Sitting of 15 November 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  FORTH HARBOUR REORGANISATION SCHEME CONFIRMATION (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRANSPORT

    Road Accidents (Defective Tyres)
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Transport in how many road accidents defective tyres were a contributing factor in the first four months of 1967; and in how many of these the defective tyre had been reconditioned.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): Comprehensive figures are not available. But analysis of accidents by the Hampshire and Warwickshire Area Road Safety Units suggests that defective tyres were a contributing factor in about 1 per cent. of the 42,000 injury accidents occurring in their areas between 1963 and 1966. Separate figures for reconditioned tyres are not available.
    Mr. Archer: Is my hon. Friend perturbed by the recent findings of the R.A.C., that one-third of the vehicles checked by it have defective tyres? What is he doing about it?
    Mr. Morris: There is obvious concern and the regulations are being strengthened. We hope that they will be effective on 1st April, 1968, to cope with the very necessary new conditions which are needed.

    Road Accidents (Flashing Headlights)
    Mr. Archerasked the Minister of Transport in how many road accidents a misunderstanding occasioned by the flashing of headlights was a contributing factor in the first four months of 1967.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Archer: Does my hon. Friend agree that in practice many accidents are caused by misunderstanding as to whether flashing headlights are affording or asserting right of way, and would he give some clear guidance to drivers?
    Mr. Carmichael: There have been many discussions about this and there was a suggestion of the possibility of devising a comprehensive code in 1962. This was considered to be quite impracticable and the only approved use of flashing lights is to indicate that the vehicle is present, which is particularly useful after dark, when it is not permissible or legal to use the horn.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As flashing headlights are here to stay and the public do use them very widely and will not be stopped doing so, is it not time that we started thinking about drawing up a code for them, to put a new code into the Highway Code?
    Mr. Carmichael: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend, consideration was given to the devising of a code in 1962 which proved impracticable and far too difficult. The only code that one can safely use, the only safe way to use flashing headlights, is to use them to indicate the presence of the vehicle and not to try to read anything else into them.

    Dorset and the Midlands (Communications)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport what plans she has for improved road or rail communication between Dorset and the Midlands.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Road communications between Dorset and the Midlands will be greatly improved by

    411
    the completion of M5 to Edithmead by the end of 1971 and the planned new road south-west of Edithmead, as well as by various improvements of A34, A31 and A35 which are programmed, in preparation or under consideration.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that these roads are quite inadequate and that the decision to build a new motorway to Exeter, up to Bristol and along the Bristol Channel, will have a very serious effect on South Somerset and the whole of Dorset?
    Mr. Swingler: I should have thought that the completion of the M roads—M4, M5 and M6, and the linkage to the M6—was wholly in the interests of Dorset. We have also said that we shall have a road to motorways standard further to the west, and improvements will be made in the A roads in Dorset and the Midlands and these roads will bring a tremendous advantage in the next few years.

    Lorry Loads (Quantity Control)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Transport what estimate she has made of the percentage reduction in the total volume of traffic on the roads which would result from bringing into force her proposals to limit lorry loads by a quantity control.
    Mr. John Morris: The total amount of traffic likely to be diverted to rail under the combined influence of the new freightliner services and quantity licensing will be of the order of 10 per cent. of road ton-mileage.
    Mr. Galbraith: That does not answer the Question. I want to know how much less traffic there will be on the roads—not ton-traffic. How much less traffic will there be on the roads, in percentage terms?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Member is asking an impossible question. It would differ with every road. Traffic flows vary, as anyone who is a motorist, as I am, knows full well. But in particular spots it will have a very marked effect on congestion. If I may give one illustration, the effect of the southern end of the M1 could be as much as 30 per cent.
    Mr. Manuel: How significant will quantity control be for the railway industry in percentage terms? Will not that
    412
    control have a significant effect on congestion on our roads?
    Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend—like some hon. Members opposite occasionally—is interested in reducing the rail deficit. This will have a substantial and significant effect on the rail-tons carried. It could amount to 30 per cent. of the rail-ton mileage. That would have a significant effect on British Railways.
    Mr. Galbraith: Even assuming that the percentage is as large as 10 per cent., does it justify restricting the right of traders to send their goods by the transport system which is most suited to them and imposing this additional burden on the export industry?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that the House will agree that it is right to have a more rational distribution of traffic which goes by road and by rail.

    Barton's Bus Company (Fares)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Transport how many applications for fare increases have been made by the Barton's Bus Company since 1950; and what are the amounts which have been granted.
    Mr. Swingler: Fifteen. I will, with permission, circulate particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gardner: Do the Traffic Commissioners, in dealing with these applications, take into account expenditure on political propaganda? Is my hon. Friend aware that this company is telling its passengers that it proposes to eliminate their coach services? Is a licence to operate a public transport undertaking a licence to deceive the public?
    Mr. Swingler: It is the duty of the Traffic Commissioners to take into account all factors relevant to the interests of the travelling public. My hon. Friend will realise that the Answer reveals the vicious spiral over the years of rising costs and falling traffic. That is the basic reason why my right hon. Friend is to set up passenger transport authorities.
    Mr. Webster: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these rises have been the consequence of wage increases incurred by the bus companies. They have been very closely scrutinised by the Traffic

    413
    Commissioners, whose abolition would leave nothing to protect the ratepayer and the farepayer from inflation.
    Mr. Swingler: One of the factors involved in these cases is the increase in labour costs of the bus companies. Another very important factor is falling traffic on the buses as a result of congestion or the failure to take the necessary traffic measures in relation to highway planning and other factors. These are the basic reasons for integrating passenger transport.
    Following is the information:

    BARTONS TRANSPORT LIMITED

    FARES INCREASES GRANTED BY THE EAST MIDLAND

    TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS SINCE 1950

    Date of Application

    Estimated yield of grant in a full year

    Grant expressed as percentage of gross revenue for preceding full year

    Effective date of grant

    £

    9. 1.51

    77,500

    9·89

    29.4.51

    16.11.51

    57,500

    7·11

    10.4.52

    13.11.52

    30,000

    3·39

    22.3.53

    9. 5.54

    25,000

    2·70

    31.8.54

    18. 1.55

    45,000

    4·76

    24.4.55

    8.12.55

    45,000

    4·98

    14.2.56

    29.11.56

    54,000

    5·01

    24.2.57

    31. 7.57

    64,600

    5·98

    17.9.57

    28. 4.59

    22,000

    1·99

    21.6.59

    12. 5.60

    76,000

    6·95

    28.6.60

    15. 5.61

    17,000

    6·19

    2.7.61

    17. 5.63

    76,000

    5·69

    17.7.63

    19. 5.65

    *111,000 (1)

    7·43 (1)

    18.7.65

    18. 1.66

    *105,700 (2)

    6·96(2)

    24.4.66

    27. 4.67

    51,200

    3·04

    23.7.67

    * The Traffic Commissioners granted these applications in part only.

    Notes:

    (1) Original application sought a yield of £127,000 (8·49 per cent.).

    (2) Original application sought a yield of £122,000 (7·89 per cent.).

    Parked Vehicles (Lights)
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Transport if she will take steps to ban the use of coloured side and parking lights on motor vehicles.
    Mr. Carmichael: Existing regulations require side lights to be white and parking lights to be white to the front and red to the rear. I am not aware that there are any problems in this respect.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my hon. Friend realise that, despite the existing regulations, there are an increasing num-
    414
    ber of cars on the roads, usually of foreign manufacture, which carry amber or orange sidelights to the front and that in poor visibility it is difficult to distinguish whether they are coming or going? Would he ensure that his Department looks into the matter?
    Mr. Carmichael: I am aware that there are occasional lapses in this matter. Vehicles brought temporarily into this country must abide by the 1949 Convention on road traffic. The position for vehicles registered in this country is quite clear—white to the front and red to the rear.

    Cars (Safety Regulations)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Transport if she will introduce safety regulations affecting the manufacture of cars similar to those now in force in the United States of America.
    Mr. John Morris: We intend to continue to develop safety regulations for the construction of motor vehicles and to support the work being done by the Economic Commission for Europe aimed at achieving international uniformity. This takes full account of recent American developments in this field.
    Mr. Hall: While it may take full account of the developments in America, may I ask whether the regulations will be similar to the regulations operating in America?
    Mr. Morris: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, some of the American regulations are already covered by ours. The basis of the difference is that the regulations of the Americans, who are starting virtually from scratch, cover the obligations of the manufacturer when he sells to the first customer. Our regulations, in rather different circumstances, attract to the vehicle when it is in road use. What we are trying to achieve, in consultation with our friends in Europe, is uniformity and to meet the needs of the time.
    Mr. Mapp: Is my hon. Friend aware that the distinction which he has drawn is absolutely vital—that the safety factors must be built in as the car is being produced and sold at the first point? Although the second point is important,

    415
    this point is of considerably greater importance than uniformity in safety factors. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Morris: I should not like, in question and answer, to argue the relative merits of both, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. This is one of the matters we are doing as regards the type of approval we propose to introduce for heavy goods vehicles as a first step.

    Midland Red Bus Company (Fares)
    Mr. Huckfieldasked the Minister of Transport if she will give the number of applications for fares increases which the Midland Red bus company have made to the Traffic Commissioners since 1950, and the average amount of increase which has been granted.
    Mr. Swingler: Sixteen. The average grant amounted to about 51 per cent. of the company's annual gross revenue.
    Mr. Huckfield: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, since this amounts to an increase in fares pretty well annually since 1950, does the Minister still refuse to assume powers to stop Midland Red campaigning against her Department's proposals for transport passenger authorities on the ground that they will put up fares?
    Mr. Swingler: Any propaganda carried out by the Midland Red is its responsibility. However, no doubt my hon. Friend has noted my right hon. Friend's reply in Parliament on 7th November totally dissociating the transport holding company from this propaganda or any financing of it. But we are concerned to break the vicious spiral revealed in the Answer, which has taken place over the years. As I said previously, that is why my right hon. Friend is to set up passenger transport authorities.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has just given are much better than those of London Transport? Since 1954, there has been an increase of 123 per cent. in London Transport fares and last year it had a deficit of nearly £6 million.
    Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman must try to compare like with like. The percentage figure which I gave was of the company's annual gross revenue. The pattern of fare increases in the bus industry over the whole country has been very much the same because of the vicious spiral of increasing costs and falling traffic. It is this vicious spiral which we shall attack by setting up integrated transport authorities.

    Reflecting Number Plates
    Mr. Lomasasked the Minister of Transport when she expects to lay the regulations to allow the use of reflecting number plates in accordance with the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1967.
    Mr. Swingler: We expect to complete statutory consultations later this month and, subject to this, regulations should follow soon after.
    Mr. Lomas: Does the Minister recall the firm promise which he made to this House on 12th June that these regulations would be laid before the winter months? Would he make every effort to see that this is done before Christmas, and that the trade is given notice of the intended date so that the public will be able to buy these plates in order to save lives over the Christmas period?
    Mr. Swingler: Yes. We are bound by Statute to carry out consultations about this. There are a number of technical matters yet to be resolved. In particular, we have received a request for further consideration for grant. However, we have decided not to defer the regulations and I can assure my hon. Friend they will be issued before Christmas.
    Mr. Ogden: Is my hon. Friend aware that he gave a categorical undertaking in this House that these regulations would be laid before the onset of winter? The dark nights have now begun. Can he explain why my right hon. Friend can do other necessary and unpopular things in a short time and is dragging her feet on this necessary and popular measure?
    Mr. Swingler: There is no dragging of feet. There are technical consultations to be carried out by the manufacturers as we promised. There are certain questions to be resolved—technicalities

    417
    of the design of number plates. They will come to an end this month. I can assure my hon. Friend that the regulations will be published before Christmas.

    Articulated Vehicles (Accidents)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Transport how many road accidents were caused, in each of the past five years, by jackknifing of articulated vehicles; what casualties resulted; and what estimate she has formed of the total financial losses involved.
    Mr. John Morris: This information is not available. But sample studies have shown that in about 10 per cent. of the injury accidents involving articulated vehicles, jackknifing occurred before the accident. This does not of course mean that jackknifing was necessarily a cause of these accidents.
    Mr. Onslow: Is not this still a very dangerous phenomenon? Will the Minister say what action he has taken to stimulate the fitting of anti-jacknifing devices?
    Mr. Morris: Well, the action which we have taken is, first, we have revised the accident form to discover new information. Secondly, the key to the problem is to try to find means of stopping It. As regards new vehicles, a code of practice has been agreed with the manufacturers in order to get a better balance of braking effort between the two axles. As regards fitting particular devices to prevent wheel lock, or to have automatic adjustment of the braking effort, trials are being carried out in order to discover what is the best kind of device. But this is not an easy matter.

    Disabled Drivers (Car Badge Scheme)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Transport if she will now give advice to local traffic and welfare authorities, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, on the implementation of the car badge scheme for disabled drivers.
    Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, issued fresh circulars in September to local traffic and welfare authorities giving advice on the car badge scheme for disabled drivers.
    Sir R. Russell: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that answer, can he say what has resulted from these circulars being issued?
    Mr. Morris: I understand that as a result of these circulars there is better uniformity in the discretion as regards the observance of the badges. A different mode of study is being adopted for Greater London, in that the G.L.C. is looking at its own arrangements and at what the practice is in the various boroughs.

    Road Safety Act, 1967
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Transport if she will give the number of persons killed and seriously injured, respectively, from the day the Road Safety Act, 1967, came into force until the latest convenient date; and the comparable figures for the same period in 1966.
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents of each main category there were in the month following the coming into force of the breathalyser tests as compared with the same period of last year; and how many of these she attributes to drink.
    The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I hope to publish October figures before Christmas. I do not wish to anticipate them by giving statistics for very short periods or for particular areas, as limited samples are so likely to be affected by random factors.
    Mr. Lubbock: When the figures are available, is it not almost certain that they will show that there has been a reduction in the number of deaths and that the carnage on our roads has been reduced by the Road Safety Act? Will the Minister consider counteracting the campaign being waged against certain provisions in the Act by vested interests and issue a leaflet to the public describing the tests to be made and inviting further co-operation?
    Mrs. Castle: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not want to anticipate the outcome of our further collections of the October figures because they have not all come in yet, and then we shall have to relate them to traffic and analyse them. I have always tried to bring as scientific an approach

    419
    as I can to road safety. Therefore, I would not wish to be drawn into any anticipation of the evidence. With regard to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I am aware that there are some efforts to organise opposition to this—[Interruption.]—but I am fortified by the conviction that the majority of people in the country support the measures which we have taken.
    Mr. John Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the support of the whole of this side of the House in the new Road Safety Regulations?
    Mrs. Castle: Yes, and I am a little curious to know at this stage what is the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.] After all, they did not in the House oppose the creation of the new offence. They did not in this House oppose—
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest of respect, and always with that respect, without wishing to anticipate any decision about your attitude, you yourself not being—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to his point of order.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Mr. Speaker, was that answer strictly in order right the way through?
    Mr. Speaker: If it had not been the Chair would have called attention to it. Mrs. Castle.
    Mrs. Castle: I was saying that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who supported the legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Now they do not want to be confronted with their own decision. But they supported the creation of the new offence, and they supported the introduction of the breath test—[Interruption.] I am well aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite are now being approached by the licensed victuallers to oppose it —[Interruption.]—and I await with interest a declaration of their attitude at the present time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers ought to be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I put it to you, with
    420
    respect, that the reason why my right hon. Friend appeared to take a long time was that she was impeded repeatedly by noise and obstruction from the other side of the House and, as a result, her answer took longer than it would have done otherwise?
    Mr. Speaker: The Chair was aware of that.

    Breathalysers
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Transport whether she will amend the law so that drivers can request a breathalyser test from the police before driving.
    Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. I do not think that the additional burden on the police would be warranted. In any case, such voluntary tests might encourage motorists to drink "up to the limit" which could well be dangerous.
    Mr. Marten: Of course that is true, but any sensible motorist would wish to have a test if he could pay, say, 5s. for it. Would the Minister look at this again, because there may be a danger of people thinking that she is more interested in obtaining prosecutions than in helping keep death off the road, and that would he impossible if motorists were allowed to have a police test in return for some small payment?
    Mrs. Castle: That accusation is completely unsupported by the attitude which my hon. Friends and I took during the passage of the Road Safety Bill. An example of our desire to have prevention rather than prosecution was the change in the "in charge" law, which everyone recognised was an attempt to help the motorist. That is what I want to do. There are two big difficulties. First and foremost, such an ad hoc test could be misleading. For example, if it was taken shortly after the motorist had stopped drinking, the blood/alcohol level might not have reached its peak. Secondly, I do not think we have the right to put this additional burden on the police.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only is the Bill working effectively to prevent accidents but the opinion poll headlined in the Evening Standard today shows that public opinion

    421
    has gone up from 65 per cent. support in August to 69 per cent. today?
    Mrs. Castle: I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing this report in the Evening Standard, but it confirms a great deal of evidence which has come to me through my own correspondence.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Whilst appreciating the point made by the right hon. Lady on the difficulties of putting extra burdens on the police, could she examine the method of taking the blood test, because there are reports of police dissatisfaction of the actual method by which they have to take the blood test, thus causing bad relationship between the public and the police?
    Mrs. Castle: I am not aware of that. If official representations were made by the police to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he and I would look into them, but I am not aware that this is so.
    Dr. David Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend explain to hon. Members opposite that the best thing is not to have a drink before being put in charge of a lethal weapon? If they are anxious about breathalyser tests, this is the best service they could do to the public.
    Mrs. Castle: I do wish to reaffirm that the only safe rule is not to drink and drive. This is not a measure directed against motorists; it is merely against the coupling of drinking and driving. I endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Transport how she proposes to seek to modify the rules governing the use of the breathalyser in order to respect the liberties of the subject.
    Mrs. Castle: I do not consider that any modification is necessary.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: But does the Minister realise that one simple modification would do much to reassure people, namely, if a motorist were given the opportunity, if he had failed the relevant test, to prove that he was fit to be in charge of a motor car?
    Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the whole purpose of the Act, which I thought was accepted by the whole House, which is
    422
    that we want an objective measurement whether a man is or is not fit to be in charge of a motor car. This is based on medical evidence and medical advice that above a certain concentration of alcohol in the blood a man is impaired, whether physically impaired or consciously.
    Mr. Sharples: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in certain areas the impression is growing that the police are using purely technical motoring offences to introduce what are virtually random tests? Will the right hon. Lady take steps to correct this impression?
    Mr. Molloy: Name the police force involved.
    Mrs. Castle: I do not accept that that is so. The House accepted three circumstances under which the test could be made. First, if the motorist had been involved in an accident. Secondly, if the police considered that there was reasonable ground for thinking that a motorist had committed a moving traffic offence, and, thirdly, if they suspected that a motorist had alcohol in his body. Those three conditions were accepted by the House, and during the discussions on the Bill I explained that this meant that there was a random element. This has not been contravened by the police. There is no evidence whatsoever that the police are going beyond the terms of the Act approved by the House.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that while the liberty of the subject is important the safety of the subject is of equal importance, and the breathalyser is playing a part in extending this?
    Mrs. Castle: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have always said that the Act gives a great extension of liberty because it gives the motorist a chance to use his car and stay alive.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has my right hon. Friend observed that although the breathalyser test provides a good prima facie case for a further examination, nevertheless when people are taken to police stations for further positive tests they are found to be innocent of breaking the terms of the Act? Is this due to defective breathalysers, or is it due to defective police action?
    Mrs. Castle: We have always made it clear that, although we have made the breath test as accurate as possible, there is bound to be some margin of error. This is why the breath test is not taken as evidence in court. It is merely prima facie evidence on the basis of which a more reliable test can be made. There are bound to be a small number of cases in which the breath test is not endorsed by the blood test.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is it within your power to ask the right hon. Lady to answer the next Question, as it affects so many constituencies both in the North and in the South?
  Mr. Speaker: It is for the Minister to indicate to the Chair and to the House that she wishes to answer a Question if it is not reached. It is not a matter for the Chair.

  TRANSPORT

    Motor Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations, 1966
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the new regulations in the Motor Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations, 1966, which require new and existing vehicles to be plated, if she will provide for a longer transitional period before these become final.
    Mr. Carmichael: No, Sir. Goods vehicles coming into use on or after 1st January, 1968, are required by those regulations to carry plates showing the weights at which the manufacturer considers them fit to operate. I see no reason why this should affect our declared intention to start testing and plating existing heavier goods vehicles at Government Testing Stations in July, 1968.
    Mr. Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many small road hauliers have many problems these days with increased taxation and fuel charges and, therefore, a much longer transitional period is needed? Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Carmichael: We appreciate the point raised by the hon. Member, but, if he recalls the debates on the Road Safety
    424
    Bill, he will realise that it was made clear that the House as a whole would view with disfavour any delay in starting a Government testing and plating service.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Transport why the new Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations, 1966, do not provide for the testing requirements to be done by county councils, which in many cases have efficient testing systems for this purpose.
    Mr. Carmichael: There were no suitable facilities of the kind required for comprehensive tests of the heavier classes of goods vehicles, for which new techniques and equipment have had to be developed. The most economical way of providing these facilities and of operating them was to design a network of purpose-built stations.
    Mr. Mills: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is not exactly right. Some county councils, particularly my own, have adequate facilities for doing the job, and this would save a considerable amount of money. Will he again look into this?
    Mr. Carmichael: The feeling was that the general pattern throughout the country showed that there was not a sufficient number of stations available for comprehensive tests of the class required. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may like to visit the Ministry's prototype station and compare this with any other station he has seen in the country.

  RAILWAYS

    Deficit
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Transport what is the expected deficit of the British Railways Board for the current year; and how this compares with the latest financial year.
    Mr. John Morris: The deficit is now expected to be almost £20 million higher than the 1966 deficit of £134·7 million.
    Mr. Biffen: Would not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that accelerating deficits of this magnitude inevitably raise the question of managerial competence of senior people in British Railways? Will he, therefore, take this occasion to remind his right hon. Friend that

    425
    an early statement will be required from her on speculation concerning the future of Sir Stanley Raymond?
    Mr. Morris: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. The hon. Member studies these matters in some detail and should be aware that this present difference is almost entirely due to the fall in freight, which in one year amounted to almost £25 million.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what was the 1962 railway deficit and, in view of the fact that rail closures have saved only approximately £19 million, what efforts have been made to absorb the large cost increases since 1962?
    Mr. Morris: The probable figure this year would be no higher than the figure in 1962, which was £159 million. Since that time costs totalling £110 million have been absorbed by the railways.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is this not yet another example of the failure of nationalised industries—worse service at increased cost?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. and gallant Member has failed to understand what I was telling him. I was telling him that costs totalling £110 million have been absorbed by this industry since 1962.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Minister told the House only nine months ago that in her view the deficit would be £6 million less than last year? We are now told that it is £20 million more. Does he think that the fact that British Railways have been without an effective Chairman for three weeks will help or hinder the deficit?
    Mr. Morris: I have set out the financial position in some detail. I have explained what is the reason for the difference from the estimates and what will in all eventuality probably happen in the course of the year in respect of the fall in freight. I have nothing to add.

    Snow Hill Station
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Transport if she will now announce a decision as to the future of Snow Hill Station; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. John Morris: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has decided that Snow Hill Station should not be closed, and that passenger services should still be provided between Snow Hill and Wolverhampton Low Level, and also on the link line to Smethwick West.
    Mr. Eyre: While welcoming the fact that a decision has at last been made, may I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to remind the Minister that certain important planning proposals are badly held up in Birmingham and if the Answer means that there will be a partial closure at the station, will that be made clear as soon as possible so that development may be got under way?
    Mr. Morris: I am well aware of those considerations, as is my right hon. Friend. It was a very important proposal, which needed study in all its aspects, having regard to the immense weight of commuter traffic from this great conurbation. I am also aware of the planning problem involved. We hope that most of the sites of Snow Hill will be available for release.
    Mr. Grieve: Is the Minister aware that since the train services to the south and west of Birmingham have been re-routed to New Street, they have suffered a serious deterioration both as to quality and as to quantity? Will he look into the matter and see that some improvement is effected?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. and learned Member should be aware that in this kind of matter—the kind of service which is available—the right avenue of approach is through the T.U.C.C. He can make any representations to that body.

    Llanelly-Craven Arms Line
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Minister of Transport (1) what decision she has reached on the future of the railway line from Llanelly to Craven Arms;
    (2) whether she will initiate a public inquiry to make public the facts and figures concerning the proposed closure of the railway line from Llanelly to Craven Arms.
    Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend has not reached a decision on the future of this line, but she has raised no objection to publication by the Railways Board

    427
    of a proposal to withdraw passenger services from it. Objections to the proposal, when published, will be considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Wales and Monmouth-shire at a public hearing before they report to her. The Committee and any objectors will have full details of the services and the use made of them.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Many hon. Members will be aware of the difficulty of this problem and will remember that this was a railway which was reprieved by the Conservative Government. Will it be abundantly clear to the public in this wide area what the figures for passenger traffic are on this line? That is what I want to know.
    Mr. Morris: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, this was a proposal which was before the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and it was refused. One of the difficulties of the 1962 Act, for which the hon. Member voted, was that it allowed certain refusals but did not provide the means to pay for them. This is one of the reasons why the railway industry is in deficit today, to which some hon. Members opposite object. The hon. Gentleman's second point will be canvassed within the terms of the T.U.C.C's remit at the public hearing.
    Mr. E. Rowlands: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that if this line had been kept open under the 1962 Act it would have contributed to the deficit about which hon. Members opposite complain. Would my hon. Friend say how many miles of line in Wales have been closed since the Labour Party came to power in 1964 and how our record compares with that of the Conservatives?
    Mr. Morris: So far, not a single line in Wales has been decided for closure by a Labour Minister. If I recall aright—I know that it is no comfort to hon. Members opposite—about 180 or 190 miles of line were closed in Wales in one month before the 1964 election.

    Portsmouth-Southampton Line (Electrification)
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Transport what plans have been submitted to her for the electrification of the railway between Portsmouth and Southampton.
    Mr. John Morris: None, Sir.
    Mr. Judd: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that if such schemes are submitted in the plans for the development of the region they will be given every possible support by the Ministry?
    Mr. Morris: I cannot anticipate what the Minister's view will be on this. I know the possibility of the electrification of the line is being examined by the Board. It is for the Board to initiate proposals. I am told its studies are not yet sufficiently advanced to indicate when the proposals will come forward.

  ROADS

    Indian Ocean Atolls (Roads)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Transport what approaches have been made by her to the Road Research Laboratory for advice on the construction of roads on Indian Ocean atolls consisting of honeycombed coral, under the control of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Swingler: None, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not responsible for roads built outside this country. No research has been undertaken by the department on constructional problems on coral islands.
    Mr. Dalyell: Would it not be wise for someone somewhere in the Government machine, before embarking on preposterous projects of building roads on a coral island, to get some expert advice?
    Mr. Swingler: We are not embarking on any preposterous projects, but the Road Research Laboratory is available to anybody who wishes to consult it on technical problems. Some years ago it issued a booklet on the use of coral and other soft limestone in road building. If my hon. Friend would like a copy, I should be delighted to send him one.

    Hopwood Canal Bridge (Road Improvement)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport when she will approve in principle the proposed improvement at Hopwood Canal Bridge on the A441; and whether she will ensure that this essential improvement is included in an early programme.
    Mr. Carmichael: This scheme is now approved in principle and has been included in the programme for 1968–69.
    Mr. Dance: I am sure that my constituents will be extremely grateful for that information. May we have an assurance that this work will be started in the immediate future?
    Mr. Carmichael: All that I can do is to reiterate that it has been included in the programme. We have no reason to believe that it will not be started in good time.

    A30 and A303
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the last year in double tracking the A30 and A303 roads, respectively.
    Mr. Carmichael: The lengths of dual carriageway opened to traffic during the last year are three miles on the A30 and one mile on the A303.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that that is quite inadequate, as the traffic congestion at weekends is becoming appalling throughout the whole of the summer months and is having a serious effect on the West Country?
    Mr. Carmichael: We are aware of the problem of this road and of many other roads. Of the schemes in progress, the Sherborne-Yeovil length will be one mile of road and the A303 has two parts in progress, one of three miles and one of 1,000 yards. Other schemes are being programmed.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Minister of Transport whether she is satisfied with the share which heavy goods lorries pay of the cost of providing adequate roads for heavy vehicles; and if she will give the figures on which she bases her assessment.
    Mrs. Castle: I would ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper on the Transport of Freight which will be published tomorrow. Copies will be available in the Vote Office at 2.30 p.m.

    North Street, Midhurst (Pedestrian Crossing)
    Mr. Hordernasked the Minister of Transport whether she will now authorise a pedestrian crossing to be placed across North Street, Midhurst.
    Mr. Carmichael: I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot agree to this. A count of pedestrians and vehicles taken in July showed that traffic in North Street at peak hours was still considerably below the volume required by the relaxed criteria introduced in January. The West Sussex County Council was informed of this decision on 18th August.
    Mr. Hordern: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the deep concern which exists, and has existed for many years, in Midhurst on this issue? It will be more widespread now that the decision has been made known. Is not the Minister aware that the figures in July are disputed, in any case, and that it is suggested that they should be taken in earlier months when traffic is a good deal heavier? Would the Minister bear that in mind and take soundings at the appropriate time?
    Mr. Carmichael: My right hon. Friend is always willing to reconsider decisions. However, in this case a number of figures were collected, some by the county council and some by the divisional road engineer. Not only were the figures not anything like up to even the revised criteria, but there was no point at which it could be said that pedestrians would want to cross this road. There was no focal point of pedestrians crossing. It is a very difficult matter, but there will always be room for reconsideration.

    A444 and A47 Roads, Nuneaton
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Transport when she will announce details of the widening and realignment of the A444 and A47 in the borough of Nuneaton.
    Mr. Carmichael: On the A47 trunk road draft proposals for a realignment between Abbey Road and Leicester Road have been published but are not yet finalised. On the A444 principal road the announced programme includes the Bedworth by-pass and its extension to Coton Arches. Details are the responsibility of the Warwickshire County Council, as highway authority for this principal road.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be welcomed by my constituents, especially in view of

    431
    the planning difficulty, particularly the building of the school, which has caused difficulties in the past?

    Gants Hill (Subways)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement about the provision of ramps for underground stairways at Gants Hill, Ilford.
    Mr. Swingler: A system of pedestrian ramp accesses to the subways will be provided. Details are now being worked out.
    Mr. Iremonger: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he could look into the rate of progress which is being made to see that there is no further delay?
    Mr. Swingler: I know that there has been quite a long period of consideration of this, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not an inexpensive scheme, and, indeed, it will cost more than £130,000; but it has now been agreed. The technical details will be worked out as quickly as possible, and I can assure the hon. Member that the structural work will start early.

    Controlled Parking Zone, Central Ilford
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Transport what reply she has sent to the Ilford Chamber of Trade and Commerce on the subject of the controlled parking zone in central Ilford.
    Mr. Swingler: The Department informed the Chamber last April that the Greater London Council, which is empowered to introduce parking meters in Ilford without reference to my right hon. Friend, had been asked to reply direct to its letter.

    Thorne By-Pass
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Transport whether she is now able to publish the schemes for the Thorne by-pass and the building of a temporary bridge over the canal at Thorne.
    Mr. Carmichael: The scheme for the by-pass, now referred to as the Thorne section of M18, will be published in draft
    432
    next Tuesday, 21st November. Examination of the possibility of a temporary bridge at Thorne is now nearly completed and we hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware of the vital necessity of eliminating the bottlenecks at Thorne leading to Goole and Humberside? Can he give any idea when the work will start and when it will finish?
    Mr. Carmichael: The work will be starting as soon as is possible, but this will be dependent on the completion of all the statutory procedures necessary for establishing the line or any necessary alteration to side roads, and compulsory purchase orders for land acquisition. Construction will take about two years, and it is expected that the road will be completed by about the end of 1971.

    Tetbury Area (Heavy Vehicles)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware that since the opening of the Severn Bridge the traffic of heavy vehicles through Tetbury and nearby villages constitutes a serious hazard to amenity, to buildings and to other traffic users; and what proposals she has to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Carmichael: We are aware of an increase in the number of heavy vehicles passing through these villages and realise that it must have some effect on amenity, the convenience of residents and other road users.
    The Gloucestershire County Council, as highway authority for the A433, have proposals for by-passing Tetbury and Didmarton but, compared with needs elsewhere, these schemes do not yet merit a place in the principal road programme.
    Mr. Kershaw: Why cannot the Government get on with it?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Is it to he expected?
    Mr. Kershaw: I am aware that it would be something rather unusual, but is the Minister aware that the £14 million cut in road building which the Government have instituted will result in serious

    433
    and lasting damages to these beautiful Cotswold villages, where I happen to live?
    Hon. Members: Oh
    Mr. Carmichael: No.
    Mr. Manuel: Why does not the hon. Member move?

    A38 Road (Accidents)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware that on the A38 road between Bristol and Gloucestershire an average of 15 lives are lost, each year; what further consideration she has given to the use of offset double white lines on this road; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mr. Carmichael: We share the concern about the number of accidents on this road but the safety measures which have been taken are steadily reducing them, despite the increase in traffic. Other improvements which are under way or planned should further reduce accidents.
    The experiment with alternating off-set double white lines showed that these lines do not improve safety; unfortunately, they are not the answer.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is the Minister aware that that last remark is really not accepted by anybody outside the Ministry of Transport and by not many inside, either? Is he aware that this stretch of road is one of the most dangerous in England? What is the reason for this bureaucratic opposition to this change which has shown such good results in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Carmichael: On the first part of the question, the double white lines, figures from all over the country and from Scotland completely contradict the hon. Member.

    Sub-standard Bridges
    Mr. Kitsonasked the Minister of Transport if, following circular No. 20/67 dealing with the carrying capacity of sub-standard bridges, she will introduce a crash programme to bring up to standard those bridges which are now going to restrict heavy traffic where it is difficult for local authorities to re-route
    434
    on to roads capable of carrying additional traffic.
    Mr. John Morris: In such cases special arrangements designed to bring the road back into use as quickly as possible are considered. The position is being kept under continuous review.
    Mr. Kitson: Could the Joint Parliamentary Secretary instruct British Railways to hurry up and make some repairs to these bridges? Is he aware that one bridge is closed and that at other bridges passengers have to get out of the buses, walk over the bridge, and then get back into the buses? Is that not a ridiculous state of affairs? Will he please hurry up this work?
    Mr. Morris: This, as the hon. Member, I know, is fully aware, is not a laughing matter although some of his hon. Friends are tittering on this issue of safety. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Because of the importance of the road in question the Ministry has requested British Railways to include all three bridges in the first phase of the reconstruction programme. I understand this is being done. The target for completion is May, 1968. In addition to this, urgent consideration is being given to the temporary strengthening of the bridge in question in order to try to reopen this road within one month.

    Parked Vehicles (Bus Routes)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Transport if she will now relax the regulations which require vehicles to have lights switched on when parked on well-lit bus routes.
    Mr. John Morris: We do not believe that such a relaxation would be in the interests of road safety.
    Sir R. Russell: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that on well-lit bus routes with sodium lighting it is almost impossible not to see vehicles which are parked alongside the road? Is it not a complete waste of batteries?
    Mr. Morris: One of the problems here is of defining what is "well-lit". Certain consultations have taken place, and the view of the police is that this would be unsafe.
    Mr. George Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware that the regulations differ from

    435
    town to town and that strangers are prosecuted for not having lights on because they come from towns where that is permitted? Could the Minister not issue some advice or assistance to all areas so as to standardise the regulations?
    Mr. Morris: This is a very real difficulty. For example, the practice in London is different from that in other parts of the country. This stems from the different lighting in various parts of the country. At the end of the day, however, safety must be paramount, and this is left to the police.

    Ancient Toll Bridges
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a statement on Government policy towards the abolition of ancient toll bridges.
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Transport whether she has any new proposals for the abolition of ancient toll bridges.
    Mr. Carmichael: There are no proposals for changing the present situation in which highway authorities may, if they wish, acquire ancient toll rights under Section 233 of the Highways Act, 1959.
    Mr. Marten: Presumably that must mean that there is no change in Government policy and that they have no proposals to alter the law about toll bridges. Could they not consider seriously fixing a term of, say, 15 years, after which all toll bridge rights should be abolished without compensation?
    Mr. Carmichael: Confiscation, even after a term of 15 years, would involve very controversial legislation. The feeling is that any such legislation would be of insufficient national importance to give Parliamentary time for it.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, though it may be of insufficient national importance, it is a problem which is of crucial local importance in areas like Selby, and that it would be desirable if modern road communications were not impeded by these ancient toll bridges? Would he perhaps look at the way in which Jersey dealt with the problem of seigniorial dues, which
    436
    were also a feudal relic and which they abolished after 25 years of gradual progression?
    Mr. Carmichael: In the case of the bridge referred to by my hon. Friend, there is to be a by-pass which will eliminate the necessity for main traffic to use the bridge. On the other matter he raises in connection with Jersey, I will make a point of examining it.

    Pedestrian Safety Facilities
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Transport if she will consider devising speedier procedure to determine applications by local authorities for the installation of pedestrian safety facilities.
    Mr. Carmichael: I think that plans, now being prepared, to give local authorities greater discretion in the siting of pedestrian crossings on their own roads will result in saving of time.
    Mr. Molloy: I am grateful for that reply, but what I have in mind is that where a plurality of local authorities are involved in submitting an application—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am not asking hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Molloy: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When a number of local authorities are involved sometimes there are delays in getting a plurality of local authorities and the police together to submit an application or an appeal, so could the Ministry take the lead in bringing all interested parties together earlier?
    Mr. Carmichael: My right hon. Friend always tries, when there is a belief that there are difficulties in a plurality of local authorities, to bring them together through the divisional road engineers, and this is the policy. However, we will look at any particular questions which my hon. Friend would like us to examine.

    London (D Ring Road)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Transport when she anticipates being able to make an announcement regarding the selection of routes that will constitute the D Ring roads of the London areas.
    Mr. Swingler: Four schemes which will form part of the D Ring have already

    437
    been selected for the road programmes, and the section between A13 and A2, including the Dartford Tunnel, is already in use. Priorities for remaining parts of the route will have to be decided in relation to competing claims of other important schemes in London and the surrounding area.
    Mr. Molloy: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is possible to make a decision about that portion of the D Ring road that involves Greenford and Northolt without having to wait for the entire proposal to be examined?
    Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend knows that there are five local authorities in that area who have asked for more time to consider it, because they wish to seek the advice of Professor Buchanan, who is to report by the end of the year. We have given them until next February to express their views. I greatly regret the blighting which occurs in the meantime, but it is fair enough that these five London boroughs should be given this opportunity. After that we will consider the scheme as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Longden: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the D Ring road, wherever it ultimately goes, is not instead of but is in addition to the extension of the North Orbital which is so urgently needed in my constituency?
    Mr. Swingler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sections of these ring roads are being completed as required according to the traffic considerations and other problems. They are not in substitution of one another. It is clear that, because of the volume of traffic, both schemes will be required.

    Airports (Road Communications)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Transport what expenditure has been incurred in each of the last three years in improving road communications to British airports; and what expenditure is planned for the purpose in each of the next three years.
    Mr. Carmichael: Airport traffic needs are only one of a large number of factors taken into account in selecting schemes for road improvements. It is not possible, therefore, separately to identify such expenditure.
    Mr. Onslow: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it might be worthwhile trying? Does he not understand the importance of developing air communications for passenger and freight?
    Mr. Carmichael: As I said earlier, the total needs of an area, when a new road is required, are taken into account and decided upon. Obviously an airport generates a fairly large amount of traffic, and this weighs heavily in the decision whether the road should be progressed and the speed at which it should be progressed.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: What about rail communications to British airports; for example, extending the line west of Hounslow?
    Mr. Carmichael: The line west of Hounslow and other communications with airports are continually taken into account when the total needs of the travelling public are looked at and the most economic and convenient ways for the public to reach the airports are considered. Sometimes it is a road, sometimes it is rail, and sometimes it is a combination of both.

    Essex (Road Improvements)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Minister of Transport what plans she has to improve the Essex roads, especially the Al22 from Chelmsford to Epping and the A414 from Chelmsford to Hatfield Heath.
    Mr. Swingler: Our plans for the improvement of roads in Essex have been included in road programme announcements, but I will send the hon. Member a full and lengthy list. They include expenditure of over £¼ million on Al22 and of over £200,000 on A414.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister realise that what the people of my constituency want is not a full and lengthy list but some speedy action on a comparatively minor project?
    Mr. Swingler: The list which I will supply to the hon. Gentleman will show action on about ten schemes that are going on in this area. Although I am not in favour of this, comparison will show that in Essex there was a rather larger share of the road programme in

    439
    the last year than in the case of other counties. When he has considered the list I will be pleased to receive his comments.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
    Liberty of the Subject
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the continued erosion of the liberty of the subject, and move a Resolution.
    Cost of Labour Government
    Mr. Hunt: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the rising cost of Labour Government, and move a Resolution.
    Sale of Arms
    Mr. Brian Harrison: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st December, I shall call attention to the restrictions on the sale of arms, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
    Clause 1.

      (CONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN EXPIRING ENACTMENTS.)
      The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper: In page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
      3.34 p.m.
      The Chairman: Mr. Robert Cooke.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: In view of the fact that the Committee has important matters which it wishes to discuss, I do not wish to move this Amendment this year.
      The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule.

      (ACTS CONTINUED TILL END OF DECEMBER, 1968.)
      Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 7 and 8.
      I wonder whether, with this Amendment, Sir Eric, we can discuss the Amendment to leave out lines 16 and 17. If I may raise a short point of order before I embark on my speech, last year the Committee found it convenient, and the Chair approved, to consider together the two Amendments in my name—which were identical with the two in my name on the Notice Paper today—to give rise to a general debate. I would prefer to follow this course today, and I am glad to notice that the Home Secretary approves.
      The Chairman: That can be done if it is the unanimous wish of the House. As no objection has been raised, so be it.
      Mr. Hogg: I am much obliged to you, Sir Eric.
      When we had this debate last year, one of my hon. Friends observed that a fairly wide consensus of opinion existed between the two sides of the Committee, and in particular, between the two Front Benches. I hope that that consensus remains. I think that great public advantage derives from the fact that as matters stand at the moment, neither side of the Committee, in the main, feels disposed to exploit what is potentially an emotionally charged atmosphere.
      I am certain that there would be considerable danger to public order, as well as to the decencies of public debate in public life, if we were to depart from that rule, and I would like to renew my assurance to the right hon. Gentleman that I shall seek to retain that consensus which, it will be remembered, depended on two propositions: first, that it was desirable to restrict immigration to this country; and, secondly, that persons lawfully within this country should be treated on the basis of the universal declaration of human rights, that one person should be treated in the same way as another in respect of dignity and human rights. As long as that is so, we can be assured that we are agreed about the ends and the only discussion that remains to take place is a discussion of means.
      I would not wish to repeat the general remarks which I made when I spoke this time last year. I would like to say only two things. First, we should remember that what we are discussing is fundamentally not a function of race, but a function of world poverty. Of course, there are disagreeable racial overtones, but men do not leave their countries to go elsewhere, in a strange and not always friendly environment, unless they are persecuted or unless they are poor. It behoves us to approach this subject with humility and compassion—humility, because the subject is a function not merely of the poverty of others but of our own relative well-being, which we owe partly to historical accident and partly to the skill and courage of our forebears.
      In viewing this subject, therefore, let us remember that the only permanent solution of the problem that we are discussing, under an enactment which provides for the annual renewal of makeshift
      442
      legislation—one example of which, the first on the list, has been in operation since 1919—would be, and will be one day, to see that standards of life elsewhere in the world are raised to a level at least comparable with our own. Until that day we shall have to deal with the makeshift and, at best, the second-best.
      At the same time, the most considerable contribution which this country can make to the solution of the problem of world poverty, which is the cause of immigration, is probably, first, to set its own economic house in order and then so to use its stability as to enable the countries from which immigrants come to raise the general standard of life of their populations in their place of residence. It is neither obviously nor necessarily true that the most significant contribution that we can make is to allow unrestricted entry to persons, of whatever origin, who, numerically speaking from the point of view of the populations concerned, are relatively insignificant proportions of the persons who are exposed to poverty and under-nourishment.
      I should have thought that it was not obviously true that this island was under-populated at present. I maintain a certain agnosticism about optimum levels of population in any country—over-population or under-population. People have been habitually wrong in such estimates since the subject began to be discussed, and I doubt whether we have the scientific knowledge, as yet, to have got beyond the era of hunch and commonsense. But it is not obviously true that we are under-populated. The burden of proof rests upon those who would shift the population in an upward direction to show what they propose is either necessary or desirable at present.
      I say that in full consciousness of the fact that we are and have been, from the earliest times, a mongrel race, and that in the past this country has owed a great deal to the various waves of immigration to which we have been subjected from time to time, and not least to the recent arrivals.
      I now move from the general to the particular. Since last year a great deal has happened. One of the prime purposes which I hope this debate will serve is to discuss some of the events which have taken place in that period. Before

      443
      I do anything else I want to refer to the relevant figures, which should be known and which I hope the Minister will confirm. He has let me see some of them privately. The debate takes place when the complete figures for the current year are not available and therefore the figures on which I propose to talk are those for the first nine months—from January to September of this year.
      I am sure that I shall be corrected by one or other of the Ministers if I say something which is in any way inaccurate. This may be the case, although I shall try to be as accurate as I can. I am hampered by the fact that I am dealing only with a nine-months' period. The first figure to which I want to refer relates to what is called the old Commonwealth. I think I am right in saying that, on net balance, there has been a considerable efflux of the citizens of the old Commonwealth—14,000 from Canada, nearly 3,000 from Australia and nearly 2,000 from New Zealand, if my figures are correct.
      In addition, if we want to see the balance of movement in these countries we have to add what is not included in these statistics—the emigration of persons from this island to those countries. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is the value of retaining an elaborate system of vouchers, supported by fundamentally penal provisions, when the net flow of population between us and those countries is an outflow and not an inflow on this scale.
      I have a constituency case in respect of which I have corresponded with the right hon. Gentleman. It concerns a young Australian actress whose permit had expired and who wanted to take an acting job in the North of England. I wonder what advantage exists in saying that she has outstayed her permission and must go home. At the moment, there is the case, which I will not seek to identify because part of it is sub judice, of a young Australian man, aged 20, who was held for 36 days in custody but against whom nothing was alleged except that he had broken the regulations.
      I wonder whether there is any advantage, when there is no social problem, in putting in our prisons people of otherwise good reputation coming from those
      444
      sources. Although I am sure that if there were a social problem the House of Commons would wish to act, I wonder whether the House wishes the Minister to act in cases where we are dealing with people belonging to countries with whom we have the warmest ties and beside whom we fought in the greatest of our wars. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in the light of these circumstances, there is any real justification for operating the Act in quite such a restrictive fashion.
      I recognise that the Government of which I was a member started this practice. We did it because we wished to make it clear that the Act would be operated equally between the inhabitants of one country and another. That is a highly desirable object. However, I think that the time has come, to quote The Times in a slightly different context, to take a fresh look at the relationships of ourselves and the various Commonwealth countries.
      As a member of that Government, and having been present at some of the discussions, I think I may say that had we, in 1958 and onwards, been faced with an influx of Frenchmen, Germans or Italians on the scale of the influx with which we were faced from the Commonwealth, we would have acted more quickly and more drastically than we did. It was precisely because we did not wish to raise a racial issue that we wished, if anything, to err on the side of delay rather than to arouse antagonism in our Commonwealth partners.
      The second set of figures to which I want to refer are those from the West Indies. I understand that the remarkable situation is as follows. As to Jamaica, there has been a net outflow of male persons of nearly 400. The figures are practically static for Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago—an inflow of 29 from the first and an inflow of 64 for the other two. These would include aged fathers who are dependants in addition to workers coming in under voucher.
      If that is so, even though the figure for other dependants, to which I will come, is more substantial, we should allow these facts to be generally known. The policy is working and the alarmist letters that we receive from time to time are not based entirely on statistical truth.

      445
      The figures for Pakistan and India are much higher, over 5,000 in each case for male entrants and another 15,000 or 16,000 in each case for women and children.
      We cannot view these figures entirely with equanimity and complacency. However, I fancy from reading some of the correspondence that I receive my correspondents do not fully realise the extent to which the Act is already producing results and to which the figures have been dwindling from year to year since it has been in operation.
      The third figure, which is perhaps the most important of all, is that for entrants holding vouchers, from January to September. Unless I am mistaken, this figure is 3,504 for nine months, not a very high figure. Although the figures I have been given do not break down as between holders of B vouchers and holders of A vouchers, last year, when we were talking in terms of 6,000 holders for a slightly earlier period, because the complete figures were not available, they broke down as to 4,000 B voucher holders to 2,000 A voucher holders—in other words, 4,000 skilled workers to 2,000 unskilled workers, in effect. Would the Home Secretary agree that the breakdown of the 3,500 would be rather similar this year?
      Last year, there was a good deal of discussion about the desirability of permitting B voucher holders to enter. Some people, for markedly opposite reasons opposed their entry. I thought that the Home Secretary effectively disposed of those arguments. They serve an invaluable social purpose when they come to this country, although the countries of their origin can probably ill spare them. I should be sorry to see B vouchers curtailed, unless there was good reason for doing so. I ask the Ministers to comment upon this reflection and to tell me whether my general line of comment is correct on this point.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean it the other way round? Does he not mean that last year the desirability of permitting A voucher holders to enter was questioned, that it was suggested that their entry should be curtailed, that we dealt with that argument last year, and
      446
      that he would like our comments on this issue this year?
      Mr. Hogg: I mean that the debate revolved round the skilled entrants. Several hon. Members, for one reason or another, thought that the entry of skilled workers should be curtailed, because the countries of origin could ill spare them. I think I was right in referring to those as B voucher holders, although my general standard of accuracy in letters and figures is such that I am not prepared to be dogmatic. I believe that this is a category of entrant that we should encourage, for the reasons the Home Secretary gave last year.
      Having said that, which should allay public anxieties to some extent, I want to raise two questions which are rather closely allied with the figures. I am bound to ask, if these be the figures for the first nine months of the year, how far they are reliable in showing the real degree of entrants. The first question which obviously arises is that of evasion. We know that there is a certain amount of evasion. There is forgery of documents. There is impersonation. There is, no doubt on a small scale, the smuggling in of living persons at unauthorised points of entry. In the nature of things, if evasion succeeds, the Government do not know about it. Therefore, it is perhaps unfair of me to ask the Home Secretary to say on what scale he believes evasion exists. Any answer he gave might well be wrong, and I should not complain if it were.
      However, I think the the Home Secretary can be pressed to say whether his powers to deal with evasion are adequate. My information is that there is a relatively short period during which the evader of the law, the illegal entrant, can remain at large and then become free from the danger of deportation. Is this so? If it is so, it is wrong. Those who break the law should be subject to deportation whenever' they are found out. No doubt they should be dealt with with compassion and generously, and mitigating factors should be taken into account; but they should not be free to flout the law and then say, like the lunatic at large in the novel of my childhoood, "I have been abroad for 24 hours and now I can flout the Home Secretary". We have far too much respect for the right hon. Gentleman for that.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: If I did not have an enormous constituency interest, I should not have the temerity to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman at this stage. A little while ago he referred to the old Commonwealth and then cited the case of an Australian actress. He had some feeling towards changing the law, which would mean, I think he meant, a loosening up. Now he is arguing, if anything, for a tightening up. I have been waiting for him to relate his spirit of compassion to the new Commonwealth, as well.
      Mr. Hogg: I have done so, and thought I was doing so. My point about Australia and the old Commonwealth generally was this: there is no social problem attached to those, because there is a net outflow. If there was a permanent balance or a net outflow in respect of any other territory, I would say the same. I am talking now of countries of any kind where the balance is not a net outflow but a substantial inflow. It is precisely the extent of the social problem, of which we must take notice based upon the net figures and not upon any prejudice, that leads me to say that illegal entry should render a person liable to deportation. The Press has been saying that the Ministers have been considering this. I should like official confirmation or denial—
      4.0 p.m.
      The Chairman: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman pursues that point and invites the Minister to deal with it, I think that I should point out that in this debate we are dealing only with the question of continuing in existence for another year the existing legislation. Technically, it is out of order in this debate to debate Amendments, however desirable, to Acts that are being continued.
      Mr. Hogg: I was not seeking to do that, Sir Eric. What I was seeking to do was to say that my attitude towards the continuance of this legislation must inevitably be influenced by its adequacy. I was asking the Home Secretary what his powers are under it and how he proposes to use them. Certainly, I think that I can say this in a sentence without incurring your displeasure, Sir Eric, that we would give the right hon. Gentleman
      448
      support in anything that he might think fit to do in order to acquire new powers or use the powers which he thinks he has.
      The second comment upon the figures which inevitably arises in the light of events in recent Press discussion is what I might describe as the Sword of Damocles. All over the world, and particularly in East Africa, there are people of various origins, some with and some without roots in this country. They can, I understand, come to this country otherwise than under the Act. They have an absolute right of entry because they have, for historical reasons of one sort or another, a British passport. Quite obviously, like the customers of a bank, if they all entered and asked the bank for payment of their outstanding balances at the same time, they would cause a run on the bank.
      What is the situation? Have the Government been in touch, and, if so, with what results, with countries where they may be residing at the present time? In East Africa alone, I understand, about 150,000 persons might be affected. What do the Government think about it? Have the Government impressed upon the countries where these people now reside that they, too, have a responsibility in this matter? Do the Government propose to act? I feel that they cannot leave this open-ended commitment completely undiscussed. In this, I certainly have the support of The Times, which spoke in warm terms of the need for a reappraisal of this situation.
      I now move to a number of cognate questions. The first is that of dependants. These were discussed last year in various terms, and the Home Secretary said—it appears to be borne out by the subsequent figures—that this is an essentially dwindling number of persons, since the number of vouchers is dwindling too, and that gradually the dependants will come here. I was persuaded on his arguments when he replied to various criticisms from different quarters in the House to the effect that it would be both imprudent and inhumane to bar dependants.
      I have nothing but approval for a man who builds up a home here lawfully, after a lawful entry, and who wishes to take care of either or both of his aged parents or wishes to bring in his wife

      449
      and young children. I believe that, on the whole, the House was persuaded that quite apart from considerations of humanity, considerations of enlightened self-interest would lead to that conclusion since the separation of a family between the male member and the dependants—certainly of the wife and children—might give rise to social problems far more serious than the importation of wife and children. However, I would prefer to put the argument on humanitarian lines.
      On the other hand, I would have considerably less sympathy—and I have some reason to think that I am speaking of circumstances which sometimes exist—with a man who was content to leave his young children abroad when they were in need of parental care, but who, when the time came when he could exploit their labour, brought them into this country without a labour voucher, on the basis that they were dependants. I would have thought that some control over the nature and number of dependants was both desirable and necessary in the interests of good management and in order to prevent evasion. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the last year's administration of the Act on these lines.
      In our General Election programme there was a demand that dependants should be declared at the time of original entry. I understand that this is now the Government's policy in some form. How has that been going on, and to what extent is it enforced or enforceable? I would think, too, that it is arguable that, at any rate as regards children, the dependency should be declared and the entry should take place within a certain number of years of the original entry, for the reason that I have given, and that afterwards entry should be subject to a labour voucher.
      I want to deal now with a rather cognate question but of a slightly different order, and that is the actual treatment of entrants, whether dependants or others, at the port of entry in this country. A good many of the hard cases which have excited sympathy have, in fact, done so because of this, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman some time ago set up the Committee under Sir Roy Wilson—it reported in August—which made various recommendations on the whole subject. I want o know what is the attitude of
      450
      the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government to that Report.
      There is one general proposition to which I would give whole-hearted endorsement. I am sure that the administration of this Act would give much less cause for complaint if the documentation of the entrant, whether he be a voucher holder or a dependant, could be moved from the point of entry when he arrives sometimes tired, sometimes bewildered and sometimes with an inadequate command of intelligible English, to the place of embarkation. It seems to me that much of the hardship which is undoubtedly involved and sometimes gives rise to complaint could be avoided if that were done, and possibly done universally. I believe that many of the individual cases that one has come across would not have arisen had this been possible at the time.
      On the other hand, I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that I felt a good deal more doubt about the elaborate judicial or quasi-judicial structure which Sir Roy Wilson recommended in his Report. I think that this is an administrative problem on which the House should fundamentally keep its control. It can only keep its control if a Minister is responsible. If there is set up a quasi-judicial structure of appeal in which the Minister loses his control of entry—
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "quasi-judicial"?
      Mr. Hogg: I think I mean, composed of lawyers appointed by the Lord Chancellor rather than the Minister.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman exclude every possibility of judicial machinery set up to determine whether a man has a right to come here or not?
      Mr. Hogg: No. I was about to continue with my own thoughts upon this matter. I think that it is an administrative function for which a Minister should be responsible. I believe that there is insufficient machinery for questioning the decisions of the immigration officers, good as they often and nearly always are.
      I have in mind a particular case which I raised with the right hon. Gentleman

      451
      some time ago. I should, in passing, like to express my gratitude to the staff of the right hon. Gentleman, who was not, I think, personally concerned, for the sympathetic hearing that I got. I had an elderly relative, a Christian Scientist, who was crippled with arthritis and who had brought from Zurich a Swiss Christian Scientist to live with her. This old lady, unable to speak much English, was being turned back at Heathrow because her age had been misstated on her application form. I received a panic message on a Sunday afternoon, and I rang up the duty officer at the Home Office.
      That old lady was able to enter this country because she was coming to visit the nephew of a Member of Parliament who knew how to use the ropes. It was right that she should come in. The case was treated humanely and with sympathy. But these matters should not depend on whether one is visiting the aunt of a Member of Parliament. Machinery of that kind should be available to immigrants generally, and they should be made aware of how to use the ropes.
      To come now to the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), I do not consider that a legal structure is appropriate to the case. At least, I require to be persuaded that that is so. But what I am quite sure of is that there must be recourse, and recourse to senior officers at a relatively high level, if an injustice or an emergency is likely to a rise.
      With some experience of the Home Office, I know that, if one knows how to operate the machine, one is always treated very well. But these people do not know how to operate the machine. If I had not come back that Sunday afternoon and intervened, or if the lady in this country had not been related to me, the outcome might well have been different. The person concerned was already being incarcerated and was to be put, in a matter of an hour and a half, on her return journey to Zurich. I hope that the Home Secretary will give us his views on this matter and the whole question of recourse at the point of entry.
      I come now to the other branch of the subject, and, again, Sir Eric, I shall try
      452
      to keep strictly within the theoretical bounds of order. The two main branches of the subject are closely connected: first, how we control entry; and, second, how we treat people who have lawfully come here and who dwell in our midst. Here, too, a great deal has happened in the last year. There has been the first Report of the Race Relations Board. There has been the P.E.P. Report on Racial Discrimination in certain spheres. More recently, there has been the Report of the Street Committee, on which our former colleague Mr. Geoffrey Howe played a notable part. Without arguing the case at this point, I put one or two observations to the Home Secretary about it.
      It is important that we retain, so far as we can, a consensus of opinion on these matters. The right hon. Gentleman has announced, and will, no doubt, produce in detail, a prospective Bill to be introduced some time this Session. I tell the right hon. Gentleman plainly that, originally, I was very critical of fresh legislation on this subject so soon after the last. But I was immensely impressed by the quality of some of the documents to which I have referred. In at least some of the fields which he has mentioned, I consider that there is a strong case for Government action of one sort or another, and I should myself be prepared to support that in general.
      On the other hand, I should always oppose an extension of the criminal law. I hope that it would be done within the bounds of civil procedure. I hope, also, that a distinction can be drawn between the haphazard expression of individual prejudice, which may be undesirable but which has no social consequences, and the widespread effect of mass prejudice which, though it may be intelligible, has serious social consequences. I assure the Home Secretary that, although we shall wish to examine his proposals in detail when they come—we cannot discuss them today—we on this side will give them a sympathetic, if critical, reception.
      4.15 p.m.
      I have one further topic to discuss, namely, the position of children of immigrants who are here. I differed from the P.E.P. Report on the pessimistic prognosis which it gave regarding discrimination towards the children of immigrants

      453
      who had been educated in British schools. People tend to judge superficially. So long as a coloured face tends to be associated with a sub-standard education abroad, an imperfect command of the English language, and, perhaps, inferior professional qualifications, people will judge by appearance.
      But a new generation is arising, as all of us who attend school prize givings in our constituencies know. In this new situation, when the interviewer will have been a t school with a number of fellow pupils of immigrant origin, and when those being interviewed for employment are people who speak standard English of one sort or another acquired in our English, Welsh or Scottish schools, when they have acquired British G.C.E.s, British professional qualifications or British degrees, the whole atmosphere will be different.
      Of that I am absolutely sure. I have been vastly encouraged by the sight of our schools bringing up boys and girls of quite different origin to common standards of education. One of the rather humbling factors in the case is how much more attention some parents of immigrant origin pay to the importance of education than do some of our native-born parents.
      This is a whole new batch of subjects, and I want the Committee to believe that we on this side, no less than hon. Members opposite, want those who come here to enjoy their life in this country. We believe in the Declaration of Human Rights. We believe that human beings were born equal in dignity and rights. We do not regard this as simply a piece of starry-eyed idealism. We accept it as a rule of conduct not for tomorrow, but for today, and we do not think that, after years of a consensus of opinion, we need be unduly pessimistic that these people will not be proud of their British nationality.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for both the tone and the content of his speech this afternoon. By choosing to speak as he has, with the authority he commands by virtue of both his position and his personal qualities, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a notable contribution to good race rela-
      454
      tions in this country at a crucial time from this point of view.
      I say at once that the two main propositions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman set forth at the beginning of his speech; that it is necessary and desirable to continue to restrict immigration into this country, and that those who are here must be treated in every way the same as the indigenous people of this country, both command my support. No doubt, we could argue exactly how they are to be interpreted, but, on the broad question, I confirm that I agree with him.
      In what I have to say, I hope to be able to deal with a good number of the points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, though some of them I shall leave to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, particularly detailed comments on figures and the like. My hon. Friend will reply to the debate and deal also with other points made by hon. Members on both sides.
      I should, however, make it clear at the outset that I do not propose this afternoon to add anything to what I have already said about the scope of the Race Relations Bill, except to confirm that we shall lay it before Parliament and hope to pass it into law during the course of this Session. We are currently working on the details, and it will be presented to Parliament as soon as it is ready.
      I can say at least something on many other matters raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I should like to begin, although here my view differs somewhat from his, with the Committee on Immigration Appeals, commonly called the Wilson Committee. I received and published during the Recess the Report of the Committee, which sat under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson. There has been no comparable inquiry into the administration of immigration control since it was instituted in its modern form by the Aliens Act, 1905. I would like to pay tribute to Sir Roy Wilson and his colleagues on the Committee for conducting so thorough an inquiry and producing what I found to be a most valuable study of a complex and important problem.
      What the Committee said in its Report bears directly on the issues we have been discussing in these annual debates for

      455
      many years. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), have participated in them for many more years than I have. This seems to me to be the right occasion on which to inform the Committee of the general conclusions the Government have reached after careful study of the Report over the eight or nine weeks since it has been available to us. The Committee formed the impression
      "… that, generally speaking, immigration officers act with fairness and respect for the rights and feelings of the people with whom they have to deal."
      It added its belief that
      "… the great majority of cases which arise at the ports are fairly and properly decided…"
      That opinion corresponds with my own and, I believe, with that of right hon. and hon. Members who have served in either Administration as Home Office Ministers and have thus been brought into touch with the administration of immigration control. As the Secretary of State responsible for the immigration service, I am glad that it has won this commendation from an independent committee which had opportunities to see a good deal of its work.
      The Committee nevertheless recommended the establishment of a system of appeal, mainly on the ground that under the existing system it was not always apparent to immigrants, their relatives and friends and the public generally that justice was done. I am glad to be able to say—and I hope that this will command majority support, despite the slight sceptism about quasi-judicial procedures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed—that the Government accept the Committee's recommendation that there should be a system of immigration appeals on the general lines that it proposed. We recognise that a system of effective control over immigration, which we all want to see applied, will be acceptable to those directly affected by it and to public opinion generally only if its fair and impartial application is guaranteed by the existence of a procedure for resolving disputed cases which measures up to present-day standards of administrative justice.
      456
      I should point out that a price must be paid for the advantages, which I believe are real, of having an appeal system. In its literal sense, the price will be measurable and substantial, being about £500,000 a year. Considerable numbers of staff—not vast, but considerable—will have to be found for the new system. There will also be a loss of capacity for swift and decisive action, which can generally be achieved with a service wholly under Executive control. From time to time there are also bound to be more Commonwealth citizens and aliens temporarily in this country awaiting a final decision on their application for admission or continued stay.
      Under an appeal system, I, as Home Secretary, or my successors, shall no longer have the final word on the disposal of individual cases in the normal course, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall retain full responsibility for general policy and the efficiency of the system as a whole, and I shall, of course, continue to be answerable to the House on those matters. But I do not consider that the factors I have mentioned, taken together, constitute an exorbitant price for the advantages of having a system of appeal.
      Mr. J. T. Price: I am in no way raising an objection to the proposed method of dealing with appeals, but could my right hon. Friend tell us if, having decided upon this course, he has any indication that we shall receive reciprocity from receiving authorities in other countries with whom we have friendly relations?
      Mr. Jenkins: Some countries, including those which have generally operated a fairly strict degree of immigration control, such as the United States and Canada, have had appeal systems for a long time and, on the whole, have found that they have worked well and satisfactorily. I should greatly welcome it if there were reciprocity throughout the world, but if we were to wait for reciprocity we should never make any progress on this subject. I do not think that we can wait until everybody is willing to do what we do before we do what we believe to be right in the circumstances.
      There are one or two points of some importance on which we do not find

      457
      ourselves fully in agreement with the Committee's conclusions. The first concerns the treatment of security cases, which is discussed in paragraph 144 of the Report and which I have now been able to consider in somewhat more detail. Disclosure to a security appellant of the evidence on which his presence in this country might be considered dangerous to national security, as envisaged in the Report, would in many instances inevitably compromise valuable and confidential sources of information. It might also make it worth while for someone to come here not in real hope of getting in, but to find out for intelligence purposes what was known against him. Moreover, in my view it would not be right for the Home Secretary entirely to abdicate his present responsibility for decisions which in some cases may vitally affect our national interests.
      On the other hand, I would not wish to take the security cases entirely outside the ambit of the proposed appeal system and continue to deal with them at my sole discretion. I am reluctant to do this in future even with cases of a political character, which are dealt with in paragraph 143 of the Report, where the Committee recommended that they should remain within the sole discretion of the Home Secretary. I find it a little difficult to draw a valid and useful distinction between security and political cases here. What I have in mind to propose is that the Home Secretary should have power, whenever a case seemed to him inappropriate for the ordinary appeal machinery, because it raised political issues or affected national security, or both, to refer it to a special panel of members of the immigration appeal tribunal. I would reserve to myself, or future Home Secretaries, the power of final decision, but the applicant would have the advantage of having his case considered by independent and judicially-minded people to whose advice I would give full weight. Clearly, in the majority of cases, it would be decisive weight.
      4.30 p.m.
      Another point on which we think it may t e necessary to depart from the Committee's recommendations concerns the powers of the courts to recommend offenders for deportation. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me
      458
      that we ought carefully to scrutinise any proposals to transfer questions affecting the liberty of the subject from the ordinary courts of law to administrative tribunals. The arguments for and against a change in the law seem to me finely balanced, and those in favour of the Committee's recommendations are set out in paragraphs 132–135 of its Report.
      On the other side, I believe that it is of great advantage to any Home Secretary deciding a question of deportation following a criminal conviction to have before him a recommendation from the judge or magistrates who have heard at first hand evidence about the circumstances of the offence and whatever can be said by way of mitigation on the offender's behalf.
      The Committee was anxious to ensure that an offender had no less opportunity to put the case against his deportation than he has under the present law, and for this purpose—this is an important point—it felt bound to recommend in paragraph 178 that free legal aid should be available against proposals for deportation made on grounds other than breach of conditions of entry. Such an extension of the legal aid scheme to a particular class of proceedings before a particular administrative tribunal would, however, be very hard to justify when free legal aid is not generally available in proceedings in this country before administrative tribunals. It would be very difficult to make a special exception with regard to legal aid here. We therefore concluded that the best course is to leave the courts with their present powers to recommend offenders for deportation and provide for appeals against such recommendations to continue to be heard within the ordinary judicial system.
      Legislation will, of course, be needed to give effect to the decisions which I have just announced. We have already got a fairly full programme of legislation for this Session, including a very full programme of Home Office Measures. I cannot, therefore, promise that time will be found this Session for legislation on immigration appeals, though I do not rule it out completely. But I undertake that we shall bring forward a Bill on this subject as soon as Parliamentary time can be found. I have, indeed, already set in hand work

      459
      for the complete recasting on a permanent basis of the whole of our immigrant control legislation for both aliens and Commonwealth citizens. I hope that, whether we can do this at the same time as the specific Wilson recommendations or not, we shall not in any event have for much longer to obtain powers from year to year by the unsatisfactory method—I think that this is widely agreed—of an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
      What we propose in any event, however, is to take the opportunity provided by legislation on immigration appeals—on the Wilson Committee recommendations—to close a number of loopholes which have shown themselves in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. This will not be a matter of altering the basic principle of our control over Commonwealth immigration. It will be only to remedy certain defects which have shown themselves in the Act, which we inherited and which we have been administering over the past three years. I do not at the moment propose to go into the details of the loopholes, but they will cover some of the points mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that this will commend itself in most parts of the Committee. The loopholes are mostly small, but the fact that they exist at all impairs not only the effectiveness but also the fairness of the immigration control.
      Mr. Antony Buck: Just to clear up the position finally on the Wilson Committee's Report, do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman is accepting the Report in toto, subject to the two matters that he has just raised? If so, would he reconsider his attitude to the suggestions made in paragraph 70—I would not agree with the Report there—where the Report discards the idea of making entry certificates issued in the country of origin necessary for people to come into this country?
      Mr. Jenkins: I shall have something to say about entry certificates a little later. The hon. Gentleman and the Committee should not assume that anything that I have said at this stage necessarily ties us to every detail of the Report which I have not mentioned. What I thought it desirable to do as early as I could was to tell the House, first, that
      460
      we propose to accept the general recommendations of the Report; secondly, that in two respects which I thought worth drawing to the attention of the Committee it at present appears to us that we should be right to deviate somewhat from the recommendations of the Report; and, thirdly, that accompanying this legislation will be legislation closing up loopholes.
      That does not mean that when the Bill is finally worked out in detail there might not be a few other respects in which, with full consideration, we might wish to take a different view from that of this very valuable and useful Committee.
      Mr. David Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the recommendation in the Wilson Report on the question of a welfare organisation at London Airport and the ports is likely to be accepted by the Government?
      Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for so neatly introducing my next paragraph.
      The Committee on immigration appeals said that it would like to see established a new organisation which would provide welfare services to advise and assist Commonwealth citizens and aliens who were in difficulty with the immigration control. We accept the case for such an organisation as a useful adjunct to a system of appeal. The Committee recommended that the organisation should be set up by the combined efforts of voluntary bodies concerned with the welfare of immigrants and that the Home Office should take the initiative in promoting co-operation to this end.
      That initiative has already been taken by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who, last month, convened a meeting of a number of voluntary bodies to discuss the Committee's proposal. That meeting is to be followed up by further discussions with a view to working out an agreed scheme for the structure and functions of an advisory welfare organisation that measures up to the standards set by the Committee and which would qualify for support from public funds. I hope that in this way it will be possible to work out plans for an organisation which will put to good use the enthusiasm and experience that exists among those who have already been active in this field.

