1962 and nearly all of the Air Corporations Act 1966. It does not include part of one paragraph of the Schedule to the 1966 Act for the reason that that particular part of that Act merely had the effect of converting into Government stock the stock of B.O.A.C. which was outstanding on April 1, 1965, and accordingly belongs really to the law of Government stock and not now to the law of the Air Corporations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: ROLE OF UNESCO
3.5 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration has been given to the influence of education as a cause of international misunderstanding; and in particular whether they will urge upon UNESCO the need for a programme, in addition to its Literacy project, designed to lessen the nationalist bias in history text-books and to encourage a sense of world community. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In drawing attention to the influence of education as a cause of international misunderstanding and the need for encouraging a sense of world community, I have set myself a somewhat formidable task. Perhaps it would have been more respectful to educationists if I had referred to the help which education can give to international understanding, rather than used the words that I have, but I shall explain my reasons for framing the Question in this particular form.
In some respects the subject is more suited to an hour's lecture than an Un-starred Question, and bearing that in mind I shall restrict my remarks to certain specific points rather than attempt to cover the whole field. But I do not wish to limit the scope of this debate in any way. I am very pleased that so many Members of your Lordships' House have indicated a willingness to take part in the debate, and I shall listen to what follows with great interest. I am sure I shall learn much more than I can impart. I shall certainly look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who is to reply on behalf of
442
the Government. I hope the subject is one which will be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as of some importance, although no one would suggest that the problem is one that can be solved by Britain alone.
Now in framing my Question I have directed attention in particular to the work of UNESCO for it seems clear that this subject comes within the aims and objects of that organisation; and at the outset I should like to say a word or two about United Nations Agencies. The United Nations is very much under criticism at the present time. Some of this criticism may be justified, some may not be. One does not hear very much about the successes of the United Nations. But the fact that the United Nations consists of representatives of independent sovereign States is bound to be a limiting factor. In so far as there have been failures, I think they have often been due to an attempt to do too much. But, whatever one's views may be about that, it would be a great mistake to minimise the importance of the United Nations Agencies. They are doing extremely valuable work—and I think that applies to UNESCO. If I am critical, it is not because I disapprove of the work of UNESCO but really that I am not entirely satisfied with the priorities.
Britain, as a member nation, has, of course, a share of responsibility. If that were not so, I imagine that I should have been unable to table this Question. There is some ministerial responsibility, if for no other reason than that Britain is a contributor to the United Nations and to its Agencies. I have been studying the figures, but I will not quote them at any length. if they are incorrect, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will put them right. In 1966 Britain contributed £27½ million to the United Nations, compared with £34 million in 1965. Of this £27½, million, £566,000 was for UNESCO, the United Nations Agency which must be regarded as having the specific task of encouraging a sense of world community. I think it is worth recalling that the preamble to UNESCO'S constitution contains these words:
"That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
This phrase, I understand, was coined by a much revered Member of this House,

443
the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. When one comes to examine the UNESCO budget, one finds that 38 million dollars are devoted to education for a two-year period, 1967–68; and of this only 314,000 dollars are dedicated for "education for international understanding." This is to meet the cost of a very small department of UNESCO faced with the tremendous task of encouraging a world perspective in education. It is sometimes said by the critics: "Of what use can UNESCO be with its emphasis on education and culture when 700 million people in the world are illiterate?". It was to meet this kind of criticism that the literacy project was launched as an experiment in 1965, a project to which Britain is contributing. I do not for one moment wish to belittle the value of the project, but it would be ironical if, as a consequence, more young people were enabled to read history that is biased which, instead of improving international understanding, tends to encourage an excessively nationalistic outlook.
The ability to read and write, coupled with improved means of communication, does not necessarily bring about a more objective view of history or a fairer view of current affairs. All over the Middle East and in many parts of Africa people are listening to their crystal sets and in many parts of the world Government-controlled radio stations are pouring out abuse. There are, of course, some notable exceptions, such as the B.B.C. Overseas Service, but modern methods of communicating information are tending to facilitate the dissemination of hatred. It may be that the history books are less blatant but the effect may be more insidious, since young people are assumed to accept what is contained in the history books as a presentation of facts. Of course it is very difficult to assess the comparative influence between the spoken word passed on from parent to child, and the effect of the radio or of teaching in school. But what is taught and read at school must have have some influence. I think there is still some truth in the words of Anatole France, "History teaching may be teaching for war".
First of all, one must try to get at the facts. Thanks to the Ford Foundation and the Nuffield Trust, a study of American and English secondary school history textbooks has been carried out.
444
The outcome of that is an extremely interesting book by R. A. Billington entitled The Historian's Contribution to Anglo-American Misunderstanding. Another valuable study, a kind of pilot project, has been carried out by the Educational Advisory Committee of the Parliamentary Group for World Government. I am a vice-president of that body, and I have been a member for many years; but I am not a member of the Educational Advisory Committee and therefore I think I can commend this work without immodesty.
The Committee, of which Sir Edward Boyle is chairman, made a special study of history textbooks used in schools in Cyprus. There is a comparison between the history taught to Turkish-speaking children and that taught to those who speak Greek, the Cypriot language. The main theme in the history books of the Greek-speaking Cypriot children is the villiany of the Turks. I must not take up too much of your Lordships' time with a great many quotations, but may I quote from a book written by the General Inspector of Middle (that is, Secondary) Education, Mr. K. P. Georgiades. It is the 1960 edition, and is still being. used. He tells us that after the fall of Ammochostos in 1571, the Cypriot hero, Bragadinos, had his ears and nose cut off by the Turks. The book continues:
"In this wretched state they carried him off to the Square of Public Executions, stripped him, and when they had bound him to the ignominious pillar, flayed him alive. He breathed his last when the knife of the executioner reached his waist. But even when he was dead they had no respect for him. When they had cut off his head they took the skin. stuffed it with straw, dressed it in his clothes and carried it round as a laughing stock through the whole city and afterwards to Syria and to Asia Minor too. Such was the end of the hero of Ammachostos and such was the conduct of the conqueror."
A similar account appears in the history books of the primary schools.
I cannot find any similar account of this particular incident in the Turkish textbooks. In fact, there is comparatively little reference to Cyprus in the Turkish school books, but I noticed that the history textbooks used for Turkish children in the 12 to 15 years age group contain this statement:
"Our ancestors never attacked others unless they themselves had met with wrong or aggression. The sole reason why they won great wars was that they always had right on their side."

445
Your Lordships may smile at this expression, but it is not confined to Turkish history books. I must admit that the general impression I gained when I was at school was that the English won nearly all the wars and that England, later Britain, always had right on her side. Perhaps the harm lies not so much in the belief that one's own country is right as in the implication that there is something positively evil about the activities and motives of other nations.
Returning to the book used by Greek Cypriots, I give an example from it of the view of the English. Part VII of the history textbook, 1964 edition, used by the Greek Cypriots for children in the 11 to 12 age group deals with "The Administration of the English in Cyprus". The readers are told that in 1939:
"… on the outbreak of war many Cypriots responded to the call to 'fight for freedom' alongside the English with the hope that the English would, when victorious, grant them freedom … They hoped in vain."
The books refers to the "unethical way" in which the English behaved, and later refers to a Member of your Lordships' House. It says that after the demonstrations against the Greeks in Istanbul:
"General Harding was sent to Cyprus as Governor in order to terrorise the Cypriots."
I told the noble and gallant Field Marshal that I was going to quote that sentence, and he said that he was very sorry that he could not be here to listen to the debate this afternoon.
It would be interesting to know whether the Foreign Office have anyone responsible for collecting information about what is taught about Britain in the schools in different parts of the world. I think it would be very helpful to the British Council to have this information. I do not think that anything is done in that respect. In any case, it would be a little outside the scope of this debate and I mention it merely in passing.
My Lords, I endeavoured to collect such information as I could. Of course, I am aware that cultural activities are part of the functions of UNESCO. I think that one of its great successes has been the Nubian campaign launched in 1960. As noble Lords are aware, some of the great temples of the Nile have been saved as a consequence, and UNESCO is to be congratulated on the part it played. It is a little ironical that in the
446
same period since 1960 the textbooks in Egypt were being re-written in order that the children there should learn history more in conformity with the views of President Nasser, at any rate about current history.
I think, my Lords, that in the next ten or twenty years there may be a good deal of this re-writing of history: whether it will be for the better or for the worse remains to be seen. In most of the former colonial territories textbooks have been written by Europeans for Europeans. Even to-day in the bookshops in Morocco you find the same textbooks as, say, in the Lycée in Bordeaux, and there is great difficulty in changing because of the cost of publishing books. But I think there may be a reaction from books being too biased one way in that they may become too biased the other way; and there are educationists who recognise this danger. I would commend the West African Examinations Council, who are pursuing a very enlightened policy and deserve all the support which can be given. However, I expect strong pressures in the coming years.
We have already seen some examples of this. There was the attempt at rewriting history in Ghana during the Nkrumah regime, and some of the history, I must say, seems to me to be fictitious. In Guinea a very slanted view of history appears in the new textbook, of which I have a copy here, published by the Ministry of National Education. The contents bear resemblance to the books in Cyprus to which I have referred, but in this case the villains of the piece are the French, instead of the Turks. In Mali a new history of the country has been written, and I think the striking fact about that is what it omits. It certainly could not be called balanced. It is interesting to note that Guinea and Mali are two of the countries which are to benefit from the literacy project, and of course Britain is contributing to this.
My Lords, I welcome the idea that more people should have the opportunity of reading and writing—that is all to the good. But are we giving sufficient thought to what they will read when they become literate? There is an ever-increasing demand for education, and I was most impressed with this when I was in West Africa; but education will not

447
necessarily increase international understanding. Of course, history can never be entirely objective. No historian can be completely objective, and I am not suggesting that we should have one universal history book for everyone to read everywhere—that is a horrible thought. But it is a matter of degree.
For example, consider England and France. What British children are taught is very different from what the French children are taught; and ought we not to be considering that at the present time, when we wish to improve Anglo-French relations? The aim should be to iron out some of the worst distortions and to try to create what Senator Fulbright called "a perspective about the world" and "the ability to see the world as others see it". Surely, this is a realm in which UNESCO could help, and I should like to see European countries taking the initiative, because, after all, European countries have been responsible for a good deal of distorted history.
At one time, my Lords, UNESCO did show a lively interest in this subject. There was a book written by Professor Lauwerys, published in 1950, entitled History Textbooks and International Understanding, but this UNESCO activity seems to have been allowed to run down. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will have something to tell us about that and what is happening at the present time, but it leads me to ask about this very small department of UNESCO to which I have already referred. I understand that they have a staff of only three, and they are faced with this tremendous task of encouraging a world perspective in education. Could not Britain join with any other country which is concerned about the matter in trying to get this small department expanded? I think it is a mistake to dismiss the whole idea as hopeless just because the winds of nationalism are blowing so strongly.
Then, again, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the United Kingdom National Commission at UNESCO and what it is doing in this field. Is it being hampered by lack of funds? There was a very useful sub-committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Raymond King which did some very valuable work in the early 1950s in reviewing text-
448
books, arranging conferences and exchanging information; for example, in the exchange of information about textbooks between Britain and India and Britain and Russia. This subcommittee was disbanded in 1963 and I should like to know what was the reason for that. Surely, it is through quiet and conscientious work of this kind on the part of educationists that progress can be made. The aim, of course, is to get a more balanced view of history, which is an extraordinarily difficult thing to achieve; to achieve the ultimate aim of some form of World Government or World Authority is infinitely more so, and heaven knows when we shall achieve that! But one pre-condition of success is the building up of loyalties which extend beyond national boundaries, and I believe that education can help. There are, as I say, educationists who are concerned about this matter and I hope that may be encouraged.
To conclude, my Lords, may I say this? I have referred to Governments and to teachers, but there are also the young people. We tend to think of them as protestors. It is, of course, natural for youth to protest; but there are young people who will respond to ideals, who realise that national loyalty must be balanced by a wider loyalty and who, though perhaps not using the same terminology, would agree that "it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
3.28 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has put us all in his debt by asking this Question and giving us an opportunity to consider an interesting proposition in the more limited form in which the Question is put; and also of making some reference to the work of UNESCO, because this proposal of his falls naturally within the competence of UNESCO. The noble Lord, said towards the end of his speech that he had the impression of a run-down of interest in UNESCO about the question of the removal of causes of misunderstanding in the sphere of education since, I think he said, 1950. I am not sure that this is altogether true. For example, in 1962 UNESCO supported the educational conference of Asian studies organised in Liverpool under the United Kingdom

449
National Commission. As one might expect, this conference showed how very little was known, or was being done, in this field, and it did prove useful.
There is no doubt that a great deal more could be done to remove the causes of misunderstanding, but the important thing to my mind—and in this I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade—is to get the priorities right. There are such tremendous problems facing UNESCO, on so wide a scale and with such comparatively small resources to deal with them, that the first and most important thing to do is to see that these resources are applied to the best advantage.
I believe that UNESCO was right when in 1960 it decided that top priority should be given to education. Education features first in its title, and it should feature first in its policy. If I may remind your Lordships, this was largely due to the case made at the General Conference in that year by my noble friend Lord Eccles who, jointly with the representative of India, spoke of the difference in educational provisions in different countries as:
"the greatest and the most dangerous of all international inequalities ".
He gained acceptance for his proposal that education should have priority in UNESCO'S policy.
Within the field of education UNESCO has concentrated its effort—rightly, I believe—on the developing countries. While we are arguing about a higher school-leaving age—indeed, discussing how it should be put into effect—we should remember that 50 per cent. of the world's children do not go to school at all. While we are asking for more money for adult education, we should remember that 40 per cent. of the world's population can neither read nor write. While we talk about teacher shortage when our classes exceed 30 or 40 pupils per teacher, as the case may be, we should remember that in many countries of the world there are teachers who themselves have not had any teaching beyond the primary stage.
Here surely is the first priority, and UNESCO has begun to tackle it. Since 1962, 20 secondary teacher-training colleges have been set up in Africa by 17 different States with UNESCO aid. In
450
Latin America, 380,000 primary teachers have been trained between 1957 and 1965. And in the next five years UNESCO member States in Asia, Africa and Latin America will train 2½ million more primary, and nearly one million more secondary school teachers. I believe that this is the top priority. The teachers come before the textbooks. Textbooks can put various glosses on history, it is true, but if there is the right teacher he can put the textbooks into perspective, and if we get the right teachers, we shall get the right textbooks.
But there are other ways in which both UNESCO and the Government could contribute towards the end which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has in mind, and on which I am sure we are all agreed. One admirable UNESCO project, which certainly does not cost much money but does a great deal of good, is the associated schools project, in which schools in various countries of the world exchange letters, ideas and information. Exchanges of all sorts take place between them, which can only lead to greater understanding. It embraces nearly 500 schools in 54 countries. Another scheme run by UNESCO is the gift coupon scheme, by which schools can contribute directly to helping people and organisations in overseas countries by means of gift coupons.
A third current scheme, which I would suggest might be able to help in the field of history, the UNESCO source books. The first book, on science teaching, has sold 400.000 copies in 22 languages and editions in nine more languages are in preparation. The second, on geography teaching, was published in 1955, and others are in preparation on mathematics, biology, chemistry, and health in schools. I would suggest that a source book on history might be able to achieve some of the aims that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has in mind, in suggesting to teachers that they should make independent judgments on the textbooks they receive and seek to use them for further international understanding.
Another suggestion is that maybe the Government could consider sparing a little more money for the Council for Education in World Citizenship. For many years the C.E.W.C. has done an excellent job in our schools. But the rate

451
of Government grant has fallen from £1,000 a year in 1954–55 to £500 in recent years. Although it has been increased to £950, £450 is tied to the appointment of a part-time field secretary, so that on the whole grant has fallen. Possibly here is a field in which a little more generosity could be shown.
If I may stretch the Rules of Order a little, I should like to say something about the other sides of UNESCO'S work. Specifically the Motion refers to the educational side, but I think that it would be a pity if we were to get the idea that UNESCO paid attention only to the educational priorities and not to its scientific and cultural work. After all, we in this country have a particular interest in UNESCO, because it was in London in November, 1945, in association with France, that the first conference was held which resulted in the setting up of the Organisation. The importance of UNESCO can be seen from the fact that it now has a membership of 120 nations and has given service to the cause of peace for 21 years this year. Of its total field programme of some £29 million education takes about £11½ million, and this is closely followed by science with something like £10½ million.
It was in 1964 that UNESCO decided to give equal priority to science and education. This was a natural corollary to what had passed. UNESCO had started teacher-training colleges and other initiatives in member States, but clearly was not capable—nor was it the right instrument—of continuing to run them. It could start them, but it then had to hand them over to member States. And if these States were to run their educational priorities correctly, they had to develop economically and scientifically. So in 1964 UNESCO decided that its scientific activities should take equal priority with its educational policy, and soon after its teacher-training schemes came into effect there followed schemes for training scientists and technologists in the developing countries.
Of the 69 science projects that are now taking place under UNESCO, 43 are in the realm of technical and technological education, covering 32 different countries. The Governments of those countries have contributed over £50 million towards them, and the United Nations Special
452
Fund £17 million. Another scientific project which caught the headlines was in the International Geophysical Year of 1957–58, in which 70 nations collaborated in a major project of studying our planet.
The third branch of UNESCO activities is the cultural branch. As the noble Lord mentioned, the most spectacular effort in this field was the Nubian campaign, which has been successful in preserving the treasures of the Nile Valley. But, at the same time, much practical work is being done, equally in line with what the noble Lord has in mind, on such subjects as the removal of racial prejudice; and recently there has been a major project on mutual appreciation of Eastern and Western cultural values.
In conclusion, I would say again that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for giving us this opportunity of discussing his Question, and particularly of paying tribute to some of the work that is being done by UNESCO. I hope that perhaps on another occasion we may have an opportunity of discussing the work of some of the other United Nations Special Agencies. One practical achievement of which I can assure the noble Lord is that the United Nations Library now know that your Lordships' House has a Library, whereas I have discovered that before they knew only of the House of Commons Library. I very much hope that other practical results will follow from the noble Lord's most interesting Question.

