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

I need make only a brief speech in recommending the Bill to the House. I think it would be useful if I just reminded hon. Members of the background. The Chequers Estate was presented to the nation, thanks to the generous gift of the late Lord Lee of Fareham and Lady Lee, as a country house for the Prime Minister of the day. I do not think anyone will deny that this has been of considerable help and benefit to successive Prime Ministers and Governments, who have been able fully to enjoy the privileges of Chequers and to profit by them.

The estate was originally endowed with an income of about £4,000 a year for maintenance, and was vested in the Commissioners of Works, now the Ministry of Works, as custodian trustees, by a trust deed. The trust deed is incorporated in the Chequers Estate Act, 1917, and it is this Act which we are now asking the House to amend.

In accordance with the deed, the estate is at present controlled by a singularly distinguished body of administrative trustees, including the Prime Minister, you, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chief Justice. I think, as it will be seen from my remarks shortly, some of these distinguished persons find it difficult to apply their minds to the details of the administration of a country estate, not that they lack interest or ability but that they lack time.

The area of the estate is about 1,000 acres, much of which is farm and woodland. The farms are let, and the total annual income of the estate, including investments, is now about £4,700 a year. Since 1917, Chequers has been the scene of many discussions among Ministers of all political parties on many subjects, and I hope that the discussions have, on the whole, inured to the national good. Among those subjects has been the question of national solvency, so it is rather piquant that we are now to consider the solvency of the venue itself, because we are finding that, with every care and economy, the original endowment cannot produce enough income to maintain the estate.

I feel sure the House will agree that the need for financial assistance, hitherto given on the authority of the Appropriation Acts, should now be met by specific legislative provision, and that is proposed in the Bill. Quite apart from the question of the viability of the estate, there are strong practical reasons why the 1917 Act should be altered. Its administrative and procedural provisions are very detailed and, with the lapse of forty years, a number of them have become inappropriate and inconvenient.

I have mentioned already the difficulty of the trustees in their day-to-day administration of the estate, but there are also restrictions on the trustees' powers to sell or to mortgage property, and these do not make for economic management. Again, it has proved very difficult, and I think it is no longer practicable, to observe the condition of the trust that the house, gardens, furniture, books and pictures should be kept precisely the same as when they were handed over. I know that each incumbent, if I may so describe them, has attempted to do this, but it is not always easy for the wives to accept exactly the situation as they find it. I have had the honour of being a frequent visitor to Chequers as well as enjoying the personal friendship of the late Lord Lee and of Lady Lee, and I am sure we all wish to respect their wishes. I am glad to say that Lady Lee now agrees that some adaptation should be made in this very rigid condition. There is a good principle in keeping things exactly as they were, but from time Ito time there has to be some slight adaptation of furniture and pictures.

Those are the sort of considerations which have prompted the Government to introduce this amending Bill. We believe it will modernise the provisions of the original trust without departing from the main intentions of the 1917 Act. As a Government, we fully realise the need to preserve the amenities of Chequers as a suitable country house for the Prime Minister of the day. It is proposed to restrict the trustees' power of sale and disposal so as to ensure that this is achieved.

There is a substantial area of woodland which lies in the eastern part of the estate and does not contribute to the essential character of the house and gardens. If this Bill is approved, the trustees plan to sell that area to the Forestry Commission. The matter has been already discussed with the Commission on a provisional basis. I am authorised to say that I think the House can take it that if the trustees are granted the necessary powers the sale will take place in this way. I think that was an aspect of the matter which interested hon. Members opposite. I hope, therefore, the House will agree that if the powers are given this would be a satisfactory arrangement.

So much for the general background. Hon. Members have the Bill in front of them, and I do not think I need go through its provisions in any detail. I mentioned just now the need to put the financial aspect on a proper statutory basis, and that is done in Clause 2, which deals with the grants in aid. The Bill gives specific authority to make such grants in aid of the expenses of the administrative trustees. The main provisions of the Bill, however, are those in the Schedule, which, read with Clause 1, amend the original deed of settlement. The Bill reduces the number of administrative trustees to the five mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Schedule—that is, Lady Lee, during her lifetime, a chairman appointed by the Prime Minister, someone appointed by the Minister of Works, the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Trust—a very suitable trustee I should think—and the Public Trustee.

I think such a body would find it easier to devote time to the details of administration of the estate, and I also think that such a body, including the Public Trustee, would be sufficiently weighty to carry the confidence of the House. The other main aim of the Bill is to make the rules of procedure simpler and to substitute in place of the detailed provisions in the existing Act a general requirement that the trustees are to refrain from making avoidable changes in the distinctive features and character of the house and gardens. Other provisions deal with the powers of the trustees, who are given the normal legal powers of trustees, subject to the important restriction on their power to dispose of land and property which is essential to the preservation of the amenities of Chequers for the purpose which it now serves.

The trustees are given wide powers to invest capital in all forms of securities, and additional powers to apply capital to agricultural and other improvement and maintenance, and to pay compensation to agricultural tenants. My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, who has the advantage of being a lawyer as well as a noted expert on finance, will be able to deal with any point which may be raised on the complexities of this Bill when he closes the debate at what, I hope, may be a comparatively early hour. I hope this brief summary will have given a fair picture of what we are trying to do in this Bill. Therefore, I confidently recommend the Bill to the House.

I hope that the Bill modernises the provisions of the earlier Act but safeguards the main purpose of the Chequers Trust. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on the value of Chequers. I think it is valuable to the State, quite apart from its value to the individual. I think it imports a certain dignity to the office of Prime Minister, whoever may hold it and whatever party may be in power. I think, therefore, that it has rather more than a national significance. I think it helps us greatly in our prestige that the Prime Minister should be able to have such a home in which to entertain distinguished persons, whether from abroad or at home. I think it also has a great personal value, which I know has been experienced by those who have been Prime Minister, in that there is somewhere which is a retreat to which the Prime Minister of the day can go, a retreat which retains some of the simpler and more attractive virtues of the English country house.

The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise the potential interest we on this side of the House have in this matter and to inform me some weeks ago of the Government's intentions. I should like to associate myself with all he has said about the value of Chequers to the nation and also to express, from this side of the House, our appreciation to Lady Lee for the very remarkable gift of Chequers to the nation.

As the Leader of the House has said, many very important meetings have taken place there and Chequers, situated as it is in a peculiarly lovely part of the English home counties, has certainly been of enormous assistance to successive Prime Ministers. Nor would I wish to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in the arguments he has put forward about the need for some change in the trust deed. I recall one meeting there at which the Prime Minister, the Lord Chief Justice and myself, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, were present. I must admit it was a very congenial kind of meeting. We had lunch together and discussed, although not at great length, a few problems which arose. It is fair to say that the other trustees could not manage to be present no doubt because they were too busily occupied.

I think it quite clear that for some time now there has been a need to alter the trust deed because of the financial situation. Successive Governments have felt obliged to seek the assistance of the Ministry of Works in taking on some of the expenditure and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is now necessary to regularise the position under which public money has to be spent to maintain the estate.

Having said that, however, I wish to express one or two anxieties which are in our minds. The Bill as it stands appears to us to give the new trustees very wide powers indeed. Theoretically, they could sell off all the land other than the mansion and the gardens. That land would include even the parkland which is not very far from the garden, indeed, it surrounds it. Of course nobody has any serious anxiety that that is likely to happen in the near future. Nevertheless, in principle I feel that this does go rather too far.

Nor do I feel that the safeguarding words in the Schedule to the Bill, in page 8 are sufficient. They say:

"… in the exercise of their powers of management the administrative trustees shall have regard to the need for preserving the enjoyment of the mansion house and the gardens adjacent thereto as a suitable country residence for the Prime Minister.…"

I do not feel they are sufficienty strong having regard to the need for ensuring that no substantial changes are made. Nor, so far as I can see from examining the Bill, is there any guarantee as to what may be done with the land which is sold.