      461
      I turn generally from the recommendations of the Wilson Committee—though, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) pointed out, this is not entirely separated from them—to say a word about entry certificates. While the Report of the Wilson Committee was being awaited no major change was carried through in the Commonwealth immigration control. That, I think, was certainly sensible. But the Government have increasingly sought to give emphasis to the importance of the entry certificate scheme as a means of reducing inconvenience and distress caused at the ports of entry when people arrive who may not be entitled to enter and who have not clarified their position in advance.
      In July, my hon. Friend sent a letter to a wide range of bodies active in the immigrant field, in particular to the editors of journals which circulate widely in immigrant circles, asking them to do all they could to impress on Commonwealth citizens the great value, to them as well as to us, of the entry certificate scheme.
      The Wilson Committee reaffirmed the value of entry certificates, saying:
      "The right course in our opinion is to make it clear to all concerned by every possible means of publicity that the entry certificate is a facility offered to immigrants in their ova interests which they would be foolish not to use."
      It remains a matter of disappointment to the Home Office, as it was to the Committee, that only one Commonwealth citizen in five coming to the United Kingdom has an entry certificate.
      The Wilson Report included a recommendation that the instructions issued to immigration officers should be clarified so as to enhance the value of an entry certificate as a virtual guarantee of admission. We have already acted on that recommendation. I announced in a Written Answer on 23rd October that I was issuing a revised instruction to immigration officers, and this has been published as a White Paper. The new instructions are not so much a departure of policy; they are more a clarification and a re-emphasis of the existing position.
      An entry certificate is not a visa. The possession of one is not a necessary condition of admission. It will normally serve almost as a guarantee of admission, but there may be limited circumstances in which an entry certificate holder is refused
      462
      admission. Nevertheless, in future it can be clearly understood that the possession of such an entry certificate will establish a prima facie claim to admission and remove from the immigrant at the port the burden of proving that he is acceptable. The immigration officer will still have to satisfy himself that the entry cerficate was propertly obtained and that there has not been a change in circumstances since it was issued which would invalidate it. For this purpose he may still have to ask the immigrant some questions. But unless he is in doubt on these two points, he will admit the holder of the certificate.
      In 1966, only 47 entry certificate holders were refused admission out of a total of 91,000 certificates issued, though, let me assure the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who sometimes gets a little excited about these figures, many of those who received those certificates were short-term visitors. So far this year only 38 holders out of 80,000 certificates issued have been refused. The entry certificate has already become a very substantial approach to a guarantee of admission. These new instructions serve to reinforce its value, and if that encourages more people to apply for entry certificates, it is very much the better for everybody concerned. Those who arrive without such certificates have only themselves to blame if they have to submit to a prolonged examination at the port and are eventually refused admission.
      I turn to the question of the scale of immigration. The figures of Commonwealth immigration are regularly made available to the House of Commons, but it is becoming customary in these annual debates to make a statement on the broad position revealed by the latest figures that we have. This is perhaps all the more necessary in view of the expressions of opinion which we have had recently that an excessive inflow is going on.
      The figures for the whole of 1966, which were published in Command Paper 3258, were significant because they gave the first indication of the effect of the Government's 1965 measures to tighten up the control. As a result, the number of voucher holders coming to work here dropped in 1966 to 5,461. That was a consequence of the Government's decision to limit the annual rate of issue of these

      463
      vouchers to a maximum of 8,500. The discrepancy between that figure and 8,500 was due to the fact that they were not all taken up. The figure compares with 12,880 for 1965 and 14,705 for 1964.
      The reduction in the number of voucher holders arriving has continued for the first nine months of 1967. I confirm what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. Up to the end of September, according to my figures, only 3,703 had arrived, and it seems probable that the final figures for the year will be somewhat lower than the figure for 1966.
      The immigration of workers on this scale cannot possibly be of any significant effect on our current employment situation. All holders of employment vouchers either come here with jobs waiting for them—those are the holders of category A vouchers; and I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for doubting the level of his accuracy for a moment, for he was quite right and I was mistaken—or else they have obtained a category B voucher because they possess a skill which is in short supply in this country—and a skill which remains in short supply even with the current level of unemployment. Neither of these categories comes in to swell the ranks of the unemployed.
      This figure of voucher holders is, in my view, of crucial importance, because it is the essential regulator of the rate of growth in the future of the immigrant population here. I shall have more to say about the voucher scheme in a moment, but the essential point about numbers is that the controlled rate is already very low indeed.
      4.45 p.m.
      Before I leave the numerical position, however, I must deal with the major component of those coming in—the dependants of the men working here. At present, by far the largest number of Commonwealth citizens coming for settlement here—as opposed to a short-term stay—consist of dependent relatives of those already settled here. That was not the case a few years ago. Then the majority coming were people coming here to work. At present, dependants are roughly ten times the number of those coming with vouchers.
      464
      But that does not mean—and I hope that every hon. Member will understand this clearly—that one voucher holder produces an average of ten dependants or anything like that. What we are dealing with at present is the influx of the families of the men who have been here for several years, who entered either before 1962 when admission was unrestricted or after 1962 when vouchers were much more freely available, and who have now established themselves sufficiently to be able to send for their families to join them. Their wives and children have a statutory right of admission.
      Sir Cyril Osborne: Is the Home Secretary suggesting that the number of dependants in coming years is likely to fall substantially? Can he break down the composition of the dependants? How many are young children who will come into the labour force in five, six or seven years' time?
      Mr. Jenkins: I shall have something to say about young children, and particularly about boys, very shortly, if the hon. Member will allow me to come to it in due course.
      On the whole, I incline to the view that the numbers of dependants coming in—provided that we maintain the number of voucher holders permitted to come in at approximately the present level—will begin to fall in the future. But there is always an element of uncertainty about any prediction. Nevertheless, I believe that that is very likely to be the case, although, it has not yet become the case.
      In my view, to separate families cannot be in the best interests of integration or of good race relations, or of the avoidance, which we have so far achieved in this country, of any significant link between race and crime. As Home Secretary, I attach very great importance to the last point. In saying that, I am to a large exent repeating more briefly what I said last year. Those who call for a shut-down on immigration must be clear what it is they are asking for—the cutting off of a very small flow of workers, many of whom make an important contribution to our economy, and the barring of wives and children from joining the head of the family.
      The Government made it clear in the 1965 White Paper that it was their intention to keep the rate of immigration

      465
      within limits which this country had the economic and social capacity to absorb. The strategy is necessarily a medium-term one and the effect of changes in the control take time to emerge. It is not realistic to regard the flow of immigration as something which can be turned on or off at will, as the economic siutation fluctuates here. I do not think that anyone who advocates that we should block it completely, if there is any seasonal unemployment, would advocate that, if we moved back into a situation in which there were 150,000 or 200,000 more vacancies than jobs, we should put the labour voucher ratio up that year to 150,000 or 200,000. That would be the logical corollary of taking that point of view.
      We are now having to live with the consequences of the rate of immigration that went on before 1965 and, because of the continued flow of dependants, the total figure of those admitted for settlement in 1967 is likely by the end of the year to be quite substantially higher than that for 1966, perhaps by one-fifth or even one-quarter. Most of the increase is due to a very steep rise in the number of boys under 16 coming from Pakistan—a large part of the increase at any rate. I would ask my hon. Friend to check, I am not sure whether "most" is accurate as "most" clearly means over 50 per cent. A large part of the increase is accounted for by this.
      Large numbers also come from India and the West Indies, but the most marked increase has been in the numbers from Pakistan. This worries me quite considerably. Many of the boys are very nearly 16. If they go to school for a short time they present a great problem of absorbtion in the schools. In any event, they soon find their way on to the labour market and they do so with very little United Kingdom background, educationally or in other ways. They come at almost the worst age from the point of view of successful integration, and furthermore they come, to a large extent, to join only a single parent, almost invariably the father, while the mother stays in Pakistan or India. This does not result in full reunion of a family, only in splitting it in a different way. Frequently, in consequence, they come to live in all-male households, and the welfare aspects of this, apart from other considerations,
      466
      cause me considerable concern. I am not in a position to announce measures to deal with it, but I shall certainly keep this problem under very close review.
      Mr. J. T. Price: On this particular aspect of immigration from Pakistan, has the Home Secretary any information about how many of these young people are coming in quite voluntarily, without prompting, and how many are being recruited by agencies known to exist on the Indian sub-continent for bringing them in for various reasons? This concerns not my constituency, but part of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Are these immigrants coming in of their own volition, or recruited by some agency set up in India?
      Mr. Jenkins: It is necessarily very difficult to be clearly aware of what is the position. They certainly come voluntarily in the sense that they get on to the plane and get off the plane without duress. They come to join their parents, although in some cases there is an element of suspicion as to whether the man is the parent. This aspect presents immigration officers with some of their most difficult jobs, deciding what is and what is not a right case to admit.
      While we are on this subject I should refer to the position of the Asian communities in East Africa, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone asked me. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about this.
      Mr. Richard Sharpies: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point about the registration of families, particularly with the question of these boys coming in from Pakistan? Would registration at the time of entry make a contribution to solving the problem?
      Mr. Jenkins: I am by no means convinced that this is a solution to the problem. My hon. Friend has it specifically in mind to deal with this in a little detail in his winding-up speech, and, as I have a number of points to cover, and wish to do so without wearying the Committee, perhaps I could leave this point with him.
      I was referring to the position of the Asian communities in East Africa. These people are citizens of the United Kingdom

      467
      and Colonies. This is the starting point which we must accept. Because of uneasiness about their position under African Governments in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania they may wish to come to this country. These people are mainly of Indian and Pakistan stock, though they or their forebears have mostly not been in India or Pakistan for a number of generations. They form an important community in the East African territories, and have done so for many years, providing many of the professional and commercial services of these communities. They have a rôle to play in the economy of the newly-emerging African countries of East Africa, and they have a large stake in these countries.
      Most of them have never lived anywhere else. It is understandable that at present some of them may feel uncertain about their future, but nothing approaching an exodus has occurred. Members of these communities have been coming to the United Kingdom for several years, at an annual rate of about 6,000. There has been a regular seasonal peak of arrivals in the third quarter of the year. This year it is clear that the numbers arriving will be substantially higher than in previous years, and, by the end of October, 10,286 had arrived. The seasonal peak was higher, but the figure still does not amount to anything approaching a mass exodus.
      It must be borne in mind that these people are not exploiting a loophole in our control. They are exercising a right which they acquired at the time the countries in which they lived became independent—1963 in the case of Kenya, 1962 in that of Uganda and 1964 in that of Tanzania—as a result of decisions reached in consultation between the new Governments of these territories, and the United Kingdom Government of those years.
      These people enjoyed at that time the status of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by reason of their connection with a colonial territory. They nearly all possess at present United Kingdom and Colonies passports. These were not acquired by accident, but, if I may say so, with the compliments of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who was Commonwealth Secretary at the time that the independence arrangements
      468
      were negotiated. The arrangements reached at independence provided that if they did not acquire the citizenship of the new Commonwealth country they would retain their existing status as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If this had not been provided they would have become Stateless.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: What legal authority defines who becomes a citizen of a new country such as Kenya?
      Mr. Jenkins: It depends on the enactments made by the new country on achieving independence which, in these cases, were a matter of agreement with the United Kingdom Government of the day which negotiated the independence agreement.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it possible then, in certain cases, for a man not to know whether he is a citizen of this country or not?
      Mr. Jenkins: I think it possible in a whole variety of cases throughout the world for a man not to be certain of which country he is a citizen. This arises on the borderline. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I move on. It is certainly possible for this borderline situation to arise in a great number of cases.
      Mr. Hogg: In this case, the situation was that the citizen had to opt at the time and he would, therefore, know. My recollection at the time was that under the agreed solution the person had to opt one way or the other within a definite time.
      Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. They had the right to opt for United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship if they did not feel that their future would be secure, and a substantial number of them did so opt. This does not present a problem. We take the view that these people have a great deal to contribute in the countries in which they are living and in which they have their roots. We have pointed this out to the Governments of the countries concerned. I believe that those countries would be poorer without the benefit of these people who have played such a very substantial part in the development of our Colonies for a long time past.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Page: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the national status is of the children of the holders of these passports?
      Mr. Jenkins: I had better ask my hon. Friend to provide a detailed answer to that. Nationality questions are extremely complicated, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.
      Mr. Sandys: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the number of those who are eligible to hold or already hold British passports in this category?
      Mr. Jenkins: The nearest figure which I can give is about 190,000 from the three territories, of whom the great majority have British passports in their possession, so we believe. Under the law, the others are entitled to British passports, but we believe that the overwhelming majority already have British passports.
      I turn to a slightly different aspect, and that is the question of evasion of immigration control, which must give rise to some concern and which took a somewhat spectacular turn this summer with the episode of the much publicised Sandwich Bay landing. On 22nd August, a party of eight Pakistanis were detected landing from a small boat. As a result of prompt information given by a member of the public and prompt action by the police and immigration authorities, they were taken almost immediately into custody, refused admission and held in Canterbury Prison while arrangements were made for their repatriation. They had no documents of any kind. It was necessary for them to be held for a period while the Pakistani authorities arranged for the issue of fresh documents so that they could be returned. During the interval, they were closely questioned about the methods by which they had arrived here, and a great deal of very useful information came into the hands of the police as a result. They were returned to Pakistan by air on 10th September.
      This episode understandably attracted a great deal of public attention and interest, and subsequent comment may have left the impression that a great deal of evasion by this method is taking place. In fact, the Government know of only
      470
      one other instance of a landing from a small boat. During proceedings taken before the Bradford magistrates in October against another citizen of Pakistan for an offence under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, evidence was produced that he had arrived in May with a party of 18 others in such a boat. The information which he gave was added to the evidence about this traffic, and inquiries are in progress here and in other countries.
      I do not think that we can assume that there have been no other landings of this kind, but we have no information about them and certainly no evidence at all to support the assumption that a large number of illegal immigrants have found their way into the country by this method. Entry illegally by this method is numerically a small problem, but, nonetheless, a problem which should be dealt with, and we shall endeavour to deal with it as vigorously as possible.
      Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on the point which is often raised about the loophole or evasion of immigrants coming through Ireland?
      Mr. Jenkins: This implies that the people have got through the Irish control, because once one is through it there is no control between the two islands. I cannot guarantee that there is no evasion in this way, but we think that this is a very small problem and that the Irish control, broadly speaking, operates effectively.
      It has been suggested that our powers to deal with this type of evasion—what I might roughly call the Sandwich Bay type of evasion—are handicapped by a provision in the 1962 Act which has the effect that immigrants who enter by this means can remain at large in this country without committing any offence if they succeed in remaining here undetected for the first 24 hours. There is certainly a case for stopping up this loophole and it is among the points which I have in mind for strengthening the control when further legislation is introduced. But it has not so far given rise to any practical difficulty. The Sandwich Bay evaders were dealt with effectively well within the 24-hour limit.
      Of much greater consequence numerically is the possibility of evasion by

      471
      those who arrive through the immigration control, but try to base a claim to admission on a false age, or a false relationship, or a false intention to leave the country again after a short period. These are the cases which cause so much difficulty for immigration officers and which often lead to refusal of admission. So far as is consistent with the proper and reasonable exercise of their powers, and so far as the evidence available to them permits, immigration officers do their best to detect attempted evasion by this means and to deal with it.
      This problem leads to most difficult cases for the immigration officers. The public and the Press are, I believe, on their side in general in working an effective immigration control, but by no means always in particular. When hard cases arise, sympathy tends to go the other way, and it is very difficult indeed to operate any effective immigration control without some hard cases arising. In my view, this is an argument for having an immigration appeal system to give the feeling that hard cases are considered properly.
      I should like to make one other point on this form of evasion by giving false particulars. It is different in one important respect from what I describe as the Sandwich Bay type of evasion. That type of evasion, which I believe to be numerically very small, does not show in the immigration figures; this type of evasion does show in the immigration figures. These people should not be here on their merits, as it were, but they are not additional to the figures of the people whom we know about as coming here. There is a significant difference between the effect of the two forms of evasion.
      Apart from that, there is the problem of the visitor who is admitted for a short period and ignores the conditions of his admission or over-stays his time. Allegations have been made that a very large number of people resident here have evaded the control in this way, but they cannot be proved; no fully reliable figures are available. From time to time, attempts have been made to estimate the scale of this evasion, and the total of 10,000—sometimes I have seen the figure of 10,000 a year mentioned—tends to crop up.
      472
      The origin of that figure is possibly to be found in a statement made by my predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Stow Hill, as he now is, in 1964, that the difference between the numbers of immigrants admitted for settlement up to that date and the number known still to be in the country showed a figure of 10,000 unaccounted for. That was a total of 10,000, and certainly not 10,000 a year. But experience since then leads us to suppose that this particular calculation is no reliable indicator of the extent of evasion.
      The number of people in the country at any moment of time—that is to say, the excess of arrivals over departures—will include large numbers of people who are here for visits, business or study and will shortly depart. It will also include any people who have evaded the control by one means or another, but, although the number of these is not exactly measurable—if we knew more about them we could deal with them—we have no reason to suppose that the number is high. In this field, as in some others connected with immigration, exaggerated figures get about, and I believe that many of the figures quoted are greatly exaggerated.
      That brings me to the end of the main points on which I wish to give the Committee information about the position and our intentions. This is a subject of vital importance to the House of Commons and to the country, to the social cohesion of the country and to a number of other considerations.
      It is vitally important that we approach this subject in a cool and calm way—not pushing it under the carpet, but discussing it rationally; not whipping up prejudice one way or the other, but proceeding on the basis of the facts and looking at solutions both from the point of view of keeping immigration within what we can absorb and making absolutely sure that, for those who are here and for those who are entitled to come here in future, we give them the full protection of British law and ensure that they do not become a submerged and ill-treated minority.
      These debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill have assumed a pattern in the House of Commons for many years. There have been requests that they should not be continued and that, instead,

      473
      we should have permanent legislation because, it is said, it is unsatisfactory to proceed on this year-to-year basis. I hope that, as a result of what I have been able to announce this afternoon—while I certainly cannot say that there will not be another such debate—there will be very few more of these debates. I believe that that would be generally welcome, not because it would avoid our discussing the subject but because it would mean that we were able to put our legislation on a more permanent and rational basis.
      Mr. Sandys: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we might expect this further legislation? Will it be during the present Session? Is he proposing to take any action to reduce the possible flow of immigrants from East Africa, following his remarks?
      Mr. Jenkins: I dealt with both of those points. The right hon. Gentleman looked as though he was listening on both occasions when I mentioned them. I have nothing to add to what I said in my speech on both topics.
      Sir David Renton: The whole House will, I am sure, agree with the Home Secretary's peroration, when he laid aside his notes and described what he considered to be the good purpose of these debates. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) pointed out that a wide consensus has been reached between both sides of the Committee—but, of course, consensus does not mean complete agreement and there would be no need for a debate of this sort if there were complete agreement. However, I hope that those who happen to disagree with any of the points that I make will still wish to join with me in keeping the temperature of the debate nice and cool.
      5.15 p.m.
      In commenting on some of the detailed points mentioned by the Home Secretary, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my referring, first, to the Wilson Report. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) will wish me to point out that there is no system of immigration appeal in Canada. There is only a system whereby, if the immigration officer is in doubt, he may refer to somebody called a special inquiry officer, who is on the spot. But
      474
      there is no right of appeal, and I believe that their practice would fall short of our requirements.
      I take the line of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone rather than the line of the Home Secretary in my attitude towards the recommendations of the Wilson Committee. If we carried out those recommendations in their entirety, they might to some extent defeat their own purpose; but we shall have legislation on this subject one day and I do not wish to say any more about it now.
      I wish again to pay tribute to the immigration officers whose task has not been any easier since we debated this matter last year. I saw some Press reports a few weeks ago to the effect that they were sending a delegation to see the Home Secretary to explain their difficulties to him. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell the House what has resulted from that approach.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone referred to his agnosticism about the population problem, but he went so far as to say—I thought that this was being extremely venturesome for him, knowing his views, privately of course, as I do—that this country was not under-populated. I hope that before long we shall have a full debate on the population problem. After all, it is one of the reasons for our immigration controls and must be in the background of our minds when discussing them.
      My right hon. and learned Friend may care to remember something which is often overlooked; that the United Kingdom is the fifth most densely populated country in the world, if we leave aside the small island and city states. England itself, taken as a separate territory, rivals Holland and Formosa—now Taiwan—as the most densely populated areas of the globe, each having a population of more than 900 to the square mile.
      The population of the United Kingdom is now about 55 million. We are told that by the end of the century, if present trends continue, it will be 73 million. Many people already consider England to be over-populated, and I believe that within a few years almost everyone will hold that view. We are told that we shall have 25 million cars on our roads

      475
      by 1980, which is not far off. When our children and grandchildren are grappling with this problem, perhaps in despair, they will wonder why on earth we added to it by allowing a steady increase of foreigners and Commonwealth immigrants each year.
      Let us consider first the inflow of foreigners. There is a large annual increase of our foreign population each year. It is often overlooked, partly because it is not easy to measure. One way of measuring it is to take the numbers who land each year and to deduct both those who leave and those who are naturalised. That will obviously not give a perfect picture, however, if we take one year at a time, but I have with me the figures for the nine-year period from the beginning of 1958 until the end of 1966, and we find that in that period the average permanent net increase of foreigners here was 17,585 a year.
      If the Under-Secretary can correct that figure, make it more precise, argue with my calculation or suggest a better way of measuring the annual increase of foreigners, he should do so because it should not escape our attention when we are dealing with these immigration problems. I do not accept as the yardstick the number of foreigners listed in the figures as merely having come here for 12 months or more because if we take that then it will not give a truly accurate picture. It is because of that increase of 17,585 per year on average over that nine year period that, in my opinion, there is an unnecessary permanent annual addition to our problem through aliens alone.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, however, that if one looks at the figures covering recent years one sees that, by and large, the increase to which he has referred is more than compensated for by the number of people who emigrate from this country to various parts of the globe?
      Sir D. Renton: I agree. Emigration, which I regard as a very good thing, and immigration have almost cancelled each other out in the last few years, but we must remember that throughout the whole of the last century and right up to 1914 a large proportion of our popula-
      476
      tion emigrated every year; and I would prefer to see a very large scale net figure for emigration. However, so long as we have a permanent addition of aliens and Commonwealth immigrants each year, we will not get that.
      Mr. Brian Walden rose—
      Sir D. Renton: I will not give way. I am trying to cover almost as much ground as that covered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and the Home Secretary. If I give way any further, I will not make the progress I must to cover these points.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what policy reasons justify this regular increase in the alien population, especially with our large number of unemployed and the shortage of houses?
      As to Commonwealth immigrants, now that the 1962 Act has been in operation for five years, I suggest that this is a good moment to consider its overall results and the trends it has established. Remembering that it was intended to limit the flow of immigrants to our capacity to absorb them, it is interesting to find that between 1st July, 1962, when the control started, and 30th September this year, the last date we had, the total net increase from all Commonwealth countries was 294,230 people.
      Of those, it is interesting to find, 73,640 were men, 101,294 were women, and 119,296 were children under 16, very much the largest proportion. We know there are some reasons for that. Of course, to these figures there must be added a marginal figure for evasions. I join with the Home Secretary in that, although I deplore evasions, one should not exaggerate them. But there is one figure which Lord Stow Hill gave, and which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned just now, which is really evasion due to people staying after their time condition has expired. It may be that the Government have managed to tighten up that type of evasion. It may be that it is still impossible to measure it, but if the Under-Secretary of State could say something about that I think he would be giving useful information to the Committee.
      There has been a considerable reduction in the number of vouchers issued.

      477
      There has therefore been a smaller net increase in the number of men immigrants in the last 24 months. But, as I shall mention later, I think it should and could be reduced further.
      As to the net increase in the number of women, it, too, has steadily declined in the past 36 months, and, indeed, it is a surprisingly modest figure for the first nine months of this year, but, strangely enough, in the past two and three-quarter years the net increase of children under 16 has grown steadily and considerably, contrary, I think, to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone suggested. I am sorry he is not in the Chamber; I will apologise to him later, but I was rather mystified by the figure which he got. I am using only figures published by the Government, and I will give them in a moment.
      In the comparable debate to this, on 17th November, 1964, the Minister of Labour said, on this question of children, which is the question to which I wish to devote most of my remarks from now on:
      "Let us not shrink from the problems of education. The right hon. Gentleman"—
      that was my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who was Minister of Education—
      "used a figure which we have come to accept as true. He said that when there are more than 30 per cent. the problems in the schools mount."
      That means more than 30 per cent. of immigrants in any one school. The Minister added:
      "Let no one in this Committee shrink from the fact that, if our own children's education is going to be affected because there are more than 30 per cent., we do something."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 383.]
      What he went on to suggest that we do was to take "remedial measures". I suppose that could mean more teachers, more schools, or fewer immigrants, but that is what the Minister of Labour then said, and that I understand still to be Government policy.
      What position has now been reached with regard to this 30 per cent.? In answer to a Question put last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), the Minister of State
      478
      for Education said that in January this year there were no fewer than 444 schools spread over 40 local education authority areas in which the number of immigrant pupils exceeded 30 per cent. of the school roll. This state of affairs is hardly surprising—here I come back to the figures—because between 1st January, 1965, and 31st December, 1966, there was a net increase of immigrant children under 16 of over 51,000, and now this year, in the first nine months, 26,780 more must be added. So the position with regard to the 30 per cent. must be even more acute now than it was in January.
      I should mention that, on the figures which I have given, roughly three out of five of the children in the totals of net increase have come from India and Pakistan, and, as we know, many of them do not speak English and cannot read or write any language. I was reassured to hear the Home Secretary say that to some extent the figures from Pakistan are explained by the fact that there are a number of boys aged 15 who in the first nine months of this year have come in, but it would need to be a very considerable number of boys aged 15 to make those figures look reassuring, and I wonder if the Under-Secretary of State could tell us how many such boys the Home Secretary had in mind when he mentioned this to the Committee.
      I therefore say, with sincere reluctance but without hesitation, that the flow of children must somehow be reduced, because, as the Minister of Labour said, "if our own children's education is going to be affected … we do something." The latest figures published show that in January we still had 11·9 per cent. of classes in primary schools over-size and no less than 37·7 per cent. in secondary schools. We have a high birth-rate with a great many of our own children coming forward into the schools; we have the prospect—we hoped it would be a bright prospect—of the school leaving age being raised; we have a shortage of teachers. I do not think that it would be fair, to immigrant children already here or fair to the children who will be coming into the schools whatever the origin of their parents in the years to come, to let the numbers of immigrant children go on increasing. I hope I am as good a family man as anybody else; I have three children of my own; and I certainly do not

      479
      like seeing families split. Therefore I say we should try to reduce the intake of children without splitting families if we can possibly do so.
      Now what can we do? The Home Secretary has mentioned legislation, but I do not think that all the things that might be done require legislation. The first thing I should have thought could be done administratively under the present system—to say quietly but firmly to men already here, "We give you three months to state once and for all what dependants you want to bring in", and if that is done their claims can be checked and entry certificates granted if the claims are valid.
      While speaking about entry certificates, I would say that I welcome what the Home Secretary said about the proposed extension of the practice. At the time when the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed we really did think that the entry certificate method would eventually become the usual method, but, speaking for myself, I have been disappointed that it has not been used as extensively as it might have been. There, at any rate, is an opportunity of reducing numbers—by extension of the entry certificates. I think that the Government probably agree with this suggestion. The only point at issue is whether it can be done administratively or whether it needs legislation, and then we would just have to wait.
      Secondly, I think that, in spite of what the Home Secretary said, we should reduce the A vouchers still further. Those are the vouchers given to those who are supposed to have a job to come to. He puts this forward as a very small thing, but there are more than 8,500 of the Class A certificates a year available, of which 5,000 are taken up.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about A vouchers, the figure is about 2,000 a year. The figure for B vouchers is about 5,500.
      Sir D. Renton: I am very much obliged for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I do not suggest that the B vouchers should be interfered with, but I cannot see the need for any further A vouchers. Even if the figure is only 2,000 and, on aver-
      480
      age, a man brings in one wife and two children, in any one year that represents a total net increase of 8,000 immigrants. It may be that that is marginal in relation to the total problem, but in my opinion the total problem is considerable. We undertook to limit the numbers to the country's capacity to absorb them, and we have to look at all the possibilities. The Government intend to tighten up on evasions, and that should reduce still further the number of children coming into the education system.
      In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested, we can say that if men wish to be reunited with their families they can rejoin them in their own countries. My right hon. Friend wrote that in a newspaper article which attracted a lot of attention. I should have thought that, if necessary, they could be repatriated at public expense in order to do so. Repatriation is what many families here would like, I understand, but they cannot afford it. We should offer it generously to them in the name of humanity. Not all these people wanted to come, and by no means all of them want to stay. The public expense would not be great, because the cost of fares would be offset by the saving of the sums involved in educating and housing them and in welfare services.
      I have re-read the Home Secretary's interesting speech of last year, in which he said that the only substantial impact which could be made would be by going back on policies regarding dependants. As one of those originally responsible for those policies, I say that owing to the way in which they have worked out we ought to ensure that they do not conflict with the even more important aim of limiting the numbers to our capacity to absorb them socially and economically. With unemployment rising, acute housing shortages continuing, with the education difficulties which I have mentioned and the certainty ahead of a problem of overpopulation, we shall be failing the electorate if we allow further large numbers of children to enter. I hope that the Government will do something about it.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I did not intend originally to follow many of

      481
      the arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). How-ever, feel that I should make some comment upon them since I have a quite considerable constituency interest and, of course, a considerable constituency experience, as the House will probably remember.
      In Southall at present there is one primary school where as many as 60 per cent. of its pupils are immigrant children. There is another school with a percentage as high as 40. I visited those schools recently and I found them working very well. In the classes which have been put aside for special problem children, immigrant children represent no higher a proportion than those who come from the aboriginal population.
      However, I accept readily that it is a problem, and certainly it has been one for all those involved in the local authority, though I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not a problem arising from the overall presence of children of immigrant parents. Statistically, I understand that an immigrant child is one born of immigrant parents who have not resided in the United Kingdom for more than ten years.
      One can see the difficulty of concerning oneself exclusively with figures. Hon. Members may have heard the old story about figures being liars. They are rather like bikinis: what they reveal is interesting, but what they conceal is vital. Dealing exclusively in figures can land one up a gum tree.
      The natural reaction of anyone who puts forward views such as those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to go to the opposite extreme, plead compassion and be unrealistic about the total problem. I do not intend to do that, because I have a duty to my constituents to be as realistic as I can.
      Just as I have no overall sympathy with the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which I have heard expressed from time to time both in contributions to our debates and in Questions in the House, so I have criticisms of those who tend to say that only 2 per cent. of our population can be classified as immigrant people. The trouble is that they all appear to be in Southall. I know that that is an exaggera-
      482
      tion, but it is true to say that they are quartered in particular areas of the country, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is as concerned about the position as those on the spot.
      That brings me to consider wider questions than the effect upon education, by which I mean such matters as employment and housing. In the first place, we take the economic base. That is the provision of a job. Where the job is situated determines where the man has his home and family and where his children are likely to be educated.
      In Southall, an attempt is made to reduce the percentage of immigrant children in schools by taking them on a coach ride to other schools within the London Borough of Ealing. However, that does not always succeed, because, in what was the old Hambrough Ward of Southall, one sees the growth towards an Indian-only community, and it is Indian-only rather than an immigrant community because there are few other immigrants. Although the word is bandied around loosely, there are few Pakistanis, and there are few West Indians and others who were not born in the British Isles. It is essentially an Indian assimilation problem, and it would be less than honest if I did not inform the House that it is a continuing and running problem.
      The presence of Indian people living with other kinds of people in my constituency is an uneasy association all the time. There are natural barriers to free association, one of the greatest in this case being that of language. As has already been pointed out, it is made worse by the fact that more wives are coming and more single women are coming to marry here. Then again, children are coming who are just under the age of 16 and within the regulation age limit.
      This language difficulty affects the women in particular, because their failure to communicate with their neighbours is a real barrier indeed. What do we do about it? I find more than an element of contradiction in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's approach to the problem. He really let it out during his speech that, as opposed to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who led for the

      483
      Opposition, he was not wildly enthusiastic about an extension of the Race Relations Act, which was in the Queen's Speech and is likely to be—
      Sir D. Renton rose—
      Mr. Bidwell: Am I misunderstanding it?
      Sir D. Renton: I did not mention that part of the subject and I did not mention anything to do with the Race Relations Act.
      Mr. Bidwell: All right. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, his hon. Friends and those who feel and think as he does, to review their thinking from time to time. A change from the present concentrated position can only come if better job and housing opportunities are open.
      We can take as a case point the situation which exists in Southall Constituency, which includes Hanwell, which is almost the whole of the W.7 postal area of London. A third of those on the electoral register actually reside on the other side of the Brent. At the risk of boring the House I want to dwell on this, because it is of considerable significance in looking at the problem as a whole and on the national scale. There is an accumulation of oldish Victorian property mostly freely available on the market and, therefore, available for purchase, which is what the Indian people tend to wish to do rather than to become members of the queue for local authority houses. I must dwell on this for a moment, because when the local authority, the London Borough of Ealing, was trying to grapple with this problem of how it was to include immigrant people in the local authority housing application queue, the Conservative minority on the council proposed a change to a scheme along the lines of not admitting anyone who had not been born in the United Kingdom unless they had been resident for 15 years as opposed to and as compared with the normal five years.
      I ask hon. Gentlemen who are associated with this discriminatory proposal to think coolly of the illogicality of this situation. There were a few Labour dissidents, who were ultimately expelled from the Labour group on the council
      484
      in consequence of their clamouring to support the proposition of the Tory minority. It was a most disgraceful and a totally illogical proposal, because it would have meant that there could have been no local authority mitigation of the considerable pressure on housing accomodation in this neighbourhood.
      At the same time, I accept that this is a considerable problem and I accept, therefore, some of the critical observations that have been made. I share the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary towards the leading spokesman for the Opposition in this debate. He has set the tone right, although those Members who have been here longer will remember that I did pick him up when he seemed to be showing greater compassion towards an Australian immigrant than he would probably to a West Indian in similar circumstances, or his actress friend or his Swiss associate. I submit that there can be no distinction in any regulation concerning the intake of immigrants as to whether one is born in the West Indies or in Australia. Otherwise, one is subscribing to the view that all we are interested in is the old Commonwealth and not in equal standing so far as the whole of the British Commonwealth is concerned.
      Mr. John Page: We have been listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. In view of the very high proportion of Commonwealth immigrants in his constituency and the problems which he admitted that produces, does he consider it desirable that more immigrants should come into Southall and live there? If he thinks that, how many more should be absorbed, or would he like to say that now is about the limit?
      Mr. Bidwell: I do not think that one can put a figure on it. Idealistically, I would like to see less people who could be classified as immigrants in my constituency. All our immigrant people realise this. It was because of my forthrightness in the General Election that I think I had the general support of not only the old working class population but also the Indian population. I went to leaders of the Indian community and put my cards on the table immediately. I had always thought that it was unrealistic

      485
      not to accept that there should be control and that there should be absolute equality of opportunities once people are in this country, and I have stuck rigidly by that point of view.
      It will come as no surprise to the local Indian people in Southall when they read my speech, as they will be entitled to do, that I think there are too many Indian people concentrated in a particular quarter inside my constituency. I have in fact discussed this problem, and the intellectuals in the Indian community freely accept that it does not make for the best harmonious conditions and future development if we have a heavy concentration of immigrant people in this way.
      This has come about as a result of this kind of island of oldish property. I was born and went to school in this area. I am an unusual Member of the House of Commons in that respect, though there may be a few others who were born in the constituencies that they represent in this House. I am proud to say that I have a daughter, and now a grandchild, residing there.
      5.45 p.m.
      I put this point of view, because I think it stems from a realism of an acute situation of immigrant concentration, and I freely accept the point just made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page).
      I am constantly involved with the problems of Indian immigrant people as distinct from any other kind. As a result of my anxiety to understand the kind of background from which these people came, it was suggested that I make a visit to India. The Indian Government very kindly arranged that in January of this year and agreed to meet the expenses of my wife and myself on a trip to India concentrating on Northern India, Jullundur City and its surrounding villages, from which most of our people come. I had formed a view before going to India about the problem of the intake of Indian people and their assimilation into the British way of life, and nothing that I saw on that two weeks trip countermanded or set aside any of the general conclusions at which I had previously arrived. It was a very rich experience indeed.
      But the local authority and our local people generally are concerned about the prospects of the consolidation, for want
      486
      of a better term, of the ghetto in my constituency. The ghetto, I think, literally applies to a concentration of a Jewish community, but it is a word which is now freely used and often appears without the inverted commas. However, I think we all know what we are driving at. Indeed, some people and some Tories have in the past advocated that we should have Asian-only communities. Prior to the General Election of 1966 one extremist in our locality actually proposed that immigrant people, Commonwealth people, should not be allowed to vote until they had resided here for three years. I submit that that would have been a retrograde step, because if we expect immigrant people to adapt themselves to the British way of life we must not give them second-class citizen treatment. If we expect them to rise to the first-class citizen opportunities which are available for them here we must give them first-class treatment and there must be no back-pedalling.
      At the Labour Party conference at Scarborough this year I asked the chairman to call me if the subject of race relations was discussed. He did not do so. I thought that I had a secret agreement with him because he visited my constituency a fortnight before that date to open a district office of the A.E.U., but that is by the way. I was disappointed at not being called, not because the resolution concerning the necessity to extend the Race Relations Act was not excellently moved by the young man who was called on to move it, but because the second part of the resolution which dealt with the need to give greater assistance to local authorities involved with the problems of resettling immigrants was not discussed.
      The Motion referred to the need to extend the Race Relations Act to ensure that immigrants had equal opportunities with their British counterparts in jobs, in housing, in insurance, and so on. It also dealt with the heavy burden laid on the shoulders of the local authorities concerned, and although a plea has been made tonight that we should avoid this annual discussion of the problem, I submit that it is a continuing one for the local people, and that one discerns racialists battening on to the situation in, for example, Southall. In fact a local organisation which is linked with wider

      487
      racialist implications will be fighting for seats at next year's local authority elections.
      Time marches on, and there have been some rather interesting developments in my constituency. For some time I have suggested that the Indian people in my constituency should play their full part in the British way of life. This is what it is suggested they should do before they leave India. This means joining not only the Labour Party but the Conservative Party, and others, too. In fact, it turns out that the local Conservative Party has been the first to take my advice and has adopted an Indian as one of its local authority candidates for the elections next spring. The Labour Party, too, has adopted a local Indian as a candidate. He has an advantage in that he resides in the ward which he will contest as distinct from the Tory Indian, if I may so call him, who does not. The Labour candidate therefore has an edge on his opponent, and one must remember, too, that this is a Labour stronghold anyway.
      Mr. Robert Howarth: Would my hon. Friend care to suggest how the concentration of immigrants in his constituency and in certain others might be dispersed? He mentioned this as a special problem. How does he think it can be solved?
      Mr. Bidwell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not advocate the machine-gun method of moving people out. I think that it must be done gradually. The concentration has come about largely because of job and housing circumstances, but it will move on. There is nothing so constant as change, and it is therefore important that young people should be given the maximum job opportunities consistent with their experience and educational qualifications. No bar should be placed in their way. It is only by voluntary assimilation that the problem can be solved. It can be dealt with in no other way.
      It has to be recognised that those who give blanket descriptions of about 2 per cent. of our population do not do the local situation one little bit of good.
      Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has gone
      488
      into the problem deeply enough. The objection to immigrants is not confined to people from overseas. In Cornwall we object to the immigrant English, and I have heard serious objections to London's overspill coming to our part of the world.
      Mr. Bidwell: I have enjoyed many holidays in Cornwall. I have found that although they enjoy receiving a monetary advantage from visitors, they are a little parochial.
      The tone of the debate was set in the right key by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) when he described the British as a mongrel race. I accept that as a fact of life. No doubt some people do not like it, but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, I thought that he had been making a proposal on this question, and doing so as the Home Secretary—and looking round the Chamber I find that I have a lot of sympathy with his point of view—his statement would have been headlined in the newspapers. No doubt the same thing would have happened if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had allowed himself to use this somewhat extravagant language. It seems to me that if we are mongrel race we have no right to call ourselves a race at all, and the whole question is, what is race?
      I think that there is a place for national pride, and for patriotism, but there is no place for chauvinism. When we look at the world, we realise that we are in the process of cutting ourselves down to size, and this is one way of doing it, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman used a great big chopper when he described us as a mongrel race.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) did not invent that phrase? It was invented by a man called Daniel Defoe who, in a long poem entitled "The True-Born Englishman" which he wrote at the beginning of the 18th century, described the various factors which went into the formation of this mongrel race.
      Mr. Bidwell: I accept that. I remember when I was a trade union education officer, reading some material put out by U.N.E.S.C.O. on the subject of what is race. I think that there was held to be

      489
      some validity in it if one alluded to the Hottentots, or to some North American tribes. Apart from them, there was not sufficient evidence available to enable other people to be defined as a race.
      As I said a moment ago, there is a place for national pride. There is, therefore, a place for some of the feeling which working class communities such as mine have in not liking the coming of immigrant peoples 10 this country, specially when they come from one country in such large numbers. One feels that there is far more crude racialist feeling outside the constituency than in it.
      I do not know whether hon. Members will recollect it, but I was involved in a case under the Race Relations Act. I do not wish to dwell upon it. It was a most unfortunate experience. I was not responsible for bringing that case, but it revealed the weaknesses of the present legislation. It certainly revealed weaknesses when I was asked by the court if I were a member of the National Socialist movement, and whether the fact that I was handed a leaflet talking about keeping the blacks out really stimulated anti-black feelings on my part. This showed me that there are certainly some weaknesses about the present legislation.
      That is now history, and I mention it only because, arising out of it, I received many abusive letters showing me that the case had helped to stimulate racialist feelings throughout the British Isles.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Probert): Order The hon. Member will agree that I have been fairly tolerant during the last few minutes. I hope that he will now cease to discuss the question of race relations. I speak as a Welshman.
      Mr. Bidwell: I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr. Probert. I have tried to reflect the local feelings about the difficulties and problems which exist in my constituency, which is an extreme case. Southall has the heaviest concentration of immigrant people—mostly Indian—of all constituencies. This matter excited some attention at the last general election, together with the happenings in Slough and Smethwick.
      There are real problems of overcrowding and education, and I plead with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the Parliamentary Secretary—I
      490
      realise that this may not be their department—always to give the most sympathetic consideration to any overture and representations made to them by local authorities, including education authorities, and to give them all possible assistance in line with the decisions taken at the Labour Party conference. I plead with them to adopt this attitude in future, because the problem has not ended; it is a continuing one. I have faith in the warm-hearted nature of the working people of my constituency who have risen to the test and will continue to do so in the future.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Gurden: I cannot ignore some of the statements and comments made by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I hope to refer to some of them later. We have come a long way since 1961, when we first debated these matters. If my memory serves me correctly the Home Secretary's speech today would have been shouted down by his party as disgraceful if he had made it then. I also take issue with some of the statements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I claim that he does not speak for the whole of our party. Some of us would prefer stricter controls, and have always held the view that the Act is too generous.
      I also take issue with my right hon. and learned Friend on the question of evasions. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have referred to it as a small-scale problem, but nobody can give any figures which would allow us to make any sort of estimate of the number of evasions involved. Some guesses have been made, but every time they are qualified by the statement: "We do not know". Therefore, we do not know what is the size of the problem.
      Mr. Hogg: That is precisely what I said. I asked the Home Secretary if he knew. I confess that I did not, but I pointed out that the essential essence of evasion is that one is not found out.
      Mr. Gurden: I accept that, but my right hon. and learned Friend said that it was a small-scale problem. In my view that is a matter of doubt.
      On the question of evasions, we have to take into account other things than

      491
      the mere landing of a small party by boat on the South Coast. This picture does not represent the many evasions that take place. There is the question of false documents, and the entry of children supposedly under the age of 17. Some of the children who come here as dependants look older than 16, or even 26. Some of the immigrant children who are going to school with other children of the age of 12 or 14 have beards which would do credit to men of 36. There is no doubt that many of the children who come into this country as dependent children are over the age of 16. The Home Office would probably agree, that nobody can check the ages of the children. They do not know their age and their parents have told me that even they do not know. There are many forms of evasion.
      I was disturbed by the Home Secretary's statement that when immigrants have been here undetected for more than 24 hours, having come here without permission, they cannot be turned back. I should like to know the position of people who are supposed to have come here for a short stay, or as students. Can they be sent home? As I understood him, the Home Secretary said that once they had been here for 24 hours they could not be turned back.
      Mr. Ennals: I can answer that question straight away. Those people who are admitted on conditions—that means that they are visitors or students—are obliged to leave when their term expires, unless they can obtain an extension. They can be prosecuted if they stay over that period and a court can recommend their deportation. The point about the period of 24 hours applies to those who arrive by clandestine means without obtaining the permission of the immigration authorities.
      Mr. Gurden: That is of some help. I wonder whether all these people are deported if the courts so recommend. We have been told that the Home Secretary does not always follow the recommendations of the courts.
      More and more hon. Members believe that the immigration policy is too soft. We believe that for the moment, at any rate—perhaps for a few years—all immigration should cease. There are exceptions, but, in the main, this large influx should be stopped.
      492
      There are many sound reasons in logic for stopping this influx. The various facets of unemployment which have been recently discussed justified our having a stricter control over immigration. Even the Home Secretary figures of those who come here to take up employment or of children just under employable age should disturb the Government in view of the present level of unemployment.
      How can we ever provide decent housing for those who live here when we are faced with the present figures of immigration? The number on the housing waiting list in Birmingham almost equals the number of immigrants in Birmingham. I know that it is not a logical calculation, but it could be argued that, if there had been stricter control over immigration in the last 10 years, there would have been practically no housing problem in Birmingham today.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Southall that there is a heavy concentration of immigrants in certain areas. I criticise the hon. Gentleman because, even though he will not agree with me that immigration should be stopped, he does not want any more immigrants to go to Southall.
      Mr. Bidwell: In the light of my experience, I could not be a party to the statement that there could never be one human being coming to our shores at any given moment. I am much too involved in the compassionate side of it, in pressures to allow people to come in under the present regulations who are a little removed from the specifically defined close relationship, to be a party to say what the hon. Gentleman is trying to make me say.
      Mr. Gurden: I will content myself with repeating that the hon. Gentleman contended that there should be a dispersal of immigrants. I take it that he does not want any more to come to Southall. I certainly do not want any more to come to my constituency. It is already overcrowded. We already have an unemployment problem there. There is already a serious housing problem there. Those conditions alone justify my attitude.
      The Government should realise that the many thousands of immigrants who will come to Britain during the next 12 months will come to places like Southall, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester,

      493
      where there are already heavy concentrations of immigrants. It is not just a question of 2 per cent. on our population. In one Birmingham ward there are already more children being born to immigrants than are born to the original English population. Thus there is a higher concentration of immigrants in one ward than English people. It is safe to assume that probably over 90 per cent. of the immigrants who will arrive here in the next twelve months will also go to the overcrowded areas of concentration.
      I wish that some of them would go to Chelmsford, Bromley and Worthing and the other places, where the people—at least where the Members of Parliament representing those places—do not understand what the problem is.
      You, Mr. Probert, rightly ruled that we are not entitled to go into matters of racial discrimination. Some of us cannot help remembering, however, what Sir Robert Menzies said in a television interview, that if we do not deal with this problem as we should deal with it—strongly, boldly—we shall be laying in store for ourselves a very serious racial problem for the future. Sir Robert made quite a good case for what Australia did and what it does today. Australia is avoiding the problems which we are already thinking in terms of legislating about.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Robert Howarth: I compliment my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on the tenor of their speeches. It would be in the national interest and in the interests of our immigrant population if the discussion could be kept at that level.
      There are real problems arising from large-scale immigration from Asia in the last 10 years. I am prompted to intervene as a result of observations and experiences in my constituency, particularly in the last 12 months. It is not a new problem, but certain events have given me cause for concern. It is a concern which I think is shared by an increasing number of my hon. Friends who, I think, are inhibited from giving voice to their worries in the Chamber because they are afraid of being categorised with such people as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), who has a rather notorious reputation on this subject.
      494
      This is a problem which is increasing in severity in the areas where these visitors are concentrated. If the numbers of Indian and Pakistan immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, there well might be no necessity for this debate. Unfortunately, these people have tended, for obvious reasons, to gravitate towards the older industrial towns and cities. This compounds the problem immeasurably. There is a further concentration in the older areas of such towns and cities. These immigrants live in old houses, unfortunately often in overcrowded conditions, and their children go to old schools which are equally overcrowded.
      During the last 12 months I have received many representations from my constituents. I have been to meetings. I have discussed with people exactly what is worrying them. It can be summed up in this way. If the unfortunate racial prejudice which exists—it is no use our denying it; some people are prejudiced because of a different colour of skin—is put aside, there are some valid reasons for people's agitation. The reasons come under the headings of housing, employment and education.
      In my constituency the housing problem heads the list. Bolton has a long tradition and a good one, and one which I would wish to see encouraged, of owner-occupation. People of modest means set out to buy their own homes. They spurn the idea of renting property. Even people with quite low incomes buy the older type of terrace property which exists in old Lancashire towns. These houses are often converted into very attractive little homes. In effect, the result represents the whole of a life's effort and savings.
      When I meet these people and they tell me that it only needs the entry of one or two immigrant families into a street of these older type houses for the value of the property to decrease, very often by several hundred pounds, even the most liberal-minded person tends to take a somewhat different view about the entry of immigrant families into their district. While I have tried to suggest a more liberal attitude to my fellow citizens, I am often met with the riposte, "It is all right for those of you who live in more salubrious quarters of the town. You are not affected, but we are." I

      495
      live in my constituency, so it may be that that reply from my constituents is only to be expected.
      This is a real problem and I confess that it is one to which I cannot honestly find a solution. I can tell my constituents about the need for these immigrants, once they are here, to be treated as first-class citizens without any discrimination, but one cannot get round the fact that if a person with very limited means finds that his lifetime effort—the only expression of the whole of his working life, and very often that of his wife as well—is devalued within six months, possibly by several hundreds of pounds, one cannot be surprised if he takes a very jaundiced view of this matter.
      Let me say straight away that this applies to only a small minority of the population. My constituency does not have the sort of concentration of immigrants that apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) has in his constituency, although they are concentrated in certain wards of the town. Nevertheless, this is a growing problem because of the numbers of dependants who are now entering the country.
      On the question of employment, I have attended meetings where people have expressed concern at the situation which might arise if the employment position were to continue to worsen, particularly this winter, and at the prospects of discrimination not against the immigrants but against the indigenous population if the unemployment figures should continue to climb steeply. On this, I feel that there is a much easier case to make in reply, and this I attempted to do when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) and I spoke. There is not a serious unemployment situation in the constituency, but I think there is a need for legislation to ensure that people are protected against discrimination, certainly in their employment. If there is a tendency for people to be paid less because of the colour of their skin, clearly this might be an inducement to a certain type of employer to dispense with the services of the higher-paid employees and to keep on any immigrants he might be employing. On this score, to a limited extent, I think that we have been able to satisfy those who have been agitating.
      496
      On the question of education, I must say that there are some genuine fears and real problems. I was interested in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall, about a school where, I think he said, 60 per cent. of the pupils were immigrant children. He said that the teaching staff had expressed great concern to him about this situation. I certainly would have thought that if 60 per cent. of the scholars at a school are immigrant children, it is a most undesirable situation. What effect this is having on the educational efforts of all the children in the school, heaven knows.
      My experience of a few schools where the figure is nowhere near 60 per cent., but where there is a substantial number of immigrant children, is that it poses great problems to the teachers and all the pupils in the school. I believe that the Government have made great efforts to overcome this problem, and I hope that they will continue to do so. Nevertheless, this reinforces the concern of some of my constituents because they live in areas where their efforts to buy their own houses have been affected by the entry of immigrant families, and in addition the education of their children is possibly suffering because of the attempt to bring the standard of the immigrant children up to that of the children of the indigenous population.
      I hasten to point out that the local authority in Bolton has made great efforts to overcome this problem by setting up special classes to teach English and elementary subjects to the new children who have come into the country, and this is having an effect. Nevertheless, one cannot burke the fact that a real problem is developing in the older areas of my constituency which is not conducive to good race relations.
      This leads me to the observations that I want to make on the problem as a whole. First of all, there are some encouraging features. I was encouraged by the remark of the Home Secretary that so far there is no significant link between race and crime in this country. One hopes that this will continue to be the case. This is a fact that we should constantly reiterate to those who are bitter racially prejudiced and who cast around for any sort of argument against people who have a different coloured skin. As I say, this is encouraging and I hope

      497
      that we shall continue with our efforts to make sure that there does not develop an economically under-privileged section of the community, namely the immigrant section.
      I am, however, disturbed on two counts. First, there is a continuing increase in the number of dependants coming into this country. My right hon. Friend suggested that the number should eventually start to dwindle, but it is evident from the figures that he gave that this has not yet begun. In addition, there is cause for great concern at the numbers of young Pakistani boys coming into this country to live with their fathers. I know that we fixed an age limit of 16. I understand from correspondence that I have had with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that it is very difficult to prove the age of these boys. It must give the authorities in India and Pakistan quite a headache.
      Nevertheless, the problem exists, and it is exceedingly difficult when a boy who is claimed to be 14 years of age, and cannot even speak English, enters one of our schools and it is expected that in 12 months it is possible to make the boy suitable for the employment market when he is 15. These are not problems which are easy of solution if we are to retain a humane and liberal outlook I incline to the view that we could further lower the age at which dependants are allowed to join their parents in this country.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is there not an element of class legislation in what my hon. Friend suggests? How many people in this country of middle-class or superior-class emoluments regard their children under 16 as not dependent upon them? In a great many cases, their children will remain dependent up to 20 or 25 years of age.
      Sir C. Osborne: Twenty-five, my foot! That is an exaggeration.
      Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am pointing out that a good many people who have been responsible for their children since birth would be entitled to bring them in as dependants even over 16 years of age.
      Mr. Gurden: They go to work at 16.
      Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that I understand the point of my hon. Friend
      498
      the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), though, obviously, I respect his views. If I understand matters aright, we have already fixed an age limit under which dependants may come and over which they may not come. I see my hon. Friend shaking his head. Perhaps the Government Front Bench will put me right if I have misunderstood, but I thought that we had fixed an age limit to which dependants were subject.
      I do not see how, on liberal and humane grounds, one can argue that the age should be 16 as opposed to 12. I do not know, but I suggest that, at the present level, real problems are being caused in certain areas, and that we ought to look at it. I sincerely suggest to my hon. Friends that they look at it, especially in view of the Home Secretary's admission that there is a significant number of young boys coming from Pakistan very close to the school-leaving age—or it is suggested that they are very close to the school-leaving age—and these boys present an education problem which makes things exceedingly difficult for some of our older secondary schools.
      I incline to the view—I say it with regret, though I think that we may be faced with having to take action in the future, even if we get through this year—that by lowering the age one would tend to reduce the problem. I put that forward for what it is worth, and, in doing so, I think that I speak on behalf of many hon. Members who tend to restrain themselves on this subject for fear of being classed with some hon. Members opposite.
      The second matter which concerns me considerably is the question of the numbers who might come to this country, or who are eligible to come, from East Africa. I was taken aback by what I thought the rather complacent attitude of the Home Secretary here. He seemed to express a pious hope when he said that we were pointing out to the countries of East Africa that these people, usually of Indian origin, had made a great economic contribution to those countries and that we hoped, therefore, that they would keep them.
      We can see what is happening. For several years, the number has run at an average of 6,000 per annum, but it looks as though it will be over 10,000 this

      499
      year. Plainly, a rise of 40 per cent. in 12 months cannot be viewed with equanimity. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would go on from there to say that steps were proposed, or would be taken, to ensure that we were not faced with the sort of unrestricted entry which we had in the late 1950s and early 1960s from India and Pakistan.
      Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend explain why he cannot view with equanimity a net rise of 4,000 immigrants, all of whom are already British nationals, from an area in respect of which there is not, as there was in the case of India and Pakistan because of the large population, the possibility of an almost bottomless pit in this respect?
      Mr. Howarth: We were given a figure of about 200,000. I was assuming that this did not include dependants, or certainly did not include children. Again, this is something which my hon. Friend on the Front Bench can clarify. Mistakenly, perhaps, I assumed that the children were not included in that figure. If, on the other hand, we are talking in terms of the figures which have been suggested for dependants who might come with voucher holders, that is, about four times the number of voucher holders, we approach potentially—I agree that it is only potential—a total approaching 1 million extra immigrants who could come into this country.
      I suggest to hon. Members, particularly on this side, that this is not a problem which can be overlooked. It is necessary to take action now if we are not to be faced with a problem a few years hence. It is no good leaving it till the end of this decade and then taking action. We can see a 40 per cent. increase this year, and, with the disturbed state of affairs in East Africa, it is a reasonable assumption that the number is likely to rise in the next few years.
      Again, I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to give attention to this problem and to bring forward legislation, if necessary, to ensure that we do not face the sort of problem on which action had to be taken earlier in the decade because of growing immigration particularly from India and Pakistan.
      I conclude by paying a tribute to the efforts which this Government, and indi-
      500
      vidual hon. Members, too, have made both to integrate the immigrants already here into the community and to try to lessen racial tensions. I hope that they will continue these efforts, in which they have my support. At the same time, I ask them to look closely at what I believe are serious practical problems facing our constituents, for which, in my view, further action must be taken to ensure that the problem which we have is not increased.
      I recently had the privilege of visiting the United States of America, where there is an acute racial problem. I do not for a moment suggest that ours is in any way comparable, but I am certain that, unless we take action in the next few years, the potential problem I have outlined may well develop from East Africa, and, perhaps, from other territories. I do not know whether it is a problem of dual nationality which arises in all newly independent territories. Action ought to be taken to ensure that the problem of integrating the present immigrant community remain manageable, as I believe it is now. The Government are tackling things in the right way. I want all the problems to be solved, to the benefit of our indigenous population and those who have recently joined us.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Sandys: We have all listened with interest to the sincere speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) on this difficult subject. The Home Secretary rightly asked us to approach this emotive issue, as he called it, in a calm and cool way. I shall certainly not seek to raise the temperature of the debate. It is true that it is an emotive issue. But the reason is that many people feel very strongly about it. The hon. Member for Bolton, East has told us of his own experience in his constituency. Clearly, it is our duty to voice here in Parliament the anxieties of those whom we represent.
      Since we discussed the question of immigration a year ago, in this same context, public concern has greatly increased throughout the country. There has been a growing realisation of the trouble we are building up for ourselves in the years ahead, and that anxiety has undoubtedly been intensified by the tragic race riots in the United States.

