Sitting of 25 July 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  RAILWAYS

    Regions (Titles)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the reversion of Western Region, British Railways, to the traditional chocolate and cream colouring for express passenger rolling stock and green for express locomotives for such world-famous trains as the Cornish Riviera Limited, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to discontinue the title "Western Region" and, in the interests of esprit de corps of the railwaymen concerned and service to the travelling public, restore the prenationalisation nomenclature, "Great Western", for all services and routes formerly operated by that railway, and likewise for the other regions of British Railways.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I welcome the reintroduction of traditional
    386
    colours in the railway regions as a further sign that the regional boards are stimulating the sense of regional pride essential to efficient operation, but I do not consider it would be appropriate for me to give a direction as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is the declared objective of Her Majesty's Government to convert the nationalised industries, as far as possible, into commercial enterprises, and would it not be in consonance with that objective to restore those magic words "Great Western", which were the nomenclature of the world's most famous railway?
    Mr. Watkinson: It is my declared objective to try, with the British Transport Commission, to make a success of the very large organisation which it runs. To that extent, I welcome this idea of bringing back a feeling of regional pride, but I do not go to the extent of saying that I am prepared to give any kind of direction to the Commission on this matter.
    Mr. D. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many more important things to do on the Great Western than to pander to the whims of a conceited general manager?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that it would be very unfortunate for this House, bearing in mind that I thought that both parties were committed to not interfering in the day-to-day management, not to leave the regions to run their own affairs in these matters in the way they think best.
    Mr. Nabarro: A quite sympathetic Answer, for all that.

    Battery Rail-Car Service, Scotland
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now make a statement regarding his arrangements for the date of starting for a battery rail-car service in Scotland; and on which section of line it will operate.
    Mr. Watkinson: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that these arrangements are the responsibility of the British

    387
    Transport Commission. The Commission's Scottish management will, I understand, make an announcement in collaboration with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board as soon as a suitable design has been worked out and the experimental coach is ready.
    Captain Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend not recollect that in an earlier debate he promised that he would tell me when this would be done? Therefore, he assumed some responsibility for finding out on my behalf. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Hydro-Electric Board is only too anxious to supply the current for these battery rail-cars, and will he try to press the Commission to produce a rail-car or the body of a rail-car which will operate at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree, and I do not think there is any difference between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself. I am pressing the Commission, and will inform him when the car is ready.

    Paddington—Uxbridge Line
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in order to help relieve the traffic congestion on the roads and the overcrowding on the Piccadilly and Metropolitan rail lines to Uxbridge, he will instruct the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to make a special inquiry into the possibilities of making full use of the branch railway line from Paddington to Uxbridge via West Drayton.
    Mr. Watkinson: As the hon. Member will know, this is essentially a matter for the British Transport Commission, which is responsible for deciding the services to be provided on this line, and if an independent assessment were desired, it could most appropriately be obtained by means of representation to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for the London area.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that it really is not good enough when the Minister of Transport appears to be contracting out of this business, which involves the traffic congestion in London as a whole? It is a scandal that this valuable ground from Paddington to Uxbridge is being sterilised and not used
    388
    for the purpose for which it was intended originally. Will he please do something about it?
    Mr. Watkinson: All I am saying is that it would be right and constitutional for this matter to be put forward through the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which has powers then to recommend to me.

  TRANSPORT

    Deep Sea Trawlers (Lifeboats)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, with a view to reducing the susceptibility of trawlers to icing in bad weather, and to providing their crews with an effective means of avoiding loss of life in an emergency, he will consider altering the present regulations so as to permit all deep sea trawlers to carry one general purposes boat instead of two lifeboats, the second boat being replaced by two inflatable rafts capable of carrying all the crew.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I am already considering a proposal on these lines.

    British Transport Commission (Title)
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to amend Section 1 of the Transport Act, 1947, by altering the title of the British Transport Commission to the Royal Transport Service, and of the regions to companies of that service.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The existing title seems to me accurate and appropriate.
    Mr. Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the psychological value, both to the public and to the staff, of using such words as the "Great Western Railway Company," and does he not appreciate that there are many precedents for using ancient titles in contexts different from those in which they were formerly used, such as coroner or sheriff, or in the Army, the Rifle Brigade or the Grenadier Guards, which have no connection these days with either rifles or grenades? Would it not be a good thing to have a Great Western Railway in no way connected with the shareholders?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that there are many precedents, but the one which I propose to follow is to try, with the British Transport Commission, to make a success of what is the country's largest employer.

    British Transport Commission (Financial Position)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his consultations with the British Transport Commission on its financial position have been completed; and what action it is proposed to take in regard thereto.
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress is being made in the talks between his Department and the British Transport Commission on the question of increased efficiency in the Commission's services.
    Mr. Watkinson: The six months' period does not end until 18th September and a vast field of inquiry has to be covered by the Commission. My consultations with it are continuing to make good progress and, as I have already promised, I will inform the House of the results as soon as I can.
    Mr. Davies: Yes, but if the period ends in September, the House will be in Recess. How is the House to be informed? Is it proposed to publish a White Paper? Will there be an opportunity for debate following these consultations? Finally, will the Minister make certain that he takes no irrevocable step during the Recess of Parliament?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am quite willing to tell the hon. Gentleman, and I think it will meet his point, that I shall only announce this in Parliament, which I think is the right and proper place to do it.
    Mr. Davies: Will a White Paper be published?
    Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the returns of the British Transport Commission show that it was £70 million "in the red" at the end of last year and most people believe that the deficit is now running at a rate of £45 million. Cannot the Minister possibly tell the House what he proposes to do about the £115 million deficit?
    Mr. Watkinson: I shall tell the House at the proper time. I have just said that this is the proper place to announce it. With regard to the deficit, which is well known to all hon. Members, the responsibility for it certainly does not lie only on my shoulders or on this Government.

    Accidents (Motor Cyclists)
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will publish an analysis of road accidents in which motor cyclists have been involved during a recent convenient twelve months' period showing the number of registered vehicles and the number of accidents for each of the following classes, namely, 250 c.c. and under, exceeding 250 c.c. but not exceeding 350 c.c., exceeding 350 c.c. but not exceeding 500 c.c. and exceeding 500 c.c.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The figures asked for are not immediately available. Some statistical research into the number of motor cycles of different sizes involved in accidents is at present being done for the use of the Sub-Committee of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety which is considering the appropriate minimum age for riding motor cycles. I will also arrange for the numbers of motor cycles in certain engine-size groups to be obtained when the next annual census of road vehicles licensed is being made.

    Road Safety Campaign
    Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in furtherance of his road safety campaign, he will issue an appeal to industrial and commercial concerns to include in their advertising matter frequent references to road safety; and if he will collect information from concerns already devoting advertising space to that purpose so that he may be able to offer advice to others contemplating similar activity.
    Mr. Molson: Industrial and commercial concerns already give a measure of support to the road safety campaign in their own advertising, both nationally and also in co-operation with local road safety committees. We are most grateful for such help and should welcome the participation of more firms in this campaign.

    391
    The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and my Department are always ready to offer advice and suggestions, based on past experience, to any concern willing to help in this field.
    Mr. Page: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a particularly extensive campaign being started by Littlewood's, and would he collect information on the effectiveness of that campaign to see whether advice can be given to other commercial concerns? Further, have any industrial or commercial concerns joined with him in the coming child safety campaign?
    Mr. Molson: A number of concerns have taken part in these campaigns, and I know that Messrs. Littlewood is one of them. We are deeply appreciative of what has been done, and we should welcome a number of other concerns doing the same thing. I could not say without notice to what extent industrial or commercial concerns are participating in the "Mind that child" campaign which is being inaugurated in the autumn.

    Hyde Park Corner
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation at what hours of the day traffic delays at Hyde Park Corner are estimated to have been reduced by 30 per cent. between 1925 and 1954.
    Mr. Watkinson: The comparative figure of traffic delays at Hyde Park Corner which I gave to my hon. Friend on 18th July was based on the results of a number of sample runs made at different times of day. Those in 1954 were taken by the Road Research Laboratory and those in 1926 by the police, but these were averages and cannot be related to any particular time of day.
    Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the reduction of the delay may not be anything like as much as 30 per cent. during the peak hours, when it is worse? Would he not agree also that some of this reduction is probably due to the fact that now there is no horse traffic, as there was in 1925? Would he not agree that that is still an appalling place to drive round today, and cannot steps be taken to make an early improvement?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree with the third thing which my hon. Friend said.

    One-Way Working, Cavendish Square
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will experiment with one-way working in Cavendish Square, W.1.
    Mr. Molson: The treatment of Cavendish Square is bound up with traffic arrangements at Oxford Circus. As a temporary diversion during road works in Regent Street, a number of one-way streets are very shortly to be tried in this area, and these will include the east and west sides of Cavendish Square. The results of those diversions will be carefully watched.
    Mr. Russell: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the south side of Cavendish Square? Is he aware that at the junction of the Square with Holles Street there is sometimes a most appalling jam, because of the traffic trying to go three ways at once? Will he look into conditions on that side of the Square?
    Mr. Molson: I shall certainly look into this matter at the time the experiment is being made, but we have considered this matter in the past and we thought that, on balance, it would not be desirable to introduce one-way traffic there.

    Staggered Working Hours, London (Committee)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now announce what he proposes to do to encourage the staggering of the times of beginning and ending work in London in order to relieve congestion at peak hours.
    Mr. Watkinson: After consultation with the Chairmen of the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the British Transport Commission, I have decided to adopt a suggestion made to me by Mr. Fitzgerald, the Chairman of the London Transport Users' Consultative Committee and of the sub-committee which has been concerned with the staggering of hours, that I should appoint a new committee to take on this work from the Consultative Committee, which has important separate duties under the Transport Acts.

    393
    I have accordingly decided to set up a committee with the main function of putting in train further measures for the staggering of working hours in central London. I am glad to say that Mr. Fitzgerald has consented to act as chairman of this new committee.
    I am circulating the proposed terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the excellent work which Mr. Fitzgerald and his sub-committee have done in addition to their regular duties on the Consultative Committee.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister satisfied that this is the most expeditious way of dealing with this matter? Surely another committee means that there will be meetings; there will then be a report, during which time no action will be taken. The Government are very apt to appoint these committees, and we then have to wait a very long time before any action is taken. Will not he take any immediate action in this matter? It is very urgent.
    Mr. Watkinson: No. The fact of the case is—as I think the hon. Member knows—that this is a very difficult technical question. We have to balance buses and trains and all the other means of arrival. Mr. Fitzgerald and his colleagues are, perhaps, the most expert people to do this job, and that is what they will be doing in the autumn of this year.
    The following are the proposed terms of reference:

    (1) To consider and to set in train further measures for the staggering of working hours so as to relieve congestion at the peak periods on the services to and from central London provided by London Transport and British Railways;

    (2) to review changes in the day-time population of central London, particularly those arising from the erection of new buildings, and to endeavour to avoid any consequent increase of congestion;

    (3) to recommend to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation any measures which they may consider desirable but find themselves unable to initiate; and

    (4) to report progress to him at least once a year.

    The committee will be free to appoint subcommittees, not necessarily confined to its own members, and to delegate to them such of its functions under heads (1) and (2) as it may think fit.
    [Note: Central London should be broadly taken as covering the City of London, the
    394
    Borough of Holborn, the City of Westminster and adjacent parts of the Boroughs of Fins-bury, St. Pancras, and St. Marylebone, of the Royal Borough of Kensington and of the Boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark.]

  ROADS

    Road Works, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the causes of the delay in repairing the road from Silverdale in Newcastle-under-Lyme via Crackley Gates to Scot Hay, in the negotiations about the adoption of which representatives of his Department took part and which was last repaired at Government expense thirteen years ago.
    Mr. Molson: The borough council has had difficulties in acquiring the land required for widening this private road. I am informed that these have now been resolved and that the council hopes to let a contract shortly for the road works.
    Mr. Swingler: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that assurance, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents, having waited now for over thirteen years, would welcome some early signs of action on this dangerous road?
    Mr. Molson: Yes, I do not doubt that. I shall welcome it also. But it is the responsibility of the borough council and not of my Department.

    A1, Newark and Stevenage
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why, on Al just south of Newark, the road has been recently widened in two separate lengths totalling about one mile to a width of only 28 feet; and with which standard laid down by his Department this width conforms.
    Mr. Molson: The work of widening the carriageway of this road to 30 ft. was carried out in the summer of last year as part of the policy of improving the Great North Road. The surfacing consists of bituminous macadam 28 ft. wide with a concrete strip 1 ft. wide on each side. The design is in accordance of the standards applicable at that time
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that road users are of the opinion that this is not wide enough? Will he give some consideration to the possibility of widening the road to a different standard?
    Mr. Molson: In Circular 727 issued by my right hon. Friend, now the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, a higher standard has been introduced. That is why in my original reply I said that what had been done in this case complied with the standards which were in operation at that time. Owing to the large amount of traffic on this road, it is ultimately intended to provide dual carriageways of 24 ft. width.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the dangerous road conditions on A1 near and through Stevenage and the new town; and what steps he proposes to take to speed up the construction of the by-pass which was originally authorised in 1947.
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I have authorised the acquisition of the necessary land for this by-pass, so that as soon as funds can be made available for the constructional work there should be no delay in putting it in hand.
    Mr. Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when the funds will be available? Will he press his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that they are made available soon, because this is a very dangerous position?
    Mr. Watkinson: That may be so, but I cannot build a by-pass until I have bought the land, and that, as the hon. Member knows, is quite a long job.

    Riverside Highway Plan, Blackfriars—Battersea Bridge
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made in the plan for a riverside highway from Blackfriars to Battersea Bridge.
    Mr. Watkinson: In consultation with my Department, officers of the London County Council and of the Port of London Authority have examined the technical aspects of this plan and have made a preliminary Report which is now being considered.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he wrote a glowing introduction to a pamphlet on this plan in which he said that he was keenly interested in this bold and far-sighted idea? How soon can we expect his decision on the technical Report which is now in his possession?
    Mr. Watkinson: I welcome anybody who has good and new ideas about how to solve London's traffic problems, and I therefore welcomed the initiative which caused this study to be made. That does not mean that I can go further with it until I have had the benefit of the views of the experts. Those are what I am now getting. As soon as I have them I will look at them and announce my decision.

    Lighting
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to obtain uniform lighting on main roads.
    Mr. Molson: On trunk roads, where we are able to contribute to the expenditure incurred by local authorities on new or improved lighting, conformity with the standards recommended by the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting is a condition of the contribution. On other roads the local authorities are solely responsible for lighting. They are aware of the recommended standards which my Department's technical advice, which is always available, aims at having adopted everywhere.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Are there not still far too many variations in lighting on main roads, other than the trunk roads for which the Ministry is responsible? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a Government Committee sat on this matter twenty-one years ago? Is it not time the Ministry exercised some influence on local authorities to try to get them to deal with this variation in lighting, which does not help to reduce road accidents at night?
    Mr. Molson: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that it is only in respect of trunk roads that we are empowered to make any grants, and it is therefore only over them that we can exercise any control. The other roads are left to local authorities, and I regret that they are not in all cases introducing lighting which is uniform.
    Mr. Page: Will not my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Minister to see whether they could initiate legislation on this subject? The lack of uniformity in lighting is a most serious subject. As he knows, lack of legislation prevents him from doing anything about it. Cannot he initiate some legislation in that respect?
    Mr. Molson: At the present time we do not propose to initiate any legislation on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Such money as is available for work upon the roads will be spent upon road building, which is useful by day and by night. At present we are not disposed to spend on lighting more of any money which is available.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman serious when he says that this involves expenditure of money by the Government? Is it not a question of using influence with the local authorities in order to secure some uniformity? Why has he raised the question of finance?
    Mr. Molson: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my original Answer he would have heard me say that we use such influence as we are able to use, but experience may have taught him that where one is not able to make any financial contribution one's advice does not gain very much attention.

    Traffic Signs
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the average delay between the application by a local authority for approval of a road traffic sign and the necessary regulations and the notification of his decision.
    Mr. Molson: If my hon. Friend will let me know a little more precisely the type of sign or traffic regulation order he has in mind, I will gladly send him the particulars he wants. The time taken varies so widely with the type of sign or order that any general answer would be misleading.
    Mr. Thompson: I appreciate that, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the time for all the different kinds of signs and orders is invariably too long? Will he satisfy himself that everything is done to speed up a decision in those cases where local authorities are doing their best to promote road safety?
    Mr. Molson: In the case, for example, of a "Slow" sign, there is no delay whatsoever. In the case of a "Halt" sign the normal time for giving approval, if approval is given, is about two weeks. In the case, however, of traffic regulation orders it very largely depends upon the local authority; it depends also upon whether a public inquiry has to be held, and it may be anything up to two years

    Rail Crossing, Oakengates
    Mr. W. Yatesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give the details of the order which he has made and type of crossing gate of which he has approved, as being suitable for a rail crossing over the trunk road A5 at Oakengates, Shropshire.
    Mr. Molson: My right hon. Friend has made no order. I understand, however, that, as the result of discussions between the local interests concerned, the company operating the railway has agreed to provide longer and lower swing barriers across the road. These will carry an illuminated warning and the advance warning signs will also be illuminated.
    Mr. Yates: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he thinks that swivel arms alone are suitable on a main trunk road? Why is he not willing to make an order on the same lines as that for the gates used by the National Coal Board or British Railways where a private railway crosses a trunk main road, and avoid some serious accidents?
    Mr. Molson: For two reasons. The first, as I indicated on a previous occasion, is that my right hon. Friend has no power to make the order.
    Dame Irene Ward: Take it.
    Mr. Molson: In the second place, we are satisfied that this is a reasonable provision for ensuring the safety of the crossing.
    Mr. Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that the provisions are not suitable, and I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Roundabout, Chiswick
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will take steps to increase road space and the

    399
    radius of the roundabout at the junction of the Great West Road and Chiswick High Street.
    Mr. Watkinson: Early in September work will begin on a temporary improvement of the roundabout, which should help traffic movement until the fly-over scheme is completed.
    Mr. Grimond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Will he bear in mind that there seems to be plenty of room on the outside of this roundabout and extra pavement space which could be used to increase the radius?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree.

    St. Albans By-Pass
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how long he anticipates that it will take to complete the actual construction of the St. Albans by-pass.
    Mr. Watkinson: The construction of the St. Albans by-pass will take about three years, and will, I hope, be completed by about the end of 1960.

    Rate of Construction
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what he estimates to be the average daily rate of construction of a new road providing a dual carriageway with room for two lines of traffic each side; and what steps he is taking to accelerate the present rate of road contruction.
    Mr. Molson: In theory, after all the preliminary work has been done, a carriageway surface can be laid at a rate of about 100 yards a day. This is, however, an artificial figure of no practical value as a yardstick since the rate of progress will vary greatly with the job. The use of modern road-making machinery is steadily increasing, and this will make the best contribution towards accelerating the rate of construction of the new roads included in the programme.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend why it takes so much longer to build roads in this country than on the Continent? Is he aware that in Germany roads are laid at the rate of 200 yards a day? Is he further aware that a recent report in the newspapers stated that the roads on the motorway from
    400
    Milan to Naples, a distance of 167 miles, will be completed in two years?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: If they can do it, we can.
    Mr. Molson: In each case it depends to a large extent on the nature of the subsoil and the number of bridges, etc., which have to be constructed. To give an example of two by-pass roads at present being constructed—and we are satisfied that both are being constructed as expeditiously as possible—on the Markyate by-pass, to do less than a mile will take eighteen months and on the Preston by-pass to do one mile will take twelve months That arises out of the different circumstances in each case. Generally, the larger the job the heavier and more up-to-date equipment is used and therefore, relatively speaking, progress is more rapid.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that a number of hon. Members recently saw a great deal of road making in Germany and Holland where some remarkable machinery is used for laying the road surfaces. Can he assure the House that our equipment for laying road surfaces is at least as modern, up-to-date and effective as that now being used on the Continent?
    Mr. Molson: I was under the impression that our equipment is as up-to-date as any, but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and if he will give me particulars, I will look into the matter.

    Tyne Crossing Project
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to state the date on which the Tyne Tunnel project will commence.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am still awaiting comments from some of the interested bodies on the question whether a crossing of the Tyne should take the form of a bridge or a tunnel. Until that point has been decided I cannot make any decision about when it may be possible to include an approved scheme in the road, programme.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of people in the North are cynical about this

    401
    matter? Is he aware that plans were approved for a tunnel, and that it was not until his predecessor threw out the idea of a bridge—many people thought he did so in order deliberately to delay the project—that there was any suggestion of a bridge? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when this project is sanctioned, the recent statement which he made to the National Productivity Advissory Council on Industry will apply; and whether this project, which has been under discussion, for which plans have been made and the necessary ground bought, will provide free transport, or whether there will have to be a toll charge?
    Mr. Watkinson: I cannot allocate this project any place in the programme at all until a decision has been taken by the interested parties—which at the moment do not include myself—whether a bridge is suitable or not. As soon as I have that information I can go into the matter.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be free?
    Dame Irene Ward: While not necessarily agreeing with the strictures passed by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend could go up to the North and do a bit of "stirring up".
    Mr. Watkinson: I was in Newcastle a fortnight ago.

    Gatwick Airport (Diversionary Road)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the length of the new diversionary road round Gatwick Airport from the Brighton Road A23; and how long it will take to construct.
    Mr. Molson: The length is 2⅔miles. It is estimated that the new road will be completed in the summer of 1957.

    Markyate By-Pass
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the length of the new Markyate by-pass; and how long it will take to construct.
    Mr. Molson: Nearly a mile. The construction of the by-pass will, I hope, be completed by about the end of next May.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Markyate, instead of the new road proceeding at an artificial figure of a hundred yards a day, it is proceeding at a figure nearer three yards a day? Can he explain—
    Mr. Stokes: Government policy.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke:—why this slow progress has been made and also why Gatwick, in Surrey, is doing so much better than Markyate, in Hertfordshire?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Because Hertfordshire is a minor county.
    Mr. Molson: I have already replied, in answer to an earlier Question, that it is difficult to make a comparison between one engineering project and another, but I will certainly make further inquiries into the progress being made at Markyate, and write to my hon. Friend.

    Fly-overs, St. Albans By-Pass
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the cost and area of the land which has been purchased for the two fly-overs on the St. Albans by-pass at North Orbital Road and the junction of the London—Holyhead road which projects are estimated to cost £5,500,000.
    Mr. Watkinson: Between 20 and 25 acres of land will be required for these fly-overs. None of this can yet be acquired and I cannot, therefore, say what its cost will be.
    Mr. Stokes: As the estimated cost of the total project presumably includes the land, at £5½ million, can the Minister say how much the estimated cost of the land is?
    Mr. Watkinson: No—not without notice.

    Cromwell Road Extension
    Sir D. Gammansasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation his estimate of the saving in time for passengers travelling by road to London Airport when the Cromwell Road extension is finished; and what would be the additional saving of time if the fly-over junction at Hammersmith were put in hand.
    Mr. Watkinson: The saving in journey time will be considerable, particularly during the busier hours of the day. I cannot give precise up-to-date figures, but I am having a survey made to establish as nearly as possible what the savings are likely to be when the new road is open to traffic.
    Sir D. Gammans: Can my right hon. Friend say what the saving would be if there were a fly-over junction? As, in the very nature of things, there is bound to be a vast increase in the traffic to London Airport, does not he think that a fly-over ought to be constructed?
    Mr. Watkinson: One of the reasons why I am having this survey made is that one of the figures in the possession of my Department shows that there would be only from two to two and a half minutes' advantage in time with a flyover, and I thought that I had better have it checked.
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in what way a decision to build the Hammersmith fly-over as soon as possible would delay the carrying out of the ground-level scheme, in view of the estimate that the latter will be completed by the middle of 1958 and the unlikelihood of the contract for the fly-over being let before then.
    Mr. Watkinson: Because it would then be necessary at the outset to acquire more land, demolish more property and do more works to provide for raising the main carriageway on to the fly-over.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Airways Corporations (Aircraft)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now prepared to say when a British-produced civil air liner will be available to meet the needs of the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the latest prospects of British makes of aeroplanes being available to the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation to maintain an up-to-date and fully competitive service; and to what extent he has found
    404
    it necessary meanwhile to consent to the purchase of United States and other foreign aeroplanes to maintain the British air services.
    Mr. Watkinson: British European Airways already operates British aircraft of exceptional competitive efficiency and has just contracted to purchase a still more advanced British type—the Vanguard.
    B.O.A.C. has already ordered thirty-three Britannias, twenty Comets and twelve Viscounts. As regards further orders, the Corporation is urgently studying the findings of its technical inquiries in this country and America. Decisions will have to be taken as soon as these are completed. If these should involve the purchase of American aircraft, B.O.A.C. would wish them to be equipped with British engines.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that all he has said is welcome news indeed and, of course, much of it was familiar; but the point about which I should like to hear him say something is as to when we are to get a machine that will satisfy the needs of B.O.A.C. on the Transatlantic routes? It is worrying a great many people, in view of the fact that so much public money has been poured into the aircraft production side.
    Mr. Watkinson: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman means when we are to get a British aircraft?
    Mr. Rankin
    Mr. Watkinson: That is one of the reasons why the Chairman of the Corporation wished to have the most thoroughgoing technical inquiry into all the aircraft that might be available before he took a final decision.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister whether it has not yet come to his knowledge that the British aircraft industry is in a terrible muddle, and that nothing will happen until the Government do something about it?
    Mr. Watkinson: I should not be surprised if, despite the right hon. Gentleman's background in business, I know a little more about the aircraft industry at this moment than he does.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the end of last year he referred to the 1965 aeroplane for B.O.A.C, and would he tell us

    405
    when a decision will be made in that direction? Will he also remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), if he does not read the papers, that only yesterday De Havilland's sold £27 million worth of aeroplanes?
    Mr. Watkinson: As regards the 1965 project, I am only concerned at the moment—or it is more proper to say that the Corporation is concerned, because I do not come into the matter until the Corporation has taken a decision—about taking a decision on what aircraft will best secure its competitive position in the North Atlantic. There are British aircraft that can be considered, as well as American.
    Mr. Stokes: As the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) challenges me, of course I read the papers and saw that order, and I was glad to see it. But the fact is that as regards the defence of this country we are in a deplorable mess and there are no worth-while aeroplanes.
    Mr. Watkinson: That has nothing to do with the Question, which is about civil aircraft, and in many civil aircraft we still lead the world.
    Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that B.O.A.C. has been able to place orders for British aircraft to the amount of £80 million and B.E.A. to the amount of £37 million? Is not this a good indication that our aircraft industry is well to the fore, and that we are right in pursuing the policy of "Fly British" as well as we can?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, that is a completely accurate statement, and it is the policy of both Corporations to follow the policy of flying British aircraft. Indeed, their past history shows that they have done it very successfully. But, as my hon. Friend has just said, they cannot carry that to the length of being uncompetitive if from time to time there are foreign aircraft which are better for particular purposes.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that most people in the House will appreciate the very reasonable statement he has just made?
    Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Stokes: That does not contradict what I said.
    Mr. Beswick: It is a further indication that the right hon. Gentleman has completely eaten his words given in that unfortunate interview to the News Chronicle, in which he said that the Corporation had to buy British or get out.
    Mr. Watkinson: That is not true at all. The position is as I have said, that it is the policy of this Government, as indeed it was the policy of the Government of which the hon. Member was a Member, to apply a policy of flying British. However, I am not prepared, and nor should any responsible Minister of Civil Aviation be prepared, to prejudice the commercial future of the Corporations for which he is responsible. That is always a difficult combination of circumstances to provide for, and that is why I will not take any decision until I am satisfied that the merits of British and other aircraft have been fully investigated.

    London Airport (Licensed Hours)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the 24-hour licence is now in operation at London Airport; and whether he is satisfied that it is confined to bona fide travellers.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The Answer to both parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Remnant: Can my hon. Friend say whether any restrictive conditions were applied to the licence so that the licensee carries some responsibility for observing the intentions of Parliament?
    Mr. Profumo: The basic responsibility has been laid by Parliament on my right hon. Friend, but the management of London Airport has told the catering management to issue written instructions to its staff reinforcing the oral instructions which it has already given on the subject.

    London Airport (Car Parking)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give consideration to the provision of a garage at London Airport for the cars of passengers flying from there.
    Mr. Profumo: Since car parking facilities at London Airport are at present adequate, my right hon. Friend does not consider that he could justify the provision of a garage there for passengers' cars.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend consider the question of putting up a garage there with service facilities which would enable those members of the public who wish to fly abroad for a few days to leave their cars at London Airport for servicing, as that would be a considerable convenience?
    Mr. Profumo: We are in the process of negotiating with a firm to establish a petrol filling station in the central terminal area, but I must repeat that my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be right to establish garages at present.

    Landing Fields, Highlands and Islands
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will take steps to open new landing fields in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
    Mr. Profumo: No, Sir. I am not aware of any demand from operators for such new facilities.
    Mr. Grimond: May I asked the Minister to look into this matter of developing air services in the Highlands and Islands, which would seem to be a suitable area? Is he aware that the present service is absolutely full in summer and yet, for some reason, neither private nor public operators are opening new services? Is that because of the lack of suitable landing grounds, or aircraft, or the cost, or what is the reason?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not fully share the view of the hon. Gentleman. A comparison between the Highlands and Islands routes operated by all the operators in the summer of 1939 and those operated today by B.E.A. alone, would show that on the western Scottish routes almost eight times as many seats are offered weekly today and in Orkney and Shetland almost five times as many.
    Mr. Grimond: But there are no new routes.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: If my hon. Friend cannot think of opening new fields
    408
    in the area, will he consider re-opening the port of Errol?
    Mr. Profumo: Errol is being held on a care and maintenance basis against the need to cater for air services in the area.

    Controlled Air Spaces (Flight Rules)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will ensure, in framing a scheme to prevent the collision of aircraft flying in controlled air spaces, that such standards of separation between aircraft will be enforced as will prevent the occurrence of incidents like near misses.
    Mr. Watkinson: I consider that the internationally agreed separation standards already applied to flight under Instrument Flight Rules are adequate. The extent to which aircraft fly under these rules will automatically increase as a result of the change in Visual Flight Rules to which I referred in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) on 6th June.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that, replying to me last Wednesday, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that in the last six months there had been 58 incidents involving the safety in flight of civil aircraft, but of these only two were "near misses"? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what exactly are "near misses"?
    Mr. Stokes: Something that does not hit.
    Mr. Rankin: For the benefit of my right hon. Friend, may I say that I was asking a question of the Minister?
    Secondly, can the Minister say whether, in the scheme now being formulated, every aircraft will be brought under complete radar control when it is in flight?
    Mr. Watkinson: Of the 58 incidents only two were serious and involved a real danger of collision. That is the definition of "near miss." As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think that I can pronounce on that until the most careful study which is taking place has been completed and proved the facts, so far as we can. In the meantime, as I have said, we have increased the visual flight distance.
    Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister say when he expects to be able to announce the result of the study?
    Mr. Watkinson

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Aircraft and Stores (Supply and Maintenance)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence what investigations he has made into overlapping in the supply and maintenance of aircraft and stores between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
    The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): The Ministry of Supply is responsible for supplying aircraft and associated stores both to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. I am not aware that there is any overlapping, but I should be happy to look into any particular case the hon. Member may have in mind.
    As regards maintenance facilities, the special requirements of the two Services and the different conditions in which they operate make it doubtful whether the pooling of their resources would contribute either to economy or to efficiency. I appreciate, however, the anxiety felt by the hon. Member and others on this score, and I have called for reports on this and other related aspects of Service co-ordination.

    Sea and Air Trooping
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence whether he will investigate the cost in time and money involved in the sea trooping of Service men and their families in modern steamships compared with that of air trooping in modern transport aircraft.
    Sir W. Monckton: This matter is under continuous review by the Service Departments in consultation with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, but it is not possible to arrive at a true comparison of the costs involved in trooping by the two alternative methods mentioned in the Question, except by reference to the particular circumstances of a given series of movements.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that, apart from the capital saving in using aircraft, the number of men saved in the
    410
    lines of communication if air transport and not sea transport is used may well bring much nearer the day when we can do without such large numbers of men and so abolish conscription?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am not sure that I would go so far as that, but I am sure that the hon. Member will be glad to know that, if we omit Germany, about half of all personnel movement in 1955–56 was carried out by air, and we shall do as much of that as we can.
    Mr. Bellenger: Was that ordinary individual trooping, or by unit? Was a considerable proportion done by unit?
    Sir W. Monckton: It is in the case where we are doing it by unit that we are more likely to be using sea transport, because the men move with their equipment and families. I was taking an overall figure for movements, leaving out Germany.
    Mr. de Freitas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that about half the trooping is done by air. Is not that exactly the same figure as it was last year and the year before?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am afraid that I cannot answer about last year without notice. I do not know the figure.

    Aircraft Production (Cost)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of public disquiet as to the waste of public money in the aircraft industry, he will investigate the cost of designing, developing and producing aircraft for the three Services.
    Sir W. Monckton: As I have already announced, I am looking into the arrangements for supplying the Forces with aircraft, and I will inform the House of the conclusions I reach.
    Steps have already been taken to lighten the load on our resources, and I hope these will contribute to the end which both the hon. Member and Her Majesty's Government have in mind.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will this really meet the point that there are at this moment inefficient firms which are kept going through public money, at great cost not only to the Exchequer but also to the efficiency of other firms which are really doing the work?
    Sir W. Monckton: I should not like to make a general answer to that. I am aware that there are great differences, and in lightening the load we shall be able to take advantage of that.
    Mr. Stokes: Has the Minister paid any attention to what I said to him in February this year? I then asked whether he had made any investigation into the then declared statement that of 166 projects started in the last ten years we had sunk more than £1,000 million in unsuccessful aircraft, and only eight projects had been successful. Surely there is something wrong with that.
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not recollect the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave me upon that occasion. What I said today was that steps have been taken to reduce the number of projects, and I think that that is the right course to take.

  EGYPT

    Aswan High Dam
    Mr. H. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Britain has yet entered into a firm commitment to make a grant to Egypt for the construction of the high dam at Aswan.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): My hon. Friend will be aware that since he put down his Question Her Majesty's Government have announced that they do not consider it feasible in present circumstances to participate in this project.
    Mr. Fraser: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend knows that the decision of Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with this project has been welcomed throughout the country for hydro-logical, economic and technical reasons. But will he now consider, in view of the fact that the Aswan folly is out of the way, the idea of a Nile Valley authority—the idea of using the £200 million now floating about in the World Bank for investment in the Nile Valley, and a return to the World Bank conception of a multiple dam scheme for the whole Nile Valley?
    Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that is a matter which now requires careful consideration.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend consider approaching the American, Soviet and Egyptian Governments with a proposal to grant international aid, through the Social and Economic Council of the United Nations, to build the Aswan dam on conditions consistent with the principles, purposes and obligations of the United Nations Charter?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the fact that Egypt unilaterally repudiated the Treaty of 1936, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of us are relieved that we have not gone in for this loan, which might also be unilaterally repudiated by this or another Egyptian Government?
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that Egypt can get all the water she wants from the White Nile for an expenditure of about one-third of that involved in building the Aswan dam?
    Mr. Lloyd: Again, I think that that is rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision not to assist with British funds the construction of the dam at Aswan.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I dealt with this matter yesterday in the course of the debate on foreign affairs.
    Mr. Grimond: I have read what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday. While it may well be that we have come to the right conclusion, nevertheless, would he not agree that the handling of the matter has been rather unfortunate? Could he not review the machinery by which these projects are examined before they are entered into at all, because to have a withdrawal at the heels of the Americans in the last resort seems to have put us in a somewhat difficult position?
    Mr. Lloyd: What the hon. Member said is not true. We were in close consultation with the United States Government about this matter, and our announcement followed immediately after the announcement of the American decision.

    Dismissed British Officials
    Mr. H. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding compensation by the Egyptian Government to those British officials who were dismissed from Egyptian employment in 1951.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said in his reply on 25th June to my hon. Friend, the Egyptian Commission set up under the Exchange of Letters annexed to the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement has submitted its recommendations to the Egyptian Government. No award has been announced. Her Majesty's Ambassador, on my instructions, has reminded the Egyptian Government of the importance we attach to an early and generous settlement.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is now little possibility of the Egyptian Government paying any compensation to the people involved, because they may take note of how generously Mr. Leonard Lord treats his people when they are redundant?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not at all accept what the hon. Member says.

    Suez Canal
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when financial assistance is provided for Egypt for the development of projects in that country, he will make it a condition that the Suez Canal should be made free for vessels belonging to any nation.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Financial assistance is not being provided by Her Majesty's Government to Egypt for the development of projects in that country. The Question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Shinwell: In replying to an earlier Question, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in present circumstances it was not proposed to extend financial help to Egypt in connection with another project. If the circumstances change, would the conditions which I have set forth in the Question apply?
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course, that is a very hypothetical question, but I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman should
    414
    suggest that strings should be attached to aid.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are not these strings in compliance with a decision of the United Nations, and does not that make a difference?
    Mr. Lloyd: Anyhow, the right hon. Gentleman's Question is hypothetical.

  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
  Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct our representatives or delegates to the United Nations Organisation to press for a deferment of all atom and hydrogen bomb tests for a period of two years, and so enable, in the intervening period, a reassessment of the effect of radio-active particles on life, land, sea, and air.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I said during the foreign affairs debate.
  Mr. Craddock: In view of the Prime Minister's promise to support consideration of the deferment or abolition of these tests, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Prime Minister is prepared to take the initiative in causing such a meeting to be held in order to give proper consideration to the matter?
  Mr. Lloyd: Having said in answer to the hon. Member's Question that I had nothing to add to what was said in the foreign affairs debate, I think that I should be unwise to add anything in reply to a supplementary question.

  UNITED STATES VISITORS
  Sir D. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what courtesies in connection with the granting of visas are extended to members of Congress visiting this country as private individuals as compared with British Members of Parliament visiting the United States of America privately.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: American visitors to the United Kingdom do not require visas and the first part of the

  415
  Question does not therefore arise. Private British visitors to the United States, including Members of Parliament visiting the United States in a private capacity, require a United States visa but no visa fee is payable.
  Sir D. Gammans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it would be possible to persuade the American Government that on grounds of security it is not necessary for Members of Parliament to have their fingerprints taken and also to be vaccinated, in view of the fact that we do not require such qualifications from American Congressmen coming here?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not know about vaccination, but we have left the United States authorities in no doubt about opinion in this country on finger-printing. It is true that the President himself has indicated that he would like to see some discretion in this matter, but at the moment the authorities are governed by legislation in the United States and have no discretion in the matter.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Strontium 90 (Effects)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Lord Privy Seal what effects strontium has had upon Welsh mountain sheep; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I have been asked to reply.
    In studying the distribution of radioactivity arising from fall-out, measurements have been made of the strontium 90 associated with the calcium in various biological materials. Among the representative samples of sheep bones examined, a few from very localised mountain areas in Wales have shown higher values than those from other areas. Even so, the levels are too low to have any detectable effects on sheep.

    Enriched Uranium
    Mr. Stokesasked the Lord Privy Seal (1) how much of the enriched uranium now agreed to be supplied by the United States of America to the Atomic Energy Authority will be passed on or sold to Germany;
    416
    (2) how much enriched uranium he expects to receive this year under the amendment to the Atomic Energy Agreement signed in Washington last month; and how much of this material will be used for war weapons.
    Major Lloyd-George: I have been asked to reply.
    The amendment to our bilateral agreement with the United States of America has only received the necessary Congressional approval within the last few days, and I do not expect that any enriched uranium will be received this year. Materials supplied under the bilateral agreement are not available for use in war weapons or for re-export.

  GREECE (UNITED KINGDOM POLICY)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Greece.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Greece is to have the good relations and cooperation appropriate to old friendship and present partnership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  Mr. Donnelly: In the light of that remarkable statement, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to repair the damage which he did to Anglo-Greek relations last week?
  Mr. Lloyd: I really should have thought that even the hon. Member would have thought that the initiative should come from the other side.

  SEYCHELLES

    Chief Justice (Petition)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken regarding the petition sent to him, signed by 50 leading citizens of the Seychelles, pleading that Her Majesty's Government will refrain from appointing Mr. M. D. Lyon for a third term as Chief Justice of the Seychelles.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he received from the Chief Secretary of the

    417
    Seychelles the petition signed by 50 leading people of the Colony, pleading that Mr. M. D. Lyon be not reappointed a Chief Justice of the Seychelles; and what action he is taking in this matter.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I received the petition on 6th November, 1954. There was no question of reappointment: the petitioners asked that Mr. Lyon should not return to the territory for a third tour of duty. The petitioners were informed by letter on 10th December, 1954, that after careful consideration I was unable to accede to their request.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that since then, there have been further complaints by a large number of leading citizens, both white and black, that Mr. Lyon is drunk, incompetent, vicious and corrupt, and brings British justice in the Colony into disgrace and contempt? Is he further aware that since I put this Question— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—is he further aware— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
    Mr. H. Fraser: On a point of order. Surely it is extraordinary for an hon. Member to abuse the character of a person, in privileged circumstances, without giving any evidence.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is a point of order. It is a question of discretion on the part of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Bevan: It is not a point of order at all.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Colonial Secretary aware of the allegations made by a large number of leading citizens, both white and black, against this Chief Justice, that he brings British justice into disgrace and contempt? Is he further aware that since I put down this Question, one of my correspondents has had his house searched and his papers seized on the spurious ground that, by writing to me, he was guilty of contempt of court?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would certainly deprecate in the strongest possible language the observations of the hon. Member. In so far as this charge is that Mr. Lyon was not impartial in his judgments, I have the assurance of the Governor, in whom I have full trust, that the petition contained no evidence that
    418
    that was so. In so far as the charge is that a disproportionate number of cases or decisions have been upset on appeal, I would point out that in the last seven years, the Chief Justice has tried 1,561 cases and only 14 of the litigants have thought fit to appeal.
    Finally, I venture to suggest that question and answer in the House of Commons on matters touching individual honour of this kind of an official whose only spokesman in the House is myself, is not the best way of arriving at conclusions.
    Mr. Johnson: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), may I ask whether it is not a fact that beside the leading people of the Colony who signed this petition there were other people who were debarred from signing it because they were magistrates on the Bench, or leading or ex-leading civil servants in the Colony? Is it not a fact that the conduct of the Chief Justice is a matter of comment in the Colony day by day? May I ask whether the Minister would not consider sending an all-party delegation to the Seychelles, not merely on this matter but because of the conditions of the plantation workers and the wages and conditions of people in that Colony?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not in favour of all-party delegations to the Seychelles at this moment, for reasons quite apart from this case. In regard to what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has said, I can assure him that I have looked most carefully and personally at the charges made, and am satisfied with the propriety of my answer.
    Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reply to the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) about contempt of court in writing to a Member of Parliament? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that allegations of corruption have been made? The right hon. Gentleman made or repeated a similar allegation yesterday about the Prime Minister of Eastern Nigeria. Are not Members of Parliament perfectly entitled if they think—[Interruption.] How on earth are Members of Parliament to discharge their duty of supervising public servants if they cannot make charges which they think to be well-founded? If an inquiry was

    419
    necessary yesterday into the allegations made against the Prime Minister of Eastern Nigeria, would not the right hon. Gentleman now make an inquiry into the charges made against this person?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The relevance of associating this question with the matter that was discussed in the House yesterday is a matter for individual decision as to its propriety. In matters of judicial charge of any kind, to associate the case or the arguments against one person with the argument against another person is not only very improper but grossly unfair to the people concerned. In regard to this case, the fact that the subject of the question is a chief justice clearly puts him in a category which hon. Members ought to remember when asking questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] By long tradition there is a particular drill for inquiries into the conduct of judges or chief justices, either in this country or in the Colonies.
    Mr. Bevan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply today will cause the most painful impression in Nigeria? On the one hand, and not with the disapproval of the Opposition, an inquiry is instituted into charges made against a Prime Minister who is black. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. On the following day, serious charges are made in the House not only against the character of this judicial person but against the action that he took when he knew that people were writing from the Seychelles to Members of Parliament; and the right hon. Gentleman is so complacent about this that he does not even suggest that he will now make inquiry to see whether he thinks an inquiry is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself or the House of Commons justice.
    Hon. Members: Resign.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I find it necessary to see that Parliamentary justice is done to a chief justice, even though he was appointed Chief Justice when the Socialist Party were the Government.
    Several Hon. Members—
    An Hon. Member: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The time is past half-past three. If there is a point of order I will hear it.
    Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman but he has not answered it. Will he now answer whether he will make an inquiry?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hour for Questions has passed.
    Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. Is not the Minister introducing or seeking to import prejudice into a case which may be subject of a judicial inquiry, by the last remark that he made?
    Mr. Speaker: There is no question of a judicial inquiry yet. Therefore, the point does not arise.
    Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the earliest opportunity of raising this matter.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in relation to this matter? The Question, which referred to allegations against the Chief Justice in the Seychelles, was accepted at the Table. Was the Secretary of State for the Colonies therefore justified in questioning the propriety of what is contained in the Question? Surely if a Question is accepted at the Table there is nothing improper in my hon. Friend asking supplementary questions about the matter contained in the Question.
    Mr. Speaker: There is no mystery about the matter. The Question was in order, and it was allowed. I am bound to say that some of the supplementary questions were couched in terms rather different from the Question on the Paper. Though there was nothing out of order that entitled me to intervene, it is my experience in the House, and I am sure it is that of the right hon. Gentleman, that every action has its equal and opposite reaction, and that if violent language is used on one side of the House it is apt to be countered by language of a similar character on the other. There has been nothing out of order. The Question was a proper Question for the Paper; otherwise it would not have appeared there.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from your observations, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, has not been guilty of anything improper?
    Mr. Speaker: I have said quite clearly that nothing out of order has occurred, or I should have felt it my duty to intervene.
    Mr. Bevan: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is not a fact that when a statement of such gravity is made concerning a member of the judiciary, it is essential—
    Mr. Speaker: I said that I would listen to a point of order and nothing else. I am not allowed by the rules of the House to permit this discussion to go on any longer. The House is kind enough to allow me a certain discretion, but really, twenty minutes to four is a little over the time.
    Mr. Bevan: May I—
    Mr. Speaker: Does someone wish to raise a point of order? If there is one, I will listen to it, but we cannot have any more discussion.
    Mr. K. Thompson: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that when notice has been given that a matter will be raised on the Adjournment, further discussion is out of order?
    Mr. Speaker: That is quite true. Notice that a matter is to be discussed on the Adjournment does preclude further discussion. I was prepared to listen to points of order. Several hon. Members signified that they desired to raise points of order but so far I have not heard one, except to some degree that which was raised by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
    Mr. Bevan: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? This is an unusual situation and I ask your guidance because it does concern the good name of Parliament. If a statement of such gravity is made concerning a judge who tries people day by day, accusing him of these offences or conditions, including corruption, is it not desirable in his own interest and in the interests of this House that the case should be cleared up as quickly as possible? Does it not affect the administration of justice in the Seychelles? May I
    422
    ask your guidance—[Interruption]. Hon. Members opposite are not doing the House of Commons any good by this. Has it not always been established that when charges of this sort are made against judges the whole matter should be cleared up as quickly as possible in the interests of the judge—[Interruption]. It is obvious from the cries of hon. Members opposite that so long as corruption is charged against the white man it is all right. Can we have an answer?
    Mr. Speaker: So far as I could gather the question of the right hon. Member, I am afraid that it is not one on which I can intervene. The expediency or otherwise of an inquiry is surely a matter for the House itself to decide. I have no power to intervene on such a matter as that. I would remind the House that the weather is very hot, and that we ought to move on.
    Mr. Bevan: I shall raise the question next week on the Consolidated Fund debate.
    Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about another matter which has been raised this afternoon? As I understood, although I could not hear completely because of the hubbub that was going on, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said that someone had been persecuted and his property searched because he had communicated with an hon. Member of this House. Is it not a fact that that prejudices the operation of this House and the freedom of Parliament? Does it not come within the bounds of the possibility of a breach of Privilege? May I seek your guidance on that, Sir, because it seems to go very much wider? A certain allegation was made which was precise and specific. It is a very serious matter if people cannot communicate with hon. Members of this House from territories for which this House is responsible, and who are there subject to a penal approach, or to forceful approach, and that their freedom of speech should be prejudiced in relation to this subject?
    Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing so far of a sufficiently definite character to raise any issue of Privilege. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I have not. If the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who has the facts in his

    423
    possession, cares to formulate them in the proper way for my consideration I will consider it tomorrow. I cannot consider it now because it was not raised in the first instance as a matter of Privilege but as a supplementary question, and that is not the way to raise a question of Privilege. If the hon. Member has the facts on the subject, I will allow him to raise it tomorrow.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged for what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I received this letter only late yesterday, and in my opinion it raises matters of breach of Privilege. I am anxious to reserve my rights in that respect and would like to raise the matter as a breach of Privilege either today or, if you prefer it, tomorrow afternoon.
    Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the hon. Member raised the matter tomorrow. After all, it has come before the House, not as a direct challenge on a matter of Privilege, but merely adventitiously, in the course of a supplementary question. If it were a matter of Privilege it should have been raised as such, because the Privilege of this House is a very serious matter and not too lightly or inadvertently to be invoked. If the hon. Member will submit the facts to me I will, without prejudice,
    424
    allow him to submit the question tomorrow if, after consideration, he thinks that Privilege is involved.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I am well aware of the rules of this House that matters of Privilege should be raised as soon as possible. I should be perfectly prepared, if necessary, to raise the matter this afternoon, but in view of what you have said, I will raise it tomorrow afternoon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first two Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[The Prime Minister.]
Proceedings of Committee of Ways and Means, on Overseas Resources Development Bill and of the Committee on Overseas Resources Development [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [25TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1956–57; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1956–57
    Resolved,
    That a sum, not exceeding £288,539,004, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the following Civil and Navy Estimates, viz.:—

    Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1956–57 and Navy Estimates, 1956–57

    £

    Class I, Vote 24, Scottish Home Department

    1,611,143

    Class V, Vote 12, Housing, Scotland

    7,747,540

    Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade

    3,055,690

    Class VI, Vote 2, Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services) (Including a Supplementary sum of £44,600)

    1,960,194

    Class VI, Vote 4, Services in Development Areas (Revised Estimate)

    2,517,300

    Class VI, Vote 5, Financial Assistance in Development Areas

    357,510

    Class VI, Vote 8, Ministry of Labour and National Service

    13,714,000

    Class VI, Vote 9, Ministry of Supply

    143,400,000

    Class VI, Vote 11, Royal Ordnance Factories

    3,800,000

    Class VII, Vote 1, Ministry of Works

    5,620,120

    Class VIII, Vote 5, Fishery Grants and Services

    3,249,770

    Class VIII, Vote 11, Forestry Commission

    5,591,000

    Class VIII, Vote 12, Department of Agriculture for Scotland (Revised Estimate)

    22,360,096

    Class VIII, Vote 13, Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry (Revised Estimate)

    1,570,001

    Class IX, Vote 1, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Revised Estimate)

    5,666,700

    Class IX, Vote 3, Transport (Shipping and Special Services) (Revised Estimate)

    381,000

    Class IX, Vote 4, Civil Aviation (Revised Estimate)

    4,255,010

    £

    Class IX, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services) (Revised Estimate)

    3,014,000

    Class IX, Vote 7, Atomic Energy

    38,264,390

    Class IX, Vote 8, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    5,035,100

    Class IX, Vote 9, Roads, &c, Scotland

    4,612,630

    Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office

    8,073,000

    £288,539,004

  CLASS IV

    Vote 1. Ministry of Education
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £221,201,218 (including a Supplementary sum of £10,753,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.—[£93,000,000 has been voted on account.]

EDUCATION
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Peart: To me, it is perhaps a rather strange experience to make a maiden speech from the Front Opposition Bench. I know that I cannot claim immunity from criticism in the usual way, but I hope not to speak for too long and to allow as many hon. Members as possible to participate in the debate.
Of necessity, this debate will cover a very wide field, because it provides an opportunity for us to refer to the Report on Education in 1955. Like many hon. Friends, I will offer criticisms, but I will try to be constructive. Undoubtedly, there will be matters which will raise controversy, but I think we must discuss whether or not real progress has been made in our system of education. Also, in our discussion of the year's programme we must consider what should be the priorities within the system itself.
I wish to turn straight away to the Report. I agree with the Minister when he states, in his introduction, that the most conspicuous task is that of maintaing (a) the supply of teachers, and, (b) the supply of new schools to match

427
the increasing number of children. I think we can all agree with that general statement. We can all agree that the aims of any policy should be designed to achieve an increase in school building and, above all, an adequate supply of teachers to match the new building.
In that introduction, the Minister reveals a measure of optimism. I must confess that I do not entirely share it. He says:
"The provision of buildings and teachers in England and Wales has however kept pace sufficiently with the growth in school population to make it possible to look ahead and, in particular, preparations were put in hand for a major development in technical education."
I am not sure that we can look ahead with the optimism which has been revealed by the Minister, not only in his introduction to the Report but in his speeches in the country. Nevertheless, I agree with him that we have laid down the basis of a policy to meet the needs of technical education.
In a recent debate we criticised the White Paper on Technical Education, because we felt that the proposals in it were not adequate to meet the nation's needs. We still hold that point of view. Nevertheless, we welcome the provisions. In that sense, when we are discussing our educational progress for the year, inevitably many of the arguments will be repeated which were expressed in the debate on the White Paper. I will not repeat any of those arguments because on that occasion I was successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye, but I must stress that technical education cannot be divorced from our general educational system.
I believe that this applies specifically to the higher branches of science and technology. After all, our general schools system feeds our technical colleges and universities, and the quality of our scientists and technologists will be determined by their experience as scholars in the primary and secondary schools. That is why this debate is important, because we are discussing the fundamental base I of our educational system; and, if that goes wrong, all our fine schemes for higher education in technology will come to nought. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will relate the importance of technical education to
428
the broad system which we are reviewing today.
There is one small point on education which was not discussed in the previous debate, although it is mentioned in the White Paper. I refer to agricultural education, which, I think, is extremely important in rural Britain. Certainly, our new secondary modern schools must have close associations with the higher institutes for agricultural education in rural areas. We all know that there have been previous reports on the matter; the Luxmoore Committee reported and the Loveday Committee reported. It was then the aim to achieve at least one farm institute in each county, but as yet we have never achieved it.
Today, we have approximately 1,450 farm school places in our farm institutes. If we are to aim at effective technical education—and I use the term in its wide sense—as applied to agriculture, we need at least 2,000 places in our farm institutes, and I hope that the Minister of Education will have a close liaison with the Minister of Agriculture to see how far he can develop the number of farm places in our farm institutes. I am certain that it is important not only for the agricultural industry, but also for our secondary modern schools in rural areas.
I do not want to deal with too many figures; the Report contains many. Hon. Members will interpret these figures in different ways. We see in them the picture for 1955. We see how, today, we have 6½ million children in our maintained primary and secondary schools, an increase of 140,000 over the year—64,000 in junior schools and 76,000 in the senior schools. We are glad to note that that increase has been partly due to children staying at school beyond the statutory school-leaving age. As the Minister quite rightly says in his Report, that is a healthy sign, but I believe that we are still a long way from the day when we can raise the school-leaving age to 16.
We must always have that in mind; when we talk of new buildings and the supply of teachers, we must bear in mind that our aim—certainly the aim of the party which I have the honour to represent—is to raise the school-leaving age to 16. In 1955, in our infant and junior schools we have had 4,400,000 children, representing a peak figure. There will eventually be a decline in

429
those numbers, but the number in 1961 will still be about 4 million.
In the secondary stage, in 1955 the figure has been over 2,100,000, rising from 1,600,000 in 1947. That figure will continue to increase at the rate of 100,000 a year until it reaches the peak of 2,800,000 in 1961. Even by 1968, when there will have been a decline in numbers, the figure for our secondary schools will still be 2,600,000.
What do we see today as we survey our general educational system? We see a slight easing of pressure on our infants' and junior schools and the pressure being transferred from the primary stage to the secondary stage. In his Report the Minister admits this. He must accept it; the figures could not be interpreted in any other way. He says:
"In secondary schools, however, it was no longer possible to continue the steady improvement in staffing that had been achieved in each of the last few years."
In the secondary schools there is terrific pressure upon the pupils and also upon the staffs, and I am sure that this pressure justifies the criticisms made by my hon. Friends when the Minister's predecessor introduced her Circulars Nos. 242 and 245. This pressure represents a tragedy in our school system, an overcrowding which is being carried on into our secondary schools.
I have a small son who attends a London County Council primary school—and I am very proud that he does. His classes have been overcrowded ever since he entered that school, although it is a new school. He will enter a junior school after this summer term, and I have discovered that all the classes in that new junior school, which is provided with fine buildings, will be over 40 each. Even though the pressure is being relieved in the primary stages and has been thrown on to the secondary stage, there will still be overcrowding within the primary schools in many areas, despite the fact that we have new schools; and that throws a burden not only on the children but also on the teachers, who have great responsibilities to the children.
The local education authorities certainly foreshadowed this pressure, and they have devoted their resources to meeting it. The Minister comments on a table dealing with school places—places in the modern school, the grammar
430
school, the technical school and the primary school. He puts forward three points which invite comment.
First, that we have seen a substantial increase in places in our new secondary modern schools. That has been the local authorities' response to the policy of rural reorganisation. There, I agree with the Minister, and I praise a policy to secure the ending of the all-age schools in rural Britain. He makes a second point, though, that our planning still must take into consideration the new primary schools which are to be created in our new housing estates.
His third point, however, is one which, I am sure, raises acute controversy in the field of local government. What does the Minister say?
"… the authorities were able to start by the end of the programme year only about 110,000 of the 121,415 secondary places that had been included in the school building programme for 1954–55."
Now, this is where I challenge the Minister. He states, and he repeats in his Report, that the lag is entirely the responsibility of the local authorities. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. I would invite him, in reply, to quote from his own Report. It is stated there that evidence to that effect has accumulated and, indeed, it has been repeated, and it has been discussed at the annual conference of the Association of Education Committees. Moreover, I have already practically quoted verbatim from the Report itself.
I want the Minister to be precise on this matter. Can he give details as to where local planning, which has to take consideration of architectural and administrative problems, has really held up school building? Can he give precisely the local authorities concerned? Is it only a figment of his imagination, or is it only throwing responsibility from his Department on to the local authorities?
He states that in the Report, and I believe it to be also the background to the various circulars which have recently been issued by him. I refer to Circular 306. The Minister has come under heavy fire from a responsible body like the Association of Education Committees. The Association feels that he has broken faith—that he has unfairly presented the facts. I am only quoting from the resolution which was submitted by the Association's Executive Committee to the

431
annual conference. I believe that the Minister attended that conference the day after that, but the charge has been made and it has been repeated. Therefore, the Minister himself must be precise on this matter. It is important that he should take the local authorities into his confidence. Indeed, if we are to build a good educational structure we must have a sound partnership between the central Government and the local authority.
The Minister must either answer those criticisms which have been made at the conference or he must stand by the criticism which he makes in this Report. I believe myself that this circular does represent a cut. I know that I have crossed swords on a previous occasion with the Minister and that the Minister has given us, in detail, figures showing how building is to be postponed. "Postponed" is a new word. If school building is postponed for three months or longer I regard that as a cut.
For example, if a year's school building programme is dispersed over a two-year period—that, of course, may be an exaggeration—I regard it as a cut. This is really the new terminology which has been creeping into the speeches of those hon. Members who have defended the past policies of the previous Minister of Education. Indeed, when Circulars 242 and 245 were issued, introducing economy measures, not only hon. Members opposite but Ministers argued that there was no cut—no real economy. Now, we use a new term. Now we talk of a "postponing of starts."
I do not intend to go into too much detail on this but I am sure that the Minister must have read the comments of the special correspondent of the School Government Chronicle and Education Review. After all, this paper is generally favourable to the Minister. He may not have ever read it, but I hope he will do so. It is a good paper and, as I say, it is generally sympathetic to the views that he has expressed. This journal states:
"So far as the 1957–58 programme is concerned, it is proposed to allocate £50 million"—
which repeats what the Minister has said. But it goes on, speaking of the allocation of £105 million for the two years ahead:
"Unfortunately, £89 million of this sum represents £30 million worth of work carried
432
over from last year and £59 million worth of work scheduled for this year. The total amount of what may be described as 'new' 1957–58 work, therefore, which Authorities will be allowed to build in that year is thus only £16 million."
I believe that a cut has been made. Whether the Minister likes it or not, he did give a promise on this in November of last year—and perhaps I may be allowed to quote him. Confirming the policy of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer he said that the education programme would be maintained. He went on:
"Authorities will, therefore, be expected to carry out all the projects in the approved programmes for 1955–56 and 1956–57."
He continued:
"It will be appreciated that in the present financial circumstances that this special treatment for education underlines the responsibility of authorities to make every possible economy in carrying out the programme."
I think that there has been a change. A cut has been made. That is why I do not share the optimism expressed by the Minister in the first part of his Report. I believe that the cut is due to the simple fact that less steel is to go into the school building programme. Indeed, in page 69, of the Report we have an indication of what is happening. It says:
"Moreover, at the turn of the year there were signs that deliveries of steel were becoming uncertain and that progress might be impeded on that account."
I want to ask the Minister this question. Is it or is it not a fact that less steel is being diverted to the school building programme? We had this policy in Circular 245. In fact, that is why we had that circular—because steel had been taken away from the school building programme. If that is so, it is a shocking thing. I do not want steel to be used for building luxury cinemas and the like if school building is to suffer, and I am sure that that should be the view of the Minister. What priorities have really been given to school building? Are there steel allocations, or are we to have this so-called free economy, with priorities and without planning?
We must, therefore, relate the Minister's programme, and this Report also, to the general policy which is being pursued by the Government at present, the background of financial stringency, the background of credit restrictions—a background which has been emphasised

433
only in the last day, when we have had another statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our local authorities, and not only local authorities but our church organisations—the people who are responsible for our voluntary schools—are facing serious difficulties because of the credit squeeze. That is why I do not share the optimism which has been expressed so often by hon. Members opposite.
I want to pass quickly from school building to the supply of teachers where, I agree, there has been, and there is, a much brighter picture. If we examine the table in page 9 of the Report, we see that there has been a considerable increase in the supply of teachers.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: Not in Birmingham.
Mr. Peart: Not in Birmingham, I agree; I shall deal with that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to express his point of view.
In 1951, the number of teachers employed increased by 5,900. In 1952, it rose by 5,700, until, in 1954, there was a peak figure of 7,600 increase. I welcome that, and I believe it to be a move in the right direction.
Again, however, we must consider this figure in detail, because there are serious anomalies and discrepancies here and there. Let us consider, first, the supply of graduate teachers. In page 61 of the Report, we find that there were 2,582 graduates admitted to university departments of education and training colleges in the year 1955; but, in 1954, there have been 2,718 graduates admitted to our university departments of education and training colleges. Thus, while there has been a general increase in teachers, which we welcome, when we consider this figure in detail we find that over the year there has been an alarming drop in the supply of graduate teachers to educational training departments.
I admit that, within that figure of 2,582 graduate teachers for 1955, there has been a slight increase in the number of graduates holding degrees in mathematics and science who are going in for teaching. We welcome that; but I still say that we must consider seriously this drop in the supply of graduates admitted to university departments of education. We want more graduate teachers in our
434
schools, and, particularly, we want more graduate teachers in mathematics and science. Indeed, if we are to fulfil the aims of the White Paper on Technical Education, we must have more teachers.
Unfortunately, there is as yet what amounts to a crisis in the supply of women teachers in our girls' secondary schools, where science should be taught. We want more women technologists and technicians, and we must look at this matter seriously. I hope that the proposals in the award of the Burnham Committee, when they are adopted, will help to remedy the shortage and increase the supply. We must wait and see. Some increase will be a vital necessity for the health of technical education and higher education itself in this country. I could discuss, also, the three-year training course, but I will leave that matter to other hon. Members.
There is still very great inequality in the distribution of teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has said, this problem is high-lighted in Birmingham; but I assure the Committee that it is not just a problem for Birmingham; it is a problem in many of our larger cities, and it is a problem also within our larger cities, where teachers will not go to the old urban areas and work in the conditions which still exist there. That is certainly a problem in London, as I know.
The problem of the unequal and inequitable distribution of teachers is one which faces our whole society. In our State primary schools, we have 31·4 pupils per teacher. In independent primary schools we have 12·6 pupils per teacher. In the State grammar schools we have 18·1 pupils per teacher. In independent secondary schools, we have 11·9 pupils per teacher. While our schools in Birmingham are facing a grave shortage of teachers, there are private schools around Birmingham which have more than enough teachers. I have specific figures here for each separate school, but I will not weary the Committee with too many details; I have them here for any hon. Member to see. There is a private school with 270 pupils which has a headmaster and 16 full-time teachers. There is another with 165 pupils, having a headmaster and 13 full-time teachers. Another school near Birmingham, with 90 pupils, has a headmaster and seven teachers.

