Sitting of 4 June 1954

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION (SPINSTERS' PENSIONS)
Mr. John Edwards: A number of constituents, wishing to exercise their traditional rights to petition this honourable House, have asked me, as their Member, to present a petition on their behalf, which I accordingly do, as follows:
"Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House may be pleased to lower the qualifying age for contributory pensions for spinsters from 60 years to 58 on an optional retirement basis."
The petition, for which the Brighouse branch of the National Spinsters' Pensions Association is responsible, bears about 2,000 signatures, and concludes with these words:
"And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc."
To lie upon the Table.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]

ELTHAM HILL SCHOOL (TRANSFER)
11.4 a.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I wish to raise the refusal of the Minister of Education to agree to the transfer of Eltham Hill School to form part of the Kidbrooke Comprehensive School, and to give her reasons for a very extraordinary last-minute decision, which has caused dismay and controversy in the area and throughout the educational world.
Whether one supports the general case for comprehensive schools or not, I should have thought that the experiment at Kidbrooke had now got to the stage where everyone would want it to succeed. If I were opposed to comprehensive schools I should want this experiment to
1600
have a fair chance so that if it failed I could say, "That shows that the comprehensive principle is wrong." Instead, the Minister by her action has certainly made it much more difficult to use Kidbrooke School, whatever other effect she may have had, as what we hoped the school would be, a fair test of a most courageous pioneering idea in education.
I hope that the Minister will regard this issue as one vitally concerning the welfare of the school children in the area.
11.5 a.m.

ROYAL ASSENT
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned—
MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Protection of Birds Act, 1954.

2. Coroners Act, 1954.

3. Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954.

4. Pool Betting Act, 1954.

5. Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act, 1954.

6. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1954.

7. Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, &c.) Act, 1954.

8. Superannuation (President of Industrial Court) Act, 1954.

9. Supreme Court Officers (Pensions) Act, 1954.

10. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1954.

11. Dundee Corporation (Water Transport Finance, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1954.

12. Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1954.

13. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1954.

14. Rutherglen Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1954.

15. Metropolitan Common Scheme (Ham) Amending Scheme Confirmation Act, 1954.

16. Crewe Corporation Act, 1954.

17. Falmouth Docks Act, 1954.

1601

18. Rhodesian Selection Trust Limited and Associated Companies Act, 1954.

19. Wankie Colliery Act, 1954.

20. Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust Act, 1954.

21. Caernarvon Corporation Act, 1954.

22. Tyne Improvement Act, 1954.

23. Shrewsbury Estate Act, 1954.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

ELTHAM HILL SCHOOL (TRANSFER)
11.20 a.m.
Mr. Mayhew: As I was saying, I hope that this subject will be settled purely in terms of the welfare of the school children in the area. That is the real criterion. I hope that no political pressure or party dogma will interfere with that. I have some doubts about it in respect of the Minister's decision, but I hope that in the debate we shall say nothing which can injure the prospects of either Kidbrooke or Eltham Hill Schools, or in any way prejudice the education of the children there.
If I may, I shall look at this from the point of view first of the girls at Eltham Hill and then from that of the Kidbrooke Comprehensive School. I put Eltham Hill girls first because they are the most directly effected. Certainly, I would not be party to any proposals which jeopardised their education or did any harm to their future.
It is very sad that the school itself—in those buildings—should be closed. That it is a fine school is not disputed by anyone, and it has a good tradition. That it should be closed is obviously sad, but that is not the end of the story. Under the L.C.C. proposals those girls would have been transferred en bloc. The same teachers, the same girls with their same friends, the same courses of study, in many cases even the same forms, would have gone to Kidbrooke Comprehensive School.
At Kidbrooke they would have had a greater variety of studies even than they
1602
had at Eltham Hill school—such things as secretarial and commercial courses, which some of them might have liked. I see no reason why the same traditions, the same spirit and certainly the same high academic standards could not have been maintained for and by these girls at Kidbrooke as at Eltham Hill. They could have been given full facilities for the same kind of education as they had been receiving.
The Minister, I think, is to tell us that she has not stopped the transfer of the girls to Kidbrooke; that even now there is nothing to prevent them going to Kidbrooke, but that they must go as individuals and not, as under the L.C.C. proposal, as a school. I hope that she will not put that plan forward. It seems to make no sense at all that the school should be transferred not as a whole but as individuals. In such circumstances there is a very strong case against Eltham Hill going into Kidbrooke.
If one takes pupil from teacher or teacher from pupil, or one girl from her school friends, and interrupt the courses and the forms, one is dislocating the education of the girls. That would be a thoroughly bad, even an inhuman thing to do, and I would certainly not be a party to it. I hope that we shall not hear from the Minister that this is the suggested way out. As a scheme it seems to be a non-starter.
Before we stop looking at this from the point of view of Eltham Hill I want the Minister to tell us what is to happen to that school if she persists in her decision. Is her plan to try and maintain it indefinitely as it now is, with three comprehensive schools covering this area and competing with Eltham Hill for pupils and for specialist teachers? That seems a wasteful and indeed a bad thing from everyone's point of view.
Or is she to suggest that it should form part of Avery Hill Comprehensive School? Again, looking at it from the point of the girls at Eltham Hill I do not think that that is very satisfactory. Avery Hill caters for boys and girls and not, as does Kidbrooke, for girls only, and to that extent it would be a bigger disturbance for the girls of Eltham Hill. As she is disrupting the original L.C.C. plan will the Minister explain how she envisages the future of Eltham Hill?

1603
Now, what about Kidbrooke? I am quite confident—as, I think, are all those who have been concerned with this—that in spite of all Kidbrooke will be a success. I understand that the headmistress is a most able, enthusiastic and sympathetic person. She is very pleased with the recruitment of the first academic form that she has in the school today. Even though it is not possible to transfer the academic system en bloc from Eltham Hill she nevertheless has high hopes that she will be able to build well in the years ahead and that Kidbrooke will be a great success.
That, of course, does not alter the fact that a better start would have been to go ahead with the proposals of the L.C.C. To have stiffened and strengthened the school in the early years by carrying the whole tradition and academic system from Eltham Hill would have given the school a fairer and better start. Considering how much all of us on both sides rely on this being a fair test of a big and good principle it seems a shame that the test should be invalidated at the beginning by the Minister's action.
The London County Council assumed that there would be no objection. It is true it was not in the London schools plan. Under that, the Eltham Hill school was to go to Avery Hill, but that was a matter within the competence of the L.C.C. to decide. As the schools plan had been accepted by the Ministry I would have thought that any Minister of Education would have allowed the L.C.C. to decide. In any case, what a pity it is that a sudden, last-minute change should disrupt the plans. It is really not very fair on the headmistress, who accepted the job on the assumption that the school was to come to her. I do not think that this will put her off—she is not that kind—but it is really disappointing that the plans should be changed and disrupted after her appointment.
If the Minister wished to make this disrupting decision why should she delay that decision until only four months before the thing is about to begin? The Minister of Education was notified on 16th February, 1953. It was not until 5th June, 1953, that she said a public notice would be required for the closure of the school, and not until 1st March this year that she actually reached a
1604
decision. That is leaving it terribly late, on humane and administrative counts, to take the decision which she has taken. As I say, it is going to be harder now for Kidbrooke to make those first years that valuable success which we all hope they will be.
In the meantime, there will be hundreds of places unfilled. At this stage in the crisis which is affecting education in this country, to leave unfilled places must be an administrative mistake—whether they are unfilled at Kidbrooke or unfilled in a wider sense, because this decision of the Minister does not affect only Eltham Hill and Kidbrooke.
It also affects the two other comprehensive schools which are planned there —Avery Hill and King's Park. Their recruitment of the boys for the academic stream is to be taken from the empty buildings of Eltham Hill. Thus the Minister's decision has had wide repercussions in the area. As to the wider repercussions outside the area, I am sure that my hon. Friends will deal with those later.
From the point of view of Kidbrooke itself, the Minister's decision was a great mistake. Why has the Minister acted as she has done? I hope that she will give better reasons than she has given so far, because if she does not, the conclusion will be inescapable that she has been subject to political pressures and has allowed party considerations to override the benefit of the school children in the area. We shall listen with interest to what she has to say, but I feel that she has betrayed one of the best traditions of Ministers of Education in this country, which is that one stands up to one's partisans sometimes in the interest of the continuity of policy in education.
One of the right hon. Lady's predecessors, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, won respect on this side of the House for some of the educational policies which he put into operation, and he knew that education must to a much larger degree than in almost any other branch of national administration stand outside the party political arena. We cannot have at every General Election all the children's textbooks and teachers being changed. There would be chaos. Therefore, all Ministers of Education should be above the party battle as much as they possibly can.

1605
I am afraid that the Minister does not seem to have passed the test on this occasion. This decision was initiated in the worst possible atmosphere in the worst possible way, by a thoroughly partisan speech by the Minister to the London Conservative Women's Conference. This is the speech that started the ball rolling, and I want to read the report of that speech from "The Times Educational Supplement."
The speech falls into two parts. In the first part the Minister lays down the principle of non-partisanship and non-interference with local authorities in educational policy. She does so in a way which will command assent on both sides of the House. In the second part of the speech she says exactly the opposite. In the first part she says, "The L.C.C. has taken this policy decision. I have no power to interfere, and that is that." Then in the second part she says, "But I have found a trick, a device for sabotaging the plan, and I want to explain it to you and I want you to co-operate with me in bringing it about."
Here is the report of the first part of the speech:
"She was not against all schools which were sometimes called comprehensive—there were, for instance, good reasons why it might be necessary in country districts to have a single secondary school for children of different ability and aptitude. But the L.C.C. schools were different. She had been asked what she could do about them. She had no power to interfere; her predecessor had authorised the building of these new schools, and that was that."
That was quite right constitutionally and in every way.
Now for the second part of the speech. The report said:
"What she still had to do, however, was to authorise the closing down of the existing schools to 'feed' the comprehensive schools, and in considering the plans of local authorities to close schools…she had to consider the views of local residents. She reminded the conference that the L.E.A. had to advertise its plans for two months before the Minister was asked to approve them. During that time it was open to any 10 local electors to raise a protest to the Minister. Miss Horsbrugh read out a list of the schools which were listed for closure, and put it to the conference that if they wanted her to act they had to give her local support by protesting."
It is absolutely disgraceful and totally inconsistent with the first part of the speech. It is partisanship of the worst kind. Where do the school children come in, in all this? They are used as
1606
political pawns at the London Conservative Women's Conference. That is not good enough. It is not in the tradition of education in this country, and it is not in accordance with the best interests of the school children in my area. "The Times Educational Supplement" said:
"The speech was as near incitement as possible."
We all know the history of the matter. A petition was duly organised, but not a very big one, and it was very quickly out-petitioned by the weight of public opinion in my area, and a much bigger petition against the Minister's decision was quickly raised. But the damage was done. The Minister then had no excuse for intervention, but she intervened and made this political decision. That was a disgraceful thing.
I think the Minister is subject to political pressures, and not only on this occasion either. This is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. There is the question of school buildings, commercial television, and so on. It is disgraceful that the Minister should sit quietly and calmly in the Cabinet which takes a deliberate decision to commercialise children's television programmes. No Minister of Education worth two-pence would remain in a Government which deliberately commercialised children's television. I find that the Minister is always too subject to these political pressures. She is hounded by the diehards of her party, and she manages to save herself by throwing the schoolchildren to the wolves.
I should like her to consider again this whole question of intervention in this matter of Kidbrooke School, because there is another principle at stake which I hope my hon. Friends will refer to. That is the very good British tradition that there must be give and take and good sense and compromise between the Minister and the local authorities in educational policy. That has always happened in this country, and it must continue to happen if our educational system is to work. The Minister has unquestionably lost the confidence of the London County Council in this matter, and has given them a great many administrative headaches. I ask her to retrieve her ground by standing up to the die-hards in her party on this issue and give a fair chance to the Kidbrooke School.
11.38 a.m.
Mr. William A. Steward: I have listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). Eltham Hill School has achieved, and has always maintained, a consistently high standard of education, as has been admitted by the hon. Gentleman. It is the only girls' school of grammar school status in Eltham and the immediate neighbourhood. This school has been housed at Eltham Hill for 27 years, and its buildings and exceptional facilities for research are still admired by educationists visiting London, and the adjacent sports field caters adequately for the girls' recreation.
Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be better for this House to receive a speech from the hon. Member which he himself will have possibly prepared, instead of reading, word for word, a brief which has been given to him?
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member himself who raises the point of order is himself in danger of getting out of order. He should not make such a suggestion against another hon. Member. The hon. Member was making his speech from notes, so far as I could see.
Mr. Williams: I accept what you say, Sir, but is it correct that a Member should read a speech word for word in this House?
Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to read speeches as a general rule, but Members are permitted to make use of notes. There seems to me to be no ground for suggesting that the hon. Member's speech was written by somebody else.
Mr. Steward: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that not a soul other than myself has had a hand in the preparation of the few words I hope to contribute to this debate.
Under the admirable leadership of a succession of able headmistresses, backed by a talented staff, the school has a tradition in education, both in the arts and the sciences, which is second to none in South-East London. Incidentally, in the London School Plan this school was not scheduled for inclusion in the Kidbrooke Comprehensive School scheme.
1608
For many years the people in this area have been happy and proud of the standard of education reached and the really good type of scholar turned out from this school. They want no change, for they have no confidence in the comprehensive school idea. When it became known that the London County Council intended to close Eltham Hill School a very large number of parents and people who were genuinely interested were literally shocked, and got together to fight for the retention of this school which they all knew so well. After all, the general principle laid down in Section 6 of the Education Act, 1944, provides that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
The action of these good people was not sponsored by any political organisation, as suggested by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. As a member of the constituency in which the school is situated, I can truthfully say that the only part I played was to pass on to the Minister the correspondence which I had received, together with my observations. The efforts of this body of parents and others were those of people genuinely concerned, and they were successful in their endeavours in that they contributed to the saving of this very good school. I have every reason to believe that the counter-protest which was organised later, after the decision of the Minister became known, was not so non-political.
I am informed on good authority that some of the petition forms were circulated by the local secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose address is the same as that of the local Labour Party. The whole effort was a concerted endeavour to rouse antagonism against the decision of the Minister. It was not genuine, and I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, for whom I have great respect, really has his heart in the arguments which he has put forward.
The fact is that the all-powerful London County Council has been checked in the carrying out of one of its unpopular schemes, and that august body does not like it. If Eltham Hill School and its sister grammar schools are allowed to continue in their present status and the comprehensive schools are built up stage by stage the desires of all who

1609
have at heart the true welfare and education of all the children in the area administered by the L.C.C. will surely be met. I cannot see the purpose of spoiling a first-class set-up, such as exists at Eltham Hill or anywhere else, to bolster up the idea of comprehensive schools, which, we would all agree, is at least only experimental.
Why should not Eltham Hill School be allowed to continue its good work without being interfered with? The hon. Member for Woolwich, East inquired what would become of it when the three comprehensive schools really got working. It may well be that Eltham Hill School will still be favoured by the people of Eltham as the best one for their children. Why should it be wrecked, so as to give a "phoney" picture of the merits of the comprehensive school? I can quite appreciate the anxiety of the London County Council that its first comprehensive school should be a success, in order to prove its theory that comprehensive schools are the complete answer to the educational problem, but it will prove nothing if six other good schools are to be wiped out to achieve this.
To me, even the thought of uprooting good schools from their present backgrounds, traditions and environments shows an utter disregard of all that goes into the making of a school. The losses involved would far outweigh any advantages which it may be hoped to gain. To prove that the comprehensive school idea is a good one it is surely fair that each should be built up from the start with an entity of its own. I submit that the step proposed by the London County Council was a retrograde one, and indicates a complete lack of understanding both of the purpose of education and the best methods of building up a school. It has yet to be proved that herding together 2,000 children at a time will advance the standard of education.
Hon. Members on this side of the House, while being against mass-production in education, nevertheless await with interest and with as open minds as possible the result of the comprehensive school experiment, but we say that it is not a fair experiment when, in order to make sure that it is a success, it is necessary to close down schools and transfer teachers and pupils to the new education factory. This method of
1610
proving a theory makes the word "experiment" a farce, entailing as it does a complete abuse of public money.
A local education authority may not close a school without publishing notices of its intention to do so, and there follows an interval of three months, during which the managers or governors of the voluntary school affected, or any 10 of the local government electors for the area, may submit objections to the Minister. It then becomes the duty of the Minister to consider any such objections very carefully before she decides whether or not to approve the authority's proposal.
In this case my right hon. Friend fully considered the proposal made by the London County Council to cease to maintain Eltham Hill County Secondary School. She considered all the arguments submitted by the authority in support of its proposals, and she also studied the objections received from people who were entitled to object under the Act, and noted the grounds upon which those objections were made.
My right hon. Friend further examined the London County Council's observations on those objections, and, finally, took into account, as she had every right to do, the reputation of the school and the success with which it has served its purpose as a grammar school. Having done all this, the Minister came to the conclusion that it would not be educationally advantageous for this school to cease to be maintained. I submit that the Minister should be commended for the wisdom she exercised in arriving at her decision and I, for one, offer her my sincere congratulations.
Without wishing to be offensive, I consider that the attack made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East in the latter part of his speech was unwarranted, rather unfair, and unjustified.
11.49 a.m.
Dr. Horace King: My London colleagues have honoured me by inviting me to try to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Speaker. Nothing will be said from hon. Members on this side against the Eltham School in question or Eltham parents, or against grammar schools in general. I only wish that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward) would be as fair to

1611
the comprehensive school, which he calls an education factory, as we are to the outstanding achievements of grammar schools in the last 50 years.
There is no doubt that the Minister has the power to do what she has done. Section 13 of the Act gives her power, if a voluntary school is to be closed or its user altered, to receive from the governors or any 10 electors in the area representations against the action of the local authority. That Section is in the Act mainly to protect Church schools.
Mrs. Freda Corbet: This is not a voluntary school.
Dr. King: I know it is not. I am discussing all the powers given to the Minister to override local authorities. This Section, as I said, was primarily designed to protect Church schools. Section 68 gave the Minister power to interfere if the local authority
"… acted or are proposing to act unreasonably …"
The story of how Section 68 got into the Act is of significance to this debate. The first draft was debated in Committee of the whole House in one of its worst moments, not long after it had voted for equal pay and then had voted against equal pay on the instructions of the Prime Minister. The debate on the Clause lasted only five minutes. The power to interfere with the local authority was defended by the then Minister of Education on the ground that it might be used to protect a teacher who was wrongly dismissed by school managers. That was the only instance he gave in the debate. The Minister said that it might seem a large power but it had to be in the Bill in order to have an overriding opinion in doubtful cases.
But the Lords threw out the Clause. The then Lord Chancellor, defending the Clause in another place, said that such powers could be justified by examples, but the one example he gave was of a child being sent by a local authority to a school of a religious denomination other than that of the parents. In spite of his pleas, the Lords threw out the Clause and made the Government introduce a new one, under which the Minister is acting.
When it came before this House it was attacked by that doughty champion of
1612
local authorities, Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson, who said it was a serious thing for it to be said that a Minister of the Crown is satisfied that a local authority has exercised its powers unreasonably. Another hon. Member bitterly complained that under the Clause a Minister could not only tell authorities what to do but could tell them how to do what they had to do.
The Clause was grudgingly accepted by the House on certain assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). He said the powers would be used only in the last resort to deal with small questions of disagreement which might arise between an authority and a person.
He pooh-poohed the idea that the powers would be used to override a local education authority's discretion. He gave an undertaking that the Clause would be operated in the proper spirit, and not in the wrong spirit. That was a sincere but very foolish remark. The right hon. Genleman could not bind his successors. He did not anticipate what use the present Minister would make of this power.
Most important, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Minister's powers under the Clause were quasi-judicial and that the Minister would act as an impartial judge. Neither this House nor another place visualised that the Minister would act as an unelected Member of the L.C.C. Opposition and go around making speeches urging a defeated minority to send in appeals to her so that she could in her quasi-judicial position smash a majority decision of the L.C.C.
My hon. Friend this morning has quoted a recent speech of the Minister, and I shall not requote it, but I would emphasise the last part of the report in "The Times Educational Supplement":
"Miss Horsbrough read out a list of the schools which were listed for closure, and put it to the Conference that if they wanted her to act, they had to give her local support by protesting."
"The Times Educational Supplement" is seldom opposed to the Minister, but it commented:
"It was as near incitement as possible."
I believe it was worse. The right hon. Lady incited to mutiny knowing she would preside over the court-martial afterwards. When in this country has a

1613
judge gone round whipping up emotions and whipping up evidence and announcing the verdict before the trial?
The Minister belongs to a party that professes to be for the local authorities and against government from Whitehall. I have here quite a number of Conservative local election leaflets, and I quote from "Eight Points for the Electors":
"The Conservatives wish to restore the essence of local government destroyed by the Socialist policy of centralising everything in London, and will oppose interference and unnecessary control by Government Departments in local affairs."
They liked this so much that they repeated it in "Fifty Things the Tories Will do." saying in paragraph 29:
"We'll restore the essence of local Government, destroyed by the Socialist mania for centralising decisions in London, and will oppose interference and unnecessary control by Government Departments in local affairs."
Mr. Henry Brooke: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a duty on all local authorities to have regard for the provisions of Acts of Parliament?
Dr. King: Yes, and the leaflets should have said so, and if the L.C.C. were breaking an Act of Parliament it would be the duty of the Minister to interfere. That is common ground between all the intelligent people of the community.
I believe in local government. It is centuries older than central government. I am uneasy about even my own party's educational proposals, if they should carry with them the power of a Minister to impose on all local education authorities the duty to provide comprehensive secondary schools all at once. I believe that comprehensive secondary education is inevitable and right, but we want to encourage local education authorities, not to dragoon them.
This action of the Minister vindicates any future Socialist Minister of Education if he argues that the powers given in the Act of 1944 and used in this way by the Minister allow him to direct local authorities to establish comprehensive schools. Only he will not need to go round, as this Minister has done, whipping up petitions, because millions of people will request them, as the electors did in London County Council elections.
Mr. I. J. Pitman: There is surely a very big distinction here between the action in this case, which is to ensure the continuity of that which on both sides of the House is admitted as being and having been thoroughly good, and what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, that the Section gives a right to the Minister to direct the initiation and creation of something absolutely new. That is a positive direction, whereas this is a negative one.
Dr. King: Obviously the two things are different, but what is common to both of them is a request of a minority group—for the preservation, on the one hand, of the grammar school and on the other hand for the establishment of a comprehensive school. If a Socialist Minister were in power he could incite, in the area of any local authority which did not set up comprehensive secondary schools, a group of citizens to petition for the setting up of comprehensive secondary schools and would be perfectly justified in imitating a Conservative Minister in conceding the request.
Mr. H. A. Price: Where is that power contained?
Dr. King: In the same Section. The hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument.
Why has the Minister interfered with the L.C.C.? Is it failing to carry out its duties under the Act? There is not a word about grammar, technical and secondary modern schools in the Act. The Act says that local education authorities must provide primary and secondary education in separate buildings. If the Minister wants to use her powers under the Act, let her use them on local education authorities that are still denying one-seventh of our children separate secondary education provided for under the Act. As a matter of fact they want to provide it. They want to provide a reorganisation which will give all the children separate secondary education, and it is the Minister herself who at the present time is preventing the local education authorities from carrying out their duty to provide secondary education—so that 750,000 children are deprived of anything like secondary education.