THE ROYAL MINT
3.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be convenient if, with your Lordships' permission, I now repeat a Statement that has just been made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is as follows:
"It is twelve years since the rebuilding of the Mint was announced. Since then output has trebled, mainly for export, and capacity for minting the decimal coinage is now also required. The existing site cannot be developed economically for these purposes, and in accordance with the Government's dispersal policy a number of new sites have been examined in the development areas. In the light of this

453
examination the Government have decided that a new Royal Mint should be built at Llantrisant in South Wales. Its first task will be to produce the new decimal coinage and a work force of about 400 to 500 will be recruited, mainly from the surrounding areas. These workers will continue to be needed when the Royal Mint itself moves to Llantrisant, which will be by 1973 at the latest."
That concludes the Statement.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement which has just been made in another place, though I should like to express regret that the Government did not ensure that this news was given first to Parliament, instead of being given to the people of South Wales by the Western Mail this morning. As a former Minister for Welsh Affairs, I am delighted at the fact that the Royal Mint, bringing highly skilled work with it, is coming to Llantrisant. This will certainly do some-think to encourage South Wales and offset the heavy unemployment which has befallen some parts of South Wales in the last year or two. May I ask the noble Lord what arrangements are to be made for the skilled workers at the Royal Mint in London, all of whom may not be able or willing to move their homes to South Wales?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, with his Welsh connections, has felt able to accept the Statement. I suppose he could hardly return to Wales unless he had done so. I regret the fact that this news first appeared in a newspaper, but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, Governments of all complexions have had some concern about a certain degree of leakage. In this case a large number of organisations were aware that consideration was being given to the matter. We examined some twenty different sites in different parts of the country; and it may well be that the jubilation in South Wales was such that a leakage occurred to the Western Mail.
With regard to the skilled staff who are now in the Royal Mint in London, I may say that there will, of course, be a gradual decline in numbers. In the first instance, we shall be starting up with the new
454
decimal coinage minting, and then we shall see a gradual transfer from London. Those of the skilled staff and other work people in the present Royal Mint who may wish to go down to South Wales will be given every encouragement to do so; but for those who do not wish to go—and there may be various personal reasons why they should not—alternative opportunities will be provided in Government Departments or public authorities. The Government will certainly see that what can be done for these people is done.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his Statement is an indication of what many of us have suspected: namely that the Welsh are far better at making money than the English?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought that was the claim in Scotland; but the noble Lord may have a line, so far as the Welsh are concerned.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Statement will cause great joy and satisfaction to the people of the Principality? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a Welshman, but it is obvious that he knows who is to be trusted in making money. Perhaps that is the answer that my noble friend should give to the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad to know that my noble friend is pleased with this Statement. In fairness to those who now work in the Royal Mint, I think I should say that they are producing some 1,400 million coins a year, of which some 800 million are exported. So although there may be some virtue in the Welsh, London can also share in this.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my noble friend is referring to South Wales. Is there any mystery about the exact place in South Wales? The Press have re-ferred to Swansea. Can he confirm that it will be Swansea?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is a town in my brief, but I can only give it my English pronunciation of "Llantrisant". If the noble Lord wishes to know, it is spelt as follows: L-l-a-n-t-r-i-s-a-n-t. I believe that it is some nine miles from Cardiff.
LORD MAELOR: That, interpreted, is Llantrisant.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say whether all minting operations will eventually cease on the present site, and that the present site will be entirely vacated; or is it intended that some operations of the present Mint should continue?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that by 1973 it is hoped that the whole minting operation will be conducted in the new Mint in South Wales.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what are the plans for the present site? Do they take into account the great planning value of the whole of that area of London, stretching through St. Katharine's Docks?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand it, no decision has yet been taken as to how this site will be developed, but I am sure it will be a matter of great interest to certain noble Lords in this House.

EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: ROLE OF UNESCO
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has just spoken I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for bringing this problem before the House for examination. It is only when we come to start examining the problem that we must all realise the immense difficulties that confront us, especially those of us who are concerned to maintain world peace and security within the Charter of the United Nations.
The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to the fact that. I think, 40 per cent. of the children of the world were not receiving any education; and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, summed up that number as 700 million out of a world population of something like 3,000 million people. One cannot escape from the conclusion that the solution which is proposed in this connection, broadly speaking, is certainly a very long-term
456
matter. On the other hand, we have to realise that the world to-day is divided into many political camps and many armed camps. There are 120 nations which are members of the United Nations, each of them claiming sovereign equality in the activities of the United Nations.
We have to realise that in almost every country in the world the system of education, such as it is, is geared to the propagation of national patriotism. We are all, I think, conscious of a feeling of patriotism towards our own country: pride in its culture and pride in its history, pride even in its military achievements. We are all proud of the fact that in our own country we have produced Admirals and Generals who compare with those of any other country in the world and we are proud to belong to our own nation. But that applies in practically every country in the world. I think that it would be completely unrealistic to suppose that we could ever secure a change in the teaching of history which would abrogate the nationalistic approach. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we ought to consider whether it is possible to bring about a lessening of the nationalistic content in our history books; but I think that that would be, in a sense, time wasted. I do not believe that it is the best way to approach the problem: I would approach it in an entirely different way.
Reference was made by the noble Lord who spoke previously to the work of UNESCO. There is no doubt—and I think that some of the facts which he put before the House established that UNESCO has done very fine work during the twenty years that it has been in existence, not only in the sphere of education, but in the sphere of health and social work, and in the sphere of economics. I should like to see UNESCO approaching this matter from another angle altogether, supplementary to the history that is taught in the schools of the world. Indeed, a person does not require to be even literate to be the recipient of propaganda from the Government to which that person belongs. Most of us have lived through two world wars in which both sides were composed very largely of people who were more or less educated. Therefore the existence of illiteracy does not prove too much of an obstacle; it only makes the solution more difficult.

457
I should like to suggest this to my noble friend who will reply to this debate. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider whether they could not ask our representative on the Council of UNESCO to make this proposal—and here I disagree with Lord Wade, although I am not sure that he was approaching the matter from the point of view I am about to express. He said he shuddered, I think, at the idea of a world history.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. What I had in mind was that if there were one compulsory history book for everybody setting out the official history of the world, that would be rather an appalling prospect. But certainly as an adjunct to other history books it would be excellent to have a world history.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I am not going to suggest that there should be a history of the world, something on the lines of H. G. Wells's The Outline of History, which I read many years ago. What I suggest is that UNESCO should appoint a Working Party to collect and collate all the historical development of international co-operation. I do not want population figures from all the countries of the world included, and all the economic and social and cultural information, et cetera, in respect of the 122 countries which are represented at the United Nations: I would confine its ambit to the development of international co-operation. Of course, there have been failures, such as the League of Nations. That is history, but it is part of the history of the development of international co-operation. And I should apply it not only in the sphere of security, but also in the sphere of health and education. Even in meteorology we have one of the finest examples of the development of international co-operation that excels international development in almost any other sphere.
I would take just these sections of international co-operation and put them together, and it would in fact be a history of the development of international cooperation. It would not supplant the national history books, which I do not believe is a practical proposition, for the reasons I have given, mainly because of national patriotism and even tribal patriotism. In that connection, we see
458
what is happening in West Africa to-day, in Nigeria, where there is a conflict between the tribes of the country. One has only, as I did the other day, to look at a television feature on the development of Nigeria to realise this. The Ibos in the East, and those in the North or other parts of Nigeria, have an intense patriotism towards their own tribes. I want to supplement that; I want to have something parallel to that national and tribal patriotism. I believe that sooner or later it will have to be done, and I should like to see our own Government put forward this idea of a history, which is not a history of the world but a history of the development of international co-operation over the past years.
Those of us who are strong supporters of the United Nations are faced with the fact that the United Nations Organisation itself is in effect really an agglomoration of 120 countries. It is not a separate entity; it has not its own mind or its own central thought. What it does, whether in the sphere of maintenance of peace or in the educational sphere, depends upon what the Governments in the United Nations will permit and will finance. I am not going to suggest that a world community is just round the corner—of course it is not. We have a long way to go. But surely that does not prevent those right-minded people who believe in the establishment of a world community, based on the rule of law and order, from applying their minds to the preparation of the ground, laying the foundations of a system which will transform the United Nations, which in reality is merely a half-way house, into an eventual world Commonwealth. Those who are responsible in the United Nations should begin applying their minds to preparing the ground for an advance towards the world system which will look at humanity as a whole, and not merely limit their vision within their own national borders. Having said that, I believe that none the less the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has played a useful part in raising this Question and enabling this House to discuss a vital but difficult problem.
4.1 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH:My Lords, I wish to support the general argument behind Lord Wade's Question, and to refer in particular to the latter

459
part of his Question, the importance of activities encouraging a sense of world community, especially in the minds of young people. The Preamble to the UNESCO Charter states that:
"peace must be founded on the moral solidarity of mankind."
In view of the fact that the world is spending £40,000 million or £50,000 million a year on armaments, basically in mistrust of our fellow world citizens, whatever is being done for peace by Governments, by religious bodies, by voluntary societies, by the United Nations and, in particular, by UNESCO, is clearly not enough. And I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his Question singled out UNESCO, because that is the Agency which has been entrusted with the particular task of creating a sense of world community.
At the time when Julian Huxley was Director-General of UNESCO he instituted, in 1951, a six-volume History of the Scientific and Cultural Development of Mankind, which deals with:
"the gradual development in its most expressive manifestations of the consciousness of the universal in man."
Although only two volumes of that series have so far appeared, this attempt to emphasise the universal in man—what he shares, rather than what divides him—is to be welcomed. I think this is somewhat parallel with the suggestion that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, with which I wholeheartedly agree. But what seems to me to be missing and to be needed, if I may say so, is the fashioning of a plan by UNESCO to relate this "master vision of the universal in man" to educational programmes and to teacher training: for I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on the emphasis that he gives to teachers. We have, in fact, drifted into a situation where education has in too large a measure become an accomplice of nationalism.
There are many reasons for this. One is the fact that universal education started about 100 years ago, at a time when nationalism was strong. Thus, certain myths which our Victorian forbears created about various places and people are now built into our educational system, and they have been delightfully parodied in 1066 and All That. These
460
myths are passed on from one generation of teachers to another, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has shown us with his examples of Cyprus, they have become out of date and are often harmful.
The spirit of world citizenship nowadays is rather more easily caught than taught. There are those who believe that putting a subject into the curriculum will kill it stone dead. Yet I for one am impressed with how much we believe what we are taught. It is this very efficacy of teaching that can hold us back rather than bring us forward, unless the content of education is right. Therefore I believe that more world civics should be taught in schools. This would give a framework towards the appreciation of the history of one's own and other people's nations.
Much more needs to be done, too, in defining what we mean by "world citizen"; whom we would designate as such; how we should encourage a sense of world community. The United Nations has, of course, made attempts in the past to do this kind of thing; but it seems to believe—I think erroneously—that "education for international understanding", which often is only teaching about the ways of other nations, is the same thing as "education for living in a world community". I think, therefore, that UNESCO should get back to the concept which it had in its earlier days, entitled Education for Living in a World Community—a quite different thing, entailing, as it does, some idea of our relationship as world citizens to one another and to the future world authority or world government—call it what you will—and not merely our relationship as British people to our friends or enemies across the Channel or any other particular country. A sense of world community undoubtedly has much to do with human rights, and this present year, which has been declared a "Year of Human Rights" will perhaps do something to clarify it. Certainly, race relations can be considered an acid test of world citizenship.
Meanwhile, my Lords, what is to be done? The need to encourage a perspective in history textbooks free from national bias must be accompanied by an educational content, and indeed an educational experience, to encourage a sense

461
of world community. I should like to give an example from my own experience. Last November, I was invited on an educational cruise with a group of 1,200 schoolchildren from East Anglia. These educational cruises are going on the whole time, and an enormous number of children have the opportunity of sharing this kind of experience. It was a remarkable experience, and an enjoyable one. In the space of only a fortnight we saw something of Venice, Athens, Cairo, Malta and Gibraltar. Days ashore were so planned that one could see something of modern Athens and modern Cairo, as well as being introduced to the Doge's Palace, the Parthenon, or the treasures of Tutankhamen's Tomb.
Those days ashore made an impact, as as indeed did the experience of living as a community in the ship. But what impressed me particularly was the effect upon the children of what they saw in Egypt. The poverty in the back streets of Cairo and Alexandria was something. they particularly noticed, and I suspect that their experience of this was much like my own vivid experience of the High Street in Edinburgh when I was a small child. It was the impression not of the detached, sightseeing tourist, but of children who felt that this was part of their world and their business, and who asked themselves what they could do about it. I believe that this was an exceedingly important element of education in world citizenship.
I have mentioned educational travel, and would draw your Lordships' attention to the excellent work being done by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, which publishes an admirable booklet summarising the services in Britain open to the young visitor from abroad. Interestingly enough, this Bureau recommends home-to-home links as the best possible form of encouraging a wider perspective. Then there are school links, working holidays, international camps, foreign work camps, and, of course, holiday study in foreign countries and pen friendships. Side by side with this is the growing custom, and one surely to be fostered, for towns and cities, universities and schools, to establish a twin relationship with kindred bodies in other parts of the world. More than a thousand British secondary schools have established a permanent link with
462
partner schools on the Continent, and this has done much to open the experience of young people to the world at large.
It is established that travel is one of the great growth industries of the 1960s and that the category of most recent growth in recent years has been that of the young traveller. Has not the moment arrived to have a new institution attached to the town or city hall, an international community centre? Undoubtedly something more will need to be done to overcome the challenge of the encounters in this country and all over the world which are going to become increasingly frequent between young people of different nationalities. One practical suggestion for mention in school textbooks as a preparation and background for seeing the world in this context is the need to identify more explicitly the benefactors of the world community, so that they can take their place alongside the gallery of national heroes, who are too often, as has been mentioned more than once, the villains of the neighbouring nation.
Why should not UNESCO organise an international competition among teachers and student teachers all over the world for their choice of who such people are, and why? The idea of benefactors of the human race, as well as national heroes, being suitable for mention in school textbooks has already found expression in an Italian textbook which was published in 1963 for use in their secondary schools. In a section entitled "Gallery of the 20th Century" there is a list, and it is a very interesting one, of 15 persons, with a description of each and why they have been chosen, and it is interesting, too, that only two of those were Italian, one of whom was Pope John. This idea can be and should be extended to various fields, of discovery, of art, of technological and scientific progress, each achievement being presented in relation to the advance made rather than the prestige of the particular country making it.
International co-operation can work if only Governments will let it. This is shown by the example of Antarctica, declared a neutral territory for peaceful purposes by a treaty of the 12 interested nations in 1959. But in this whole matter we should like to see Her Majesty's Government urging UNESCO not merely to be laying the foundations of moral