435
We have a two-school system, where certain children are favoured with an improved pupil-teacher ratio. This problem of inequality and inequitable distribution of teachers is one which applies as between the two school systems, and it does apply with serious effect in different localities. It is something about which we should all be greatly concerned.
I come now to one of my main points, the structure and future of secondary education. I have not got too much time to discuss all the details, but I mention it because I am sure that, in a debate of this kind, we should discuss freely and frankly, even if we indulge in controversy, the whole pattern of our secondary educational system. My party has issued a pamphlet, "Towards Equality". It has been bitterly attacked by the Prime Minister, and it was bitterly attacked, also, by the headmaster of Eton at a school speech day.
I shall not make very much comment on the headmaster of Eton; I should have expected him to defend the two-nation system; indeed, one could not expect otherwise. I do, however, think it bad taste to make what is virtually a party speech on a school speech day. I do not mind him attacking the idea of comprehensive education, but at least I think it is bad taste to indulge in criticism of a party pamphlet at a gathering like that in Manchester.
The Minister thinks otherwise. I have here a report of a speech he made on a recent Saturday. At least, I hope he made it; this is a Press release. He himself approves what the headmaster of Eton said. All I can say about Dr. Birley's remarks is that I believe he himself has continued the miserable tradition of hypocrisy and social snobbery, and I am sorry to see that the Minister, in his Wiltshire speech, confirms that. I shall be quite frank with the Minister. I was rather surprised at the tone of his speech, and the sort of thing he said. He confirms the suggestion that we are
"seeking to invade the rights of the family".
He approves of what Dr. Birley said, and says:
"If the Labour Party are ever returned to power, we shall find the paying of school fees banned like dangerous drugs or dirty books … The Socialists are moved by the
436
envious fear that at a public school a boy will get a better education than at a county school".
Later, he says:
"There was nothing like this in our time. What a chance our children have. We have a long way to go yet. The Government have faith in the future of our county schools."
I believe that the Minister was sincere when he said that. But I say to him, and to those who think like Dr. Birley, who defend education for one section of the community in schools where it can be bought because of the income of the parent: can they really say that our county schools provide that type of education, with a teacher-pupil ratio such as we have, or that children in our secondary modern schools, ordinary children, have opportunities like those to be had in the private schools of one kind and another? It is hypocrisy to suggest it.
The real test is whether or not hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are prepared to send their sons to the new county schools. [Laughter.] Yes, certainly; I make that charge to hon. Members on both sides. That is the real test. If we believe that the new county schools form the real pattern of the future for our educational system, then we should be prepared personally to support those schools.
I believe that there are great defects still in our educational system. Many of our secondary modern schools are still the old elementary schools in all but name. I still believe—and I am expressing a personal view—that we have not yet, in the secondary modern school, achieved that purpose which is essential in a progressive and developing educational programme. There are many problems. I will be quite frank. I condemn the two-nation system in education. I believe it to be wrong.
The tragedy of all these things was revealed very well in an excellent article in the News Chronicle today by its very able education correspondent, Roy Nash, when he described the experiences of two boys in the same street going to different schools at different times. I myself believe that, after all, the school—and I am not using cliches—is a kind of microcosm of society; that the school itself really does practise democracy. That is why I condemn social segregation. I condemn

437
it not just because I am a Socialist, but because I believe it to be wrong educationally. I believe that children should mix together in school. It is wrong to segregate children at the early age that we do in our society.
I condemn, too, apart from the two-nation system, the 11-plus examination system on educational grounds. I believe it to be an educational sweepstake which is sadistically inflicted on our children at the early age of 11. We forget what tragedies are committed on some of our children at that early age. Apart from that, it is fantastic to grade children at the age of 11 into secondary modern school types, grammar school types and secondary school types. It is much too early an age from an educational point of view.
That is why I believe in the comprehensive system of education. I assure hon. Members opposite, who have been so vitriolic in their attacks on comprehensive schools, that in many of the good independent schools we have a comprehensive form of education, where the education is fitted to the needs of the child and to its aptitudes. That is all that we mean by a comprehensive system of education. That is what we seek to bring about. That is why I laud many of the comprehensive schools which have been already started.
I am certain that Britain will be proud of its Kidbrookes in years to come, in spite of all the hostility of hon. Members opposite. I know that there are some honourable exceptions, but hon. Members must remember that, in London, the London Conservatives conducted an extremely vicious campaign against the Schools Plan of the L.C.C. and they had the tacit and, indeed, active support of the Minister at that period. I certainly want to see an extension of comprehensive education. Where we have no comprehensive schools like Kidbrooke, I want to see, within the present structure, a greater emphasis on comprehensive studies. I want to see, for example, more technical education within the secondary modern school.
I recently attended a speech day in my own constituency—the first prize day of a new secondary modern school at Maryport. I am glad to note that in that school there is to be established a first-rate course of technical instruction. We
438
shall have in Cumberland one of the finest workshops for our young technicians in the north of England. That is what we mean by more comprehensive education. We want to see children catered for more within the school itself. Not only do we want to see this bias, this change within the secondary modern school; we want to see a change even in the grammar school itself. We want to see more technical facilities in the grammar school. I have stressed this over and over again, and I have repeated this argument during a previous debate.
Even if we do not get comprehensive schools, I want to see a pattern taking shape. I hope that in the months and years ahead we shall see within the secondary modern school greater opportunity for our children—not just in the field of technical education—where children, who, because of the examination at the age of 11, are forced to go there, will be given opportunities for academic studies for which they are really fitted. That is what hon. Members obviously really believe in, and I hope that we shall put emphasis on that.
I must close on this note and I hope that it may be taken up. We tend to discuss figures in a debate of this kind, we tend to discuss patterns of secondary education, and we have our arguments and take our different points of view, but I hope that in this debate some hon. Members will discuss the aims and purposes of education. I have complete confidence in our young children. We may have the phenomenon of the "Teddy boys", and the "debs", among the girls, another phenomenon, but I think, quite honestly, that, despite the "Teddy boys" and the society "debs", the ordinary youths and girls of our country are good and sound at heart, and I have faith in them.
I have faith in them despite what I have said about the two-nation system and about the defects of our school secondary system which is still in operation. We must remember that they are going out into an extremely difficult world, one in which we see the centralisation of propaganda, the impact of television, the impact of radio and a world of speedy scientific revolution. Our aim should be to give the children of our schools opportunities to be good citizens in the sense that they are able to use

439
their gifts and ability to stand up independently to the centralisation which goes on, to be free citizens in a democracy and to think for themselves.
The late Professor Harold Laski, who, I know, is still the bogy man of many hon. Members opposite, said that education should be a preparation for intellectual scepticism. I think that he was right. We want children to be able to regard facts, to arrive at conclusions and to weigh all the evidence. That is what we mean by democratic values. That is one of our aims. There is the aim, too, that our children shall see a vision of greatness, and there is the aim of good manners in living together with social decencies in a democratic community. That is the purpose of education. That is why I hope that today hon. Members will look at the wider aspect of education and will also consider the tendencies which I have mentioned and the defects which still exist within the structure itself.
4.28 p.m.
The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that he could not claim the indulgence of the Committee for the maiden speech that he was making from the Dispatch Box, but I think he deserves all the congratulations which the House of Commons is always ready to give to a really good Parliamentary performance. I hope that the helpful and very thoughtful tone which the hon. Gentleman adopted will persist in our discussions on education.
This is such an enormous subject that I am in some embarrassment to know what parts of the education system to pick out. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in relating the difficulties that lie in front of us to the outstanding fact that we have 1,600,000 more children and 60,000 more teachers in the service than we had only ten years ago. Thanks to the work of my predecessors these children have a school roof over their heads and teachers to teach them. Of course, there have been many difficult areas and many overcrowded classes, but it is not unreasonable to look abroad to see what is happening in countries which have had to face the same problem as we have of the increasing birthrate, remembering that for many of them the
440
problem has not been complicated as it has here by the fact that we are in the middle of a secondary school revolution and have raised the school-leaving age. If one looks across at the United States, one hears constantly of the shortage of school buildings and of churches and warehouses being pressed into service. Even their existing schools have to be used for two or three shifts. When one looks abroad and asks about the supply of teachers, I can only say that I do not know any country where the position is not worse than ours. That does not make anyone complacent about what we are doing, but we should remember what a remarkable moment this is in the history of education, when the rise in the child population throughout the world has been, I suppose, steeper than at any time since universal education was first introduced.
The expansion that has been going on in this country is reflected in the cost of the service. I should like to give to the Committee the main figures to show the rate at which we are increasing the resources devoted to the schools. In 1950–51, the Ministry of Education Vote was £180 million. Four years later, it was £248 million.
Mr. George Chetwynd: At the same prices?
Sir D. Eccles: These Votes do not take any account of changes in prices.
Mr. Chetwynd: That makes a difference.
Sir D. Eccles: Last year, the Vote was £276 million, and this year, including the Supplementary Estimate for which I am asking Parliament, my Vote will be £314 million. Next year, as far as I can see, it will be about £345 million. None of these figures includes the contribution from the ratepayers.
Fortunately, as the hon. Member for Workington said, there is wide agreement that education is fundamental to our country's future. Many of us, on both sides, do all that we can to secure public support for further advances in our schools and colleges. That certainly is the Government's policy. My right hon. Friends and I believe, however, that we are more likely to win approval for the steeply increasing expenditure on education if we can show that we get value for money

441
and that we are making economies where economies can be made without damaging the structure of the service.
I want to say a word about the economies, which have been the subject of recent Circulars and which, naturally, have disappointed the enthusiasts in the education service. They are an increase of 1d. on the charge for school dinners, postponement of £600,000 in building for the school meals service, and an increase in certain fees for further education for adults. The whole saving is less than £2 million and has to be set against the increase of £38 million in my Vote as between last year and this year.
To that £2 million of positive savings I have added Circulars 301 and 304, which have the effect of holding down the amounts that can be spent per new school place and on the equipment in new schools. I do not believe that any of these measures damages the education service. At a time when rates and taxes are so high, it is not only absolutely necessary, but very good policy on the part of those interested in education, to search for and apply such economies.
The extra 1d. on school dinners raises the charge to 10d., which is the cost of the food. The taxpayer still has to find over £30 million a year for the overheads of this service and for those dinners for which the charge is remitted on account of hardship. The school dinner is valuable for health and for education. I am sure we are all agreed about that and that it is the view of the teachers also. I have recently had a talk on this subject with the National Union of Teachers and I am considering how we can improve the administrative arrangements for the meals service without losing its educative value or trespassing on the professional freedom of the teachers, of which they are, rightly, mindful.
Turning to Circular 307, which increases the fees for students taking part-time courses at evening institutes and technical colleges, there are two things to notice about this change. First, it applies only to students over the age of 21; and secondly, since the fees for nearly all vocational courses already are more than 30s. a year, which is the new minimum, it applies in practice only to what are usually described as non-vocational courses.
442
The fee, of 30s. for 36 weeks, works out at 10d. a class. That is a mere fraction of the cost of the course. If an adult cannot pay, and can prove that he or she cannot pay, the local authorities are free, as they always have been, to remit all or part of the 10d. per week. I cannot think that 30s. a year will bear hardly on keen students, of whom there are many and whose work I am anxious to encourage. On the other hand, we have a real problem of students who enrol and do not keep up their attendance, with the result that too many courses are started and the best teachers do not have as many students as they should.
I hope that we can concentrate the teachers and the serious students so that each can get more out of the courses. This is an economy which, I am convinced, will raise the standards in the appreciation and the practice of art. For the same reason, I have asked certain local authorities to close down a number of small art courses, because the existence of too many courses has led to poor teaching and a waste of money.
I have often asked myself whether we have got the balance right in the now very large expenditure on art which the taxpayers and the ratepayers meet every year; and whether within that big sum we are not spending too much on teaching art and too little on commissioning works of art. I believe that we should do more for the general level of art if we could shift the balance a little towards the purchase of works by promising young artists, so many of whom, not making a livelihood very easily, drift into other occupations when with a little encouragement they might remain as artists.
Mr. F. H. Hayman: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the prospects of teachers in art schools who may find themselves redundant as a result of his economies, because they appear to be substantial?
Sir D. Eccles: No doubt, there will be some redundant teachers, but I believe that their talents might well be employed to better advantage, for example, in industry. Where courses have had far too few students, I do not think it is sensible to keep them up.

443
I should make a point about the timing of the announcement of the increase in the minimum charge to 30s. It was held back because the Government decided to list all the economies in one statement. The delay has undoubtedly caused difficulty for certain local authorities who have already enrolled students for next year at the old rates. I am discussing with those authorities how their difficulties can be met. Obviously, we must see that the fair thing is done.
I turn to the building programme, which the hon. Member for Workington asked me to try to make clear. Over the last two years we have done our best to step up building for education. Each year authority was given to start considerably more work, but, in the event, although the value of building under construction has increased the value of work completed has not kept pace. That has meant that the time taken to build a new school has lengthened, and at the same time the carry-over from year to year of schools authorised but not started has increased. The value of work outstanding and still to be completed rose from £48 million in March, 1954, to £74 million in March, 1956.
I never have blamed the local authorities for this. It is perfectly true that they, as the partners of the Minister, have to take responsibility for building, but the fact that they have failed to complete and start schools as fast as we hoped is due to the embarrassment caused to them, as to many other people, by the investment boom. The shortage of labour on the school building sites affected almost all authorities, and caused the slow-down in completions. Many authorities were also in trouble owing to the shortage of architects and draughtsmen. This must have been a considerable factor in the delay in starting schools which had been authorised.
So we had this position at the end of last March; £74 million worth of work outstanding and still to be completed; a carry-over of £32 million worth of schools authorised but not started; and a programme of new schools costing £57 million for 1956 to 1957. Clearly, some adjustment was imperative in order to secure a faster rate of completions and a better balance between work in hand and new starts. One must remember that
444
over and above the school building programme we have committed ourselves to a sharply expanded programme of technical education, which we mean to see carried out with the minimum of delay.
Considering all the circumstances, school building might well have been asked to accept a moratorium, but in fact we are going to try to do more work this year than last. I have authorised new schools to be started this year at about the same rate as the actual starts last year, £55 million. Last year, this rate of starts was too much, since it led to a lengthening in the time taken to build. By repeating the same number of starts this year we shall make matters still worse on the building sites unless there is a general reduction in building work in other directions.
This is what we are counting on. We believe that the Government's measures to curb inflation are going to succeed, and I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that there are already small signs that work on school building sites is proceeding faster. I was at Crawley only two days ago, where building labour has naturally been extremely short—it has to be brought in from outside to the new town—and I was told that there school building sites have quite appreciably more men on them than some months ago.
I know that some authorities claim that they could do more work than I am allowing them to do, but I think that it will be found that their claims relate to starts. Of course, what is much more important is the rate of completions. If we have evidence that the rate of completions is improving the door is open to review the number of starts. It would well be described as a cut if I were to give so much more work to the local authorities that, as a result, because the building labour and the architects' labour were spread too thinly, fewer school places were completed.
It was with this need to fight inflation in mind that I decided that the cost limits per school place must be held down. Some people have said—only very few—that this measure must lead to a significant lowering of standards. I have no evidence of that. Indeed, the great majority of authorities have kept well within the limit, and, I believe, are doing so now. I do not for a moment think that £12 or

445
£15 per place, in a school costing over £260 per place, cannot be saved by efficient planning and execution.
I believe we shall have enough school buildings for the increase in the number of secondary school children in most areas. There will be one or two places where, judging by buildings alone, we shall be uncomfortably short, especially on new housing estates where there are no other buildings which can be used temporarily for classes.
I must turn to the supply of teachers, for the supply of teachers is the key to the future of the secondary schools. Is there anything we can do now to increase the total number of teachers, which, as the hon. Member said, has been rising by larger numbers every year and is now increasing by about 7,000 or 3 per cent. annually. I am glad to tell him that the number coming from the universities has risen from 2,900 in 1951 to 3,600 in 1955.
I think the figures he gave were for graduates who went to university training departments—
Mr. Peart: And training colleges.
Sir D. Eccles: Yes; but the number of graduates coming straight from the universities into the schools is going up and more than compensates for the small drop in the figure the hon. Member quoted.
I, too, hope that the new Burnham scale will attract more graduates, and, of course, especially science and mathematics graduates.
The teacher training colleges were very sharply expanded after the war, ahead of the number of applicants for training. Expansion then was an act of faith, and for a time, as the Committee will remember, all the places were not filled and there was a substantial margin. It is only in the last two years that there has been a good surplus of applicants. It is now too late to build any more training colleges. They would come into service only in 1958, and their first students to enter the schools would pass out of those colleges only in 1960, by which date the school population will be declining and we shall be thinking rather of a three-year training course than of increasing the number of places in the colleges.
Therefore, I have urged all the training colleges to squeeze in more students now
446
where they can, even if that means taking more day students, or putting students in lodgings, and also to give preference to applicants who want to teach in secondary schools. For instance, the college at Birmingham, I believe, will be able to take twenty or thirty more students next term by these measures. If all the training colleges could take six or seven more each we should have a thousand more teachers produced in two years' time.
Mr. Arthur Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman referred to students giving undertakings to teach in secondary schools, and to giving them a kind of priority. Does he mean all three kinds of secondary school, technical, modern, and grammar? Or does he mean specifically the secondary modern school? Is there any special priority for the secondary modern school?
Sir D. Eccles: No, but teachers who are trained for secondary school work in the two-year training colleges by and large teach in the secondary modern schools, and so it is the secondary modern schools we are thinking of.
The new entry to the profession is likely to be greater in the future, but not by very much. Therefore, it is on teachers staying on in service after they marry or after the retiring age, or on those coming back into the service after a break, that we rely for maintaining, and I hope increasing, the net increase of 7,000 or more a year. I cannot emphasise too strongly the need for every local education authority in England and Wales to make the most strenuous effort to employ every suitable person living in its area to teach during the next few years. There are many men and women who can help us out in the schools, provided that they can get jobs near their homes.
Most local education authorities take infinite trouble to discover all such teachers, but there are some who could do a good deal more. I want to make a special appeal to the Welsh authorities. They are fortunate to be able to get enough unmarried teachers and teachers under the age of retirement. They would help us very much if they would employ as many married women and older teachers as are available in their areas and so absorb fewer mobile teachers.

447
However successful we are in keeping up the total supply of teachers, we know that there are certain areas, especially in the Midlands, which will have much trouble in staffing their secondary schools. I will not go over the arguments, which we had in a debate on the Adjournment on the Birmingham situation, for and against an area allowance or a quota system. What is now becoming clear to me, having met a dozen of the shortage area authorities, is that each area finds it very difficult to see the problem in larger terms than those of its own schools. It would be of the greatest benefit if we could exchange views very thoroughly and try to find, in a general discussion, helpful measures. Therefore, I am asking the local authorities, and I hope that the teachers will join in, to com; to a conference to discuss teacher distribution.
We cannot have a satisfactory conference until we have figures of teachers in post on 1st October next, when the returns are due. At the moment, roughly speaking, the shortage areas say that they cannot recruit and the attracting areas say that they have not recruited any more. Therefore, there is something of a statistical mystery. We must have accurate returns from the schools before we can tackle the job.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: Will the figures include teachers in private schools, where there is such a large proportion of teachers to pupils?
Sir D. Eccles: No. Private schools do not send in these returns. I see no means of compelling private schools to dismiss some of their present staffs, and I should not wish to do so.
As the Committee knows, the storm centre for the next few years will be the secondary modern schools. I was glad that the hon. Member for Workington raised the question of the pattern of secondary education since I, too, would like to say a few words about it. I expect that the grammar schools, apart from a few specialist teachers, will get more or less the staff that they require. But it is quite clear that the secondary modern schools and the modern streams in the comprehensive schools will be very hard pressed, because they are new
448
and their pupils are increasing in number so steeply.
The hon. Member for Workington made very moderate and useful remarks about the secondary modern schools. I only wish that his hon. Friends who wrote the pamphlet to which he referred had kept on the same line. We should remember that the oldest secondary modern school in existence is only eleven years old and that the average age is probably only three years, because they are being built so fast. Therefore, their staffs have had no chance to settle down yet.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: The secondary modern school is a development of the central school, which was started about 1925. It has changed only in name. It is not correct to say that the secondary modern school is only eleven years old and that its experience is limited to a period of eleven years.
Sir D. Eccles: It is perfectly true that the modern secondary school is only eleven years old under the new dispensation. The party opposite is only interested in old schools. It is not looking at the new ones.
I admit that there are some secondary modern schools which are weak and still undecided about their function, but the evidence is accumulating—and the hon. Member for Workington quoted a school in his own constituency—that more and more of these secondary modern schools are establishing themselves as first-class institutions in a field deliberately cultivated in a manner different from the old elementary schools, the central schools or the grammar schools.
The authors of the Labour Party pamphlet, "Towards Equality", condemn secondary moderns in terms which I consider unfair. They say:
"many modern schools are still little more than the pre-war elementary schools under a different name."
They go on to say that all secondary modern schools
"catering predominantly for the working-class … not only reflect the existing class structure, but also help to perpetuate it."
Apparently this is because
"the curriculum",
that is, of the modern schools
"… is not geared to these requirements …"

449
which are defined as:
"… Entry to the universities, the professions, the State Service and to managerial and technical posts in industry.… Thus, the doors of opportunity in the modern schools are, at best only ajar."
The idea that all children are potential candidates for a university education does great harm.
Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman is really distorting the pamphlet. It does not suggest that. It merely says that every child should have the opportunity to have its abilities developed along certain lines and the pamphlet stresses that, with the two-nation system, that does not operate.
Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member will see that the pamphlet says that the curriculum of the modern schools is not geared to the requirements, which are defined as entry to the universities, and so on. There will always be a few borderline cases and a few late developers who do not get into the grammar schools, and for them we are encouraging courses for the General Certificate of Education in secondary modern schools, or, better still, transfers to grammar school sixth forms at 15 or 16. But everybody knows that for the majority of children an education different from the curriculum of a grammar school will bring out the best in them. That is exactly what the secondary modern school tries to do.
The pamphlet says that the curriculum which the secondary modern schools are, in fact, using is so inferior that the pupils will be prevented from ever rising out of the working-class. That is simply not true.
Miss Alice Bacon: As one who had something to do with the pamphlet, may I point out that it makes a point of something which the Minister has not quoted—that the chief reason for this is that for most of the secondary modern school pupils there is a stop at the age of 15.
Sir D. Eccles: Quite true, but they can stay on if they will, and in a moment I will explain the matter to the hon. Lady.
First, all the pupils in the secondary modern schools do not come from wage-earners' homes, as anyone who goes there knows. They are a cross-section, just the same as the pupils in the grammar schools. Secondly, it is very wide of the
450
truth to say that the secondary modern schools stamp a "bottom dog" outlook on those of their pupils who do come from wage-earners' homes. I should like to examine this allegation about the inferiority of the curriculum in secondary modern schools.
What have been the signs of higher or middle-class status? I reckon that there were three. First, an income which allowed a margin beyond the necessities of life; secondly, sending children to the only schools which could lead to salaried jobs; and, thirdly, intellectual interests in such things as the arts, literature and travel, which, of course, were made possible by the family income and the fee-paying education which they gave to their children. These used to be sharp distinctions, but they are no longer. They are coming within the reach of all families, and at a rate which, in retrospect, I am sure we shall consider astonishing.
The gap between salaries and wages has grown very much smaller. There cannot be much difference between the incomes of the parents of children in secondary modern schools and the parents of children in the grammar schools. The jobs which all but the most gifted children will get when they leave either of these schools will be paid at more or less the same rate, whether they earn salaries or wages.
Further—and I think that this is more important than the financial side—we are now in process of building up an alternative to the grammar school—university route to the highest positions to which a boy or girl can attain. The new route through the technical colleges will suit those who are not academically minded, but who can go very far by combining earning and learning. This is much the best way to pick up and develop all the available talent. I claim that nothing is likely to do more to open the door of opportunity, which is talked about in this pamphlet, than collaboration between the technical colleges and the secondary modern schools. This is the key to the Government's programme for increasing technical education in numbers and scope in this country.
I was most interested to hear recently of a conference between the headmasters of the secondary modern schools and the teachers in the Sheffield Technical

451
College, how much they had to learn from each other, and what extraordinarily useful results they anticipate will come out of it.
Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister address his remarks to the parents, because they are really the source of the trouble, and not the children or the teachers? It is the parents who insist that their children shall be educated in a grammar school, regardless of the benefits to be obtained from any other sort of education.
Sir D. Eccles: There have been complaints of that kind, but my experience—and I should think that of hon. Members will confirm it—is that every year that goes by, as the secondary modern schools establish themselves as useful places of education in their own right, fewer parents are worrying about their children not going to the grammar schools.
Mr. Simon Mahon: No evidence at all.
Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no evidence of that at all, but if hon. Members care to go, I can tell them which local authorities they should visit to find that the 11-plus exam is no longer a matter of anxiety. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] Well, Chesterfield, and plenty of others.
If we were to put the vast majority of secondary modern school children through a grammar school curriculum, they would not do nearly as well in the world as they will by following the new route which we are building for them. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Workington that we need more technical education at the tops of secondary modern schools, and also in some of the grammar schools. The most fruitful line of advance lies in far closer collaboration between the secondary modern school in the last two years of the course and the further education which the boy or girl will take up after leaving school.
Thirdly, I reckoned intellectual and artistic interests as signs of a middle-class status. In the old elementary schools, the arts were scarcely taught at all. But today it is in the secondary modern schools that most time is being devoted to music, art and drama. As far as I can see, the authors of "Towards Equality"
452
do not know this, and I can only conclude that the public school boys on the Front Bench opposite have been so preoccupied in thinking how they could bite the hand that fed them that they have failed to learn what is going on in our secondary modern schools.
We are in the middle of a revolution in taste. As far as I know, no country has ever set out so deliberately to raise the standards of appreciation in music, books, pictures, furniture, dress-making, cookery and languages. One striking way to see what is going on is to go to a domestic science teacher training college, and see what the young students are learning which they will afterwards hand on in the schools.
I visited such a college at Totley, just outside Sheffield. It is magnificently equipped, and remarkable in its high standards in all these subjects which are taught to the teachers of domestic science. When they get into the secondary modern schools, are these students likely to perpetuate the class structure, which is what this peculiar pamphlet says they will do? Of course, they will not; they will be changing the class structure.
I think that the difference between us, as revealed in this pamphlet, goes very deep, as the hon. Member for Workington himself indicated. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite pick on the schools which are having the hardest time, those which they say differ only in name from the old elementary schools, and by arguing that the gap between the worst and the best is unconscionably great, they make a policy of levelling down. [Interruption.] The party opposite wants to destroy the public schools, and if that is not levelling down I do not know what it is. We on our side look at what is succeeding. We feel that many of these secondary modern schools are doing remarkably well and are establishing great reputations with both parents and teachers. By arguing from what is being done in the best schools, we make a policy of levelling up.
This is the kind of issue on which we are very glad to be challenged. We have no doubt that the policy of rising standards which is being achieved in our secondary schools today—and I am very glad to think that we on this side of the Committee are in charge of education, so that we can see that it continues—is far

453
better for the nation than the old-fashioned class warfare which is put forward in this pamphlet.
Mr. Stephen Swingler Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme) rose—
Sir D. Eccles: One has only got to read the pamphlet to see that hon. Gentlemen opposite are much more concerned with social policy than with education.
Mr. Michael Stewart Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham) rose—
Sir D. Eccles: They are much more interested in the class structure than in developing for each child the kind of education which suits that child best. We are quite confident that if Parliament continues, in the next decade, to give to education the support which it has given over the last few years, we shall have in this country the best system of schools in the world. It will be a system which parents will see is of their own choice. They will know that the school to which they will be advised to send their children will be the one that is most suited; and, when we have done that, we shall be able to turn to any other country in the world and say, "British education has achieved something never achieved in any other country."
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): I think that there are too many hon. Members waiting for the Minister to sit down.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Irving: I wish to deal with a section of our children who have for too long been neglected—the 10 per cent. who are classified in this country as handicapped. First, I want to welcome the very considerable emphasis given in the Report this year to the special services and the special educational treatment which have been developed for our handicapped children. There has been a minor revolution in this field over the last few years. It has shown itself in several ways, first, in a willingness on the part of teachers and educators to look at the natural ability that remains in the child rather than at the defect, and-secondly, on the part of at least the progressive authorities in the country, to take more interest in the provision of proper facilities.
454
I should like to congratulate those authorities which have already made some provision and have increased it, and those which have for the first time embarked on a provision of this kind. I should also like to congratulate the increasing number of teachers who are patiently and conscientiously giving of their time to this very difficult work. It is a great humanitarian work, and failure to care for these children would be the very antithesis of a Christian morality, and certainly not a wise practice of education. I should like to think that in the coming years the Minister will encourage more firmly those authorities which have so far made no real effort to deal with this problem.
We welcome the Report of the Committee on Maladjusted Children. It is a sound Report of careful work, and if its recommendations are accepted it will lay the foundation for a suitable system of dealing with our maladjusted children. While congratulating the Committee, I hope that the Minister will seek an early date on which to publish some instructions to local authorities on this matter, and that he will see his way clear to accept most of the recommendations contained in the Report.
I would point out, however, that there is still a vast problem in the question of the education of sub-normal children, and that we are lagging behind our Scottish friends in that they have already had from their Advisory Council a report on this question. I hope that in the near future the Minister will ask his Advisory Council to undertake a similar report on educational subnormality.
The Report of the Committee on Maladjusted Children recommends that a series of child guidance clinics should be set up each with one psychiatrist, two educational psychologists and three social workers. I know that such clinics cannot be set up overnight, but when they are, I hope that the social workers will be field workers and will be able to get out into the schools and among the parents and close the gap between the home and the school. I suggest, too, that in this work the ascertainment of educational sub-normality should be handed over to these clinics because, although I believe that the school medical service and the school medical officers are doing a conscientious job, the testing and handling of the

455
children are necessary in this complicated work can be undertaken only by people properly trained for that work.
The ascertainment of subnormality and adjustment should be undertaken at the very earliest stage. The Report of the Committee states that approximately 5 per cent. of the children in schools are maladjusted. I disagree with the Report in that I believe that at least some of the children in that 5 per cent. are maladjusted because between the ages of five and eight they did not get properly on the educational ladder and were not allowed the proper development of their ability. The Report indicates what I am after, and I will quote briefly from it. Evidence given to the Committee by a London County Council witness said:
"If this frustration can be remedied by giving the children a feeling of progress in mastering the three R's, the resultant satisfaction and relief may flow over and help to overcome the more fundamental troubles."
I think that is true not only of maladjusted children but of educationally subnormal children who are also retarded. If, in fact, they start off at an early stage properly developing their abilities, we shall not build up any maladjustment which often complicates the task of the teachers dealing with subnormality. Of course, it is not easy to make progress, but I believe that if development is postponed after that vital period between the ages of five and eight—and I say between five and eight because it is necessary to get the child properly adjusted in the junior school before it can be said that it really has its feet on the educational ladder—it will be more difficult.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the teaching profession about the degree of illiteracy. I believe it stems from the fact that we have not paid enough attention either in our special school treatment or in our ordinary schools to that period. We have had overcrowded classes. We hear that the Army is making progress in that direction, but I would remind the Army authorities that the recruits entering this year started their school life in 1943 and were already subjected in that very vital period to little education, to teachers who were overworked and who, in many respects, were under-trained. In that period, those children were unable to start fully in the development of their abilities.
456
It is vital that when we begin to discuss our priorities we should realise that the fact that we have laid down the number of 40 as the ideal number in primary school classes is totally wrong. I would say that the number in the primary schools should be less than that in the secondary schools so that at that critical stage progress may be begun on the educational ladder. Therefore, one of our first objectives should be to reduce the number of 40 in our infant and junior schools and, at the same time, to continue at the other end the day continuation classes. I would say that that is an even higher priority than raising the school-leaving age, although I am in favour of that also.
The Scottish Report pointed out the need for further research. It is obvious to anyone reading that Report that there is a need for further study both of normality and sub-normality, and particularly of the learning processes of children with I.Q.s of between 85 and 90. Children with an I.Q. of between 85 and 90 are the hard core both of those who are retarded due to educational sub-normality and of those who are also maladjusted. I ask the Minister to do all that he can to encourage institutes of education throughout the country to pay more attention to this problem, because, unfortunately, it is true that most of our research is still centred round three or four institutes of education. London, of course, is one of the main institutes, but there are Birmingham, Nottingham and Leeds. Research is going on in all those places, but there is not enough of it.
I wish to comment on the question of building because, although the work which is now going on is producing excellent results, I think that a bigger proportion than in the ordinary school system is being done in sub-standard accommodation. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the circulars which have been sent out in the last few months will not mean the postponement in any way of the special school provision envisaged in, I think, paragraph 10 of the Report.
The Report points out that the number of children requiring special treatment because of educational subnormality at the end of the educational year was, if anything, greater than it was at the beginning. I think the Minister will agree that there is need for the establishment of

457
proper criteria so that the county authorities will be able clearly to recognise which children require special treatment. Only in that way will we get a proper indication of the need.
I think there is great appreciation on the part of parents of the work being done by special classes and special schools, but there is still a great need for the education of parents. Indeed, I was shocked recently to discover in my own constituency that a parent had a handicapped child of 13 years of age in a special school and was unable to give its address. That is scandalous, but it is indicative of the fact that there are parents who need education in the care of their children, and particularly of these unfortunate handicapped children.
I welcome the approach to epilepsy, which is also mentioned in the Report. It is not many years ago since a child who was subject to epileptic fits was segregated and kept outside the school system. I have myself been able to teach a class with an epileptic in it, and I discovered to my delight that the boy was able to carry on his normal work; in fact, he was a favourite in the class and was able to make satisfactory progress in the school.
Finally, I want to comment briefly on the question of staffing. Both in this Report and in the Report of the Committee on Maladjusted Children there is a reference to the shortage of staff, particularly for this type of provision. We shall not get that made up overnight, because it requires higher qualifications to deal with children of this kind than any other kind in the school system. Therefore, we must provide a satisfactory inducement to teachers to come forward who have had proper experience in normal schools.
It is fortunate that the recommendations still before the Minister will allow authorities to grant teachers of special classes the additional two increments which have previously been given to teachers in special schools. I think that is a welcome improvement, but it is totally inadequate to deal with the problem. There are many special school teachers who would prefer to have a complete revision of the system.
I ask the Minister to look at the recommendation which some have made that all handicapping in reference to special
458
school treatment and special classes should be weighted according to the particular handicap, that the head teachers of such schools should be graded on the normal school grade, and that the weighting should allow them to take their proper place on the scale corresponding to the responsibilities of their job. It is also suggested that they should have a fair share in the pools of local authorities for special responsibility posts and specially graded posts.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman also to look at the fact that at the moment there is a recognised qualification for appointment as a teacher of blind and deaf children, but that there is no similar qualification, and no similar status, for any other type of teacher in special schools. So I think there is a case for increasing the status of, for instance, the Institute of London Diplomas for the teaching of educational subnormal children and maladjusted children, and for the level of those diplomas to be the same as that which must be held by teachers of the blind and deaf, and to make it in the future a compulsory requirement although at the moment rewarding it in a similar way.
Although much progress has yet to be made, I congratulate the authorities and the Minister on the progress achieved so far. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to allow further progress to be interfered with by the credit squeeze, or to allow any other restrictions to hamper the special school building programme. I am sure that my other hon. Friends will have deep criticism to offer of other parts of the programme and of the Report, but I congratulate the Minister on an excellent Report in this connection.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. J. C. Jennings: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on his maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench? As one Durham man to another, as one who was born a few miles from where he was, as one who went to the same college and university, and as one who was associated with the same grammar school, I would say that it was indeed a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman speak, and the best I can wish him is long experience, and many years to come, on the opposite side of the Committee.

459
This debate could take in its orbit a wide aspect, but because there are many speakers to follow I want to deal as concisely as possible, and as objectively as I can, with what I consider to be the most vital problem now facing us in our educational system. That is the question of teacher supply. We have to consider this question against the general background of an overall shortage. I said that I wanted to treat this matter as objectively as I can because I do not consider this to be a party matter. It is an educational problem, and I shall try to regard it as such.
The roots of that overall shortage lie in the past, and as local authorities, as administrators, as educationalists, we have to learn from the past. What are those roots? Over the last twenty years at least the teaching profession has been an unattractive one, particularly for men, due entirely to the fact that it has been vastly underpaid. We shall have gone some considerable distance on 1st October to put that right, and I am looking forward to a vast improvement.
I also think that a new outlook towards teachers is needed by many authorities, though not all. Here I want to weigh my words carefully. In industry the competition for the services of young persons in these days of full employment has revolutionised the attitude of employers towards recruiting. The psychology of the days of substantial unemployment has long been abandoned. May I say, then, on that aspect—and content myself with it—that in this respect the education service might have something to learn from industry?
Now to proceed to the immediate problem. There is no doubt in my mind that in certain parts of the country an emergency exists. How should we meet it—on a long-term basis or on a short-term basis? The immediate problem lies in the short-term basis. Various ideas have been put forward. In the few moments I shall allow myself I want to look at some of the short-term cures. Territorial allowances, quotas and restrictions, and direction of labour are three which leap to the mind. Let us look at each one briefly.
As a teacher I am intensely opposed to territorial or area allowances. The
460
Burnham Committee turned down this suggestion. The National Union of Teachers nationally is against it. What would happen if Birmingham got it, to mention a case in point? Why should not Nottingham get it? Why not Chester? Why not a host of other places? It would open the way to a wide range of new demands.
There would be the difficulty of demarcation. If one selected Birmingham or Nottingham, what about the villages in the surrounding country areas? In the old days when the London allowance was given on a cost-of-living basis, it was assumed that it was cheaper to live in a village than in a town. Can one assume that today?
Mr. Shurmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in great industrial centres like Birmingham, which have recently attracted many thousands of people, housing accommodation has become far more expensive than it is in small towns like Evesham, Tewkesbury or Worcester?
Mr. Jennings: I was talking about small villages, not towns like Tewkesbury. I have lived in a village since 1944. I went to a school which had not got a school house, and it was six years before I got independent accommodation. Village life is fairly expensive. The cost-of-living argument for differentiating between a city like Birmingham and a village like Netherseal, where I live, does not hold good.
Mr. James Johnson: Does not the argument hold for local government officers? Birmingham pays differentials to its local government officers.
Mr. Jennings: I am not worried about local government officers.
Mr. Johnson: It is the same argument.
Mr. Jennings: If one does it for N.A.L.G.O., one must do it for industry of all kinds. I can visualise difficulties if we are to smash national agreements by making local and area agreements. If there are to be area allowances, there must be another basis. The basis can no longer be the cost of living, because the cost of living in a village approximates far more now to the cost of living in a town or city than it did when the London allowance was first given.

461
The new basis must be the staffing ratio. One can foresee all kinds of problems arising out of that, and I will deal with one or two of them in a moment. One argument against it concerns the line of demarcation. The people just outside the favoured area will decide to give up teaching in the county area and apply for teaching posts in the city area. We shall thus rob Peter to pay Paul. While we may have cured one problem, we shall have created another elsewhere. That is one of the strongest arguments against area allowances. There is also the fundamental point that it will smash national agreements. It will put the clock back. It will mean a return to the time when we had scale I areas, scale II areas and scale III areas, and there was bribery to induce teachers to move from one area to another.
Quotas and restrictions constitute a second palliative. We have just got rid of the rationing of women teachers. This proposal would mean the rationing of all teachers. The effect would be to reduce the total number of teachers available. Home-based, immobile teachers would tend to be left, for authorities would prefer to take teachers who were mobile. Therefore, although we are to get about 7,000 extra each year, the effect of the proposal would be to reduce the total number of teachers available.
Rationing would not make unwilling teachers go to unattractive areas. They would simply either leave the service or leave the unattractive area as soon as possible if they happened to get into it. I want a free market for teachers, although I must qualify that statement. I want a free market with no direction of labour. Teachers have always grumbled when they have been compulsorily transferred from one school to another, even within a city or county. Such a proposal would not go down well locally or nationally.
I want to qualify my outlook upon quotas and restrictions by this final statement. The position may get so bad that I may have to reconsider my attitude towards quotas. Strongly as I object to them, they may be the only thing for us in the end. I am, however, prepared to look at other means first.
We must examine other means of encouraging an increased supply of
462
teachers in unattractive areas. There are several which might be tried. How far does lack of accommodation enter into the unattractiveness of an area and the tendency of new teachers entering the area not to stay there? I have great sympathy with Birmingham about its difficulties and want to see the situation remedied. When I read that in one year 700 to 900 teachers left Birmingham, I ask myself what is so wrong with the place that so many teachers leave it. Is it housing?
Here is a point for the local authorities. Why should they not give teachers priority in housing? Hands go up in horror at that suggestion. What is the situation confronting local authorities? Are they to put the education of their children first, or are they to be afraid of irate would-be tenants? Would it not be worth while ensuring a supply of at least a small proportion of new teachers by giving them priority on the housing waiting lists?
Mr. Shurmer: Sanitary inspectors, too?
Mr. Jennings: Policemen and sanitary inspectors too, if necessary. Let us be honest about having a priority list if it is a social duty which should be performed. Local authorities must face the problem. If they are not prepared to face it, they must discard the method and we must find other ways. If the Burnham Committee will not give an area allowance and the Government will not institute a quota system, we must examine other ways if children are to be educated efficiently.
There may be another way out. I keep instancing Birmingham, because it pinpoints the problem, but there are other cities in a similar situation. I wonder whether the Birmingham local authority has taken full advantage of legislation which would enable it to advance to teachers 95 per cent. of the purchase price of houses. I wonder whether that sort of thing has been fully investigated. It might not attract many teachers, but it might attract a few, and it would give them a stake in the place and perhaps help in keeping them there.
We should also examine teaching conditions. If they are not good, teachers will automatically leave. I have taught in both old and new buildings and I know

463
something about this. I know it is the spirit and not the building which makes a school, but we all want good buildings if we can get them, and the physical conditions should be as good as we can afford.
There is something else besides all this. Local education authorities should ask themselves some questions. If they are not keeping teachers, they should search their souls and ascertain the cause and whether they are in any way to blame. I am not suggesting for a moment that Birmingham is to blame. I was talking to two Birmingham teachers yesterday, and they assured me that the relationship between the teachers and the authority was quite good. I am not implying anything. All I am saying—
Mr. Shurmer: The Minister says so.
Mr. Jennings: I am glad to hear it.
Local authorities must ask themselves certain questions. How far does the encouragement to take supplementary or short courses affect the inflow and the keeping of teachers? That is a small but significant point. Is constant transfer, in aid of administrative easement, a contributory factor in sickening teachers of places? Does it cause them to say, "I thought that I should be in that school for quite a long while. Now I am being compulsorily transferred, I do not like it and I shall get out and go to some more suitable authority"? To stay long enough to know the pupils is a fundamental factor in efficient teaching. One of the troubles in the Midlands, where some authorities—I think Birmingham is one—have a six-monthly transfer scheme, is that the teacher is not given a chance to know his pupils.
How much has the size of the capitation allowance for school books and equipment to do with it? These things percolate through the ranks of the teachers. They get to know whether an authority is mean or fairly generous, and they say, "We will go to the reasonably generous authority rather than stay with an authority which is mean." Promotion schemes within authorities should be examined. A promotion scheme has to be fair; not only that, it has to be seen to be fair. If there is a suspicion of nepotism—I do not care from which direction it comes—of backdoor canvassing or anything like undue influence—
464
and we teachers know plenty about that—it may be a factor which tends to drive teachers away from that type of authority.
All these small matters affect the creation of a happy atmosphere, and among them is the attitude of the director, the chief education officer—call him what we will—towards the teachers. No longer should he live in the fastness of the shire hall, the county hall, or the town hall and be remote from the teachers. Some are remote and some are not. We should get rid of this patronising, high-level attitude towards the poor, humble teacher. Each authority would be wise to examine its own service in case there may be factors which tend to dissuade teachers from entering its area. That is why I welcome the proposal of my right hon. Friend—I think it strikes at the core of the problem—that a conference should be called.
There must be other reasons, unknown to many of us, for the peculiar comparisons between the official figures. Take, for instance, the staffing ratios for primary and junior schools. Why do we find that the figures for Staffordshire are better than those for Surrey? One might suppose that the figures would be worse for Staffordshire than for Surrey which, I am led to understand, is a pleasanter part of the country. Why sould East Ham have a better staffing ratio than Bournemouth or Brighton?
Mr. Percy Daines: East Ham is all right, and the hon. Member should leave it alone.
Mr. Jennings: I am glad to hear it.
Comparisons are made between what are called unattractive areas and other areas. Far be it from me to suggest that East Ham is unattractive, though a built-up area like East Ham is in direct contrast to a bright, seaside resort which would be more attractive than East Ham—or so I am told. Why do we get a discrepancy in favour of geographically unattractive areas and places like Southend or Hastings and Chester—
Miss Bacon: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he realise that on the one hand he is quoting Labour-controlled authorities and on the other Tory-controlled authorities?
Mr. Jennings: That is a very nice point and it was well taken. Had I been making

465
a party political speech, I should have noted that. But at the start I said—and I hope the hon. Lady will believe that my intention is sincere—that I was trying to be objective. If, inadvertently, I have given a boost to some Labour-controlled authorities, I think that instead of being condemned I should receive a pat on the back.
Mr. Harold Gurden: My hon. Friend will realise that Birmingham is a Socialist-controlled authority.
Mr. Jennings: Never mind, we will not enter into political matters.
I conclude, not by boosting Socialist-controlled authorities, but by boosting an authority in my own constituency, the authority at Burton, where we have a happy position with regard to the supply of teachers. I know that Burton is a unique place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I thank hon. Members for that, but it would be as well if we looked at this town which, after all—I quote this for the purpose of my argument—is in the Midlands. Of course, geographically, hon. Members will be aware of that, whatever they may think spiritually.
The position in Burton is that in our primary schools we fill every post from Burton students, and from married women who have come into the town because their husbands are employed in industry there. In the secondary modern schools we fill all the places except an occasional specialist post, and for our selective schools we advertise in the normal way.
I have taken pains to find out why Burton is in such a favourable position. For its size, the town has an unusually large number of students in training colleges. I think it is because we have an ample number of places in our selective schools. The director is always readily available. I know of people who have gone into industry for two or three years and then have been attracted to teaching. They have sought an interview with the director, and in a short time he has smoothed their way to a training college. The relationship with the authority is excellent. The amount per capita for books, stationery, apparatus and equipment is always above the average for the country. Teachers are encouraged to go on short-term and
466
long-term courses, and the authority is generous with its expenses allowances— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—yes, I will tell that to the Prime Minister, too.
Finally, in my remarks about the reasons why I think that Burton is in a reasonably good position, I must mention that there is an advisory committee on which sit an equal number of teachers and people from the education authority. Burton, then, is known, and is seen to be, a happy authority, and we have very little outflow of teachers.
To sum up, I would say that we are faced with two factors. We are faced with an overall shortage and a period when the Government have given local education authorities freedom to employ whom they want, while teachers are free to seek posts where they wish. Therefore, certain action should be taken. What should we do? Those authorities which are well placed should act with restraint. From the latest figures for September, I think that London has shown remarkable restraint. Its inflow, I understand, is to be less. Local authorities in need should go all-out to make their service attractive.
We should stretch training accommodation to the utmost limit; we should provide the best possible teaching conditions in the difficult areas, and we should encourage people to stay on and retired teachers to come back in order to get us over the emergency. If these efforts fail the alternative method of rationing, which I intensely dislike, will have to be reconsidered.
5.50 p.m.
Miss Alice Bacon: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings). We used to say that there was nobody among the hon. Members opposite who understood very much about the practical side of education and teaching, but at last there is one hon. Member opposite who understands it.
When the Minister was speaking this afternoon, he seemed to think that he had wandered into the wrong assembly. He seemed to think that he was at the Labour Party conference, discussing our policy pamphlet "Towards Equality", because that is where we usually discuss our policy pamphlets. He did not say much to lead the Committee to suppose that we

467
were discussing his Report for 1955. We heard very little about that.
This is the first general education debate that we have had since the last Election, although we have had specialised education debates, such as that upon technical education. Technical and technological education are very important to our future economy, and I do not want to minimise their importance in any way, but I hope that this great and belated interest in technical education is not going to divert us from the main educational problem, of the education of our children of compulsory school attendance age—between the ages of five and fifteen years.
My hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who are specially interested in technical education or the universities must recognise that all this further and higher education is dependent upon the way in which we deal with our children between the ages of five and fifteen years, and in what I have to say this afternoon I want to deal only with that question.
I do not think anybody would deny the great practical difficulties that we have had since the end of the war in relation to the bulge or the increase in the number of children coming into our schools, and the supply of buildings and teachers. I want to say a word about buildings, because they are very important. Buildings and teachers are fundamental to a good primary and secondary education. I agree with the hon. Member for Burton that it does not necessarily mean that because a building is a good one the standard of education within it is good. It is also true to say that we cannot get the full benefit of our education if the teachers are teaching in very old and insanitary buildings, crammed full of children.
The Government's recent record in building is deplorable. We are now discussing the Report for 1955, but let us consider what has happened since it was issued. We have had Circular No. 306, which has slowed up school building to the extent of about £34 million or £35 million. I admit that it is very difficult to obtain a clear idea of what is happening from the speeches of the Minister and the figures which he quotes. I have almost given up trying to understand
468
where we are with the school building problem.
Nothing that the Minister said today about starts and work in hand went any further to enlighten me. Like his predecessor, he uses terms like "starts," "completions," "work in hand" and "work done," whichever at the moment puts his Ministry in the most favourable light, and we have somehow to grope our way through all that to see what is happening. He tries to tell us that by starting fewer buildings he will get more completed. I wonder when the Government will realise that in order to finish a building it must first be started. Circular No. 306 postponed one half of the 1955–56 building programme, which was carried over to the next year.
To see what is really happening, let us consider what the teachers and local authorities—who are the people most concerned with the working of our educational system—think of Circular No. 306. The 29th June issue of the Schoolmaster, the official organ of the National Union of Teachers, in discussing Circular No. 306 in its leading article, said:
"Sir David is an able advocate of unpopular causes, but the skill with which he made his case could not wholly disguise the gaps in his argument."
That is what the teachers think of the circular. What about local authorities? For what they think we have to consider the report of the annual conference of the Association of Education Committees, held recently at Southport. I will not weary the Committee by quoting it in full, but one of the resolutions accused the Minister of breaking faith and said that, unless something drastic was done, there would not be room for all the children who were pouring into our schools.
But what angered the local authorities more than anything else was the fact that the Minister tried to put upon them the blame for the fact that last year's programme was not completed. The conference said quite specifically that the Minister himself had delayed the approval of schemes. They had been waiting for their schemes to be approved by the Minister and they said that he was blaming them for not going ahead quicker.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to imply this afternoon, everything was going so well, and local authorities were progressing so quickly, why are individual

469
local authorities complaining? Why are local authorities in Essex and Cornwall protesting and sending deputations to the Minister about the cutting of their school building programmes? I do not know whether the Government are trying to slow down school building because of the economic situation, or whether they say, "We must get our technical programme completed and, in order to do that, we are not going to have so many ordinary schools built." If it is really a problem for the building industry, and the Government desire to build schools but find that the building industry cannot build them because it is engaged upon something else, the answer is to institute building controls and have some priority in the buildings which are erected. We must see that schools and houses come before cinemas and public houses.
A great deal has been said about the shortage of teachers. In this respect, I agree with almost all that the hon. Member for Burton said. One thing that worried me a little about the Minister's speech was his reference to training colleges, which seemed to indicate that he was going to try to cram them full for the next two or three years and hope that the position would right itself after that.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I am greatly concerned about secondary education. The increased numbers of children in our schools are now passing from the primary to the secondary schools. My views upon secondary education in general are well known, and I do not want to go into them at length. I believe in the comprehensive school. Not only do I believe in the abolition of the examination at 11 years of age; I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to select and segregate children at that age.
I said in April last year that opinion would begin to go our way as time went on, and how right I was! Reading the report of the annual conference of the Association of Education Committees, I was interested and, indeed, a little amused to see what the chairman of that body had to say. The chairman is Alderman B. G. Lampard-Vachell, who comes from Devon, and so, I assume, is an ardent member of the party opposite.
Mr. Hayman: He is.
Miss Bacon: In his address, he spoke about the difficulties of organising secondary education in rural areas. I wish that I could quote at length from his speech, but I will quote only a part He said:
"It may well be that the answer will be found in experiments aimed at modifying the tripartite system. This form of words is not merely a cautious circumlocution by which I try to avoid giving offence to anyone by the use of a certain expression."
I suppose that he meant he did not wish to use the term "comprehensive school."
"I refer to the sort of rural secondary school run by our friends in Anglesey"
He went on to say that in his area the authority was enlarging the grammar school to cater for children of secondary age within the one grammar school. That shows that even in the ranks of the party opposite there are members of local education authorities who are coming round to that point of view.
I do not want to argue the merits of the comprehensive school. My views are well known, but as I have said, while I fully believe in the comprehensive system of education, I believe that, while the present system exists, we must see that the secondary modern school is given a fair share of facilities. That is not happening at the present time.
We have talked about parity of esteem. Parity of esteem can never be achieved while we have the present set-up, but we can do certain things to lessen the differences between the secondary modern school and the secondary grammar school. For instance, raising the school-leaving age to 16 will be a great help, but I am certain that the Government will not do that. If the secondary modern schools had better buildings, that would also help, but we shall not get much assistance from the Government in that direction.
Mr. Jennings: How soon does the hon. Lady think that it would be a practical proposition to raise the school-leaving age to 16, whether the party opposite or my party was in power?
Miss Bacon: I shall not be drawn into giving years, because it depends entirely on the number of buildings built while the present Government are in office. If they neglect the school building programme, it will be longer. There are some people who think that opportunities

471
to gain a General Certificate of Education would improve matters, but that is something about which I do not feel very strongly.
What can we do here and now? There is one thing about above all others which can be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington today quoted the sizes of classes. We know the sizes of classes in our State schools. In the direct grant schools the average is 18, and in independent schools about 12, many being as low as seven or eight. The size of classes in secondary modern schools is becoming desperate. We had great hopes for our secondary modern schools.
The right hon. Gentleman talked glibly today about experiments in secondary modern schools, and to give him some indication of what is happening I want to quote one example which I know very well. It is that of the school in which I taught until 1945. It is a West Riding school, built just before the war to accommodate 480 children. We went into it as a new school and we had high hopes. We thought that we would do great things and, for a few years, we did so, but what is happening now?
We had two prefabricated class rooms added to the school at the time of the raising of the school-leaving age, and recently there has been added one portable unit. In the school today there are 700 children, and the position will soon worsen. Seventy or 80 children are leaving this week and, in September, 200 will join the school, making a total of 800 after the summer holiday. I am told that children are sitting on window ledges and having to use an old kitchen with a concrete floor as a class room.
How can the right hon. Gentleman talk about these wonderful experiments and the sort of work which can be done in secondary modern schools when teachers in our secondary modern schools have to teach under such conditions? The grammar schools are not so overcrowded. I recently asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question about the average numbers of children in grammar schools and in secondary modern schools. Of course, there was a smaller number in grammar schools, but he said that the reason was that in grammar schools there were many
472
sixth forms where classes were very small.
That may be so, but his own Report, Education in 1955, suggests that that is only half the story. On page 126, the Report gives the number of over-large classes in secondary modern schools and grammar schools, respectively. There are 9,173 classes of 36 to 40 in secondary modern schools and only 899 in grammar schools; there are 2,692 classes of 41 to 45 in secondary modern schools and only 71 in grammar schools; there are 280 classes of 46 to 50 in secondary modern schools and only 29 in grammar schools. That seems to show that the secondary modern schools are bearing the greater part of the burden of the increase in our secondary schools.
While 40 should be the regular size of a class in a primary school and 30 for a class in a secondary school—and I have always said that that is wrong; I do not see why a primary school should have 40 and a secondary school 30—it seems that an attempt to reach the figure of 30 is made only for the grammar schools. If we are to have this terrific overcrowding in secondary modern schools and no such overcrowding in the grammar schools, the proportion of children aged 11 proceeding to the grammar schools will decrease. In other words, unless the burden of increased numbers is shared equally between the grammar schools and the secondary modern schools, fewer and fewer children will have a chance of going to a grammar school.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to provide some of the answers which we did not have from his right hon. Friend this afternoon. We were told nothing of his plans for the future. We do not know where the Government are going in education, and I want to know the Government's long-term policy in this respect. Of course, I can well understand them feeling that they need not bother about a long-term policy, because that is something about which only we shall have to worry.
For instance, are they budgeting in regard to buildings, teachers and so on to serve the pre-bulge condition? Are they saying to themselves, "Let us put up with these greater numbers now, knowing that the situation will even out after 1960"? On the other hand—and I hope that this

473
is the case—are they saying, "We will try to get a reasonable size of class now, so that by the time the bulge has passed to the secondary schools we can spare teachers and buildings for reforms such as a decrease in the size of classes, an increase in the school-leaving age, and county colleges"?
I believe that what they are doing is thinking that they must somehow get over this difficulty and then they will be back to the "as you were" afterwards. I warn the Minister that while we may make up on the general position later on, we can never make it up for the children who have been educated under these conditions. We can have a school building programme later, and can perhaps recruit more teachers later, but children who have been educated under these conditions have lost something which they will never make up.
Among the other things that the Minister of Education said was that he had only saved £2 million by economy cuts here and there. If to do that he has to have such petty economies as restrictions of school milk and school transport and fees for further education, I ask whether the saving was really worth while. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give the local education authorities a little more discretion about school transport than he has given them up to now.
I know of a case, which is known also to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Sylvester) because it is in his constituency, where the West Riding education authority was allowing school transport although the distance was 100 yards under the three-mile limit. Against its wishes, the authority has been compelled by the Minister to charge for transport. Children have otherwise to cross very busy roads and two level crossings, and ride on a bus for a quarter of an hour. These matters should be left to the discretion of the local education authority.
Before the day is out I hope that we shall hear from the Government what are their aims in education and what they are planning for the future. We regard these matters as educational and not as political problems. If we look at them educationally, we can make progress more rapidly than by doing as the Minister has done today, when he was waving
474
a political pamphlet about because he had very little else to say about his own Report.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. John Hall: I address the Commitee with some trepidation, surrounded as I am mainly by school teachers. I have no particular qualifications for talking on the subject, but I am heartened by a statement made by a well-known educationist who, in expounding the value of education, warned his readers to beware of school teachers. I can take some heart from that.
I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) will forgive me if I do not follow her in many of the points she made. Many of us will have sympathy with some of the things she said. One of the features of education debates is that there is general agreement on both sides of the Chamber about many of the things we are trying to do, but there is one matter on which I must join issue.
The hon. Lady was criticising my right hon. Friend for not getting on fast enough with building and for the cuts that it is said he has imposed. I wish to refer to a Ministry of Education circular which was sent out, and which started with this preamble:
"Local education authorities will be aware that the economic difficulties of the country have called for a close review of Government expenditure."
That might be something similar to what has been sent out recently. The circular went on to impose a cut of 12 per cent. on the average school building costs and a 2 to 3 per cent. reduction in current expenditure. It stopped all new building for the school meals service, raised the cost of meals by 1d. and outlined a number of other small but nonetheless painful cuts of the kind to which the hon. Lady has referred. That circular was sent out on 28th October, 1949, by the Socialist Minister of Education, and for very good reasons.
Mr. Shurmer: He was a jolly good Minister of Education, too. One of the best we ever had.
Mr. Hall: Yes, very good indeed and he had the good of education at heart, as everyone realises. I only refer to the circular to point out that there are times when we cannot go ahead as we would

475
like. It is true to say that during the last four years more school places have been provided and started under the present Administration than under the last four years of the previous Administration. I do not want to make a party point. Let me come to matters which are not party points. One is the place of the secondary modern school in the present education system, with which the hon. Lady dealt at some length, and the other is the development of scientific training in the grammar schools.
We have been trying over the last few years to develop a three-tier system of education, catering for children from five to 15, but I sometimes wonder, when I am listening to our debates, whether we are not overlooking the real job that we are trying to do. We are trying to educate children, but there is a great deal of concentration on the tools we are to use: school buildings, school teachers, and so on. Are we thinking rather too much of schooling and not enough of education?
I remember that there was rather a good definition of education by Sydney Smith. He said:
"The real object of education is to give children resources that will endure as long as life endures; habits that time will ameliorate and not destroy; occupations that will render sickness tolerable, solitude pleasant, age venerable, life more dignified and useful and death less terrible."
Mr. Moyle: Could the hon. Member relate that definition to the secondary modern school and make some observations?
Mr. Hall: That is rather a long definition. I prefer the shorter one, which says:
"The purpose of education is to teach us how to think and not what to think."
Could we not sometimes debate the curricula of our schools and see how we are educating our children, quite apart from the tools we are using?
The Archbishop of Canterbury, addressing a prize-day recently at a school in my constituency, pointed out that in his day there were fewer tools of education but that we learned to use them more thoroughly. Today, there is a large number of tools, but are we learning to use them as efficiently as we should like? I am reminded of the difference which is
476
supposed to exist between the regimental officer and the staff officer which may apply to education. In the old days, with the fewer tools of education, we learned a lot about a little, but today, with a far greater number of tools, we are learning less and less about more and more until finally we know nothing about anything. That definition may commend itself to some hon. Members.
We subject our children to varying tests along the production lines of education. We shunt them on to various conveyor belts to provide different finished products according to an arbitrary assessment of the quality of the human material with which we are dealing at a particular time in their development. We provide a number of welfare services which may or may not add to the real education of the child.
What is the final result? At every examination, or when the results are out, we get more heart-burning among parents than at any time in our educational history. There is more snobbishness in education than ever before, because people really do break their hearts according to whether or not their children go into a grammar school or a technical school. The main reason for this is a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of the secondary modern school and the part which it should play. There is a feeling among people that if their child is not selected for a technical or a grammar school place it is a failure, and has no further educational opportunity. That is a very mistaken impression, and if we can do anything here to remove it we shall have done something valuable.
These secondary modern schools in my constituency are second to none and stand out by comparison with schools anywhere else in the country. They endeavour to give a very good comprehensive education to all the children that go to them and they make it possible—this relates to something which the hon. Lady mentioned—for children to stay on to the age of 16 in order to take advanced courses for commercial or technical subjects, which will enable them to take the general certificate of education in one or more subjects, and to pass the preliminary examination for professional and other courses. They get an opportunity which would probably not be bettered even if they went to the grammar school.

