I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I think the House will agree that it is unnecessary for me to make a long speech in explanation of the policy of this Bill, because we had a two days' Debate on the Defence White Paper which, I think, met with general acceptance. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio should be absent from what might perhaps be regarded as the christening. He is ill at the present time, but I hope he will be back at work before very long.

The general set-out of this Bill is simple, and outlines the functions of the Minister of Defence and makes the customary provisions where there is the appointment of a Minister. I would like to call attention to one or two words of the really operative provision, Clause 1, which describes in broad outlines the functions of the Minister of Defence, and says that he shall be

"…in charge of the formulation and general application of a unified policy relating to the Armed Forces of the Crown as a whole and their requirements."

The Clause is drawn in that way to make it perfectly clear that the Minister of Defence is not taking sole responsibility for defence. As I explained in the Debate on the White Paper, the broad organisation for defence, where it brings in the civil Departments and the whole activities of the nation, must remain with the Prime Minister although, of course, the Minister of Defence will take his share. That is why the Clause says:

"…relating to the Armed Forces of the Crown as a whole and their requirements."

It might be said that this is Very general. In the White Paper, the exact functions of the Minister are set out in more detail, but it has been thought inadvisable to try and reduce those into statutory form. First of all, it would do away with that flexibility which is essential in the office of the Minister of Defence, and it would be defining the relation of one Minister to a number of other Ministers. That would impose a rigidity which, I think, would be unfortunate. The Clause has a general application, but the broad administration of each Department remains with the Service Ministers. The domestic administration of the Services must remain with the Ministers directly responsible to this House for those Services.

There is provision for the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary. It is not proposed to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary at present, but it is thought as well to have the power in the Bill in case, at some future time, it should prove necessary. I would like to stress a point which I made before, that we are not trying to set up a great, new administrative machine. That would be a mistake. The functions of the Minister of Defence are very largely coordinating, and we do not want to blossom out with an enormous building in Whitehall with Secretaries and Under-Secretaries and all the rest of it. Clauses 4 and 5 are common form. Points were raised about them in the past on the appointment of other Ministers, and they were fully answered at the time to the satisfaction of the House by the Law Officers of the Crown. I do not think that anything arises on the other Clauses, and I therefore ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, which implements the policy which has been explained in the White Paper.

I think we all feel in the House that the Second Reading speeches have already been made during the Debate on the White Paper, and this morning I have no wish to appear in the role of a diva who is a singing an encore before the curtain without the consent of the audience and, indeed, the conductor. Therefore, I will be very short. Before I go any further, I should like to say how distressed we are to hear that the Minister of Defence designate is ill and how glad we are to hear that he expects shortly to be about again. I should also like to say that I am profoundly shocked at Clause 5 of the Bill, which turns the Minister into a corporation sole. I will make no bones about it; I have addressed the right hon. Gentleman by his Christian name for many years, and I hope in future that it will not be considered disrespectful to continue to address a corporation sole by such a designation as "A.V." There are some of us in this House, and the Foreign Secretary and I are among the number, who have spent a good deal of time and exercise trying to prevent ourselves being turned into corporations sole.

I was prevented through an engagement in Scotland from hearing the winding up of the Minister designate at the end of the Debate on the White Paper, but I have studied very carefully what he said, and I think we should feel that he did his very best to take up all the points raised. There are only three of them which I think worth troubling the House with this morning. The first was the point I raised in the Debate on the White Paper about the number of civilian Ministers and Ministers in charge of civilian Departments who are to be members of the Defence Committee under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister and under the deputy chairmanship of the Minister of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman, in winding up, said he would look very carefully into the matter and study the suggestions made, but he indicated that he was unlikely to advise his colleagues to change the composition of the Committee. I hope very much that the Government will see if the Committee can be pruned down, because we, on this side of the House, feel that a purely military point of view should first of all be put before the Cabinet, and it should not be at the first stage diluted by economic or financial considerations. It must, of course, eventually depend upon the ability of the country to sustain a particular system of defence either economically or financially, but we feel on this side that the purely military point of view, or as we say in industry the military optimum, should be first examined more or less in isolation from the other questions and that those questions should come in later on.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean all services over and above the Army instead of the Army alone?

I mean the three Services. My point is that I should like to see the Defence Committee dealing with purely military things in the sense of all Services and having arrived at the military optimum, then the economic Ministers should come in and see how the pattern could be arranged in accordance with the resources of the country.

The second point is that the Minister of Defence should again consider the relationship of the Ministry of Supply with the Service Departments. I know that where the Ministry of Supply is engaged upon the manufacture of purely civilian supplies for the civilian population, only certain goods or products can be made, the reason for which is that we keep alive our war potential at small cost to the country, while at the same time providing the civilian population with some of their necessities. The making of aluminium houses can be defended or partially defended because it keeps alive a certain rolling capacity of the country which may in the future—although we hope not—be useful in the manufacture of aeroplane wings and components. Once we get out of the field which really can be defended on that line, it is inexcusable to load the Ministry of Supply with the manufacture of civilian articles when, under the Ministry of Defence, one of the most difficult tasks to be performed is to keep abreast of the probable requirements of war materials, and also the task of trying to coordinate some inert process of production with the constantly changing need of the technical battle as foreseen by the Cabinet's military advisers. I do feel that greater concentration on the problems of war is required than has been indicated as the policy of the new Ministry of Defence.

The last point which I wish to raise has already been answered in part by the Prime Minister. There is a feeling shared in many parts of the House that the Ministry of Defence should not become a very bloated Department, and there is only one aspect of that on which I wish to touch —the central services of the three fighting Departments. I do not think that any hon. Member who has a knowledge of these matters will deny that certain defences should be set up against the Treasury. It has been in the past the purpose of the Treasury rather to play off one Department against the other in the matter of essential services, an example of which is that the pay of Navy and Army doctors has never been on an exactly comparable basis. There clearly is a function for the Minister of Defence to try to get in the three Services a degree of coordination, particularly over pay. I trust that we may have some assurance—and I think the Prime Minister has given it by implication—that the Minister of Defence himself will not be administering these common services organisations, of which the medical service is one, while there are others such as the handling and administration of prisoners of war which is a question common to all three Services. I do hope we shall hear that, whilst the Minister of Defence is going to coordinate these matters, he is not himself going to take over these common services and try to run them from a central position, because I think that would immediately clutter up the Ministry of Defence.

I also feel that that part of his duties which relates to the allocation of the resources has been rather glozed over, and unless there is to be a fairly large organisation of supply committees the matter of the allocation of the national resources to the various services and to the various systems of defence, which is a first rate administrative job, may be endangered. I hope we will hear a little more about that, although I am not sure that it arises today. Of course, we are not told in the Bill where the headquarters of the Ministry of Defence are going to be, but if the Minister of Defence is to work in close cooperation with the three Services, if conditions obtain like last year, the Minister of Defence will be divided between London, Cairo and Paris, or, if in London, he will work largely with the Secretary of State for War. I do not say that in any spirit of levity, but only to urge His Majesty's Government to ensure that we will be able to see the Secretaries of State for the defence Departments as we can see the Secretary of State for War this morning. We on this side of the House are in general agreement, even in particular agreement, with the Measure which is now before us, and in those cir- cumstances the House will not wish to hear me continue any longer.

I do not wish to go over the ground which has already been so thoroughly covered in the course of our previous Debate on the White Paper. In view of what the Prime Minister has said, I had no intention of taking part in the Debate at all, but I wish to make one point in reply to the first of the points made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). His experience of this kind of matter is of the very highest while mine is at an exceedingly low level. I have found, as I am sure have others who have served in a Service Department—perhaps with the exception of the Admiralty, which is almost a law unto itself—that the influence of finance, and very often the influence of the civil side of the Department, are thoroughly negative and restrictive. They do not seem to take the view that they are part of the show. The civil side of the Service Departments tends to become a shy and timid off-shoot of the Treasury. The purely restrictive view which it takes adds enormously to the burden of any Service Department. I would suggest in all humility that it is an excellent arrangement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be associated from the start, and at the highest level, with the planning of defence measures, in order that the Treasury may in future take a more constructive and less restrictive view of its duties in relation to defence.

This is a very happy occasion, for here at last we have the Second Reading of a Bill to set up a Ministry of Defence. I recall that in 1919 I was one of 120 Members who put down a Motion to this effect and who have put it down every year since, in order to try to get this proposal carried out. We have seen the Bill now, but during the Debate upon the Defence White Paper we had not seen it. I propose to ask the Prime Minister one or two questions upon the subject of definition. I have looked up the wording which defines the duties of the Minister of Defence. It lays down that he is to be in charge of

"the formulation and general application of a unified policy relating to the Armed Forces of the Crown."

I shall be very much obliged if the Prime Minister will tell the House whether the Dominion Forces are not also Armed Forces of the Crown and, if that is so, whether the wording of the Bill does not necessarily mean review and reconsideration of the Statute of Westminster? I looked up the Statute of Westminster, but it is a terrific document, and I am not quite certain whether the wording to which I have just referred is not an infringement of what was understood in that Statute. Of course, I have no doubt that this point has already been thought of.

There is another matter, relating to regional areas. The weight that this country will in future have to bear in respect of defence will obviously be less than it was before. I assume—indeed it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman when the White Paper was under discussion— that in manpower, in money and in materials the United Kingdom will not be able to bear so heavy a share of Commonwealth defence. We have to face that fact, which means that there must be some central defence organisation for the Commonwealth. That is not quite clearly laid down. Whether the liaison officers will be sufficient one rather wonders.

Then it is not stated anywhere that I can see that either the Secretary of State for the Colonies shall be a member of the Defence Committee or that he shall be coopted. I assume that if any matter comes up, such as the defence of the Caribbeans, he -will be coopted for that purpose. It is not stated in the White Paper either that that will be done. How far will the Dominions be agreeable to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs speaking for them on these matters? That has no doubt been inquired into by the Government before they produced the Bill. Another point which we ought to get clear is regional defence, which is mentioned in the White Paper. I can see no reference in the Bill to show how that will be worked in. Presumably the Colonial troops who are under His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom will be needed for matters of general policy, but if a Colony is in a regional area allocated to one of the Dominion Governments, how far will there be that contact and link which will maintain the independent position of the Dominion concerned and yet enable the Minister of Defence to exercise his func- tions over the Colonial troops, who are the responsibility of His Majesty's Government here? It is a very important matter, which has already arisen in East Africa, where officers there serving are rather in a difficulty as to whom they should go to in a matter of this kind.

The question of civil defence is not mentioned, but one must assume that civil defence, which is vital to the function of the Ministry of Defence, will be dealt with by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is not mentioned as a member of the Defence Committee, but quite clearly there must be integration between the civil defence services and the Ministry of Defence.

The last point is a matter of high policy, but it ought to be raised. In the unfortunate event of another war we must never assume that we shall have the same kind of dynamic personality as Prime Minister that we had in the second world war. One must not assume—although one hopes he will be—that we shall have a Prime Minister able to exercise an equal influence in world affairs. Equally, it is important to realise that the responsibility of the Service Ministers to this House, as the Prime Minister remarked just now, must not be interfered with and that the internal discipline, training and organisation of the three Services must be carried through with proper responsibility to Parliament, by the Secretaries of State.

I want to ask whether consideration has been given to the question, Who is the head of the Service? What officers are at the head of the Army and what officers are at the head of the Navy and the Air Force? It is clear that to construct a tidy picture we must revert back to the Commander-in-Chief, as distinct from the Chief of the General Staff. You cannot have the Chief of the General Staff at the head of the Army responsible to the Ministry of Defence, and also to the Secretary of State for War for internal organisation. If the two Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force would devote themselves entirely to the political heads of their Departments, they would be in a much better position. I do not see that the Chief of the General Staff—leaving out the word"Imperial"—can fulfil two functions. During the war there was undoubtedly confusion and that is why the Cabinet— as nobody knows better than the Prime Minister—set up at the Horse Guards the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces. It is very important that such an appointment should be set up again.

Some hon. Members worked on the National Expenditure Committee throughout the war and submitted several Reports to Parliament, two of which were secret and no doubt have now been made public as a result of the endeavours of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Certain vitally important matters were mentioned by the Minister designate in a speech in the country one day before he unfortunately became ill, and they are referred to in the White Paper. The Ministry of Supply is a terrifically large Department and it is now having put on it matters of the most vital importance. As the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, it would be very helpful if the position could be clarified a little more. All through the war the Prime Minister took a particular personal interest in the matter of research. I was chairman of the sub-committee which was appointed and worked for five years inquiring into these matters.