      501
      This problem is not peculiar to white countries with a minority of black citizens. During recent years we have witnessed acute tension and in some cases violent clashes between peoples of different races in countries all over the world. It will be said that conditions are different here. Of course they are. But they were different in each of those countries. Why should we take it for granted that Britain will be the one exception?
      There are some who think that by passing laws against discrimination we can ensure that what has happened elsewhere will not happen here. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who initiated this debate with a very noteworthy speech, I shall study with an open mind the Government's Bill which was foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech. But most people will agree that legislation by itself will not solve this problem.
      Everyone living in our country must be treated equally. Nobody wants to establish first- and second-class citizens. Nobody wants to see people penalised on grounds of race or religion. We must deal severely with anyone who tries to foment hatred. But we must be careful that, in combatting discrimination, we do not stimulate it. I say this to the Government in all earnestness.
      The Government have laid down that a proportion of the police force and the magistrates' bench must be coloured.
      Mr. Ennals indicated dissent.
      Mr. Sandys: Is that not so?
      Mr. Ennals: It is not so. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he would welcome the appointment of suitably qualified coloured people as police officers and magistrates. There is no suggestion whatsoever that there should be any proportion. I think that that would be a very wrong thing to do.
      Mr. Sandys: I think that the general impression—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has corrected it—is that in choosing persons for the bench and for the police force an effort will be made to ensure that a proportion of them are coloured. I do not think that that is unfair, is it?
      Mr. Ennals: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that in discussions between my right hon. Friend and chief constables my right hon. Friend has said that he is anxious to see suitable persons from coloured communities as police officers, but that it would be absolutely wrong ever to appoint a man because of his colour unless in every other way he was qualified for such a post. There has been no suggestion of a quota or a proportion.
      Mr. Sandys: Of course, I am not suggesting that any Home Secretary would issue instructions that people who were not qualified should be appointed to posts. But despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, I still believe that these instructions imply that an attempt should be made to try to find coloured people who have the necessary qualifications. If not, they mean nothing at all. If it means that, it means that they are not being chosen exclusively on the grounds of merit.
      Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I very much regret that he has not accepted my assurance. It has been made absolutely clear by my right hon. Friend, myself and others in conversations with chief constables that there should never be any question of not appointing a man as a result of his merits, but that if suitable coloured people come forward they should be accepted, and, of course, there is an encouragement to suitable people to apply for such posts.
      Mr. Sandys: I have not the slightest prejudice against coloured policemen. But I should like to feel that when making appointments the police forces not only choose people with the necessary qualifications, but also choose the best man available for the job irrespective of colour. If that is the position, I am very glad to know it.
      Mr. Ennals indicated assent.
      Mr. Sandys: I am afraid that if we go down this road the next step will be to require or encourage schools to maintain a prescribed mixture of white and coloured pupils. We have not got there yet, but I am drawing attention to where this policy might lead us. We have seen it happen in America. In some American towns bus-loads of white children are driven to

      503
      schools in predominantly coloured districts and coloured children are driven back to take their places.
      I am not suggesting that the Government have this in mind. But we must be careful. In approaching this kind of legislation and the problem as a whole, we must foresee the possible dangers which lie ahead. We must take care not to accentuate race consciousness and breed the bitterness and mutual suspicion which we all wish to avoid.
      6.45 p.m.
      We must have the courage to tackle the problem at its source. We must recognise that it is not so much a question of race as of numbers. It is largely a matter of arithmetic. Wherever they may be, the indigenous population tend to resent any large influx of outsiders. This applies to people of all races. Where the newcomers are of the same racial stock, it is not too difficult to absorb them into the life of the community. But when the colour of their skin is different, and they have a different religion, and different habits of life, it is virtually impossible to integrate them completely.
      In fact, some of them, like those from India and Pakistan, have no wish to be integrated. They are justifiably proud of their race and religion. They wish to live in separate groups and to preserve their separate identity. If they are numerous and concentrated in certain areas, they inevitably create a nation within a nation and become a source of tension and unrest.
      The fact is that we have already admitted more immigrants of non-European stock than we can possibly assimilate, and they continue to come in at the rate of over 40,000 a year. The number of people of other races living in Britain today is already around 1 million. That is about 2 per cent. of our population. Whatever we do, this percentage will increase, owing to the higher birth rate among the immigrants.
      All kinds of estimates for the future have been worked out. They vary according to the assumptions we make. But if no further action is taken it seems quite possible that in the lifetime of the present generation the proportion of coloured people in Britain will be as high as it is in the United States today.
      Mr. Donald Chapman: In a generation?
      Mr. Sandys: During the lifetime of those who are alive today.
      Mr. Chapman: It will be much more than that.
      Mr. Sandys: These estimates are very difficult to make. I am leaving myself a very wide margin, because it is difficult to know what precise assumptions to make. There is no reason to suppose that this will not lead to the same troubles and difficulties as in America.
      If we are serious in our wish to avoid racial trouble and over-population, our first duty is to prevent the problem from getting bigger than it already is. That means imposing a further severe reduction on the number of immigrants we admit. In our debate last year I made an exception of the dependants of those immigrants who are already here, because I realised that their exclusion would be bound to cause personal distress. I am still much concerned about this, as everybody must be. But, after reflection, I have very reluctantly been forced to the conclusion that, if we allow the influx of dependants to continue as at present, we shall make no real impact upon this problem.
      Nearly 90 per cent. of the immigrants now coming in under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act are, as the Home Secretary told us, in the category of dependants. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he proposes to restrict the entry of certain categories of dependants. He mentioned, in particular, boys approaching the age of 16. That is correct, is it not?
      Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend did not say that. He said that he was looking very seriously at the problem and how to deal with it, but he did not indicate a line of action.
      Mr. Sandys: When a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and recognises that there is a serious problem and tells the House of Commons that he intends to see what should be done, it leaves a general expectation that he contemplates some action to restrict the entry of these boys. I assume that that will require legislation. I was, therefore, surprised when the right

      505
      hon. Gentleman said that he did not intend to introduce legislation this Session.
      Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say something about this later, because it is an urgent matter. If there is a problem, it ought to be dealt with quickly, because once one gives notice that one is going to take action, one stimulates a flow of the people who think that they may be excluded.
      Since the immigrants who are here were led to expect that their dependants would be allowed to follow them, we have a clear duty—there is no doubt about it—to alleviate as far as possible the consequences of any change of policy. If they wish to return to their homelands to rejoin their families, we should not only pay their passage but give them generous grants to help them resettle. We should also examine the resettlement scheme which has been tentatively put forward by the Government of Guyana, which would, of course, also involve grants from Britain.
      All this would cost money, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, it would cost a good deal less than the provision of all the additional houses, schools and services which a further large increase in the immigrant population would otherwise necessitate. As I freely recognise, this will inevitably cause unhappiness to the immigrants concerned, but I believe that it is nothing to the future unhappiness which the coloured population of Britain will suffer if we allow a racial problem to grow to uncontrollable proportions.
      It may be thought that this is bolting the stable door after the horse has escaped. There is some truth in that. As I have said, far too many immigrants have already been admitted. But even if it is too late to remove the dangers and difficulties altogether, we have a duty to do all in our power at this stage to reduce them.
      Reference has been made to the fact that there are about 200,000 Asians in East Africa who either hold or are eligible for United Kingdom passports. These people, as has been explained, are exempt from the controls of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and enjoy a legal right to come here without any restriction whatsoever. With few exceptions, these people have no connection of any kind
      506
      with this country and have never set foot in these islands.
      Mr. Rose: Is it not true that many of those people went there precisely to serve the British Empire at that time, that many of them have given devoted service to this country in East Africa and that we have an obligation to them because they would not have been there in the first place had it not been for this country?
      Mr. Sandys: As the Home Secretary said, quite a number of these people were born there. We cannot go back into history. We cannot let in all who had any connection with the British Empire, through their parents and grandparents. We just have not got room in this small island.
      I was saying that these people are exempt from the immigration control and entitled, as things now stand, to United Kingdom passports. As the Home Secretary explained, the reason why they were given this status was to ensure that they did not become Stateless. Many of them had the opportunity, as was said by my right hon. and learned Friend, to take on Kenya citizenship—after all, that is the country to which they belong more than any other—and they decided not to do so—and I can quite understand it. These same nationality arrangements apply to many other countries and not just to East Africa, but the problem has arisen at the moment in this area.
      However, it was certainly never intended that this arrangement should provide a privileged back-door entry into the United Kingdom. So long as these people did not come here in any appreciable numbers, this raised no practical issue. But, as the Home Secretary has told the Committee, the number of Asians arriving from East Africa has risen steeply in recent months, and that is why we are all concerned about this problem.
      Mr. Ennals: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, since he was the chairman of the conference at which these arrangements were negotiated, whether he did not at the time anticipate precisely the problem to which he is now referring?
      Mr. Sandys: We were hopeful that these people would be well-treated, and I have no evidence that they are being ill-treated. I think that it is anxiety rather

      507
      than ill-treatment that is leading them to consider coming here. What we did in the case of East Africa was by and large to apply the same arrangements as were applied to other Colonies when they became indpendent. It would have been a little invidious if we had said, "We think that there will be trouble in East Africa, and, therefore, we propose to introduce different nationality and citizenship arrangements".
      Because of the situation which has arisen I feel that we must press the Government, by administrative action—I do not believe that it requires legislation—to close without further delay what I call—I know that the Home Secretary does not like the expression—this loophole in our immigration control. As the hon. Member for Bolton, East said, I think that the Government are rather too complacent, or, let us say, dilatory in grappling with this problem before it gets out of hand. Over the whole field of Commonwealth immigration, we have, all of us—I emphasise "all of us"—been very slow in waking up to the future danger.
      Sir C. Osborne: Not all of us.
      Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend may be an exception. I take my share of responsibility for having been slow off the mark.
      We must recognise frankly that we have made a mistake. We must try to put it right. We must not be afraid to be accused of inconsistency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer every year introduces various new measures to plug loopholes in the law and I see no reason why we should not do the same in regard to immigration.
      Both sides of the House of Commons bear their share of responsibility. The Conservatives are to blame for doing too little too late. The Labour Party is to blame for fighting the Commonwealth Immigrants Act tooth and nail when we introduced it. Admittedly, now that they are the Government, they have greatly changed their tune. However, if they do not take the further steps that are now needed, they will be held accountable by future generations for the misery and bitterness which will result if the racial problem in Britain is allowed to get out of hand.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Winnick: Up to six o'clock I was in my place, but at that point I had a constituency commitment which necessitated my leaving the Chamber. I explained that to the Deputy Chairman, but I was, therefore, not in my place to hear all of the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I wish to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman at this stage for having missed some of his remarks.
      These debates provide the Committee with an opportunity to discuss various aspects of immigrant control and related matters, including the position of Commonwealth immigrants who are already living in this country. To an extent, it is useful for us to have these debates—although I gather from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he has in mind a change in the law in this respect.
      One of the snags is that, by constantly raising the question whether or not we want more Commonwealth immigrants here, we tend to make it all the more difficult to integrate those immigrants who have been in our country for some years. The two matters are connected, because if we keep harping on about this issue—that, somehow, these people from the new Commonwealth countries are undesirable, that we should restrict them or that we should allow in fewer and fewer of them—there is bound to be more resistance and hostility in Britain to our saying that those already here should be allowed to lead their lives without any form of discrimination because they will be looked upon by the host community as being undesirable. This being the position, there is a connection between these two matters.
      It would be foolish for me to deny that the right hon. Member for Streatham represents a point of view in Britain. For all I know, he may represent the majority point of view. It would, therefore, be foolish for those of us who disagree with him to pretend otherwise. Indeed, those who support my point of view may be in the minority. But that is no reason why the point of view which I wish to put should not be put to the Committee.
      During the 20 months that I have been a Member of Parliament I have received

      509
      a host of letters. I have them with me. They have arisen as a result of various comments which I have made on the racial position in Britain. Some of the letters are unfortunate; for example, this one which I have in my hand states:
      "This is my wife and twin daughters"—
      shown in a photograph accompanying the letter—
      "… no blacks are going to get their animal hands on them, that's for certain."
      Another letter reads:
      "Dear nigger lover,
      A filthy swine like you is not fit to breath the same air as white people."
      I am aware of the view that is held by some people and I assure the Committee that I have no illusions on this score. It does not give me any satisfaction when I receive letters of that kind.
      Ten days ago I wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph—I would call it a moderately worded one—arguing the case for integration and stating that it was unfair that anyone should be discriminated against when he went to buy a house. Arising from that letter, I received 20 to 30 letters. I admit at once that they were not like the ones from which I have quoted. However, they did take me to task about what I had written.
      Perhaps it would not be a bad thing if the editor of the Daily Telegraph tried to educate some of his readers—no doubt the minority—into the positive virtues of race relations. That minority of readership certainly needs some lessons in race relations.
      Mr. Iremonger: Having followed this matter in the newspaper in question—and I have followed it very closely; perhaps more closely than the hon. Gentleman—I suggest that it is only fair to say that the editor, and those with editorial responsibility on the Daily Telegraph, are beyond reproach in this matter, and that if its readers followed that newspaper's advice they would not be so paranoid.
      Mr. Winnick: My letter to the Daily Telegraph arose from an article written by the newspaper's property correspondent. I considered his article to be very complacent indeed about discrimination in housing. However, the newspaper was kind enough to publish my letter. I do not want at this stage to start an argu-
      510
      ment over the editorial staff or its responsibility.
      Some hon. Gentlemen opposite hold strong views about immigration. That is fair enough and that is not the trouble. I hold strong views and, like some of my hon. Friends, I do not conceal them. However—and without in any way wishing to be misunderstood—some hon. Gentlemen opposite present their arguments in such a way that they seem to lend fire and ammunition to the most prejudiced and bigotted sections in our society.
      The right hon. Member for Streatham made a statement just before the Summer Recess—I informed the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to refer to him and to quote some of his words—on this matter. It gave a tremendous amount of offence to many non-white people. The right hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:
      "The breeding of millions of half-caste children would merely produce a generation of misfits and create increased tensions".
      He was also reported as having said:
      "All further entries should be stopped, including the relatives of those who are already here".
      I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made it clear, in a reasoned and moderate speech, that he does not hold with refusing permission of entry to the relatives of those already here. I am pleased to say, without wishing to show a dividing line on the benches opposite, that there is a great deal of difference between some of the speeches made by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, including those made by the right hon. Member for Streatham and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends.
      Mr. Gurden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. Would he admit that, in addition to the unpleasant letters he has received, an equal number of people exist to put the other side of the argument and send an equal number of letters to him stressing the other point of view?
      Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to black power, I am coming to that. I am dealing with the letters I have received, and I assure him that they are not very pleasant. If he would care to read them I would be delighted

      511
      to show them to him later. I assure him that I have not manufactured them.
      One difficulty is that in speaking about restrictions on Commonwealth immigrants—and I accept that there must be some degree of restriction or control—and in putting forward views about why there should be certain restrictions, those who clamour for restriction are never satisfied when controls are imposed. There was a great deal of controversy in the Labour Party and in the House of Commons when the Labour Government introduced restrictions arising from the 1965 Act. Those who had been demanding more and more controls did not then say, "We have won our victory. We are satisfied and we will not put forward more demands".
      On the contrary. New demands immediately went up, even to the point of our hearing that there should be a total stop on immigration, with no further Commonwealth immigrants being allowed to come to Britain. If we were to agree to even this restriction, would the clamouring for control cease? No. There would be further agitation—even to the point of the agitators saying that the non-whites already here should be sent back to their countries of origin. That demand would, no doubt, be followed by demands for steps to be taken to place restrictions on those who, for one reason or another, could not be sent back.
      In all of this there is—to use a modern political phrase—a sort of escalation going on. One cannot satisfy the racialists. It would not do any harm if we in the Labour Party, on both the front and back benches, recognised the existence of this escalation of demand. A section in our community is completely hostile to non-whites and will always say that, whatever further measures we take, more and more should be taken.
      Mr. Ennals: I would like to give my hon. Friend the assurance now rather than ask him to wait till later. The Government would not be in the least bit influenced by any sort of pressure from any racialist channel whatsoever.
      Mr. Winnick: I am pleased to hear that and I accept my hon. Friend's words. We are all aware of the excellent work which he is doing in his present job.
      512
      Whenever we discuss this topic we always hear statements about the undesirability of more and more Commonwealth citizens. It would do no harm if we, on both sides of the House of Commons, took the opportunity to pay tribute to those immigrants already in Britain who are doing a first-class job in the community.
      When people talk about sending them back home I wonder how our hospital and transport services would survive without these people. I do not understand the hostility to non-white people. Why do we not accept and recognise that the vast majority of them who have come over for economic reasons are doing excellent work? They will remain in this country and their children and grandchildren will be as British as we are. I wish that even those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are keen to stop further immigration would go out of their way, not only here but outside, to pay tribute to those non-whites living here who are doing a first-class job.
      One right hon. Gentleman opposite, not the right hon. Member for Streatham, said that immigrants who come over here should declare their number of dependants. I see no reason why this should not be done, and I think that such a measure would be approved by the House as a whole. I am very pleased that the Home Secretary has said that the Wilson Committee's recommendations are to be accepted and that a Bill will be brought in in due course. The system outlined in the recommendation, of having adjudicators and appeals machinery, is very sensible. The Committee went out of its way to say that it was not to inquire about how many immigrants should be allowed into Britain. It was completely outside of its terms of reference, but it felt that there should be some kind of appeals machinery and its report, Cmnd. 3387 was a very reasoned one.
      I am also pleased that the Home Secretary has made it clear that the other recommendation, of a welfare service at ports and at London Airport, will be accepted, because there is a need for immigrants and aliens who do not understand the customs or the language to have some kind of voluntary or paid welfare service helping them.

      513
      I want to say a word or two about Commonwealth citizens living in Britain. There has been a great deal of controversy during the last 12 months about the position of non-whites. We have already had two reports, one of them—the P.E.P. Report is a very important document—dealing with race discrimination. When I had an Adjournment debate last December about coloured school-leavers I had the feeling that some Members in the House, not on my own Front Bench, thought that I was exaggerating and that there was not this degree of colour discrimination in Britain.
      Any hon. Member who reads the P.E.P. Report on Racial Discrimination in Britain will have to accept that there is a large degree of discrimination against non-whites, particularly when it comes to employment in the category of non-manual occupations. This is why I was very pleased that before the Recess my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the Race Relations Act would be extended to include housing and employment. This is now included in the Queen's Speech.
      A controversial position has arisen over the position of non-whites and the black power or black Muslim movement. I was extremely pleased with the remarks made by the Minister when he condemned racialism, black or white. I have no doubt that racialism—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Schedule and the Amendment. Black power is not the subject tonight. It is the question of immigration. He must relate his remarks to the Schedule.
      Mr. Winnick: Thank you for bringing me back to order, Mr. Irving.
      I was trying to deal with the position arising from the question of how many immigrants should come into Britain and the position of Commonwealth immigrants already here. It is unfortunate that there are some who want to stir up trouble from a different side. I condemn this sort of nonsense. I do not accept the view of those who say that black people look down upon white people, or should not look upon them as allies. It seems that the propaganda of some troublemakers, who in this case happen to be
      514
      non-white, will fall on barren ground if we have a situation where no one is penalised or discriminated against because of his colour.
      If we have a situation where non-whites are treated like anyone else and there are those who come along and say, "Look down on Whitey", and all the rest of it, the non-whites will say that this is rubbish, because in Britain they are treated like anyone else. This is why, in combating discrimination, it is important to undermine those who want to create trouble in this direction.
      I remain optimistic about the position of those immigrants in Britain. I said at my own party conference, not long ago, that we have managed to solve the problem of immigrants in the past—those which arose at the beginning of the century. I see no reason why, given fairness and respect for those with a different colour to ours, we will not be able to solve this problem. The nation is capable of doing it, but we will not do so by being complacent or stirring up trouble against non-whites. We will do it by accepting these people as our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens who have a right to live in our country, without being penalised or discriminated against in any shape or form.
      7.15 p.m.
      Sir C. Osborne: Older Members of the House will remember that I first raised this problem in 1954, not as one of my hon. Friends said in 1961. There is no pleasure or profit in saying, "I told you so". One striking thing about the debate compared to that which took place 13 years ago is the responsible and stern speeches made by the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) and the Home Secretary. They were much sterner than I made in 1954, when I was howled down for saying what I did. I am delighted that there has been to change towards realism.
      The hon. Member for Bolton, East said that we should fight against racial discrimination. We should recognise that racial discrimination and tension is not merely a problem of black versus white, and that it is not always the whites who are at fault. It exists between Arab and Jew, Asian and African, between the Pakistani and the Indian, between the people of Ceylon and the Tamils. Good men and women throughout the world

      515
      have struggled for the last 100 years to solve this very difficult problem. No one has yet found an answer to it.
      All these years I have argued the unwisdom of bringing this problem unnecessarily into our own country. Now we have got it. We should follow the advice of the Home Secretary and of the hon. Member for Bolton, East and not increase this problem if we can avoid doing so. Men and women of goodwill have sought a solution to this terrible racial problem but as yet have not found one.
      I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not present. I wanted to remind him about two things he said. First, he said that he hoped that this annual review of the 1962 Act would come to an end, that we would not have to face this every year. It was the Labour Party in opposition which insisted vehemently that this review should take place. It is remarkable how responsibility has altered right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They opposed bitterly the Act which they now find so useful and without which they could not operate and called those who had asked for it names which I was ashamed to have thrown at me. [Laughter.] Hon Members may laugh, but this is not a funny matter. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) had better go back to his constituents and tell them that he is jeering at this. I will come with him to his constituency—even his majority will not be sufficient. This is a problem which does not stand jeering at. It is far too serious.
      It has been said that this is too explosive a situation to be exploited by anyone. I agree with that. But it is too difficult a situation to ignore the basic and underlying facts.
      I should like to bring the Committee back to the problems which lie behind this question. All the points which have been made have been from the immigrants' point of view. No one has sufficiently stressed the Englishman's point of view in his own country. I was shocked when the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) called me an aboriginal. It is the first time that I have been called that. It may be true, but I did not realise it.
      On 22nd June, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health
      516
      answered a Question of mine which appears in column 338 of HANSARD. I asked him: assuming the rate of present immigration under the Act, and assuming the known birth rate, what is the size of the coloured population now, what will it be in 1975 and what it will be in 1985. The answer which I received was not a wild guess by irresponsible people; it came from the Parliamentary Secretary. The answer was startling. It was that, as far as the Government could estimate, at the end of 1966 there were one million coloured people in this country, that by 1975 there would be 1¾ million and by 1985 there would be 3¾ million. These are not my guesses. This is what the Government say.
      Mr. Ennals: But the assumptions on which that forecast was made were the hon. Gentleman's assumptions that the rate of entry of immigrants would remain unchanged and that the rate of fertility would remain unchanged. The answer was given on the basis of his assumptions and, therefore, it is not necessarily what is likely to happen in future. I may touch on this matter if I catch the Deputy Chairman's eye.
      Sir C. Osborne: That is a dodge. If my assumptions were wrong, why did not the Parliamentary Secretary refute them? If the law remains as it is today, we are entitled to assume that immigrants will continue to come here at the old rate. That is a reasonable assumption to make. On what grounds does the hon. Gentleman assume that the birth rate of the immigrant population will fall? What evidence has he for believing that? None whatever.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I have not intervened before because this is not my Bill. However, when a Question is asked incorporating certain assumptions, it is not for the Minister responsible for answering to change those assumptions. Furthermore, that is not the only criticism which can be made of the use to which the hon. Gentleman has put that information, but that will be dealt with clearly and fully by my hon. Friend later.
      Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged. It does not alter the position in the

      517
      slightest. I asked, if the rate of immigration continues, which it will if the Bill remains the same, because the pressure outside will grow—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. When I tabled the Question, it was not known that the 200,000 people in East Africa who have British passports would be wanting to come to this country. If they are entitled to come, as the Home Secretary admitted, then the pressure will grow. Therefore, the rate of immigration will increase and not decrease.
      As for their birth rate, I should have thought that once they came here and the immigrant women had the benefit of our excellent medical facilities it would tend to increase and not decrease. This is the answer given to me. On this assumption, in the lifetime of our grandchildren, in 70 years' time, at this rate of progress, there will be more coloured people in this country than white. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Absolute nonsense."] This is my speech, and I am going to make it.
      I cannot believe that any hon. Member would want to see that happen. I cannot believe that anybody would want to see Britain with a greater number of coloured inhabitants than white. That is why I not only support the continuance of this Act but would like to see increased restrictions imposed, which I am sure the Home Secretary will do in due course. [Interruption.] Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone would not talk. I listened to him patiently.
      Mr. Hogg: I was asked a question by my hon. Friend sitting next to me, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). I am sorry that I disturbed my hon. Friend's speech.
      Sir C. Osborne: I expect to be interrupted by hon. Members opposite but not by my own Front Bench.
      On the basis of the monthly figures which the Home Office kindly sends to me, I calculate that in the first nine months of this year 91,000 new immigrants arrived in this country from India, Pakistan and Jamaica alone. It is true that a large number of them have returned to their countries, but 91,000 new immigrants came here to establish a right to live in this country permanently.
      Mr. Ennals: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee or those who have read the letter which he wrote to the Daily Telegraph on the same subject, but he is well aware from replies to Questions which he has put in the House that the figures from which he is quoting are for all arrivals during that period, including those here on holiday, on business, as visitors on conditions and as students on conditions. If he asked for the number of those who came for settlement, he would find that it is about a quarter of the figure he is giving. I therefore hope he will withdraw the inferences he is drawing from the figures.
      7.30 p.m.
      Sir C. Osborne: But the Home Secretary himself said that many people who came here with temporary permits never went back. He said that he could not trace them.
      Mr. Ennals indicated dissent.
      Sir C. Osborne: I am answering the point made by the Minister in defending his own chief, who this afternoon said that many people who came here with temporary permits did not honour their promise to return.
      Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals rose—
      Sir C. Osborne: The Minister really ought to allow me to make my own speech.
      Mr. Ennals: I am beginning to think that the hon. Member does want to mislead the House. This is not what the Home Secretary said. He was indicating a number of types of evasion, and he said that it was possible that some who came here on conditions did not return. He did not say that this was a large number, and we have no reason to believe that it is a large number.
      Sir C. Osborne: He did not say that it was a small number—he said that he did not know, any more than the hon. Member knows. I am making quite an honest and reasonable case.
      On previous occasions during the last fourteen years when we have argued this problem, it has been said that immigrants would not come to this country if there were no jobs for them and we did not need them. It was said that

      519
      once employment ceased to be excessive, as it was under the Tories, with too many jobs for too few people—what a difference today!—immigrants would cease to come. Today we have 600,000 people totally unemployed and about 1 million extra who are either under-employed or have lost their overtime work—and still the immigrants come. The argument does not hold water.
      I now turn to the most important problem of all. Yesterday a most moderate coloured leader from America—Dr. Martin Luther King—received an honorary degree from Newcastle University. Apropos of what we are discussing, he said,
      "All our troubles could soon be yours."
      He said that we had the makings of a Selma or a Watts situation in this country. This is the thing that should worry hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Let me quote exactly what Dr. Martin Luther King said about this problem. He said:
      "Britain is in the same situation as many of the northern cities of America were at the turn of the century. They did not have legal segregation, but there were latent prejudices in the white community."
      What has caused the explosion in the northern cities of America that produced these terrible and regrettable riots? It was the fact that people had moved from the deep South to the northern cities. The problem became acute.
      I beg the Government to place greater restrictions on immigration because otherwise it will automatically cause the situation to arise that has occurred in America and which no one there seems to be able to solve at the moment.
      Mr. Winnick: Does not the hon. Member agree that to a large extent the trouble in America has been caused by years or even centuries of discrimination against non-whites, and that this is part of the trouble at the moment? Only now are the negroes in America beginning to get their legitimate legal rights as human beings.
      Sir C. Osborne: I do not deny that. All I say is that we should not pretend that the problem of colour does not exist. It is regrettable, but it exists and we must face it. The more colour that is
      520
      brought into the country, with its poverty and its background, the greater the danger that the tragedies that did so much harm in America will be repeated here. It is because of this that I have pleaded all these years for some restriction. Hon. Members who giggle at what I say should read what I said in the House ten, twelve and fourteen years ago.
      My right hon. and learned Friend touched upon one problem to which I want to refer. Why do these immigrants come here? The United Nations estimates the income per capita in this country at 1,680 dollars a year. In India it is 89 dollars and in Pakistan it is 84. This is the honeypot to which these immigrants want to come. If I were a coloured man I should come here like a shot.
      But we are concerned not only with the problem of poverty; there is the immense population problem that is tied up with it. My right hon. and learned Friend said that we must help these people out of their poverty, but at the moment India's population is growing by 1 million per month, and there is nothing that we can do to rescue the Indian people from their deep poverty unless we can also help them to solve their population problem. We cannot solve one problem without solving the other.
      If we really want to get rid of their poverty, we must realise what is involved. Few people in the House or in the country realise that if we did what some hon. Members suggest and had international fair shares, with international Socialism, under which the Indian worker and the English worker shared the same amount from one pool, wages here would be less than 30s. a week. Are the British people prepared to face that? Of course not. But that is the size of the problem. It is a terrifying problem and there is no easy solution.
      About four years ago Mr. Nehru, then Prime Minister of India, was challenged in his own Parliament in relation to this problem. He was told that there were 270 million Indians living on 3½d. a day. My right hon. and learned Friend talked glibly about helping them. We could not help to solve such a problem. All I say is that whilst the poverty of

      521
      these countries runs so deep, and will run deeper because of the increasing population, the pressure to come here will naturally increase. That is why it is important that the Bill should be continued and, in my opinion, strengthened.
      In Rome recently, the Food and Agriculture Organisation issued a statement to the effect that in the last year for which figures were available—1965–66—food production in the three great centres of world population, namely, Latin America, Africa and Asia, had fallen by 2 per cent. whereas population had increased by 70 million. In other words, there were 70 million more mouths to feed with 2 per cent. less food. It is in those areas that the greatest pressure to come to this country arises.
      Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member talks about poverty. He knows that the present immigration restriction relates to people usually with very high skills and standards of living—although he is concerned only with coloured people. I do not see how the restriction on immigration affects his argument about poverty.
      Sir C. Osborne: But that does not arise. It is untrue that they have a high standard of living elsewhere. If they had a high standard of living and high skills they would not want to come here. It is their poverty which drives them here. This is undeniable. It is no use hon. Members opposite tittering. These are the facts of life.
      Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. We have been talking about the number of people who come here on vouchers, and he well knows that the majority—two-thirds—of those admitted for employment are those with high skills, and they are not admitted unless they have high skills. That is the whole nature of the B voucher system.
      Sir C. Osborne: This is true, and the situation is better than it was ten years ago, when anyone came and everyone came, but still, if they are men of high skills and high prosperity, would the hon. Gentleman like to say why they come here, if not to improve themselves.
      Mr. Ennals: Yes. Many doctors, in fact, the majority of doctors, who come to this country on vouchers eventually
      522
      return to their own countries, very much improved as doctors, to benefit their own people.
      Sir C. Osborne: But we are not arguing about them. The problem is not at the doctor level, at the level of the doctors who come and go, and students are welcome here. We are talking of people who come here to stay permanently.
      Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again. We are talking about voucher holders. Apart from Malta, of 7,500 vouchers that are issued 5,500 are for those with special skills, and 37 per cent. of those are doctors, and about 10 per cent. are nurses, and the rest are technological graduates, teachers and others, with special skills which our country needs.
      Sir C. Osborne: And what about those boys of 15 years of age the hon. Gentleman's chief admitted are coming from Pakistan and who can neither speak English nor write their own language?
      Mr. Ennals: I will deal with that when I reply.
      Sir C. Osborne: Of course they are not people with high skills or a high standard of living, and that is why they come.
      I was taking the case, as I have always done, from the point of view of the English people in their own country, and, as I say, we have now got as many immigrants here as we can comfortably contain. When hon. Members talk about our absorbing them, taking them, as it were, into our way of life, again let us be honest with ourselves and say that the Indians, the Pakistanis, have their own language, their own culture, their own religion, their own literature, of which they are justifiably proud. They have no desire to be integrated. They are going to remain here as an alien race in our midst for ever.
      Mr. Winnick: Oh, really.
      Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry it pains the hon. Member.
      Mr. Rose: This is ridiculous.
      Sir C. Osborne: It is true. One hon. Member opposite spoke about his two years as a Member of the House and the letters he has had. I have had thousands of letters over these years from

      523
      ordinary English people who are hectored by this problem and who want this Government to do something to protect their way of life.
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member's supporters?
      Sir C. Osborne: That is what they want. That is what they ask from the Government. So I support the continuance of the Act, and I hope that ultimately the Government will increase the restrictions which are already there because I think they are necessary.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Rose: When I came into this debate I had no intention of speaking, although I have followed this subject very closely since my entry to the House, and I had the honour of serving on the Committee on the Race Relations Bill in 1964, but having heard some of the remarks from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite I do not think that any civilised person in this Committee, listening to them, could fail to be moved to reply to them.
      What is particularly significant is that throughout the tirades we have had about the size of the immigration not one of those hon. Gentlemen has referred to the most important problem of all, which is, what we do in a positive manner to ensure harmony between the different communities which are here. That is very significant.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. It will be recalled that when we started this debate Sir Eric Fletcher, who was then in the Chair, told us precisely that we must not talk about that.
      Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order. A number of hon. Gentlemen have referred to the educational problem, they have referred to the housing problem, they have referred to labour problems. I think that it would be a little difficult at this stage of the debate if questions relating to integration were to be ruled out.
      Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. Is a whole side of this Committee to be castigated for keeping the direction of the Chair? I do not want to control the limits of the debate at all, but it
      524
      really is not, in my submission, either in order or just, that, when we have done our best to keep our remarks within the rules made by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Irving, we should now be castigated for having done so.
      The Deputy Chairman: I did not hear the remarks which the Chairman made when he was occupying the Chair, but the remarks made by any hon. Member must be relevant to the Schedule to the Bill and the Amendments. I will listen with great care to ensure that they are.
      Mr. Rose: I am sure that is true, and I would exempt the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who was so quick to get up on that point of order, from that criticism. I listened with great attention to his speech, and was most impressed by the very statesmanlike and moderate way in which he addressed the Committee, and the way in which he took this admittedly murky subject out of the arena of party politics. I am not for one moment levelling any criticism at the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in his place when certain of his hon. and right hon. Friends addressed the Committee and addressed to the Committee remarks with which I am sure he would not have been in sympathy.
      What I am saying is that what we have heard from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite was merely an echo of old platitudes. We have heard them over very many years, but now they are based on outmoded facts and outmoded figures. What my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) said was correct, that one can never placate the racialists.
      As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said, this is an emotive subject. An emotive subject is not susceptible to reason, and the arguments which hon. Members opposite have put forward, in particular, the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), are not susceptible to reasonable argument and reasonable reply, because however many times he was told there were only 5,000 people who came into this country during this year with permits to work he seemed still to imagine that we were

      525
      facing the kind of situation we faced some years ago, and no amount of reiteration of the facts seemed to have any effect upon him. It must be reaffirmed that in Al these cases they were people who came to a job or people who had particular skills to offer to this country.
      The hon. Member for Louth talked about importing the problem of discrimination, as if in this country discrimination had been born with the importation of coloured immigrants. If the hon. Member would do me the favour of looking at the speeches in this Chamber at the turn of the century he would find equally antediluvian speeches as his own by hon. Members of that time. If he reads, as I have been reading over the last year in connection with some research, the way in which Irish immigrants 100 years ago were spoken of he will find exactly the same kind of comments as those which we have heard from him—a hundred years ago on Irish immigrants. No doubt, if we went back to the Norman times we should find we had singularly antediluvian Normans talking about the Saxons in that way, and Saxons talking about Normans in exactly the same way.
      Mr. Hogg: The Saxons were not represented here.
      Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Member has described my speeches as antediluvian. Could he explain why it is that his Government have now accepted the policy which I advocated in those antediluvian speeches?
      Mr. Rose: I am sure that if they had had a Bill of this nature, and which we are to enact this Session, the Saxons would also have been represented. However, I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is precisely because of antediluvian speeches by those who work on the racial susceptibilities of people that hon. Members are able to talk about coloured people as if, somehow, they were different from us and were not entitled to the same consideration and respect as human beings as we accord to one another.
      If prejudice has been spread which has necessitated certain action, it is thanks to people like the hon. Gentleman. But it does him no credit—[Interruption.]—
      526
      and perhaps he would do me the courtesy of listening to my reply to his question.
      Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has referred to speeches made 100 years ago concerning Irish immigrants. Is that not just the point? The trouble went on until they were assimilated, and the problem is the same today.
      Mr. Rose: But what I am saying is that we have faced the problems before, and we ought to be proud as a nation of the way in which we have overcome them in the past. It is sad that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have so little faith in the country's ability to deal with the problems created by this new type of immigration. The only difference between these problems and those of earlier days is that the people involved have coloured skins.
      We have heard one right hon. Gentleman say that we shall soon have the same population level as that in the United States. However, he cannot possibly have examined the figures properly, and in what he said we have yet another example of a deliberate attempt to alarm people about the number of immigrants who are coming here, in addition to those already here.
      The right hon. Gentleman talked about trouble building up. What I find strange is that he and so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends are not prepared to face the fact that we live in a world in which the majority of people are coloured and, whether we like it or not, we have to live with other people. Trouble will brew up, but our task is to try and find measures whereby we can avoid the kind of racial tensions experienced in other countries and learn precisely from the experience of a country like the United States.
      Not very long ago I was talking to a leading civil rights worker—by no means a black power man—who said that, in addition to the legislation on discrimination which we have, if we had what the Government intend to bring in this Session in the context of employment and housing, we should be able to go some way to avoid the tensions which have been built up in urban areas of the United States. It is precisely because we want to avoid them that we shall support the legislation which is to come from the Government.

      527
      I agree with those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who say that legislation is not enough and of itself will not deal with prejudice. The fact is that not one of them has done anything to condemn racialism and explain to people why it is dangerous, illogical and can only damage the racialists themselves. They have been prepared to ride on the tide of racialism rather than trying to combat it, as is their duty as hon. Members of the House.
      I go on now to a matter which I am sure is not outside the terms of the Amendment, because it is directly relevant to the number of immigrants and coloured persons whom we can integrate over a given period. I should like to see far more done in the way of education and a greater effort made in our schools not only to help with educating immigrant children, but with educating our own children about race relations. So many of us are lamentably gauche when we try to deal with people from another country, especially when they are coloured. We are unsure in our attitudes and much needs to be done to instil in children a fundamental feeling of the one-ness of humanity.
      During the course of the debate, great play has been made with the word "assimilation". What we are trying to do with immigrants is not to assimilate them but to integrate them. No one expects an Irishman, a Jew, a Catholic, or anyone else with a particular creed or history—certainly, the Scots and Welsh have shown their nationalistic sentiments recently—to forget his identity, culture and traditions. No one suggests that a Pakistani should forget the heritage of his culture and language. However, that does not mean that people should not be able to live together in mutual respect in a community and be part of a larger nation.
      The whole history of this country is one based on the integration of different cultures, and many of the traditions in different parts of the country have stayed with us in no small measure. The elementary and fundamental mistake of the right hon. Member for Streatham about assimilation and integration can be of the utmost importance. No one suggests that Indians or Pakistanis should forget the heritages which they enjoy, but, as
      528
      there is a coming together of populations, new situations and cultural patterns are created.
      That is the way in which humanity has always moved, and it is rather saddening, when movement was so free in the past, that we should get to the stage where not only do we want to limit the numbers of immigrants coming in, but where right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it is going too far to take in 2,000 or 3,000 people on work vouchers.
      When one boils down the argument, the point is reached where a lot of noise is made because a total of 5,000 people have been allowed into the country this year on work vouchers. Fundamentally, that is all that the argument is about, and the large figures quoted by the hon. Member for Louth ignore the numbers who have swollen the figure in the shape of dependants of those already here. We are limiting the number allowed in on vouchers, and the hypothesis on which he bases his question is invalidated, because he assumes that we shall go on for ever bringing in the same number of dependants. However, that cannot be possible now that the number of workers coming in on work permits has been restricted.
      Mr. Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate his own attitude to the Committee? Does he support the legislation which limits the number of voucher holders to about 5,000 and that of other categories entering?
      Mr. Rose: At the beginning of the debate, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that we have arrived at a consensus. In ideal circumstances, it is not one which I should prefer, and in that connection, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) may care to read my speech on the subject three years ago. But it is a consensus, and I do not think that it is a subject which ought to be kicked about by the parties because of the enormous dangers to which the use of racial feelings in a political struggle can lead. For that reason, I am prepared to play my part in the consensus, so long as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are, too.
      8.0 p.m.
      I want to comment on the assumption made throughout some of the speeches which we have heard from them that,

      529
      somehow, these people are a drag on us, that they have come here and are damaging our social services and housing efforts. Anyone holding that view should pay a visit to some of the Common Market countries and see the enormous economic miracle which has been made possible in countries like Germany and France, with far more workers coming into the countries from overseas, and the part that they have played in reconstructing those economies.
      For every immigrant who occupies a hospital bed or a house or who seeks assistance from the social services—and their proportion is no higher than that of the rest of the population, though it is a common fallacy that it is—there is another building a house, tending someone in hospital, or paying his contribution to our social security funds for other people to draw. We did not allow them here for their benefit. They came because at a particular time in our history their particular type of labour was necessary in the state of the economy at that time.
      It is a popular and an accepted myth these days on the part of some hon. Gentlemen opposite that somehow these people are a burden and a drag on the economy. If one looks at the history of past immigrant communities, they have also created job opportunities. How many industries in this country were founded by people who at some time or other were immigrants? Immigrants not only take jobs, but they also create jobs. This is one of the rather emotional fallacies of those who have been arguing for further restrictions. To reduce the 5,000 that already exists to a level where no immigrants could come in would take us to the final stage where we would have to put up all barriers to all kinds of immigrants.
      Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) has come in I will deal with his point about the number of British citizens—it should be stressed that they are British citizens, because they have British passports—in East Africa. He mentioned a figure of 1 million. I do not know why he should join the Opposition with these alarmist fantasies about numbers and why he should add fuel to the fires of those who are deliberately playing upon this for political aims, because he will learn to his cost what other people have learned
      530
      in the past, namely, that one cannot have racialism. The only way to deal with it in one's own constituency is to fight it. This is something that one learns by bitter experience.
      Mr. Robert Howarth: I am not trying to compete with racialism. I thought I made that clear at the beginning. I hope my hon. Friend will give me the benefit of the doubt on this. What I was trying to extract from my hon. Friend, and it would be interesting to hear his reply, was the actual numbers. We had this figure of 190,000 from the Home Secretary. Did this or did this not include dependants?
      Mr. Rose: The figure of 190,000 having been quoted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I find it rather odd that an hon. Friend of mine should then quote a swollen figure of 1 million. Having heard the figure given by my right hon. Friend, whom we on this side of the House respect and admire, I do not see why it should have been necessary in any way to inflate the figure that was given. I find this very strange. It may not have included children, but there would seem to be little excuse to quote a figure of 1 million when the figure of 190,000 was quoted. I say to my hon. Friend, in the best of terms and in the friendliest of ways, that this is a very dangerous trap into which to fall.
      We found that there had been a net increase of 4,000. That was why I asked my hon. Friend that question. We have a net increase of 4,000 persons because of this peculiar problem in East Africa. I realise that it would be impossible to accept a sudden influx of 200,000 or 190,000 all at once from a given territory, but that is not the situation that we are facing. I ask my hon. Friend not to be alarmist about it and to rely on the good sense of the Home Secretary to deal with this in a pragmatic way. The problem facing us today is that we have had 4,000 more people, British subjects, coming into this country.
      I address these remarks not to my hon. Friend, but to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham. I wonder how he would feel if these 200,000 people, instead of being coloured British citizens who served the British Commonwealth and Empire in the past in East Africa, happened to be white

      531
      Rhodesians. I wonder what his attitude would then be to the influx of 200,000 people. If his attitude is somewhat different, then the claims that he has made regarding racialism would need a little more scrutiny.
      It is necessary in this sort of atmosphere that at least some voices are heard on this side of the House to combat the kind of assumptions that are made by so many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen and the tide that may be swelling behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone. I would end by paying tribute to his speech, which I believe has done a great deal to take the heat out of this debate. It is unfortunate that some of his hon. and right hon. Friends did not emulate his performance and realise the very dangerous ground upon which they are treading and the kind of fires that could so easily be lighted in this country if encouragement is given by supposedly responsible people to the kind of elements to which my hon. Friend referred whose letters I receive and who show not a political opinion, but rather a psychopathic state of mind.
      The dangers which exist from these people should not be under-estimated. I therefore appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they address their minds to this subject in future, to bear in mind the dangers which may come from the extravagant claims that they make and the alarmist figures that they quote, none of which were in accordance with the facts quoted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Philip Goodhart: Like most of the speakers who have taken part in this debate so far, but unlike the last speaker, I believe that the rate at which this country can absorb immigrants from the Commonwealth or from anywhere else must be related to the number of jobs and the kind of housing available and the number of places available in our schools without producing conditions of strain. It is plain to me that on every one of these counts the present level of immigration is too high.
      Like the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) and many other hon. Members who have spoken, I, too, am concerned about the problem of the
      532
      East African passport holders and the great influx that can suddenly descend upon these shores.
      I contrast the comparative ease with which 86,957 passports have been handed out by the High Commissioner in Nairobi with the difficulties that a constituent of mine has had in the last two weeks, who has been resident in this country for 49 years, having been born in Canada. He has been asked to check on the birth place of his grandfather in this country. Fortunately he had the time and energy to do so and was able to trace his grandfather's birth 130 years ago in Gloucestershire. When one compares the pernickity arrangements which the passport office here insists upon from people who have been resident—in this case for 49 years—with the comparative ease with which these 80,000 passports have gone out from Nairobi, one wonders whether the balance is quite fair.
      I want to see the machinery of immigration made as humane and painless as possible. I have the highest admiration for our immigration officers, but the job that they are now asked to undertake is an impossible one. The pressures that exist at London Airport, where the majority of immigrants to this country now land, make it almost impossible for them to give the immigrants a thorough examination.
      Only 0·3 per cent. of the Commonwealth visitors to this country were refused entry in the course of last year. I believe that only a very small proportion of immigrants is given a thorough interrogation on arrival. Even if one leaves aside the language problem, one is faced with perhaps 100 visitors from India stepping out of a Boeing 707, and 15 minutes after that another 100 or more passengers stepping out of a VC10 or a VC9. One cannot possibly have time to inquire into the background of those who are queuing up and holding out their passports.
      But even if it were possible under the present system to give every immigrant a thorough interrogation on arrival, I do not believe that a port, or an airport, is the place at which it should be done. I agree wholeheartedly with the Wilson Committee when it says in paragraph 61 of its Report that even the simplest interrogation can be an immense strain

      533
      on many visitors after a long journey. Very often these immigrants are unable to speak English, they are in strange surroundings, they may not have been out of their villages before, and suddenly they find themselves confronted with an immigration officer. This is a considerable strain on them, even if everything else is in perfect order. I believe that the real work of assessing whether a person is entitled to come to this country should be done in the country of origin, rather than at the point of entry.
      Paragraph 61 of the Wilson Report talks about the number of people who are refused entry, and says:
      "Exclusion at this stage, when the person concerned may have invested all his property and savings in hopes (however ill-founded) of entering the United Kingdom, can be a crushing blow and a bitter disappointment."
      It goes on to say in paragraph 63:
      "We have been greatly impressed with the desirability of establishing a person's admissibility to this country before he starts on his journey …".
      I am sure that that is right, and I hope that when the whole system of control is overhauled, as the Minister has promised, the certificate of entry will be an essential part of any scheme. Unless it is, this element of inhumanity is bound to be present.
      I have been shocked at the treatment which has been meted out to some immigrants, and potential immigrants, about whose qualifications there is some doubt. Recently I have had brought to my notice by a constituent of mine the case of Mr. Mohan Singh. He came here to try to join his son. He claimed that he was over 60, and his age was challenged when he arrived at London Airport. One knows that the onus of proof is on the immigrant to prove that his age is what he says it is. I do not know whether he was over 60, as he claimed, but I know that he was taken to Brixton Prison on 9th September, and held there until 24th October, when he was deported.
      Quite understandably, Mr. Mohan Singh was terrified by what happened. He had never been out of his village before. Nobody in Brixton could understand his language, and he had no idea of what was going on. It may be that he should never have hoped to enter this country. Perhaps he is not over 60 as he claims. I do not know, and I have
      534
      no way of finding out, but I understand that the case has been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
      I do not see why those about whom there is some doubt, and who have to go through a lengthy period of interrogation, should be sent to a prison or to a remand home. Surely we, as a nation, are well enough off to be able to provide a centre without bars, and without barbed wire round it, where people about whose credentials there is some doubt can be held for a matter of days in comfort and in decent surroundings while their cases are being investigated, rather than put them behind bars and treat them as criminals. After all, it may at this moment be irrational to wish to come and live in this country, but, thank heavens, it is no crime.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. David Marquand: I apologise to the House for intervening in the debate as I have not been here to hear it all, but I do so because it is important that those who believe that the whole subject should be taken out of politics and that the concensus to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) referred should flourish, should make their voices heard.
      We must discuss this whole question in the context of the fact that there are now about one million coloured people in this country, representing about 2 per cent. of the population. Some people may not like this. Personally, I do. I think that the coloured population has an enormous lot to contribute, not only directly, but indirectly because of the cultural contribution which they can bring to broaden and diversify our native culture.
      But even if we do not like it, we have to accept that Britain is now a multiracial society, that there is in this country a sizeable coloured community, and that it will remain here. The children of this community will grow up here, and will be as British as the rest of us, the only difference between them and the host community being that their skins are coloured. This is the context in which we ought to discuss this question. If the coloured British community comes to believe that it is in some sense second-

      535
      class, if it comes to believe that there is on the part of the rest of the population a deep-seated racial animus against it, we will build up the kind of attitude in the coloured community which has caused such terrible tension in the United States. That is the crux of the issue.
      It is therefore vital that two things should happen. In the first place, it is vital that the immigration system should not only be fair but should be seen by the coloured community who are already here to be fair. If the coloured people who are already here believe, rightly or wrongly, that the immigration system is being operated along racialist lines, they will come to only one conclusion—that they are being regarded as second-class citizens, and if they come to this conclusion the end consequences to which I have referred will follow. I therefore welcome the assurance given by the Home Secretary that, on the whole, the recommendations of the Wilson Committee will be taken up by the Government. That is the right way to demonstrate not only that the immigration system is fair but that it shall be demonstrated to be fair.
      At the same time, if we are to avoid the coloured community who are already in this country coming to believe that there exists an unshakable racial prejudice on the part of the majority, to which their only answer would be a response of the kind that has been made by the coloured population in the United States, it is essential that all of us in this House should display a responsible attitude when we are discussing this issue. I am bound to say, however, that some of the speeches from the Conservative benches in the course of this debate have not been particularly responsible.
      We are talking about a very tiny trickle of people with work vouchers—an infinitesimally small trickle. It is true that the number of dependants coming in is a great deal larger than that, but before they start to clamour for the exclusion of dependants, hon. Members opposite should consider carefully whether that would help race relations in this country. I do not thing there can be any other answer than that it would not. It would damage it in two ways. It would mean that part of the coloured community
      536
      would be that much closer to being an all-male community than it is already, with all the social problems that would involve.
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beres-ford Craddock): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but I should be grateful if he would speak up a little more so that we can be sure that his interesting speech can be heard in the Press Gallery.
      Mr. Marquand: Usually I speak too loudly, and I was trying to counteract that tendency. To adopt a policy of restricting the number of dependants would damage race relations in this country, not only because of its direct effect but also because of its indirect effect on the attitude of the coloured community who are already here. I ask hon. Members opposite to beware of this before they start to ride this racialist tiger which some of them have tried to ride this evening.
      I listened with a good deal of disquiet to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). I am sorry that he is not here, because I have not been able to give him notice that I should refer to his speech. I was sorry to hear his quite extraordinary remarks about East Africans with United Kingdom passports. It would be a very large step in British law if we said that some people who hold a United Kingdom passport were to be treated differently from the way in which other holders of United Kingdom passports were treated. It would be even more damaging if those against who we discriminated ali happened to be coloured—and that would happen if the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were adopted. Even if every single holder of one of those passports came to this country the damage done to race relations in Britain would be far less than it would be if we were to decide that coloured holders of United Kingdom passports, for whatever reason they held them should be discriminated against. The consequences would be very serious. Such a decision would help to destroy the hope of building up harmonious race relations in Britain.
      I said that I would speak briefly, and I will keep my promise. We are discussing only the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and we are not discussing possible future legislation, but I should like to say how much I hope that the responsible and restrained tone of the

      537
      speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) rather than the irresponsible and rather xenophobic tone of the right hon. Member for Streatham, will be adopted by the Opposition when we consider that legislation. If it is not, the damage done to race relations in Britain will be very great indeed.
      Mr. Buck: During the course of my speech I shall take up some of the points which the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) has made so interestingly.
      A little while ago the Home Secretary said that our aim in this country must be for all our people, of whatever racial origin, to have equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance. It seems to me that that puts very succinctly what we are aiming for, and I entirely agree with it. Indeed, the speeches from both Front Benches and virtually all the other speeches that we have heard today indicate that it is the unanimous view of the Committee that that is the end to be attained.
      I also believe that to attain this much-desired state it is necessary for us strictly to limit immigration to this country. Here, I may possibly part company from some hon. Members opposite, although no hon. Member opposite today has said that he opposes the tight control of immigation into this country, and I am glad of that because of the general consensus which we have heard. I have always taken that view, and I am glad that on the whole it is a view now accepted by both sides of the House.
      The situation was very different when I first came to the House in 1961. The speeches which we have heard today by the Home Secretary and others were then being made from the Conservative benches. They were being howled down by Socialist Members, and accusations of racialism were being bandied about. I am glad that those days are past, but hon. Members opposite from time to time must remember that there has been a tremendous alteration in the attitude of their Front Bench speakers and others to the view that to attain the state at which we are aiming, of living harmoniously together in this country, it is necessary that we have some limitation
      538
      of immigration. Unless we have a strict limitation, we shall do a great disservice to the country and to those people of different racial origins whom we are very glad to have living here as entirely equal citizens. It is right that they should be regarded as equal citizens in every way possible.
      A certain amount of progress has been made towards securing equality for them in Britain, with no discrimination. I am devoutly glad of this. This is something we must watch, especially in the context of mounting unemployment. I am very pleased that we have not had a repetition of what happend in Notting Hill some years ago. I only hope that, with increasing unemployment, we shall have nothing like it again. One of the reasons why we do not have anything like it is the basic tolerance of the British people and the basic good humour of those who have come from abroad, plus the fact that the vast majority of them are making an extremely useful contribution to the whole of Britain's welfare and economy.
      Having said that we are all agreed on the need for equality and on the need for close control, it is a good thing to turn for a moment to the figures which have been mentioned tonight. Last year, 5,431 people entered as voucher holders. So far this year the figure is about 3,700. I do not think that there is much scope for cutting down here, although there may be some.
      I am disappointed that the Minister who is to reply to the debate is not present. He has two admirable people who, if they will pay attention, will no doubt pass on to him the points which I wish to be cleared up. What I would like to know about the voucher holders who are coming here is whether it has been possible to get from each voucher holder as he enters a statement of the number of dependants whom he may wish to bring in later. This was at one stage intended. I know that it has been tried. Where dependants are brought by voucher holders, it would be interesting to know whether they are regarded as dependants and are included in the total of dependants coming in in any one year. I imagine that this is the case.
      8.30 p.m.
      In particular, the registration point is interesting so that we may know the sort

      539
      of problem we are creating for ourselves in futuro by allowing this number of voucher holders into the country. How many dependants are there? Are the Government insisting upon the registration of dependants of voucher holders as they enter?
      I turn now to the major question of the influx of dependants. It was right in the original legislation to say that a man who was allowed to enter freely and to be, as we have all emphasised, a citizen, should equally have the right to bring his dependants with him. I broadly agree with that. I agree with it for the reasons stated by the Under-Secretary fairly recently in a letter which he circularised to all those who deal with immigration matters. He said this:
      "I believe that family unity is fundamental to good community relations. If a man is living and working here, it is desirable for his family to join him.… Divided families lead to unhappiness, both for the husband here and for the wife and children left fatherless abroad. It is happy family groups who can best be integrated into British life."
      I entirely agree.
      Does this mean, in view of what the Home Secretary said tonight, that we should let in as many as 40,000 dependants, as we did last year? The Home Secretary said tonight—I knew this and I should have mentioned it if he had not done so—that an increasing number of the dependants coming here are those who are very near 16 and who are being brought here to join their fathers alone, leaving their mothers and the remainder of their family in the country of origin.
      If this is what is happening, as many of us suspect, this is defeating the object which we all supported of having united families and keeping families united in Britain when they come here. If this is happening, I believe that the criteria could legitimately be altered. The Home Secretary said that he would look at this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) said, it is often the case when Ministers say that they are looking at a matter and are worried about it that they probably intend to take action about it. I should have thought that it would have been legitimate to take action. It has been suggested that this should be done merely by lowering the age limit of 16. I do not think that that would be right.
      Mr. Eric S. Heller: This is a very interesting point. Surely the position is that the father comes here first. We have agreed that he should come. The family is left at home. The father has to earn money. The children grow up at home and, when they are at the age when they can earn money, they come here. They help to earn the money necessary to bring the entire family here. This has gone on for generations with immigrants all over the world. It is not new. It is acceptable and is fundamental to this question.
      Mr. Buck: I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says when he replies. I share the concern of the Government Front Bench about this matter. I would hope that the father would want to try to reunite the whole family rather than just to bring an elder son here, who will have a very difficult time going to school for a short time until he becomes 16 and then have to go into the labour force. Then, he having come here, the problem presumably accumulates, and I doubt whether families are reunited in this way.
      There is a problem here and the criterion could well be altered. I have no doubt from what the Home Secretary said earlier that he is considering doing that. The purpose of allowing dependants into this country is to reunite the family. If we allow young people in just before they reach the age of 16, it seems to me that a situation is created which is bound to cause concern, as I am sure it does to the Home Secretary and as it certainly does to me.
      Dr. Hugh Gray: Would the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "family"? Is he thinking of the family simply in the Western sense, the nuclear family—husband, wife and children—or is he referring to the extended family which is more common in Asia?
      Mr. Buck: I was referring to the more restricted variety of family—what might be regarded as the statutory family under the original immigration law—and not including common law wives or cousins of which there can be any number.
      The hon. Gentleman has colourfully led me to the next question that I wish to ask, namely, how dependants are checked at the moment. I have gathered

      541
      from earlier answers to questions that an immigrant is restricted to one wife. It is on a monogamous basis. However, I am interested to hear whether it is proposed in present circumstances to assess the state of true dependence as laid down in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—namely, one wife, and children under 16 as of right.
      I should also like to know what inquiries are made into whether there is adequate housing and accommodation for families when they come here. It would seem that no such inquiries are made at the moment, and it is probably outside the ambit of the Act as it is at present drafted. Therefore, there would appear to be a case for an amendment of the Act. I think that it would be cruel to allow dependants to come here when there is no proper, housing and accommodation for them.
      It would seem that the nature of the problem which will confront us in the future is not known. This is a point that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). We should try to get to grips with the problem and find out how many dependants are likely to wish to come here in the future. At the moment, there are in the country a large number of people who have a right to bring their dependants here under the legislation as it is at present drafted. We know that at the moment between 35,000 and 40,000 are coming in each year.
      How long this sort of flow will continue and what sort of numbers are involved is a matter of mere speculation. I do not think that it would be inhumane or wrong to say to those who have already come here, "Over the next nine months"—or whatever period is considered appropriate—"You must tell us what dependants you are likely to wish to be brought over to this country." A register should be established, and only those who are registered—over a very generous period of time—should be allowed to come to this country. This seems legitimate and sensible. There would, of course, be a saving provision covering cases of extreme hardship and so on.
      We ought to know how many people have the right to come to this country under present legislation. Time is going on, and we are gaining no better knowledge of the situation. I urge the Gov-
      542
      ernment to consider introducing some such system of registration. They ought to be in pretty soon.
      I turn now to the Wilson Report on Immigration Appeals. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to the Wilson Committee's recommendations regarding entry certificates. I agree with everything he said, and I go a little further. Like all hon. and right hon. Members, I believe that our immigration control, which I regard as necessary, must be operated in the most humane way possible. What concerns me is that, every year, a substantial number of immigrants are turned back to their country of origin. This happened to 1,339 last year. The number may be miniscule in proportion to the large number of Commonwealth people who are admitted—as has been said, it is about 0·3 per cent.—but in terms of human suffering it is large. Last year, for instance, 1,339 people came, many of them an immense distance, and then, on arrival in this country, they were pitched back. There ought to be a system to eliminate this sort of thing as far as is humanly possible.
      I welcome the Wilson Committee's comments about the need to use, as far as possible, the entry certificate system, under which a certificate is granted in the country of origin which is, virtually, a passport to enter this country. This applies save in certain specified cases, namely, where there has been fraudulent misrepresentation, a fundamental change in circumstances or a criminal record is revealed.
      I part company from the Wilson Committee, however, when it says, in paragraph 70:
      "But general use of the entry certificate system is what we should like to see. The question is by what means this ideal can be more nearly approached. After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to make the use of entry certificates compulsory. As the great majority of aliens who come to the United Kingdom are free from the visa requirement, we consider that it would be out of the question to impose on Commonwealth citizens the same requirement under another name."
      I do not agree with that. In my view, in the majority of cases possession of an entry certificate should be a prerequisite of entry into this country.
      Mr. Brian Harrison: Is my hon. Friend advocating discrimination against Commonwealth migrants as opposed to aliens coming into this country?
      Mr. Buck: If my hon. Friend, neighbour and constituent will bear with me for a moment, the next part of my argument will, I think, meet that point. I was about to say that I found attractive the argument of the Wilson Committee that, because aliens do not have to have visas, we should not impose the same requirement under another name on Commonwealth citizens. In my view, it should be made compulsory for certain categories of people coming here from the Commonwealth—those who come to take up employment, those intending to take up permanent residence, and students.
      At present, to get here they must have, as it were, clearance of some sort, as do aliens. An alien cannot come here to get a job unless he has a labour permit or to study unless he has proof of entry into a university or other regular establishment for students, nor can he take up permanent residence except on proof that he can support himself. Therefore, if it is made compulsory for those categories of people in the Commonwealth nothing is being done which puts them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis aliens.
      I do not think that an entry certificate should be necessary for the person coming here on holiday, but if it is made necessary in other cases for a person to have an entry certificate before coming here then we shall achieve exactly what the Government Front Bench and the Wilson Committee want—we shall preclude in 99 per cent. of cases the awful agony imposed on a person of arriving here and having to be sent back from the port or airport.
      Mr. Ennals: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that a mother and children who arrive to join an immigrant already settled here, and who at present have a legal entitlement to come, would automatically have to be sent home if they arrived without an entry certificate?
      Mr. Buck: Until the system was well known there would have to be a saving clause on humanitarian grounds. But as the hon. Gentleman knows, probably better than I, certain countries at present
      544
      require an entry certificate before emigration is allowed from the country of origin. As soon as that system is made obligatory here in the majority of cases, save for some exceptions concerning human hardship, all countries abroad would have to adopt it. Universality would build up, and most cases of people having to be sent back would be eliminated. It is clear that the Wilson Committee gave this careful thought, and some of its members thought that it was the right solution. I think that it is probably the right solution to have such a system universal and compulsory, except for a saving clause on humanitarian grounds.
      Those are all the remarks I wish to make on the subject. I hope that the considerable number of matters I raised earlier as points of detail will be passed on to the Minister who is to reply. I am glad that there has been broad agreement on both sides of the Committee, but I hope that the possibility of further cutting the numbers of immigrants in the way I have indicated will be given careful consideration by the Government.
      8.45 p.m.
      Miss Joan Lestor: The main tone of the debate has been of people seeking to find ways and means to improve the quality of race relations in the country generally. Coming from a constituency like Eton and Slough, which has a high percentage of coloured immigrants, I should be very foolish if I pretended that there was not a tremendous need for an improvement in the quality of race relations and for a great examination of the way in which we deal with, and help, people coming to this country who have different cultural backgrounds and who can be clearly distinguished because of the colour of their skin.
      The difference between hon. Members, with the exceptions of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), is on whether by further restricting the 5,000 work vouchers issued and the 40,000-odd dependants allowed in we should contribute to improving the quality of race relations and ironing out some of the problems in this country. The hon. Members for Louth and Colchester (Mr. Buck) said that we must

      545
      not forget that the Labour Party changed its attitude on the whole question of controlling immigration when it came to power. The hon. Members made great play of this, and said that the Labour Party could be very liberal about this matter until it was in office.
      But this must be followed up, because it is enormously important. One of the reasons why it was strongly argued by certain hon. Members that it would be unwise artificially to control immigration was that once one starts controlling immigration one upsets the natural flow of people into the country. That is what happened. In the past the figures of immigration into this country ebbed and flowed according to the economic situation here, and most of those who came in were rapidly absorbed into jobs and the social pattern of the community. But once we began controlling them we created certain difficulties. The reason why it is now not possible to go back to the earlier situation is that the pattern of control and of people coming in has changed very rapidly.
      Reference has been made to the fact that the biggest category of immigrants is now dependants of those already here. The right hon. Member for Streatham ought not to be allowed to get away with what he put in a benign and benevolent fashion. It was the most pernicious piece of propaganda dressed up as benevolence that I have ever heard. He said that we should pay the passage back for those of the coloured Commonwealth who would like to go home and give them money to help in resettlement, and then he said that we should restrict the children coming into the country not from the age of 16 but down to 12. If one takes those two things together, the right hon. Gentleman was saying that if we stop the children of coloured immigrants coming into the country we shall force their parents to go back home. This is a very dangerous piece of propaganda.
      Mr. John Page: Is the hon. Lady saying that both the fathers and mothers of immigrant families have come here leaving their children in their native country? If so, that is rather surprising. One can imagine just one parent of a family coming here. But apparently the hon. Lady's suggestion is that in many cases both parents are here and the family will suffer
      546
      unless the children are allowed to join them.
      Miss Lestor: The suggestion was made not by me but by the right hon. Member for Streatham, who advocated that the age of dependants coming here should be cut down to 12. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of passage and settlement money being given to those who wished to go home. My interpretation of that is that the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that by stopping the children coming here we should force the parents to go home.
      In some cases both parents are in this country and have left their children at home. In other cases one parent is here hoping that the other parent will come in the future with the children. A great deal of hardship and misery will be created if we start to legislate that, say, a wife can join her husband here but their children over 12 years of age will not be allowed in.
      Questions have been asked about who should be restricted and how further cuts can be made. The hon. Member for Louth seemed unable to take the point put to him that skilled and professional people are the main categories coming to this country. Dependants form a very large category. Hon. Members have rightly asked what estimate can be made of dependants coming here in future. I am sure that my hon. Friend will deal with the point.
      It seems logical to assume that if the number of people entering the country is cut by a restriction on the issue of vouchers—and the number of vouchers allowed is not being taken up—the number of dependants of those people coming in will also fall. It is, therefore, equally reasonable to assume that, since people will want to have their dependants here, the number of dependants—which I agree reached a certain peak—will decline in future.
      It is important to remember that a certain pattern is created. This has not been realised by those who have agitated for more restrictions. In my constituency more non-English-speaking children have come in since the restrictions were introduced. This means that remarks like those uttered by the right hon. Member for Streatham accelerate the rate at which dependants come here, simply

      547
      because people fear, as many Asian immigrants have, that if the age of a dependent child is reduced to 16, it might be reduced to 10 or even less in future. This is why the restriction argument can create a false pattern.
      Mr. Robert Howarth: My hon. Friend is adducing an interesting theory. However, I should have thought that the more likely explanation is that the large-scale immigration of Asians in the last 10 years or so has meant that most of them are now more settled and have built up the means to make it more possible for them to send for their children, which they might not have been in a position to do several years ago.
      Miss Lestor: In Southall and Eton and Slough we have had Asian immigrants for far longer than many other constituencies. I agree that there is some substance in my hon. Friend's argument; that they are now able to send for their dependants. However, the speed with which many immigrants have sent for their children and other dependants has been accelerated because of their fear that they might not be able to get them in if they delay sending for them. That is why I say that the Minister should deal effectively with the sort of propaganda put out by the right hon. Member for Streatham.
      Hon. Members have again spoken of the question of dispersal. It has been pointed out that although the percentage of coloured people in our community is small, difficulties have arisen because they are concentrated in certain areas. People who constantly speak about dispersing immigrants throughout the community usually argue from the wrong end of the theory. Coloured immigrants settled in certain areas because economic development took place in those areas. Jobs were available for them and while there might have been a housing shortage, employers in those areas were crying out for labour. It was only natural that the immigrants should head for those places.
      It is difficult now to talk in terms of dispersal within the community—of moving whole communities of people to other parts of the country—even if we had good economic development. However, when we have more regional development, people generally will want to move to
      548
      the developing areas, and that will be of considerable help.
      If there is discrimination in employment, as there undoubtedly is, and if that discrimination extends to housing, it is bound to reflect itself in the education pattern in our schools. Indeed, this is happening. Talk of "bus-ing"—moving children in and out of areas—arises only because we have allowed a situation to develop in which there is discrimination in employment extending to discrimination in housing and leading to a detrimental effect in the education pattern. In other words, children have language difficulties and we are confronted with the whole problem about which we are speaking, coupled with these additional difficulties. Had legislation been introduced earlier to solve some of these problems, we would not have created barriers in housing and employment and many of the difficulties which we now face would have begun to solve themselves.
      They did not, because we looked at this rather too late. As someone from a constituency with a large immigrant population, and as one who has lived in such an area, I do not think that further restriction, even if we could do it, which I doubt, upon the figures given to us for voucher holders and dependants would contribute anything towards improving race relations.
      Once one begins implying, by word or deed, that there is something undesirable about a person because he is black, then from that point of view one makes race relations worse. One has to look at it from the other point of view and deal with the existing problems of race relations and people with different cultures. It is my view, and I may be one of the few people who hold this view, that we have restricted too soon and legislated too late. I hope that now we will make that up and go ahead with legislation and try to deal with the problem of immigration and cultural differences by improving the quality of life in this country.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Page: Having heard every speech made in this Committee on this subject, I feel that everyone from the opposite benches, with the notable exception of the Home Secretary, has declared that hon. Members on this side who do not agree with the policies of the speaker are racialists and are tarnished with the

      549
      scars of colour prejudice. This was said even in a courageous speech by the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth).
      I want to state clearly at the beginning of my speech, in which I shall recommend further restrictions, that my sole object in doing so is to improve the relationship between those who have already immigrated and settled here and avoid the very real danger, unless further steps are taken soon, of there growing a belief in the minds of the native population that immigrants are a nuisance. There is a danger that they may achieve the second-class status which all of us so desperately want to avoid.
      On the other hand, there was a real note of complacency in the Home Secretary's speech. It was a well-ordered and convincing speech, but he gave the impression that everything that needed to be done had been done. He said there have only been 3,500 voucher holders admitted so far this year and that we are well on the way to getting out of our difficulties. This is a complacent view and the numbers of immigrants still entering the country are really dangerous in the context of future years.
      We must look at the official figures for voucher holders, dependants and settlers from 1963 until today. In 1963, the total was 60,000, in 1964, 56,000, 1965, 57,000, in 1966, 50,000 and by forecasting this present year by three months remaining I think we will arrive at a figure of 60,000, made up of 50,000 voucher holders and dependants and 100,000 arrivals from East Africa, which the Home Secretary gave in a separate category. To that number must be added, although it does not form part of my argument, the 17,000 aliens and families who will be arriving. Therefore, we are still dealing with a problem not of 3,500 skilled workers but of 60,000 immigrants in general.
      In addition to the 220,000 immigrants who have arrived since 1963, a further 60,000 this year—and I see no reason why there should not be a further 60,000 or more next year—constitutes too large a number for this country to absorb in three ma in fields: housing, schooling and jobs. These 60,000 new immigrants will need 20,000 homes. All of us who have experience and knowledge of the areas
      550
      in which immigrants like to settle realise that overcrowding in housing is already a major worry. It must be a great worry in Eton and Slough and in every other part of the country where large numbers of immigrants live.
      There is a recent report about a terrace of houses near High Wycombe with people in the terrace hearing strange noises at night. It was discovered from one house which had been purchased by an immigrant that all through the attics above the other houses immigrant families were living. It is shocking that such conditions should be allowed. In view of the building figures and the home-providing figures, it is too much of a burden to put on top of those already in need a requirement for another 20,000 homes.
      Mr. Ennals: I do not want to demolish the hon. Gentleman's argument, but perhaps he would think it relevant that almost three times as many people emigrate from Britain to other parts of the world as immigrants who come here.
      Mr. Page: The Under-Secretary made that point earlier in an intervention—
      Mr. Ennals: No.
      Mr. Page: Then it was made by another member of the Government Front Bench. But emigration from this country is traditional. It is accepted. The new figures are arrived at after taking into consideration the number of emigrants which one can normally be led to expect.
      The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) mentioned her dislike—and I have the same dislike—of what she called discrimination in housing. There is a fear—it has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton, East and others—among British property owners, of immigrant families buying houses next door to them or in their area. This is a fear which we should like to believe did not exist and should not exist. I am sure that most ordinary British families would not object to having the Maharajah of Cooch Behar living in the house next door.
      I have had pointed out to me that the condition of a house very near my constituency bought by an immigrant family has been allowed to deteriorate. It is overcrowded. The garden is overgrown.