1615
Section 8 of the Act says that it shall be the duty of every local education authority to provide
"… all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes …"
But the L.C.C. is doing this.
There is nothing in the Act about deciding the destiny of all English children except the rich by an examination at 11-plus. The elected representatives of the L.C.C. believe that it is wrong that three types of secondary education should be fixed on London for ever merely because one happened to exist—grammar schools—one was beginning to emerge—technical schools—and one had to be invented in 1946—modern—because up to then we had made no provision for secondary education for five million out of the six million children. They think it is wrong to separate all children, in their infinite variety, in their infinite differences in rate of development, into three arbitrarily-chosen channels, at an arbitrarily-chosen age, and then make it difficult, if not impossible, for the child to move from one stream to another.
I talk to many parents. Two months ago I was talking to parents of a village infant school about infant education. At the end of my speech there were questions. What were they all about? Every one was about the selection examination which, as far as those parents were concerned, was still six years ahead. The selection examination is a nightmare in the minds of millions of English parents. It is a nightmare even in the minds of hundreds of thousands of sensitive, keen and ambitious little children.
The L.C.C. has decided to stop the artificial canalising of London children. Not entirely; there will still be a certain number of London grammar schools, but for most London children there will be secondary education of a quality, of a variety and a range which as yet is unknown in educational history—and all inside one building. The only limiting factor will be the capacity of the child to profit at any age in his life.
No child will lose anything. The so-called grammar school child of high intelligence, demanding academic training, wanting to go to the sixth form and the university, will find in the comprehensive school a graduate staff, a library,
1616
technical provisions, laboratory provisions, to enable him to go as far ahead as he wants to go. If London were proposing to sacrifice the élite of its children, that would be a crime and I should be opposed to it as bitterly as my old pupil, Dr. Eric James, in his fear of the sacrifice of the élite. But London does not propose that. London wants, as all who love children want, to retain all the rich achievement of the first 50 years of grammar school education. London wants the cultural, the moral, the social and the spiritual achievements of 50 years of grammar school education to remain and to expand.
But good things are not lost by sharing them—certainly not the good things of education. The future scientist does not suffer because he does his advanced studies in one laboratory while the humbler child is getting to know something about the wonders of science in probably a less spacious laboratory inside the same building. The future teacher or doctor or clergyman does not suffer because the future busman breathes the same air in the same school. After all, they breathe the same air in a London primary school, and it does not hurt any of them.
I liked to hear the hon. Member for Woolwich, West sing the praises of a good grammar school and can understand the pride of Eltham School parents. But if there is a glorious tradition in Eltham School, it does not disappear suddenly overnight because we allow duller children to share with profit the wonders and the glories of the tradition which Eltham has built up. In the school dramatic society, music society, debating society and the various hockey and football teams, nothing is lost because a child who failed to put down the right answer at 11-plus takes part in them by the side of the more able child. Indeed, the football and hockey teams will probably gain.
Do we believe that knowledge is something to be hived off, something to be hoarded—or is this the fundamental difference of opinion which produces this debate? Is it that our opponents want education merely to give special advantages for one group of children over another? Do they think that education is something like money—only valuable if somebody else has not so much of it?

1617
It is for the L.C.C. to see that the so-called grammar school child does not lose in the process of building Kidbrooke. That is purely a technical and staffing problem. The L.C.C. will have to be generous with staffing and choose its leaders very carefully. I believe it is doing so. But it is not doing its new job of providing comprehensive secondary education in a negative way. It passionately wants to give all London children a positive opportunity for secondary education.
Some of its children develop later than 11-plus. They have a chance to emerge inside the comprehensive secondary school. Some children emerge too soon, score high marks at 11-plus and, under the separate system, find themselves in grammar schools, floundering in academic courses which are too difficult for them, and then join the early grammar school leavers, having failed because they were in the wrong kind of atmosphere.
There are a host of as yet undeveloped potentialities among our English children which will emerge as secondary education expands. What folly it would be to say that the sixth form of 1902 was the last word in sixth forms—or the sixth form of 1924; or even to say that the sixth form of 1954 is the last word in sixth forms. One of the most remarkable by-products of Holyhead and the early London comprehensive schools, was the expansion in range and quality of the sixth form.
What about the ordinary children of London? According to classification tests, that means three-quarters of them. It is not shameful to be born average. The crime was not in having one talent; it was in burying one talent or 10 talents inside the napkin. Education is not merely an intellectual process. Eton and Winchester mean a lot, not only to the clever lads who went there but also to the stupid lads and the not-so-bright. And Eton manages to give all that is most precious in Eton to most of its pupils—not merely to those who take the Close scholarships to Oxford and Cambridge.
What there is good in the old school tie, the L.C.C. passionately desires for all London children—the corporate life of a great school, the mutual impact of different abilities and social groups and
1618
a common core of our island's precious cultural heritage; the Christian basis enshrined in the Act of 1944; loyalty to a community; teamwork; the sense of belonging to one single community—just as in our prayers today we speak of belonging to one single community—instead of being divided into upper, middle and working classes, or academic, technical and modern, or highbrow and lowbrow and no-brow, with brick walls and social prejudices dividing children after they have been separated into three groups.
The amenities of the best London secondary schools, including all the amenities of the Eltham school, are to become the possession of all children in this district and in all secondary schools—libraries, laboratories, workshops, engineering shops, art rooms, music rooms, of a quality unsurpassed in any London grammar school. I wish I could add "playing fields."
Even the mingling of the staff in comprehensive schools—university men and training college men—will be of value. I have spoken in some of the great training colleges—in St. Mark's and St. John's, King Alfred's, Winchester, for example—and I have found among training college staff and students some rich qualities which I have not always found in every university which I have visited.
Universities must not imagine that they have a monopoly of all that is good in culture. It is good that the non-graduate should learn that it is not as easy as he thinks to teach mathematics to a future senior wrangler, and it does a graduate good to learn that it is not a soft option to teach the 12 times table to classes of dull children. It is good for both to learn from older grammar school teachers what infinite possibilities there are for education outside the classroom, in a good school's corporate life. Education is one indivisible whole. It may be that we have to start at the bottom to end the foolish stratification which often exists at the top.
But the Minister does not like comprehensive schools. She has said that she does not like big schools at all—except big public schools. That is why she is so much enjoying cutting down the building standards for the schools, a

1619
process which her predecessor introduced, and which she is gaily extending.
It is the Minister who is doctrinaire who reads into the Act what is not there. It is the Minister who is saying, "My predecessor passed the London Development Plan. London has endorsed it in two county council elections, and I myself have approved plans for the building of Kidbrooke School. But I am determined to wreck Kidbrooke School by preventing it from being truly comprehensive. I shall cut out from it a grammar school stream."
Her action will make things more difficult. The L.C.C. may have to take action and think out detailed counter methods. But the L.C.C. will go on with Kidbrooke, and I hope that it will pour in all its enthusiastic backing to make this comprehensive school succeed. I believe that the day will come when those who signed the petition to the Minister will realise that they were wrong. I am certain that the day will come when the Minister will be sorry.
I believe that she has misused the powers given under the Act to make a party political decision. She has for all time strengthened the power of future Ministers of Education against local education authorities. She has made the L.C.C. waste 500 places in Kidbrooke at a time when every inch of school place in the country is precious. If County Hall were committing some breach of the Education Act, all that she has done would be justified. As it merely seeks to carry out the Education Act more fully, comprehensively and generously than any other local education authority up to the moment has tried to do, her blunder becomes one of the greatest magnitude.
London, like other great capitals—New York, Paris, Moscow and Berlin—leads the country in education. Fifty-four years ago the London School Board was prosecuted for teaching elementary children more than they ought to be taught. That was the famous Cockerton judgment. Out of that prosecution began the extension of the secondary education to all working-class children. History repeats itself in this action of the Minister—an act which, I believe, will be prove as ineffective as the Cockerton judgment of 1900.
12.12 p.m.
Mr. H. A. Price: It has become the custom in this House when discussing educational matters to say that we ought not to allow politics to intervene, but those who are honest in the matter know that that is just humbug. Anyone who has listened to the speech just delivered will realise that. Education in general, and comprehensive education in particular, has become a political issue, and if anyone has any doubt about that, they have only to read "Challenge to Britain" which proposes to abolish all grammar schools and to make all secondary schools comprehensive, and that, despite the fact that out of 146 educational authorities in this country, only six have decided in favour of comprehensive education.
Such an expression of opinion—one might have thought—would have weighed with the Socialist Party in general and the L.C.C. in particular. Obviously, it has not. That dogmatic, intolerant and politically ossified body proposes to continue with its plan for the provision of 67 comprehensive schools in London, irrespective of what anyone else says about it. Least of all, does it consider the parents. We have had quoted this morning Sections of the Act, and I quote Section 76, which reads:
"In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
I believe that that is one of the most important Sections of the Act. The London County Council have forgotten it; it wishes that the Section did not exist. So far as the Council is concerned, the wishes of the parents could hardly be of less importance. All that matters to the Council is its ideological conception of education, which must be comprehensive. The Conservative Party, on the other hand, is suspicious of comprehensive education, which has already been tried and abandoned elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: Where?
Mr. Price: In America.
Mr. Skeffington: This is an important point. We should be glad to follow it up. As there are 48 States covering 150 million people in America, perhaps the hon. Member will be a little more particular.
Mr. Price: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ascertain the climate of opinion in Denver, Colorado. At the moment when comprehensive education has been abandoned elsewhere, the London County Council has initiated it in this country.
Our attitude to it is quite simple—give it a trial by all means, but do not prejudice the future irrevocably by providing all comprehensive schools. The comprehensive school is a large building and a very tangible building, and once it is built it is there for probably a century. It cannot be written off. If the experimental schools are a success let us go ahead and make all secondary education comprehensive, but if they are a failure, let us see that the pass is not irrevocably sold.
Dr. King: I share some of the views of the hon. Gentleman. While he holds the view that what we want is an experimental comprehensive school, the London County Council have twice gone to the electors and put a different point of view and have had the approval of the electors against the approval of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Price: That is a fair point which I will come to in a moment. If I remember rightly—I may be wrong by two or three—before this Government came into office, of the 67 comprehensive schools which the L.C.C. proposed, 23 were approved by the previous Minister. Surely everyone will agree that one-third is a very generous scale for an experiment. To try out one-third of the total can hardly be stigmatised as niggardly or inadequate.
I will now come to the question which the hon. Gentleman raised. He quoted one or two Conservative pamphlets which referred to our need for a great element of local control and less unnecessary interference from the centre. That is something with which I entirely agree. I
1622
would personally make one exception—that is the L.C.C. and I will tell the House why.
I think that the L.C.C. is far too big and far too powerful for a local authority. It is the largest and most powerful single local authority in the world. It covers a population larger than some States and I think that it is quite anachronistic to consider the L.C.C. in the same category as some of our urban districts. The same argument cannot be applied to both. In my view, the L.C.C. system should be changed and there should be a form of regional government. One cannot apply the same arguments here as to an obscure local authority.
Although it is possible to say that throughout the London area there is a majority in favour of comprehensive education—although even that is yet to be proved; there may be a majority in favour of a Socialist L.C.C. but that is not to say that there is a majority in favour of comprehensive education and although the hon. Gentleman may be entitled to use that argument in respect of the L.C.C. he is not necessarily able to use it as applying to South-East, South-West, North-East or North-West London, and he is certainly not entitled to use it so far as Eltham is concerned.
That brings me to my last point. In Eltham, the parents of children at a school which it is proposed to close gathered together and presented to my right hon. Friend the Minister a petition signed by 4,000 people. Hon. Members opposite are saying that my right hon. Friend should have ignored that petition and local opinion and should have imposed upon those people the will of the London County Council. That is not my idea of the tolerance and compromise to which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East referred.
Mr. Mayhew: To which petition is the hon. Member referring? The small one in support of the Minister, or the large one against her?
Mr. Price: I am referring to the small one in support of the Minister, which was presented to her before she made her decision. The large one was presented to my right hon. Friend after she had made that decision.

1623
The question of political influence has been raised. It is customary for hon. Members opposite, whenever a body of citizens combine to present a petition or a protest against anything which the Socialists propose to do, to call it a political stunt; but whenever they get together to prepare a petition or a protest against a Conservative proposal, they are fighting the battle of the people against the reactionary Tories.
Mr. Mayhew: I do not think the hon. Member was here when his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward) complained—
Mr. Price: Yes, I was.
Mr. Mayhew:—that whereas the petition against the Minister was political, the petition in favour of the Minister was wholly spontaneous. I do not know whether the hon. Member has made a study of local conditions. If so, I do not think he would have raised this question.
Mr. Price: I was here and I heard my hon. Friend. I am not defending anybody who tries to condemn expressions of local opinion as political stunts. There is almost always—as we know, if we are honest about it—a political element in these things, and it is right that there should be. In fact, I suggest to hon. Members opposite that it would be very much to the credit of the local Lab our Party in Eltham had it said to the opposers, "We disagree with you, but you have a right to state your opinion. If you want to use our office and our duplicating machines to do it, they are at your disposal." That is my view of democracy, but apparently it is not universal.
What the Minister did was—
Mr. Mayhew: Stir up.
Mr. Price:—take account of local opinion.
Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Member agrees with me that the Minister did, in fact, stir up local opinion.
Mr. Price: I did not say that I agreed. What the Minister did was to have regard to Section 76 of the Act, which practically every Socialist wishes did not exist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am
1624
entitled to express an opinion. That is my experience. The hon. Member suggests that the Minister stirred up local opinion, but as to the comment in "The Times Educational Supplement" I do not accept it for a moment.
What my right hon. Friend did was to point out to the people the democratic rights which they own and enjoy under the Act. I wish that the Socialist-controlled London County Council would do the same. I wish it would be as meticulous in pointing out to those who wish to oppose the L.C.C. proposals the methods and machinery open to them for doing so, instead of which the London County Council tries very hard not to do so. It complies with the law, but only just.
I support the Minister on this issue, not because of my views on comprehensive education, but because she has given full weight to local opinion. She has given full weight to Section 76 of the Act, which says that so far as is practicable children shall be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That is the principle in which I believe. In doing that, my right hon. Friend has preserved a very valuable grammar school tradition. That is important, but not so important as having regard to the wishes of parents. The parents are the first who should be consulted in these matters—not the last.
12.26 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: It would probably not help the course of this debate if I spent very much time in attempting to answer some of the rather small debating points made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price), but there is one point in which he has, no doubt unconsciously, misled the House. It was in his reference to the Section of the Act which he quoted three times.
If the hon. Member looks at the debates that took place during the passage of the 1944 Act, he will find first that that Section originated as a Clause which was inserted to meet the wishes of parents in regard to religious matters. The hon. Member has completely misinterpreted it. Secondly, the Clause was most strongly supported by Members of the Opposition during the period of the National Government. That should be remembered, otherwise hon. Members

1625
may be misled, particularly into the belief that Members on this side do not support the Section to which the hon. Member referred.
After the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) and Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), there is not a great deal left to be said. My hon. Friends, if I may say so, have put their case very well, and so far we have had practically no answer. There remain two points to which I should like to direct attention. As a member of the Education Committee of the London County Council, my first comment is on the timing and manner of the Minister's decisions; and secondly, there is the surrounding political atmosphere of the decisions which possibly the Minister now very much regrets, and which everybody else who has to deal with this problem certainly regrets.
As has been said from both sides of the House, we all ought to deplore, not that educational policy should be the subject of acute political controversy, but that educational administration should be the subject of acute political party difference. The policy of the comprehensive school has been hotly and consistently attacked by Conservatives, certainly in London, although not necessarily by Conservatives everywhere else. They have every right to do that, and I in no way criticise Conservatives in London for their opposition. But this cannot go on for ever. Surely there must come a time when a decision has to be taken about plans and administration, and then, once the decision has been taken, the responsible course for members of both political parties is to get on with the organisation.
In this case, as has been said, the issue of the comprehensive school has been before the electors of London. I would not say that it was the major theme of all political speeches and controversies, but certainly in 1948 and particularly in the last Election the Conservatives prominently attacked the conception in all their literature. I spoke on it at all my Election meetings during the last Election, endeavouring to explain the policy but not attacking other people who differed. That policy was certainly not not endorsed, if I may put it that way, by the electors of London who
1626
returned the Labour Party to County Hall overwhelmingly.
Therefore, one would have thought, particularly as the Conservative Party has said that it is not against experiments in education, that the time has now been reached when this skirmishing, particularly behind the scenes, could be dropped, and we would get down to constructive advance. Even if the Conservatives in County Hall, despite what they have said about favouring experiments, attack every major plan and every large school proposal that has come before the council—they have not objected to some of the smaller comprehensive schools—if the Conservatives in County Hall are so purblind and stupid, need the Minister follow them? Would it not be wiser to stand up from time to time, as all Ministers have to do, than to follow those who may be enthusiastic but not particularly sensible in educational matters?
The position of all Ministers is very difficult. Ministers are entitled—
Mr. H. A. Price: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Skeffington: I know that the Minister wants plenty of time to reply, and I would rather proceed with my argument. All Ministers have the right to go on to public platforms to defend their policy and to attack their opponents, but in matters over which they themselves will have to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, Ministers must exercise great restraint. That is one of the penalties of office.
One remembers when the then Minister of Town and Country Planning made a speech which did not go nearly as far as the right hon. Lady went in her speech to the Conservative women in October, 1953. The former Minister of Town and Country Planning made a speech in favour of some new town. As a result, his action was challenged right up to the House of Lords, who finally supported the Minister and said that he had given his decision about the town in his Ministerial capacity and that he had not been prejudiced. I quote that example to show how careful a Minister must be.
I would suggest that this matter not only began in a political way, but it appears to be ending in a political way,