The recommendations we made in those Reports could be summed up very simply and we were told at that time that they had the approval of the Government. Two committees are mentioned in the White Paper—the Ministerial Production Committee and the Defence Research Policy Committee. I understand that Sir Henry Tizard has been appointed chairman. No man has rendered greater service to the country than he has. The work he did with the Royal Air Force in the days before the war had more to do with winning the Battle of Britain than anything else. He is a magnificent man, and the self-sacrifice he has now shown by giving up the position that he very much welcomed holding as President of Magdalen is some indication of his sense of public service. We are fortunate in having a man of his position.

I want to emphasise that in the evidence we had before us during the war it was much easier to see clearly what was required that it was after the war when inter-Service jealousies and desires to maintain their position are not subject to the pressure that the urgency of work sometimes applies. One thing is absolutely vital. It is that this country must aim to secure and hold what we called in those Reports the technical initiative. That phrase, the technical initiative, is the basis of preparation and the saving of lives. I should have thought that there was an obvious need to minimise the number of types and sizes of ammunition while ensuring that each of those is the best of its kind. One of the things which the Expenditure Committee had to contend with was the enormous number of types of every conceivable store which led to a very complicated supply service. I never understood why ordinary general service lorries required for the Admiralty should not be the same type as those required by the Army. This would have brought a simplification of spares and much simpler transportation. The hooding of a Royal Air Force lorry was two feet six inches higher than the Army lorry, which meant that it would not go between decks. That sort of stupidity leads to a lot of trouble. It is vital that there should be a central authority who would have no nonsense of that kind. The number of types must be reduced to something which is reasonable. Which of these committees is to do that and to whom is it to be responsible?

There is an absolute necessity that in the Ministry of Supply there should be a Department of Technical Development for the Services. That is not mentioned in the White Paper. Whether it should be the principal responsibility of a Parliamentary Secretary sitting in this House I do not know, but there ought to be such a department of the Ministry. No Minister of Supply can supervise all the research for all the Services with all the other things he has to do, and it is of tremendous urgency. It was laid down by His Majesty's Government in 1943, in reply to one of the Reports of the Committee on National Expenditure, that it would in future be Government policy to have central coordination rather than central control. That really is an admirable phrase, and if that could be taken as the cornerstone of the set up, all of us would be happy.

I should like to recapitulate what were the divisions which we were told in evidence should be part of the postwar setup in regard to research, design and production. Those who had experience of the last war and the war before laid it down that there should be technical wings of the Naval, Military and Air Staffs. It is very important that the training of the general staff officers of the Army and staff officers of the other Services should have the strong element of technical training which the Army is now producing at Shrivenham in a most admirable syllabus. I do not know how far that has been done by the other Services. The fundamental research into ammunition and types used to be the responsibility of the Ordnance Corps. Something of that nature is required and it was suggested that it should be called the Armament Research Board. There must be a development department to include design and applied research, an administration department responsible for development and acceptance trials and a trials board responsible finally for the stores and weapons wanted on the ground. It might interest the House if I quoted figures which were given to us to indicate the importance of getting improvements in design. If an average improvement of 5 per cent. in armament design, from production aspects alone, were made, it would save the labour of 100,000 persons. Such a saving could have been obtained by employing 50 competent men in peacetime.

Not one word was said in the White Paper about the Department of the S.I.R. The work done by the S.I.R. in the last war and the war before was amazingly good. It was the responsibility of the Lord President. The Prime Minister has not mentioned it, and there is no reference to it in the Bill. I conclude that the work of the S.I.R. will still remain under the Lord President. The technical committee over which Sir Henry Tizard presides, and which is responsible to the Ministry of Defence, will in some way be related to the D.S.I.R. It is very important that there should be established certain national establishments up and down the country to help in this matter, which might be considered daughters of the D.S.I.R., where private -firms and companies could go for advice, because it is vital that war potentials should be kept linked to the organisation and production in peacetime since there is so little time in war to get ready what is required. If there could be these national establishments for physics, chemistry, electronics, basic engineering, aerodynamics and so on, it would help enormously.

I am quite sure that in establishing the Ministry of Defence it is of great importance that we in this House should never attempt to support a plan whereby the Treasury receives back money that has not been used in a particular year. All the evidence shows that that system is wasteful and extravagant. You cannot tie a scientist down like anybody else. It is monstrous that when one gets near the end of the financial year and discovers that £500,000 or whatever it is is left, it has to be spent, otherwise the Treasury will say, "You did not spend that amount this year so you will be cut down by that sum next year." It ought to be on a long-term basis, and it should be thoroughly understood that by spending £1million in peacetime on research, £50 million is saved when war comes.

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) when he touches on research and production, of which he has very great knowledge, and I find it difficult to disagree with him on either of these subjects when he gives us the benefit of his experience. I listened to him this morning with great interest, as I am sure did the rest of the House.

I am glad that the question of supply, research and production has been touched on this morning, because I was afraid that in regard to the Ministry of Defence there would be too much emphasis on the coordination of the fighting Services, and not sufficient emphasis on what keeps them in the field, both in peace and in war which is, very largely, the coordination of research and production. It is true that if we study the history of this country we find that when, unfortunately, we get into a war position, we are prepared for the last war. I know that has been said many times before in this House, but to anyone in industry it is very patently true, and there were literally. many tears shed in factories in this country during the last war because that was the case. I hope, therefore, that the new Minister of Defence will have studied very carefully the lessons which we ought to learn from what we did in the last war in research and production, not only in this country but elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

I had to deal with many millions of pounds of contracts covering large num- bers of types of supplies. I would ask the Minister to look at only one subject— spares for radio equipment. It was in a terrible mess, and it was never straightened out because it was too great a problem under war conditions to get real standardisation of radio spares for our radar and other radio equipment. That can only be done if we anticipate what we have to do in time of war and get our organisation going in time of peace. We must realise that the Minister of Defence, and his organisation in so far as it applies to the equipment of the Armed Forces, has to interfere or ought to interfere in the peacetime operations of industry. If it does not do that, and we unfortunately find ourselves in a war position again, we shall once more find that we are unprepared.

I would like to give one or two instances of what happens in a factory when standardisation is achieved. I was connected with a factory producing something like 120 different types of radio valves per annum. In wartime we cut it down to 40 valves and, not for that reason alone but mainly because of that reason, output went up three times over a period of about two years and this was mainly due to cutting down the number of types and the number of changeovers in that factory. We must look in time of peace to the modernisation of piece parts, not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth. In my own experience in the last war in factories up and down the country. this is what happened. A piece of apparatus designed in 1933 or 1934 was used by the Navy. In this instance it was largely radio equipment. A modern industry like the radio industry progresses very quickly and, when the war started, the Admiralty suddenly began calling for this particular type of equipment in large quantities. They said that it was too late to redesign this equipment and that they must have these piece parts. So we found that we were being called upon for large supplies of obsolete equipment of which the technicians and the work people in the industry had lost the technique. It was as dead as the dodo. However, the Admiralty called in higher and higher naval officers with more and more gold rings until there was one who banged the table hard enough and said, "You have got to make it." If one could only compute the output per man-hour lost because of that kind of thing going on up and down the country, it would reach a staggering figure. These things can only be seen to in time of peace.

May I give another example? Unfortunately, some of our military people at the beginning of the war did not rise higher in their means of communication than a pigeon. That was what they had been trained to use. When the Germans were communicating instantaneously in plain language between their aeroplanes and tanks, we were struggling with horrible equipment and sending messages in code. The Germans were far better than we were, and it was not until the second year of the war that we began to take care of this. I hope that the Minister of Defence will see to the co-ordination of research and production and its relation to peacetime industry who, after all, are the contractors in wartime, so that we shall be prepared. Do not let us have jokes going around the factories such as we heard when this obsolete equipment had to be made. It was said that it was wanted by the Navy for old junks on the Yangtse. That was the standard joke. I hope we never hear it again.

If I may come back to the coordination of research and production not only on a national basis but on a Commonwealth basis, if we should need the shadow factories in another war that we had in the last war, we can only get proper operation of them on a Commonwealth basis if we get their peacetime production organised. You can only get teams of research people and production people working together on an efficient basis if they are organised now, and kept on a coordinated basis while making their peacetime products. I hope that will be done. It was not done before, and where did we get to in the last war as a result? To quote the case of Canada, at the beginning of the last war Canada found herself with about 70 per cent. of her industry owned by American capital—some of my friends put it as high as 75 per cent. How did these factories operate? They merely operated as production units. They bought their materials and parts from America. They merely had a production and selling organisation. A wartime enterprise cannot be conducted without research, and the Canadians recognised this. The Americans were not in the war, and the Canadians had to start Research Enterprises Ltd. in Toronto, in order to back up these American companies with a research organisation.

We do not want that to happen in the next war, if unfortunately we ever have one. It raises a most important question. How are we going to tackle the coordination of research and production on a Commonwealth basis? We shall come right up against this difficult problem, that in Canada, let alone in Australia, where some of the key industries are also under foreign control, the industries which will be wartime contractors are under foreign domination either partially or completely, and when such companies come under foreign domination research stops. It is done in the parent country, not in the country where the subsidiary produces. That was the situation in Canada at the beginning of the war. I believe that when our Minister of Defence comes to look at this all-important question of the coordination of research and production, he will come up against this problem at once. I understand that the Canadians, at the moment, are talking about standardising their military equipment with America. I think what is causing them to pause is this very problem, that if they do standardise with the Americans and the Americans are not in the next war, if there is one—I hope there will not be, but we have to look at this matter from that angle—and the Canadians are in it, and they merely have production units, with research being carried on in America, and they have standardised with American technique and American apparatus, they will be left high and dry.

This problem has to be looked at carefully. We have to get in peace time an effective organisation of research and production right throughout the Commonwealth. I hope it will be done efficiently. I will leave out the question of what we have ultimately to face up to, but when we get U.N.O, working properly, with its own military forces, this question of coordination of research and production becomes even more difficult, especially from the aspect that those forces must have standardised equipment. To get standardised equipment for forces which may be supplied by 20 different nations will require coordination, vision and ability of a very high order in these technical matters. To return to the ques- tion of the coordination of research and production on a national basis, I wish to mention one other menace, that is the foreign domination of contractors in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) will have some personal knowledge of this particular problem; that is, some of the modern industries in this country are not owned by British capital, at least some of the big units in them are not. It may well be that the Minister of Defence should call for an analysis of the capital, say, in the aircraft industry, the motor car industry, the radio and electrical industry and the rubber industry, for a start, and find out what proportion of the capital in them is under foreign domination. I have in mind the point that when a company comes under foreign domination research in this country tends to stop, because from an international—

Will the hon. Member make clear what he means by foreign domination? If he is speaking of minority interests, I do not think his argument would run, though where a company tends to be under foreign control, his argument is really correct.

The point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised is a good one. We have, of course, at one end of the scale, important companies in which the whole capital is owned by foreign companies, American in some cases. There are other companies at the other end of the scale like Associated Electrical Industries, in which a large part of the capital, I understand, is British, but where the policy is agreed with the General Electric Company of America. It is in all probability true that the organisation under the control of the right hon. Gentleman does, in fact, do a large amount of research in this country. In fact it is notable for some of the research it has done in the past, and is still doing. The point is that when a company comes under complete foreign domination, it is more efficient for that world wide organisation to centre its research, say in America. When that happens the company in this country is merely a production and a selling unit; it is completely divorced from all research, it buys its research from the central organisation in the other country.

If the Minister of Defence will only investigate what effect this had in the last war, in the case of some of our big modern industries, which in war time were absolutely key industries, without which we could not have fought the war, he will find that when his predecessor sought to give jobs to these contractors he was sometimes precluded, even before the war, from doing so because he was afraid of where the information would go. They could not tackle the jobs, which very often had to go to smaller concerns, which were undoubtedly and obviously British owned. I suggest that if this process of the domination by foreign interests of British industries goes on unchecked—and we do not know to what extent it is going on—we may find, if we are, unfortunately, faced with another war, that some of the big production organisations in the country which would be our principal contractors in time of war, could not be taken into our confidence. At the moment, very large sums of money are being allocated, or being sent overseas, for research which in my view should be done in this country; in the long run our ability to carry on research in this country depends on the number of scientists and technicians we have, and that supply of scientists and technicians depends on the suction effect of industry on our universities. If we have large sections of contractors in this country doing no research, because it is being done abroad, we shall not be building up a research potential among the contractors in this country on which our ability to win another war depends.

These are vital points upon which the Minister of Defence ought to concentrate a large proportion of his attention. I hope that whoever is to reply to this Debate will give us some assurance on the points which I have raised. Finally, I would mention the importance of seeing that the relations between the contractors and Ministries are as efficient as they possibly can be made, for this reason: We are now faced with the fact that perhaps 5 per cent. of our working population, in peace time, have to be in the Army, Navy or Air Force or in factories making apparatus for those Forces. This will have a considerable effect on the standard of living of our people in peace time. If the operations of the Minister of Defence and of the fighting Services can be made as efficient as possible, if we can utilise every technician and every production man and woman who are on this job in this country as effectively as possible, so as to effect an optimum output from the people on the industrial side, we can release more and more people for peace time production during peace time. I question whether it would not be better for the Minister of Defence, in carrying out this job, to have one buying Ministry for all three fighting Services, because it would be much more efficient if the contractors had only one customer instead of three. A great deal of overlapping and wasted labour could be cut out, although I know that there axe arguments on the other side. I hope the question of the utmost efficiency in the production of material for the fighting Services will be looked into, if for no other reason than that it closely affects the standard of living of the people of this country in peace time.