I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was proposed to sell the woodlands to the Forestry Commission. I appreciate the decision in that matter because it arose out of a suggestion I made to him myself. While in principle I do not think anyone can object to a change in the nature of public assets, that is to say, a sale of some kind in order to provide more adequate capital development for a small farm, nevertheless I think that in a matter of this kind it is desirable that any land which is sold should be sold to a public agency either—as in this case—the Forestry Commission, the Crown Lands Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Ministry of Works. But, as I was saying, as the Bill stands, there is no guarantee about the amount of land that may be sold, nor any assurances that the land which is sold will be used only for purposes which are suitable.

Again, in theory, I imagine that the whole of the farmland could be sold to a speculative builder for building housing estates. I do not think that any of us would wish that to happen. It may well be said that the trustees would never agree to it. Here, we come up against the other change which is proposed, namely, that in the character of the trustees. All this may seem improbable, but I feel that it would be advisable to restrict the powers of the trustees rather more than is proposed in the Bill. Perhaps it could be arranged, for instance, that restrictive covenants could be applied with regard to the sale of land for building purposes. However, I do not propose to go into those matters in detail.

What I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary is that perhaps there could be a discussion on these points to see whether we could agree on suitable Amendments. Obviously, this is not the kind of Bill about which one would wish to have heated debates across the Table, with proposals for Amendments and Divisions upon them, and so on. This is obviously the kind of Bill which should be agreed by both sides of the House. Therefore, we should appreciate it if suggestions of this kind could be considered by the Government. We should be willing to discuss with them specific Amendments which are intended to give effect to our proposals.

If there are difficulties in the way of amendments to restrict, for instance, the kind of persons to whom the land can be sold, a possible safeguard might be to ensure that before any sale took place the consent of the Prime Minister had to be obtained. I appreciate that in all probability this would be done, but we may as well ensure that what will be done is completely tied up in the new Measure. In other words, we might as well do the job properly this time. With those reservations, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill.

When, in 1917, Lord Curzon introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to give effect to the wishes of Sir Arthur Lee, as he then was, he described Chequers as "a temple of reconciliation and a haunt of peace." That was the intention of Sir Arthur Lee and. I do not think that anybody would deny that his wishes have not only been carried out but actually extended. Chequers has become much more than a weekend or holiday refuge for successive Prime Ministers. As my right hon. Friend said, it has also become a venue for political and international conferences of the utmost importance. It has been a refuge in time of war. One might even describe it as a less flamboyant Berchtesgaden. I believe that in the future, whatever personal resources Prime Ministers may happen to possess, it will have an importance which will gradually become part of the tradition of our country's political history.

For those reasons, I believe that we should be very careful, in examining the present Bill, not to transgress too far the wishes of Lord Lee when he made this generous bequest to the nation. After all, his conditions were not unreasonable. For instance, he asked that he and his wife should be buried on Beacon Hill, on the estate. He asked that the name of Chequers should never be altered. He asked that the house and its contents should remain unchanged as far as possible. However, he foresaw that circumstances might arise in which his conditions might be inoperative and even an embarrassment to future Prime Ministers and Governments. In clause 19 of the original deed he went so far as to lay down that in the future the detailed provisions of his bequest might be varied through the courts. We are varying the provisions by Act of Parliament.

In varying his requests, in altering the deed which was attached to the 1917 Bill, we should be very careful not to do anything which would have offended him if he were still alive, or his widow, who is happily still with us. I think that the House should be very careful in varying the provisions of any trust, and it is even more important in this case.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has already drawn attention to some provisions in the present Bill which some might consider are going a bit too far. I agree with what he said. Sir Arthur Lee could not possibly have foreseen that the money with which he endowed Chequers would be insufficient. He could not possibly have foreseen that the money needed to maintain Chequers would be annually four times the income produced by the £55,000 that he left. Certainly he would have approved—how could he have done otherwise?—that the grants in aid, which have recently been made annually by the Treasury to supplement the income from his trust fund, should be fixed by an Act of Parliament such as is now proposed.

In passing, I wonder why it is that Chequers costs quite so much to maintain and why the amount of money which is voted annually should vary so much? The grant in aid in 1956–57 was £18,150. In the next year it was £10,000. In the current year, 1958–59, it is £24,400. I suppose that this wide variation means that in, for instance, the current year a certain amount of money is needed for capital expenditure, and under the terms of the trust that can be taken only out of income or the supplementary Treasury grant. Even so, it seems to me to be rather a lot of money even for so important a house.

I happen to be a trustee of another great English house, Knole, in Kent. Without betraying any family secrets, I can say that the amount of money needed to maintain that house—which is one of the largest in England, very much larger than Chequers—is a quarter of what is needed to maintain Chequers. Is not it also a fact that there is a revenue from the farms of Chequers which could be added to the £4,000 which Lord Lee's bequest produces?

I have this incidental suggestion to make to the Financial Secretary. Would not it be suitable to open Chequers to the public at times when the Prime Minister or his guests are not in residence? I cannot see that it would detract from the dignity of the place, any more than the Queen regards Windsor Castle as any less her own because the public are allowed to see over the State rooms even when she is in residence. Such a facility would certainly add to the income of Chequers and help to diminish the Treasury's liability.

The particular points upon which I think we may be transgressing Lord Lee's wishes are these. The most important is one to which I do not think the Leader of the Opposition referred. It concerns the clause 8E of the present Bill, which permits the sale of chattels. This clause is in direct contradiction to clause 15F of the deed attached to the original Act, which states:

"All pictures tapestry books manuscripts china relic and works of art as specified in the catalogue … are never to be removed from the mansion house except for the purpose of effecting necessary repairs or restorations."

That seems to me to have been a very moderate and reasonable request for Lord Lee to have made. He had amassed a great collection, he was a man of great culture, learning and taste, and it would be a pity were we to give the new trustees, or their successors, an absolute right to disperse that collection.

The House may remember that when, in 1953, we discussed the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill, an Amendment was moved by an hon. Member to give the trustees of those galleries the power to sell pictures that they had obtained by bequest, donation or purchase. The House, quite rightly in my opinion, rejected that Amendment. Should not it also, in the present case, deny to the future trustees the power to disperse these collections?

There are many pictures of great value and beauty. The furniture is exquisite, the collection of Cromwellian relics is unrivalled anywhere in the country, and I think that it is desirable for us to retain all these objects in the house where they were assembled, and from which it was the wish of the original owner that they should never be dispersed.

I have never been to Chequers—and I am even less likely to go there as host than as guest—but, from what I have heard from those who have been there, nobody could say that Chequers was an ugly place outside, or that its contents were unworthy of the purposes for which Lord Lee made his gift. It is a beautiful house. The deed attached to the original Act does not, in my opinion, prevent the possibility of rearranging the furniture; of changing the furniture for more modern or comfortable pieces where the present pieces are not suitable; of putting in new bathrooms, or of making such alterations as we would normally make in our own houses in order to keep them in good repair and suitable places for our guests. I think that clause 8E in paragraph 10 of the Schedule should be deleted.

Lord Lee also stipulated that there should be no plastering of the brickwork, or tampering with the external appearance of the house. This Bill removes that stipulation completely. It also deletes completely the provision that there shall be no new building within 200 yards of the house. I wonder why these drastic powers are now being given to the new trustees? Of course, one can assume that they themselves will be men of culture—Lord Crawford, the Chairman of the National Trust Executive is to be one of them.

I agree that the present trustees are too distinguished to deal with the day-to-day affairs of Chequers, but in another part of the present Bill we see that the Minister of Works is no longer to be the custodian trustee. His duties are to be transferred to the Public Trustee. I cannot imagine that the Public Trustee, whatever his personal qualities may be, would be a better custodian, a better manager of the day-to-day affairs of Chequers, than would be the Minister of Works, in whose hands rightly reposes the care of most of our great houses and monuments.

I have dealt with all the points in which I think that the Bill goes too far. Personally I would welcome an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition might arrange with my right hon. Friend to make these amendments a little less drastic, for there is one question alone that we should ask ourselves before we finish with the Bill: would it, in principle and in detail, give pleasure or pain to the original benefactor. Lord Lee of Fareham? In some respects, I think it would give pain.

This Bill has been received kindly by the House, and I am very grateful for that. It has been debated with a felicity, if I may say so, that is consonant with the splendour and beauty of the house, and its surroundings.