463
solidarity for peaceful co-existence—that way relatively little can be achieved— but to replace the endemic aloofness of mankind when he is acting in his tribe or nation by a positive programme of partnership. Young people, through War on Want, OXFAM and the like, have shown that this is the way that they want things to go. The outcry about overseas students fees is further evidence. The rapid extension of such enterprises as Voluntary Service Overseas shows how young people respond to what can be done with support from Her Majesty's Government and voluntary efforts.
Another partnership is in the field of education itself, for young people of different nations and of different cultures to share together in an educational experience. The example set by the Sixth Form International College, the Atlantic College at St. Donat's Castle, is, I believe, a very important and notable one, and it merits support and extension. It is for Her Majesty's Government, indeed for every citizen, to consider seriously: he ways and means of encouraging a sense of world community. In some West European countries, particularly the Netherlands, France and Germany, substantial grants are made for programmes of exchange for young people. The 1963 "Franco-German Youth Agreement, whereby young people from France and Ger-many are able to travel to each other's country provided they go with an authorised group, and even receive a subsidy towards the cost of their stay of something like five new francs a day. is now having a significant effect on Franco-German relations.
There has been a desire in France to lave a similar arrangement with this country, but the initiative has so far not seen forthcoming from this country. However, there is a working party on British-German contacts, and let us hope that that can perhaps be the beginning of a more progressive policy in this field. What s needed is for a far greater impetus to be given by all Governments, not only to travel, or even educational travel, but, if possible, by encouraging specialised activities on a global basis, since I suspect that the best way of becoming a world citizen is to join in wherever one is with some local activity; then one really feels part of the new surroundings.
464
One of the most urgent matters on which the Government could take action straight away is to provide in London accommodation for young people of school age from overseas. This is closely linked with the kind of opportunities of which I have just been speaking. There is no building specially designed for use by school groups making study visits to London or passing through, and especially adapted for use by groups or individuals from abroad. What is needed and what has in fact been planned by a group representing 40 voluntary organisations is to build a new international youth hotel in central London. This group. which started to investigate the matter in 1956, envisages a 500-bed hostel in London. There has been hardly any recognition by Her Majesty's Government of their responsibility for helping to provide this, except for a small grant of £350 for preparation of a survey.
The need can be indicated by the fact that more than 60,000 French pupils visit England each summer, more than 30,000 Germans, 12,000 Swedes and 6.000 Finns, to name those four countries alone. There are endless requests for finding London accommodation for school, youth and student groups, and I believe we must try to do something to see that this accommodation is provided. This is something which I hope can be looked into by the Government at the highest level, since the failure to create in London any accommodation, when splendid hostels for this purpose are available in most of the European countries, is an omission which needs correction.
My Lords, I think we need to take much more seriously the place of international understanding and partnership in education for the avoidance of conflict and the creation of the conditions in which peace may be built. If this he one of the major issues of our time, then we must surely look to Her Majesty's Government, in its support for UNESCO and in other ways, to give themselves wholeheartedly in support of every instrument by which peace and understanding may be served. We have entered upon an era when young people will inevitably be made increasingly aware of peoples of other nations. Surely what we look for is that the character and the content of their upbringing shall be such that they can see

465
themselves and their countrymen, together with the peoples of the world, first and foremost as human beings, as fellow members of a world community.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I make no apology for beginning by referring to that memorable first sentence of the Constitution of UNESCO, to which my noble friend Lord Wade has also made reference. One is proud of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was the author of a phrase which I think will live for all time:
"Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed."
From the Constitution of UNESCO it is clear that its first purpose is the creation of those "defences of peace" in the minds of men.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has indicated, in the development of UNESCO there has been a slight departure from that first purpose to other purposes. Therefore it is important to emphasise that in the last resort the final attainment of peace in the world will not depend on Governments; it will not depend on the United Nations; it will not depend on disarmament conferences: it will depend on the degree in which the peoples of the world have a sense of world consciousness, and not only a sense of belonging to their own nation. The French philosopher, Etienne Gilson, has said that,
"the task of UNESCO is to give the United Nations a soul"
The United Nations is the body, but it cannot live for peace without the spirit. The creation of that spirit is the mission of UNESCO, the coming to men of a sense of belonging to the whole family of man.
At the twentieth anniversary of UNESCO, in October last year, the Chairman of the Executive Board, Mr. El Fasi, asked:
"To what extent has UNESCO helped to construct the defences of peace in the minds of men?"
I recognise at once all that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said about the achievements of UNESCO, which are very great; but as he spoke I had in mind also the immensity of the task which it has to
466
fulfil. I had in mind the fact that in the world to-day, a world which technically is becoming smaller with every year that passes, the intensities of national and group antagonisms in the world seem to grow in the same proportion. Regretfully, we must recognise to-day that the success of UNESCO in its great task has been limited. When we ask why, I think that the answer is twofold. First, it has had to operate in a political climate which is not sympathetic to a sense of world consciousness—the great ideological division between East and West, the new nationalisms of nations as they become independent. In that atmosphere, the creation of a sense of world consciousness is difficult. But in addition to appreciating that climate in the world, it is our duty this afternoon to look a little at UNESCO itself, and, still more, to look at the Governments on whose support UNESCO depends.
I want to add to the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to the good works of UNESCO. I think here of my noble friend who is present in the House, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and of the investigations which he made for UNESCO. I think of those two great books Men Against the Desert and Men Against the Jungle, which gave some hope in the solution of the problem of world hunger; but, unfortunately, the lessons were so little applied. I think particularly of one activity which was mentioned by the noble Lord, the Literacy campaign, which gave hope to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people of learning to read. When one has said all that and more, one must recognise that UNESCO has not created among peoples as a whole the image of its purpose, and that for most people UNESCO is still a rather curious jumble of letters, the meaning of which they do not understand.
When one asks where the fault, if fault there is, lies, and looks at the UNESCO organisation itself, I would say that it is suffering from one feature which also applies to other great international agencies: it tends to be a little top-heavy. Many of us have visited its headquarters in Paris, and we have caught the devotion of members of its staff; but I am informed that, of the total staff of 2,600, 1,600 are at the headquarters, a wrong proportion. Even so, there seems

467
to be some maldistribution in the personnel of that staff. The essential responsibility of UNESCO is to extend international understanding; yet I am also told that a few months ago, at any rate, its Department of Education for International Understanding had only three senior officers. The Department has initiated fine projects, and again I want to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare says, particularly in praise of the Associated Schools Project. But its resources are severely restricted, and when one looks at the results and bears in mind the need, how can one be satisfied with the impact which that project has made on five hundred schools? If it was really to influence the thought of school children in different countries, the number should have been at least a hundred times as great as that. The Department has also had its commendable gift coupon scheme which was initiated in 1952, and yet to-day none of us can he satisfied with the fact that it has raised only £500,000 in 14 years.
I want to look at the necessary support from Governments, and especially our own. Article VII of the Constitution asks Governments to set up National Commissions to further the aims of UNESCO. I propose to read items 1 and 2:
"1. Each Member State shall make such arrangements as suit its particular conditions for the purpose of associating its principal bodies interested in educational, scientific and cultural matters with the work of the Organisation. preferably by the formation of a National Commission broadly representative of the Government and such bodies.
2. National Commissions or National Cooperating Bodies, where they exist. shall act in an advisory capacity to their respective delegations to the General Conference and to their Governments in matters relating to the Organisation and shall function as agencies of liaison in all matters of interest to it."
That is to say, the first aim of the National Commissions which are set up is to act with scientific, cultural and educational organisations in order to extend the sense of world consciousness; and the second aim is to act as an advisory body to the Government in relation to the conferences which are held by UNESCO itself.
I would say, from looking at what the Government have done, that they have concentrated on the second purpose and
468
neglected the first. This was put quite succinctly by Mr. Martin, the Secretary of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO, and head of the UNESCO Department in the Ministry of Overseas Development, when he was addressing the Education Advisory Committee of the Parliamentary Group for World Government on February 8, 1966. He said that the main task of the National Commission in recent years had been to advise the Government on the attitudes which it should take to the programmes proposed for UNESCO. I do not underestimate the importance of that. Of course it is necessary. The methods of advice are complicated, and I do not propose to discuss them in detail. But I would just say to the representative of the Government that the present procedure means that as regards the final programme which comes before the Biennial Conference of UNESCO there is very little opportunity to amend it or to add useful proposals to it. I think he may find that that will also be true of other Agencies of the United Nations, and I would ask him to look into that subject.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend a question? I am not quite sure what he means. Which final programme does he refer to?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am talking about the procedure as outlined by Mr. Martin in the speech to which I referred, and which I shall gladly hand to the Minister. I am referring to the programme which is submitted to the Biennial Conference of UNESCO by the Director-General. The Director-General prepares an original programme which goes to Governments and National Commissions. They make their comments, it goes back, and the Director-General then prepares a final programme. My complaint is that there is too little time between receiving the final draft and the holding of the Biennial Conference, either for the National Commission or for the Government to make amendments or additions which might be useful.
As I said, there are two purposes for the National Commission: one is to give advice, and the other is to carry on its work of education among the people. I am suggesting, as indeed Mr. Martin has suggested, that the emphasis is placed on advice to the Government, rather than

469
on education among the people. The explanation of the National Commission is that there already exist organisations which undertake these duties—the Council for Education in World Citizenship, the Arts Council, the British Council and others. I submit that the existence of these societies, so far from being an obstacle to activity, provides an opportunity for effective activity. As I said, Article VII says:
"…for the purpose of associating its principal bodies …"
—associating, using, expanding their work in the development of world consciousness.
I want particularly to refer to the Council for Education in World Citizenship. All of us who have attended these quite extraordinary gatherings in the Westminster Central Hall will have seen the children from all over Britain, who for three days listen to experts dealing with international questions. Those who have sat in the group seminars with those children or who have been to their schools know the enormous value of the work which the Council is doing. And yet even with the additional grant of this year, the contribution of the Government to their funds was only £950. I submit that that is a very meagre sum. To the International Bureau of Education the contribution of the Government is only £840. The biggest useful contribution which the Government make is £40,000 from the Department of Education and Science for the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. I say to the Government that when we are spending over £2,000 million on defence, those are meagre sums for the fundamental task of developing among peoples the sense of world consciousness which must be the basis of peace.
Finally, I want to supplement the criticisms which I have voiced by welcoming recent developments. They are stated in a letter from the Minister of Overseas Development dated June 16 last in reply to a deputation which was led by Sir Edward Boyle on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee for World Government. The letter states that the National Commission is being reconstructed, is to have 25 members, is to have a development sub-committee, a public relations committee and four programme advisory committees. I should
470
like to ask the Minister, if he is within reach of my voice, what has been done since that announcement on June 16 last year in the appointment of those committees and, more particularly, in the activities which those committees have carried out.
My Lords, behind all this the fundamental fact is that the world is technically smaller, but people retain ideological and national divisions. The greatest of all needs to-day is the creation of the mind and spirit that we belong to the whole world. The Prime Minister has recently said that all parties have the ultimate aim of World Government, that UNESCO was set up to inculcate a sense of world community and that some of the best minds are devoting themselves to this task. That is true; but are we giving them adequate help to fulfil that task?
"… since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
We are asking the Government to give priority to that aim.
4.41 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a very short time in this debate. I was very interested when I saw the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Wade—and I was particularly interested in the speech which we heard this afternoon from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, which I think was most remarkable. I intervene because I am interested in that part of the noble Lord's Question which talks about:
"… the need for a programme, in addition to its Literacy project, designed to lessen the nationalistic bias in history textbooks and to encourage a sense of world community".
When I read that phrase it occurred to me how very difficult it was to do this. Writing history is, I suppose, one of the most important activities which men and women authors and historians engage in from one generation to another, and it is very difficult to see how this can be done without any bias.
One's attitude to history, it seems to me, is influenced by how far or how near one has been to the events which are recorded in the history books. If one may think in terms of fairly modern events, the attitude of the historian to-day, writing the history of the 1914–18 war, is quite different from that of the historian writing about the war

471
of 1939–45, which is still so fresh in the memories of many of us. In fact it is very difficult to take a detached or dispassionate view of historical events one has lived through, and to get a fair appreciation of those historical events one must, I think, be prepared to read many writers and then to form one's own judgment. I do not think that history can be written without bias, or with no personal flavour of the author.
Furthermore, I do not believe that you can denationalise history. My experience —other noble Lords have perhaps had similar experiences, but mine is still vivid in my memory—was that at the age of 16 I was sent to Paris to be educated in a French lycée, where I spent two years studying the ordinary subjects which school children studied in that period, history being one of them. Hot from an English school where I had been studying the Napoleonic Wars, I suddenly found myself studying the Napoleonic Wars in a class of French girls. The glories of Napoleon, French reactions to the Battle of Waterloo, or the 100 days and what happened at Elba, were taught to the class in the Lycée Victor Duruy in an attitude completely different from the period of study which I had completed in my own school. Both were genuine historical truths, but the emphasis was obviously very different. Imagine trying to write a history of Napoleon which would please the English, the Germans and the French. It would be impossible. Nor would it be true; and after all is said and done however much we want to prepare the world for a peaceful future, one must write the truth of the past. It is a very difficult thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is to follow me in this debate, and no doubt he will draw upon his very great experience of UNESCO, which I have not had. But he and I both belong to the same country. We are both Scots, and I am sure he has had the same experience as I have when making speeches abroad—that is, how astonished people are when told that we fought the English for 300 years. This is an historical fact which I do not hide. This war has now ceased, except on the football field or in the minds of fervid Scottish nationalists, but that does not stop me (and I am sure
472
it does not stop the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder) from being very proud of the fact that I am a citizen of the United Kingdom and not only of Scotland.
It would be impossible to write the history of Scotland and leave out wars, whether they were religious or national. And I do not believe that it would make nations more peaceful if this were done elsewhere. What has happened in history is ploughed into the soil of every nation. It is the stuff of which nations are made; and the further back you go the deeper it is dug into the soil. What is more (if I may continue the agricultural metaphor), it is organic in the soil. It melts and disappears, and becomes part of the soil, unable to be separated again. I believe that this process is part of the life of every nation, and need not lead to modern nationalistic behaviour, although admittedly nationalistic behaviour still exists.
The reasons for the last terrible war are all too well-known, and no writing of history would have deterred the Nazis. No writing of history could or would, I hope, want to cut out this period, because it was a terrible period. It is part of world history. UNESCO has a real obligation, as has any other teaching or writing of history, to tell what happened in history as it happened, and I think it would be impossible to find textbooks which were accurate which did not tell those facts. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, quoted some terrifying passages from textbooks in use in Cyprus, but I wonder whether it is not possible for the answer to be given in recommendations from UNESCO for books which do not give that very fierce bias which were given to the House this afternoon in his quotations.
Presumably when asked, UNESCO recommends books to teachers, and to recommend those which give many points of view would in my opinion be the right course for them to adopt. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that there is no greater urgency than to get more teachers for the developing countries, and I hope that the books used will be simple, straightforward accounts of historical developments, if possible unbiased, but in any case factual and honest. To build a world community is, of course, what all of us should work towards, but it will take many years.