477
We have to remember that that type of school, the secondary modern school, caters for the child of average ability. If, by any chance, that child got to the grammar school he would always be struggling against children of a slightly brighter intelligence and would not get any further than the shell, whereas in the secondary modern he can get specialised attention and be given a better opportunity to take examinations he would have taken if he went to the grammar school.
I suggest to the Minister that perhaps the time has come to consider whether we should have a two-tier instead of a three-tier system of education. I should not like to suggest that the comprehensive school is the answer. I have never had very strong feelings one way or the other about that. We have to see how it develops. Experiments are going on and they may show that there is a future for that type of school, but as an interim measure I suggest a two-tier system divided into a secondary school which merges the secondary modern and secondary technical together, and the grammar school.
I was very interested to see that in one of the counties—I think it was Warwickshire—something of that kind is to be done. An extract from that county's chief education officer's report was quoted in The Times Educational Supplement of 6th September, which reads:
"There are almost infinite varieties of children. If they are sorted into three groups, there is more room for mis-sorting them than if they go into two groups of equal standing."
Other hon. Members will have had examples of that. The article continued:
"It would accord with these lines of thought if the terms 'secondary technical' and 'secondary modern' were not used to describe any secondary school in the county, and if schools of these kinds were known in future as 'high schools'."
I think that a change in name is essential if we are to change the purpose and scope of the school, because the term "secondary modern" is associated in the minds of parents with a school of incompetent and dull children. Not only should the curriculum be changed, but the name, also.
I come now to the question of the grammar school. I understand that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Govern-
478
ment to spend £97 million on technical education over the next few years. There seems to be a concentration of expenditure on technical colleges and technical schools and a tendency to overlook the part which grammar schools are playing and will continue to play in the production of first-class scientists.
I use as an example a grammar school in my constituency, because probably it is typical of many other grammar schools throughout the country. The Royal Grammar School, in High Wycombe, is a very old and venerable school. It was founded in the mid-sixteenth century and has a first-class reputation as probably one of the biggest state-controlled grammar schools in the country, certainly in the South of England. It has the highest proportion of sixth form work among schools, with perhaps two or three exceptions.
The headmaster has pointed out that of 87 students this year who went in for the advanced and scholarship level of the General Certificate of Education, 43 took science; and during next year he expects to have well over 70 taking science at that level. Yet the laboratories which are available were built in 1914, or shortly after, and are so inadequate that no form in the school can look forward to more than two periods in the laboratories in a week. That has a severe effect on the prospects of students getting through to university as science students.
Application has been made to the local education authority, which received the application very sympathetically, but so far as I know it has been rejected by the Minister, on what grounds I do not know. I have a suspicion that perhaps in the Ministry there is a too rigid division between technical and scientific training on the one hand and grammar school training on the other. That is a great pity because, as all hon. Members will agree, it is to the grammar school that we look for first-class science students. I ask my right hon. Friend to see that the grammar schools are getting all the facilities they require and a fair proportion of the £97 million we intend to spend over the next few years to develop to the full the very large number of first-class students who could take advantage of the advanced level examination.
I wish to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart),

479
whose speech from the Opposition Front Bench I very much enjoyed. He made a very constructive contribution, which set a good tone for us to follow in the debate. I mean this quite sincerely. I hope we shall hear many other contributions from him in future debates of this kind.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I should like to follow the arguments about secondary modern school education because I have had some experience of that type of school, but I am afraid I have not the time at my disposal, as I do not want to keep the Committee for too long. Nevertheless, I suggest to the Minister that he should not rely too much on the secondary modern school to supply students for technical colleges. There must be some other means of supplying the technical colleges with students than by taking the cream of the secondary modern schools only.
I wish to draw particular attention to the effect of the series of circulars recently issued by the Ministry to local education authorities. When the Government adopted their squeeze policy, despite denials made at the time, we on these benches knew that education would be one of the first victims, and our fears are now being fulfilled. That, unfortunately, has been the story of education all through the years. When plans are drawn up and hopes raised that those plans will be implemented, sooner or later circulars emerge from the Ministry and the plans are laid aside, many of them never to see the light of day any more.
On one occasion I was told during a meeting of the governors of my school that the Ministry of Education is the biggest cemetery of worthy schemes in the country. Since I have come to this House I have been convinced that the pigeonholes at the Ministry of Education are the modern equivalent of the catacombs of the ancient world. No one remotely associated with education will deny that that is perfectly true. The road to free and universal education is littered with broken promises and scraps of paper plans. That, I suggest, has a depressing and frustrating effect on local education authorities and on the governing bodies and heads of schools and other educational institutions.
480
I followed the debate on the White Paper on Technical Education, a few weeks ago, rather closely. Lurking in my mind was the fear that when the Government begin to implement their White Paper policy circulars will begin to emerge and the final result will be only a shadow of what has been promised in the White Paper. I want to give an example, and I should like the Minister to deal with it this evening if he can. I am talking for the moment about technical education. The Denbighshire education authority proposed to erect a new block of premises at the Colwyn Bay Technical Institute. The authority had every reason to believe that this project would be included in the 1957–58 building programme, but the Ministry stated that that was not possible. The authority next expected that it would be included in the 1958–59 building programme, but, to its dismay, it was informed a few days ago, that the project could not be included even in the 1958–59 programme.
So it goes on; and it has been going on like this year after year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, a new term has been invented; it is no longer a cut, it is called a postponement. They say, "It will come, but not this year. It will not come this year, it may not come next year, but it will come eventually. It is not a cut. It is only a postponement." It reminds me of the story of the young man who sent a letter to his mother, "Dear Mum, I am going to send you £1 … but not this week."
May I turn to another matter, also very serious? I should like to draw the Ministry's attention to Circular 307, "Fees for Further Education." This is a very serious circular indeed, and I can hardly believe that the Minister appreciates its seriousness. The circular directs that education authorities shall charge, as from next September, a fee of 10s. per term for students of 21 years of age and over.
The Minister argued this afternoon—and no doubt many others will argue along the same lines—that this charge is reasonable enough and that if people are keen on education they should not be averse to paying 10s. for it. But I had thought that it was the adopted policy on both sides of the Committee to move in

481
the direction of free universal education. Have we not seen educational fees being abolished in one place after another? Secondary school fees have gone. College and university fees have gone, within broad limits. It has been the cherished pride of this nation that we were moving in the direction of free universal education. Here, we have what I must call a below-the-belt blow, with the Minister no doubt believing that he can accomplish in this section of education what he dare not suggest in any other.
What are the facts? I will speak about Wales in general, and about my county in particular. I should like hon. Members to note the year; up to 1952, the fee for evening classes in Denbighshire was 1s. for all courses. That was only a nominal fee, and we all felt that it was on the way out. Education committees had deliberately adopted a policy of low fees. They knew, as we all know, that everyone will not take advantage even of free education; but they felt that those who did take advantage of it should be encouraged and commended.
Clearly, we cannot have too many people in our evening schools. It is a sound social investment, resulting in better social activities, better homes and a deeper appreciation of education in the homes of the people. Long before my time the evening school was an established institution in the villages and rural communities of the Principality. It has now become a well-established tradition in the land. There are hon. Members listening to me who will bear me out when I say that many of our national leaders, even some of our college tutors, and I can think even of the principal of a college, started from evening schools. I can speak with some experience in this respect, because for seventeen years I was supervisor of the evening institute of my school.
During the war, in the period of blackout and sirens, when people might have been expected to remain at home, I had 450 students on my admission register. I should like hon. Members to bear that figure in mind. There were over 25 classes in the school, with students following different courses, ranging through domestic science, needlework, literature, art and commerce. That was during the war, in times of black-out and many other difficulties. In my village, I have known a class of miners meet for three years to
482
study—to study what? Not mining, not art, not philosophy, not history, not geography, but New Testament Greek!
That was in the school of which I was headmaster, in a village the name of which I hesitate to pronounce in this Chamber this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Since I have been asked to do so, I will pronounce it, and then hon. Members can check my facts. It is the village of Rhosllanerchrugog. It is my native village, and, naturally, I am very proud of it. It has been called a village of all the talents. I do not know whether that is true, but I would say this: the villages in Wales are villages of all talents, thanks to these evening schools. I am sure that the Minister must agree that all this is worth preserving.
Is it now the accepted policy of the Minister to destroy this grand institution of further education, just for the filthy lucre of a handful of silver—because that is all it amounts to. The writing appeared on the wall in the first place in 1952—a very significant year in our political life. It was in that year that the fee was raised in the first place to 5s. Now it has been raised to 10s. a term, which means £1 in two terms.
Further education was enshrined in the Education Act, 1944, which gave the Lord Privy Seal a grand halo. I do not wish to deprive him of it. But here, with one decisive and deliberate stroke, further education is dealt a mortal blow. Indeed,
"The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau."
I am sure the Minister of Education neither understands nor appreciates the significance of evening school work in Wales.
Sir D. Eccles: I am interested in evening work, but what the hon. Member is saying is that 5s. a term more for a Welsh miner is such an enormous sum that he will not go to the evening institute. Is that the hon. Member's view?
Mr. Moyle: They are not all miners.
Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) referred to miners.
Mr. Jones: The reply to the Minister's question is that we are presumably moving in the direction of free education, and if a person is interested in his own

483
culture, even to the extent of learning Greek, he deserves all the support possible from the House of Commons and the Ministry of Education.
Of course, the Minister's argument can be applied in every sphere of education. In any case, in rural Wales—and perhaps the Minister does not appreciate this—social life still turns round the chapel and the school. There is no rivalry between them. They are cooperative and complementary. Local education authorities know this—that is why they pursue a policy of low fees. The local authorities on the spot know that they are right; they also know, if I may say so respectfully, that the Minister is completely wrong. I can assure him that with this particular circular he is doing irreparable damage. He is ruining the ship for the sake of a pennyworth of tar.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison: Unlike one of my hon. Friends, it is with great diffidence that I speak in front of so many schoolmasters and others having much more experience of education than I have. I must also admit that I have not even been educated altogether in this country, but that, I think, has certain advantages. It enables one to look with more detachment at the subject, to appreciate the education system as one finds it here, and to sum up the worth of such things as the evening classes that are struck "a mortal blow" because the students have to pay an additional fee of 10s. a term.
I cannot help but think that if such institutions have been struck "below the belt" with this "mortal blow" they really are not worth preserving. If there is the true desire for knowledge, then 10s. a term will not stop those who are really interested in living a fuller life, following their particular interests and improving their education. The additional fee will have one very desirable effect, which has actually happened in my own constituency. There people have been registering for certain classes at the beginning of the term but not continuing with the course for its duration. This little extra fee is sufficient to make only those register who are really keen to see the course through.
Mr. Hayman: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that this has been a feature of evening classes from the very beginning, say for the last 80 years?
Mr. Harrison: I understood that the mortal blow to which I was referring was this increase in the fees. That increase will not affect those people who are really keen on improving themselves, but will help to make sure that there is not a waste of skilled teachers who could be much better employed in other directions. There is a case in point in my own constituency, where I understand that for the coming year the education authorities have already been able to arrange to divert some of these teachers from the additional work which they were doing in the evenings so that they may work in the daytime in a girls' school. That has helped a school that otherwise was likely to suffer seriously from shortage of staff.
Mention has been made today of equality. I do not want to pursue that, because to me education is the absolute opposite of equality. A good educational system tends, or should tend, to develop in people the resources inherent in them and to make them more and more unequal by developing and exploiting their individual talents. I am not sure that the best way for these talents to be exploited is by a single system such as, for instance, comprehensive schools only. In certain areas there is a place for comprehensive schools, but I think that there is also a place for all sorts and types of schools. For instance, we must aim at getting down the size of the classes and the facilities of the State-owned schools—if I may differentiate in this way—to the size of the classes in the so-called public schools, which are, in point of fact, private schools.
While we are doing that, however, I hope that we will have health inspections and make sure that the living conditions in some of our great public schools are brought up to a level comparable with that in a lot of the State-owned schools. Frankly, having had the opportunity of going round some of these great traditional schools, I have been horrified by them. For the money that is charged for education there, the actual physical facilities provided are, in many cases, appalling. Therefore, when we are bringing down the size of the classes and raising the standard of teaching, I hope

485
that we shall raise the standard in some of these public schools, where it falls so very far short of what I should like for my child during the school term.
One point which was brought out in an intervention is, I think, intensely important. It is the point of educating parents about the channelling of their children. We have not as yet found any better substitute for the 11-plus examination. That has a lot of shortcomings, and I hope that we will be able to find something not quite so rigid. At least one local authority is experimenting on those lines. It will be very interesting to see the results of those experiments, and I trust that, as a country, we shall learn from that sort of thing.
Nevertheless, whilst we have the 11-plus examination—and we have started to channel children at that age—we should try to make the transfer from one channel to the other as easy as possible. We should also do everything we can to educate the parents so that they will know whether their children are being selected for a particular stream or a particular type of school from which they will benefit the most. There is no doubt that if one puts a not very brilliant child into a stream with children of very much greater brilliance he will lose all the benefits he might otherwise have obtained from being with others of roughly his own mental capacity. We have to try to make parents realise that it is not so much whether the child has passed or failed an examination, but whether he has, in fact, got into the best stream where the talents that he has inherited can be developed to the fullest.
In our system, as it is now, we can say that the really intelligent child has a true opportunity of getting to the top, getting the best possible education. I had an example only this week, in a letter from the parents of a boy who was working on my farm until two years ago. That boy, through a series of scholarships, has just graduated at Wye Agricultural College. I must confess that I am a little nervous of whether I shall be able to hold my job down in comparison with him, now that he has a degree, if he comes back to my farm. That example does illustrate that a boy can work through if he has the requisite amount of drive and ability.
486
The first-class people are looked after in our educational system; there is opportunity for them. What we must look to now is the position a little farther down the scale. We must see that the next group is looked after. Simultaneously, we must see that the initial basic training, the primary training, is the best that can possibly be made available.
We in Essex, like the rest of the country, have had to make our contribution in the fight against inflation, and we have had our school building programme reduced or postponed. Nevertheless—and this is where the use of the word "cut" can put the matter quite out of proportion—more money is being spent on education and on buildings now than in the previous years. If that is a "cut," it is the sort of cut that I should like to have in my salary very frequently. What has happened, of course, is that the whole programme has had to be re-phased in order that we can, on the educational side of our social services and Government expenditure, make a small contribution towards the common weal. Let us face it. If we do not succeed in this battle, it will be no good having a wonderful education service, and it will be no good having any of our social services, because they will all become completely useless.
In Essex, because we did not have a very big carry-over and have been successful in keeping up to date with our programme, we have been rather disappointed, because our re-phasing has meant that we are not to receive, apparently, as big a share of the capital expenditure as we should like. However, now that we realise that if we were to get that proportionately big programme approved we should be depriving some other area which has, to date, not been successful in completing its programme, we shall, I think, see that we must be a little unselfish and try to look at the programme from a national rather than a county point of view.
Here I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would be prepared, in the event of the economic situation improving, to look again, and look sympathetically, at the Essex programme so that my county may have its share of the increased benefits which may be possible and a share proportional to the sacrifice it is now making.

487
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) posed the very real problem of the shortage of teachers in various areas. Indeed, he did more than I shall do, because he offered some suggested solutions to that problem. In rural areas especially the situation is alarming. I heard this morning the figures for various schools in the mid-Essex division, which comes under the Essex Education Committee. I learnt that, according to the authority's forecasts for next year, the number of vacancies will have risen.
At a school like the Braintree County Secondary School, which has on its establishment a headmaster and 20 masters, there are at present 19 teachers, and that school will find itself with only 17 in September when the new year starts. Again, the Maldon County Secondary Girls' School, instead of having 14 and two part-time teachers as it has now, will have only 13 teachers. In another rural town, Witham, the county secondary mixed school will start the year with only 19 teachers instead of 22.
That is a very alarming situation, because it means that the size of the classes per teacher in those particular schools will, other things being equal, be larger in the coming year. This is why I particularly want to bring this matter to the notice of my right hon. Friend. In such circumstances, if a graduate from a training school has a choice, he will immediately say he does not want to go to Essex because there the classes are larger and he would rather go to another county which is in a better position. The problem will thus get worse and worse. I ask my right hon. Friend if he will consider very carefully the suggestions which were put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton about methods of attracting teachers to these, shall I say, problem or shortage areas.
When we realise the momentous size of the task which has had to be tackled over the years since the war in reorganising and rebuilding our educational system, we must, I think, be very proud of what has been achieved. We cannot, however, afford to be complacent, and there is no one, I am sure, on either side of this Committee who is complacent about it. If we are ever at any stage complacent about our educational services, we might as well pack up as a
488
nation. Education is at the root of all advance. After all, the most important people in the nation—and I say this not as a teacher—are surely those who are training the citizens of the future.
Looking back over this year, I think we can be satisfied that considerable progress has been made. As we look forward, I am sure that we shall continue our advance, even though it may not be as fast as we might want. I submit that it is very much better that we should go forward and help to establish a sound economy in general and a sound educational system within it rather than that we should wreck all of it by extravagant spending and overspending in one particular city.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: Far be it from me to go deep into the realms of education which have been mentioned by many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who are in the teaching profession. The 13 Members of Parliament for Birmingham have not, unfortunately, a member of the teaching profession among them.
There was to have been a conference between the Birmingham Education Committee and the Minister tomorrow. Why that has been postponed I do not know. There has, however, been a number of meetings between the members of the local education authority, the teachers' associations and the Birmingham Members of Parliament, because of the serious situation in Birmingham. As a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham division, and a member of the Birmingham local authority for many years, I thought that it was up to me to state their grievances in the House of Commons.
Questions of economy, the credit squeeze and inflation have been mentioned, and Birmingham is very much concerned about the cut of over £1¼ million which has recently been made in its school building plans. Everone knows that since the war the great industrial centre of Birmingham has been so prosperous that thousands of families have been attracted there. As a result, the school population has become so great that some of the schools in Birmingham are not sufficiently large to hold the children.

489
Many of the schools there were bombed and I know of many schools in the city which are sub-standard and have been so for many years. There is one school to which, sixty years ago, I used to go, and that school is still standing as a church school. The building of three secondary technical schools has been postponed. A great deal of secondary school building, which would have accommodated the bulge in the school population, has also been postponed.
Some years ago, when I went to Dublin, I saw, on a Sunday morning, thousands of people going in and out of the Roman Catholic churches. On a Sunday morning nowadays, in some parts of Birmingham, one would think, from the number of people attending the Roman Catholic churches there, that one was in Dublin. That means that Birmingham has a huge Irish population—to a much greater extent than it was before the war—because of the thousands of Irish families which have come into Birmingham. As a result, I know of one Roman Catholic school which accommodated the population quite easily before the war, but which is no longer able to do so. That school was in the constituency which I represented before the last Election and I make the bold statement now that it is not fit today to stable animals, yet there are children there at the present time. In spite of that, in the school building programme, there has been a cut of three Roman Catholic junior schools and of an extension to a modern mixed school. In another school, children are being taught in the pews of the church, and there is not sufficient accommodation. Something has to be done for the Roman Catholic schools in Birmingham.
I suppose that the Minister will say, "You are talking about cutting the school building programme in that city, and now you are going to talk about teachers." The City of Birmingham, before the end of the year, will have a shortage of nearly 1,000 teachers. I know that there are hon. Members on this side of the Committee, in the teaching profession, as well as the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who disagree with the territorial allowance.
I would point out that there is a difference, in a great industrial centre like
490
Birmingham, in regard to the question of accommodation, its cost and even the cost of living. Where a city is prosperous the cost of living is higher. In a free economy, a little bit is put on here and there on the prices of food and even of clothing. As a result, teachers are not prepared to stay in that city. The Minister has upset the local authority and the teachers by saying that the onus is on the local authority, which has not done sufficient to encourage teachers to come to Birmingham. I say that that is wrong. I hope that the Minister will co-operate with the local education committee in trying to do more to encourage teachers to Birmingham.
What will happen in the future? After the summer holidays, the education committee says that it will have to close classes in schools in Birmingham or establish a system whereby some children go to school in the morning and others in the afternoon. That is wrong from the point of view of teaching our children. I do not think that anyone on either side of the Committee would be prepared to see education suffer to that extent. I ask the Minister to consider the position of the Roman Catholic schools in Birmingham, as a result of the huge increase of population which has settled in that city, and to co-operate with the education committee to see that something is done to encourage teachers to that city. I hope that the Minister will take into consideration the points which I have put to him in an endeavour to voice the grievances of the Birmingham Education Committee.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Harold Gurden: I want to refer briefly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Shurmer), following on what he said about the Roman Catholic schools. I agree with him about the importance of church schools as a whole, but I should not like to associate myself with him entirely if he specifically adheres to Roman Catholic schools because Church of England schools, and particularly one in my own constituency, Selly Oak, are in need of capital expenditure.
Mr. Shurmer: I meant the church schools, because the church schools are suffering more than any others in Birmingham.
Mr. Gurden: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that and I am wholeheartedly with him in that appeal. May I also say how much I associate myself with the comments on the Birmingham problem made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) in his well-balanced review of the teacher shortage in the country, and particularly in the Midlands?
I want to support the Minister to this extent. It is no use Members of Parliament from Birmingham taking too parochial a view of this problem. We must acknowledge the power of my right hon. Friend's argument to us, in the consultations which we have had, when he said that this question of an area allowance must be looked at from the point of view of the Midlands as a whole. Birmingham is an important city, but the area allowance certainly would not stop at Birmingham. It would quickly spread to the whole of the Midlands and perhaps even much further afield.
I have always hoped that the problem of the shortage of teachers in Birmingham would not become a political problem in the sense of it being thrown into the arena for argument between one side of the Committee and the other. I am afraid it is beginning to go that way.
Mr. Shurmer: No.
Mr. Gurden: At the recent meeting afforded to Birmingham Members of Parliament by the Minister, the Members from my side were unable to "get in" at all without being difficult. The most significant thing about that meeting—
Mr. Denis Howell: Would there not be something most remarkable about the Birmingham Conservative Members of Parliament if, in a meeting of 2½ hours, they were not able to "get in" at all, as the hon. Member suggests?
Mr. Gurden: We should have to be rude to "get in" at all when the hon. Member was there. Even at that risk, I propose to "get in" the next time. The meeting has not been abandoned—
Mr. Shurmer: It has been postponed.
Mr. Gurden:—but will take place, I understand, as soon as 1st August. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for giving so much of his time to
492
discuss the problem in such an amicable way.
There has been comment about the teacher shortage in Birmingham and its relation to the provision of living accommodation for teachers. Some of the hon. Members who represent Birmingham have served with me on the watch committee and they are now taking precisely the opposite line about retaining teachers to their attitude in the watch committee when they said that it was because of housing shortage that Birmingham could not get sufficient police. After a greater allocation of houses, there were immediate good results in our being able to retain more police. We are now told that the housing question is not an important factor with teachers, or that, if it is important, it is not desirable to take notice of it.
I agree with the Birmingham City Council that its housing problem depends largely on the amount of land that is available. Birmingham is fast running out of available land on which to build houses. That is one of the factors in the shortage of teachers. Over the past few years, Birmingham has built a number of modern schools, some of them, I am sorry to say, single-storey schools. A great deal of land has rightly been given over to education, but in view of the tremendous shortage of land I think it has been given a little too much. The buildings should have been taller and lifts should be provided between the various floors. Less of the very scarce land need have been taken up for education.
Some of the schools still have a vast amount of land which is used not for playing fields and the like, but rather for ornamentation. I should have thought that the education committee itself could agree to deal with the housing problem for teachers by erecting, as in the case of the police, blocks of flats and the like on its own land without interfering with the normal waiting list for houses. My right hon. Friend has a strong case for asking Birmingham whether it is not a question of providing the living accommodation for the teachers. We all agree that we are getting a fairly good flow of teachers into the city, but we cannot retain them. I should have thought it was accepted that one of the incentives in retaining teachers, or any other public servants, was living accommodation.
Mr. Shurmer: Does the hon. Member suggest that less land could be used for building schools and that blocks of flats should be built for teachers on land adjoining the schools? Teachers do not want to be right on top of the school at night as well as by day.
Mr. Gurden: The hon. Member can put it which way he likes, but that is more or less the idea. The police and other public servants live near to the places where they work.
Mr. Shurmer: No, they do not.
Mr. Gurden: I am told that teachers object to paying high bus fares and living far away from their place of work. Here is a good opportunity to save them the whole of their travelling expenses and to enable them to live very near to the site.
Mr. D. Howell: What about the central areas?
Mr. Gurden: Of course, we would not expect the whole of the teaching staff to live there. What I am saying is that it is a direct incentive to teachers to remain in their jobs if when they get to Birmingham, and especially those who look forward to getting married, they can get accommodation of their own. If their families can live with them, they are less likely to move to other areas.
I do not say that area allowance is not an incentive. It may well be a good thing to introduce. Most of the disadvantages have been pointed out today, but we must be very careful in thinking that it could solve the whole problem. I should have thought that the Minister had been in enough trouble with the National Union of Teachers not to want to fall out with the Union on this issue. I am told on good authority that the N.U.T. does not view with favour Birmingham or any other individual place having an area allowance.
That is a different story to what the N.U.T. representatives in Birmingham said when they came to the House of Commons to see the Birmingham Members. They said that payment of the allowance would not be frowned upon very much. Now, however, I am told that the Union, at national level, would be directly opposed to an area allowance for Birmingham. If that is the case, it is a matter which should be left to the Burnham Committee.
494
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the helpful way in which he is tackling this problem and his willingness at all times to discuss the matter with anybody and everybody who can suggest any means of helping. All of us Members of Parliament for Birmingham realise what a trial it is to the teachers to have such large classes. They are far too big. It is a worry to parents also to know that because of overcrowding their children are not getting the best that they might have in education. From my personal knowledge, I know that my right hon. Friend shares this anxiety just as much as I do.
Mr. D. Howell: Does the hon. Member agree with the views of Sir Wilfrid Martineau, an eminent educationist and leader of the hon. Member's party on the Birmingham Education Committee, who has stated categorically that the provision of houses for teachers in Birmingham is politically impossible for either of the two political parties? Does he disagree with that view put forward by leaders of his own party in Birmingham? Does he realise that if such a proposal were to be pursued, it would have to be a political issue at an Election before it could be undertaken?
Mr. Gurden: No, I do not entirely agree with Sir Wilfrid Martineau in this matter. He has greater experience and knowledge of educational matters than I have, but I consider that there is an advantage in being able to offer accommodation to teachers if it can be worked in with the normal housing programme. I believe that my right hon. Friend has shown, and, as can be seen from the Press, that local education authorities are themselves showing that it is possible to provide living accommodation for teachers without seriously interfering with the local housing problem.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Simon Mahon: If there were a Minister with whom I would have sympathy, it would be the Minister of Education, for his task is enormous, and therefore I find it all the more paradoxical that he should level against us on this side of the Committee a charge at which, when it is made, I always take umbrage, and that is the charge that we on this side are offering an educational class warfare. I must take the right hon. Gentleman to task on this.

495
Some of us on this side of the Committee, and no doubt on that side of the Committee, too, were capable and needful when we left school of taking advantage of every scrap of education that came our way, since, for one reason or another, we left school too early. A dud who goes to a public school is not sentenced for the rest of his life to some foul industry. Duds who go to public schools, when they leave their public schools, are insulated from the cold winds that blow in industry and elsewhere. It is a fact that has to be emphasised and must be understood, that those of us who left school early left early through no fault of our own. Some of us feel that there are children in the secondary modern schools who are still not getting their chance, and it is incumbent upon us who know so much of this aspect of life to make our voices heard in this Committee so that the Minister may have full cognisance of it.
I am not a teacher, and I should not say that I am a fully educated person. However, I have done my best, and I have found from my experience as a member of a local authority and as a member for a quite considerable number of years of a local education committee that the educated people owe more than they will ever know to the uneducated, and that the people who have done most for education have usually been people who were deprived of it. They are people with whom I have been associated all my life, and if I can follow in the steps of that noble band of pioneers for education and can make, in my turn, some improvement, some contribution to what they have done, I shall be well satisfied.
I had intended, if I got the opportunity, to speak prolongedly today, for I have made three or four attempts, without success, to speak in debates on education, but as time is short and others want to speak, I shall try to curtail my remarks.
I feel that it is to the secondary modern school that the Minister must give his attention. The 80 per cent. of the children who are or who will be left in the secondary modern schools demand special attention. The figure varies from county to county, but I think the proportion in general is that from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the children are in the
496
secondary modern schools, 5 per cent. in the technical schools, and from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the grammar schools. I think those figures can be generally accepted. I want to appeal especially for the children in the secondary modern schools.
I must respectfully take the Minister to task for what he said about the 11-plus examination. He said—I think I am representing him aright—that there was little anxiety about the 11-plus examination.
Sir D. Eccles: In certain areas.
Mr. Mahon: In certain areas, but in one with which I am familiar, the city of Liverpool and the surrounding county boroughs, there is considerable anxiety about the 11-plus examination. So much, indeed, that I know that, if I say there is considerable anxiety about it, there are people who will say that that savours of political propaganda, and who will say the Labour Party says that because it is popular to say it? I do not think it is, but, in any case, I have always tried to be objective about educational matters because I learned very early that it does not pay to be too dogmatic about education. In discussing education we talk about buildings and schools and teachers. We must remember that we are really talking about children; we are talking about human beings, who are not all exactly alike. Therefore, I do not believe in too severe dogmatism in talking about education.
In speaking on behalf of the children in the secondary modern schools, I quote in my support Sir Ronald Gould, who said:
"In the long run our ability to train the scientists, the engineers, the technologists and technicians the nation needs in such large numbers depends on our ability to promote an enthusiasm for science among our schoolchildren and to give them a sound all-round education.… Unless there are sufficient pupils coming forward from the secondary schools anxious to receive technological or technical training, and adequately prepared for it, the Government's plans for higher education will be gravely handicapped and the nation's future prosperity threatened. Incidentally, when I say 'secondary schools' I mean secondary modern and secondary technical schools as well as grammar schools. Our needs for trained people today are such that all sections of the education system must play their full part. The time when we could rely on the secondary schools catering for only 10 per cent. of our children is gone."

497
I have mentioned the proportions of 80 per cent., 20 per cent. and 5 per cent. What actually happens in the town in which I served my educational apprenticeship? The children go to a primary school and are subject—whether he agrees with this or not, I should like to have the Minister's attention to it—to the 11-plus examination. Right away a number of places are creamed off, and the number can be altered each succeeding year. A child who failed last year can get one this year; a child who comes in well this year may have lost last year. That has happened. The remainder go to the secondary modern school, and when they are 13 years of age there is a second creaming off for the technical school. This is well known, but surely that subordinates the scientific aspect of the secondary modern school education to the academic aspect of the grammar school education? And surely that must be wrong? That is a matter to which the Minister must give his attention. I know he has mentioned it in one or two of his speeches. I want him to consider it.
In his Blue Book, "Education in 1955," the Minister gives us analyses. There is an analysis of the General Certificate of Education on pages 146 and 147. There are figures given. I shall not read them all out, but they are illuminating, and they tell their own story. The Minister makes other excellent analyses with most of which I agree. However, something more is wanted. Another analysis is required.
I took a personal analysis, of those who passed in the subjects in the General Certificate of Education, and I traced their progress back to the time when they took the 11-plus examination. I do not know whether the Committee finds this interesting or not, but I want to make some comments on my findings. I took the whole of the age group sitting the General Certificate of Education examination and the number of passes by each child. I went back five or six years and took the level of acceptance at 11-plus I have page after page of the details and I could have dealt at some length with my findings, but I have already said that severe dogmatism is unjustified in education
The figures are very illuminating, and I should like to give the Committee some
498
samples. A boy who headed the order of merit in the 11-plus examination in 1947 took eight subjects in his G.C.E. examination and he passed in all of them. The boy who was third in the 11-plus examination took five subjects at G.C.E. level and passed only in one. The boy who was 148th in the 11-plus examination, and very a borderline case to enter the grammar school, took seven G.C.E. subjects and passed in five. Thus, taking the top and the bottom of the scholarship list proves that, paradoxically, the results are reversed at the G.C.E. examination. The boy who was fifteenth at 11-plus took seven G.C.E. subjects and passed in two and the boy who was twenty-first at 11-plus took five subjects and passed in two.
Two boys who tied for nineteenth place in the 11-plus examination took six G.C.E. subjects and both passed in four. These things are important in an industrial town, because a boy cannot obtain a decent apprenticeship without passing in at least four subjects in the G.C.E. examination. This is the bread and butter of education in a town like mine. Twin boys who were placed twenty-ninth and fortieth in the 11-plus examination took eight G.C.E. subjects and passed in seven. Both failed in physics. A boy who was tenth in the 11-plus order of merit took four G.C.E. subjects and passed in two, and a boy who was 134th at 11-plus took and passed in four subjects at G.C.E. level. This analysis is not just a castigation of the 11-plus examination. It is categorical proof that we cannot place any faith in examinations at 11-plus. Does the Minister or any other reasonably sensible man think that the academic, scientific, social, technical and cultural potentialities of a child can be assessed at eleven years of age?
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham): Did not the great majority of those to whom the hon. Member has referred take four subjects at G.C.E. level and pass in four, and does not that prove that the great majority of boys who passed the 11-plus examination were up to a good standard and did very well later on?
Mr. Mahon: The hon. Member has completely missed the point. His summary of my analysis is completely wrong. If he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT

499
tomorrow he will realise what I have been saying.
We are setting an examination at 11-plus to assess the potentialities of a child, but I tell the Minister that if he concentrates on the top streams in the secondary modern schools he can produce excellent results. It is no use the Minister being complacent and trying to gloss over the difficulties in the majority of these schools. We are all pleased that there are some secondary modern schools which are aiming at the target set for them, but the majority of these schools are being bereft of staff and equipment and are suffering from all sorts of difficulties.
I sympathise with the Minister in his difficulty, but I hope that he is not as complacent as he sounds and as his attitude suggests. The Minister may want to get on with the job, but are his friends in the Ministry or at the Treasury putting the brake on and preventing his making further progress? When the Minister tells us that his capital investment programme for schools is being chopped, is he also trying to tell us that that is right, or is he trying to excuse his colleagues? I have taken the Minister to task for what he has said, but I urge upon him to realise that, no matter what he does, 80 per cent. of children will still be going to secondary modern schools. It is his duty and our bounden duty not to say, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that we cannot put every one of those children into a university. That is carrying naiveté to its utmost degree.
I may not have been able to secure a place in a university and might not have been able to make use of it if I had secured one, but there are thousands of boys who are entitled to a better education than they are receiving. They are entitled to an education equal to that given to those people who are sifted away from the hard winds that blow in our society. Some hon. and right hon. Members opposite should remember that these winds still blow hard in certain ways for working-class people. I appeal to the Minister and to the Treasury to loosen the purse strings for the secondary modern schools and to let us have bilateral and multi-lateral schools and have the technical aspect of education at these schools greatly developed.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. Hubert Ashton: I apologise to the Committee for my inability to attend the whole of the debate, but I have been present for a large part of the time. I should like to add my praise to that already accorded to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on his speech. It is always nice to see a young gunner making progress when recalling the Royal Artillery's motto, Quo fas et gloria ducunt; coming events casting their shadows before.
Examinations at any time, whether at 11-plus or later, are always difficult. I am reminded of the young man who wrote applying for a job in India and who said that he had failed the B.A. examination but had been plucked through the ignorance of the examiners. I am glad that reference has been made to the difficulty experienced by many local education authorities in obtaining their right proportion of teachers. That problem is being experienced in Essex, which is one of the metropolitan counties and is affected by the London weighting. We have a big problem, since East and West Ham, Ilford, Barking, Leyton, and Walthamstow have for many years been in the London weighting area. On 1st September, 1953, there were added Chingford, Dagenham, Wanstead, Woodford, Chigwell, and Waltham Holy Cross. Of course, we have to draw the line somewhere, and one of the places in the County of Essex in which we have these difficulties today is Romford.
I have been listening to the arguments put this evening from different parts of the country, and Birmingham in particular, on whether or not there should be a territorial allowance or something of that nature. We have considered this problem in our own county, and I suggest that the anomalies already arising from the London weighting are quite considerable. They are subject to many different negotiating bodies, and there is a different kind of weighting in the same area for different people. Therefore, I should have thought myself that to extend this territorial allowance or weighting to other parts of the country might be a little dangerous and might lead to even more anomalies. It is for this reason that I particularly welcome what the Minister had to say today, and his statement that

501
when he has received the data and statistics he will call the teachers together and consult with them on the best way of solving this difficult problem.
I had it in mind to say one or two things about the speech of the hon. Member for Workington. The hon. Gentleman referred to Circulars 242 and 245, but I think it would be fair to say that those of us who have served on education committees also remember that, arising from devaluation in 1949 and, indeed, the Korean War, in 1950, it was necessary to make a certain number of cuts. Possibly, some of the difficulties with which he confronted us today about meeting the bulge now moving from primary to the secondary schools did not arise merely in 1951, but in the years before then.
I should now like to say something on a controversial subject, that of the public schools. I am very glad to see that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) is in his place, because he takes a very prominent part in our debates. I recall a speech which he made when he was the hon. Member for Southampton, Test on 20th March, 1953. It was late in the afternoon on a Friday, and an unfinished debate, because after 20 minutes, the Motion for the Adjournment intervened at 4 o'clock. The hon. Gentleman thoroughly enjoyed himself during that debate—I have a copy of HANSARD here, which I have read carefully.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to me to come to the conclusion that the products of public schools were in no way superior, and, in fact, in many ways inferior, to those who came from State schools, those who, as the hon. Gentleman himself put it, do not wear the old school tie. The hon. Gentleman was able to make one or two exceptions, in the case of politics and the fighting forces, and he agreed that in these particular fields the public schools have, indeed, provided a large majority of leaders.
Dr. Horace King: The hon. Gentleman would obviously wish to present my argument before knocking it down. What I did say in that debate—and the hon. Gentleman will probably refresh his memory by looking it up—was that it was an important fact in the argument that of any group of outstanding figures at any moment in British history, except in the case of the
502
Army and the Navy, the majority did not come from the public schools.
Mr. Ashton: I was most intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's argument, because what he was saying—and we had no opportunity of putting the other side of the case—was that the number of leaders produced from the public schools was no greater than that produced from elsewhere. If we bear in mind the fact that only about 2 per cent. of the people go to public schools—and this is a sore point with many—I should have thought that, on his own figures, the public schools came out rather well.
I was reflecting on this last night in reference to politicians, because three of the speeches made from the Front Bench opposite in the foreign affairs debate were made by Members who had been at Winchester College, which is, in fact, my own college. The hon. Member for Itchen is, I know, the leader of his party on the Hampshire County Council, and he is, I am sure perfectly genuinely, critical of that college. Although he is very distinguished, I am not sure that he would ever receive an invitation to be received "ad portas"that very ancient and honourable school—Winchester College.
The other point is about fighting leaders in time of war. I think a great many people know that, mercifully, in the Second World War the number of our countrymen who were killed was approximately only 25 per cent. of those killed in the First World War. But it is rather sad that the percentage of those from public schools who were killed in the Second World War was, on the average, 50 per cent., and, in one outstanding case, more than 60 per cent. This point is stressed in an excellent book by Field Marshal Sir William Slim, entitled "Defeat into Victory", which deals with his great campaign in Burma. Sir William Slim points out in this book that the people who got killed more quickly were the air pilots, whether officers or N.C.O.s, commanders of platoons and commanders of tanks.
Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will not suggest that bravery is the monopoly of any section of the community, either in the last war or in the First World War. What ought to be stressed is that it was true at one period the old school tie, if I may use that term,

503
gave opportunities for leadership in the sense that boys who had had that training and had had that association with a high school were generally picked for leadership in the Armed Forces. That has changed considerably and, in my view, it is a good thing that it has changed.
Mr. Ashton: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to put words into my mouth. I have seen enough of war to realise that bravery does not attach to one particular class. I have seen Durham miners in action. Indeed, I should like to remind him that, if he reads Ian Hay's book, "The First Hundred Thousand", he will realise that most of them came from the public schools, that that was a great waste of the flower of our manhood, who immediately volunteered as privates, and that many died for their country.
What I am suggesting is that it is a little strange perhaps, that after two world wars, it often seems to be the fate of members of some families to lose their lives on the battlefield. At the same time, we find records of many of those who have avoided—I do not really mean avoided war service, because they were carrying on their perfectly rightful peaceful civilian occupations, but, in fact, they did not suffer as some other families have done from the consequences of war directly on the battlefield. I am only saying this because I should like people in the country and perhaps hon. Members opposite to realise that in this matter, rightly or wrongly, there is a certain amount of bitterness. I say this because I think that bitterness is a very poor handmaiden to help one to arrive at a right conclusion on any matter, let alone on such a complicated subject as education.
Having read the pamphlet "Towards Equality", which has been referred to, I think that the attitude of the party opposite towards public schools might be slightly permeated by bitterness and envy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may shake their heads. I see that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) has left the Chamber. I did not hear him very distinctly, but I believe he said that he had to leave school when he was 14 years of age. So did my father—to work in a mill, in Lancashire. He was able to provide his sons with advantages which he was not able to enjoy.
504
This is something which is very deep in the character of the British people. It exists in every section of society. Many hon. Members have told me that they have been able to do better for their sons than they were able to do for themselves. I am not suggesting that that would not be possible within the ambit of the Education Act, and what has happened in educational affairs since 1944, but I do say that in this pamphlet some elements seem to be rather more concerned with pulling down than with building up.
I do not know exactly what hon. Members opposite wish to do with the public schools. I think it is suggested that they would be changed and turned into comprehensive schools, and, from what I have heard in the debate, it appears that some of the masters at public schools or private schools, as we know them, will be taken away and distributed among other schools which have a shortage of teachers.
I would have thought that that would not add materially to securing a reduction in the numbers of children in each class, or the number of teachers available. These public schools have been built up over a long period, and I suggest that if their character is to undergo a fundamental change of this kind it may well be a change for the worse, which cannot be an advantage to any section of the community.
I have spoken of bitterness in what I had read in some hon. Members' speeches, and what I have heard. I suppose that I have been a fortunate individual, owing to my father's efforts and self-sacrifice. Eleven years ago I was drawn into politics, and one of the things which soon began to worry me was the bitterness which I then experienced. I was not accustomed to being called a warmonger to my face by young gentlemen who worked in factories, or to find that people who had used my shelter—and I was glad to have them—passed by on the other side when I became a Conservative candidate. I did not think that it was a particularly British or good thing when the school-children of Chelmsford booed me because I was standing as a Conservative candidate. I came out of that campaign with great credit, because I was the only one in the Election who was beaten by a Common Wealth candidate.
Mr. M. Stewart: And a gallant Service man, too.
Mr. Ashton: Yes, I agree, a gallant airman.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman might have mentioned that on his own account.
Mr. Ashton: I know that the hon. Member is a bitter fellow. I have already been challenged whether I am saying that those who have been to public schools are the only ones who have made sacrifices. That is not so, but the point I was making, and shall continue to make, was that the proportion of their sacrifices in two world wars was a good deal higher than was the case with the rest of the community.
As one goes round one's own factories one still finds this suggestion of two nations. Many employers of labour are, however, endeavouring to break down this situation. I read a shop stewards' pamphlet which is being circulated, and I was rather alarmed at the manner in which gross and net profits are distorted. I rejoice at the fact that many leaders of industry today are taking their men more into their confidence in relation to this complicated subject of profit and loss accounts, and are trying to suggest to them that the interests of employers and employees do not run counter each to the other.
I have here the speech which Sir Alexander Fleck made to his council of workers, numbering 110, where these matters were first discussed, and he was followed by his financial director.
The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member's argument is becoming rather remote from the subject of education.
Mr. Ashton: I do not wish to stray from the subject of the debate. I was merely going to point out that Sir Alexander Fleck referred to the great technical strides we are making—and on 21st June we had a debate on this matter. He finished by saying that success in this great effort, upon which a large part of the future of our country depends, must rest upon co-operation between the firms, the local authorities, the governors, the teachers and the pupils.
506
If, Sir Rhys, I have strayed from the narrow path of virtue and gone too wide in my arguments I apologise.
If anybody feels that I have been unjust or unfair in any reference I have made to any individual, or what he did or did not do in any war, I can only say that that is the last thing in the world I wish to do. I sit on education committees in Essex and elsewhere, and I hope that all such bodies and this Committee will be allowed to approach the great subject of education objectively and without envy or bitterness, but with the intention of doing the best they can with the considerable amount of money available, namely £500 million, for this purpose each year.
7.57 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: When, in a Parliamentary debate, a kindly man like the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) suddenly develops bitterness of the nature which we have just witnessed, I can only say that this and the diversion of the Minister himself from his Report to a Labour pamphlet on equality suggest that in spite of what the party opposite said in 1944, when we were getting through Parliament the 1944 Act, concerning equality of opportunity, the one privilege that hon. Members opposite are resolutely determined not to see pass from their children is their unfair educational privilege.
Mr. M. Stewart: It was a poisonous speech.
Dr. King: I would assure the hon. Member for Chelmsford that I have never said unkind things about public schools; that I have paid better tributes to what public schools have done—including what I said in the speech to which he has referred—than he has ever done in his life. I have also paid tributes to the courage and gallantry of the young soldiers of these schools who sacrificed themselves in two world wars. I regret that an hon. Member of his calibre should, in this day and age, start bandying about the respective degrees of courage of young schoolboys. I am sure that he will regret having done that.
Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that I made a poisonous speech. It was not

507
a poisonous speech. The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) said that I had cast aspersions upon the calibre of some sections of the community. I have already said that I did not do so, and I repeat it. When my words are read tomorrow that fact will be completely borne out. All I said is that it so happens that in regard to the number of people killed on the battlefield one section of our society suffered relatively greater losses than others.
Dr. King: The hon. Member must be content with his own speech, and hon. Members of this side of the Committee must be content with what they understand of it when they read it in HANSARD tomorrow. I would only add that I gather that he now agrees with me that it is regrettable that we should bandy about the relative courage of our elementary, grammar, or public schoolboys.
I want to make a number of charges against the Government. The first is that, even after they were warned in 1952, they failed to match up to the size of the problem which we are tackling in providing education for an increased number of children—from 5 million in 1947 to 6,800,000 in 1959—at the same time replacing a million war-damaged school places and endeavouring to sweep out of existence the bad and overcrowded schools of England and provide the ill-equipped schools with all the facilities needed for a modern education.
I agree with the Minister in being proud of what we achieved in these first post-war years in very difficult circumstances. Having taken pride in what we have done. I want to emphasise that what we have done is far short of what we might have done up to this moment, and that the Government certainly do not seem to realise what still has to be done. To give the local education authorities their due, they have known the size of the problem since 1946.
In 1946, the Working Party on School Construction, under Sir William Cleary, estimated the size of the building programme which we should need year by year at £70 million of building for the next fifteen years £70 million then would be £100 million today. As we moved from the war, we should have steadily climbed to that £70 million a year programme, but in 1952 the now famous
508
Select Committee exposed the gravity of the situation.
Its Report was a nine days wonder. It stirred the Ministry into a soothing defence and correction of detail, after which the Government went to sleep for a further twelve months. Dr. Alexander, who has consistently fought on behalf of the Association of Education Committees and our children for a much bigger building programme, gave evidence before that Committee, which said:
"The school building programme ought to be increased. The total provision is inadequate to meet essential needs and makes no provision whatever for the necessary improvements in existing buildings and for secondary education in accordance with the Act of 1944."
What had happened? The local education authorities, after a necessarily slow start, had got into gear. Schools started were: in 1947, £32 million: in 1948, £24 million; in 1949, £70 million; in 1950, £44 million. This drop was—inadequately, I think—justified by the late George Tomlinson by his argument to which reference has been made this afternoon, that by more efficient methods we could cut the cost of school places by 12½ per cent., so in the year when he cut the capital value of the programme we got the same number of places as the year before. Incidentally, I would point out that the 12½ per cent. efficiency cut of Tomlinson has been made a 25 per cent. cut by this Government in the cost per place, even when the cost of materials has risen by 50 per cent. I shall return to that later.
In 1950, the starts were £44 million. In 1951, that figure increased to £54 million. Then we had the disastrous intervention of the first Tory Minister of Education who cut back the 1952 projected programme from £57½ million to a mere £39 million. I am always grateful to Ministerial reports for the figures which I use in attacking the Minister. The country is now paying for that cut, even though it was concealed at the time by the fact that the Tomlinson schools—schools of the 1949–50 programmes—came off the stocks in 1952 and were used as evidence of "Conservative success."
Then came a change of Minister and, much more important, a change in Treasury policy. The Select Committee Report at last seeped through to the Cabinet and the first freeze ended. A new Minister—the present one—

509
addressed a delighted House and, to quote Wordsworth:
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive."
All fetters were to be thrown to the winds. It was the "all-clear" to local authorities. They were told, "Expand your programmes. No limit on the number and cost of minor projects. End all-age schools in the countryside in the next five years, and perhaps, some day, even all-age schools in the towns can go."
Then, by chance perhaps, came a General Election which was followed by the big freeze. Even when the big freeze started and we marched forward under a new Chancellor to a Britain mortgaged at 6 per cent., some thought that education was to be spared all but the higher interest rates, the dearer school meals and the attack on the poor man's university, the London University evening classes. In 1953, the new building programme was £53 million; in 1954, £57 million; in 1955, £75 million. We had run, if I might coin a phrase, on to a plateau of an annual injection of £75 million into the school building programme.
The 1955 Report and the Minister's now notorious circulars have shown us and the local education authorities how wrong we were to trust the new Minister. The programme is now frozen at £52½ million a year. The Minister explained why this afternoon: completions, the number of schools completed, steadily increasing until 1954, took an ominous dip in that year. For primary and secondary schools—and I am quoting an answer to a question of mine from HANSARD of 28th June—from 1949 to 1953 the figures run £17·7 million, £25·5 million, £37 million, £42·9 million, then dip in 1954 to £42 million and slump in 1955 to £35 million.
What are the reasons for the dip? I suggest two. One is that we paid in 1955 for the meagre, slashed building programme of 1952, and the other is that in setting the people free, in allowing all kinds of building, except school building, to have an unfettered run, the Government made certain that local education authorities lost in the competitive battle for labour and materials, as London's gigantic mass of new office buildings shows.
510
Now the Minister's new solution is the hoary old one—the solution of his predecessor—we must build more by starting less. Instead of tackling the real question of seeing that school building gets some kind of priority in materials and labour, the Minister returns to the quack cure which eventually unseated his predecessor. No wonder the Association of Education Committees is angry,! No wonder at its annual meeting it wanted the Minister to resign. No wonder it complained of this start and stop procedure, and referred to the Minister's manifestoes as having the
"bogus charm of a bogus company's prospectus."
and charged the Minister with not being constructive and with not even being straightforward—I quote from reports of the association's annual meeting. It is wrong to blame the Minister for the sins of this Chancellor, as it was wrong to blame his predecessor for the sins of her Chancellor. The real responsibility lies with the Treasury.
First, then, we have a building programme, inadequate even in its basic conception, slowly gathering momentum dealt a staggering blow by the first Tory Minister of Education. Then, as it slowly recovered and got into its stride again, comes the second hammer blow in the latest building circular, 306. For this our children, and especially the secondary school children, will suffer. Speaking in June—my reference comes from The Times Education Supplement for 22nd June—the Minister added a curious footnote to all this. There is a reserve list for the end of 1957–58 which he will permit local authorities to start
"… if inflation has been checked."
So the real trouble is not architects, steel, labour, but inflation. A generation—especially in places like Birmingham—goes from over-sized primary classes into over-sized secondary classes in order to keep down the cost of living. One might well ask, particularly in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, what contribution is Eton, Harrow or Winchester being asked to make to combat inflation? Better still, why should our children, or some local group of our children, be put into the front ranks of the battle against inflation?