In so kindly welcoming the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition nevertheless expressed one or two anxieties. May I say at the outset that my right hon. Friend certainly welcomes the suggestion that any Amendments may be discussed between him and the right hon. Gentleman before the Committee stage. There is some little urgency about this because, as the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, it is desired that this matter should be finished before the end of the Session, and that the amendments to the deed should be validated by Act of Parliament so that the estate can be properly administered.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was unduly apprehensive. I certainly think that the possibility of the parkland being sold to a speculative builder and villas being put up on the doorstep of the mansion house would be very difficult to reconcile with the duty laid on the trustees to have regard to the need of preserving the mansion house and the land adjacent thereto as a suitable residence for the Prime Minister.

I quite agree that that is not very likely, and probably would be inconsistent with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, but one might have a situation in which the farmland outside the parkland was sold off, and an argument develop as to whether it should be allowed to be used for building purposes. In my opinion, that should not be allowed. In other words, we must have regard for preserving the amenities in a very strict sense indeed, and that the whole area, so to speak, should be free from building activity of that kind. I think that it would be difficult to be sure that that could be prevented by the wording of the present Act.

We shall certainly consider that point with the attention that any suggestion on this matter, and any suggestion coming from the right hon Gentleman, certainly merits. The real safeguard, as he himself pointed out, is the character of the trustees, as it is in so many of these public trusts. Although, of course, we must make sure that the general intention of the original donor is respected, which is the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind and from which none of us would dissent, these matters are in the end such that they should be able to be left to the discretion of trustees of the character laid down in this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of the sale of property to public bodies. In general, as he already knows, we do not dissent from such a proposition. Indeed, when he suggested that the extensive area of woodland which is to be sold should, if possible, be sold into national ownership, negotiations to that end were at once set in train, and Treasury consent to a sale to the Forestry Commission has been given in principle.

I think that it would be difficult to provide, and I myself think that it would be undesirable to provide, that everything and anything sold should necessarily be sold to a public body. There is the golf course, for example, or, even more to the point, some of the outlying cottages. It might be desirable, in many cases, to sell the cottages to the cottagers. Although the right hon. Gentleman's general approach will obviously commend itself to the House, again I think that it would probably be wrong to hark back to the excessive rigidity of the original trust deed, and that it would be desirable to leave a certain flexiblity and discretion to the trustees.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) made, if I may say so with respect, a very helpful and informative speech. I entirely agree with him that the House should be very careful about varying the provisions in any trust deed, and particularly a trust deed affecting what is now in effect national property of great beauty and value. My hon. Friend asked why Chequers costs so much more to maintain than, for example, Knole. I do not know whether in the figures that he gave he was taking into account the fact that Knole has now its income from visitors. I think myself that the main difference lies, first of all, in the fact that the farms at Chequers need a considerable upkeep and secondly, so far as the mansion house is concerned, in the need for security which is implicit in its being the country home of the Prime Minister; I refer to such matters as telephones and so on. All that, I think, puts a purely fortuitous extra expense on the trustees in this case.

My hon. Friend asked about the capital expenditure. That has been averaging about £10,000 a year, and in fact that has been the approximate figure for a number of years. In 1956–57 the exceptional expense was, as my hon. Friend surmised, capital expenditure—on new central heating—and the extra provision in this year's estimates is a further item of exceptional capital expenditure in the nature of compensation to an outgoing tenant.

As to keeping Chequers open to the public and making it available to public visitors at a time when the Prime Minister and guests are not in residence, I think one must have regard to the need for security, but it is perhaps a matter which I can draw to the attention of the trustees.

My hon. Friend asked about the sale of chattels. It has been found that the original clause 15F of the trust deed that was annexed to the Chequers Estate Act, 1917, was far too rigid. My hon. Friend read part of it, but in fact no chattel can really be removed from the mansion house except for the purpose of effecting necessary repairs or restorations. I will certainly look into the point which he drew to the attention of the House, but my own view is that that was far too rigid a provision, and that this is a matter that one can safely leave to the discretion of trustees of this description, particularly as they have to—

"refrain from making any avoidable change in the distinctive features and character of the said mansion house and gardens"—

and have the over-riding duty to—

"have regard to the need for preserving the enjoyment of the mansion house … as a suitable country residence for the Prime Minister"—

I can only add that Lady Lee herself has agreed that the change should be made.

I think it only remains for me to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to the Bill and my hon. Friend for his helpful suggestions, and to say that between now and the Committee stage we will certainly endeavour to discuss any points on which the right hon. Gentleman feels misgiving.

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

I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places Her prerogative and interests, so far as concerns the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the constitution of the State of Singapore and for its peace, order and good government. As I think the House knows very well, Singapore owes its creation to the genius of one man. Stamford Raffles arrived on the site in 1819. He knew of the forgotten past of that island—the prosperous commercial community of Singapura, the Lion City, which had flourished here in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and which had been destroyed by the Javanese when King Edward III sat on the throne of England. No remnants of the former grandeur existed, nor had the slightest vestige of the past been discovered.

Then came Sir Stamford Raffles. His strategic eye saw the commercial and military possibilities of the island. In five years the population grew from 150 to over 10,000 people, and trade, which was absolutely non-existent, had in that short period of time become 13 million dollars a year. In seven years1 time from its creation, it was as a port second only to Calcutta in the Far East. Now there are nearly 1½ million people living in Singapore, in an island the size of the Isle of Wight, and its trade is 6,000 million dollars a year.

It was built almost overnight by confidence and by a wise civil and religious policy which brought together people from all over the world to live here in a most fruitful partnership in an area of immense importance for the commerce and for the security of the free world.

Sir Stamford Raffles last visited Singapore in 1823 when, working with titanic energy, he endowed this city with a magistracy, a code of laws, a police force, with trading regulations and even with a town planning scheme—the skeleton on which Singapore has grown. He also founded in advance of the time his own educational institution, saying that education

"must keep pace with commerce in order that its benefits may be ensured and its evils avoided".

All those people in the world who are only too anxious to decry British colonialism should remember with honour, as we do, the work of men like Sir Stamford Raffles. But for him and for his many successors, it would be impossible for such a Bill as this to be introduced today. After him, came many other pioneers, of whom I wish to mention just one, whose name, I think, is known to us all in the House, Dr. Ridley who, in earlier days, had been director of the Botanical Gardens in Singapore. It was his rubber discoveries which made him really the father of the Malayan rubber industry. He died only two years ago aged 101. As Secretary of State, I was able to write to him on his 100th birthday and say:

"It is given to few decisively to change the lives of their fellowmen for the better. Of those few, it is given to an even smaller number to see the change in their own lifetime and to know that its value has been recognised by their contemporaries."

I know also that the gratitude of the House goes out to the many devoted members of the Administration over the years who have given such fine service to the growth, security and happiness of Singapore.

Naturally, I am very anxious to preserve and protect the interests of the members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, for whom I am responsible, and I am glad to say that satisfactory safeguards for their conditions of service, for their pensions, and for compensation for those who lose their appointments have been agreed. There are, of course, many others of our countrymen who work for various official organisations other than the Singapore Government. These are not members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service and were not appointed by me. For them, I have not the same responsibility and, naturally, I have nothing like the same powers, but, if necessary, I am very ready to use such good offices as I can to try and secure fair treatment and justice for them. We honour all these men, and I know that I speak for the House as a whole when I say that we in Britain are grateful to them and very proud of the work they have done.

Although it would be a fascinating subject, I should not, I think, carry the story of Singapore forward from the days of Sir Stamford Raffles until the present time, but, as this is a constitutional Bill, perhaps I should pick out one or two of the main incidents in Singapore's political history since the 1939–45 war which ought to be recorded. First, there was the detachment of Singapore from the Straits Settlements and its creation as a separate Colony in 1946, when Penang and Malacca were joined to the Malayan Union. Secondly, there was the introduction of elected members to the Legislative Council in 1948 and to the Executive Council in 1951. The third I will mention was the Rendel Commission of 1953, which led to the introduction of the present constitution in 1955. Fourth, there were the requests which came for further constitutional advance, leading to the unsuccessful conference which I held in 1956 with a delegation led by Mr. David Marshall and then the successful conference which I held in 1957 with a delegation led by the present Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock. With this delegation we reached agreement on the form of the new Constitution which, as hon. Members will know, is published in Comd. 147.