      551
      But what creates the prejudice, which I believe all hon. Members feel that we must try to avoid, is the fact that at weekends and other times live birds are pegged out in the garden in a ritual method of slaughter which can be seen from the windows of the houses next door. I do not say that it is not right and natural for the immigrants to wish to follow those means of eating, which probably have a religious background, but it is not surprising that people who live next door do not enjoy it. That is why I feel so strongly that we must try to control the extra number of immigrants coming here until those who are already here have had an opportunity of being assimilated by the local population with whom they live.
      I should like to turn to the problem of jobs, from two points of view. First, the Home Secretary said that voucher holders were skilled men with a technical background. I have said again and again that it is a shame that we in this country allow ourselves to be the recipients of the brain drain from the under-developed countries. For example, some of the doctors may come here for further study, but others remain here, living in this country and serving us, when the need in the developing countries is so much greater than our need. We should not be complacent about that. I am prepared to accept that it may be necessary to receive unskilled people, but for us to take away from the developing countries the men they most need to help them to improve themselves is a shame on our community.
      The Home Secretary said that immigration does not cause unemployment and that there are no United Kingdom citizens to take the jobs given to those who receive labour vouchers. That is only half the story. I believe that immigration, especially taking account of its effect over the years, must result in fewer jobs being available for British nationals. I am confident that if there had been no immigration from the Commonwealth into this country in the last ten years, there would be no location of industry problem for us to overcome. If the immigrant workers had not come into the already overcrowded, prosperous
      552
      areas in the South-East and the Midlands, companies in those areas would have been compelled to move out to the areas with pockets of high unemployment and to set up plant to mnaufacture their products in those areas.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the hon. Member really suggesting that Birmingham Corporation would have moved its buses out to the areas where workers are being unemployed?
      Mr. Page: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for having led me astray so attractively. Had there not been immigrants working on the buses we should now have the sensible arrangement of one-man buses, with highly paid—
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Beresford Craddock): Order. I know we have had fairly wide latitude, but I feel that the hon. Member is going just a little too wide, and I hope that he will get back to the point at issue.
      Mr. Page: I was led astray, and I must apologise to the Committee for having succumbed to the red herring which was drawn across the lucid and objective path I was trying to follow.
      I should like to see the immigration laws changed so that it would be made absolutely clear to future immigrants to this country on any kind of permit that, for as far as could be envisaged into the foreseeable future, they would not be able to bring their families with them. This would mean that single men would come to this country, and that would probably be advantageous for them and for this country.
      Secondly, the proposition put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and endorsed by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), which has dramatic overtones, that there should be a declaration by existing immigrants of the number of their families whom they might at some time wish to bring into this country is one which I think should be followed up forthwith, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will examine that and consider it very seriously.
      Thirdly, the Home Secretary has said that he is examining the problem of the

      553
      East Africans who have United Kingdom citizenship and United Kingdom passports. I t is a very difficult problem and one I can see a lot of difficulties in solving. On the other hand, to leave for 250,000 people who have that kind of passport an open door through which they can have free entry at any time in the future would be something which the public would not be prepared to stand.
      Lastly, I also think that there should be a plan to help with the repatriation of any immigrants who wish to return to their own homes. As the Home Secretary said in his speech today, we want those who come here to enjoy their lives. And so do I. This is what we have really got to try to achieve. The British people are the most tolerant in the world, but I believe that if too great a pressure of numbers of immigrants is placed on them they will find the burden becomes intolerable. I hope that steps will be taken to see that the numbers are restricted so that absorption and complete unity with the British natives will be possible for future immigrants.
      Mr. Heffer: I want to make one or two remarks about some of the speeches which I have heard this evening and relate them to past discussions in the House.
      First of all, I shall take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who spoke about the problems which immigrant families, with their different cultural backgrounds, cause to those whom he terms the natives of this country.
      The street in which I live in Liverpool is a very good example of multiracialism. We have coloured families, families from the Continent and families from other parts of the world. The only family with whom we ever had difficulty was that of a white painter who got drunk on Saturday nights and beat his wife, and it greatly distressed the coloured family who lived opposite. Every Saturday there was a terrible row in the street which we had to go and sort out. I put that forward to indicate that it is not necessarily immigrant families who cause difficulties in neighbourhoods. Some of our own people are pretty good at it.
      I come from a city which has a record in race relations which is second to none. At the time of the trouble in places like
      554
      Notting Hill and Nottingham, there were no difficulties in Liverpool. We have had immigrants coming into Liverpool since the first brick was laid in the city. Indeed, Liverpool was built by Irish immigrants, from the north and the south. When one talks about mixed marriages in Liverpool one does not mean marriages between white and coloured people but between Catholics and Protestants. That is where trouble arises in our city, not between the coloured and white populations, who have learned to live with each other.
      Obviously there are tensions between individuals at times, particularly when a coloured man finds difficulty in getting a job. The fact has to be faced that if a white man and a coloured man go for the same job, sometimes the white man gets it simply because he is white. That is a situation which is bound to create tension in the coloured community. However, it is not a question of whether we should have more immigrants in. It is much more a matter of sorting out the problems between the races.
      We have had problems of overcrowding in Liverpool ever since the city was built. Reading the history of the city, one finds reports of Irish families coming in their thousands to live in the cellars of the city where all sorts of diseases abounded, resulting ultimately in the first glimmerings of a municipal health service. But it sorted itself out. We are all Liverpudlians, whether we are coloured or white. We live with each other, and that is something which our people have to learn.
      Some of the speeches which we have heard from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been excellent. Others did not help matters, because they raised unnecessary issues. We have heard about birds being pegged out on lines. However, we must accept that there are different traditions and cultural backgrounds. There always are when there is an influx of immigrants from another part of the world. Things take time to adjust themselves.
      It is important to ensure that we do not develop ghettoes in our cities. Unfortunately, that is the present tendency. The Liverpool, 8, area, for example, is almost wholly coloured. Overcrowding goes on there. We have to make certain that these people are given the same

      555
      opportunity as other sections of the community of taking council houses and moving into other estates. This is our responsibility and this is the important thing that we have to deal with in relation to this question.
      The hon. Member for Harrow, West said that if we had not had all these immigrants in we would not have the unemployment problems which we have in areas like Liverpool and so on. I would point out that if we had not had the Italian immigrants we would not have had a brickmaking industry in Bedford. Certain sections of our industry exist because of the immigrant workers from all parts of the world. Our transport system, whether it is the underground in London or the Liverpool buses, could not operate without the immigrants, most of them coloured.
      Our hospital service is in the same category. Does anyone when he goes to hospital, say, "This fellow is coloured. I do not want him." Of course not. He is only too delighted to receive help, especially if he is at death's door. He does not care who it is; he just wants to get better.
      When we analyse the problem these are extraneous questions, but let us come to the serious question about immigrants coming in. What is the actual position? We have had the figures before, but we might as well have them again, because the whole world should know time and time again what the real situation is. In 1966 there were 5,461 of both categories. The argument will be: what about the 40,000 dependants? My hon. Friend made it clear that there are three times as many people emigrating every year to various parts of the world than there are immigrants coming in. It is not a great number of people; it is a reasonable number. My opinion is that we were a bit too restrictive. I was not in favour of the Act when it was introduced, because it seemed to be a bit of backsliding from the firm and courageous decisions which the Labour Party always took in relation to Commonwealth immigration into this country.
      I do not want to take up the time of the House further on this question. I have made most of the points that I wanted to make, but I felt I ought to intervene because of some of the points that were made.
      556
      I conclude by reiterating what has been said in relation to immigrants coming in and what we have to do. First, it is essential that they have equal opportunities, irrespective of their colour, race or religion. This is a tenet which every civilised human being ought to accept. We cannot ask people coming into have less than what we have. I am sorry that we do not have a few coloured immigrants on benches on both sides of the House. I long to see the day when this happens.
      Secondly, we must recognise that they have cultural diversity. Not only does the odd individual peg out a few birds on a line, but they give us magnificent enjoyment with their different types of music. In Liverpool I enjoy going to parties run by immigrants from various parts of the world and listening to music different from that which I normally hear. Food, too, is very important, and the more restaurants there are to provide us with Indian and Pakistani food, the better.
      We must be tolerant with each other. This is an essential part of our modern civilisation, but I hope that when people talk about tolerance, they will mean it, because I often hear people saying that they want to be tolerant, that they believe in tolerance, but the next sentence destroys what has just been said, and there is no reality about it at all.
      We must keep before us the aims which have been outlined today. I hope that this discussion will be a small contribution to making Britain more tolerant, to making certain that we do not get the kind of tensions which have been created in the United States, resulting in race riots and that sort of thing. At all costs we must take every possible step to ensure that that does not happen here. We must do it, not by further restrictions on immigration, but by learning to live with each other as equal partners in an equal world.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Iremonger: The Committee always appreciates the down-to-earth sincerity of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) I thought that he made a very hopeful, helpful and sensible speech. I hope that I shall succeed in striking the right balance between tolerance and intolerance, as he advocated.

      557
      I thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who could not possibly have been less aggressive or objectionable in what he said in expressing feelings and anxieties which, however unfortunate, are deep and genuine.
      I would like to follow the hon. Gentleman on one point, because, as he frankly said at the beginning of his speech, he was originally opposed to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. He was one of the many hon. Gentlemen opposite who wished the Labour Party to reverse the policy of the Conservative Government, but what I have never understood about those who took that position, and I have never had a fair answer from any of them, is whether they did then, and do now, advocate absolute unrestricted entry? If they do not, what degree of restriction do they advocate? I have never been able to see where they would have drawn the line, or, if they would themselves have drawn a line anywhere, why they were so adamant in not wanting us to draw one where we did.
      I was enormously heartened, as other hon. Members were, by the memorable speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I thought that, as so often, he expressed the feelings of the heart and soul of the Conservative Party—robust and sanguine, practical and humane; and I only hope that it will be recognised by his supporters, and throughout the country, that it is his voice, and not the voice of everyone who purports to speak for the Conservative Party, which represents our attitude and what should be our policy.
      It might not be considered out of place if I said in this Committee, as I have said repeatedly elsewhere, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the party specifically said during the last General Election that he was utterly opposed to racialism. I think that his words were, "I will not have anyone who has anything to do with it in my party". This should be on record as the unequivocal statement of the Conservative Party's position.
      The control of immigrants under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which the Committee is asked to continue for a further 12 months, must obviously be
      558
      maintained, but it is equally obvious—I am glad that the Home Secretary acknowledged this—that the Act itself is far from perfect and requires tightening up in certain respects. There is much public disquiet about the possible evasion of immigrant control by adults and also through the abuse of the right of entry for dependants. It is somewhat reassuring to know that the Home Secretary has future permanent legislation in mind and that such loopholes will be stopped up when he introduces it.
      I hope that when the time comes he will adopt the suggestion put forward from this side of the Committee that every immigrant, upon entry, should be obliged to register the dependants whom he will ask to be permitted to join him later. I would also like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the desirability of making the grant of vouchers dependent upon the number of dependants in the pipeline, and our community's ability to absorb them, assuming that the influx of immigrants is to continue in future.
      I was disappointed at some omissions from the Home Secretary's speech. First, in my opinion there must be provision for compulsory health checks of dependants on arrival, such as now operate for voucher holders, and also proper provision for the following up of those health checks by the medical officers of health of local authorities. Secondly, provision should be made to require deposits from immigrants in respect of themselves and their dependants, in order to relieve the public of this country from the expense of immigrants' return passages in the event of their deportation.
      Thirdly, I should like it to be made compulsory for any immigrant who is convicted of incitement to racial hatred to be deported. The recent developments in the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination and the reports of Black Muslim speeches made in this country indicate the potential for mischief which exists in Britain today. If we natives so behave as to deserve the hatred of immigrants, no attempts at bottling it up by law or punishing individual cases will save us or serve us—but unjustified mischief can and should be nipped in the bud.
      I say this without any fear of accusations of undue partisanship from hon.

      559
      Members opposite, because it was I who introduced—with absolutely no support from my Government—a Public Order (Amendment) Bill in 1962, the provisions of which subsequently were incorporated in the Race Relations Act. My Bill would have made it a statutory offence, as it had already been an offence in case law, to incite to racial hatred in such a way as to cause a breach of public order. It is only right that this part of our law should be seen to operate both ways, and to demonstrate that incitement to hatred against one community is no better than incitement to hatred against another.
      One point referred to by the Home Secretary—and I assume that he was in order in mentioning it—rather concerned me. I found it far from satisfactory to know that anything from 6,000 to 10,000 immigrants from East Africa may be expected to come here every year, totally exempt from control, and that there are about 150,000 such United Kingdom citizens who may eventually come here from East Africa.
      Far from envisaging the discontinuance of the Act, which one understood was the desire and object of the party opposite when they were in opposition, I want it improved. I want it made more strict in form and operated with greater strictness. I should like to go further, for reasons which I hope to explain and which are not inhumane but realistic, and attuned to the needs and anxieties of the people whom I represent.
      I think that there should now be, for an indefinite period, a total stop to the entry of Commonwealth citizens. It really is time now to cry, "Enough". [AN HON. MEMBER: "Doctors?"] Yes, doctors and all. It is time to cry enough, with one saving reservation. I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and the Home Secretary said in this regard: I would not include in this embargo the entry of the dependants of those who are already here.
      I say this because it is, I believe, the necessary prerequisite of the prime objective which we all should pursue, namely, the achievement and the maintenance of social harmony among all sections of the people of Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said, our people
      560
      are as decent, as tolerant and as kind as any to be found on this wicked planet. The sense of justice and fair play on which we pride ourselves is such that xenophobia and racial hatred do not readily flourish among us.
      However, I think that we in the House of Commons should recognise frankly the profound anxiety and sense of shock which the sudden precipitation of a vast influx of people of alien stock and culture has had on our people. Do not let us fool ourselves that this sense of anxiety and shock is confined to the unbalanced sort of person who writes rude letters to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick). It affects many millions of normal, decent, kindly people who are not racialists or anything like it, who would be outraged at the suggestion that they were, and whose only peculiarity is that they fancy that they have their heads screwed on the right way and can tell a hawk from a handsaw.
      I say this to the Government. In the interests of the maintenance of racial harmony, do not push these people too far. Our history and traditions are very different from those in the United States. Therefore, I do not think that the immigrants here now or their descendants need necessarily develop into the sort of problem posed by the negro in America. But, even taking the most optimistic view, I think that the Government and all of us in our constituencies have an immense task of public education and leadership if we are to maintain and achieve social harmony in Britain in the years to come.
      I do not think that this task is possible of fulfilment if the numbers of immigrants grow appreciably more than at present and in fact are not seen to be consciously kept down to the level at which they are now. Unless the Government are seen to call a halt, they will forfeit the public confidence they need and so make their task of public education and leadership quite impossible.
      To be more constructive, continuing the Act, as we must, and applying it wisely and strictly, as I hope that we will, it is up to us to give support, sympathy and encouragement to the immigrants who are here now, and especially to their hosts our fellow countrymen, the ordinary people of Britain, who are faced

      561
      with a psychological crisis such as this nation has not had to face in its history.
      I have always been concerned and interested in this, but now I am becoming personally involved, because there is an increasing number of West Indians, Indians and other immigrants coming into my constituency. I want to try to help them to feel welcome among the people that I represent. I want my own people, whom I have represented in Parliament for 13½ years, to feel welcoming towards them. If they do not feel it, the whole community will go sour—and quite soon, too—because we cannot pretend about this sort of thing. It is no use our saying what people ought to feel. It is what they really feel that matters. Their feelings will to some extent be influenced by the attitude the Government and we in Parliament take in our dealings with the public.
      Assuming that the Act is continued, as I wish it to be, and stringently operated, as I think that it should be, the question arises of what one ought to do and what hope there is of assisting any Government in their task of public reconciliation.
      I must say that in seeking advice and guidance from my own constituents and leading members of the community in my constituency I have found very little constructive response, although there is some public awareness of this problem. I was asked a little while ago to speak at a seminar of sixth form young men and women from local grammar schools on the subject of "You and Your Neighbour", organised by a rabbi of the Reformed Synagogue in my constituency—a man of great insight and imagination, as may be exemplified by a very remarkable action that he took in trying to reconcile his own Jewish community to the place in the world which a new Germany, one hopes, has taken.
      The rabbi conceived the bold project of bringing over a large number of children of German parents to stay in Jewish homes in the hope that those who felt such implacable bitterness might be reconciled by making contact with the new generation whose innoncence might be presumed. I thought that was a very bold and imaginative thing to do. It is not insignificant that this man who had that kind of insight and boldness conceived the idea of bringing to my con-
      562
      stituents' attention the psychological crisis with which they were faced in trying to deal with the influx of immigrants.
      I said to those young people, the most intelligent children of my constituents, that I would be very glad to have their views and their outlook and to same some idea of their attitude and any comments they might offer. I said to them that they were perhaps the most privileged people in the world, and they received that observation with derisive disbelief. I suppose they thought that one could not be privileged unless one had been to Eton. I merely asked them to compare their breakfast with what they would have had if they had been Indians.
      I pointed out to them that it is a tradition of any civilisation, let alone a Christian civilisation, that strangers and people in less powerful positions than oneself should be given every possible assistance. I pointed out that the people who came to this country as immigrants from overseas are not inferior people with a lower standard of culture necessarily; that, in fact, these are people who are embarking on a very great adventure. They are people who have taken a great plunge in life. They are the very best men and the best families from their communities. They are coming to a country which is, to put it at the very least, rather cold. They are coming among a community which, however warmhearted, is not always very demonstrative, particularly in comparison with the sort of people they live with in their own communities. I said it was up to us in this country to consider what we were going to do about making them feel welcome, which they do not automatically feel, especially in the face of hostility which many people manifest towards them.
      9.45 p.m.
      I got absolutely no response whatsoever, although I specifically invited all those who listened to my submissions to let me have their views and suggestions. I am afraid, therefore, that the task that I have referred to, the Government's task of public education and the stimulating of awareness and sympathy, is not very easy; and even the most imaginative and receptive of the people we have to deal with, those who are just completing their education, are not altogether alive to the

      563
      difficulty or the possibilities of help that they can give.
      I have observed in my constituency people who are reacting constructively to this problem. We have a very fine Indian association. The elected members of the local council have very good relations with the leading members of the Indian community. I am glad to see that the Conservative Party has made constructive and positive efforts to make contact with the leaders of local immigrant communities, and the local Rotary is actively interesting itself in the problem.
      None the less, I fear that those of us who are concerned about this matter, as all in this Committee must be, are somewhat ahead of public opinion. The great bulk of ordinary, decent British people are filled with misgiving and anxiety, totally without guidance and leadership, and, if we are not very careful, public opinion will go sour.
      One ought, therefore, to ask oneself what it is that we should be trying to do, assuming that the Act is continued and its machinery strictly operated. First, we should recognise that talk of integration is totally misconceived and absolute rot. I myself, if I were a stranger in a strange country, being the English mongrel that I am, and proud of it, would not want to be integrated with anybody. I am proud of myself, my heritage, my traditions, and my background. I want to be on good terms with my neighbours, but I do not want to be integrated. The only people I want to be integrated with are my wife and family.
      So far as integration is concerned, I am perfectly satisfied with myself as I am. I believe that this applies—it would be an insult to say otherwise—to the Pakistanis, with their great religion, history and culture. It applies to the Hindus. It applies very largely to the West Indians, who also, though they are a Christian people, and are proud of their British connection, are very much a distinct community.
      We ought not to hold out the will-o'-the-wisp of integration. We should try, on the contrary, to encourage immigrant people to maintain their pride in their individuality and their culture, assuring them not of any desire on our part to integrate anyone against his will, but
      564
      assuring them rather of our respect and good will.
      Secondly, we ought far more seriously to recognise the reality of the fears of our own people. There are fears in respect of schools, fears in respect of the standard of education to be given to the children of ratepayers who are bound to wonder whether their children are really getting the best possible chance in life if they have to learn with others who, perhaps, are not masters even of our native language. We ought to recognise the anxieties in respect of housing, both local authority and private, especially anxieties about the fall in the value of houses which takes place when immigrants come into a district.
      I ask hon. Members to envisage themselves in the position of one who has put his life savings, £1,000 or so, into a house on mortgage and who then sees the value of that house fall to an extent which pretty well represents all he has put into it, leaving just the mortgaged value. It is not funny. It is all very well to talk Pharisaically and sanctimoniously. Say that sort of thing to my constituents and they will soon tell one of the responsibility which they have to their wives and families, who are the ones for whom they have prime concern. And so they should. It is perfectly right. It is a sign not of their hostility to immigrant communities, but of their sense of responsibility towards their own people.
      We ought also to recognise that there is a great basis of justification in the objections which people have to the different ideas which many in immigrant communities have concerning nuisances, public and private, noise, sanitation, and so on. These are real objections. It is all very well for hon. Members who do not have to put up with that sort of thing to say that it does not matter, or that, if they had to put up with it, they would not mind. They have got to come to terms with the people whom they represent, who do mind. It is no good telling them that they ought not to.
      There is another real problem which I have not heard mentioned in the debate, though I should have expected the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State to be very much aware of it. I am greatly worried about the problem of children in the care of local authorities who are coloured or "half-caste", as my

      565
      right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) put it, rather unfortunately, I thought, with respect. It is quite appalling, when one goes to any local authority establishment which has children in care, to see the large number of coloured children there in care, mostly West Indian, some African and many of mixed race. I cannot help feeling that the classic sociological background calculated to produce the psychopathic misfit must be the background of a child of a mixed marriage or other union brought up in a local authority home and separated from parents.
      I am sorry that my right hon. Friend for Streatham is not in his place. What he said about half-caste children might have been interpreted as sounding a little heartless, but I do not think that he meant it like that. With all the heart, sympathy and insight in the world, though, if one looks behind what he said, one sees a very real social and psychological problem for a whole generation of children, who may number thousands. That is an aspect of the difficulty of reconciling the immigrant communities with the host community which we should frankly recognise, and try to deal with as a genuine anxiety.
      Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Israeli authorities had, and still have, the same problem over their children from immigrant families? There is a real problem in Israel of the maladjusted children from immigrant families, and it has nothing to do with colour. The problem exists in all countries where there is an influx of immigrants.
      Mr. Iremonger: I am absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I only indicated the existence of colour because it helps one to recognise that these children were of immigrant parents. What I said about the children of immigrant parents in care applies equally to many other children in care. It is the problem of the deprived child who is not brought up in a loving family relationship. There seems to me to be a distressing and depressingly large proportion of such children of obviously immigrant origin.
      Mr. Rose: Is not this very largely because of the difficulty of adoption, and is this not a rather sad reflection, not on
      566
      the immigrants, but on the host community in its attitude to adoption of immigrant children?
      Mr. Iremonger: That may well be so, but it is a diagnosis rather than a prescription for treatment. Since the hon. Gentleman has such an interest in, and an insight into, this matter perhaps he would agree that very largely these are the children of students. This is particularly difficult, because they would not want them adopted. Often through ignorance rather than callousness they are apt to get rid of their children while doing their studies and while their wives are working, not realising that before bringing them back into family life irreparable harm may have been done to their development.
      Sir Douglas Glover: With regard to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said about the position in Israel, the most difficult problem there was when a ship arrived from India under Israel's open immigration system and 600 people who were very dark-skinned and had the traditions of the Indian Continent got off. I think that every Israeli Minister would say that they have been the most difficult community to integrate into the economic and social life of Israel out of all the immigrants from all over the world. Israel really has a problem there.
      Mr. Iremonger: My hon. Friend has usefully drawn the Committee's attention to the underlying reality that the problem is not a matter of race or colour. It is a matter of different culture and the difficulty of mixing which has been the same all over the world and all through history. The human being is a very slow-developing animal, and the problem is likely to be with us for some time.
      We should recognise that integration is not really the right way to look at our objectives, and the reality of the home population's fears. We should try further to see that local authorities are more active in the personal involvement of elected members and responsible officers in the affairs and difficulties of the immigrant communities. I hope that the Home Secretary will think that this would be a useful thing for him to promote, possibly through the Race Relations Board. I should like to see the

      567
      alien communities in close touch with their elected representatives, going to them and holding them responsible for the difficulties they encounter in their relationships with the host community.
      If the responsibility were put more roundly on local authorities by the Home Secretary it would be very helpful in getting active participation. After all, once people start trying to help with something they usually take a very much less prejudiced and biased view of the difficulties than if they are merely standing by criticising.
      It being Ten o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Iremonger: Fourthly, we must maintain absolute insistence on equality of rights and opportunity and of equality before the law for all the inhabitants of the country and subjects of the Queen, and we must ensure that the law before which equality is maintained is right, just and fair and is seen to be so by all sections of the community. At the risk of being momentarily out of order, I would say that that will be a very special responsibility upon us when we consider the right hon. Gentleman's Race Relations Bill.
  It is a condition of decent relations that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act should remain in force, and, indeed, be operated more strictly, and, therefore, I oppose the Amendment.
  Mr. Ennals: This has on the whole been a very constructive debate, from both sides of the Committee. The tone
  568
  for it was set by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in a speech which was not only very moving but extremely constructive. On a subject like this it is extremely helpful that we should both start and end, whatever disagreement there may be among individual hon. Members, with fundamental agreement between the two Front Benches. This has been so.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that our two basic theses were, first, that there must be a fair and reasonable restriction on the entry of immigrants, and, secondly, that there must be complete equality for all our citizens, whatever their colour or race. It is from this point of view that I start.
  I and the Government utterly reject the argument put forward by some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who has apologised to me for his absence at this moment. Their thesis was that all immigration should cease. This would be monstrous. I believe that it would be so because it would bring great hardship among those who have already settled here.
  While I can understand certain hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that we should look at the question of dependants or voucher holders—I understand these points of view; whether or not I accept them I shall come to later—to suggest that there should not be the opportunity for a wife and children to join the husband who has come here—who came here perhaps years ago, got himself a job, worked hard an saved his money knowing that he would have family reunification here—is an inhuman and immoral thing to suggest. I was glad that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone dissociated himself from that request.
  I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen who have put forward this proposal have really thought of the effect it would have on immigrants in this country. They have been talking about the importance of equality for all citizens, but one of the most important needs of citizens is some security. If they are threatened with the prospect of their wives and children not being able to join them, this produces an element of insecurity which makes it

  569
  more difficult for them to settle down in our community.
  It would be helpful if we got the question of numbers in some proportion because it has been out of proportion in the contributions of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) referred to aliens and gave the figure, which was not far wrong, of the gross annual addition to our population. The figure is actually 17,407. He gave the figure of 17,585. His arithmetic is, therefore, very good. This is the average addition to the population from alien sources.
  The figure I am giving is the gross figure and makes no allowance for wastage due to outward emigration and death. It is due to workers arriving here and qualifying, after four years in approved employment, to settle here. The figure of 17,407 includes those who come here to join them, usually husbands and wipes, the children who join them, in addition in some cases to elderly parents.
  Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman described it as a gross figure while I described it as a net figure. I did so because if one calls it a gross figure it gives the impression that it relates to arrivals only. The figure which the hon. Gentleman and I have arrived at as an annual average is arrived at by taking, first, those who come in and, secondly, by then deducting those who go out or are naturalised. Perhaps one should then deduct those who die; and that may be the reason for the difference between the figure which I gave and that given by the Minister.
  Mr. Ennals: I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in error. As I understand the position, this is the gross annual addition including—and it therefore takes into consideration the factors to which he referred—those who might leave. We are talking about aliens who arrive and leave; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to consider the matter further, we can do so by correspondence.
  The figure I have given is substantially less than the number of Commonwealth citizens who come here for settlement. If we put together Commonwealth immigrants and aliens—and even those
  570
  coming from East Africa—we get a total of something over 100,000 a year. This is if we reckon on between 15,000 and 20,000 aliens a year, Commonwealth citizens—voucher holders and dependants—numbering 50,000 a year, and 10,000 a year from East Africa—which is higher than the average.
  If we then consider the number of emigrants who go from this country to other countries, we see that the annual average in the last few years has been about 300,000. Thus, between two and three times as many people leave and go to other parts of the world as come in.
  The hon. Member for Harow, West (Mr. John Page) asked me to give a normal balance. It is difficult to say what a normal balance is because immigrants from many parts of the world—aliens and Commonwealth citizens—have been coming to this country for many years and there has also been an outward flow. I do not believe that it is unhelpful for people to move from one country to another. As the world gets smaller and as contacts get easier, this will become an even more natural thing to do. However, in view of the emphasis given by the hon. Member for Harrow, West to the importance of reducing immigration, I am sure that he will not mind me quoting a sentence from the last letter which he wrote to me and which caused me some amusement.
  The hon. Gentleman said:
  "I am one of the firmest supporters of any action that can be taken to stop immigration, but this appears to be a genuine case."
  Then he raised the case of his own constituent. I do this not in criticism of him. It shows a warmth in his approach which we need in these matters. We are talking of human beings and their families. If we are talking of figures I must touch upon the projections made by the hon. Member for Louth which took him into the mystical future. Reference was made to a Question that he had put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. This gave some projections of the size of the coloured population for 1985.
  These were based on broad assumptions which were postulated by the hon. Gentleman. These two assumptions were that

  571
  the flow of new immigrants would continue unchanged and that the level of fertility revealed in the 1961 Census would also be unchanged. On the basis of these assumptions the figure of 3½ million coloured people here in 1985 was arrived at. There are great difficulties in making these projects. To begin with it is most unlikely, as the immigrants settle into our community, that the fertility rates will persist at the level which they had been when they were in India or whatever country they came from.
  Secondly, the rate of immigration allowed at any given time must reflect all the relevant circumstances. The Government have no immediate intention of increasing the number of labour vouchers. It is inevitable—certainly it is clear and obvious—that having greatly reduced the number admitted with labour vouchers, and since the flow of people coming in is made up of dependants, the dependants will tail off. This has been the inevitable consequences of the control since it was imposed in 1962.
  If one looks at it in this light and challenges both the two assumptions, as I do, then the number of coloured people here in 1985 would certainly be a very great deal less than 3½ million. In these circumstances that figure could be reduced by as much as 1 million but even if the hon. Gentleman's figures were correct, which they are not, there is no conceivable justification for arguing that we are faced with a rate of growth which would ever result in coloured people outnumbering whites in this country.
  Sir C. Osborne: I am delighted to hear that the Government intend to reduce drastically the number of immigrants coming into this country.
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman sets out to misinterpret and misunderstand what I have said. I made quite clear that the Government have already reduced very substantially the number who are admitted on vouchers. He knows that this is so. I made it clear that, having reduced the number of men coming in for employment, the dependants are certain to be reduced, because the majority of dependants coming in are the dependants of those who entered before 1962—before there was any control.
  572
  When we come to look at the figures, as I want to do, we shall see just what the picture has been. We have to look at the figure of those admitted for settlement. As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman in another intervention, to use gross figures and pretend that all those who arrive stay is to totally misunderstand the situation. In 1966 only 5,461 labour voucher holders arrived. In the first nine months of 1967 only 3,703 had arrived, compared with 4,285 in the first nine months of last year.
  Admissions for settlement by other means, mainly dependants, was, in 1965, 44,182, and in 1966, 45,004. So we see that for the first time since the 1962 Act, the number of dependants remained stable in 1966. As the Home Secretary has already said it seems likely that this year the figure will be somewhat larger. There was an increase of 8,188 dependants from the new Commonwealth in the first nine months of 1967.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon said that he was surprised that the figure for women was going down. This in fact is not so during 1967. The number of children has gone up markedly from 17,900 to 24,600. The number of women has gone up from 9,100 to 9,700. The fact that the admission of men has been going on and the number of children has been going up is not surprising, because wives have come over to join husbands and children have come with them.
  10.15 p.m.
  The greater part of this increase in dependants is due to the number of children under 16 being admitted, especially from Pakistan. More than half this year's increase in the number of dependent children is in boys from Pakistan. What one cannot say is what proportion of these is represented by boys aged 14 or 15 as opposed to any other age below 16. Pakistani children are arriving at the rate of 1,100 a month, most of them because they have a right of admission to join both parents. But there has been an increase in those seeking to join a single parent.
  We have been aware of attempts to evade the regulations by youngsters pretending to be younger than they are. A number of my son's schoolfriends have beards, but the fact that a man has a beard does not mean he is 36. But there

  573
  have been attempts to evade the regulations, and this explains why there has been an increased number of refusals this year. Unfortunately, more children have been refused entry at the airport and have had to go back to their country of origin.
  Apart from the fact that many of those young Pakistanis are males and near employable age, circumstances have come to light which give us considerable cause for concern about their welfare, particularly those who join an all-male household. These were problems which were sharply brought to our attention by International Social Service, which has been making a study of this matter and which recently let my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have its report.
  Sir D. Glover: I do not quite understand how dependent children can join an all-male household over here. The father must, presumably, have had a wife, otherwise there would not be any dependent children.
  Mr. Ennals: A child up to 16 can arrive to join a single parent. Between 16 and 18 they can join both parents. But there is an entitlement to join a single parent.
  This poses great problems for the immigration officers who have to determine whether the person is who he says he is and whether he is of the age he says he is. They can refer the child to a medical officer. They can sometimes arrange for an X-ray test, and often they can get a rough idea of the age of the child. But this imposes a very considerable strain on the immigration officers.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we were very concerned about this problem. We are considering very seriously how best it can be dealt with. This is not the time to give any indications as to how it might be dealt with.
  Mr. Buck: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the first step which should be insisted on is that there should be a certificate of entry so that investigations can be made in the country of origin?
  Mr. Ennals: I am coming to the question of entry certificates.
  Another significant area of attempted evasion is of Indians claiming to be over
  574
  60 and to be dependent parents. There has been enough evidence of this sort of evasion of those who may seem to be substantially less than 60 for it to be necessary often for the immigration officer to conduct detailed inquiries into age and relationship when a man looks much younger than the age he claims to be. In this category there has also been an increase in the number of those who have been refused admission.
  That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—entry certificates. A great deal of the interrogation which is necessary at ports of arrival would be unnecessary if intending immigrants were to use entry certificates. The use of these certificates would greatly reduce the number of persons refused admission, because they would discover in advance whether they were entitled to admission and would save the cost and inconvenience of a wasted journey. It would greatly relieve the burden on the hard-pressed immigration officers, to whom I should like to pay a tribute. They have a very hard job to do and they do it with great patience and great care.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire asked about some question of misrepresentations. There is no question of deputations being sent to Ministers, but I had the opportunity two or three weeks ago of spending some hours at London Airport having discussions with two very large groups of immigration officers. We discussed some of the problems with which they were faced. It was a very useful opportunity to get a reappraisal of the problems as they see them.
  The possession of an entry certificate almost guarantees admission, and though it is not our intention to make entry certificates a requirement for those Commonwealth citizens who have a right to admission, the non-possession of an entry certificate in cases in which age or relationship may be in doubt will obviously be to the disadvantage of the would-be immigrant. We believe that every opportunity must be taken to urge the use of the entry certificate system in line with the recommendations of the Wilson Committee.
  There was some fear expressed that the imposition of control on the entry of

  575
  Commonwealth citizens would affect the flow of Commonwealth visitors to Britain. Happily that is not so. From the whole of the Commonwealth the number of visitors increased from 214,000 in 1964 to 230,000 in 1965 and 244,000 in 1966. There is some indication, however, that the number admitted as students has stabilised. In 1964, over 20,000 students were admitted, and there can be no doubt that for many study was not the main purpose of coming here. In a sense it was a form of evasion. The number dropped to 14,017 in 1965 and 13,831 in 1966, and the signs are that there will be a further slight drop this year. Of course, the Government welcome genuine students, and immigration control is not designed to hinder them, but there has been substantial reduction of evasion in that field.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), whom I do not see in his place, raised the question of one of his constituents who was held in prison while he was waiting. This is a case of which I have not the full details here. The hon. Member did not give me notice of it. But my impression is that this was a case which was awaiting legal proceedings. Normally an immigrant who is awaiting a decision whether he will be admitted or refused finds that the matter is settled within 48 hours or 72 hours. After five days we can no longer detain him and prison is the only alternative. But the case to which the hon. Member referred is very unusual and exceptional.
  We have talked about evasions, and a number of hon. Members have asked whether we could give some figure for the number of evasions. I have tried to explain how difficult it is to give a figure. There is no way of establishing what number successfully make false claims in order to secure admission. The immigration officers are very careful and thorough men, and naturally they seek to see that there are no evasions. If there are evasions, they are the cases about which we do not know. As for clandestine entry, again, naturally, there are no records, but we do not think that there is any substantial evasion by these means.
  We thought at one stage that it might be possible to obtain some estimates of evasion by comparing the number of
  576
  people admitted for settlement with the net balance in any one year, the net balance being obtained by subtracting total departures from total admissions. But this produced wild results. We discovered that there were certain years in which the figure was a minus figure, and to have minus no evasion was telling us nothing. The figure for excess inward movement is not a reliable indication because it is only in terms of flow of movement rather than of those who are in the country at any one moment.
  The question of clandestine immigrants was raised by one or two hon. Members, and the legal situation was also questioned. It is, of course, true that an immigrant who arrives other than by a port is not in fact an illegal immigrant because the Act only requires that he should obtain a permit from an immigration officer to land. This is a clear loophole. It is not a loophole through which many have slipped, but it is a clear loophole, and it is precisely this loophole which my right hon. Friend is looking at in considering whether there should be additional legislation together with the implementation of the Wilson Committee. The question of deportation also comes under the same sort of heading.
  Some reference has been made during the debate to labour vouchers.
  Sir C. Osborne: The Home Secretary said that there were quite a number who came in on temporary permits and who did not honour their bond and stayed longer than was agreed. Has the hon. Member got the number of those cases?
  Mr. Ennals: No. It is not possible to give any figures. In many cases on those who may be admitted for a limited period of time there are checks on whether they have gone, and if they have not gone there are sometimes charges brought against them, and if a court, on the basis of those charges, recommends deportation, then deportation can follow, but we cannot give any figures as to what extent there is evasion in that field.
  Returning to the subject of labour vouchers, of the 7,500 issued last year, for immigrants other than from Malta, which, as the Committee will know, has 1,000, roughly 2,000, as I said, were A vouchers for people with jobs offered by employers, and about 5,500 were B vouchers, that is, for those with special

  577
  skills. Of these vouchers last year 37 per cent. went to doctors and 8 per cent. to nurses. I think that in an intervention I said 12 per cent., but I was wrong. Of those vouchers 17 per cent. were for teachers, 12 per cent. for science graduates, 17 per cent. for technical graduates and 5 per cent. for other professions.
  There are quite a number of aspects of the labour voucher scheme which have been causing us some concern. For example, the excessively long waiting period for A voucher holders—and also B voucher holders, but especially A voucher holders—a long delay is obviously highly unsatisfactory and we are very anxious to reduce the waiting period.
  There is also concern that immigrants particularly from India and Pakistan have special skills which may not be as readily accepted in this country as those skills are in their own countries—people who came in as teachers but who have found it difficult to find employment, not for any reason of colour, but sometimes because of language, sometimes because of inexperience. We are now giving very serious consideration to these and other aspects of the voucher system and it may be that there may be changes that we may with to report to the House before long. These are matters, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
  I want to make it clear that there is no intention as was suggested—I think by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire—of ending these vouchers. That would be unfortunate. After all, the figure is small, but there are many useful jobs which are fulfilled by those within the small range of A voucher holders and it is not our intention to reduce it. I was glad that one of my hon. Friends referred to the contribution which is made by this very limited number of voucher holders who come to this country, and the suggestion that they are adding to the pool of unemployment was dismissed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. One can imagine what life would be like in our hospitals or on the bus services without some of these people. Certainly, if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health were here he would emphasise that 41 per cent. of the junior doctor appointments our hospitals are from those of Commonwealth origin.
  578
  The right hon. Member for Streatham and other hon. Members asked about the repatriation of immigrants. There was pressure for immigrants to be repatriated at public expense. Perhaps I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Supplementary Benefits Commission of the Ministry of Social Security can pay the fare of a Commonwealth immigrant who wishes to return home and cannot pay it himself, raise it from other sources or earn it from employment here. Each case is decided on its merits. The purpose is to help those who cannot settle down here and might remain a charge on public funds. About 100 cases a year are dealt with in this way.
  There appears to be no need to change the system. It seems to be working satisfactorily, and it would be unfortunate if we launched a major project which appeared to suggest that we wished immigrants to return to their countries of origin, or presented the opportunity for exploitation by some who wished to have a cheap trip home for a holiday. We are satisfied that the scheme is working satisfactorily and does not need to be changed.
  Hon. Members also referred to the registration of dependants. This is not as easy it looks. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone will recall the sentence in the 1965 White Paper (Command 2739) which said that an entry certificate would not be issued unless the head of the household, whether resident in this country or intending to come in in future, had furnished particulars of his dependants in time to enable the information he had given to be confirmed before the entry certificate was needed.
  The purpose of this arrangement for the registration of dependants was to discourage evasion by people falsely claiming to be entitled to admission to the United Kingdom as dependants of Commonwealth citizens resident here, and, incidentally, to give some idea of the number of entitled dependants remaining overseas.
  10.30 p.m.
  The plan got into difficulties immediately as a requirement, because the people being registered, by definition, are entitled to come here, unless the Act is to be amended. In addition, it was applicable only to those who applied for entry certificates and, since there are

  579
  so many who do not apply, again this information cannot be required of them.
  The scheme still operates in the sense that people are requested to supply the information, though it is not now a requirement, and we are getting in a great deal of information which will provide a useful check when entry certificate holders provide us with the information. However, to make it a requirement would be extremely difficult.
  Reference was made to health checks. Quite apart from checks at our own airports, we are now making progress, as promised in the White Paper, and have set in train arrangements for the medical examination of Commonwealth citizens before they set out from their own countries. There have been a number of difficulties, but many Governments have established such a system. Others have not yet done so, but we are making progress on that proposal.
  The right hon. Member for Streatham and others referred to Asians from Kenya and other parts of East Africa. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement about the position—
  The Chairman: Order. I cannot see how this possibly arises under the proposal to continue for another year the two Acts which are expiring. Asians from Africa are neither Commonwealth immigrants nor aliens.
  Mr. Ennals: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Eric.
  Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Sir Eric. In fact, the so-called Asians from East Africa have British passports.
  The Chairman: Exactly. They are neither Commonwealth immigrants nor aliens. Therefore, no question with regard to them arises under this Amendment.
  Mr. Rose: Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. During the course of the debate, this matter has been widely discussed by hon. Members. In view of that, I ask that an opportunity be given to my hon. Friend to reply.
  The Chairman: I think that it has been adequately discussed. It may well have been that one has been too tolerant in allowing speeches on it, but it does not arise under this Amendment.
  Mr. Ennals: I readily bow to your ruling, Sir Eric. I only raised it because it had been mentioned earlier.
  In the time left to me I would like to move from the problems of control to some of the problems of integration of Commonwealth citizens within our society. This matter was dealt with, I thought, with some courage by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) and with some warmth and enthusiasm, typical of him, by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I think that it was the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) who said that he did not want to be integrated. I do not know whether this is semantics. I am certain that he does not want to be assimilated. We do not want to make him look like all the rest of us and most of us do not wish to look like him. This applies to our Commonwealth immigrants. We are not seeking to push everyone into a common mould. Integration surely means living together as part of a common society and sharing its basic tenets with the tolerance that goes with understanding that others have different philosophies, but which they can bring to the enrichment of our society.
  I am often sad that in this House and elsewhere we spend so much time talking about the problems of Commonwealth immigrants when, if we look not just over our history but over what I believe will be our future, if we will only seize it, there is a tremendous benefit to be gained from the influx of people from so many different parts of the world who bring a different culture with different music and cultural patterns.
  We are a very homogeneous society and I believe that it would be wrong if we looked upon these million people as our problem children. Many of them are making a great contribution to British society, as hon. Members from both sides of the House have said. Some of them are integrated; they are involved in us. Some are standing as candidates for local elections, some are policemen, some are magistrates, and I hope that more of them will become so.
  I do not accept the concept which was first raised by the hon. Member for Louth about an alien race. This is a hard, crude term that is not applicable

  581
  to those of Commonwealth origin, who have come here.
  Sir C. Osborne: It is true.
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman says that it is true. Does he use these same terms about those of British origin now living in India who are making their contribution to the life of that country, or, for that matter, those of British origin now living in East Africa?
  Sir C. Osborne: Yes.
  Mr. Ennals: He does, does he?
  Sir C. Osborne: I understand that the people of India regard our people there as an alien race.
  Mr. Ennals: That is not my impression.
  Sir C. Osborne: I have lived there.
  Mr. Ennals: I have been on a number of visits to India and I would have thought that Britons in India are a very vital part of Indian society. They certainly are in different parts of Africa where one will find them as the elected Members of Parliament and Ministers, and I hope that we will find, as others have said, that the same will happen here. Most immigrants are hard working, peace loving people who try to make their contribution to our society, but there are, as has been said, huge problems that we cannot burke.
  Reference has been made to problems within the field of education: the difficulties of teachers in primary and secondary schools with a substantial proportion of their pupils who come in not knowing a word of English. Those who have visited these schools and talked with these teachers have found the dedication and commitment and excitement with which these teachers are tackling the problem. They have admired the work of the Schools Council, which is planning precisely the sort of material that can be used to teach English as a second language. This is not a problem we have to push aside; it is a problem that we have to tackle and learn about in the course of doing it.
  I think that the courses being arranged by the Department of Education and
  582
  Science and by local authorities, not just for teachers in training, but for all in service teachers, are a great help, not only in dealing with the problems, but in knowing something of the cultural background of the children, so that they can make these multiracial schools into a living community and teach much to the children from Britain whose minds may be very blinkered until they have had the opportunity of seeing something of the outside world from the presence of coloured children on either side of them.
  The Department of Education and Science is increasingly tackling the problems of these Indian and Pakistani teachers to whom I referred. There have been four courses, of four terms, during which teachers have been preparing themselves to teach in English schools. I am glad to tell the Committee that as a result of these first four courses the numbers are being stepped up so that there will be twice as many teachers who will be able to take these courses during the forthcoming year.
  There are problems in housing, and reference has been made to the great concentration of Commonwealth people in certain cities. This problem has to be tackled. The process at the moment is increasingly towards greater concentration, and it cannot be tackled in one fell swoop. It can be tackled in time, because many of the areas in which these people live are scheduled for redevelopment, and as this takes place, and as the councils take over responsibility for re-housing, so will these people find their place on the new council estates.
  As local authorities increasingly bring down their residential qualifications, Commonwealth immigrants will in any case come on to their housing lists. The development of housing associations, with additional assistance from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, is another way in which this problem can be dealt with, but it means a great deal of effort and concentration by local authorities.
  The employment problem is the special responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, and I would like to pay my tribute to the work done by the employment exchanges, managers, youth employment officers, and regional officers of the Ministry. In

  583
  their quiet way they are trying to break through some of the barriers which exist in employment.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North raised the question of half-caste children. I think that he recognised, when the point was put to him by one of my hon. Friends, that the problem was not that they were half-caste, but that they came of parents who had separated, or who were not able to look after them. I recognise that there are many coloured children in care, but I know of many children of mixed marriages who are no worse physically, mentally, socially, or in any other way, than other children, and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) should not have cast the aspersion that there is something wrong or distasteful about a mixed marriage, and that it produces illness because that is untrue.
  Reference has also been made to the task of public education. This task does not fall on education authorities. It falls on all men who are in the public eye, and I believe that all of us in this House, on both sides, should watch our words with care because, whether we like it or not, and whether we want it or not, we are listened to, and it is important that we should be part of the effort to educate the public. In this sense I pay tribute to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants which, with Governmental assistance, plays an important rôle in this respect.
  10.45 p.m.
  I must bring my remarks to a close. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I knew that that would bring support from all those who had taken no part in he debate. I am glad that a warm welcome has been given to my right hon. Friend's announcement that we are going to introduce legislation with reference to the Race Relations Act. I think that it is fair to pay tribute to those who have done a great deal of thinking and preparation for this. I think that the value of the Street Report should be recognised. I think that we should recognise, too, the value of the P.E.P. Report which drew up some of the facts which, inevitably, have coloured the Government's decision.
  Sir D. Renton: There is a danger of a misunderstanding unless the hon. Member
  584
  will answer two questions. First, he indicated, by nodding when I was speaking, that he would tell us to how many Pakistani boys the Home Secretary referred. It makes a difference whether the number is 100, or 1,000, or 10,000. Can he give us a rough idea? Secondly, he referred to the annual emigration of between 200,000 and 300,000, but I think that is not accurate. In any event, it is a gross figure, and he should bear in mind that some will come back.
  Mr. Ennals: In relation to the second question, I can only act on figures that I have been given. I am prepared to look into the question again and write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about it. I will do the same in the case of the Pakistani boys. I gave some figures, and if they are not to the right hon. and learned Member's satisfaction I will write to him about them. I think that the Committee would now expect me to bring my remarks to a close.
  Some reference was made to racialism. I do not want to go out of order by dealing with this. It is right that we should recognise that there are racialists of different colours, and our condemnation of black racialism should be as sharp and clear as of white racialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In reverse, our condemnation of white racialism should be as sharp and clear as our condemnation of black racialism. I hope I get the "Hear, hears" of hon. Members opposite equally for that proposition.
  Any action designed to stir up hatred between races is illegal, but this is not enough of a response. Our response to the advocates of black racialism cannot be—we cannot afford it to be—a negative one. The way in which we can defeat their cause is to disprove the thesis on which it is based, namely, that a predominantly white society is not prepared to share power and influence economically, politically or socially, with a coloured minority. If that were true there would be some strength in their case, and we must disprove it.
  This means that the door must be wide open to all sections of the community, regardless of race or colour, to play their part in the life of the nation. It is a

  585
  challenge to political parties, trade union leaders and social and sporting organisations. It is a challenge to citizens, and a challenge to Parliament itself, for whenever the door is closed on coloured people the argument of the racialists is strengthened. Our response to the chal-
  586
  lenge may determine the pattern of community relations in Britain for years to come, and I am hopeful that we shall respond to that challenge. I am not pessimistic about the future. So many people are now involved in this that I believe that we cannot but succeed.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: As one of the few Commonwealth migrants in the House who still travels on a Commonwealth passport, I am grateful to have the opportunity to intervene in this important debate, albeit at this late hour. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) leaves the Chamber, I want to take issue with him on one point that he raised with regard to students and the cutting down of all Commonwealth immigration. It would be an absolute tragedy if Britain were to refuse to take the large number of students that she takes at present.
  Through these students not only is the influence of Britain extended throughout the world, in the countries to which the immigrants return, but, in a purely sordid and commercial way, if people have been trained with British equipment and goods in the United Kingdom, it is that equipment and those goods which they will work with in their own countries.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that point. My remarks about dependants were also meant to refer to students. If I had thought of it I would have mentioned it.
  Mr. Harrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation.
  The other point to which I want to refer was the tribute paid by the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to the wonderful work done in hospitals, on the Underground, on buses, and so one, by coloured workers—Commonwealth immigrants. I am very conscious of the work done in the hospital with which I am associated. I wonder whether, on reflection, this does not highlight one of the great problems that confront us, not in assimilating but in integrating Commonwealth immigrants, because there is a tendency not only for them to live in communities but to work in communities and to go into special jobs. I wonder whether this is not a particular problem that ought to be considered at some stage to see whether we cannot spread the type of job to which these people go.
  The form of discrimination that I want to mention is the discrimination between
  588
  the application of the two Acts which we are discussing under the two Amendments. There is a danger that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act discriminates now more harshly against Commonwealth migrants than it does against aliens coming into this country. We have had some examples of some of the things that can happen, and I too should like to quote two cases. I must be careful how far I go with one case, because I realise that it is still within the jurisdiction of the courts. There are, however, certain matters which occurred prior to the case that are worth discussing.
  A perfectly innocent young man, an Australian migrant who had committed no crime and had a perfectly clean record, was injured. He fell over on a skating rink and was knocked unconscious. He was taken to hospital. After he had been away for two nights from the place where he had been living—apparently, it is all right to be away for one night—some of his flat mates reported the matter to the police. The police came along and asked for details of this young person, and then they took his passport.
  When the young man came out of hospital he went to the police station to claim his passport, and, to his great surprise, he was charged with being in the United Kingdom after the expiration of the period of six months for which his entry permit was made out. He was kept in a remand centre for 36 days. It was not made clear to him whether he could get legal aid, nor that he could get bail. He was a 20 year old boy, naturally in a rather confused state, straight out of hospital.
  There are two or three matters here which frighten me. One lot of magistrates told him that he would be deprived of his liberty until the Home Office had decided what action to take. This seems to me an odd sort of arrangement. I had no idea that under this Act it was possible to hold people at the pleasure of the Home Secretary. Eventually—and I understand on advice that it is permissible for me to refer to the fact that he has been in prison—he obtained advice and subsequently a judge in chambers granted him bail. His appeal is pending, and therefore I must not refer to the sentence or to anything else that happened.

  589
  It seems to be an extremely odd situation in which a young Commonwealth boy can be thrown into prison and treated like this. I do not think that the same thing is meted out to aliens. The reason why I say that is because of a case, of which the Under-Secretary is well aware, with which I was recently associated.
  A young girl from Eastern Europe wanted to stay in this country. She was refused permission and I made representations on several occasions. She was interviewed but it was said that there was no case for her staying here. The case was taken up by another hon. Member who was an ex-Minister in the present Government. On the date that she had to return home, when her permit to reside here had expired, she moved to another constituency. She had been warned that she had to go back, but she appeared on television, in the newspapers and created a lot of publicity. But she was not arrested, although she said clearly what was going on and that she was in breach of her permit. She was not arrested in the same way as the Australian who went down to the police station to collect his passport. There was a completely different type of treatment under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Subsequent to her appeal on television for political asylum and the denunciation of her country, the other hon. Member took up her case and she has been allowed to stay here subject to finding a job.
  Here there was completely different treatment to the disadvantage of the Commonwealth immigrant compared with the alien. A Commonwealth immigrant can hardly appeal for political asylum whereas all aliens have to do, apparently, is to get themselves on television and some press attention, denounce their country and the benevolent Home Office allows them to stay.
  The harshness of the application of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in certain cases is something which we must watch. I hope that the case to which I have referred will be looked at critically after the appeal to see whether there has been a wrong interpretation of the Act as it was applied to this boy.
  The other thing which seems to be quite crazy is that if a man smuggles
  590
  himself into the country illegally and stays here for 24 hours he is all right. So far as I can see, under the Act he cannot be sent back, whereas if a man comes in perfectly legitimately through the ports and over-stays the time on his passport, not for 24 hours but for any period, the authorities can pick him up and deport him or throw him into prison.
  We ought not to have deliberate discrimination against Commonwealth immigrants. I hope that the Home Office, when drafting the new Bill foreshadowed by the Home Secretary today, will consider the points which I have made. There must be fair application of our laws to both types of people.
  11.0 p.m.
  Sir D. Glover: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for intervening in the debate because, although the problem which we are discussing is not a constituency one for me, I feel that, perhaps, those of us who have no direct constituency worries should intervene from time to time when these matters are discussed, believing that we may be able to look at them in slightly broader perspective than is possible for those who are grinding away at them from day to day.
  I am chairman of what is, perhaps, the oldest society dealing with human rights in this country, the Anti-Slavery Society, and I want to say a word, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in order to give him a little encouragement from our history. In 1765, it was realised that, quite illegally under the law at that time, there were about 50,000 negro slaves in this country. When the matter was raised in the courts and it was shown that no person could, under the law, be kept in slavery, all the slaves were liberated.
  That happened 200 years ago, and I have no surety in my mind that I have not at least a strain of black blood in my system. The total of 50,000 liberated all those years ago was equivalent to 350,000 today, the population then being only about 8 million. Perhaps some of the great aristocratic families may have been immune from the taint, but I imagine that what I say applies to people living in the tight communities of Liverpool, Manchester and the like. I certainly would not like to gamble that there

  591
  was no such strain in my blood or even in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth.
  Next, I remind my hon. Friend that there was a man named Hitler, who had a great campaign for racial purity; he wanted his great nation to consist only of Aryans. But nearly all Pakistanis are Aryans, exactly the same race as we are. The basic racial stock is the same as the one inhabiting these islands, but the Pakistanis, having lived in a different and hotter climate for thousands of years, have somewhat different complexions.
  The Chairman: Order. I find it difficult to see what relevance that has to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Sir D. Glover: With respect, Sir Eric, I am leading up my point, and this is what I may call my opening preamble. I thought it necessary to make those observations to show how one's thinking goes on the subject of these laws. I support strong restriction of immigration for the reasons which have been given already, that a society ethnically tightly knit as ours accepts the interloper, be he Scots or Welsh, into his community with a certain degree of reserve. I am certain that this country has accepted just about as many as it can absorb for a long time.
  I do not regard the West Indians as nearly so difficult to absorb over a period of years. Immigrants from India and Pakistan, on the other hand, are people from a proud nation with a history as long and as proud as our own. The problem we have to face is that they do not want to be "integrated". There is a lot of talk today about integration, but they do not want to be integrated in the way that so many of us think it should be done. They want to remain a proud separate community with their own racial habits, customs and traditions and religions. When we talk about integrating them we are using the wrong word.
  I thought that the Under-Secretary of State made a very good winding up speech—and I do not often pay compliments across the Floor of the House. I suggest that he should bring his hon. Friend the "Minister of Sport" into this matter. If the Pakistanis in Bradford
  592
  could take over Bradford City and win the First Division championship within 10 years there would then be no question about integration; they would be cock of the walk.
  The idea of aid and assistance inevitably means, however carefully we dress it up, that we are thinking of the immigrants as slightly inferior. But if, for example, the M.C.C. played the British Pakistanis before leaving for a tour of Pakistan and were beaten, that would do far more for the prestige of Pakistanis in this country than any law restricting immigration and so on. They would have justified themselves in the field in which the British people make their judgments.
  It is inevitable that there must be some cushioning of the immigrant communities, but it would do them a great deal of good if we challenged them to show us that they can play hockey and cricket better than anyone in Britain. If they played the M.C.C. or Yorkshire at cricket and won it would remove a great deal of the antagonism that makes the legislation necessary, because they would be doing the things that we admire.
  The question of housing and so on is old hat, but we must take into account that, whether we like it or not, prejudice exists here. Perhaps I have spent my savings on a house and hope that with inflation I may be able to sell it when I retire in 10 years for £5,000, £2,000 more than I paid for it, buy a little cottage in Cornwall and invest the £2,000 so that my wife and I will be all right. Then coloured people come into the street and suddenly my house is worth only £3,000 instead of £5,000. That cannot be laughed off. I am not anti-anybody. I am "anti" because something has happened as a result of which my wife and I will suffer.
  The Government will have to examine this problem, because we cannot expect individual citizens to go along with anti-racial legislation when they and their wives are adversely affected by it. Nothing makes more racial antagonism than the discovery by the individual that he is suffering because something has happened over which he has no control. It is very difficult for a Government to deal with this, but I am not at all certain that a great wall of antagonism will not be built up, and the Government may

  593
  have to do something for a period of time to alleviate the problem. It is inevitable that people will feel antagonistic and suspicious of integrating with new arrivals to this country if they feel that they have been unfairly treated.
  All hon. Members have supported these further provisions, but the Government must realise that antagonism can work both ways; that there is a hot and a cold tap. It must not be thought that by taking steps to overcome racial discrimination against somebody who has a dark skin, provisions can be introduced which are detrimental to somebody with a white skin. In other words, we must ensure that, as a result of this legislative process, the white population is not harmed, for nothing will make racial tension harsher than for the white population, the natives of this country, to feel that Parliament has legislated to their disadvantage.
  I do not wish to be hostile in these remarks to our new Indian, Pakistani or other citizens. As I said at the outset, I have no hostility. However, hostility will be aroused if the white population feel that they are being discriminated against; for example, if the owner of a house who wishes to sell may have to sell to a coloured purchaser. If, as a result, the rest of the houses in the street drop in value, the residents there will not feel like integrating with the coloured community. Before introducing legislation of that kind, the Government must think hard to avoid that state of affairs from arising. These difficulties could be overcome, but at this hour I will not delay the Committee by detailing the answers.
  Mr. Hogg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. McBride.]