I am very glad to have another opportunity of speaking so soon after the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb). I am sure that it is obvious to us all that he speaks with great personal knowledge of the subject, and I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to the points he raised. I have very little to add to what I said in the Debate on the White Paper, but I would like to say a word or two regarding Clause 3 (1) of the Bill, which, subject, of course, to the Chancellor's approval, gives the Minister of Defence great powers. During the Debate on the White Paper, I asked a question on the probable size of the Ministry, and, during his winding-up speech, the Minister referred me to paragraph 34 of the White Paper, which, he said,

"indicates that although the functions now be assigned to the Minister of Defence are such that it will not be possible for him to operate with only through a very small Secretariat, there is no expectation that he will need a large staff."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1946; Vol. 428, c. 877.]

I am sure we were all glad today to have the Prime Minister's confirmation of this when he said that it was not intended to form a Ministry in the full sense of the word. Therefore, we shall not lose the great advantage of the present set-up, which, during the war, has worked so well round the structure of Service personnel.

I would like to follow up briefly one point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). The right hon. Gentleman referred to the duties of the Minister designate as Chairman of the Defence Committee, and I think he indicated that it was a question whether or not the Defence Committee was not too large as at present composed. If the decision of the Government is that the Committee should not be reduced, may I put in a further plea for the addition of one Minister to that Committee? It is already a big Committee, and one addition to it would hardly be noticed, but the Minister whom I would propose is, I submit, absolutely essential to the proper functioning of the Defence Committee. I refer to the Minister of Transport.

I do not intend to elaborate what I said in the earlier Debate, but I am so convinced of the importance of this point that I would have liked to take advantage of a device such as is used in the Congress of the United States, where members stand up, and, after speaking for three minutes, ask the permission of the House to write the rest of their speech into the Record. However, that is not possible, and I, therefore, confine myself to saying that there cannot be any stage in the strategical or tactical consideration of defence where the advice of the Minister of Transport is not essential, and on the production side it is equally true. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) quoted the case of lorries being of different sizes. That, of course, could be dealt with by a standing committee but it is only one of many cases indicating the need for co-ordination in every stage of the planning of the Defence of this country and the Commonwealth, and of our future contribution to the United Nations organisation. In all these matters, transport, whether inland or sea, is a central factor.

I know that these considerations are very much in the minds of all the right hon. Gentlemen who are concerned in these matters at this time. I know also that there is no reason to think that the importance of the Minister of Transport's Department is being forgotten by the present Chiefs of Staff or by the members? of the Chiefs of Staff Committees. One is not very worried about the immediate future, but I suggest that it is most important that the Transport Minister should be a member of the Defence Committee. We hope that there will be no more war, but we cannot count on it, and we want to be certain that, in 15 or 20 years from now, when those who have had experience of this war are no longer in controlling positions, the Minister of Transport and his advisors will be constantly consulted at every stage of planning, whether tactics, strategy or, above all production, so as to obtain the maximum efficiency, from the transport point of view, and the greatest savings in shipping space —the major bottleneck in any war in which this country may be involved.

I hope the hon. Member who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I want to follow up the point about the Colonial Forces raised by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). In the Debate on the White Paper, I asked a question about the control and administration of the Colonial Forces, and the Minister without Portfolio told me that the matter was under review. Until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon, I thought that the matter was in no way settled by the introduction of this Bill. Clause 1 does seem to settle the matter, and I think we should have a statement from the Prime Minister on how the Colonial Forces are to be controlled. I feel very strongly that the whole question of Colonial Defence is tied up with the general raising of the standard of life in the Colonies. Defence and economic advance cannot be separated, and I think it is of very great importance, that, in the future, there should be a clear breakaway from the kind of administration that existed in all the Colonies before the war. I hope very much that, when the Minister replies, he will be able to set our minds at rest on this point, and will be able to say that the organisation of defence in the Colonies is not going to be prised out of its general setting and brought exclusively under the Minister of Defence. I hope we shall have a clear statement that Clause 1 dealing with the unification of all the Forces under the Crown, does not settle the matter here rather that in due course, the Prime Minister will announce the policy to be adopted for the control of Colonial Forces.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb), which showed that he is an authority on many aspects of defence. The one comment which I shall make on that speech concerns his statement that we are always preparing for the war that is over. I do not think that is quite just, because, if we consider the recent war, the three dominating factors were these—in the Navy, the aircraft carrier; in the Army, the tank; and I think it might fairly be said that, in the air, it was radar. I think all these were British inventions, but, unfortunately, our ingenuity in devising these means of defence is only limited by our inability to have enough of them when war breaks out. That was really our trouble. It was not the lack of these devices, but the difficulty of providing ourselves with enough of them.

I would certainly add my voice to all those which have been urging that the research side of defence is vital. We are all agreed that a Ministry of Defence is essential and desirable. The menace of war may become less and less, but the need for coordination still exists. On the other hand, I warn the right hon. Gentleman that it may not be as plain sailing as it would appear, because in the past there have been differing views and even in the present divergencies of view will be found between the Services. Therefore, I would emphasise the vital importance of having a common staff doctrine in the College of Imperial Defence, whereby the the same set of facts are presented to the officers in the Navy, Army and Air Force. The officers of those three Services would then produce appreciations which, although perhaps not coinciding, would be similar. If the College of Imperial Defence is developed and given that same degree of priority which, in the field of material production, is given to research, I am sure that will be greatly to the advantage of the Minister of Defence.

I wish to make an inquiry with regard to the authority of the Minister in relation to the heads of the Armed Forces. Under Clause 1 he has authority over the requirements of the Armed Forces. Who is to decide the policy with regard to the Fleet? At present many of us view with considerable concern the dispersal of the British Fleet. The United States Fleet has been laid up; but not so the British Fleet. It is being to some extent sent to America, to some extent scrapped and to an alarming extent given away to other countries. H.M.S. "Aurora," which is a modern ship, was given to China. Even a community so peaceful as Eire, which has only once expressed belligerent desires, and that against the United Kingdom, has been given some of the ships of the Royal Navy. So far as I know, there is no authority in Parliament for dispersing the Fleet or giving away important fighting units. Will this subject come under the Minister of Defence, or will it be a matter for the Admiralty? I think the tasks of the Defence Minister and of the Ministry of Defence should be put above that sort of thing. They are not only extremely important but different. In a period of inflation when everything is on the "up and up," when money is pouring from the Treasury into the Armed Services, one knows what is required and one has a good chance of getting it. But in a period of deflation when everything is being cut down, when the Treasury grudges giving sums which would be regarded as negligible in war time, we require the most skilful conduct on the part of the heads of the Fighting Services.

I trust this will not involve the somewhat enormous staffs which we have at present. I had the curiosity to compare the Navy Estimates of 1908 with those of the present year, and I found that the Admiralty office expenses were fast overhauling the expenses for warlike stores. In fact, I think they were three or four times as much as they had been in 1938. I do not think an enormous staff is required, but it does require an extraordinarily careful series of decisions as regards policy. At present, I do not think we in this House have any idea of the general plan of the defence of this country. We do not know the strength of the Navy. We do not know, except in the vaguest terms, the organisation of the Army. We know nothing to speak of about the organisation of the Territorial Army, and we do not know a lot about the Air Force. We are very vague in our relations with the forces of the Dominions. I suggest that to clear the air and to give this country some idea of the position as a whole, when the Minister of Defence has been appointed and has had a reasonable time in which to assimilate the extremely complicated and difficult factors which he must consider, Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing defence as a whole, and the requirements of the Armed Services to which allusion is made in the Bill. I welcome the Bill, and I see great potential advantages in it; on the other hand, there are very serious difficulties for the Minister of Defence if he is entirely to fulfil his obligations.

I do not propose to detain the House long because I know the Prime Minister is anxious to reply. Previous speakers have referred to some of the working details involved. I wish to get back to the basic principle. To my mind, the only real justification for the setting up of the Ministry of Defence lies in the hope that it affords for effecting an overall reduction in the total strength of our Armed Forces. We have been promised a target of 1,100,000 men and another 100,000 in training. Now, to the intense disappointment of many of the Government's supporters, we are told that for the moment this target cannot be achieved. To my mind, the valuable function of the Ministry of Defence is that it should set out in the forefront of its objectives the aim of trying to achieve a total strength of our coordinated forces of something below that figure of 1,100,000; and if, by coordinating the three Services, we can evolve a highly efficient, highly mechanised and highly trained coordinated Force, the new Ministry and especially the Minister designate would be more than justified.

I cannot help speaking with a good deal of feeling in this matter, because I participated in the first by-election that took place after the introduction of conscription in April, 1939. When I fought that by-election in the stronghold of Cham-berlainism, on an openly anti-conscrip-tionist platform, never for a moment did I believe that human folly could descend to such depths as to involve the country in another conflagration. On the day that war broke out, I felt myself compelled to volunteer at the first available opportunity, and I had to serve for something like six and a half years in the Royal Air Force. It is just because one is so desperately anxious to avoid any repetition of this possibility affecting the lives of our young people today, that, although one gives somewhat grudging support to the Government's present policy for the extension of conscription, one gives the full- est, warmest and most complete support for the establishment of this Ministry of Defence.

I know that the Government's basis of our overall strength must depend on our Chiefs of Staff. I cannot help feeling— and I think the war has borne out the lesson—that Colonel Blimp still remains a Blimp even after he has been promoted to brigadier. Although we on this side of the House cannot claim to having any brigadiers, it does not necessarily follow that every brigadier on the opposite side of the House must be a Colonel Blimp. On the other hand, I do wish that the deep feelings of some of our lower serving ranks in the Forces might at some time be allowed to carry just as much weight as some of our high serving staff officers. In my own constituency I have had opportunities of mixing among some of our youngsters who are still at school, and I know how bitterly they resent the idea of having their careers deferred, to some extent, on the very threshold of their own mental and physical expansion. Just at the age of 18, when they are beginning to feel that the whole world is lying at their feet, and when they naturally wish to develop themselves to the fullest extent of their capabilities, they are liable now to being called up.

I do not think we can discuss conscription. The House has already decided that matter.

I am sorry if I have strayed from the main subject of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. Many people in the country, and many of the Government's supporters, feel most strongly on the wider issues involved in this question, and for that reason we join most heartily in lending our energetic support to this Bill. I hope that when the Ministry is set up among its foremost obectives will be the aim of reducing the total overall strength of our Armed Forces.

The hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) has left me a little uncertain about my position as a brigadier. It is quite certain that I fall into one of the two categories mentioned by him, but I shall have to leave the question of which category it is until a later date. I would, however, like to say how much I agree with him about the lower ranks of the Army having a full say in the matter. In the Armed Forces as a whole, the lower ranks should be able to express their views. I would have agreed with him particularly strongly in that respect at a period some 10 years ago. I think all hon. Members would agree that the House has had a fair chance of discussing this subject, and I personally have felt a certain atmosphere this morning which rather suggested runners nearing the end of a Marathon on this subject. Therefore, I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) referred briefly to the question of civil defence. I also would like to say a few words on that subject. Hon. Members will recall that it was decided in the White Paper that the Home Defence Committee would not be included in the Ministry of Defence, but would be left in the Cabinet organisation; that it would come under the Defence Committee, but not under the Minister of Defence. The reasons—and they seem to me very cogent ones—were that if the Minister is charged with the responsibility of looking after the whole question of civil defence, his sphere would become very wide, and so diffuse that his authority would probably be ineffective. I agree there, but at the same time I think it fair to say that the trend in war, if there should be another war, is making it increasingly hard to draw any clear dividing line between where civil defence ends and military defence begins. If we were faced with another war, with the appalling weapons such as rockets and bacteriological missiles, the defence measures between the military defenders at home in this country and the civil defenders would have to be very carefully coordinated, owing to the speed of the attack and its fierceness.

Therefore, it seems to me that if the Home Defence Committee is to be left out of the Ministry of Defence there should be some assurance of the very closest coordination between the Home Defence Committee, the Ministry of Defence and their Military Committee. I do not know how that will be done, but I personally hope that geographically the Home Defence Committee will be very near to, or even in the same building, as the Ministry of Defence. If it is separated, and is housed in, say, the Home Office, even if it is only walking distance away geographically, that does make a very big difference in being able to tie up every detail. I hope that whoever replies will be able to reassure us that the Government will ensure very close cooperation by having a common secretariat. I do not think this was mentioned in the Debate on the White Paper, and I believe the House as a whole would probably be reassured to know that the Government will take every possible step to ensure close cooperation in that respect.