1627
as I shall presently show. The Minister, in her speech to which I have referred, said this:
"Miss Horsbrugh read out a list of schools listed for closure and put it to the conference that if they wanted to help her they must give her local support by protesting."
It seems, with all the generosity in the world and trying for a moment to be as calm and dispassionate as possible about it, that that was political provocation of a grave kind, which one rarely sees in this House, and I hope will never be shown again by a Minister of Education.
I want to say a word about the timing. The Minister's intervention came so very late that it makes us all the more suspicious. The School Plan was discussed during the latter part of the war. It went to the Ministry of Education some time in 1948, and in May, 1949, the Council received general approval for Kidbrooke and one or two other schools. The schedule of accommodation at that date made it clear that Eltham Hill would go into Kidbrooke. On 25th May, 1950, the plans were approved, and in October, 1952, a full report was published by the Council which showed that it was for those educational reasons that it was desirable that Eltham Hill should be transferred and not closed down. It was never the Council's intention to close down Eltham Hill. In that report to the Council it was stated:
"To supply the academic side the obvious choice is Eltham Hill S.G. school, not merely on grounds of geographical convenience but even more as representing a natural translation for the school."
The report went on to say that the school had been proposed for incorporation in the comprehensive school, that Avery Hill would be a mixed school and in many ways it would be better for Eltham Hill to be incorporated in a girls' school rather than a mixed school and it added:
"It would also give the new Kidbrooke School"—
and this is what the Minister is smashing up—"
"the advantage of a strong group of senior girls, pursuing advanced courses, who could help to establish firm foundations and high standards for the social and educational life of the school."
It seems impossible to be able to support the action of the Minister in view of the expressed educational object proposed by the Education Committee as long ago as
1628
October, 1952, and of which she must have been fully aware, as the Ministry had already approved the general schedule for accommodation as far back as 1949.
It was only on the 16th February, 1953, that there was a suggestion that notices would have to be issued. I may say there is very considerable doubt whether the Minister is correctly operating in this matter under Section 13, as this case of Eltham Hill is one of transfer: not of closure. I shall not weary the House with the legal details of it, because I want to give the Minister time to reply. But, judging from the principles of the case, the Minister would appear to have been wrong and that may have been another reason why she should have exercised caution in this matter.
There was this suggestion about notices from the Minister, but no objections, apparently, were heard for some time after the notices were issued, because it was only in October, 1953, that the Minister made her fatal speech. One cannot help wondering—I hope this was not true—but she made it because from the time of the issue of the notices no protests had, in fact, been made by any group of electors about Eltham Hill. It was only in March, 1954, that we reached the last stage in which the Minister said, very lamely, that, despite the brief extracts of the Report that I have read, that the London County Council had not satisfied her that this scheme was educationally desirable.
I want to say a word about the future because it is quite clear, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, that the administration of education by local authorities is going to become impossible if this kind of intervention becomes general. It would be wrong to assume that because the Minister has intervened in this case that she is going to do it consistently, but I must draw her attention to what happened at the Conservative and Unionist Teachers' Association in May, 1954, as reported in the "Evening Standard." Making due allowance for the source of the quotation, this is what was reported:
"ELTHAM IS A GUIDE FOR FUTURE, SAY TORIES
"Miss Florence Horsbrugh, the Minister of Education, was praised today by the Conservative and Unionist Teachers' Association for her

1629
recent decision to prevent the closing of Eltham Hill Secondary School for girls—which the London County Council wanted to merge with the new Kidbrooke Comprehensive School.
The Association at their conference in London expressed"—
this is the significant and dangerous thing for the whole future of local government—
"the hope that it would be a precedent if other grammar schools were threatened."
I think this is an extremely serious matter, a deliberate incitement to the Minister to act in a politically prejudiced manner. It appears to have started in a political atmosphere generated by the other side at a Conservative women's conference and it is ending in a political atmosphere of the Conservative teachers.
I hope that the Minister, even if she cannot go back on the decision she has made in relation to Eltham Hill, will make it clear today that she does not intend to use these powers in the very doubtful manner she has used them in this case, that the wishes of electors and of local authorities must be paramount, and that she has no intention of undermining the administration of local authorities in this matter. Her action has caused the gravest doubt not only in London but throughout the country and we hope, although we shall lament her decision over Eltham Hill, that we may get an assurance from her for the future.
12.37 p.m.
Mr. Henry Brooke: I shall keep my remarks very brief, but if a member of the London County Council on the other side speaks on this subject then the House may think it desirable that a member of that council from this side should also speak. I should like to go back to the original subject of the debate, because the most important speech from the benches opposite was made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who addressed himself to the crucial question whether the Minister was right in refusing to allow the Eltham Hill School to be closed.
With respect to the hon. Member for Test (Dr. King), I do not think this is the occasion for a debate on the whole issue of comprehensive schools. The Minister has shown, by permitting a number of comprehensive schools in London, which did not include or
1630
depend upon the closing of a grammar school, that she does not dislike all comprehensive schools, but she has reached this decision about Eltham Hill because she thought it was wrong for that school to be closed. On this Motion for the Adjournment, when we are not discussing whether the law should be changed but whether the Minister has properly administered the law, I am going to submit that her decision was correct.
Section 1 of the Education Act of 1944 says that it is to be the duty of the Minister
"… to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose."
My right hon. Friend is being criticised because she has refused to close an institution devoted to that purpose, an institution which by common consent has great educational achievements to its credit. Secondly, she is being criticised because she has failed to support the local education authority.
I submit as a minority member of that authority that it is the Minister who has been right and that the authority which has been wrong in the respective interpretations of Section 76, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) referred in his very effective speech. That Section says that
"… the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
Surely hon. Members opposite are not arguing that to maintain Eltham Hill school and keep it open will in any way interfere with the provision of efficient instruction and training. That is one consideration which must weigh in the balance. The other which the Act says must be weighed is the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, but I have not heard this case argued on that ground either. I have heard it argued solely on the ground that it would be for the convenience of the education authority to fill a part of the new comprehensive school at Kidbrooke by transferring all the girls from Eltham Hill there. If that is the point at issue, the main direction in Clause 76 must prevail and we must consider the wishes of the parents.
Dr. King: So that if parents from other localities petition for comprehensive secondary education for their children when the local authority is not providing it, it is the duty of the Minister to concede that by his argument?
Mr. Brooke: I think the Minister should always have regard to local opinion, and I do not hold that all local education authorities are all-wise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I agree about that. There is no doubt, however, in this case as to the opinion of the parents. There was a petition signed overwhelmingly by the parents and presented to the Minister. Even before these troubles arose, the new idea of transferring Eltham Hill to Kidbrooke School proved itself so unpopular in the neighbourhood that in 1953 the number of parents of primary school girls who put down Eltham Hill School as their first choice of a secondary school fell by 70 per cent., compared with previous years. That fall was directly related to the fact that at that time they thought that Eltham Hill was to be transferred to a comprehensive school.
Finally I must rebut the argument that the petition brought forward by the parents was simply a political move. I have here extracts from letters published in the "Kentish Mercury" of 9th April, 1954. One is from the chairman of the committee appointed by the parents of the girls, which organised the petition. He wrote:
"We chose Eltham Hill School for our daughters because it was undoubtedly the best of its type in this part of London. … Surely, if 99 per cent. of the parents wish their girls to remain at the school, any Minister of Education, be he Conservative or Socialist, must take serious notice of this, and the present Minister's decision, instead of being labelled as 'interference,' should be hailed as a wise interpretation of the provisions of the Act."
In that same issue there was a letter from a lady who was the previous headmistress of Eltham Hill from 1931 to 1952. She surely cannot be represented, or misrepresented, as merely a party politician. She wrote:
"It has been said that the petition sent to the Minister was a political move. I am in a position to say that the parents who organised the protest were stirred by educational considerations alone, and that the proposed closure of Eltham Hill School was deeply deplored by many people of all parties."
Mrs. Corbet: Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that the fact that practically all the girls and all the staff were prepared to move to the new premises when the scheme was explained to them suggests that the parents had less fear of any educational disadvantages for their children than is suggested by the letters read by the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Brooke: But they do not appear to have been particularly enthusiastic about the move, because it is still possible for any of them to go there, and I understand that the only ones who have so opted are one member of the staff and four girls. As there are over 460 girls in the school, it does not strike me that the move was popular.
Mrs. Corbet: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would wish to leave the rest of his school mates or, if he were a member of the staff, he would wish to leave the rest of the staff and go on his own? When the principle of going as a body was presented, both the staff and the pupils agreed to the proposal and it was looked forward to by many of the girls with the greatest pleasure.
Mr. Brooke: I must leave my right hon. Friend to answer that question, for my time is up. But I think the hon. Lady will agree that we shall now have a fair comparison and experiment, and it will be interesting to see the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East what will happen to Eltham Hill School? We shall see whether parents wish to send their girls there, or to one of the comprehensive schools.
12.46 p.m.
The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I have listened with interest to this debate and it is a good thing that it has taken place because we shall be able to make more clear than before to hon. Members and the country what are the powers and responsibilities of the Minister in regard to closing schools, since there is still a great deal of misunderstanding.
It has been said that I should not attend any meeting under the auspices of any political association and that I should not point out to people what are their rights under the Act. I disagree. What I said at that meeting I have said

1633
up and down the country, that people have the right under the statute, if 10 or more local government electors object. What often happens is that people write single letters and those are not statutory objections; there must be at least 10 and they must be sent during a certain time. The time has now been reduced from three months to two months.
The responsibility of the Minister of Education is a statutory duty. I am referring to Section 13. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) appeared to think that we were dealing with this question under Section 68. It is not the case here. The local authority cannot act; it puts proposals to the Minister and the decision is that of the Minister. Section 13 has nothing to do with an authority acting unreasonably.
Dr. King: But it talked about acting unreasonably or proposing to act unreasonably.
Miss Horsbrugh: This is done under Section 13 of the Act which reads:
"(1) Where a local education authority intend—

(a) to establish a new county school;

(b) to maintain as a county school any school which at the time being is not such a school; or

(c) to cease to maintain any county school or, save as provided by the next following section of this Act, any voluntary school;

they shall submit proposals for that purpose to the Minister."
So they submit proposals and it is for the Minister then to decide.
Mrs. Corbet: But does not the Minister realise that there is a great deal of disagreement as to the interpretation of that Section? The meaning of "cease to maintain" is very doubtful and is being argued out.
Miss Horsbrugh: The statutory duty of the Minister has been acknowledged and used for some time. A short time ago I gave figures to the House of the number of cases of schools which had come up for closure since I took office. Most of them were village schools. This is exactly the same procedure. I should like to make it clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, if they think I have been wrong on this occasion in not agreeing automatically with the local authority, I
1634
have done it several times before, so the case against me from their point of view will be much worse.
Up to the end of last January I received 132 proposals for the closure of village schools. Of these, six related to schools which had, in fact, closed some years earlier, and 10 to schools which were replaced simultaneously in the same village. Of the remaining 116, I approved 89; I agreed with the local authorities. In 27 cases I did not agree; I rejected the proposals. Of the 65 proposals to which objection had been taken, I approved the local authority's proposal in 39 cases, in spite of the objection, and I may say that there was one case where there were no objections and yet I did not agree with the local authority.
I think that in each case the duty of the Minister is to judge whether he or she thinks it is good from the point of view of the education of the children to accede to the proposals, and I would point out that it is not a case of interfering or intervening. The action has to be the action of the Minister. The Minister does not go out and ask for proposals; the Minister does not intervene and ask the local authority. It is the local authority that makes the proposals in all these cases, and has to do so under Section 13, but the final decision is that of the Minister.
The Minister will, naturally, take into account the reasons why the local authority has made the proposals and will take into account objections if there are any. We all get as much information as we can to enable us to come to a decision. Whether the decision is right or wrong in the view of hon. Members, that is a matter of opinion, but there is no doubt that the decision under the Act has to be the decision of the Minister.
Mr. James Johnson: The Minister is constantly quoting village schools. She has referred to about 130 of them. I take it that none of these are comparable in any instance to Eltham Hill, which is unique?
Miss Horsbrugh: I am coming to the question of Eltham Hill. There are three points in this debate. First of all, the Minister of Education has the statutory duty of making these decisions under Section 13 of the Act.
Mrs. Corbet: The Minister must admit that she has to be guided by some principle in this matter, and in this case I should have thought that she would have been guided by the good of the children. Is it not a fact that the London County Council was providing less good education for that particular stream of pupils?
Miss Horsbrugh: I am trying to be as brief as I can. I am coming to the case of Eltham Hill. Proposals are made by local authorities; the local authorities publish their proposals and the local electors may object, but it is the statutory responsibility of the Minister to make the decision, whether one thinks it is right or wrong.
My next point concerns the case of Eltham. There has also been reference to the London Development Plan. When the London Development Plan is passed, each of these separate projects has to be considered under Section 13 of the Act. The London County Council published notices of closure of Eltham Hill School under Section 13 of the Education Act on 25th September, 1953. It has been suggested that perhaps it was considered that it should not publish notices, but I am told that that is not correct. I am certain that if the London County Council, when it discussed the matter with my Department, thought that it was not its duty to publish notices, it would have gone much further in resisting the idea that it should publish notices.
The notices were published in September, 1953. One hon. Member said that there was such a long time between February when the discussions first took place with the Ministry, and when the objections were taken. But the hon. Gentleman must know that objections before the publication of notices are not statutory objections. Statutory objections can only be made during the two months after the publication of notices. Therefore, in reply to any suggestion that I was seeking objections before the publication of the notices, I would point out that they would have been of no value at all.
For two months after 25th September there was the possibility of 10 objectors or more getting together and sending in their objections. Three sets of statutory objections were received. Parents who write singly are not included in the statutory objectors. In the first set there were
1636
114 signatures, in the second 15 signatures, and in the third 3,842 signatures. The objectors stressed the risk to the high standard of education at Eltham Hill School, which they had a perfect right to do.
I considered those objections and I asked for observations, which I always do in these cases. I asked for the observations of the London County Council on the objections. I got their observations and I studied the matter as a whole, and I came to the conclusion, as I have said before, that it would not be an educational advantage to close Eltham Hill School. It was a good grammar school and it had a tradition.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Did the right hon. Lady think there would be any disadvantage? She emphasises that there would be no advantage, but would she go further and say that there would be no disadvantage?
Miss Horsbrugh: I looked into the matter of Eltham Hill School and, having summed up the advantages and disadvantages, I thought that it would be an advantage to keep it open and a disadvantage to close it. Here we have a very good school, with a great tradition of which it is very proud, and it was quite clear from the objections that I received that a great number of people wanted that school to continue.
But hon. Members have gone further and they have said that in doing that it was an attack on the system of comprehensive schools. I want to take that as my first point. Here we have a good grammar school. There are people who want that grammar school to continue, and I am told that unless I allow that local authority to close that grammar school the comprehensive system cannot be tried out in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, delayed, shall we say?—it cannot be carried out fully in London.
Mr. Skeffington: In Kidbrooke.
Miss Horsbrugh: Let us take London first. Because I would not agree to the closure of Eltham Hill School, I am accused of attacking the idea of comprehensive schools. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test said that I am attacking the whole system of comprehensive schools by not agreeing to the

1637
closure of Eltham Hill School. I have always said, and I shall continue to say, that I think that when a local authority wants to try an experiment in comprehensive schools, it ought to be allowed to do so.
I have always said that I would not agree to any new development plan in which there were comprehensive schools only. Excluding the 12 existing comprehensive schools, 32 proposals to establish comprehensive schools were approved under Section 13 between the end of the war and 31st May, 1954, and seven of those I approved myself. I give those figures because I am perfectly willing that local authorities who want to try the experiment should do so.
In the building programme approved for London up to and including 1955–56, there are 17 comprehensive school projects. According to the proposals in the London school plan, 10 of those projects do not affect grammar schools at all. Two involve the closing of a county grammar school. One is Kidbrooke, but that school has not been closed.
Kidbrooke will start in exactly the same way as the other 10 comprehensive schools, in respect of which there was no thought of closing a grammar school. Kidbrooke will not start in an entirely different way from the other schools. It may be said that, if this grammar school were in, it would help Kidbrooke to get a better start, but we have to look at the matter from both sides. As one hon. Member said, we have to think of the girls at Eltham Hill as well as at Kidbrooke.
I quite agree and, rightly or wrongly, I have come to the conclusion that Eltham Hill should not close. It is an advantage to those who wish to keep Eltham as a first-class grammar school. We should not say that, because it will not be so easy for Kidbrooke, we must close Eltham Hill and force all those people to transfer. We have left them the option. Had all the parents and the teachers agreed to transfer to Kidbrooke, the position would have been very different. The position was fully explained to them. They could have transferred to Kidbrooke. Every parent in Kidbrooke whose child was at Eltham Hill could have said, "I want my child to go to Kidbrooke." Presumably, the teachers could have done so, too. The whole lot
1638
of them could have decided voluntarily to go. By keeping Eltham Hill open we have given them the opportunity of choosing whether to stay in Eltham Hill or to go to Kidbrooke.
The other plan would be to force them all to go to Kidbrooke. After all, Kidbrooke will be starting as a test of comprehensive schools, and it would not be a very clear test if we took into that comprehensive school to start with girls who had been educated at a grammar school. The test—and I wish it well, as I shall explain in a few moments—will be to see whether Kidbrooke Comprehensive School can bring about an academic side of the highest possible character with the most academic-minded pupils, but they must build it up from the start.
Mrs. Corbet: How?
Miss Horsbrugh: They must see how it is to be organised right from the time the children come in, from the time the 11-plus children come in from the primary schools.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: What about freedom of the local education authorities?
Miss Horsbrugh: I have often explained at Question time in the House that the local education authorities have their freedoms but there are certain statutory duties laid upon the Minister under the 1944 Act. I have often told hon. Members who have asked me to say this or that to a local education authority, "No, I will leave it to the local education authority." There are duties placed upon the Minister, and making this decision is one of them. I have made the decision. I believe that it was the right decision.
It is in no way an attack on the idea of comprehensive schools. While I have been in office I have approved comprehensive schools. I have approved one which is to be built in blocks so that we can see if the school should be organised in a different way. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said that he did not want to harm the prospects either for Eltham Hill School or of Kidbrooke. I agree with him thoroughly. I want to see both those schools giving the best possible advantages to the girls who are in them,

1639
according to the aptitude and ability of the pupils.
I have already received from the Leader of the London County Council an invitation to visit Kidbrooke, and I accepted it with great pleasure. It would be much better, when these decisions have to be made, if we tried to look at them from the point of view of what is really the best for the education of the children. I did not believe that it was best for the education of the children in Eltham that I should force them, if their parents did not wish it, to go to Kidbrooke school.
An hon. Member spoke of petitions from his constituents against the keeping open of Eltham School, but those constituents wanted Kidbrooke School. It does not harm them if other people send their children to Eltham Hill School, and it will not take any of the benefits from those constituents or from the parents in this area, who will have their comprehensive school and will send their children there. Parents are not being forced to send their children to Eltham Hill School or to Kidbrooke School; they can take their choice.
I wish both schools well. The headmistress at Kidbrooke has taken on a great job and she has all our good wishes. She has a big job. She is going to begin to organise 1,500 children. I wish her well, as I wish well to Eltham Hill Grammar School in the carrying on of its great traditions.