  SLUM CLEARANCE ORDER, BURNLEY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Brunton, of 1, Moss Street, Burnley.
  Difficulty has arisen between my constituents and the Ministry because their house is wanted by the local authority, quite properly, for slum clearance under the Housing Act, 1957. The bone of contention is that their home has been described as "unfit for human habitation", a phrase which will recur because those words are the nub of the trouble.
  The nub is that my constituents consider that this contention is mistaken, leading to, in their case, a very serious injustice. I agree with them. In setting out the case, I will present the evidence by a series of quotations. First will be a letter from my constituents to me dated 10th May, 1967. It says:
  "Dear Mr. Jones.
  We have lived in this House since June 1932 and bought it as sitting tenants in February 1956, after consulting the Borough Surveyor, whom we thought would know of any changes due to take place in this area. On studying his coloured map, which he showed to us, he told us we were safe for 20 years. As rent-paying tenants, we spent quite a lot on the house, and after buying it we went ahead to make it comfortable for our retirement."
  I interrupt myself here to say that the sum that my constituents spent was nearly £300, and the proof of that lies with their solicitor. Continuing the letter, it says:
  "Therefore, we were greatly shocked on being informed that the house was unfit for human habitation. We objected to the classification and attended a Public Inquiry at the Town Hall last July. At the Inquiry Mr. Gann, the deputy Town Clerk, told the Inspector that this was probably the best house in the whole area, and when later that day the Inspector came here he said he could see for himself what Mr. Gann meant. We heard through our solicitor recently that we had been offered £88 for the house, plus £12 site value, a sum which we consider ridiculous. In January, 1963 our rate was re-assessed, and increased, in spite of an appeal on the grounds of rapid deterioration of the surroundings. I was told by the Chairman, the late Alderman

  595
  G. Hale, that the rate was based on the condition of the property, which was good.
  So, on the one hand, it is not fit for human habitation but at the same time merits an increase in the rates, surely one cancels out the other. As the Corporation wants the site we feel we have a moral right that being deprived of our home we should be properly compensated. As you will be well aware, it would be utterly impossible for us to buy a house of this standard for at least four times the amount offered to us. We would appreciate it if our case could be taken up by the Housing Minister."
  This I proceeded to do. I have a reply here, dated 25th May, 1967, from the Ministry of Housing. I do not propose to read it all, only paragraphs 2 and 3, which are the relevant ones. Paragraph 2 says:
  "I can quite understand that your constituents feel aggrieved that their house should have been found to be unfit despite the condition in which they kept it.
  Perhaps it would help them to understand the position if I explained that in order to qualify as being fit for human habitation a house must measure up to the statutory definition of fitness contained in Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957. In this instance, the inspector confirmed the council's view that, in respect of freedom from damp, satisfactory sanitary conveniences and adequate facilities for the storing of food it did not."
  Let me make a brief comment upon those three alleged disqualifying features. First, dampness. I was in that house last Saturday, when in Burnley it was virtually throwing it down. It really was raining very hard. I can say with truth that the only damp in that house was a little patch near the front door, which opens on to the street. It is an old-fashioned house and, apart from that, the whole House was as dry as a cork. I can say with truth that if one measured that damp in terms of percentage it would be rather less than 1 per cent.
  The second point concerned satisfactory sanitary conveniences. These people have lived in that property for well over 30 years and never have they in any way been assailed by the sanitary inspector for lack of sanitary facilities, nor have they complained. It is true that it is an old-fashioned sanitary arrangement, but some 4,000 to 5,000 of these still exist in Burnley. As for the storage of food, here again the only thing that can be said is that it is an old-fashioned pantry, but I am sure that for hygiene and cleanliness it is above the level demanded. I
  596
  should certainly be prepared to eat a meal of food drawn from that place. There is a window which admits fresh air whenever that is required.
  It is very important that we consult the Act on that basis. Here again, for the sake of brevity, I will quote only Part II, Section 4(1), which says, in clear terms:
  "In determining for any of the purposes of this Act whether a house is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters, that is to say—

  (a) repair;

  (b) stability;

  (c) freedom from damp;

  (d) natural lighting;

  (e) ventilation;

  (f) water supply;

  (g) drainage and sanitary conveniences;

  (h) facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water;".

  The important three lines in the Section, which in my mind are refreshingly clear, are the concluding three lines:
  "and the house shall be deemed to be unfit for human habitation if and only if it is so far defective in one or more of the said matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition".
  I am certain that, dealing with the three points which I have made, the Act abundantly clears my constituents.
  In setting out the case, I feel it right that I should quote a letter from the Town Clerk to me dated 9th March. I will read the one paragraph in which my case is powerfully supported, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will pay close attention to the detail. It reads:
  "You will have noticed from Mrs. Brunton's letter (which I return herewith) that the Local Authority, whilst being of the opinion that the premises were unfit, did lean towards the objector. My Deputy, who represented the Council at the Inquiry, stated to the Ministry Inspector that the premises, Nod. 1 Moss Street were probably the best premises ever represented as being unfit. Mr. Gann made it quite clear to the Inspector that the Council would be very happy to leave the matter to the Inspector's judgment. There were, of course, other objectors on the same grounds, and in confirming the Order the Minister directed that two houses in precisely the same position as No. 1 Moss Street were not unfit for human habitation and should in fact be moved from the Clearance Area to the land outside the Clearance Area, to be acquired at market value. Unfortunately, in the case of 1 Moss Street the Inspector agreed with

  597
  the Council's findings that the Premises were unfit, and compensation is therefore payable at site value only."
  In plain language, the only interpretation one can place on the Town Clerk's statement to me is that although the Brunton's home is officially described as the best house in the area, other houses in precisely the same position geographically but not in as good a condition were to attract market value compensation, while the Brunton's received only site value compensation. Can one wonder why it is that my constituents persist in saying that a serious mistake has been made? I am absolutely convinced that such is in fact the case.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say that this matter has been the subject of a public inquiry. I want to to say very definitely that if this public inquiry was for the purpose of establishing impartial justice, then it was as near to being a mockery as does not matter, and the reason why I say that is that the local authority and the Ministry were represented by professional people; Mrs. Brunton, an old-age pensioner, was on her own. I leave you to judge, Mr. Speaker, if that is what we call the dispensation of impartial justice. I have no doubt at all that Mrs. Brunton received sympathy, but I suggest to the House that sympathy is a very poor substitute for justice.
  What has been the attitude of Mr. and Mrs. Brunton during the whole months that this case has been discussed? It is simply that we are seeking for a re-inspection, and that, I believe, is a perfectly reasonable and fair request to make. I realise we are not dealing with evil people doing evil things, but I am convinced that we are dealing with people who have made a mistake, and I would say that the continual refusal of the Ministry to re-inspect these premises really is not good enough because what it really amounts to, in my humble opinion, is, the rights of ordinary people and the rights of people's properly elected Member of Parliament must pay homage to the infallibility of bureaucracy, and that I refuse to do. There is nothing in the Act of 1957 which denies the Executive the right to re-inspect if they choose to do so. It may be said that there is nothing in the Act which requires them specifically to do so, but there is nothing
  598
  which says they may not, and I would say the Executive should exert their proper authority in this respect.
  I do not want to persist very much longer but I do want to bring to the attention of the House that here we are dealing with the human aspect of a problem. I was sitting with this old lady and her husband last Saturday, in their house, a perfectly good house, one of a standard above the normal. Mr. Brunton said to me, "You know, Mr. Jones, this is not only a question of money." I asked what else was worrying Mrs. Brunton. She replied, "Well, I will have to move to another part of Burnley"—and that, of course, is perfectly true; that is one house standing now where several months ago there were a hundred—"and when I move my new neighbours will say this is a lady who formerly lived in a home which was unfit for human habitation." Her distress was very real.
  My mind cannot possibly escape the fact of these people, who have persisted so long in this house, the best in the neighbourhood, classified as the best by the local authority, having seen other houses classified as less good, and of their having to receive that market value plus a little site value. I am powerfully convinced an injustice has been dealt to them. I appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to use the powers in the Act and agree to a reinspection. This matter can then be dispensed with satisfactorily and on a basis of justice, and I do most sincerely appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to agree to this very reasonable course which my constituents advance and I support.
  11.30 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Before dealing with the facts of this case, I should dispose of one point which is implicit in what my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) has said. It is the strong feeling which both sides of the House have that the present arrangements for compensation in respect of owner-occupiers of unfit properties are not working in a very fair manner.
  This is a matter which has been debated in the House. It is one for legislation, to which my right hon. Friend

  599
  is giving a lot of time. However, that is not what is under discussion in this debate, although it is part of the background of my hon. Friend's views about this case.
  My other general point relates to the standards of unfitness which have to be implied. To show that we have not treated this case in the sort of cavalier way that my hon. Friend suggested, we asked the Central Housing Advisory Committee to look into standards of unfitness, and a sub-committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Dennington made a careful and detailed review of the position and considered how best one could arrive at even standards of unfitness over the country, from local authority area to local authority area.
  As a result of that sub-committee's report, which I am sure many hon. Members have read, my right hon. Friend sent out a circular in October of this year which dealt with the procedural matter of slum clearance and, in an appendix, gave an extract from the Dennington sub-committee's advice on the determination of fitness. That information and the advice of the Denning-ton sub-committee is not only known to all inspectors as part of their equipment when looking at these cases, but is also a public document which is available to local authorities and individuals.
  Therefore, it is only right to say that our inspectors do not approach any case of potential unfitness in an amateurish way, giving each case only casual attention. They are experienced men who spend a great deal of their time looking at houses, and they pick up a very wide reserve of knowledge and wisdom about what makes a house unfit. They use that to get fair and uniform standards from house to house over the country.
  They cover different areas, and do not remain in any one place. One of the important duties of my right hon. Friend in the discharge of his responsibilities under the Housing Act is to be certain that there is uniformity of standards. In the present case, the inspector looked at the house very carefully and formed an opinion based on his great experience and knowledge that it was a house which was unfit within the meaning of the Act. If one is to have uniform standards, one has to have a determination of that sort.
  600
  It is very difficult for a Minister or anyone else in Whitehall to say that the judgment of an experienced man is wrong.
  When my hon. Friend, in his charming and inimitable way, says, "I looked at the house and I thought it was fit", that is a very understandable view. I admire him for the vigour with which he wishes to look after the interests of his constituents, but we cannot conduct proceedings of this kind on the basis that a Member of Parliament takes a look at a constituent's house and says, "I do not think that is fit" or "I think that it is fit", as the case may be.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary is addressing himself to the point. It is not my opinion that matters. I have already described the local authority's inspectorate as describing this house as the best house in the area. They, too, are professional people. My hon. Friend must tell the House whether he regards these inspectors as being infallible and beyond the powers of making mistakes, which is quite human. Would he answer that?
  Mr. MacColl: None of us is infallible, not even my hon. Friend. We all make mistakes. But my hon. Friend must choose his words carefully when he attributes a view to the local authority which I do not think is the case. The Town Clerk in a letter may have said that he thought this was a property which was of a high standard within the standards of unfitness, and it is also common ground that it is very well maintained and qualifies for a well maintained payment. However, the fact remains that the local authority represented this house as unfit. The local authority started it, not my right hon. Friend. The local authority decided that it would make a clearance order and, therefore, it would represent the houses as being unfit. The local authority inspected them and it never withdrew that representation. The case was taken to the inquiry, it was reviewed at the inquiry, and the inspector confirmed the view of the local authority in carrying out its duties. Those are the facts of the situation.
  It is also true that when my hon. Friend, with his characteristic vigour, raised the matter with my right hon.

  601
  Friend the present Minister of Public Building and Works, when he was in our Ministry, and we had another careful examination. We looked at the inspector's notes. We asked the inspector to be quite certain that he had not made a mistake, that his decision was a conscious one and not something done as a routine, and we came to the conclusion that there was no ground at all for believing that a mistake had been made.
  I do not want to slide off on a technical point, because this is a very real and human issue, but once a decision has been ken, as it had in this case, to confirm the order, my right hon. Friend has no more powers in the matter. He has no right of appeal against himself. He cannot say, "I will have another look at it and I will change my mind."
  Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that I am not reading the Act correctly? I can quote the Act, but the Parliamentary Secretary must know that there are no prescriptive rights on a reinspection.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a useful intervention, but it is not a point of order.
  Mr. MacColl: I was trying to explain the difference where, for example, there is a planning appeal where planning permission is refused and it is determined and then there is some doubt whether it is right or not. One can at least say to the applicant, "You can apply again" and, when the procedure is started again, it may be found that another decision is reached. In the case of a clearance order of this sort there is no possibility of doing that. My right hon. Friend has no more powers to intervene once he has confirmed the order asked for by the local authority. I am not seeking to defend my right hon. Friend on this matter on the basis of a technicality.
  I want now to look at the merits of the case. There were 120 dwellings in the clearance area which were represented as being unfit. In only 4 cases was an objection made to the order. I mention this to show that this was not an area of good, high standard property, in which an irresponsible local authority had rushed in and made an order. It was accepted that this was an unfit area to the extent that, except in four cases, there was no objection to the orders.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I think that my constituent has suffered as a result.
  Mr. MacColl: I think that my hon. Friend wants to hear what I have to say. Knowing his fairness, I am sure that he wants to, and I am explaining the position. It may be argued from what I have said that the council had merely run down the road and the houses had not been carefully looked at. But that there were objections in respect of only four houses drew the inspector's attention to the fact that in these four cases the owners did not agree with the proposals. In one of these cases the finding of unfitness was confirmed. In another—and this is the case to which my hon. Friend has been referring—the house was found to be unfit, but it was also found to be well maintained, and a well-maintained payment was made. The remaining two houses were found to be fit, and this shows that my hon. Friend's suggestion that the inspector was slack or incompetent is not justified. It shows that he paid careful attention to each house.
  My hon. Friend said that the two houses which were found to be fit and were taken out of the order were the same as the Brunton's house. My information is that they were different, in that structural works had been carried out to improve them, and therefore some of the defects which were inherent in the other houses were not to be found in these two.
  Slum clearance work is very difficult. Some poignant cases come to light because people's property is being taken from them. It may be that there is a case, not for altering the test of unfitness—because the Dennington Sub-Committee looked at that very carefully and came to the conclusion that there was no case for altering the standard of unfitness—but for some alteration in the financial arrangements for compensation. There is every reason to believe that within those tests of unfitness the inspector, with his wide knowledge and technical experience of unfitness, which nobody else in the country—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

RAILWAYS
  A Containers (Charges)
  A Containers (Charges)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Advice)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Advice)
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Train Punctuality
  Train Punctuality
  East Central Fife Railway (Public Ownership)
  East Central Fife Railway (Public Ownership)
  Accidents (Inquiries)
  Accidents (Inquiries)
  Warrington-Glasgow Line (Electrification)
  Warrington-Glasgow Line (Electrification)
  St. Pancras Station (Closure)
  St. Pancras Station (Closure)
  Aberdeen-Ballater Line
  Aberdeen-Ballater Line
  Closures (South Wales)
  Closures (South Wales)
  Hurst Green-Tunbridge Wells- Lewes Line (Closure)
  Hurst Green-Tunbridge Wells- Lewes Line (Closure)
  Rail Closures (Wales)
  Rail Closures (Wales)
  Disused Lines (Disposal)
  Disused Lines (Disposal)
TRANSPORT
  Services (South-East London)
  Services (South-East London)
  London Transport Board (Advertisements)
  London Transport Board (Advertisements)
  Motor Vehicles (Passenger Liabilities Insurance)
  Motor Vehicles (Passenger Liabilities Insurance)
  Annual Test (Tyres)
  Annual Test (Tyres)
  Underground Railway (Extension)
  Underground Railway (Extension)
  Road Hauliers
  Road Hauliers
  Transport of Freight (White Paper)
  Transport of Freight (White Paper)
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Motor Vehicles (Government Departments)
  Motor Vehicles (Government Departments)
  Travel Concessions
  Travel Concessions
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Motorways
  Motorways
  United States Army Road Vehicles
  United States Army Road Vehicles
  Police Cars (Speedometers)
  Police Cars (Speedometers)
  Tubeless Tyres (Repair)
  Tubeless Tyres (Repair)
ROADS
  D Ring Road
  D Ring Road
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  All-Purpose Roads (Speed Limits)
  All-Purpose Roads (Speed Limits)
  A19 (Accidents)
  A19 (Accidents)
  A36 (Speed Limit)
  A36 (Speed Limit)
  A603 (Bridge Reconstruction)
  A603 (Bridge Reconstruction)
  Pedestrian Subway, Reading
  Pedestrian Subway, Reading
  M4 (Accidents)
  M4 (Accidents)
  Trunk Roads (Roadworks)
  Trunk Roads (Roadworks)
  A6 (Improvement Works)
  A6 (Improvement Works)
  Ring Road (Birmingham Airport)
  Ring Road (Birmingham Airport)
  Parking Notices
  Parking Notices
  M1 (Fog Warning Signals)
  M1 (Fog Warning Signals)
  A10 (Pedestrian Crossing)
  A10 (Pedestrian Crossing)
  East Midlands Divisional Road Engineer (Letter)
  East Midlands Divisional Road Engineer (Letter)
  Parking Meters (Greater London Area)
  Parking Meters (Greater London Area)
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Lighting Working Party (Report)
  Lighting Working Party (Report)
  Road Maintenance (Pirbright)
  Road Maintenance (Pirbright)
  M1 and M4 (Lighting)
  M1 and M4 (Lighting)
  A45 (Speed Limit)
  A45 (Speed Limit)
  New Swing Bridge, Lowestoft
  New Swing Bridge, Lowestoft
  Fog Signals
  Fog Signals
  Road Signs (Changeover)
  Road Signs (Changeover)
  Motorway Service Areas (Petrol)
  Motorway Service Areas (Petrol)
  Motorways
  Motorways
BOARD OF TRADE
  British Weeks (Cost Effectiveness)
  British Weeks (Cost Effectiveness)
  British Car Exports (American Safety Standards)
  British Car Exports (American Safety Standards)
  European Economic Community (Provisional Trade Agreement)
  European Economic Community (Provisional Trade Agreement)
  Development Areas, Cornwall
  Development Areas, Cornwall
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Council of Europe (Recommendation 500)
  Council of Europe (Recommendation 500)
  Portuguese Textiles (Imports)
  Portuguese Textiles (Imports)
  New Industries (South Yorkshire)
  New Industries (South Yorkshire)
  Industrial Estates (Location)
  Industrial Estates (Location)
  Animal Medicines (Patent Infringement)
  Animal Medicines (Patent Infringement)
  Chipboard
  Chipboard
  Fabric Measuring Machines (Control)
  Fabric Measuring Machines (Control)
  Car-Hire Meters (Control)
  Car-Hire Meters (Control)
  Gas, Electricity, Water and Taxi Meters (Control)
  Gas, Electricity, Water and Taxi Meters (Control)
  Scottish Industry (Grants and Loans)
  Scottish Industry (Grants and Loans)
  Development Areas (Wool Textile Mills)
  Development Areas (Wool Textile Mills)
SCOTLAND
  Deeside-Speyside Road
  Deeside-Speyside Road
  Beef, Pork, Bacon and Mutton Production
  Beef, Pork, Bacon and Mutton Production
  Pedigree Livestock Breeding
  Pedigree Livestock Breeding
  Emigration
  Emigration
  New Fishing Vessels and Equipment (Grants and Loans)
  New Fishing Vessels and Equipment (Grants and Loans)
  Raasay Home Farm
  Raasay Home Farm
  Scottish Office (Staff)
  Scottish Office (Staff)
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Aldabra Atoll
  Aldabra Atoll
  H.M.S. "Unicorn"
  H.M.S. "Unicorn"
  R.A.F. Pilots (B.O.A.C.)
  R.A.F. Pilots (B.O.A.C.)
  Scottish Cavalry Regiment (Amalgamation)
  Scottish Cavalry Regiment (Amalgamation)
  Weather Forecasts
  Weather Forecasts
  Departmental Establishments, Scotland
  Departmental Establishments, Scotland
  Foreign Military Establishments, Scotland
  Foreign Military Establishments, Scotland
  Infantry Battalions (Recruited Strengths)
  Infantry Battalions (Recruited Strengths)
  Scottish Regiments (Strength)
  Scottish Regiments (Strength)
  Fishery Protection Squadron (Scottish Waters)
  Fishery Protection Squadron (Scottish Waters)
  Jungle Warfare School, Malaysia (Dog Training)
  Jungle Warfare School, Malaysia (Dog Training)
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  Armed Forces (Young Recruits)
  Armed Forces (Young Recruits)
  South Arabia (Military Casualties)
  South Arabia (Military Casualties)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Breath Tests
  Breath Tests
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  70 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  Horserace Betting Levy Board (Chairman)
  Horserace Betting Levy Board (Chairman)
  American Visitors (Draft Cards)
  American Visitors (Draft Cards)
  Overtaking on Motorways (Prosecutions)
  Overtaking on Motorways (Prosecutions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Animal Medicines (Smuggling)
  Animal Medicines (Smuggling)
  Fuel oil (Surcharge)
  Fuel oil (Surcharge)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Aldabra Atoll
  Aldabra Atoll
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Mr. Walker
  Mr. Walker
  Unemployment Benefit (Rhondda)
  Unemployment Benefit (Rhondda)
  Selective Employment Tax (Cost of Collection)
  Selective Employment Tax (Cost of Collection)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Disabled Persons, Billericay
  Disabled Persons, Billericay
  Unemployment (Plymouth)
  Unemployment (Plymouth)
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  Industrial Training (Plymouth)
  Industrial Training (Plymouth)
  Unemployment (Wales)
  Unemployment (Wales)
  Employment Exchanges, Birmingham
  Employment Exchanges, Birmingham
  Unemployment (Batley and Morley)
  Unemployment (Batley and Morley)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animal Medicines
  Animal Medicines
  Dispossessed Farmers (Compensation)
  Dispossessed Farmers (Compensation)
  Fish Catches (Whitby and Scarborough)
  Fish Catches (Whitby and Scarborough)
  Eggs (Reorganisation Committee's Repot)
  Eggs (Reorganisation Committee's Repot)
  Deficiency Payments (Cereals)
  Deficiency Payments (Cereals)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Jamaican Police Force
  Jamaican Police Force
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Humberside (Report)
  Humberside (Report)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Plympton Grammar School
  Plympton Grammar School
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Research)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Research)
  Brain Drain
  Brain Drain
HOSPITALS
  Lowestoft Hospital Mortuary
  Lowestoft Hospital Mortuary
  Training Centres for the Mentally Subnormal (Staff)
  Training Centres for the Mentally Subnormal (Staff)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  General Medical Practitioners (Batley and Morley)
  General Medical Practitioners (Batley and Morley)
  BRITISH EMBASSIES (LOCATION)
  BRITISH EMBASSIES (LOCATION)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Licence Forms (Welsh Language)
  Licence Forms (Welsh Language)
COAL
  Electricity and Gas Coals (Prices)
  Electricity and Gas Coals (Prices)
  National Coal Board (Financial Results)
  National Coal Board (Financial Results)
ELECTRICITY
  New Generating Plant (Commissioning Delays)
  New Generating Plant (Commissioning Delays)
  Power Stations (Building Programme)
  Power Stations (Building Programme)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Supplies
  Fuel Supplies
  Petrol
  Petrol
TECHNOLOGY
  Concord Aircraft (Wales)
  Concord Aircraft (Wales)
  E.C.C. Ltd., Wolverhampton (Redundancies)
  E.C.C. Ltd., Wolverhampton (Redundancies)
  Brain Drain (Report)
  Brain Drain (Report)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln

LORD PENNEY
Sir William George Penney, K.B.E., having been created Baron Penney, of East Hendred in the Royal County of Berks, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Todd and the Lord Florey.

LORD HILL OF WIVENHOE
Edward James Hill, Esquire, having been created Baron Hill of Wivenhoe, of Wivenhoe in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Blyton and the Lord Popplewell.
The Earl of Onslow—Took the Oath.

EDINBURGH—NORTH BERWICK TRAIN SERVICE
2.25 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the weight and validity of local objection to closing the Edinburgh to North Berwick train service will be assessed, and which Minister will be responsible for the final decision.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the Railways Board's proposal to withdraw passenger services to North Berwick is only at a very early stage. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has not yet decided whether to allow its publication under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. If publication is permitted, this will initiate the whole procedure of
680
detailed examination of the proposal. Before reaching her final decision, my right honourable friend would then certainly take full account of the weight and validity of local objection. The final decision will be my right honourable friend's but she would, of course, consult my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the case for keeping this line open is very strong indeed? Will he give the House an assurance that no closure will take place until the survey into the greater Edinburgh transport problem has been published and considered? Further, will the noble Lord give us an assurance that no closure will take place unless the Secretary of State for Scotland himself consents.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, certainly my right honourable friend is aware of the concern that is felt between Edinburgh and North Berwick. In regard to the survey, I believe that this will be published shortly, and even under the procedure that is required before a line can be closed I am sure that it would be available and could be discussed, should a decision be taken. But as I said in my original Answer, and as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, this matter is at a very early stage, and my right honourable friend has not yet decided whether to publish the request of the Railways Board for the closure of this line. There is a long way to go before the railway line can be closed.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, even at this early stage would it be too much to ask the noble Lord if he would take two points into special consideration? The first is the rapidly expanding population all along the Lothian coast. The second is that the more people who can commute from the East into Edinburgh the more chance there will be of alleviating the great urgency of the car-parking problem in that city.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, these are obviously points which my right honourable friend will take into account, and so would the T.U.C.Cs, if the matter should ever reach that stage.

SOUTH AFRICA TRIAL OF POLITICAL PRISONERS
2.28 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will raise at the U.N. the question of the 36 political prisoners from South-West Africa now being tried in Pretoria in view of the fact that the General Assembly decision of October. 1966, renders the trial illegal.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, this matter has been considered by the United Nations Committee of Twenty-Four which has adopted a resolution condemning as illegal the arrest of these men and demanding their immediate release. The report of the Committee of Twenty-Four which contains this resolution comes up for discussion in the General Assembly shortly. The United Nations are therefore already seized of this matter.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Would he agree that this is not a case where it could be contended that the United Nations are interfering in the internal affairs of another country, since the 36 political prisoners have been taken from the mandated territory of South-West Africa and put on trial in Pretoria? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that the Act under which they are charged is retrospective, since the alleged offences occurred prior to the Act on which the prosecution is relying. May I urge Her Majesty's Government to press this matter at the United Nations when the opportunity arises?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised points on which we may all have strong personal views, but the legal situation is nothing like as clear as he would seem to suggest. One may have doubts in various directions, and indeed there are doubts about the competence of the General Assembly to revert the administration of the territory to itself. The legal status of South Africa, therefore, remains obscure. Whatever one's view may be about the
682
propriety or legality of the trial, the factual position is that South Africa continues to exercise control in the territory. I am very sorry, but I cannot usefully comment on these aspects because of the legal complications.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will consider another suggestion, in view of the fact that he has stated that the legal position is in doubt? Would it not be possible, in view of the decision of the International Court at The Hague, to refer this matter to The Hague for a decision, and so prevent the execution of these men before a legal decision has been reached?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's point, and obviously I will convey any suggestion he makes. One of the difficulties, as he will know, is that to obtain an advisory opinion from the Court it is necessary to have some locus standi, and, of course, the International Court at The Hague did not take a decision previously. They did not rule that what South Africa was doing was legal or was illegal; all they said was that the circumstances in which the previous matter was brought to them were such that they were not in a position to consider it. It really is a very difficult point. But I certainly will take the noble Lord's point and refer it on, although I am not very hopeful, in view of the legal tangle.

CERVICAL CANCER TESTS
2.32 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made, to the latest convenient date, with the testing scheme for cervical cancer; what further progress is expected next year; whether there are now sufficient technicians available; and whether any research is being conducted into alternative systems of testing.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the returns from

683
the hospital authorities in England and Wales for June, 1967, show that women were being tested for pre-cancer of the cervix at a rate of nearly 119,000 a month, or over 1,400,000 a year. This shows an expansion of 17 per cent. over the figures for June, 1966.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Health hopes that women will continue to come forward at an increasing rate for routine screening, and he will endeavour to ensure that services are available to meet the demand.
The number of technicians trained in cytology and in post in June of this year was 605, an increase of 32 per cent. in twelve months, although not all of these are employed full-time on routine cervical cytology. These numbers should be adequate to provide the service needed, but the distribution of technicians varies and there are still some areas where more are needed. In the autumn of 1964 my right honourable friend set up five special centres to provide training in cytology for selected technicians. These centres were to provide full-time training so that on completion of their courses the technicians would return to their regions and help to establish or expand the hospital cytology services, and also help to provide local training for other laboratory technicians. Many Regional Hospital Boards now provide local training arrangements of their own. Research, some of it supported by my right honourable friend, is being carried out into a number of possible ways of automating screening methods, but a practicable technique cannot be expected in the near future.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, and would ask him to thank his right honourable friend the Minister for this report on progress. Will he, at the same time, ask the Minister whether the 17 per cent. increase in a year is quite as much as he had hoped for, and whether some additional publicity might lead to increasing numbers of women coming forward? Further, can we be satisfied that in those cases where cancer, or incipient cancer, is diagnosed there are sufficient
684
surgical facilities available to enable the necessary operations to be carried out without any undue delay?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, on the publicity point, my right honourable friend, in a circular issued in October last year, recommended the setting up of local co-ordinating committees which would, among other things, decide on how best to stimulate demand in their areas. It seems to me that publicity is best handled at local level, because the service is not evenly developed throughout the country. Where it is in adequate operation one can safely have full publicity. I am not aware of any lack of surgical facilities to carry out the operations the necessity for which should be revealed by this service.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me in what part of the country there is shortage of facilities, and whether this is due to apathy on the part of the authorities, or to shortage of technicians?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the facts about this matter are somewhat complicated and, if the noble Baroness agrees, I will send them to her afterwards. I do not believe there is apathy, but when a new service is started up it always seems to go ahead faster in some places than in others.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord's Answer to refer only to England and Wales. Can he say what the situation is in Scotland?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to do so at the moment, but I will arrange for the details to be sent to the noble Lord by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what progress has been made in the use of lasers for diagnosis of cervical cancer?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I understand that the hopes formerly entertained of progress in this particular branch of technology do not appear likely to be sustained.

WETHERSFIELD MILITARY AERODROME AND STANSTED
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether contracts are being placed for about £550,000 worth of constructional work at Wethersfield military aerodrome; whether this indicates that military flying activities with very high speed aircraft are to continue at this station; and whether such activities will constitute a danger to large-scale civilian flying to and from the airport at Stansted.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, contracts to the value of £551,400 were let in August, 1967, for constructional work at Wethersfield to meet the requirements of the United States Air Force. These particular costs will not be borne by Her Majesty's Government. Flying by high-speed aircraft will continue at the station for the time being, but the development of Stansted to its full planned capacity will make Wethersfield unusable for military flying. Although this will not happen until the mid-1970's, we are in touch with the United States Air Force about the possible use of the station for a non-flying task. The continuation of military flying at Wethersfield in the meantime will not constitute a danger to civil flying.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. His announcement that flying will not be simultaneous from the two airfields removes a certain amount of apprehension. But will he say how much it will cost to move the Wethersfield aerodrome to a new site somewhere else in the Kingdom, and whether this sum will be added to the estimates already put forward for the cost of building Stansted?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, only part of the additional work is directly related to flying activities, and, of course, the Americans were well aware
686
of the position in deciding whether the costs they expended were justified. It is not possible for me to say what replacement facilities, if any, will be needed in the future. I am sorry, but I cannot help the noble Lord further on this matter. I inquired, and it is not possible, I am afraid, to speculate on what will be needed, and indeed whether anything will be needed.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
2.39 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Lord Grenfell, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Oakshott, the Lord Champion, the Lord St. Helens, the Viscount Dilhorne and the Lord Royle be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Committee be appointed to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:
V. Gage,
V. Simonds,
L. Cohen,
L. Grantchester,
L. Morton of Henryton,
L. Silkin.
—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS
2.40 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE rose to call attention to the teaching of religion in schools; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the terms of my Motion are:
"To call attention to the teaching of religion in schools".
I deliberately worded it as widely as possible as, so far as my research goes, it seems that this is the first time we have had a debate of this kind in your Lordships' House, and I wished to allow your Lordships the fullest scope to range over the whole field; not, of course, that the wording of a Motion necessarily deters your Lordships from saying what you wish, but in this case I wanted the Motion particularly to cover two main aspects of religious education. The first is the so-called dual system, under which Church schools enjoy certain privileges of denominational religious instruction, and are subsidised as to 80 per cent. of their capital costs; and the second is the teaching of religion in county schools, as required by the 1944 Education Act.
So far as the dual system is concerned, I have little to say. The 1967 Education Act, which raised the contribution of the State from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent., gave your Lordships an opportunity to discuss this matter. Quite apart from that, I personally believe that the time is not ripe for any change in this system. I believe that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Churches for the contribution they have made to education in the past, and although I readily acknowledge that because we are grateful we do not necessarily need to continue with the same system, I do feel that our gratitude lays an obligation upon us to help them all we can when they themselves are as willing as they have shown themselves to be to run their schools efficiently and to develop them in tune with modern educationals trends.
Many of us, on this side of the House, at any rate, believe that variety in education and parental choice, where possible, are desirable things in education and we would be the last to wish to see Church schools abolished, unless there were overpowering reasons. What interests me far more, and where I believe
688
there really is a problem which must be solved, and solved quickly, lies in the teaching of religion in the county schools, primary schools and secondary schools. We are all interested in this subject, whether as taxpayers or as parents, or as individuals who have firm convictions of a religious nature. The subject is highly controversial. It involves our deepest beliefs as to the whole meaning of life, and therefore it is largely a matter of personal judgment. I should like to emphasise, therefore, that nothing I say is in any way the collective view of any noble Lords on this side of the House. Certainly this, I hope, has no relationship at all to Party matters, but just to emphasise that fact I thought I would speak from a Back Bench in order to make sure that your Lordships understood that anything I said was my own personal opinion.
The present system of religious education in county schools is founded on the 1944 Education Act. That is one of the great Education Acts that has moulded our system since the State became interested in educating its citizens. The 1944 Act is recognised as a great milestone, not least for the sections dealing with religious instruction, and the Act stands on the Statute Book as a living tribute to the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who was principally responsible for passing it into law. Therefore, I am delighted that the noble Lord is going to speak in this debate.
His great achievement in the 1944 Act was to succeed in obtaining the agreement of all the religious denominations, excluding, of course, the Catholics, to some relatively simple sections covering religious instruction in schools. If I may summarise the present system briefly, it is as follows: each school day must start with a collective act of worship; there must be at least one period of religious instruction weekly, given according to an agreed syllabus. This syllabus is the result of a conference held by local education authorities, on which are represented the religious denominations, the teachers and the education authorities. Then there is a provision for parents to opt out on behalf of their children, either of the act of worship or of religious instruction, and equally there is provision for teachers to abstain from them if

689
they so wish. This is the system that obtains to-day, as we come to discuss it.
When I first put my Motion on the Order Paper, I had a letter from my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, who I am pleased to see is speaking later in the debate, in which he asked, "What is worrying you?" So first of all may I give your Lordships some idea why I think the present system should be looked at. I would emphasise in particular that I am thinking of the vast majority of the children in our schools. In other words, I am thinking not so much of the grammar schools, dealing perhaps with the 35 per cent. of our more able children, but in particular of the children so aptly called by Newsom "half our future"—those in the secondary modern and comprehensive schools.
The first basic reason why I think we should review the present system is, quite simply, the poor results that are obtained by it. It has been amply proved by such research as has been carried out, and I would mention notably by Mr. Harold Loukes, Reader in Education at Oxford University, that schoolchildren emerge from the present system with an abysmal ignorance of what we mean by "religion". Odd myths from the Old Testament may have stuck in the memory of some; others may remember some geographical facts about the travels of St. Paul; others may recall some historical facts about the life of Jesus, but very few indeed will have any grasp of the meaning behind the Bible, or any understanding of its implications for their own lives.
Yet from the experience that I have had, particularly with the Y.M.C.A., I have seen the same young people who have learned nothing about religion at school discussing with great eagerness the probems of their own lives, and in the hands of people skilled in such work it is relatively easy to draw them on from a discussion of matters that interest them personally into broad general considerations of morals and religion. I cannot help feeling that a lot of the time we are teaching religion the wrong way round. We are attempting to teach facts and rules and expecting our pupils to accept them and lead their lives by them, when what we should be teaching—although "teaching" is quite the wrong word—what we should be drawing their attention to are their own problems, the
690
problems of life around them, and from them drawing out the religious implications.
I think one of the most significant things that has happened recently has been the much publicised conversion of the Beatles to the teaching of the Maharishi. I am in no position to comment on the teachings of this gentleman, whom my right honourable friend Mr. Quintin Hogg referred to as "the giggling Guru". But what I think is significant is the fact that the Beatles, who more than any other living young people have attained the height of wordly achievement, have found that it is not enough and that they need some spiritual satisfaction.
The second reason why I consider that a review is necessary is that a considerable change has taken place in the whole climate of religion since the 1944 Act. Then it was a great achievement to get agreement among the different denominations, but in order to achieve that agreement the agreed syllabuses tended to be based on the lowest common denominator, which was Bible study. The present situation is very different. There is more talk among the Churches of unity than of denominational differences. It is certainly much easier to get agreement on a revised syllabus more in tune with modern thought and modern methods of teaching; and I am thinking in particular of the new agreed syllabus for the West Riding.
I mentioned modern methods of teaching, and this is my third reason for a new look at the present system. As your Lordships probably know, the days of a classroom with the teacher on a dais, writing on a blackboard, for the class to copy in their notebooks are rapidly disappearing. It has come to be realised that with the less able pupils three-quarters of an hour's lecturing may result in nothing being learned, but if one of those pupils asks one question it is more than likely that he or she will remember the answer. Indeed, much of the pattern of modern education is based on such principles, especially for the less able child. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the programme of teaching in a secondary modern or comprehensive school will know that it is largely made up, for the less able pupils, of projects and topics pursued by the young people themselves. Moreover, the subjects are

691
no longer kept in water-tight compartments but are fused together and interrelated. With such trends taking place in education, religious instruction tends to stick out like a sore thumb. It is usually treated as a separate subject, often a dull repetition of facts. How tragic, and yet how apt to happen, that we should ever hear a child say, "I am not much good at religion "!
Fourthly, and lastly, there has been since 1944 a considerable change in our society. The church-going habit has largely disappeared. People look to the Church almost as they look to The Times, for births, marriages and deaths. "The tempo of our age", writes Dr. R. J. Goldman, "is that of search and questioning", and such research evidence as is available suggests that these trends are continuing among the younger members of the population. Moreover, the considerable number of immigrant children who are now in certain of our schools has brought visibly to the attention, both of those teaching them and of those who are taught, that there is much to learn about religions other than the Christian religion.
These, my Lords, are the reasons why I feel we should think again about the teaching of religion in schools; I am extremely grateful to all those of your Lordships who have put your names down to speak in this debate, and I feel that we shall largely rely on your wisdom and experience to make this debate a worthwhile one. I certainly do not consider myself in any way an expert, but, at the same time, as an interested parent I cannot help putting forward some of my personal views on what we might be considering doing in the present circumstances; and I do so not in any spirit of criticism of what has been done hitherto, but with the sole object of suggesting ways in which it might be reshaped.
The first question I put to myself was: Should we continue to teach religion in our schools? In view of the decline in church attendance, do parents any longer want their children to receive religious education? And the answer, in so far as I have been able to discover, is a decisive, Yes. A number of opinion polls have been conducted over the last five years, and the overwhelming majority of parents consistently come out in favour of religious
692
instruction in schools. In a sample survey conducted by National Opinion Polls, and published in New Society in May, 1965, 90 per cent. of those consulted—despite the fact that of the sample less than one quarter had attended church within the previous three months—voted for the continuance of the present arrangements for religion in schools.
A more recent research project has been carried out in the North-East by Mr. P. R. May, of Durham University, and Mr. O. R. Johnston, of Newcastle University, and this research has confirmed this evidence. In this survey 96·1 per cent. of those sampled said they wanted their children to know about and understand Christianity; 90·2 per cent. wanted State schools to continue to provide religious instruction, even if they were not required by law to do so, and 85·2 per cent. considered it important for children in State schools to have religious instruction lessons. There are many other figures from similar types of research, but they all seem to come to the same conclusion: that the great majority of parents do want their children to receive religious education at school. Mr. P. R. May has also been carrying out recently some research into teachers' attitudes to religious education, and although these results are not yet ready for publication he has kindly said that I might quote from them. He discovers that of the teachers a substantial majority—66 per cent. of those he sampled—are in favour of compulsory religious instruction in schools.
My Lords, if we accept that there is a general desire on the part of both parents and teachers for religious education to continue in schools, and if, at the same time, we accept that the present system is not satisfactory, what should we be doing to improve it? First of all, let me take the primary schools. The Plowden Committee Report supported the continuance of the present system, but with increased emphasis on the parents' right to opt out on behalf of the child. I must confess that personally I find myself strongly attracted to the Minority Report by Professor Ayer and others, who believe (if I may quote a short sentence) that religion involves theology and
"theology is both too recondite and too controversial a subject to be suitable for inclusion in the curriculum of primary schools".
This is not in any way to detract from the moral teaching that a child receives in a primary school. This is necessarily part of the whole atmosphere of the school, and he or she is unconsciously learning to adapt himself or herself to a moral code throughout the whole of school life. Nor is it to say that in the course of primary education a child should not hear Bible stories and sing carols at Christmas. But what it does mean, to my mind, is that for children aged 5 to 11 there should not be a specific study of religion as a separate subject. Dr. Goldman, now Principal of Didsbury College of Education, who has given a great deal of thought and written a great many wise words on this subject, has expressed his belief, in which I concur, that no child under 12 is capable of understanding a religious concept. Two dangers, therefore, are liable to arise from teaching religion as a separate subject in primary schools.
First, the child absorbs at an early age a number of impressions that may positively hinder him or her at a later stage of development. Secondly, the child may be taught a number of stories based on myths which at the time he accepts as true, but when, later, he discovers that they are not to be taken as literal truth, he is liable to reject not only them but the whole of the religious instruction that he has received. Out goes the baby with the bath water. The child who discovers that the story of Adam and Eve or the story of Noah and the Ark does not accord with modern scientific thought is liable to look back on those who taught him such stories as old-fashioned fuddy-duddies, and he will consider as old-fashioned and fuddy-duddy any of the religious concepts that that teached may have tried to put over. In any case, I believe that religion is a difficult subject for the primary school. It is normally left to the class teacher, and a great deal depends on that teacher's approach. With such a shortage of good teachers of religion, I should prefer to see them concentrated on the secondary stage, teaching it to children of an age who can think and understand the subject; and I should be tempted no longer to make religious instruction a compulsory subject in primary schools.
It is in the secondary schools that, in my view, we should be making a great
694
effort to improve religious education—I would suggest in two ways: first, by widening the scope of the agreed syllabuses and, I hope, by reducing their number and bringing them up to the standard of the best, so that teaching is not merely a matter of imparting Bible knowledge but something that presents a challenge to young people in their own lives and explains the Christian approach to their problems. In my opinion it should go further. It should include comparative religious study and explain the principal beliefs of religions other than Christianity. The object of religious education in my view is not indoctrination. We are not trying to turn out Christians as the Russians try to turn out Communists. We should be aiming to put young people in a position to make up their own minds about the Faith for which so much is claimed and in which so many find satisfaction and inspiration.
I would mention again as an excellent example of such a syllabus the recent West Riding agreed syllabus. It covers subjects such as personal relationships, including home and family, friends, marriage and sex, class distinctions and race relations, world problems such as hunger, leisure, gambling, alcohol, drugs, war and world religions, modern artists, art in cathedrals and churches and a section on Jewish and Moslem worship. This is the kind of syllabus that I believe would stimulate young people into thinking about religion for themselves and thereby learning more than they would ever learn from a more formalised type of instruction.
Secondly, I believe it can be improved by improving the standard of teaching, for however much we revise the syllabuses we shall never get anywhere without the right teachers. In particular, what I believe is needed is more opportunity for in-service training for teachers, and also I believe that if more local education authorities were to appoint a religious education adviser in sympathy with a contemporary approach to the problem, that would help. But this is a vast subject and I have no time to go into it more deeply. I am happy to know that my noble friend Lord Sandford, who is far better qualified to speak on such subjects than I am, is going to say something later on in the debate.
Now I come to what in my view is the most difficult problem of all; namely, should the school day start with a compulsory act of worship? For most of us it was such a traditional part of school life that we are loth to consider dropping it, and, properly conducted, it can give a sense of common purpose to the school assembly. In the North-East poll that I mentioned earlier 90 per cent. of parents wanted their children to attend daily worship, even if not required to do so by law; and in Mr. May's survey of teachers some 60 per cent. of teachers wanted it to continue.
Yet there are arguments against it in certain cases, and I am thinking again particularly not so much of the grammar schools but of the less able pupils and the secondary modern and comprehensive schools. These arguments are, for example, that it is an inheritance from the past and quite apart from the normal home life of these children; that it is often meaningless to them, and insincerity is the enemy of mature religion; that it can be a mockery if it is badly conducted, and that there are cases certainly where teachers who do not believe in it frequently take part in it in the belief that if they do not their future chances of a headmastership may be adversely affected. I hope I am not too pessimistic, but I have made inquiries and I find a certain amount of gloom about this act of collective worship. It seems to me preferable that where conviction and sincerity are lacking no act of worship should be held. In other cases I should prefer to leave it to the decision of the individual school whether to hold it daily or whether, perhaps, to hold it once or twice a week. But I would stress that these are purely my personal opinions.
Finally, may I make mention of two what are, in modern jargon, I believe, called growth points—two areas where I see great possibilities of progress. The first is the religious broadcasts of the B.B.C. to schools. Two of these provide religious services, one for the primary school and one for the secondary school. These are services conceived in the modern idiom, and useful particularly in schools where a headmaster may prefer not to conduct the religious service himself. The other broadcasting services to schools are designed to provide religious
696
education in the fullest sense rather than religious instruction. I would give as an example a series for sixth forms called "Religion in its Contemporary Context", which does not assume any general commitment of sixth formers to Christianity and which shows an awareness of the extent of current non-Christian beliefs. For example, Humanists such as Professor Ayer and Dr. Cyril Bibby express their point of view as well as Christians. And forthcoming programmes are planned on Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam.
The other growth I would draw to your Lordships' attention is a most interesting document entitled Religious and Moral Education, containing proposals for county schools by a group of Christians and humanists. It seems to me to express views based primarily on what is best educationally for the child. To me they would seem also to be in the best interests of Christian education. The group recognises that if their recommendations were carried out the Christian faith would remain in a privileged position in county schools, and they think this educationally desirable against the background of opinion in this country. Moreover, they believe it is right that children should have the opportunity of sharing in an experience of the Christian religion as part of their total education. They ask, however, for a more open approach to the teaching of religion, which they define as teaching
"in such a way as to help pupils to make as freely as possible their own personal commitment to a belief or a way of life or attitude to the problems of life and society."
In my view, we should be thinking of modernising our teaching of religion in such ways as these if we believe in the value of including religious education in the school curriculum. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, it is well for us to turn away sometimes from more immediate political debate to consider matters that have perhaps wider implications for the future of our people even than some of the legislation which comes before us. This is, I believe, the first time for many years that your Lordships have debated the subject of religious

697
education in schools, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for having given us the opportunity this afternoon. Young people to-day are growing up in a world of scientific marvels, of rapid change and social contrasts—a world, too, in which perhaps nothing seems very stable or very certain—and they must wonder, even more than we did in our day, what is the place and purpose of man in the Universe.
The modern generation is criticised by some, but it has perhaps a more difficult task of reconciliation than most of its predecessors, and I am not sure that we have done as much as we should have done to help them. Anyone of intelligence, and young people particularly—and if I understand rightly the evidence given by the British Medical Association to the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority, the evidence suggests that intellectual advance goes together with the earlier physical development—must sometimes wonder when they look round the world whether we have known what we were about. They are in no way incapable of discussing moral and religious issues, given the right kind of guidance and encouragement, and they are often eager to do so. What sort of help can we provide?
Of one thing there can be little doubt. They will not accept the authoritarian views on moral and religious issues which derive from 19th century biblical studies. Our parents had indeed a detailed knowledge of the Bible and its interpretation which we cannot match to-day, and for them it was a source of wisdom and strength. Perhaps that is why so much of the teaching in schools to-day is still based on this approach, yet I do not think it brings any of the security and certainty that our parents knew. Perhaps the world has changed too much, too fast.
In one sense, the religious settlement of the Education Act 1944, which did so much to end the bitter denominational strife from which education had suffered in earlier years, may have acted as something of a brake on the development of a new approach to religious education, comparable to that which has had such remarkable success in other fields of study. There are signs now that all this is changing; certainly there are many questions being asked which are
698
of great significance for the future of religious education.
Were we right in 1944 to make this the only compulsory subject in the school curriculum? Should it be left to parents to choose, and at what stage are young people able to choose for themselves? DO we make constructive use of the idealism of our young people and of the great concern of many of them to-day for the underprivileged in our society and overseas? We have inherited a great tradition with its roots firmly based in Christianity: what do we hand on? What should we hand on?
There are moral issues, too. What is the link, if there is one, between religion and morals for our young people? From what should they derive their principles of right behaviour? If, as some will say, religion and morals are indissolubly joined, how do we maintain morality in what seems to be an increasingly materialistic society? There may or may not be more unbelief among young people to-clay, but I am fairly sure that there is more honesty, and this makes the decision about what we should teach them both more difficult and more critical.
Inevitably, we look for guidance to the religious leaders in our community and we shall, I am sure, hear later on this afternoon what steps the Church of England is taking to meet the changing situation. Nor, of course, is the Church of England alone in this. We have witnessed in the past few years a most remarkable ecumenical movement, one which has a great significance for the future of education, and indeed for the world as a whole. Approaches have been made and steps taken—not only on one side—that many of us only a few years ago would not have believed possible.
Ultimately, of course, as in all education, we must depend upon the teachers and we must think whether we do enough to help them to face and cope with this responsibility. The noble Lord was not alone in demanding more research into teaching methods, a greater understanding of how and why children react as they do to religious teaching, new and better teaching materials and equipment, a more stringent intellectual discipline so that this subject takes it proper place among others in the school curriculum, and at the same

699
time a wider knowledge of religions and beliefs outside Christianity.
Religious education is under challenge, and that is a good thing because that which is not subject to challenge (because nobody cares) is dead. In this field, as in so many others to-day, there is a need for critical and adventurous thinking. I hope that your Lordships will suggest ways in which this might be encouraged. The work of the Schools Council for the curriculum and examinations is leading the way, with studies of the implications for the school curriculum of the raising of the school-leaving age in a few years time and the place of religious education in the sixth form. We have recently had the interesting discussion in the Plowden Report on Children and their Primary Schools; it was perhaps not to be expected that the members of the Plowden Committee, who represented a wide cross-section of opinion on this matter, could succeed in settling their differences, but they have given us all a great deal to think about.
Other hopeful signs are to be found in the recent and sudden increase in the publication of books, articles in the daily papers and in the education journals, and in the way in which this has been matched by new efforts on the part of teachers themselves, with the help of advisers, local religious leaders and the active and useful bodies such as the Christian Education Movement, to sort out the issues afresh and to develop their own ideas and teaching materials. It is encouraging that more local education authorities have been appointing religious education advisers for the first time, and many others have taken the initiative, with the support of all concerned, in reconsidering the terms of the agreed syllabus for religious education in county schools.
It is sometimes suggested that the days have gone when religion should be taught in schools at all. It would seem to me that this is not the majority view. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in saying that such research as has been made seems to show that this is not the view of parents, and that a large majority are still in favour of children being taught religious education at school. It is, I suppose, in a field of this kind primarily for Governments to do what people, and particularly the parents, want. The reasons why the parents take that view
700
may be complex, but the feeling seems to be genuine. If this view continues to prevail, we have a duty to see that religious education is well taught so that our children can make their choice in an informed way. So for my part I am very largely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said—not in his support of the minority view of the Plowden Council, but substantially in every other aspect. I think that the wishes of the parents should certainly prevail in the need for religious instruction. I think that we are all aware that the quality of that instruction needs to be both questioned and approved. Primarily, perhaps, this is a matter for the Churches, but I think the Churches themselves would very largely agree with the criticisms, so far as they went, of the noble Lord, and that they are in no way complacent.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen—I think it was published only about three weeks ago—The Communication of the Christian Faith. That is a Report by the Church of England Board of Education, which I understand has already been partly discussed by the Church Assembly. The Report says—and it is very much what the noble Lord himself said on one point:
"Inadequate or misconceived teaching at either the primary or secondary stage may be a serious, and indeed an almost insuperable, obstacle to the development of an informed and mature faith in later life."
Then it says:
"The Board of Education is presenting this Report to the Church Assembly in the belief that there is an urgent need for stocktaking in relation to the whole field of religious education, that need arises from the steadily accumulating evidence that the process of religious education, as at present conceived, meets with very imperfect success.…"
Finally, the Report says:
"The Agreed Syllabuses, which have since the 1944 Act provided the framework for religious teaching in schools, have proved to be faulty instruments. They were in the main based on the idea of systematic Bible study, which was the dominant mode of teaching in the theological colleges, and which seemed at the time to have the overriding advantage that it offered neutral ground on which the Churches could meet and sink their differences. They were far too ambitious in scope and paid too little regard to the actual capacities of children. As the Chairman of the Board has put it, the Agreed Syllabuses have been more effective in satisfying the views of the Churches, than in meeting the religious needs of the children.…"

701
The Government, I am sure, will listen with the greatest interest to every suggestion which may be made by Members of your Lordships' House. If I have not spoken for long it has primarily been because of the long list of those wishing to speak; and, of course, my noble friend Lady Phillips will be able at the end to offer the Government's comments on such suggestions as have been made.
May I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for having given us an opportunity to discuss what to most of us is a very important subject, and by expressing my own regret that, for a reason which I mentioned during the debate on the gracious Speech from the Throne, I shall be unable to hear all the speeches. But I shall certainly read all those which I am unable to hear.
3.23 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for opening this debate, and for doing so in such a helpful and constructive manner. This is the third occasion in six months on which Lord Aberdare and I have both spoken in the same debate. We seem to be making a habit of it. But I always find that he is very well informed, and is listened to with great attention. On this occasion there is much that he has said with which I agree.
A few decades ago this subject would have raised intense Party political controversy. I have no doubt that someone from the Liberal Benches would have emphasised the disabilities from which the Free Churches felt they were suffering, and in all probability a spokesman from the Conservative Benches would have put the case for the Established Church. I welcome the fact that to-day this subject can be discussed in a much calmer atmosphere. Furthermore, I think it is fortunate that the divergences between the political Parties in this country are not based on religious differences, as to a considerable extent they still are on the Continent. It is unnecessary, therefore, to say that this is not a Party political issue, and I speak for myself alone. I do not presume to commit any of my colleagues.
702
If I may start on a personal note, I am one who is steeped in the Nonconformist tradition. I am suspicious of any attempt to impose views on either adults or children. I do not consider it the proper or necessary function of the State to be the Defender of the Faith, and on the question of whether the Church of England should continue to be Established, I think I should almost certainly vote for disestablishment. Nevertheless, in spite of those views, I am satisfied in my own mind that religious education should be included in the curriculum of schools for which the State is responsible, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I should like to see a more open approach. I say deliberately, "religious education", and not "religious instruction", although I am aware that "religious instruction" is the expression used in the 1944 Act. But it is significant that in all the discussions that have been taking place lately about the subject the term used is "religious education".
There is a subtle but, I think, important distinction. Religious education is education about religion. If the motive were indoctrination, as is sometimes suggested, I think it would be impossible to justify it, but I do not think that that really is so to-day. Furthermore, I do not think it would be likely to succeed, because children are very sensitive to what they call being "got at", and youth tends to react against the views which it thinks those in authority want it to accept. In the Soviet Union, where, as your Lordships know, the teaching of religion in schools is strictly forbidden and the propagation of religion is strongly disapproved of, those in authority are disturbed at the number of young people who are accepting the Christian faith. Perhaps there is some lesson to be learned from that.
But, returning to the subject of our curriculum, if the aim is education in its fullest sense, if the intention is to help to provide a background which will enable children to decide for themselves, then I think it is justified. I forget the name of the distinguished visitor who, when speaking to a gathering of boys, summed up his advice in the remark:
"Say your prayers and wash the back of your neck."
I have no quarrel with that advice. But what really matters is that a boy to whom

703
that advice is given should, by the time he leaves school, be in a position to decide for himself whether or not it is a good idea to wash the back of his neck or to say his prayers; and that surely involves some knowledge and understanding of the merits or demerits of washing and praying.
Of course there is more to it than that, and what has impressed me, and led me to the view that religious education should be included in the curriculum, is not only the apparent wish of the majority of parents, but also the revolution in ideas among educationists and the great amount of valuable research that is going on, the effects of which have not yet been fully felt. I agree that we are still only on the threshold of understanding the best approach to the teaching of religion, but there seems to be growing support for the view that the starting point should be what is called the "case study method".
There should be discussion about questions which children are actually asking. The Newsom Report gives a number of examples; for instance, how can God allow babies to be born deformed? It is a difficult enough question, and it leads on to others, and eventually the children will ask about the reality and nature of God; and, perhaps, some day some of them will read Honest to God. But the aim must surely be to help children to reach their own conclusions; not to determine what they should believe.
There was a small child in the 5 to 6 age group who was asked whether she liked going to school. She said that she did, and when asked "Why?" replied, "Because I like finding out things." That seems to be an extraordinary compliment to the teacher and to the method of teaching. Religious education must keep pace with the advance in educational methods.
I know that there are some who suggest that we might dispense with religious education and, instead, devote the time to teaching morals and ethics. I am not entirely persuaded that that would be an advance. I think that if you were to tell a class of children that for the next forty-five minutes they were going to be taught morals, you would be asking for failure. But I should like to join in paying a tribute to the noble Lord,
704
Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, whom we are delighted to see here; and I am very pleased he is going to take part in this debate. The 1944 Act was a great achievement, and Sections 25 to 30, dealing with religious instruction, represented an important advance. But after over twenty years it is perhaps not surprising that they sound somewhat dated; and I think there are several reasons for this.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, had the task of achieving agreement between the denominations—and that was a very important task. The religious clauses in the Act represent a compromise, and I think that at that point of time it was a very important compromise. But now the whole atmosphere has changed. There is close co-operation between all the main denominations, and the problems to-day are the method of presentation, the quality of teaching and the availability of teachers who feel that they can conscientiously undertake this task. Therefore the whole climate has altered. I think another respect in which it might now be said that the 1944 Act is inappropriate is that there is no clear distinction between teaching religion and the act of worship. There are others here to-day who are much better qualified than I am to speak about that, and shall listen to what they have to say. I would make only one comment, as regards both religious education and the act of worship: I am sure that quality is very much more important than quantity.
I can see the importance of periods of worship, and if the emphasis in education is on learning by experience then there is value in the experience of the act of worship, and I can see the point of those who claim that this is an essential part of education. On the other hand, much of the value may be destroyed by the fact that it is compulsory. I think it is only fair to say that it is not always a dull formality. It is not, for instance, in the secondary modern school which I visit from time to time, when, on a Friday morning, the school orchestra takes part and the choir is conducted by one of the younger masters, and when, as far as an adult can tell, all those taking part find it a worthwhile occasion. There probably is some real value in that collective activity.
Whether the children understand the words of the hymns, I should not like

705
to say, because the words of some hymns are very puzzling to children. I remember, as a boy, singing that hymn which begins with the lines,
"There is a green hill far away,
Without a city wall,"
I never could understand why that green hill had not got a city wall, and I did not see why it should have one anyway. I am not the only one who was puzzled by that, because I saw it mentioned in a little book called Nine O'clock on a Wet Monday Morning, written by the headmaster of a primary school in Blackburn. I mention that because he is one who shows a deep insight into the mind of a child. This is a primary school; and, while I agree that there should be greater freedom, I want to encourage teachers who are doing this, and not discourage them.
My Lords, there is so much that could be said on this subject, but I know I must exercise restraint. However, I should like to offer a few suggestions which I hope will be of practical value, and the first arises out of the comments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to the West Riding Agreed Syllabus, which is entitled Suggestions for Religious Education. I think we should ask: how did that come about? How did it come to be written? I think the key was the appointment of a religious adviser in 1960. Of course, that is not the same thing as the Advisory Committee under the Fifth Schedule. A full-time adviser was appointed, and he had discussions with teachers throughout the whole area. He discussed with them their problems and their difficulties; and then, in 1963, a conference within the provisions of the Act was arranged. This coincided with a good deal of research; and the outcome was the new Syllabus. I find that 13,000 copies of this new Syllabus have been sold, and I was told the other day that it is out of print. Those responsible are asking for more to be printed to meet the continuing requests for it. So there seems to be a need; and I am sure it would be helpful if all education authorities were to appoint a religious adviser who was a full-time member of the advisory staff.
Secondly, if religious education is to be retained, it must not be treated as a poor
706
relation. There should be more courses for teachers, many of whom are only too willing to attend; there should be what is called in-service; and there should be a link with the appropriate departments of the universities. Thirdly, there must be flexibility: as much freedom as possible for the heads of schools to interpret the law. Certainly we must not stick to the letter of the law. In some primary schools the head finds it helpful to have an act of worship at 10.30, but that is not strictly in accordance with the law because it is not at the beginning of the day. I think we must be flexible if the act is to be retained.
But, of course, we must recognise that sooner or later there will have to be a new Act of Parliament. If the Government decide in favour of bringing in a Bill, then, certainly so far as the Free Churches are concerned, and I believe as far as the other Churches are concerned, the machinery for discussing what changes should be made is available. But, personally, I am inclined to the view that it might be wiser to wait, say, five years, to see what benefits can be derived from all this new research. I do not suggest this for administrative convenience for the Government, but I think it might be beneficial. Nevertheless, some day there must be a new Act. However skilfully it is worded, and however much care is taken in drafting it, success will depend not on the wording of any Act of Parliament but on a sympathetic understanding of the subject and on the sincerity and educational ability of those who teach.
3.38 p.m.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I am glad to take part in this debate for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—that I had a certain part to play in bringing in the compulsory religious instruction clauses in the Act of 1944—and I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who spoke from the Free Church angle. In drafting the Act of 1944, I was very much helped by one whom we might well remember to-day; namely, Chuter Ede. He was my great helper on that occasion; a Free Churchman himself, who brought along the redoubtable Dr. Scott Lidgett to help us in the religious settlement, after there had been some rather harsh words.