The only other point I wish to raise is in respect of what I believe to be one of the most important functions of the future Minister of Defence. By his example, precept and preaching of this gospel he must keep alive the very great degree of inter-Service cooperation which we gained during the war. We gained that with extraordinary speed, and to a very considerable extent during the war. I believe it is very easy to forget how we lacked it in the early days of the war. Some hon. Members may remember how conspicuously absent it was in the early days of the war. I personally recall the first combined operations. Then, if you asked the average soldier, sailor or airman to define combined operations you would probably have got the following replies. The airman would have said: "A combined operation? That is where the brown types 'stooge' about on the ground to bring about an air battle." The sailor would have said: "You mean where we are taken off our proper job and have to land a lot of 'pongoes' on the beach." The soldier would have said: "That is one of those operations which starts on the beach, and you want to get away from the beach as quickly as possible so as to stop messing about with the Navy and get on with the real soldiering." We have progressed a very long way since those days.

It is my belief that now peace is here it is very easy to lose the ground we gained from operational necessity. I think it is not unfair to say that, as far as the Services are concerned the Coalition is, to a great extent, over. It will be a large part of the responsibility of the Minister of Defence to do all he can to set a fashion in this respect. I remember that when Admiral Mountbatten was appointed Chief of Combined Operations, he was reputed to have thought very carefully whether or not he should wear some sort of non-committal uniform so as to show that on that job he was inter-Service, and was not a sailor. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Defence, as a civilian, should walk about in flying boots, a British warm and a yachting cap. Nevertheless, I think much can be done by him in this respect. He has under him the only three outward and visible signs of all that we have achieved in this respect, namely, the Imperial Defence College, the Joint Intelligence Board and Combined Operations Headquarters. I hope he will not only foster them and keep them supplied with enough money and men, but also by his own example, and by constantly striving to that end, will ensure that we do keep that inter-Service cooperation; and that although we retain three individual Services they are, where they cooperate together, looked upon as a united Service.

I hope I may be allowed to speak again with the leave of the House. We have had a very interesting Debate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) emphasised the underlying spirit of this Bill, because this Bill does represent a victory in a fight that has been going on for a number of years, on the part of a good many of us, to see defence as one subject and not three separate subjects. I should like to give pride of place in my remarks to a matter which actually deals with the text of the Bill, which was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abington (Sir R. Glyn). He asked whether the Armed Forces of the Crown could be held to cover Dominion Forces, and whether. we were not in some way infringing the Statute of Westminster. I do not think that is likely. I will have the phraseology looked at again, but as we have not power to legislate over these matters in the Dominions it would be of no effect, even if we said so. However, I will certainly look and see if that should be corrected. That, I think, was the only direct criticism of the matters in the Bill. Indeed, I would say that all the speeches to which I have listened were arguments to show that this Bill was necessary.

I do not propose to deal with every point that has been made. My right hon. Friend, as soon as he is restored to health, will find it a very useful pick-me-up to read the many valuable suggestions that have been made on all kinds and parts of his work, but I would like to take issue with the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) on one thing that he said with regard to the representation of civilian Departments on the Defence Committee. I understood that he wanted the Defence Committee. to be cut down so that at the Cabinet they should give purely the military point of view without consideration of anything else. I think that is entirely destructive of everything that has been built up both in the Committee of Imperial Defence and in the Defence Committee. The purely military technical view is given by the Chiefs of Staff Committee, but the precise object of coming to a Defence Committee is that that can be related to the general activities of the whole country.

There is in that Committee a nucleus, because the Ministers there are Ministers whose affairs particularly come into this matter. Obviously, if you are considering defence problems, it is not simply a matter of estimates, the sizes of forces, and so on. If you are considering defence problems, you will have to have the foreign affairs angle represented. The Lord President of the Council, apart from other things, has particular responsibility for science. I might say, in passing, that I do not think, from my experience as Lord President, that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was hampered by the Treasury rule of returning unspent money at the end of the year. They are in a very special position. If one looks at the nucleus of Ministers, one finds that all angles are represented. Suggestions have been made that others ought to be in. Clearly, if it is to be a question of a purely military point of view, the right hon. Member for Aldershot will be quarrelling with the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), who wants the Minister of Transport to be in, and another hon. Member who wants the Colonial Secretary to be in. All of them will come in, and the idea is that the Defence Committee should be flexible. However, one does not necessarily want to have the Minister of Transport in for all these problems. In the same way, there will be problems in which one will certainly need to have the Home Secretary, when the home defence angle comes up, although on a given day there may be items that do not concern him.

Is there any problem in this matter in which the Ministry of Transport are not bound to be involved at a very early stage?

In my experience I have known many problems come up in regard to which the Minister of Transport would not be needed on the Defence Committee.

Not in regard to the individual details, but on the general problem.

This is not a Committee which sits continuously, all the time. It sits with a nucleus of Ministers, and other Ministers are called in from time to time, but it would be a waste of time to have Ministers sitting on the Committee when they. were not really concerned. They should always be there when they are needed. It is no use having the Colonial Secretary there day after day when the question of the Colonial Forces is not coming up. Let me say, in answer to one of my hon. Friends, that there is no question under this Bill of doing anything in regard to the status and position of the Colonial Forces.

Therefore, the right hon. Member for Aldershot is mistaken, because he seems to have thought of the Defence Committee as a purely technical Committee, whereas the purely military advice comes from the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The hon. Member for Abingdon made a number of very valuable remarks, but they were remarks which should be considered by the Minister. They were arguments for the existence of a Ministry of Defence to deal with precisely those problems which the hon. Member brought forward. I would, however, disagree with the hon. Member on one thing. I think it would be a great mistake to go back to having a Commander-in-Chief. The heads of the Services are the Chiefs of Staff. The arrangement is that the Chiefs of Staff, as a kind of trinity in unity, are the advisers of the Government. If one set up a Commander-in-Chief apart from the Chiefs of Staff Committee, you would have him detached from the actual operation of the particular Services, sitting apart as an adviser. In all cases it is necessary to keep the very closest touch between the Fighting Departments and the central organisation, and the argument which the hon. Member adduced of the Commander-in-Chief of Home Forces was not really apposite, because when there was a Commander-in-Chief of Home Forces one had him simply because there were forces all over the world fighting at the time. There are the commands here and there, but I think it would be a very great mistake to set up another Commander-in-Chief.

What officer will be responsible, then, to the Secretary of State for War for the training, discipline and administration of the Army?

It will be as it is now. There is the Army Council, with the Chief of Staff, and the Adjutant-General. They are all responsible to the Secretary of State for War. There is no change in that whatever. They have had all through the war that dual position of being responsible to their Minister for the internal side of their Department and to the Government as a whole for advice on defence matters. I think it is better to keep them with that dual function, rather than to have duality of personnel. With regard to common services, there are some common services which, I think, would be better taken over by the Minister of Defence. I think that will have to be examined from time to time. We have left the position flexible. Some of those that have been mentioned might do better if they were centralised, but it is simply a question of efficiency and economy. There is no intention at the present moment of expanding into a bloated Department. The question of the British fleet hardly arises in a Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and as for a discussion on general defence policy, I entirely agree that that will be a matter to raise on the Estimates. When they come along, we shall have Debates on defence and on the particular Services, and all these points can be raised then.

The point that exercises my mind is that by the time the Estimates come along we shall be faced with a fait accomplias regards the organisation of the Army and the giving away of the Navy.

I do not admit the hon. Gentleman's remark about the giving away of the Navy. At the end of every war, especially when you have destroyed the enemy fleet, you have a certain number of surplus ships which have to be disposed of. I do not think there is any question of being faced with a fait accompli.These matters are always in the hands of the House. As to the other very interesting points that have been made, they were all points which might fitly be looked at and considered by a Minister of Defence. Some of them were points that might very fitly be brought up on the Estimates, but not one of them conflicted with what I am now asking the House to do, that is, to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

I want to ask the House to turn its attention for a few minutes from the matters of national defence which we have just been considering to a question which, I venture to hope, may in the long run have a no less important bearing upon our national wellbeing and the peace of the world, namely, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, commonly known as U.N.E.S.C.O., which is now holding its first general conference in Paris. This Conference will be meeting for some three weeks. Its objects were aptly described by M. Bidault, the President of the French Government, who as quoted in "The Times" of Wednesday of this week said:

"The organisation was concerned to raise moral force to its rightful place as the foremost element in the lives of men, to give uplift to the ordinary people of the world, and to seek out and encourage progress in every form."

May I shortly remind hon. Members of the way in which U.N.E.S.C.O. came into being? Its constitution was worked out at an inter-governmental conference held in London in November of last year, which was attended by representatives of some 44 nations, of different nationality, different colour, different education and different religion. The conference was presided over by the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education. That conference hammered out in agreement their conception of the work to be undertaken by this Organisation, and in its principles are enshrined in the notable words of the preamble, where the Governments of the States attending the conference declare that:

"Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed. Ignorance of each other's ways and lives has been a common cause throughout the history of mankind of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all to often broken into war. The great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men. The wide diffusion of culture and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and peace are indispensable to the dignity of man. Peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of Governments would not be a peace which would secure the union, lasting and sincere, of the peoples of the world, and the peace of the world must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind."

These are vital sentiments to which we' should all subscribe. U.N.E.S.C.O. therefore aims at making a contribution to peace and security by promoting cooperation among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law, and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed to the peoples of the world without distinction of race, sex, language or religion by the charter of the United Nations. My object in raising this subject on the Adjournment today is in order to draw attention to the conference which is being held in Paris, to ask certain questions with regard to our own policy, and to make certain specific suggestions.

May I, in the first place, pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend for the circular, No. 127, which she has sent to local education authorities throughout the country drawing the attention of the schools to the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. and to the conference in Paris, and suggesting that this is an appropriate occasion for the schools to pay some special attention to the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. and to arrange talks, displays and some special study of international arrangements. I should like also to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the admirable publication which has been supplied for the use of schools in connection with this matter. I hope we shall be able to hear in due course that schools of all kinds throughout the country are cooperating with my right hon. Friend, and that her circular is meeting with a satisfactory response in the schools. I cannot help thinking that if we are to take the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. seriously, as it is obviously important that we should, it is a subject which requires a great deal of public attention. Unfortunately, the conference of November last, and indeed the conference now being held and the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. generally, have so far received scant attention in the public Press, but if this effort at international cooperation is to succeed it is essential that its efforts should be backed by a fully conscious and widespread public opinion.

I think we all deplore the absence from the U.N.E.S.C.O. conference of any representative of the Soviet Union. We hope that that absence will be but temporary. In my view the abstention of the Soviet Government must not, however, divert us in the slightest from the task of making our attempt at international cultural cooperation widespread and all embracing. We should not neglect any opportunity to increase our own knowledge of Russia, her history, her people, her institutions, her language, her art and culture, and the conditions of her people. Whatever reasons Russia may have for temporarily boycotting U.N.E.S.C.O., I would remind the House that the Russian people pay a great deal of attention to the culture of this country; they read our books, see our films, play our plays, and lake a great and continuous interest in the cultural activities of this country, which I cannot help feeling must, in the long run, be an important contribution towards understanding between our two countries. I would hope that is might be possible for my right hon. Friend to encourage an exchange of students between this country and Russia, in the same way as exchanges have been arranged between this country and other continental countries.

Broadly, the keynote of U.N.E.S.C.O. is to develop intellectual cooperation in three fields—education, science and culture, all of which are subjects which transcend national bounds, and are admirably fitted for international cooperation in the widest sense There are a number of ways in which the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. can be furthered. The Preparatory Commission has been at work, and I very much hope that its Report will be published in due course as a Parliamentary Paper, in order to enlighten the people of this country on the valuable work that has been done by that Commission. It would take too long for me to do more than indicate just a few of the ways in which we can make our own most specific and valuable contribution. First of all, we must seek to advance mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples through all means of mass communication; we should see that the radio and the films are consciously and deliberately harnessed to the task of spreading knowledge and friendship among the nations. I hope that as a result of U.N.E.S.C.O. every impulse will be given to popular education and the spreading of culture.

We are all delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary was able at Paris to lead the British delegation, with its large team of imposing and distinguished delegates and advisers. My hon. Friend at the opening session emphasised the long tradition of British cultural cooperation with other countries. We can do much by our own example, but I sometimes doubt whether, in our domestic social arrangements, and with all our economic and political preoccupations, we are stressing sufficiently the needs of education in this country. We cannot, in my view, stress too often that all our plans for improving the material and social conditions of this country will make little sense, unless we have it constantly in mind that our ultimate aim is to develop the personality of the individual, and provide children with a cultural background which gives them a better and richer opportunity to use their leisure and with definite standards and ideals to guide and discipline their lives.