511
The second bad thing the Minister has done is to cut down the cost per place; for he cuts down the cost of the new school places every time he refuses to raise it when the prices of materials and labour have gone up. The Committee need not take this point from me. It is the Minister's own boast in the Report.
I appreciate what the Ministry's experts have done in promoting greater efficiency and economy in school building, but even back in 1952 the then Minister was warned that she had gone too far. Already, than, such things as the "dual use of teaching space" and the "cutting down of circulation space" had worried educationists like Dr. Alexander. It is all right in theory to have every spot in a school building, except the lavatories, always occupied by somebody, but it can be bad educational economising. It is all right in theory to cut down the corridors, but there comes a stage when we have eliminated them and we have to get to one classroom by going through another one. It is all right saying that the school hall ought to be not only the hall but the dining room and perhaps a second P.T. room, and that sometimes a couple of classes might be shoved in it if it is not being used for medical inspection. In the process, time is being wasted and education suffers.
Why does not the Minister urge local authorities to imitate Hertford and let the teachers have something to say when it is a question of what is the best use of space in school building? It is all right to provide cheap, substitute materials, but they often cost more in the end.
The cost per place, objected to away back in 1952 by the Association of Educational Committees, has been intensified under this Minister. Last year the local education authorities continually protested against this, including Socialist Southampton and Tory Hampshire, two local education authorities with different political complexions. This year the resolution which was almost unanimously carried at the annual meeting of the Association of Education Committees angrily demanded a bigger school building programme and the wiping out of circular 306, and bitterly protested at the freezing of the cost per place. I speak from experience. I sit on an education committee which, month by month, sadly
512
cuts out things in new schools which it knows are essential or in the long run are economical, to get inside the Minister's figure; as Jack Longland recently said, "We can get the price down by using distemper, but we shall have to pay much more for paint in two years' time."
On the huge problem of the supply of teachers I have time to say only a few words. These are trying times for teachers who are endeavouring to discharge a high responsibility under bitterly adverse conditions. I speak for them when I say to the Minister—who thought them underpaid but over-pensioned—that they appreciate what has been done for their salaries but they have not forgotten the blow he struck at their pensions. They repudiate his claim that the Burn-ham Award has frozen their salaries for three years. They think that parity between primary and secondary education has suffered a blow in the disparity between their salary scales, and they will continue to press for a pension scheme for their widows and dependants.
The Report rightly takes pride in the increase in the number of teachers, but the increase is not big enough, and the worst gaps are functional and geographical. The Report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said in brilliantly opening this debate—and we back benchers are proud of him—has a second paragraph which is quite complacent, but that complacency is belied by paragraph 9, which says:
"In secondary schools, however, it was no longer possible to continue the steady improvement achieved in the last few years. Staffing of the secondary schools in the next few critical years will present many problems. It is at the secondary stage, for example, that the shortage of specialists will be felt."
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what major steps the Government are taking to increase the number of secondary school teachers and the number of specialists for secondary schools. Where, for instance, is he to find the 3,600 extra science teachers that we need for the secondary schools in the next five years?
If the general position is grave, it is worse for certain areas of the country. My county, Hampshire, has had for years an annual shortage of about 100 teachers. Every one today knows the bitter tragedy of Birmingham, where some 40 handicraft rooms are likely to be closed towards the end of this year. Yesterday, the Chief

513
Education Officer of Hull stated that there was a danger of schools going on to a four-day week in 1957 because of teacher shortage.
Here let me say how interested I was in the Minister's reference to Wales, particularly as I shall ask him to look at what I regard as a disturbing fact. It is that the Merthyr Tydfil Education Committee proposes to dispense with the services of about 46 married-women supply teachers. I am informed that they are qualified teachers and have the status of "supply" only because Merthyr does not like making married women full-time teachers. These are to be replaced by teachers from other areas, among them—I have seen the list of the teachers—being four teachers from teacher-starved Birmingham area.
I urge my fellow educationists in Merthyr, and the Minister, to think nationally on this matter. Apart from the fact that half of these women are over 50 years of age and have given useful service to the local education committee, it is the fact that the extra young teachers recruited to Merthyr to replace them mean extra hardship for teachers in the less fortunate areas of the country. Britain ought to be sharing its teachers a little more fairly.
I will end by returning to the nub of the bitterness that has been expressed from the Government benches this afternoon. We are far from equality of opportunity for our children. The Report shows that 250,000 children receive their education in private schools, with only 13 children for every teacher. These are the privileged children whose claim was so eloquently defended recently by the headmaster of Eton, in a spot dedicated by Henry VI to the education of 70 poor boys.
In the same year, 1955, 50,000 similar English children were taught in classes of more than 50, 600,000 in classes of more than 45, 1,800,000 in classes of more than 40 and another 250,000 secondary school children in classes of more than 30. What a fine thing it would have been if the modern successor of the saintly Waynflete, first Headmaster of Eton, had offered on speech day to second a few Eton masters to help Birmingham.
I know that we have achieved much since 1945, in the fine work done in
514
special schools, on which there is a magnificant chapter in this Report; in the universities, where 16,000 of the 19,000 students have earned the right to be there; in the mounting rate and tax expenditure, which people grumble about but which most decent folk in their heart of hearts, regard as inevitable and worth while.
Do not let Government supporters imagine that the only people who pay for their children's education are those who pay fees in school. But those who work on education committees, who teach in our schools, the anxious parents who face the 11-plus education, particularly if failure at 11-plus means going to the all-age school, parents who have to send their children to crowded schools, and those who have seen secondary modern education beginning to blossom even in those early formative years, see the danger of all this being seeped away in the next five years.
Those who believe in the right of children to education according to the quality of the child and not to the accident of its birth, know how far short we are from achieving what we dreamed of when the 1944 Education Act was written on the Statute Book, and how much more we shall have to get a drive on, and a lead from the Minister of Education, if we are to hang on from the achievements that we have made up to the moment and to build on them the superstructure which the Minister himself speaks of, of technical education.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. Norman Cole: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) in one or two material points to which he referred when he spoke of the supply of teachers. Before doing so, I should like to express agreement with something which was said by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who opened the debate.
The hon. Member for Workington drew attention to something with which we shall all agree—the close relationship between general education and technical education. In my regard for this all-important subject of education I always try to remember that there are many things in a person's life in which one has a second opportunity, but on the question of a child's scholastic career there is never

515
a second opportunity. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that we in this House, quite apart from politics, should do all we can to see that children get the best possible education.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has been accused of complacency in a number of references in the course of this debate. I would refer to the paragraph in the Report, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Itchen, in which my right hon. Friend showed quite the opposite of complacency and showed that he was paying careful attention to the situation which will develop in the near future. I want to refer to two points which have been mentioned and which are of great importance—the shortage of mathematics and science teachers and, something in which I am particularly interested, the question of technical education at present and in the future. As is said in paragraph 32 of the Report, to which I would ask hon. Members to pay particular attention:
"The additional 700,000 senior pupils who will be in these classes by 1961 will need 3,600 additional mathematics and science teachers."
That will be without allowing for better science staffing, or increase in science teaching and a reduction in the size of classes. I mention those three qualifications to show that they are in the mind of my right hon. Friend as important for the future in the question of mathematics and science teaching. Even without making those allowances, we shall need 3,600 more teachers. That is a very large figure. I see the Report says that the position is expected to be better in the future because of the number of children taking those subjects to high level, the implication being that they will become mathematics and science teachers. Here I must utter a word of caution—which I am sure is not absent from the mind of my right hon. Friend—that not all those children will necessarily go in for teaching. Industry, with the great rewards it has to offer, will claim a number of them. While some will go in for teaching, they will not all go in that direction.
I wish to call attention to two things which have happened in the last eighteen months which ameliorate the position regarding mathematics and science teachers. The Burnham Committee proposals of March, 1955, for extra pay for
516
teachers doing advanced work do apply to other subjects besides mathematics and science and apply in the case of teachers of those subjects. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service in allowing indefinite deferment under certain regulations to those who are teaching those subjects, has enabled two more years of the teachers' time to be spent teaching pupils which otherwise would have been spent in doing National Service, and that also helps in this problem.
Tonight we have heard a number of constructive suggestions about solving the problem of the supply of teachers. We have heard of the provision of houses and of allowances and of attractive and unattractive areas. I suggest to my right hon. Friend and to hon. Members that there is an overall solution to this problem. If we dicuss an area where there is a sufficiency of teachers of mathematics and science and another where there are not enough such teachers we are still dealing with the question by area and individuals, but there is an overall national shortage, or there certainly will be by 1961, of teachers of those subjects.
I believe the one single factor which will provide the greatest solution to this problem is something on which we made a start this year. That is the elevation of the status of the teaching profession as a whole in all subjects. On 1st October this year, the first step is being taken. I think an increase in the status must come, otherwise teachers will go into other professions or into industry. Apart from the matters of attractive and unattractive areas or individual and personal aspects, the general status of the profession is going to provide the answer to this problem.
I hope the policy, of which we shall have an example in the next two or three months in the increased pay award under the Burnham recommendations, will go on because, in the elevation of this profession, we shall attract more and more teachers and thereby reduce the size of classes, which will make its contribution to the educational problem of the future. We are making the finest investment in human life we can possibly make by educational development.
That brings me to the last point I want to make, the question of technical education, which is closely bound up with the

517
question of mathematics and science teachers. I do not want to repeat what I said a few weeks ago in the debate on technical education, but I might be permitted once again to refer to the importance of the dissemination of technical knowledge to children for the benefit of the future. We are benefiting today in the degree of prosperity in this country by the foresight of those in the past.
With the advancing pace of technology in the world, we must increase the pace in this country. Mathematics and science teaching is the prelude to satisfactory technological education. If we can solve that problem in the senior parts of secondary education and then advance to the provisions made in the White Paper for technical education of a more advanced character, we shall get somewhere.
But it will not be enough to stop there. This must be a continuing process. Side by side with our consideration of the general academic education of our children must come the life-and-death matter of technical education in order that we may preserve our position in the world. Technical education is not just a matter of choice and of inculcating knowledge; it is a matter of maintaining our position in the world.
I should like to conclude with words which I used in my conclusion on a previous occasion and which sum up what I feel and what I believe many people in this country feel on this matter. If we neglect to do something today we may not feel the effects in the next few years, but we shall indeed find the effects upon our standards of life in the years which lie further ahead. I believe that to be true, and I believe it to be the foundation of our education system in this country.
I end as I began by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his Report, not only on those things which he mentions in it as having been achieved but also on those things to which he draws attention and which constitute problems for the future. There are in the Report many such references. I am sure he will have with him all those who believe in education and who are eager to see its progress in the future. He will have the support of all those people in the task which lies before him. I wish him well, and when we discuss the 1956 Report in a year's time, I hope we shall find that it has been pos-
518
sible to solve some of these problems which now lie ahead.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I agree most cordially with the Minister in the congratulations which he generously afforded to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who opened the debate. These congratulations were deservedly echoed by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee. My hon. Friend succeeded in laying this large and varied subject before us in such a manner that we were able to have what I think I may call a most successful debate, in which very many problems have been dealt with and many constructive suggestions made. I do not refer only to speeches made by hon. Friends, much as I admired many of them.
It is right, I think, for me to concentrate on what is perhaps the major feature which the Ministry's Report presents, although there are many attractive and important topics with which I should like to deal. I should like, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) suggested, to talk about the curriculum in schools, but I am bound to say that the teaching profession would probably feel that Parliament was stepping outside its province if we discussed that subject in a Parliamentary debate, fascinating and important as it is. Indeed, we have responsibilities in education heavy enough in providing, as one hon. Member described them, the tools—the buildings and the staff; and in solving all the other problems which have vexed successive Ministers of Education. I should also like to pursue the line opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving), for I think we noticed with interest the chapter in the Report on the teaching of handicapped children.
What is, after all, the major fact which this Report presents to us? It is that there is now coming into all secondary schools—grammar, technical, modern, multi-lateral, comprehensive and schools for handicapped children of secondary school age—a great wave of increased population; that that will go on for five years; and that when it has gone through the secondary schools, we shall be faced with what is called the bulge among young people looking for further education and seeking to go to universities.

519
That is the biggest problem which the Report presents to us. That is at once the Minister's embarrassment and his opportunity.
Side by side with the Report we are considering in the debate some recent circulars issued by the Minister. We may look, particularly, at the series from 301, issued in April this year, to 308, issued quite recently. We have, on the one hand, the Report presenting us with this vast problem, this growing number, first, of secondary school children and then of young people seeking further and university education; and, on the other hand, we have the Minister's contributions to the solution of this problem.
What have been the Minister's recent contributions to deal with one of the biggest educational opportunities which this country has had? In Circular 301 he tells the schools, in effect, that they must use inferior building materials. In Circular 302, he tells them that they must serve less milk to the children. In Circular 303 he extends the restrictions of Circular 301 to schemes for further education. In Circular 304 he tells them that they must have rather less furniture and equipment than they had hoped.
In Circular 306 he tells them that they must not build as many schools as they had hoped to build. In Circular 307 he tells them that further education will cost more. In Circular 308 he tells them not only that school meals will cost more, but that they will have to be served with less satisfactory equipment than has been shown by recent reports from the National Union of Teachers to be desirable if the school meals service is to fulfil its proper function.
One cannot but feel that the Minister's contribution is not altogether adequate to the problems presented by the Report. It was not, therefore, altogether surprising to find him anxious to discuss, not so much these matters as the Labour Party's pamphlet on equality. At the appropriate time and place we shall be very happy to discuss the issues raised in that pamphlet, but we do not propose to allow the Minister to ride away from his responsibility on that particular horse at this moment.
He complained, rather curiously, that the pamphlet was concerned more with the class structure of society than with
520
educational matters. Had he looked at the title of the pamphlet he would have seen that that is what it is about. It is concerned with the class structure of society. We shall be issuing—though whether the Minister will be where he is at that time is questionable—a report on education, but the pamphlet to which he has referred deals with the class structure of society. But if he imagines that there is no connection between the class structure of society and education he has a great deal to learn, and could, perhaps, learn it by listening to the dignified appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon)—and learn it, in another sense, by listening to the unfortunate contribution made by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton).
Let us, first, look at what is, perhaps, the biggest problem, the provision of school buildings. There, the Minister's contribution has been Circular 306, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) described very graphically the effect of that circular on the local authorities. We may notice that this circular was issued, as Dr. Alexander complains in a recent issue of Education, without any consultation with the local authorities. We may notice, further, that it struck indiscriminately at the local authorities. It was not clear whether the Minister was or was not blaming local authorities for the fact that programmes had not been completed by the end of the last financial year, but the effect of Circular 306 was to strike indiscriminately at authorities which had completed their programmes and those which had not.
Take, for example, the greatest local education authority of all, the London County Council which had, by the end of the financial year, started all the projects that it had planned to start. Even so, it is told that the buildings that it had intended to start in the next 12 months have to be started over the next 18 months. It is no good the Minister saying that that is not, in fact, a cut in the educational programme. It means that a large number of schools cannot be started at the time planned, and will not, therefore, be ready for the children at the time planned, and that yet another year of children must start their secondary school life in desperately overcrowded conditions.

521
That is what it means to that one authority, and Circular 306 is spreading those conditions over the country at large. If we look at the projected figures of educational building forecast in the circular, it would appear that over the next three years the average of building is to be at the rate of only about £45 million a year. When we weigh that against the figures in the Report it is clear that that amount will be inadequate. If the circular is correct, the figure is £30 million for the first of the three years concerned, then £55 million, and then another £50 million—the last two figures making up the £105 million referred to—with the possibility of an addition to the reserve list. That gives us an average figure of £45 million.
Sir D, Eccles: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not included in last year's starts the carry-over from the previous year which, of course, had to be worked in, too. I think I am right in saying that starts last year were £55 million, and they are in the current year authorised to be the same.
Mr. Stewart: That is not what the circular actually says. The circular speaks of £30 million being not started, and then says that the programme is about half completed, which implies a start of £30 million in that year. However, if the circular is incorrect, so much the better.
What is the alleged justification for this? Is it the old story that we had back in 1952, that if we reduced starts we should speed up the rate at which work was done and we should get completed schools and places ready for children all the more quickly? There are two things in the Report which demonstrate the falsity of that reasoning. The chart which shows the progress of approvals, start of work, and construction of work, is one of them. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary look at that chart they will see that, if the rates of progress shown there for 1949–51 had been continued, the curves being projected, as the mathematicians say, the gap between work started and work finished would be substantially less than it is today.
In fact, despite the measures taken in 1952, as is now admitted by the Report, the rate of construction is slower. Yet the same excuse, the excuse which was
522
not justified after it was offered in 1952, is offered again for the stopping of school building now. The real reason is to be found in page 69 of the Report:
"Two major factors affected the progress of educational building during the year. One was the ending of general control over building."
Then the Report goes on:
"On the ground the effect of the first factor is shown by the figures given above … jobs were finished more slowly and in consequence nearly a quarter as much work again was under construction at the end of the year as twelve months previously."
The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Cabinet. He bears a responsibility for that decision about building which he now, in effect, makes the justification for cutting the starts. The device which the Government is using is, first, by their policy over building, to make it more difficult to finish schools, and then to say, because they are not finished, that they cannot be started.
Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that during the time of the previous Administration, when there was full control over building, none the less there had to be a quite drastic cut in school building?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman said that in his speech earlier in the debate and, if I may remind him, as an old Election opponent, he has said it on many previous occasions, as have many of his hon. Friends.
Mr. Hall: That does not destroy the point.
Mr. Stewart: May I remind the hon. Member that there were many very heavy responsibilities which the previous Government bore and fulfilled, the Korean War being one of them, and such responsibilities have not borne upon the present Government? The Government are continually telling us of the progress and prosperity which they are bringing about in all directions, and yet are justifying their attacks on the social services by saying that that sort of thing happened in 1949, which was only four years after the end of a great war.
Mr. Hall Mr. Hall rose—
Mr. Stewart: I am sorry; I cannot give to the hon. Gentleman twice; I have to consider the Parliamentary Secretary.
Local authorities are finding, when they try to build, that when the tenders come

523
in from builders the figures are fantastically high. Why? Because, in the main, the builders do not want the job of school building; they want the more profitable and speedy jobs which are obtainable while building generally remains uncontrolled. This is a difficulty which will contront authorities year by year, while this situation remains.
If the Minister and the Government, without any regard for general building policy, try to launch the £70 million technical education building programme, they will find that they will have to do it, at least in part, at the expense of the school building programme. To carry through the technical education building programme, desirable as that is, at the expense of the schools, is to try to build the top storey with materials taken out of the foundations. It is not only he amount of building; it is the kind of building.
I now want to refer to Circulars 301 and 303, which deal with the cost per place. The interest of this is its history. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Wycombe, I would say that I shall be referring to the late Mr. George Tomlinson in the course of my remarks. In 1953, the Ministry issued Circular 274, which told local authorities that the limits were £140 in primary schools and £250 in secondary schools, and that that was based on building costs in 1952. But the local authorities were assured that if building costs went up, these figures would be raised proportionately.
In 1955, the Government's attempt to mend the hole in the purse had been so successful that building costs were 10 per cent. higher and the figures of cost per place were raised to £154 and £264. These figures are worth remembering when the Minister reads out merely money figures of the Ministry of Education Estimates and refers to them as resources spent on education. It would be a good deal more illuminating if these were corrected for price and set against the number of children that he has to deal with.
In 1956, building labour costs alone went up so much that on the basis of the formula in Circular 274 the local authorities ought to have been allowed to raise their limits by £4 in primary and £7 in secondary schools, but at that moment
524
there came Circular 301, which said, "You cannot raise them any more," and gave as the reason the inflationary situation.
What was the purpose of the original promise in Circular 274 that if costs rose local authorities would be allowed to spend more on places? Surely the point of that was to enable them to provide decent schools even if prices did go up. To go back on that promise on account of the inflationary situation is as if one lent someone an umbrella on condition that he returned it as soon as the rain began to come down really hard. These chops and changes delay planning by local authorities; one of the causes why they cannot get on with the programme adequately is because they have to rearrange, in the light of the circulars, costs per place and of equipment.
These are not like the economies which were practised when Mr. George Tomlinson was Minister of Education, because those sprang from valuable research work in the Architects' Department of the Ministry which found out the real economies which could be made. We cannot go on with that process for ever. What are the sort of economies that the Government are asking for now in these building programmes? Schools are to have poor quality bricks, linoleum instead of rubber flooring, and at every point they have to use equipment which will be false economy and land the local authorities with higher maintenance costs as the years go by.
Fewer buildings and poorer buildings. By Circular 304 there is to be less adequate provision for furniture, on which I will only say this. The Minister was anxious to show us how valuable the modern school was and how there must be the fullest parity of esteem with the grammar school. His Circular 304 rubs in the difference by prescribing a lower rate of equipment allowance for the modern school as compared with the grammar school, and that at a time when the modern school is being urged, as part of the campaign to persuade everyone that comprehensive schools are not necessary, to take over bigger responsibilities and try to turn itself into something like a half-technical or a half-grammar school.

525
I do not propose to say much about the supply of teachers, as so much has already been said on that to great effect by several of my hon. Friends. I am sure that we all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings). As he said, it was entirely objective. That made all the more interesting the fact that it demonstrated so clearly that time and again Labour controlled local authorities have been more successful in the problem of teacher supply than Conservative controlled local authorities. Perhaps when Birmingham has had Labour control a little longer it may find that its difficulties are alleviated.
If anyone wants to look for an answer to this problem, it is quite clear from the objective survey of the hon. Member in what direction one should look.
Mr. Gurden Mr. Gurden rose—
Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
The Parliamentary Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, in the course of an Adjournment debate, not long ago:
"I can hold out little hope of improvement of staffing ratios in secondary schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1956; Vol 554, c. 545.]
Is everything possible being done about the training colleges? On 22nd June, the Minister told us that all the places in teacher training colleges were filled for next September. On 6th June, the Ministry of Labour drew the attention of youth employment officers to the existence of 191 vacancies in eight named training colleges for men. There were no vacancies for women, but there were those vacancies for men. There seems to be a discrepancy here. There may be an explanation of it. It would be interesting to hear it. I am inclined to think, however, that the Minister's view about the training college position means that he is taking altogether too static a view of the question of teacher supply.
If we could increase now, or start to increase, the number of places in training colleges, it is quite true that the teachers would not be available until what is called the bulge has passed its peak. But are we making no plans to get down the size of classes? Are we making no provision for increased numbers staying at school and, possibly, in time for the raising of the school-leaving age and for the demands that will be made on perhaps
526
another type of teacher if county colleges are to be brought more into the picture and if we are to extend the plans for technical education?
Not only do we want more teachers, but we want more of many kinds of people for whom our economy will cry out, because we will need more well-trained people of all kinds. If we are to have them, we must have more people having the chance of getting what is today in the tripartite system called "a grammar or technical education".
Hunting among the figures in the Report, one finds that the proportion of secondary children getting either a grammar or a technical education is somewhat less this year than last year. It is a small move but it is a move in the wrong direction, either for the supply of teachers or for the supply of many other types of worker whom we shall badly need.
Reference has been made to people who stay on at school beyond the age of 15. Another interesting calculation can be obtained from the Ministry's figures. If one takes all the children who are in what is called the tripartite system, whether in grammar, technical or modern schools, and asks how many of them leave from any of those schools when their last birthday was either 14 or 15 and one then makes the same calculation for the comprehensive school, one finds—this confirms the judgment of nearly every comprehensive school headmaster—that the comprehensive school encourages children to stay on longer.
The headmaster of Eton was asking recently—a rhetorical question, I presume—whether there are any reasons for supposing that a child in the D-stream of the comprehensive school is more likely to become, say, a senior civil servant or is more likely to stay longer at school than if it had been in the modern school. If he consults the head teachers of comprehensive schools, if he looks at some of the research which has been done and if he makes the necessary calculations from the Minister's Report, he will find that the answer to both those questions is. "Yes". I recommend both those exercises to Dr. Birley before he makes his next political propaganda speech to an audience of schoolchildren.
I should like to take a little further the question of the comprehensive school

527
and the modern school. The Minister really has no need to tell some of us of the value of the modern school. I have been attending as many prize-givings and open days in my constituency as I have been able to find time for in these last two months, and I am particularly glad to accept invitations from modern schools, because although I do not know how far it is an encouragement for a Member of Parliament to attend, most people are kind enough to believe that it is, and I believe that we should give them that encouragement. I was myself a pupil in what used to be called in those days a senior mixed school.
What the opponents of the comprehensive school have to face is that the modern school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) pointed out, usually has larger classes than the grammar school. By virtue of the Minister's own regulations and circulars, it is less well equipped. By definition, if one goes to it the gate to the university is almost certainly closed, and the gate to many, though, I agree, by no means all, types of well-paid employment is very frequently closed.
No one is suggesting that everybody ought to go to a university, or that everybody can take on the most difficult and responsible types of employment, but what we are saying is that it is not desirable that the decision whether anyone is suitable for a university education, or suitable to hold great responsibilities in future life, should be taken when he is 11 years old. When everything has been said about the possibility of transfer later, which touches only the fringe of the problem, that decision is being made at the age of 11 for far too many children today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle brought out that fact in a most admirable and cogent speech.
The Minister urged upon us the great dignity and possibilities of the modern school. It is rather pleasing to see this sudden discovery by hon. and right hon. Members opposite of the possibilities of the schools in which three-quarters of their fellow countrymen are educated. He particularly mentioned that, unlike the schools of the past, they offer opportunities for the Arts, even for foreign travel,
528
for the graces and dignities of life, or for what, when his predecessor was issuing circulars, were contemptuously called "the frills" by hon. and right hon. Members on that side of the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a good thing if more of what we spent on art were spent on commissioning new works of art by new artists. I agree with him. Where better to put some of them than in some of our schools? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that one of the main planks in the exiguous platform on which his party fought the last L.C.C. elections was a bitter attack upon the Labour majority on that authority for putting a beautiful statue by a modern artist in Kidbrooke Comprehensive School? A beautiful statue for a school for working class children! What next!
If the Minister really believes what he says about modern schools he should dissociate himself from some of the gutter propaganda against making the schools gracious and dignified which comes from members of his own party.
Mr. Charles Doughty: rose—
Mr. Stewart: I am not going to give way. I am going to sit down in two minutes.
Last of all, I shall refer to—
Mr. Doughty: Gutter propaganda?
Mr. Stewart: Sir Charles, I am under an undertaking to sit down in a few moments in order to give the Parliamentary Secretary time to reply to the debate, but I am obliged to warn him, through you, that if I am obliged to endure this from his hon. Friends I shall inevitably be debarred from fulfilling that undertaking.
Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to walk into the Committee and interrupt a speech, most of which he has not heard, and to hurl insults across the Floor of the Chamber?
The Chairman: In the ideal debate in this Committee only one hon. Member speaks at a time.
Mr. Stewart: Finally, we have Circular 307, which raises the fees for evening classes. Quite recently I spoke to a woman in the constituency of my right

529
hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs). She is a grandmother who persuaded her daughter, the mother of young children, to join a class to learn how to make children's clothing. She also persuaded a number of her friends and neighbours to do so. She did this busily when the L.C.C., as it was fully entitled to do, had already issued prospectuses with a fee of 10s. At the end of her proselytising work the people whom she was converting by this sensible, public spirited activity, were suddenly told that it would cost them three times as much. I agree that the Minister has already mitigated that, but he did deliver that shot. Does anyone think that to say, "If you can persuade someone in authority that you are really hard up you will not have to pay" is a workable way of settling fees for evening classes?
All this is part of the Minister's general meannesses. There has been his refusal to help Holbrook School to avoid charging fees for the first time in its history. We have had the dearer milk. Now it is dearer evening classes and then it is school meals. Each time we are told that a little thing like that does not matter. This is poverty by stages.
We cannot escape the conclusion from the Report on Education in 1955 and the circulars that while, in the private sector of education, people know that good education will cost more and their schools will be more expensive and more generously staffed, the nation's own secondary schools will be more crowded, less well staffed, and less generously equipped. The division between the two nations has been widened. We deplore that, not merely as a matter of class interest but because it is not in the national interest; therefore, we call in question tonight this Vote and the Minister's salary.
9.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who fully deserved the many congratulations he has received and opened the debate in a more objective manner than that adopted by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in concluding it, said that a debate on the Ministry of Education Vote always covers a very wide field. Nobody is more aware
530
of that than the one who has to wind up the debate.
Like all the debates on education that I have heard in the last six years, this has been concerned inevitably with the physcial conditions in which education is undertaken rather than with its content. But it is not a bad thing occasionally to stand aside and see whether we are getting results and value for what is an ever-increasing expenditure of effort and money. It is also inevitable, and in line with popular discussion, that we should concern ourselves rather more with what is bad than with what is right. If this has the result of stimulating public interest and discussion, it is a good thing; but it is only right to keep a sense of proportion and to appreciate what has been achieved.
In support of this, I gain much encouragement from the many visitors from overseas countries whom I have had the pleasure of meeting in the last eighteen months, all of whom are beset in their own countries with the kind of problems in the educational sphere including shift systems to which my right hon. Friend referred. All of them have found much to marvel at in education in this country. I have in mind not only the deputation of Russian teachers of English who spent an enjoyable day at Eton, but many others who have come to see how we are progressing.
To those critics on the other side of the Committee who suggest that progress in education was good until the General Election of 1951 and then ceased, I say that the facts prove the exact opposite. It is a matter for debate as to whether we are doing enough for the future, but if we compare the two periods, whether it be in the provision of school buildings, the provision of teachers, the arrangements for the handicapped, technical education or the school dental service, we see that progress has perceptibly quickened since 1951.
When my right hon. Friend said that 1,600,000 more children were in the schools than before the war, he had in mind that of that number a million have entered in the six years from 1950–51 to 1956–57. During these last six years, the percentage of oversize classes and the percentage of pupils in them actually fell, while the average size of primary classes—and this is in the Report—rose only

531
from 34·6 in 1950 to 35 in 1955. The number of pupils per teacher in secondary schools actually fell during those six years. During the same period, and on this I know that all hon. Members will agree with me that this is important, the percentage of seniors in all-age schools fell from 16·4 in 1950 to 10·5 in 1955.
A million pupils represents a vast amount of additional accommodation and teachers, and even if standards had not improved, as I believe they have, and even if there was no other development in education, this in itself would have been an achievement without the shift system or deferment as exist in other countries. It is easy to say that more resources should have been devoted to education, but that assertion is not realistic if we take into account the impact which these developments have on the national economy.
This provision for buildings and the supply of teachers has been the main theme of this debate, and is one to which I intend to return, but, before I do so, I want to take up one or two points to which I have been asked to reply which are unconnected to that theme. In the first place, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) referred to special classes for handicapped children, of which I know he has great knowledge. I am very glad he did, because it is a matter in which I have taken a great interest; the Annual Report devotes a special section to this. I agree with the hon. Member that, since 1946, there has been much development and encouragement in that field. I cannot possibly answer all the questions which he put to me, but I can say that my right hon. Friend has accepted the recommendations of the Committee on Maladjusted Children. Inevitably, the implementation of all the recommendations will take a long time, because they are concerned with the training of personnel, but, so far as accommodation for handicapped children is concerned, that aspect is receiving equal treatment with the provision of primary, secondary and further educational provisions. The provision now being made in the field of special schools is in the form of new schools, and not in the adaptation of old buildings.
In practically all the categories of the handicapped children, we are now in the
532
position of almost being able to satisfy demand. The exceptions are the maladjusted and educationally subnormal, and in this latter field the waiting list remains formidable. For that reason, we recently asked all local education authorities to make a new estimate of their waiting lists, and I hope that as a result we may be able to make a more realistic approach to this problem. I will bear in mind the suggestion he made about the ascertainment of educationally subnormal children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) referred to the provision of science accommodation, and referred in particular to the Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. The Ministry is very well aware of the need for this project, but it has not been possible to include it in the present building programme. We have it very much in mind for inclusion in a coming programme. I have found that the provision of science accommodation—and this follows on from what my hon. Friend said—for secondary schools in general has been very considerable since the war, and it is in fact running into no less than £13½ million; not all of this is for new schools.
On this subject the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) asked me what we were doing about the training of specialist teachers. We have taken a number of measures. They include the deferment from National Service, which has been effective, and the recent acceptance by my right hon. Friend of the Burnham Committee recommendations will, we hope, help the secondary schools.
Almost every training college in the country is now showing a bias in favour of courses for the secondary teacher, and this year there are 1,300 pupils enrolled in supplementary courses for secondary teachers as compared with only 830 last year. We have also tried to arrange all possible publicity in the training colleges and schools. I am well aware that these measures in themselves may not be sufficient in this all-important task. Any assistance that hon. Members can give will be very welcome.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) asked about an extension for the technical institute in Colwyn Bay. That application has been noted, but the five-year programme for technical education must have regard to priority, and I

533
am afraid that that application is not in the priority list for the first two or three years. Of course, it will be included in the five-year programme. More hope than that I cannot give at the moment.
The same hon. Member, and one or two others, referred to the increase in fees for non-vocational courses in further education. I should like to make it quite clear that this is no new policy and that fees have been charged for a number of years and increased over that period. The hon. Member rather suggested—in fact he used these words—that the increase from 5s. to 10s. a term would deal a mortal blow to these courses in the village of Rhosllanerchragog. It so happens that I am acquainted with that village and I cannot share the view that this action will destroy non-vocational education there. I should be happy in due course to hear the outcome.
Mr. Idwal Jones: I am satisfied in my own mind that it will, not only in Rhosllanerchragog but in most of the villages in Denbighshire and, perhaps, in the whole of Wales.
Mr. Vosper: Events will prove which of us is right. It is a fact that most, but not all, of the students on these courses are in employment or are the wives or husbands of those in employment. It does not seem unreasonable to ask them to pay a fee of 10d a week or 10s. a term. I should make it clear that this does not affect adult education classes of full-time students or students under 21. It will not materially concern part-time students aged 21 or over attending vocational classes. They already pay 10s. a term or more.
Those affected are those taking non-vocational classes who are aged 21 and over. I think that many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and many people outside the House of Commons, feel that those who attend these classes may value them more if they make a reasonable contribution. Even at 10s. a term the contribution they would make would represent only about one-fifteenth of the cost of providing that course. My right hon. Friend has explained the unfortunate circumstances relating to the late introduction of the circular.
It is not my intention in this speech to enter into the controversy about the independent school, except to say, mainly
534
in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), that Part III of the Education Act, which I think will help him because it will ensure reasonable conditions in the independent schools, is coming into operation in September, 1957. Arrangements for that are well in hand and an Order in Council will be laid in the autumn of this year.
I should like now to return to the main theme of this debate, which is, I think, that there has been delay in the building programme and lack of urgency about the provision of teachers. I think, from most speeches, it is agreed that the really urgent task is to accommodate the bulge in the secondary schools during the next four or five years, but what is possibly not so fully realised is that if there is to be a crisis in the secondary schools it will occur in September, 1958, because in that month no fewer than 188,000 additional pupils will enter these schools. As a secondary school takes 2½ years to build, no school started now will help to meet the crisis in this all-important year. It therefore becomes vital to complete schools already in course of construction. This is exactly what Circular No. 306 allows, but as my right hon. Friend said, the margin will be very small indeed.
It has been argued that authorities which have not been delayed should be allowed to go ahead, but our building programme does in any case show some elasticity in this respect. It is not necessarily those authorities which claim to have the resources available at this moment which will have to bear the heaviest burdens in meeting the bulge in the secondary schools. The hon. Member for Workington suggested that the shortage of steel was responsible for the delay in these projects. I can assure him that although that might have occurred in one or two isolated projects—
Mr. Peart: Page 69 of the Report itself mentions the question of deliveries of steel. It is in the Report.
Mr. Vosper: I did not say that it had not been responsible in any individual case. It is one of the minor reasons for the delay in starting these projects, but it is not the major reason. Equally, I can tell the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) that the Ministry has in no way delayed the development

535
of projects, although I am aware that that suggestion has been made in some quarters.
Miss Bacon: The hon. Member will admit that this suggestion is made by local authorities themselves.
Mr. Vosper: That is why I am very glad that the hon. Member raised this question and has given me the opportunity of denying it, because it does not happen to be true.
The hon. Member for Fulham and one or two others referred to circulars dealing with the limitation of school building and furniture costs. Unpopular though these may be, they enable us to undertake more building. Hon. Members really cannot have it both ways. The building regulations provide a guarantee against shoddy schools, to which so many hon. Members opposite have referred. A few weeks ago, through the kind courtesy of the hon. Member for Itchen, who deferred an Adjournment debate, I was able to go to Portsmouth to open a new grammar school. That school was completed at a cost of £218 per place, at a time when the cost limit was £250 per place. I am not suggesting that building conditions are the same all over the country, but it seems that if Portsmouth—and my right hon. Friend had a similar experience in Lancashire—can build easily within the cost limits, it is not beyond the capacity of other local authorities to do likewise, without building the shoddy schools to which hon. Members have referred.
It is important that we should try to be perfectly clear about the school building programme. Many unintentionally misleading figures have been quoted. The most informative figures show that, taking all educational work together, it is intended to start £75 million worth this year, compared with £78 million worth last year and £56 million worth in 1950–51. This year, with an expenditure of £60 million, we hope to do £5 million more work than in 1955–56.
Perhaps I ought to give the full figures for work done upon all educational building, because that is more important than the figures in relation to work started. In 1950–51 work done amounted to £41·3 million; in 1951–52 it amounted to £48·4 million, and last year it rose to
536
£55 million. According to present plans, and to Circular No. 306, the work intended to be done this year will rise to £60 million, which is the largest figure so far reached. As, during this period, the cost of schools has fallen—as the hon. Member for Fulham admitted—we can do even more work than is suggested by these figures. That seems to be the answer to those who suggest that the school building programme is being cut.
The other half of the battle is the question of teacher supply. I agree that we must do everything possible to increase numbers in the training colleges. My right hon. Friend has recently asked all colleges to take even more students if they can possibly manage it. The answer to questions of the hon. Member for Fulham about vacancies for men is simply, that the men's colleges always fill at the last moment owing to National Service. I shall be very disappointed if at the start of the autumn term the men's colleges are not as completely filled as they were last year. My right hon. Friend fully dealt with the supply of teachers, and I think that the Committee will agree that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) was most interesting and helpful. He rejected the arguments for a rationing scheme and for an area allowance. His views should carry great weight with the Committee, because he is a teacher with experience of teaching in the Midlands up to the last General Election and, of course, he is an hon. Member who has not always given his support to my right hon. Friend in everything he has said and done about education.
I am sorry that I did not hear other speeches from hon. Members who spoke about the position in Birmingham, but any constructive suggestions which were made—and some were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton—will be considered not only by my right hon. Friend but, I hope, by the local authorities concerned. From my own rather limited experience—I have visited five training colleges in the last three months and have taken the opportunity to discuss this problem with the principals and as many students as I could—the only fair conclusion I can reach is that neither a rationing scheme nor an area allowance will influence the decision of the students to whom I have spoken.

537
Practically all of them wanted to get near home or go to those authorities whom they knew offered attractive conditions of appointment and attractive conditions of employment. I join in the plea made by the hon. Member for Itchen and others that authorities in Wales, which can help us so much, should do all they can during the next few months. In any case, my right hon. Friend has today announced his intention of holding a conference in the autumn which, I hope, will make some contribution to the problem.
One or two hon. Members have referred to the importance of getting value for money and trying to assess the results we are achieving from our work in education. In a recent speech my right hon. Friend referred to the break-up of the educational £. An analysis of the education £ shows, for example, that teachers' salaries and pensions are taking 8s. 5d., that administration is taking 9d. and that new school building is taking only 1s. 8d. I mention that simply because I do not believe that when that analysis is considered much evidence of waste or extravagance will be found. Every possible economy should be made where it can be made to enable the drive forward for schools and teachers to be made.
It is also important to know what we are achieving for the money we spend. Too often—not in the debate today—we hear the old cries of "Illiteracy" and "Too many children leave school unable to read and write properly." We are told that standards of work are falling. Very often that comment arises from false comparisons, from the results of full employment, from sensational headlines and from the stories of "jungle" schools. I am glad to say that the National Union of Teachers has examined that allegation and found it to be untrue.
It is always much more difficult to produce positive evidence to the effect that our standards are rising. The results of two surveys, one by the National Foundation of Education Research and the other by the Ministry, will be available shortly. The evidence of Her Majesty's Inspectors, who have many years experience in this sort of work, is that while there may have been a setback in standards in the immediate post-war years, they are now improving rapidly
538
and as the numbers in the primary schools fall—and they fell last year—and the secondary modern school comes into its own there will be further progress. Other evidence of that can be found from the increase in successes in the G.C.E., the increased proportion going to universities and the numbers staying on at school beyond the age of fifteen. All those affect the more able pupils, but if the abler pupils are improving, it stands to reason that other levels in the school are probably being strengthened at the same time.
Finally, I come back to the secondary modern school, and particularly to secondary education. It was the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East who referred to the speech made by Alderman B. G. Lampard-Vachell of Devonshire, in which he said that there was an argument in Devonshire for a comprehensive or bilateral school. That is not in conflict with the policy of my right hon. Friend. Indeed, in the Scarborough speech, which the hon. Lady will know, my right hon. Friend did say that in certain rural areas the comprehensive school might be the answer. Several such schools have been approved during the past year.
Nevertheless, the majority of our children are being educated in the secondary modern school. I do not share the pessimistic views of so many hon. Members opposite about the progress with these schools. The hon. Member for Itchen and I debated this subject at six o'clock one morning last month. It seemed that both he and I on that occasion took a rather more optimistic view of their progress than hon. Members have tonight. No fewer than 902 new secondary modern schools have been built, or are being built, since the end of the war. That is a fair proportion of the total number of secondary schools in existence.
Indeed, in my constituency I have a secondary modern school which some hon. Members may have seen on television for half an hour last week, from which I receive no complaints and which, strange though it may seem, embarrasses the local authority by occasionally producing parents whose children are selected for grammar school education and who wish to see their children transferred to the new secondary modern school, with all its practical rooms.

539
It is clear that the secondary modern school is in for a difficult time. That is inevitable, but I hope that hon. Members opposite, even though they may change the policy in due course, will remember that the secondary modern school and not the comprehensive school will take the majority of our children in the next few years, and will do all they can to make it a success. Whether it be the secondary modern school or the comprehensive school, some form of selection—we may call it "grading"—is inevitable. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Workington that the selection examination at 11-plus is a sweepstake in the sense that it is a matter of luck to which school you go. Very few headmasters of grammar schools or secondary modern schools will say that their pupils have been selected or graded for the wrong school.
This is a marginal problem which concerns only those on the border line. Each year, the selection arrangements by local authorities—though I note what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) had to
say—arouse far fewer complaints about those arrangements than there were in the previous year.
The Opposition have decided to vote against my right hon. Friend's Vote, I presume because they do not believe that we are succeeding in the task of providing schools and teachers to meet the needs of the secondary modern school. Our record over the last five years shows that we made more progress than did hon. Gentlemen opposite. My right hon. Friend is being accused of optimism and of complacency. He is meeting the challenge. I believe that the measures recently announced will help him to be successful in overcoming the difficulties.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, That Item Class IV, Vote 1 (Ministry of Education), be reduced by £100.
Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £221,201,118, be granted for the said Service:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 259.

Division No. 269.]

AYES

[9.29 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Albu, A. H.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hunter, A. E.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Deer, G.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Anderson, Frank

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Awbery, S. S.

Delargy, H. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Dodds, N. N.

Janner, B.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Donnelly, D. L.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Benn, Hn. Wedgood (Bristol, S. E.)

Dye, S.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Benson, G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Blackburn, F.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Blenkinsop, A.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)

Blyton, W. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Boardman, H.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Kenyon, C.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Bowles, F. G.

Forman, J. C.

King, Dr. H. M.

Boyd, T. C.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Lawson, G. M.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Brockway, A. F.

Gibson, C. W.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Gooch, E, G.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Greenwood, Anthony

Lewis, Arthur

Burke, W. A.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Lindgren, G. S.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Logan, D. G.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hale, Leslie

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Callaghan, L. J.

Hamilton, W. W.

MacColl, J. E.

Carmichael, J.

Hannan, W.

McInnes, J.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Champion, A. J.

Hastings, S.

McLeavy, Frank

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hayman, F. H.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Clunie, J.

Healey, Denis

Mahon, Simon

Coldrick, W.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Herbison, Miss M.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hobson, C. R.

Mason, Roy

Cove, W. G.

Holman, P.

Mayhew, C. P.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Messer, Sir F.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hoy, J. H.

Mikardo, Ian

Daines, P.

Hubbard, T. F.

Mitchison, G. R.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Monslow, W.

Moody, A. S.

Reeves, J.

Tomney, F.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Reid, William

Turner-Samuels, M.

Mort, D. L.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Moss, R.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Viant, S. P.

Moyle, A.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Warbey, W. N.

Mulley, F. W.

Short, E. W.

Watkins, T. E.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Weitzman, D.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Oram, A. E.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Orbach, M.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Owen, W, J.

Skeffington, A. M.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Wigg, George

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Snow, J. W.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Pargiter, G. A.

Sorensen, R. W.

Willey, Frederick

Parker, J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Williams, David (Neath)

Parkin, B. T.

Sparks, J. A.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Paton, John

Steele, T.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Peart, T. F.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Popplewell, E.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Winterbottom, Richard

Probert, A. R.

Swingler, S. T.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Proctor, W. T.

Sylvester, G. O.

Woof, R. E.

Pryde, D. J.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Randall, H. E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Zilliacus, K.

Rankin, John

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Redhead, E. C.

Timmons, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Henderson, John (Catheart)

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Dodds-Parker, A, D.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Alport, C. J. M.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. McA.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Drayson, G. B.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Arbuthnot, John

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Armstrong, C. W.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Holt, A. F.

Ashton, H.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Hope, Lord John

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hornby, R. P.

Atkins, H. E.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Baldwin, A. E.

Errington, Sir Eric

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Balniel, Lord

Erroll, F. J.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Barber, Anthony

Fell, A.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral

Barlow, Sir John

Finlay, Graeme

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Barter, John

Fisher, Nigel

Hurd, A. R.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Fort, R.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Foster, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Bidgood, J. C.

Freeth, D. K.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Gammans, Sir David

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Bishop, F. P.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Black, C. W.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Johnson, Dr. Ronald (Carlisle)

Body, R. F.

Glover, D.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Godber, J. B.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Braine, B. R.

Gough, C. F. H.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Gower, H. R.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Graham, Sir Fergus

Keegan, D.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Kerr, H. W.

Campbell, Sir David

Green, A.

Kershaw, J. A.

Carr, Robert

Gresham Cooke, R.

Kimball, M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Grimond, J.

Kirk, P. M.

Channon, H.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Lagden, G. W.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Lambert, Hon. C.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Gurden, Harold

Lambton, Viscount

Cole, Norman

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Leavey, J. A.

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Longden, Gilbert

Crouch, R. F.

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Cunningham, Knox

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Dance, J. C. G.

Hay, John

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Davidson, Viscountess

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

McKibbin, A. J.

D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Deedes, W. F.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

542

543

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Pott, H. P.

Teeling, W.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Powell, J. Enoch

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Maddan, Martin

Profumo, J. D.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Ramsden, J. E.

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Rawlinson, Peter

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Redmayne, M.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Marshall, Douglas

Renton, D. L. M.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Mathew, R.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Maude, Angus

Rippon, A. G. F.

Turner, H. F. L.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Mawby, R. L.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Vane, W. M. F.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Roper, Sir Harold

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Russell, R. S.

Vosper, D. F.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Wade, D. W.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Neave, Airey

Sharples, R. C.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Nicholls, Harmar

Shepherd, William

Wall, Major Patrick

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Speir, R. M.

Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

Oakshott, H. D.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Wood, Hon. R.

Osborne, C.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Woollam, John Victor

Page, R. G.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Studholme, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Mr. Wills and Mr. Wakefield

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Question put and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed:—
It being after Half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £221,201,218 (including a Supplementary sum of £10,753,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, a subscription to an international organisation, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare.
The Chairman then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions:
That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Revised Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, including a Supplementary Estimate, and the Ministry of Defence Estimate, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, including Revised Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57

  Class I
  That a sum, not exceeding £12,181,164, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  House of Lords

  98,282

  2.

  House of Commons

  764,466

  3.

  Registration of Electors

  300,000

  4.

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  2,046,237

  5.

  Privy Council Office

  20,969

  6.

  Privy Seal Office

  8,720

  7.

  Charity Commission

  68,922

  8.

  Civil Service Commission

  293,700

  9.

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  316,677

  10.

  Friendly Societies Registry

  54,890

  11.

  Government Actuary

  13,911

  12.

  Government Chemist

  212,505

  13.

  Government Hospitality

  35,000

  14.

  The Royal Mint

  90

  15.

  The National Debt Office

  3,220

  16.

  National Savings Committee

  610,900

  17.

  17. Public Record Office

  77,012

  18.

  Public Works Loan Commission

  90

  19.

  Royal Commissions &c.

  116,000

  20.

  Secret Service

  3,300,000

  21.

  Silver

  3,670,000

  22.

  Tithe Redempton Commission

  90

  23.

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  104,989

  23A

  Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  39,252

  Scotland:—

  25.

  Scottish Record Office

  25,242

  12,181,164

  CLASS II
  That a sum, not exceeding £57,043,170, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estmiates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Foreign Service (Revised sum)

  9,419,720

  2.

  Foreign Office Grants and Services (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £146,100)

  12,197,930

  3.

  British Council

  1,402,650

  4.

  United Nations

  300,000

  5.

  Commonwealth Relations Office

  1,325,662

  6.

  Commonwealth Services (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

  1,150,101

  7.

  Oversea Settlement

  131,700

  8.

  Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £4,300)

  907,265

  9.

  Colonial Services (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £2,149,632)

  16,146,158

  10.

  Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c). (Revised sum)

  12,250,000

  11.

  Development and Welfare (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and South African High Commission Territories)

  920,000

  12.

  Imperial War Graves Commission

  891,984

  57,043,170

  CLASS III
  That a sum, not exceeding £61,043,925, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necesary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Exenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IN of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Home Office

  3,468,035

  2.

  Home Office (Civil Defence Services (Revised sum)

  5,220,737

  3.

  Police, England and Wales

  28,135,966

  4.

  Prisons, England and Wales

  5,470,693

  5.

  Child Care, England and Wales

  6,171,400

  6.

  Fire Services, England and Wales

  3,812,800

  7.

  Carlisle State Management District

  90

  8.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.

  12,151

  9.

  County Courts (Revised sum)

  261,090

  10.

  Legal Aid Fund

  1,233,100

  11.

  Land Registry

  90

  £

  12.

  Public Trustee

  90

  13.

  Law Charges

  344,876

  14.

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  22,190

  Scotland:—

  15.

  Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services) (Revised sum)

  570,952

  16.

  Police

  4,342,627

  17.

  Prisons

  486,204

  18.

  Approved Schools

  168,550

  19.

  Fire Services

  518,180

  20.

  State Management Districts

  90

  21.

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  181,441

  22.

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  90

  Ireland:—

  23.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, &c, Northern Ireland

  39,263

  24.

  Irish Land Purchase Services

  583,220

  61,043,925

  CLASS IV
  That a sum, not exceeding £67,535,811, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  2.

  British Museum

  302,622

  3.

  British Museum (Natural History)

  260,193

  4.

  Imperial War Museum

  28,410

  5.

  London Museum

  19,120

  6.

  National Gallery (including a Supplementary sum of £25,000)

  65,038

  7.

  Tate Gallery

  28,532

  8.

  National Maritime Museum

  34,294

  9.

  National Portrait Gallery

  18,417

  10.

  Wallace Collection

  23,157

  11.

  Grants for Science and the Arts

  907,055

  12.

  Universities and Colleges, &c, Great Britain

  17,419,900

  13.

  Broadcasting

  21,694,000

  Scotland:-

  14.

  Public Education (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £1,477,500)

  26,674,993

  15.

  National Galleries

  21,253

  16.

  National Museum of Antiquities

  9,801

  17.

  National Library

  29,026

  67,535,811

  CLASS V
  That a sum, not exceeding £481,415,332, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

  13,047,195

  2.

  Housing, England and Wales

  49,998,280

  3.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  49,200,000

  4.

  Ministry of Health (Revised sum)

  25,274,455

  5.

  National Health Service, England and Wales (Revised sum)

  291,563,175

  6.

  Medical Research Council

  1,449,000

  7.

  Registrar General's Office

  267,905

  8.

  Central Land Board

  252,500

  9.

  War Damage Commission

  436,000

  Scotland:—

  10.

  Department of Health (Revised sum)

  4,412,770

  11.

  National Health Service

  38,716,955

  13.

  Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues

  6,760,000

  14.

  Registrar General's Office

  37,097

  481,415,332

  CLASS VI
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,460,270, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  3.

  Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves) (Revised sum)

  1,420,000

  6.

  Export Credits

  90

  7.

  Export Credits (Special Guarantees)

  90

  10.

  Ministry of Supply (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

  90

  12.

  Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements

  40,000

  1,460,270

  CLASS VII
  That a sum, not exceeding £39,801,653, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  2.

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  241,000

  3.

  Public Buildings, &c, United Kingdom (Revised sum)

  17,744,150

  4.

  Public Buildings Overseas

  1,175,000

  5.

  Royal Palaces

  339,500

  6.

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

  522,010

  7.

  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

  590,000

  8.

  Rates on Government Property

  9,845,693

  9.

  Stationery and Printing (Revised sum)

  8,131,100

  10.

  Central Office of Information

  1,192,200

  11.

  Peterhead Harbour

  21,000

  39,801,653

  CLASS VIII
  Question put,
  That a sum, not exceeding £141,225,865, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Revised sum)

  10,256,720

  2.

  Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies (Revised sum)

  123,392,430

  3.

  Agricultural and Food Services (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £100,000)

  5,362,118

  4.

  Food (Strategic Reserves) (Revised sum)

  −2,799,900

  6.

  Surveys of Great Britain, &c.

  1,992,570

  7.

  Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

  67,927

  8.

  Agricultural Research Council

  2,060,000

  9.

  Nature Conservancy

  160,000

  10.

  Development Fund

  734,000

  141,225,865

  The Committee divided: Ayes 227, Noes 56.

  Division No. 270.]

  AYES

  [9.43 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Barber, Anthony

  Bishop, F. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Barlow, Sir John

  Body, R. F.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Barter, John

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Armstrong. C. W.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Ashton, H.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Braine, B. R.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon, Henry

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Carr, Robert

  Hope, Lord John

  Osborne, C.

  Channon, H.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Page, R. G.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. p.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Cole, Norman

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Conant, Maj, Sir Roger

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Pitt, Miss E. M

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Pott, H. P.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh. W.)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Remnant, Hon. P

  Cunningham, Knox

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Russell, R. S.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Keegan, D.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Shepherd, William

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Kerr, H. W.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Fell, A.

  Kimball, M.

  Speir, R. M.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Kirk, P. M.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lagden, G. W.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Fort, R.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Freeth, D. K.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Taylor, William (Bradford. N.)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Teeling, W.

  Gammans, Sir David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

  Glover, D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Godber, J. B.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Gower, H. R.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Green, A.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Vickers, Miss J. H.

  Grimond, J.

  Maddan, Martin

  Vosper, D. F.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Wade, D. W.

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Gurden, Harold

  Marshall, Douglas

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mathew, R.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Neave, Airey

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Mr. Wakefield a

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Mr. Redmayne.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kenyon, G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bowles, F. G.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mulley, F. W.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Parker, J.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Janner, B.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Coldrick, W.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Peart, T. F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Probert, A. R.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Proctor, W. T.

  550

  551

  Rankin, John

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Reeves, J.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Reid, William

  Warbey, W. N.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Weitzman, D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Mr. Ellis Smithland

  Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  West, D. G.

  Mr. T W Jones

  Question put and agreed to.

  Mr. Ellis Smith: May we, Sir Charles, have these Estimates taken a little slower and the amounts stated, so that we can all hear the millions of pounds which we are voting?
  The Chairman: I beg the Committee's pardon. I thought that the Committee was in rather a hurry to dispose of these items. There are 16 of them. I thought the Committee wished to go quickly, but I shall go slower.

  CLASS IX
  That a sum, not exceeding £31,658,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  2.

  Roads, &c, England and Wales

  31,658,000

  31,658,000

  CLASS X
  That a sum, not exceeding £303,832,840, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—

  £

  1.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  8,388,710

  2.

  Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

  2,848,870

  3.

  War Pensions, &c. (including a Supplementary sum of £610,000)

  57,201,000

  4.

  National Insurance and Family Allowances (Revised sum)

  146,282,000

  5.

  National Assistance Board

  84,126,000

  6.

  Pensions (India, Pakistan and Burma)

  4,206,260

  7.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c

  780,000

  303,832,840

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1956–57
That a sum, not exceeding £237,623,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, viz.:—

£

1.

Customs and Excise

9,826,300

2.

Inland Revenue

25,414,000

3.

Post Office (including a Supplementary sum of £13,385,000)

202,383,000

237,623,300

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan): On a point of Order, Sir Charles. There is a continual muttering beyond the Bar, which makes it very difficult for those of us who are interested in the disposal of these huge sums of money to follow exactly what you are saying. Will you ask the hon. Members beyond the Bar either to be quiet, or to come into the Chamber and sit down and listen to what is going on?
The Chairman: I beg the Committee's pardon, but I have been reading out for so long that my voice is beginning to go. I will try to read a little louder.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1956–57
Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,800,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including an international subscription; and a grant in aid of certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.
The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 31.

Division No. 271.]

AYES

[9.56 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Arbuthnot, John

Baldwin, A. E.

Alport, C. J. M.

Armstrong, C. W.

Balniel, Lord

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Ashton, H.

Barber, Anthony

Barlow, Sir John

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Nicholls, Harmar

Barter, John

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Bidgood, J. C.

Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfd)

Oakshott, H. D.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Bishop,

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Body, R. F.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Osborne, C.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Page, R. G.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Braine, B. R.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Brooman-White R. C.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pott, H. P.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Holt, A. F.

Powell, J. Enoch

Bryan, P,

Hope, Lord John

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Burden, F. F. A.

Hornby, R. P.

Redmayne, M.

Carr, Robert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Channon, H.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Renton, D. L. M.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hurd, A. R.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Cole, Norman

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Iremonger, T. L.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Roper, Sir Harold

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Russell, R. S.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Crouch, R. F.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Cunningham, Knox

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Shepherd, William

Dance, J. C. G.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Davidson, Viscountess

Joseph, Sir Keith

Spearman, Sir Alexander

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Deedes, W. F.

Keegan, D.

Speir, R. M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Kershaw, J. A.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Kimball, M.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Doughty, C, J. A.

Kirk, P. M.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Lagden, G. W.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Leavey, J. A.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Errington, Sir Eric

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Teeling, W.

Erroll, F. J.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Finlay, Graeme

Longden, Gilbert

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

Fisher, Nigel

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Fort, R.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Touche, Sir Gordon

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Freeth, D. K.

McKibbin, A. J.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Gammans, Sir David

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Vosper, D. F.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Walker-Smith, D. C.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

McLean, Nell (Inverness)

Wall, Major Patrick

Glover, D.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Godber, J. B.

Maddan, Martin

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Gough, C. F H.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Whitelaw, W. S. I.(Penrith & Border)

Gower, H. R.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Marshall, Douglas

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Mathew, R.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Maude, Angus

Wood, Hon. R.

Green, A.

Maudling, Rt, Hon. R.

Woollam, John Victor

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mawby, R. L.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Grimond, J.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S, L. C.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Mr. Wakefield and

Gurden, Harold

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Mr. Hughes-Young.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nairn, D. L. S.

NOES

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hale, Leslie

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Awbery S. S.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hunter, A. E.

Sylvester, G. O.

Brockway, A. F.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Watkins, T. E.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

West, D. G.

Burke, W. A.

Monslow, W.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Orbach, M.

Zilliacus, K.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Pargiter, G. A.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Parker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Delargy, H. J.

Probert, A. R.

Mr. Ellis Smith and

Finch, H. J.

Rankin, John

Mr. T. W. Jones

Forman, J, C.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1956–57
That a sum, not exceeding £186,779,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—

£

3.

Medical Establishments and Services

1,703,000

4.

Civilians employed on Fleet Services

8,714,000

5.

Educational Services

1,311,000

7.

Royal Naval Reserves

2,243,000

8.