WANDSWORTH PRISON (CONDITIONS)
1.6 p.m.
Mr. Richard Adams: I am glad to have this opportunity of calling attention to conditions in Wandsworth Prison, particularly in view of the incident which occurred there on Wednesday, 26th May, when five prisoners and five prison officers were seriously injured, and a further 16 officers suffered injury.
In view of that incident and in the light of replies given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department last Monday, I thought it was my duty to visit the prison in order to ascertain some of the facts for myself. This I did yester-
1640
day, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates). I should like to thank the Home Secretary for making the necessary arrangements, but that is the only thanks I shall express to him today.
We made an inspection of the prison lasting 3½ which was not long enough, in company with the Governor Mr. William Lawton, and the Director of Establishments Mr. R. D. Fairn. We had an opportunity afterwards of discussing conditions there in company with Mr. Blow, the representative of the officers and the secretary of the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association, and Mr. Lumb, the chairman of the branch. I should like to take this early opportunity of thanking those persons for the help they gave to us and of paying a tribute to the general demeanor of all the staff there in very difficult and trying circumstances.
I was seriously disturbed by my visit and by such examination of the facts as I was able to undertake. I do not think that the general public know the half of what goes on behind the high, grim walls of Wandsworth Prison, and nobody, I imagine, is aware that there have been 12 serious assaults there during the past 12 months, one case of gross violence against an officer and, of course, the latest incidents just over a week ago. I got the impression that all concerned with administration in the prison felt that the situation there was worse than it was six months or 12 months ago.
Let me describe the conditions as I saw them and give such information as I was able to obtain. The prison is 102 years old. It was built in an age when ideas of penal reform were different from today. It is set in a quiet, residential area in the large dormitory borough of Wandsworth. I do not think many people are much interested in what goes on behind the walls. I would say, in passing, that Sir James Patterson, who was himself a Prison Commissioner, said on one occasion that the only thing to do with the prison was to blow it up and start again elsewhere.
This is the receiving prison for most of the County of London. London as the capital city, like all other capital cities throughout the world, tends to attract the dregs of the underworld, the worst types. It is the recidivists, or repeaters as they

1641
are called in America—men who have previously served one prison sentence—who are received into Wandsworth. They are held there with men awaiting transfer to Dartmoor or Parkhurst. I was told that on some occasions there are actually more men held in Wandsworth Prison waiting to go to Dartmoor than the total prison population of Dartmoor itself.
Wandsworth has by far the largest prison population in the country. There is accommodation for 1,116 prisoners, but at present 1,660 are held there. As everybody who is associated with the prison has confirmed, the worst possible types of criminal are among the men serving detention. The position is even further worsened by the fact that aggressive psychopathic cases from many prisons, such as those at Maidstone, Canterbury and Bedford, are sent there for treatment, and very often they are the chief cause of trouble.
In addition, capital punishment is carried out at Wandsworth. I was told that sometimes there are as many as four men in condemned cells, all of which requires extra duties by the prison officers. I ask hon. Members to try to imagine the effect upon the grossly over-crowded prison of the men there knowing that four of their number are held for execution. It is well known that an almost hysterical psychological movement goes round a prison in such circumstances. That is another of the difficulties at the largest prison in the country which contains the worst types of offenders.
Yet, amid all those difficulties, the proportion of prison officers at Wandsworth is lower than the average for prisons throughout the land. Even on the figures given last Monday by the Home Secretary, figures which I shall query later, Wandsworth has fewer officers to look after a greater number of prisoners than any other prison in the country.
I must say that my visit was extremely depressing. One could not pretend that there could be any element of reform in that prison which is over 100 years old and which contains nearly twice as many prisoners as it held before the war. Of course, the prison was clean and tidy. Obviously the Governor was doing his best to cope with a difficult situation.
1642
In fact, if the place were not blitzed from top to bottom every day with plenty of soap and water the conditions would quickly become intolerable. The medical officer of health there told the Select Committee which inquired into prisons in 1952 that the conditions were appalling. He said that the sanitary arrangements alone were completely inadequate.
When he made those statements there was a prison population of 1,420. Now the population is 1,660, and there have been even more than 1,700 prisoners held there at one time. At present, because of the overcrowding, over 640 prisoners sleep three to a cell in cells measuring 13 feet by 7. These were designed to hold one person and they have a cubic capacity of 723 cubic feet. Those cells now have to hold three people though the sanitary arrangements and conveniences such as shelves are designed for only one person.
Because of lack of staff a one-shift system is operated, though before the war the three-shift system was in force. This means that on a weekday prisoners are shut up between five and 5.30 p.m. until 7 a.m. the next day. Again, because of lack of accommodation and staff, only 18 to 23 hours a week are worked, which means that an average of three hours a day is spent at work. On Saturdays and Sundays the prisoners are shut up at 4.30 p.m. until 7 a.m. so that for no less than 14½ hours the alternative before the prisoner is either to spend the time in company with two others in a cell the size of a small box room designed to hold one or to spend it in what amounts to solitary confinement.
The staff come on duty at 7 a.m. and normally work through until 5.30 p.m., but nine of their number carry on until 9 p.m. on evening duty, so that those officers are on the go from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. Four of the nine, in two pairs, are responsible for supervising the issue of cocoa to the whole of the prison population of over 1,600. At 9 p.m., when they go off duty, the prison is handed over to the care of nine elderly watchmen. It was suggested to me that some of them were not even physically fit. In charge of the watchmen there is one orderly officer properly trained in prison discipline.

1643
At weekends this officer is an ordinary basic grade discipline officer, probably earning £8 15s. week. I seriously ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he thinks it right and adequate, from a security point of view, and whether it is fair to the officer concerned that he should have sole charge, on a wage of £8 15s. week, of a prison which is grossly overcrowded and which holds nearly twice as many prisoners as was intended.
I ask hon. Members to consider what would happen if an emergency were to occur at the weekend at two or three in the morning, if there was an outbreak of prisoners, a fire or other difficulty. At such a time a man rated at the lowest rate of pay in the service would, until he could get into touch with the Governor or someone else outside the prison, have to accept sole responsibility.
We visited the workshops which were grossly overcrowded. That is natural enough as there are well over 600 more prisoners than the place was designed to hold. In my opinion only the carpenter's shop contained any modern equipment, and there were 22 prisoners out of the 1,600 working there. The mailbag shop, where the incident occurred last Wednesday week, contained 260 prisoners working in a space which was designed to hold 100 before the war. Because of the type of work, prisoners of the lowest mental type are engaged on mailbags. In this shop, containing two and a half times as many bad types of prisoner as it was intended to contain, there were three discipline officers on duty with six instructors who, of course, were engaged in handing out and supervising the work.
I ask hon. Members to try to imagine the atmosphere there from the point of view of discipline and to consider whether it is fair either to the prisoners or to the officers who are responsible. The prisoners have been locked up in cells for 13½ hours—three tough types—probably complaining—together, or one prisoner has been locked up alone for 13½ hours. They are marched down to a grossly-overcrowded workshop where they are forced to work elbow to elbow. I saw lines of seated prisoners jammed tight against each other. Imagine the effect that must have upon prisoners. Imagine the chances of those three discipline officers maintaining discipline in
1644
that closely confined space if those 260 prisoners cared to make any demonstration. I go so far as to say that the discipline there is only maintained by the good will and co-operation of the prisoners.
In the recent incident two prisoners had been taken to the cells the day before, and half-a-dozen of their friends tried to "take it out" of the officer who had made the report to the Governor. Murder nearly took place then, but what would have happened had the whole 260 prisoners chosen to revolt at the same time? I am sure that before any possible help could have come from outside wholesale murder could have been committed in that shop. As I went round I sensed that the prisoners were in a subdued mood. It is also asking a great deal of the officers responsible for discipline to control prisoners in such circumstances, and it is quite apparent that only a severe code of discipline could maintain order.
I want to refer to the question of staff. Last Monday I asked the Home Secretary what number of officers were at Wandsworth. As a result of my conversations with the Governor and other officers I must say that the Home Secretary's answer was, at any rate, misleading. He said that on 25th May there were 133 discipline officers on the staff at Wandsworth. For the 26th, the day of the outbreak, the Governor could give a total of only 116 discipline officers. That figure was made up of 101 discipline officers, three chief officers, nine principal officers and three attached officers.
Nor were all those at the prison at the time. Twenty-three were on leave or on sick leave 35 were on such fixed duties as attendance at the gate and elsewhere and would not be available for any emergency, and 10 were on a Civil Defence exercise at the time. That leaves only 48 to look after over 1,600 prisoners—and even some of those 48 were probably outside the prison on escort duties of one kind or another.
The Home Secretary also said that at the prison there was a total staff of 210. The Governor could only show me 181 on the strength on the 26th May. He said that he could not account for the others. I think that some explanation is required from the Home Secretary as to why, in regard to a very dangerous and difficult prison, the figures he quoted

1645
were in excess of those which the Governor could give from his log book. All this is in a prison which before the war held 850 to 900 prisoners and had 80 to 100 officers and now has over 1,600 prisoners and 116 discipline officers on the strength. I was shown a letter which revealed that on 7th January last there were only 88 officers on duty.
Over the last two or three years officials of the Prison Officers' Association have continually made representations on these matters to the Prison Commissioners and to the Home Secretary. They have not had satisfaction. The Governor said that he was able to manage, but I received the impression that Mr. Lawton—a man I have known for many years, and a very efficient and loyal Governor—was backing up the Prison Commissioners. As captain of the ship, as it were, he said he was prepared to manage with the staff he had, but a very different view was held by staff representatives.
There is only one answer to the dreadful conditions prevailing in the prison at the moment. The long-term answer, of course, is to break up the prison and make other arrangements, but the short-term answer is to have a three-shift system. The Governor told the Select Committee two years ago that to do that he would need 100 more staff. With that system the prisoners could work longer hours, be usefully employed and have more freedom.
What are the prospects of increased staff? Let me quote some figures I have been given for 1953–54. Twenty thousand five hundred and twenty-six letters of inquiry were received from persons who thought that they might be interested in joining the prison service. Only 6,032 application forms were completed, which shows that those who inquired originally must have been deterred either by the rates of pay or the conditions of service. Of those 6,000-odd, appointments were offered to only 1,062. Only 940 actually joined for training and out of that number trained only 207 finally stayed in the service. In other words, less than 1 per cent. of those originally inquiring finally joined the staff.
In view of the terms of service which I had described to me at Wandsworth Prison that is not surprising. A man is expected to start at £7 2s. 6d. per week, rising by 5s. a week each year to a sum
1646
of £9 9s. per week after 20 years' service. Considering the conditions of full employment prevailing today one can scarcely expect men to join a service which is onerous, difficult and tough, and which tends to isolate him from the general community, for such a return.
Another suggestion made by the Governor was that 5 per cent. of the worst types of prisoners should be moved elsewhere. I am quite sure that he would be happier in that grossly-overcrowded prison if he could be relieved of his worst responsibilities, but no consideration appears to have been given to that suggestion.
What is the truth about the staffing and the overcrowding at Wandsworth Prison? Last month, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), the Home Secretary said:
"I am not satisfied that any further increase is called for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1954; Vol. 528, c. 58.]
As I have already said, the Governor naturally supports that view—I think out of loyalty—but in contrast to it I would like to read to the House a letter sent on 3rd June—yesterday—from the Prison Officers' Association:
"Sir, I have been instructed by my Executive Committee to forward to you a resolution passed at a fully attended meeting of our Wandsworth branch on the evening of the 1st instant. The resolution is as follows:
'This meeting requests that, as a matter of serious urgency, a Commissioner shall attend this Prison to enquire into the staffing situation. It is also felt that the overcrowding at Wandsworth Prison, plus the under-staffing, should be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State by way of a deputation to him and that such a deputation should include two members of the Wandsworth Staff.'
A copy of this letter has today been delivered to the Prison Commission.
Yours faithfully,
H. CRONIN.
(General Secretary)."
Where does the truth lie? Who is right? The Home Secretary is satisfied that with a staff of 116 discipline officers no further increase is needed, yet the men actually engaged in looking after the discipline, at their meeting held on the Wednesday before the incident were talking about asking to be allowed to use tear gas to deal with prisoners in the event of

1647
an outbreak. As I said before, during the last 12 months there have been more assaults than in the previous two or three years. There was an act of gross violence last year against an officer named Newman, who was also injured on the last occasion.
Mr. Blow, the representative officer, has protested at every annual conference for the last three years against the conditions of service and the other appalling conditions there. What has been done? In my view, the Home Secretary is personally to blame for what happened last week and is personally to blame for the lack of attention given to the prison service throughout the country.
Wandsworth Prison is the largest prison in the country, and it has some of the most serious problems with which to contend. It is four miles from Whitehall. The Home Secretary has been in office for more than two and a half years, but he has never once visited the prison. This incident happened just over a week ago, and yet he has not been near the place.
As we all know, there is, in addition, dissatisfaction in the Civil Defence Service. There is the business which is going on at Coventry at the present time. All is not well with recruiting for Civil Defence. There is trouble with the fire brigade at Glamorgan, and there is trouble elsewhere. There is serious trouble in regard to the depletion of the police force through lack of recruitment.
All these things, including the prison service, are the direct responsibility of the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not even here today. One would be interested to know just where he is. While this trouble was occurring at Wandsworth, he was sitting on the Government Front Bench defending commercial television. We all know that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The Home Secretary is apparently satisfied to sit twiddling a knob of a television set while all this trouble is occurring in the services for which he is directly responsible.
There is a slogan in the Tory Party, "If there is any trouble, send for Maxwell! Give him a brief, and, as a good lawyer, he will get us out of trouble!" The right hon. and learned Gentleman is continually sitting on the
1648
Government Front Bench doing jobs which are not his responsibility as Home Secretary. There is only one thing for him to do, and that is to tell the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet that either he must be given enough time to get on with his own job or else he will resign.
There have been two debates on this subject in the past two years. There is not time to cover that ground now, but I would just point out that in the debate on 2nd March, 1953, the Home Secretary said that the problem of overcrowding in prisons could not be solved by new permanent building. He added:
"We must take other steps."
What other steps has he taken? In the same debate he said:
"… we shall strain every nerve to relieve the congestion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 130–8.]
Yet there are probably more prisoners in Wandsworth Prison today than when the right hon. and learned Gentleman uttered those words.
In the debate on 5th February this year the Joint Under-Secretary himself said that the Government:
"… will not regard the matter with complacency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 771.]
On 29th May, 1952, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton tackled the Home Secretary on the question of under-staffing and overcrowding at Wandsworth Prison, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"… I am taking up with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a matter of urgency the provision of staffs in the prisons adequate to the present situation."ߞ[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 1635.]
Since then, a theoretical five have been added to the staff and more than 200 prisoners have been added to the prison complement.
In those two debates seven separate solutions were suggested by hon. Members who have studied the subject and have some knowledge of what is required in our prisons, including Wandsworth. There is not time to list them now, but the Joint Under-Secretary ought to know the seven solutions, all of which were reasonable, sensible, and adequate to the purpose of helping to relieve congestion. It is up to the Joint Under-Secretary to

1649
say what he and the Minister have been doing about the matter.
In addition to the seven solutions suggested by hon. Members, the Governor of the prison has made two suggestions, namely that the worst types should be removed to another security prison, having regard to the difficult situation at Wandsworth, and that psychopathic cases should not be sent to Wandsworth.
Speaking at one of his annual conferences, Mr. Blow said that at Wandsworth they were sitting on top of a volcano. Having examined the facts, the incident last week seems to me to have been just a tiny blow-off. If the whole of the Vesuvius were to go into eruption, it would be catastrophic. That is the situation at Wandsworth. The Home Secretary should get down to the task of solving some of these problems, at any rate those which do not require large sums of money to be spent at the present time.
I have said that last year there were 20,000 people who were willing to serve in the prison service, but, finally, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recruited only 207. Unless something is done, there will be further serious troubles, if not at Wandsworth at least at some other local prison which may be equally overcrowded. I say to the Home Secretary—I am sorry that he is not here today; I gave notice last night that I should make these remarks—that he should either get down to the job or resign.
1.36 p.m.
Mr. Victor Yates: My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams) has raised a very grave matter. In doing so, he renders a great service not only to prisoners and prison officers, but also to the whole community. I agree with him that it is most unfortunate that the Home Secretary himself is not here today. I cannot think of any incident which has occurred in connection with prisons during the last 20 years which is of greater importance than the one we are discussing today.
Generally speaking, I agree with the impressions which my hon. Friend has conveyed to the House. It was remarkable that yesterday we had absolutely clear and unmistakable evidence that the
1650
prison officers themselves have placed before the Governor and the Prison Commissioners their views about this situation. This was not something that happened a few months ago. Mr. Blow himself said that the prison officers had been expecting the situation to arise for the past three years. That is very serious.
The prison officers have given warnings in their own magazine. In a previous speech in the House, I referred to the prison officers' magazine of September, 1952, in which this statement appeared:
"Have we to wait until something so serious occurs inside one of our prisons that the public is aroused from its indifference and clamours for something to be done?"
The magazine also contained this statement:
"We have no wish to be alarmists. What we do emphatically assert, however, is that in the present state of the prison service the ingredients for transforming an ordinary situation into one which contains danger to life, limb and property are disturbingly near to hand."
That was in September, 1952.
The Select Committee on Estimates, with which I have the honour to be associated, presented a Report, and the Home Secretary had a very clear indication of what the Select Committee thought after visiting prisons and observing the very serious conditions operating in them.
I had been to Wandsworth Prison before my visit yesterday. As never before, when I passed through the gates of Wandsworth Prison yesterday I realised that it was a dark, dreary, comfortless abode of wretchedness, built, as my hon. Friend said, more than 100 years ago, a relic of the days of bitter punishment. Coming outside again, I looked at the gaol and saw that it was nothing more or less than a symbol of terrifying isolation. There is no possibility of any constructive programme. I agree that Mr. Lawton, the Governor, is trying to do his best, according to his lights, but I am not sure that his lights are too good. I think they are rather dim.
The job of a prison officer is absolutely impossible and almost intolerable. He is expected not only to guard the prisoners, but to guide and counsel them, which is quite impossible in present circumstances. It was obvious to us as we went round the prison that the officers are unhappy because they cannot really do their jobs.

1651
If we want to reform prisoners we have to reach their hearts, but how can we do so with these impossible buildings and intolerable conditions?
This prison is a relic of the old conception. In the old days, prisoners suffered a different kind of punishment, but they never had to tolerate the over-crowded conditions of the present prisoners at Wandsworth. There are 647 prisoners sleeping three in a cell. Yesterday, I stood with my hon. Friend on a landing, on both sides of which were cells, numbering 69, and for which there were only two lavatories. That is a most disgraceful and shocking state of affairs. On the side of the landing where I stood there were 20 cells which had three men in each, and I do not know how many there were on the other side.
The majority of the 1,674 men who are there at the moment are locked up for 14 hours a day. There is no possibility of their getting out. Even the patrolmen could not unlock the doors. If a man were suffering seriously from diarrhoea he could not get out. Prison officers say that conditions in that prison in the morning, when slopping out takes place, are absolutely shocking, and impossible for the public to conceive. I am told that the stench in the morning is almost unbearable.
What could be worse than for new officers to encounter such conditions? What could be more calculated to turn them away? In these cells, which were built for one prisoner but now contain three, there are tiny shutters of glass. A prisoner not only enters Wandsworth with a grievance against society because he has lost his freedom, but is placed in conditions which are a danger to his health, apart from their effect upon his mental condition.
Is it not obvious that the men are experiencing a torture which did not occur in former days? The prisoners are allowed out of their cells after having been in for 14 hours each weekday and 15 hours on Saturdays and Sundays. At weekends there ought to be some kind of recreation, but for these men there is nothing at all. The only form of recreation they are allowed is one hour's walk round the grounds—half an hour in the morning and half an hour in the afternoon. That is the only time in which
1652
they are allowed to talk about anything they want to.
In the workshops the men work elbow to elbow. That applies not only to Wandsworth Prison but to other local prisons; similar conditions operated quite recently in Birmingham. I should like the Minister to confirm how many men are working on mailbags. I should say that they number anything between 500 and 600. In the shop where the difficulty occurred men were compelled to work with their elbows bumping into each other. Prison officers say quite frankly that even the prisoners themselves quarrel because of this crowding. On top of that, they are allowed to talk only about their work.
I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to ask the Home Secretary to visit the workshops at Wandsworth. I want to give the House my impression of them. I went there in what may have been a period of calm after the storm, but even so there was something about the atmosphere which frightened me. It was an atmosphere of fear. I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that that was obvious when we entered the workshop, where the men were working but not talking. The Governor may say that prisoners are allowed to talk about their work, but he is bound by the Standing Orders of the Prison Commissioners.
I can appreciate the point of view of prison officers who say, as they said to us, that if we allow men to talk while they are working in these conditions there will be bedlam. That is because there are not sufficient officers to look after the men. In my view the prison officers have been conservative in their estimate of their requirements, and the prison Governor is far behind in his estimate of the number required to man this prison. From casual talks to the prisoners and staff I discovered that one of the deep-seated grievances of the men is the fact that they are locked up for so many hours and a silence is imposed upon them when they are let out into the workshops, unless their talk is strictly related to their work.
The Home Secretary and the Prison Commissioners should give serious consideration to abolishing what seems to me to be unintelligent disciplinary measures. We must seek to provide a community existence for these people. I cannot help

1653
but express my appreciation at the way in which prison officers try to do their work. I saw one of those who were in charge of the store which was barricaded. He had a cut on his face. I can appreciate his anxiety about what ought to be done.
It is natural for a prison officer to feel that the prisoners are in the wrong and ought never to be allowed to do this or that. Because of the strict rules, prisoners take it out of the officers for every grievance they feel. Not only was I aware of the intense silence in the workshops, but I saw the worried looks on the faces of the prison officers. These men have to do a job which originally they were not expected to do. They were not expected to guard and guide men in such conditions.
Under those hazards, the ordinary prison officer is paid £7 2s. 6d. a week. These men are grossly underpaid. If we want a good prison service we must pay for the job, and the worse the conditions imposed the heavier the price we shall have to pay. That is what the Select Committee felt when it considered the matter. There were arguments about whether the prison officer's job is as important and onerous as that of a policeman. At present, in the conditions under which they are working, I think it ranks even higher.
It is true that discipline is maintained, but I say that it is enforced. The good will of the prisoner has gone and something must be done to restore it. If we are to start to rule by methods of force, it will be a sad day for us.
The most grave impression which I have about this prison is that the inmates are being trained to become worse criminals because of the conditions. They are almost graduating in these conditions to become even worse criminals. It is not bars and that kind of treatment which is required today. The men must be guarded and guided and counselled by brains. That is what is needed today.
The Home Secretary's immediate duty is to remove the tension which obviously exists between the prison officer and the prisoner as a result of these most unfortunate conditions. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying, "I am doing all that I can." Something more must be done at once. We must
1654
find a way to reduce the number of prisoners and to increase the staff, and we must remove the volcano. Every prison officer today is sitting on a volcano, and there is no safety valve. It is the Home Secretary's duty, in face of the warning which has been given, to provide the safety valve.
The Governor told me that every prisoner had access to him and that each day he interviews perhaps 70 men who complain to him. He is spending a lot of time doing that. It seems to me that he needs some means whereby the feeling which exists inside the workshop can be made known to him. We need an intelligent plan to remove the deep-seated grievances of those prisoners and officers.
1.54 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): No one will complain that this subject has been raised today, for it is a matter which has attracted a good deal of public attention, and I am grateful for the opportunity of saying something about it. I must say, however, that some of the words of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams) were unfortunate. I do not think the situation will be improved through this question being discussed in a controversial and almost political manner, and I do not think it will do any good to make abusive remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member said that the Home Secretary had misled the House. I do not want to follow him in all the things he said, but perhaps I may do so in one particular. The hon. Member referred to the figure of 207 as being the number of successful recruits last year. In fact, that is the net increase in the number of recruits, so that the figure proves precisely the opposite to that which he suggested.
Mr. Adams: I said precisely what the hon. Member has said—the net increase, the number remaining on the staff, was 207.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member did not give that impression. His remarks were definitely misleading, and when he accuses my right hon. and learned Friend of misleading the House.