473
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has outlined many of the modern methods which can be and are being developed. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway., mentioned the work of the International Exchange Council and of the Council for World Citizenship, both of them excellent and admirable organisations. These are the modern ways in which young people come together and plan or hope to plan for a world community. This I believe to be a better way than the idea that you can obliterate the past by the way in which you write history books, and we should give UNESCO the responsibility for disseminating history in all its aspects, rather than history written for a special purpose. I hope that the Government will support the organisations which aim to broaden the educational view, but I also hope that nobody will consider that the re-writing of history books will obliterate the past or make the future any easier.
4.50 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, in my —I should say "our"—highly civilised country, we have now ritualised the religious wars into the Rangers v. Celtic football match. Time is a great healer. If only we had enough time to cope with the world situation, we might succeed in doing what the English and Scots have done. For example, it was once true that thirty Elliots were hanged over Berwick Bridge; and I am not sure now who knows whether it was the Scots or the English who hanged them. That is one example of how you can, in fact, begin to forget. My father died at the age of eighty-two never having shaken hands with a Campbell, because the Campbells of Loch Awe in 1547 had carried off the heiress of the Calders and forcibly married her. So my father never shooks hands with a Campbell all his life. I am a professor of international relations; I have to shake hands with the Campbells.
We do advance, but the trouble is that even when we are supposed to be speaking the same language—and we Scottish and English have approximately the same language—we find, in fact, that we are creating international misunderstanding. For example, during the Cuban crisis I found myself being driven across
474
New York by one of those talkative New York cab drivers. It was the morning after President Kennedy had declared the "quarantine" of the island of Cuba. My Lords, the word "quarantine" is one of those weasel words that are going to cause a great deal of trouble and are going to confuse history. It had, in fact, confused this cabby.
He wanted to know what "quarantine" meant. I told him that it meant blockade: that the blockade was a hostile act and that the first shots across the bows of a Russian convoy would mean a shooting war. The cabby took all this very soberly and seriously, and said, reasonably: "But if them Russki ships have nothing to hide, why don't they just stop and let us look-see?" I said that that was a very interesting question, and that there was once a British ship, called H.M.S. "Leopard", which stopped an American ship, called the "Chesapeke", "just for a look-see". One thing led to another, and then we British burned the White House. He swung the cab into the kerb, pulled up and said: "The British burned the White House?" I said, "Yes". He turned round and said, "Ruddy Commies!" When I explained to him that this was the war of 1812 and that he was confusing the Redcoats with the Reds he was prepared to let bygones be bygones.
It may be that some noble Lords have forgotten that we burned the Capitol and the White House in Washington. The oversight is entirely forgivable, because the war of 1812 is liable to be dismissed in a line or a paragraph in our history books. We were rather preoccupied with the Napoleonic Wars. But it fills chapter after chapter in any American junior history book and fills them with lurid cartoons and pictures. I quote a current American high school book:
"In 1814 the British General Ross entered Washington and with barbarism which distinguishes the Vandals of the Middle Ages, but which is unknown to civilised warfare. his troops burned not only the Capitol hut its extensive library and records pertaining not to war but to peace and civilisation."
My Lords, memory has long knives and history books sharpen them. To encourage something we call patriotism, or nationalism, or just tribalism or parochialism, they glorify victories, no matter what the price of those victories; they foster grievances, build up archetype enemies

475
and give them labels and names. They romanticise squalid episodes; forget what is inconvenient or disgraceful, and just ignore the achievements which are the web and woof of the common pattern of mankind—the kind of thing to which my noble friend Lord Rowley is asking UNESCO to pay some further account. As Nehru pointed out in his Letters from a Father to His Daughter, to Indira, then aged ten, anyone would think that all history happened in the West; that the only culture which mattered and had ever mattered was the Graeco-Roman tradition. Or, as Professor Patrick Blackett, President of the Royal Society, once said at an international conference:
"If a man from Mars had arrived on Earth any time between 3,000 and 500 B.C. he would have concluded that the people of the Near and Middle East were the superior beings of this Earth but between 500 A.D. and 1,500 A.D. he would have decided in favour of the Chinese and the Indians."
We, incidentally, in Western Europe would have been the Barbarians.
H. G. Wells did his best to get things straight and in perspective in The Outline of History, and Sir Julian Huxley, as has been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, inspired and initiated, when he was Director General (and followed through in 1951), the scheme under the aegis of UNESCO, The History of Mankind. There are six volumes, as the right reverend Prelate also pointed out. The first and quite outstanding volume by Jacquetta Hawkes and Leonard Woolley, dealing with pre-history, has been published, in many languages, all over the world and has been received with universal acclaim. Another, I think, has also been published. But the subsequent volumes, because we are moving forward into the history of present States have all had to overcome enormous difficulties.
Why is this? Because, my Lords, UNESCO is not a supra-national body, but an inter-governmental body; and no matter how much it claims objectivity and independence for the project (in fact, it did bulkhead this project by sponsoring it and making it self-sufficient), it cannot ignore the sensitivity and querulousness of Member States. Nevertheless, those volumes, when completed, will be a very remarkable achievement and very much in accord with what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is asking. And,
476
in substance, I suggest, they will go a considerable way towards that for which my noble friend Lord Rowley is asking—although I appreciate that he is asking for the spelling out, in more specific terms than we have yet seen, the common achievements of mankind towards international understanding. But the problem with The History of Mankind will be to ensure its world-wide dissemination, in 49 or 50 languages, and its reflection in the school textbooks. How does one get it into the schools themselves? This is not comparative history; it is not a comparison of history of nations. It is an attempt to bring through loud and clear, the nature of the common history of mankind.
My Lords, the price of common understanding, for which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is asking, is eternal vigilance. I, like the noble Baroness, believe that it is humanly and institutionally impossible to fumigate or decontaminate all class books of mistakes, abuses and historical obscenities. I am cynical enough to believe that it is impossible to expect even scholarly historians to do this. History is not a compendium of proven facts; it is a critique of half-truths, however well-intentioned and however well-vetted. Read the accounts by our Generals and Admirals turned historians and compare the accounts, not of their adversaries, but of their colleagues, their brothers-in-arms. One wonders whether they were written about the same war or whether it was a private war of their own. Or read historians reviewing other historians. Or compare your own living experience of events with the rationalisations which eventually appear in historical appreciations.
I lived through an agonising period in the Congo, travelling 10,000 miles though all the provinces. I saw for myself, and investigated instances, and delved into the murky international conspiracies, which were as fetid as the swamp forests themselves. This was in 1960, at the beginning of all our troubles, and I am appalled by what passes as objective accounts of the period and, more particularly, by the utter perversion and travesty of the United Nations' role there. Yet I know that my own account is charged with the emotion of circumstance and distorted by the myopia of events. I can only be —and this is as it should be—a witness,

477
and my testimony should be judged with that of others; but in all historical appreciation it depends on what case you are trying to prove.
My Lords, one of the things we are trying to do through UNESCO, and indeed the example very usefully being shown by British publishers, is to provide, as we have to as a producer-country, textbooks, history books and so on for the new countries. We are in fact—and the publishers themselves are—getting the local people to do not so much the translation as the interpretation of these books. History books and history teaching tend, as we know, to stop at a safe distance from contemporary events. Living history is distrusted as journalism—although reputable journalists (and I hope I may include myself in that description) are in fact the true historians of our time—and treated in schools as current events. I am all for this. Frankly, I would rather that the schools were dealing with current events than with prejudiced history or what passes as history, which is often sheer flamboyancy.
I do not underestimate the value of dealing with current events, because the younger generation do not read contemporary history with the bloodshot eyes of old feuds, or the bigotry of ideological prejudices. For instance, this year is the 50th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Every one of us here have subjective feelings about that Revolution and about the intervening years; but I have a feeling that the younger generation will take less account of October, 1917, than of October, 1957, the occasion when the U.S.S R. launched the first space satellite. Indeed, my Lords, I would utter an absolute heresy: I would say that for the younger generation, including certainly many of my own students in Edinburgh, history began in 1945. Everything before that is pre-history or "classical", something to be studied as a discipline or with the detachment with which we study the Peloponnesian War or speculate where Hannibal got his elephants.
For them 1945 was not only the end of a great war, it was the beginning of a new age into which they were born: the Atomic Age, followed by the Computer Age of cybernetics and automation, by the Space Age in which man first broke
478
the gravitational fences of his planet; and the D.N.A. Age, perhaps the most portentous of all, because in D.N.A., deoxyribonucleic acid, we have the information code which chemically instructs cells how to grow and differentiate and determines the heredity of succeeding generations. This is the secret of life, and when we think of what we did with the secret of matter, exploding it as a cataclysmic bomb, we have reason for misgiving about the secret of life unless we apply wisdom to science.
It is against this background, my Lords, that the younger generation is now confronted with the necessity for common understanding. All this has happened in 22 years—telescoping eras, each as significant as the Iron Age, or the Bronze Age, or the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution, all in the lifetime of those who have barely reached their majority. They were born into a world so drastically changed that their elders who still deal with world affairs—regrettably, according to the protesters—have not quite grasped what in fact has happened. But the younger generation do grasp it. They take all the marvels for granted. They know that this is a small planet round which a man-made satellite can travel 16 times a day; a planet so diminished in time and distance that it has become a neighbourhood. You may not like your neighbours in a neighbourhood, but one thing is true—you cannot ignore them; you have to try to understand them. With communication satellites we bring events on the other side of the world into our sitting rooms. Events intrude upon everyday life. Events are like nuclear fission: they produce a chain reaction. They flash-weld the world into one. Therefore, my Lords, in our concern to straighten out history books, let us consider the history which is being written with the speed of light by the radio waves of our eavesdropping neighbourhood.
I sympathise very profoundly with the intention of the Question. I am sure that UNESCO sympathises, too—I mean the UNESCO Secretariat as such. But UNESCO is an inter-governmental organisation of 122 sovereign nations. What has been suggested for it means that it would have to try to rationalise all the history books of the world. To "vet" the textbooks of all its members would be

479
a task of absolutely inconceivable magnitude. It can, as it has done in The History of Mankind, provide an honest prototype and hope that it member-States will respect the objective truths. It has produced a matrix of history for which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has been asking and which in part meets the point made by my noble friend Lord Rowley. It is the job for member-States, including our own, to do the conversion. As our contribution to healthier world thinking we should be interpreting history, not in terms of battles long ago but of present realities and opportunities for better understanding.
My Lords, I ask Her Majesty's Government very seriously to consider the ways and means by which they can synchronise the teaching with the new awareness of the young, and encourage the world sense which they have and which so many of us do not have. This, I would say, is the stuff of education itself, which is not merely a question of how we are going institutionally to try to meet the points raised in the Question.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred, as did my noble friend Lord Brockway, to that quite exemplary institution, the Council for Education in World Citizenship. With as much enthusiasm, almost with more enthusiasm, I want to back what they have said. It is quite a remarkable organisation. Some of your Lordships, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Brockway, may know of its activities at Central Hall. Some of you, like myself and my noble friend Lord Brockway may have been victims of this organisation. this Conference at Central Hall. I say "victims" of this organisation because it is one of the most exacting and devastating experiences in the world. I have seen eminent Members of your Lordships' House under cross-examination and castigation by sixth-formers and I have seen their arguments torn up and thrown out of the window. I will not mention names—I might even include my own if I did. I hope that those who have had this experience have enjoyed it and have benefited from it as much as I. It is cathartic; it is like an intellectual nature cure.
But that occasion, that annual event, is only one of the continuous activities
480
of C.E.W.C. all over the country—probing, analysing, criticising, rejecting, handing over this analysis to the young people who are not yet cynical or prejudiced or corrupted by what passes as history. This is the stuff of contemporary history; this is how it ought to be dealt with—at the receiving end, among the people who arc going to be responsible for the world of the future. C.E.W.C. is one of the ways in which modern history can be understood.
There are other ways in which a sense of world community can be encouraged, and I also subscribe to the appreciation of other organisations which have been mentioned. The greater encouragement of all this is our British responsibility. It is not something we have to pass over to UNESCO. It is something we have to do for and through UNESCO, but it is our responsibility. It is a continuing service for the aims and objects of UNESCO and for the intention underlying the noble Lord's Question.
I go round the world praising organisations such as these, of which we have created the prototype. Nevertheless, I am ashamed of my country and of my Government when it comes to admitting what we pay to them for doing it. We have heard that C.E.W.C. gets £950 a year. It is true that much of its work is done through education authorities, and I must pay tribute to those authorities who are inspired to help the cause of world understanding. But what are we expecting of the devoted servants of this organisation, some of whom have been working in it for many years? I admire them enormously for staying. They have given their lives to this work, with little recognition, though I am sure with a great deal of personal satisfaction and achievement. It is a shame that we should all underestimate their efforts.
It has been suggested that we should show what people are, outside the heroes, the great figures of history. Every year UNESCO promotes on a world scale the recognition of centenaries. Next year will be the 150th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. I am glad to say that at the General Conference of UNESCO the Russians came, with surprising timidity, but perhaps with latent bluster behind it, and asked that Karl Marx should be recognised. There was no resistance from any part of the world,

481
because we were talking about something, the recognition of someone who has had a profound influence on mankind, which can be done objectively through UNESCO. It strips away all ideology and on this we can have common ground.
Many years ago, when I was on the original UNESCO United Kingdom delegation, we proposed a series, "Of Human Excellence", and submitted a list of people who had made their imprint on the world in the things in which every community was interested. We did not get away with that. J. B. Priestley proposed an Order of Merit on a world scale, an Order of World Citizenship. I think that this was a brilliant idea, because it was an accumulator. We could have nominated six in the first year, 60 in the next year, 600 the year after, then 6,000 and then 6 million, until finally we secured recognition that merit was for the accomplishments of the common citizen.
I hope that I shall not forestall anything my noble friend on the Front Bench will say in referring to the questions of my noble friend Lord Brockway. I declare an interest here, because I was British delegate at the General Conference last year and I am a member of the National Commission of UNESCO. It is true that over many years we have been neglectful of the real purposes of the National Commission. I believe that too much emphasis has been placed on its second function, that of advising the delegation. But I assure your Lordships that the United Kingdom Commission has been reorganised, and briefing in anticipation of the General Conference is going forward.
I would give my noble friend this assurance about the biennial programme. In the past Governments have found themselves confronted with a fait accompli too late for the National Commission to influence events, but we are now moving into every department ahead of time to try to find out what they propose to do, I hope constructively and not negatively, and on these lines lies the encouragement that we shall be prepared for the next General Conference. We are still a long way from achieving total international understanding, but in a world of about 3,400 million people, of whom over half are illiterate and of
482
whom, at least in the developing two-thirds of the world, half are under the age of 15, that is to be expected. I follow the right reverend Prelate in believing that the young generation throughout the world, because they have been born into a world of awareness, will be receptive if our methods of communication are not the poison gas of propaganda and the paralysing gas of apathy.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have heard with great appreciation what my noble friend said in reply to the points that I raised. I do not think that they have been publicly stated before and I am delighted that they should be stated now.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, we went to the last General Conference pretty well confronted with something we could not radically change, and now we say that, so far as the next two years are concerned, we are going to see in advance what we can helpfully do.
5.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, when I heard the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on the subject of the inevitable nationalistic bias in history's teaching, my mind went back to the middle-1920s when it was my duty to teach American history to American schoolboys in the ancient city of Philadelphia, the city in which the Declaration of Independence was signed. I felt a certain degree of nervousness at the situation, but I believe that it all went very well. Youth is generous and youth is humorous. We both laughed a good deal that I should be expounding to American boys the iniquities of Lord North and George III. Perhaps I was in the position to explain that those characters were to be blamed rather for stupidity than for ill-will; and when it came to the burning of the White House I was able to explain that it was a retaliatory burning in revenge for the burning of Toronto by American troops in the same war.
I believe that we exaggerate the importance of the textbooks and the bias contained in them; and I believe that, at least in civilised countries, that bias is gradually disappearing. The last time I