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance,&c.:-

Section I.—Personnel

41,417,000

Section II—Matériel (Revised sum)

42,425,000

Section III.—Contract Work (Revised sum)

64,838,000

9.

Naval Armaments (Revised sum)

24,128,000

£ 186,779,000

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1956–57
That a sum, not exceeding £196,480,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:—

£

3.

War Office

3,600,000

4.

Civilians

91,340,000

7.

Stores (Revised sum)

88,850,000

9.

Miscellaneous Effective Services

12,690,000

£196,480,000

AIR ESTIMATES, 1956–57
. That a sum, not exceeding £135,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957. for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:—

£

3.

Air Ministry

4,780,000

4.

Civilians at Outstations

35,510,000

5.

Movements

14,250,000

6.

Supplies (Revised sum)

74,150,000

10

Non-Effective Services

7,070,000

135,760,000

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, the sum of £2,474,380,552 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
10.7 p.m.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The first purpose of the Bill, as hon. Members will have seen from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, is to validate past activities of the Colonial Development Corporation. This is in order to make it clear that certain past activities were within the powers of the Corporation as defined in the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948. The second purpose of the Bill is to re-define the functions of the Corporation, including its functions in relation to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
I naturally regret that the necessity has arisen for validating certain activities of the Corporation, but once the necessity had arisen—and I will explain why in a moment—Her Majesty's Government had to consider whether the existing law was sufficiently well-defined to enable the objectives which are behind the setting up of the Colonial Development Corporation to be carried out. This, in turn, led Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the definition of the Corporation's purpose, functions and powers. Hence it is that, in addition to validation, the general aim of the Bill is to re-define the Corporation's functions to bring them into line with what experience has shown to be desirable.
Before I attempt to explain to the House the changes made by the Bill in the Corporation's powers, I should like to make clear how this matter arose in

557
the first place. The House may remember that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained on 18th April that a question was raised towards the end of last year as to whether some of the Corporation's schemes for housing development were within the Corporation's powers as defined in the 1948 Act. Her Majesty's Government brought this to the notice of the Corporation and, meanwhile, withheld further financial advances. The point at issue was one of legal interpretation, and in fact Her Majesty's Government and the Corporation took different views about the interpretation of the Act. My right hon. Friend had therefore to find a means of resolving this difficulty.
One way would have been to go to the courts. I would like to make quite clear at this stage that there have never been doubts in the minds of successive Governments that the Corporation has acted all along in good faith and in accordance with policies accepted by the Government of the day.
The Corporation's first housing loan was for the Federal and Colonial Building Society in Singapore, and was in fact approved by the Labour Government of 1949. Subsequent housing loans to Kenya and Southern Rhodesia showed conclusively that successive Governments believed that housing was within the scope of the Corporation.
Now, if my right hon. Friend had decided to go to the courts to resolve the difficulty we might have found ourselves in a rather peculiar position. Suppose a court action proved that the Government was correct in its view about the illegality of the Corporation's schemes. In that case, since the Corporation had acted in accordance with Government policy, we should still have needed a Bill to validate its past actions; and if the Government had been proved wrong in a court action, we could not be sure that a ruling on specific matters taken to court would cover all other cases which might arise.
My right hon. Friend was naturally most anxious to bring the uncertainty to an end as rapidly as possible, so he decided that the best way was to ask Parliament to validate by an amending Act all the schemes on which doubt had been cast, and to revise the terms of the Act to bring them into line with the
558
requirements of policy, and if possible to prevent further difficulties arising in the future.
Hon. Members will perhaps ask why these difficulties arose so late in the day—why they should have arisen only in 1955, seven years after the setting up of the Corporation under the 1948 Act. Was it because the Colonial Office legal advisers gave faulty advice? Let me make quite clear that there was no question of faulty legal advice having been tendered by my right hon. Friend's legal advisers. In fact, no reason had arisen before last Autumn which seemed to require my right hon. Friend to refer the cases which are now in doubt for legal advice. All previous Governments and Parliament as well, which had had successive Annual Reports before it, had not up to that time been troubled by doubts. Doubts first arose when the details of a particular housing loan of the Corporation's were being examined.
Hon. Members will note that the Bill does not itself state which projects of the Corporation are deemed to be ultra vires. They may therefore want to know which are the schemes on which difficulty has arisen. Her Majesty's Government's view, which, I should state, is not shared by the Corporation, is that all the housing schemes and works contracts schemes could be challenged. The main schemes in question are: The Federal and Colonial Building Society in Singapore and Malaya (approved in December, 1949) with a total investment now amounting to £3·5 million. Housing loan to the Kenya Government of £2 million (approved in February, 1954). Housing loan to Southern Rhodesia of £1 million (approved in April, 1955). Investments totalling £645,000 in the Coast Construction Company Limited in the Gold Coast, and Highways Construction (Nigeria) Limited and Highways Engineering (Nigeria) Limited in Nigeria, approved in 1954 and 1955 respectively.
I feel at this juncture I should disclose an interest, even though it is a very remote one, in the last two companies I have mentioned. Until my present appointment to the Government I was a director of S. Pearson and Sons Limited, which through subsidiary interests owned a 50 per cent. equity interest in Highways Construction (Nigeria) Limited and Highways Engineering

559
(Nigeria) Limited. In fact I took no part in the conduct of the affairs of either of these two companies, but I feel it proper that the House should be made aware of these circumstances.
The list of schemes which I gave to the House just now is not completely exhaustive as my right hon. Friend has not attempted to make a legal inquest of all the Corporation's projects. To do this would, he thought, lead merely to sterile controversy of matters which in any event could be finally settled only by a court decision.
The Bill therefore seeks to re-define the Corporation's powers in such a way as to cover what are believed to be all the desirable activities of the Corporation as shown by experience of the last seven or eight years. In case the new definition does not cover every single scheme which has been undertaken in the past, Clause 1 (3) of the Bill validates all schemes notified in the Corporations' Annual Reports. Schemes which have been approved since the last Annual Report, for 1955, are all of a kind covered by the new powers, so that the general effect of the Bill is to put beyond doubt the legal validity of all the Corporation's approved schemes.
I should now like to go into some detail, if the House will allow me, about re-defining the powers of the Corporation. A great deal of thought has been given to this question in the light of experience gained over the last few years. In the existing Act there is what appears on the face of it to be a simple and succinct definition of the "duty" of the Corporation. It is defined as
"securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects for developing resources of Colonial territories with a view to expansion therein of foodstuffs and raw materials or for other agricultural, industrial, or trade development therein."
This definition has in practice given rise to difficulties of interpretation.
What we have done in the present Bill is to substitute for the rather general definition of the duty of the Corporation a new definition of "purpose" as opposed to "duty", together with a specific list of powers which the Corporation may exercise for that purpose.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Is the difficulty of interpretation of that general purpose of the 1948 Act the reason
560
why there have been differences of opinion about the legality of certain activities of the Corporation?
Mr. Hare: I think that is true. The definition has presented these difficulties in getting legal opinion to agree as to what in fact was the proper purpose or duty of the Corporation. That is why we are substituting this purpose as opposed to duty. I think that, together with the specific list of powers which the Corporation may exercise, we shall be able to be much clearer in our minds about what the Corporation can and cannot do.
I should like to draw hon. Members' particular attention to the new subsection (3) of Clause 1, which lists the specific classes of enterprise in respect of which the Corporation may exercise its powers. Most of these classes of enterprise are already within the present Act, such as agriculture, fisheries, mining, industrial enterprises and the like. The others comprise the basic services and enterprises set out in paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h) and (j) of this subsection.
These activities are to some extent allowed by the 1948 Act, in so far as they are requisite for the projects coming within the Corporation's scope. But since experience has shown that there is room for much difference of opinion about the extent to which a scheme may be requisite to such projects, the Bill simply lists these activities as desirable in themselves for carrying out the Corporation's purpose.
I think I should also refer to what the Corporation has said in paragraph 11 of its Annual Report for 1955. It speaks there of its "Mandate". I should like to quote this paragraph:
"(1) C.D.C. duty is to help economic development of British dependent territories, and in the process to have special regard to the interests of their inhabitants irrespective of race or colour or confession or anything else.
(2) (a) C.D.C. is not responsible for comprehensive planning; nor for social services such as health and education, which are, or should be, financed from C.D. and W. or other Government funds.
(b) Basic services such as power, communications and housing, should be integrated in governmental plans; C.D.C. stands by to help with essential capital development for which finance is not otherwise available.
(3) The terms of reference are commercial; profitability is an essential factor as to choice of job and method of working."
This is, of course, the Corporation's own definition of how it sees its task. I think

561
it not at all a bad definition, and that it is true to say that this description of the Corporation's functions is broadly consistent with the powers conferred by the Bill.
The various classes of enterprise to which I have just referred are, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, helpful in one way or another in providing general economic development in Colonial Territories. Many of them fall within the ordinary sphere of commercial enterprise: others come within the sphere of Government operations financed from loan funds. This does not, of course, mean that there is now a new policy, and that, henceforth, Colonial Governments should look primarily to the Corporation for their loan requirements. It is certainly not the intention that the Corporation should finance all the loan-worthy operations of Governments.
As is stated in the paragraph of the Corporation's Annual Report for 1955, which I have already quoted, the Corporation:
"stands by to help with essential capital development for which the finance is not otherwise available."
It will, as in the past, be for the Government concerned, in consultation with my right hon. Friend, to decide whether they need the Corporation's help in this field, and it would be for the Corporation to decide whether, in a given instance, it could best fulfil its purpose of assisting the Colonial economy by making a loan for which it received a request.
The Bill does not, of course, enable the Corporation to provide resources for promoting what I might call the general social and administrative services of Governments. These are outside the scope of the Corporation.
I should like to make another general point. The specifying of various classes of permissible enterprises does not mean that the Corporation will be obliged to undertake schemes falling within these classes. What the Bill does is to provide the Corporation with a wide field within which it can operate. It must, however, operate flexibly in accordance with its own needs to "break even", taking one year with another.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that under the Bill the ambit of the work of the Corporation is being
562
widened or narrowed? Has he read the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, and the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) in introducing it and the speech made by the then right hon. Member for Bristol, West who supported the Bill and complimented the House on the wide terms in which it was drawn?
Mr. Hare: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was not present in the early part of my speech, when I tried to make it clear that certain difficulties have arisen and that this new Bill will help to make it less likely that there will be legal doubts about what the Corporation should undertake. I think that I have made that fairly clear.
I was saying that the Corporation does need to operate flexibly in accordance with its own need to break even from year to year. I can assure the House that there is no question of Her Majesty's Government laying down in advance what projects should be undertaken. Selection of projects must continue to depend on the opportunities which arise from time to time. Nor does the list of enterprises imply a new emphasis in the Corporation's functions. Long-term commercial projects in national resources development obviously remain an important function of the Corporation. Projects which indirectly assist such development have been undertaken in the past and may still continue to be carried out in the future.
Some hon. Members may ask whether, in view of the wide range of functions now conferred upon the Corporation, it will have the resources to carry out these functions. To this I would say that the redefinition of the Corporation's functions does not itself imply any view as to the total amount of resources that should be made available to the Corporation. This is a matter which must be considered by Her Majesty's Government from time to time in the light of the Corporation's general position.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend permit a question from this side of the House? How does the House of Commons exercise any form of Parliamentary accountability over the expenditure of these funds by the Corporation? Is it intended that they should come within the Select Committee

563
on Nationalised Industries, a Motion for the establishment of which stands on the Order Paper?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer.]
If not, how is the House of Commons to exercise any sort of control?
Mr. Hare: The House of Commons has a control over my right hon. Friend, who is intimately concerned with the working of the Corporation and is accountable to the House for his function in connection with the Colonial Development Corporation.
The last point that I should mention in introducing the Bill is the purpose of Clause 2. This Clause deals with the territorial application of the Corporation's powers. It has never been the intention to bring Southern Rhodesia into the Corporation's scope, but with the advent of federation in Central Africa, certain powers of the Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland Governments were transferred to the Federal Government. In order to prevent these two territories being deprived of the Corporation's assistance in matters transferred to the federal field, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council added "the Federation as a whole" to the list of Colonial territories in which the Corporation might operate. In practice, that has not been found to be a satisfactory statement of Her Majesty's Government's intention.
The Bill, therefore, re-states the position entirely. The Corporation will in future not be empowered to operate in Southern Rhodesia without the specific authority of my right hon. Friend. That authority will be given only in respect of projects or undertakings needed for promoting and expanding enterprises in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland, and when my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it is expedient to do so having regard to the purpose of the Corporation.
This will enable the Corporation to continue to operate in Southern Rhodesia
564
so far as this is necessary as a means of assisting the development of the economies of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I should emphasise that Clause 2 does not represent a change of Government policy, nor does it imply indifference to the needs of Southern Rhodesia. Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities towards Southern Rhodesia are, of course, much less direct than those towards the territories for which my right hon. Friend is responsible to Parliament and other means must be looked to for furthering these responsibilities towards Southern Rhodesia.
Mr. James Johnson: Do we understand that there will be no C.D.C. schemes self-contained in the self-governing Colony or Southern Rhodesia as such?
Mr. Hare: Yes, that is correct; and what is more, every scheme which might take place within Southern Rhodesia must have an emphasis that it is of use and of interest to the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Every scheme will be vetted by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Since this House is not allowed to interfere in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia, if the Corporation gives assistance to any schemes of Southern Rhodesia, will it be within the competence of this House to make comment or criticism upon those schemes?
Mr. Hare: If the scheme has been approved by my right hon. Friend, it can be the subject of comment in this House. I think that is the answer. All these schemes have to be approved by my right hon. Friend. The Colonial Development Corporation remains an instrument for assisting those territories for which Her Majesty's Government have a direct responsibility.
I would now commend the Bill to the House, which will, I hope, agree to its Second Reading. The Bill removes doubts which, if not dealt with, would seriously handicap the excellent work which this House has decided should be carried out by the Colonial Development Corporation to develop the resources of the Colonial Territories. It clarifies the functions and purposes of the Corporation. I hope the House will join with me in thanking Lord Reith and those who work with him in the Corporation for the vital contribution they are making in this

565
field. I hope the Bill will make their task easier, and that we all wish them well.
Mr. John Hynd: I would like to be clear on this part of the powers of the Minister in dealing with matters concerning the Federal Authority in the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the new colonial development work would be transferred to the Federal Authority; it has been frequently ruled from the Table of this House that matters which are within the purview of the Federal Authority are not competent to be raised in the House and that the Minister has no further authority once he has transferred these powers to the Federal Government.
Mr. Hare: I do not think I said anything of the sort. What I said was quite clear. I said that now the Colonial Secretary, my right hon. Friend, would be responsible for approving any scheme which took place in Southern Rhodesia and that any scheme which took place in Southern Rhodesia under the Colonial Development Corporation—which is what we are discussing—would have to be directed to the benefit of the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and that as my right hon. Friend has responsibility in this connection this House would therefore be able to hold him accountable for his decisions.
10.38 p.m.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I should like, first, to protest against the long delay in introducing the Bill, especially in introducing it at the fag-end of the Session, late at night, and leaving us with only one day to put down Amendments for the Committee stage on Friday. It is not good enough that we should be treated in this way.
This has been going on now since last October. There has been no reason why the Bill—if it is necessary at all, which, I must confess, I gravely doubt—could not have been introduced much earlier, at a time when we could give much more attention to it. The Government have wasted the time of the House, both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, with all kinds of stupid Acts which the Government have failed to carry out afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] I could give a whole list of the Acts which occupied the attention of the House for many weary months and
566
which have been sterile on the Statute Book. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which ones?"] Well, "Operation Rescue", for example. Is any Government supporter proud of that now? That occupied the attention of the House for a very long time, and so did the passenger transport question. Yet these very important matters, which affect the welfare of millions of people in our charge, are left to the fag-end of the Session. I want to protest at once against that.
It will be necessary for us to examine the Bill very carefully indeed in Committee on Friday. I hope that the Minister understands that. We are not going to vote against Second Reading, because if there are legal doubts we want them to be cleared up. We quite agree that if the lawyers have disagreed—I am bound to say, with all respect to my legal hon. Friends, that they appear to be anxious to disagree—and there are any legal doubts whatever, we want them to be cleared up.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill not only clarifies but expands the powers of the Colonial Development Corporation he was using the most extraordinary language. Let us have a look at it. It is always common form, in preparing legislation, that if you can find general terms to define the purpose of the legislation that is the most generous and wisest thing to do. If, however, you put into a Bill a catalogue of the powers you are seeking from Parliament, the assumption always is that what you do not put in you are not giving. Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with that? The powers defined in the 1948 Act were in very general terms indeed. They were deliberately so, because it was desired that the Corporation should have the widest possible powers in the work it had to do.
I am not certain of the origin of the legal doubt. It seems to me to have a sinister source. I am not quite sure whether the doubt was not deliberately generated in order to have an excuse to limit the powers of the Corporation. That is what we are doubting in the matter. We know hon. Members opposite have never liked the Corporation. They conducted a mass of misrepresentation all over the country for very many years. They have talked about the money lost in the groundnuts scheme. [HON. MEM-

567
BERS: "Was there not?"] The amount of money lost in the groundnuts scheme was very small compared with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is costing us every year now on the National Debt.
The Chancellor is costing us already about £148 million compared with £38 million lost on the groundnuts scheme. He met his masters the day before yesterday to lose a bit more. I do hope that hon. Members opposite will not talk about the groundnuts scheme, because they are getting their answer in what is now being done. They are getting their answer as well in the by-elections, and they will have a good many more answers like that.
The point I am making is that what we on this side of the House are worried about is that the Government appear to be anxious to define the powers of the Corporation so narrowly. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not correct"] An hon. Member says that that is not correct, but when you define powers by a catalogue you are against what you do not put in. One of the things not put in is the possibility of the Corporation entering into arrangements with Governments, or parties or associations set up by Governments. That is at once a narrowing of the powers of the Corporation. We are, therefore, rather frightened about this aspect of the matter.
It was always intended—I face it quite frankly—by the Labour Government that the Corporation should undertake enterprises in the colonial areas and should manage them; that it should call into existence physical schemes and stay on the ground. But more and more the Corporation has been taking on the form of the finance corporations in Great Britain, lending money at cheap rates to people to exploit colonial possessions and then clearing out. This is what the Corporation has been doing. It has been acting in very much the same way as the two finance corporations established by the Government during the war, the smaller and the larger.
We do not like that. Indeed, hon. Members opposite will find just now that the colonial people themselves will not like it when they get more power, because what is now happening is that the Colonial Development Corporation is being used to find money for companies
568
in order to exploit the low standards of living in the Colonies. We do not like that. It is no good hon. Members opposite denying it. We have an hon. Member sitting just opposite me at present—the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris)—who does the same thing in Tanganyika.
What is the use of hon. Members opposite denying it? One of these days it may be necessary for us to read out a list of hon. Members opposite associated with the Government here and in another place in order to show exactly what is happening in the Colonies. It is nearly time that we had a catalogue of them. The right hon. Member the Minister of State himself, in the course of his speech, had to declare, quite properly, an interest arising out of the operations of the Corporation. It was a quite proper thing to do.
What I am saying to hon. Members opposite is that we are getting rather tired of listening to protests from the other side of the House when charges of this sort are made, and in future when we make them we shall see to it that they are accompanied by chapter and verse—and names as well, if hon Members want them, and dividends- and the rates of wages being paid and the conditions of labour.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: And the salaries they have been drawing.
Mr. Bevan: I am getting rather tired of hon. Members opposite doing this kind of thing.
We on this side of the House are gravely concerned lest this Corporation is diverted from its original purpose, which was not merely to find money for private enterprise—
Mr. Beresford Craddock: Since the right hon. Gentleman seems to be addressing his remarks to me, if I may respectfully say so some of us on this side of the House are getting a bit tired of speeches from right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have had no experience of the Colonies at all.
Mr. Bevan: What is apparently defined as experience of the Colonies is the chance of taking loot from them. In fact, I was not referring to the hon. Member at all. It happens to be a matter of geography that I am where I am and he is where he is. I was involuntarily

569
looking towards him, but I am bound to say that if he objects I will look in a more pleasant direction.
What we on this side of the House are complaining about is that this Corporation is being diverted from its original purpose either by pressure from the Government or by what it considers to be its job into putting up money for private enterprises in the Colonies. I am not saying that there is not a field for attracting private capital for colonial development. It is well known that there is a field for this purpose. In fact, the International Finance Corporation has just been established to recruit capital from different parts of the world to canalise it into undeveloped areas. That is true. Nevertheless, we on this side would like to see some different kind of balance in the matter.
It happens to be a fact—hon. Members oposite must face it when they talk about inexperience; they do not seem able to read the facts as they are today—that in many part of the world, over almost half of mankind, the industrial developments which are taking place, the reconstructions that are going on and the economic progress that is being made, are done under State planning and State direction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Hon. Members opposite should not be so silly. Some of us have been pointing this out for five years.
In India, in Pakistan, in China, in Indonesia, in Indo-China—and in Russia, certainly, so effective has it been that hon. Members opposite are frightened of the consequences. They must face the logic of their own fears. Apparently, apart from any other faults we may have to find and criticisms we may make about the Russian Administration, it is the economic success that hon. Members opposite are frightened about.
We on this side are anxious that we also should establish instruments by which there can be some national planning and State organisation in the dependent territories. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like it, because it does not give them a chance of loot. We shall have to provide hon. Members opposite with a list of what those countries are doing. We shall, in fact—[Interruption.] It is time that hon. Members on the other side learned the truth.
570
We are pointing out that in the Bill and in the activities of the Corporation we are gravely concerned, because what the Corporation is doing is putting money in, assisting the enterprise and then clearing out. That was not the original intention of the Corporation. The original intention was to take the initiative where private enterprise would not take it, to organise projects where private enterprise would not do it—
Mr. Nabarro: Or in conjunction.
Mr. Bevan: Or in conjunction, certainly. I have said that there are circumstances where private capital is required and where it should be helped. I am prepared to stand by that position. What I am saying, however, is that there is now a lack of balance and that the Corporation's activities are not being directed sufficiently towards the other projects contemplated by the 1948 Act. That is my first main point. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the definition of the Corporation's powers as stated in the Bill is any other than a diminution, a contraction and a limitation of the powers of the Corporation.
Neither are we quite satisfied in another connection, because to the extent that the Corporation is more and more indirect in its economic activities the protection for the workpeople contemplated and stated in the 1948 Act is not now sufficient. Where the Corporation itself undertakes enterprises and becomes the direct employer, the 1948 Act is perfectly clear in the obligations that it lays upon the Corporation for the welfare, protection and interest of the workpeople concerned.
We are not satisfied that where the Corporation's interest becomes more and more indirect the workers' interests are sufficiently protected. We are not satisfied at all, and when we come to the Committee stage we shall strive to strengthen the Bill to provide that where the Corporation provides money for any enterprise whatsoever that enterprise shall be obliged to recognise normal trading practices as recognised in this country, and the individuals concerned shall be protected.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: This is very important. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the groundnuts scheme, but in the Kongwa area the wages paid

571
to Africans under the Government scheme varied from 23s. to 30s. a month.
Mr. Bevan: I had left that point ten minutes ago. The hon. Member's cerebration might be a little quicker than that.
I am saying, and apparently hon. Members agree with me, that where money is obtained from the Corporation by private enterprise of any sort whatsoever it is necessary that the enterprise should be able to give the Corporation guarantees about the conditions of employment of the workpeople. I think that that is quite right. We are not at present quite satisfied that the Overseas Development Act, 1948, is clear enough in that respect, as a consequence of the more indirect financing of the Corporation.
There is a further point. We are really worried about the constitutional position of Southern Rhodesia. The Minister of State is quite clear, and I agree with him, in saying that where the Minister does something then the House, of course, controls him. But when he does something in the territory of a sovereign Power what does that control mean? The position of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is peculiar. It is represented as a watcher at the Commonwealth Conference, but it is a sovereign Power.
The Bill makes it possible for the Minister to authorise expenditure by the Corporation in that area, and the Minister said, in moving the Second Reading, that that makes the Minister responsible to us. But how does it make the Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland responsible to us. I think that there is a constitutional hiatus here. We can. of course, say to the Minister what he shall or shall not do, but once he has done it and, as it were, has projected himself into Rhodesia and Nyasaland he cannot do anything more about it. I hope that the point is seized. At the point where the Minister acts, or just before he acts, the House can influence him, stop him or encourage him, but after he has acted, if the action is in the territory of a sovereign State, from that point on we cannot control anything at all about it. Therefore, this is not quite as clear as the Minister was suggesting.
Mr. Graham Page: This is an interesting point, which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to develop one step further. Surely, if the Colonial Development Corporation is running a concern in a sovereign State, whether it be in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland or in the Union of South Africa, the Secretary of State is still responsible for that.
Mr. Bevan: No, that is constitutionally improper. We had an instance of that in Abadan. One can have a concession or a project. One nation can have a project in another nation's territory, but the first nation's writ does not run if the second nation does not want it to run. Indeed, the Minister explained that the different position of Rhodesia and Nyasaland had to be written into this Bill, because unless it was written into the Bill in this way no money could be provided for the Corporation in that area. I think I am constitutionally correct when I say that there is a very great difficulty here, because the Government there, once the project has alighted inside their territory can, in fact, take charge of it.
Mr. Nabarro: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This point, in another context, has come to my notice in the last few weeks. It is a constitutional point. Surely it is true to say that the sovereign State can take a decision if the project is a nationalised project, part of a colonial development project, and it is equally true of a private enterprise project. It is risk capital, be it nationalised capital or private enterprise capital.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is correct. He will agree that I have to deal with the point, because we are making special provision in the Bill.
That brings me to the next point in the development of my argument. What happens to the Development Corporation capital which has been invested in the Colonies which have become independent? For example, the Gold Coast will, we hope, before very long become independent. Has the right hon. Gentleman armed himself with a reply? What happens to the Corporation's activities in the Gold Coast? Are they to be withdrawn—suspended? No new operations can be carried on in the Gold Coast under this Bill, because the only exception made is Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Mr. Page: Under the 1948 Act cannot the C.D.C. carry out projects in any place that was a Colonial Territory at that time?
Mr. Bevan: We are now altering that Act. If the hon. Member is correct, there is no need to make any alteration with respect to Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The reason why it is important is because Rhodesia and Nyasaland are in a different constitutional position from the Colonies.
Mr. Page: Southern Rhodesia was not a Colonial Territory.
Mr. Bevan: I am not putting that point, as the hon. Member will hear if he will listen. The point is that we understand that the Corporation can make no further investments in any area that has become self-governing. That is the first point. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I think it is clear. The second point is, what happens to the investments already made? We should like to have an answer. I do not expect an answer tonight, but we might have one on Friday, because we should like to have it cleared up. When a Colony becomes self-governing something has to be done about the investments made by the Corporation.
I do not suppose that it is a very great difficulty, but we raise it so that we may have clarification on Friday. It is a little late now, and I do not want to keep the House too long, but there are a number of other points that we should like to make. We propose to make them in Committee on Friday when we move our Amendments.
I must say, in conclusion, that we on this side of the House are quite unhappy about the limitation placed upon the Corporation to enter into co-operation with Governments. It may be, for instance, that a Government would establish a corporation of their own—any one of the Colonies. It may be that the Government will say to the Corporation, "Can you become a partner with us in this enterprise?" As we understand, as the Bill is drawn, that would no longer be possible. We think that to be an unnecessary limitation. Where a colonial Government are anxious themselves to raise money for wider purposes, we on this side of the House are agreed that perhaps the Development Corporation
574
should not be the only source by any means from which that Government can raise finance.
Mr. Hare: I think the right hon. Gentleman is getting a little worried, perhaps more worried than he need. Clause 1 (2) gives the Corporation wide powers which it can exercise:
"… either alone or in association with other bodies or persons …"
The words "bodies or persons" include Government and Governmental authorities. That might help the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bevan: In another part of the Bill the limitation with respect to the finances of the Corporation is specifically written in.
I do fundamentally sympathise with the idea that if a colonial Government are to obtain finances outside the purpose of this Bill, it is a good thing that they should get them from some other medium than the Development Corporation. There are other funds available. There is the Colonial Development Fund. Therefore, it would be unwise if the finances desired by colonial Governments should be entirely canalised through this Development Corporation.
I would prefer that there be Government-to-Government relationships in that respect, such as we have, say, with Malta, and are developing more and more with Malta and other Colonial Territories. I am not really quarrelling with the main purpose behind that inhibition. I am asking the Government to look more carefully into whether they have made the proscription too great. Where a colonial Government have set up a body, like a corporation, would it not be possible for this Development Corporation to have financial relationships with that body? That is not clear. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look at this matter before Friday so that, if necessary, the Bill can be amended to make it possible for that to be done.
As I have said, we shall not divide against the Second Reading of the Bill, for the reasons I have given. But I am bound to say that the Government have put far too limited an interpretation on the activities of the Corporation. We would prefer a very much more adventurous spirit.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: There was a good deal of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said with which, strangely, perhaps, I find myself in sympathy, and not least that a matter of this kind has found its way to the House towards the end of a long and arduous Session. Therefore, I hope there will not be any inhibitions tonight upon those of us who wish to express views about colonial development matters and the way in which public funds are to be employed for that desirable purpose.
To what extent are public funds to participate in, and to what extent is private enterprise risk capital to be attracted to, colonial development, with special reference to Africa? I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little "off the beam" when he talked of a supposedly massive scale of investment in the Colonies by the Colonial Development Corporation. That is what he implied, although he did not use those words.
What is the fact of the matter? Under the Act of 1948 there was a limit of £100 million put on the loans issued by the Corporation. Eight years have gone by since then, and the £100 million is not yet exhausted. So we may infer that the rate of investment by the Corporation is perhaps a matter of a few million pounds a year—but certainly not more than £12 million a year, otherwise the £100 million would by this time have been exhausted.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill uses the words:
"the limit of £100 million is not affected by the Bill."
It follows that the scale of investment by the Corporation during the last few years has only been at the rate of a few million pounds per annum. What is the scale of private enterprise investment? I suggest it is fifteen to twenty times as great, in an aggregate sum among all the Colonies.
I do not want to see more investment than is strictly necessary by a nationalised body, such as this Corporation, in colonial development matters. I think it is significant that my right hon. Friend, in his introductory remarks and I wrote down his words—used this sentence, "The Corporation will provide capital for essential development for which finance is not otherwise available." In other words, the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which, in my
576
view, is the correct one, is to ensure that this nationalised body, the Colonial Development Corporation, using public funds, will furnish only the fringe investment for purposes and projects upon which private enterprise cannot, for one reason or another, attract risk capital.
Mr. Bevan: That is the precise definition of the Finance Corporation and, as a result, it acts very conservatively indeed. It even prides itself upon the fact that it makes money. It would be much better if it lost it more intelligently.
Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that I could become involved in a very interesting controversy with the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the big or little finance corporations in Great Britain served that purpose or this during a period of credit squeeze, and in any event, it is the joint stock banks which finance their operations, and it is difficult to judge their efficacy. But to return to the point, it is the Colonial Development Corporation which has contributed only a tiny part of capital development sums in the Colonies since 1948, and that is fringe investment. The great bulk of investment monies has been provided by private enterprise.
The second point, which is one of some substance and importance, was the subject of my intervention during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I hope that there will not be any doubt in any part of the House as to the character of the animal which we are discussing tonight. The Colonial Development Corporation is a nationalised industry. It is as much a nationalised industry as the Central Electricity Authority, except that it happens to be devoting its attentions and energies to overseas territories within the Commonwealth.
How are we in this House to control the expenditure of funds? A lot of words have been bandied about tonight concerning Parliament controlling the sums invested by the Corporation. It seems to me that Parliament does nothing of the sort. I cannot get a Question past the Table about the day-to-day activities of the Corporation, any more than I can ask why a particular sum of money has been spent on the Nantgarw Colliery, in South Wales. I should be ruled out of order if I tried to do so—and" there are few annual debates upon the subject.

577
I ask my right hon. Friend—and this Second Reading debate is the pertinent time to do so—to show how we, in the House of Commons, exercise a proper form of Parliamentary accountability in what is essentially a nationalised industry. Will it come within the purview of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, a Government Motion for the establishment of which stands on the Order Paper of the House of Commons at this moment? I would regard that as a matter of primary importance, because investment by the Corporation in certain circumstances may have a direct bearing upon the activities and development arrangements of our own State industries in Britain.
For example, associated with my words on Parliamentary accountability, perhaps the House will look at Clause 1 (3, c), the words of which are carefully delineated and of very great importance today. They are:
"enterprises for the working or getting of minerals".
That would, of course, be a question of great concern and interest to the National Coal Board in Britain.
Mr. Bevan: And marine mammals.
Mr. Nabarro: There is something about fisheries in another paragraph.
Mr. Bevan: Marine mammals are dealt with in the previous paragraph.
Mr. Nabarro: I had occasion to say, in the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill, on 10th May last, that the question of African coal was now looming large and assuming a special importance in this country. It was not of special importance until the National Coal Board recently published its document called "Investing in Coal", when it became quite evident that this country could not be self-sufficient in coal supplies for any foreseeable time in the future, at least until atomic energy was able to make such a massive contribution as to balance our annual coal budget.
The fact is that we have to continue importing coal on a large scale, and this evening I make no apology for hanging the coal imports position on to this very important paragraph in the Bill. What will the Colonial Development Corporation do about the limitless coal resources in Africa which will serve the purpose of balancing our coal budget in this
578
country as the only available alternative to burning dollar bills every year in hauling coal across the North Atlantic to Britain.
Any hon. Member who thinks that the British coal industry will match the growing energy demands of our economy in the next twenty years is suffering from hallucinations. The energy demands of expanding British industry are such that in a very recent survey it was said that in 1954 the total energy demand of the United Kingdom was 269 million tons of coal and coal equivalent. In 1965, it would be 329 million tons of coal and coal equivalent, an increase of 60 million tons in a period of only ten years. Will we get that extra 60 million tons of coal from British coal mines? Of course not.
Mr. Bevan: The bankers will curtail production long before that. We will not want any coal.
Mr. Nabarro: I should be digressing if I went into matters of that kind.
The fact is that the Coal Board itself, on a very conservative estimate, cannot foresee any sensational advance in coal production. It is estimated—I think reasonably—that ten years hence we shall be getting about as much coal out of our pits as we did this year, namely, 222 million tons. There will be a gap in our energy needs in 1964 of no less than 107 million tons of coal and coal equivalent, which will have to be met by oil, by atomic energy and, to a very small extent, by hydro-electric power.
It could be met by oil and by those other sources of power, providing that the tonnage of oil which comes to the United Kingdom is 150 per cent. higher than it is today. That involves many political considerations in the Middle East, enormous tanker tonnage, and it involves much dollar expenditure and many economic difficulties and problems. Those hon. Members who so often plead that atomic energy will save us within ten years might consider the latest statement of the Atomic Energy Authority to the effect that in 1964, out of 329 million tons of coal and coal equivalent, being the aggregate energy demand in this country, not more than 12 million tons of coal equivalent will come from atomic energy or, in other words, one twenty-seventh part. The only salvation in the period of the next three decades is to develop

579
the sterling area's coal resources as a balancing factor in the United Kingdom's energy demands.
Mr. J. Johnson: Does the hon. Member want to tell the House that it would be a good thing for the C.D.C. to develop Songea coalfield, in Southern Tanganyika, that he is willing for the taxpayers to open up Southern Tanganyika so that he and his friends in the City can invest in Songea coalfield, export coal, and make money from so doing?
Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech in my own way, I will deal with each one of his points. I was making the case that to develop African coal resources we must first establish the market need for the coal and I think that by the figures I have quoted I have established the need.
Whatver our politics, few of us would controvert what the Financial Times said in its leader on 21st July. It was:
"To calculate this budget one can take Dr. Daniel's estimates for maximum fuel requirements. That would give a figure of 329 m. tons of coal equivalent as the need for 1965, as against the 269 m. tons of 1954. Most budgets go on to estimate some increase in coal production. That estimate seems, however, to be unreliable as no such increase has occurred in the last five years. We can therefore assume that there will be 222 m. tons of coal available in 1965, and we can assume that as a constant potential through to 1985. If that figure is correct that would leave in 1965 a gap of 107 m. tons of coal equivalent to be filled from oil and nuclear power."
Out of that 107 million only 12 million tons will come from nuclear energy, leaving 150 per cent. more oil to be transported to this country than we are consuming at present. That is an impossible situation.
I now pass to the question of British African coal resources. It would not be politically or economically practicable today for any single body to promote the large-scale development of African coal resources without regard to the political situation. For instance, who are involved? I was interested in the point about the Central African Territories. There is a nice constitutional point. Members of the Legislatures concerned have recently considered this question.
It is not only a question for Great Britain but also the Central African Federation, and the Union of South Africa, and colonial and dependent terri-
580
tories, because the railway lines to get the coal out of the Rhodesias, for example, would probably have to traverse many territories, including the Mandated territory of South West Africa, which is under the control of the Government of the Union of South Africa.
Also there are Portuguese as well as British interests, in addition to the eternal conflict as to whether the investment is to come from public funds or be furnished by private enterprise. What part has the Colonial Development Corporation to play? It is significant that at long last a Minister of the Crown has recognised the potentialities of African coal resources, and the need to develop them for United Kingdom use.
It is only three weeks ago that the Minister of Fuel and Power announced that an inter-departmental committee would go into the question whether it would represent economic long term investment to bring Southern Nigerian coal, Tanganyikan coal, and Southern Rhodesian coal, to the United Kingdom, and whether there would be a sustained demand in this country for a large quantity of coal were private enterprise risk capital found to develop the necessary transportation system and mine the coal.
That committee is at work. I would like to be told tonight, or on Friday, what are the terms of reference, and which are the Departments. Is it correct that they are the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Transport, and the Foreign Office? They are all interested Departments. I hope that we shall have the report of the inquiry this year, and that it will not drag on for two or three years while we spend vast sums in dollars on American coal. Pari passu with the investigations of this Committee, the Colonial Development Corporation might devote a part of its funds to surveys.
The winning of minerals from Southern Rhodesia, Tanganyika, and Southern Nigeria, and bringing them here, depends on the railway transportation system. I have no doubt that capital could be found from private enterprise sources for this, for it is not only a question of bringing out coal, but countless other raw materials and minerals. What the Development Corporation could do is to

581
survey and finance such surveys from its funds. This would be a most proper purpose to which the Corporation should devote funds.
There have been in the last few years several piecemeal attempts to survey a railway route from Bulawayo, and the Wankie area of Southern Rhodesia to the Atlantic coast, over British territory throughout, terminating at Walvis Bay, but no comprehensive survey has been put together.
What is urgently needed is that the Colonial Development Corporation, with its diversity of interests, should spend money—not a large sum—in the next year or so in surveying these railway routes and making their findings available to private enterprise as well as to our nationalised industries, which would principally benefit by the development of British African mineral resources, notably coal.
No interdepartmental inquiry into African coal resources, no winning of African coal to balance our United Kingdom coal budget, and no surveys of the railways, can succeed unless the Coal Board is prepared to recognise that there is, long-term, a need to import coal into Great Britain, and is prepared to guarantee a market for African coal in the United Kingdom. Unless that market is guaranteed by the State monoply in Britain it will not be possible to attract risk capital for the development of the transportation system of the mines, many of them opencast, many of them drift as well as many deep mines, in these territories.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was one of the first hon. Members to raise this matter of imported coal, long before the crisis? We had a debate in this House, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Opposition and scoffed at my statement that we should have to import coal. I mentioned East African coal at that time, and it was all turned down. I want the hon. Gentleman to consider this: I was told by friends of mine in the coal importing industry that one of the difficulties of importing West African coal is that it will not carry for long distances over sea without the danger of combustion. Anybody who knows anything about coal agrees with that. Is the hon. Member now asking that the Colonial Development Corporation should do all
582
the major research, and that private enterprise should then come in, so that we could socialise the losses and privatise the profits? That is exactly the kind of operation that would arise if we followed the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mr. Nabarro: I am saying that it would not be possible to attract private enterprise risk capital to any of these territories for developing coal resources unless the Coal Board was prepared to guarantee a long-term market in this country, because there is nowhere else that the coal could be sold. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is hardly risk capital."] Of course, "risk capital" is a somewhat generic term. I will not go into that point any further, but will reply to what was said from the benches opposite about the quality of the coal from Africa.
There is every conceivable type of coal in Africa, from lignite and brown coal in Nigeria to the high-quality bituminous coal of Southern Rhodesia, as there is in Britain. With modern methods of firing, there is no coal which cannot successfully be employed for industrial purposes. We deliberately build our power stations today to use coal with the highest possible ash content and of the lowest possible quality. The same thing can apply to African coal. It is infinitely more important to draw imported coal front sterling sources, paid for by sterling with British capital invested rather than continue to rely upon American supplies.
I want to answer the hon. Member who asked: is it my case that the Colonial Development Corporation should sink capital in these ventures? No, all I want the Colonial Development Corporation to do—I would regard this as a very proper function for a Corporation of this kind—is to conduct surveys for the railway routes. I do not think that the hon. Member can really uphold that that would be wasting public money. To conduct surveys of the type I am talking about would be relatively cheap, and if those private concerns successfully invested capital and the coal was brought out, where would 50 per cent. of the profit go? To the British Treasury, in the form of taxation. Therefore, although the cost of the surveys would be relatively small, it would be fundamentally important.
Mr. Bevan: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member is saying. If he will

583
do me the honour of looking at HANSARD he will see that as far back as 1951 I asked for surveys to be made in British territories. In fact, I think the hon. Member will find that a proper geological survey has not even been made of Great Britain yet.
Mr. Nabarro: I agree.
Mr. Bevan: I am connected with the coal industry and I know that one of the inhibiting conditions about guaranteeing the coal market in Great Britain is the fact that the miners themselves are always filled with a sense of foreboding. I do not think that the hon. Member treated me with courtesy when he talked about the economic position. How can we, on the one hand, conduct a financial and commercial policy the object of which is to restrict production all over Britain and, on the other, expect the miners to agree to instructing the Coal Board to import coal from Africa? I am not saying that the hon. Member is wrong, but the two policies do not jell; they do not meet.
Mr. Nabarro: On the contrary, they precisely meet. I will come to that. I claim no prescience for what I am saying this evening. No doubt it has been said many times before, but we have no Parliamentary accountability for these nationalised industries and this is the only opportunity I have had for some time of raising this matter. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member talked about South African coal and transportation surveys years ago. He was in this House twenty-seven years, but I am talking about it this evening. This Bill refers to mineral resources and it is very important that the Colonial Development Corporation should use a part of its funds for those surveys.
I want to talk about the psychology of the right hon. Member. Evidently he was not in the Chamber on 10th May, when I was talking about the British coal industry, and said:
"A further objective is to stimulate the growth of Empire coalmining production, for it can fill a very real need in our requirements during the next few years—and without prejudicing the employment or the position or the wages of a single British coalminer. In fact it would buttress and improve their prospects for the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1465.]
584
The right hon. Member sits for a constituency in a coalmining area and I believe that he was a miner. He knows as well as I do that coal exports today are the most powerful political instrument in Western Europe and elsewhere. He knows equally well that if we brought coal from Africa to this country it would free certain high-grade and quality coals from British mines which could be sold at a very healthy premium abroad and, on balance, greatly assist our payments position overseas. I say without any fear of contradiction that vesting capital in African coal mines would make more secure the position of the British coal miners, not undermine it.
Mr. Hale: I agree with 90 per cent. of what the hon. Member has said. I agree about Parliamentary accountability, both in relation to the Colonial Development Corporation and in relation to the National Coal Board. I think we ought to be able both to attack and to defend them; and we are deprived of the right to do either. But does the hon. Member realise that the very powers he now suggests should be vested in the Colonial Development Corporation are powers which the Bill takes from the Corporation? There is a reference to transport facilities or services, it is true, and ancillaries in Clause 1 (3). There is no mention of roads and railways, and the omission is significant. If he looks at subsection (4), which excludes almost all works from the public services, he will agree, I think, that it appears that the very powers which we all think the Colonial Development Corporation should have are taken away by this Bill.
Mr. Nabarro: I do not know whether the hon. Member is right or not, but, springing from what he has said, may I ask my right hon. Friend two specific questions? If he cannot answer them tonight let him answer them on Friday, when we deal with the remaining stages of the Bill. This is the first question: would it be possible for the Colonial Development Corporation to vest capital sums in surveys for railways to join Southern Rhodesia and the coal resources there to ports on the coast of Southwest Africa, for instance Walvis Bay and other such ports, within the terms of the Bill? I emphasise that I am talking about railway and port surveys.

585
Secondly, arising from the intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), would it be possible, within the terms of the Bill and the provisions delineated in Clause 1, for the Corporation directly to invest in the construction, the building and the operation of those railways, either as the sole investor or as an investor pari passu with private enterprise, or in any other way? Let us have that doubt cleared up.
I do not wish to pursue these arguments any further at this late hour. All I am pleading for is a realisation that the Colonial Development Corporation, as a nationalised industry—and it is that—has a very important rôle to play in the provision of those marginal tonnages of coal year by year which we are to purchase at such a high cost from dollar sources and which, with energy and vision on the part of the Corporation, supported by the British Government, with a guaranteed market in this country for the marginal supplies of coal, could, in my view, wholly be drawn from British African sources.
11.33 p.m.
Mr. John Dugdale: I am very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has made such a speech, because he has made it abundantly clear what his party thinks about the Colonial Development Corporation. When the idea of the Corporation was first introduced, plainly they did not like it at all. Then they had the though that it might be useful as something to help private enterprise and as something to do the jobs which private enterprise had not done. They believed they would find it particularly useful, because if the Colonial Development Corporation should make a loss anywhere they could point to it and say, "This is what happens when you set up a public corporation. It makes a loss. Private enterprise does not make a loss".
If the Corporation does all this work, then what is euphemistically called risk capital has a better chance. In other words, the Corporation is to undertake the greatest risks and take on all the most difficult occupations and the others are to be left for private enterprise.
I am glad that the hon. Member spoke, for another reason. I think the
586
Government misjudged the House this time. They thought, "Here is a little Bill which does not matter very much; it is just this silly Corporation which we do not treat seriously. We will bring in a little Bill and get it through in the middle of the night, with a little Committee stage on Friday when we think not many hon. Members will be present".
They have found that this has not happened. They have found that hon. Members are concerned about it. I should like to join in the protest made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that this practice has been followed, and I hope to join with him and others in considering at very great length on Friday the considerable details in the Bill and, indeed, the principles, and in examining at some length what the Colonial Development Corporation has achieved and in some respects has failed to achieve—and why it has failed to achieve them in certain cases.
While I would like to reserve most of my remarks for Friday, there is one thing which I wish to say tonight. As my right hon. Friend has said, the Corporation began by being a Corporation to develop certain industries in the Colonies. It has now become a finance corporation. So much is this the case that if one looks at the schemes in the Report of the Corporation, one finds that more than half the money that is now, to use a term frequently used by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, "at risk" by the Colonial Development Corporation is either invested in co-operation with a private concern which is managing it or is on loan to a private or public corporation. Therefore, less than half the money is going to industries which are run by the Colonial Development Corporation to develop the Colonies.
That is not at all what was meant originally. We have drifted very far from the original purpose of the Corporation. For that reason, if for no other, we hope, on Friday, to give the Bill our most detailed consideration. I think that the Government will find that when that consideration is given, it is not such a simple little proposition as they thought and that this House attaches much more importance to the Corporation than they had supposed.
11.37 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: It is extremely difficult to discuss the Bill without getting on to Committee points, but I will endeavour to keep as general as possible in my remarks. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I had looked at the Bill to see whether it would enable us to develop the coal resources of Africa. I came up against a number of points in the Bill which seemed to raise difficulty in that one score. That led me to consider what difficulties the Bill might put in the way of the Colonial Development Corporation in other matters.
I assure hon. Members who have spoken from the other side of the House, and who seem to think that the Colonial Development Corporation is their baby and the enemy of everybody on this side, that there are many of us on these benches who regard the C.D.C. with very great respect in the way that it is at present being run. We do not look on it merely as a Corporation to develop for the purpose of private enterprise. It is carrying out some very sound schemes for the great benefit of colonial peoples.
Like the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), I am worried lest the specific wording of the Bill might reduce the powers of the Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of whether the Corporation can, in future, combine with Government authorities. In the 1948 Act that was specifically mentioned, and the absence of it in the Bill makes one wonder whether there is any point in that.
A number of schemes are being carried out at present by the Corporation in cooperation with Governments and Government authorities. The Southern Rhodesia African housing has already been mentioned. The Rhodesian Government is in on that. There is Chilanga Cement, Ltd., in Northern Rhodesia. There are several schemes in Jamaica, the Falkland Isles and British Honduras, in all of which the Governments of those areas are taking part, and hon. Members will know of the proposed Kariba Dam, in which Governments and the Corporation and others are taking part. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that that sort of scheme will not be prevented by the Bill.
I am a little worried about the position where the Colonial Development Cor-
588
poration is undertaking schemes outside a Colony for the benefit of that Colony. May I come back to the African coal? There are at least three mining areas in West and Central Africa which could provide us with all the coal which we are now importing from America They could provide us with coal of as good and in many cases better quality than that imported coal. I have carefully checked their calorific values and ash content. We could obtain coal from the Tanganyika mines, the Southern Rhodesia mines and the Witbank coalfields—in that last case by building a railway through Swaziland.
There are three schemes which in each case involve more than one Colony, and if the C.D.C. is carrying on one project in more than one Colony it seems to me, from the wording of the Bill, that there will be difficulty in extending its work to carry out the project in full. In Tanganyika, the C.D.C. is developing the coal mines. It has to take coal along the existing railways whereas there is a short cut to the East coast, namely, to the port of Mtwara. There is a railway already built 200 miles or so inland. All that is needed is to join up that railway with the mines Will the Bill enable the Corporation to develop that railway?
One immediately thinks of the projected railway which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster mentioned, from Wankie across Bechuanaland, across South-West Africa and out at Walvis Bay. Again, that would not be one project because the railway across Bechuanaland would develop all the cattle ranching in that area. There are C.D.C. projects for ranching in Bechuanaland and tremendous developments can go on there. It would allow all that country to develop, but, from the wording of the Bill, I wonder whether we shall be up against the difficulties which we have come up against with the legal interpretation of the 1948 Act.
If, as another example, the railway were built by the C.D.C. through Swaziland it would enable development of a great number of different types of projects in that country, and it might be advisable to set up a marketing board of some sort in the Union of South Africa. I do not think that under the Bill the C.D.C. would have the power to do that. That is why I was pressing the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale

589
as to whether, if there were a project in a sovereign State like the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland we should have control over it from here.
Mr. Bevan: There is an obvious intention to get over some of the difficulties in Clause 1 (5), which refers to the Secretary of State being able to sanction a project where it is necessary to communicate with several Colonies to carry out an enterprise of the classes referred to in subsection (3, f). But the great difficulty, to which I hope the Government will address themselves, is that these definitions are by themselves not inclusive, but exclusive. We should really look at this matter again.
Mr. Page: I am not going into the wording in detail, but I have studied them. The points which I am making arise from the actual wording of the Bill. There are a number of other points of a similar kind.
Now, may I ask a question about that part of the Bill which deals with Southern Rhodesia? As far as I understand, it validates existing agreements only, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is some need for further development. Has that been the principle on which the C.D.C. has decided up to the present? Surely it has not been on the basis of need or necessity for development.
There is no need, one might say, ever to develop. We can stay as we are. It is a question whether it is beneficial, desirable, advantageous or convenient. Cannot we use some such phrase rather than the word "need"? It seems to me that it is changing the whole emphasis of the C.D.C. projects.
In connection with Southern Rhodesia, there arises the point raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. What happens when a Colony gets self-government? I intervened at that stage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech because the C.D.C. has the power legally to go on developing in that Colony even though it has obtained self-government, for the simple reason that it was given the power to carry out projects anywhere in a Colonial Territory which was a Colonial Territory at the date of the 1948 Act, no matter whether that Colonial Territory becomes a self-governing territory or even an independent nation afterwards. There would have to be a
590
Statute to amend that position. No doubt there is some policy about this. If the Minister can indicate what will be the policy when Colonies such as the Gold Coast become independent, it would be a great help in considering the Bill.
One can best consider this Bill by taking specific projects and seeing whether there will be difficulty over them. The specific project in which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster are keenly interested is the development of the African coal mines and African railways. I do not speak theoretically here, because during the Whitsun Recess I was in Africa and went down mines there. I saw the type of coal that could be brought up. I saw the very good amenities for native labour there and the extremely good way in which they are treated. I can assure hon. Members that there is no need for our coal miners to be afraid of sweated labour and under-cutting from there. These are the activities we want to develop, and we want to ensure that the Bill does not stop us developing them.
11.48 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) talked about African coal. Tanganyika is an excellent case in point, and what he said showed the difference between the two sides of the House. We have surveyed the Tanganyika line from Nachingwea, which he probably knows, on to Limesu Jol and to Songea, and it will cost about £22 million. Who is to find that money? There is the difference.
On the opposite side of the House they want C.D.C. money, taxpayers' money, to open up the hinterland and to enable future economic exploitation to take place preferably by capitalist or private money. We on these benches say that it would be much better that we should have a C.D.C. coalfield there, with public money, so that if and when we have a black State, and a black Government in Tanganyika, an African Government, there will be much easier conditions for handing over to the Africans these assets which we hope to develop on their behalf. That is the difference between us.
When I look at the Bill and at the whole tendency of the workings of the Corporation since the party opposite came into power, I see that not merely has the

591
Corporation become a finance corporation simply lending taxpayers' money as a bank would do in the City of London, on advantageous terms, but even more significant to me is that we are having less and less emphasis on schemes of economic development and we are having more and more money put into communications, to open up the hinterland for capitalist development. Why have a Bill like this at all? It is stated that it is to make valid activities of the Corporation which have been deemed invalid by some lawyers. What are these activities? They are not schemes of economic development: they are schemes such as roads in North Nigeria, where I was a few months ago. I never thought, and I do not think Mr. Oliver Stanley thought, that the moneys here voted were to be used for roads in North Nigeria for cocoa farmers or other farmers. That is development and welfare which should be done through the colonial development and welfare funds.
More and more, as the years go on, the party opposite, who never liked the Colonial Development Corporation, are wishing to make more of its activities go into development and welfare. They have attacked the Corporation since it began and would like to abolish it if they could and have the money spent on opening up the hinterland, on roads, railways, docks and harbours, to provide the framework for capitalist enterprise. That is their philosophy.
So we have this Bill to validate these non-economic activities. What did the Minister say earlier?—that when he was drafting this Bill he finds he must use the words "re-defines the functions of the Corporation" in the light of his experience in the last two years; and he goes on to list the activities.
We are not happy when the taxpayers' money goes into activities, which should be development and welfare activities, enabling the City of London and other interests to go in and develop purely economic activities.
11.54 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I do not wish to detain the House, particularly as some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be nearly asleep. We are not going to divide the House, so they could go
592
home if they wanted to. I am sorry the Patronage Secretary wants to keep them here.
I protest that we are having to discuss this important subject after ten o'clock and have to rush through the remaining stages of the Bill. Before we conclude tonight, perhaps we could be told whether the Government hope to conclude proceedings in another place before the Recess. Is it hoped to obtain the Royal Assent before the Recess, or is the Corporation to have to wait until we return, probably towards the end of October, before it can proceed with these projects, which have already been held up for many months?
I have been asking questions about the Bill for weeks past, and I cannot understand why it has taken so long to produce it when the facts were brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government last autumn. It is not as though the Bill, as we now have it, is a masterpiece of drafting. In fact, as my right hon. Friend has indicated, some of us are very much concerned that a Bill of this kind has been brought forward, which we believe will add considerably to the possibility of complexities in the future, instead of avoiding the sort of situation which is arising owing to the differing interpretations of the existing Act.
This is one of the very few occasions we have of discussing the work of the Corporation, and during this time some extremely important matters have been touched upon. None of us complain about the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) riding his hobby-horse.
Mr. Nabarro: Which one?
Mrs. White: Coal production. He rode it at some length, but perfectly germanely. There are many points which the right hon. Gentleman should have discussed. There is the whole question which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has touched upon. How far should the Corporation undertake work such as housing? As far as we can tell from the Bill, it is housing in general with which it is concerned; not that which is directly ancillary to some other project.
In its last annual report the Corporation suggests that it should not be responsible for social services, such as health and education, but for basic services, in which it includes housing.