In this context, I would refer to what was said by the Prime Minister when mak- ing his recent announcement about the continuation of national service. The Prime Minister stressed the fact that the period of compulsory training with the Forces would be used not only to turn out good soldiers, but also to turn out good citizens. We all know the difficulty of implementing some of the objectives of the Education Act—I refer in particular to county colleges. We hope that one day it will be possible to do a great deal in that respect, but at the moment what can be done is limited by the lack of material, the difficulty of putting up buildings and the shortage of teachers, apart from the difficulty of getting children to go to the county colleges even if they were available. Under the system of national service, which is now to become a feature of our institutions, we shall have the human material available so far as men are concerned, and it ought to be relatively easy to provide them with real education during that period of 12 or 18 months, because the buildings will be there, the teachers can be provided and classes can be formed. I may be in a minority, but I do not think that it matters much educationally if there is a gap between the time when a child leaves school and the time when he enters some other form of educational organisation. I hope that there will be considerable attention paid to this matter, because rightly used, I believe, with a good deal of forethought and cooperation between the Minister of Education and the Service Ministers, the educational possibilities of this period of national service are immense and can do much to soften, assuage and humanise the compulsory submission to military training.

I have no doubt that the most urgent task awaiting the attention of the U.N.E.S.C.O. and its constituent members is an attack on illiteracy. We who accept reading and writing, schools and wireless as commonplace, should remember that more than one half of the population of the world, 2,000,000,000 people, can neither read nor write. Do we appreciate to what extent ignorance has contributed to the wars of the past? One doubts whether wars would have occurred if ignorance had not been so widespread, and in some places so total. Even among the literate, how much international ill-will, jealousy and suspicion has been due to bad, biased history?

U.N.E.S.C.O. can do a great deal to ensure the revision of textbooks. It would be tedious to give illustrations of the falsifications of history that has occurred, not only in their own text books but in those of other countries, and have resulted in generations of people growing up with assumptions about national rivalries which have either been false, or only very partially true. I understand that a suggestion was once put forward that it might be a good thing to require that, at any rate, in all European countries history should be studied only in textbooks written by Swiss scholars, or at any rate approved by Swiss scholars. Then there is the desirability of increasing the number of translations that are available of the classics, for the benefit of various countries of the world. Much will be done, I hope, in that direction as soon as the restrictions on printing and the preparation of books have been eased, with the blessing and indulgence of my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Incidentally, I would hope that the fullest use will be made of our museums, art galleries, and collections, which contain, without regard to national frontiers, the masterpieces of many other nations. I would support the plea which has been expressed in recent days that all museums and art galleries should, wherever possible, be open not only on weekdays and evenings, but on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, when most people are best able to enjoy and appreciate them. In the scientific field, one could give numerous instances of the valuable work that lies ahead for U.N.E.S.C.O. to perform. There are many branches of scientific work—including medical and agricultural research—that ought to be carried out by an international body of some kind, because the problems involved are common to all countries, and the best results can only be obtained in that way. A great deal of preliminary work has already been done, I understand, and there is a publication called, "The Tasks and Functions of the Secretariats' Division of Natural Science", which will repay attention by those who are interested in this subject. I can quite understand that one of the dangers to U.N.E.S.C.O. may be in trying to attempt too much. It may well be wise to concentrate on limited objectives, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us something of British policy with regard to the immediate objectives.

In conclusion, I would say that I have raised this matter in order to draw public attention to the Conference now in Session in Paris, and to enable my right hon. Friend to tell us something of her policy towards it. During the war, this country, not for the first time, held the moral leadership of the world. From the early days of 1940 onwards we were the admiration and envy of other nations, not because of our wealth, power, or material possessions, but because of the dauntless character which enabled us, against great odds, to champion the cause of human freedom. It may be that we are no longer first, or even second, among the great Empires of the world in point of size and military power, but I believe that this country does, and will, retain the moral leadership of the world, and that in this sphere of cultural activities will be able to set an example. I believe we shall be able to steer a middle course between the dark authoritarianism of Russia and the material obsessions that seem—perhaps only intermittently—to beset the course of American destiny. It is a commonplace to say that man's material progress has outstripped his moral and spiritual progress. If civilisation is to survive the balance must be redressed. Man's mechanical and scientific progress reminds us, with increasing urgency, of the essential unity of the human race. In the activities of U.N.E.S.C.O. I believe that this country can, and should, play a leading part, and make a contribution worthy of our past and commensurate with the vital problems of the future.

The House is indebted to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) for daring to speak today about a subject connected with education. It is common knowledge to any of us who have been trying to do this for some time that education is not what is called a popular subject. On Friday, one hardly expects Members of the House to be here in large numbers, but the main and important point is that this question has been raised at the time when the U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference is sitting in Paris. What is even more important —but, in my opinion, regrettable—is that the Minister of Education is sitting on the Front Bench; in other words, that there is an opportunity for her to reply, if not in Paris, then in London.

I am rather worried about the speech we have just heard. I have expressed my gratitude to the hon. Member for raising this subject, but I must confess that I do not think he has quite come to grips with the problem. The fact is that nobody in the country, outside a few people in the teaching profession, and elsewhere, even know that there is a conference on in Paris.

Quite right.

The fact is that this subject has not caught on at all. More nonsense is talked about U.N.E.S.C.O. and cultural cooperation than on any other subject, and sooner or later we must face the realities of the question. I want to tell the Minister that I would be dishonest if I disguised my uneasiness at the recent developments in U.N.E.S.C.O., and I propose to say why. Earlier today, we were discussing imperial defence; now we are supposed to be discussing the defences of peace. The phrase which was used by the Prime Minister, about war beginning in men's minds, was a grand phrase, with far reaching implications. I believe that from the day that the words "culture" and" science" were added to "education" this body tended to dissipate its resources over too wide a field. My evidence for this is to be seen in the vast output of paper agenda, the complexity of the delegates and advisers and the mounting criticism which comes to my ears and evidence of which is to be found in "The Times" today. I quote:

"Today's discussions on the programme drawn up by the preparatory commission have been enlivened by a welcome note of realism introduced by three British Commonwealth delegates. Both Professor R. C. Mills (Australia) and Mr. Roberts (South Africa), while being appreciative of the care and imagination exercised in the preparation of the programme, signified their intention of pressing for a readjustment of its balance in favour of educational projects of a more realistic scale."

There you have the voice of the delegates from the Commonwealth and if I know anything of the representatives from South Africa, New Zealand and Canada they will be pretty vocal in the next two days.

Another great friend of mine has gone to Paris. He is the head of the teachers' organisation in America, and he has done more than any man in America to make U.N.E.S.C.O. possible. He has raised over 100,000 dollars from the teachers' own organisation. I wish I could quote from the lecture which he gave in the Sorbonne. It was a devastating attack on the agenda of the present Conference. I might say that not only in my own opinion but in the opinion of some of the American delegates—I know Dr. George Stoddard and Dr. Carr—and in the opinion of some of the South African, Canadian, and New Zealand delegates, U.N.E.S.C.O. has gone far too wide and is beginning to lose its original impetus.

I come to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington, because he mentioned in his opening remarks the possibility of Russia coming in. He talked about an exchange of students. I wish to be very frank about this. There are a great many things which can be done in regard to cultural cooperation and exchange of students, but they can be done equally well by the Minister and by Sir Ronald Adams working together in close cooperation as they are. I was present this summer when we had 30 teachers from different countries at Dulwich College. That was all done by the British Council and the Ministry of Education. That was admirable work and I believe that that cooperation will grow and grow.

I have asked many times for Russian students to be invited. They refused to do it.

My hon. Friend has got me wrong. I have put forward for some years this idea of getting students from different countries and exchanging professors and all the rest of it, and I think it can best be done and it 'can only be done bilaterally. When we get into the wide field of U.N.E.S.C.O., I doubt very much whether it ought to take on such operative or executive work. What has happened in Russia? I see in today's paper that the Yugoslav delegate came in. What did he say? He, according to today's "Manchester Guardian," objected to the preparatory report of the secretariat on which the conference is basing its work on two grounds: first of all, the report, by declaring that U.N.E.S.C.O.'s programme was

"the first comprehensive attempt to harness all the highest activities of man to a single unified purpose,"

was

"directing U.N.E.S.C.O.'s activity towards the unification of the different national cultures according to a standard type, thereby destroying the specific character of these cultures."

He went on:

"This tendency to direct from one centre the cultures of the nations, to proclaim a philosophy which is to be, so to speak, an official international philosophy, would result in imprisoning thought and the creative mind and in arbitrarily interfering with the development of culture."

I do not agree with him, but I see the danger of trying to produce specific proposals for a new world philosophy. Actually the Yugoslav delegate objected to this attempt to produce a philosophy, because he says it is not one he agrees with. If U.N.E.S.C.O. is going to try in Europe, which has Roman Catholics and Communists and other distinctive creeds, to produce another creed, I foretell in this House here today that it will be doomed. It is quite hopeless, and it is not a job for U.N.E.S.C.O. to try to produce a new philosophy. There may be emerging, by the coming together of people of democratic mind, something in the nature of a new philosophy, but that is another question. To give the Director-General his due, in his original statement, also quoted in the "Manchester Guardian," he said:

"To promote peace and security U.N.E.S.C.O. must seek to prevent the separateness of nations as was the case with Fascists and Nazis and is always a danger under a semi-totalitarian or totalitarian regime."

In other words, by trying to do too much already U.N.E.S.C.O. is getting itself, in my opinion, in to dangerous waters.

My criticism first of all is that the Preparatory Commission ignore too much the growing points which were already in evidence. What were those growing points? It ignored the original purpose of an International Education Office. It ignored too much the original pioneer work of the Allied Ministers of Education who sat under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I do not agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman did when Minister of Educa- tion but I agree with the practical way he steered the Allied Ministers of Education. They were beginning to trust each other and to develop a common outlook. The "Manchester Guardian" again points out in a leading article this week that if this Conference finishes without dealing with the appalling problems with which it is faced in Europe it will have failed, even though it develops a new philosophy, even though it sponsors a great many experiments on the periphery.

I think, too, that the Preparatory Commission ignored too much the existing international bodies which were working in this field. In other words, criticism of the Preparatory Commission is that it started too much de novowithout taking into account what was already in existence. I was not in the country at the time. I was at that moment looking in the schools in Trieste, in Northern Italy, and Austria, seeing the appalling conditions with which those countries were faced and seeing the youth organisations still attached to political parties under our organisation and control. I have been seeing these problems in Europe on the ground, and when I came back it was to see the Preparatory Commission produce a massive agenda which had a far too ambitious programme for the practical world in which we are living. I endorse the criticism of my New Zealand, Canadian and American friends, who say we have got to get back to the original education issue.

Having registered in public the protest I have made in private and in print, let me come to the immediate Conference. What do we expect and what does my right hon. Friend expect to emerge from this Conference? Can she tell us what were the main points which the delegates from this country took with them to impress upon the Paris Conference? When I say "impress" I know that they have got to work in a team and to give and take, but what was the main burden of their specific recommendations? We have to remember that U.N.E.S.C.O. is part of a larger organisation, which is U.N.O. It is one of the specialised agencies to promote peace and security.

The question which we are all asking and which my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington is really asking, is, What part can national education systems play in this field? The hon. Member mentioned a very interesting point, in which I cordially agree with him, about national service, but it would not have required a U.N.E.S.C.O. in order to stimulate that conception. Each country can do it in its own way. Let me make one point which is an entirely negative one—and I think most people agree who have had anything to do with it—namely, that any outside interference in a country's educational system is most likely to produce exactly the opposite effect from the one which was intended.

May I give a positive example? I went to Paris last week to inaugurate an international organisation with some of my friends from Sweden and Czechoslovakia. We went to start an organisation in the field of the nursery school. It. was a most exciting experience. There were nine different countries, all talking a common language, although the differences between the countries were the ordinary, fascinating differences which exist. We drew up a questionnaire, with 150 questions, and it is going out to every country in the world, Russia included. We spoke to the U.N.E.S.C.O. officials, and we could not have had a kinder or better response. They said, "We will help you with space. We will possibly help you with a secretary. We will try to help you with a little finance." It seemed to me that there was one of the best things that U.N.E.S.C.O. can do—provide home, secretarial assistance and offices for existing and new international organisations of a serious character.

I hope that the teachers will come together without ideological differences. I was sorry to hear from my friend, Dr. Carr, that there is already a difference growing up between those who are attached to various world conferences and those who are not. It would have been wonderful to have the teachers all united in a common body. "Teachers of the world, unite," might well be one of the slogans of U.N.E.S.C.O. I do not see very much chance of it, because already the thing is bedevilled by ideological differences. I do not see much hope of agreement.