Now a brief word on the state of the nation of Singapore today. We are, I feel, entitled to draw confidence from certain cheering facts. The first is the great material prosperity of Singapore, having as it does the highest per capita income of all South-East Asia. Next, there is the ability and ingenuity of her lively and most likable people. Singapore has excellent health services, with one of the highest birth rates in the world and a death rate which, at about 10 per thousand, compares well with most modern countries. Also, there are Singapore's complex and quite unrivalled commercial services. That is the material picture, and it is a very good one.

The House knows, of course, that there are great movements at large in the world today, and, not least, in South-East Asia. There are two contending forces at work in Singapore, nationalism and Communism. We must recognise that fact. Nationalism is running with a strong tide throughout South-East Asia. It has naturally been reinforced by the independence granted in recent years to India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma, Indonesia, Indo-China and, last year, to the Federation of Malaya. As for Communism, we know that it seeks to exploit the forces of nationalism should these forces be frustrated.

There must be many people in this country and elsewhere who, in these days, ask themselves certain very serious questions in relation to Singapore. Those questions might take this form. Has there not been a Communist bid for power in Malaya which took the form of armed rebellion in the Federation, and is this not still being maintained after ten years? In Singapore, such people would rightly ask, is there not a far more insidious form of sedition among students, and is it not a fact that over half the population of Singapore today is under 21, and is there not subversion also in the trade unions and political parties? They would say, Is it not true that the extent and vigour of the Communist threat to Singapore is such that our interests will be imperilled if we concede further constitutional advance? These are perfectly proper questions, and the state of mind of those who ask them can readily be understood. Indeed, the questions ought to be asked, and I know that they are being asked.

To all such people, I would say that I have asked myself these questions constantly during the last four years. We have most seriously weighed the risks. We have come to the conclusion that this is the best step that we can take. The elected Government of Singapore, under its courageous and most likable Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock, has boldly and and vigorously tackled the threat, and there is no ground, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, for denying them further responsibilities.

Our Prime Minister, on his recent Commonwealth tour, said in Singapore itself that the best answer to Communism is free government. In our view, and in the view of the leaders of all political parties in Singapore, further constitutional advance offers the best and, perhaps, the only hope of encouraging and giving help to the democratic forces in Singapore. It is most certainly not, however, merely because of the threat of Communism that we first offered the Rendel Constitution in 1954 and that further advance has now been proposed. The forces of nationalism which seek this advance are themselves the product of those very liberal influences of the Western World which we ourselves brought to Singapore.

Our whole outlook and all our colonial tradition is directed to this end. Just as the Communists are alert to try and catch us out in any insincerity in the carrying out of our professed intentions, so our friends in Singapore and elsewhere are watching the way we handle the problem of emergent nations. They have seen with respect the way we have handled these problems elsewhere, and they look to us with trust to show equal understanding and vision in Singapore.

The only line that Her Majesty's Government draw is that a Communist conspiracy shall not gain control in any of our territories and shall not gain control in Singapore. If I were asked what is the overwhelming United Kingdom interest in Singapore and elsewhere in that part of the world, I would say that it is to prevent South-East Asia from going Communist by sustaining the democratic forces in the area. Singapore is at one of the great crossroads of the world, and it lies across one of the lifelines of the Commonwealth. In order to support our friends and to fulfil our international obligations, we must have an effective military base in Singapore for our forces in South-East Asia, and we have to do something which is not easy but which can be done, and which we believe we are doing, and that is to strike the balance between the military and the political means of defending the free world against Communism. In giving responsibility to the democratic forces in any territory, we must not at the same time destroy our ability to come to their aid if they need it. Nor should we let any of our friends in any part of the world have any cause to fear that this is what we may be doing.

There is also this further very important point. The good government we have established in Singapore is the reason why such a vast population has grown up, and in handing over our direct responsibilities we have an obligation to all these people to do our utmost to ensure that the standards we have set in administration are carried on. To this end, the prosperity of Singapore, which is founded as Raffles saw it would be on her status as a free port and on international confidence in her stability, must be maintained, together with her position as one of the major channels of trade through which British commercial activity and investment are directed into South-East Asia, to our own advantage, of course—there is nothing wrong in that—but also to the advantage of Singapore and all the nations in the area.

What then, Sir, is the problem we now have to solve? It has long been assumed, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) who was my predecessor at the Colonial Office knows very well, that the economic and geographical forces in Singapore and the Federation will combine to bring Singapore and the Federation of Malaya together as an independent country. This has not yet happened, and it is a decision which the peoples of the two countries alone can take.

In the meantime, the aspirations of the people of Singapore must be met, even if it is generally recognised that an island of only 1½ million people and of the size of the Isle of Wight cannot aspire to independence on its own in the present situation in the world. Nor indeed, in aspiring even to full internal self-government can its people overlook the facts of history or disregard the international importance of Singapore, whether in the sphere of defence or of peaceful commerce between nations.

The solution at which we have arrived is, in broad outline, as follows. Firstly, it is that Singapore should have, and will have, the fullest possible measure of internal self-government, and within that sphere will be completely free from United Kingdom supervision and control. Secondly, the United Kingdom will continue to have exclusive responsibility for the defence of Singapore and for the conduct of Singapore's foreign relations although a measure of responsibility for the conduct of certain matters in this latter sphere will be delegated to Singapore acting within the framework of our policies, responsibilities and commitments. Thirdly, internal security will be the responsibility of the Singapore Government, but because it is interrelated with defence there will be set up an internal security council on which there will be equal numbers of United Kingdom and Singapore representatives, and there will also be a representative of its great neighbour, the Government of the Federation of Malaya.

This council will be able, if need be by a majority vote, to reach binding decisions on matters of internal security. It will also be able to decide in any case of dispute, which I hope will be very rare, whether a particular matter is one of defence and external affairs or of internal security. The working of this unique experiment has been made possible by the co-operation of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, and I express our gratitude to our very good friend Tunku Abdul Rahman and his colleagues for their readiness to assist in this respect.

The constitutional arrangements giving effect to these principles are unique, as I think the House will realise—but none the worse for that—not only in the composition of the internal security council, but in a number of other ways which have been designed, between myself on behalf of the British Government and the Singapore delegations, with the specific intention of signalising the dramatic break with the past which the new constitution provides.

For example, Singapore will be known in future not as the Colony but as the State of Singapore. Next, there will be the appointment, after six months, of a Malayan-born citizen as Her Majesty's representative in Singapore. Then there will be the appointment of a special United Kingdom Commissioner to supervise the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for defence and external affairs. Then there will be the creation of a separate Singapore citizenship which will be in all respects a fully-fledged Commonwealth citizenship. Then there will be the abolition of any constitutional supervision by the United Kingdom of Singapore's conduct of its internal affairs, except when these impinge on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for defence and foreign affairs, or are in contravention of the constitution.

At the same time, the United Kingdom will surrender the general power under the British Straits Settlements (Repeal) Acts, the general power to legislate for Singapore by Order in Council and the provision that the United Kingdom, by Order in Council, may amend the Constitution will be only with the concurrence of the Government of Singapore unless—and this is a very important proviso, which I pray God it will never be necessary to apply—our abilities to discharge our responsibilities for defence and external affairs are endangered by the Government of Singapore, or unless the Constitution has been contravened, when the Constitution can be suspended without the concurrence of the Government of Singapore.

The Bill itself, as the House will realise, is primarily an enabling Bill to give power to Her Majesty by Order in Council to make the new Constitution and to make any necessary incidental, consequential or transitional provisions. Perhaps the House will bear with me if I say a word or two about that Constitution and Order in Council.

The general principles agreed last April, which I have already mentioned, have now been reduced to the form of a draft Order in Council for submission to Her Majesty. In the course of a further visit which I was glad the all-party delegation were able to pay to me here last May, full and final agreement was reached on all its provisions. As the House knows, we were unable to reach agreement on the existence of the ban, which Her Majesty's Government feel it necessary to impose, debarring people known to have been engaged in subversive activities from standing for election to the first Assembly under the new Constitution. We do not propose that this ban should be set out in the constitutional Order in Council itself. It will be set out in another Order which will be necessary to make provisions for the holding of the first election.