593
Housing may raise all kinds of social problems and decisions as to social policy of one sort or another, and it is particularly difficult in a territory such as Southern Rhodesia, which carries out certain policies with which many of us—at least on this side of the House—find ourselves out of sympathy. Yet we are being asked to vote money for housing projects in that territory, over which, as my right hon. Friend has indicated, once we have agreed we then apparently have no further say in the matter, because the houses are put up in the territory of a self-governing country. I am speaking now of Southern Rhodesia and not the Federation as a whole, which is not in the same position.
Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Lady is quite right. My major point was that even if they were not in Southern Rhodesia the Table would not let us get a Question through on these topics because this is a nationalised industry.
Mrs. White: I am not perfectly clear from the wording of the Bill whether any future housing projects in Southern Rhodesia would be permissible. It is not very clear. That is a point which the right hon. Gentleman might clear up.
We surely ought to have a discussion as to the relationship of these two separate funds—the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund and the Colonial Development Corporation, because it seems as though the Corporation is being discouraged from carrying out the kind of projects which were certainly envisaged when it was first set up, and it is possibly seeking what we might call a soft option from its point of view, in putting money into social development which is extremely important and desirable. We none of us dispute that for a moment. What we are asking is whether this is the purpose for which the Corporation was established, and ought it not to be using these funds for economic development and enterprises, in the sense which we thought it was intended to cover? That is something which we certainly ought to have an opportunity of discussing, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to say something about it.
Then there is the question of those countries which are approaching self-government. As I understand it, Section 19 of the 1948 Act is left untouched
594
as far as Colonial Territories and the definition thereof are concerned. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was not quite right in what he said, because it is the countries which were Colonial Territories in 1940 which are still covered by the Bill.
Is the C.D.C. necessarily the best vehicle for disbursing the funds when a territory has reached self-government? I am not speaking now of projects already started before the date of independence. Should we not consider some other method of finance, Government loans for example, which could then be used directly by the Governments concerned? Would not that be a more desirable way of dealing with self-governing territories? I am not saying that that is necessarily so, but we should discuss it, because we are approaching that sort of situation, certainly with the Gold Coast.
There are various matters of this kind which we should discuss at greater length, but one hesitates to do so now when it is already midnight. There is the whole subject of railway development which, very properly, has been raised. On this side of the House we consider that where railway development is required it should not be undertaken entirely by private enterprise. We are not at all satisfied that public enterprise should conduct a survey and then leave it entirely to private enterprise to carry on—and those considerations also apply to mineral exploitation. We believe that there should be some public participation—not necessarily 100 per cent. by any means—but some kind of partnership.
I am not clear about the C.D.C.'s attitude. Railways are mentioned as one of the things which the Corporation can undertake. On page four of the Corporation's Annual Report there is a reference to the Usutu Forests where transport facilities are needed which it is not the Corporation's job to provide. That is an extremely important project. If the Corporation is seriously to undertake railway construction, which is very expensive, will £100 million be enough and, if not, what have the Government in mind? Will they come to the House again?
Those are matters about which we should be informed. This might have been an opportunity for discussing other financial matters to which the latest

595
Report of the Corporation refers. One such topic is the Special Loss Account. I am not certain whether legislation would have been needed to deal with that matter, but this was an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to it, because it is part of the general policy of the Corporation and is very important.
Apart from all those major issues, there is the form of the Bill. On Friday we hope to deal with that in greater detail. Far from clearing up doubts and ambiguities, for a lay person the Bill creates them. For everyone which it clears up, it creates at least another dozen.
Mr. Hale: Deliberately.
Mrs. White: Anyone looking at Clause 1 (3) must ask himself what was the aim of the draftsman. What was he trying to do? Was he trying to make things more and more difficult for the Corporation and provide endless employment for the legal fraternity? Once there is a beginning to cataloguing and an indication of which matters are included, by implication matters which are not specifically mentioned are excluded. In almost every one of the paragraphs (a) to (j) in that subsection I can think of something which has been omitted and which might have been inserted. I will spare the right hon. Gentleman the list of what I have in mind. He will get most of it on Friday. I will give him one, however.
We were interested in the special reference to marine mammals. That, I think, means whales, and may include dolphins. What happens if in one territory it might be desirable to establish a cannery for turtle soup. Turtle is not included in this list under fish or under marine mammals. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is taking powers which would include the possibility of canning this soup, or processing tortoise-shell and so on. There is mention of water, electricity and gas, but no mention of nuclear energy, which might come in. One can do something in, on and over the water, but what about under it?
I have given some examples which might be thought comical; but once one begins to legislate in this fashion, trying to include a detailed list of possible activities or projects, one comes up against the difficulty that one is almost
596
bound to have left out something. One cannot foresee everything. It is better and wiser, as one of my hon. Friends said, to have a much more general definition. If the definition included in the 1948 Act was not adequate, I believe that in three or four lines it could have been extended to cover the kind of work which the Corporation was intended to do. I conclude as I began, with a protest that we have to discuss the Bill at this time of the night, and with the promise that we shall bring a great many important points to the Minister's attention on Friday.
12.7 a.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I personally have agreed with almost every thing said by two hon. Members who spoke from the back benches opposite. I agreed with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on the whole question of accountability to Parliament, and I believe that it is good that we should be able to question matters. It is a good thing for the corporations. Corporations which have had some years of experience would welcome the change, because the House now cannot criticise a corporation, and it cannot defend it from attacks which often are unjust. I read through the hon. Gentleman's speech in the National Coal Board debate. I think I agreed with him there, especially about the psychological effect of taking large houses for colliery managers and expecting the miners to work harder in those areas. These are matters on which we ought to be able to question the National Coal Board, as other authorities for which we are responsible. That, in my view, is the essence of Parliamentary government and democracy.
I also agreed with the hon. Member who spoke afterwards. The doubts which he expressed are clearly certainties. It is clear that the Colonial Development Corporation thinks so too. It does not believe that the Bill is being introduced to extend its operations, or to define them. It makes clear that it believes that the Bill is being introduced to restrict its operations, and to cut away all the nonprofit making operations which may be necessary. I am sorry to say that I rather disagree with some points put from this side of the House. I may have misunderstood them because of the way they were put. The point about big corporations

597
having to shoulder the losses of an industry while private enterprise reaps the profits is fair in relation to transport in this country.
I do not believe that it is relevant to Africa, because the problem there is that there is an immense amount of background expenditure which is essential and which can never bring in a profit. If we are to double resources there and give the population a reasonable chance of a livelihood, there is much expenditure which cannot be profit-making and which individual small countries cannot undertake on their own.
If it be a question of saying, "This is a matter for special credits and loans," I have no conflict with my hon. Friends. I hope that we should never visualise the Colonial Development Corporation as primarily a profit-making body.
Mr. J. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the C.D.C. cannot carry out its functions of opening up backward areas in the hinterland of the African Continent unless it operates on a commercial basis? It cannot open up a continent upon a deficit.
Mr. Hale: That is the point I was coming to. It never has done. In point of fact it has just had to write off a very great deal of expenditure, and not all of that money was wasted. Much remains as intangible assets. I am not here to criticise the C.D.C. I do not like its Report. I never know why the Report is published in pidgin English and why the Corporation, which handles hundreds of thousands of pounds, should economise in commas and so make the reading of the Report extremely difficult. Swinburne used to talk about the
"… lilies and languors of virtue
For the raptures and roses of vice"—
Nowadays we shall be talking about the
"… zebra and mink of virtue,
and the commas and colons of vice,"
which are being abjured.
Nevertheless, the Report is an impressive document. Once it has been translated into English and has become intelligible it is worth reading. No corporation has ever published a more forthright condemnation of the activities of the Minister responsible for its creation and running than appears in this latest White Paper issued by the C.D.C. It gives details of many of the activities that have been carried out in the Colonial Territories.
598
I was present at the 1948 debate; I remember it well, as we all do, with a certain amount of grief. Hopes were engendered, and the Bill was accepted willingly by the House when it was presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), who was then Minister of Food.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not state the financial provisions correctly. The Bill provided that the Corporation should not have outstanding at any one time more than £100 million. That was optimistic. As one £100 million was paid off, another could be commenced. Then we provided another £50 million on the same basis for the Overseas Food Corporation. All the speakers welcomed the Bill as a very great gesture.
The Speaker from the Front Opposition Bench was the then right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley). No one could have spoken from the other benches with greater authority on the Colonies, and no one was listened to with greater respect. He put the point, which I myself would certainly have wished to put had I been called. He criticised the Minister and said, "You are talking rather large about using this development corporation for producing the needs of Western Europe and America. Surely one of the objects must be to produce the needs of the Colonial Territories themselves."
It could be said that if we were taking up the soil of Africa to get at the copper to make use of it in Washington and London, some benefit would go in the wages paid to the workmen, but most of us know that unless there is a planned economy, with the development of large-scale new industries, a poorer area creates its own problems of local inflation, of social services, and of unrequited demand. The Government must see to it that there are consumer goods to develop purchasing power so as to give it practical value. We could never contemplate industrial development merely in terms of digging up the soil, getting at the minerals, paying the wages and bringing the minerals over here.
The prime need and the prime duty of a Colonial Development Corporation should be to develop projects which are in the interests of the Colonies themselves. It is to that extent that—I do not say there is any disagreement, because I know

599
how my hon. Friends think; but I disagree with what I thought was the implication of the words they used. I would say it is the duty of the Colonial Development Corporation and should be within the powers of the Colonial Development Corporation to be able to develop background expenditure, to make roads and railways and provide the necessary ancillary services to industrial undertakings, to stimulate local farming and local enterprise of every kind and the first consideration should not be profit but utility.
I hesitate to put forward any Socialist doctrine in this House because it is becoming rather non-political, but the fundamental thesis of Socialism I was taught, economically speaking, is that goods should be produced for use, not profit. It was not that profit was an evil thing. It was never that it was necessarily a bad thing, but the motive should be that someone needed those goods. We should be making goods in the Colonies because there is a pent up demand—not what we call an economic demand and that a number of people could pay for them, but that they needed things of which they were deprived and which our endeavours could enable them to get.
It may be fairly said that the Act of 1948 did not go far enough in that respect, but the Act of 1948 was a very widely phrased Act. I think I am correct in saying that no question was raised on this when that Measure was going through Committee. I am not going to weary the House by quoting it in detail, but it provided for
"carrying out of projects for developing resources of colonial territories with a view to the expansion of production therein of foodstuffs and raw materials, or for agricultural, industrial or trade development therein."
and went on in a Clause to say that it could engage in all activities to produce that purpose. I should have thought there was nothing much clearer than that.
I do not want to be dishonest about this nor to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some regard in this matter. It is clear that there is something in the point made about building societies. I do not think anyone thought the Corporation would develop building societies. This whole story started last October and resulted in counsel's opinion being taken by the Govern-
600
ment and the Colonial Development Corporation. Those hon. Members who have not had time to consult the White Paper might like me to refresh their memories about it. Lord Reith, to whom the Minister has paid such extravagant—not extravagant but generous, fair and appropriate commendation—I do not dissent from it at all—might feel there was a certain sardonic implication in these words of compliment coming from a Bill which is designed to restrict his powers. Lord Reith says the Colonial Development Corporation
"has been of help to territories urgently needing houses and roads for development; many governments have these high on their priority list;
(b) the fine record of Federal and Colonial Building Society in Singapore and Malaya, and loans for African housing to Kenya and Southern Rhodesia stimulated proposals for similar loans for Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and for a building society in Lagos;"
That is in paragraph 12 of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts up to 31st December last. That is a pleasant enough statement. Whether it was strictly within the ambit of the Corporation's duties to finance building societies I do not know but I should have thought that anything which tended to the building of houses for workers in the Colonies would be a good and useful thing to do.
"(d) about £7·5 million is contractually involved … But in October C.D.C. was informed that the Overseas Resources Development Act was now so interpreted that all these projects (severally approved by successive Secretaries of State) were ultra vires; they were not 'projects' as in 1 (1) of the Act; neither were a number of proposals which C.D.C. was considering;
(b) C.D.C. consequently has in effect had to default on both legal and moral engagements (see 1 (d) above);
(c) having taken legal advice and consulted eminent counsel, C.D.C. declined to accept the official legal view."
I do not think I have ever seen a public document issued by a Corporation, an instrument of the Government, with a more forthright criticism of the Government than that. They say, "We do not believe a word of it. We have ourselves had counsel's opinion. We do not believe this is necessary". I challenge the Minister, except in relation to this single facet of the matter—building societies, on which there may be a case, although I am not arguing it—to produce, in relation to roads and other matters, the words of any

601
opinion which says that there is any doubt about the matter. I should have thought that the Act was clear.
There is no one present who can read the Bill now presented to us and say that it makes the position clearer. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), to whom I always listen with respect, thought that railways were included in transport facilities and that subsection (7) applied to subsection (3). If we want to include railways, why not say "roads, railways and other transport facilities"? Why ally one thing with another and say that this is in relation to certain enterprises only? Who is now to interpret what the Bill means? Nobody knows.
One Clause of the Bill is very serious indeed. Let us see what the Government are saying. C.D.C. can build hotels. It can go into a Colony, which has nowhere for its people to live; it can go into Kenya for instance and, if it has permission, it can build a hotel in an area such as Nairobi which has 10,000 people homeless every night. But it cannot build schools or colleges or hospitals and it cannot build Government offices or other buildings for the public service. All that is specifically excluded by subsection (4) and none of it was excluded by the words of the 1948 Act—and that is why this is a contemptible Measure.
I say frankly that the Government may have been wise to bring the Bill forward at 9.30 at night, however contemptuous it is of the House and however much an invasion of the rights of the minority. Had they brought it forward at the ordinary time a great deal more would have been said about it.
This is part of a system which forces the C.D.C. to make loans for the building of houses for workers in the Colonies and then pushes rates up so much by the Government's financial policy that they are faced with a burden which they cannot carry. It has forced the Corporation to enter into contracts with various Companies which it has had virtually to repudiate. It has forced it, as the Corporation itself says, to default not only on its financial but also on its moral obligations.
This policy was completely supplemented and exposed by the speech of a junior Minister for Foreign Affairs at the United Nations meeting yesterday when he attacked the expenditure of the
602
Specialised Agencies of the United Nations, one of which, the International Children's Emergency Fund, is doing some of the noblest work in our Colonial Territories that any fund could do. This is a fund to which this Government gives less than it gives to Covent Garden Opera House each year—£200,000—for the whole work of saving the children of the world. Having given this miserable sum, which has exposed us to humiliation and contempt throughout the word, which puts Britain about 15th or 16th on the list, the representative of our Government says, "We want to know how carefully you are spending the money because you are spending too much."
This is economics gone wild. We are to cut down on the Colonies. Had we spent this money in Kenya in 1948, 1949 and 1950, how many millions should we have saved?
Had we done the work of winning the confidence of the people of Africa, how much good will should we have got. Had we been building up the standard of life, I would not see people out of work in Oldham today. We would have our share in that prosperity. We are deliberately diminishing these markets and depriving ourselves of trade and we are losing the confidence of the people, and all this to gratify the most fantastic economic policy that has ever been formulated by any Government and one which has consistently failed to produce the results that the Government have forecast.
12.26 a.m.
Mr. Hare: I always listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who is extremely eloquent, although, unfortunately, I cannot always agree with what he says. Both he and the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) protested against the fact that the Bill was brought in at a late hour at the end of a Session. Naturally, I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have wasted all their time in carrying through legislation which was not necessary, but I appreciate very much the courtesy of the Opposition in agreeing that the Bill should be taken at this hour and that we should be having the Committee stage only two days after the Second Reading of the Bill. I very much appreciate the co-operation of the Opposition in agreeing to this.

603
The real difference which seems to have divided our approach to this matter has been the Opposition have said that we are curtailing the powers of the Corporation under the 1948 Act. I am sure that hon. Members opposite sincerely mean what they say, but I should like to assure them that the whole object of our bringing in the Bill was not to curtail and restrict the activities of the Corporation, but to widen its activities.
As I tried to explain in moving the Second Reading, serious doubt arose concerning some of the excellent housing schemes, which I am sure the hon. Member for Oldham, West would not wish to stop. There was serious legal doubt as to whether the Corporation was justified, by the powers given to it by Parliament, in carrying out that work. Therefore, our whole object has been to try to increase the powers of the Corporation, and not to restrict them.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and a number of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), have criticised our technique of trying to carry out this object, saying that it was wrong to try to tabulate large numbers of activities, and so on. Everybody has a right to an opinion. All I ask the House to accept is that our object is not to restrict, but to make the functions and activities of the Corporation more easy to carry out and on a more generous basis. Therefore, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we certainly did not invent any of the legal doubts, as he suggested.
Mr. Bevan: Where did they arise? Did they arise inside the Colonial Office? Who produced them?
Mr. Hare: Our first doubts arose when it was the function of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to discuss and examine a particular housing project which the Corporation had submitted. In examining it, these doubts arose in the minds of my right hon. Friend's advisers.
Mr. Bevan: From what we now gather, all that would have been necessary was a very short Bill to put in housing.
Mr. Hare: No; that is not our view. We would not have bothered the House with a long Bill had that been all that was necessary. As I tried to explain in
604
opening the debate, we felt that this action was necessary to remove the doubts and to widen the scope and power of the Corporation.
Nothing in the 1948 Act itself clearly authorises us, and since it was a matter of opinion whether these general housing projects could be carried out it was necessary for us to do this.
I believe that it was the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) who asked whether the amount of resources available to the Corporation were sufficient. That hardly comes within the scope of the Bill. The question of increasing the £100 million limit was raised recently and is being considered by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Dugdale: I did not happen to raise that point, but if the Secretary of State is considering some measure to deal with this problem, why could he not have introduced it in this Bill? Is it not an extraordinary sign of incompetence to have to introduce two Bills?
Mr. Hare: I disagree. Considerable thought has been given to this matter. We do not want the Corporation to have to go on operating limited as it is, for instance, in the important matter of housing. Therefore it was necessary to have the Bill so that these doubts should be cleared up.
A number of points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and a general wish has been expressed that these should be brought up in Committee on Friday. I do not wish to show any discourtesy to the House in not taking up these points in detail now, but I assure hon. Members that we shall give them every consideration in Committee.
Mr. Hale: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has discussed this matter with the Corporation. Is the Corporation satisfied that the Bill gives it all the powers that it desires to have?
Mr. Hare: Who is ever satisfied that everything is perfect in this world. I wish the hon. Member to realise that it is our honest intention to make things easier for the Corporation, and the Bill is designed to widen its powers and not to narrow them.
Mr. Bevan: If the Corporation has disagreed with the Government about the interpretation of its powers, is the

605
right hon. Gentleman now able to give us a precise assurance that, apart from the housing associations, the Corporation agrees that the Bill extends its powers?
Mr. Hare: I cannot give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman. Lawyers very often have to disagree, and I am not saying which side is right. But as long as there were doubts—and throughout the debate I have repeatedly used the words "doubts"—we thought that the Bill was necessary. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of the debate that he was prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading shows that he is not in such disagreement with me as he indicated at certain stages of the debate.
Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman has tried to make out that this was a question of just legal technicalities, but does the Corporation believe that it will have the powers it thinks necessary and will have more powers than it had before?
Mr. Hare: I am speaking for Her Majesty's Government and addressing myself to a Bill put forward by Her Majesty's Government. We believe that the Bill will remove the doubts under which the Corporation has been working and will widen its powers.
Mr. Hugh Delargy: Surely the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter with the Corporation. What did the Corporation think about it, apart from lawyers' opinions?
Mr. Hare: I am speaking for Her Majesty's Government and not for the Corporation.
Mr. Dugdale: It is clear that there has been disagreement.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]
Committee this day.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair)
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision as to the functions of the Colonial Development Corporation, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which, in accordance with section seventeen of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948"), may be required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, in so far as any such increase—

(i) in the case of sums issued to the Secretary of State for making advances to the said Corporation, does not increase those sums beyond the amount necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make such advances within the limit prescribed by subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1948, and

(ii) in the case of sums issued to the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee under the Act of 1948 of borrowings of the said Corporation, does not increase those sums beyond the amount required for fulfilling guarantees in respect of such borrowings within the limits prescribed by subsection (3) of section eleven of the Act of 1948;

(b) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums which, in accordance with subsection (3) of section seventeen of the Act of 1948, may be required to be raised by the Treasury, or which in accordance with subsection (1) of section eighteen of the Act of 1948 may be required to be paid into the Exchequer or to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund and applied in redeeming or paying off debt or paying interest;

(c) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in any remission of interest in accordance with section five of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1954.—[Mr. Hare.]

Resolution to be reported this day.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Inland Waterways (Report)
  Inland Waterways (Report)
  Motor Horns
  Motor Horns
ROADS
  Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner
  Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner
  Baldock By-pass
  Baldock By-pass
  Brecon—Abergavenny Road (Pescodlyn Bends)
  Brecon—Abergavenny Road (Pescodlyn Bends)
  Casualties, Brentford and Chiswick
  Casualties, Brentford and Chiswick
  Kingston By-pass (Fly-over)
  Kingston By-pass (Fly-over)
  North Approach Road, Blackwall Tunnel (Underpass)
  North Approach Road, Blackwall Tunnel (Underpass)
SHIPPING
  Wreck (Value)
  Wreck (Value)
RAILWAYS
  Superannuitants (Representations)
  Superannuitants (Representations)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Aircraft (Registrations)
  Aircraft (Registrations)
SEYCHELLES
  Departmental Accounts (Report)
  Departmental Accounts (Report)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Schools (Official Language)
  Schools (Official Language)
MALTA
  Economic Commission
  Economic Commission
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Doctors (Commission of Inquiry)
  Doctors (Commission of Inquiry)
EAST AFRICA
  Royal Commission Report
  Royal Commission Report
KENYA
  Prisons and Detention Camps (Deaths)
  Prisons and Detention Camps (Deaths)
  Administration
  Administration
SINGAPORE AND MALAYA
  Malacca (Memorandum)
  Malacca (Memorandum)
  Sterling Assets
  Sterling Assets
CYPRUS
  Detained Women
  Detained Women
  Near East Association Limited (Radio Station)
  Near East Association Limited (Radio Station)
  Felled Orange Trees (Compensation)
  Felled Orange Trees (Compensation)
  Government (Cost)
  Government (Cost)
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
UGANDA
  Elections
  Elections
NIGERIA
  Lagos (Blood Transfusion Service)
  Lagos (Blood Transfusion Service)
  Eastern Region (Dr. Azikiwe)
  Eastern Region (Dr. Azikiwe)
GOLD COAST
  Constitution
  Constitution
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Constitutional Development
  Constitutional Development
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Isaac Jere and Paramount Chief Mpeseni
  Isaac Jere and Paramount Chief Mpeseni
  Crown Lands
  Crown Lands
  Kariba Project
  Kariba Project
TOGOLAND
  Constitutional Future
  Constitutional Future
ROYAL NAVY
  Submarines (Escape Methods)
  Submarines (Escape Methods)
  Royal Yacht Service
  Royal Yacht Service
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
SHIPBUILDING
  H.M. Dockyard, Devonport
  H.M. Dockyard, Devonport
  Rosyth Dockyard
  Rosyth Dockyard
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Bradford
  Bradford
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Senior Officers
  Senior Officers
  National Service Men (Small Arms Training)
  National Service Men (Small Arms Training)
  United States Air Forces, United Kingdom
  United States Air Forces, United Kingdom
  Training Aircraft
  Training Aircraft
  Transport Command (Britannia Aircraft)
  Transport Command (Britannia Aircraft)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prostitution, Dagenham
  Prostitution, Dagenham
  Shops and Offices (Employment Conditions)
  Shops and Offices (Employment Conditions)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Hydrogen Bomb Tests
  Hydrogen Bomb Tests
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon Fishing
  Salmon Fishing
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Recruitment and Prolongation of Service (Return)
  Recruitment and Prolongation of Service (Return)
EDUCATION
  Art Courses, Cornwall
  Art Courses, Cornwall
  School Purchases (Beef Prices)
  School Purchases (Beef Prices)
  Teachers (Supply)
  Teachers (Supply)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Chemical Research Laboratory (Staff)
  Chemical Research Laboratory (Staff)
  U.S.A. DEFENCE AGREEMENTS (CARIBBEAN AND SOUTH ATLANTIC)
  U.S.A. DEFENCE AGREEMENTS (CARIBBEAN AND SOUTH ATLANTIC)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith—Took the Oath.
The Lord Hastings—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE LITTER NUISANCE
2.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the case that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is in process of co-ordinating measures designed to deal with the quite intolerable litter nuisance; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is undertaking equivalent co-ordination in Scotland.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his Answer. May the House take it that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing every possible means and investigating everything that it may be possible to investigate in order to put these abominable litter-mongers and human pests "on the spot."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Answer is again in the affirmative.

AIR TRAFFIC BETWEEN WALES AND EIRE
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any new and improved arrangements are being made for air traffic between Wales and Eire.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the House will be aware that there is a service between Dublin and Cardiff which is operated by Aer Lingus. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is very anxious to see additional services provided between Wales and the Republic of Ireland, and he is at present engaged in negotiations with that end in view. I very much hope that he will be in a position to make a statement on this subject in the not too distant future.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that statement, may I inform him that I hope the present negotiations will have a most successful outcome? And will he arrange through the usual channels to let us know, so that we may put a Question down when the Minister is ready to answer it?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I will certainly do that.

GUIDED MISSILES
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what guided missiles (air to air, ground to air, and ground to ground) are in normal service with the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force; which of them are of British design; and when the guided missile range in the Hebrides will be ready for use.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, no guided missiles are yet in normal service with Her Majesty's Forces. The British air-to-air guided missile "Fireflash" should be delivered this year and will be used by the Royal Air Force to develop operational and handling techniques. A production order has been placed for a British surface-to-air missile in sufficient numbers for full-scale trials. Supplies of the American surface-to-surface guided weapon, known as "Corporal", are expected to begin to arrive in this country at the end of this year. It is hoped that the proposed training range in the

201
Hebrides will be ready for use in 1958. In the meantime facilities are available at Aberporth and in Australia.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I ask whether it is not possible to accelerate the bringing into operation of the guided missile range in the Hebrides? Surely your Lordships are surprised to learn that it will not be in operation until 1958. When some objection was raised to this proposal at the end of last year, we were told that it was a matter of urgency. May I ask the noble Earl whether one sod has yet been cut in the Hebrides to prepare for the making of this range?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, the Government must take great care in observing the procedure which is designed to give everyone interested the opportunity to protest before it is too late. Necessarily, therefore, it lakes a long time before a start can be made on the range. One cannot have it both ways. We are urged at one moment to get on with the job, and if we do so before all preliminary local arrangements have been made, then there is likely to he the usual row afterwards, with people asking why so-and-so were not in fact consulted. I trust the noble Viscount will accept this rather ambulatory answer.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, are we to infer from the statement of the noble Earl that the preliminaries, as he calls them—the inquiries and so forth—are not yet completed? I understood they were completed some time ago. It was stated in March that the plans were being sent to Edinburgh.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount is indeed correct. The detailed plans are complete and are with the Inverness County Council at this moment.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TIN COUNCIL) ORDER, 1956
2.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING) rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Monday last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, your Lordships have a debate of considerable importance coining on, and therefore I will endeavour, with the co-operation or, indeed, the connivance of the House, to deal with this preliminary matter as rapidly as possible, consistently with explaining the purpose. I am perfectly aware from previous experience that the House is, on the whole, allergic to this type of Order. But here again we find ourselves in the position that membership of this particular body, the International Tin Council, is, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, beneficial to the interests of this country and that membership of such a body entails certain obligations upon every signatory to the document which constitutes it.
The agreement for the establishment of the International Tin Council contains certain provisions under Article IV (e) 21 and 22 of the Agreement in regard to privileges and immunities. Paragraph 21 lays down that the Council shall have in each participating country, to the extent consistent with its law, such legal capacity as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions under this Agreement and paragraph 22, so far as it is relevant at this moment, lays down that the Council shall have in each participating country, to the extent consistent with its law, such exemptions from taxation on the assets, income and other property of the Council as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions under the Agreement.
The United Kingdom is a signatory to this Agreement, and it is therefore necessary to ask both Houses of Parliament to give effect to these provisions of the Agreement under the International

203
Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, which will be present to your Lordships' minds. Otherwise, of course, we should be in the position of seeking to avail ourselves of the advantages of the establishment of this Council whilst we were in default with regard to the discharge of at least part of our contractual liabilities to it. Your Lordships will recollect that an Order of this kind, by the Statute, requires an Affirmative Order of both Houses.
There are two points to which I should like to call special attention. The first is that this Agreement for the establishment of the Tin Council from which these particular privileges and immunities derive, was signed as long ago as May, 1954, perhaps before the full vehemence of your Lordships' view on this subject had become known, although it was ratified only on July 1 this year by the final signature of the last of the countries required to bring about its ratification. The second point is that the only privileges which this Order seeks to confer are concerned not with individuals but simply with the Council itself as a legal entity; and even so. these privileges are very restricted.
My Lords, the Order grants, first, legal capacity to the Council as a body corporate, which is permissible under Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1950, and, secondly, it grants to the Council as a body corporate such exemption from taxes or rates as is normally accorded to foreign sovereign Powers. The constitution of this body as a body corporate is, I think, plainly required, in order that it may properly discharge its functions; and the exemption of this body corporate from rates and taxes is on exactly similar lines to those privileges which have been extended to a good many bodies—many of your Lordships think, to too many bodies—of this kind. There is this other special point, that in this particular case the headquarters of the international Tin Council are already in London. I think it is a not unvaluable asset to this country to have the headquarters of the body concerned with this particular very important commodity established here.
My Lords, that is all I want to say as to the actual Order, but I think it is only right I should make this further reservation. It will be noted—and I have
204
already commented upon it—that this Order is concerned only with the position of the Council as a body corporate and not with individuals. The provision which occurs. I think, in most of the other Orders, giving exemption from taxation of the remuneration of persons in the service of the Council is not reproduced in this particular Order. It is only right, however, that I should warn the House that the omission is due to the fact that some legal difficulty in extending the exemption to individuals has been encountered. owing to the exact terms of the article in the Tin Council Agreement, which did not seem to make it possible to put into operation the provisions of the 1950 Act. All I am saying now is that I think it is right to warn the House that I may at some subsequent stage have to ask for a supplementary Order to deal with the position of individuals. Your Lordships will be able to express your opinion on that if and when the situation arises. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) Order, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Monday last, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we all want to get on to the main debate, and therefore I shall be very short. So far as this Order is concerned, I think it is a great improvement on previous Orders. The previous Orders to which I, and the late Lord Simon before me, objected so vigorously conferred immunity upon all the individuals, which meant to say that if they ran over people with their cars, or did anything of that sort, no redress was possible to the citizens of this country. That we thought thoroughly bad, and to that type of Order I am completely allergic, as also, I believe, are a large number of other Members of this House, on both sides. This Order, as it stands at present, merely confers the capacity of corporation upon these people, and that, to my mind, is a great improvement. Be it observed that whereas to-day, if the meteorologists, or the Postal Union, come over here they get complete personal immunity, these people under this Agreement at the present time are asking for no such

205
thing. That is a step on the right lines. I have no objection to this Order at all, but I shall object very strongly, and I hope that many of your Lordships will agree with me, if we are to be asked to extend this still further and grant personal immunity, which I think is wholly unnecessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CYPRUS
2.47 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE EARL ATTLEE rose to call attention to the situation in Cyprus; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is now over three months since we last discussed the situation in Cyprus, and as we shall shortly be dispersing for the Summer Recess I do not think there is any need for an apology that I am raising the matter again. I am confirmed in that view by the long list of noble Lords who have expressed a wish to take part in the debate, and in view of that lengthy list I shall endeavour to cut my remarks as short as possible.
The last time we discussed Cyprus the Government had just taken action, which I presume they thought was going, somehow or other, to improve the situation, and deported Archbishop Makarios. More than three months have passed. Can any noble Lord say that the position has improved since that time, that the action has been effective? Hopes were expressed that, with the removal of the Archbishop, sober elements would conic forward to co-operate. We warned the House at the time that it was far more likely that more and more reckless elements would take over, and that is just what has happened. Week after week, day after day, these deplorable outrages continue. As I came into this House I saw in the evening paper that another British soldier has been murdered. We have inevitable repression, the use of troops; but the position hardens and difficulties increase. The Greek Government, I very much regret to say, made no endeavour to restrain the agitation from that side. We are told that the Turks feel aggrieved. It is generally suggested, I think with truth, that the very foundations of N.A.T.O. are being undermined.
What is the next step? The next step that we have from the Government is the sending of the Radcliffe Mission. I shall have something to say on that later, but I am bound to say that all of us who are interested in this subject were severely disappointed at the decision to send out the Mission after Sir John Harding, who has an extremely difficult task and has our sympathy, had conic over here and while discussions were going on. We were all given to understand that there was going to be some real new initiative. We were asked to hold our hand. We understood that proposals were going forward. And then the whole of that disappeared, and we had instead the Radcliffe Mission. It has been suggested—I do not think it has really been denied—that that initiative was withdrawn because of pressure from the Turkish Government. We shall perhaps hear to-day whether that is true or not. But to cover that retreat we have the Radcliffe Mission.
I do not know whether this is really seriously meant or whether it is a kind of attempt to fall in with the suggestion thrown out by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury on the last occasion. But I do not think that it fulfils in the least what he suggested. In my view the Government have given Lord Radcliffe an impossible task and he deserves all our sympathy. Everyone knew that he would not be able to get into contact with the people because there would he a boycott—and in fact that is just what has happened. He has been sent out, as I understand it, to look around and frame a Constitution, without even being given the leading principles of that Constitution. How on earth can a man frame a Constitution without guidance on such a question, for instance, as to whether there will be a majority for the Greek Cypriots? He really must be given some guidance. It is no use sending a man out without guidance if he is going to see the people of the place. We know that he cannot see them. He might see the Turks. We are told that he will look around, assess the atmosphere and see the facts of the situation—the numbers, the history and all the rest of it. He could just as well do that here. It may be he will get contact—we all hope he will. But it does not look like it at present. It looks to

207
me as if this is a mere effort to cover a retreat.
Years ago, when I was first studying for the Bar, I was told that it was a great mistake to put up a number of weak arguments on a case, because it weakened the strength of such arguments as there were which were really worth presenting. Yet that is exactly what this Government have done. All kinds of extraordinary arguments are being put forward. There was an argument about our duties under the Lausanne Treaty. That was very fully discussed in another place, and I must say I thought that that learned lawyer, Mr. Clement Davies, blew that case sky high. Obviously, there is nothing whatever in that.
Then we have the strategic argument. Though something may be claimed on that, I think it is put much too high. What is said on the strategic importance of Cyprus seems to run entirely contrary to the thoughtful, broad and wise survey of conditions in the hydrogen bomb age that was put forward by the Prime Minister. We are told that Cyprus is essential for our position. We are told that Cyprus is needed to protect oil fields in Iraq, Persia or Kuwait. This is called "our oil"—though why. I do not know: we have not yet paid for it, and it is in other countries. But I, like others in your Lordships' House who are deeply knowledgeable on strategy, should like to know exactly how one protects from Cyprus oil fields in Iraq and Iran. I do not quite know how that is to be done.
Another suggestion made is that it is essential to have forces there. I put this point to a distinguished general. I asked why Cyprus particularly, and he made the astonishing remark that it was necessary because from there we could reach strategic points of a potential enemy. Of course, the answer to that is that the potential enemy could also reach us; and as we were dealing with this question of hydrogen bombs it seemed to me that if I were a Cypriot I should not be very pleased with that position. I believe that no-one has seriously suggested that Cyprus is important from the point of view of a world war. So far as I can see, the kind of backing that would be needed in the Middle East could equally be exercised from bases in Libya or somewhere else.
There is next the astonishing confusion which runs through all Government statements on this question, as to whether this is a domestic affair or an international affair. At one time we were told that we cannot move in this matter because of N.A.T.O. Yet if it is suggested that we should take the problem to N.A.T.O. the answer is, "No; we must keep this strictly in the Commonwealth." I think it is about time that Her Majesty's Government made up their mind on this point: whether Cyprus is an essential part of our defence or an essential part of N.A.T.O. I do not know why we should walk into the position in which we have to take full responsibility for preserving peace in the Middle East when other nations besides ourselves have interests there. I suggest that the whole question of this base is too often considered in an out-of-date manner. Bases such as this were important before the air age, but I think the whole question of these bases now needs to be reconsidered, quite apart from the fact, as we have already found to our cost, that a base in a disaffected country is of precious little use.
Moreover, a quite extraordinary emphasis has been placed on the Turkish position. I thought it one of the most astounding things that a representative of the Foreign Office of this country should say that the possession of an island forty miles away from another country was a serious menace and naturally "got up the noses" of other countries. That is a remarkable statement from a country that has the Channel Islands, Malta, Cyprus, Hong Kong and the Falkland Islands. It is putting up a pretty strong argument for other people, and I should have thought that that argument was better left alone, quite apart from the fact that it would be utter madness, in my view, for anyone who wanted to attack Turkey to do it from Cyprus. I do not know who the potential enemies are. I can only suggest Greece or some country behind the Iron Curtain. But the Iron Curtain touches other parts of Turkey much more closely. I cannot help feeling that all these arguments are fundamentally false. They seem to me to be the kind of argument ferreted out in sonic Government office by some ingenious man who has had a general instruction to try to find out something which can be put up to defend an indefensible position.
The fact is that the position has grown no better. I cannot think that the sending of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, will really change the situation; or that, however long he stays, Her Majesty's Government will not be faced with the same difficulty when he comes back. That difficulty is that, whether you allow this campaign of murder and repression to run on for a long time or a short time, in the long run you will have to talk with people, and probably with people you do not like at all.
Yesterday I happened to come across a book that I had not seen for years, Thoughts and Adventures, written by Sir Winston Churchill. In one chapter he discusses the Irish Treaty, and he points out how difficult it was and how humble agents of the Crown, in the faithful exercise of their duty, bad been and were being cruelly murdered; how soldiers, policemen and officials were shot down at close quarters in a deliberately adopted method of warfare. Sir Winston Churchill said of those responsible for those acts that they were not actuated by selfish and sordid motives but were ready to lay down their own lives, and that they were all supported by the sentiments of their fellow-countrymen. That was the charitable view taken by Sir Winston Churchill. But what happened? It was found necessary to meet these very people and to discuss the problem with them and come to a settlement. The men who had the courage to do that were Sir Winston Churchill, the late Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, the late Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Austen Chamberlain. No doubt they suffered for it. They had great difficulty with a big section of their own supporters but they faced up to that—and all honour to their couragea
It seems to me that this Government are not facing up to the problem. First of all they sent out a soldier; then they send out a judge. They are not taking decisions, or facing up to the problem. Yet I do not think it need be such a very serious problem—certainly not as serious as that which faced the Conservative Party over the Irish Treaty—in spite of Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Julian Amery. I do not like the thought that we are going on vacation and that this same process of murder and repression, which solves nothing, is to continue. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to make a new move, either through
210
N.A.T.O. or through direct touch, to bring back Archbishop Makarios, I think that in their heart of hearts noble Lords must recognise that his deportation was, to put it mildly, an error of judgment. It has accomplished nothing whatever; it has not helped us one bit to talk to the Cypriots. 'This is not an easy question, but certainly the mere deportation of the Archbishop settled nothing. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
2.59 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, there will be few things during our deliberations this afternoon on which we shall all agree, but I am confident that there is not one of us who does not deplore, just as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has deplored, the present tragic situation in the island of Cyprus, or who would not sincerely welcome a solution acceptable to all parties, if such a solution could be found. At any rate, let me say straight away that these are the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government and—as I shall hope to show during the course of my speech—we have toiled, and are toiling unremittingly, to that end.
If I speak to-day on behalf of the Colonial Office, it is, of course, because Cyprus is a British Colony, for the administration of which my right honourable friend is responsible. That is an important fact which has, perhaps, got somewhat overlaid by present events in connection with the current political situation there. On the other hand, it would be foolish to pretend that this is merely another colonial problem which could have been settled at any time between Her Majesty's Government and the people of Cyprus alone. Apart from our own vital interests, everybody knows that there are aspects of this matter which closely concern both Greece and Turkey. The noble Earl admitted that freely. Both those countries, as your Lordships are aware, hold strong views. It is not surprising, therefore, that no simple solution of this problem has been found. Indeed, if I may make an initial criticism of the speech of the noble Earl, it seemed to me that the whole time he was trying to put everything into pigeonholes. He suggested that no one had decided whether this was a domestic issue or an international issue. Of course, you cannot put

211
this issue into pigeonholes—it is both. It has a domestic aspect and it has an international aspect.
It is no good trying to put a situation like this into a pigeonhole. and, of course, there is no simple solution. If there had been a simple solution within reach, no doubt the Socialist Party would have found it when they were in power. As your Lordships know, they failed entirely to do so. In view of its intractable nature, I do not condemn them on that score. But I confess that, in the circumstances, I find their present criticisms of Her Majesty's Government a trifle disingenuous. Nor do I believe that a solution will be brought any nearer merely by ignoring those facts in the situation which arc inconvenient, or by trying to minimise the difficulties which confront us. There have been a number of debates in your Lordships' House. One took place about three months ago. The noble Earl suggested that suddenly in three months everything could get right. We cannot look at it in that aspect of time at all. In that debate three months ago, the situation was fully discussed. I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary, and I shall be as brief as I can, but nevertheless, I feel that I owe it to your Lordships to summarise the situation once again as it is seen by Her Majesty's Government.
Our own position is well known. Cyprus remains essential for the maintenance of British interests and the discharge of British obligations, both under N.A.T.O. and in the Middle East. If I may interpolate a remark here, I might remind your Lordships that the Middle East is not the principal, or indeed a direct, concern of N.A.T.O. Our need for a base in Cyprus is related both to the Middle East and to our N.A.T.O. obligations; it is related to the Baghdad Pact and to the Turkish obligations in the Middle East, to the Protectorate oil-fields and to the Tripartite Declaration. A purely N.A.T.O. base on Greek soil would, therefore, not satisfy our needs. We cannot accept any doubt about the availability of facilities in Cyprus as and where we need them. The noble Earl went into the strategic question. I am not going to follow him in that, for the simple reason that I am not
212
a great military expert and so I do not feel that I am the right person to expound to your Lordships the strategic aspects of this matter. Other noble Lords, no doubt, will deal with them. I would merely say that there is a great deal of expert military opinion which would entirely disagree with what the noble Earl has said.
EARL ATTLEE: Would the noble Lord tell me how you protect oil wells from Cyprus?
LORD LLOYD: I am not going to go into the strategic aspects of this matter. As I say, there are other noble Lords who, I am sure, will deal with that question. I do not pose as a strategic expert, and I rest my case on the fact that many experts take an opposite view to the noble Earl.
That is our position. If the views of the Greeks are not also well known to your Lordships, that is certainly no fault of the Greek Government. In 1954, it was that Government which first backed the demands from the more extreme elements in Cyprus, headed by Archbishop Makarios, and then inscribed a Cyprus item on the agenda of the United Nations. It was, incidentally, only in 1954 that the Ethnarchy, with the United Nations in view, began to talk of self-determination instead of Enosis. Since then, the Greeks have poured out a steady stream of propaganda, not confining themselves to mere advocacy of their case. On the contrary, the officially-controlled Athens radio has incited the people of Cyprus to violence and murder. It has praised the murder of British soldiers and civilians and the murder of Greek Cypriots who have had the courage to oppose the terrorists.
Though, unfortunately, there has been at different times serious communal rioting between Greek and Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus and between Greeks and Turks in some parts of Turkey, I venture to say that the Turkish Government and the Turkish Cypriot representatives have, considering the present difficult situation, behaved with commendable dignity and restraint. Moreover, the Turks, while stating their attitude firmly, have not, like the Greeks, sought to build up propaganda for their case. For these reasons, the Turkish attitude even if it is known to your Lordships, is probably less well known in the world at large. Therefore,

213
I suggest, it would be very foolish to imagine that, just because the Turks have not shouted their case from the house-tops, they do not feel strongly upon this issue. I suggest also that as a nation we should be the last to make such a mistake. It has never been our custom to advertise our views or our feelings to the world. Indeed, I think that if we were to do so more often we might come in for rather less criticism and abuse than we do. Yet the fact that we do not do so does not mean that we do not feel strongly. Indeed, over and over again in our history, the world has been astonished at the last moment at the force of our reaction.
I must therefore ask your Lordships to accept the fact that the Turks feel just as strongly about Cyprus as do the Greeks. The facts of geography cannot be altered even by the maps sent out from Athens for use in Cyprus schools. From these maps the conclusion might well be drawn that Cyprus lies alongside the southern coast of Greece and well to the west of Crete. In fact, as your Lordships are well aware, it is no further from the southern coast of Turkey than is the Isle of Man from the coast of Lancashire. It is, in fact, an offshore island covering the southern ports of Anatolia and, therefore, for strategic reasons—I know that the noble Earl will not agree with this—the Turks are opposed to any radical change in the present status of the island. It does not really matter whether Turkey is strategically right or strategically wrong: that happens to be what the Turks feel. That is the Turkish position. Your Lordships may agree with the Turkish attitude or disagree with it. But, either way, it is one of the hard facts in this whole affair which cannot be ignored. It has been alleged by the Greeks that we have inspired Turkish opposition to self-determination for notions of our own. I need hardly say that there is not a word of truth in this allegation. The fact is that the methods adopted by the Greeks in the last two years to press their aims have done nothing to make the Turks more forthcoming, or, indeed, to still the fears which the whole situation inspires in their minds and hearts.
So there we are. We have to face these conflicting views, and the vital point of difference is the demand for self-determination which has been made by
214
Archbishop Makarios and those in Cyprus who support him, and which has been backed by the Greek Government. I use the words "Archbishop Makarios and those who support him" advisedly, because it seems to me to have become a tacit assumption that the Archbishop enjoys the support of the Greek Cypriot population in Cyprus as a whole. In fact, no one can measure with any certainty the extent of the support which the Archbishop and the Ethnarchy enjoy. Nor shall we have any means of knowing, so long as those who wish openly to express opposition to Enosis are too frightened to do so because they fear that, if they do, not only they but also their relations will be excommunicated and in all probability brutally murdered.
Indeed, at the present time the only glimpse of the true feelings of the Greek Cypriots may possibly be found by looking at the behaviour of emigrants from Cyprus. If all that the Archbishop and his supporters have claimed is true, one would have expected that the one place to which any Greek Cypriot would wish to emigrate would be Greece and that the one place which they would wish to avoid would be this country, which, according to Athens Radio, is the centre of a bloodstained tyranny. Is it not remarkable, then, that, between January of last year and April of this year, between 5,000 and 6,000 Greek Cypriots emigrated to the United Kingdom, whilst over the last five years the emigration figures to Greece were possibly five in 1952, possibly five in 1953 and 1954, none in 1955 and one so far this year? I do not pretend that these figures prove anything, but I do say that they are very interesting.
The principle of self-determination is a general conception embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, and as signatories to that Charter we are committed to that general conception, which commends itself to most liberal-minded people. Unhappily, it is the sort of principle the practical application of which bristles with difficulties. Indeed, I go so far as to say that the universal application of self-determination, without qualification and without regard to the local circumstances of the time, would make nonsense of organised international society. For example, it might fairly be

215
argued that the Turkish Cypriots, despite the fact that they happen to be a minority, should have self-determination applied to them equally with the Greek Cypriots. Yet I have never heard even the most ardent advocate of self-determination suggest such a thing. Indeed, without partitioning the island, it could not be. So here already you have one obvious qualification of the general principle—namely, that in mixed communities it can hardly be applied to minorities. Of course, students of this question could point to any number of examples in recent history where for one reason or another it was realised that the application of this principle would create such problems that it was not a practical possibility.
One must presume that these difficulties were only too apparent to the noble Earl and his colleagues when they were in power, since, although they had subscribed to the general principle, they never once suggested that it should be applied to Cyprus. Frankly, this seems to me to be one of the difficulties of the position which they are now adopting. If it is right now to accede to the demand for self-determination, regardless of the wider consequences of so doing, it was right then. The demand was there. The only difference—and it is an important one—is that at that time it was not backed by violence. It is difficult in the circumstances to avoid the impression that the campaign of terrorism in Cyprus has persuaded the Socialist Party that it is right to do now what apparently they thought it was wrong to do then. And this is probably exactly what the campaign of terrorism was intended to do.
In view of the differences which exist between Greece and Turkey on this issue, the Government might well he forgiven if we had taken the line that this was just another of those cases where, however excellent the principle, it was impossible to apply it. That, however, has not been the line which we have taken. On the contrary, in our desire to reach a solution, we have adopted a more positive approach. We are not saying that the principle can never be applied, but we have undertaken to try to work out conditions where, in due course, the principle of self-determination might be applied to Cyprus. Nor have we been content with
216
mere words: we have taken a series of positive steps to this end.
First of all, at the London Conference in the autumn of 1955 we tried to work out an agreement with representatives of both the Greek and the Turkish Governments. This first attempt to reconcile the views of the two countries failed, as your Lordships know. We then decided, in the hope of making some progress, to enter upon direct negotiations with Archbishop Makarios. These negotiations, of which the Greek Government were kept fully informed, also broke down. Since this matter was fully debated by your Lordships on March 15 last, I do not propose to go into the details again this afternoon. Finally, we have had an exchange of views with the Turkish Government, and, once again, this exchange of views—which was confidential—has failed to produce a solution. So, upon the issue of the application of self-determination we have still not arrived at a solution, as the noble Earl said—and I do not deny it—and the gap between our Greek and Turkish allies appears too wide to be bridged at the present time.
Nobody can pretend that this situation is anything but extremely disappointing, and clearly the most important question which your Lordships have to consider this afternoon is what should now be done. That is the question the noble Earl asked. As I understand it, the opinion of the Opposition is that in view of our acceptance of the principle of self-determination, in view of the fact that the Turkish Cypriots are in the minority in Cyprus, and in view of the campaign of violence in Cyprus, which is being encouraged by the Greek Government, we should disregard the feelings of our Turkish allies and should accede to the Greek demand for self-determination, either immediately or at some definite date in the future. Furthermore, I understand it to be their view that in these matters we can negotiate only with Archbishop Makarios.
The superficial attractions of this proposition are obviously considerable. Nobody could pretend that the position of Her Majesty's Government in Cyprus at the present time is an agreeable one. It is never agreeable to be misrepresented; it is never agreeable to be abused, particularly when the abuse conies from people who ought to know better; and,

217
finally, it is never agreeable to have to take the kind of measures which we have had to take in Cyprus. And if it is disagreeable for the Government, how much more disagreeable—and how much more dangerous—is it for the Governor and his officials and for the British troops who are struggling to preserve law and order in the face of a vicious campaign of terrorism and murdera For their courage and their devotion to duty they deserve not merely the admiration but the full support of this House. For all concerned an immediate relief from all their troubles would he more than welcome. Think of the praise we should get from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee; from the Greeks, from Archbishop Makarios and the Greek Government—how very attractive a
But whatever may be the specious attractions of such a course, it is not really to the point. The point, surely, is whether such a course of action is likely to produce enduring peace and stability, not merely in Cyprus (because, unfortunately, we are not dealing merely with Cyprus) but in the Eastern Mediterranean as a whole, and also what effect it is likely to have upon N.A.T.O. and the Baghdad Pact.
Let me refer for one moment to the Treaty of Lausanne. That Treaty was a settlement of all the territorial issues outstanding between Turkey and the Allied Powers at the end of the First World War. I might add that during those Treaty negotiations M. Venizelos, the great Greek statesman, whose views on self-determination were evidently not those of some of his successors, argued strongly that the Turkish majority in Western Thrace should he subjected to Greek rule—and he obtained his point. The Treaty also confirmed the present position of Cyprus. Whatever the demerits of the Treaty of Lausanne, it had one supreme merit. It was an agreed settlement of a number of complicated issues and it has endured for over thirty years. There is no doubt that the Turks regard that Treaty as a "package deal" and that they will regard any unilateral alteration of that settlement as a breach, if not of the letter, at any rate of the spirit of the Treaty. Of course this does not in any way limit British sovereignty over Cyprus. I would observe to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that that is not in any way the point of my argument,
218
although I think that was his contention. I am not suggesting that we are bound by the Treaty of Lausanne: I say merely that it is a settlement that has lasted for thirty years.
The point I want to make is that if we are going to make any radical alteration in the present position of Cyprus, I still believe that we must try to do so by general agreement, and not by unilateral action, and that we must still try to arrive at some arrangement whereby not only our own vital interests but also those of the Greeks, the Turks and the Cypriots, are all effectively safeguarded. To reach such an agreed solution will. I am sure, take a good deal of time, a good deal of patience and a spirit of compromise which is not at the moment as evident as one might hope, and which will certainly not be encouraged by speeches, either in this country or elsewhere, which encourage intransigence on any side. It would, moreover, be of inestimable advance if this issue could somehow be removed from the international arena into which the Greek Government have put it, where everything is debated in public and where, as a result, all parties are inevitably encouraged to adopt extreme positions.
It is indeed for this reason, among others, that I am doubtful about any suggestion for referring the matter to N.A.T.O., or any other international body. On the contrary, I am sure that our best hope continues to lie in private negotiation with the parties concerned. and I am sure that this is the policy that we ought to pursue. If it is suggested to me that such a policy is a capitulation to a "Turkish veto" I would reply that that argument makes no more sense than to suggest that because, as a result of this business, there has been a deterioration in relations between Greece and Turkey, the best way to improve those relations is to give one party exactly what they want at the expense of the other.
Before I leave this side of the question, let me deal with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that negotiations should he reopened forthwith with Archbishop Makarios. As I have said, if progress is to be made I am sure that there has got to be some spirit of give and take between all the parties concerned. And as my noble friend

219
Lord Salisbury explained to your Lordships when this matter was last debated, the real difficulty about the negotiations with the Archbishop was that the Archbishop was not prepared to consider any solution which did not give him every single thing that he wanted. Perhaps he may moderate his attitude—I certainly hope so. One thing, however, is clear. There can be no further negotiations with the Archbishop until he has publicly denounced violence. So far, he has not done so. Were he to do so, a new situation would undoubtedly arise.
Whilst, therefore, we shall continue to strive for a settlement on the issues which I have been discussing, recognising that time and patience will be needed if success is to be achieved—as we all devoutly hope it will be—there are various things which can, meanwhile, be done in Cyprus itself. First and foremost, we must continue our efforts to eliminate terrorism. This is essential from every point of view. It is essential for the social and economic progress of the people of Cyprus, it is essential if we are ever to ascertain the real views of the Cypriots on the question of self-determination, and it is essential if a new Constitution is ever to be introduced.
During the last three months large-scale anti-terrorist operations have been carried out in the mountain areas with considerable success. The E.O.K.A. organisation suffered serious losses, including a number of their leaders, and Grivas himself narrowly escaped capture. Considerable quantities of arms and ammunition were also recovered. Although the situation remains serious, there is no doubt that these operations by the security forces have considerably lowered terrorist morale. Moreover the anti-smuggling blockade has been tightened up, and although the terrorists are probably not limited operationally by shortage of ammunition, they are finding it difficult to replenish their stocks. Most encouraging of all has been the increased flow of information, which has led to successful operations and important captures.
Considerable progress has therefore been made. Nevertheless, the top-level leaders are still at large, and the campaign of assassination in the towns remains a particularly dangerous threat
220
to law and order. We are, however—and I should like to emphasise this—determined to destroy terrorism, and I have no doubt whatsoever that in due course we shall do so.
In the meantime, we have taken another step in conformity with a suggestion made by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, during our last debate upon this subject, which has been the subject of comment by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, this afternoon. As your Lordships know, Lord Radcliffe has been asked to draw up a Constitution which might provide for the people of Cyprus an appropriate means of running their own internal affairs. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested that this is a futile initiative because Lord Radcliffe has been boycotted by some of the leaders in Cyprus. I would say here that I do not think that boycott is necessarily because they do not want to meet him; it is probably because they are frightened to meet him. That is why we must destroy terrorism.
Nevertheless, whether Lord Radcliffe meets the people in Cyprus or not is not really the point; it is not the object of the exercise. He has not gone out there as a negotiator. He has gone to find out as much as he can about the Island (and a great deal is already known) and because he is, as all your Lordships will recognise, a brilliant constitutional expert. He has gone out on this preliminary reconnaissance to see the Island for himself, and I do not doubt that he will produce a Constitution, and probably one that is on the right lines. At least, I devoutly hope that he will. I do not believe that the mere fact that he is not going to meet the members of the Ethnarchy necessarily means, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, seemed to think, that he will thereby find it impossible to produce a Constitution.
Lord Radcliffe arrived in Cyprus eleven days ago for a preliminary visit. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish anything to be said to-day which would make his task more difficult. It is public knowledge, however, that he has already had useful talks with the Governor, with officials, with Turkish Cypriot representatives, and has had meetings with some of the Greek Cypriot Mayors at which municipal government was discussed. Lord Radcliffe has also been touring the Island in order to get an appreciation of its social and economic structure

221
and organisation. I believe that Lord Radcliffe will derive considerable information from this visit, and I am sure that, whatever the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, may think about his chances, he will be the first to welcome his appointment and to wish him well in his task.
While Lord Radcliffe is at work drafting the Constitution, the Governor and the security forces will press on with all possible speed with the campaign of eliminating terrorism, and to restore law and order. The more quickly this is done, the more information is supplied which enables the security forces to press on with their task, the more quickly shall we be able to press ahead with the introduction of a Constitution. We shall press on, too, with the measures we have in view for the social and economic progress. And, while never losing sight of our military requirements, and of the overriding need to establish stability in the Eastern Mediterranean, we shall continue to bend our minds and our endeavours to the aim of securing a lasting solution of this most difficult political problem.
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I speak now, as I spoke in March last, solely in the interests of reconciliation between this country and the people of Cyprus. As I speak, I think even more of my fellow Christians in the Churches of Cyprus and Greece than of my audience here. They listened with sympathy and considerable approval to what I said in March, and if what I say now is more difficult for them in Greece and Cyprus to appreciate, they will, I know, weigh it against the background of that sincere friendship which has long united our Churches.
The new fact in the history of this quarrel is that Lord Radcliffe is in Cyprus, not yet, as we have heard, to negotiate, but for a preliminary visit during which he can survey the scene. When I made such a suggestion last March it wits, in fact, warmly welcomed both in Cyprus and in Greece as providing a helpful and a hopeful starting point. I know that since then, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has said, many things have happened to make the situation far more difficult, both in the domestic life of the island and in its international
222
aspects. But I believe Lord Radcliffe's mission can still save the situation and he the beginning of reconciliation if all parties will combine to make it so. Reconciliation involves leaving alone for the present those things on which agreement is not possible, and concentrating on what admits of agreement. It means accepting facts which cannot yet be changed, and ceasing to argue about them—though, if that advice were taken literally, this debate would end after I had finished speaking. I shall myself try to avoid argument or, at least, inflaming argument, and stick to bare realities.
It seems to me essential to drop, for the time being, all reference to the explosive term "self-determination", simply because as things are and from the nature of the case there can be no agreement about it yet. The reasons which prevent agreement are known to everybody concerned—to British, Cypriots, Greeks and Turks. These reasons are capable of endless argument and dispute, but at the end they are still there. To bring them for further argument before N.A.T.O. or U.N.O. will not really lead to anything at all except more argument, much frustration and, at the best, some expedient which satisfies nobody. The facts cannot yet be changed. Then let us, in the interests of friendship, leave the subject alone.
For the Cypriots, self-determination stands as their sole and final aim. Our Government recognise that, express sympathy with it, but snake it clear that, for reasons beyond the control of British or Cypriots alone, it cannot be granted now. I would add that the Government are quite unable to say whether it will ever be possible or not. I think they should say that openly. Reconciliation means accepting these facts, however unwelcome they may be at this end or the other. For how long self-determination will, for the sake of the general peace, be impracticable, nobody can say, and nothing is gained by trying to say it.
Can we not reduce the whole matter to manageable proportions as a matter of internal and domestic concern alone? For it becomes that at once, if you drop the references to self-determination. Can we do it? Indeed, we can, for Archbishop Makarios agreed last February with the

223
Governor to do that very thing. I quote his words in a letter to the Governor:
"Although we do not agree with the preconditions on which (the application of self-determination in Cyprus is made to depend), we would nevertheless in the interests of the pacification of the country agree to co-operate in the framing and operation of a Constitution of self-government as a transitional stage towards self-determination."
That gives enough for co-operation on the next step, without any deception as to their views or as to ours about self-determination. It leaves out all the distractions of international complications. It concentrates on the one thing possible; and as a step towards it the Government have sent out Lord Radcliffe. I do most earnestly trust that leaders in Cyprus will co-operate in the sense already defined by Archbishop Makarios on the one point on which pacification can fruitfully begin.
As to terrorism and the way in which we have to cope with it, and the sacrifices we endure, I would make only this reference. It would enormously help if all parties could, as far as possible, refrain from talking about terrorism. All men of good will, there and here, can, and must, agree that it is the first duty of the Government, and an absolute duty, to suppress violence and restore law and order. No patriotism on the part of Cypriots can deny that fundamental right of every Government. It is a process costly in death and suffering to us and to many others, and only the terrorists get a perverted satisfaction out of it. There are only two things to be done with violence and terrorism. One is to suppress it, and all men of good will can surely accept that obligation. The other is to circumvent it by pressing on with constitutional agreement. But the two must be done together. For the latter, the pressing on with constitutional agreement, there has been a long and, I think, very regrettable time lag. For myself, I regret every time the Government state that terrorism must end before negotiations can begin. By putting the whole weight on suppression it hampers and bedevils the other work of circumvention and healing. Let us leave the work of terrorism and the harsh duty of its suppression, with all its hateful necessities, to those whose business it is. It should not be allowed to hinder the working out of a constitutional agreement, and I again beg and implore Cypriots and Greeks to accept that situation.
224
If, therefore, avoiding the passions aroused by self-determination and terrorism, we could concentrate on achieving an instrument of self-government, success, I would say, is certainly possible; and I am sure that informal discussion by the leaders in Cyprus with Lord Radcliffe would speedily reveal the way. In all the conversations that I have had with some leading Cypriots I have emphasised two things: that a liberal Constitution must provide an elected majority reflecting the proportions of the population, and must also provide ample and generous safeguards to any minority—and, of course, to the Turkish minority. So far as I can see, the Cypriots have agreed whole-heartedly to both propositions; they have said that they asked for no more than that but were satisfied on those grounds to proceed with Constitution making. The way is, I believe, really open, if men of good will and Christian men on every side of this problem will now come together.
There remains only one more obstacle: How is Archbishop Makarios to be brought back into the picture? He must be brought back at some time: there is no doubt about that. He cannot be exiled for ever, nor separated for ever from the Church of which he is the head. Once it is agreed that at the right time he shall come back into the picture, flexibility is restored instead of argument and counter-argument, and common sense can begin to operate. At this stage of informal talks, when no one is committed at all in what is said to Lord Radcliffe, no reference to the Archbishop is necessary. But when Lord Radcliffe produces a first draft, it must obviously be discussed directly with the Archbishop by Cypriot leaders, for if not they will never agree—and quite rightly, since he is their acknowledged leader. Therefore, there must be free discussion by the Cypriots somewhere.
I cannot believe it is impossible to find a suitable place. Again, I would say to my friends in Cyprus and Greece that it would be unhelpful to urge that, at that stage, the discussions must be in London. Why should they be? When the final draft is ready and agreed, Archbishop Makarios must then be among the signatories of it, whether here or in Cyprus. The settlement of the place and, indeed, the moment at which Archbishop Makarios is reintegrated depend entirely,