483
was in America I noticed that American schoolchildren were learning their geography from a book with the inspiring title of One World.
I have heard a great many highly informative and able speeches, and I find little that I can add to them. I was particularly interested in the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. This is a matter in which the Churches can have a considerable degree of influence in many countries, and not least in the new nations of Africa. Education is still largely in the hands of Christian bodies, and they are in a position to influence, to some extent, the historical teaching that is given in the schools of these new nations.
I will not try to add to the words which the right reverend Prelate has uttered, but I should like to render to him the support of some 2,400 Prelates who constituted the Second Council of the Vatican. In December, 1965, that Council, after full and careful discussion, adopted a document entitled The Church in the World To-day. One important chapter in that document concerned the necessity for peace and the means that should be adopted to avoid international war. With your Lordships' permission, I will quote the penultimate paragraph of that chapter, because it should certainly be on record in any discussion such as we have had today. It is the paragraph most relevant to the subject under discussion. It reads:
"The strenuous and ceaselessly prolonged examinations of peace and disarmament problems, and international conferences about them, must be considered the first steps towards a solution which need to be pressed forward with great urgency in the future if they are to achieve practical results. Nevertheless, men should beware of committing themselves only to the efforts of others without taking trouble about their own minds. Statesmen are not only answerable for the public welfare; yet they depend very much on public opinion and sentiment. It is no use their setting out to establish peace so long as feelings of hostility, contempt and mistrust, racial hatreds or obstinate ideologies divide men and set them against each other. Our greatest need is to reorientate people's minds, to re-educate public opinion. Educators, especially of the young, and those who shape public opinion, should think it a most serious duty to create in the minds of all a new feeling for peace. All of us, indeed, must change our hearts, looking to the wide world and to those tasks we can perform together to help our race to better itself."
5.25 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I should like first of all to associate myself with those noble Lords who have expressed appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this discussion this afternoon, and for the well-informed and interesting speech with which he introduced it. Our discussions this afternoon have turned mainly upon UNESCO—what it does, and what it might be expected to do. It is the case, I think, that UNESCO, if I may borrow a phrase which I think was used by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has failed to impress the image of its purpose upon the nations. if by that the noble Lord meant that it has failed to impress the image of its purpose upon the people, I should certainly agree with him; and I should feel no sense of disappointment, because UNESCO is not the sort of organisation that will ever impress the image of its purpose on the public mind. It is essentially an organisation which exists to influence Governments. If we can say that it has succeeded in impressing the image of its purpose on Governments—and I think it probably has—then UNESCO is in fact performing the task for which it was created.
I must confess that when I first read the terms of the noble Lord's Question I felt a certain amount of apprehension. My alarm was aroused by the latter part of the Question, in which he calls for a programme:
"designed to lessen the nationalist bias in history textbooks …"
We have not heard much this afternoon about that part of the Question. The noble Lord himself gave us some instances of that which I think illustrated clearly what may happen if that particular mode of propaganda is employed. Indeed, in our generation we have watched this happen again and again in Communist States, Fascist States and totalitarian States of all kinds: they seek to influence the minds of men through children's textbooks. This is a dangerous principle to follow, and I am glad that we have not heard UNESCO pressed too vigorously to revise the textbooks which are used in teaching in schools. It is a subtly dangerous thing to do. It is not dangerous only because the wrong material may be found in textbooks; it is dangerous, too, because some things

485
which ought to be included in textbooks are left out.
I should regret the use in English schools of textbooks which made no reference to the great service which this nation paid to India during the period of our rule there. Britain brought to India two things which India never had before and which she has never had since. We brought to the Indian continent peace, and we brought unity. We brought an end to the continuous strife which we found in that continent when we went there. In the short period since we have left India, the Indian Government have been engaged in two wars, one with another nation of the Commonwealth.
I personally should regret to find in English textbooks no reference to the great services which this country has rendered to the peoples of Africa. In less than a century we have brought civilisation to places where—let us be frank about it—barbarism existed before we went there. True it is that we have not been wholly successful in establishing in the African States the Parliamentary system upon which they were founded, but the time may yet come when Parliamentary government may make better progress in Africa than it has done hitherto. Surely it is a good thing that each generation should be taught something of the services that the British people have rendered in those two great continents. My Lords, there is nothing unduly nationalistic about that.
I should regret, and deeply regret, if some movement were made to eliminate references of that nature in the textbooks used in schools. It is a regrettable fact—but it is, I fear, a fact—that there are many persons in the world to-day who condemn every act this country ever does, or has ever done, as blameworthy, merely because it has been done by the British people. I hope that persons who hold these views—and I regret to say that sometimes they seem to be not uncommon —will have no part in deciding what ought to have a place in school textbooks. It is just as important that these textbooks should contain the acts for which this country can be justly proud, and not only those acts for which it can be condemned.
There is not much more I desire to say. There is, I think, in all these questions a danger that we may teach children that there exists some agency to which their
486
loyalty and legitimate pride should be directed, rather than to their own native land. I cannot think it is wrong to bring children up to love their country and to respect its institutions; to respect what their country has done in the world. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for having eliminated from his speech any suggestion of that sort. I am sure that that means that this afternoon we all wholeheartedly endorse what he has said in opening this most interesting discussion.
In conclusion, my Lords, perhaps I may offer a word of apology to the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government. Because I have an engagement, from which I cannot escape, at six o'clock, I shall not have the good fortune to be here to hear him wind up this discussion.
5.32 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for raising these issues of international misunderstanding caused by education. Having studied history after the First World War, not only at Oxford but also at Bonn University and later at the Sorbonne, I am particularly conscious of these difficulties. I believe that a measure of international education is a most valuable corrective to nationalism in textbooks, and that this will become much more important when we enter Europe, especially important perhaps at teacher training level. Several speakers in the debate have drawn attention to the disappearance, the slow disappearance, of differences between England and Scotland over the centuries, and I should certainly hope that something similar can be achieved at least in Europe.
Two current examples of international education, in both of which I must declare an interest, are the Atlantic College at St. Donat's Castle in South Wales and the European Institute of Business Administration at Fontainebleau. I mention these examples because otherwise the phrase "international education" seems rather obscure. The Atlantic College, now expanding to about 240 students, is a sixth-form or pre-university college, with boys from thirty countries, about one-third of them from Great Britain. They are aged from 16½ to 18½—old enough to want to know about the

487
world, but still young enough to be impressionable and free from fixed prejudices. After only four years the Atlantic College has sent its students to a hundred and one universities all over the world, thus proving that this sort of education can be a great success. It is only the first of a chain of international colleges mixing boys of different nationalities and different social origins.
The Atlantic College is taking part in the negotiations of the International Schools Examination Syndicate at Geneva, which aims at producing an international Baccalaureate examination. This, if generally accepted, would vastly diminish the present difficulties which make it hard for a boy of one country to go to a university in another. I believe that developments of this sort would do more than almost anything else to diminish the misunderstandings which are caused by education. I mention these negotiations, which are really of great importance and significance, because they already seem to be leading to a more unified and less nationalistic attitude to school curricula as regards history. Probably in the end there will have to be some real meeting of minds about the contents of textbooks. Perhaps UNESCO can help. I agree with those who have said how very difficult this is, and if we think of the terrible events we have seen in two World Wars in our lifetime we realise that it is extremely hard to produce objectivity among writers of history about them. Meanwhile, it is good for the students at St. Donat's and other international colleges to beat these problems out for themselves and to compare the textbooks on history which they bring from their own countries.
Secondly, I mentioned the European Institute of Business Administration at Fontainebleau. This is a sort of all-European Harvard business school. We teach the most modern business management techniques in English, French and German to post-graduate students from a great many countries. The British students, I am glad to say, seem to do particularly well there. We are producing at Fontainebleau a race of businessmen able to operate in several languages in any part of Europe or America, or indeed beyond. When these
488
carefully selected men from the Atlantic College or the European Institute of Business Management, or other similar institutions, get to the top of the tree, as in due course many will, their training and the links they will have with similar men in other countries can hardly fail to be an inestimable asset for the cause of better international understanding.
Let us not exaggerate. These institutions which I have mentioned are still on a very small scale. They are a begining of something which may, and perhaps should, become a feature of the new world which the computer revolution is now producing. For everywhere the great companies and new industrial groupings are spreading out across the frontiers. Names like Shell, I.C.I., Unilever, Philips, Olivetti, and many others, are a household word in several continents. The men needed by these vast concerns are not likely to be produced by a narrow nationalism in education. We all need to move forward to new conceptions, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has adumbrated. And for this purpose I believe that a measure of international education would seem to offer valuable advantages.
5.39 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, as I am the last speaker in this debate, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, winds up and makes his comments on the speeches of various noble Lords. While sympathising with the obvious sincerity lying behind the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the object of which is in the interests of world peace, nevertheless I find it difficult to define precisely in practical terms the term in the Motion, "nationalist bias", as portrayed in history books. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has given us some examples of an excessive national bias, which I think are a quite obvious danger to world peace. So far as our own nation is concerned, I do not think we are guilty of this with regard to our own history. I also submit that we are not guilty of any excessive national bias.
I am a believer in the Commonwealth of Nations and the origin of its evolvement, with all its ideas and attainments,

489
and in particular our association with our friends in that community. I feel that this community, as it exists, is an example of how a world community should evolve in a wider sense. I am also concerned that we may fail in our contribution to world peace. We may fail because we shall not be strong enough in placing before the world community the great experience which has come to us from our associations with other nations in this Commonwealth which has evolved, and which would be of great benefit to the world community at large. After all, there was a time when we extended our influence over one-quarter of the globe.
With regard to the period of time in our history which has been covered by noble Lords in this debate, I should like to speak of a period which is nearer to the present time. We have been through the momentous occasions of two world wars, and that is a period of which I can speak from my own experience. In addition to that, having been a member of the Colonial Service overseas, giving effect to the policies of Her Majesty's Government, whether Labour or Conservative, I have been able to see for myself the effects of those policies, emanating no doubt from deliberations in another place and from deliberations of noble Lords in this House. Living among the people who are directly affected by these policies I have been able to see the results, and it is only right to say that they have been invariably good. Mistakes we have made, but on the whole we have done far more good than harm.
My Lords, it is worth while giving a few examples of what we have done in the territories for which we were responsible. I will give only a few examples, and I hope that they will be recorded in our history for posterity. We respected race, religion and local custom in all the territories which we administered. The rights of every individual were respected. We were second to none in seeing that there was no exploitation of the local community, and that all revenues which accrued from trading were paid into the coffers of the countries which we administered. Thus roads, hospitals, schools and universities were built, to the benefit of the local population. All these benefits were paid for indirectly by traders from this country,
490
a fact which is often forgotten at the present time.
I know another country in Europe which had possessions in a part of the world in which I served, the revenues of which went towards the revenues of their home Government. We would never contemplate anything like that, and it is worth remembering these things when we call into question any act of our own. A national bias is right, provided that we stand for what is right. There is very little wrong with what we have done, and we have done much that has benefited a great number of people.
What else did we do? We enacted labour codes to protect the workers in all areas from exploitation. Later, and as the countries advanced, we recruited trade union advisers from the Trade Union movement of this country to represent the workers locally and to train them to bargain in a free community, to the advancement of their own prosperity and status. All the time we trained people to manage their own affairs and to take over the posts we held, to our eventual extinction.
We must get out of the habit of making excuses for ourselves. We can only help world peace by insisting that much of what we have done is recorded for the benefit of all and for others to follow, if they desire to do so. It would seem that the examples we set and the precepts we followed would fit well into any pattern designed for a contented world community, living at peace, as an example for the United Nations to follow.
5.48 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence for not having put my name down on the Marshalled List, but I have been abroad until to-day. I wish briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his Unstarred Question from my own personal experience with regard to history. I went to schools in six countries—convents, boarding schools, day schools, high schools, pensions, and eventually to a boarding school in England. I certainly had a comprehensive education, but my history was fragmentary.
Perhaps I may give an illustration of what I had to reconcile in my mind. I learned in France, of course, that Charlemagne was the great French Emperor.

491
I learned in Germany that Karl der Grosse was the greatest Emperor they had ever had, and it was not until I came back to boarding school in England that I discovered it was the self-same person. Nevertheless, I think I benefited from having had a three-dimensional characterisation of this one man, and learning European history in Europe is certainly a tremendous advantage, for which I am grateful.
I was struck by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that the Foreign Office might inquire into the attitude that other countries take towards us in their history books. Perhaps I might give him this example, which again I experienced in the United States of America, when I was in New York in 1952. I went round some of the elementary schools and a teacher asked whether the children might ask me questions. I said, "Certainly", and the first question I was asked, by a young boy of about 10 or 12, was, "How much subsidy do you still get from your Colonies?" This was in 1952, and regretfully I was reinforced in my opinion that United States foreign policy was still, so far as Colonialism was concerned, based on the Boston Tea Party.
Then of course one has had personal experience of the divergence between our Churches, and between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England in particular, which are united in my family in a particular way. We remember the fulminations of the Pope against the Protestant heretics in the old days, and the vilification of the scarlet woman by the Protestant heretics on their side. Now this is all being brought together, understood, and the exaggerations removed. I was struck by a member of my family, who is a Catholic, who came to an English Communion service and was almost horrified by the fact that it was almost identical with her own Mass. This shows that when people come together in discussion or in reading or writing history, many of these misunderstandings disappear.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I do not think it is possible for modern history to be unbiased. After all, it is written by living people about people still living, or just
492
recently dead, and it would be a dull form of history if this were reduced to a sort of encyclopædic monologue. But as to past history, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has raised a most important matter in regard to school textbooks. I greatly hope that, should we go into the Common Market, there will be a European University where perhaps special research may be made into European school textbooks, not with a view to making them all the same, but with a view to bringing to light exaggerations or gross omissions, so that in Europe we may grow together from childhood upwards in a friendly way.
I believe that this will be especially important in view of the writing of history which must be going on in the Communist countries at the present moment, and which I am afraid we should consider biased. What the historical teaching in China is at the moment, I tremble to think. Therefore I feel that we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Wade for having put down this Question. There is a great deal of work to be done, especially, I think, in school textbooks, and I hope that, certainly in Europe, when the Community grows together, it will work together on this aspect.
5.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should perhaps apologise to the House for intervening at all because, owing to an engagement fixed a long time ago, I have missed most of this debate, including a number of speeches which I particularly wished to hear. I shall be brief, but I want to raise one matter which I believe to be of some importance. The first thing that struck me about the terms of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, which has given rise, I am assured on all hands, to a most interesting debate, is the entire absence of mention of the word "truth". I cannot help thinking it very important that the textbooks should try to tell the truth, and I do not suppose anybody will differ from that view.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentions in his Question one possible source of distortion, of the truth; namely, nationalism. But if there is in a particular textbook a distortion through nationalist feeling, there is at least a possibility of that being corrected by

493
another book with perhaps a different bias; and both those biases may, of course, be unconscious. But there is little remedy against the bad influence of a hook which deliberately lies, and, unfortunately, such books have been deliberately published by UNESCO. I shall, of course, proceed to give an example, to which I drew the attention of this House nearly five years ago, and the Foreign Office Minister who answered my Question admitted that the facts were as I stated them.
We shall not necessarily get more accurate books if we try to exclude any single influence that may effect a particular historian. In such study of history as I made at school, and when I read Greats at Oxford, I hope that I learned the value of turning to original sources and trying to discover the truth to the best of my ability. In this short debate, in which I think I am the thirteenth speaker, I happen to be the fourth Rugbeian, though I am afraid that I am very much senior to any of the others who have spoken, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. We had a great teacher in my day, the late Mr. Hastings, and I think I learned a little from him about trying to ascertain the truth; and I learned a good deal more when I read Greats at Oxford, though the periods of history I then studied were the Classical periods in Greece and Rome.
But what is the record of UNESCO? Here my memory may be playing me false, but I believe that at one time UNESCO set about trying to create a new history of the world, but in order to be free from any kind of bias it decided to omit Christianity. That was not, if I am right in my facts, perhaps the most useful way to produce a good history of the world, because, whatever may be thought of the disruptive effects of introducing Christianity when Christianity is not a universial religion, a world history written without mention of Christianity was most unlikely to be true.
Let me come to my example of the publication by UNESCO of a book that deliberately lied. On December 18, 1962, I tabled a Question in this House:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether UNESCO has recently published a booklet called Equality of Rights between Races and Nationalities in the U.S.S.R.; whether the authors (inter alia) thus describe the annexation
494
of the Baltic States: 'In 1940 the Soviet régime was restored in the Baltic republics which voluntarily joined the Union'; where responsibility for this publication lies; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to secure its immediate withdrawal and to prevent the funds of UNESCO from being used in future for a work of such a character?"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Vol. 245, col. 1017, 18/12/62.]
That, my Lords, was the Question. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, at that time my noble friend Lord Dundee, replied in these words:
"My Lords, the booklet referred to by my noble friend was published by UNESCO earlier this year and it contains the reference to the Baltic States which he quotes. Responsibility for publication lies with UNESCO. The Director-General of UNESCO has been informed that in the view of Her Majesty's Government this particular booklet falls far short of the standard of objectivity and regard for the truth which ought to be observed in UNESCO'S publications. So far as future action is concerned, the Executive Board of UNESCO is setting up a Publications Committee to prepare general directives concerning publications of UNESCO, and the United Kingdom member of the Board has supported this proposal."—[col. 1018.]
I asked, in a supplementary question, whether the Minister recalled that:
"the Governments of this country since the annexation have consistently refused de jure recognition of U.S.S.R. sovereignty over these territories because of the circumstances of their annexation,"
and I added these words:
"Why cannot the Communists pay for their own propaganda? Is it not outrageous that the funds of UNESCO, to which we contribute, should be devoted to the dissemination of falsehood?"—[col. 1018.]
I do not apologise for those words. So far as I know, UNESCO has never apologised for this publication; nor, so far as I know, has this publication been withdrawn. I bring this matter to the notice of the House to show that it is not only nationalist feeling that may introduce bias. The most disastrous results may be brought about by deliberate lying, of which this is a notorious example.
History books are important, and we want them as nearly as possible to tell the truth, and certainly never deliberately to tell an untruth; but we deceive ourselves if we think that the only thing that can cause an untruth or a bias is nationalist or patriotic feeling. An untruth can result from many other things, and not least from deliberate lying. Of the many international institutions at present working in the world, lying has been indulged in as much by UNESCO as