1655
I can well leave it to hon. Members to judge between him and the Home Secretary.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: It is more dangerous when the Home Secretary misleads.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is impossible to be complacent about conditions in Wandsworth Prison, and it is right that I should try to set before the House the basic facts of the situation. On 2nd June there were 1,116 cells and 1,615 prisoners. That involved 647 prisoners being three in a cell—a state of affairs which no one would regard as other than deplorable. The figures show that Wandsworth is unique in size among our prisons. Except for the 80 prisoners in the corrective training allocation centre, all the prisoners are men with previous criminal records. There are no star prisoners.
Every kind of sentence is being served there. There are some short-term "ordinaries," as they are called; there are some long-term prisoners waiting to go to Dartmoor; and there are some preventive detention prisoners undergoing the first stage of their sentence. This is the peculiar difficulty of all local prisons, but it reaches its extreme at Wandsworth on account of the great numbers there. The variety in the length of sentence itself presents difficulties—for instance, administrative difficulties in arranging work for the prisoners to do. It is extremely unsettling to those who have longer sentences that there should be a constant coming and going of those who are there for only a short time.
Moreover, the conditions in Wandsworth are peculiarly favourable to the existence of gangs. The prisoners are all recidivists. They are drawn from the densely-populated area of South London and the size of the prison and the number of prisoners is very great. It follows that at any time there are a considerable number of regular prisoners who have known each other outside the prison, and they will naturally tend to form gangs within the prison. That makes maintenance of discipline in the prison difficult, and these gangs are apt to resent action being taken against any of their number by a member of the disciplinary staff or, indeed, anything of the same kind by other prisoners. Of
1656
course, the great overcrowding in Wandsworth facilitates the activities of these gangs. It helps communication to take place, and makes it more difficult to split them up. Indeed, the general overcrowding in prisons throughout the country leads to that result.
Mr. W. R. Williams: I was in Wandsworth, I think in 1949, when the conditions were very bad indeed. Would the hon. Gentleman say what has been done since then to relieve the congestion?
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was dealing with the numbers of prisoners and the immediate circumstances there, and I have much more to say. I want now to say a word about the workshops. There is a great variety of workshops in the prison:—the tailor's shop with 148 prisoners; the carpenter's shop, with 20; the tailoring repairs shop with 155; the brush shop with 80; the mailbag, shoe and sack shop with 263; the pouch shop with 142; and the second clog and mailbag shop with 143. Besides those shops there are the kitchen, laundry, library, stores, works, and so on.
The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) very fairly commented on the large proportion of work being done in the mailbag shop, and there has been adverse comment upon it outside. I would point out that in Wandsworth there is a special need for an industry that has three qualities. In the first place, it must provide continuous work; in the second place, the work must be easily taught and supervised; and thirdly it must not require a high standard of intelligence or dexterity. That is because of the kind of population within the prison and because many of the prisoners there are serving relatively short sentences.
The only industry that caters for these needs is that carried on in the mailbag shop. I do not say that it is ideal. No one could say it is ideal. I was in the shop myself this morning, so I can provide more recent first-hand evidence than the two hon. Members. On the other hand, I think they will agree that it is at any rate better than idleness, and no one so far has suggested any alternative.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central will agree that the area of the prison is one that presents

1657
peculiar difficulties, because it is impossible to expand the prison as it is situated. If we were to do any other building we could do it only by taking ground urgently needed for other purposes such as exercise. That is a peculiar difficulty we are up against there.
Mr. W. R. Williams: We want a new building altogether.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: A new building altogether would have to be large enough to house a very large number of prisoners. We are, of course, going ahead with the new building programme. We debated that subject in the House recently, and it is outside the bounds of this debate. I agree that the ultimate solution is the provision of accommodation elsewhere, but accepting the position at Wandsworth as it is, that is the peculiar difficulty that we are up against. There is very great overcrowding and there is no easy solution. We cannot overflow elsewhere, because it is not only Wandsworth that is overcrowded. Manchester, Liverpool, Durham and the other local prisons are, too.
I can assure the hon. Member who suggested that psychopathic cases are sent to Wandsworth for treatment that that is not so. They are returned there only in the event of their being found not suitable for treatment in other prisons.
Mr. Adams: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State saying then that the chief medical officer who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Estimates was not saying the right thing?
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have not the advantage of having before me now any statement by that officer. If the hon. Member will draw my attention to any particular point I will certainly look into it and let him know about it. Personally, I think that the situation in Wandsworth is a tribute to all concerned, to the Governor and to his staff. The number of incidents there is small, and when incidents have occurred there has been very quick control indeed.
Mr. Adams: The hon. Gentleman has doubted my word on more than one matter, and so I must draw his attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, of which I have a copy here. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 60.
1658
The Principal Medical Officer was asked if he could not be relieved of some of the worst cases, and he replied;
"We might, but, unfortunately, we have got to stick to our worst people; nobody else will have them. They send them from other prisons on that account. We get the roughnecks from Winchester, Bedford, Maidstone and Canterbury. They are sent here because there is a full-time psychiatric opinion here."
Either that is true or it is not. All the facts I have quoted today have been based on information of this kind from reliable people, and I strongly resent the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate that the hon. Member resents my remarks, but I am advised that psychopaths are sent to Wandsworth only for treatment as recalcitrants when they are unable to profit by the training provided elsewhere.
Mr. Adams: Is not that exactly the same thing? It is the same thing.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Those are the circumstances in which they are sent back.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How many psychopathic cases are there now?
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper I will give him an answer.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The hon. Gentleman does not know. He is answering a debate and does not know.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I come now to the staff. Those who were directly affected by the recent incident I shall come to later. First, may I say something about what is called the complement of staff. The complement means the establishment laid down of those who may be taken on the staff. The complement at Wandsworth is the Governor and three Assistant Governors; 137 officers of all ranks on the disciplinary staff. including 120 of the basic grade of disciplinary officer; and 67 specialist officers, who of course, have also had disciplinary training.
At present, all but three of the disciplinary staff are in post. There was a recent increase—I think it took effect in March—of six, that is to say, five of the basic grade and one senior officer. I do not remember his grade offhand. Of that increase, three have been made good, and the remaining three will be

1659
made good shortly, no doubt. All but two of the specialist staff—both hospital staff—are in post. The shortage is on account of the recent increase in the complement.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: According to the Home Secretary last Monday, there are 77 specialists in post.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have the figure of 67.
Mr. Adams: Which is right?
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will have the matter checked, and let the hon. Member know. There is a good deal of arithmetic here. The figure I have here is 67. In addition to the officers I have mentioned, there are 16 officers under instruction.
The first question that arises is whether there is an adequate complement. It has recently been reviewed and increased, as I have said. I should say that whenever the staff is reviewed the Prison Officers' Association is consulted. In fact, at the recent review, I am informed, the Prison Officers' Association asked for 125 officers of the basic grade, as compared with the 120 which was allowed and 115 which had been the previous complement. There is not a very great deal, therefore, in the figures. The Commissioners judged the figure of 120 to be adequate, and I can tell the House that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees with the Commissioners that that is so.
The point has been made that the ratio of officers to prisoners is 1 in 12 in the case of Wandsworth, as compared with 1 in 8 in all single-shift prisons in the country. The reason for the difference is, of course, the size of Wandsworth Prison. It must be remembered that the duties of these officers are manifold—here are landing officers, officers required for the supervision of labour, as instructors, for manning fixed posts such as the gate, and for reception. It will clearly be seen that in a very large prison there is considerable economy because we do not require more men to man the fixed posts in a large prison than we do in a small one; there is, naturally, a considerable economy.
In the case of Wandsworth, there is very little need for escort duty, whereas
1660
in the majority of the smaller prisons there is a very heavy demand on officers for that duty. I can tell the House that the arrangement is such that there are 24 officers who are immediately available at any time and at any point within the prison, without prejudicing in any way the duties which are being carried on by officers elsewhere in the prison.
Mr. Adams: As a result of my visit yesterday, I strongly dispute any such figure.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is the figure I was given. I asked the Governor this morning, and I understand that that figure is correct.
The hon. Member for Ladywood referred to the pay of officers. This is a matter which is dealt with by the Whitley Council machinery, and I think it best that it should be so dealt with and not by argument here. I do not think that this is a matter which we should argue across the Floor of the House until, at any rate, that machinery has shown itself inadequate for the purpose.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it to be assumed from what the Minister is saying that there is agreement on the Whitley Council about the standards of pay of prison officers?
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not saying that there is agreement or disagreement. I am saying that the Whitley Council machinery is there. I understand that it is working perfectly smoothly and, therefore, I do not think it would be desirable to discuss questions of pay across the Floor of the House. I agree that the hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to do so, but I think the House will be with me on such a question as this.
The resolution to which the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central referred—from the Wandsworth Branch of the Prison Officers' Association—came in yesterday. It has been in my right hon. and learned Friend's hands for less than 24 hours, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is receiving most urgent attention, but I cannot give him an answer to that point in so short a time.
I should like to say a word about understaffing generally. The complement allows for a certain proportion of

1661
absentees at any given time. At Wandsworth, the complement of officers of the basic grade is 120 and that allows for 35 being non-available at any given time owing to leave, sickness, and so on. I have the figure for 2nd June, which shows 27 as not available but, in fact, there were six who had been detached from duty elsewhere, so that the actual deficiency was 21. That is 14 better than that allowed for on the complement. I think that the figures which were referred to by the hon. Member will show that there was no deficiency on the date of the incident.
As regards the introduction of the three-shift system, I can tell the House that this has already been done in central prisons, except Dartmoor, and in the regional and corrective training prisons and Young Prisoners' Centre. Its establishment in Dartmoor and six other prisons is in the programme for the current year.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Not Wandsworth?
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Every effort will be made to go ahead with this as quickly as possible. Obviously, this is not a policy which can be implemented very quickly.
Mr. Yates: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there was no deficiency in staff on the day of the incident? Surely that is contrary to all the facts.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I said that the complement allows for 35 being away, so on the day in question, taking that into account, there was not a deficiency.
I should now like to say a word about the recent disturbance. My right hon. and learned Friend has answered Questions in the House on this subject recently and, as the House knows, proceedings are being taken against certain of the prisoners who were involved. The matter is, therefore, so far as they are concerned, sub judice and it would be quite improper for me to say anything which might prejudge the issue, or which might even appear to do so. I can, however, say that at no time during the incident was there any general threat to discipline and good order in the prison. The
1662
remainder of the prison remained perfectly quiet.
There are two workshops contiguous to the workshop in which the incident occurred, and they both continued to work as if nothing untoward was happening throughout the whole period. In the workshop itself there were 260 men, who had available dangerous weapons such as hammers, knives and marlin spikes, which, no doubt, the hon. Members saw on their visit. Two hundred and fifty of the men made no attempt to use these weapons in spite of what was going on and notwithstanding that they had them readily available to hand. On the contrary, they left the workshop in orderly fashion.
Twenty-one officers were injured, 10 of them so as to need to be sent to hospital for treatment. Four more officers were injured in the incidents which took place subsequently. These four and 11 of the 21 are now back at duty. The injuries consisted of cuts, bruises and lacerations. No bones were broken. In one case there was doubt as to whether an officer had not sustained a fractured skull, but I am assured there is no question that he has not done so. I am sure the House would wish me to pay tribute to the courage and skill with which the officers dealt with a very nasty situation.
I may be asked how prisoners can organise attacks of this kind. The opportunities are freely available in a prison such as Wandsworth. Association, periods of exercise and periods when men are three in a cell all provide opportunity for planning this kind of thing. I think the House would agree that it is unthinkable that we should even contemplate abolishing association or exercise; and as regards having men three in a cell, unfortunately, in the meantime, it is impossible for us to abolish that. The Commissioners are satisfied that discipline at Wandsworth is firm but fair. That certainly accords with my own view, having been there not only today, but having paid an extended visit a month or two ago.
I should like to read a passage from the report of the Visiting Committee:
"The Committee notes that the standard of discipline in the prison has been maintained at a very high level despite the high population and overcrowding. Although the number of serious offences committed has

1663
risen, the members of the Committee find it remarkable that of an average population of 1,686 there have been in a whole year only 71 cases of offences serious enough to be reported to them. Having in mind the difficult types of prisoners at Wandsworth and the fact that they are all recidivists we feel that this reflects great credit upon the Governor and his staff. The standard of security at Wandsworth is in our opinion excellent. While there were 11 cases of prisoners making attempts to escape from the prison during 1953, no prisoner has succeeded in doing so for some four years."
That is a fine tribute to those who are working at the prison and indicates that in spite of incidents such as that which occurred, the general level of discipline is sound.
The 71 cases of offences last year, involving 78 prisoners, included one case of gross personal violence against an officer. There were 18 such cases in all the prisons of the country. The figure of 71 included also 18 cases of assault or attempted assault on officers, and nine cases of assault on prisoners.
I have exceeded the time allotted to me but I have tried to deal with the numerous points which were raised and to give a picture of the position in Wandsworth. It is certainly not a position which anyone would regard with complacency. I assure the House that the Government do not do that. It is our intention to do our utmost to improve the situation in the ways I have indicated. In the meantime, I think it is right that we should indicate from the House that those on the spot—the Governor and his staff—are doing a good job of work and that we feel confidence in them.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary, in view of the great divergency of opinion as to the facts, to consider the appointment of an independent inquiry into conditions at Wandsworth? It looks very much as if nothing is being done and that there may be a repetition. Let us have an independent inquiry into the conditions in Wandsworth. Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will always consider anything.

BUGANDA (STATE OF EMERGENCY)
2.25 p.m.
Mr. John Dugdale:I want to raise now the question of the declaration of a state of emergency in the province of Buganda. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) handed over the government of the Colonies to the present Secretary of State, he handed over the vast majority of them in a peaceful state. Not the least peaceful was the province of Buganda.
In Uganda there was a notable contrast to the conditions in Kenya. I was in East Africa during that time, and I went across the border from one place to the other. I noticed at once the difference in atmosphere. There was no atmosphere, as there was in Kenya, of frustration and, in many cases, hatred and bitterness. There was instead an atmosphere of friendliness, an atmosphere of a people who seemed to be basically contented. But in a very short time the Secretary of State managed so to stir up feeling as to make it necessary, according to him, to exile the ruler of the province of Buganda.
I do not intend to enter into a controversy as to the rightness or wrongness of the exile of the Kabaka. I intend to confine myself today to the present state of emergency. I would only say about the Kabaka's exile that the justification for it, so we understood at the time, was that it would re-establish peace.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies said on 2nd December, 1953:
"We have — been moved by one guiding principle, that of our desire to secure the continued advancement of all the peoples of the Protectorate, including, not least, the people of Buganda itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 1252.]
That was the aim of the Secretary of State. That was why he took the action he did. That was why he sent the Kabaka out of the country.
The result is that instead there is a state of emergency, a state of emergency which, according to Mr. Speaker, when he gave his Ruling on Tuesday, is not a new matter so as to bring it within the Standing Order on the ground of emergency.
"We have had it before"—

1665
said Mr. Speaker—
"and I do not find that it comes within the Standing Order."
In other words, since the right hon. Gentleman assumed power, a state of emergency in Buganda has become, apparently, a fairly normal occurrence. That does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory state of affairs.
Let us examine the Secretary of State's case so far as we have heard it. I hope that we shall hear more this afternoon from the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. I hope we shall hear, at any rate, an attempt to justify what seems the most extraordinary action to have been taken, because the Secretary of State certainly has not justified it in his statement.
The Secretary of State told the House that:
"This step has been taken because an attempted trade boycott is now being intensified by threats and intimidation to the public in Buganda."
People were being told to boycott the buying
"of everything but 'bare necessities'."
The right hon. Gentleman said that the boycott started fairly peaceably but that people
"have been forcibly prevented from selling and buying goods. … Intimidation has greatly increased, and criminal elements have been taking advantage of the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1954; Vol. 528, c. 1090–4.]
Criminal elements everywhere take advantage of difficult situations. That is not a reason for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a state of emergency. We should like to know considerably more about what has been done of a criminal nature.
We on this side take the view that a peaceful boycott of businesses is a perfectly legitimate weapon to use. We want to know categorically from the Minister of State whether he holds that view, because on Tuesday the Secretary of State refused to answer the question when it was addressed to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly.
Is the boycott a general boycott? I understand that it is directed in particular at certain businesses those owned and controlled by the gentleman who is, I think, the Leader of the Europeans in
1666
the Legislative Assembly—Mr. Bird. Mr. Bird has a very profitable business in beer, and he has a small sideline in bicycles. It has been decided by some people in Uganda that they will not buy Mr. Bird's beer or bicycles, and I want to know to what extent this fact has made the Secretary of State determine that it is necessary to prevent a boycott. Is he concerned at Mr. Bird's loss of trade or the attack made upon him by way of a peaceful boycott of his goods?
The Secretary of State has given us what at first sight would seem a very powerful reason in favour of the action he has taken. He said in the House on Tuesday:
"The measures which the Government of Uganda have decided to take have the unanimous support of the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, both Africans and others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1954; Vol. 528, c. 1090.]
If that is true, that is certainly a matter of very great significance, but I want to question the Minister on that. Is it not a fact that the members of the Legislative Council are selected and not elected? I understand that they are nominated by the Governor. It is not unnatural, therefore, that they should support any action of the Government. and their support cannot be taken as a guarantee that the people of the provinces are in agreement with that action.
I understand also—and here I am open to correction—that the members called cross-bench members, which is an interesting experiment the Governor has introduced, are nominated members, and on important questions necessitating what we in this House call a three-line Whip. they have to vote with the Government. If that is so, I suppose the imposing of Emergency Regulations in Uganda would be the kind of thing for which a three-line Whip would he necessary if one were issued at all.
Since then we have heard—and this has come to light only this morning—that there has been the dismissal of some eight chiefs. Some of them were important chiefs, some of them less important, but their dismissal shows that the action the Government have taken is not finished but is being pursued still further in the dismissal of people who have been appointed chiefs of their own provinces and districts.