225
to my mind, upon when the Archbishop is able to join with us in an open and imperious call to end all violence. For beyond doubt that must be a part of the settlement, and the sooner it can be given by him, the easier the work of co-operation becomes; and the faster the work of co-operation goes, the easier it will be for him to make the declaration.
So I return at last to my main point. Reconciliation is in sight if all parties can do these simple, humble, unexciting but sufficient things. The doing of them demands wisdom and restraint from all, and especially demands difficult self-denial and patience from leaders in Cyprus and Greece. But these demands are such as Christians should recognise and accept as belonging to their Christian duty to be peacemakers. I believe that along these lines a restoration of an old friendship can be reached which will never be reached by way of argument and counter-argument, by the bitterness of demand and denial, and by the increase of frustration.
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, there is one thing on which we shall all agree, and that is that the situation in Cyprus is as difficult as it is critical. This debate to-day, like so many debates in this House, is serving a very useful purpose. In the first place, constructive suggestions can be made to the Government; and provided that the suggestions are constructive, real and responsible, I am sure that the Government will welcome them. The debate will have another value. I remember Lord Cecil once saying, "Do not let us ever forget that Parliament is a place where people talk." That is one of its functions. One of the great advantages, I think, of debates—and particularly one like this in this House—is that those who can speak not only with conviction but also with authority and experience are able to give their views; and those views, when known outside, are of great value to the country and Ito the world. If I may respectfully say so, I found myself to-day in much closer agreement with the most reverend Primate than I was on an earlier occasion. I thought that his speech had a realism which is very much to be desired in all speeches on this subject. I say this because it has surprised me that, the more clearly the Commonwealth, the United States and Western Europe are seeing the Cyprus
226
issues in true perspective, the outlook of so many Socialist critics of the Government is so blinkered and so out of focus.
It surely is unreal and wrong to repeat the word "self-determination" as if it were either an unqualified aphorism or a solution of this problem. I cannot say how much I agree with what the most reverend Primate has just said about that. After all, self-determination is like freedom. It is a very good thing, and it is an aim which we should all wish to achieve; but certainly noble Lords on the Benches opposite would be the first to admit that freedom cannot be absolute, unlimited and unconditional. We may not agree as to all the conditions and limitations that should be applied, but we should all, I think, agree that there are overriding interests and duties which should limit the absolute freedom of the individual. Surely the same exactly is true about self-determination.
The overriding interest of the whole free world is peace, and the overriding duty of the embers of the Grand Alliance is to ensure peace by being able to act instantaneously and effectively to defeat aggression. That, after all, is what is meant by the deterrent. It is the existence of that deterrent in a hydrogen age that has brought us, certainly for the time being—and I hope for all time—so much nearer to peace. Without the realisation of that fundamental fact, self-determination might well become self-extermination. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that the strategic arguments in this case were put far too high. I ought perhaps to say a word or two about that. I have no authority to speak now, but I have been for many years very closely concerned with these strategic matters. I was amazed at what the noble Earl said on this aspect. I should have thought it was common ground between people who had had anything to do with the planning of defence in the last ten, and certainly in the last five, years that in all this Cyprus is a key position. It is certainly an indispensable N.A.T.O. base.
On this the noble Earl said something about bases which I found extraordinarily surprising as coming from him. He asked: "Why is this base in Cyprus so important?" It is much more than a mere offensive-defensive base—I am coming to that in a moment. He said, "From Cyprus you can attack

227
an enemy; but what is the good of that if the enemy can attack you? If you can bomb him, you can be bombed." Of course, that applies to practically every base in the world. The longer the range and the progress in aircraft, the more true that is. But what an extraordinary argument to come from the noble Earla It was the noble Earl—and it was greatly to his credit—and Mr. Ernest Bevin who agreed with the Americans that there should be American bases on British soil. Those bases are to-day a great deterrent. He realised the risks they implied; indeed, it was one of the brave things, if I may say so, that the noble Earl did. He took the broad long view about that. Although, as Sir Winston Churchill has said, it made us the spear-point of attack if attack should come—nobody realised that better than did the noble Earl; he was the first to say, "Well, we must have these American bases and these American aircraft on British soil." Similarly, this Cyprus base is vital for the Turkish bastion, which is the one effective defence in the Middle East; and it is, of course, vital to the Baghdad Pact.
The noble Earl accepted the argument —though I think he rather denigrated it—that the base was essential to the security of the oil of the Middle East. He said, "Why is it?" I will tell him. Certainly he ought to know this. He went through some pretty difficult times over Abadan. He had to consider using troops; he had troops ready—I am not divulging any secrets about these things, which were all published at the time. Whether those troops were to be sent or not, they had to be staged over bases. Of course, the security of the oil of the Middle East means that, if you get any danger or difficulty, whether in a Trucial Sheikdom, or wherever it may be you are in a position to reinforce that area and to ensure security. That is what security means. But for that you must have through communications; and you must have bases. This oil is not just a British interest; it is a vital interest of all the Western countries, and it is no less, for that reason, intrinsically a vital interest of the United States. Then again, Cyprus is a key staging base in Commonwealth communications—that the Commonwealth Conference has fully realised and appraised. These Commonwealth
228
communications are not merely a Commonwealth interest: they are, again, an interest of the free world. The free world circles the globe, but we can circle the globe only if we have secure communications.
My Lords, here, I would say, are considerations, obvious, indisputable, which make Cyprus and the Cyprus base a key position in the free world. That is why I think not only the Commonwealth but the whole of the free world and America are seeing this matter in a truer perspective. This is a situation in which we of the Commonwealth and the Grand Alliance cannot afford to take risks. It has been said (I think the noble Earl suggested it again to-day): well, if Cyprus were Greek, we could occupy the base on lease or licence. Does the noble Earl really think that? And, if he were again responsible, would he venture to take that risk? Has that solution proved so satisfactory in regard to other bases of the Grand Alliance?
I do not know whether your Lordships heard the one o'clock news on the wireless to-day. Then I heard reported the first declaration of the Prime Minister of Iceland: that it was now going to be one of the cardinal points of his policy to get the United States troops and base there removed. Is that a good precedent for saying that we should be perfectly safe to have a lease-lend base in a Greek Cyprus? What guarantee is there? We all want our friendship with Greece. We all want Greece to be strong and stable, and a force in the Grand Alliance. But do let us face facts. Is it at all beyond the bounds of possibility that Greece at an election might go Communist? She has not been very far from it once or twice. Certainly there is the possibility that Greece, following the example of Tito, might think that neutralism, which is becoming speciously popular to-day, might be the wiser course. We really cannot take that risk.
Then, it is said about self-determination: well, give a time limit and a fixed date. I was so glad that the most reverend Primate to-day set his face against that. I cannot think of any instance where a time limit has been given and where, in the past, we have not regretted it. It always raises false hopes. You cannot give a time limit unless you can say "I will guarantee the future. I will guarantee

229
that at the end of five, ten or fifteen years, such-and-such will be the situation." Who on earth can give any such guarantee today? Even Hitler's astrologer would have hesitated to make a forecast of that kind. Therefore, I entirely agree both with the Government and with the most reverend Primate, that we must put self-determination into cold storage for the present.
The most reverend Primate read out a statement of Archbishop Makarios. He speaks on this point with more authority than I do, but I am bound to say that I had not read that statement in the unqualified manner of the most reverend Primate. I only hope he is right. But even if Archbishop Makarios is unwilling to denounce terrorism from his island today, there would be no difficulty, and there would be great advantage to Lord Radcliffe and to all the negotiations and to everything, if Archbishop Makarios would say categorically, "I am prepared to discuss, and to advise my people to discuss, the whole of the Constitution and the whole question of the self-government of Cyprus while putting self-determination completely on one side for the time being." He does not forgo his claim and his desire or aim of self-determination but if he confirmed what the most reverend Primate has said, I believe that would be of great value. I believe that these arguments are conclusive, and that the Government cannot go further than they have gone.
I must say just one word about Turkey. I think Turkey has been a good deal maligned and misunderstood. Forget, if you will, and are rash enough, that Turkey is the bastion of our allied defence in this area—she certainly is. Forget that if you will. But surely in this matter Turkey has her rights and her own essential interest. I agree with the Under-Secretary of State who said that she may be right or wrong strategically, but there is no doubt what Turkey thinks. I must say that I do not regard the Channel Islands as a good analogy. Of course, if our relations with France were hostile, that would be another matter. It is no good pretending that there is not a good deal of hostility always under the surface, happily suppressed till lately, but there is this uncomfortable "undertow," to say the least of it, between Turkey and Greece. It is a very different thing to having somebody in this sort of relation
230
in occupation of an offshore island and having us in occupation of the offshore island vis-à-vis the French. If the Channel Islands were at the edge of Russia—I hope I shall not be provocative—that would be a much closer analogy.
EARL ATTLEE: The noble Lord is being very modern—he has not looked back more than one hundred years ago, when our relations with France were just like that. For years and years; we regarded the French as our enemy.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I know, and in that case France clearly resented our occupation of the Channel Islands; and she had good right to do so. On more than one occasion she tried to get them. In fact, on, I think, one or two occasions one of the Channel Islands was occupied by the French. I really do not think we disagree greatly on that. Then, there are the minority rights in Cyprus. My memory, like that of the noble Earl and that of the Leader of the House, goes hack to the time of the Lausanne Treaty. I would say, without hesitation, that I am sure that the Turks would not have agreed to the Lausanne Settlement of Thrace and the Dodecannese if they had believed that later on Cyprus was going to pass into the hands of Greece. If Cyprus were transferred from British Sovereignty without Turkish consent—I do not put forward the question of a Turkish veto; I say advisedly "without Turkish consent"—and in circumstances and under conditions which jeopardise her safety, then Turkey would certainly morally, and I should have thought legally, be entitled to reopen the whole of the Lausanne Treaty.
My Lords, to look at local conditions also, I wonder whether people do not too readily assume what is the interest and the desire of Greek-speaking Cypriots if they had the chance of expressing their opinion free from terrorism, and, I must also acid, free from ecclesiastical dictation and control. I think it is very unwise to dogmatise. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has given some figures about emigration, but there are some still more remarkable figures. I believe it is true that in the course of the last ten years something like 100,000 Greeks have come from the Greek mainland or from the Greek Islands into the Island of Cyprus.

231
Those Greeks did not come in as pioneers and missionaries of Enosis; they came in from Greece because they wanted to have a more prosperous life in a happier land, and it may well be that if they really have the chance of expressing their opinion they would like to manage their own affairs and not to be joined up to Greece and taxed and conscripted by Greece. But I do not seek to dogmatise on that point.
I am sure it is very wise to send out Lord Radcliffe. I am sure it is wise to try to frame this Constitution, or the heads of a Constitution, so that the Cypriots themselves may know what it is they can achieve and operate in their own interests when law and order are restored. I hope and believe that any solution—I am not talking about self-determination, but any solution, any project—would be open to Lord Radcliffe to consider. We certainly do not necessarily want a sealed pattern constitution. There are many suggestions—the suggestion of dual citizenship, for instance. I take it Lord Radcliffe would be free to consider any of those matters and to make his recommendations. I think those are the right lines; indeed, those are the only possible lines.
I should like to end upon a note which I believe will command universal assent in this House. I believe we should all wish, as we are on the eve of our Recess, to send a message to a man for whom there will be no Recess—a message of good will, encouragement and sympathy to Sir John Harding, the Governor of Cyprus. We in this country and the people of Cyprus are very fortunate that in this difficult time there is there, in that extremely difficult position, a man who is a great leader, a wise administrator, and, above all, a most human man.
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is with great humility that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time. I would not have imposed this hardship on your Lordships had it not been for the fact that I have recently been in Cyprus and that I feel that certain aspects of the problem and its possible solutions have not yet been fully discussed in your Lordships' House. It is for those reasons that I have the temerity to rise to-day. At once I would like to
232
associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Swinton, in recognising that we must be fully behind our present Administration in Cyprus. There is more that I shall have to say about that later.
The suggestions I have it in mind to make stern mainly from the effect of the troubles in Cyprus on the Atlantic Alliance. I know your Lordships will agree that to restore and maintain the morale and political unity of that Alliance is of paramount importance, in view of the dangers with which the free world is still confronted. Since the first study conference on the Atlantic community, held in Oxford in 1952, I have been closely connected with the work of creating and maintaining what one might describe as a kind of Atlantic community spirit: first, as chairman of the original International Atlantic Committee, and now as a member of the British Atlantic Committee, of which Sir David Kelly is Chairman. I am also Honorary President of the Atlantic Treaty Association, which is the international body co-ordinating the work of the National Atlantic Committees in twelve of the N.A.T.O. countries. As Chairman of the European Atlantic Group, which is a sort of London discussion forum, I have taken part in various discussions regarding disputes within N.A.T.O. These organisations, working together, have been described as a kind of voluntary Western counterpart of the Cominform. I do not very much like the word "Natinform" but it does, perhaps, give the general impression of the character of the work that has been undertaken by these voluntary bodies, which include representatives of leading national organisations in twelve of the N.A.T.O. countries and include, in particular, representatives of the trade unions and the teaching profession.
In our discussion, both formal and informal, in the Atlantic Treaty Association, the problem of Cyprus has, of course, often arisen. Our overriding concern has always been to help maintain the efficacy of the collective defence of the free world, particularly in that part of the Eastern Mediterranean where the Island of Cyprus lies. Communist action in Greece, in Cyprus itself, and in its general international direction, has aimed at exploiting national passions, Greek and Turkish, and causing the maximum degree

233
of dissension between the three Allied countries concerned: Britain, Greece and Turkey. Its immediate objective has been to dislocate the military planning of the South Eastern sector of S.H.A.P.E. and to hamper the activity of the headquarters of the British Middle East Command in Cyprus. This situation goes, therefore, beyond the purely nationalist demand of the Greek Cypriots for political union with Greece.
The organisation of political murder by youths in Cyprus, endorsed by the Greek Government, and the kind of monstrously vicious anti-British propaganda which can be seen in the lounge at Athens airport—I picked up some of these pamphlets from that place only the day before yesterday—are poisoning British opinion against the Greeks, and to some extent dividing us from the United States. There can be no question that this ruthless campaign of violence and progaganda must be crushed and that the Governor of Cyprus, whom I had the pleasure of visiting last week, and our troops in the Island, deserve our unqualified support. The situation has certainly improved, and terrorism looks as though it is being suppressed. I heard generous tributes on all sides from disinterested responsible quarters of the consummate skill with which Field Marshal Sir John Harding has handled a most difficult situation. I wish I could quote the sources of that approval, but I will gladly give them privately to any noble Lord. But Sir John's task is made much more difficult by the international character of this dispute and by the lengths to which official Greek diplomacy and propaganda have gone to advance their national cause.
The Turkish Cypriots, on the other hand, supported by a unanimous and dangerously explosive feeling in Turkey itself, are solidly opposed to union with Greece. The result is a condition which almost amounts to an undeclared war between Greece and two of her allies, and a movement in favour of neutrality by the former. Herein lies a victory for Soviet policy. Britain, Greece, Turkey, N.A.T.O. and the free world as a whole are all the weaker for it. General promises of self-determination for the population of Cyprus which have been offered, and the mission to the Island of Lord Radcliffe, whom I also had the pleasure of meeting there, have not yet eased the political
234
situation, even if terrorism has been reduced. I will not to-day discuss the failure of local negotiations in Cyprus nor here examine in detail the well-known Turkish attitude which, while admitting the principle of national self-determination as a general international principle, insists that it cannot be applied in the case of Cyprus any more than it could be accepted, for instance, in the Aaland Islands, off the coast of Finland, of which the entire population is Swedish. or Western Thrace which used to have an overwhelmingly Turkish population, or Northern Ireland where the Government is strongly opposed to the Enosis of a large minority of Nationalists with the Republic of Ireland.
I would refer to-day to the various appeals which have been made, notably by M. Spaak and responsible writers in America, that the North Atlantic Council should play some part in resolving this dispute. I realise that the Prime Minister has stated in another place that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to refer this matter to N.A.T.O., at any rate at this stage, and in the present circumstances I admit that the time is not propitious. There might have been good reason to do so some months ago, but not at this very moment. Law and order must first he restored and we must await the suppression of terrorism and the report of the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe. For the moment, therefore, the status quo must be maintained, but hope that meanwhile possible alternative N.A.T.O. solutions will be examined, for I feel that the time may well come, during the course of the next year or two, when sonic kind of N.A.T.O. solution may prove to offer the best chance of acceptance by the various interested parties. Nothing I say this afternoon, however, must be taken as criticism of the excellent work of my right honourable friend in another place, of Sir John Harding or of the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, who are doing or have done great work in their respective fields.
I hope, therefore, that Governments which may hitherto have rejected a N.A.T.O. solution may be brought again to reconsider variants of it. At any rate, I do not believe that there can be any harm in ventilating or re-ventilating these ideas to-day. Even if the present

235
Greek attitude intransigently sticks to Enosis as the only solution, circumstances may change and make a compromise solution possible later. In this, the United States Government could do much to help, and therefore I do not think that some kind of N.A.T.O. solution should be rejected utterly in the future. Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that signatories are bound
"to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered."
I know that in the North Atlantic Council the rule of unanimity obtains, and that so far everything that has been done has been accomplished in this way. That rule does not, however, exclude free and intimate discussion between members of the Council in private session. There is nothing to prevent members who are not a party to this dispute from offering their good offices as mediators. Of course, if Her Majesty's Government agreed to accept such mediation she might have to be prepared for a proposal that Britain should surrender part of her sovereignty over the island; but self-determination has been promised, and I do not see how Her Majesty's Government can go back upon that promise. At the same time, neither the Greeks nor the Turks could, as I see it, secure unrestricted sovereignty over Cyprus without aggravation of the present quarrel.
This leads directly into the suggestions which I venture, with great respect, to make. Let us suppose that the North Atlantic Council arranges for certain of its members to exercise a condominium over the island. In that case it must be remembered that the Council is simply a body representing all the signatories of the Atlantic Treaty, including Britain, Greece and Turkey, on a basis of absolutely equal rights. It follows, therefore, that all citizens of N.A.T.O. countries resident in Cyprus would have equal rights locally, without ceasing to be nationals of their own country. The present residents of Cyprus would be empowered, under the supervision of an appropriate N.A.T.O. commission, to opt for or to declare their nationality. Thus those who desired to remain British would, of course, do so; a number of Greek Cypriots would no doubt choose
236
to become Greek citizens, and Turkish residents, Turkish citizens. There seems no reason why, in addition to appointing representatives to any local Assembly which might be devised, the Greeks should not elect members to sit in the Parliament in Athens and the Turks one or more members in the Parliament in Ankara—much as it was proposed that the Maltese, while retaining their Parliament in Valletta, should elect three members to the Parliament in the United Kingdom.
Foreign policy, defence, and, at least for an interim period, internal security would remain the functions of the N.A.T.O. Governor or High Commissioner, assisted by the N.A.T.O. Commission of Government, over which he would preside. Such a Governor or High Commissioner might not necessarily be of British, Greek, or Turkish nationality: he might be a Canadian, like the Truce Commissioner in Palestine; but there would be members of the three principal nations on the Commission. Probably, however, there would have to be at least an equal number of members belonging to other N.A.T.O. countries, including the United States, whose communications in the Eastern Mediterranean arc as important as our own.
It would be very important to ensure, as a condition of the transfer by the British Crown of some of its sovereign rights to the North Atlantic Council—and this is most important—that Britain would be granted, in treaty form, facilities for the maintenance of a base to enable it to discharge its national and international military commitments both within and outside the N.A.T.O. area. The present British Middle East land and air commands do not come under S.H.A.P.E., and there is no reason why they should do so under the proposed arrangement; but there would, of course, be proper co-ordination and liaison in regard to the defence of the Island and the necessary assistance to be given in the event of war to the South-Eastern sector of S.H.A.P.E. and the Mediterranean Command.
Here I would, with deference, make a brief comment on recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. At Norwich on June 2 the Prime Minister said:
"It is sometimes suggested that a N.A.T.O. base on Greek soil should suffice all our needs."

237
In another place the Foreign Secretary last week made a similar statement. But, the proposals which I now put forward and which have the substantial support of many responsible quarters within the Atlantic community make no such suggestion. Under these proposals it is the island which would become legally a N.A.T.O. island; but the base, which occupies, or need occupy, only parts of the territory, would remain British, under contractual arrangements perhaps somewhat similar to those applying to bases in the Caribbean area which Her Majesty's Government lease to the United States Government. The base would remain a British base—I cannot underline that sufficiently. Therefore our ability to defend our oil communications would in no way be jeopardised. Moreover, the kind of international guarantee which the N.A.T.O. administration would provide would, in my view, greatly strengthen, and not weaken, our position.
An alternative might be that the United Kingdom might lease the Island to N.A.T.O., with the base or bases remaining British from the outset and remaining British permanently. I know it is said that in present circumstances—and this is a subject which I particularly discussed on the Island—that it is not possible to separate the Island from the base, but the time may well come when this may be possible. I will not go into this in detail, but having had discussions on the subject with those concerned on the Island, I believe ultimately it may be possible to separate the two.
The administrative departments of Government—for example, Justice, Health. Finance, Trade and Forestry—would be taken over and maintained at the start with their existing personnel by the N.A.T.O, Council or Commission of Government; but the aim would be to transfer them all to persons responsible to a Cypriot Legislative Assembly as soon as the latter could be duly constituted. Thus the exclusive sovereignty of any one country over Cyprus having been excluded by the international settlement which I contemplate, and the Greek Cypriots being already full Greek citizens, the local assembly would have no competence to alter the international status of the Island or the Constitution established by Treaty. Its sphere of action being confined to local administration, the question of the voting strength of the
238
various national communities would have no great political significance one way or another. It would be radically different from a Legislative Assembly, in which a majority could vote for territorial annexation to Greece, a proposition to which the Turkish Government, and of course we ourselves, would, quite naturally, be fundamentally opposed. I will not further elaborate these proposals today. I would only suggest that there are many instances in modern history, from the Constitution of Canada to that of the Lebanese Republic, in which it has been found possible to respect and safeguard distinct national, religious or linguistic groups within a single political framework. However, to any noble Lord who is interested I will gladly send a detailed memorandum on this subject.
My Lords, I should like also to refer briefly to the suggestion that reference of the Cyprus problem to N.A.T.O. might harm the integrity of the present Alliance. I cannot believe that this great Alliance, welded together by the United Governments of the Western World, could be in any way damaged by such action. Moreover, there is no means by which the North Atlantic Council can compel any of its member Governments to accept an international arrangement to which it is opposed. The whole purpose of the suggestions which I have outlined, in all humility, is to offer to the Greek and Turkish Governments, as to the United Kingdom, something which, upon careful consideration, each would find to be to its advantage.
Here are three national preoccupations which are all in themselves respectable. First, the need of our own country to retain, with the agreement of its Allies, a military base to enable us to discharge our heavy obligations in the Middle East, as well as our direct obligations to Turkey under the North Atlantic and Baghdad Treaties. Second, the desire of the Greeks to see a large number of people in Cyprus, who genuinely feel Greek, joined to the Greek nation. Third, the determination of the Turks not to allow an island which they ceded by Treaty to Britain, and which they regard as essential to their defence, to pass with its considerable Turkish population under another sovereignty. It should not pass the wit of statesmen to devise a means of reconciling these three purposes to

239
the mutual advantage of the three countries concerned, who are confronted with a common and greater danger in the strategy of Communism.
It must be remembered also, in regard to the practical application by Her Majesty's Government and the North Atlantic Council of any such collective responsibility as I have indicated, that Turkey and Greece, as well as Britain, would each retain the right to give or withhold its agreement. They would be compelled to face their responsibilities directly, without the vicarious exploitation of local populations for national purposes in the false context of a colonial dispute. This itself would be no bad thing. And, if we are to judge by the remarkable way in which, since its inception, the North Atlantic Council has achieved unanimity on a variety of financial, technical and political, as well as military subjects, under the pressure of practical necessity, there is at least a reasonable ground of faith in the prospects of its working a plan of this kind successfully, once the principle has been accepted by the countries concerned. Our country's acceptance of it would, I believe, give the other members of the Alliance great confidence in Britain, confidence that by this act of sacrifice she was prepared to support the Alliance in every possible way and to put behind it the full force of her traditions, her influence and her power. It would show that we were willing largely to agree a policy in the Middle East with the United States. Having recently visited other parts of the Middle East, I know how important this is. And a N.A.T.O. solution of the Cyprus problem would, I think, help us to achieve this understanding with the United States over the Middle East.
I cannot help feeling that there should be high-ranking United States representation on the Island, covering both the political and military fields. This, surely, is essential now, regardless of whatever ultimate political solution may be evolved. The excellent United States consul in the Island is very well thought of, but surely there should be high-ranking diplomatic and military representatives as well. There would then be much less chance of a cleavage of Anglo-American policy in the region. A N.A.T.O. solution would cover this deficiency. It would also show to
240
the rest of the world that Britain was determined to play her part in restoring the moral and political solidarity of the Alliance, which is an indispensable condition both of its military efficiency and of developing the non-military aspects of N.A.T.O. which are now being carefully examined by the three Foreign Ministers, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Lange and Signor Martino. It is on these non-military aspects of the Alliance that I have been working during the past four years, and I cannot imagine an act which would give the Atlantic movement greater impetus and give it greater cohesion than this very limited renunciation of British sovereignty. In this case, such renunciation would not be in favour of a wholly alien Power but of a Grand Alliance of which we ourselves form an integral part. If we in Britain do not do something soon we shall lose some of our friends who should remain lasting ones.
I should also like to see the Commonwealth play a greater part in the Island, in the same way as, for example, under the Colombo Plan, Canada is doing in Ceylon. The civilisation of the Atlantic community and the Commonwealth has grown out of the heritage of Greece, Rome and Byzantium; and Cyprus represents all three. Cannot we of the N.A.T.O. countries, knowing that we are now all part of the same civilisation, which must not be disrupted, rise above this strictly regional dispute and decide to resolve it on the broader basis of the Atlantic and Commonwealth community as a whole? My Lords, I leave that great question to be answered, I hope, by others. I have heard it said that there is no solution to the Cyprus problem. I agree that every solution so far proposed has disadvantages. My feeling is that a N.A.T.O. solution may have fewer disadvantages than any other and that it at least goes some way to meeting the various conflicting claims. If, therefore, any of the Governments concerned have rejected such a solution, might they not even now, at this late hour, be asked to reconsider it?
4.27 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure that it would be the wish of your Lordships in all quarters of the House that I should offer our congratulations to the noble Earl who has just spoken and so successfully overcome

241
the ordeal of making a maiden speech. At the beginning of this debate the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said something about the good things of having this debate. Since then one more good thing has emerged—the speech to which we have just listened, a speech of grace, authority and knowledge, and full of interesting suggestions. I am sure that we shall all look forward to further contributions to our debates by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
The most reverend Primate, who is not at the moment in his place, adjured us not to speak of terrorism. He said there were two ways of dealing with terrorism: first, to suppress it; and secondly, to circumvent it. He said that the less we spoke about it the better. Almost his final point was an expression of regret concerning Her Majesty's Government's insistence on the restoration of law and order before we could advance along the line of political progress. With great respect to the most reverend Primate I would disagree. I support most wholeheartedly Her Majesty's Government's insistence upon the restoration of law and order as a first step towards the solution of this Cyprus problem. I believe that it is essential as a foundation for working out any solution that a state of law and order exists in which men can speak their minds without fear of the assassin's bullet. Negotiation, consultation, even consideration and reflection, are impossible under threat of gun and bomb.
The point I should like to submit to your Lordships is that I believe it is wrong to lock together—as speeches, particularly from the Opposition Benches, have done, both here and in another place—a political settlement and the restoration of law and order. Recently in another place, Mr. Gaitskell said that violence in Cyprus
"… is a direct result of the refusal of the British Government to show any indication to the Cyprus people that the principle of self-determination will be implemented."
I believe that it is a fallacy to think of the leaders of violence as thwarted and frustrated political leaders. They are now men with assassins' minds. They have developed those minds either from their early years or from war experience. I believe that it is an illusion to think that the political deadlock has turned good men into bad. History shows us that
242
the growth of almost every nationalistic movement has around its edge a fungus of violence and disruption. We had it in Ireland and we have had it in nationalist movements all over the world; and I believe that we are now seeing it here.
I believe that it is equally an illusion to think that some political settlement will turn these violent men into law-abiding citizens overnight. These men now have a vested interest in terrorism. It is now their way of life and their livelihood. I do not believe that any possible political settlement will satisfy the blood lust of these territorists. They will find further targets for their weapons, possibly in the ranks of those whom they now profess to be supporting. I think it is an error to talk of the restoration of law and order as being dependent on a political settlement. They are two separate conditions, and the first must precede the second.
Because of this, I think it is right that Her Majesty's. Government should expect a denunciation of terrorism from the banished Archbishop Makarios. I would say that it is to the discredit of Archbishop Makarios that, so far, he has declined to make such a clear denunciation. In our last debate the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury quoted a letter he had received from Archbishop Makarios, and I would remind your Lordships of something that was said in that letter [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 196, col. 471]:
"I am sincerely afraid that an official condemnation of events by myself would not find at the present stage the necessary response, but would involve the risk of exposing me rather unprofitably."
There spoke the politician, not the churchman. The most reverend Primate advocated the calling back of Archbishop Makarios into consultation. Her Majesty's Government have said that the future position of the Archbishop rests with the Archbishop himself. If and when Archbishop Makarios makes a clear denunciation of terrorism and violence, then, in the words of Her Majesty's Government "a new situation arises." Speaking a few days ago in another place, Mr. Wedgwood Benn made the point that since his banishment the authority and standing of Archbishop Makarios had risen very considerably in Cyprus. I cannot say whether that is or is not so, but if we

243
accept that, it is all the more important that that denunciation should come from the Archbishop now. The Archbishop's position rests upon his own courage and integrity as a churchman. His fate rests in his own hands.
The impact of events has led to a logical sequence of action by Her Majesty's Government. First, the restoration of law and order; secondly, proposals for the preparation for internal self-government—Lord Radcliffe's Mission is the outward expression of that hope; thirdly, the hope in the minds of the Government, and I believe in all of us, that we shall receive that Christian declaration of denunciation of terrorism from Archbishop Makarios, either from his lips or in the written word; fourthly, to make clear to all, within and without Cyprus, that we accept the principle of self-determination but are unable to accept any date or programme for its application. I believe that we should make clear that circumstances in the world are such that at the present time its application is not a practical matter. Finally, I believe that we should take a further step, an extension, as it were, of the suggestions made by the most reverend Primate in his speech. While we accept the principle of self-determination and differ about its application, we are trying in Cyprus to advance along lines of self-government, and one can only hope that the frame of self-government will be such as will eventually fit in to the application of self-determination, as and when that becomes possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that the strategic argument was put too high. The noble Earl knows far more about strategy than I do, but I do not believe that any political person is really competent to judge upon the broad policy of the advisers. The noble Earl has held the highest office in our country, that of Prime Minister, and he knows that the Chiefs of Staff and the Service advisers are cross-examined, criticised, and made to justify their assertions; but that in broad principles their policy is either accepted or rejected. If you reject their advice you get new advisers. So long as Her Majesty's Government have advisers, I believe that in broad policy it is right that we should accept their advice.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and my noble friend Lord Lloyd stated some of
244
the strategic safeguards which Cyprus grants to us in respect of obligations under the Tripartite Agreement, the Baghdad Pact, N.A.T.O. and the vital Middle East oil supply. The noble Earl said something about the Middle East oil. The oil world is a complicated and technical one, but I have taken the trouble to tap the fringe of it on this question of Middle East oil. I think that the noble Earl's question was: what would happen if Middle East oil were denied to us?
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I asked who was supposed to be going to attack the oil, and what the Government would do about it.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Our Service advisers say that Cyprus is necessary for keeping open the Mediterranean, and we must assume that if the Mediterranean were denied to us, our oil situation would be critical. In the oil world there is a yardstick called TQ, which is a 15,000-ton tanker steaming at 14½knots. A total of 140 million tons of oil a year are produced in the Middle East—I do not think it matters who owns it, so long as it is destined for the free world—and, so long as the Mediterranean is open, based on that yardstick eighty-five tankers can transport that oil. If the Mediterranean were denied to us, it would need a notional 1,200 tankers to take that oil round the Cape; and there are not 1,200 tankers available for that purpose. That fact must be clearly conclusive on the argument about the necessity of keeping open the Mediterranean for our oil supplies. One accepts the Service advisers' views that Cyprus is an essential requirement for the keeping open of the Mediterranean.
EARL ATTLEE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord again, may I say that I have heard a great many arguments on this point. We were told that we must stay in the Suez Canal because of the oil, and all the rest of it; but the Party opposite brought us out of there. I am sure that if Cyprus had to be given up somewhere else would be found.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: It is an "old one", to compare the Suez and Cyprus. The fact is that Cyprus was an alternative base for the Mediterannean. These bases are our own sovereignty, and will, I hope, with good will, remain so. As to the possibility of leased bases, we

245
have seen in Iceland and Morocco what happens with them. There is no security for this country in the idea of leased bases at Cyprus which are not British territory.
Finally, there is the one further step that I said I was going to suggest as an extension of the proposals of the most reverend Primate—that is, an appeal to the Greek Government and the Greek people, by speech, by diplomacy, by radio and by all the modern means by which we can get it across to them. The appeal should be along these lines: that we in Britain are not clinging to Cyprus for aggrandisement, or economic gain, or out of obstinacy. We need Cyprus to safeguard our safety, which is the safety of Greece as well. On our ability to put up a defence against the Communist world threat depends our freedom and that of our friends and Allies, including Greece and Turkey. Our freedom is Greece's freedom. With ours gone, there is nothing more certain than that theirs is gone, too. I would say to them that we are still a great Power, the centre of the British Commonwealth; and by history and position we must be able to contribute more to the common pool of arms and material than Greece can in the common task of freedom's fight for survival.
Then I should like Her Majesty's Government to remind Greece that between 1939 and 1945 we, as they did, gave unstintingly of our life and our treasure for the cause of freedom. Is it too much to ask Greece now to contribute directly, in patience and understanding, to her own security and that of the rest of the free world? That patience and understanding would take this form. First, it would support the essential restoration of law and order. We know that there are offensive streams of terrible propaganda coming from Athens. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, held up some pieces of offensive and terrible literature that he picked up in Athens airport. But there are far more good people in Greece, who want to see our traditional friendship restored, than there are of these fanatics and wicked and wild men. Secondly, I would ask them to accept that our mutual interest of security for the free world requires a certain British tenure so long as the present world tension continues. The most reverend Primate asked us not
246
to concentrate upon the irreconcilables but to think of the points of agreement. With great humility, I would follow that advice absolutely.
Thirdly, I think we should ask Greece to agree that consideration of the application of the principle already accepted should be deferred for a period of years. The most reverend Primate spoke about time limits, and how difficult they are. I am not suggesting a time limit, but a time of deferment, which is something quite different. If Greece would agree to deferment for five, eight or ten years, while we safeguard our mutual interest of freedom in the free world, by then violence will have been put down: internal self-government may be well advanced; the world situation will be clarified, and judgment and tempers will be calmer. A response to such an appeal by the Greek nation would need courage and breadth, both within and without the Island of Cyprus. But it is to the rank and file of those of Greece, both within arid without Cyprus, if not to their political leaders, to whom we would make this appeal. It is an appeal which might rally reasonable people to proposals, logical, definite, giving security without and a set time for calm consideration on how and when to apply what has already been conceded in principle but must, in the Christian interests of freedom, be deferred for some indefinite period.
4.48 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords. I should like to add my congratulations to those offered by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to my noble friend Lord Bessborough, on his notable maiden speech. He comes to us with great experience of international affairs, and particularly of Atlantic co-operation; and certainly the ingenious suggestions that he made on the subject of Cyprus will be studied with great interest by all of us.
This debate follows closely on the debate in another place last week, in which the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this intricate and unhappy problem was overwhelmingly endorsed. Part of that debate ranged over the past—and certainly, in my view, there would be no advantage in raking over the ashes of the past unless by so doing we could find any clues likely to lead to a solution of the problem as it confronts us to-day. However, in view of the

247
numerous, and in many cases inaccurate, references made to a statement which I made in another place, speaking as Minister for State for Colonial Affairs on July 28, 1954, I hope that I may be forgiven if on this occasion I preface my remarks by recalling to your Lordships what I then said. The purpose of that statement was to announce the intention of the Government to take a fresh initiative in the development of self-governing institutions in Cyprus.
I gave an outline of the proposed Constitution, of course making it clear that the details required to be worked out. It has been argued by Opposition speakers that the Constitution which it was then proposed to introduce was less liberal than that which was put forward by the Labour Government in 1948—the so-called "Winster Constitution," in the application of which the Nationalist Greek Cypriot leaders had for six long years refused to co-operate. In some respects that was so, but it was stated the other day in another place that the 1948 Constitution had in fact been rejected by the Nationalists on account of the wide powers reserved to the Governor. That was not, in fact, the case. The real cause of the rejection of the 1948 Constitution was that it denied to the proposed Assembly the right to discuss any questions of change of sovereignty. To that extent the new Constitution which we announced on July 28, 1954, was an advance, for it included no such ban.
I also stated on that occasion that Her Majesty's Government could not contemplate a change of sovereignty in Cyprus. In so doing, they were merely continuing the declared policy of the previous Socialist Government, and, indeed, their own publicly stated views. I could quote many examples. For instance, a Socialist predecessor of mine, as Minister of State, said in another place on June 21, 1950 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 476, col. 1279]:
"It has repeatedly been made clear that no change in the sovereignty of the island is contemplated."
The passage in my remarks, however, which attracted the most attention and criticism from the Opposition and elsewhere was when, in reply to a question
248
by the spokesman for the Opposition, I said:
"There are certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances can never expect to be fully independent."
That principle is one which had previously been enunciated in Parliament without challenge or comment, and one could, of course, think of many cases in which it might be held to apply. Certainly the position of all the smaller colonial territories, and particularly those of strategic importance, has to be examined individually, and a solution—not necessarily an orthodox solution—found to meet each case. This principle was fully accepted in the recent Malta Round Table Conference Report, which was signed by the noble Earl who opened the debate and many others of his colleagues.
However, in the case of Cyprus, as my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary pointed out in another place the other day, I specifically qualified my statement of this principle by going on to say:
"I am not going as far as that this afternoon."
Therefore, the famous "never", in the sense attributed to it by so many critics, was, in fact, never uttered. Nevertheless, I would suggest to your Lordships that subsequent events have demonstrated only too clearly the difficulty of applying the doctrine of self-determination in Cyprus.
It was also argued by the Opposition speakers in another place the other day that it was this statement which led to the decision of the Greek Government to bring the Cyprus issue before the United Nations. It may perhaps have been used as a pretext, but the fact remains that the Greek Government—and I think this needs to be said—had for some time been threatening to take this matter to the United Nations unless they could secure satisfaction for their claims in bilateral conversations with Her Majesty's Government over Cyprus. On May 12, 1954—that is to say, two months before my statement—my right honourable friend, the present Foreign Secretary, said unequivocally that Her Majesty's Government would not be prepared to discuss the status of Cyprus with the Greek Government, and this proposition, which certainly had been held by the Labour

249
Government when they were in power, was not challenged by the Opposition Front Bench.
It has also been argued that the statement should not have been made because there had been a change in the attitude of the Greek Cypriot leaders after 1951 (this point was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place the other day); that in fact they would have been prepared to consider operating the Constitution. To the best of my belief—and I had access to all the files at that time—there is no evidence for this at all. On the contrary, it was perfectly clear that they would not at that time have been willing to discuss the issue except on a basis of union with Greece. The slogan was, "Enosis, and only Enosis". I repeat that the statement of July, 1954, enunciated no new principle. It also initiated no fresh policy, except for the decision to proceed with the introduction of a Constitution. Certainly it was misinterpreted by many members of the Opposition in the debate that followed, and it was repeated and reported in that distorted form in the Athens Press and the Greek Cypriot papers.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I am sure he does not mean to suggest that it was deliberately misinterpreted by the Opposition in another place. I would agree entirely with him if he had said—as I think he did say—that it was misinterpreted. I am sure that was due to ignorance, and anyone who studied the Hansard report of his speech would entirely agree with the interpretation he is giving it this afternoon.
LORD COLYTON: I will readily concede that to the noble Earl. I know how difficult it is, when statements are made, and answers given to supplementary questions, to get the exact shade of meaning of a phrase.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the task of Her Majesty's Government in finding a solution to this well-nigh intractable problem has been made far more difficult by the wholesale acceptance by members of the Opposition and others in this country of what, for the sake of simplicity, I would call the Greek solution. It is true that lip service has been paid to the need for constitutional safeguards for the Turkish minority on
250
the Island. But Turkish mainland sentiment—and do not let us forget that there are at least 250,000 Cypriot-born Turks, some in positions of authority in Turkey—and, above all, Turkish strategic interests, have simply not been taken into account by the Opposition spokesmen at all. Indeed, we heard that repeated in essence by the noble Earl who opened this debate this afternoon. I do not say that he entirely dismissed the importance of Turkish sentiment and Turkish strategic interests, but certainly he passed them over very lightly.
It is all too easy to say, as has been said in another place, that constitutional advances in Cyprus should take place on normal colonial lines towards Dominion status. But the fact is that it is not a purely colonial problem; it is a mixed colonial and international problem. Even now, from reading last week's debate in another place, and from what the noble Earl said this afternoon, it seems to me that the Opposition have not really faced up to the realities of the situation and to the realities of Turkish feelings. What are the issues with which we are confronted? I should like to refer to them very briefly.
The Greek point of view is very simple. The Greek Government and the Greek Nationalist leaders in Cyprus say that four-fifths of the Island are of Greek race or Greek-speaking, and they declare that the majority would like to be united with Greece and that the principle of self-determination should be applied. I should not for a moment deny the essential Hellenism of the large majority of the people of Cyprus, and I can well understand the emotional desire of many of them—though not by any means all of them—to be united with Greece. I yield to no one in my admiration and affection for the Greek people. I lived and worked with them in Greece as a member of His Majesty's Legation in Athens before the war, and even more closely for two years during the war. I think my Greek friends—and they are many—would agree that I was sometimes able to be not altogether unhelpful to them. Certainly one member of the present Greek Administration will remember a critical evening on Easter Saturday of 1939, the day after Mussolini had landed in Albania. So to me personally it has been particularly painful to be drawn into conflict with Greek opinion on this Cyprus issue.

251
But while I understand the strength of Greek feeling, I cannot believe that it can in any way justify the methods which Greek leaders, in pursuit of their aims, have chosen to advocate or to employ against an old and traditional friend and Ally. Nor have the. Greeks themselves really faced up to the practical facts of this Cyprus problem. It is true that the present Greek Government and their predecessors here offered us bases, but in so doing they seem to disregard the fact, as has been pointed out by several of my noble friends, that Governments change; that policies can be reversed; that bases which have been freely granted at one moment become the target of political attack and denunciation the next. As the noble Earl pointed out, Iceland, Ceylon and many other examples can be given. That is the Greek position.
The Turkish position is also very simple. Setting aside the legal arguments arising out of the Treaty of Lausanne, into which I do not wish to enter now—it has been touched on already—the Turks, although recognising the principle of self-determination, do not admit of its universal application. They consider that other factors, such as history, geography, strategy and, above all, the essential safety of the State must be taken into consideration. They regard Cyprus as their "offshore island"—at the nearest point it is only thirty-six miles from their shores. They regard it as an extension of the Anatolian Peninsula, as a pistol which is pointed at the heart of Turkey and which, if it fell into hands which were hostile, or one day might become hostile, could effectively dominate the only two ports on which the Turks could rely for supplies in the event of war with a Northern enemy. We must recall the fact that there is a well-organised, powerful Communist minority in the Island of Cyprus itself. That is the crux of the Turkish position. It is far more important, I believe, than the sentiment of the 250,000 Cypriot-born Turks; it is more important even than the fate of the Turkish minority on the Island.
Greek spokesmen—and, I am sorry to say, some members of the Opposition in this country—have sometimes suggested that the Turkish attitude on this subject had been encouraged or even inspired by
252
Her Majesty's Government. As my noble friend Lord Lloyd has already pointed out, there is not one grain of truth in this. Indeed, at the Tripartite Conference in September of last year the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs made it quite clear that for three years before that, long before this issue was hitting the headlines, the Turkish Government had been uttering friendly warnings to their Greek Ally not to raise the Cyprus question. The strength of Turkish opinion was well known long before the present crisis developed.
I come now to the British position. It seems to me that our responsibilities in Cyprus are threefold. First of all—I would put this on a level of equality with the others —there is our duty to carry the people of Cyprus and of all races forward to a better standard of living, further material development, improvement in social conditions and ultimately to lead them to the fullest possible degree of self-government. Then, secondly (and my noble friend Lord Swinton has already referred to this) there is the need to maintain a base from which to carry out our obligations in the Middle East. Certainly, I would endorse all that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said about the views of the military advisers of the Government in these matters. Those are views to which attention must be paid. Those obligations and commitments include the Tripartite Agreement on Israel (which we are always being invited by the Opposition to say we still endorse and will carry out in an emergency); the Baghdad Pact; our Treaty of Alliance with Jordan, and, as several of my noble friends have said, the general maintenance of our influence in the Middle East, with all that that means in connection with the protection of our oil supplies.
Thirdly, and finally, we have our duties under N.A.T.O. It should be remembered —though it is sometimes forgotten—that for purposes of N.A.T.O. Cyprus is a British naval sub-area but is not covered by the N.A.T.O. Treaty for land forces or for air forces purposes. It has sometimes also been suggested that, if Cyprus were simply an Anglo-Greek affair, a settlement could have been achieved long since. I think there is a certain amount of truth in this, though even then not, I believe, on straightforward colonial lines. It might have been

253
possible in those circumstances to have provided adequate safeguards for the Turkish Cypriots. It might have been possible to provide for our military requirements under N.A.T.O., but so long as Britain is a party to a number of international commitments which Greece does not share, and which indeed are right outside her scope, it is clear to me that, quite apart from Turkish interests, some measure of British sovereignty would have to be maintained in the Island for a very long time to come. This is one of the reasons why I have always felt that it was impossible to lay down any definite dates for the exercise of self-determination which we recognise in principle.
The spokesman of the Opposition in another place in a debate last year laid it down as Opposition policy that the islanders should be asked to decide upon their own future within five years of the introduction of internal self-government. That seemed to me a most dangerous and utterly unrealistic suggestion. I happened to notice in the debate last week that the speaker in question had moved on to suggest live, ten or fifteen years of self-government as the possible stages when a decision as to the future status of the Island might be taken. That is all to the good. Certainly, I would say that one of the factors which has handicapped the Governor of Cyprus—and here f should like to add my tribute to all that has been said about Sir John Harding this afternoon—in his task has been the widely-held feeling among the Greek Cypriots that, if the Labour Party were returned to power, they would immediately grant self-determination to Cyprus. That view is widely held. The statement made in another place the other day as being a modification of the previous attitude adopted seems to me to be a great step forward.
I should also like to say this. It seems to me that in the proposals which have been under discussion recently and which have, for the moment, failed, it is very important to realise that this is not a question of a Turkish veto. In these matters it has been the practice of Her Majesty's Government to consult freely with both our friends and Allies, with the Greeks or with the Turks, according to the state of negotiations and the form they are taking. In this complex affair it seems to me that it is quite certain
254
that, in the long run, concessions must be made by all concerned. During the last two years Her Majesty's Government have made their contribution; and so, I would say, have the Greek Government—and indeed, in fairness to Archbishop Makarios, I think one must say that he, too, has made concessions. I have no doubt whatever that, when it comes down to seeking and settling a formula satisfactory to all, the Turkish Government, too, will play their part. But having regard to our obligations to our Turkish Allies, to the great part which they play, standing as they do in the front line of the defence of the free world, it would be wrong for us to attempt to force upon them something which they consider to be contrary to their own vital interests and safety.
My Lords, we do not know the details of the Government's recent proposals, and it may well he that Press reports are quite wrong in suggesting that they contain any fixed date for a withdrawal—indeed, I should be most surprised if it were otherwise. But it is clear that, for one reason or another, these proposals were not satisfactory to our Turkish friends. For the moment, the conversations have ceased and the Government have sent out Lord Radcliffe, not to negotiate but to explore the ground with a view to the drafting of a Constitution. We must all wish him well in this difficult task. It would be quite wrong to try to anticipate his conclusions, but I hope that in considering the provisions for safeguarding the Turkish minority under a Constitution, he will bear in mind the machinery of the African Affairs Board in the Central African Federation, which, of course, was introduced to deal with quite a different state of affairs but which I venture to suggest would be more elastic and practical than any such plan as trying To provide for equal Turkish and Greek representation in the upper House in Cyprus.
When Lord Radcliffe has reported—he has indicated that it may take some time —and when the Government have considered his Report and decided on the form of Constitution that they propose to put forward, we must hope that by that time a considerable step forward will have been made in regard to the restoration of law and order. In reference to what the noble Earl was saying earlier, I would draw to his attention the report

255
of the Daily Herald correspondent in Cyprus the other day, who referred to the large amount of information now coming forward because the terrorists have lost the sympathy of the villagers. This information is leading to the greatly improved security position in the island. But when all this is done, I suppose at some point the Government would have to consider where and how they are going to approach the situation—whether it is possible to continue on the same sort of lines as before. I suggest that if at that time we seem to be faced once again with a blank wall of difficulties, the Government ought to consider the possibility of other and more unorthodox solutions.
My noble friend here has suggested a condominium by N.A.T.O. If I may say so, it seems to me that, while the principle has great attractions, there would, of course, be great difficulty owing to the complication of having so many different countries interested in this small territory. And I would venture to suggest to your Lordships, with great diffidence, another form of condominium. Many in your Lordships' House have experience of a condominium—certainly, my noble friend Lord Killearn remembers only too well the troubles which arose over the Sudan—but I suggest that in this unique case of Cyprus a condominium might perhaps provide a workable solution. At any rate, it would be better than no solution at all. What I would suggest is a condominium between Britain and Greece, subject to a number of conditions—I will not attempt to go into details to-day, but I will touch on some of them.
From the point of view of the Cypriots, out of such an arrangement they would, of course, get the best of all possible worlds. They would get joint British and Greek nationality with freedom to enter this country, as they seem to like to do, and freedom to enter Greece, which they do not seem to be as keen on as they might be. They would share the benefits of the sterling area. They would have the right to govern themselves, to internal self-government, and to maintain their own customs duties and immigration laws. They would remain part of the British Commonwealth. From the Greek point of view, it would seem to me to provide an honourable solution which, while extending Greek sovereignty to the Island,
256
would do so in association with Britain, whose essential needs in Cyprus can be met only by the retention for a great many years of British sovereignty in some form. That might be more acceptable to Greek opinion than having to wait an indefinite period for the application of self-determination.
I suppose it would be argued that such an arrangement might not be acceptable to our Turkish friends. I believe that it would be, on one condition, and one condition only, namely, that Britain would be vested with the duty of protecting both Turkish strategic interests and the interests of the Turkish minority—in a sense, as a guarantor of Turkish rights and interests. I will not suggest that this should be for perpetuity, because, as I have sometimes been reminded, that might be a dangerous term but at any rate, shall we say, for as long as the present relationship between the national States remains as it is to-day. Other ways might be found of helping Turkish opinion. There might be a special Turkish Commissioner appointed to assist the British representative in his duties. Turkish Cypriots, too, might be given the chance of dual nationality—British and Turkish.
My Lords, it may be argued that, having regard to the attitude of the present Greek Government and people towards Britain and British rule in Cyprus a condominium would involve risks which we should not be entitled to run. On the face of it, this may be so. But I cannot help believing that, deep down in their hearts, despite all that has occurred, the bitterness and hostility which have saddened us for the past few years, the real feelings of friendship and affection of the Greek people towards Britain and the British people have not changed. I think that if an honourable solution could be devised which would meet in large measure the aspiration of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots, we could rely on them to work hand in hand with us in a novel relationship which, while safeguarding the Turkish position, would draw the bonds of friendship which have existed for 150 years between the Greeks and this country, and now with the whole British Commonwealth, closer than they have ever been before.
5.19p.m
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I preface my speech with my congratulations from this side to the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, on his maiden speech? We hope that we shall hear him on many occasions from that side of the House, or from this side of the House, as the case may be, and that he will always have the ear of the House, as he has had this afternoon.
I am glad to be able to support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has raised this Motion on Cyprus. This is the first time that I have spoken to your Lordships on this particular matter, but I can promise all those who follow me that I will be brief, and I am sure that I shall receive their approbation on that score. Unlike the noble Lord who has just sat down and the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, I have no knowledge of the Island, and I am afraid I am too old at the present time to see the many black and troubled spots throughout the world at the expense of our Forces. But whether we have been in Cyprus or not, we can review the events which have happened in the Island during the last few months, we can draw our conclusions upon those events, and maybe we can suggest revision of policies and activities in connection therewith. But, whatever we do, I think our consideration this afternoon must lead in the main, and I hope it will, towards the saving of human life, not only in Cyprus but throughout the world. The position has been described as tragic. It is indeed tragic and it is distressing also. Whatever Her Majesty's Government do in the interests of this nation and the interests of the world, they must endeavour to find a swift settlement of the matter. It cannot remain static t it can either go worse or it can become better, and I think all efforts should therefore be made towards improvement.
Allusions have been made from the Benches opposite this afternoon, I think rather regrettably, upon what we, the Opposition, have done or have not done, but I do not propose to follow that line at all. What I shall have to say will come from my own view of the situation, and I hope I shall speak with that moderation which will not in any way hurt or hinder the progress of peace between the Cypriots and ourselves.
258
Moderation at this particular time is extremely necessary. In this country of ours I think that some people are not very cognisant of the position in Cyprus. Some of us are inclined to stand aloof and take no particular interest in what is happening there. The question of Cyprus makes no appeal. Others unfortunately are perplexed and worried. do not know the numbers of the troops in Cyprus, but I think I have heard that it is between 10,000 and 15,000. If there are 15,000 troops, there are in this country probably 50,000 relatives of those boys who are in Cyprus, and it is certain that there are 50,000 anxious people here who, day by day, look with troubled eyes at the papers and also wait to hear the knock on the door to tell them whether one of their boys or their husbands or fathers have been killed by terrorists.
Now, what emerges from the present situation? I think we can consider it on these lines. There is murder and violence on the Island and no one here can possibly condone that. There is retaliation by our Forces, and retaliation may be equally as violent and equally as terrible. There is a military occupation which unfortunately—and I use that word intentionally—has not been over-successful. There have been similar episodes in other parts of the world where we have adopted military methods to reach a settlement and have not been successful. There has been a loss of British prestige in dealing with a small people, and, as has been heard on one or two occasions this afternoon, there has been a loss m international friendships, with the Greeks or Turks or elsewhere. There is also the risk that this conflict may spread. I am Informed, for what it is worth, that there is considerable unrest and disquietude in other parts of the Middle East, and it is seriously hoped that we shall be able to settle the Cyprus problem before any risk of spreading takes effect.
The strategic position of Cyprus has been mentioned. I can agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, referred to the strategic position of Cyprus in regard to the Mediterranean, and he rather suggested that we could not hold the Mediterranean unless we held Cyprus and that the military advisers advised the Government that Cyprus was important,

259
Well, the past strategic position of Cyprus surely must have gone. The future opens up entirely new considerations. We are approaching an atomic age when the whole world, not one island in the Mediterranean, is vulnerable. I therefore suggest that to be unduly troubled by whether or not we hold Cyprus as a base in the Mediterranean is unnecessary.
The protection of the oil supply has also been mentioned, and it was seriously hinted in one speech we heard that that might involve us in war. It seems to me that at the present the requirements as regards oil are international, and those requirements surely can be satisfied by honest and fair trading methods on the part of every country. Moreover, we must not overlook the fact that in the next generation, when many noble Lords now in this House have passed hence, oil may have become a product of the past and may not be so important as we find it at the present time. A few days ago in another place the Prime Minister, in dealing with the question of atomic tests. said:
"Each one of us should try to work out the best method we can contrive for limitation and control of these tests. Limitation should be fair to all concerned."
I believe we can apply that also to Cyprus. It is up to each and every one of us to try to work out some method of solution and limitation of the trouble.
I wish to make one or two suggestions for a settlement, partly following the lines suggested by the most reverend Primate, which Her Majesty's Government might consider. First, I believe it is necessary to persuade the terrorists, or whatever you might like to call them, that nothing can be gained by violence; that violence never paid and was never effective; that Britain desires a settlement, and that when we say that we desire peace, not only for ourselves but for the inhabitants of the Island, we mean what we say. The most reverend Primate thought the banishment of the Archbishop was an error of judgment. I believe he is right. I believe that until the Archbishop comes back into the office of negotiator between ourselves and the Cypriots we cannot get very far ahead with those negotiations. The most reverend Primate hinted at the possibility of a conference. I want to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that a conference should be called to which interested
260
parties should be welcomed—the Archbishop and his advisers, the Greeks, the Turks, ourselves, and any others concerned. That conference should be held at high level. Apparently it would be impossible to take the Archbishop home to Cyprus or to bring him here to London, so I suggest that such conference might possibly be held in Switzerland, at Geneva, or Lausanne, or in some other neutral country.
That might be the first step towards a solution. Such a conference might produce a truce between ourselves and the Cypriots, and would, at any rate, show the Cypriot people that we were in earnest when we talked of peace. It might also be the forerunner of a suggestion that an amnesty be granted to the many thousands of people who, I understand, may be interned or confined without any kind of trial. That is the suggestion which Her Majesty's Government may consider or throw out; but in this House and elsewhere we have to move as quickly as possible towards a settlement of this difficulty. We must recognise that small communities have a right to live; that they have a right to freedom and to their own modes of life. I believe that if we could bring about a swift settlement of the Cyprus trouble it would be a wonderful British contribution now towards peaceful co-existence between the small and the great nations of the world, and would find marked approval here at home.
5.35 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, put what I might call the typical Leftist case with moderation and in the temperate manner one might expect of him, but he was led into one most unfortunate phrase in which he spoke of "retaliation" by our Forces. There has been no retaliation by our Forces. Our Forces, under conditions of extreme difficulty, with a moderation that I do not think could be found in the Forces of any other country in the world, have carried out the mast unpleasant task of putting down most foul terrorism, a matter on which I am going to say a word in a moment. To use the term "retaliation" for that action would be like saying when a criminal is arrested that the police who arrest him and the judge who sentences him are retaliating against him. If the noble Lord will allow