707
I should like to make it quite clear at the outset that it was not just a bright idea to bring in compulsory religious instruction in 1944. It was an essential part of the whole religious settlement introduced between the years 1941 and 1944, and negotiated for three solid years running with all the Churches, with the National Union of Teachers, with the Trades Union Congress, with the Labour Party and with the Conservative Party. I do not believe that we should have got what was described as the settlement of 1944 if we had not included these clauses on religious instruction as part of the religious settlement which was itself part of the dual system settlement, which was also included at that time.
Everybody gave a little; everybody objected to something that somebody else wanted. But, in the end, we produced an atmosphere which, as the noble Lord has just stated, is prevailing to-day, when the Churches are much closer together than they were at that date, and when I think it may be possible to go forward from our present situation in regard to religious instruction to make some modern and up-to-date improvements in it.
I do not think we should ever have settled the problem of the Church schools without the help of William Temple, and I should like to pay a tribute to-day to his memory, because I think it was largely due to his lead that we divided the Church schools into aided and county schools. We therefore divided religious instruction as between aided schools under the ægis of the Church, which the Bishop of Chichester of that day described as "schools in which worship would be allowed", and county schools. If we had not allowed for this dichotomy, we could not have got any solution at all to the Roman Catholic question. I do not propose to deal with the Roman Catholic question at all this afternoon. I would only remind Roman Catholics that I did speak to the hierarchy on one very critical occasion and I quoted the words of the hymn:
"Ye doubting Saints; fresh courage take,
The clouds you so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
With blessings on your head."
Although I had many upsets from the Roman Catholics, many complaints and
708
many worries, I should like to say how much I admire the manner in which they have tackled their own education and have taken advantage of the settlement under the Act and the new grant of 80 per cent.
So, my Lords, my remarks to-day will be devoted largely to dealing with the Anglican position and the actual position of religious instruction. I am in some doubt, taking the Church schools first, whether the leaders of the Church are attacking the teaching of religion in the Church schools with enough determination. It is being tackled piously, and I think it is being tackled well; but I Wink that more needs to be done. And before I conclude I shall refer to a Report made by the Archdiocese of York in which the Archbishop has set up a Commission to report, under Mr. Richard Wood, M.P. I have the Report with me; it is a good one, and I recommend it strongly to all dioceses as an excellent lead in teaching the clergy, especially the new incumbents, what opportunities there are in Church schools for religious teaching. If that Report were to be followed up universally, I think that an advance would have been made in the Church school question.
But, my Lords, it is with the county schools in general that I shall be predominantly concerned. Just to remind the House of the atmosphere of the war time, I want to read one paragraph from the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction of 1943. This said—before the Bill was introduced:
"There has been a very general wish, not confined to representatives of the Churches, that religious education should be given a more defined place in the life and work of the schools. Springing from the desire to revive the spiritual and personal values in our society and in our national tradition, the Church, the family, the local community and the teacher all have their part to play in imparting religious instruction to the young".
This followed from what was described at the time as "the Archbishop's Five Points" and it was the very beginning of the reform of the Education Bill. There were doubts at the time—and I freely acknowledge this—as to the wisdom of bringing in this compulsory instruction; but the right of withdrawal by parents was deliberately introduced. As one who was responsible for the Act over 23 years ago, I should like to say that I agree with

709
the Plowden Committee that more attention should be drawn to the rights of parents who wish to withdraw their children. I think it would be a great mistake if this were not stressed in this debate. Although I am devoted to the cause of religious education I do not think it ought to be imposed on children whose parents do not desire them to have it. In that, I agree with the Plowden conclusions.
The general result of Section 25 of the Act (I will not read it, as it has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare) was that religious instruction was to be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus. When I submitted this to Winston Churchill he expressed some surprise—as he often did at things I put before him. He asked if I were starting a new State religion. He then asked to see the Archbishop of the day and questioned him as to whether I was trying to rival Zoroaster—which I thought was rather over-doing things. But William Temple was firm on the agreed syllabus. Although he referred to it slightly grudgingly as being a form of moral Stoicism, he said that he thought that in the county school we probably should not get much better than that from the agreed syllabuses of the day. It is remarkable that this religious instruction was the only complsory subject included in the Act. For the first time in the history of this country, religious instruction was made compulsory.
So much for the manner of introduction of religious instruction. What is the position to-day, 23 years later? The position seems to me to be that there is a considerable whirl of theological doubt succeeding Honest to God and other such publications. I think we miss the educational guidance which we were given at the time by William Temple; but I think the leaders of the Church have managed to maintain a very close and real interest in the subject. I have studied a number of sources to see what I think is the position to-day. First of all, a book called Religious Education, 1944–1984, edited by Alexander Wedderspoon. Here I find a very important fact which I think is cardinal to this debate. It is claimed in this book that only 5 per cent. of our children are really touched by the religious education provided by the Churches outside the schools
710
in what are described as old-fashioned Sunday schools and so forth. If this be really true—and I am in some doubt whether the figure should be so low—it shows that if our children are to understand what the White Paper said about our spiritual inheritance the whole job falls absolutely squarely on the Church schools and the county schools. I would ask any representative of the Anglican Church who may be speaking to-day whether he thinks the Church themselves can control many children actually outside the schools in this subject of religious education. If they cannot—and I believe it is difficult to do—it makes the question of religious instruction in schools exceedingly important.
My doubts about the present position have been aggravated by reading Dr. Goldman's book, Religious Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. This is the best bit of research on the subject we are debating to-day. This was followed by Mrs. Dewar's book with the enchanting title of Backward Christian Soldiers, in which she seems to think we are not making very much progress in our schools at all. This was preceded by Mr. Loukes's book—again referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—under the title, Teenage Religion which I think probably has more in it than almost any other book on this s abject—especially for the teenagers or the secondary school children. This was followed up by inquiries by the Leeds University Institute of Education and the Sheffield Institute. There was also a recent article in Learning and Living on the extent of religious instruction in the secondary schools.
On the whole, all these inquiries seem to show that religious instruction is maintained; but they also seem to show that there are some very definite difficulties. I will summarise them as four: the timetable difficulties are reducing many hours of religious instruction to nothing; staff shortage is doing the same thing; in many schools the daily act of worship or assembly is without meaning; and, lastly, the agreed syllabus is too factual and concentrates too much on Bible stories and the Old Testament.
If we look at the primary schools we have the benefit of the Plowden Report. I am afraid that I do not agree with the

711
noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who introduced this Motion, that we should stop-off religious instruction before the secondary school and omit the primary schoolchildren. I do not agree with that. I think that these children are very acute. I once had the benefit of listening to an ardent priest in a Church school attempting to indulge in a lesson. He asked these children, while I watched, "What should we do to earn forgiveness of sins?" A hand went up at the back of the class and a small girl said: "We should learn to sin first." This showed a certain acuteness of perception which I do not think is lacking in the very young generation.
Therefore I personally support the Majority Report of the Plowden Committee in its quite reasonable conclusions. I understand all their reservations, but when they say that a warning should be given to parents, that there should be more freedom in the act of worship, that there should be an examination in the nature of teaching and more in-service training to teachers, I think the majority of the Plowden Committee have presented a good conclusion. The Minority Report has been referred to by the noble Lord. It is written by non-believers in a very understanding way and is blemished, in my view, by only one extraordinary conclusion. They write this:
"We are aware that public opinion may not be on our side but in this instance, as in that of corporal punishment, we do not believe that this consideration should debar us from advocating what we think is right."
Well, my Lords, I can find no similarity at all between condign punishment and spiritual education. The only person I can imagine who really believed in this was Arnold the Great, of Rugby School, and he, no doubt, combined the two in the same sentiment in his mind. I really do not follow this conclusion, but apart from that I sympathise with certain findings of the Minority Report, the main one being (and it has been drawn attention to already in the debate) that we should somewhat widen our religious teaching, and should, so to speak, bring in wider subjects in connection with it, as is recommended in the West Riding Agreed Syllabus; and I agree with the noble Lord that that is by far the best extant to-day.
I consider, as a result of these examinations, that religious instruction should
712
definitely go on, with the following improvements. First, increased staffing. I would here recommend the formation of an executive body, representing the Churches, the Ministry of Education and Science and the teacher training colleges, which should have as its responsibility the recommendation of greatly increased teacher-training as we are suffering, from the lack of teachers. Secondly, I would recommend a review of the agreed syllabus in most places, not necessarily in the West Riding, but elsewhere, for it seems a great pity that in a modern age we cannot have a syllabus which is more up to date with original thought. On this, I would ask the local authorities to help, and the Churches themselves. Thirdly, I would ask for more research into this subject, as Dr. Goldman has done. Fourthly, I would widen religious instruction to follow the example which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has already shown to us; namely, a greater Ecumenical advance in Church affairs; and I would certainly agree with the Minority Report of the Plowden Committee that references to Socrates and other great figures in the history of the world could well find their place in parts of an agreed syllabus.
Lastly, my Lords, or penultimately, I should like to recommend that the local education authorities appoint full-time advisers—in that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade—and, lastly, that parents or ordinants in the Church should require more detailed training. If we follow those various recommendations, I think we shall greatly improve religious education, instruction, or whatever you like to call it, in this country.
I referred to the York Report of the Archbishop's Commission. One of their most powerful recommendations is that clergy with schools in their parishes should be well informed, and that the diocese should inform new incumbents of their duties. But they go further and attempt to define the objects of religious instruction, and they say:
"In the county school give the child an understanding of the Christian culture and tradition of the world he lives in."
In the Church school they go further and say:
"Help the child forward to a personal encounter with God."

713
I think this latter object is somewhat ambitious, but I do not think we can be too ambitious in this sphere. That was referring, of course, to the Church school.
I shall listen with respect to those who have doubts about religious instruction being compulsory, but I am convinced of the principle which animated us in the flush of war time—because, my Lords, this was put through while we were living in Church House with the bombs actually raining at the time, and the sentiments and the emotion of the day must not be forgotten now that we are in more peaceful but yet quite difficult times. I hope that we may, therefore, carry forward, perhaps in a more Ecumenical and in a more practical way in the modern world, an experience of religious instruction as one which our young people should enjoy.
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, it is, from our side, a matter of great satisfaction that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has given us the opportunity of discussing this important question, on which there is a great deal—probably an increasing amount—of public interest which in itself is encouraging. But, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, the author of the 1944 settlement (in spite of what he has said about those who helped him it would not have happened, even with Scott Lidgett and Temple together, without his mollifying influence) on a subject in which he is so expert is not easy. But it gives me the opportunity of saying once again how much we still derive benefit from the noble Lord's imaginative approach to the problems of religious education which resulted in the 1944 settlement.
There is no need for me to go again over the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, brought forward to show that there is a demand on the part of parents and teachers that religious instruction in the nations' schools should continue. The evidence is strong, and there is a further piece of evidence which was not quoted; it is that there is even evidence that the pupils wish religious education to continue. The result of a survey recently carried out by Mr. Cox and Mr. Barrett, which involved something like 1,100 boys and 1,100 girls in
714
96 schools, showed that 73·3 per cent. of them said that they wished religious instruction to continue as a necessary part of the education which they were receiving. And there is a good deal of evidence in the same way also in Dr. Loukes's book, Teenage Religion, to which reference has been made. There is a desire to know; there is a religious questioning. It will not be answered, necessarily, in the old traditional forms. It may never be answered in church, first of all because the seekers will not go there to get the answer. It will not be answered in the Sunday schools, because they, alas! are undoubtedly being reduced in numbers in all the churches.
New methods of religious instruction must be applied to a great extent to the Sunday schools. I believe that we shall have to stop calling them either "Sunday" or "schools", and that they will not necessarily be held on Sunday. Where there are already signs of an imaginative approach, an improved situation is being created. Nevertheless, the main burden of giving some knowledge of religion and of the Christian faith falls on the schools. The churches are not in touch and are not able to be in touch very often. The parents do not take the responsibility, because they themselves do not know where they stand; and upon the teachers and the schools falls this very great responsibility for giving some understanding of the religious part of life.
In the Church of England we have just initiated an inquiry into the whole question of religious education, and there is a very weighty Commission presided over by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. We are hoping that the Commission will give us two things, not only for the Church of England, but to all Churches: first of all, a reassessment of the theology of Christian education. We have gone on for centuries taking part in education without stopping to ask why or what we thought we were doing. I think it is clear to all of us that it has to be articulated, spelled out, that our concern for education derives from the Christian understanding of the nature of man as a unique being and of the unique importance of every single personality as being a complex of needs, physical, mental, emotional and spiritual, and that education must provide for all these.

715
The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, enshrined that profound theological truth in Section 7 of the Education Act 1944, where it is written:
"… so far it shall be the duty of the local education authorities, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education shall be available."
That order was thought to be important in 1944—that the spiritual came first. We are grateful that the emphasis was put that way and that we can still proclaim this and follow it up. We are concerned not with indoctrination but with the development of the whole man, and in that development it is not just religious instruction but religious education in which school worship takes its place.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack quoted from the document, The Communication of Christian Faith, recently presented to the Church Assembly over my own signature. From that quotation it will have been obvious to noble Lords, even it they have not read it, that there is certainly no complacency on the part of churches or teachers about the effectiveness of our present methods of religious education. That is why we look also to the Commission, which has been set up under my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham, to give us not only a theology of Christian education but also an application of that in a re-understanding and reappraisal of the methods appropriate to religious education. A great deal of research is going on and a great deal more is required, in which all the Churches are joining.
There is drawing to its completion an inquiry by the British Council of Churches Education Department into the various reports, including that of Dr. Goldman, which has been referred to several times in this debate, to see whether, putting all of them together, Christian soldiers are really so backward as the author of that book attributes, but also, critically, to see what insight we can gain into the mind and capacity of children. I would not go with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in following the Minority Report of the Plow-den Committee, or with Dr. Goldman, in what he said, which was followed up by the Minority Report. Very few teachers I have met who have taught in primary schools, particularly in infant junior schools, would agree with Dr. Goldman.
716
In fact they consider him, on this point, to be totally and completely wrong and out of touch with reality. For children of 5 to 10 or 11 have a capacity for religious insight and a demand for a religious understanding which is not articulated in academic terms but which is very real, as evidenced by the quality of worship in primary schools when it is well conducted.
I have been in assemblies in primary schools in London and elsewhere and in some of the depressed educational areas, to which the Plowden Committee rightly drew attention. And I have witnessed and have been allowed to share in assemblies conducted by children of 7 and 8 using prayers which they had written themselves and which, in some ways, were a jolly sight better than the prayers that some theologians write, because they went right to the heart of the matter. It would be absolutely wrong to say that school worship should not be available in primary schools. We need a great deal more help for the teachers who are conducting school worship. There are bad assemblies undoubtedly—nobody would claim there were not. Not every act of school worship succeeds. Indeed, could we say that every service in church was alpha-plus from that point of view?
Some years ago I was taking part in a sixth-form conference organised by what was then the Student Christian Movement in Schools, which has now become the Christian Education Movement. There were about 600 boys and girls there, and the end of the proceedings took the form of a meeting at which the head teachers were allowed in and those who had been speaking were asked to answer questions from the sixth-formers who had been working in groups. One question arrived in front of me prefaced by, "Will the speaker be strictly honest in answering the question". The question was, "Should school assembly be compulsory?" I stood there, with some fourteen head teachers, used to taking their school assemblies, in front of me, and I could not resist saying—and I think that this is where I still stand on this point—"If the assembly is badly conducted, it ought not to be compulsory. If it is conducted as it should be, then no one would wish to stay away."
Here is part of our difficulty. We need more men and women in the teaching

717
profession who have both insight and sensitivity to conduct school worship, just as we need them with the knowledge to be adequate in taking part in religious education. Here the colleges of education, to which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, referred, are playing an important, and an increasingly important, part, both in research into methods and in the training of teachers who will give us with these methods a new, a fresh and a dynamic approach.
There is no complacency, I repeat, on the part of the Churches. Nor do we think that the agreed syllabuses are anything like right for the modern age. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack quoted a remark which I made some time ago to the effect that the agreed syllabuses had been more successful in resolving differences between the Churches than in meeting the needs of the children. We have got past that stage now. The agreed syllabus, as revised by the joint Committee on which Churches, authorities and teachers are all represented, is taking on a new look and a good many revisions are in progress. The West Riding syllabus is a good one. There will shortly, I hope, emerge a London syllabus, which I have every reason to believe will be even better. And there is a constant desire to improve the methods on the part of the local education authorities.
In-service training is going on, though far more needs to be done. A great deal of help is forthcoming in new textbooks and teaching aids. The Standing Religious Advisory Council of the Inner London Authority, of which I have the privilege to be the Chairman, finds no difficulty, indeed finds a great deal of encouragement, from the Authority itself in producing a constant succession of aids and suggestions for teachers in the field of religious education, and the constant feed-back to that Committee from heads and teachers as to where we are failing and what needs to be done. The appointment of religious advisers is, of course, important, and I hope it will not be long before every authority has at least one such adviser. There is a movement quite clearly in that direction.
On the other points which have been raised, I would only refer again to the question of school worship. Obviously, there, as with school instruction, everything must be done to protect the freedom
718
of the parent to withdraw his child if he wishes to do so; and it should be a genuine option. The Churches have always done their best to insist upon this, just as they have always tried to emphasise from their side the freedom of the teacher not to give religious instruction if he does not wish to do so, or not to be associated in taking part in school worship if he does not wish to do so. But school worship is a way in which some of the religious truths which do not go into academic terms can be expressed. This, I believe, is a very important aspect. It was realised, I think, by the Crowther Committee when they said that they
"can say with conviction and gratitude, after visiting a number of acts of school worship, that we have very often been impressed by the reality which has marked the service. Corporate worship is not to be thought of as an instrument of education, but as a time when pupils and teachers seek help in prayer, express awe and gratitude of joy."
Worship, properly understood in that way, as I have said, can convey religious truths which do not go into the formal words of creedal statements, which sometimes the young do not understand any better than their elders. Again it should be said—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, though I agreed with much that he said, painted us a little too gloomy a picture—that not all assemblies are bad. Personally, I should like to divorce the act of worship from an assembly. I was present once at a ghastly assembly, at which, after a small perfunctory religious exercise, the headmaster proceeded to award ripe and juicy "raspberries" to a large number of people, in no uncertain terms. That is not school worship.
But that is the sort of thing that I believe is on the decline, and there is immense care on the part of a great many teachers to make school worship more meaningful, and a desire of the Churches to help them more in doing this. Very often it is best done by the teachers themselves. Sometimes the clergy are invited in—whether it be legal for them to be there or not we had better not inquire into—to help in the school worship, and that is sometimes, but not always, the right way.
Going back to the field of religious instruction, I would say that again there are signs of encouragement. New

719
methods are being tried out. Research is going on, and very soon we shall see more of its results being put into practice. There are signs that there are more teachers trained as specialists in religious education forthcoming, though we can do with a great deal more of them. Above all, there is this identity of purpose among all the Churches to serve the nation in education as best it may, no longer in rivalry. We have moved a long way since 1944.
If I have to leave your Lordships' House very shortly, it is in order to return to take the Chair at such an Ecumenical gathering which is in process at the present time. We can speak together. I believe that, if there is a new Education Act, it will not be necessary for the then Education Minister to negotiate with separate Churches, for the Churches, including our Roman Catholic friends, are of one mind on almost all the issues, and in constant touch with each other. In all this there is encouragement, but no cause for complacency. We shall try from the side of the Churches—and I know I can speak for all of them—to do everything we can by way of our own research, our co-operation with other researches, and our support of such interdenominational bodies as the Christian Education Movement, to help forward a work which we believe in the county schools to be of vital importance for the future of the nation.
4.17 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, although I rise to take part in this debate to-day from the Opposition Front Bench I feel I must make it quite clear that what I am hoping to say is based upon no other authority than my own. With other noble Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for having started this discussion to-day. I think it is a great pleasure to a number of us that the debate has been instigated by a layman, a father, and one who was in his day—and, indeed, is even now—a very fine athlete.
I suppose the main point at issue is whether religious instruction should remain compulsory in a country with so many unconvinced people or actual non-Christians. I feel strongly that it is an integral part of education to introduce
720
and expose children to religious ideas—such, for instance, as life after death. I well remember a small boy of 6, who had almost unconsciously absorbed this idea, saying to his mother, when she was trying to break the news to him that his much-loved grandfather had died: "How lovely for him Mummy. He will be meeting Robin Hood"—who at that time was one of the small boy's heroes.
It is significant that there is so much interest and concern in religious education in schools to-day, evidence of which we have had from one speaker after another. There is an abundance of work and inquiry going on. I find myself asking: "What do the teachers want? What do the parents want? What do the Churches want? What do the humanists want? And, most of all, what do the children need?" I will try to answer this question first. In April of this year a statement was issued by the Joint Council of Heads. This Council is made up of representatives of the Head Masters' Conference, the Head Masters' Society, the Association of Head Mistresses and the National Association of Head Teachers.
This considered statement strongly emphasised that the criticism of religious education which was being expressed in some quarters did not represent the views of the majority of teachers and parents. It was accepted that there was a need for the revision and adaptation of the agreed syllabus in those areas where such a review had not already been set on foot. The Joint Council of Heads were convinced that the teaching of religion was an essential part of education. They also believed that the majority of parents wished it to be included in the school curriculum, whether or not they themselves claimed to be Christians. They felt that moral teaching was not enough.
These, my Lords, were head masters and head mistresses who knew, and know, more about boys and girls than most people do. They believed that religious instruction was a most important part of the curriculum and school life; and I myself would add, of home life, too. They believed that Christianity, a precious part of our heritage, should be taught not only as a study of major world religion but also as a way of life; that the morning assembly, if it is intelligently and imaginatively conducted, can really mean something to children and

721
make an impression on them that lasts. After all, we must remember that many of these children get no other experience of a service conducted on religious lines. The Joint Council recognised that the relevant sections of the 1944 Education Act needed some revision and amendment, and that religious advisers could give considerable help to teachers, and that they should be appointed in all areas. This also has been agreed by various noble Lords in their speeches this afternoon These are the considered views, opinions and beliefs of a body of men and women who speak with the authority of those who know what they are talking about.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London (and I feel most diffident in following him in this debate, for his knowledge is so much wider and more profound that mine could ever hope to be) has referred to the Report, presented only last week, by the Church of England's Board of Education, entitled The Communication of the Christian Faith; and we have heard that this Report was the result of two years' work on the problem of the purpose of the Church in the field of education. Many of us have it in our possession and have read it, and I am sure that after to-day more noble Lords will make a point of picking up a copy of it from the Printed Paper Office, if there are sufficient left. At the same time, as the right reverend Prelate also told us, a new Commission on Religious Education has been set up by the Church of England's Board of Education, under the chairmanship of the right reverened Prelate the Bishop of Durham, whom we are greatly looking forward to hearing later in this debate. We also learn that the British Council of Churches has been engaged in a study of religious education in the maintained secondary schools.
One of the most impressive developments—it has also been referred to, but I do not hesitate to repeat this—is that a group of Christians and Humanists have met together and produced a Report which they have called Religious and Moral Education. To my mind, the most significant thing about their pamphlet is that it happened at all. For over two centuries at least Christians and Humanists have been at loggerheads with each other, and now they have got
722
together, worked together, and at the end produced a Report in order to start ideas and promote discussion.
For fifteen years religious instruction has been the only subject required by law to be taught in all schools. Some of the best of the agreed syllabuses produced as a result of the 1944 Act are probably very fine manuals indeed—if only there were sufficient teachers to use them properly. I am quite certain that even those of us who think we know the Bible fairly well could learn a great deal from them. Here I except the right reverend Prelates; I would not dream of advising them to use an agreed syllabus to improve their knowledge. But in school we must remember that it is very difficult to give useful religious teaching when it has to be so undogmatic, and when there are so many varieties even of professing Christians. My Lords, how can you get a proper view of the Old Testament if some of the class believe in literal inspiration? "That Enoch walked with God" is a poetic expression, full of meaning. But a Welsh fundamentalist, when preaching and taking that verse as his text, began his sermon with: "My friends, this mighty pedestrian …"
The teacher wants to explain progressive revelation as he or she must. Much of the difficulty and the criticism arises because there is a lack of good teachers of religious instruction. Some clearly are very good. Some are too earnest and a bit dreary, or spend too much time on Rehoboam or Jeroboam. Some are given religious instruction periods, and are either ignorant or cynical.
In addition to all this, a new problem which will have to be faced is the approaching raising of the school-leaving age. If children are to remain at school another year it is even more important than it is now that the final stages of their religious instruction in school shall be in an atmosphere of realism and relevance. The right reverend Prelate referred to the Crowther Report, and the Crowther Report is very relevant here. It says, in paragraph 268:
"As the leaver enters the outside world, he finds that much that would have been condemned at school or in the family is tolerated or accepted as natural. He discovers that many of the values he has been told he ought to live by seem to be reckoned no more valuable in purchasing power than the currency of Samuel Butler's Erewhonians drew from their Musical

723
Banks. His first reaction may well be disgust, either with the apparent cynicism of the world or with what he may now regard as the unreliability of school. What will his second reality be? It is likely to be to fall into line."
The answer to this is not simply more schools, if the school is indeed unreal; it is more reality in school. If the extra year is now to come it must be matched by extra urgency in meeting the true religious needs of very human children.
The Fifth Schedule to the Education Act 1944, which lays down how an agreed syllabus of religious instruction is to be drawn up and adopted by a local education authority, seems to be perfectly adequate for to-day. It is flexible and straightforward. It gives opportunity to reconsideration and revision—opportunity which has already been exercised by many local education authorities in a thoroughly enlightened way in the light of experience and for a changing world. In the aided schools, of course, the teaching has not to be confined to an agreed syllabus: the foundation governors have complete discretion to decide what form it shall take. But no parents need send their child to an aided school unless they definitely choose to do so.
We have had reference this afternoon in Lord Aberdare's speech to the survey that has been undertaken by the Newcastle University Department of Education, a survey of parents' attitudes to the religious provisions of the 1944 Act. As Lord Aberdare told us, it brought to light the fact that parents in the North-East overwhelmingly want daily school worship and religious instruction to go on in the schools. I thought that this was a significant letter that emerged as part of the survey, written by the parent of a 12-year-old child:
"You have to have something to believe in in times of sorrow or if things go wrong. The world can be a hard place for some who aren't so fortunate as ourselves. Also we believe in the Resurrection. Science can't give life or love. Doctors can only do their best. Our children can't be bought with money. They are lent to us by God. Some have faith, hope and love. Most of us are ordinary people, not brilliant or intellectuals. There are other qualities beside that to a person."
The authors of the survey say that that simple statement would find strong backing from a great many other parents who expressed their views.
724
My Lords, it is not only that this country is proclaimed to be a Christian country. There is plenty of evidence that the great majority of parents wish their children to receive religious education when they go to school. Surely, so far as possible, children should have the chance of getting the kind of education their parents want for them. The onus of proof of their case is surely on those who wish to abolish it, not on those who wish to see it kept. The choice we have to make is not between giving instruction in religion and just taking a neutral attitude. Education of boys and girls must be either religious or secular. If we cut out religion from the schools we are saying that we want our main instrument for developing children's minds to give them a view of the world that is secular and without religion. This is not neutrality. This is coming down on the other side.
But for my part I think the form and manner in which religious education is given in schools ought to be constantly thought out afresh and related to the minds of boys and girls as they think now, and to the swiftly changing world in which we and they live, for religion must be put before them in a way which makes it livable. If the teaching of religion became the teaching of something no longer alive and meaningful then the time might come to abolish it; but I believe that that time has not come, and I do not believe that it ever will. There is a great deal of very good religious teaching here and now in the schools of England and Wales.
4.31 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, I take part in this debate as a Humanist, a non-Christian, I think the first so far to speak from that point of view, although I am glad to see that others will later do so. I well remember when I was a member of the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. and my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and I were trying to persuade the Governors that more time ought to be allowed on the B.B.C. to the explanation and expression of Humanist views. We were, of course, defeated, but at the end of our discussion one of the Scottish Governors came up to me and said, "If I felt like you do, I see no reason why I should not rush out at once and rape the typing pool".

725
I saw a lot of reasons—he was on the whole a nice man who always liked to know that he was getting agreement in anything he was doing, and he was also a very small man; but that was an attitude which did exist at one time towards those who declared themselves to be Humanists.
I am glad that there has been no suggestion in this debate that those who find the supernatural assumptions of the Christian faith unproven and in their view, improbable are thereby self-selected for a life of immorality. Certainly there was no tinge of any such view in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Like other noble Lords, I would thank him, both for putting down this Motion and for the spirit in which he opened the debate. Indeed, I should like to say, and I hope he will accept it as a sincere expression of view, that as he continued I found myself more and more agreeing with a great deal of what he said, not (and I am sure he would not expect it) with all his arguments but certainly with many of his conclusions. Starting from a very different standpoint from him but reaching somewhat the same conclusions, I would agree profoundly that what is necessary at this stage is that religious teaching—certainly in the sense of religious instruction—should be dropped from the primary schools and that religious education in the secondary schools should be a study of religion, and of relative religions. It should be a study which would enable those who took part in it to reach their own conclusions.
I should regard it as a greaty pity if many of the admirable stories of the Bible and the great poetic language of religious literature were dropped from school curricula and were not brought to the attention of children. No one who, even in the most modest way, deals in words, as I do, can deny their immense debt to much of that language and, if I may say so in an entirely non-supernatural sense, the great spiritual refreshment they draw from it, as they draw from other great literature.
I have described myself as a non-Christian. I would certainly not have you think that I am an anti-Christian, in the sense that many earlier rationalists were, condemned to be so, in many cases, by the difficulties and persecutions that their expression of rationalist views brought
726
upon them. But I want to put forward, as strongly as I can, the conviction that a moral and civilised way of life should be obtainable by treating children as intelligent beings with open minds and with a capacity ultimately to reach sound decisions for themselves.
I have said that I am certainly not anti-Christian. Indeed, if I may say so, with none of the connotations that used to be associated with a somewhat similar expression, some of my best friends are Christians. But I must also say that a great many of them seem to be increasingly Christians whose theology would not have been regarded as acceptable in earlier ages. There are, as we know, immense philosophical and theological discussions going on within the Churches, which have altered substantially many of the old fundamentalist views and literal interpretations which used to be regarded in earlier ages as essential to the Christian conception. As everybody must, I welcome those philosophical discussions and re-interpretations, but they are not such as can be translated into the language of small children. And when so much discussion is going on within the Churches themselves as to the exact meaning, the exact interpretation, the exact philosophical significance of this or that, then it seems to me that to hold fast to the view that it is a State duty to present to the children in our schools an inevitably simplified, an inevitably near fundamentalist interpretation of what has ceased to be fundamentalist in the wider philosophical world of religion, is wrong.
I myself am fortunate—at least I think I am—in being a second generation Humanist. I had parents, both of whom, although born from deeply religious families, had themselves broken away from what seemed to them in those times the often harsh dogmas of religion, and who hoped their own children would be brought up within a framework in which, without withholding religion from them, they would be able to accept or reject it without any of the struggles of conscience that had afflicted their parents. I hope very much to do the same so far as my own children are concerned. They have come out as a rather equal balance; one is a Humanist and the other is a member of the Church of England. It seems to

727
me that if that is the way their minds and beliefs go then I have no right to seek in any way to interfere with them, either in one direction or another.
A little while ago I was rung up, as I believe some other Members of your Lordships' House were, and asked by a lady on one of the illustrated magazines whether I would be prepared to have my photograph taken. I asked "Why?", and she said: "We are bringing out a Christmas number, and we want to have twelve Lords a'leaping". I replied that I did not think I was a leaping Lord. And then, as she seemed somewhat confused anyway, and I thought it might be helpful to add to her confusion, I said, "In any event I am a Humanist". She thought of this for a second, and then she said, "Well, I do not think that would matter; I do not think you would be expected to jump very high".
I do not intend to jump very high today and seek to go into long philosophical or theoretical discussions as to the reasons why it seems to me that although I fully recognise that to many a faith in Christianity is an immense support and an immense enrichment of life, it does not seem to me that it can be claimed to possess that absolute unquestionable correctitude which alone might make it right for it to be taught, not as a subject for examination, but as one carrying behind it the whole authority of the school, as something which contains a final word.
There is another aspect of this. I think of a young friend of mine in the North of England who, after a very good career at Cambridge, went into industry on the research side of a large corporation. He seemed to have in front of him the possibilities of a distinguished and well paid career. But after a time he began to feel a great desire to teach, and to teach small children. So he threw up his job and went to the much less well paid job of a teacher in a State primary school, which he enjoys greatly and at which, I am told by all who know him, he is very good. He has now reached the stage when in the normal way of things he would be regarded as ripe for promotion—and indeed he has on numerous occasions made an application for a headship.
728
I know, as your Lordships all know, that there is no legal religious bar in the selection of teachers, but I also know, as many of your Lordships must know, that in the general atmosphere in which education committees make their choice religion is often a factor which they feel they must take very much into account. And certainly my young friend finds himself so often short-listed, in the position, if I may slightly twist the words of an old song, of again and again being the best man but never the bridegroom. He is asked whether he is willing to take religious instruction and to hold a religious service at the beginning of school. He is not really asked it; it is assumed that he will. Being an honourable man, he feels that he should say to the education committee that he does not hold Christian beliefs, and that he would find it very difficult to do so. As I say, the end result so far has always been that he never gets an appointment.
I cannot believe that the Churches, whose sincerity in this matter I deeply respect as I hope they will respect mine, can wish that men of honour should be put in a position where they must either disguise their true feelings or make it pretty certain that their professional careers will be less successful than they should be. In my youth—if you like my non-religious youth—at school I often used to find myself singing with immense fervour, because it is a hymn that lends itself to those who have a little true musical voice, Onward Christian Soldiers. I cannot believe that it is a good thing that any of those soldiers should be conscripts, and it is certain that none ought to be child conscripts.
4.48 p.m.
LORD SACKVILLE: My Lords, in making my maiden speech I know that I can rely on your Lordships' indulgence. In return, my ambition, at any rate, is brevity. My interest in this matter arises by virtue of the fact that I have been for a number of years Chairman of the Governors of Sevenoaks School, a school famous in educational circles as having pioneered a number of new teaching experiments which have been successfully adopted by other schools. It is also a school which has gone some way towards bridging the gap between the independent and State systems. Over the last year or two we have been making an experiment

729
in the school, in a new form of teaching endeavouring to attract boys to Christianity. It has been a failure. That failure is not in any way due to the staff, secular or spiritual: in both cases they are quite expert, enthusiastic and imaginative. In my view, the failure is due to the fact that from the very beginning they are hamstrung.
They are hamstrung for two reasons: first, that in spite of the Act religious teaching is a voluntary subject; second, that chaplains and teachers feel obliged, and are encouraged, to fight shy of teaching the fundamental tenets of their faith as they believe them. They feel obliged to avoid anything which, within the Church of England, is a subject of controversy and which might, as indeed it most certainly would, cause offence to some parents, some governors or some members of the staff. The result (I gather it is the same all too often) is that religious teaching is a mixture of comparative religion, sociology and moral philosophy directed towards inculcating into the young a social conscience: quite admirable, but not religion and not a substitute for religion.
I should say here that my criticisms and suggestions are directed solely to the Church of England, the majority at Sevenoaks, and I imagine in most other schools; but by saying "the majority of the Church of England" all I mean is that almost certainly they have been baptised, and probably their fathers in the last war had dog tags round their necks with "C. of E." on them—very little more. When boys arrive at school now, at 11 or 12, they have not the slightest idea of what it is all about. On the whole, their knowledge is limited to a few nursery messages, such as that on All Souls' Eve you cut holes in turnips to frighten people, and on Mothering Sunday you send flowers to Mum. With little exaggeration that is pretty well the sum total. In such circumstances what possible results can be expected from treating the subject as a voluntary one?
I must remind noble Lords that modern children have an empirical approach to knowledge far in advance of that of our own day. They wish, with their bias towards science—and I admire them for it—to see what works, and they are not prepared to accept any proposition from anyone unless they have had a demonstration
730
that it really does work: admirable for the materialistic life, but the antithesis of the religious approach. I imagine that most noble Lords, in common with the majority of our generation, received either from their parents or at their schools, or from both, a compulsory denominational religious teaching. The majority of us no doubt went off as soon as we were able to worship strange gods; but we went off having learned our basic grammar, as it were. This, to my mind, is the crux of the whole matter, and the reason for making religious teaching at schools compulsory.
So many people—more, I believe, than we often imagine—develop in later life a sense of disillusionment with the purely materialistic world and would like, if they could, to return to the faith of their fathers. For those who have this "basic grammar", a return to some form of peace is a great deal easier than for these who have no idea at all how or where to begin. I think, therefore, that those who are responsible for education have a duty to equip children with this facility which they may or they may not use. An ever-growing number—and for all I know it may be the majority—never make use of this facility. Does that: really matter? I think not. Does it matter that children at school have been obliged to learn some subject, or at any rate have been taught some subject, which has not proved remunerative to them in later life. I imagine that most of your Lordships at school had to learn one or two subjects which most certainly have not proved remunerative in your lives.
I want now to turn to my second point, the current fear of denominational teaching. By that I mean a fear of introducing and developing in depth the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith—dogma, if you like. That is the actual word that I should like to use, but I know that it is a word which arouses great passions. But at present we are so afraid of anything which smacks of controversy in our religious education that we present under the heading "R.K."—"Religious knowledge": something that is dead, dull and uninspiring. If the young are to be attracted, we must surely welcome controversy and get away from this search for the lowest common denominator. I think I am right in saying that in the history of the Church there

731
has been hardly any period, apart from one or two of complete apathy and decay, when there has not been great controversy. Consequently, I think that controversy should be welcomed, not evaded. In addition, therefore, to reintroducing religious education as a compulsory subject on a denominational level, I believe that governing bodies and authorities should have the courage and authority to appoint chaplains and teachers authorised to teach the fundamentals of Christianity as they believe them.
I realise that such a step would evoke immense controversy. One of the strengths and weaknesses in the Church of England is the wide range of interpretation within it. On the one hand you have those who are practically past Rome, and on the other, over the mountains to Geneva, Calvin. I have no doubt that if teachers and chaplains really did have a free hand, and if attendances were compulsory, there would undoubtedly be a tremendous "to-do" from a lot of quarters. But is that bad? Why should we turn over backwards to avoid controversy in our religious teaching? Current politics and economics are taught at school and are not too notable for general agreement. So, in conclusion, I advocate that religious teaching should again become a compulsory subject, and should be taught in a positive denominational manner, welcoming as opposed to avoiding, controversy.
4.57 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sackville, on his maiden speech. I feel the freer to do it because any animadversions he had and any criticisms he voiced were against the Church of England, and I am a Methodist. But your Lordships were honoured with statements which came out of the experience of the noble Lord and from an experimental attitude to a problem which can easily ride into the upper reaches of speculation and have no roots in the actual everyday occurrences of religious education. I should like at leisure to read the speech that he has just made. It was closely packed and highly stimulating, and not a little controversial. But I am sure your Lordships would want me to say, as I most
732
heartily do, that we much appreciate what the noble Lord has said and shall, with relish, anticipate his future appearances in your Lordships' House and future speeches that I have no doubt he will make.
May I apologise to the noble Lord who introduced the debate for not being present in the Chamber when he spoke? I was trying out my speech on Tower Hill. But I did take the precaution a little earlier in the week of finding out what he was going to say, and quite unexceptionally I should like to thank him for the opportunity he has given to many of us to take part in this most interesting and important debate.
May I first indicate what seem to me to be three conditions or trends which have been in operation, and I think acceleration, since 1944? Reference has been made to them already, but they will not suffer from repetition. One of them is the immense increase in ecumenical activity, and therefore the likelihood that in any future development of education in schools the presentation of a unity in approach may be to the immense advantage alike of those who look askance at theological speculation and those who are more concerned, as I am, with the moral aspects of the case. In the second place, it is surely incontestable that there has been a vast increase in speculation, amounting to dubiety, as to the credibility of the historical and metaphysical concepts of Christianity. It would be foolish to try to underrate this situation, and it would be equally foolish to imagine that there is any sign that the tide is beginning to turn.
One of the aspects of this increasing sense of incredulity or inability to believe has been that emphasis, which I think is undue, has been given to the purely intellectual characteristics of the Christian faith at the expense of the æsthetic and moral aspects of the case. It was Lotze, the German philosopher, who said that reality is much richer than thought. I am very glad, therefore, to hear noble Lords to-day adverting to the other avenues of approach to a religious experience which are not purely intellectual. It is dangerous to assume that this increase in doubt is necessarily accompanied by a decrease in the religious faith. And I was much impressed by the religious spirit in which my noble

733
friend Lord Francis-Williams spoke of those aspects of the Christian faith to which I think he still adheres—at any rate, I hope and strongly suspect he does.
The third aspect has been the evangelical revival in Humanism. It reminds me almost of the 18th century, and I think of one or two noble Baronesses as being rather like Susannah Wesley. I imagine that Professor Ayer looks a bit like John Wesley and has the same kind of extrovert dynamism which belonged to that hero, in my mind, of the 18th century. I hope that my noble friend Lord Willis will apply his great gifts in the field of art perhaps to the preparation of a Humanist hymn-book to rival that of Charles Wesley. But undoubtedly, whatever may be our ideas about Humanism, there is no doubt that their evangelical fervour has thrown a new cap into the ring. I welcome it. So far as I am concerned, God bless them!—if they will permit that invitation. But all these matters have produced a situation not vastly different but in trend and intensity moving away from the conditions prevalent in 1944. It is because of these conditions and not in spite of them that I believe that basically the 1944 settlement is a wise one. In substance I should not want to have it reversed.
I would offer three considerable reasons for its retention in substance. I shall come later on to one or two alterations which I think ought to be made and possibly a new Act which ought to be put on the Statute Book. First of all, I am impressed by the undoubted fact that about 80 per cent. of those who are asked whether they would like their children to receive education in religious matters as part of the curriculum of their schools have said "Yes". I am not impressed by those who say that this is merely a prejudice, and I am not impressed by reference to other matters in the Minority Report to which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, gave a quite adequate reply. I am much more impressed with a small quotation which I will venture to read to your Lordships made by Mrs. Mee, who was formerly the Chief Inspector for Primary Education at the Ministry of Education. It is a moving statement:
"The parent may well realise that his own belief is a vision faded into the light of common day, but many in their hearts regret that
734
this is so and feel intuitively that to deny the possibility of a different fate for their child is the final abrogation of a hope which is kindled anew with the start of every young life. 'What I have lost he may find and keep better'."
I believe that that is so, and I have evidence, which of course is not assessable in statistical form, to support it.
The majority of people may well have forgotten the name of the church they stay away from, and that is part of the difference between the situation thirty years ago and the situation to-day. Thirty years ago, particularly in the North of England, people at least knew the name of the church they stayed away from, and they always prepared for the most important event of the year, the Sunday School Anniversary, if they were Nonconformist. To-day we are living in what is the first genuinely pagan age—that is to say, there are so many people, particularly children, who never remember having heard hymns at their mother's knee, as I have, whose first tunes are from Radio One, and not from any hymn book; whose first acquaintance with their friends and relations and other people is not in the Sunday School or in the Church at all, as mine was. If we are thinking, as I am sure we must, of these children who have nothing of a religious background, then the argument is very much reinforced by the desire, almost the residuary desire, of parents that their children should have the opportunity at least of coming to grips with some of the things with which they have lost touch themselves.
I am sure that the Humanists ought to be on our side in asking for the retention of the Act. If Christianity is the grandmother of Communism, which I think is a pretty sound statement, I am also sure that it is the grandfather of Humanism. I wish that my Humanist friends, who speak with such candour and such felicity, would come to grips with what seems a powerful observation, that they begin to read their books at the second chapter rather than at the first. Unless there is a foundation of Christian understanding, I cannot see how you can arrive at a truly Humanist conception of man which is adequate to his needs and which is sufficiently lofty.
I speak frequently in a large and loud place, and when I talk of the Fatherhood of God I am reminded by hecklers that what I should be concerned about is the

735
Brotherhood of Man. But how do you know that the other man is your brother unless you first establish the fact that you both have the same father? This is not a quip, and is not too cheap and easy a statement. Unless Humanism springs out of the Christian faith it does not seem to me to have any roots anywhere else. For that reason I should hope that our Humanist friends would welcome the perpetuation, not of religious indoctrination, which I should abhor, not even of religious instruction about which I am dubious, but the availability of that religious background which Karl Marx felt to be imperative and which I think is necessary if children later on are to cut their teeth on facts and not to reject Christianity for absurd and futile reasons.
It is a thorough waste of human faith and belief and a thoroughly bad thing that so many youngsters when they do make up their minds have practically nothing on which to make them up, and from a prejudice which is no better than a half-remembered heresy from an incompetent Sunday School teacher they reject Christianity out of hand. If you are going to reject it, you should at least know what it is you are going to disagree with, and we should let youngsters have ample and full opportunity of knowing upon what basis of fact or assumption they will have later on to make up their minds. These seem to me to be reasonable arguments not first of all rooted in evangelical fervour for Christianity, but reasonable arguments for the maintenance in substance of the 1944 Act. I think that I probably speak for the Nonconformist Church in saying in general that this would be their attitude.
Nevertheless, I am persuaded that there are changes which should be made. First of all, let me speak for a moment about the act of worship. Already in this debate mention has been made of the need to clarify the actual conditions of the act in order to preserve the freedom of those who wish to opt out. This is sacred in the sense that it is of paramount importance, but it is not so easy as that. If the general assembly is the same occasion as the act of worship, then in many cases those who opt out for religious reasons or for other reasons will be denied something of the very spirit of that unity and community of which general assembly and the act of worship are characteristic.
736
I can remember how important it was to come to the act of worship, not so much to sing a hymn about the city wall, or other hymns which I did not understand, like,
"Thou spread'st a table in my sight;
Thy Unction grace bestoweth;
And oh, what transport of delight
From thy pure Chalice floweth!"—
which completely foxed me; but I was there because after the singing of the hymn and the perfunctory prayer, the cricket team was announced for the afternoon match and I was anxious I should be in it. Other things were said at the general assembly which had nothing to do with religion, or only vicariously so, but which were of immense importance to me as a scholar. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for the separation of the act of assembly from the act of worship, or if the act of worship is to be the general assembly then there must not be a confusion of those things which are of existential value and those things which are of immortal import. There is, I suppose, a possibility that the act of assembly could be at one time of the day and the act of worship at another. At any rate, it is a problem, and no child who opts out, or for whom option out is required by the parents, should thereby be denied something of the sense of belonging. For nothing hurts a child in school so much as to be a pariah, or to be outside—particularly when benefits are being distributed.
As regards religious instruction, I was gently chided by the noble Lord. I accept the admonition that there is a great deal of difference between what we believe to-day, and what in past ages we were required to believe. I shall not refer to many of these matters, but I should like to refer to two of them. As I understand it, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter was saying something to the Church Assembly about hymns, and I should like to suggest that it is perfectly true that in the hymnography of the Christian Church there has been an addiction to all kinds of hymns which are not particularly edifying, and some of which are not very Christian.
But in the matter of the Church syllabus, the agreed scheme, where it refers to the Bible stories, how heartily do I agree with those who say that the reiteration of Bible stories is not necessarily edifying at all. I remember when

737
I was at school being invited, in the story of David and Goliath, to take the side of David, though my sympathies were all with Goliath. There was a wretched man, loaded up with half a ton of armour and able to move at only about four miles an hour, and an agile little boy, well out of range, throwing stones at him. Finally, he knocked the giant unconscious and, while he was unconscious, chopped his head off. That is not an edifying story. It is a disgraceful story, as a matter of fact; and there are many others like it. For instance, there is Elisha and the bears. Your Lordships will remember, "They did, and he did, and it did", which is the concise way in which a young scholar described the ultimate effect of warning Elisha about the bears.
What I am sure about is that the transfer of emphasis in religious teaching must be away from the Bible. That may sound a dangerous and almost a provocative statement, but surely it is true that the Bible is a magnificent servant, but an intolerable master. If the Bible is not interpreted as an infallible or even as a finally authoritative document, but is recognised as the indispensable library from which we cull the information we require in order to press the claims we believe, then I think that a very much wiser and better way of approaching even the agreed syllabus will be achieved.
I cannot stress too greatly how much damage it seems to me to do to Christianity that we allow our critics to spend most of their time disposing very cheerfully of references in the Bible to this and that, which we also should want to dispose of. We should not want to accept them for one moment.
I come to the last thing I want to say, which links with what I most fervently believe. It is in the spirit of Jesus Christ that I repose my faith, and it is for that that I would most strenuously argue, not as a witness for these things, but as an advocate of religious teaching in schools. For I am persuaded that we are suffering from a moral malaise which will not be repaired until morality is once again reposed in a much more secure vault of authority than either pleasure or utility. I do not believe that you can have morals without religion. I am not for one moment saying that you cannot have morals without Christianity: I am quite
738
sure you can; and I am quite sure that our Humanist friends are more ardent in many of their attitudes to morality than some Christians are. But I am still persuaded that, unless the house of morality is built on religious faith—in other words,
"Except the Lord build the house, they that build it will build it in vain."
This is no plea that an active propagation of dogma should be accepted simply because it is said in a loud voice by somebody wearing a particular kind of collar. It is a plea that only in so far as religion is offered as a way of life can it be an effective article of worship; car it, in fact, be correctly communicated even as a piece of education. What we need, above everything else, is that those who propagate these religious exercises in schools should themselves be committed to the faiths and propositions to which they advert. When that happens, then I, for one, believe that the City of God remaineth.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Aberdare must be well content with the debate which has arisen on his Motion. He opened our discussions in a remarkably good speech, and the speeches which we have heard since have certainly maintained that level. I should particularly like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Sackville on his maiden speech, with which I found myself very much in agreement and very much in disagreement. I shall try to show that I, too, want more courage and controversy in religious education, but I do not believe in compulsion.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and one or two other speakers this afternoon, I found myself reflecting upon the history of Christianity in our country. Surely, if we are honest we must admit that we have never been very good at religion. We have no natural bent for an ardent faith which rises triumphant above political and social considerations. On the other hand, we have been rather good at morals. We have tried to live honest, generous, loyal, peaceful lives, and on the whole we have done no worse than any other country in this respect.
To my mind, it lies at the heart of this debate that English religious history has not been the story of mystics, saints and martyrs, but of kindly parish priests,

739
devoted Christian school-teachers, and, of course, the writers of hymns. Our ancestors knew what they were doing when they put so much emphasis on morals, on good works and on public service. Those who governed our country took it for granted that a sound system of morals was a national necessity, and that such a system was to be derived, explained and confirmed by adherence to the Christian religion. A Government is like a school. You cannot manage its affairs or keep it going without a system of values, and it has been of the greatest convenience, to put it no higher, to have those values supplied and supported by a generally accepted institution outside the political arena, and to have them taught by that institution through the schools.
Of course, this preoccupation with standards of conduct led, inevitably, to a confusion between faith and morals, but that has not worried us. The English have a peculiar genius for confusions of thought that work well in practice. Of this a good example has been quoted several times in your Lordships' House this afternoon, and that is the surveys which have been made among a large number of parents, asking them whether they wanted their children to be taught religion at school. As I understand it, four out of five answered "Yes". Of those affirmative replies, how many came from professing Christians? How many parents seriously wanted their child to be taught to believe in an all-powerful God? All the other statistics that we have about the state of religion—attendance in churches, and so on—must lead us to think that it was only a small minority. Is it not probable that the greater number were anxious to have their child taught to behave well, to keep out of trouble and to be a successful citizen of this world? In a vague but shrewd way they knew that their child would get this instruction through religious teaching.
Now unless I am very much mistaken, this same confused concept of religion held good for the majority of the Members of another place at the time when the 1944 Education Act was going through the House. My noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, to whose speech we listened with such attention—
740
supported, as he reminded us, by the late Lord Chuter Ede—had brought off a remarkable deal with the Churches. In a masterly way these two outstanding Ministers had smoothed and smothered the old antagonisms, and they came to Parliament asking us to agree that a daily act of worship and at least one period of religious instruction should be written into the Bill. On the Benches where I sat, we saw this as part of a large bargain and, having made up our minds that the package deal was good politics, we went on to ask ourselves what we really thought about compulsory religious instruction.
I cannot speak for any Member of the war-time House of Commons except myself, but I have the very firm impression that we supported the religious provisions because we were greatly disturbed and not a little guilty to see all round us the moral damage caused by the total warfare in which we were engaged. To make religion stand out as the only compulsory subject in the curriculum was really an act of penitence, or, if you like, the best hope we could see of repairing the moral damage of the war. One sensed in that war-time House of Commons the kind of agreement that moves a parochial parish council to insist on a contract for the repair of the church clock which they are unable to mend themselves.
My Lords, the implied contract in the 1944 Education Act, that British morals could be kept in repair by making religion in schools compulsory, has been a failure. Why is this? Let us first note that, if the religious clauses have not worked out as we expected, nor have several other of the main provisions of the Act. The tripartite structure of secondary education, each part enjoying parity of esteem, was never a practical possibility; and that great concept of county colleges has remained a dead letter for 23 years. The teachers and the administrators should not be held responsible for these disappointments. The common cause lies in the condition of post-war society, which turned out to be very different from that which the creators of the Act had assumed. The advance in the scientific way of thinking about the origin and evolution of the world made the teaching of religion peculiarly difficult, and it called in question all the old, dogmatic, authoritarian methods of instructing children in the

741
infallibility of the Bible and the articles of faith. Here and in other major aspects the 1944 Act is now badly in need of revision, and I hope my Party are preparing a new measure to be introduced after the next Election.
This afternoon we are considering what we can do with the existing clauses as they stand. My Lords, is it not a curiosity, a collector's piece of British legislation, that, at the moment when science was undermining belief in any supernatural authority, religion should be made the only compulsory subject in the curriculum? Reading, writing and arithmetic are not compulsory. I cannot take to law a school which neglects to teach my child one of those subjects. The parents assume that the three "Rs" will be taught. The subjects declare themselves as essential, and there is no need for compulsion.
I wonder whether it has struck your Lordships that the nearest statutory parallel to the religious provisions in the Act is milk in schools. The school must offer each child one-third of a pint of milk a day, just as the school must offer each child a daily act of worship. But then there is a difference. We know what milk is. We can test it; we can analyse its properties, its value as an article of food; and the men of science are agreed that clean milk does most children a lot of good. Consider the parallel with religion. Do we know what religion is? Can we analyse it and test its value as food for the spirit? Are the men of science or the men of letters agreed that religion, if we could define it, would do good to all children? My Lords, since there is now so much doubt about the answers to these questions, it is not right to retain religion as a compulsory subject.
I suppose that, in the days when the British thought of themselves as a homogeneous Anglo-Saxon society, Parliament would have had no difficulty in defining religion as the Ten Commandments and the articles and creeds of the Established Church. Our society is very different now. We are trying to absorb hundreds of thousands of coloured immigrants coming from non-Christian cultures. Millions of our own people do not subscribe to, are not even interested in, the articles and creeds of any Church. In such changed circumstances, the remarkable thing is
742
how well many teachers have done in carrying out the religious provisions of the Act. I think most schools would say that if the numbers on roll do not create physical difficulties the daily assembly is a valuable means of getting the children together and helping them to learn that they are part of one enterprise in which loyalty to the school and thought for others are common objectives. I am quite sure that many of your Lordships have attended daily assemblies which were inspiring acts of worship. But, my Lords, was that because they were compulsory? Surely not. Surely it was because the teachers who took part believed in what they were doing. Unfortunately, enthusiastic believers are not to be found in every school. Therefore I join with other noble Lords who would like to see more flexibility given to head teachers in the timing and the conduct of the daily assembly; and I think there is a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, says—that we should divide the act of worship from the assembly of the whole school. In any case, the parents' wishes must be taken into account.
I turn to instructing children in the classroom in religion. Here, obviously, we have to distinguish between teaching religion and teaching about religion. Teaching about religion is fairly plain sailing. It is a mixture of history and literature based on a uniquely great book; and taught in that manner religion does not greatly differ in kind from Greek drama or Shakespeare. We can assume, I hope, that all the schools would go on making use of the Book which has had the greatest influence on our heritage, but there does not seem to be a case for a statutory provision to teach religion in this manner.
The Act, however, requires something more than special history lessons. In 1944, Parliament—and I can speak only for the other place—was completely in the dark as to what that something more was going to be. When I tried to find out I was told that it meant teaching the Christian way of life, a phrase which conveys the British confusion between faith and morals. Remembering the parallel with milk in schools, is it possible to arrive at an agreed and teachable definition of the Christian way of life? A way of life is something more than a

743
set of propositions; it should be something which influences all the activities in the school. In other words, it implies that at least, say, half of the staff are practising Christians—and that is not at all easy to find in some schools.
Apart from this pervading influence, which is certainly not suitable for a statutory provision, what is the child to be taught about the Bible? How is the child to be introduced to Christian doctrine? As other noble Lords have said, nowadays children learn the other subjects in the curriculum by the method of inquiry and participation. They will not understand if the Bible is treated any differently. The Bible is, after all, the most question-provoking book which will ever be put into their hands. Young readers will think it silly, or worse, if the teacher describes Christian life as something quite different from what the. New Testament says. Or, if the teacher's description sticks faithfully to the New Testament, then I think they will believe that the Christian way of life is a sort of make-believe with precious little reference to the life they live at home and about which they are learning in their other lessons. The modern child does not have to be very old before he sees that what the Bible says about such subjects as money and usury makes no sense in his own world. How can he square a contempt for riches with his parents' passion to win on the pools, his teachers' campaign to raise their salaries?
Again, supposing the young pupil says to the teacher, "Sir, this Book talks about a Day of Judgment. When I die, I shall have to go to Heaven or Hell. Sir, do you believe that?" We place men and women in a very difficult position if we command them by Statute to teach propositions about life and death in which they do not themselves wholly believe. I should like to give your Lordships one example. Quite recently, the headmaster of an excellent primary school—a school at which a large number of pupils arrived, as has already been described, knowing absolutely nothing about religion, never having been inside a church—said to me that he was much perplexed in his mind whether he should introduce Christ to these children as the greatest of all human beings or as the Son of God. In his perplexity, he had
744
consulted his superiors, the local authority and the diocese. I was interested and asked, "What help did you get?" "None," he replied. "None at all." We cannot leave teachers in mental difficulties of that kind.
We cannot return to the old methods of teaching; we want the children to ask questions and to explore their own minds. So, faced with a widening gap between what the New Testament says and the kind of life they seem destined to live, the idea is beginning to get about that we should give up altogether trying to teach religion in schools and confine ourselves to morals. That would be a very dangerous break with tradition. It would raise most difficult problems. For example, if you tell a boy or a man that he must work hard and he asks, "Why should I?", I suppose a secular answer might be, "Because efficiency and rising output is the basis of all the policies of your Government." And the Christian answer would be, "Because by doing your best you will become a whole man: you will be learning how to serve God and your neighbour."
These are two different systems of morals. Which ought we to teach in the schools? For my own part, I am deeply opposed to any secular authority taking on the job of writing the new Commandments. Yet if there is a vacuum left by the decline in religion, someone has to fill it—as the Communists are very well aware. Those of us who do still want the religious view of life to prevail have to discover how a child can be persuaded to think about the meaning of life for himself and others. We must open the door to faith, let him look through, and give him all the time he needs to decide whether to cross the threshold.
Of course, the modern child is captivated by the marvellous inventions of scientists and engineers which he sees on television and reads about in papers; but these scientists and engineers, unlike the God of religion, have faces to see and voices to hear, and the child begins to think that science can explain everything. That is not true. We have to try to find out how to make the child inquisitive, not about who invented the machines and who made the products (the advertisers are going to tell him that quickly enough), but what the machines and the products

745
should be used for; and what their purpose is; and what is the purpose of anything, dead or alive.
It is in this task of stimulating curiosity that Dr. Goldman—to whom reference has been made several times this afternoon—has done such remarkably good work. I hope that the schools and the Churches will pay the closest attention to his ideas. Dr. Goldman points out that the school can put the big questions into the child's mind; and so put them there that these questions continue to worry him when he is grown up and can accept or reject adult answers. It is not going to be easy for children to find faith in the world in which we are living because we have not much faith to-day in anything except economic growth.
In my view—and I think it was the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soper—it is impossible to build a sound moral system on such narrow foundations. I do not think our present trouble is primarily one of behaviour, or indiscipline and selfishness. All those things are outbreaks of something deeper; they all spring from this lack of faith in anything—political, ethical or Divine. It is a vacuum we cannot fill by compulsion. We cannot compel people to believe again in the institution of Parliament; we cannot compel them to believe in chastity; and we cannot compel them to believe in a Church. It seems to me that we have to go back to the beginning and ask ourselves whether or not there are questions which men cannot answer for themselves.
In his first Reith Lecture on Sunday, Dr. Leach said that men are now like gods, they can change nature, add a cubit to their stature and, presumably, can hope in time to answer all questions. This is the dividing line between the religious and the secular view of life; and since the battle is now well and truly joined, I think we do great harm by trying to establish the religious position by Act of Parliament. If the 1944 Act were amended and the compulsion were removed, many parents and teachers would have to think out their own beliefs. The law would no longer serve them as an alibi. They could not go on lazily content with whatever the school and the education authorities thought adequate to carry out the provisions of the Act.
746
Therefore, my Lords, I come to the conclusion that to dis-establish religion in the schools would be a healthy challenge to the laity. Those who cared about their Church would have to come forward and work out with the clergy new ways of introducing children to the questions which I believe men cannot answer by themselves. I recognise, with gratitude, that this is happening already. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, very good work has been done on the agreed syllabuses. In my own County of Wiltshire within the last two or three days both the Diocese of Salisbury and the local education authority have published new agreed syllabuses, and both are excellent in their way. But, my Lords, what really matters is how these agreed syllabuses are going to be taught and how much interest the parents are going to take in their teaching. I am convinced that on both counts it would be better if the element of compulsion were removed. That, my Lords, is the one point I wish to make in your Lordships' debate, and before I sit down I should like again to thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to raise this big question in our own minds.
5.42 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, with many noble Lords I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for initiating this debate, and not least because, as your Lordships heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I happen to be Chairman of a Commission on Religious Education, which has been recently set up by the Church of England. In this sense, in being present in your Lordships' House to-day, I am doing my "prep". We are certainly hoping to survey and assess the aims and the principles and the methods of religious education, and to grapple critically and constructively with the very kind of problems and possibilities which are being aired in this debate, not least those which have been aired, and no doubt will be aired, by Humanists (with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I do not want to call them non-Christians) like the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, and by all those who have brought forward points critical of the present position.
But who would not be critical in some regard or other, perhaps in many regards, of the present position? Certainly, for

747
the Commission I am chairing, our conclusions are in no sense prescribed. Perhaps I may say again how grateful I am for all the points, especially critical ones, which have been and will be aired in this debate. But having said that our conclusions are not prescribed I hope that it will not be thought to be prejudging in any way the work of my Commission if I try to comment on one central issue around which a number of points cluster. By chance, it is the issue which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has just raised, the issue of compulsion.
It seems to me that, in itself, this breaks down into two main issues. First, should religious knowledge, or Divinity, if we so wish to call it, be made a compulsory subject? The answer must surely—yes, entirely—depend on the centrality and importance which religion is considered to have; not, I may add, religion supposed to be a subject without doubt, but religion taken to be a subject of great significance. Subjects of great significance are not those without doubt: they are those which thrive on it. We must ask ourselves how far do we think people can be educated in the whole range of human experience without being educated in religion; and, if they cannot, how far must some kind of compulsory provision be justified on educational grounds—just as certain university faculties, as your Lordships will know, compel prospective students to have a background on relevant subjects as a condition of adequate preparation for doing this, that or the other study. Further, in a pluralist society, whether or not religious knowledge is compulsory will have to depend on how many people want it so. It is here, of course, that the statistical considerations become relevant, those which have been collected by Mr. P. R. May, of the University of Durham, and Mr. Johnson, of the University of Newcastle, as your Lordships heard earlier. Here, then, are one set of issues clustering round this topic of compulsion, and I am well aware that all I have tried to do here and on principle, has been simply to elucidate some questions.
But there is another compulsion issue and this is when religious education is criticised for involving compulsion as a method. This is the issue of indoctrination. To many people's minds, I fear,
748
religious education consists of imposing prescribed conclusions in an authoritarian way, authoritarianism which can be expressed with or without the familiar "dog-collar"—"pushing opinions down people's throats" it would be said, though I have always thought that the more appropriate metaphor would be, "forcing them into people's ears". No doubt this is a misunderstanding; and, equally, no doubt there is justification for it. But there are two points not always distinguished. There is the alleged authoritarian character of the method and then the additional point, that this, as a method, is made even worse by the content being false—for instance, when it concerns assertions about Hell, to take up the example mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
Here is a picture which, if it were true, would obviously be quite foreign to respectable education, let alone to religion. But on this matter of the content being allegedly false—say about Hell—let us recognise, to come back to the point I made at the start about doubt, that for anything whatever which is important, truth has very rarely a black and white quality. That belongs only to the purest of pure mathematics, which gains its certainty and effectiveness from being virtually useless. It belongs also to pointer readings which themselves are useless without scientific theorising to incorporate them. Nothing genuinely important has its truth as a black and white quality about it, and the odd thing is, my Lords, that no one protests; at least, I have never heard a protest, about this feature in science. Newton's Laws are still being taught in our schools, certainly up to the fifth form, though by reference to Einstein they are comparatively false, and have been known for many decades to be so. They need larger illustration and textual interpretation. So does Hell—if Newton would pardon the similarity.
But it would be said that of course the great difference between Newtonian physics and Hell is that Newtonian physics is part of a method which has built into it the possibility of its own revision; that the method in science is an exploratory one. Which brings me back to this question of falsity, to the question of method and alleged indoctrination. I would say that there is no

749
reason whatever why the method of religious education should not be of this exploratory kind, and there is every reason why it should be. To me the irony is that those who speak most about indoctrination, to condemn it, are often those who declare themselves, as the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, rightly implied, to be by contrast quite content to have teaching about religion which allows for no exploration whatever, content to have nothing but instruction in the facts. But, as we have already heard, instruction about facts can be, of all ways of teaching, that which does least justice to any story, especially to that of David, on the one hand, or Elisha and the bears, on the other. Even worse than that, mere instruction about the facts does least justice to the personalities of those who receive it. If they receive nothing but instruction about facts, they are mere learning machines, and have nothing of that intelligence and lively mind and human spirit to which the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, so rightly referred.
Here let me mention, in passing, Dr. Goldman, for whose researches, by and large, I have a great respect and appreciation. To take one point of controversy, as it has been raised in your Lordships' House by Lord Aberdare and Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, Dr. Goldman has said that no child under 12 can understand religious concepts. The problem is, how do we ever get evidence for that assertion? How do we know whether a child in his own mind at that age understands religious concepts, whether it be sin or forgiveness or God or anything else? It is perfectly true that no child under 12 can discuss or talk about religious concepts in a highly informed fashion. There are very few infant theological prodigies, thank goodness! That is not being argued. But it does not follow that because a child under 12 cannot discuss or talk about religious concepts, he does not in some way understand them. The child may nevertheless in some way or another understand that which these concepts talk about. He may have what has been earlier spoken of as religious insight, and these words in their context might well provoke and stimulate that insight, though the child, at 12, has not the theological aptitude to argue about them.
750
Again, there was that remark in the Plowden Report, with which my friend Professor Ayer was associated, that theology was recondite. Of course it is, especially the kind of theology which Professor Ayer has heard his colleagues speak about at Oxford. But religion is not instruction in theology, otherwise there would be no point in Wilton's famous remark about the speculative theologians in Hell. Here is the kind of idea that somehow religious education is instruction in recondite theology. It is this kind of idea that has become so popular, and ironically it is the very people who protest about indoctrination in teaching about religion who seem to be committing this education fallacy; namely, to equate religion and instruction in theology. For instruction is precisely that kind of teaching that is hardly ever adequate for any subject.
We do not teach poetry, as the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, will be the first to agree, by mere instruction in fact. We do not even teach about the French Revolution by instruction in facts; or if we do we have not caught hold of the spirit of the French Revolution—and the word "spirit" is here very significant, a theological term if any is. Again if we try to teach modern languages by instruction in the facts we all know what happens. You find yourself on the quay at Boulogne and you are tongue-tied. We cannot teach any subject adequately until it has been made part of the lives of the people who are sharing in it. If religious education were religious instruction, it could rightly be criticised as neither religious nor educational.
To what conclusion am I moving? It is this: never let us suppose that indoctrination, on the one hand, and instruction about religion, on the other, are the only two alternatives. Let me put a third possibility like this. Whatever anybody teaches has to be taught in a context. Words have their meaning, only in use; and I do not just mean a verbal context: I mean the whole context of the school, the environment, the teacher, his and her experience, and so on. Education in this way always emerges from and out of a context, to be a living experience, whatever it is.
Religious education, as I see it, best emerges in a context of questions about man, about the universe, about problems