As to the principles of the ban, in our talks last May both sides adhered firmly to the line which they had taken hitherto, I on behalf of the British Government insisting on its necessity and the delegates from Singapore opposing it as a departure from normal practice. All parties in the Singapore Legislature are committed to the Constitution, and, I am glad to say, are content with it. It will be a system of Parliamentary democracy founded on Westminster.

I know that I speak for my friends in Singapore as well as for myself when I thank the officers of this House for the kindness they have shown in helping and in giving guidance in regard to a number of very difficult problems. We are very grateful to them, and the work that they do all over our Commonwealth is, I hope, realised as I can assure them that it is most deeply appreciated.

The Constitution makes proper provision for an independent judiciary and for an independent public service with entrenched safeguards for the terms of service of all public officers and for the compensation rights of expatriate officers.

The Bill is an essay in mutual trust and co-operation. We intend to discharge our responsibilities in that spirit, and we have confidence that in the same way the people of Singapore will discharge theirs. The Constitution provides a just recognition of the aspirations of the people of Singapore and gives a sound democratic basis for Singapore's future. We believe it to be an honourable reaffirmation of our belief in the power of democracy to attract human loyalties and to maintain itself as a true way of life against all contenders.

I think most hon. Members would wish to endorse most of what the Secretary of State has said about the remarkable growth and development, both economically and politically, of the new State of Singapore. The Bill is generally welcome not only because it is liberal in character in trying to find the answer to the problem of a Colony of peculiar perplexity where there was need for some effective democratic system of Government to be established, but also because it has won the good will and the consent of the people of Singapore.

The Bill does not involve a constitution which is being imposed on the people. It is a Constitution which has been freely negotiated with them. It has answered the difficult problem of how in a Colony of such strategic and commercial importance internal self-government could be established. It will contribute to the orderly development of Singapore and its future good government.

There are one or two preliminary comments that I should like to make apart from the Bill itself. First, it would be of some assistance to the House if when these rather complicated Bills are brought forward we could have a simple statement about the kind of constitution which is to follow the introduction of the Bill. The Bill is couched in very difficult legal jargon, which I believe to be inevitable. True, a White Paper was published following the conferences, none the less it would assist us if we could have set out in a White Paper the substance of what will be embodied in the Order in Council.

I confess that in the past I have been a culprit and have probably not served the House as efficiently in this respect as I should have done. However, sitting in the Opposition, I find that when Bills couched in legal terminology come before us it would be of very great assistance if we could have a White Paper in much simpler language so that we might know precisely what will be put in the constitution in the Order in Council.

The Bill reminds us that the House of Commons does not restrict its attention only to the bigger territories. It is of great interest to note that over the last year a number of very small territories have received not only the special attention of the Secretary of State but the attention of the House of Commons. Singapore is not a large territory; as the Secretary of State has reminded us, it is about the size of the Isle of Wight. The House has also spent a great deal of time dealing with Turks Island and Christmas Island and a number of other smaller parts of the dependant Commonwealth, and I think that fact should be duly registered.

The Bill brings back to my mind the passage through this House of the Straits Settlements (Repeal) Act, 1946, when we were trying to find some basis for the future of Malaya and Singapore. We were up against the major difficulty that with the introduction again of civil administration after the defeat of the Japanese the old forms of Government could no more be resorted to and a new basis of unity and Government had to be found. Because of the apprehensions which were felt by the Malays, we could do no other at that time than to separate Singapore from Malaya itself. Most of us urged that policy with some great reluctance and some misgiving, but if political progress were to be made, if a democratic form of Government were ever to be established in Malaya, the only course open to us was to do something about the Straits Settlements, to merge Penang and Malacca into Malaya itself and to separate Singapore from Malaya. That was done with the broad consent of all parties in the House, and it was a line of action which I think I am right in saying had been worked out under the Secretaryship at the Colonial Office of Mr. Oliver Stanley.

Today we see the most amazing changes which have come over the whole Continent of Asia, and particularly the change in this part of South-East Asia. When we were discussing the Straits Settlements (Repeal) Act twelve years ago, none of us thought that within twelve years a democratic Government in Malaya would be set up and that the House would be asked to acknowledge the Statehood of Singapore. Malaya faces a problem of almost unknown complexity in the building up of a democratic society—how to weld together three important races in a common democratic constitution. The progress in that part of the world and the political changes are remarkable.

There was general agreement when the Secretary of State made his announcement about what should be the basic lines of policy in respect of Singapore. In Cmd. 9777, published in 1956, the Government said that their object was:

"to carry forward the devolution upon the people of Singapore of the direction of their own affairs in accordance with the central purpose of British Colonial policy, endorsed by all the parties in the United Kingdom:

to ensure the maintenance of the democratic way of life of Singapore and its defence against external or internal attack;

to maintain the position of Singapore as a great commercial and trading centre in South-East Asia, since upon that position depends the livelihood of its people;

to maintain the position of Singapore as a major strategic centre and base in the defence system of the free world."

That statement of policy has been admirably translated into the Bill.

In all the circumstances, the Constitution goes as far as is practicable in these days, for it confers full internal self-government, including internal security, leaving responsibility for external affairs and defence to the United Kingdom. It permits a Malayan born person to represent the Queen and the Queen to continue as Head of State.

Most of us will agree that Singapore needs a certain amount of streamlining. It has a motley of ad hoc bodies, but perhaps this is not the time to suggest internal reform, because that will now pass to the control and jurisdiction of the Singapore Government. The Constitution now offered provides for a directly elected legislature and a Cabinet, with responsibility, made up of elected members, and it provides adequate safeguards for racial and religious minorities. It makes provision for citizenship within the Commonwealth and it also provides for ex-patriate civil servants, and other necessary safeguards for the public service.

In addition to those normal provisions for a democratic State, provision is also made so that the United Kingdom may be kept informed of the discussions in the Singapore Cabinet on matters of particular common interest. Although Singapore is to take its full responsibility for internal security, none the less an answer has been found to the very difficult problem involved by the structure of a Committee over which the United Kingdom representative is to preside. There will be equal numbers from Singapore and from the United Kingdom on that Committee and the Federation of Malaya will appoint one of its Ministers to it.

The Secretary of State has reminded us of the important provision which is reserved for the suspension of the Constitution:

"The United Kingdom Government should retain the power to suspend the Constitution at any time if in their opinion the internal situation in Singapore had so far deteriorated as to threaten their ability to carry out their responsibilities for external affairs or defence, or if the Singapore Government had acted in contravention of the Constitution. The power to make an Order in Council providing for the suspension of the Constitution would accordingly be retained by Her Majesty's Government; and to provide against an emergency situation, the United Kingdom Commissioner would be empowered, on instructions from Her Majesty's Government, to make an emergency proclamation enabling him to assume the Government of Singapore."

That is a very exceptional but vital provision in the Constitution, and it is a remarkable feat that in the conference with Singapore representatives so far-reaching a clause should have been agreed by all concerned.

Such a Constitution as this has not been easy to reach, particularly because of the immense strategic and commercial importance of Singapore and because of the very strong current of Communism which flows in that part of the world, especially among a people who are chiefly Chinese and who cannot but be affected in some respects by what is happening in Communist China.

We have also been reminded that there remains one point of difference between the representatives of Singapore and the United Kingdom Government. That is the eligibility of persons to become candidates for election to the first Parliament, if such persons have engaged in subversive activities. I recognise that neither side has yielded on this problem, and it is not my intention to press the point this morning, but it is unfortunate that agreement could not be reached on this one outstanding issue.

At the same time, before leaving the terms of the Constitution, I pay tribute to the Chief Minister and the excellent work he has done in this connection. The courage he has shown in Singapore has won the admiration of all of us and he has been supported by Mr. Lee and others. We are grateful for both the tolerance and the goodwill which they have brought into the discussions.