261
me to say so, it is an example of the somewhat confused thinking which for so many years past has been so characteristic of the Left in this country. Mr. Disraeli once observed of the Liberal Party, to whom in this respect the Socialist Party are heirs, that they were the friends of every country but their own.
I do not propose to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said in other respects, but, most strongly supporting Her Majesty's Government as I do, I wish to put one or two points of rather different character to those which hitherto have been made in the debate. I may be quite wrong, but in moments of depression I wonder whether this country, since the war in which it did so magnificently, has not fallen into the habit of refusing to face harsh, naked facts, and is not trying to get round them by pompous, pontifical and platitudinous clichés to the effect that "we must find a solution," that "there must be a way out," and that "we cannot go on as we are doing." I notice that in your Lordships' House and in another place there are constant appeals to our enemies (because they are our enemies for the moment), to the Greek Government and to Colonel Nasser in Egypt to be more moderate. We do not tell them what we think of them, but we appeal to them. There are moments—and here I shall, I hope, evoke some sympathy from the Opposition Front Bench—when I should like to see that great statesman, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, back in this country. He emphatically told the Russians, in speeches in another place, what he and his Government thought of them; and I believe that the improved climate of opinion (if I may use that overworked phrase) between Russia and ourselves is partly due to the fact that the Russians realise that in many respects we can be just as tough as they are.
There has been a great deal of what call "pot-and-kettling" over this matter. By that I mean that the Opposition including the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, say to Her Majesty's Government, "Why do you not do something? You have been in power four or five years and have done nothing"; and Her Majesty's Government, for their part, turn round and say, "Why did you not do something during the years that you were in office?" If I may he permitted to say so, with respect
262
to both Parties, and both forms of abuse or criticism, the real answer is that there are some problems which are so hard and intractable that no amount of English emotion and dislike—and very proper dislike—of violence can find a solution to them. I would say quite emphatically, with some previous though not recent knowledge of the Middle East, that it is very doubtful whether at any time a solution on the basis of self-determination could be found for Cyprus which would satisfy the Greek and the Turkish Governments and our own and N.A.T.O. strategic interests.
Frankly, I think we have to face the fact—despite the attractive proposals which have been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, Lord Colyton, and other noble Lords who have spoken—that there may be no immediate solution in sight. Incidentally, I think the Greek Government and the Greek Cypriots should be warned of one thing. I believe they have the impression that if and when (I hope it will not occur, but it may) the Labour Party get into office in this country, all their demands will at once be granted. I would venture, with great respect, to say that no British Government could possibly agree to the frame of mind which prevails in Greece at the present time over this matter without smashing the whole of our Alliance in the Middle East. I do not believe that any Government would do that. I believe that in that matter—as they have been in so many matters—the Labour Party would be very patriotic. So do not let the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots think that they have only to wait a short time and they will get everything they want when the Labour Party gets into power in Britain.
If I am correct in saying that there is no immediate solution in sight, what is the point of bringing back Archbishop Makarios? I want to make a few observations about this man. He has condoned by his silence, if he has not actually contrived, terrorism, including the murder of British soldiers and civilians. The letter which the most reverend Primate read to us in that connection was, if I may say so with great respect, one of the most astonishing and terrible documents I have ever heard read in your Lordships' House. What, in effect, the Archbishop said, as I understood it, was: "It would

263
not be much use my condemning terrorism. If I did I might be in personal danger." What a man to represent the people of Cyprusa
I am afraid that I must say one or two rather wounding things about the Greek Church. One is led to believe—and it is, I submit, a perfectly proper point to put—by the right reverend Prelates in this House that there is a close feeling of liaison between the Church of England and the Greek Church. Cynics may observe that the real bond between them is that both Churches are regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as heretical and schismatic. For that reason—to use a vulgarism—there is between these two Churches a very "matey" feeling. It would be doing great disservice to the Church of England, of which many of us are proud to be members, if we compared the attitude of the Greek Church with that of the Church of England. Its record in Russia has not recently been a good one. Originally, its Bishops, Archbishops and clergy showed immense courage in resisting Bolshevism. Thousands of them were, of course, put to death. But the present representatives of that church undoubtedly have an understanding with the Soviet Government that they shall never refer to any political matter. So long as they do not do that, and do not ever condemn the fearful cruelty of the Soviet Government, they can carry on their ordinary ministrations. In Greece they are specifically a political Party. It is temporal power which they seek quite as much as ecclesiastical power. Therefore for that reason, and quite apart from anything else, I do not see why Archbishop Makarios should be brought back.
I wish to make only two other points. The Foreign Secretary, in a very clear statement in another place, showed how the principle of self-determination has never been completely applied, either under the League of Nations or under the United Nations. I do not want to quote, but I have in my hand Hansard containing passages in which he referred to four or five specific and important instances where it was not possible to apply it. Therefore, it is ridiculous, in my opinion, for us to say that we can at any time—indeed, that it is incumbent upon us to do so—apply it in the case of Cyprus. Whatever the members of the
264
Opposition may say in your Lordships' House or in another place, if we were to apply the principles of self-determination to Cyprus and, in consequence, left Cyprus and handed it over to the Greeks, the Turks would seize the island by force, and a most disastrous situation would arise.
Earlier in my speech I ventured to say frankly to your Lordships that we were too hesitant about condemning our enemies. I would add that we are also too hesitant in supporting our friends. The Opposition say, in effect—or they said in another place—"Do not consult the Turks, or at least do not allow their attitude to alter Britain's decision; do what the Greek Cypriots and Greece wants". This seems to me to be a classical example of the prevailing Leftist heresy which is derived from the evil tradition of Gladstonian Liberalism: "Desert your friends and please and placate your enemies." Incidentally, that brought down more than one Liberal Government in the past.
Now, although we all hope that friendship with Greece, or rather with the Greek Government, will be restored, certainly at this moment Greece and her Government are not our friends. She has allowed something which no civilised Government—let alone a Government which is heir to such great traditions as the Greek Government should be—should allow; that is, most foul slanders, insults and incitements to murder and terrorism to go out on the Greek radio. Because Her Majesty's Government can do no more than protest, I do not think the people of this country ought to take that lying down. In the long run, Greece will suffer far more from the loss of our friendship than we shall suffer from the loss of her friendship. I was delighted to see that the voyages of a number of cruise ships which were going to Greece have been cancelled, thereby entailing the loss to Greece of considerable sums of tourist money. I see no reason why anyone should go out of his way at the present time to purchase Greek goods in this country. It does not make sense if we merely condemn countries behind the Iron Curtain, and yet, although the Greek Government has shown itself just as unfriendly as Governments behind the Iron Curtain, refrain from condemning them.
But while Greece is not our friend, Turkey, on the contrary, is our very good

265
Friend—and I may say, in parenthesis, that she is in an infinitely stronger national position than Greece. The real reason for the Grecian attitude over Cyprus is an internal one. They have a miserably weak and corrupt political social system. They have a few rich people at the top and a mass of appalling poverty at the bottom. Like the Egyptians in the past, in order to distract attention from prevailing conditions at home they have started this form of xenophobia, and attempt to embroil us over Cyprus. Turkey is absolutely essential to us and to the whole basis of the bulwark of the Middle East. And I think it is high time that we did all we can for our friends—Turkey, Iraq, Persia, Pakistan—for all the Baghdad Pact Powers; and that we were less friendly to our enemies.
For all those reasons I support Her Majesty's Government, and I think that the Colonial Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, and indeed all members of the Government, should be commended for the attitude which they have taken up. That is not to say that I take the reactionary view that a settlement in Cyprus is not desirable. Of course it is desirable. A settlement of all our international difficulties is desirable. The world is in a terrible state at the present time, but there are some settlements which, if they involved deserting our friends and pleasing our enemies, would be worse than no settlement at all. I therefore commend Her Majesty's Government for what I believe to be the right and statesmanlike attitude which they have taken up.
5.50 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I would say at once that my views are influenced by my feelings as an old soldier. Like my noble friend Lord Winterton, I am full of admiration for the patience, the gallantry and the excellent work of our troops in Cyprus. I believe that it is a mistake to talk about self-determination, let alone independence, for Cyprus so long as murder and outrage continue in that country; and, in my humble opinion, there should be no such talk for years to come. The Greek Cypriots have shown themselves to be utterly unfit for any form of self-government, and in any case, as we have been told many times this afternoon, the Turks certainly would not agree to anything of the kind. I am told that of
266
the Greek Cypriots some 250,000 have come to Cyprus in recent years for the purpose of being under British rule—not forgetting for the purpose of making money, for the Greek is a very considerable trader in these days. If they now do not like British rule, let them return to Greece. That is the best thing they could do.
To talk of self-determination or independence gives an impression of weakness and conciliation. That is a fatal impression to give in any negotiations at all, but it is especially fatal in negotiations with Orientals or near-Orientals. As regards condominium, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, I believe that condominium is no dominion at all and we should do far better to avoid anything of the kind. Cyprus is a British Colony, when all is said and done. As regards the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in his eloquent maiden speech, that Cyprus should become something in the way of an international island, I think that that is worse still. I would venture to say that the modern idea that everything can be settled in any country, whatever the difficulty, by the granting of self-government to people, however unfit they may be for self-government, is a mistake. It is a modern idea I know, but I am old-fashioned enough to say that it is an utter mistake. It is not everybody who is fit for self-government, and certainly not every people are anything like the people of this kingdom.
In recent times there appears to have been some improvement in conditions in Cyprus and some Cypriots are hoping for a restoration of law and order, but there will soon be a recrudescence of trouble if the idea gets about that we are weakening in any way. For that reason, I believe that Lord Radcliffe's visit is premature. It would have been far better to keep out of any idea of reform in Cyprus until we have law and order restored. On the contrary I believe that we should intensify our measures. I suggest that what is now desirable is the introduction of martial law, under which murderers and terrorists should be tried at once, and from the sentences there should be no appeal. In my view it is absurd that murderers should be able to appeal and delay, sometimes for months, as has been the case in recent times, the punishment which they richly deserve and which should be immediate in order to be fully

267
Effective As regards the youths and teenagers who throw stones, and sometimes bombs, at troops and police, I suggest that they should be soundly beaten as soon as they are caught, and the troops and police should have power to do this.
Let no one think the Greek Cypriots are fighting for their country: they are doing nothing whatever of the kind. They are not fighters a bit, but skilled murderers and terrorists. The most reverend Primate has said, "Do not talk of terrorism." How can anybody who takes any sort of interest in the affairs of this country not talk of terrorism and not think of terrorism? It is doing infinite harm and it is absurd not to talk about it. It must never be out of our view. I can imagine no greater mistake than to allow Archbishop Makarios to return. I think his deportation was a master stroke and he should be kept under detention and allowed no further opportunities whatever of advertising himself or his views or of doing what I am afraid some of his church, and some perhaps of other churches, are too apt to do—mixing in politics when they should stick to religion. Every possible support should be given to Field-Marshal Sir John Harding. I only hope that he has been fully supported by the Government, whose political views should not be allowed to interfere in the least degree with anything that the Governor might think right to do. It is not a question of what some Greek Cypriots want or think they want, but of the lives of our troops and police. I do not believe that any other than British soldiers would have behaved so well as they have done and been so patient under such terrible provocation as they have been.
The feeling of the Turks is well known. Cyprus is a short distance from the Turkish coast and formerly belonged to Turkey. The Turks, both in the island and on the mainland, are dead against any idea of Greek rule in Cyprus, and we must have regard to that fact. Lastly, we must consider the effect on N.A.T.O. We may have to break either with the Greeks or with the Turks. The Turks are infinitely the better fighters and are a more virile people, and for that reason, if for no other, it is much better for us to take to the Turks. I venture to say that there is no reason for referring the matter to N.A.T.O. N.A.T.O. is excellent as a military
268
agreement, but, in my humble opinion, should have no part to play in political matters; and I hope that it will not have any part. I have ventured to say briefly what I feel on these matters, and I hope that, whatever else the Government do, they will not be weak or appear to be weak in dealing with this matter.
5.59 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, the hour is late and noble Lords have a habit of rising round about this time and saying that the hour is so late that they will not burden the House with a full speech. I ask your Lordships to forgive me if, in spite of the fact that every point I wish to make has already been covered, I give those points in my own way, in the hope that differences of emphasis may be brought to bear in my observations on the ways in which one can approach the question of Cyprus. First of all, may I make something in the nature of a personal explanation of my approach? In a former age we should never have countenanced the studied insults that are heaped upon us to-day. We should have said that here is a case, perhaps, of greatness failing "through craven fear of being great." I say that in no criticism of the handling of Cyprus to-day, either by Her Majesty's Government or by the authorities in Cyprus. I only draw the attention of your Lordships to what in a former age I might have said. I find to-day that one has to study the situation as it is, and not as we should like it to be. We have to adopt rescue measures, and, for that reason, my approach is perhaps not quite in accordance with traditional colonial policy as we on this side of the House might have seen it a few years ago.
We could indulge in post mortems. We could remind ourselves that apparently no British Government of the past ever had the imagination to set up in Cyprus a Cyprus University, harnessing the loyalty of Cypriots to the Island; making good Cypriots in loyalty to Cyprus, rather than bad Greeks in loyalty to Athens. There is little wisdom in being wise after the event, and, therefore, I hope to concentrate on the problem as it is to-day. In doing so, I have to admit that I have spent only a few hours in the Island: but I claim to know a little of the problem of minorities and the problem of multiracial communities which, for one reason

269
or another, live in uneasiness with each other under British control. After all, that is the essence of this problem. It is interesting to me, on studying the pages of Hansard and the many thousands of words devoted to Cyprus in the last few months, and having noted the amount of space that has been given to the fate of Archbishop Makarios, his status and his future, to compare that with the apparently rare comment on the heart and core of the matter, which is the reconciliation of the two communities. I think it is legitimate to approach the problem under two fairly distinct headings, namely, strategy and politics, although they are different faces of the same coin, and it is in that way that I shall present my case.
First of all, I should like to make some comment on the point to which the noble Lord drew our attention; that is to say, the question of a differentiation between a domestic problem and an international problem. Some capital was made on the point last week by the Opposition in another place, and again to-day I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, repeated words to the effect: "Will the Government make up their minds as to which this problem is?" I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said: that you cannot differentiate between a domestic problem and an international problem. There is an international content in the problem, so far as strategy is concerned; there is a domestic content in the problem, so far as internal politics are concerned. Once again, as so often occurs in international affairs, the truth is not black or white, but is painted in shades of grey.
Now, if I may break down strategy again into two components, a dual responsibility as between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Middle East responsibility, one presumes that it was to secure the Eastern flank of the North Atlantic line across Europe that finally Turkey and Greece were admitted in February, 1952, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. In so far as Cyprus mirrors differences between Greece and Turkey, it also mirrors the vulnerability of that Eastern flank. One has only to remind your Lordships that when manoeuvres are held in the Eastern Mediterranean to-day, in order to overcome the difficulty of having to place Greek troops or ships under Turkish
270
Command, or vice versa, resort is had to an American. The point is a simple one. It is that the strategic interests of some fifteen Powers are associated in Cyprus, and I put it no stronger than this: that it would therefore not be unnatural if other Powers were asked their views, and if, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, suggested, a representative body of the North Atlantic Council regarded Cyprus permanently as its interest—not its responsibility, but its interest. If your Lordships study the previous protocol under which Turkey and Greece were admitted in 1949 to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, you will see that it was signed in Washington, and it reflects a United States interest. particularly, in the entry of Greece, and Turkey into the North Atlantic Alliance. The United States were regarded on that occasion as (shall I say?) the agent of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers.
Turning now to Middle East responsibilities, under strategy here, I think it is quite right to record that the obligations arc mainly British. I make one reservation, which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and that is the case of Middle East oil. Her Majesty's Government have frequently reminded us that in order to secure Middle East oil and to make it safe, Cyprus plays an important part. I would remind your Lordships that the safety of the oil is a matter of no less concern to those who receive the oil royalties than it is to those who receive the oil, and, for that reason, a country such as Iraq is deeply interested in the fate of Cyprus. But to put the matter into perspective, it is, I think, obviously a European and a North Atlantic interest. I obtained figures concerning oil from one of the big companies, and this is what they say. In 1955, 145 million tons of oil came out of the Middle East. Of that total 46 per cent. of the oil went to Europe and 16 per cent. came to these shores. Looked at in another way, if you regard Middle East oil as a matter of ownership, 28 per cent. of Middle East oil is owned by British interests, 14 per cent. by European interests and some 58 per cent. by the United States. It can, therefore, legitimately be argued that the defence of oil is the interest of a number of Western Powers.

271
Apart from that one reservation, we all recognise that British obligations are mainly concerned. There are our obligations to the Persian Gulf, which have not been referred to; and there is the 1950 Tripartite Guarantee in connection with the mutual Israeli-Arab frontier. With regard to that Guarantee, I think it would be wise to assume only that the soil of Jordan is not necessarily available to-day. We could previously have regarded a friendly Jordan as an essential element in our ability to position troops in the Middle East for use wherever we cared to use them, whether it he in Iraq, on the Gulf, or in connection with the Guarantee. Without the certainty of the availability of Jordan soil, it is only wise to look elsewhere, and obviously we look to Cyprus. The question then arises whether, for these more limited purposes, where British interests alone are involved, we could not have certain rights reserved to us in a limited area on the Island. Would such a proposition be accepted by a self-governing Cyprus, or not? I know that the General Staff view is that it is not practicable. But if that happened to be the kind of shape of things which Greece, Turkey and Cyprus would agree to, in spite of the obvious military imperfections of such an arrangement I consider that it would have to be regarded as practicable.
Under such an arrangement, would there not always be the prospect of the re-occupation of the Island as a whole, in a great emergency? Your Lordships will recall that the 1936 Treaty with Egypt had such an arrangement. We came out of that country on the understanding that in a grave international emergency we could go back into Egypt, and we did so in 1939. I cannot understand why we should necessarily leave out that kind of development in the case of Cyprus. I have outlined the idea only of a wider participation in the affairs of Cyprus, and for the moment I should like to leave it just as an idea. On July 12, the Prime Minister said that
"It is not the Government's intention to raise the international aspect of the matter with N.A.T.O. now."
I think that that might be taken to mean that, in the future international administration, N.A.T.O. participation is not necessarily ruled out. If so, I find the approach (of reservation without commitment)
272
as hopeful as possibly any alternative.
May I pass now to the political aspect of Cyprus and the task of reconciling these two communities? I find it difficult to agree with the noble Earl when he criticised the sending of Lord Radcliffe to the Island. I cannot accept the argument that Lord Radcliffe did not know whom he was going to talk to. May I draw a military analogy? A staff officer is sent on a reconnaissance, which is a perfectly obvious and logical thing to do. If the staff officer were to be told what he was going to reconnoitre before he went, he would rightly say, "Well, why send me?". Lord Radcliffe will doubtless be recalling his experiences as Chairman of the Boundary Commission in India in 1947. On that occasion he had with him four colleagues, two Hindus and two Mohammedans, and he found invariably that they divided all issues equally, the one against the other. I think the lesson was just this—and here I find myself in agreement with one of the few constructive suggestions which the Opposition put up in another place on July 12—that so long as you are attempting to negotiate with the representatives of communities on an island where they are subject to the influence of their own people and their own environment, it is going to be difficult indeed for them to agree. Remove them away from the clamour and the intimidation, and bring them over to the calm of London. Geneva or wherever it may be outside Cyprus, and perhaps one may find then that they can talk to each other as Cypriots who have to live on the same island, whether they like it or not.
In regard to the general trend of policy, I would put in a word of exoneration of the Government. It is quite true that in July, 1954, Her Majesty's Government said that there would be no change of sovereignty on the island. That was announced in connection with the new proposals for a Constitution. It is equally true that, last week, the Foreign Secretary appeared to retreat from that position to a certain extent, and said that he accepted the principle of self-determination but did not allow, for the moment, its application. He made a distinction between the application and the principle. Now I find nothing reprehensible in being not so much able to change your mind as to adjust your policy to changing conditions.

273
Certainly a Government who were unable to do that would immediately be subjected to criticism from the Opposition on the grounds of the familiar clichés about "unyielding obstinacy," "lack of imagination," and so on. Before we indulge in criticism of the Government on this score, I think we should get rid of a lot of muddled thinking as to the meaning of the term "self-determination." If the self-determination of one section of the community prevents the self-determination of the other section of the community, where are we? Self-determination, surely, has a meaning only in so far as it is applied to the community as a whole. I find Her Majesty's Government on very firm ground when they say that they accept the principle but that they have yet to find the method of its application.
We conclude that the Prime Minister made his statement on July 12 in the hope that, in the two communities working together under Lord Radcliffe towards the limited task of self-government, tempers would cool and they would move away from their rigidly accepted positions; that there would he some chance then for self-determination one day, and that it would be placed in the background, awaiting a more favourable climate. Into that political picture, how does this idea of spreading out responsibility fit? I am hoping to convey that there was some logic in that idea so far as strategy was concerned but within the political frame I admit it would be folly to contemplate anything in the nature of a consortium of powers responsible for the internal political affairs of Cyprus and its Constitution. That, surely, would be substituting for the experience of one the inexperience of many. At the same time, I find it slightly unfair to ourselves that we should play out the game on the field, all the time receiving a good deal of criticism from those on the touchline in whose interests we are playing the game. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is not some wisdom in a compromise as regards strategy and politics—a recognition of the political future for Cyprus, which is entirely a British responsibility, but that at each stage we seek and receive the declared support of the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty powers: Britain holding Cyprus in trusteeship and, at the
274
same time, searching for international support, leaving the door open if at any time it is found necessary to invoke that support.
I recall the dilemma of the Labour Government in December, 1947, when they were searching their way out of the problem in Palestine. On that occasion the late Mr. Bevin said that if British administration had been left unfettered to handle this problem, agreement could have been reached; that they had got very near to it over and over again, only to have the cup dashed from their lips. That is true, of course, of Cyprus. But there is this to remember: when international intervention did come in the case of Palestine, it came entirely unrelated to the facts of the case. From across the Atlantic the United Nations had not the faintest idea what was happening inside Palestine, otherwise they would never have set up a Commission consisting of Iceland, Guatemala, Poland and others. That Commission, your Lordships may remember, took one look inside Palestine, and they were away like startled rabbits. That must not be allowed to happen again in the case of Cyprus. We must not create conditions by which Europe and others are kept in ignorance and isolation from the affairs of Cyprus. If we do so, we shall find it difficult to invoke their sympathy and support should we ever need it.
I have spoken of ignorance of the events in Cyprus and of ignorance of events in Palestine, and once again I make no apology for drawing attention to this matter of machinery of information. I ask whether the machinery of information is geared up to that pitch of efficiency required these days, when science gives Governments the power to speak over the heads of other Governments direct to the people—because that is what happens in the case of Cyprus. Is the task of political and psychological warfare, which is something much more positive than mere information, being treated as an operation and the necessary complement to military operations in Cyprus? I read Sir John Harding's broadcast to Cyprus on July 12, and it seemed that he knew exactly this language of psychology. I ask only whether, behind his sense of appreciation of the matter, the fight for the mind of Cyprus goes on relentlessly, courageously and with imagination.

275
May I compare the situation in Cyprus with what happened in Malaya? As I understand it, we won that particular battle in Malaya, but you can win it only by technical skill and experience supporting the will to win. I think that those who supported the removal of Archbishop Makarios to the Seychelles would feel far happier about the future if they could be assured that this battle was being waged. That leaves no room whatsoever for doubt as to the advisability or not of jamming the Athens radio. Our only doubt is whether, having jammed the radio, information is going back again. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, drew attention to this aspect and cited the case of what happens to visitors who arrive on the aerodrome at Athens. I took an extract from one of those pamphlets he showed me. After quite truthlessly invoking the great drama of Christianity, there appears this passage:
"The Praetorians of Harding are torturing our boys in the same way as the hard and cruel Roman soldiers did: after undressing them, they furiously strike with their whips their naked, tender bodies."
You will note the technique, which is not just to smooth over but to put a different emphasis on something we have done. It is to tell a direct lie. As I can see it, we can answer it by telling the direct truth. I think our guiding principle might be this:
"Take care lest thou appear to be what thou art not."
With reference to the Archbishop, we have been reminded that his absence is holding up Lord Radcliffe's potential negotiations with the mayors and others in Cyprus. "Blackmail" is a term which has been used in the case of Turkey, but to suggest, under the threat of viclence, that the Archbishop should be allowed to return, is blackmail, if ever there was blackmail. I suggest the one answer is to tell the mayors of Cyprus that if they are ready to communicate with the Archbishop, to induce him to condemn terrorism, so that they in turn can fall in behind his leadership, that will be the day when "a new situation would be created," to use the words of the Prime Minister. I wish the most reverend Primate were here, because I should have liked to ask him whether he, as the leader of one Christian Church to the leader of another Christian Church,
276
had ever asked the Archbishop if he would not face his Christian duty.
I trust that nothing I have said has been interpreted in any way as being embarrassing to the men on the spot. There are times when, in international affairs, the democratic procedure of argument in open debate must sometimes seem a blight on progress and decision. There are other occasions when rigorous condemnation of Government action is demanded. I do not think this is one of those times. I believe it is a time for suggestion and not for criticism t that we should have a little more trust in the men on the spot and a little less apology for our own intentions and our treatment of our own difficulties. There is an Eastern proverb that tells us of the dancing girl who complains about the floor and says she cannot dance. My Indian friends used to delight in reminding me that its interpretation was "A bad workman quarrels with his tools." Surely the corollary is equally that a good workman should be grateful for his tools. This country is not such a bad workman. I suggest that the British carpenter has at his disposal, in Sir John Harding, particularly, and his lieutenants in Cyprus, as fine material and tools as will ever be at his disposal in dealing with this terrible problem.
6.25 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I asked leave to take part in this debate because it seemed to me, probably in my ignorance, that a good deal of the trouble in Cyprus lay within this country. During the recent war, His Majesty's Government received plentiful and quite accurate information from our agents in Occupied France. Those I have talked to told me that they were preserved from the hands of the Germans by the invaluable loyalty, foresight and pluck of the local mayors, the local officials, the police, and all those people who had to keep order under the Germans and were in authority under the Germans in localities in France.
When hostilities in France ceased, all these people—or at least the more fortunate of them—were clapped into prison, where they saw, probably, the plundering or disintegration of their businesses. The less fortunate were handed over to the tender mercies of the Resistance and suffered things which are not generally known in this country but which are too horrible for me to relate to your Lordships. But these things are pretty well

277
known all over Europe. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government and the noble Earl who moved this Motion, who was the head of the Government at the time, made any effort to get these people released and spared. It probably is entirely out of the recollection of the noble Earl. If he does know about it, I should be grateful if he would tell me so, because it would be a great relief to myself.
Anyway, it seems to me that the position of the ordinary law-abiding citizen in Cyprus to-day is well illustrated by what I have said. I imagine that, if I were a citizen of Cyprus and a law-abiding man, I should be terrified lest a change of Government would expose me to the tender mercies of E.O.K.A., in the same way as these loyal Frenchmen, these loyal servants of France and good friends of this country, were served at the hands of the Resistance and the mob in France. I am no statesman; I am no politician. But I think that, if I had been in this business, I should have approached the leader of the Opposition long ago, to try to get some joint declaration on Cyprus which would make it quite clear to the law-abiding citizen in Cyprus that, whatever Government was ruling in this country, it was quite determined to restore order before anything else happened in Cyprus. Then Sir John Harding could hope to have the information he needs freely given to him; but not until then can the ordinary law-abiding Cypriot citizen be at peace.
The plea that has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to-day for the return of Archbishop Makarios may be, for all I know, wise; but, coming at this time and in this way, it must seem to that law-abiding Cypriot citizen to be like a direct confirmation of his fears. The most reverend Primate (if I may give him his correct title in this House) said that he spoke under a great sense of responsibility because everything he said would be repeated in Cyprus. Of course, that is perfectly true. I wish that that feeling were more obviously present in the minds of all those who, in either House of Parliament, give utterances on this subject of Cyprus.
Cyprus is not the only case. Often during my life in Parliament I have considered certain Starred Questions and certain Private Notice Questions, and wondered what would be the effect on
278
human life of those Questions, especially if they came from anybody who had a high and ancient reputation in politics. If I may say so, without in the least meaning any offence, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, pulled out the vox humana stop about the British soldier. Whenever a Question is asked which I think is indiscreet, I always asked myself: how many soldiers' lives are going to pay for the asking of that Question in Parliament? Freedom of speech may be necessary for our democratic institutions, but I think we should try to work our democracy so that we do not run any risk of incurring, even at such long range, some responsibility for deaths which our countrymen must deeply deplore.
6.31 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, my intervention in this debate will be of the briefest nature, if only because the points I should have liked to stress have already been put in a much abler way than I can hope to put them. I have never worked or served in Cyprus, but I think that, in a way, I may claim to represent the quite large body of administrative experience of many others like myself; and I am speaking to-night only because I think this is an occasion when those who, by their experience can carry any weight with what they say, ought to say it in public. There is quite enough criticism of the Government, and I think that those who wholeheartedly support them in this instance, as I do, ought to say so.
All my experience tells me that you cannot talk yourself out of an emergency. Even if 75 per cent. of the population of any particular country that may be under consideration is on your side, and there is an emergency of this kind, if the Government do not act firmly and quickly, and leave people in no doubt whatsoever about their intentions, then they will not get, and they cannot expect to get, support and sympathy, even though the bulk of the population may be eternally praying that that should be given. We have bought that lesson all over the world in recent years. I personally deplore the modern principle that the best strategy is to give way firmly all along the line. It is high time that we stood on the things that we believe in. Surely we believe in law and order—it was our great gift to half

279
the world. To say that violence is merely a regrettable symptom of a deadlock, as was stated in another place, seems to me an appalling confusion of mind. If one analyses that statement, it amounts really to condoning murder and violence as justifiable—almost natural—political weapons in those circumstances. I do not think that we can say too strongly that we will not have any truck with that kind of sentiment.
It is noticeable, of course, that if the Government show patience they are accused of vacillation; if they show firmness they are accused of brutality. Obviously, the moral is that they should go fearlessly on the way in which they believe. After all, let us be realistic. There is only one man to-day who, in a few hours almost, could settle this question and could stop the murders and the violence in Cyprus. That man is Archbishop Makarios. If I may say so, I agree with every word that the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said about the Archbishop and the Greek Government—there is no need to emphasise that any further. My own criticism of our own Government, if I have any to make, is that the Archbishop should have been banished from Cyprus many years ago.
Enough has been said to-day, too, I think, about self-determination. It seems to me, at any rate, obvious that the principle can be and has been accepted; but its application must surely be subject to some of the considerations of common sense and must be related to the circumstances. We are in Cyprus to protect our vital interests, and it is essential to convince Greeks and Cypriots that self-determination is not at the present time "on the cards". The conditions in which it can sanely be given simply are not there. I look forward to an early date when violence has been suppressed there, and when it will be possible to give to Cyprus a Constitution that will give them a large measure of internal self-government. If I may now refer to the remark of the most reverend Primate in which he sent a message to all Christians in Cyprus, and his plea to accept facts which cannot be changed and to concentrate on the measure of agreements, I respectfully say that I heartily agree with him, and I sincerely hope that his words will touch the latent
280
Christianity in the minds of some of the ecclesiastical politicians of the Greek Orthodox Church.
May I conclude by making one reference to the suggestion about N.A.T.O.? Having some experience of that sort of thing, I think that it would be a regrettable step for us in any way to leave what are clearly our own responsibilities and try to make the burdens easier by sharing them with other nations. As for the idea of condominium, nobody who has had experience, as I have had, of trying to run a condominium (I see that my noble friend Lord Swinton nods his head; he also knows about it) would agree with that as a solution. In the Pacific we had a condominium with the French, and I had the frustrating experience of being a Joint High Commissioner with the French High Commissioner. I can assure your Lordships that that system means that nothing whatsoever can be done by either side anywhere; it means that a country is almost bound to stagnate. I conclude, therefore, by saying that I strongly support the action of the Government. After all, first things should come first, and I am sure that it is impossible to do anything in Cyprus until terrorism has been stamped out.
6.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think this debate has shown, so far as it can (I have missed only one or two speeches) that differences of opinion about Cyprus and about what we should do there are just as varied between individuals as they are between Parties—which is the natural result of your Lordships' independence of mind—and also that there is much more common ground between the speakers who have taken part in this debate than I, at any rate, had expected when I came to the House this afternoon.
There are, I think, at least two propositions about which we can all agree: first, that the internal situation in Cyprus is still extremely bad—the worst symptom being the continuing use of violence; and secondly, that the conflict and tensions which the situation in Cyprus has set up in the Eastern Mediterranean are dangerously weakening the Western Alliance and Western security. I thought that that point was well brought out in the most interesting and thoughtful maiden speech that

281
we had from the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who said that there was a risk that Greece might adopt a policy of neutrality. There is, I think, a third proposition with which most of us would agree—that is, that neither these domestic nor these international difficulties can be finally remedied without an agreed settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to an agreed solution. I think he was using different words for the words I have just used myself. After all, repression and coercion are a palliative but not a cure, so that all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, want an agreed settlement. Here we come, I think, to a very big difference of opinion between noble Lords on the Government Benches and those of us who sit on this side of the House. When we start expressing our carefully considered views—because this is a matter to which I am sure great thought has been given by everyone who has been concerned about it—there is a big difference of opinion about how a settlement can be reached.
There is just one thing that I should like to emphasise, because it has not been mentioned before, and that is the importance of the time factor. We have no time to lose if we want to get any agreement about the future of the island, if we want to get an agreed settlement. Your Lordships may have noticed that a correspondent sent by the Economist to Cyprus pointed out a few weeks ago that the good will on which agreement will depend is rapidly evaporating. The imposition of collective punishments, necessary though they may be on security grounds—and that is a matter I do not presume to judge—and the general worsening of conditions since the guerrilla warfare began in Cyprus, have turned many neutral or friendly Cypriots into enemies of the British.
We can hope to negotiate a settlement only so long as the Cypriot leaders of both communities can carry their people with them. The time may come—though I devoutly hope it never will—when British rule will be so hated in Cyprus that it can be upheld only by force. If that time were to come, we should have to choose between coercion and "scuttle." That is a choice I devoutly hope we shall never have to make. I
282
am disappointed that the Government have not made a bolder bid for political settlement now. I am afraid that precious months will be frittered away in their half-hearted attempt, which I regret to say I think is almost certain to fail. After this attempt has been made and after it has proved abortive—because, though I hope it will not, I fear that that will be the result—it will be much harder to get a settlement than at the present time.
Let us try to see what the situation is likely to be like in Cyprus in the near future. Perhaps, as we all hope, by the end of the year the organised guerrilla bands in Cyprus will have been broken up, and law and order will, broadly, have been re-established, although I am afraid that political violence of a sporadic nature is likely to continue until some sort of political settlement is reached. It does not follow that, because we have restored law and order, in the course of time we shall get a political settlement. I have already said that with the passage of rime a settlement becomes; increasingly harder to obtain. I know that the Government still believe in the emergence of moderate leaders who will be willing to negotiate. I cannot help feeling that in this case the wish is father to the thought. We all know that there are plenty of moderate men in Cyprus, such as the two distinguished Cypriots who resigned from the Executive Council; but even if those two were willing at any time to negotiate—which is most unlikely, because they would obviously incur the intense resentment of their fellow-Cypriots—they would carry almost no one with them, and an agreement by unrepresentative persons would not be worth the paper it is written on.
I am sure we all hoped, when Lord Radcliffe was invited to go to Cyprus as Constitutional Commissioner, that this would lead to a political settlement. That is what we all want. We all know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe. We respect his ability and public spirit, and obviously no person better qualified could have been chosen for this very difficult assignment. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Attlee, that he has been given an impossible task; and even he cannot achieve the impossible. When he returns to this country he will no doubt draft a Constitution that will be liberal in spirit and fair to both communities in

283
Cyprus, but this draft Constitution will not result in a political settlement unless it is acceptable to the majority of the population of Cyprus; otherwise it will be just another paper Constitution. But this, I am afraid, is exactly what will happen unless the Government are prepared to reconsider and change their present policy, and give Lord Radcliffe the tools he needs for his job.
Much of what the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury said about concessions which he thought the Government ought to make for the sake of conciliation was exactly what I am venturing to ask the Government to do. The most reverend Primate said that the draft Constitution should be discussed with Archbishop Makarios, and that would be a most important change of policy, because hitherto the Government have said that there would be no discussions with Archbishop Makarios until he had denounced violence. The most reverend Primate thinks that condition precedent should be waived. He said that negotiations should start before violence has ended in Cyprus. That, again, would be a most important change in the present policy of the Government.
He also said, if I understood him rightly—and I am sorry that he is not here, because I should be most unwilling to misrepresent his views, and it would be only by mistake if I were to do so—that there should be an elected Parliament in Cyprus which would be based on a numerical proportion of the two communities to the total population; and if this were the case, then, of course, there would be an elected majority of Greek Cypriots. I thought that the most reverend Primate's contribution to this debate was extraordinarily interesting, particularly in these constructive proposals he put forward, and it was a most useful supplement to the devastating criticism of my noble friend Lord Attlee, in his opening speech.
I should like now to say, quite briefly, what I regard as the essential conditions of a political settlement. I think there are four indispensable conditions which must be satisfied if we are to secure a settlement in Cyprus. The first is that the new Constitution, when it has been drafted, should be negotiated with the Cypriots who can "deliver the goods"—that is to say, the representative leaders
284
of both communities. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said—and I do not think he really adduced any convincing evidence to substantiate his view—I believe, from all the indications of opinion I have had, that Archbishop Makarios is still regarded by the Ethnarchy and by most of the Greek Cypriots as their national leader. It was interesting, for instance, to observe that during Lord Radcliffe's visit to Cyprus the mayors with whom he had discussions would talk only about matters of local government: they would not discuss the political future of the Island, which is the matter in which, obviously, he was far more interested, because in their view that was a matter which could be dealt with only by the Archbishop.
For that reason—and in this respect I am entirely of the same opinion as the most reverend Primate—it is essential that Archbishop Makarios should be brought into negotiations and discussions when the new Constitution has been drawn up; and for that purpose it might be desirable to invite him to London, though the venue is a secondary matter. The Archbishop, together with other representatives of the two communities, should clearly be brought in, not merely for discussions but for negotiations, when the next stage in the preparation of this Constitution has been reached. I hope that the Government will not insist on keeping him in the Seychelles until he has denounced violence. They must know that nothing has happened to make him change his mind. It would be hypocritical for the Government to maintain—they have not done so, and I am glad they have not—that because he has not denounced violence, they cannot negotiate; because they were negotiating with him in Cyprus when negotiations were broken off earlier in the year, while violence was going on.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): They were not a great success.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: They may not have been, but they might have been more successful had Her Majesty's Government persevered further. Negotiations, I suggest, might well be taken up at the point at which they were broken off, and with the advantage of the Constitution which the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, is going to draft.

285
The second condition is that in deciding the form of their new Parliamentary Constitution the will of the majority in Cyprus shall prevail. This, after all, is no more than the real basis of democratic government. It implies in Cyprus that the Turkish minority, when their rights have been adequately safeguarded and, if necessary, written into the Constitution (that is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Radcliffe, will think very carefully), shall not be able to veto what the majority wants. It follows that if a majority want a Parliament with the majority of members elected by adult franchise, the system in every democratic country, they should not be prevented from having it because the minority do not agree. If there is a minority they must accept the will of the majority.
The third condition (and here I do not think we can escape saying something on self-determination) is that we should declare our willingness not only to accept the principle of self-determination—which Her Majesty's Government have accepted, while boggling at its application—but also to negotiate a date with the Government of Cyprus which will be set up in Cyprus when the new Constitution comes into force. It would be very convenient for us if we were able to postpone indefinitely self-determination for Cyprus while saying that we accepted the principle. If we take that line, we cannot expect the Greek Cypriots to make concessions and agree to other things which we want. We must recognise that that is their main objective, and they cannot he expected to abandon it in order to give us what we want. If we were to do this we should merely be taking up a position that appeared to be satisfactory, both to Her Majesty's Government and to the Archbishop, when negotiations were broken off earlier this year. I am very sorry that we appear to have retreated from that position and now appear to make self-determination utterly remote and uncertain by linking it with future security in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
The fourth, and final, condition of a political settlement is that it shall not be subject to the veto, or even the pressure, of any foreign country. Colonial policy is the undivided responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and in my experience I cannot recollect any Government of any political Party which since the war has allowed its colonial policy to
286
be influenced by the pressure of a foreign Government. We all sympathise with the desire of Turkey for security. Turkey has just as much right to be concerned about its security as we or any other country; arid if there are doubts in the minds of the Turkish Government (and probably such doubts do exist) about guarantees against aggression which, as a member of the United Nations and of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Turkey has, then very clearly those doubts should be removed at the earliest possible moment, if necessary, if diplomatic action is not satisfactory, by ministerial contact. Obviously Turkey, on her side, will remember that the protection she should receive in the event of aggression applies equally to any other victim of aggression.
I think it is perfectly clear—and this emerges from any objective study of what has been happening in the last two or three years—that Turkey will not agree either to self-determination or even to self-government for Cyprus. This was the position taken up at the Tripartite Conference in 1955, and it has not changed at all in this respect. I must confess I was surprised that Her Majesty's Government tried this summer to modify the attitude of the Turkish Government. There was a report that Her Majesty's Government had a proposal which was discussed with the Turkish Government. I do not know whether we can be told if that report was correct. At any rate, there were discussions with the Turkish Government, and there must have been some expectation that the earlier attitude of the Turkish Government would be modified. But I should have thought that recent events in Cyprus, and the increase of communal strife, must obviously have hardened the attitude of Turkey in this matter, and that there is little chance of settlement in Cyprus if we bow to the present wishes of the Turkish Government.
I recognise, of course, that it is the firm and most sincere conviction of Her Majesty's Government that facilities for a British and a N.A.T.O. base in Cyprus will be required probably for a very long period of time. I am not going to discuss the merits of a base in Cyprus: for purposes of my argument I will gladly assume that here Her Majesty's Government are correct. But if our strategic requirements in Cyprus, essential though

287
they may be, are to be regarded as a permanent obstacle to self-government in Cyprus, then they will stultify our colonial policy not only there but in other small territories such as Aden and Singapore, which, equally, are of strategic importance to the United Kingdom. Self-government and the needs of defence are not necessarily incompatible. It would be a very dangerous doctrine, and a departure from our policy of self-government for the Colonies, if we were to regard these two matters as incompatible. After all, the United States has no Colonies, but she has bases in many independent countries, both in Europe and in the Far East.
As we all know, the Greek Government would willingly agree to the continued use of Cyprus as a base if ever it should become part of Greece. A lease may he less secure than ownership, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has pointed out what is likely to happen in Iceland, owing to the attitude of the Government of Iceland to American bases there. The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, also emphasised the insecurity of a leased base. But surely the risk of insecurity from a leased base is much less than the risk of hostility and enmity from the population of the country in which the base is situated. We had to leave the Canal Zone, our most important base in that part of the world, as a result of the bitter and continuing hostility of the people of Egypt. That was the main reason why we had to abandon this extremely valuable base. If the risks are to be carefully weighed, we must surely take that factor into consideration.
I wonder how many of the 15,000 or so troops in Cyprus at this moment are pinned down because they are needed for internal security. I do not know whether the noble Marquess can tell us—I cannot expect him to do so—but I should imagine that the bulk of our troops there are being used for internal security. Of what use would they be for an emergency in the Near or Middle East? I do hope that, from the purely defence angle, these risks will be weighed carefully, and that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the attitude they have adopted towards Cyprus.
My last sentence is to beg Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this policy in the light of the speeches that have been
288
made by your Lordships, notably the speech of the most reverend Primate in the course of the debate this afternoon. Her Majesty's Government are altering their policy towards Cyprus, very rightly, and I am not complaining of that. I see no reason why further alterations should not be made. I believe that this reversal of policy is required if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, is to have a reasonable chance of making a success of his Mission and of bringing peace to Cyprus through a political settlement.
6.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have had this afternoon a debate that has been in some respects hard hitting, but at any rate admirably good-tempered and, on the whole, objective; and a debate, I feel, which in particular was illuminated by a notably thoughtful and well-informed maiden speech by the noble Earl Lord Bessborough. I feel sure that that speech was heard with very special pleasure by the many friends of his father here in this House.
My Lords, it falls to me to say the last word in this debate on behalf of the Government. May I say at once that I do not complain at all that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, should have raised this subject of Cyprus at this particular juncture, before we go away for the Summer Recess. It is clearly right, I feel, that noble Lords in all parts of the House should have the opportunity of expressing their views on a subject which has, unhappily, raised so much controversy, both national and international. I do not propose, if your Lordships will forgive me, to go again into all the details of this most intractable problem. It has been discussed, as we all know, and re-discussed again and again in successive debates in this House. I want to concentrate this afternoon, if your Lordships will allow me, on the main features which I feel we have to consider in trying to form a true judgment on the issues involved.
The first thing I would say is this. The problem of Cyprus, as I think my noble friend Lord Lloyd said at the beginning of the debate, is not merely the concern of the people of Cyprus—I only wish it were. It has become increasingly, as the months have passed, in the fullest

289
sense of the term, an international problem. What are the broad facts? Cyprus is an island which is of direct concern to two nations besides ourselves. Although we may have sovereignty over the Island, it is of direct concern to Greece en what may be called ethnological grounds, and it is of direct concern to Turkey on geographical and historical grounds. If this international aspect has not come earlier to the fore, I think that it is, in part at any rate, due to the fact that each of these two countries, Turkey and Greece, preferred that the Island should remain in British hands, rather than that it should become part of the territories of the other. But with the passage of time, as we all know, this balance has been upset by increasing pressure from Greece for self-determination, perhaps naturally, since self-determination which is based on purely ethnological considerations is more likely to lead to a decision favourable to her than to Turkey, which depends on more geographical considerations.
For some considerable time, as we all know, successive British Governments—and when I say British Governments I mean British Governments of all Party complexions—have firmly resisted that pressure. Indeed, if I may say so without being accused by the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, of "potting and kettling" and by Lord Wise of a rather unfortunate approach to this subject, I would remind the House that the Government over which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, himself presided with such ability, throughout the whole of its tenure of power from 1945 to 1951, maintained unequivocally the position that it could not contemplate any change of the sovereignty of the Island then or in the foreseeable, future. In that I do not see that the noble Earl was taking an unusual tile: he was taking the line that had been taken by all previous Governments of all Party complexions.
At the same time, looked at from one angle, as I think we should all agree, that was a disagreeable, and, it might well seem, an illogical attitude for Great Britain to occupy—as I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, indicated in his speech. We had many years earlier accepted, rightly or wrongly, the principle of self-determination. We had applied it in many other instances. On what grounds, therefore, it was argued by a
290
great many people, was it to be denied in this particular case? That was a view that was strongly pressed, both internationally, in the United Nations, and elsewhere, and, of course, in this country by the Liberal Party, and, I think, certainly by the Labour Party after they had been relieved from the responsibilities of office.
As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government have accepted the principle of self-determination—on that there is no disagreement—and from that moment our efforts have been concentrated on trying to devise a plan which would satisfy certain essential conditions for the practical application of that principle. First, it had to satisfy our own strategic needs. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, seemed to think that Cyprus was of no real strategic value to us nowadays, but that view was, I thought, answered pretty effectively by my noble friend Lord Swinton and I do not think I need say any more on that score.
I would just say one word here to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, who said something on the same tines. He seemed to indicate, if I understood him aright, that we should soon have a hydrogen age, and that in a hydrogen age Cyprus would be utterly useless. No doubt we shall soon have a hydrogen age, but we have not got a hydrogen age yet—at any rate, we have not got a hydrogen war yet. I hope that we never shall have one. Without a hydrogen war we have certain considerable obligations—for instance to Iraq., to Jordan, and, in certain circumstances, to Israel; and we must be able to honour those obligations. In the same way, the noble Lord indicated that we were approaching an atomic age. When we get an atomic age no doubt we shall not need oil. But we have not got there yet, and we do need oil. Therefore, I do not feel that we can dismiss the strategic argument quite so easily as that.
Secondly, as I see it, any settlement must convince the Turks that the change in the international status of Cyprus—if that was to be the result of self-determination—could be achieved without injury to the interests of the Turkish community on the Island, and without drastic alteration of the strategic equilibrium in the Eastern Mediterranean which has hitherto been so happily safeguarded, from their point of view, by British ownership of the island. Those considerations can be

291
stated quite briefly, but they present no easy task. At the same time, I hope it will be conceded by noble Lords in this House who have not agreed with the policy of the Government that no efforts have been spared to find such a plan, if such a plan could be found.
As your Lordships know, the Government first called a meeting of representatives of themselves and the Greeks and the Turks to explore the situation. Unhappily, that meeting proved fruitless. Differences which emerged could not be resolved in that manner at that meeting. They then initiated discussions with Archbishop Makarios—discussions which have been referred to by many speakers to-day—for the purpose of seeing whether the Greek view could be brought nearer to the central point at which agreement would be possible. We continued those talks with patience and resolution, although we had information which showed clearly that the Archbishop was at that time conniving at, and probably fomenting, a campaign of terrorism on the Island which was based on sabotage and murder. But, in spite of all efforts to obtain an agreement which was likely to be satisfactory not only to the Greeks but to us and to the Turkish community, the talks with Archbishop Makarios—as we all know—failed to achieve their object.
Next, and finally, still undeterred, the Government, no adequate advance having been obtained by what might be termed "the Greek approach," decided to see what could be achieved by making some soundings and putting some ideas before the Turkish Government for their consideration. That attempt, too, met with no success. I do not propose this afternoon, partly because it is late, but for other reasons too, to elaborate all the various ideas which have been discussed, either with the Greeks or with the Turks, in or off the island, during all these past months of discussion. I am satisfied that that would be a great mistake, for not the least unfortunate result of the blaze of publicity in which all our lives, public and private, are to-day surrounded is the injury which can be done to very delicate negotiations which have to be carried on before an audience, a substantial proportion of which has probably already made
292
up its mind and is heavily biased one way or the other.
The noble Earl told us that he had been doing some reading, and so have I. In particular, I have re-read a brilliant book on foreign policy by Professor E. H. Carr, who will be well known to many of your Lordships. The book was published in 1939, and, if I may, I would warmly recommend it to noble Lords opposite, especially certain passages which I think are relevant to the issue with which we are faced. One thing which Professor Carr said was:
"It is clear that relentless Party controversy on current issues of foreign policy makes it almost impossible for the Government t o conduct successful negotiations on any of these issues."
He went on to say:
"Democracy must remain in ultimate control of foreign policy. But some means must be devised by which British interests in vital and delicate negotiations shall not be imperilled by a fire of public exhortation and comment directed at the negotiators."
I commend those passages, if I may, to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and to those who sit by him, and even more so to some of their supporters in another place.
I would make this brief and, I hope, anodyne comment on it. What is the lesson to be drawn from these words—which, I think will be agreed, are wise ones? I suggest that it is this: if a negotiation has been successfully completed, by all means publish the details; but if it has not been succesfully completed, do not prejudice the future by premature disclosures. If that is true of formal negotiations, how much truer still is it of the kind of informal soundings with which we are, in this problem, mainly concerned. The only result of premature disclosure of things of that kind would be that this, that or the other section of opinion would have taken up a rigid attitude for or against individual propositions. I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, tended to take up a slightly rigid attitude in some of the propositions he mentioned in his speech just now. Later on, when the situation might have changed, and those propositions might have been revived with far greater chance of success, the market, as it were, would have been spoiled. Therefore I propose to say nothing more on that aspect of the problem to-day, nor, for the same reason, will I go in detail into the interesting ideas put before us by

293
the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, but I can assure noble Lords who put forward suggestions that they will be carefully considered.
What I should like to do is to seek to draw a moral from these protracted discussions between the various interested parties. As I see it, the moral is this: whatever may be the arguments in principle, for or against the application of self-determination in this particular case, in the sense in which self-determination is usually understood, it is perfectly clear that it cannot at the present time be applied in practice in terms acceptable both to The Turks and to the Greeks. I think everybody would agree with that. By all means lot us accept the principle of self-determination as and when it can be applied; but, as the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said in his speech, do not let us regard it as the one and only consideration to which it is necessary to have regard in dealing with delicate and dangerous international situations. Let us weigh it in the balance with other necessary considerations, with our own strategic and other interests and with the general interests of peace. That, and that alone, is the path of wisdom. Indeed, it is the path which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and his colleagues unremittingly followed while in office. I have sometimes wondered what it was that changed their views when they were no longer sitting on this side of the House.
The noble Earl did not elucidate the point this afternoon, and so far as I can make out up to now, there have been only two explanations by spokesmen of the Opposition. The first, which was put forward in another place the other day, seems to be that an entirely new situation has been created by the fact that both Greece and Turkey have joined N.A.T.O. The point was made, I think, either by the Leader of the Opposition or by another spokesman of the Opposition. Personally, though I may be wrong, I cannot see that that fact in itself has any relevance whatever to the question of the future of Cyprus. Nor, what is much more important, do the Turks think so either. After all, membership of N.A.T.O., an excellent thing in itself, was never intended to override earlier agreements between members, like the Treaty of Lausanne. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, if the Turkish Government
294
to-day had thought that joining N.A.T.O. would prejudice their position over Cyprus, they would not have joined N.A.T.O. at all
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I think I said that they certainly would not have made the Lausanne Treaty. But equally they would not have entered N.A.T.O.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Nor, as I see it, is the other explanation which has been put forward by Labour spokesmen as to the present change of view any more convincing. I think it is right that we should sort these things out good-humouredly. The explanation runs as follows, I understand: "We have accorded the right of self-determination to a number of other places, like India, the Gold Coast and other parts of the world and, on the whole, we have done it with complete success. Why, then, hesitate over the immediate application of the principle to Cyprus?" I lake it that the Opposition advance that argument in all seriousness, but I cannot help feeling that it is a very odd one to find in the mouths of experienced politicians. It is rather as though a card player, having once taken a trick with a certain card, should for ever after, at all times and in all circumstances, whatever the combination of other cards with which he had to contend, insist on always playing that card again, with complete confidence that it would have the same result.
We all agree that self-determination is a very good card to play at the right time—I think that there is no difference about that in any part of the House. But to suppose that because it has been right to apply it to the case of India and the Gold Coast, it is necessarily right to do the same thing with regard to Cyprus at this particular moment, when the situation is utterly different and where, for the moment at any rate—and I hope it is only for the moment—great international issues are raised, which were entirely absent in the other cases, seems to me to show a misunderstanding of the very elements of foreign policy which is so great as to be rather frightening.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Marquess does not wish to misrepresent the views of the Labour Party. It is clear, as I think he will agree, that the Labour Party have

295
never said that they desire self-determination for Cyprus at this particular moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Am I to understand from what the noble Earl says that if the Labour Party were in power at this moment they would not grant self-determination? It makes a considerable difference.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: What spokesmen of the Labour Party have said is that they would like to fix a date for self-determination some time ahead, but they have certainly made it clear that they do not consider the present moment is the suitable or the right moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But are they certain that the date ahead would be a suitable moment? One must look ahead a little in fixing dates. If I may quote Professor Carr again—I would recommend this to noble Lords; he is an excellent authority on these points—he said:
"It is an illusion to suppose, as Woodrow Wilson and others seem to have supposed in 1919, that the values for which the country stands or the principles on which they are based can be docketed and card indexed, so that the task of statesmen in international affairs is merely to turn up the appropriate principle and apply it to the concrete case. There are no simple and infallible rules of 'principle' and 'right' to determine foreign policy in a given situation."
That was Professor Carr's view, and I think we should all agree that it is probably the right view. The hard fact, as I see it, over this particular problem is that the gulf between the Greek and the Turkish points of view, as I believe the, most reverend Primate pointed out in his speech this afternoon, is at present too wide to be bridged; and to ignore that is, I submit, to neglect that quality of realism on which all effective foreign policy must always be based
But, at any rate, whatever may be said about that, if we and noble Lords opposite cannot agree as to our treatment of the wider issues raised by this problem, surely we can be at one over the question of constitutional advance within the Island. I should have imagined that that was common ground. It is in harmony with the general policy of this country throughout the Colonial Empire; it is in harmony, as I understand it, with the policy which the Labour Party themselves
296
have always advocated and, I think, where they could, have applied. Nor is it in this particular case open to the same dangers as the immediate application of the principle of self-determination.
As your Lordships have been told again and again this afternoon, the Government have sent out Lord Radcliffe, who is an acknowledged authority on these matters, to see whether he can produce a scheme which is acceptable to the various communities in the Island. I was glad to hear that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at any rate—and I personally agree with a great deal of what he said on this particular point this afternoon—approves this step. He believes that there is something here which can be done, some advance which could properly be made on these lines. The most reverend Primate indicated at one moment, I think, that he wished the step could have been taken earlier. That is a perfectly fair comment from his point of view. if I cannot entirely share his view over that, it is because I feel that the Government were bound first to explore the full possibilities of self-determination; but that once it was clear that self-determination was not immediately attainable, then this, I believe, was obviously the right line of advance.
There remains the position of Archbishop Makarios. How, to use the most reverend Primate's words, is Archbishop Makarios to be brought back into the picture? The most reverend Primate himself gave an answer on this matter, and I think it is the right answer. The reason why Archbishop Makarios was deported, and the only reason, was that he was conniving at, and, indeed, fomenting, a campaign of violence against our troops and our loyal friends on the Island. Let him publicly condemn violence; let him abjure violence, and a new situation would be immediately created. Then many things might be possible which both the most reverend Primate and Her Majesty's Government, too, would like to see. We must hope that Archbishop Makarios will take that course. But in the meantime, I agree with the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that there is no reason why Lord Radcliffe should not go ahead with the work of building the edifice of internal self-government. There

297
is no reason why he should not embark on those consultations with the various 'elements on the Island so far as the terrorists make it possible for him to do so.
I still hope that the Party opposite, the Labour Party, will think the matter over further, and will accept the most reverend Primate's advice and give the efforts of Lord Radcliffe their full blessing. I know that the Scarborough Resolution of 1954, on which, as I understand it, the new Labour policy regarding Cyprus was originally based, did require the leaders of the Party to "oppose Tory policy with regard to Cyprus on all occasions." I realise that that might well be read as meaning that the Party must oppose Tory policy over Cyprus, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, whether it is in accordance with past Labour policy or not, just because it is Tory policy; and I suspect that there are some members of the Party who might conceivably read it in that way. But I can hardly believe that the Leaders of the Labour Party could accept such an interpretation as that. That really would be moving too far from what the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, described as the "Bevin position". This is a matter, I submit to them, with all deference, on which noble Lords opposite, and their colleagues in another place, really cannot avoid responsibility, for their attitude may make the whole difference between the success or failure of Lord Radcliffe's Mission. If the Cypriot and Greek opinion were to know—and I think they ought to know—that on this, at any rate, British opinion was united, that might give the Mission a far greater chance of success.
I must confess that I got rather a sad impression of the attitude of the spokesmen of the Opposition in the debate to-day. There was the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who seemed to assume that all Cypriots were anti-British, which I do not believe to be at all true. Then there was the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who said he thought that the Radcliffe Mission was not likely to succeed, which I do not think was a particularly helpful contribution when the effort has just started. I do not believe for a moment (the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong) that he himself is against an
298
advance in internal self-government on the island of Cyprus. If he is in favour of it, then I feel that he should support this initiative. I do hope that if not to-night—it may be difficult to-night—at any rate in the near future, the Leaders of the Party of noble Lords opposite will make that clear beyond any doubt, so that, even if there are differences of view on the wider aspects of policy which still persist, we, as a united nation, can at any rate help Cyprus to take one further step forward towards that goal which noble Lords opposite themselves so often tell us is so rightly and ardently desired by all the civilised people of the world.
7.28 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, at this late hour I should not wish to detain your Lordships at any length, tempted though I am by some of the remarks of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I should like to say how interested I was to hear the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, not only for his father's sake, but because I know of the good work he did when I met him at the end of the war when he was working for the late Lord Norwich. I would make only two points. One concerns what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said about the hydrogen age not having arrived. The fact is that the hydrogen bomb is in existence, and it was Sir Winston Churchill who assured me that the reason for the change of attitude as to the necessity of keeping on the Nile was the existence of the hydrogen bomb. With a great reverence for his knowledge, I concluded that what applied to the Nile might equally apply to Cyprus as a base in the hydrogen age.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is most important. Does the noble Earl mean by that that he thinks that is the only conceivable situation for which our defence policy should be adapted?
EARL ATTLEE: No, I do not; but when someone suggested, "Why not Libya? Why should we stay in Cyprus?", that was the reason given—because of its particular strategic position. I am inclined to question that, and I think it is open to question in the light of modern conditions. The only other point I would make is with regard

299
to that interesting quotation from Mr. E. H. Carr, written, curiously enough, in 1939. I should have thought that 1939 was a bad time to write about the need for a united front in foreign policy. If only other people had had the courage of the noble Marquess, we might have
300
been spared a great deal of trouble. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.