495
by any other body. I hope that the discussion initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will have a happy result and will call general attention to the importance of textbooks and the importance of truth in textbooks. But we ought not to blind ourselves to the use which has been made in the past of UNESCO, which may be made of UNESCO now, and against which we must guard in the future.
6.2 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I also should like to apologise for not having put down my name among those wishing to speak in this debate and for intervening. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, very much indeed for having given us such an interesting afternoon. I am sorry I was not able to be present when the noble Lord opened the debate, but I have listened to the other speakers with interest and also with a certain amount of satisfaction; because so much of what has been said and suggested this afternoon was familiar to me during the 14½ years I had the privilege to lead the great body of Scouts and, indirectly, Guides—some 17 million young people throughout the world. They have learned how to live together in harmony, not by destroying their national pride but by building it up, thus giving themselves the self-respect that enables them to appreciate the national pride and achievements of other countries as well as their own. We have taught them that the privileges which we enjoy to-day have not come just by chance, but as the result of sacrifices, of life itself in many cases, of countless thousands of men and women who have trodden this path before us. Do we realise the inspirational value of those lives? Do we realise the importance of teaching the boys and girls of to-day the heritage which they have received from generations past? Do we give sufficient emphasis to the fact that privileges carry with them responsibilities?
When I was Chief Scout I attended many international gatherings, great camps with anything from 10,000 to 50,000 boys. They did not have the International Scouting flag over their little camps, but they flew the flag of their own country and paid tribute to it at the flag-raising every morning. They remained people of their own countries, with their own cultures, their own civilisa-
496
tions, their own religions; but at the same time they were able—Jew, Christian and Moslem—to live together and to realise that they were of one body, the one with the other. One cannot destroy national spirit and expect something of value to come out of that destruction. If one destroys the spirit of a people, all that can follow is some woolly internationalism with no value behind it and no true understanding of the lives of others.
Our boys, in their thousands, travel overseas to the uttermost parts of the earth. They camp together; they live in the homes of the boys of the nation which they are visiting; they get to know and understand each other in a way they never could in a directed tour. Let us teach our boys the history of our nation. Let us teach them what Ham Mukasa, the greatest African I have ever met, said to me when I was visiting his country. He said: "If only the young could understand!". When I asked what he meant, he told me what it was like before the white man came, when ritual sacrifice was common and slave raids ravaged his peoples.
We have much to be proud of. I believe that we have done more to civilise the world than most of the other nations put together. We have carried misfortune with us in some cases, but in general an understanding of the interdependence of mankind. Let us teach our boys that. Let us teach the value of the heritage which we have received, and teach them to pay their way through this world by shouldering the responsibilities which go with privilege. Lack of self-respect is at the back of half our troubles to-day. If we can build self-respect in our young people, we can look forward to a future as glorious as our past should be recognised as having been.
6.8 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this discussion. I should like to congratulate him upon having done so in such a constructive and stimulating way. The noble Lord, Lord Rowley, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and I and others have been associated together over many years in trying to

497
further the causes about which the noble Lord has spoken to-day, and I have always had a great respect for the tenacious loyalty which he has had for the conception of a World Government. It struck me as most remarkable that appeals for support for a better spirit of understanding should have stimulated some most extraordinary ideas and the thought that there was in this any sense of attack on a genuine sense of pride in one's own national achievements. I have as great a sense of national pride as any noble Lord in this House, but that does not in any way belittle my endeavours to secure an international understanding and an international loyalty, which this world so badly needs.
Much has been done by those who share the noble Lord's views to create a change in the climate of opinion about this. At one time those who supported the idea of a world community were regarded as cranks and even dangerous. But as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, all the major political Parties now pay at any rate lip service to this idea of World Government and world citizenship. But I agree that much more needs to be done, and I say that all the more feelingly having heard the revealing contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, who comes along without giving any notice, without even saying that he is going to speak, let alone what he is going to speak about, and on the basis of one instance makes the most sweeping charges of lying against a great international organisation.
I share the disappointment of those who find in current United Nations' activity a good deal of fault-finding, as between one nation State and another. I accept what has been said about the opportunities which challenge UNESCO to generate or regenerate the intellectual, philosophical and political climate, which would encourage the growth of the United Nations as a genuine world organisation, within which individual nation States, bereft of some of their more dangerous powers, can still develop their national characteristics. If we can increase the effectiveness of UNESCO—one of the United Nations' own Organisations—in this struggle for the minds of men, then I believe that the days of permanent world peace could be brought perceptibly nearer.
498
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, however, seemed to suggest that the smallness of Britain's contribution restricted the work of UNESCO. But, of course, the Organisation is financially autonomous, and its budget is determined biennially by the 120 member States. Our commitment is to provide just short of 7 per cent. of that budget. Seven per cent. of the whole, as the contribution from one of the 120 members, is not on the face of it, at any rate, an especially mean contribution. At all events, that is the agreed proportion that this country pays towards the United Nations' costs. Last year our proportion involved a payment of £566,000 for the year, and as the budget for the two-year period, 1967–68, is 61·5 million dollars our share will be approximately £730,000 for each of those two years. But in addition to its regular budget UNESCO will dispose of a further 57 million dollars in carrying out work as an executive agent for the United Nations Development Programme. We contribute to this Programme on a voluntary basis, and last year we subscribed just under £4,200,000 and have pledged a similar sum for this year.
The noble Lord was especially critical of the sum spent by UNESCO on education. He said that 38 million dollars, which is the amount available from all sources including the United, Nations Development Programme funds, is an impoverished-looking figure. I quite agree with him that if one compares this with the estimated sum of £40,000 million spent every year on military preparations, it seems a disgracefully mean figure. But when one compares military expenditure with the resources devoted to any one of the world's social services, the proportion is always an affront to human conscience. When I say that, I am not in any way attempting to denigrate what has been done by national communities in other respects, but that figure of £40,000 million is a challenge to the decency of all of us. Until we can get that sum down we cannot really claim that we are a civilised world. However, one cannot blame UNESCO for the size of military budgets.
The sum to be spent on what is called UNESCO'S approved programme—Education for International Understanding—is 156,000 dollars. It is fair to say that this is not all the story, and that there are

499
other items of UNESCO's programme which also aim at increasing international understanding through education. The programme of youth activities, for example, with a budget allocation of 389,000 dollars, includes a substantial sum for the promotion of youth participation in development and international co-operation.
I was delighted to hear the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and by my noble friends Lord Ritchie-Calder and Lord Brockway, for increased support of the Council for Education in World Citizenship. All of us who have had any personal contact with the work of C.E.W.C.—and I suppose that goes for a good many of us in this Chamber—would like to pay tribute to the organisers and to the young citizens who take part in its activities. I gather that their services now extend to 1,300 member schools. Incidentally, these member schools also pay a contribution to the cost of the organisation, and the money which is received from the Central Education Department is not all on which they depend.
Reference was made to the remarkable Christmas Conferences which C.E.W.C. organises, and I must say that I personally derived a great deal of satisfaction from learning that the demand for places in those Christmas Conferences always exceeds the number available. I find that a tremendous encouragement, and I believe it should be a tremendous encouragement for all of us who have faith in our young people. It is the fact, however, that the Council receives a grant of £950 a year from the Department of Education and Science, and £130 only from the Scottish Education Department.
I must point out to my noble friends, and to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that financial support for education in this country comes very largely from local education authorities, and there is absolutely no reason why the local education authorities should not make a contribution towards C.E.W.C. Some of them indeed do, and one hopes that more of them will do so. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Minister of Education has said that he is prepared to consider carefully the possibility of an increase in the Government grant, and
500
I hope very much indeed that what has been said this afternoon will be read and considered by my right honourable friend before he makes a decision on this point.
I was greatly impressed by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, but, of course, as I am sure he will realise, much of what he mentioned is being supported by Her Majesty's Government or by the local authorities. Educational cruises, for example—and I was interested to hear that he had been on one—rely directly upon the support of the local education authorities who, together with the Department of Education, recognise their educational value.
Special emphasis has been placed on school links, which were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, and I understand that well over 1,000 have now been established between schools here and schools abroad. Undoubtedly, many home to home links have also sprung naturally from these exchange visits, both between schools and between towns and cities, in connection with what is known as the town and city "twinning" programme. I assure the right reverend Prelate that Her Majesty's Government encourage town twinning as a means of promoting international friendship, although, of course, the initiative must lie with the towns themselves or with their local authorities. A Joint Twinning Committee now exists to co-ordinate policy on exchanges, and the secretary is provided by the Association of Municipal Corporations, while the International Union of Local Authorities is also represented.
The right reverend Prelate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, spoke with warmth of the Atlantic College at St. Donat's Castle. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Foreign Office made a total grant of £80,000 to enable the College to establish itself, but on the clear understanding that this was to provide time to raise capital funds from non-Government sources. While we wish it well, and while the College has been given provisional recognition as a further education establishment, it has always been maintained that no further Government financial assistance could be given without altering the status of the institution. However, I understand that things

501
are going well with the College, and the next three prospective sites are already known, and are in Canada, Scandinavia and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The right reverend Prelate also mentioned the provision of accommodation for overseas visitors; and, as he said, the conference on accommodation for young visitors has been considering the possibility of providing a permanent hostel in London. As I believe he also mentioned, a sum of money, small but sufficient for the limited purpose for which it is intended, has been advanced for carrying out a feasibility study of the project, which should enable a suitable appeal for funds to be launched.
Given time, my Lords, one could give a list of many other activities which go towards building international understanding, some of which have been mentioned—such activities as the Associated Schools Project and the London International Youth Science Fortnight. I would also mention the Co-operative College at Loughborough. Then there have been Human Rights Year, War on Want, World Refugee Year, OXFAM and the British Volunteer Programme, of which mention has been made. This has grown since 1962 from a scheme which involved £28,000, covering the cost of 320 volunteers, to what it was last year, when the Government were providing £763,000 and there were between 1,600 and 1,700 volunteers. Many of these volunteers, I might say (and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and others, who spoke about the importance of teachers) were in fact young men, and in some cases women, who went out as teachers.
Special mention has been made, in the Question itself and in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and others, of the need for better history textbooks. Here, I can probably tell the House something of what UNESCO has done. I cannot tell the House what it did in relation to the specific publication of which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, made mention, but I will make it my business to find out. Following a project involving the international exchange and review of geography textbooks, UNESCO has now taken another initiative, modest but interesting, with regard to secondary school world history books. Canada, France and the United Kingdom were asked in late 1965 to recommend three
502
world history textbooks in current use by students in the 15 to 18 age group for review by specialists in India, Japan and the U.A.R. The idea is for these reviewers to pay particular attention to accuracy, adequacy and objectivity, and balance of treatment of their own respective countries. If this pilot project is successful, UNESCO proposes to extend it, provided, of course, that Member States mutually agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked about the other experiment, which was started in 1950, when a Committee of our own National Commission for UNESCO appointed a Textbook Sub-Committee. They did some work, but very little progress, I understand, was made. Indeed, I share the doubts, expressed by my noble friend Lord Rowley, about whether a sizeable programme of action comparable with the World Literacy Programme would bring practical benefits, compared with what might be done with the same amount of money in other fields of education and science which now claim UNESCO'S prior attention. However, this does not mean that we should not consider very carefully what more might be done; and I would suggest to the noble Lord that this is a matter which should properly be considered by the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO—or, rather, in the first instance, the Commission's Education Advisory Committee.
I will undertake to ensure that this conception of revising national history textbooks will be considered by the National Commission, and I thought there were two other specific proposals made this afternoon which are also worthy of consideration. One was put forward by my noble friend Lord Rowley, when he suggested the idea of a U.N.-sponsored study or a U.N.-sponsored publication of a history of mankind's effort to construct a world organisation. The other proposal, put forward by the right reverend Prelate, was for a similarly sponsored work on what he called the benefactors of the world; in other words, not national heroes, much as we might applaud them in other contexts, but heroes of the human race. Both these proposals seem to me sensible and practical, and worthy of consideration; and I will endeavour to see that they are so considered by the National Commission.