The House ought not to forget the foundation work which was done by the civil servants, particularly Sir Edward Gent, who thought a great deal about these problems during the war and the early days after, and Sir Henry Gurney. Both Governors were, unfortunately, tragically killed. Also Mr. Malcolm MacDonald was able to carry through some of the most difficult negotiations with the sultans and the representatives of Malaya during the crucial periods of 1946 and 1947.

I hope that with the separation of Singapore from the mainland its economic prosperity will not diminish. There is a danger that with the growth and development of Port Swettenham some of Singapore's trade will pass to the mainland port. I sincerely hope that adequate compensation in the way of further trade may be gained for Singapore, even if some of its immediate trade is lost in that way. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me the meaning of the announcement made a week or so ago about the creation of a naval base at Port Swettenham. Possibly that is for the navy of the Federation, and may have little to do with Singapore, and our own requirements for a naval base there, but I should like that position clarified.

I want to say a few words about the future of Singapore. City States are terribly weak, in the conditions of the modern world. They cannot hope to weather some of the political and economic storms which arise from time to time. A suggestion has been made that some form of closer association between Singapore and the neighbouring territories might strengthen its position. It is in close proximity to Indonesia and to China herself, and the influence of those countries will undoubtedly have some bearing upon the policy and status of Singapore.

There was a dream that when the separation of Singapore from the mainland took place we could look forward to some kind of federation, within the Commonwealth, of the territories making up Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei, with Singapore as a member of such a federation. I feel that today such a federation would be altogether too ambitious. It is not likely to be realistic because of the differing stages of political development in the States which would comprise such a federation. There is a move on foot for a closer link between Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei, and in several conferences of Governors recently the suggestion has been made that this proposition might be considered. That seems altogether remote from any possibility of a link-up with Singapore itself.

Some Singapore politicians have also toyed with the idea of something like a condominium, in respect of external affairs and defence, composed of Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and this country. I have little faith in the working of condominiums, unless all the partners except the vital one are asleep. The suggestion seems to be utterly unworkable. But many of the politicians there still have a dream of federation with the Federation of Malaya, and it may be desirable that, sooner or later, there should be a closer association between Singapore and the Federation than exists at present.

I do not think such an association would be at all possible if either Singapore or the Federation lost its identity in the process, but some working arrangement might be conceived a little later on, once the Malays can be assured that in any political arrangement they are not likely to be dominated by the preponderant Chinese population. That apprehension is always there, and I cannot see much progress being made unless confidence can be established between Singapore and the Federation in this respect. The door must be kept open. In this connection I should like to recall to the House and to the Secretary of State the paragraph which I wrote into the White Paper, published in January, 1946, which said:

"In considering the need for a closer political integration in Malaya, His Majesty's Government consider that, at least for the time being, Singapore requires separate treatment. It is a centre of entrepôt trade on a very large scale and has economic and social interests distinct from those of the mainland. It is recognised, however, that there were and will be close ties between Singapore and the mainland, and it is no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to preclude or prejudice in any way the fusion of Singapore and the Malayan Union in a wider union at a later date should it be considered that such a course were desirable."

In 1947 a similar pledge was given that:

"His Majesty's Government still hold this view, and believe that the question of Singapore joining in a Federation should be considered on its merits and in the light of local opinion at an appropriate time … The new Governments and legislatures in the two territories will be the appropriate authorities to consider any demand for the inclusion of Singapore within the Federation, and it would be a mistake to delay the formation of the Federation on the one hand, or the reconstituted Legislative Council in Singapore on the other, by instituting at this time any formal discussions, or negotiation, on the subject of the inclusion of Singapore. The question is one on which considerable difference of opinion exists in Malaya, but the establishment of the new Federal constitution will be without prejudice to the possibility of Singapore joining the Federation at some later date."

I gather from what the Secretary of State has said that there is no going back on those declarations, and that it is entirely a matter for the two Governments concerned as to their future relations.

The Secretary of State invoked the name of Raffles on a number of occasions during his speech, and I want to endorse all that he has said about the wisdom, foresight, qualities and administrative skill of that great man. This country had so little regard for Raffles that when he died we completely lost trace of the place of his burial, and it was not many years ago that his grave was discovered in Hendon Cemetery. I hope that the City Council in Singapore—and especially its chairman—will not seek to obliterate the name of Raffles from its streets, the educational institute, or the statue erected to his memory. I am quite sure that his spirit will brood over the future development and progress of the system of Government which is now offered to Singapore.

It may be that Singapore would like her own absolute freedom, but I think that she is already conscious of the fact that the complexity of her problems and the unpredictable trend of future events in Asia make it impossible to present her with a different interim solution from the one offered by this Constitution. Except in grave emergency, I believe that by this act Singapore has the genuine measure of self-government and political freedom that is practicable at the present time.

I am sure that the British Parliament and people, as well as the Commonwealth, will wish Singapore well in the next stage of her great adventure. It will be our pride to enjoy the friendship and goodwill of Singapore, to give her all the practical aid we can and to encourage her to greater progress and prosperity.

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in this debate, and also to add my good wishes to the State of Singapore. I also wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the success of his negotiations. We know that for a considerable period we have had representatives of a number of Dominions, comprised of all races, coming to this country to discuss this very difficult problem. I think, too, that for the very satisfactory solution reached we in this House owe a great debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend.

I should have liked to have dealt with a great many of the points raised by both right hon. Gentlemen, but I do not intend to go over them all again. However, I wish to draw attention to what I think is a very exceptional Long Title to the Bill, because it says:

"… peace, order and good government thereof."

In a State that has peace and order, it means that the Government are able to devote time to the welfare of the people. I hope most sincerely that the Long Title will prove apt and that what it provides will bring much happiness to the people of Singapore.

I particularly want to say a few words in this debate, because in 1945 I flew into Singapore with the British Red Cross after the Japanese had capitulated. We had come from India in a rather old Sunderland with as much equipment as we could bring. We had no idea with what conditions we were going to be faced in Singapore, but I am very happy to say that we received the most tremendous welcome from all five races there. One must remember that there are five races in the island of Singapore.

I wish to pay a tribute to the people of Singapore for the help which they gave in those days to the people interned by the Japanese. One has to remember that peoples of various nationality suffered under the Japanese. They were literally starving, and one could barter anything for a packet of cigarettes.

During the Japanese occupation the people of Singapore had kept their faith in Great Britain, and in many cases had guarded the property of their former masters or employers. In doing so, they often risked their lives. I think that this fact augurs very well for the future of the State of Singapore, because if under those conditions people could retain their faith in this country, they will want to remain with us in the Commonwealth in the future.

As my right hon. Friend said, there has been the most remarkable change in the standard of living in Singapore. I understand that the average income per head of the population is now 200 Malayan dollars. That is about the highest average income in any country in South-East Asia. This is all the more remarkable when one remembers, as I do only too well, the state in which the Japanese left the buildings, with no water and electric light. On going back to Singapore one realises the great advance that has been made since 1945. There are now magnificent multi-storey buildings and excellent shops. The city has come alive again. What has happened is a remarkable tribute to the energies of the people of Singapore.

My right hon. Friend said that Singapore was the Lion City. I think that its people are lion-hearted. I hope that they will remain lion-hearted, that they will remember that our symbol is the British lion and will continue to be with us in the Commonwealth for many generations to come.

Many other States of a similar nature will, of course, be watching this experiment with great intensity. Therefore, I hope that it will prove a great success. It is worth recalling that of all the territories which have recently been given their freedom, whether they became Dominions or Republics, not one, with the exception of one small State in India, has turned to Communism. I think that shows how well and truly the foundations of these various States and territories can be laid.

What we are discussing this morning is another step in the history of our Commonwealth, because it has shown how we in this country can adapt the various constitutions to the needs of the people. This is an entirely new concept of a State within the Commonwealth, and it may lead to other conceptions in the future.

It has been said that we owe a great debt to Sir Stamford Raffles. It is interesting to realise that in Singapore there was originally no indigent population, with the exception of a few fishermen, and that in the first place the Chinese and Indians were brought in to help. To them we also owe a great debt. Rather a different situation has now arisen. The Chinese first came to the territory to earn a living because of the starvation that existed in their country, and the Indians came because there was less chance of finding work in India than in Singapore. They have now decided of their own free will to make this State their home. I hope that they will continue to look upon it as their home and will not still owe allegiance to the countries from which originally they came.