1667
I should like to put one or two further questions to the Minister. We know that Professor Hancock is due to go shortly to Uganda to report on the future constitution of the country. We hope his visit will not be postponed by the Emergency Regulations; that, in fact, he will be able to carry on his investigations in exactly the same way as it was intended that he should, and we should like an assurance from the Minister on that point. I hope the Minister will also re-affirm the Government's policy, which they have stated before, that they have no intention of forcing the people of Buganda to change their Kabaka. It may be that the Kabaka has been exiled and is not living in the country, but it is for the people of Buganda themselves to decide any change of Kabaka. We think it would be wrong to force such a position upon them, and I understand that the Secretary of State takes that view. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is the case.
There is a particular reason why I put this question to the Minister. Recently a Press statement was issued by Mr. E. M. K. Mulira, a representative of the Buganda Lukiko, which, I understand, was not very much used by the Press, although the intention was that it should receive full publicity in this country. The statement includes these paragraphs:
"The work of the British Resident Commissioner in Buganda is to advise the Kabaka of Buganda and his ministers on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The present Resident, Mr. Birch, however, instead of advising appears to be intent on undermining our native custom and the authority of the Great Lukiko. After the Lukiko passed a resolution refusing to elect a new Kabaka, the Resident has tried to go direct to members of the Lukiko and persuade them to go back on their resolution. He has also backed elements in the country who are endeavouring to go against the wishes and decisions of the Lukiko in this matter.
We protest very strongly against such a policy which aims at dividing our people into two rival factions."
I should like to know whether it is the Minister's view that it is right for the Resident deliberately to try and persuade the people of Buganda to go back on a decision and to alter what their Lukiko has already decided to do.
I should also like to ask the Minister for some enlightenment about the position of the Under-Secretary of State, the
1668
Earl of Munster. I find it difficult to understand what his position is. It is reported in "The Times" that he was going to accompany the Governor on a visit to the northern part of Uganda. On the other hand, I am informed elsewhere that he is only stopping off for a moment or two on his way to Mauritius. It seems rather peculiar that at the moment when the Secretary of State declares a state of emergency the Under-Secretary should be in the district, half officially and half unofficially, and that nobody seems to know what he is doing. May we have some information about the presence of the Under-Secretary in Uganda during the declaration of the state of emergency?
This is a tragedy for Uganda. Whatever else may be said about it, it is something which nobody on either side of this House would have wished to happen. The Secretary of State may say that it was forced upon him, and we may say he forced it upon the country, but in either case it is a tragedy. Not long ago Her Majesty the Queen opened the great new dam at Owen Falls and it was hoped—indeed, it is still hoped—that there will be great developments in Uganda which will transform that country into one of the most prosperous in Africa. We do not want this hope of economic development to be bedevilled by political considerations, and we hope that that will not be the case.
But that it not all. We are concerned not only with the question of Uganda, but with the effect that this step will have on every Colony in the British Empire. We cannot take action like this without it having an effect upon other territories. The constant suppression of democratic government cannot be conducive to a feeling of good will towards democracy. Today democracy is on trial in many Colonies. It is a new experiment. It is something which the people of many Colonies think they might like to take up and try. There are many people outside the Colonies, and, in particular, on the other side of the Iron Curtain, who would only be too ready to persuade them against undertaking this great experiment in democracy.
If we are to persuade them to go on with democracy because it is the best system of government, then we in this country must show that we have faith

1669
in it. We hope in this case that the Secretary of State will demonstrate it at the earliest possible moment by removing the Emergency Regulations which in the province of Buganda have put a temporary end to democracy. We hope the emergency will soon be ended so that democracy may once again flourish, and the people of Uganda may go forward to that state of prosperity, happiness and contentment which we all desire.
2.40 p.m.
Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I am sure that the House was touched by the tribute the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) paid to his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths) and to his tenure of office as Secretary of State for the Colonies. He said that when his right hon. Friend left office he had left the Colonial Empire in perfect peace and had handed it over to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State in that condition. Of course there was perfect peace in Malaya—
Mr. Dugdale: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment, I did not say that. I said that, generally speaking, there was peace in most territories. Of course there was not peace in Malaya, and I would not say anything as stupid as that.
Mr. Alport: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman admits it. As far as I know, there was perfect peace in Uganda but a few years before, in 1949, under the administration not of the right hon. Gentleman but of the previous Secretary of State, there had not been perfect peace. In fact, there had been serious riots. Those riots led to the creation of a state of emergency and, as a result, nine Africans were shot and 1.000 were arrested.
That was the result of the failure of the previous Government to take the action which has been taken by the present Governor of Uganda, with the consent of my right hon. Friend, to forestall similar happenings now. It is hard that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the other side of the House should condemn an act of policy designed to prevent the situation from deteriorating until it would be necessary for us to
1670
take the steps which they took in the circumstances of 1949.
I think 1 should begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) upon obtaining in the shape of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich another notable recruit to his group of experts on colonial policy. We on this side of the House will watch with great interest the progress of the right hon. Gentleman in his new position. I would tell him, however, that he has a long way to go before he will fulfil the exacting requirements in eloquence and misrepresentation which are so essential if he is to perform his functions as a spokesman of that group in this House.
At present he fails to get that subtle break in his voice which is so necessary when he refers to the brutalities of my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary. What is more, he had some of his facts right, and it is well known that this is unnecessary when arguing in this House from below the Gangway the case against the Government and their colonial policy. There is, for instance, the classic example of the article in the "Tribune" which came from the pen of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough on British Guiana. In that article the hon. Gentleman said that the Government had sent 5,000 troops to preserve law and order at a time when a company of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, the band, and the Regimental goat, had arrived in the territory.
However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may progress, and one of these days he may be made an honorary vice-president of the Uganda National Congress and thereby emulate the lead given to him by others of his hon. and right hon. Friends on that side of the House. If he wants some tips on how to undermine the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and how to do his best to encourage certain elements in Colonial Territories in their subversion and intimidation of law-abiding citizens, I would recommend him to study the various questions raised in this House at the time of the emergency in Uganda in 1949.
If the right hon. Gentleman does that, he will see that those questions were raised exclusively by two distinguished Members of Parliament, Mr. Piratin and Mr. Gallagher. One of his predecessors

1671
as Under-Secretary, now the noble Lord Ogmore, refused to make any statement. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, unless he allows his imagination to take full control of his integrity, he will never get the coverage in the colonial vernacular Press which is so essential to that group below the Gangway, nor will he get honorary mention in "Pravda" or "Izvestia."
Mrs. Eirene White: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be sitting below the Gangway and certain aspersions are being made in general terms about those of us who are sitting here—
Mr. Alport: The hon. Lady, whose point of view I respect, knows as well as I do that I am not referring to her. Those "who sit below the Gangway" are all too well known, and the comprehensive designation is well known in this House and in the country generally.
What really is the issue at the present moment? The right hon. Gentleman talked about democracy in Uganda. I was in Uganda for a short time about two or three months ago, and I spoke with the present Senior Regent, Mr. Paulo Kavauma. He was receiving constant threats by letter and in other ways against himself and his family. He was one of those who were in responsible positions in the Protectorate, who was being pressed by the elements responsible for the creation of the state of emergency to follow policies with which he did not agree. He undertook a difficult political rôle in the present situation there because he believed it was essential that somebody who could show leadership should step into the gap created by the deposing of the Kabaka, and that he should hold the fort and try to tide his country over these difficult times.
He is a man whose integrity and honesty is not challenged in this House as far as I know. Not only is he himself being subjected to intimidation, but also his wife and family. And the right hon. Gentleman, who knows much better than that because he has been to Uganda, talks about the importance of keeping democracy going in Uganda at the present time. Does he regard that kind of intimidation, not merely the boycotting of goods, as being a proper weapon of
1672
democracy? It not, what action would he be prepared to take to prevent it?
Mr. Dugdale: I have said that I am waiting for the Minister to state what is the intimidation which has caused the Government to take the action they have taken. It is for the Minister to answer that question. I am prepared to hear what he has to say upon the matter and to note the facts that he gives.
Mr. Alport: I see; the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take them from me or from the Senior Regent of Uganda. He is not prepared to believe any evidence except what he gets from the Minister. I have no doubt that the Minister has it at his disposal, but let me assist the Minister by giving some personal experiences and some evidence of the intimidation that is going on. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Would he be prepared to support the creation of a state of emergency in Uganda at the present time? He knows perfectly well that if he were still Minister of State to the right hon. Member for Llanelly, he would do that. What is more, he would today be supporting the present Governor of Uganda in his attempts to tide his country over the present crisis; at least I hope he would. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman for Llanelly would be doing so.
What is the purpose of an economic boycott in Uganda? It is simple. There has been no fundamental unrest in Uganda during the last few months There has been no political agitation comparable with the political agitation necessary if those who are opposed to the present régime are to succeed in overturning it. The reason for it has been that this Protectorate is extremely prosperous economically. The people there have made large sums of money out of a successful cotton crop, out of an extremely successful maize crop, out of the present extremely favourable price of coffee. They are economically content, and therefore the object of those who wish to subvert the present régime must be to create a situation in which the present economic prosperity is replaced by economic distress.
Therefore, what could be an easier and more effective way of reaching their objective than to paralyse the normal

1673
peaceful trade within the Territory? There we have an example of the use of a political weapon, which is a familiar sight. We have seen it in many other parts of the world. It is a political weapon which is being used in Kenya at present. The object in Uganda is a much more practical one. It is to create conditions of economic distress which would enable agitators to make progress.
The question which the right hon Member for Llanelly, put, although a fair one, was not completely apposite to the present situation. A peaceful boycott or strike is something which we accept as part of life, but a boycott which is intended to create circumstances in which, in a prosperous country, agitation and subversion can thrive is not a movement that can be ignored by any Government. After consideration, the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree.
It is most unfortunate that every time action is taken by the Governor of Uganda to try to move the Protectorate forward to new economic and political development, his action, which is supported by the Secretary of State, is always brought into question by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They must realise that it is their speeches in a debate of this sort which will be reported in the vernacular Press. The speech of my right hon. Friend in reply and even the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly—and still less my speech—will never be reported in the vernacular Press.
All the time, it is the speeches of hon. Members opposite which are reported there. Whatever they say will go round Uganda. They will be believed to be speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, and they will be believed to be encouraging the activities of the Uganda National Congress. I can understand that in the case of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, because I understand that he is connected with that organisation, but a very severe responsibility rests upon the shoulders of a Privy Councillor, like the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, in lending himself to that movement.
What happens as a result of all this? It makes the position of the most progressive and liberal-minded Governor in Uganda, Sir Andrew Cohen, increasingly
1674
difficult. Sir Andrew is there, appointed as a servant of the Crown. It also makes it extremely difficult for men of good will, integrity and leadership, like the Regent, Mr. Paul Kavauma, to carry on his work of healing the wounds which have been caused during the last few months. I agree that such wounds exist, but I believe it to be in the interests of Buganda and the people of Uganda as a whole that tranquility and political progress should be restored to tie Protectorate.
It would be out of order to refer to the circumstances of the Kabaka's deposition because the matter is sub judice. However, whatever we may feel about it, it must be the wish of men of good will who have the interests of Buganda at heart to try to restore the position and help the people of Buganda towards more prosperous and more stable times.
It is a Protectorate which, I am sure the right hon. Member for Llanelly will agree, is one of the most promising in the whole of Africa. It is not impoverished. It has immense resources. It was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration, and it is the policy of my right hon. Friend's Administration, to move that Protectorate forward on democratic lines. Because of its basis of education and religious influence, of all the Protectorates in East Africa this one has the best chance of producing a model African democracy.
That is precisely what Sir Andrew Cohen went out there to do. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite sitting roughly in the area below the Gangway suggesting that Sir Andrew Cohen is smashing the objective of his life and the whole of his policy by some sleight-of-hand as a result of a warped attitude brought about by the Colonial Secretary? That is the sort of impression which hon. Members are giving out in Uganda at the present time.
Mr. Dugdale: Might I make one point clear? We are attacking the Government which is represented by the Secretary of State. We do not think it right that the Secretary of State, as I am sure the Minister of State will not do, should hide behind the Governor. We consider that he should recognise that it is his responsibility that these decisions are being made.
Mr. Alport: Nobody ever said that it was not the Secretary of State's responsibility. The Secretary of State is certainly not likely to hide behind anyone. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that what they do and say in this House does not just end here but goes out to Africa, and it makes the position of colonial servants, whether they are governors, administrative officers or district commissioners, increasingly difficult. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should think carefully before they decide to take a line on a matter of this sort. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have held positions at the Colonial Office should take particular care about matters which may adversely affect faithful colonial servants Who are trying to do their best for the African peoples.
If we are not allowed to mention the fact that there is an interest attaching to the Governor of Uganda in this matter, who is to speak for these people? As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not right for the Minister of State to draw the Governor's name into the matter. But surely there is no reason why a private Member should not do so.
We have had this debate time and time again. We have had precisely the same subject raised by different people. Sometimes it is by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, sometimes it is the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and sometimes it is the hon. Member for Oldham. Weft (Mr. Hale), but it is always the same theme, an attempt to show that Her Majesty's Government are wrong in every action that they take in the sphere of colonial affairs. it is an attempt to show that the Europeans out there are always in the wrong. Sometimes they are wrong—nobody denies that—but sometimes they are in the right.
Sometimes it behoves right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to be more careful about their action and their approach, because if they really believe in democracy and the progress of Africa and the Africans, the best thing which they can often do in order to help is to keep quiet instead of trying to score party points—as the right hon. Gentleman is apparently trying to do on his own admission—in this House at the expense of the future of the African Colonies as a whole.
3.0 p.m.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I propose to take little notice of the ill-tempered, snobbish, patronising and unhelpful speech to which the House has just listened from the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). I would only remark that the spirit of that speech is responsible for the growing absence of confidence by Africans and colonial people in the representatives in this House.
Mr. Alport: Do those remarks refer to Nigeria and the Gold Coast as well?
Mr. Brockway: My remarks were referring to the hon. Gentleman, and I can promise him that they will be very brief. Only two matters to which I want to make reference arise from that speech. One is his remark about my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. I visited Uganda before my right hon. Friend was Minister and afterwards. He was responsible for an extraordinary change in that country by lifting the bans from political organisations and economic organisations, so that movements which were banned before he came to office were not banned at the end of it. I went to the Imperial Hotel at Kampala and representatives of the Government were meeting with representatives of the very organisations which had been banned. My right hon. Friend has no reason at all to be apologetic about the changes in Uganda during his administration.
The other remark I want to make has reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who was Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. I have rarely heard in this House such indecent patronage as was expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester in his reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, who has been in the Colonial Office and has served the Colonies. The hon. Gentleman has the impudence to rise on those benches and utter the kind of remark which he has done about my right hon. Friend. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads his own speech in HANSARD he will be as ashamed of it as many other hon. Members of this House are.
I now want to turn to the subject of today's discussion. I agree with my

1677
right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich that it is a tragedy that Uganda should be in its present position. It had been regarded as a model among our Protectorates. Those who have been there have seen the contrast with Kenya, as my right hon. Friend remarked, and noted the degree to which the population has become educated, largely as the result of the activities of both Anglican and Catholic missionary societies. We have been full of hope.
That this model Protectorate should now be in the position where, a few weeks ago, a state of emergency had to be declared, and now another state of emergency has been declared, where leaders of the very organisations who were being received by Members of the Government only 15 months ago are now being deported, and where meetings are being prohibited; that Uganda should have deteriorated to that position, must be a tragedy in all our minds.
That is particularly the case because of the neighbourhood of the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya. The violence, atrocities and obscenities in Kenya distress us. I assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, even though I cannot convince Members on the back bench behind them, that in raising this matter our concern is sincerely for the good of the people of Uganda.
My first point is whether there was really a necessity to declare a state of emergency. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that ought to be the last step and not the first step when any struggle arises in the Colonies. We have read the statement of the Governor and have listened to the statement of the Colonial Secretary in this House. Neither of those statements convinces us that it was necessary to have a state of emergency declared at all.
There has been no evidence of personal violence. When I asked the Colonial Secretary in the House if he could quote a single case of physical violence against a person, he was unable to do so. The only suggestion that I have seen of personal violence is in the later statement by the Governor who remarks that one man's hand was cut off. We deplore that, but that one incident, in our view, does not justify the Government calling a special emergency.
1678
I cannot help feeling that a very big factor in the declaration of the state of emergency has been the position of influence held by those who have large commercial interests in the Colony and in the Protectorate of Uganda. I draw attention to the report in the "Manchester Guardian" of last Saturday, that certain members of the Legislative Council had threatened to resign unless the Governor did five things: declared a state of emergency; deported the Congress leaders; dismissed disloyal chiefs; mobilised the police; and suspended native administration in Buganda.
We should bear in mind when the Colonial Secretary says that the Legislative Council had been unanimous in advocating a declaration of a state of emergency, that the members of that Council, to a large degree, represent the commercial interests in Uganda who are hurt by the boycott now being carried on by the African people. When the Colonial Secretary makes a special point of the fact that the Buganda representatives supported the declaration of a state of emergency, we should remember that those Buganda representatives are there against the wishes of the people of Buganda, against the determination of the Parliament of Buganda—the Lukiko— and that the people of Buganda themselves have no confidence and no faith in these nominated members of the Legislative Council.
Because of the short time available, I do not want to press those points further. I conclude by saying that there is a great danger that a situation may begin in Uganda which may deteriorate and which may ultimately become a situation of violence. As in other Colonies, there are two major streams of thought among the African people. One is represented by the Uganda National Congress. Again and again it has appealed to its members against methods of violence and insisted upon its members that they should not resort to violence. Not only that, but it has advised them to refrain from any kind of intimidation.
Mr. Alport: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? When a Member has some interest in an overseas territory, and the subject is under discussion in this House, it is usual for him to declare his interest. If the

1679
hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has any concern or connection with the Uganda National Congress, would not it be right for him to declare that fact in this House while speaking on the subject?
Mr. Speaker: It is usual for hon. Members to declare their interest in any matter. I was not aware that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) had any pecuniary interest, or anything of that sort, in the Congress.
Mr. Brockway: I am very ready indeed to declare my interest. I have, of course, no pecuniary interest at all. I do happen to be chairman of an organisation to which the Uganda National Congress is affiliated, but not a single dime, or cent or halfpenny has ever come to me as a result of that.
Mr. Alport: May I ask if it has come to the hon. Member's organisation?
Mr. Speaker: That is not relevant.
Mr. Brockway: Again, I am willing to be perfectly frank. That body is affiliated to an international organisation which has representatives of that movement on its committee. They decide how the funds shall be distributed. I am surprised—no, I am not surprised because it is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman, but it was a remark which surely ought not to be relevant to a debate of this kind.
In Uganda, there are these two streams of thought. There is the stream represented by the Uganda National Congress, which deplores violence and intimidation and uses all its influence against them. On the other hand, one recognises that in Uganda there is a small minority who would resort to other methods.
The real case against the Government is that they are making enemies of the very sections of the African people with whom we should be co-operating and with whom, if we did co-operate, we could hope to progress towards self-government without conflict and without violence. The result of the policy which the Government are pursuing—the challenge to it and the resentment which naturally comes from it—is to strengthen the very forces of violence and intimidation which this state of emergency is supposed to preclude.
1680
I hope very much that as a result of this afternoon's discussion, policies will be pursued by the Government which will make for the more co-operative development of Uganda in its social and economic progress towards its independence.
3.12 p.m.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): In this debate on the imposition of a state of emergency in Buganda there is one point on which we would all certainly agree. It is a tragedy that Uganda finds itself in this situation. I do not want to reopen the controversy between the two sides, but 1 believe that speeches in this House—sometimes delivered more with thought to the opposite side of the House than to the outside world—have a very serious effect, on occasions, in these territories, and 1 think we must recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).
I should like to make it quite clear from the very beginning that the re-imposition by the Governor of Uganda of a state of emergency in Buganda has no direct, and little indirect, connection with the deposition of the Kabaka. Some people here seemed to think that it had, and some currency was given to that belief by the B.B.C. news bulletin of 31st May which, by an error, said that it was connected with the deportation of the Kabaka.
This step which was taken by the Governor—whom we all know, and whom I think we all, on both sides, respect—was not taken lightly, but after the very fullest consideration. It was taken to enable the Uganda Government to carry out their first duty, which is to maintain law and order, and to protect the law-abiding public from the activities of a small number of irresponsible people who had been taking certain action in connection with a boycott.
This boycott was initiated on 1st May by the Uganda National Congress against the Deportation Ordinance. It had nothing to do with the Kabaka. The object was presumably to secure the release of Mr. Kiwanuka, the acting President of the Congress, against whom an order had been made under that ordinance. I have been asked again, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked my right hon. Friend the

1681
other day, whether I object to a boycott as such.
Mr. James Griffiths: A peaceful boycott.
Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, a peaceful boycott. I do not propose, any more than my right hon. Friend did, to go into this matter on the question of principle, but I would point out that from 1st May until intimidation started to become rife, no action was taken against the boycott. The boycott went on.
I should like to tell the House something of the effects of this boycott. At first, it had very little effect and it failed to achieve any concrete results. It was not directed mainly against the businesses of big commercial interests as has been suggested. It was directed mainly against non-African trade, and especially against the small Asian traders—the small Indian traders. Those are the people who were largely affected; and, as they were affected, African shoppers were affected, too. In the course of time it spread to African shops as well. Recently its effects have been increasing, and in the last few days of May the situation became very serious. Criminal elements were beginning to take advantage of the position. I will have something to say about that a little later.
This deterioration was due to intimidation in a number of different forms. There were such things as the forcible prevention of selling and buying of goods. There was compulsion on people to return goods which they had bought. There was action consisting of breaking or throwing away goods which had been bought. There was some destruction of coffee trees belonging to people who had bought goods. There were threats to lives and property.
There were people who stood or sat outside shops taking the names of those who went in, and the right hon. Gentleman will know what sort of effect that can produce upon Africans. Two Baganda members of the Legislative Council have had anonymous threats made against their lives and properties. Another up-country African member of the Legislative Council who was making purchases in Kampala was followed all the while he did so. We all know what impression that sort of thing can create in the minds of people in Africa.
1682
This deterioration took place roughly in the last week in May, and criminal elements began to take advantage of it. Reports were received from the countryside of people in those districts who were going in terror owing to threats of attacks by gangs of motorised thieves operating at night.
Mr. Dugdale: Were any attacks actually made? It seems to me to be important that we should know whether any attacks were actually made, or whether people were in terror of attacks.
Mr. Hopkinson: As far as we know, there has been no actual bloodshed or loss of life, but there have been robberies. To the extent that there has not been loss of life, the Government's action may be regarded in a sense as a precautionary measure.
Mr. Alport: Following information which I have received from a perfectly reliable source, may I say that there have been two Africans attacked in Katwe, and both have been taken to hospital. Therefore, it appears that there has been some violence.
Mr. Hopkinson: That may well be. I merely say that the official information is that there have been no attacks. I feel quite certain that no one in this House would desire that action in a matter of this sort should be delayed until innocent people have been killed or molested. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that it would not be right that people should be hurt or killed merely because they are trying to go about their ordinary business.
While greatly regretting the necessity for this action, my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear to the Governor that he appreciates the need for it, and has assured him of his fullest support. The Government of Uganda have also received the support both of the Regents of Buganda and of the Legislative Council. There are 20 Africans in the Legislative Council, including six from Buganda. Among all these, as well as among non-Africans, there has been a strong feeling that action had to be taken. There was no question of a formal vote; there was a motion with regard to security in general and, following that, a series of private meetings between the Governor and members of the Legislative Council.