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in every sphere of education, not only in the nursery schools but in the field of youth, there is an enormous amount to be done; I hope that U.N.E.S.C.O. will call such a conference. I know they have various practical plans in their programme. I should like them to call a conference very early to deal with this important question. I do not think there is any country in which la jeunesse, la lutte scolaire, is not a burning problem, even if it is called by different names. The Austrians, the French, the Dutch, do not know what to do with it. They say, "What do you do with it in England?" I say, "We don't do very much in the way of regimentation," and they seem to like that. They say that in the resistance movement the scouts played a very important part—that history is going to be written shortly—therefore, they hope that we can give a lead ourselves on this matter.

When it comes to the universities, I am not quite so sure. I think there is the nucleus of an organisation formed by Allied professors during the war. They formed a regular association in this country. They have a secretariat. Why cannot we use what existed during the war as a basis on which to build up an international body for all those people who are teaching in universities? Everybody here, including Government supporters—whom I was so glad to see supporting the hon. Member for East Islington—will, I think, agree that unless we can get a group of people in this House who care about these matters nothing will happen at all.

Peace, to some of us,. does not merely mean the absence of war. I do not want to use any more of such platitudes, but the question I am asking my right hon. Friend today is: How can we give content to that phrase that peace is not merely the absence of war? The only suggestion I can make is a poor, lame one. It is that if we get people discussing internationally questions about which they know, and if we get lots of them doing it, we never hear much about ideological differences. At the conference at Paris last week, I did not hear from my Czech friends one sentence about ideological differences. All we heard about was the interesting problem with which he or she was concerned. The more that U.N.E.S.C.O. can be used as a clearing house, with a secretariat and a first-class personnel, the better. They have the information. Who can better help international organisations than they?

I have taken due note of the warning —the hon. Member for East Islington did not quite touch upon this problem—about the textbooks, This is a very easy question on the lip. There have been valiant attempts in the past to rewrite textbooks, but it is not very easy work. The only really important work has been done between the three Scandinavian countries. I was present at an inaugural meeting between the Americans and Canadians, the two people in the world who should have an understanding with each other. the stuff which appears in Canadian textbooks about the United States has to be seen to be believed. One would think that everybody in the United States was in Hollywood and everybody in Canada was an Eskimo, to judge from some of the children's textbooks. When it comes to textbooks about this country in America, there is some dreadful material.

I have been warned. I was reading last week the words of a very old friend of mine in America who, after the last war conducted the most searching examination into this matter of textbooks. He found it almost impossible to decide the right things to cut out, although just a little suggestion in an English text book can make a great difference "King Henry V" is now on the films. Is that a good emblem of international peace? It is good solid patriotism, whatever else it is. It is very difficult to start cutting Shakespeare in textbooks. We cannot teach citizenship so much as we can practise it in the schools. If we can get in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, France and other countries, schools where tolerance and understanding are part and parcel of the daily work in the class, if we can get a sort of little community where democracy is practised. I believe that is probably the best method, in the long run, of teaching citizenship and good international understanding.

I am very doubtful about young people being preached at on the subject of the League of Nations when they are still in their teens, as some people did before the war. I know there are practising teachers in this Chamber. I doubt whether you can do a great deal, even through the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education did, for the first time In history, say that the League of Nations was a good thing. That was regarded as a bold step. Now the Minister has rightly commended U.N.E.S.C.O. to the schools and asked them to take an interest in it. She will be the first to admit that they must work it out in their own way, and that each teacher will find probably the best method.

If that is so, what is this all about? What is this conference going to achieve? Why is that Sir Philip Morris, Sir Ronald Adam and the permanent Secretary of the Board and distinguished people from all countries are meeting in Paris? I suggest that it goes back to the original phrase of giving some content to peace. During the war there was a very big reason why youth joined the A.T.C, and other organisations. One in five of the boys between 16 and 18 in this country were in the A.T.C. They were doing arithmetic in the evenings at the age of 16 and 17, which is unnatural for an English boy. They did it because they wanted "wings." The problem of the post-war world is to find an equivalent for "wings." We can make U.N.E.S.C.O. exciting. The Minister has done her best to put some inspiration into this, but it will require something more from hon. Members, the teaching profession and ordinary citizens. Why I wanted this country to be in the chair at Paris, is because I know—the phrase is pious but I use it for what it is worth—that the moral leadership is with this country, if it cares to assume it. The reason is that people say that in 1940–45 this little island achieved something and that there must be something behind it. They even say it is something to do with the education system. It may be due to some relics of religion. It may be something to do with our history of the past thousand years. Whatever it is, that is how people regard us.

I was proud to be in Paris because I knew that behind my visit were thousands of teachers who had helped to pay my fare there. In other words, it was a democratic movement from the bottom and not a few people sent out by Governments which might be totalitarian or anything else. These people believe in something much more than war. They believe in a creative way of living. What do I mean by that? I mean that if in an ordinary small school we have children being brought up to appreciate kindliness and tolerance, we are not going to have Fascist and Nazi Governments later on. An hon. Member said that an attack must be made on illiteracy. Thousands of people in the world cannot read or write, but that is not the only trouble. The Germans could read and write. It is not education, but the kind of education which is responsible.

We must get down to certain basic principles in education. It sounds almost nationalistic but the more I see and hear of it, the more I think we have got something here. There are weaknesses, but, by and large, we have got it. The rest of the world is looking on somewhat enviously. I would therefore like to say —not in any proud spirit but because we have something to give at the present moment — that U.N.E.S.C.O. — should stick to this basic educational idea from the nursery school to the university, and the basic principles of tolerance, freedom and fair play, which seem to be part and parcel of our system, and even make them spread to the Western democracies of Europe. Switzerland has, in some ways, the most regimented system in Western Europe. The children have not the spontaneity of the children of Poplar. In Sweden one can say that at twenty-five minutes to two every child is doing arithmetic. We cannot say that here, and I hope we never shall be able to say it. We have therefore got something which is of value. For that reason I believe that we can give U.N.E.S.C.O. something of value, and I am glad that we have had the chance to raise this question today.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Fletcher) for raising this all-important question of U.N.E.S.C.O. in the House this afternoon. I am deeply grateful that the senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Lindsay), who is honoured throughout the educational world for his sincerity and his idealism, has played his part in this Debate. U.N.E.S.C.O. is one of the noblest conceptions of the postwar world. It is unfortunate that not one in ten thousand of our people in this country can say what U.N.E.S.C.O. really means. I sometimes fear that there are hon. Members in this House who, if asked what "U.N.E.S.C.O." stood for, would indeed be sorely pressed to find the answer. My experience is that people say it has something to do with education, and their knowledge ends there. In my opinion the great speech which the Foreign Secretary made in this House recently on moving towards world government can be linked up with the establishment of U.N.E.S.C.O. We need to create in the minds of ordinary people everywhere a loyalty to some ideals which are above national boundaries.

I am glad to know that at Paris the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education has already been recognised by the other nations, and given an office of responsibility, showing that these other countries appreciate the importance of the contribution which Britain has to make. On the Continent of Europe today are devastated countries, where the education service has been destroyed during the war. There is the problem of young people who for six years, have been taught that to disobey the government of the day, and to commit crime, was honourable because they were doing it against the occupying Power. Those young people have now to be moulded into citizens who will work in a democratic community. That is not impossible. I believe that the British delegation at U.N.E.S.C.O. ought to be able to help our colleagues from other countries.

Many differences divide the nations at this time, but perhaps none more than the way in which history has been taught in the schools of the different countries. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities has pointed out the false picture which is given in regard to Canada and America. I hope that there will be no attempt either by the Ministry of Education in this country or by U.N.E.S.C.O. to interfere with the textbooks in the schools. If there is one subject upon which the teaching profession is acutely sensitive, it is that of governmental interference with the actual textbooks from which the children are taught. Here we must have confidence in the teaching profession, and I rejoice to know that the teaching profession of this country is internationally minded. The teachers of Great Britain, particularly those of the National Union of Teachers, are to be found, each summer in the normal days of peace, taking part, with their colleagues from, the teaching profession of other countries, in these international conferences.

If we are to assail illiteracy on the Continent of Europe and in other parts of the world, I suggest that the teacher must be recognised as a key person. Unhappily, I believe that there are countries in Europe today where the teacher's appointment is a political appointment pure and simple, based on whether or not he accepts the ideology of the Government of the day. Therefore, it will not be easy for U.N.E.S.C.O. to be as effective as it ought to be, in the rehabilitation of education in these devastated countries. I ask therefore, that our Minister shall bring pressure to bear on U.N.E.S.C.O. that some consideration shall be given among the assembled nations, to the question of a free and easy interchange of practising teachers. We have it with America; we have it with various parts of the British Empire, but I would like to see our teachers going to Poland and Rumania, Bulgaria and Russia. I believe it would be in the interests of world peace and of the schools, to have teachers with this broad background of travel. Nothing can be more damaging for a school than to have a teacher whose horizon is limited and who knows little or nothing of the conditions of life of people in other countries. Through U.N.E.S.C.O. the Ministry of Education can now try to arrange with the Governments of Europe for our teachers to have this free and easy system of transfer.

One word, before I sit down, on the question of Russia. It is unfortunate that that great country is not entering in a cooperative spirit into this idealistic section of U.N.O. For, unless U.N.E.S.C.O. succeeds in creating a new spirit amongst the peoples of Europe, then all that Russia stands for, and all that we stand for, will be once again in jeopardy. I wish it could be found possible for us to proclaim what we believe to be the ideal aim of U.N.E.S.C.O. and thus, perhaps, get Russia to come in. I believe that the supreme aim of U.N.E.S.C.O. must be to give to the world a community of people who believe in brotherhood, who believe in service, who believe that loyalty to humanity is more important than loyalty to their nation. If U.N.E.S.C.O. can work to this end, then verily this age will be regarded in days to come, as a turning-point in history.

I was very glad when I heard that my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) had chosen the subject of U.N.E.S.C.O. for this discussion. While I am very grateful to him for raising the subject, I thought that he had a somewhat over ambitious view as to the possibilities of this organisation. Nevertheless, to have a discussion today is something, and I cannot help comparing the discussion which we are having, with the kind of discussion we should be having in this House were we discussing, for example, the International Trade Organisation, or some other organ of the United Nations. I hope that the Minister will use every possible occasion to bring before the House the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. in the hope that we shall, in due course, build up a much greater interest in U.N.E.S.C.O. than we have at present.

I find myself in substantial agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) but of course that is as it should be, since the hon. Gentleman has the honour to represent me in this House. I think that without over emphasising the possibilities before U.N.E.S.C.O. we nevertheless cannot underestimate its importance. The museum of political curiosities is full of international organisations that were perfect but perished because they tried to do too much. That is not to say that an organisation like U.N.E.S.C.O. cannot be a very powerful influence in the world, but it must keep its feet very firmly on the ground, and do the practical jobs that are really within its compass.

U.N.E.S.C.O. is important, first, because it provides an official organisation by which leaders in education, science and culture can be brought together regularly. Before I became a trade union official, I was in the field of adult education and I know what a great benefit can come to the adult educational movement if, under official auspices, we have regular consultation between leaders of the movement throughout the world. Secondly, it provides a means for tackling some of the urgent and immediate tasks. I will not begin to detail them and will only make one point about them, namely, that if we have reached agreement through U.N.E.S.C.O. on various jobs, such as the restoration of educational systems, the making of a free flow of information easy, or the diffusion of means of mass communication, then whatever agreements are reached can only be made effective to the degree to which the Governments of the participating countries really put their weight behind them. As my hon. Friend has already said, it is not a matter merely for the Ministry of Education. May I take one example? I am particularly interested in Austria, and I am desperately anxious that at the earliest moment possible there shall be a greater interchange between Austria and Britain in every way. This depends, however, not only on the Ministry of Education but on whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the credits, whether the President of the Board of Trade will make it possible for books to be bought, and so on. If U.N.E.S.C.O. is to be successful, this is a task which calls for the undivided support of the Government, and it is not one where they can leave any one Minister to carry the whole burden.

Thirdly, U.N.E.S.C.O. provides the opportunity for varying views of life to be expounded, and the possibility that in some limited way agreement may in the end be reached on the principles to guide its long-term work. I want to devote a few minutes to this point, for, while I am not very hopeful of agreement being reached, I am certain that any attempt 1o formulate a systematic philosophy for U.N.E.S.C.O. will fail, and the most we can hope to do is to reach some agreement about general principles, perhaps some idea of elementary human rights, which may help U.N.E.S.C.O. in its long term work.

May I take just two examples to show what I think to be perhaps the greatest difficulty confronting the organisation? The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities has already quoted from the speech made yesterday at the U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference by the Yugoslav delegate, as reported in the "Manchester Guardian." In that speech, the Yugoslav delegate said—this is not the part which the hon. Member quoted:

"No one can deny that in the history of humanity all progress is linked with materialist thought and that only dialectical materialism has been able to confirm by living experience scientific principles. Is it possible to proclaim as official for the United Nations organisation a speculative philosophy which announces itself as a philosophical Esperanto and in consequence rejects a philosophy which has become for millions of men in all countries the way to look at the world."