I believe that in this multi-racial community we have succeeded up to date in getting the highest development of inter-racial mingling. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that there are still certain separate communities in Singapore, but I would suggest that we are probably very much nearer to a multiracial community in Singapore than in any other territory.

One of the difficulties which I foresee in the future is the vast increase in population. I understand that the birth-rate there is now the highest in the world. That is rather interesting when one remembers that when the Chinese originally came to Singapore they were not allowed to bring any women with them. It was not until they had been there for a considerable time that the women were allowed to leave China. There are now more women than men in Singapore. I hope that this is not going to add to the difficulties of the future.

I would draw attention to the fact that in Singapore it is possible to hear practically every European language spoken, in addition, of course, to Asian languages. I hope that under the new Constitution the people of Singapore will be allowed to live freely in the territory. One point touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman was that of free religious worship. I suggest that this comes under "peace", as mentioned in the Long Title. Free religious worship leads to peace.

A tribute must be paid to the excellent police force in Singapore. Despite all the difficulties there, the members of that force have behaved in an exceptional manner in keeping law and order.

It is very interesting to see the growing stability which is apparent from the fact that there have been fewer strikes in the last year. I understand that in 1955 there were as many at 275 strikes, whereas in 1956 there were only 29. I suggest that the ratio of crime is very low considering the vast population and the crowded conditions under which the people live. The keeping of the peace includes industrial peace. It is interesting to note that there is a considerable increase in the trade unions and that this is one of the first territories where the Workmen's Compensation Act came into force. It was in operation as early as 1932. There are also apprenticeships and training schemes, which augurs very well for the future of this country. I realise that we are faced with consider- able educational difficulties, and this will probably be one of the major problems confronting the Governor. But with the existence of the universities and the fact that we can have students in this country, I hope that, together with the authorities in Singapore, we may be able to overcome them.

One gift which we have made to Singapore is the chance for the people to live healthy lives. As far back as 1901 malaria was under control. I do not say that it was completely obliterated, but it was under control. This island has never had a plague such as cholera or smallpox since about 1930, which is a great tribute to British administration. A thing which interests me intensely, especially when one considers that the population is crowded on to 224 square miles, is the fact that the infant mortality rate has gone down enormously. In 1920 it was 265 per thousand, and in 1955 it was down to 14·69 per thousand. In a way, however, that very successful achievement brings with it the worry of what we are to do with this great population in the future.

We have managed over a period of years to achieve stable conditions regarding elections. As early as 1948, only three years after the Japanese had left, the people were able for the first time to take part in elections. The orderly way in which they were carried out was very gratifying because it is not easy to achieve such conditions when elections are started. My right hon. Friend has mentioned other points in the Constitutions of 1951, 1952 and 1955, and I do not intend to go over them again. I wish to pay a tribute to the fact that we have trained a great many locally domiciled men and women of all races for work in the civil service. In my view, it has been one of the mistakes made by other Powers with Colonial Territories that they have not paid enough attention to training such people. We wish these civil servants great success in their new responsibility. At present, I understand that there are about 311 expatriate permanent civil servants, and I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend give an assurance that these people will get fair treatment. I would draw attention to the fact that there are also 76 short-time expatriates, and I hope that if they are to be kept on for a short time in the future they will be informed of their full contract period and compensated according to their years of service.

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the British commercial community. At present, there are 20,000 people working overseas in some kind of office and bringing industry, employment and commerce to Singapore. I hope that in the future these people will be given the security they need to carry on with their work. If they are not provided with that security, I am certain that the commerce and so on of Singapore will naturally decline. Many firms have been built up a goodwill over generations. Some of them are nearly 100 years old, and I hope that they will be allowed to remain.

I join with the right hon. Member for Wakefield in his suggestion that in the future there should be a federation of the various territories, including North Borneo and Sarawak and the Federation of Malaya. They all have different possibilities, and their joining together would be for the prosperity of the people, especially for the enormous population in Singapore, because in the generations to come other outlets will have to be found for its people.

In wishing prosperity to the State of Singapore, we should remember the people who have gone there from Sir Stamford Raffles down to the present generation. Having worked there, I should like to pay tribute to Lord Louis Mountbatten, as he then was, who came out to resuscitate the British military administration and help with the reopening of Singapore; to Lord Killearn as High Commissioner for South-East Asia and to Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, the last High Commissioner. It is a long way from the time 137 years ago when this city was first formed, but I hope that in the future the Indian, Malays and Eurasians will attain and retain their own culture and traditions and build on them. If they do that, there will be no looking backward to the countries from which they originally came, but these people will feel that they are citizens of the State of Singapore instead of their original countries. In this way we may find success in the future.

Finally, I wish to pay my tribute to the present Chief Minister, Lim Yew Flock, for his courage and great sense of humour which has carried him through many difficulties. I wish the State of Singapore and its peoples much prosperity and happiness in the future.

Unlike the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), whose eloquent speech we all appreciated, I did not make the same dramatic entry into Singapore that evidently she did in 1946. My first contact was a little more prosaic but none the less impressive to me, but even though I had only a short time there as a visitor rather than a worker, I can endorse a great deal of what she has said regarding the extraordinary development which has taken place there since the end of the war.

This unit which now emerges into a large measure of self-government is very small, and there are no doubt some who feel that this has a melancholy aspect. It has been assumed and is still assumed by some who talk of freedom and democracy that it is necessary to create larger units rather than the smaller units as now represented by the State of Singaport. It is a small island, hardly larger than one of the islands near our own coast. It has a present population of at least 1¼ million, and that figure is likely to be very much greater in the days ahead. It is separated from the mainland only by a causeway. It is paradoxical in that we should be engaged in giving a high standard of self-government to a small island detached from the mainland to which, geographically as well as politically, it should be united.

None the less, I agree that, in existing circumstances, it is right that we should confer upon this particular island this considerable degree of separate status and independence, rather than seek at this juncture a premature union with the mainland. We know that there are difficulties and problems on the mainland and generally in the Federation of Malaya. We know of the very deep fears that exist among many people about premature union of the two parts of this geographical peninsula. I hope there will be union at no distant date, but the responsibility for that rests on the peoples themselves.

That is not to say that we have no right, and had no right, to be in that country. On the contrary, I believe we British had and have as much right as other people to be there. Who is entitled to Malaya or Singapore? If one replies by saying "The original inhabitants," we must say that there are very few of them. The actual aboriginals are a tiny fraction only of the total population. That is particularly true of Singapore itself. We, as British people, can lay claim, with all our faults and shortcomings in many respects, to the fact that we have been able to put Singapore on the map.

Many references have been made to Sir Stamford Raffles. I regret that I was not here to hear the Colonial Secretary's speech, but I endorse all that he and others have said about the sagacity and enterprise of Sir Stamford Raffles. We have seen how this barren island, with a tiny, scattered population, has grown into the great commercial centre it is today, with more than 1¼ million population. Let me state briefly why we can understand the fears that exist in Malaya of a premature union between the two areas.

Of the 1¼ million population of Singapore, about 85 per cent. are Chinese. On the mainland of the Federation of Malaya the proportions are different; there is a preponderance of Malays. The Chinese form a very large section. I think I am right in saying that the Chinese and the Indian populations together approximately equal the Malay population. If in addition to that about a million Chinese were to be flung into the balance, theoretically we should not mind it. We should welcome the multiplicity of communities and the capacity of men, no matter what their race, creed or language may be, to settle down as human beings into a multiple State; yet it does not work like that.

At the present time, large numbers of Chinese in Singapore have not the same ideals as some of the Malays, Indians and ourselves have in regard to a multiple State. Large numbers of them have been infected with Communism. They believe that their main aim is to establish some kind of Communist State. I do not think that is true of most, but of a certain proportion. There are also those who may sway this way or that way, or sit on the fence waiting to see when to come down towards the side which they think for the time being is most propitious.