1683
Mr. Bassude, who seconded the motion about security, and is a Muganda representative, said:
"Before I go any further, I should like to pay tribute to my own countrymen for the way they have conducted themselves under such trying conditions … I have always heard of cold wars with other countries … I do not know whether cold war is the correct description, but I do suspect that that sort of war is knocking at our doorstep these days."
That was said by a Muganda representative in the Legislative Council.
Mr. Dugdale: Will the Minister of State answer the question which I asked before? Were these members from Buganda elected, or nominated by the Government?
Mr. Hopkinson: They are certainly nominated, but I think we can all trust Sir Andrew Cohen to nominate people who would properly represent the interests of Buganda.
The Regents of Buganda themselves were told in advance that the emergency was to be imposed, and the Katikiro, the Prime Minister, to whom my hon. Friend has paid such a well-deserved tribute, said in a broadcast that the situation was getting worse and that more threats were being made on the people. He said that Baganda Ministers had been asked to approach the Protectorate Government to ensure that something was done. In view of that, he said, the Governor's action must come as a relief to all responsible citizens. He said that the state of emergency would not interfere with the peaceful life of the people, but only with those who made trouble.
The second Senior Regent, the Omulamuzi, the Chief Justice, who led the delegation which came over here and who many hon. Members know personally, said in another broadcast, after giving examples of threats, and so on:
"… in view of that it was only proper for the Government to interfere before matters became worse. Prevention is better than cure."
He went on to refer to what he called the need for preventing harm being done before people's homes were burnt down and their heads broken, and he appealed to the people to keep the peace and to remain calm.
1684
Similar support has been given by people outside the Legislative Council: by editors of the more responsible newspapers—whom I could quote—and by a leading Buganda business man, who said that the declaration of a state of emergency would be welcomed by all African business men who were trading on honest lines, and that if its meaning were understood it would be welcomed by all law-abiding Baganda. He hoped that the Government would close its ears to irresponsible interference from overseas and get on with the business of Government.
These, then, were the causes which led to the imposition of a state of emergency, and the reactions to it by the more responsible elements in Buganda. It is still too early to form any precise assessment of the results of the action which has been taken, but the Governor reports that a more cheerful atmosphere already prevails among the commercial community—by which he means the Asian small traders at whom this boycott was mainly directed. In some areas there has been a marked improvement in trade, and things are quite normal. In others some African shops are closed, some are not. In some areas, there is practically a complete standstill of trade. However, the local reactions have been uniformly good, and in many cases native authorities have specifically applauded the Governor's firm action in the matter.
According to information I received just before lunch the latest reports that have reached the Governor establish that the deterioration in the situation that had been going on steadily has been arrested since the state of emergency was declared, and that there now seems to be some justification for cautious optimism that the situation generally is slowly but perceptibly improving. We cannot, of course, ignore the possibility of a setback, but this essentially precautionary measure will have succeeded in its object and will have been justified if it puts an end to the widespread alarm that undoubtedly has been caused throughout Buganda, among Africans as well as among Asians, by the increasing evidence of intimidation and of threats employed to enforce the trade boycott.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) put several questions to me, to which I should like to give an answer. He asked

1685
me about Lord Munster's visit to Uganda. The facts are simple. Early this year arrangements were made for Lord Munster to visit Mauritius, which has not had a visit from a Minister for some time. It had been suggested that I should go there, but, unfortunately, the Parliamentary position makes this sort of expedition except in moments of grave crisis, rather more difficult than they were when the right hon. Gentleman was in office.
Mr. J. Griffiths: We could offer pairs.
Mr. Hopkinson: I will take the right hon. Gentleman up on that.
Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends refused us the courtesies that would have made things easier for us.
Mr. Hopkinson: I will take the right hon. Gentleman up on that offer.
However, that journey was planned, and Lord Munster went off to Uganda and Kenya as part of the journey, and arranged to stay in both countries. The journey was fixed up in the middle of April, long before the present emergency developed. It is purely accidental that he is there at this time. He is spending several days there, and is making a short tour of the Northern Province with the Governor, who has to make a routine visit to it. Lord Munster is also hoping to visit the National Park. His visit to Uganda has no connection whatever with the present emergency.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the possible effects of the imposition of the state of emergency on Professor Hancock's visit. We shall all agree about the importance of that visit. The position is that Professor Hancock is not due to fly out to Uganda until the 21st of this month. He has asked that no alteration should be made in his programme in consequence of recent developments, so the present arrangements will stand. As my right hon. Friend indicated last Tuesday, we hope that the measures that are now being taken to restore law and order will create a calmer atmosphere in which the visit can take place.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Has agreement yet been reached regarding the Baganda members of the committee?
Mr. Hopkinson: I was just coming to that point. It has been announced that on Professor Hancock's initiative the Governor has withdrawn his opposition to Dr. Kalibala's membership of the Lukiko committee which is to have consultations with Professor Hancock, and that Messrs. Kironde, Mulira and Makumbi have, on their side, withdrawn their resignations from the committee. I think that that should do much to facilitate the talks, and will lead to their success.
I have been asked to speak of the Kabaka, but I do not think that matter comes into the subject which we are discussing today. The crisis which is down for discussion has no direct relation with the position of Kabaka and I could not say anything about his position without notice.
Mrs. White: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware of statements being circulated to the effect that one of the reasons for the declaration of the state of emergency was in order to pave the way for the election of a new Kabaka and that a great deal of pressure was being imposed on certain people to obtain support of a movement to elect a new Kabaka. If that is not true, perhaps he will say so.
Mr. Hopkinson: It is certainly the first I have heard of any such statements and I cannot for a moment believe that there is any possible justification for them. I have gone out of my way today to deny that there is any connection at all between the Kabakaship and this matter.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) asked whether there was any necessity for declaring a state of emergency. I hope that what I have said will convince him that a great deal of intimidation had been going on and that nothing less than this would have been sufficient to deal with the situation. I am sure that he will agree that we should not wait until we have bloodshed before we start imposing drastic regulations.
The hon. Member had some comment to make about the position of the Uganda National Congress. I do not propose to enter a discussion about that today. They were responsible for initiating the boycott. I am not suggesting that they are the people responsible for the methods of intimidation. Indeed, I say

1687
nothing about that at all; I am not saying who is responsible for it. I do not want to enter into a discussion on what is and what is not the intention of the National Congress.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly wishes to say a few words and, therefore, I will not prolong this speech. I am convinced that the action which has been taken by the Governor of Uganda, taken by no means lightly, has the support of all the responsible elements in the territory. They were behind him before he took it, and since he has taken it they have come out openly and supported it. This strong action, which has my right hon. Friend's support, will, I believe, lead to an easing of the situation there and to the possibility of satisfactory constitutional talks with Professor Hancock when he goes out.
The support which we in this House give to this action will help the administration out there so that in due course it may be possible to withdraw the state of emergency, as was done a few months ago after the deposition of the Kabaka. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, Uganda has been remarkably peaceful these past few months. We all regret that the declaration of a state of emeregency has become necessary, but I have no doubt whatever that in the long run it is in the interests of the territory of Uganda and its people.
3.34 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I must first say a word or two—they will be very few—in reply to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), who has given us a lecture on violence and intimidation. He need not lecture me or our party. Perhaps he will take advantage of the opportunity which is coming to us all of a much-needed rest and will go to the Library before he leaves the House today and obtain from the Librarian the history of the attempt of prominent members of the Conservative Party to organise a rebellion against a decision of this House. That was in my lifetime. He is, therefore, the last man to talk about violence and intimidation—belonging to the Conservative Party, as he does—for that was the nearest to a revolution in this country in my lifetime, and it came from the Tory Party.
Mr. Alport: In that case, as the right hon. Gentleman feels that he on his side of the House should show an example to our party, in view of our past evils, how does he now find himself in the position of supporting intimidation in the Colonial Empire? If he does not support it. his colleagues behind him do.
Mr. Griffiths: I join with the Minister in saying that the primary duty in these Colonial Territories, as everywhere, is the preservation of law, order and good government. If it becomes necessary to take measures—even measures like those today—they will certainly have my support. I would have done it myself. and I have said so on other occasions in this House.
In this case, it seems to me that there were circumstances in which the Governor was justified in his action, but our responsibility does not end there. Having admitted that, we have to recognise that it creates a problem for us Why did it happen? What is wrong? What is the cause of it? It is important that we should find an answer to these questions. I hope that peace will be preserved in Uganda. We have had appeals from both sides of the House—appeals which, I hope, will be listened to in Africa—to preserve calm and keep the peace, even in these difficult circumstances.
I asked the Secretary of State a question last week, because I thought it was important. So far as the Minister has spoken this afternoon, the evidence of violence and intimidation seems to have been very slender. It was, I thought, necessary for me to get a declaration from the Secretary of State, and today from the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, that a state of emergency had not been declared because there had been a peaceful boycott. That was the purpose of my intervention. A peaceful boycott, as I said last week, is a legitimate political form of action. The Minister, I understand, supported that view this afternoon.
Mr. Hopkinson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that it is possible to generalise on that point? Even if we qualify the word "boycott" by the word "peaceful," it cannot be possible to generalise.
Mr. Griffiths: The Minister said that the boycott had been taking place since 1st May, and while it was peaceful they did not declare an emergency. All I am concerned about is to know that the emergency was not declared because some people thought that they ought to engage in a peaceful boycott. The Minister supported that.
There are two questions which I want to ask. The Minister has said that this action, and, indeed, this controversy which has led to the emergency, has no connection, direct or indirect, with the deposition of the Kabaka. I accept that. But I urge him to pay attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). It is being said that pressure is being brought to bear on people concerned about the appointment of a new Kabaka. I think that it is important that that issue should be faced and something said about it.
The Governor and the Secretary of State have said that while they would like to see the Lukiko appoint a new Kabaka, they will not bring pressure upon them to appoint a new Kabaka. I think that it is important that it should be declared by the Government that it is the position both of the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Government that while they would like to see someone appointed, they would not bring pressure to bear or impose a Kabaka upon them.
My second question is this. I understand that the boycott is not due to the deposition of the Kabaka. The reason given by the Secretary of State, when I asked him the question as to what was stated to be the purport of the boycott, was that it was against deportation. On that question, I hope that he will say something more. This question of deportation without a judicial process is a problem which has given concern to all Governments in the Colonies. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the climate of opinion is very much against this. The United Nations, in the declaration of Human Rights, and the whole trend of world opinion are against using measures of this kind without a judicial process.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that during my term of office I began discussion on this matter with the Governors. I sent a despatch to them and asked them all to examine the problems and submit
1690
to me proposals by which some form of judicial process could be set up before there was a deportation. I know that those inquiries are still being conducted. I hope that the Secretary of State will take a very early opportunity to make a statement upon the matter, for we have reached a stage in which, apart from circumstances as in Malaya and Kenya, there ought generally speaking to be a form of judicial process before deportation.
Mr. Hopkinson: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman on the general question, but I take the point he has made. In regard to this deportation, Mr. Kiwanuka was the gentleman in question. He was expressly allowed to make representations to a judicial adviser selected by the Chief Justice, who could have advised the Governor to cancel the order. The judicial official heard all that Mr. Kiwanuka had to say and did not advise the Governor to cancel the order.
Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT the right hon. Gentleman can give further information about that, but I hope he will give a full report at an early stage—perhaps one of my hon. Friends will put down a Question to elicit the information—as to what progress has been made towards what, I am sure, the whole House and the country would desire and also what is the undoubted view in the world today, that deportation without trial ought to come to an end and that there ought to be a judicial process.
I am very glad that the visit of Professor Hancock is taking place. I am glad that the investigation is to be conducted. I warmly welcome the decision, which, however, caused me some concern, that the Africans were to be prevented from securing the outside assistance which they felt was necessary and desirable. It is of the greatest importance that at this important stage in the history of Buganda we should use greater urgency in removing the clouds which have been caused by the deportation of the Kabaka.
Here is an opportunity to investigate the future of the Kabaka-ship, which has not been redefined since the early agreement. It is, therefore, a matter of great moment to Buganda and its people and to Uganda, and I am glad that the ban has been removed. I hope that the

1691
Africans will get the assistance which they think is essential to them to present their case and examine their issues, and we wish all success to Professor Hancock.
We all agree that we must put down violence, but it is not enough to do that alone. It is essential at all stages before we reach the final democratic stage that there should be peaceful outlets for people and organisations and political parties to express their grievances. That is very important. My questions the other day were directed to ensuring that in Uganda, as elsewhere, we do not prevent people expressing their grievances and organising action which is peaceful and legitimate in order to call attention to their grievances.
Uganda is at the beginning of a very important new chapter in its history. It is entering upon a new industrial era and new political experiments. There are concerns and there are anxieties, and we have had a declaration from the Governor and from the Secretary of State that Uganda is to be developed as an African State and that from the very beginning there is to be no industrial colour bar. The people of Uganda have a great opportunity. I hope that after the Whit-sun Recess the House will have fuller time to discuss not only this, but other problems in Africa and in the other Colonies. The time is due for an opportunity to review the situation in the Colonies, so that we can bring our experience and knowledge to bear and have an opportunity of raising questions.
In the meantime, I join in appealing to the people of Uganda to be peaceful and calm. I hope that the emergency can be lifted very quickly. While it exists, it is an acknowledgment of failure by all of us. Let it be raised quickly. Let Professor Hancock get on with his work. I hope that the Colony, for which no visitor can fail to have a deep regard and love, will develop into an independent democratic African State. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Governor will take the earliest opportunity, when circumstances allow, to lift the emergency and to restore normal constitutional procedure in Uganda, so that the Colony once more can march forward and, I hope, be a model to the rest of Africa in the years that lie ahead.

BRITISH SUBJECT, CEYLON (DEPORTATION)
3.45 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: My hon. Friends a moment or two ago were asking that there should be a peaceful outlet for people's grievances, and here in this House, where we spend so much time ventilating grievances, it is appropriate that the last three-quarters of an hour before we break up for the Whitsun Recess should be spent in ventilating the grievance of one particular person, not of a whole people, to show how in one particular case the machinery of State moves sometimes without any semblance of justice, courtesy or common sense, and can involve a defenceless person, without humanity, care and tolerance.
The issue I want to bring up is a narrow one, and it is one of civil liberties. It is the right of the British subject to receive help from the nearest British authorities in whatever part of the world he should want it. I realise my own inadequacy for raising this subject, but I am fortified by remembering that someone who knew the case for many years, had he been here in his place, would have been much more forthright than my nature allows me to he. I refer to Josiah Wedgwood, a former Member. But let me say at once to the Under-Secretary of State for Cobmonwealth Relations that I know, and he knows, that he must accept responsibility for all that goes on inside his office, and he knows, and I know, that I am not bringing any personal accusations against him.
The case refers to a woman called Claudine Henry, whose maiden name was Libovitsz. Some 100 or 200 years ago her folk came from Hungary to this country and she was born in Sussex. When the war was over she went to India where she had property and friends, and later she married a man called Henry, of Ceylon. The background which I want to give in some detail commences on Wednesday, 17th March, when in the morning she was served with a deportation order. We have been discussing deportation orders this afternoon. This woman was a British subject holding a British passport and she was served with this order by the authorities in Ceylon,

1693
which is a Commonwealth country. It has that power which I cannot criticise, and it is not the purpose of this Adjournment speech so to do. But it should be remembered that it is a power that we in this country have never exercised under any circumstances against citizens from any Commonwealth country.
This woman was served with the order in the morning. The first she knew about it was when uniformed police with two motor cars, police in plain clothes and two policewomen drew up in front of her residence. They had the copy of this order which was served upon her, and it demanded that she be kept in custody until put on a ship or an aeroplane leaving the country. Why it needed half a platoon of people to take her to the airport I do not know, but it sounds rather like comic opera. When she asked what it was all about, she was told that there was nothing to worry about, she was being taken to Colombo, three miles away to answer questions. Ultimately, when Mrs. Henry asked whether she would have to take clothes, she was told to take something for the night. This is a relevant point, because in Ceylon in March the weather is hot, whereas in London and Paris it is very cold. So she took two cotton frocks and a dressing gown and the necessary toilet articles.
With her at the time was a friend, Mr. Kassman, Who said he would get her lawyer and ask him to do something about it. Mr. Kassman wanted to see whether the High Court would not intervene because there is such a thing as habeas corpus in Ceylon as there is here. Mr. Kassman was told by the police that he could not leave, and when he asked, "Am I under arrest?" they replied, "No, you are not under arrest, but you cannot leave, you are coming with us."
So they were taken together to a police establishment where they were kept for two hours. I hope I shall be able to convince the Under-Secretary how he has been deceived by the information given to him because, when Mrs. Henry asked if she could use the telephone to get in touch with the High Commissioner. our representative, to give her some protection and to represent her, she was told that there was no telephone in the building.
Later, after twelve o'clock, she and Mr. Kassman were taken to another build-
1694
ing, the police training college. Here there was no pretence that there was no telephone. She was told bluntly that she could not use it but, at the same time. reassured, "Do not worry, we will telephone the High Commissioner for you." As time went by and two o'clock came round another woman was brought in, this time an American, who was also to be deported that day. I am not concerned with her, neither is the Under-Secretary, but it is interesting to note that she came in a oar with two American Embassy officials and that there was a woman member of the Ceylon Parliament in the same car. So the American Embassy knew that one of their nationals was to be deported whereas a British national, born in this country, had nobody to care for her except the man who happened to be with her.
After two o'clock, the assistant superintendent of police came in who had arrested her and had served her with a notice that she would have to leave. He then promised Mrs. Henry that he would phone the Commissioner. This again is an important point, because the Under-Secretary will remember that there have been complete and constant denials by the police in Ceylon that they made any such promises. The assistant superintendent went out, returned, and said to her, "I have now telephoned, the Commissioner says he will see you and we are going to take you to him." This time only Mrs. Henry got into the car because Mr. Kassman was kept in the police establishment. They drove off and, after a minute or two, they turned away from the town towards the airport.
Mrs. Henry asked, "Where are you taking me to? This is not the way to the residence of the High Commissioner." Then, for the first time, she was told. "You are going to London." Until then she had no inkling of this. I want the Under-Secretary to think for a moment. If Mrs. Henry had been told that she was to go to London, to the freezing atmosphere which we were experiencing in March from the hottest month in Ceylon, would she have worn sandals and a cotton frock and have taken nothing but two other cotton dresses and a silk dressing gown? Remember, she is a rich woman. If the hon. and learned Gentleman asked a high court