503
I want to say a word about this National Commission, because I detected in what was said by my noble friend Lord Brockway a criticism that was both inaccurate and unfair. At the beginning of 1965, responsibility for the United Kingdom's relations with UNESCO was transferred from the Department of Education and Science to the Ministry of Overseas Development. This was meant to be an opportunity for a new initiative, and certainly the then Minister of Overseas Development, Mrs. Barbara Castle, intended to use it as such an opportunity.
As a result of the advice which she received, the National Commission was reconstituted last year. It is now a body of just over 20 people chosen as individuals for their personal ability and special experience and knowledge. The Minister of Overseas Development is Chairman of the Commission, which is assisted by four advisory committees, a public relations committee and a development committee. My noble friend asked what action had been taken following the statement that these bodies would be set up. The answer is that they have been set up and they are actually at work. In total, more than 60 individuals are directly associated with their work. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, as one would have gathered from what he said this afternoon, is one of those involved, and I should like to pay my tribute to the contribution which he has made.
My Lords, this Commission is very conscious of the fact that more needs to be done to involve voluntary organisations and other interested sections of British public life in the work of UNESCO. The Commission wishes to ensure that useful suggestions for action reach it and, if regarded favourably, are put forward by British delegations to UNESCO for further consideration and action. This is precisely what I am proposing to do about the three specific proposals that have been made this afternoon.
The newly reconstituted National Commission, jointly with UNESCO, had responsibility for the holding of a Round Table on Human Rights at Oxford, a Symposium on Agroclimatology at Reading University and an International Symposium at Cheltenham on Education for International Understanding at Primary School
504
Level. Celebrations were held in London last October to mark the twentieth anniversary of UNESCO, and on that occasion the Department published and distributed to universities, technical, higher and adult education institutions, secondary schools, public libraries and other interested organisations in the United Kingdom an illustrated booklet entitled Britain and Unesco. I accept from my noble friend that in the past some voluntary organisations have suggested that they were not sufficiently in touch with the National Commission, and it was to break down any sense of isolation that the Commission held a one-day meeting last September at Lancaster House for the purpose of telling representatives of non-Governmental organisations about the current work of UNESCO and of providing them with an opportunity to ask questions.
Following the recent General Conference of UNESCO a series of more specialised meetings is being held to acquaint voluntary bodies of the outcome of the recent General Conference and to invite comments about the future. Although the National Commission meets under Ministerial chairmanship, and its Secretariat is provided by officials of the O.D.M., it is by no means dominated by the official world. As I have said, some 60 to 70 people from all sections of British life are closely involved. The chairmen of the advisory committees are distinguished people from universities and other walks of British public life. Some of them took a full part as members of the British delegation in the proceedings of the Programme Corn-mission at UNESCO's recent General Conference, and the three chairmen of the advisory committees have already paid short visits to UNESCO Headquarters for exploratory discussions with officials there on future lines of work. This I hope answers the criticism made by my noble friend that the programme is drawn up by the Director-General without any opportunity of criticism or of amendment. The fact of the matter is that it is drawn up only after various bodies have had the opportunity to put forward their suggestions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, if my noble friend will read Hansard tomorrow he will find that I made no statement of that character at all.
LORD BESWICK: I am bound to say, without wishing to give offence, that in that case I do not know what my noble friend said. I will, of course, read what he said. What I understood him to say was that a draft programme was drawn up by the Director-General, and that there was insufficient time to make amendment to this programme before it was put into operation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend was in another place when I was making this statement. Therefore, I excuse him for not hearing what I said.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, although at the time I happened to be, technically, outside this Chamber, I was, in fact, consulting my advisers on the very points my noble friend was raising. However, what I am saying is that suggestions are made at the biennial Conference of UNESCO. They are considered—and considered after the various advisory committees of the various Member States have had the opportunity of putting forward specific proposals—and the draft programme which is drawn up by the Director-General is drawn up after taking into full account the ideas and suggestions advanced by the various delegations from the different Member States.
What I am now going on to say is that if we are to persuade UNESCO of the need of a programme designed to lessen nationalist bias in history textbooks, then clearly we first must persuade our own Commission; and that, in turn, will take advice from the sub-committee, in this case the Education Sub-Committee. I stress again that the advisory sub-committees are not dominated by officials. The Chairman of the Education Advisory Committee is, I think, well known to my noble friend. He is Mr. H. L. Elvin, Director of the Institute of Education. The Vice-Chairman is Sir Ronald Gould, General Secretary of the N.U.T., and I see a list of names, prominent and distinguished, from technical colleges, teacher-training colleges, comprehensive schools and the Co-operative College at Loughborough, as well as the universities and local education authorities. I am sure that my noble friend will be satisfied that it is the sort of body he would like to have considering the proposals made this afternoon. I can assure noble Lords that consideration along these lines will be
506
welcomed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development, in his capacity as Chairman of UNESCO's National Commission in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood said, in the course of a speech which I found most interesting, that all the re-writing of history books cannot obliterate the past. I quite agree. But what we can seek to obliterate, to use the words quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, is hostility, contempt and mistrust which spring from incomplete understanding of the past. It is on that understanding that we can look forward more surely to a future which does not despise national pride, but, at the same time, has a genuine sense of world citizenship, and which is based on a system of enforceable world law, which will make war between national States inconceivable. Towards that objective I hope that this debate will have made a modest contribution.

PRESERVATION OF CATHEDRALS
6.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they are giving to the preservation of our cathedrals. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this layman will be fairly brief, because he wishes to learn what the Church, in the person of the right reverend Prelate, and what the State, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have to say. My Question is intended to be restricted; it is intended to relate only to the 28 ancient cathedrals in England in the use of the Church of England. It is not intended to relate to the 14 or so more modern Anglican cathedrals. It is not intended to relate to the cathedrals in Scotland or in Wales. It does not relate to the cathedrals in the use of denominations other than the Church of England. But, of course, the principles or matters at which I would invite your Lordships to look, by extension or implication could be applied more widely than to these 28 great English cathedrals.
These cathedrals mean a lot to almost all of us, whatever our denomination or whether we can be denominated. There is the spiritual value; there is the refreshment they bring to those who enter them;

507
there are their long, close and enduring links with the soil from which they spring and there is their splendid music. But it is not of these matters that I was primarily thinking when I put down this Question. It was rather of the cathedrals as buildings, as buildings at the top of the world class in the arts of the architect, the glazier, the mason and the sculptor. We all have our favourites. There are some for which I have a particular penchant: Durham, that complex of Church and State, crouched above the River Wear; Lincoln, riding high over our Eastern plain; Salisbury, with its long and lovely spire rising from the Wiltshire Downs—which I and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, know so well—the great long stride of Exeter, and so on.
We all have our favourites. I am afraid I have not mentioned any with which the right reverend Prelates here are most intimately associated at the moment. Be that as it may, most would agree that the English cathedrals, as a group, constitute one of the supreme manifestations of European and English art. They are frequented every day by more and more people, our fellow countrymen and visitors from abroad. Most of us would feel that these cathedrals, by and large, are carefully tended and maintained; all of us would agree that they should be.
It is not that which worries me; it is rather the cost of this care and whether in future it can satisfactorily be met. These great fabrics are expensive to maintain and may need much restoration. Perhaps, by way of irreverent parenthesis, I may suggest that being, in these two respects, not unlike some of your Lordships, myself included, they should command your special sympathy. In any event, nine appeals for our cathedrals are at present open and I am very conscious of this, living as I do equidistant between Winchester and Salisbury. In all, these appeals amount to over £2½ million; and now, on top of this, we learn of the need for operations of great magnitude to York Minster. We learn that unless this great work is done well and done quickly, the cathedral may be past saving within a decade and a half. We must all wish the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, well in the appeal which he has launched to secure this great national possession.
What chiefly worries me, my Lords, is that we seem to be on something of an upward curve. The sums required to maintain this heritage of cathedrals seem to be increasing. I am not clear why this is so or indeed whether it is so. Is the massive development going on in the vicinity of many of our cathedrals affecting the water tables, as we have heard, and sapping the foundations of the cathedrals? Is traffic the real villain of the piece? Or is it just old-age, aggravated by enforced neglect in the war years and the post-war years?
In any event, the maintenance of these cathedrals and the financial responsibility for them at present rests, if I understand the position correctly, squarely on their deans and chapters. The cathedrals were deliberately excluded from the Ancient Monuments Acts from 1913 to 1953; they have likewise been partly excluded, as I understand it, from quite a lot of our planning legislation. It is true that they are not specifically excluded from the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, under which the Historic Buildings Council was set up, but they have since been excluded in practice as the result of deliberate Government policy. Likewise, while they are eligible for assistance from the local authorities under the so-called Channon Act of 1962, and although Chichester and possibly also Lincoln have received some assistance from their local authorities under that Act, finance under this Act can hardly be expected to make any great contribution towards their upkeep.
As your Lordships are aware, the position across the Channel is very different. Cathedrals and certain churches classified by the Beaux Arts are owned by the State, and other churches in France are owned by the communes. Elsewhere in Europe, again as I understand the position—for example, in Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece, Denmark and Sweden—cathedrals are maintained, in varying degrees, by the State. There are, of course, precedents for State intervention closer home. Across the Border the cathedrals of Glasgow and, Dunblane are maintained, and have been maintained since the Reformation, by the State. Parliament voted funds for St. Paul's after the Great Fire of London, and in 1818, after the Napoleonic Wars, for building new churches to stem the

509
feared tide of social unrest. However, with one or two small exceptions—parts of Westminster Abbey, for example—the responsibility for cathedrals, including the financial responsibility, rests squarely on their deans and chapters. My doubt, and it is only a doubt, is whether in future the shoulders of the deans and chapters. broad though they may be and buttressed though they may be by the generosity of the public, are broad enough to sustain this burden in its entirety.
As I see it, there are four main possibilities. We can continue much as at present. There is a lot to be said for this. All too often when we get into difficulties we run to the State for help. Moreover, a successful appeal is a valid source of local pride and does much to bring cathedral and people closer together. I think I should prefer a continuation of the present position, on the one condition that the great sums needed can be raised quickly enough. But I must confess to some doubt whether this is possible, although I have no doubt whatsoever that the appeal of the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, will have the success that it must have.
A possible alternative course would be to continue as at present, with the State making perhaps some ad hoc provision, presumably by grant aid, in cases of special need or emergency. This might be acceptable to the Church. I do not know. But I wonder whether it would commend itself to the State. Or we could go the whole French hog and adopt the French solution of State or local ownership in return for State or local aid. For an Established Church there might be a certain rough logic about this solution, and there is the precedent for it over the Border in Scotland. Yet I should have thought that any such solution would be repugnant to many churchmen; it would certainly go against the grain with me. Moreover, if total responsibility for our cathedrals were vested in the State, the total cost of their maintenance would, before long, fall exclusively on the State, and the wells of private charity would quickly dry up.
In any event, my Lords, so radical a solution would seem to me unnecessary. If, under the Historic Buildings Act, grants for the preservation of our domestic architecture can be made with
510
out the private houses concerned passing into public ownership, surely grants could be made to our cathedrals without the fabric of the cathedrals passing into public ownership.
For grants of this nature more systematic provision might need to be made, covering both maintenance and restoration. As a quid pro quo the Church might possibly be asked voluntarily to agree to submit its great cathedrals to the same sort (I do not say the same, but the same sort) of planning disciplines as govern our secular buildings. A possible avenue and filter for such aid might be the Historic Buildings Council, that admirable institution with its corpus of experience and expertise. If so, it would, of course, need a big injection of new funds, for its present funds are clearly inadequate for its present purely secular purposes. Alternatively, we could establish some special machinery, conceivably based on the development of the Cathedrals Advisory Committee. This Committee has now been in existence for almost twenty years, and it has a very responsible and representative membership.
All these possibilities, and many more, are doubtless open to us. I do not know whether we need radically to change the present procedures, or, if so, what would prove to be the best solution. All I suggest, and this I should like to do as vigorously as I possibly can, is that if we do decide at some future date that we need to institute a new system, we should at all costs preserve room for voluntary donations, for private generosity. It would be a great pity if our great cathedrals became entirely dependent on State aid. If State aid is needed I should favour the principle of matching funds, possibly on a 50–50 basis. There is already a precedent for this near at hand, in that successive Governments have undertaken to provide £200,000 every five years for our redundant Anglican churches provided that a comparable contribution is forthcoming from the Church.
My Lords, I have purposely couched these remarks in fairly general and very tentative terms. I do not possess sufficient knowledge to judge the degree to which our churches and our cathedrals are menaced and the extent to which public funds may be needed to ward off this menace. If the danger exists, and I

511
suspect that it may, I cannot help thinking that our senior Church authorities should now be scratching their heads very hard, and I hope in fairly close concert with the State authorities. Eight days ago we read in The Times that the Dean of Winchester had said that the Prime Minister was fully alive to the difficult position of the English and Welsh cathedrals and very sympathetic to them in their plight. The Dean was reported as going on to say that the Prime Minister had recently written that he had been looking into this matter. I do not know whether in fact the Prime Minister has been looking into this matter with sympathy; I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can confirm that he has. I do know, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has himself been looking into this matter with close attention. It is therefore with a special interest that I await his reply.
6.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for putting down this Question and for his understanding. constructive, vivid and perfect speech. I have no doubt that those who bear responsibility for the English cathedrals will read with great interest the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I anticipate that the noble Lord may express his personal interest and sympathy and the concern of the Government, and it is possible that he may say that it is for the Church to initiate action if it wishes to ask for help from the State.
I wish that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester, who is Chairman of the Cathedrals Commission, could be here this afternoon. I think he would want me to express his regret that a previous engagement prevents his attending. I believe that it is his view, and it is certainly my own opinion, that we should appreciate the sympathetic attitude of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Church of England should be willing to enter upon any discussions with the Government to elucidate the position and to see what co-operation was needed.
I do not think that at this stage we should want to commit ourselves to any of the four courses outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I think that we should want discussions, for this is not
512
an easy question and there are many arguments on both sides. We are considering to-day, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the preservation of our cathedrals, and this means of their fabric, not of their furnishing or ornaments. I anticipate that this summer the Church Assembly may appoint a committee to report on the upkeep of all churches, including cathedrals, to inform the Church about the actual cost of repairs and to consider possible sources of money. One important source of money is clearly a contribution by the State. Such a committee would be well placed to consult with the Government. I hope that the Government would be willing to consider both a capital grant, to which the noble Earl was referring—a capital grant so that if there is a sudden emergency, there is money available—and an annual contribution to supplement money raised locally for the cathedral, say on a pound for pound basis, or on a different basis if the cathedral faces exceptionally heavy expenditure. The Church is more actively engaged in raising money for its churches than many people realise. Figures are hard to come by, but it seems probable that not less than £4 million has to be found every year for the maintenance and restoration of parish churches alone.
Two Canadian friends were staying with us last weekend. They were visiting this country after 20 years of absence. They planned their fortnight with meticulous care, and they had given first priority to time for leisurely visits to English cathedrals. They are typical of thousands who come from overseas, and they will find our cathedrals well-cared for and faithfully served. I believe that this is an opportune moment for considering the possibility of a Government grant for the preservation of the fabric of cathedrals. From my talks with some of the deans and their advisers, I believe that the churches would welcome a Government grant, provided the minimum strings were attached to such a grant, and provided that the Cathedral Chapters were fully consulted and their wishes sympathetically considered.
Increasingly our cathedrals are accepted as the mother churches of the Christian community, and we delight to have services to which we can welcome members of the Free Churches. In the

513
last two years we have been thankful in St. Albans to welcome Roman Catholics who have planned pilgrimages to the shrine of St. Alban and who have been happy to say their prayers at this shrine. Our cathedrals are shrines which are more and more valued by our people and our visitors, whether or not they have any religious allegiance. These buildings are powerful witnesses to the Christian faith and to the greatness of our inheritance. We should unite in our efforts to preserve them. For these and other reasons, I greatly look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
6.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MAN-CHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add a brief word to what my right reverend friend has said. First of all, I should say that I have no axe to grind. Manchester Cathedral will require no Government grant. It is in better condition than it has been for 500 years, and it is unlikely to require any money from the Government. But I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the well-informed speech he has given on the subject, and for the persuasive way in which he has brought the subject to our notice.
There is increasingly in our cathedrals a willingness—there has always been in Manchester—to place them at the disposal of other Christian denominations, if they so wish it. It is not so long since—and it will soon happen again—that the Presbyterian Church of England celebrated Holy Communion in Manchester Cathedral, the Cathedral being handed over to them for their own rite. That has always seemed to me to be both right and proper.
I feel that were the Government to take this matter up with the Church, there would be a wide support in public opinion for something being effectively done. All I really wanted to do was to thank the noble Earl for the extraordinarily informative and excellent way in which he has brought this matter to your Lordships' notice.
6.58 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for raising this issue and for giving me the
514
chance of expressing something which has been tribulating the Church of Scotland for a considerable number of years and on which considerable correspondence and interviews have taken place with Her Majesty's Governments, at any rate over the last ten years. It interested me that the noble Earl should have excluded Scotland in his opening remarks, and when he got on to the support of the Churches in Europe I was prepared to interject; but what he said about Glasgow and Dunblane Cathedrals showed me that he had done his homework extremely thoroughly. Few people in England—indeed, few people in Scotland —appreciate that position.
The ancient cathedrals and the abbeys in Scotland, though we manage them without bishops, deans or abbots, and even though they are small and few in number, are very precious to us, from the ancient church at Whithorn, to which St. Ninian came, to the Abbey at Iona, which owes so much of its restoration to the work of my noble friend Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, who has just joined our company in your Lordships' House. I should think that the Abbey needs no support, having had such a protagonist over the last thirty years, but there are other cathedrals in Scotland which require support and are in a fairly parlous state. There is St. Giles's Cathedral in Edinburgh, with its crown, supported, one might say, by the burgh through the centuries, until 1925, when the Act removed the support of the local authorities. It will interest the right reverend Prelates here, at any rate, that in Scotland we have more of the ancient crowns on ecclesiastical buildings. The architect who put the crown on Newcastle put the crown on St. Giles's, and also on King's College, Aberdeen, both of which crowns, one might say, are in good heart.
The tragedy, however, is the crown of the Church of St. Michael, Linlithgow—Linlithgow, where Mary Queen of Scots was born and where the King, her father, died. That church had one of these later crowns, but owing to the fact that the congregation were unable to pay for its maintenance, the crown has fallen. There we see the old Palace maintained by the Ministry of Works, and the Abbey, at its door, unsupported and dependent upon the congregation for its maintenance.