751
of their own lives which children, even at the earliest age, have to be encouraged to ask. As noble Lords with children know, they need no encouragement at all. Some of my best Sunday lunches have been enlivened by questions of a sceptical and challenging kind hurled at me by a younger son. Children need no encouragement. It comes early enough and we can welcome it. Children are always asking questions about man and the universe. If we teach our history and English literature and science in the right way, we recreate in and from these subjects, though they be not technically religious, situations in which even in the secondary modern school, let alone a comprehensive school where there is a greater mixture of ideas, children will find themselves asking limiting questions.
It seems to me that religious education must be concerned to lead us all, children or anybody else, through these questions and problems to a point of vision and wonder and insight, and must always then present itself as a continuing exploration of what is there revealed. If I may say so, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, there is no question, or ought not to be, of "absolute unquestioning correctitude." Religious education is committed to a vision which emerges around questions and for which the logical conclusion is exploration. It is in this context that the philosopher, Whitehead, one of our few contemporary philosophers, who discussed education, remarked of religion that it gives man a habitual vision of his greatness. That is a vision which I venture to say none of us, whether Christian or Humanist, or even Communist, can do without.
It is because religion, if properly taught, gives man this habitual sense of his greatness, that there will always be a final defence for religious education. In other words, religion stands for a depth, a new dimension, in human existence and also for a spirit of inquiry or, as the noble Lord, Lord Sackville, said in his admirable maiden speech (and perhaps I may join other noble Lords in congratulating him), a spirit of genuine controversy which that sense of depth generates and encourages. Religious education does not argue for a supernatural which is vacuous and meaningless; or, if it might, it should not and never reasonably does.
752
In conclusion, the important point is this. When we discuss the pros and cons of religious education, let us not think or talk of religious education in terms of outworn ideas or methods or conclusions, but in a way which sets religious education in the context of contemporary developments and ideas, involved both in education and in religion. I hope that no-one will ever measure the value and significance of religious education by discussing it at its most primitive and objectionable levels, or by giving a place to religious education which is already educationally decades out of date. Do not let us suppose that in religious education everybody marks time, while other people are pioneering onwards. I am aware that some noble Lord may say—if it has not been said already—that I am talking somewhat differently from what my predecessors a century ago might have talked. My Lords, so are we all, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, implied: and what a wretched day it would be if we were not!
To come at the end back to the beginning, what I am hoping is that this Commission on Religious Education which the Church of England has set up will face squarely the challenges which this debate is elucidating. We certainly need to think again about present practices and about present ideas. We need to take account of new trends in education, new understanding of child psychology, new understandings of approaches to religion, Christian and other. We need to be more adequate to the insights and problems and the varying beliefs of society; to think again about method and content and aims and, above all, to be, in the words of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in everything "critical and adventurous".
6.2 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I was so engrossed in the right reverend Prelate's speech that I almost forgot my turn. I was called away from the Chamber during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sackville, but I shall look forward to hearing him in the future, especially as he chose this subject for his maiden speech. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for initiating this debate. It is a subject which lies very close to his heart and to that of every

753
sociologist concerned with the welfare of our people. The long list of speakers is additional evidence of that truth, and the interest which the subject has aroused. I hope that one fact will emerge from this debate, that is, the need for religious education to continue throughout school life, as it is now too often the only form of ethical training that the child is likely to get.
When we consider the importance of basic ethical training, we also realise at once that considerable rethinking is needed to approach and to new methods. Active and understanding participation is needed rather than passive acceptance of the subject as the least important of the curriculum. Infants from the age of 5 to 7 are only just beginning to emerge from a state of almost complete egoism into the still confined experience of human relationship as found in the family circle among classmates and with the teacher. To them the dogmas of the Church are absolutely meaningless. But in the course of their own daily lives they can experience and practise the truth which is the foundation of Christianity; that is, the power of love. So much depends on the quality of the teacher in this stage to inspire the very young with the desire to comfort new arrivals to school—it sounds trivial, but it is important—picking up the fallen in the playground, learning to share games and equipment with other children, refusing to start a quarrel and to tell tales except in an emergency, when it is necessary to know how it happened, such as in the case of injuries.
The dedicated teacher of infants knows how to develop a community spirit in the very young. They are far more experienced than anybody else; they are at it every day. They consider the classroom as a community. The children are encouraged to keep the place tidy and to exercise self-discipline. Gradually they learn that it is in the spirit of their community to ask the friendless to play with them, and to try to find something nice to say about someone they do not like. This is where great care is needed to choose Bible stories which show particularly the love which Christ had towards men, and not the mythical stories about Adam and Eve as the only progenitors of the human race. Children learn
754
behaviour by example. Above all else, the teacher has the enormous obligation to be a living example and to illustrate the examples found in the Bible. It is not so much to teach or preach as to nurture.
The choosing of hymns is another task requiring tremendous care. Of all the hundreds of hymns contained in the various hymn books, most of them should be expunged. I do not claim to be an authority on hymn writing, but one of my ancestors was William Williams of Pantycelyn, and I think he wrote one English hymn, "Guide Me Oh Thou Great Jehovah"; although he wrote many Welsh hymns. If we use the modern term, that only those in the "Top Twenty" should be considered, we are getting somewhere into their language, and for children this means the hymns which ask for help in being loving and cheerful. Those praising God for the sun, flowers, friends, et cetera, are not so well understood, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, illustrated in his recollection of the green hill.
Not enough county councils take sufficient care to prepare an agreed syllabus of religious education, such as the West Riding Education Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred. One of the few is the Cornwall County Council. The Education Committee took nearly two years to prepare its syllabus, after rejecting a number of other syllabuses, in part, or as a whole. The preparation of their own syllabus excited the whole Committee to produce something different, and the result has been rewarding. This syllabus is also worth examining by other education committees, and it is an attitude which we must encourage throughout the whole country.
On the first page of this syllabus to which I am referring there is an article on the place of religious education in schools by the headmaster of Truro School, Mr. D. W. Burrell, and I should like to quote a few sentences. He says:
"Theology was once regarded as the queen of sciences. Religious education, on the other hand, has long been regarded as the Cinderella of the curriculum, this in spite of its being placed on a kind of protected list by the State. We all have our theories about this. The subject has been taught by the untrained, the uninterested and even the unfriendly. These instructors have reluctantly at times given up the struggle, and collected the dinner money or the outstanding impositions instead. The children have known what was going on, and

755
the teachers have known that they have known."
My Lords, those words were written by a very experienced, dedicated teacher, and they cannot be ignored; they were not ignored by the Cornwall Education Committee. It is to be hoped that the example of the few enlightened county councils will be followed.
The progression from simple Bible stories and vigorous singing of "Top Twenty" hymns, by the 5 to 7 year olds, to the sophisticated discussions in the upper sixth, can be programmed if the subject is treated as one much greater than just instruction about things religious. This is where active participation could take a broader form, as suggested in the Plowden Report, paragraph 568, when schools could take part in such projects as "adopting" children from underprivileged countries, becoming associated with local old people's clubs, or any service according to the particular needs of the community. This is the extension of the first community, the 5 to 7 year olds classroom.
Study of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, in the 7 to 11 stage, and even the 11 to 15 stage, must form an important part, if not the greater part, of any religious education syllabus. But in matters specifically related to church teaching, such as baptism, the Creed, communion service, et cetera, teachers should adhere to the advice in paragraph 575 of the Plowden Report, and
"be sensitive to the feelings of the children of parents who are non-Christian, agnostic or humanist as well as those of Christian parentage."
My Lords, having emphasised the importance of the very early form of ethical training within a revised syllabus of religious education, it is necessary to examine what in perhaps the majority of cases is the critical period; and here we come up against strong personal views, when we attempt to decide the age when the study of comparative religions can be introduced, and to educate children out of the narrow outlook which in the past resulted in the slaughters of wars of religion. Whether it is towards the end of the school leaving age of between 15 and 18, or earlier, is not a matter to be discussed in general terms; there are so many special factors, even local religious prejudices. One thing is, however, certain.
756
Young adults must go into the world with some workable philosophy of living, some strength of moral fibre, if they are to keep their heads above the sewer of drugs, drink and distorted sexuatily, which seem to be running muckier, and more so every day.
Children of 13 are at present being bored stiff by Scripture lessons, so many of which are just interminable and inconclusive dissections of the Bible, with no opportunity for discussion. My Lords, a good school and dedicated teachers are an extension of the very best family home life. But in these days of pressurised living, the home, however good in comparison with the average, cannot any longer be expected to provide that essential background of knowledge which a school can provide as a basis of ethical training.
In the preparation of this speech I have drawn much on the experiences of my eldest daughter, who is a teacher in an infants' school. We are mostly a teaching family. It is a subject of continual interest in our family. And, while I am not a teacher, I am much concerned as an industrialist with the effects of the slapdash methods and total disinterest in moral values which so often encourage the development of selfish behaviour. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I also come from a strong Nonconformist background. When I was very young the Sunday school teacher in a Welsh chapel was chosen very carefully. He or she had a dual role. One duty was to teach Welsh from the alphabet up to fluent reading, for there was no teaching of Welsh in the schools in those days. Another duty was to teach us to sing Welsh hymns; and the last was to tell us a Bible story, very often amusing. We were progressed finally as we grew older to Bible classes, where one met miners who could read the Bible in Greek. Those days are gone, except perhaps on a smaller scale in very rural Wales. My noble friend here would probably know more about it.
The duty of nurturing the teaching of ethical codes and behaviour now depends on the schools. For a multitude of reasons, the Churches are too handicapped. If we are to revive the moral fibre of our country—and it requires a tremendous revival, as your Lordships will agree—we cannot afford to blame the Churches

757
or education committees, if we do not give this problem a priority equal to that of any now occupying our minds. Almost a generation has passed since the 1944 Act was introduced. It is the hope of everyone here, I am sure, that this priority will be given. And I am sure that this debate will awaken all parties to this urgent need for a new look at the present-day problems of adequate moral, religious education.
6.18 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to join in the praise and thanks to my noble friend Lord Aberdare for promoting the very interesting and worthwhile debate that we have had to-day. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Sackville on his excellent maiden speech. I am bound to say that I agree more with the ends that he was trying to achieve than with the means he recommended, but I much enjoyed listening to him nevertheless.
I should like to say that I share the anxiety that has been so generally expressed, and particularly vividly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, about what he called the pagan age, with empty churches and so few people now practising Christianity. But we have a paradox, which perhaps gives us some comfort, in that it would be true to say that in this country to-day in the life of our people we have a higher standard of what, for want of a better word, I would call decency than we have ever had before, and I would think any other nation has ever had. That is perhaps of some comfort to us. This is the general standard that our people feel is right. Perhaps in Christian terms it is expression of the second Commandment, while the first has been lost sight of. But I think that, alongside it—and this point has been mentioned by a number of speakers—we are very conscious of the high failure rate which we see among the community in falling below the standard that most people would undoubtedly like to achieve. We see this, of course, in the crime rate, in the avalanches of sleeping pills that people swallow every night, in the fact that half the cases on the National Health are psychiatric or go to full mental hospitals, and so on. So all signs are there of our community trying to live to a decent
758
standard which they know is right, but not being able to do it.
I thought it was particularly valuable in this debate that we had the benefit of the humanist point of view put so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, because this can work for the exceptional person. But I am bound to say that I do not think it works for the average person. It needs a person of exceptional will-power to be able to maintain a high standard of moral code and ethics by will-power alone. It can be done, and I salute anyone who can do it, but I speak, I must confess, as a failed Humanist. I tried it at one phase of my life and found it was impossible to live by this means according to the standard that I felt was right, and so I found my way to Christianity.
Here is the method where the help is given, here is the spiritual answer where the way has been taught by Christ, and this way makes the individual human being conscious of the Holy Spirit in his own conscience, which gives him strength to hold his course or, when he has fallen from his course, as he often will, to return to it. This is why I think Christianity is the best answer we have to give, certainly in the Western world, and why we should do what we can to see that all the young people who are growing up have the chance to take it up, if they want to.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, put his case extremely well, and I hope that I have put mine as liberally. All the evidence is—and it has, been said many times to-day—that the present system of teaching religion in the schools is not being successful. It is like an inoculation which simply is not taking. My noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden quoted a figure of not more than 5 per cent. of children who come out of school actually wanting to pursue a Christian life, and yet alongside that we have evidence all round that most parents would like their children to have a knowledge of Christianity; they would like it to be taught.
I will say straight away that I think it should continue to be a compulsory subject. I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Eccles, who always has a most interesting contribution to make, but on this point I think he is

759
wrong. However, I consider the teaching of it should be as liberal and as optional as possible; compulsory indoctrination would be a complete mistake. Here I was most interested to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and I entirely agreed with much that he said: the only place for indoctrination is at your mother's knee. If you are lucky enough to have had it from there then indeed you are very fortunate, but nowadays the mother's knee is pressed up against the "telly" and there is not much chance for the child. So our problem is, how are we going to do it?
I have two suggestions to make as to how we might improve the present system. The first concerns the actual teaching of religious education by taking the traditional system of Bible study. I feel that that is out; it really does not "take" More particularly the direct teaching of the Old Testament certainly does not, and the fact that to be a Christian you must read the Bible—in fact you want to read the Bible—does not mean that children who have not made up their minds to be Christians should be made to read it.
I was interested in the Church of England Board of Education's draft Report for 1967, which has some extremely helpful thoughts on this particular subject. I would suggest that a different approach should be made. The Church and the education authorities should no longer try to give a comprehensive teaching of the Bible, either the New Testament or the Old. In this particular context I was interested in a book written by my noble friend Lord Eccles called Half-way to Faith. I may say that I do not agree with all the book but with this particular thought: that one might regard the Bible as art. My thought here is that one might use the techniques of teaching art and music for the teaching of religion. We are trying to teach something which is a mystery; we can only give certain clues to it. If this were done by the technique of teaching art or music to children, might it not be a more successful approach? One can enjoy listening to music or looking at a lovely picture without knowing anything about the technique of composing music or of painting a picture, or indeed anything about the history of either of them.
760
We should not attempt to give a comprehensive knowledge of all that is in the Bible, except of course to Divinity students, but in a much more indirect method to try to catch the imagination of the children and stimulate them to ask questions. I much appreciated what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said about his thoughts in this direction. Everything must be done to stimulate the children's interest so that they will ask questions, and perchance this may just catch their imagination. If it does they will jolly soon read the Bible afterwards, because they will find it is worth reading. This is my first thought.
My second thought concerns the compulsory daily act of worship. I should be the first person to salute the heroic efforts of headmasters and headmistresses up and down the country who struggle to make this something worth while. The difficulty of combining it with the functions of the general assembly have been stressed by former speakers, and in addition there is what I regard as the even greater difficulty, especially in the secondary schools, that there are many boys and girls in the sixth form, say in grammar schools, who are really young men and young women of about 17 or 18 years of age. They have made up their minds, and some of them actively oppose Christianity. This is an impossible atmosphere for the head teacher to get an act of worship "off the ground" and to make an atmosphere where children who would like to join in will really feel the sense of worship and praise that is necessary if it is to be meaningful.
I suggest that this act of worship should be made optional. Let the head teacher who wants to go on with it do so, but I suggest that in all schools, primary and secondary, there should be one day a week when a parson of any denomination should take the period. It should be a service lasting, say, half-anhour—that would be quite long enough—and with a ten-minute address, and as much participation by the children as possible. I make this suggestion in the belief that the ecumenical movement which has been spoken of to-day on all sides (and I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Soper, saying the same) has made tremendous progress in the last twenty years, and I should have thought we had reached a stage where it would be possible

761
for the Churches to draw together and agree upon a simple service to be taken in the schools. It may be necessary to alter the law in order to do this, but let us hope that Ministers of Education will be sympathetic to the idea.
Leaving that aside, what I want is a weekly service for the children who wish to attend and whose parents wish them to attend. It will be in school-time and the rest of the children will not just be out playing they will have some other subject. We must keep the balance. Those who want to be there will have this service, which will be taken by a professional who is a man of faith and who is able to make an atmosphere in which that act of worship will become something really worth while. I am absolutely certain that the right reverend Prelates opposite will agree that an act of worship is basic, and somehow we must get that into the schools for the children who want it.
In this context I remember a delightful story of Evelyn Underhill. She was taking a Sunday school class of tinies, and asked the children, "Why do we praise God?". There was a long silence in the little row of faces around her, and then one of them said, "Please Miss, to cheer Him up". Not a bad answer, and I think a very good reason for going on teaching religion in the primary schools. There is no doubt that the act of worship is essential, and I have equally no doubt that in the present circumstances the act of worship compulsorily, as in the general assembly, is really not succeeding in what we want it to do. I should hope that this idea could be looked at. I hope the Ecumenical movement has gone far enough for the Churches to come together to agree on this, and that it can be tried, with the co-operation of the local education authority, in this area or that, wherever the local leaders felt they would like to have a go. I believe that it could give very valuable results for all concerned.
I conclude with this. I am quite sure that the leadership in these matters must be with the Churches. I am delighted to hear that there is so much common ground and so much getting together in all the Churches in this country. I hope there will be a response from the education authorities, and I hope that, if it is necessary to make a change in the law
762
when the Churches are decided on what to advise, the Minister will make the changes they want. I am absolutely sure that this would be doing the greatest possible service to the community.
6.32 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I would begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for putting down this Motion. May I apologise to him and the noble Baroness who is to reply for the fact that I shall, in view of the time, have to rush off immediately after I have spoken. I would also apologise to the noble Lord who is to follow. I have an appointment with the police, which I made a long time ago, and I cannot break it.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on his courage, because while during the course of the Parliamentary Session we debate many formidable and interesting subjects, there can be few which have as many implications and complications as the issue which the noble Lord has asked us to discuss to-day. Hiding behind these very simple words on the Order Paper are really basic questions of politics, principle, morality and faith. Arising out of it, for example, you could ask the age-old questions: What is truth? What is faith? What is belief? These are hares which have been chased down the centuries ever since Socrates, and more words have been spoken on this theme and more books written than almost any other. I shudder to think what would happen to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, if he forgot to withdraw the Motion and that load of written words descends upon him.
I would state my own position very clearly from the beginning. I speak, as my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams did, as an atheist, or, as we call ourselves, Humanists. I should like to make it clear that I am not opposed to the teaching of religion in schools. On the contrary, religion has played, and still plays, a central part in man's life and thought, and any system of education which ignores it would be both inefficient and inadequate. What I am opposed to, and with some passion, is the way in which religion is presented in our schools to-day. I envy many of the noble Lords who have spoken their certainty that they know what is true, that they know what is right and that they know what

763
our children should be taught in the field of belief. I envy them that security and that certainty. But I cannot help thinking that it is also a little brash, and even impertiment.
We do not, except in very rare instances, teach our children about religion. We tell them about one religion and we teach them about it in a one-sided, untruthful, dogmatic and prejudiced way. I have never heard of education in the Christian religion which tells, for example, of the massacres that were carried out in the name of Christianity in the past. The children, especially the young children, are taught to accept Christianity as being a faith which deals in love, which deals in human understanding, and I should have thought that the Christian Church to-day was strong enough to be able also to tell the children that many mistakes have been made in the name of our Church and religion, that we are sorry for these mistakes and that no Christian is perfect.
In most areas of education the general purpose would seem to me to be to present a whole picture to a child; but in religion we lift only one corner of the curtain. In education the object is to open the doors of the mind: in religion it seems to me that we spend our time slamming doors on the mind. You cannot learn to play the piano if you learn only how to manipulate a few black keys in the centre of the keyboard, and a child cannot learn about religion and morality, and its influence on mankind, if the teaching is limited to the outlook and opinions of one particular religious grouping. Above all, a child can never learn if something is put to him as a dogma which he must accept without doubt.
Let me give one example, sent to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who cannot be here to-day, which is a pity because she would have illumined our debate. The Surrey Education Committee issue Bibles to children who have reached a certain stage in their schooling. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, that the Bible is one of the most beautiful books ever written, and I have often astounded my Christian friends because I seem to be able to quote it more fluently than they. But few people to-day would re-
764
gard it as literal truth. Yet the Surrey Education Committee inscribe, in these presentation Bibles, given as a result of some bequest many years ago, the following words, I am sure with the utmost sincerity:
"Herein is wisdom which will lead you to all truth, which will provide comfort and guidance and teach you the whole duty of man".
That inscription just is not true, and few people would believe it to-day. And the noble Baronesss in her note, added a comment:
"Is it not shocking that Surrey should identify itself with such nonsense."
I agree.
The fact is—and we have to face this—that the professed aim of religious education is to produce active Christians. I do not mind active Christians attempting to produce active Christians, but they have a place for doing that within the churches. We have not special places for the teaching of arithmetic or French, but we have for the teaching of religion, and it is my view that teaching should be confined to there, if the object is just to advocate one set or one series of opinions. This may seem to many to be a worthy aim, but it is not education; if you confine it to one sect, it is indoctrination, and we should not blanch away from the word. It leads to what someone once described, in a delicate phrase, as "innocent corruption".
If modernisation of the syllabus of religious education merely means that the Church is going to change its clothes, in order more effectively to drive home the demand for more active Christians, I think that is wrong. What we need, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, is education in all religions. Why should not a child learn as much about the Buddhist religion as he does about the Christian religion? Will any Christian stand up and say that a Buddhist is necessarily worse than a Christian? Why should not our children be given a free choice between Buddhism and Christianity—one could extend that analogy right across the spectrum of beliefs.
If the situation does not work out quite so badly as it sounds, it is because too many of our teachers have too much respect for themselves and their profession to carry out their obligations under this Act in too rigid a way, and, secondly,

765
because so much religious education is so badly handled that it produces either a vigorous protest from radical intelligent young people or a paralysing boredom—the sort of boredom my own daughter had when she brought home, as part of her religious instruction homework, the learning by heart of the names of all the Kings of Israel. This boredom was expressed in an open letter which I am not going to bother your Lordships with, but which was sent three years ago from a group of Christians and educationists. I think that if your Lordships saw that open letter you would say that it is a pretty fair summing up of the situation.
The present system has failed, both from the point of view of the Church and from the point of view of any radical thinking. It is not a matter which brings any pleasure to me, as a Humanist, nor can it be one which gives any particular satisfaction, I think, to the Church. The trouble springs not from some old Mediæval laws which have been left on the Statute Book and forgotten but from this comparatively modern Education Act 1944. As many noble Lords have said, this was a remarkable Act of Parliament, human and wise in many respects. One of its great achievements was to prise open the door of our great universities and make them accessible to thousands of young people who had never before had the opportunity of higher education.
But the most stunning and incredible of the achievements of the 1944 Act was in the field of theology. Parliament there brought off a feat unparalleled in the history of human thought and, with one bold stroke, ended an argument which has divided mankind since we first began to think. For generations we have argued about the existence of God. We have wondered whether God is one of man's blunders, or whether man is one of God's blunders. We have argued whether a divine person or a divine force exists. All that was officially ended in 1944; there is a God, and there is an Act of Parliament to prove it!
Parliament then decided that all children should take part in a daily act of worship in school, and thereby gave God, if he wants it, the official recognition of the law. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, but I am not sure that he, as
766
the Minister at the time, or Parliament really had the authority to decide such an issue. The existence of God is not a matter that can be decided at a Cabinet meeting or by a Parliamentary Division; and from the point of view of the Churches it sets a most dangerous precedent, because it is possible that at some future date Parliament may vote that there is no God. Then where would the Churches be?
But seriously, the decision to impose a daily act of worship on our children was a shameful one. Someone once said that
"Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed";
and education and religion become a mockery when the one is used to provide a captive audience for the other. What is more, this Act imposes on our schools an obligation which is not imposed even upon the Churches, who are in the business of religious education. There is no effective law which requires a church to open for worship every day or even every week. There is no effective law which requires a church to organise a Sunday school for children. They can do as they please; they can stay shut for a year if they wish. But a school is bound by the law and cannot escape. The daily act of worship must go on. The whole staff could be agnostics, but the act of worship must go on. Every child in the school could conceivably opt out of the act of worship; but it must go on. And it will still have to go on.
This legal insistence on a daily act of worship is in direct contradiction to all the ethics of education, and is a seven-league stride backwards to the bad old days when the State decreed that its citizens should believe and what they should believe, and persecuted those who did not fall into line. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I think, referred to these clauses as a milestone; I prefer to think of them as a millstone.
As I said earlier, I want to see a proper system of religious education in schools. I want to see our children presented with the history and facts about all religions. I want them to know about the beauty and the mystery, the majesty and the magic that is in the Bible and in all religions. I want to see them presented with the objections to those religions. I want them to be free, as they grow older, to find their own way and

767
to form their own beliefs. But you cannot do this if you insist on a compulsory daily act of worship, because it is a contradiction. You cannot tell a child on the one hand to make up his own mind about whether he believes in God, and then require him to stand in an assembly and worship God as though there is no question about it; because the truth is that there can be no belief and no truth without doubt.
I should like to say one word about opting out. Under the Act, parents have the right to contract their children out of the act of worship. This is often put forward as a safeguard. People say to me, "You do not have to send your children to the act of worship; you have this safeguard." In fact, it is a paper right which has little or no existence outside of the law. I have two children, and I tell your Lordships quite frankly that never have I sought to exercise the right of opting out of the compulsory daily act of worship at school, or of religious education. Why? First, I think I was partly influenced by my own Army experience. When I was called up I went before the sergeant and declared myself to be an atheist. To my amazement, the sergeant smiled with pleasure and said, "Good! Marvellous! Very good!" So I said, "Are there many atheists in this unit?" He said "No; you are the first. But I was getting worried about who was going to do the cookhouse fatigue on Sunday mornings when the rest of the lads were at church parade."
I did not invoke my right to opt my children out of the daily service for several reasons: first, because Humanists, unlike many others, do not believe in forcing their ideas down other peoples' throats, least of all those of children. I have never attempted in any way whatsoever to influence my children's thinking so far as the religions of the world are concerned. Secondly, and almost more important, I did not want to make my child the odd one out, to expose him to curiosity and to that unthinking cruelty that young children impose upon those among them who appear to be different.
Do not let us underestimate this factor. There was a class of 14-year-old children who were asked to write an essay. The subject was this: "Imagine that you are
768
the victim of discrimination, persecution or oppression, and describe an episode in your life." As your Lordships will imagine, the majority of essays were well varied; they covered subjects from the U.S.A., Rhodesia, Imperial Rome, Nazi Germany, and so on. But one boy—I can quote to you the actual essay—wrote a true account of his own experience as a boy who had been opted out. Briefly it went like this:
"The sound of the opening bars of the hymn followed us along the corridor as we left the hall. The singing was cut off as the door of the classroom closed behind us."
The essay went on to describe his embarrassment as the new deputy head publicly questioned each boy and girl as to why they had withdrawn from the public assembly. He described his feelings of humiliation as, again in public, the teacher replied to his statement that he was an agnostic with the remark, "Nonsense! A boy of your age is not old enough to know what he is talking about." That was a boy of 14 years old.
I think it is high time that we had a look at this opting-out business, because in fact it is cutting across many of the things that we are working for in other fields. If you have schools where you have a large number of immigrant children from India and Pakistan you are in fact re-creating the colour bar that you are trying to break down in other areas. Our teachers, most of whom work hard and do their job as well as they can, are told that the opting out is as sacred as anything else. I think they should be told that to mock doubt is as dangerous as it is to mock faith.
This question of older children is very important. They do mature earlier. They tend to become cynical. And no wonder. If you look through the London Service Book at some of the hymns, and you read words like:
"Could my tears forever flow
All for sin could not atone.
Foul, I to the Fountain fly,
Wash me, Saviour, or I die "
what healthy-minded youngster is going to sing that? Or,
"Visit then this soul of mine,
Pierce the gloom of sin and grief".
That sort of stuff is as sick in its own way as some of the modern drama that has

769
been criticised in the past in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, and it should never be allowed. Whatever happens to the opting-out provision, it ought to be amended to give freedom of conscience to young people over the age of 14 so that they can opt out on their own account and cannot be compelled by their parents against their own opinions.
I turn now to the issue of sectarian schools. On the surface it looks reasonable to propose that parents should be free to give financial support and to send their children to a school which is run by members of their own religion or sect. I have had the argument put to me, which again sounds a reasonable argument, that humanists are perfectly free to run their schools if they wish, and so why object to Christians, Roman Catholics and others doing it? I did not mean to make that division. The answer is that we do not wish. First, because we do not believe—and most reasonable people do not believe—in brainwashing in any form, and we are as opposed to the indoctrination of children with humanist ideas as we are with any other. But we suffer a great deal in this field from some of the examples of the prejudice that has been put up against humanists.
I could quote—but I will not do so in view of the lateness of the hour—a whole number of examples of the kind of prejudice which affects humanists in this field, but in spite of this we do not believe that there should be special instruction in humanism as a separate thing for children. We believe that it should be part of the general religious instruction. More important, we believe that it is wrong that children should be segregated in this way and kept apart from children who come from different homes and have different religious backgrounds. It is quite wrong that two out of three Catholic children should go to Roman Catholic schools and mix with nobody but Roman Catholics and not rub their brains and their intelligences against other ideas and other religions. Furthermore, if the State pays 80 per cent. of the building and maintenance, plus 100 per cent. towards the actual running costs of schools, then I do not think we should leave them in the hands of a particular sect. I think the State ought to run them. For all these reasons, I am against sectarian schools.
770
But there is one other reason, perhaps the most important reason of all, and that is that the existence of only sectarian schools robs parents of a free choice. There are one or two examples of this. At Cuckfield in Sussex, for instance, parents are presented with the choice either of sending their little children five miles to the nearest State primary school or of sending them to the local school which is Anglican-controlled. At Wheat-hampstead in Hertfordshire, where there is one Anglican school, the only school, the parents voted to make it non-sectarian, but the Church overruled this particular wish of the parents. I think it is wrong that in areas where there is only one school, that school should be run by a particular sect and that parents should be forced, against their will sometimes, to send children to these schools.
I acknowledge the debt that education owes to the Church, though frankly this has been somewhat exaggerated. In the past the Church often acted out of self-interest as well as from unselfish motives, but I do not agree that a glorious yesterday should entitle them to control of schools to-day and to-morrow—especially at our expense. We owe a great deal to the trade unions, but nobody would suggest that the union organisation of yesterday is right for to-day.
It is not for me to advise the Church, but it seems to me that they would have everything to gain and nothing to lose if they got out of the business of of education and relied on the force and truth of their teachings in their own churches, and their propaganda, to win converts. I believe that we should all profit, and above all our children would profit, if we created a free trade area in ideas and opinions and religions; if we allowed each school of thought to compete on free and equal terms, without one having a built-in advantage provided by the support of Parliament. I realise that this means that the Church must make a great act of abdication; it must give up its vested interest in education; it must render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's. But in the long run I believe it would win greater respect and attract less cynicism than it does now.
I began with Socrates, and I should like to finish by quoting him, for it seems

771
to me that in the following words he sums up the essence of the matter:
"It is our duty to do one of two things: either to ascertain the facts, whether by seeking instruction or by personal discovery: or, if this is impossible, to select the best and most dependable theory which human intelligence can supply, and use it as a raft to ride the seas of life."
The key word here is "select". I want to see religious instruction in schools revised, I want to see the daily act of worship abolished, and I want our children to be given the opportunity to select—to select what they shall believe in as a result of a fair appraisal of all the religions and of all the outlooks. Our task, the task of Parliament, is not to declare officially for one or the other, but to see that all creeds, all outlooks and all ideas are put before young people, without prejudice or favour, and leave them to make up their own minds.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not think that he was being a little hard on the Surrey Education Committee who were extolling the great truths to be found in the Bible? The great truths are all there, but you have to search to find them. It is like the gold on the South African Rand: you have to search to find it, but it is there.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I would have no objection if they would inscribe that at the beginning.
6.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, in the thirteenth century there was a Roman Catholic philosopher who had his own characteristic and powerful method of discussing a question. If that philosopher were faced with the question, "Should Lord Iddesleigh, a Roman Catholic, participate in this debate?", St. Thomas would begin: "Et in primum videtur quia non" which means, "In the first place and at first sight it would seem that he should not". It will be argued that Roman Catholics have in fact contracted out of the State system, that the State behaves very properly towards them, and that they have no special interest in discussing the religious teaching in State schools, since they are free to give their own version of religious truth in their schools. To that, however, I would reply that I do not sit in Parlia-
772
ment as the representative of one particular denomination but have the same duty incumbent on me as is incumbent on anyone else to discuss religion, syllabus religion, assemblies, anything that goes on in State schools. I must not shirk that responsibility. Moreover, there are a few things that I want to say in response to previous speakers in this debate, and there is one contribution that I want to make on my own.
In the first place I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing the subject. I will begin by coming to his assistance and giving one more proof that something should be done in the matter of religious education. I have already given notice to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of what I intend to raise. Last year I understand that about 350,000 school children took "O" level in English, whereas only 65,000 took "O" level examinations in religious knowledge. That is rather curious and worth remarking on, for the number of children who are withdrawn from religious instruction is very small, and would not affect statistics like that.
Moreover, when I was concerned with these matters as a parent of schoolchildren, it was always understood that the religious knowledge "O" level was a very easy exam to pass. If you were wanting to get 9 "O" levels to your credit you ought to take religious knowledge, because that was an easy one and you were almost certain to get it. So why is it that only 65,000, as opposed to 350,000, take the subject? Also, may I say that nearly two-thirds of that 65,000 belonged to the devout sex. I think that what I have said reinforces the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that there is a need to consider this subject and a need for some action. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, agreeing very strongly with that contention.
I am, however, going to disagree in one respect with the noble Lord who introduced the Motion. He wished to see comparative religion taught in the secondary schools. The same point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and by other noble Lords who have spoken. I happen to be very much interested in comparative religion. When I was an undergraduate at Oxford I joined an Indian club, the Lotus Club, and I spent

773
many hours listening to Hindus telling me what a wonderful religion Hinduism was. I made very sincere efforts, and I think with some degree of success, to understand the fundamental concepts of Hinduism; and I came to admire many of those concepts very much indeed. There is a great deal to be said for Hinduism as a religion, and I suggest that its study in depth is most valuable. But I believe that that should come at the undergraduate stage, at the earliest, and preferably later still as a postgraduate study. For what would you teach schoolboys about Hinduism? You would teach them trifles. You would teach them that there was a God with a blue throat, that there was another God who danced, and that there was another God with a monkey's head. But you could not expect to get over to the schoolboys such profound concepts as the relation between Kharma and Dharma. That would be quite hopeless.
The best preparation for understanding other religions is to know your own religion and to practise that. There is a very deep sense—and I have said this before in this House—where all religions help each other. A man who admires the Christian mystics will have a very deep feeling of love for the Mohammedan mystics. I shall come later to the question of religion in primary schools, and I shall want to say something practical about that.
I listened to the Humanists with very great respect, very great interest and great sympathy, because we are both minorities. They are a minority which believes too little, and they would say to me that I believe too much. But we are both minorities, and we are both sincere and earnest minorities, and
"the toad beneath the harrow knows exactly where each pinpoint goes."
I was very much moved by the story told by the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, of the Humanist teacher; that honest, decent man with, I should say, a real vocation (although he would not like the word "vocation") for teaching, but who could not in practice get a headmastership. How I sympathise with him! Sympathising means suffering together.
Only last night I was told a very similar story of a co-religionist of mine. He was deeply interested in gynæcology and had specialised in it. He loved the sub-
774
ject and had worked hard at it, and hoped one day to get a post in the gynæcological department of a great hospital. But, of course, he knows now that the committee would say to him, "Would you have any objections to doing abortions on social grounds?" To which he would reply, "Oh! But the Act protects me. I do not have to do abortions on social grounds. There is a 'conscience clause'." That is true enough, but he would not get the job; and he certainly would not get the head job later on. There is a problem here, and the problems of one minority are reflected a little in the problems of another.
I shall not go into detailed criticism of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. He is going to settle all minority problems by giving minorities the majority rights, and putting them in charge of everything. I do not think his speech will be taken very seriously.
But now I want to come to the question of ecumenism, which was mentioned first by the noble and learned Lord who was then sitting upon the Woolsack, and then by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, and by many other speakers. Ecumenism is a matter of faith, hope and charity. My Church is committed to it; I am committed to it, and I am hopeful that one day the ecumenical situation will be reflected in the educational situation. It is a wonderful thought. But, so far as I can see, we are a very long way from that to-day. It is not only that we disagree about doctrine: that might be put right. What is also serious and difficult to overcome is that we disagree about children.
In 1907 an event occurred which has not been mentioned, and which has not been discussed in your Lordships' House, but which I think is worth mentioning and which should be discussed. Sixty years ago the Pope issued an encyclical, saying that children ought to be admitted to Holy Communion at the age of 7. That was a practice which had passed out of existence in the West. In the Eastern Churches children, even little babies, are to-day given Holy Communion, but in the West it had ceased to be. It was revoked in 1907. I want your Lordships, and especially any right reverend Prelate who may read this speech, to envisage our schools as a sacramental and worshipping community. The children are

775
all baptised and they are reminded of their baptism. They are all sufficiently acquainted with our problem of good and evil to realise the need that they have to keep that baptismal whiteness in their souls, and if they become spotted to seek the remedy of the confessional. Our children probably have nothing very much to confess at that age, but they start going to Confession at the age of about 6. Then, at 7, with immense joy, they receive the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
I have heard learned professors quoted to the effect that no primary school child can understand a religious concept. I am not sure that I understand what the professors mean by "a religious concept", but I have known my daughter come to me and say, "Dadda, I was so happy yesterday at my first Communion that I thought I was going to die". I have known my grand-daughter come to me and say, "Dadda, I love the baby Jesus so much that I long to go to Heaven to see Him". I do not know if that is a religious concept, but it is something of which I would not rob a little child; and I do not think Our Saviour, either, would rob a little child of that happiness. I say to those who have other faiths that they really ought to ask us—and we should be very willing to tell them—what 60 years of experience of children's Communion has been.
I would go on, if you like, and say that we give Confirmation very much earlier than is the custom in the Anglican Church. A Roman Catholic child is commonly Confirmed at about the age of 12, or even younger than that. Therefore, at the primary school level we are receiving at least four of our seven Sacraments. We are a sacramental community. That we want to be; that we want to keep; that we give as our contribution to any ecumenical discussion about religious education
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I had thought of making what I hoped would be quite a good speech. I read a great deal, and I got copies of a good many books, not to speak of the syllabus that we have all referred to, the West Riding Agreed Syllabus. But then I came to the conclusion that so much had
776
been said that there was very little for me to say without repetition. I shall therefore be very short, and speak, if I may, in almost tabloid form.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Willis, had not left us. He threw out a great many very provocative points. I wrote them down with interest, hoping to be able to answer them; but now he has gone. When I asked somebody why he had gone, I was told that he had an engagement at half-past seven. I am very sorry, because they were very provocative points which he put forward to us. He asked us, as churchpeople, as Christians, how it was we could say we knew this, that or the next thing. He said we could not be sure. He asked: What about truth? Were we ever certain what truth was? Of course we do not know; but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has not heard of another word, and that word is "faith". He said that we had never said, and the Church had never said, anything about mistakes in the past. I am sure he is a very intelligent person, but I think his reading must have been very restricted. I think a good many of us have read a good deal of the evil deeds of the Crusaders, of all sorts of tortures, of inquisitions and of other things of which we absolutely disapprove. We are quite aware of them, and we say that they are wrong.
The noble Lord also spoke (I am saying this because, after all, there is the offchance of his reading it tomorrow—just the offchance) about the act of worship, and the arrangements for any parents to withdraw their children. He was very angry about that withdrawal. He said that that was all wrong; it was only on paper: that it could not be done; it was very unkind; the children would feel different. Of course! But surely we have to face the fact—and it would be better that we did face it—that if a thing is right a person must feel different. To-day, with immigrant children and other types of children coming into our schools, of course there are withdrawals. But, rather like the trade unions, perhaps we feel it better to keep the act of worship and to let others withdraw, rather than that we do not have it and people have to ask for it. I have put that in rather different words from those which might be used by the trade unions because I thought perhaps it sounded better.

777
The noble Lord then told us—and here I have a great deal of sympathy with him—about a school area in which there was only one school, a Church of England school, and that children would have had to go five miles to find one that was not a Church of England school. The noble Lord did not tell us, of course, whether it was an aided school or a controlled school. But, at the same time, I sympathise with the parents of children in such one-school areas (as we call them) who have not a school to which to send their children where there is more non-denominational teaching, as there is in the county schools. There, I am with the noble Lord. It is a good thing to end up with something on which I agree with him.
During this debate I think there has been a tremendous amount of gloom. Is it necessary? It seems to me, thinking it over—and, of course, perhaps I shall have another idea when I read it to-morrow—that the only person who was in the least bit optimistic was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to whom we are all so grateful for introducing this debate, had not got much gloom, but it seemed to increase as the debate went on. Speakers seemed to think that there was no faith nowadays; that the Christian faith was almost something of the past. Certainly, we were told, parents had shown—and we have the figures both from the Plowden Committee and in other ways—that they wanted their children given a Christian education, but that this was perhaps only because they wanted them (and I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who mentioned this) to be taught how to behave well.
My Lords, I do not believe it is that. I believe that behind all this there is a longing among many people for greater faith and for a greater spiritual outlook; a feeling that it is there if only they could find out about it and reach it. Many parents, I believe, feel that, though they may have missed it themselves, they may be able to help their children to find it. I am not despondent. Noble Lords will perhaps remember seeing a leading article in The Times on November 9 which said:
"In all the debate about religious education in schools one fact stands out: surveys have shown that the overwhelming majority of parents want it for their children. If
778
parental choice means anything, it should count here".
But then it goes on to say that the Christian faith
"is one of the basic influences upon British life".
I feel that during the last few years there has been a growing interest in trying to find out more about religion. We are now getting the reports of several surveys, but many of them started two years ago; and that is why we are particularly grateful, I feel, to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing this debate to-day.
Now, what about this subject, if I may speak on it very shortly, of religious education in schools? I will speak only of the primary schools and junior schools. I know that it has been said by some that there should not be religious education for the small children. We are not thinking of theological doctrine; I do not think any of us are. But most people will agree that if a child asks a question you must answer frankly. Of course! If the child asks, "What is that building?", you answer, "It is a church." But if the child asks. "What is a church for?", are you to say, "It is to worship a God: but I do not know if there is a real God or not. Wait until you are 16 and then make up your own mind."?
It seems to me that we ought to come down to much more practical terms. What we teach at the moment in the county schools are what are called the agreed syllabuses. Any amount of them might be improved. Practically every noble Lord has spoken of the West Riding syllabus which we consider very good. It has been revised and was last published in 1966, and I am sure that there are other good ones. I have had letters from people telling me of bad ones, but I cannot say that I have seen them myself. I had one letter from a friend who told me that the syllabus emphasised, as it were, the duty towards the neighbour but left out entirely the duty towards God. He thought that the word "God" was never mentioned throughout. Nor was there any instruction or information on the subject of prayer. Let us then revise the syllabus. If the syllabus is wrong, then let us get it better. If the act of worship is not what we should like it to be, then let us think it out again. Let us think out the best way to do it and at what time it should be done every day. But do not

779
let us be so defeatist as to say that because it is not all that we should like it to be then it must go altogether.
Then there is the matter of how we teach. There have been a great many experiments in teaching, and to-day there are new techniques in teaching; for example, reading, mathematics and foreign languages. What we want to examine very carefully now are the techniques of teaching in the schools the religious faith which we are trying to give our children. Of course, it depends on the skill of the teacher; but not only that. It depends also on the conviction and enthusiasm of the teacher. We all agree about that. I have been somewhat heartened to hear that there are now more teachers in the training colleges specialising in the training of religious subjects—and we want still more of them. I grant, of course, that the Church schools take the largest proportion. But instead of being defeatist and saying that because this or that is not perfect we must give it up, I would urge that from to-day onwards, let us see how it can be improved.
My Lords, there is one last thing that I wish to say. It brings to mind what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said about the withdrawal of children from religious education, or from the act of worship (which is a right) and the feeling that these children have of being, as it were, singled out from their schoolfellows. It is the question of the teacher who, because he does not feel convinced that what he is being asked to teach is what he really believes, does not want to teach it. Quite right! The percentage, so far as we can get the figures, is very low; but of course those people are right. But, having said that, and having heard the case that the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, told us of to-day, I would say that if people have convictions, that means having the courage to stand by them. There is no use having the conviction and then complaining: "I am having a bad time because I believe this, that or the other."
A long time ago—and it is a very long time ago; for I was a small child—I remember hearing the nursery maid singing a hymn in which were the words,
"Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone."
I used to think that this meant that I had to deal with lions—which I would not
780
have to deal with now, unless I go to Longleat one day. But I know the courage, mental and spiritual, needed to take a stand against something because one believes it is wrong, or to take a stand for something because one believes it right and feels one must work for it. I am dealing with small children because I want to start with the small children. Of course it is not the doctrine we want to teach at that age. Let us tell them the story of Christmas; let them act a Nativity play. Many of us who have seen them do this have seen the awe and reverence with which they do it. We do not say that at the same time you must teach, or try to teach, the whole of the doctrine of incarnation. You begin with the actual facts and you build up. But unless you begin by having teachers in our schools who have the conviction and the skill, and who keep in touch with the homes, you are not going to get that real religious revival and spiritual knowledge which I believe we could get in this country now.
7.27 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness who has just resumed her seat, and who made a very feeling speech (and I am sure we all agree with her in saying that one should have the courage of one's convictions) was not suggesting that in this modern age in this country the man who has the courage of his convictions should be punished in the way that Lord Francis-Williams described. It is men of moral courage of that kind whom we want as leaders in our schools, not that they should be kept down. I hope that the noble Baroness was not encouraging these education committees to take this attitude towards candidates for promotion who have shown their moral courage by acting in the way that this gentleman did.
I think that almost everybody who has spoken this afternoon has expressed his gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for giving us the opportunity for debating this subject. But very few have noticed that he made a convincing case, as I thought, for a revision—or, at any rate, a very careful inquiry into the need for revision—of the 1944 Education Act. That seemed to me much the most important part of his speech. Very few people have expressed approval of that part of his speech which personally I

781
found quite convincing. And then when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—who has the advantage of having been an outstanding Minister of Education for a number of years—came in even more strongly to advocate that at any rate the compulsory part of the 1944 Act in relation to these matters stood in need of repeal, I thought that quite an overwhelming case had been made out.
I always listen with great interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I must say that I thought this afternoon he treated us to one of the most thoughtful of the very thoughtful speeches that he makes in this House. Both his speech and that of Lord Aberdare were humanist to the core. I do not know that either noble Lord claims to be a Humanist. I join myself with my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams in this respect. But these speeches, I think, show how close together in many ways we Humanists are with what one might describe, perhaps, as the more liberal-minded of the other side.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke (I hope she will excuse me if I do not try to pronounce the Welsh part of her Title), said that it was rather an extraordinary thing that Christians and Humanists were joining together in various researches into these difficult problems. I do not think it is an extraordinary thing at all. It would be extraordinary only on the basis of there not being a real core of religion in the Humanist movement, which there very much is. That is why we are in it. The fact that we do not accept the creed in which other religious people believe does not mean that we do not have these religious emotions, or that our lives are not to a large extent directed by religious emotions just as are those of Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and other deeply religious people.
My Lords, I think that these sections of the 1944 Act which impose two different compulsions on the schools in religious matters are in fact the main flaws—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, demonstrated convincingly—in this otherwise very great Statute; an all-Party Statute, as I was very glad the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, emphasised in his speech. He explained, in a speech which was very intelligible to any politician, the tactical motives which led to the inclusion of
782
these two sections in the Act, and it was very understandable. If the noble Lord could not get his settlement without them, I think that few of us would blame him for including them. But surely the innuendo of his speech was that this situation having disappeared meanwhile, the case for retaining in the Act at any rate the compulsory side of this settlement has gone, and the sooner we redress this matter—as indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was arguing—the better.
The noble Viscount movingly described the mood of penitence, and indeed of trust, with which Parliament looked forward into a future in which it hoped that these two religious sections would help us to surmount the difficulties which were obviously before us. I can quite understand that feeling, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. The noble Viscount then remarked, rather drily, that of course this trust had failed completely. I must say I thought he might have dotted the i's and crossed the t's a little more in respect of that, because this compulsory establishment of religion in the schools was actually a prelude to twenty of the worst years we have ever had in the history of our country, from the point of view of the growth of crime, and from the point of view of selfishness extending itself to all parts of society and with an enormous increase in immorality.
Religion was made compulsory in schools, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, himself pointed out, for the first time in the history of education in this country, and that was followed by those twenty years. I am not saying it was due to the compulsory establishment of religious teaching and religious worship in the schools set up by that Act; it obviously was not. But surely it does show how futile it is to try to improve people and to train them in the right ways by legislation of this kind. It just does not work.
My Lords, before I make my own small contribution in rather more detail to this question of compulsory worship and compulsory religious training in the schools, I should like to add a suggestion to the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made and which has, in fact, been hinted at by my noble friend Lord Willis. It was, I think, the only part of what the noble Lord said with which the

783
noble Baroness opposite found herself in agreement. It is the problem of the single school area, which is one of the worst blemishes on this settlement which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, described, because it has meant that Church of England schools in rural areas of the country are the only schools which are available. Some of them are controlled and some are aided; I do not think it really matters into which group they fall. But it is giving rise undoubtedly to a great deal of difficulty, and it is a matter which I think could be put right very simply and quickly in advance of the wider inquiry for which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is asking; and it ought to be part of the next Education Bill which comes before Parliament.
It has been emphasised by almost every speaker this afternoon that these two compulsory elements, religious instruction and acts of worship, are really two quite different things, and I think they need to be considered separately from each other. Of them I think that the act of worship is the one which is quite indefensible. Religious instruction is not the same thing as religious education, and while we Humanists are quite happy with religious education we object to religious instruction, particularly when it is in fact instruction in the Christian religion, which is not religious education at all. It is certainly one of the least satisfactory features of the situation, especially at the present time, because we are still the centre of a Commonwealth in which the vast majority of the citizens are not Christians at all.
Over the past years we have, as has been mentioned more than once this afternoon, seen a very large number of fellow subjects coming here, particularly from Pakistan, India and other parts of the Commonwealth, and becoming a substantial portion of the population of quite large areas of some of our biggest towns. As the noble Baroness said, there are many of the children who are not Christians at all, and it is only right that they should be withdrawn from religious instruction; but it really destroys the community life of a school if you withdraw half the children in this way. I must say that I did not agree with the noble Baroness in her approach to this difficult part of the subject.
784
As the debate went on, it was interesting to note how many of your Lordships were opposed to the compulsory act of worship. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London himself went a very long way in that direction when he said that when the act of worship was objected to compulsion was wrong, and if everybody wanted it there was no need for compulsion. I think that makes the case against compulsion. Those who want to have an act of worship of this kind can have it—there is no reason at all why they should not. It could be divorced, as more than one speaker has pointed out, from the school assembly, in which all the children in the school certainly ought to take part because that is an example of the community spirit showing itself. But it seems to me quite wrong to link this assembly very closely with an act of worship which many of them do not want and which in fact repels them, or which they do not bother about and consider a thing of no particular value or interest.
There is no difficulty. At the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges there are chapels, and those who feel compelled make use of them for their devotions. The great majority no longer go, except possibly on special occasions, and then not in a religious spirit but in a community spirit, which is a different thing. I remember that at the London School of Economics, which is not notorious for being a home of religion, the late Director, Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders, made provision of a small sort of chapel, so that those students who were religiously inclined might have somewhere to go where they could be alone with themselves, with their consciences and with their religious thoughts.
Compulsion really defeats itself. This has been evidenced in the United States of recent years. There have been a number of decisions in the Supreme Court in which compulsory religious worship in the schools has been declared contrary to the Constitution. But nobody would say that religion was not active and strong in the United States. My own impression is that Christianity is a good deal stronger there than it is in this country. Christianity is strengthened by working in a free community rather than under a system of compulsion such as exists here under the Education Act 1944.

785
With regard to withdrawing children, I find myself entirely with my noble friend Lord Willis on this matter. It is an act of cruelty for a parent to withdraw a child in this way and take it out of the community life of the school, even for a comparatively short time. The noble Lady, when she condemned my noble friend's view, must have forgotten her own childhood and how extraordinarily sensitive children are about being separated like this. It is the time when they are most completely members of the community. If it is the parents, on whom they rely for the love on which they depend for so much of their lives, who withdraw them in this way, then there is a terrible division between their love of their parents and the respect which they have for their teachers and the community life which is built up for them in the school. That is something to which they ought not to be subjected. The only way of stopping it is to remove the compulsory element and let those who wish to worship do so separately from the other children.
One of the worst sides of all this to me is that it subjects children to what is no more nor less than a living lie. They know quite well that their parents never go to church and do not believe in this worship, yet these children hear at school these truths, so-called, set out by the authorities at the school, and may even be told that they will go to hell if they do not accept. They are being asked, in effect, to believe that the fathers and mothers whom they love are in danger of going to hell if this is true. This establishes a conflict to which no child ought to be subjected. One of the reasons why our public life at the moment is in such a state from many points of view is because there is so much falsity about of this kind, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.
On the question of religious education, I hope that this afternoon Humanists have made it clear beyond doubt that there is no objection in the Humanist movement to a proper system of religious education. What we dislike is the concentration of this upon the propaganda for Christianity—because that is what it comes to. As my noble friend Lord Willis has pointed out, religion is one of the greatest of all spiritual manifestations in human history, and he is a poor
786
Humanist—he is not a Humanist at all—who does not understand that and appreciate it. I sometimes think that the Humanists are just as religious as Christians and are often a good deal more aware of the importance of Christianity and a great deal more interested in the subject of religion than many Christians. I remember Beatrice Webb once saying that what she was most interested in when she met anybody was what he thought about religion. That comes from a great woman who was well known not to be a believer. I should say that she was not in any way unusual in that outlook.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the recent life of Mrs. Webb, but if he has, I think he will realise that it would be false to talk about her as a woman without belief and, by implication, a woman not concerned with religion.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have just been trying to explain that Humanists are as religious as anybody else. I heard Beatrice Webb say this myself. She was a Humanist, and she had no belief in orthodox religion. I have not seen this recent book, but I saw a lot of Beatrice Webb, and if the author of this book says that she believed in orthodox religion he does not know what he is talking about. She always said her prayers, and there are Humanists who pray, because you do not necessarily have to pray to God. It is a way of communing with yourself, of searching out your spiritual life and trying to make it better. It is not at all uncommon among Humanists; and Beatrice Webb was a very great Humanist.
It is not surprising that many children wish that religious education should go on in schools. Childhood is the period when one is most susceptible to the emotion of religion. I can remember that in my own case. The noble Lady was talking about the Crusades. There were two great Crusades of children in the 12th century, in which 30,00 children, led by a boy of 12, marched across France to take ship to the Holy Land, that they might win Jerusalem back; and another large number went from Germany. They were imbued with the tremendous religious emotion which swept over Europe at that time. There is no question that children

787
are more susceptible to religious emotion than adults, and it is not unusual that they should feel in this way. But it is wrong to use this emotional stage in order to propagand Christianity by not giving them a wide and deep view of what religion has meant in history.
After all, Socrates, to whom my noble friend Lord Willis referred, was just as great a religious figure as Buddha or Christ. He was one of the beings whom every Humanist, and every really religious person, should venerate in his heart. This is, I think, common to us all. My noble friend Lord Soper says that Humanism stems from Christianity. Of course, part of it does; but a great deal of Christianity also stems from the Greek philosophers and from the religions which were endemic in the Mediterranean. What we have to realise is that these things are all part of the great human build-up. That is why we call ourselves Humanists. We do not want to confine it to something like Christianity, which, however splendid and far-reaching it may be, does not spell out the whole of the matter for us.
7.51 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I have always been sorry for the atheists. Every half-naked savage in an African rain forest has his god and his hereafter. The atheists, particularly as they get on in years, must feel a great lack of something when they realise that soon they are going to disappear from this earth and they have not a Maker to meet. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, fired off the most controversial speech that I have ever heard in this House, and then promptly bolted. Quite frankly, I think that this is treating the House with contempt. He talked an awful lot of "bosh" about the Bible. If he cared to study things a little more, he would know that there is a background of truth to all the most unlikely fables in the Bible. We even know now how the very cunning Israelites got down the walls of Jericho. As for this long diatribe about the imposition put on any people who wish to opt out of religious service, I wondered whether noble Lords on that side were considering the appalling handicaps that a Conservative workman labours under if he wishes to opt out of political levies.
I am going on to a slightly more mundane theme and raising the subject of
788
filthy lucre. Nobody has denied that an enormous number of parents would like their children to be educated in and, if possible, to follow, the Christian beliefs, but if not that, then at least to be educated in Christian ethics. What the best means of arriving at that end is, I do not pretend to know—and great experts have been making speeches on this the whole afternoon. But I do know that in Sussex, at all events, a large number of parents—and I should say the majority—whether or not they believe themselves, want their children to go to a Church of England school. But they cannot always do so because there are not enough Church of England schools. For instance, it is difficult to get a place at a Church of England primary school in Horsham, which is my nearest largest town.
Speaking in very round figures, in Sussex we have 1 million people, and one-tenth of them are communicants of the Church of England. I think some of the speakers in this debate might be reminded that Christianity, owing to the highness of its ideals and the difficulty of living up to them, has always been a minority religion; and it always will be. In Sussex, we have about 150,000 school children, 90,000 in primary schools and 60,000 in secondary schools. Of these, the Church of England provide places for 20,000 primary, and a little under 4,000 secondary. Our proportion of primary pupils is not bad; but on the secondary we are not doing very much in Church schools, though, of course, we have good friends in the State schools. But the population of Sussex is increasing. Why, therefore, do we not meet the need for new school places by more Church schools, particularly at the secondary level?
The agreement with the State is a generous one. The Church's share has decreased from 25 per cent. of the capital for a new school to 20 per cent. But unfortunately, owing to the rise in the cost of building, that 20 per cent. in many cases represents more than 25 per cent. did some years ago in actual hard cash. As Chairman of the Chichester Diocesan Dilapidations Boards, naturally I should like to be able to produce many more secondary school places; but one is up against the money factor the whole time. The fact is that a secondary school of 1,000 pupils runs away with something

789
of the order of £500,000, and the church's share of that is £100,000. The only way of getting it is either by a general appeal, or by borrowing on 30-year annuity terms, which means about £8,000 a year for 30 years. If one scrapes up capital and spends diocesan capital it merely means that one is foregoing the interest on that capital.
I speak of schools of 1,000 pupils, as that is the number for which we provided in the last school that we built, which was at Crawley New Town. But will this be large enough next time? Comprehensive education is all the rage, and in the big towns along the coast, when they get down to finalising their educational plans, is it not likely that the secondary level will be schools of 2,000 pupils, which would cost the Church £200,000, or £16,000 a year? We are endeavouring to finance the school in Crawley as part of a general appeal for mending the Cathedral, building churches in new housing areas, and so on. I am sorry to say that this particular element of the appeal has not proved at all popular; in fact, it is something of a financial Cinderella at the moment. If you cannot raise the capital, it means that you have to borrow; and if you add a 2,000 pupil comprehensive school to your existing commitments to a diocesan budget you end up with an educational commitment of something like one-third of the present annual levy on the parishes. And that would serve only one area; other areas would come along with an equal claim.
The reaction of people in general is: "We pay huge sums to the State for education. Why should we pay more to educate other people's children in other parts of the diocese? "This may be a bit selfish, but it is quite understandable when you consider that the parents want to send their children to a Church of England school; and I have not the slightest doubt that the vast majority of them would pay a few pounds a year for the privilege of doing so. But in modern thinking that is out. Any parents who want to spend a little more money in order to give their child what might be called an educational advantage are frowned upon; the poor child may be getting a slight start over the child of the parents who waste all their money on beer, "baccy" and bingo. That is a
790
method by which I am quite convinced schools could be financed. I hope that the obstacles and difficulties will eventually be resolved, and that parents will be able to get the education they want for their children.
It is, of course, greatly to the interest of the State that we should be able to provide more places. After all, not only is the element of money provided by the Church not to be sneezed at, but I think one can say that if what we claim, and what people believe—that the pupils in a Church school have a better chance of learning about Christian religion, becoming Christian, and so on—is true, they may well find that they do not clutter up the queue for all the sedatives and tranquillisers and the like which the State is pouring out at enormous cost. And that is an argument which should appeal to the Treasury.
8.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that nobody has stayed to this very late hour solely in the hope of hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, because she has unfortunately been unable to stay. So what you are going to get instead is me. I shall try to compensate for that by making my speech short. I should like, before I say the few things I want to say, to repeat what everybody has said: how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for introducing a subject which nobody can say has not produced a pretty wide and pretty stimulating debate, in which most things have been said that are really relevant to the subject, and could be said within a few minutes.
The other thing I should like to join with other speakers in doing is in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sackville, on his maiden speech. I do not know whether, if he reads this and if it is printed right, he will believe me when I say it was the best maiden speech I have had the privilege of hearing in this House. That may be partly because I agreed with a great deal more of what he said than perhaps with certain others of your Lordships. But I do not think anybody could deny that he said it quite admirably, and we all look forward to hearing what he will say on future occasions, when he will be, I hope, even more controversial.