I find myself in agreement with the Yugo- slav delegate, if he is at all right in supposing that U.N.E.S.C.O. has rejected this particular view. I should find myself in the greatest possible opposition to him, however, if I thought that he was implying that the philosophy of dialectical materialism should be the one which U.N.E.S.C.O. should adopt. The truth is that here we must have a free field and no favour. If we do not have that we shall fail.

The second example I would quote is drawn from an article written in the "News Chronicle" last Monday by Mr. Ritchie Calder, in which, having said that U.N.E.S.C.O. cannot be based on any of the religions of the world or on any of the politico-economic doctrines, he went on to say:

"It has to be what Dr. Huxley has defined as scientific humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background."

Remembering that Dr. Julian Huxley once wrote a book called "Religion without Revelation," and considering that scientific humanism in the hands of certain people is as much ideological as any of the politico-economic doctrines, I think there will be the greatest possible obstacle placed in the way of cooperation by everybody if the secretariat of U.N.E.S.C.O. ever take a tendentious or propagandist line. Certainly, Christian opinion throughout the world while asking for no special favours, would not look with any kind thoughts on an organisation which from the word "Go" ruled out the testimony which the whole Christian Church preaches. Dr. Huxley himself seems to have recognised the difficulty, for in the same issue of the "Manchester Guardian" today, he is reported to have said:

"although the reconciliation of the main conflicting ideologies in such a common world philosophy must obviously occupy an important place among the long range aims of U.N.E.S.C.O.—"

which I may say is far too ambitious—

"I personally believe it will be difficult to make much immediate progress in this direction by a frontal attack and that more will be achieved by securing the cooperation of peoples, nations and individuals representing different ideologies on specific common tasks."

The real burden of what I want to say then is that I think we must take for granted all this great difference of view we find among the people who make up U.N.E.S.C.O., an even greater differ- ence later, if, as I hope, one day Russia comes in. We must take for granted a great diversity on final aims. I think the way forward is to tackle the immediate jobs, because I believe that if people work together on quite concrete problems, they learn, in due course, how to discuss, in charity and amity, their varying viewpoints about life at large. There must be freedom for the rival views of fife to be expressed; that is essential in U.N.E.S.C.O., and then we shall see what comes from it. Granted this, I believe that U.N.E.S.C.O. can become a great organisation for intel-lectural cooperation, and if it attracts, as I hope it will, the best men of our age, it can be a powerful influence for good in this perplexed world. If it is to be that, it must be our responsibility, as Members of this House, to put forward the discussion of U.N.E.S.C.O. on every possible occasion, and to press upon our Government at all times, the need for them to do everything they can to ensure that this important organisation is a success.

I followed with great interest what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. J. Edwards) had to say. I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is perhaps unusual to be able to follow my hon. Friend immediately, if one sits on this side of the House, but for the last hour, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman opposite who has been acting as "duty boy," it has been our privilege to conduct this Debate on our own. The ideological considerations which inspire most of the members of U.N.E.S.C.O. cannot be reconciled in that organisation; indeed, probably they can never be reconciled in any organisation. I agree that it would be extraordinarily stupid of us to seek to impose some collective philosophy upon the nations who make up this organisation. There is hardly need for me in this House to go into the many ways in which we have derived our philosophy, but when one goes through Russia—and I want to refer in some detail to that country this afternoon —one sees clearly how philosophy there dates from the middle of the 19th century. There is no philosophy in Russia before Karl Marxs Their philosophers are Marx, Lenin, Engels, and now Stalin, and the philosophy of dialectical materialism which forms the basis of their textbooks, the basis of their education, and which inevitably, therefore, colours the whole approach to the problems of the present time of every man and woman who grows up in Russia, can never be reconciled with the philosophy of one in this country who learns from the textbooks we have here or the student in America who learns from American text books.

That is not to say that 1 believe, as apparently the Leader of the Opposition does, that we are, therefore, bound to head for a clash. Indeed, I believe nothing of the sort. I am one of those who have always believed in the possibility and desirability of an accommodation with the U.S.S.R. I think that if U.N.E.S.C.O. carries out its job, it can be one of the means of providing a bridge. Those who remember, as we all do, the history of the League of Nations, must be aware that one of the successful organisms of that organisation was the I.L.O.I see no reason why U.N.E.S.C.O., if it confines its job to things it can do, and leaves undone the things it cannot really touch, should not be just as successful in its way.

I agree very much with what the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) said about the need for exchanging students bilaterally. My trouble is that we do not seem to be able to get them exchanged. After I had been to the U.S.S.R., in company with some dozen young people I raised with the Minister of Education the question of bringing a similar number from Russia to this country for a return visit and letting them see institutions over here, as we saw them in their country. Two months went by and I had no answer. I am a very patient and long-suffering man, but I think that two months was a little unreasonable. When I wrote and asked what was happening, I was told that there was no trace of the papers. There are only two reasons why there should be no trace of the papers. Either there is an inefficient filing system or the papers had gone to another Department. I suspect that it was for the latter reason that my right hon Friend could not reply to me.

When I raised the matter again, after some more considerable delay, I was informed that, because a delegation of the Supreme Soviet was expected to come to this country in the near future, it was not considered that we ought to invite another delegation at the present moment. Why cannot we have two delegations from the Soviet Union at the same time? Is there something wrong about it? Must we only have a dozen people at one time from that country? I do not believe that my right hon. Friend accepts that view at all. I suspect that the reason lies in another Department, and that, if I made three guesses, I do not think I would be far wrong in indicating where responsibility lies. If that is the case, why this nonsense of saying "Oh dear, we must be careful with the Russians. We must not accept more than one delegation at one time. Let us get one of them sent back, before we talk of inviting someone else here"? That is no basis on which to start international friendship, and I am sure the right hon. Lady will have the support of all hon. Members on these benches if she goes to the other Department concerned, and tells them that this House thinks that that kind of talk is nonsense.

I leave that subject and pass on to another job which U.N.E.S.C.O. could very well do in a limited field. Anybody who has travelled through devastated Europe must have been aware of the extreme shortage of textbooks and materials of any sort for the use of students. I had the good fortune to see Kiev University, which suffered from the Germans, and also Stalino Technical Institute, where some 3,000 Russian young people are working and learning together in incomparably bad conditions. I think our students in this country have no idea of the conditions in which these students have to work. It is a great credit to them that they are going to it with such enthusiasm and zest. The point to which I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend is the terrible shortage of textbooks in these places. I found that seven or eight students were sharing one textbook, and that, by combining the resources of the universities in the U.S.S.R. which were not touched by the war, they have been able to provide a few thousands with which they are struggling and working in extremely difficult conditions. Is it not possible for U.N.E.S.C.O. to take over the mobilisation of textbooks and the mobilisation of learning of this sort, and reproduce it, in some form, for the benefit of students throughout the world? I Vol. 430 am sure this is a limited field, in which they might very well work, and which would yield great results in the future.

Another thing to which I would like to refer is the possibility of U.N.E.S.C.O. handling something in the film field. That great medium has not been thoroughly explored yet as regards sending films other than those of an amusement character from one country to another. We have, of course, our imports from Hollywood, but they are not the sort of thing I have in mind. What I have in mind is that U.N.E.S.C.O, might well turn its attention to the prospect of turning out, in a limited way, films of this sort which would acquaint the young people of all nations with the work of young people in other nations. This is a job that needs doing. There is practically no exchange of films between Russia and ourselves at the present time. Mr. Rank has been very forward-looking in this matter, and has, I believe, got half-a-dozen of his films into the Soviet Union, though there are trading difficulties and difficulties of getting roubles out of that country, which make it a very difficult matter, on a commercial basis, to accept our films. Is there any reason why U.N.E.S.C.O. should not take a hand in a limited job of this sort and make films which would be internationally acceptable and internationally exchanged?

I have found, in the few countries in which I have travelled since the war, that, as the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities has said, England is looked to as a country which has a culture and tradition, which means that she has something to offer to the other nations, particularly the nations of Europe. I do not know whether that is true of the nations east of Suez. I think that we have to be a little careful when we talk about them. My travels during the war, at His Majesty's expense, led me to the conclusion that there is another nation which is assuming the moral leadership East of Suez, and that is the Soviet Union. There are many people throughout Asia who are looking to Russia today, and I believe the number is increasing. What I think we have to be careful about is being placed in the position where, in a conflict between East and West, we are technically on the side of right, whereas the moral right is on the side of the Russians, and that is likely to happen.

Would my hon. Friend give an example?

I will give an example, as my hon. Friend asks me. The Azerbaijanians on the Persian side of the border envy those on the Russian side. They are not concerned with problems of intellectual freedom—these simple tribesmen. They are concerned with having a certain amount of land which they can cultivate, with taxes which are not arbitrary, but which are fixed, regularly collected and not exceeded. They are concerned with having their children decently educated, and intellectual abstractions do not concern them What troubles me is that throughout Asia, increasingly we are finding that the ordinary simple man is more and more concerned with the advantages which the Soviet can offer him, and, to that extent, we are losing, if, indeed, we have not already lost, our moral leadership there. Because of all these things, because we cannot reconcile dialectical materialism and the philosophy of our country, which we believe to be the best for a civilised and educated community, it would be exceedingly wrong of U.N.E.S.C.O. to risk a breakdown in its functions by trying to synthesise some philosophy out of the conflicting ideologies of all the peoples of the world. Let us confine our work in U.N.E.S.C.O. to the simple straightforward things which we can do, to doing things rather than thinking things. If we can do some of these things, such as mobilising textbooks and trying to create films, it would bring the students and peoples of all nations more closely in touch with each other. The basic bond of friendship which will thus be formed will make it easier for the politicians to get together later on.

Like other speakers in this Debate, I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has done a service to U.N.E.S.C.O. in giving us the opportunity to consider some of its implications in the quiet, peaceful atmosphere of the House of Commons on Friday afternoon. It is true that physically it has been a onesided Debate, but it has not been mentally so, even though it has been conducted very largely by my own hon. Friends. I would like first to run through the points that have been raised in the various speeches, before giving some of the information which the House might like to hear about U.N.E.S.C.O. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington rightly called attention to the scant amount of room allotted by the Press to the meeting of the Preparatory Commission that was held about a year ago in London, to the various meetings' of that Commission held in London during this year, and to the inaugural conference of the whole organisation in Paris. Of course, as anyone who has had anything to do with newspapers knows, no international conference is news unless there is a row of some kind. The most interesting point about the first conference of the Preparatory Commission last November was the wonderful sense of cooperation and unity in diversity that was shown by the men and women who came together, some of them almost directly from the battlefield, from the Maquis, from the concentration camps and from the belligerent armies, and who themselves had been teachers and scientific workers, who were able to talk in the freedom that London offered.

Russia was not at that conference, a fact which we greatly regretted, but we were very glad that the countries closely associated with Russia—the Czechs, Poles and Yugoslavs—were as ardently cooperative as any of the other nations represented there. We showed our regret that Russia was not there by keeping a place on the Executive Council for her in case she should decide to join us. However, as various Members have pointed out, the necessary condition for getting news value, in an international conference has now been injected into the conference at Paris. I do not want to talk about "his master's voice," but, at any rate, a voice has been raised and the Press have said, "Ah, here is a possibility of a row in an international conference." Not that I am blaming the Press by any means. It immediately gives an interest, as well as a news angle, and it is important that this factor which represents a real clash of ideologies and a clash of ways of looking at things in the world should be argued out. The only thing I say is: Do let us come together and argue it out. There is no point in bringing down any iron curtain between mind and mind.

The hon. Member for East Islington asked if we were going to publish a report in the form of a White Paper. We did publish the Charter as a White Paper immediately after the Preparatory Commission met last year. I do not know whether we shall be able to publish the full report of U.N.E.S.C.O. as a White Paper—that may not be possible—but I can promise that, either as a White Paper or as a Ministry pamphlet, there will be some workable summary and report of what has happened in U.N.E.S.C.O. this week.

My hon. Friend also introduced, almost as a side issue—although, like him, I do not consider it is a side issue—the question of education during the conscript year or 18 months. It is a matter with which I am specially concerned. I have already raised it with the Service chiefs and with the Ministers responsible for the Service Departments, and I am sure that they will welcome the cooperation of the Ministry of Education. The Army has already done much to make preparations on these lines, and we are in contact with them in the making of other preparations. After all, there is no such chance as when young men, often rather bored, are gathered together in large masses, to get them in smaller groups and do what has not been possible to do before. When children leave school at 14 they close their books almost with a bang and think they need not bother about education any more, because to them education means school lessons. I am concerned that they should be interested in using the mind as an instrument. There is no doubt that a similar organisation did great work in maintaining the morale of the fighting men, and by this means we could do a great deal to make the conscript young soldier realise that he is not just dragged away from his home and his own pursuits to serve an impersonal State which does not care for him at all, but that the State offers him, as a citizen, an opportunity of learning why it is necessary to defend his chosen way of life. We only hope that this will not be necessary.