1695
judge to believe such a story, he knows, for he is not only an honourable but also a learned gentleman, what sort of credulity he would get from the judge. Obviously, no human being would do it.
It is apparent from that that the woman did not know she was going to be sent out of the country to London, or Paris or to any such climate. She was told only when she could not resist any longer. She was then taken straight away to the aircraft, and the aircraft left at 3.30. When she discovered what was happening to her, she said, "What about an overcoat?" She was told, "You should have thought about that before. You should have known."
I want to spend a few minutes on what happened to this woman when she was in the aircraft. I said earlier that she had her property and her relatives in India and that the trustee for her estate was in India. She wanted to get off at Bombay. She now had hardly anybody whom she knew in England. Her British passport, which was valid until, I think, 1958—certainly for some years—had been taken away from her by the police. An American official—a member of the aircrew, I presume—told her that she could not have her passport back. He held it, and she could not leave the aircraft in India. He went so far as to tell her—this displays some interesting ignorance that she could not get off the aircraft because she had no visa. As if a British subject required a visa in order to go on Indian soil.
This lady desired to leave the aircraft at Bombay because she had relatives and friends there. In Calcutta she had stayed with her aunt, a Lady Ezra, the wife of a former sheriff of Calcutta. Sir David Ezra. In Bombay she stayed with her cousin, a Miss Nathan. The trustee of the property was in India. Why should she have to go to England? Not only was permission refused for her to land. but also she was not allowed to leave the aircraft. The aircraft was refuelled whilst she was sitting in it. She never got her passport—
Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the criticisms which the hon. Member is now making are not really directed against the Government of India, with which we have nothing to do in this House.
Dr. Stross: I appreciate the point which you make, Mr. Speaker. I am giving the background. The accusation which I am bringing is directed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has certain responsibilities in respect of the High Commissioner for Ceylon. My purpose is to show that this woman did not get the protection which every British citizen has the right to get. I am showing what happened as a result of her not having that protection. I am arguing that if she had had that protection she would never have been treated in this way. I am not criticising the people of India. I have no right to criticise the Government of Ceylon. That is a matter for the hon. and learned Gentleman to take up. My duty at the moment is to attack the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope I shall do so wholeheartedly before I sit down.
This woman's passport was ultimately given back to her in Paris. It was not given back to her direct by the official who held it, namely the American member of the aircrew. It was given to her by the French police to whom it had been handed, and they gave it one look and saw at once that it was in order and handed it to her. She could not leave to go to a hotel. Her money had been taken from her except for 50 rupees. Everybody else who had been in the aircraft was sent to a hotel for the night to sleep. Everyone knows the normal practice adopted by airlines when their aircraft are late and people have to stay overnight at some point on the routes. They send the passengers to a hotel, and pay the cost of it, which is included in the ticket.
It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Allan.]
Dr. Stross: As I was saying, on these occasions everybody is allowed to go to a hotel and accommodation is found for them, but not for this woman. She does not seem to have been popular with those who had withheld her passport and would not allow her to get off the aeroplane to India. Indeed, the first time a defence of her right as a human being was by a French air hostess in Paris, who

1697
said that it was not right that she was not able to go to a hotel. She said: "Cela, ce n'est pas gentil." The answer came: "No, we are not paying for her." That came from a member of the crew.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): We are not concerned with the air liner, but is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the other passengers were not going on to New York? My impression is that T.W.A. does not fly to London and that passengers changing at Paris would not have their hotel paid for if they miss their connection.
Dr. Stross: The hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right on that point.
Mr. Foster: I do not know.
Dr. Stross: All I can say is that this lady had only 50 rupees and could not go to a hotel. She still had to go on to London and she did not know what was going to happen to her. She spent that night on three chairs in the airport, covered with a couple of blankets. In the morning she came to London and it was then her story came out. She was met by a woman journalist who wanted the story, and who took off a cardigan and a muffler and gave them to Mrs. Henry. She took her in a car to an address which had been found for her by the London immigration authorities. They found a friend of hers who was living in London, and there she was looked after. That is the background of what happened to this woman Mrs. Henry.
When I wrote quite a while ago to the Under-Secretary of State I asked him some questions and he sent me the answers. The questions I asked in the first place were whether he knew that this woman was to be deported and whether notice was given by the Ceylon authorities; and if he knew, why did he not do for her what we in this country do for foreigners who have to be deported. We give foreigners notice, and we ask them to which country they want to go and what arrangements they have made. Then we tell them how much time we give them. Sometimes it is a week and sometimes it is longer. In this case they came in the morning and held this person under arrest till they sent her
1698
away. I cannot believe for a moment that the High Commissioner did not know that this was going to happen.
Now I come to the third of my questions, which was, Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman not take action to give this lady protection and care and to move on her behalf? After all, he knows that since this woman came over here against her wish she has asked to see him or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. and that the request has been refused.
The Council for Civil Liberties has made a full statement on the matter, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that I put the case to him as fully as I knew how. I doubt whether I have said anything with which he is not fully conversant. The answer I got from him was interesting. He wrote me a letter after I put the general questions, and it reached me eight weeks after I wrote to him. It falls into two parts, as it answers two questions. I am going to read it, if I may. It says:
"I have now received a report from the High Commissioner in Colombo on the questions raised by the National Council for Civil Liberties concerning the deportation of Mrs. Henry, about which you wrote to me on 31st March. As regards the first question, the Ceylon authorities state that Mrs. Henry made no request to be allowed to communicate with the High Commissioner, and there is no ground for the suggestion that the officers by whom the deportation Order was served undertook to convey a message to the High Commissioner on her behalf."
That we absolutely deny. The information I have is utterly contrary to that, and there are many sources of information. They point out that Mr. Kassman who was with Mrs. Henry when the deportation order was served was free at any time to convey a message to the High Commissioner. They add:
"… it is not the case that Mr. Kassman was held under arrest until her departure but that he elected to stay with her, and that during that period he was in fact in communication with a number of persons, including the secretary of the Ceylon Communist Party."
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be interested to know what really went on, because I do not think that he has had any true information so far.
If it be true that no request was made to get into touch with the High Commissioner, that does not allow the High Commissioner to say that it was not his duty to ask her beforehand, if he knew

1699
beforehand, whether he should help her. Secondly, this letter sent two months after I asked for an answer—sent I am told from the High Commissioner's Office—seems to be repeating only what the police in Ceylon have told the High Commissioner they did. I want to know why the High Commissioner did not do certain things.
I should like to read part of a letter sent by Mr. Kassman on 19th March to Mrs. Henry in which he said:
"I was released at about 4 o'clock …"—
that is on the day when the aeroplane left at 3.30—
"I did not know what had happened to you until about 6 p.m. when we checked with the airport. All I could do at that stage was to contact the High Commissioner and insist that he contacted the British Embassy in Paris by cable and sent somebody to meet you. Chappie was not happy about it, but I do not think he would dare to ignore my request, especially as I had your lawyer with me. Please let me know whether you were met in Paris and helped by anybody, as this matter will have to be pursued if nothing was done by the High Commissioner to assist you. The news of our arrest had got around by about 10 o'clock …"
That means 10 o'clock in the morning, because someone else was arrested who had with him a Ceylon Member of Parliament—
"Frantic efforts had been made by our various friends, separately and collectively, to locate us and then to move the Supreme Court, but since we were hidden away by the police, nothing could be done till it was too late."
In a letter sent the next day there was an interesting postscript which the hon. and learned Gentleman will find interesting:
"By the way, when I came home after your departure I found that the upholders of law and order had wrenched out the wires in my wagon and also cut the telephone line, which was cut a few weeks ago! That is real efficiency."
All this is evidence given to me. I have not had legal training although I have spent nearly half my life in the law courts—almost as long there as I have spent in the pursuit of medicine. I could not help it; that fell to be my lot. When I consider the evidence, I feel that the letter I received from the Minister was not worthy of his office. I should like to read the second part of the letter which says:
"As regards the second question, the Ceylon authorities state that when the deportation order was served on Mrs. Henry, she
1700
was told that she would be deported to the United Kingdom as soon as possible and she was asked to pack her bag, which she did … there was nothing to prevent Mr. Kassman himself from obtaining additional clothing for her before her departure, or from communicating with friends en route or in London about the journey. In the circumstances, it was not considered necessary to make any special arrangements in connection with her journey to or her arrival in this country."
If that last sentence means anything at all, it means that the office of the High Commissioner must have known about this at least a day before. They knew, but chose not to do anything. The best I can say on their behalf is that they relied on Mrs. Henry's friend to help her —the friend who had had the wireless wrenched from his car and his telephone wires cut, and who had been held incommunicado until the next day.
I think that I have the right to ask the Under-Secretary of State to do three things. First, he should consider what type of action is required to prevent this type of thing ever happening again to any British citizen in any part of the Commonwealth for which he is responsible. So far as this case is cncerned, in view of what I have said, of the evidence I have given, and the further evidence I can bring if he so desires, he should demand an explanation as to what really was the case, and why no action was taken to give this woman the rights which every British person has.
Otherwise the British taxpayer could save money by shutting up these places. If what I have said is the truth, they are not worth very much to us. Secondly, he should see her—she has the right to be seen—with her representatives, and hear her story from her own lips. Thirdly, and I think most important of all, an apology should be given to her for the way in which she has been treated.
4.12 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The account given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central (Dr. Stross) of what happened to Mrs. Henry, and the grievances he made, falls into two separate compartments. One is the action of the Ceylon authorities, and the other the action of the High Commissioner according to his version of the facts.

1701
With regard to the Ceylon authorities, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, as you pointed out in the similar case of Indian authorities, the United Kingdom High Commissioner and the Commonwealth Relations Office are in no way responsible for the action of those authorities. In this particular case the points which the National Council of Civil Liberties brought to the attention of the hon. Member were put to the Ceylon authorities by the High Commissioner.
The letter which I wrote to the hon. Member contains the answer of the Ceylon authorities. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can really expect the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Ceylon to conduct inquiries on his own. He has to deal with the Government of that country. We are, of course, prepared to accept the answer of the Ceylon authorities as being the correct version of the case.
Just to summarise the points at issue, which were set out in the letter from me to the hon. Gentleman, the two main grievances against the Ceylon authorities were, first, that neither Mrs. Henry nor her friend Mr. Kassman were allowed to communicate with the United Kingdom High Commissioner; and, secondly, that she was deported to the United Kingdom at very short notice under circumstances which, she alleged, involved her in being badly treated.
The answer of the Ceylon authorities is that that is completely untrue. She was not badly treated. Her friend. Mr. Kassman, was not kept incommunicado during the day. Any further action would obviously fall to her to take up with the Ceylon authorities, because, on the evidence which has been presented to us, we are satisfied that the version of the Ceylon authorities is the correct one.
What should the United Kingdom High Commissioner have done? At the beginning of his exposé the hon. Gentleman put to me a dilemma which, he said, was a forensic dilemma. How was it that this lady, if told that she was being deported either to Paris or London, included in her bag only a few cotton frocks, Ceylon being warm in March, but London and Paris being cold?
That is a speculative question, and I should like to give two speculative answers to show that it is not by any
1702
means necessarily true that the lady was told that she was going to be questioned overnight. The hon. Gentleman might consider that what might well have happened is this. The lady was convinced that she would be able to get out of the aeroplane in Bombay when she was told that she would be deported. Bombay has the same climate as Ceylon, and if she was convinced that she would be able to get out at Bombay it is very natural that she would take only a couple of cotton frocks. I should think that that is a much more likely explanation than the one the hon. Gentleman gave.
Dr. Stross: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say why a British subject with a British passport should be prevented from getting out of an aeroplane at Bombay?
Mr. Foster: The answer may not be apparent to the hon. Gentleman owing to his lack of legal training. I was trying to account for her lack of cotton frocks in her bag. The question that I am putting to the hon. Gentleman is: Is not my explanation, that she thought that she was going to get out at Bombay, a reasonable explanation of why she had only two cotton frock's?
Dr. Stross: No, it is not reasonable at all compared with the explanation that the woman herself gave—that she was taken to Colombo to be questioned and that she took some night clothes. She was told that only when she asked whether she needed any clothes.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman can make what answer he likes.
Dr. Stross: No, I am not answering. The hon. and learned Gentleman is answering.
Mr. Foster: Well. I was asking a question, and that is the hon. Gentleman's answer. I would only add this. She has herself said in her statement that until she got to Bombay she was convinced that she could get out at Bombay. If she was convinced that she could get out of the aeroplane at Bombay, it is likely that before she was taken in the aeroplane she would only take two cotton frocks in her overnight bag.
The complaint of the hon. Gentleman is that the United Kingdom High Commissioner should have done something.

1703
I should like to meet the hon. Gentleman squarely on that suggestion. Here was a rich woman who was going to be deported. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the United Kingdom High Commissioner knew about it about 24 hours before. He had no representations from her, and it is to be assumed that if she is deported she will have some opportunity of communicating with the High Commissioner, which the Ceylon authorities said she had, either directly or through Mr. Kassman. This, in my submission, is a long way from a breach of civil liberties.
I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can say that the United Kingdom High Commissioner, when he hears that a British subject is to be deported, should assume that she will be badly treated and that she has the wrong clothes. Here is a rich woman with friends in Bombay and, I should have thought, with friends and relations in Paris, too—the hon. Gentleman might look into that—and she has a friend who can telegraph all along the line to her friends and relations. In addition, there are facilities in this country for taking care of anybody who is destitute.
In the circumstances, it can be assumed that such a woman, with comfortable means, can well look after herself. That is a long way from the case of a person differently situated. I can see that if the Council of Civil Liberties accept as true the account given by Mrs. Henry as to her treatment in Ceylon the case is the sort which they would take up.
Dr. Stross: This is important. 1 do not think we are quarrelling about this. It is now admitted that the High Commissioner knew that Mrs. Henry was being deported, and did not feel that he needed to do anything about it. But if he accepts what I have said on behalf of Mrs. Henry, that she was prevented from getting in touch with him, will the hon. and learned Member tell me what the High Commissioner and his Department are going to do in relation to the Ceylon Government for their treatment of this woman and for holding her incommunicado?
Mr. Foster: That has already been done. On the statement made by Mrs. Henry a letter was written to the Ceylon
1704
Government stating that if Mrs. Henry's statement was true it was a matter that called for explanation. The Ceylon authorities have answered and said that her statement was not true. We must accept the word of a Commonwealth Government on this point, especially in view of the circumstances of the case. Mr. Kassman, according to the statement supplied by the Ceylon authorities, had the opportunity at any time of the day to communicate with various people. He apparently saw fit to communicate with the secretary of the Communist Party.
Dr. Stross: So the Ceylon authorities say.
Mr. Foster: That is a definite statement which identifies somebody else. It may well be that Mr. Kassman, for motives of his own—and, perhaps, Mrs. Henry—is anxious to make the circumstances look as bad as possible. One knows that such a situation does develop, especially when given the surrounding circumstances of these two people. I do not know that; it is speculation on my part, but it is a possible explanation for these statements which, according to the statement of the Ceylon authorities, are completely untrue.
I do not think I can take the matter very much further. I have dealt with the two divisions of the case presented by the hon. Member. We have asked for an explanation and we have got it. With regard to the actions of the United Kingdom High Commissioner, my view is that there was no duty upon him to wire along the route, when he had been interviewed by Mrs. Henry's friend, for warm clothing and money to be sent to her. Nor do I know what funds or warm clothing are available to the British Government representatives in Paris or London. Where would the hon. Member have applied? The only two bodies I can think of with whom one might have communicated are the Red Cross and the W.V.S.
Dr. Stross: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that we have no Embassy in Paris, with a staff attached to it, and that nobody can meet an aeroplane when a woman is sent out from Ceylon with 50 rupees, a couple of cotton frocks, and in bare feet?
Mr. Foster: The amount of money possessed by Mrs. Henry was not within the knowledge of the High Commissioner. All he knew was that she had not very much money, and no warm clothing. I do not know whether there are any funds for providing warm clothing. If a person is destitute it is a different matter, but if one is just a little uncomfortable I do not see that anything can be done.
It is not worth blowing this matter up into a great civil affairs case. I cannot see it in that proportion. Even assuming that the hon. Member were right that it was the duty of the British authorities along the route to meet the aeroplane with bundles of warm clothing, I do not think that any great harm has been done. I can see that the hon. Member had to say what he has said because he wants to tack on to it the circumstances which he alleges took place when the lady departed from Ceylon.
As I say, I do not think I can carry this very much further. The first part of the matter was entirely for the Ceylon authorities. As for the second part of the case, the High Commissioner did know, but did not think, from the notice presented to him by Mr. Kassman that Mrs. Henry had left or from the advance notice he was given by the Ceylon authorities, that anything fell to be done by him. I agree with him. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a matter in which a great accusation can be made against the Commonwealth Relations Office or the United Kingdom High Commissioner.
1706
The hon. Gentleman said that Mrs. Henry asked to see me. I was a bit surprised, because I did not know about it. I certainly should have liked to have considered that. Very often, I find, in this kind of case, one ought to see the person concerned, even if the story may be overexcited, misconceived, or invented—although I am not saying that this story was any of those. However, I have no record of her asking to see me.
Dr. Stross: An approach was made by the Council of Civil Liberties. A request was made to see the Secretary of State. That was refused. Individually, the hon. and learned Gentleman may indeed know nothing about this. However, if he would see her I think that that would go a long way towards meeting us.
Mr. Foster: I should like to consider that sympathetically, without binding myself. I am told in the Department that there is no record of such a request.
Dr. Stross: I will check.
Mr. Foster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that one way or the other. I think it would be interesting, too, if the hon. Gentleman would clear up some of the other points at issue, but I hope that he will see the case in a perhaps less dramatic form than that in which it has been presented to me.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Four o'Clock, till Tuesday, 15th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXERCISE "LIONTREK")
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXERCISE "LIONTREK")
SUDAN
  Governor-General's Commission (Composition)
  Governor-General's Commission (Composition)
  Election Results
  Election Results
  GAS APPLIANCES (SELLING PRICES)
  GAS APPLIANCES (SELLING PRICES)
  ANTHRACITES (GRADES AND PRICES)
  ANTHRACITES (GRADES AND PRICES)
  TEETHING POWDERS
  TEETHING POWDERS
  LANDSLIP, BLAINA (EXCHEQUER GRANT)
  LANDSLIP, BLAINA (EXCHEQUER GRANT)
SCOTLAND
  Telephone Kiosks, East Kilbride
  Telephone Kiosks, East Kilbride
  Rural Water Supplies
  Rural Water Supplies
  Factories and Shops, East Kilbride
  Factories and Shops, East Kilbride
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Fish Landings (German Catches)
  Fish Landings (German Catches)
  Exports to Iceland
  Exports to Iceland
  HELICOPTER TEST FLIGHTS
  HELICOPTER TEST FLIGHTS
  VIKING AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT (TANGANYIKA INQUIRY)
  VIKING AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT (TANGANYIKA INQUIRY)
  ROUMANIAN ASSETS (DISTRIBUTION)
  ROUMANIAN ASSETS (DISTRIBUTION)
  CHISWICK HOUSE (REPAIRS)
  CHISWICK HOUSE (REPAIRS)
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  10.55 a.m.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Protection of Birds,

Coroners,

Atomic Energy Authority,

Pool Betting,

Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts),

Army and Air Force (Annual),

Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, &c.),

Superannuation (President of Industrial Court),

Supreme Court Officers (Pensions),

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions),

Dundee Corporation (Water Transport Finance &c.) Order Confirmation,

Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation,

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation,

Rutherglen Burgh Order Confirmation,

Metropolitan Common Scheme (Ham) Amending Scheme Confirmation,

Crewe Corporation,

Falmouth Docks,

Rhodesian Selection Trust Limited and Associated Companies,

Wankie Colliery,

Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust,

Caernarvon Corporation,

Tyne Improvement,

Shrewsbury Estate,

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

  TURKISH COMMERCIAL DEBTS
  TURKISH COMMERCIAL DEBTS