791
The subject of this debate is the teaching of religion in schools, and there has been a little tendency to get away from that. I should like to take as a text what I believe I am right in saying the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said at the beginning of his excellent introduction to this debate. If I got the words wrong I think nevertheless that the meaning is right. He said, talking of the object of religious education, that we are not trying to turn out Christians as the Russians turn out Communists; we are trying to turn out people who can make up their own minds. I, like everybody else in your Lordships' House, certainly agree with that, to the extent that we are not trying to turn out Christians as one turns out blancmanges in a mould, for, I think, the simple reason that you cannot turn out Christians like that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, said, a Christian is not a blancmange but someone who has to stand alone, on his own, and if he fails to do that he is not a Christian. A Communist, on the other hand, is someone who has to change his mind with bewildering rapidity, and a blancmange, I think, would make to some extent very satisfactory fodder for that.
It raises a very difficult question of what one means by teaching. If I may put it in the form of an analogy, supposing by some nightmare I had to teach tennis at any form of boys' or girls' school, I would not, I think, undertake a job which implied that I was a good tennis player, although I like tennis. I would not teach it in the sense of getting on to a court and saying, "Watch me, and do this". I should be more tempted to get on to a court and say. "Watch me and do almost everything I do not do". But there is another way in which tennis could be taught. It may sound terribly elementary, but I think I would undertake, with a little thought, to teach it in this way—by telling the pupils what the game is about. I would explain that it was played with a racquet and with balls, and in a rather negative way the object of the game was not to collect all the balls on one side of the net and keep them there; it was not to hit the ball into the net, but over it, but not to hit it so far over that it went over the pavilion and into the far landscape,
792
and so on. This would be teaching them that there were limits, obstacles and certain rules.
That is also one way of teaching religion—a religion; and at the moment we are talking about the Christian religion. There may be arguments as to what particular form of tennis one is teaching, whether it is lawn tennis or court tennis. If one is teaching in that way, it is not quite such a bewilderingly high standard of teaching as the teaching involved if one is doing it in the way that I think the Humanists feel religion should be taught, or in showing what is a perfect Christian. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, but at any rate one of the eloquent speakers for Humanitarianism, who implied that every teacher in the schools is not a perfect Christian. I do not think that any Christian would quarrel with that. In fact, I think that is one of the few fundamental tenets of the Christian religion. It is because they are imperfect that Christianity is wanted and needed. I very much sympathised with the noble Lord, Lord Sackville, who wished to introduce the word "dogma" into this debate. Dogma, as I understand, is a Greek word for something agreed. An agreed syllabus is dogma, if anything is; and it is not, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, as I think he implied, saying something in a loud voice, dressed in a "dog collar".
I think there is the same difficulty with the word "indoctrinate", which evidently is a dirty word, because each of your Lordships who has spoken about it has made it clear that he does not want to indoctrinate people, but only to teach them. I think there is a philological distinction. I am not quite clear about where indoctrination begins and teaching stops, or what are the implications of indoctrinating; but I imagine it means teaching something with which you do not yourself agree, or relates to something you do not agree with which is taught by other people. That is indoctrination. Whether it is indoctrinating a child to tell it that it is better to speak the truth than to lie is a question which arises in the whole teaching of morals. I think that whether one is teaching Humanism or teaching any religion, children of a certain age have to be told

793
those things. Later on, as has been pointed out, they can make up their minds whether they agree.
That brings me to the second point I want to raise, which is about the different forms of teaching for different ages. It has been suggested, and a good case has been made out for saying, that religion ought not to be taught in primary schools at all, because children at that age are too young to understand religious concepts. They are, of course, too young to understand other concepts. In the Plowden Report, the Minority section at the end dealing with a Minority view, Professor Ayer and others said that you could not teach children theology, and religion without theology was really rather pointless; therefore, that should come later. I am not entirely convinced that one cannot teach small children theology, if it is done with imagination. I know of many quite small children who enjoy the books of C. S. Lewis, which are in the form of fairy stories but which are in fact theology, although the children do not know it. Certainly, the stories are put across in a sympathetic form and present theological doctrines. That may be right or wrong, but I know it works.
Clearly, in teaching small children at a primary school one has to appeal to their imagination, and I very much agree with those noble Lords who have said that it does not matter if they do not understand it at the time. It is like planting a seed. I was delighted when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London pointed out that the soil represented by children taking that sort of seed is enormously more fertile than that of adults. In the very little experience I have had of—I do not think one could call it religious teaching, but producing Nativity plays in primary schools in a country village where I lived, I was amazed how quickly the children entered into the spirit of the thing. Although their parents were not churchgoing people, the children enjoyed it and were able to put in touches which few adults would have been able to do, both artistically and, I can only say, doctrinally. They seemed to realise instinctively what it was all about.
May I return to the tennis analogy in connection with teaching religion? Simply teaching the rules and saying, "This is Christianity; believe this but do not
794
believe that", is arguable; and it would be quite useless to teach tennis in that way if the children you were teaching had no prospect of playing tennis later on. If they had such a prospect then I quite agree with what has been said; but if they do not choose to play it afterwards no great harm is done—they know what it is. I think there is a danger in saying that tennis is not the only game; after all, there are netball and polo; let us teach them all these games, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, wanted to do. In the first place that would be a highly expensive operation—getting away from the analogy. The number of different sects and creeds, even in the encyclopædia of religious history, is enormous, and I think it would be pointless to cover more than a very few, and those at a later stage.
One has either to have no religious teaching or to implant some ideas early. The real problems come at the secondary stage, and it seems to me that the importance of teaching the meaning of Christianity is shown by at least two things, and they are the only things that I will mention. One is the excellent answer which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, gave us of a small girl, about 6 or 7 years old, who when asked, "How can we learn about the redemption of sin?" said, "We first have to learn how to sin". I think it was pretty clear that her idea of sin came from television and meant a very specialised form of sinning. If sinning merely meant doing the wrong thing, I am afraid that one of the reasons for Christianity is that none of us ever has to learn how to sin: it comes naturally to us. And I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that this is one reason why any religion worthy of the name will really be a minority religion, because it is a resistance movement against something we all want very much to do. The best Christians and Humanists and Mohammedans—the best people of every religion—feel it is very difficult not to do it, and they need some help in not doing it.
I think there is a great misunderstanding in the minds of some Humanists, one at least of whom, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made some startling remarks about the object of Christianity. I think it is put quite clearly in one of the Gospels by Christ, who is reputed to

795
have said, "I am come to heal not those who are well but those who are sick". And when the noble Lord, Lord Willis, asked whether any of your Lordships would get up and say that a Christian was a better man than a Buddhist, of course I do not think any noble Lord would do so. On the contrary, it is the worst people who, rightly or wrongly, believe that they need Christianity more, because one of the articles of the faith is that it gives one outside help. That may be right or it may be wrong. One cannot teach it on any other basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke about praying, but not praying to God. That did not leave me very much wiser. I know that people have prayed to everything, from crocodiles to sacred trees, to themselves—which I think is the worst form. It seems to me to be awfully difficult to justify the teaching of all these religions together at an early age and then allowing children to pick from them. If we hunt for one religion which is traditional to this country it is Christianity. Teach that and allow children later on to make up their own minds. I believe that is what education is for. When I say that it is a resistance movement, it is resisting a great many things and will have to resist a great many more. But there is no difficulty in people learning what they have to resist, because it is plugged at them every day in every civilisation, and particularly in our own.
I shall say only one more thing, because I realise how late it is. There is the saying in one of the Books of the Prophets, "Where there is no vision the people perish". That does not apply to television, but it means that you have to see things which are not easy to see if a country is going to survive and keep its soul. I think St. Paul put it into words:
"The things that are seen are temporal; the things that are not seen are eternal".
Teaching religion means teaching about eternal things, and the reason that it needs teaching is because people do not see it unless they are shown the way to look. I apologise to your Lordships for having spoken so long and I will not detain your Lordships further.
8.19 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I trust the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, will
796
forgive me if I am unable to follow him along his line of philological intricacy. However, I would agree with him that one can have religion without theology. I would go all the way with him in that regard, and indeed I would go a little further and say that pure theology is a somewhat fertile ground for the growth of Humanism.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I should like to express a personal gratitude to him for having raised this debate. As a Scot, at the start of this debate I had but a slender knowledge of how you order these things in England. However, one lives and learns, and I am now much better informed than I was. It certainly seems to be a little bit of a state of chaos, and perhaps I might be forgiven if I were to tell you something about how we do these things in Scotland. It is a most curious fact that Scotland, with so turbulent a history of religious intolerance, appears to-day to have no major problem of religious education. Not only did John Knox (one cannot start anything in Scotland on education except with John Knox, so your Lordships must forgive me) and his reformers aim at a church and minister in every parish, but they also aimed at having a school and a schoolmaster. Knox's own words were, "Order their schools in Christ". Here was the guide-line of Scottish religious education.
They were considered a century later, in the year 1696, which was the first Scottish Parliament of King William and it was laid down that the minister and heritors were responsible for the parochial schools, and these were inter alia to give instruction in religion to children whose parents did not object. That was before the Act of Union. Two hundred years later, in 1872, the Scottish Education Act confirmed the liberty of parents to elect that their children should not receive religious education. The system worked well and it was said that "the religious difficulty in education has been solved". That was said in Scotland, and accepted one hundred years ago.
The principles were reaffirmed in the 1918 Act and again in 1929 when the education authorities, as we know them now, were put under the local authority. It was then made illegal for a council to discontinue the provision of religious

797
education in a school. It could not force the abandonment of religious education. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Scotland was prohibited by Statute from inspecting religious instruction in the schools and from making grants in aid. The responsibility for religious education devolved on the parish minister and on the head teacher.
I have not the exact figures, but roughly speaking one-tenth of the schools in Scotland are sectarian; that is, Episcopal or Roman Catholic. The rest of the schools have a Presbyterian, usually a parish minister, nominated as the school chaplain. His work is not defined. It is a matter for adjustment between him and the head master. In some cases, ordained ministers are giving religious education, but this is now regarded as most undesirable unless the minister has qualifications to teach, as indeed most of the full-time school chaplains have. In these schools religious instruction is given by teachers who are desirous of giving it, and it is now regarded as almost essential that these teachers should have qualified in a course in religious education. This is a point the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, made, and it is one which is being stressed very strongly by the Education Institute in Scotland. For this qualification, I would add, no extra payment is made. In other words, the schoolteachers who are Christians, and feel they have a vocation for it and an urge to do it, are the ones who do the religious instruction.
For many years there has been quietly and efficiently working in Scotland a Joint Committee on Religious Education which includes representatives of the Churches other than the Roman Catholic, together with representatives of the Education Institute of Scotland and representatives of the county councils. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, brought up the question that I was waiting for: the question of the "O" level examination for the G.C.E. This is another piece of good fortune which we have in Scotland, that we have a basic freedom from examinations in Divinity. Teacher opinion in Scotland is strongly opposed to this, and I think it is felt that if we were to introduce examinations we should be trying to establish a standard of measurement for something which cannot be measured. We in Scotland are reluctant to think that religion can be a sub-
798
ject in which good honest children could fail and in which clever little rascals could pass.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I quite agree there is a great deal in that point of view.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I do not want to sound complacent or self-righteous, but religious education in Scotland has been gradually evolved without any particularly marked step forward at any particular period. At the educational level the Churches have been adjusting their shibboleths and their prejudices, and for three centuries there has been remarkably little conflict. With the drawing together of the Churches in Scotland, there is, I am glad to say, a very much better understanding, and in achieving this I think the tolerance displayed at the educational level has been of significant importance.
I have just one little postscript that I am going to add. I am a little hesitant about it, but I should like to make it. The principles of religious education, as we have them to-day in Scotland, were established, as I said, before the Union of the Parliaments in 1707. This poses the question whether, if this had not been done, our arrangements for religious education to-day would have been so far ahead, as I think they are, of the condition in England and Wales. For 400 years religion has not been a compulsory subject in Scotland. We have had complete flexibility for many years. The matter rests with the head teachers and the ministers of the parish. There is nothing imposed from above, nothing imposed by directors of education, no inspectors any more. When, to-morrow afternoon, the trumpets sound in another place—perhaps I should say the bagpipes—it cannot be because Scotland has at any time or in any way since the Act of Union been hindered by Westminster in developing, in her own way, her own peculiar genius in education.
8.29 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on putting down this Motion. It has been an extraordinarily interesting debate to listen to, and I hope it will produce some useful results. I speak as a rationalist and a humanist. I had

799
hoped that all the points I had in mind would be made by the preceeding speakers on that side, but they have not been and I hope that what I have to say will add to and reinforce something of what they said. I would go a little further than my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams and say that the first thing I would observe about religious teaching is that it does not necessarily teach people to be good.
Honourable, upright, generous behaviour is so often termed "Christian behaviour", and a compassionate act is called a "Christian act", and so on. I am glad that that is so. But it is far from being the truth that Christians have a monopoly of such behaviour. Indeed, some of the most admirable men throughout the ages, and many of the goodest and kindest men that I have known, among them my own father, have been atheists or agnostics. Have they, as my noble friend Lord Soper suggested, been taught these virtues by Christianity, or are these virtues, as my noble friend Lord Chorley suggested, the older values?
As my noble friend Lord Willis said, when one thinks of some things which have been done in the name of Christianity, it seems that it is the way that it is interpreted and taught, and how it is understood which matters greatly, for it is not a code of conduct. Theologians and preachers have always interpreted and re-interpreted Christianity in the light of contemporary thought and behaviour, sometimes leading and sometimes being led. Though it would be quite wrong, and I would not agree, to say, as some people say, that religion should not be taught at all, I am sure that every Christian in your Lordships' House would agree that the approach to the subject is most important.
I think I should say this: that although there are large numbers of sectarian and denominational schools, and many of our older schools had a religious foundation, the Church was not always so indentified with learning. When some monks stormed the great library in Alexandria in the year A.D. 405 and burned the books, they dealt a fearful blow to the development of science and technology, medicine and philosophy. And other similar contemporary acts of mistaken zeal nearly destroyed the study of these subjects in the
800
Western world for many hundreds of years until the influence of Arab Spain set things going again—which, of course, is why our doctors still write in Arabic. We do not know what would have happened if things had been left to jog along as they were, nor how they would have developed.
This is a most complex matter on which to make a simple judgment, but I think it is true to say that the light of scientific knowledge from the Moors, the revival of Greek and Latin literature, combined together to burst out from under the stifling dogmatism of the contemporary Church to produce what is now called the Renaissance, although it was not exactly a rebirth but was something entirely new in the history of the world.
Looking back on the progress of mankind in the Christian era, I think there is one lesson in particular to be learned. It is that dogma—and by "dogma" I mean inviolable truth—in Christian teaching has appeared to the Church at or of the time to be its greatest strength; but it has so often turned out to be its greatest weakness, because dogma cannot alter, whereas ideas can. It must be the most agonising thing to find oneself having to abandon a dogma which has been left high and dry when the course of the river of life has changed. But I am one of those who favour the teaching of Christianity if it stimulates the mind and encourages acceptable social behaviour. Perhaps it is a useful means of putting across ideas of ethical behaviour in a country where traditionally "religion" means Christianity. But if it is to be alleged that religious instruction—that is, Christian instruction—should be given because it is bound to make a child a better person, then, as I have said, I do not agree.
As I believe in freedom of thought and, where possible, freedom of choice, I am with those like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who say that something should be taught about all religions, and that the compulsion should be abandoned. As my noble friend Lord Willis said, it is quite wrong to teach as undisputed truth something which is not undisputed truth. By abandoning compulsion we shall move towards a more healthy situation where the churches will be filled with converts and not indoctrinates, and an atmosphere will be created, not of anti-religion—I

801
am not anti-religious—but of free thought where children will be encouraged, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, to find out things, and to learn to think for themselves.
8.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, there exists to my knowledge a series of four books on religious knowledge widely used in secondary schools and accompanied by a teachers' book. In the teachers' book the very first note of all begins with this unexceptionable sentence:
"The object of the religious knowledge lesson is to teach children to know, love and serve God."
Ten pages later, no more, there appears a kind of diagram explaining the relationship between the Hebrews, the Israelites and the Jews. Surely something has slipped. Does this ethnological note really come as early as this in the process of teaching children "to know, love and serve God"? It is as though in teaching someone to drive a car one were to begin with a dissertation on the difference between Rolls and Royce. I think it is somewhat like that, and that it will induce probably much the same reaction, which, alas! is boredom. Religious education has come to mean almost anything, from the tribes of Israel and Judah to sexual morality, from the doctrine of Atonement to Jonah and the Whale. In short, the whole subject of religious education is shot through with muddle and confusion.
Noble Lords who have studied both the Plowden and the Newsom Reports may perhaps have noticed that neither of them mentions in so many words the teaching of religion. Plowden speaks of "giving religious education." Newsom speaks of "giving religious instruction", as in the Act, and includes it under the general heading of "Spiritual and moral development". But—and here I quote from the Spells Report on Secondary Education of 1938:
"If religious instruction is to have a place of any kind in the curriculum, it should be as well taught and as effectively planned as any other branch of study."
On which Harold Loukes comments in his book New Ground in Christian Education.
"And it must be taught as religion, and not as either literature or ethics."
802
We do not "give historical education" or "give arithmetical instruction". We teach history and arithmetic; and those words, and not "H.E." or "A.I.", are the words that we write in our timetables. I suggest that we might similarly try writing "religion" in the timetable where we now write the more or less meaningless "R.E.". But what will happen if we do? Immediately we shall find that the subject that we formerly called "R.E." has been split into two parts. The first part is religion as such, and the second part is spiritual and moral development.
I propose to consider for a moment the former part, religion, alone; and, since it is necessary to be selective, to consider it only in connection with secondary schools. It would be a helpful exercise if noble Lords would agree to imagine with me that at present religion is not taught in secondary schools at all and that we are considering how to go about it. The first thing we have to decide is what it is that we mean to teach. I see no need, at this stage, for any precise definition of "religion", beyond the fact that it has to do with God and eternity—or, in the words of Newsom, "with the relationship between Man and his Maker". In other words, to put the matter bluntly, we are proposing to try to teach children about God. At once we are confronted with difficulties of a kind and a magnitude that bedevil no other subject. For how are we to teach children about God in a world that seems largely to have turned its back on Him?
This is a point to which everyone must come. The question is, what do we do next? My Lords, I submit that there is very little doubt about what almost everyone has done so far. He has seen the difficulties, tried to assess and recognise them for what they are, accepted them as unavoidable and taken them into greater or less account in formulating his educational schemes only to find that before long the House of Lords is de-bating the reasons for his failure. But there may be another way. Will any of your Lordships, faced with a tree blown down across his drive, laboriously make gaps in his hedge so that he may drive his car through a field to reach the main road? I doubt it. I think he will send for men with axes and saws to remove the tree. So with teaching religion to children. There are obstacles

803
in the way. Very well, let us inspect the obstacles and see whether they can be removed before we start. The chief of them can be reduced in number, I believe, to only three, of which the first two are: the nature of the children themselves, and the materialism of the age. I hope to convince your Lordships that it is necessary to place them in that order.
First, then, the children—that is to say, the children of secondary school age. We come at once to what I take to be question one: why is it so much more difficult to teach religion to children now than it was two or three generations ago? The perhaps remarkable answer is that there exists a singular barrier of communication between us and them. We cannot talk to them as our parents and teachers talked to us. Why not? Because the children have changed, and changed in a way and to an extent that we have not fully understood—perhaps not even noticed. For by "change" in the case of the children, I do not mean simply modification, so that what we have now is a more up-to-date model, so to speak, of what we had before: I mean that what we had before has disappeared, vanished never to return, and in its place we have something quite different and altogether new. I believe that we have actually witnessed the end of an epoch of human evolution and the beginning of a new one. Of course the process has been gradual, but the point is that it has happened and it has only just happened. The secondary school child of to-day is not simply his immediate ancestors brought up to date. He is a stage farther along the evolutionary path, and his mind works in a different way.
Perhaps the most striking manifestation of this difference, and certainly the most relevant, is that he takes nothing on trust. His mind is analytical: not sceptical or cynical, but analytical. He wants to know why, and he requires a rational answer. An irrational answer, or an answer only partially thought out, will call forth nothing but derision and contempt. These are the first children of the true Age of Reason who will not accept ideas ready-made but have to be convinced. If we accept this development in the nature of the children as the fact that I believe it to be, it follows that, as an obstacle, it
804
immediately disappears. It becomes instead simply something that we have to take into account—something, moreover, which, as I hope to show, we can turn to exceedingly good account.
This brings me to my second major obstacle, the materialism of the age. This is altogether a tougher nut to crack. We can neither abolish it nor turn it into an ally. Can we remove it as an obstacle in our own particular path? I do not know, for the attempt seems never to have been made. It is the one thing the modern educator seems to meet with nothing more effective than an anguished wringing of the hands. But I believe that it could be done, and that the process by which it could be done is itself a process of education. We must show the children that the material world in fact is only half the world. And we must use logic. This is why I put "the nature of the children" first. I believe that, for reasons I have tried to explain, they are quite able to accept such logic, whereas their parents and grandparents were not.
But first, we must accept the logic ourselves and then pass it on. So what is it? I submit that it is this. People in general have a somewhat vague idea that science "knows all the answers." Man appears to have become the master of his own environment and therefore to have no longer any need of religion or of the idea of God. The scientist not only has supplanted the priest as the public mentor, but has also been responsible—though not deliberately, and certainly not culpably—for the obscuring of God in the public consciousness. What has happened is that science has revealed to us the whole of creation as one vast interdependent organisation of cause and effect. We gather that all is governed by what we call laws of Nature, so that every observable effect has a cause that science already knows or is capable of finding out sooner or later. Under such a system any particular cause will always produce the same effect and any particular effect can arise only from the same unvarying cause. Thus there is no room for miracles, since a miracle is an effect produced by some means other than the known necessary cause.
But, my Lords, this argument is fallacious and ought to be exposed, first, if necessary, to teachers, and then by them

805
to the children. True, its exposure will not lead automatically to belief in God, but it will show that there is nothing in science, and therefore nothing in the materialistic world that springs from science, that conflicts with the idea of God; and to that extent the ground will have been cleared and the way ahead made more plain.
We might begin worse than by going back 120 years. If Bishop Wilberforce and others in the 1840s had not been so eager to attack in public the followers of Darwin—inviting, by so doing, their own resounding and inevitable defeat—not only might the clash between science and religion never have arisen, but our own eyes might not have been quite so completely blinded to the fact that we live in the era of the fulfilment of a phophecy:
"Ask, and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
Successful asking, seeking and knocking are, by a sad paradox, precisely the things that have turned the minds of millions away from the Christ who made the prophecy and gave us the promise.
But what in fact have we found? We have found the causes of many things and how to put the knowledge to our own use—but we have found the reason for nothing. Scientists have not found, and do not claim to have found, the first cause of anything at all. They do not even know what electricity is. It amounts to this: that science can tell us a great many of the whats and hows, but never any of the wherefores or the whys. Nor do scientists claim to be able to do so. It is the generality of laymen that has credited them with powers that they neither possess nor claim. And to that extent man's admiration of his own cleverness is based on a misapprehension and is grossly exaggerated.
That being so, it is high time that we, laymen and scientists alike, realised that we are entitled to say this: if one does not know the first cause of anything at all, one is in no position to deny the existence of some unknown first cause that might produce a familiar effect by unfamiliar means, and not only produce it but produce it without in any way upsetting or contradicting the so-called natural laws. In other words, science is in no position to deny the possibility of
806
miracles, or to deny the possibility of obtaining knowledge through Divine revelation, through intuition or any form of extra-sensory perception, by thought-processes alone, by experience obtained in mystical states, or by the aid of prayer. Science simply does not know whether these possibilities exist or not, and is therefore in no position to contradict those who believe that they do.
So let us, and let the children, render unto science the things that are science's, and admit that there is still plenty of room for a world of first causes, of events and processes not observable by technology; for a world entirely outside the time-space continuum within which alone we are able to make observations through the five bodily senses. To argue that the mass of knowledge that we have of the phenomenal world in any way precludes the existence of a noumenal world, is a logical absurdity. There is no logical reason for supposing that the scientist, qua scientist, enjoys a monopoly of wisdom or speaks with greater authority than the visionary, the mystic, the theologian or the priest.
I hope I have indicated a possible treatment of two of the great obstacles confronting the educator in this field. I said that there was a third, and that is one which seriously troubles the children themselves. Now I quote:
"Unless I am badly mistaken the 'average' R.E. teacher blandly soldiers on without one reference to this staggering fact ever crossing his lips. He never refers to the fact that a good many of the adolescents' mothers, aunts and older sisters, and an absolutely overwhelming majority of their fathers, do not display the smallest concern for religion from end to end of the normal week.
Surely, this majestic fact cannot be simply ignored by anyone who talks to adolescents about religion? Does it not need to be explained?"
The words are from Sir Richard Acland's revolutionary and quite remarkable book We Teach Them Wrong: Religion and the Young.
I have no time to follow either the author's ideas or mine into the solving of this particular problem. I must content myself with a pious hope that the quotation may be taken from Hansard or from the book itself, and posted up in front of every religious teacher in the land. For the problem of convincing a child of the importance of religion,

807
knowing that he is returning immediately to a home that "couldn't care less" is one that the educator at any level has to face.
That brings me to the end of the exercise that I proposed: that of imagining that we were setting out ab initio and trying to remove certain obstacles before planning the way ahead. If I have performed the exercise with any agility at all, we ought now to feel in a position to decide exactly what it is that we mean to do, with some understanding of the kind of child for whom we mean to do it. With a great deal of the muddle and confusion and chaos swept away, we can now, and only now, address ourselves to the task of agreeing on a syllabus that will allow us to say something about the uprising of religious beliefs in general, leading to Divine revelation, and finally to the Incarnation and all that flows therefrom.
Four sentences of summing up, a brief remark and then I have done. We have first to understand that we are dealing with new, analytically-minded children in a new world—a world dominated by science and misapprehensions concerning science. The next necessary step is to understand the nature of this world, in which there seems to be little room for the idea of God; and then to comprehend—and teach—that the power and scope of science are a great deal less than people commonly suppose.
Having thus cleared the ground, we can show not only that there is no contradiction between science and religion, but also that there are vast areas of truth that are not accessible to science at all; and concerning which, furthermore, there exist authorities worthy of no less respectful attention than the scientists. Having done this, having established the possibility of a noumenal world alongside the phenomenal world—a spiritual alongside the physical—we shall be in a position, with all the muddle and confusion swept away, to tackle the working-out of a new technique for the teaching of religion.
My final brief remark is this. The object of teaching religion, as I see it, need not be to turn children into Christians (or Mohammedans or Hindus), any more than the object of teaching, say,
808
history, need be to turn them into historians; that is to say, the teacher who finds himself unable to say, "This is the true faith", should none the less be able to say, "This is what religion is: what many people, Christians particularly, believe." For even if, for one reason or another, we are inhibited from the implanting of belief, shall we not do ill by the children if we do not at least reveal to them that, throughout the whole fabric of the world, there exists a belief in the existence of a personal God and that this belief is at once the origin and driving power of the strongest and deepest tides that ebb and flow within the hearts of men?
8.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, at this late hour I hope you will excuse a third speech from these Benches, if only because, in part, the Bishops have always been regarded as the villains of the piece on the question of religious education; and, also, because the Churches, in their organised capacity, have been thought to be concerned primarily with their own aspect of education, or that part of the national system to which they are making, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and others reminded us, a very costly contribution at the present time.
We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the initiation of this debate, and for the constructive way it has been carried on, which I hope will encourage the pursuit of this subject far more widely. From these Benches I must continue to support the retention in some form of the religious sections in the Act, as a compulsory, or, as I should prefer to say, universal element, because I believe that a full and complete education must have a religious element in it.
But I am aware—and it has been made clear to-day—that there are always two particular approaches in criticism to this point of view. One, of course, is the propriety of specific religious teaching, universally, as a kind of indoctrination; and the other is the ineffectiveness of the process when it has been carried out. Obviously, the two arguments are mutually exclusive. There can be no fear of indoctrination if the process is ineffective; and, equally, if it is ineffective then there is no indoctrination. We must,

809
however, look at these arguments again as they have been raised.
I think it is understood by us all that indoctrination is a process of invading by unfair pressures the private choice of individuals, using our resources for their acceptance of a specific viewpoint of life which at that stage they are not mature enough to resist or to make up their own minds upon. This is, I believe, a bogey. I do not say that it has not existed. I do not say that in the days when denominational differences produced acute controversy in the Church it was not in some ways present. I do not say it has not happened in days when authoritarianism regarded this as a normal process. I believe it is said of the great headmaster of Eton, Keate, that on occasion he offered one of his pupils the choice between belief in the Holy Ghost and the cane.
The painful inculcation of any belief is something which we would not support; and, indeed, indoctrination is not something which is possible except within a closed community in which other forces are not at work. In the kind of pluralist modern society in which we live, it would be quite impossible, I believe, even if it was thought by any to be desirable. To-day we would say it is unthinkable that young people should be precluded from making, up their own minds; and, indeed, that is what we all want them to do. But we should like them to make their choice on the most important attitudes they will take in life on the basis of at least some religious knowledge and experience such as they can grasp. We would say to our teachers that their concern in religious subjects is an educational concern, not an evangelistic one. They are there for the exposition of beliefs, but not for the imposition of them.
They would of course say, like any teacher, that in any subject you are taking it must be your desire to win the appreciation and the interest, and even the sympathy, of your pupils if you are going to get anywhere at all in that subject. And they would quite inevitably lay bare their enthusiasm, if they have it, or their own convictions, but only in such a way as preserves the integrity of those with whom they are dealing. The kind of give and take or play of modern methods of education precludes the kind
810
of imposition of doctrines which some people have in mind.
It has been asked: if there is to be the presentation of religious beliefs or ideas, why should they be Christian? Why should they not be those of all religions? I would indeed support the pica that the element of comparative religion should come in, but this is, in a sense, an educational problem. At what stage should it come in? Religion is not something you can view superficially. You cannot begin to understand it at all until you have experienced it a little in depth. The spectacle of young people or children being presented ab initio with a number of different faiths and of having to choose between them without any knowledge or experience of one of them is to me quite unrealistic. This is a later, more mature stage in the process, which certainly we should not wish to discourage in any way.
But, my Lords, the more weighty arguments, I believe, stem from the other aspect of this matter—the opinion, so much expressed and with a good deal of authority behind it, that the processes embodied in these clauses are, in fact, ineffective. We cannot dispute much of the evidence, although I should hope we would make no snap judgments about this, because for each instance of ineffectiveness we could obviously, by any search, find many other instances where the initiative and the inspiration of teachers has produced an interest in the subject such as we should desire. The purpose of making the religious clauses universal is precisely to provide the opportunity for such initiative to operate, and not to make it something more difficult because it has to break through what is normal custom.
But if we were to ask ourselves whether an immediate test as to how much a pupil had learnt is an automatic estimate of the value of that subject, we should be on very weak ground. I have seen a report statistically bearing out the fact that in a certain experimental study of a large number of young students between 16 and 18 the retention of religious knowledge was far higher than the retention of historical knowledge in that particular area. From that, one would not deduce that history is a subject which

811
is not worth teaching We would still claim that it is a subject which ought to be presented to them, for those of them who can avail themselves of it or draw profit from it, although we should not expect all to be equally successful.
The fact that the teaching of any subject is difficult is an educational problem, and we ought not to discard that subject purely for that reason. We should not be deterred from teaching English or mathematics (which are, if not compulsory, just as universal in our education) just because they are difficult, because we believe they are important. We would rather say that if we are not being successful in these fields, the problem ought to be tackled at a greater depth—in the better equipping of teachers, in the provision of the right environment, in a new study of methods, and all that kind of thing. It is an educational process; and this is precisely the way in which we should like to see this issue approached.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, would the right reverend Prelate excuse me a moment? Would he agree to pupils being taught that the religion they are being taught is not necessarily true?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that, whatever a teacher would say to a pupil, the pupil would reserve the right to ask that question, and would be welcomed in that right, in my judgment, to ask that question; and, indeed, any teacher who tried to brush it off and not meet the questions, the queries and the doubts of the individual—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that doubt is, in a sense, an ingredient in faith—would not be worth his place as a teacher.
In this question of the efficiency or more effective methods of religious education, I hope that what has been said from these Benches by the two noble Prelates who have spoken already will be enough for me not to underline further the fact that the Churches are very much alive to this subject and have set in motion a considerable amount of study and research, both centrally and locally in dioceses—study between ministers and teachers, adult education and the like—in order to discover what is
812
our right approach to-day. We are in a ferment (shall we say?) of discussion about it; about the communication of faith in a day when the language and the image of the past has no longer much significance; on the question of the authority, and the basis of the authority, on which one is speaking; on how authority speaks to freedom; and still more the study of the child in the new insights we have into the right approach and method.
All this is going on, and I hope that if we were to say from these Benches that we have not got answers for your Lordships to have now, this might sound more respectable to you than otherwise. If we thought that we had no need to find an answer, that we had it all there already, in the kind of age in which we are living I think you would accuse us of insincerity. We recognise that the modern world opens up deep and significant questions in which we ourselves are involved; and we would say that not only are we ourselves involved in them but we believe that in many ways the State should be involved; that the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, should be taken up more seriously; that here is an educational problem, and that it is one, therefore, which we can tackle only by promoting, if you like, further study, further chances for teachers—a number of the things which have already been referred to by other speakers in this debate.
Within this, may I mention, my Lords, since it has been so very much challenged, the question of worship? It is the Cinderella. It is challenged as being rather more irrelevant. Facts and ideas of religion seem to be of educational propriety, but worship seems to be in quite a different category. We have been reminded in all the major Reports on education that worship has its own particular place. And I noted that Newsom quoted Adam Bede, an author by no means an orthodox Christian, in saying:
"Religion is something else besides notions. It is not notions that set people doing the right things, it is feelings".
I could have quoted from the very impressive survey in the 1950s of religious education in the country which bore out again and again, from the experience of teachers, their sense of the importance of worship, of the opportunities of special

813
co-operation between staff and pupils, and of the fact that it is an integral part of learning. And the Plowden Report said the same. It said that the act of worship should illuminate personal relationships and introduce children to æsthetic and spiritual experience.
Clearly, the approach to this is a very multiform process and so much has been said which was endorsed in the Plowden Report of the importance of the way it is done and where it is done, of the elasticity in applying this principle of worship in such way (whether in small or bigger groups, whether by head teachers or other teachers or by the pupils themselves) that the act becomes a meaningful one. We ought to take note, I believe, of this impressive array from educationists that worship in some form is bound up with religious understanding which otherwise would be purely an intellectual or a factual pursuit.
I suppose it is related more in this way to the art than to the sciences. No one would suppose that a child could be introduced to the wealth of art or the appreciation of beauty simply by having before him the history of art or the technical rulings by which artists have operated. He would want to be presented with works of art themselves and be able to admire them and wonder at them, and also to express in his own way, by some kind of expression, his own artistic responses to them. It is true of the arts and true of religion that there must be a chance of expressing your own responses to an idea (shall we call it?) in order to understand it at all. Therefore, in some way worship is integrated, as in art, with religious understanding. I could have hoped (although it was not mentioned here) that we had not based this idea of religious education so baldly upon instruction, on the one hand, and on acts of worship, on the other; because it covers a greater field.
A television programme last week described the reactions of children at school, as well as adults, to that famous poem of William Blake's, Tyger! tyger! burning bright, and the children's moving reaction to the emotive quality of this little poem. They might have taken that poem through to its end to see how the poet, having studied the "Tyger burning in the night" asked the question:
814
"Did He who made the Lamb make thee?"
and:
"Did He smile His work to see?"
Here is a theological question on which we stumble through the aid of the poet. It is a theological question, this whole mystery of suffering and creation. For instance, your Lordships may recall the rather moving little phrase which Shakespeare, in one of his plays, puts into the mouth of Benedict, who is listening to a viol or guitar playing in the background. He says,
"Is it not strange that cheeps' guts should hale souls out of men's bodies?"
It is a strange thing. It cannot be answered in purely material terms. We are dealing again with a kind of theological question of the relationship of body and spirit, of matter around us and something behind it. Again and again in the artistic world, the poet's world (and one does not wish to deprive the children of that realm of imagery) they stumble upon questions about life—theological questions. The arts and religion are in a sense partners in this, opening the doors to imagination and our kind of world, mechanical and scientific, which would be poor if we were not trying to make the imaginative windows as wide open as possible. I believe that here worship and the use of arts come closely together.
In conclusion, I suppose that behind these arguments there is the basic one of whether education, to be fully satisfac-factory, should have as its basis any particular view of living at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to us as a nation more concerned with morals than with religion. I think he is right, although when it comes to a crisis we turn to religion, not I think for the reason he gave, but because we turn back to our roots at that particular moment and we look back behind the morals to the things that are behind them. We can make a very good case for showing how morals can spring from religion and cite instances where religion has led wrongly—or, shall I say, where the wrong religion has led to certain wrong moral actions. There are also many instances where religion has led to right actions. Perhaps the greatest protest in this century against the Jewish discrimination under Hitler and the apartheid discrimination in South Africa

815
in fact came from people whose motives were not highly moral, but religious in inspiration.
It is a question in the end of what kind of religion, whether good or bad. It can be a kind of Communist faith. Communist education would be like that. It might be a kind of belief in the democratic man, a man who is free to choose anything, for whom all subjects are equally free and all views are equally right—or for that matter equally wrong—but a man of such an open mind that he has no mind to make up at all in the end. There is a danger in this concept of the democratic man which Plato pointed out a long time ago, but I believe that fundamentally, though they may not know how to express it, the bulk of the people in this country have as their basic conception of life what I call the Christian man. They would not always express it dogmatically. Some of them would go the whole way and accept the full faith of the Church. Some would see Christ as a great human pattern, and some of them would simply say (and this is important) that human life is, whatever else it may be, open-ended. It is not just merely what you see by your human relationships and human things. However we put it, there is more to it than that; there is another dimension, and many people would hold on to that.
It is for that reason that we can claim that there should be this basic foundation, however small and inadequate it is, of understanding what is the Christian conception of the dimensions of life. Many agnostics are agnostics from Christian faith and not agnostics generally. Many who doubt or question the Christian faith question it on Christian principles. It is a good thing to have something to rebel against or to question, but without a positive basis so much of the healthy Humanism, the healthy Communism, in the country would, I believe, find itself left high and dry in the air and lose all its power; and therefore there can be a proper debate between us which I hope we can carry on further.
May I say from these Benches that from this debate, which has opened up so many things, I hope we can feel assured that the importance of this subject, which is important in the sense of life itself, is one which we can all take up, and
816
which we shall want to pursue further before, it may be, any question of legislation comes on, as come on it will in time. We may have been optimistic about the immediate results of the 1944 Act, but we have a genius for experiment and for adapting and moving on; and I hope that in this process of searching we shall not be held back, either by the defeatists who say that this cannot be done, or by the open critics who say that it ought not to be done, but that this debate will be pursued very much further.
9.18 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I apologise for this intervention, but I feel it rather necessary to pick up two points. One was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to whose speech I give my full approval, with certain deletions (in fact it could have been made from the Agnostic Benches, if I may say so), and the other point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery.
Lord Eccles pointed out that the compulsory sections of the Act of 1944 were, in fact, introduced under the pressures and compulsions of war; that there was an attitude at that time—I paraphrase the noble Viscount—in which they felt that, somehow or other, the structures of faith and religion should be maintained. The second point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that we are in fact, without any question whatever, dealing with a completely new generation—I entirely accept the noble Earl's definition—a new evolutionary result. And in fact, the two things are consistent. During the war we went through the powers of hell. We had to reinforce each other, and in the end we had to find some reinforcement which, somehow or other, got written into an Act. The fact is that it has failed, because the compulsory teaching of religion has not met the requirements of the post-war generation. Therefore we have to ask ourselves in this House, in absolute honesty, why it has failed.
The answer is that we have written into an Act and written out of education the whole spirit of inquiry and of analysis which is the demand of a modern generation. As an agnostic, as a scientific humanist, I say sincerely that I have no quarrel with faith. Science is proof without certainty—that is the humility of science. Faith is certainty without proof.

817
And these are not contradictions. People may need faith, but at the same time they have a right to question. We have failed in the post-war world and a great deal of the troubles of our time are due to the fact that we have not got on to the "wavelength" of the younger generation. We have imposed on them a definition beyond the spirit of inquiry which is inherent in the modern generation. Religious teaching in schools has not provided the answers that the modern generation demands.
9.22 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my first duty tonight is to put in something which my noble friend Lord Aberdare left out. He was too modest to give us his credentials. His insight into this subject goes back to his days at Winchester, when he was one of the distinguished winners of the Holgate Prize for Divinity, a distinction which he may share with the right reverend Prelate and with my noble friend Lord Eccles and others who were equally well brought up. What perhaps our Humanists who have spoken to-day do not know is that the book on which he won that prize was by none other than Aldous Huxley. I think that my noble friend really does know what he is talking about when he speaks on the subject, and I am sure we are all grateful to him for introducing it, because it has led to a stimulating debate.
When my noble friend first consulted me about this, I expressed certain misgivings. I was conscious that as a House we are richly furnished with proconsuls, captains of industry and ex-Ministers (we have had three ex-Ministers of Education speaking in this debate alone) but I felt that we were not so richly furnished in up-to-date experience in the classroom. But I think it is true to say that we have been able to make good that lack, because the great ferment which has been going on in religious education—and my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte has shown us clearly in her speech what a ferment it is—is well documented. Teachers, researchers and surveyors have been at it for some time now and have set down their findings in considerable detail.
I believe that when teachers come to look at our work to-morrow, they will award your Lordships quite good marks
818
for having done your homework. However well we have done our homework, it is not easy—and my noble friend Lord Eccles put his finger on some of the reasons why—to find the aims of religious education clearly stated in terms that are generally agreed. This doubtfulness about aims has laid teachers of religious education open to attack from all sides from those who think that the teachers have got their objectives wrong. Teachers of religion are attacked—we have heard it this afternoon—by the Humanists for trying to fill the pews in the churches. Teachers of religion are attacked by some of the clergy for failing to fill the pews in the churches. They are attacked for failing to make the children good, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, pointed out, by some parents who think that their only job is to make the children happy. And they are attacked by other teachers who think that their only job is to make them clever.
So I think it is worth examining before we go any further what is the task that has been set to the teachers of religion. The 1944 Act seemed to set them the task of seeing that the schools contributed—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has already drawn our attention to this—to the moral and spiritual development of the community. But others have taken a very different view, and Dr. Basil Yeaxlee, writing in the 1951 Year Book of Education, defined the aims of religious education in these terms—and these are definitions of the sort which I think the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, would have described as far too ambitious, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham would have described as far too factual, and my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford would have described as far too detailed. Anyway, this is how they were set out some seven years after the Act came into force. The aims should be:
"To help children to gain during the period of their school life, taken as a whole, an understanding of the whole Bible in outline with, of course, a more detailed knowledge of the Gospels and of the life and teaching of Jesus: an understanding of those truths which all Christian Churches regard as the vital elements of the Christian faith proclaimed in the New Testament and affirmed in the historic Apostles' and Nicene Creeds: some knowledge of the Church, the Christian Ministry and the Sacraments as these are described in the New Testament, and the growth of the

819
Church in the world from the First Century to the Twentieth: the application of Christian teaching to daily person conduct and social relationships: and (for the sixth form) discussion of such questions as religion and science, Christianity and non-Christian religions, Christian ethics and social problems and the like. Above all, the syllabuses provide help not only in the conduct of the daily act of worship required in all schools, but in the teaching of children at every stage in their development what worship means, and how they may practise it, personally and corporately."
That at one stage, at any rate, was one definition of the aims of religious education, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is entitled to object if that is so. But I do not think he is entitled on top of that to ask that we should teach about Hinduism, Buddhism and everything else as well. I think we have to look somewhere else for something which is at one time more realistic and more profound than that. I find it in the Crowther Report of 1959, which has been quoted already extensively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. In this Report, to which he wrote the foreword, called The Communication of the Christian Faith, which the Church Assembly was discussing last week, the Crowther Committee had this to say:
"The teenagers with whom we are concerned need perhaps before all else a faith to live by. They will not all find precisely the same faith, and some will not find any. Education can and should play some part in their search. It can assure them that there is something to search for; it can show them where to look and what other men have found."
I hope that on that definition people with views as different as those of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, could find common ground.
But whatever are the aims of religious education, there are three main factors which bear upon their fulfilment: the children, the syllabus and the teachers. I should just like to take the teachers first, for a moment. As many of your Lordships have said, there are nothing like enough of them. Looking back, we can see—and a survey of secondary schools that has just been completed, but not yet published, by the British Council of Churches certainly confirms this—that all authorities, central, local, Church and State, have been mistaken in thinking that any teacher, or even any
820
clergyman, who was willing to teach religious education has in fact been able to teach it. This has been one of the great big mistakes. Good will, general willingness, has proved not to be enough. Theological qualifications without teaching qualifications have proved not to be enough. And it has resulted in a grave shortage of mature, experienced teachers of religion.
That, in its turn, has had two further bad effects. First of all, it has lead to a very uneven situation in the primary schools, where a few good, experienced teachers are isolated in a few fortunate classes, and some of the work done in the other classes has, in the worst cases, I agree, been almost worse than if none had been done at all. But I do not follow my noble friend Lord Aberdare in saying that, because of that, we have to abandon the teaching of religion in primary schools. The second bad effect is ineffectiveness in the secondary schools and particularly the larger ones, large comprehensive schools, where we have reached the absurd stage of one specialist in "R.E", on his own, trying to teach 300, 400, 500, even 800 children in a week. This state of affairs merely ensures failure right across the board. So much for the teachers.
I should now like to turn for a moment to the children. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who sits on the Woolsack set the problem before us here. Before you can teach anyone, certainly before you can teach children, you must understand the environment from which they come; and the environment to-day is quite different from that of 1944. One is tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, into thinking that it is so different that we can consider these children as being almost different beings. I am not sure that I follow them that far, but I see what they are driving at and I think it a tremendously important factor. I do not believe religious education is going to be effective until much more consideration and thought and care, and more research, are given to this particular factor: the environment in which these children live, the sort of society they come from, what their homes are like and what their parents are like, how they live, and so on. Of all the intractable factors that limit effectiveness of religious education,

821
the children's environment, I believe, is one of the most important.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, pointed out, we have this most confusing paradox. One of the characteristics of this society is that grown-ups in it, by and large, do not go to church, but in their role as parents they all want their children to be taught religion. Why this should be so, and what lies behind it, I do not think we understand.
The second point about the children is: What are they interested in?—because it is only by starting with what they are interested in that we can hope to teach them religion effectively. What they are interested in cannot be ascertained by lecturing to them about facts—and here I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham is absolutely right. It cannot be ascertained by trying to teach them and using outworn authority. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor is right about that. But it can be ascertained by listening to them as they talk and discuss topics of real life. Three or four years ago I very much enjoyed the opportunity of doing this, using Mr. Harold Loukes' book Teenage Religion. I left this experience, feeling that children at the top of the secondary schools are interested in far more worthwhile things at a far more worthwhile level than we often give them credit for, but that, generally speaking, they are not interested in past historical facts. They are not able to handle abstract concepts, but they are intensely interested in the meaning and purpose of life, especially when this can be seen in relation to their own concrete everyday personal experience. Therefore I am sure that effective religious education must start from that. In saying this I am not saying anything new. This is something which we ought to have been able to realise from Our Lord's own use of parables drawn from everyday life in His own day.
But if this is so, what can be said about syllabuses? It has been said in this debate, and many times before elsewhere, that it is the agreed syllabus that is the trouble in religious education to-day. I do not personally believe it, but it is as well to remember (and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, reminded us of this from his own close experience) that the agreed syllabuses came into being to mark out, as it were, in a particularly skilful way the armistice lines between the
822
denominations and between Church and State as they could be drawn in 1944.
However, a great deal has changed since then. I never thought to hear a Free Church Minister like the noble Lord, Lord Soper, get up and say in public, as he did this afternoon, that in our religious education we must move away from the Bible. This is an extraordinary development since the days of 1944. It is true that the agreed syllabuses have served the denominations better than they have served the children in the classrooms, but I believe that the agreed syllabus still has a role to play in its present form. It can be—indeed, in many cases it has been, notably in the West Riding of Yorkshire—modified to make possible project-centred teaching in primary schools and the lower forms of comprehensive schools, and to make problem-centred teaching feasible and permissible in the fifth and sixth forms. I doubt, however, whether this is a timely moment to rewrite any more agreed syllabuses. I think it is rather the time to encourage the maximum flexibility in their use as they stand, and in applying and using more widely the products of the research that is going on at this moment.
There is another point. Any attempt now to alter the 1944 Act with the agreed syllabuses and morning worship, and so on, would tend to divert attention from the staffroom and the classroom and the colleges of education, which is where the reforms that are most urgently needed have to be handled. It would tend to divert attention from there to the politicians and to the ecclesiastical statesmen, who I would submit are better out of the ring at the moment. Nor do I regard this as the moment to abandon worship at morning assembly, which was another provision of the 1944 Act. Alas! it is indeed sometimes badly done, and the discredit spreads to the whole system. But I would submit that we have had convincing evidence to-day that support for it generally is still strong; certainly from the parents, from the great majority of the teachers, and from the children. In any case, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, the option to withdraw is there and can be used, and perhaps we ought to look into it to see whether it can be used more sympathetically.

823
But the fact of the matter is that the British Council of Churches survey into secondary schools, sampling in this particular case schools containing 46,375 children, reported only a total of 909 children, or 2 per cent. being withdrawn. The great majority of those were withdrawn for religious reasons; that is to say, they were Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Moslems or other people withdrawing from assembly in order to conduct their own form of worship. Out of the 46,375, there were only 12 humanists, agnostics and atheists. I sympathise with their point of view. I am anxious that they should not be humiliated or put to any of the inconvenience that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was talking, about; but I think we really must see a much weightier demand than 12 out of 46,000 before changing our ground on the matter of school worship.
This, of course, is not at all to ignore or disregard the criticism of worship at assembly that is badly done. Rather it is to say that if in a particular school a proper act of worship cannot be made because of the scruples of the teachers or the layout of the place, or overcrowding or something of that kind, let permission be given for it to be dispensed with in that school for a period, but do not let us give it up everywhere because of some isolated local trouble. So I would say that for the time being, at any rate, let us keep the 1944 Act, let the compulsory clause in it remain in so far as it prescribes that religion is to be taught, but at the same time let the way in which religion is taught become more open, more free and more competently done. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made a powerful case for tackling the 1944 Act at the roots and removing the compulsory elements eventually, but I venture to say "not just yet."
I should like to end by making a few practical suggestions of things that can be done, and in my view ought to be done within the existing framework. If the aim stated in 1944 stands at all, the aim that requires the schools to contribute to the spiritual and moral welfare of the community, then I say let the children at school become more involved in the service of their own community, and let those who are staying on to a school leaving age of 16 be those who become
824
particularly involved with their local community.
This point, which I do not think has so far been made to-day, is made over and over again in the Newsom Report. In paragraph 162 we find the phrase:
"Encourage the children to undertake active personal service in the community."
A little later in the same sentence we find the rather nice phrase:
"All of us have found that boys and girls of less than average intelligence may well be of more than average helpfulness".
Yes, helpful to the community, but helpful in this context in providing a real life background for discussion in the classroom; some real personal knowledge which they can talk about, of love, service, sacrifice and suffering, all of which is going on in every community, and some encounter which they can also discuss with their teachers; of the conflicting standards between life in school and life in the world outside, a conflict which my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte drew to our attention, and which certainly confronts the children in a stark form when they leave school. For, after all, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has pointed out, religious education is not primarily a matter of how to impart knowledge but a matter of how to treat people. That is my first suggestion, then: that we should make more of this recommendation from the Newsom Report to involve children at the top of the secondary schools in the community as a background to some of our teaching about religion.
Secondly—here I repeat a recommendation already made by many noble Lords—there should be more full-time advisers in religious education appointed by local education authorities. I think that, so far, only four local education authorities have appointed them. If I am wrong, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will correct me. I am sure that more should be appointed, and that the dioceses that have appointed advisers in religious education should try to find ways and means of making their services as widely available as possible, in State schools as well as in Church schools. Their job is the simple but strenuous one of getting the many average teachers of religious education up

825
to the level of the few best, and of spreading the good ideas that are already being practised in only a few places to many more.
Finally, I come to my third proposal and practical suggestion, without which I think these advisers in religious education will expire from exhaustion. The third suggestion is the expansion at every level of the movement which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, mentioned to us; namely, the Christian Education Movement. This Movement is at one and the same time an arm of the British Council of Churches, and it could be the arm of any local council of churches. It is an arm of the education service, and it could be the religious education arm of any local education authority or of the schools in any town or city. It is the product of a merger between the Student Christian Movement in Schools, the Institute of Christian Education, the Y.W.C.A. and the Y.M.C.A.
I should hope that any teachers who feel that some sort of banding together in association is necessary, as I am sure it is, in order to promote the aims of religious education, would get into this Movement and make it better, rather than starting up anything else on its own. In my view, this Movement provides just the right framework, at national and local level, for the changes that now need to be made within the existing framework by the profession in the profession. The first change needed is better deployment within the schools of the present teachers of religion. The second is better and more in-service training; the third, more sensible co-operation between the Church and school at local level—for instance, in phasing out the Sunday school, as recommended by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, or of the arrangements for worship, such as those outlined to us by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. The fourth need is the stimulation and supervision of local experiments in religious education and national research in religious education; and finally, and really the most important of all, the recruitment of more teachers of religion. My Lords, no one can say that religious education has had any clear success in these past 23 years, but I
826
venture to predict that the signs for the future are very much more full of promise.
9.50 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, there are many occasions in your Lordships' House when I wish I were not tied by speaking from this place but were speaking from the Back Benches. This is one of those occasions. I feel that I may present to some of you a rather curious specimen of human being, judged by some of the comments made in the debate to-day. In my Faith not only were we asked to have a prayer at the beginning of the school day, but we were given the opportunity to have a prayer before we started each lesson and when we concluded each lesson. It seems to me that if this was a failure, then I stand before you as a very indoctrinated blancmange.
This has been a remarkable debate, remarkable because it has enabled so many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House to offer the benefit of their wisdom and experience. Because I ant a Christian, I say in all humility that I feel it is very curious that some of our Humanist friends seem to have overlooked the fact that as well as love, the Christian is bound to practise humility. I should like to express thanks on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for providing the opportunity to discuss this question. We can take comfort in the fact that once again this has provided your Lordships' House with the reason for being very much "on the ball" in discussing something which is certainly in the air, quite literally, since the B.B.C. recently dealt with this matter, as did the independent channels. The newspapers and magazines are also full of discussion on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, presented this subject in his usual splendidly helpful and constructive fashion.
I should like to say how much I enjoyed hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, speaking for the first time from the Front Bench. It is a great joy to me that I should have the opportunity of congratulating her. I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sackville, on his thoughtful and, very concise maiden speech. It was also a personal joy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. As an ex-teacher, I have of course on many

827
occasions blessed his very inspiring piece of legislation, under which so much progress was made. It was typical of the noble Lord that he should give such generous appreciation to his colleagues, and provide us with a brilliant retrospective survey of events of that time.
I would echo the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when he said that this debate involves our deepest beliefs and has no reference to Party matters. It is quite significant that, as the debate has gone on, this has been greatly emphasised. Many noble Lords have expressed the opinion that there is a change in the climate at the moment in relation to the drawing together of the Churches. This is true, and it is one of the most wonderful movements of our time.
It seems to me that one central theme has run through the speeches to-day and that there is a real need for critical and adventurous thinking in relation to religious education. There is, as we have heard, a real abundance of work, inquiry, research and investigation going on. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Durham, in his very inspiring speech, drew attention to the Commission which is at present surveying and assessing methods of religious education; and, as he so rightly emphasised, the central issue of a great deal of this survey is the element of compulsion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, drew attention to some of the facts which show that the time does not appear to be right for any change in the method of presenting the act of worship, though obviously the teaching of religion will be subject to some criticism in a different way. I felt that the point of the Joint Heads Conference was one which should not have been overlooked, and I am grateful that the noble Lady reminded us of this. All too often we quote the figures of the parents views. We do not often enough quote the figures of the teachers, and it is extremely significant that it was shown that the teachers did not feel that the criticisms which were levelled represented the views of very many parents. I particularly liked the comment of the noble Baroness when she quoted from the letter—a very simple and very moving letter—that science cannot give love or life. In many ways this seems to me to be the whole essence of
828
the debate which we have been having to-day.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, referred to the population survey, and pointed out that 73 per cent. wished to have religious instruction continued. Equally, he reminded your Lordships that the main burden of education in religion at this point of time falls on the schools. I think one noble Lord put it even more succinctly, and said that many children have no other knowledge of religion than that which is presented to them at the moment in their schoolroom. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, reminded us of the survey conducted by the National Opinion Poll on the attitude towards religious instruction. He reminded us that 79 per cent. thought that Britain was a Christian country. It is interesting that the Northerners tended to say "Yes" more than the Southerners. I am not quite sure what that implies, but it is an interesting statistic. It is interesting, too, and very comforting, that 90 per cent. said that the present arrangements for religion in schools should continue, though one is bound to note that 93 per cent. of those were women, as opposed to 80 per cent. who were men. The article concluded that there is an overwhelming support in Britain for the continuation of religious education within the State school system, as the educationists' expression of a society which regards itself, however vaguely, as a Christian country.
The live issue is not whether there should be religious instruction, but how it should be taught, and this seems to have been the burden of our debate this afternoon. I would not make any attempt to reply to the noble Lords who are Humanists, other than to say that I believe they expressed their views with all sincerity and, particularly in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with great eloquence. He quoted Socrates, and pointed out that Socrates said, "We must ascertain the facts." I am not quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has ascertained all the facts quite correctly, particularly in relation to the Catholic schools. He suggested that it was compulsory for those children to take religious instruction, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, will bear out, is not true. Remembering my own education as a Catholic in a Catholic school, I

829
may say that we had three times as much religious instruction as the non-Catholics, in order to prove that there was a distinct discrimination. I should have thought at that time, in favour of the non-Catholics.
I would merely suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who in a very powerful speech presented to me, at any rate, a rather unusual proposition that by excluding the teaching of religion he would strengthen the hand of the Churches, that it seems to me rather like the argument of the father who applies corporal punishment and tells his son that it hurts him far more than it hurts the son.
I should like to support very much the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, in his brilliant analysis, on which I should not dream of commenting other than to say that I think he would agree with the words of Professor Niblett of London University, when he said:
"If we leave religion out of education altogether, we may find ourselves teaching the more efficiently, though without meaning to do so, that the world is chiefly a place for colonisation by technology."
Again, if I may paraphrase him, he said that unless periods are set apart when religious education is the prime subject of concern, the danger will be considerably greater that it will be one's business to foster the consciousness that certain experiences have more meaning than others.
To the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, who always brings great sincerity and a very warm faith to his speeches, I would say that it is possible to teach something that you cannot do yourself. I remember teaching children to swim by dry land drill, when in fact I would have been terrified to go into the water myself. The point is that the children did not know. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams—and I must say that I enjoyed the idea of him as a leaping Lord—will accept that the onus of proof is on those who wish to abolish religious education, rather than being on the State system to prove that religious education has failed.
I was a little disturbed by those noble Lords who seemed to use the word "failure" in relation to both the Act and religious education, and I should be interested to know their measuring stick.
830
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested that many children left school abysmally ignorant of religious doctrine. If that were the measuring stick, then I am afraid that we should have to say that, equally, many subjects we attempt to teach are failures—and I hope that this is not completely true. Things we do not understand as teenagers often come back into perspective at a later sage in our lives, and we then realise the fact that we know far more than we thought at that particular moment.
To the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I can merely extend sympathy—sympathy as one who is also a member of a faith which has the same problem as his own. I should like to be able to say that the necessary funds that he mentioned will forthcoming, but he knows as well as I that I should be doing him an injustice if I were to say that at this point of time.
My Lords, I will try to deal with some of the objections that have been raised, though your Lordships will be happy to know that I shall do this briefly. I made a small calculation which showed that if I replied to 25 speakers and gave them two minutes each, this would keep your Lordships here for 50 minutes, and I have no intention of doing that. Although the 1944 Act does not mention Christianity, I think we must realise that the Act is framed in terms which suggest that the religion which is normally taught is based on Christian principles. Whether this necessarily implies indoctrination is a moot point, but it is a legitimate corn-merit that the increasing number of non-Christian immigrant children in the county schools may lead in the future to complications, and may make the wording of the Act appear inappropriate. Up to the present time, immigrant children of all communities and faiths appear to join in the normal worship of their schools, and no major difficulty is experienced. When I left home this morning, my mother said to me, "Why must they call it an act of worship rather than prayers?"—and I feel that she bas something there. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will agree that if we had described it more simply we might have run into fewer complications.
My Lords, I think it is desirable at this stage to give some thought to the needs of these children and to the rights of their parents. In the meantime, the

831
presence of these immigrant children lays emphasis on the fact that there are other religions in the world besides Christianity, and encourages the study among other pupils of comparative religion—something from which most of your Lordships can draw comfort. There is also substance in the claim, I should have thought, that parents may be in a dilemma over withdrawing their children, and that if the Plowden recommendation were carried into effect—that the parents should be made more aware of their rights—then more children would probably be withdrawn and the feeling of isolation and segregation would be lessened.
There must, however, be some doubt about this in view of the various opinion polls which have shown, as has been mentioned in the discussion, that the majority of parents still want their children to receive religious instruction in school, although they themselves have long ceased to be active members of any church. I think it is fair to suggest that in relation to teachers and promotion that a criticism is justifiable. Although direct evidence is lacking, there is certainly a possibility, not to be overlooked, that teachers would not risk their chances of promotion and therefore might be forced into hypocrisy. To meet this criticism would necessitate legislation of some sort. The Government are unwilling to take the initiative until there is evidence of a firm desire to change and some indication of particular reforms that are being given general support.
Now I come, briefly, to some of the other criticisms. It appears to me that the content of the curriculum came under some fire. In this connection, we must look again at the work of the Schools Council. The question of the curriculum, I think we all agree, is purely fundamental. The Religious Education Committee of the Schools Council has been considering the particular aspects of religious education for the past two years or so. The original terms of reference of this Committee were, to consider the subject of religious education in relation to the raising of the school-leaving age, which has been touched on to-day, and the work of the sixth form, to which many speakers referred. The Committee also set up a third sub-committee to consider the reli-
832
gious education of the primary school child.
What are the results of the first two years of work? First, there has been the production of a statement of aims and objectives which is intended in the first place to be used in connection with the work of the sub-committee concerned with the raising of the school-leaving age; and, secondly, suggestions for the research into religious education at the primary stage; thirdly, a survey in three areas into the way religious education is organised in sixth forms. What is the time allocated to it? What is the staffing situation? What examinations are taken?—in other words the relative questions that we have been asking. Fourthly, the sub-committee concerned with the school-leaving age has devised experimental schemes of work which are at present being tried out in specific schools. Fifthly, an experimental syllabus has been drafted for "A" level religious education, and this is at present under examination. Finally, an "A" level sub-committee, which includes representatives of the G.C.E. examining boards, has begun to consider examining at this level. This is something which I feel would interest the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh.
My Lords, on the question of teachers' training, there is without doubt a shortage of specialist teachers of religious education, for reasons which are presumably related in part to the general lack of importance attached to religious education as a subject in the curriculum and the consequent absence of head of department or similar posts. Moreover, some of the specialist teachers who are in posts are ordained ministers or lay theological graduates who may have had no training in teaching. The specialist teachers are for the most part employed in secondary schools, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, pointed out, they may find themselves teaching large numbers of children whom they have little opportunity of getting to know well. In the primary schools, religious education is normally taken by the class teacher; there is some evidence that most teachers do this willingly, although on the basis of quite insufficient background knowledge.
These facts point to the need for additional training for teachers of religious education. So far as in-service training

833
is concerned, the Department's programme of one-year courses and one-term courses for qualified teachers provides opportunities for those who wish to become better qualified as specialists in religious education. Three one-year special advanced courses are provided during the current academic year and are to be repeated in 1968–69. These courses lead to the award of university diplomas in religious education. One-year supplementary courses for specialists in religious education, designed for teachers whose initial training was limited to two years, are also provided, but in view of a decline in the demand for supplementary courses generally their number is to decrease from eight in the current year to five next year. However, there is to be another increase in the number of one-term courses offered, from four in the current year to eight in 1968–69. I think it is heartening to see that in 1966–67, 2,500 students, out of a total of 33,000 new entrants to the colleges of education, took religious education as the main subject of study; others took it as a subsidiary subject, and most students training to become primary school teachers do study religious education as a curriculum subject.
I think, my Lords, that we have not mentioned the work of the teacher centres. The development in a number of areas of teacher centres on the lines suggested by the Schools Council working paper is stimulating local discussions on many aspects of the curriculum, including religious education. This takes the form of teachers meeting, formally or informally, for talks and conferences; and they form working groups to develop new teaching materials. This work is assisted by the L.E.A.s advisers and organisers, and by lectures in colleges and departments of education. Where voluntary schools are concerned the diocesan directors of education may also be invited. The advisers on religious education were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. My figure, I am happy to say, is eight, though one would at once agree that the number of such advisers is very small, and we hope that more L.E.A.s will appoint them. Several have been appointed very recently, and it is understood that other authorities are considering such appointments. There is certainly no question that this is one of the most
834
valuable ways of encouraging local discussions and conferences for teachers.
The revision of the agreed syllabus is taking place in many areas. It has already, of course, undergone a great change in the West Riding, where there has been produced a syllabus which has had so much comment and commendation even in your Lordships' House to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned the agreed syllabus and perhaps it is right that we should remember that an authority has power to convene another conference, constituted in the same way as the earlier conference set up immediately after the passing of the Act; and one would hope that many more authorities will do this.
The noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned involvement in the community. There can be no question that this is not only a practical expression of Christian teaching but one of the most certain ways of getting over to the children the fact that the Christian is indeed concerned with all mankind. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, would have agreed with the writing which I discovered quite recently when re-reading Man in Revolt, by Emil Brunner, which was written 30 years ago. He said:
"To-day, as in pre-Christian days, there is once again a religion of blood, of power and of sex."
It seemed to me, as I feel it did to the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, that this indeed describes some of the forms of popular entertainment which present themselves to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, put forward some excellent suggestions, and I hope he will appreciate, from the comments I have made, that some of these are already being put into practice. The flexibility for heads to interpret the law, as I think we have learned from the right reverend Prelate, is a matter which will be discussed even more in the future. I would not attempt to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, other than to say that note will be taken of all of his suggestions. He suggested that the stories in the Bible (the Bible has come under some criticism to-day) do not always accord with modern scientific thought. I would not entirely agree with this. I found on

835
Sunday, when I was offering up a prayer for the editor of the Sunday Express (I should not think the Almighty would receive it, as it was not offered in quite the right spirit) that the parable given on that day seemed singularly appropriate to our times. It was the parable of the wheat and the tares, and just as I so frequently think that the Shakespearean plays could have been written yesterday, I am more and more certain that almost everything we read in the Bible is as true of our present time as it was true of the times in which it was set down. So I hope that we shall continue to use the Bible, even though I agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that it could be used more imaginatively.
Some people seem to think that children need everything put in words of two syllables. I can remember reading to my juniors The Queen of the Golden River, which can hardly be described as a piece of religious education. I said to them that perhaps they would like me to leave the first part because the language was rather difficult. They had heard it before many times. But one little boy said, "Please don't do that". I asked, "Why? Do you know what it means?" He replied, "No, but I like listening to it". This may be a question of the beauty of language, but I think that if we assume that one must always immediately understand everything one hears, we are going to limit our appreciation of music and our understanding of art.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will be pleased to know that I was given a note of what he might have been saying. I am happy to know that what he felt was a pattern that the English authorities might work to, so there is no need for me to reply to this, except to say that he gave us great food for thought, particularly in this suggestion that Scotland has a basic freedom from examinations in Divinity and that there was tolerance and co-operation between all denominations.
It has been suggested that to-day we live in a different society. It is true that societies change and environments change, but I would suggest that human nature does not. If society is to provide
836
a clear pattern of behaviour to its members, it needs to be based on some religion. Surely, there must be an agreed basis of values. There is little doubt that hard work and fresh thinking need to be undertaken if religious education is to be re-established as a school subject that can be seen to be relevant to the problems of modern living. What is encouraging is the evidence of concern in your Lordships' House and in all parts of the educational world. The ultimate answer may not be foreseen at this stage, but the Government objective is to encourage debate and discussion at all levels. My Lords, the debate continues.
10.17 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is late and I shall be brief. We have had plenty of spiritual bread this afternoon and evening, and I think the time has come to seek some bodily sustenance. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been a most interesting one. Some noble Lords have not been able to stay to the end, and I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford to present his apologies. He had an excellent excuse: he has to go to a meeting of his parochial church council.
I expected an excellent debate on such a challenging subject when I saw the list of speakers, which included the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, to whom I am most grateful; three former Ministers of Education; three right reverend Prelates; one outstanding Nonconformist, and a wide range of talent from all quarters of the House and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who always winds up our debates with such charm and skill. It would be presumptuous of me to comment on any one speech, but may I add my sincere congratulations to my noble friend Lord Sackville on an excellent maiden speech, not entirely non-controversial, but at least stimulating and based on first-hand experience, which is something we in this House always appreciate. I should also like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte on speaking so well for the first time from the Front Bench.

837
The debate has ranged widely over every aspect of religious education. The only agreement that I have discerned is that the subject requires deep re-thinking. The Churches have already begun the process, and I hope that this debate will
838
contribute to it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.