515
Visitors go into Linlithgow Palace, and the congregation have to maintain St. Michael's Kirk in order to accommodate the visitors.
Much the same can be said of our cathedrals at Dunkeld and at Brechin. These are small communities and they are old buildings which require a great deal of money for their upkeep. There is also in Aberdeen the Cathedral of St. Machar, another illustration of how the congregation were unable to maintain it, although the disaster happened about 300 years ago, when the great central tower fell, not as a result of the Reformation, not as a result of Cromwell, but because the congregation had not the money to maintain it. Then there is what is perhaps the most acute case at the present time; that is, the Cathedral of St. Magnus, in Orkney, possibly one of the most interesting cathedrals in the whole world, which was built by the Norwegians. They used to come there; they careened their ships from there, and they sailed out.
I should like to draw the attention of the Government to this interesting point. Some years ago the University of Aberdeen discovered on the Holy Island of St. Ninian, in Shetland, the St. Ninian treasure, which is unique. That treasure has been taken by the central Government, fortunately not to London, but to Edinburgh, and is maintained there. That treasure has been taken, and no support is given to the church there. No compensation has been made; there has been no quid pro quo.
With regard to the Cathedrals of Glasgow and Dunblane, these are the property of the Crown, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has rightly said, have been the property of the Crown for centuries. It may be of interest to know that the fact that these are Crown property has not dried up the natural charity for their support. The amount of money that has been spent in providing new windows and doing up the interior of Glasgow Cathedral in the years since the war has been very considerable. The Government have kept the cathedral wind and water tight; and much the same might be said about Dunblane. An interesting modus vivendi has been reached regarding the cost and maintenance. The custodians are paid for
516
their work in the proportions of six-sevenths by the State and one-seventh by the church, the proportion being chosen for obvious reasons.
In Scotland, we have very few of these churches. There are in England nearly 10,000 pre-Reformation churches still in use. In Scotland we have but 62, and we are most anxious that the Historic Buildings Council should be allowed to provide money for the maintenance and establishment of these churches. We in the Church of Scotland have from time to time approached the Government. Our last approach produced, in November, 1965, a letter from the Minister of Public Building and Works, in which he said that he fully recognised the difficulties in Scotland, but that what we suggested—namely, that the Historic Buildings Council should help with these old churches:
"would involve a major change of policy which would have to apply to England and Wales, as well."
This is exactly what troubles us in Scotland, and what troubles the people in Wales: that as we are subsidiaries of the United Kingdom, nothing can happen to us because of some repercussion in England. The Minister then added:
"In addition to this there is the related problem of redundant churches throughout Great Britain."
The question of redundant historic churches in Scotland simply does not exist, and the Minister was badly briefed in bringing that into his answer. As I have said, we have but 62 of these churches, and not one of them is redundant. They are far too precious to be allowed to become redundant.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He has just described Scotland as a subsidiary of England. He must know perfectly well that we have governed England for the last 200 years.
LORD BALERNO: The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion as to who has governed England and who has governed Scotland. I admit that we have had successive Scotsmen in the Ministry of Works, but the Church of Scotland has had no more change out of the Scotsmen when they were at the Ministry of Works than it had out of English Ministers. I think that, in all fairness, I should

517
say that. I feel that some of the Scotsmen who come down to govern the United Kingdom perhaps (shall we say) lose a little of their national pride.
I think that the question which arises from all this is whether in Scotland we should not have our own Historic Buildings Council to deal with our own peculiar problems.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me for intervening, Scotland already has its own Historic Buildings Council.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. The finances and the policy of it are controlled from London.
LORD BOOTHBY: By Scotsmen.
LORD BALERNO: That being so, I should like to move on to something slightly different, perhaps to avoid sparring with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, with whom invariably I come off second best. The Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962, which enabled local authorities to contribute by grant or loan to the preservation of historic buildings, including churches, did not apply to Scotland. But I welcome the action which the Government are now taking by putting an Amendment into the Civic Amenities Bill, which is before Parliament, saying that the Act will apply to Scotland. We in Scotland are grateful for that.
It has been said that one of the reasons why the Historic Buildings Act is not being applied by the Minister to churches in occupation as such is because of the resentment that it might create with other denominations than those of the Established Churches. This, I submit, no longer holds good; and I question whether it ever held good during the current century. In Scotland we have had Roslyn Chapel, a chapel owned privately but occupied by the Episcopalians, receiving a Government grant, and I have never heard of any resentment by Presbyterians, by members of the Church of Scotland, because this was so. Dunblane, thanks in good measure to the Historic Buildings Council, has established a centre for the Scottish churches in old houses which are surrounding the ancient cathedral—interesting and historic old houses, because they are on the old main road. It was from
518
them that the Duke of Cumberland marched in 1746, and as he passed by he received various articles thrown out of the houses upon him. It is now the centre of the (Ecumenical movement in Scotland. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans spoke of the Roman Catholics being granted the use of St. Alban's Cathedral.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I said we were happy to welcome them as pilgrims. It was not quite the same point.
LORD BALERNO: Then it would appear to me that we are advanced a stage further in Scotland. I think that in certain of the Scottish churches this has already happened. It has caused minor ripples, but so far as I am aware no major criticism as yet. There are other churches in which the Episcopalians are welcomed. In some of them they have held their Communion services, and I am assured by the minister of Dunblane Cathedral that that cathedral is at the disposal of any Christian denomination at a time when it is not required for his own parish purposes.
My Lords, I have studied the Report of the Church of England Assembly in 1964 when this matter was raised on a report by the Dean of Gloucester. I found it very difficult to follow the statement of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who was worried about the possibility of State aid stirring up controversy if it were given, as it would be in the historic churches, to one specific denomination.
I want to come back to this point of the Historic Buildings Council's not being allowed so far to give money for the upkeep of the churches. An undertaking given by a Minister in another place in the year 1953 has ever since then been regarded as binding on his heirs and successors, and seems to be as unalterable as the Laws of the Medes and Persians. In effect, a statement in Hansard has been given the validity of an Act of Parliament. Has a Minister the right to limit in perpetuity an Act of Parliament? If in 1953 Parliament had wished to exclude historic churches from the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act of that year, surely Parliament should have said so. It did not.

519
Therefore, it seems to me to be beyond all reason to assume that historic buildings which are still in use for the purpose for which they were erected should be excluded from the grant. I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they could not take another look at this particular point, and earn a considerable amount of gratitude from the Church of Scotland and from Scotsmen generally.
7.18 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I want to speak for only one minute. As a member of the Historic Buildings Council—I think, one of the original members —I would say that I cannot remember the English Historic Buildings Council ever having the smallest responsibility for Scotland. Furthermore—and this is my own personal opinion—having looked at the way in which this plan was worked out in the early stages, I think that by and large Scotland came better out of it than England, bearing in mind the very much heavier charges and responsibilities which we have in England. That is not to say that I grudge it; but when one looks at the proportions as they were then worked out, I do not think there was any particular grievance.
This is not to say that the money which the Historic Buildings Council have at their disposal is enough for all their needs in either country. One way and another a great deal of good work has been done. But I think it ought to be made clear that if this particular extra ecclesiastical responsibility were added, they would need to have a much larger grant. The existing grant could not possibly be stretched to cover both. There is a question of principle here; not a question of taking on a little more. But we have a rather good precedent, which I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply may refer to, and that was the device worked out to help the Oxford colleges in their trouble. A special Treasury provision was made for the Oxford colleges. I should think it is worth while to look closely into the details of that special provision to see whether anything could be learnt there from which might be of some help in the particular duty we have to maintain our incomparable cathedrals.
7.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, we are all united in our gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for raising this matter. This is a timely moment to air it. It has been in the Press; there are the new appeals being launched which are larger than ever, with public discussion of the possible danger from sinking water tables. All this makes it a timely moment for this debate. The noble Lord named his favourite cathedrals, and without saying that they are mine—because I do not think it becomes a member of the Government to have favourite cathedrals—I should like to say how glad I am, as I am sure we all are, that we have three right reverend Prelates with us to-day. We have the Bishop from St. Albans, with its wonderful, long, lolloping nave, and so convenient to Londoners who wish to visit it. We have the Bishop of Manchester, whose Cathedral, although it may not be the largest or grandest of English cathedrals, is certainly shortly to be the cleanest—and this is the most important thing: I wish that the same could he said of all our great mother churches, and not least of that which is closest geographically to your Lordships to-day. Then we have the Bishop of Norwich, whose cathedral is the Queen and Mother of all the fantastic, inventive Gothic churches of East Anglia.
I have one or two detailed points that I should like to bring forward before I come to generalities. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised the question of the water table. The Government have of course seen what has been said by the surveyor of York Minster about this problem. I would assure the House that the Government have available to them all the time the studies of water tables in general throughout the country, which are available from the Water Resources Board, and also studies of the effect of falling water tables on buildings in general, which are carried out continuously by the Building Research Station. We do not at the moment know of any specific studies about the effect of falling water tables, or indeed whether water tables are falling in such cases under historic buildings. However, I intend to have such evidence as we have

521
available to us reviewed, and we shall then see whether it is necessary to cause special studies to be undertaken.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, mentioned the letter from the Prime Minister to a Member of Parliament which was quoted by the Dean of Winchester in a recent sermon that attracted much notice. The Prime Minister said in his letter that he was fully alive to the difficult position of the English cathedrals. This indeed is so; and the same is true of those members of the Government whose duty it is to advise him on these matters. He also set forth the fact, which is very much in the minds of us all, that there is no bar to the making of grants towards cathedrals. They have not been made, but there is no statutory reason why they should not be made.
I think all noble Lords would agree with me in echoing good wishes to our colleague, Lord Scarbrough, who is leading the appeal for York Minster—the latest in a Tong series of large appeals, and I believe I am right in saying the largest it has ever been necessary to make for an English cathedral. We wish that appeal a speedy fruition.
The difficulties of cathedrals in the upkeep of their fabric are well known to the Government and to all those interested. These difficulties have been slightly alleviated recently by action taken by the Church authorities themselves. The maintenance and repair of the cathedral fabric is the responsibility of the chapter, and has to be met out of the chapter's revenues. These revenues also have to pay for the cathedral staff and for the services in the cathedrals, so there is a great deal of competition for the money available. It is not always appreciated that the Church Commissioners have no power at all to provide money for the repair or maintenance of cathedral fabrics. What power they possess they gained in 1963: the Church gave them the power to pay out for emergency repairs any capital which they hold as endowments for a cathedral, provided that the money is repaid within five years. It is not much of an alleviation, but it is something. They also obtained powers in 1963 to make grants for the stipends of the dean or provost, and up to two canons for any one cathedral, and for the repair of property other than the cathedral church itself. The effect of this is to release the
522
cathedral funds for the repair of the fabric itself.
The present situation regarding the repair and alterations of cathedrals and related matters, which has attracted attention recently, is as follows. The existence of the Cathedrals Advisory Committee has already been mentioned in this debate. The deans and provosts of English cathedrals, at any rate, and I believe I am right in saying of others also, meet periodically, and there has recently been some discussion, both among the deans and within the Cathedrals Advisory Committee, of relationships between the Cathedrals Advisory Committee on the one hand and deans and chapters on the other hand. It would be true to say that neither side has been entirely content with the present procedure. The Cathedrals Advisory Committee in particular have considerable doubts about the terms on which they may be called in by a dean and chapter to advise, and the way in which their advice must be handled after it is received. I have recently had conversations with both sides—that is, with the Cathedrals Advisory Committee, which called on me, and with representatives of the Deans' Conference—and I have every hope that the slight difficulties—they are only slight—which have existed will very shortly be ironed out directly between these two responsible bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, spoke to us of Scotland, and here indeed we have an atypical situation. He told us how Glasgow and Dunblane Cathedrals are the responsibility of the Crown and are under the guardianship of my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works—a most unusual arrangement. He did not mention the fact that Kirkwall Cathedral has an even more unusual arrangement. It used to be under the guardianship of the Minister. I understand it is now the property of the local authority, and, if I am correct, that would make it unique in the British Isles. I would just confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, interjected: that there is a Scottish Historic Buildings Council which advises the Secretary of State for Scotland on the expenditure of Exchequer money for the upkeep of historic buildings, in much the same way as the English Council advises my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing

523
and Local Government in England. Therefore the Ministry of Public Building and Works is responsible only for those churches which may or may not be taken into State possession. If it is simply a question of giving State money to a church which remains in church hands in Scotland, then that, I should hope, would be administered according to Scottish values by Scottish persons in Edinburgh, and I will ensure that what the noble Lord said about it is drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I should like to draw to the attention of noble Lords who are interested a most valuable Report forming part of the considerations that are at present under way within the Church of England. It is called The Report of the Redundant Churches Fund Committee [reference Church Assembly 1619] which was published earlier this year, and in Appendix V of that document there is a valuable round-up of procedures in other European countries in this matter of State aid to churches and cathedrals. I will quote from this document. I have not caused it to be checked by the State machine, but I think the Church machine is fairly good. It says that in France (and I heard this myself on a visit to France earlier in the year) all cathedrals belong to the State, all parish churches belong to the commune—that is, to the local authority—with the exception of those built after 1905. Therefore in France cathedrals and churches are directly under State ownership and the State is responsible for their upkeep.
The same situation prevails in Italy, and this is much less well known. Cathedrals and major churches are under State ownership and the State is responsible for their upkeep. I confess that even more surprising to me was the fact that the same situation prevails in Portugal. In Switzerland, churches and cathedrals, though not I think in public ownership, are subject to ordinary planning control under cantonal law. In Holland, cathedrals are subject to State planning control and receive State grants. In Austria they are subject to State planning control and receive State grants.
To give a general idea of the situation, I should like to put this in proportion
524
by taking the House back to 1913 when the first of the series of Acts that form the corpus of our present legislation on preservation of historic buildings was passed. In those days the question arose whether churches in use as churches, and, a fortiori, cathedrals, should be treated in the same way as other historic buildings. After due debate in both Houses Archbishop Davidson made a famous speech in this House in which he argued against a move which was afoot to have cathedrals and churches treated in the same way as other historic buildings, and said, in effect, that the Church would look after them itself. Ever since then this arrangement has been adhered to by successive Governments and successive Church Assemblies; and that is the situation we are still in to-day.
As a result of this severance from the machine of State control and State aid, which go hand in hand, the Church has always considered itself as cut off from State financial aid. Even though the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, which is the main legislation in the field now, would permit the Minister of Housing to make grants for the repair of churches or cathedrals, provided that they were of outstanding interest, it has been made clear by successive Government spokesmen (and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to this) that the slender resources available for historic buildings as a whole would not, at any rate for the moment, be used for ecclesiastical buildings in use as such, though of course they could be used if the church was no longer a church. To this there is one exception. A State grant of £20,000 was offered for a new pavement in Westminster Abbey, but opinions differed about the merits of the scheme; no agreement was reached, the new pavement was not installed and the grant was never paid. But in that one case the principle was breached. And Historic Building Council grants have been paid for buildings which, though not cathedrals, are close to being cathedrals, the prime example of this being the cloister at Wells.
How do we stand at the moment? I think the first thing I should say is that the Government are following with the closest and most sympathetic interest the deliberations within the Church of England about this matter. We can only

525
welcome the setting up of the new committee, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans referred, which is to review the entire question of support for churches in use, including cathedrals. I do not want to commit this Government or any other, and I do not want to look too far ahead either, but at the moment I can see the difficulty which would face any Government that was asked to provide State funds for the maintenance of cathedrals without, at the same time, the cathedrals being subjected to the full effect of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The reason I say this is that in all other cases, in all other types of building, the Historic Buildings Council grant goes hand in hand with the application especially of Section 33 of the
526
current Town and Country Planning Act. That is the section relating to building preservation orders and providing for notice of intention to be given to change a building of outstanding historical and architectural merit, and the other familiar provisions.
This is where I would wind up, my Lords. It is not, I think, for the Government to take any initiative in this field. No approach has been made to the State since 1913. If ever such an approach is made, the Government, assuming it is the present Government, and also, I imagine, any future Government, would receive it with an entirely open mind.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.