The question of illiteracy has been raised, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that matter has received attention from the very first—in fact, almost before the birth of U.N.E.S.C.O., at the Council of Allied Ministers which my predecessor initiated in 1942. They regarded the liquidation of illiteracy as the most important task which any international organisation could undertake. There, of course, we might have a great deal to learn from the Soviet Union which has done a tremendous job in liquidating illiteracy in the Siberian plains and far away from any of the more cultural centres. Various hon. Members have raised the question of text books and how they should be written. That, again, is one of the matters which immediately concerns any body of intellectual workers. There is not very much difficulty about text books on mathematics, although I was very interested when I was in Germany a year ago to discover how the most elementary book for children in what we would call standard I, or even younger, was compiled. It gave a list of things which had to be added up, such as how many fighting men, bayonets and bombs were needed. I remember looking at the pictures and thinking that for a child of six to be accustomed to looking at pictures of men throwing bombs was not the right way to begin an ideological education.

Of course, the question of the teaching of history goes much deeper. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) urged that we should be very careful to ensure that we did not have text books which were dictated from above. There is certainly no question of that in this country, though I, as Minister of Education, would like to encourage more modern textbooks. I was rather horrified to discover in a school I visited, textbooks which dated back to about 1880. I think the most promising method was begun under the old and much despised Weimar Republic, when they got together German and French historians to consider the history textbooks in the schools; not to write the same kind of textbooks, and not even because they found they could not agree on the interpretation of history, but so that they could make an honest statement of difference. I think that would be a wonderfully interesting way of teaching history. As I said in my broadcast speech we could have a German, a French and an English boy reading about the battle of Waterloo, and except for the name and date they would not know they were reading about the same incident in history. It would add much to the interest if they were told, "The Frenchman says this about the battle of Waterloo; the Ger- man says this," and we could even come nearer home. That is the kind of thing U.N.E.S.C.O. could do creatively in encouraging that kind of spirit I can assure doubting minds that no one is suggesting the history books should be written by U.N.E.S.C.O.

However, I may point out that this is not the only philosophy, for a British citizen—and a very well known one, Hilaire Belloc—wrote a long essay on the Peninsular War, without even mentioning either the Duke of Wellington or the British Army. It was an interesting essay, and it does show that there may be two outlooks; and that perhaps a man or woman can be a really satisfactory internationalist only if he or she has first learned about their own country, and to reverence its traditions. A general criticism was levelled in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities—if I may say so without offence, one of the most interesting speeches I have ever heard him make, of the many interesting speeches he has made in the House. He said he would like to call attention to the fact that Australia, Canada, America and New Zealand, among others, said that U.N.E.S.C.O. was attempting too wide a programme. As Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, which has had a number of meetings during the year and which towards the end was discussing these programmes, which would be put before the conference in Paris, I can only say that if any of those countries wished to raise the matter I would rather they had done' so earlier, when it would have been possible to cut down the agenda.

At each meeting of the Executive Preparatory Commission, and of our Commission itself, the difficulty I found was that everybody wanted to add yet another subject to what was to be discussed. Referring to the question whether U.N.E.S.C.O. is, in fact, trying to get some kind of standardised philosophy, I wonder if the House would bear with me, in order that we can deal with this accusation before it gets too wide, while I read a very short paragraph which has really caused the trouble:

"This width and multiplicity of function produce a first impression of diffuseness and scattering in the U.N.E.S.C.O. programme. But, granted the width and multiplicity of objective inherent in U.N.E.S.C.O.'s title, and laid down in its Constitution, it was in- evitable. Furthermore, second thoughts show that a real unity of purpose exists behind this multiplicity of detail, and that unity of purpose is based upon the unity of human mental life. U.N.E S.C.O. is concerned with all the higher mental activities of man, from abstract reasoning and pure science on the one hand to music, painting and architecture on the other; and is concerned with them in all their different spatial manifestations in different parts of the world, and in all their tempotal manifestations in the manifold course of history."

Hon. Members who had to write Election addresses could possibly have expressed those sentiments more simply. I thought it was important that I should read that, and put it on record, in order to show that really no attempt at all was being made to get some kind of standardised philosophy.

I may say, it causes a mild amount of amusement that the accusation of standardisation should be made from the most ironclad standardised philosophy the history of philosophy has yet known. What we are trying to do—and I think this is tremendously important—is to get people together in the beginning, to talk about their difficulties. That is why we welcome what the Yugoslav delegate said, that we should put these things on the table and argue them out. I suggest to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities that the very beginning is not the time to narrow the concept. There should be a great deal more, so to speak, Second Reading Debates, as we would say here, about the general situation. We are going to narrow down—and I will deal with it in a moment—certain practical tasks, where it is a question of money, and people, and things to be done immediately. But on the general question it is very much better that we should have the largest possible number of people interested in intellectual matters coming together and talking round a subject, when the lines of inquiry will soon become crystallised.

I do not really feel that the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities—who himself has had so much to do with the teaching profession, and still has —can think it is an easy thing to have an essential unity of teachers at the present time. There may be a slogan. "Teachers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chalk," or "your pension" if you like, but it is not quite as simple as that. After all, teachers are citizens of the countries in which they live, and share its prejudices as well as its interests—and it is essential that they should do so. The question was raised by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff and by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), that there should be an interchange of practising teachers and an interchange of students. As regards the first, this country and America have taken the lead. As the House knows, we have sent teams of teachers to America, just as we have had teams of American teachers here; and we have also had an interchange with the Dominions. We are hoping to get a limited interchange with France very shortly. There is a certain amount already, but not quite to the extent that we would like. We have had a considerable interchange as regards the children, not only with France but with Holland and other countries, and I am anxious to extend that as far as I can.

These exchanges must be reciprocal. We are perfectly willing to have a group of young people of a very similar political complexion go to the U.S.S.R. and bring back stories of what they see there, but really the exchange the other way is not quite as easy as my hon. Friend seems to think. It is a fact that an official invitation has been extended by the Foreign Office and the Government to the Supreme Soviet to send an official delegation here, and I will not do more than say that until that official delegation takes place, it docs not lie with us whether another official delegation of students and teachers can take place.

There are two points that arise out of what my right hon. Friend has said. The first is that the delegation that went from this country was not of a similar political complexion. It was drawn from young people's organisations, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., and many different non-political organisations. The second point is that the Russians cannot possibly refuse to come if they do not get an invitation, and my question is, why not give them an invitation now? It is over six months since our delegation returned. Why not return the compliment straight away?

It is not just as simple as that.

What is not simple?

I shall be very pleased when it is made possible to welcome a delegation of Russian students and teachers in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me when I ought to repeat my request to her? When will the time be opportune for such a delegation to be invited?

I shall be very pleased to tell my hon. Friend. I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. J. Edwards). The hon. Member said, very rightly, that the success of U.N.E.S.C.O. depended very largely not on the conference, but on the amount of weight which the Governments concerned were prepared to put behind their delegations. I assure him that from the beginning U.N.E.S.C.O. has been very sensible about this, and we— I say "we" because I am speaking for the moment as Chairman of the Preparatory Commission—have always maintained that there was no use in having people just because they were good educationists or men of good will, unless they came there definitely as the delegates of their Governments. At the same time we were anxious that U.N.E.S.C.O. should have wide roots in the countries concerned. We have here the example of the International Labour Office which, when the rest of the League of Nations rather faded away, has remained a very strong and practically unkillable plant. That is because it had its roots in the organisations of workers and employers in the different countries. We have tried, in the case of U.N.E.S.C.O., to do the same thing through national cooperating bodies, in the different countries, of all the various organisations that are concerned with education, science, and culture.

I could not agree more that one of the great problems we have to face in the world today is the appalling destruction of all kinds of educational and scientific apparatus. No one can blame any other country about this. In the scientific laboratories at Bonn and Heidelberg, lenses of almost priceless value were smashed not by bombs, but in the course of the fighting. That is one of the necessary corrollaries of war. Those things are most difficult to replace. We are seeing to what extent we can use the great inventions of science to shortcircuit some of the more obvious shortages. There is the world shortage of paper which makes for difficulty in getting books printed. We are hoping here that the invention of the microfilm may help. There is some interesting work being done on that in London which I should be very glad to show to hon. Members if they are interested in the microfilming of scientific books and of articles appearing in scattered scientific journals throughout the world. By these means it is possible to get within a small attache case the whole of the written work extant on some particular subject. What happens is that instead of having to print on almost non-existent paper vast masses of books that have been burnt—as five million books were burnt on that awful night in London—one has a' small frame with a glass in it, the student sits at the little glass frame, and the microfilm is magnified, and he can read the book in that way. There are tremendous possibilities in this which U.N.E.S.C.O. is exploring.

The problem of apparatus, and even of keeping scientists alive—what one might call relief and rehabilitation in the scientific and educational world in the widest sense—is one of very great difficulty. Last year, all that work could be very much better done by U.N.R.R.A., and the Americans felt, I think wisely, that it was no use having two relief organisations under the United Nation. Therefore, we came to an agreement with U.N.R.R.A., by which a certain trust fund should be administered by U.N.R.R.A, and a great deal of good work was done particularly in Eastern Europe. Much of that work would normally come to an end this year when U.N.R.R.A. comes to an end. One of the things that will be discussed at very high level in Paris is the way in which U.N.E.S.C.O. can now take over the relief and rehabilitation work being done by U.N.R.R.A. when that organisation is closed down.

The right hon. Lady has spoken about a decision at high level in Paris. Presumably the highest level will be the most important official there. What about the decision on the financial side?

One has to remember— there is no need for me to say this to my hon. Friend—that U.N.E.S.C.O. is not an independant and separate body, but is a specialised agency of the United Nations, and therefore, its budget is considered by the Social and Economic Council of the United Nations. What I meant by a high level in this sense was that it was a matter for the informed and instructed delegates of the Governments themselves to discuss in Paris—not that they can decide the question, but they can put recommendations to their Governments which, if approved, will go to the United Nations.

There are many other things in the nature of what one might call immediate jobs. I mentioned microfilms. There is also the question of translation of publications; often, especially in the case of books which are not of high enough commercial value to become best sellers, they do not get translated, or if they do they are translated only into what one might call the best selling tongues, of which English, spoken by such a large number of people, is the most important. The smaller countries however must not be neglected; they have much of value to give to the world, and they are entitled to their share of translations into their own languages. That is another of the practical jobs that are being undertaken. There is also the question of a central pool of scientific information, and a considerable number of others of the same kind.

I do not want us to concentrate too much, however, on these practical tasks, as I rather felt one or two hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for the Combined Universities did. Because they are practical, they are not necessarily the most important, and I am not so sure that they are. They are practical, and they have to be done, but much more important I consider is the terrifically difficult job of acting as a mental clearing house. A moment's thought will show how difficult it is to separate or attempt to separate education, science and culture into separate compartments, or even to decide when a man is giving a lecture whether or not it is on a scientific subject. If he is talking about nuclear fission, to give an extreme example of practicality, it is amazing how very quickly he may get on to philosophical ground, or even into the forbidden realms of politics. These things cannot be separated. We found that out at the beginning, and therefore it was necessary to make the title and the Organisation all-embracing.

I appeal to hon. Members not to be led away by the entrancing idea that there are certain practical things to be done and that if those things are done all the rest will follow. After all, it will be many many years before we can get back to the amount of apparatus and so on that we had before the war, but all that did not prevent the war coming. Now we are trying to rebuild out of the poverty and misery that is Europe, and out of the breaking down in the minds of youth of every kind of standard. God knows that that is the very worst of all the things that could happen. I shall never forget a speech made by the President of one of the South African Universities who spoke very quietly but in a way which electrified us. We who belong to countries with a vast tradition behind us in culture, religion and standards, are very apt not even to understand how difficult is the situation of teachers and university professors in countries whose great cities 150 years ago were mining camps where, because everybody was so concentrated on the practical job of merely keeping alive, they had no time for other considerations.

It is therefore important that whatever else U.N.E.S.C.O. does or does not do at least it should raise the banner of what I believe is the essential thing. It is what makes our strength in this country, whatever our political differences: the sense that there are such things as standards of value, that there is a difference between right and wrong, that intellectual needs are not mere luxuries. Unless we can put standards of value into the minds of youth we cannot have a great civilisation or a great country. It is because the men and women I have worked with in U.N.E.S.C.O. have put that thing first, putting aside the idea that only practical things matter, because they have realised the value of the human spirit, that I believe U.N.E.S.C.O. will do great things, and I hope—in fact I am confident—that this House will be behind them in that task.