Those who are infected with Communism are utilising the difficulties there for Communist purposes, as Communists always do. There are others who are not necessarily precisely Communist but only incidentally, or because they have a sense of prior obligation to China, whatever may be the political position in China itself. I have talked with Chinese in Singapore and elsewhere, and I have noted how emotionally attached they are to China, whatever the Government of China may be at the time being. To them something is desirable intrinsically because it is Chinese.

If there were to be an important change in the political position in China, and if the present Communist régime in Peking were to give way to some other form of Government, large numbers of the Chinese in Singapore and elsewhere in the Far East would sway accordingly. Many Chinese are infected by Communism, of course, without necessarily knowing all that that means. Only a very few of them may know. Some are Marxists who have read their Marx and Lenin, but the large majority call themselves Communists, but are probably so emotionally, and little more. There are others who call themselves Communists but with whom nationality is the prior emotion determinant.

Some people in Malaya are frightened that if amalgamation were to take place there might be a preponderant political feeling among the Chinese in these two areas in favour of changing the present institutions and of some development towards association with Communist China. I understand this difficulty, but now the responsibility of dealing with it is passing to indigenous politicians in Singapore, and we should refrain as much as possible from interfering and giving them advice. It is sometimes a great mistake to rush in and start to criticise. After all, those on the spot are on the job and they know the difficulties. It is much better to leave it to them, because they understand the problem better than we who are outside. I therefore beg hon. Members on either side of the House to refrain from interfering too quickly. Let us have confidence in the men on the spot to determine how best to deal with their own political and other problems.

There is another problem with which the people on the spot will have to deal. Reference has been made to the very encouraging fact that infant mortality in Singapore has dropped from 265 per 1,000 in 1920—which means roughly one baby in four dying in the first year—to the new figure of 40·69, which is less than twice the amount of the infant mortality rate in this country. From one point of view the drop is encouraging, and from another it is disturbing. A great deal of the area of Singapore is incapable of cultivation. The soil is very rocky. Though it might be brought under cultivation with a great deal of capital investment, Singapore is, on the whole, a commercial port and almost everything will depend upon commerce. That being so, we must expect an acute problem from the extraordinarily rapid growth of population. One wonders whether there will be enough employment for the population in the course of a few years when it may number up to 2½ million.

That is another side of the picture and will create much anxiety for whoever is in charge of Singapore in the days to come. I am glad to bear testimony to the work that has been done in housing. There are still repellent slums, but I have seen some fine housing development, as a result of which many families have been transferred from the slums of Singapore. This task will be a very difficult one, but the authorities are doing what they can. They have done a great deal, but the present population still remains a serious challenge. The political sagacity of mankind must be brought to bear upon active family planning. If we are capable of planning our society materially we can surely plan it vitally as well. If we are to succeed still further in pushing off death, as we are doing by reducing infant mortality and adult mortality, we must counterbalance it at the other end by control of birth.

We have met some of the people who are now active in political affairs in Singapore when they have come here; among them are David Marshall, Lee Kuan Yew and Lim Yew Hock. Whatever may be their political outlook, they and others are desirous that Singapore shall be free from the Communist menace by proving to the people of Singapore and to the world the capacity of the people of Singapore to build up a progressive Government which the people can appreciate.

They have these difficulties and many complexities. We were aware of them when we were responsible. We could never solve them in the way in which they may be solved by those who will now be responsible. There has always been the difficulty of trying to deal with people who suspect that because we are not of their race and are not an Asian we must have an ulterior motive. That was not always true, but the belief was there. That is why those who are now entering on this obligation should receive our confidence and why we must anticipate that they may succeed where we have failed.

We have heard more than once of proposals for a much larger and more grandiose federation of Malaya, Singapore, Borneo and Sarawak, but I doubt very much whether that will eventuate in the near future. There are great difficulties of distance and different stages of development and of suspicion in Singapore with the result that the linking of those areas might be to their disadvantage.

At the same time, I see no reason why there should not be some kind of association so long as those areas are within the orbit of the Commonwealth, nor why we should not increase the number of contacts, commercial, economic, cultural and otherwise, to bring together people of many different races and encourage in them a sense of common humanity underlying their differences, complex as that job may be. Therefore, whilst one endorses all that has been said about past British pioneers, we should extend our very best wishes to those who are to carry on this responsibility and hope that those who are far more indigenous than ourselves will successfully share in the great task of proving to the world that democracy can work.

If we can see a workable democracy established in Singapore, also in Malaya, and later in Borneo, that will do far more than all the military equipment—necessary as that may be—to prove to the world that our kind of government can outlive and outlast institutions behind the bamboo curtain. For this very reason, I cordially congratulate the Colonial Secretary on introducing this Bill.

I feel that I speak on behalf of all my absent colleagues—perhaps I should be grateful to them for not being here, for otherwise I might not have been able to speak in this debate—when I say that I hope this Bill will be one more way in which freedom and democracy can be vindicated in that part of the world.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Second Reading debate because I lived, worked, played, wilted, sorrowed and rejoiced with the people of Singapore for seven fateful years, from 1938 to 1945, with only one brief break of seven months when I played a very minor and ineffectual part in a railway construction project in Siam in 1943 under Japanese auspices.

In those seven fateful years, I think I can honestly say, I reached the heights of happiness and plumbed the depths of depression, though never of despair. I had the privilege of serving again in Singapore in 1948 when that island and city were staging such a magnificent come back after the debilitating effects of war. I can recall with pleasure the fact that my father unveiled the statue of Sir Stamford Raffles, which stands outside the main Government buildings on the esplanade in Singapore.

For those reasons I feel I have a right to wish the Lion City well as she approaches the threshhold of a new experiment in self-government and, in welcoming this Bill today, to hope that that great city will continue to fulfil the great expectations of her British founder, Sir Stamford Raffles. As hon. Members know, Singapore was a very sparsely populated swamp when Raffles found it in 1819. Through a combination of British administrative genius and European and Chinese thrift, hard work, commercial acumen and business know-how, she has been enabled to become the thriving and prosperous entrepôt which she is today. Once again Britain hands over a territory which has benefited immeasurably from her tutelage.

I shall not keep the House for long, but there are one or two points I wish to make in connection with this Bill. I was very grateful to hear my Tight hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies say that, so far as we are concerned, there is no question of barring any doors to a closer political association between the island and the mainland, the Federation of Malaya. I hope also that this new step in Singapore's development will not mean in the minds of the people of Malaya and Singapore any question of barring a door to that closer association.

Singapore is as close to the Federation of Malaya as the Isle of Wight is to Britain, and their economies are complementary. It seems that in those circumstances there should be a closer political association. I think the leaders in Singapore are very well aware of this need. With all the wealth of political sagacity which is now available in the Commonwealth, I do not believe it is beyond the wit of our people to evolve a suitable Constitution.

As other hon. Members have mentioned, we should not forget those three small territories for which we are responsible in North Western Borneo are too small ever to stand alone in the world as it is today, but they may well conceive in due course that their ultimate salvation would lie in a closer political association with Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. They have much in common, racially, economically, and in their background connection with Great Britain.

This Bill is bringing into being yet another new Commonwealth Constitution. Nobody can pretend that in the growth of our Commonwealth we have not demonstrated the infinite variety and ingenuity of our political experience and creativeness. I do not believe that we have run dry of further political and constitutional ideas.

I very much welcome the intention to provide adequate safeguards for minorities in Singapore, especially with regard to the Malays. I welcome, too, the fact that the title of Her Majesty's representative in the island is to be a Malay one. I cannot help feeling that these proposals will be most helpful in due course when they contemplate closer association, as I hope they will.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the position of European civil servants after the Constitution Order comes into force. I hope that he can assure the House that adequate provision will be made in the Order to safeguard the interests of members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service who continue to serve the Government of Singapore and also that the Order will include an assurance that special allowances, such as cost-of-living allowances, which are being paid now should not be arbitrarily reduced on grounds of political expediency unrelated to any changes in the cost-of-living index.

I should like my right hon. Friend to give some information on one other point. For how long will those guilty of subversion be banned from standing for election to the Assembly?

Finally, I hope that we shall make it abundantly clear that the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the external defence and external affairs of this City State is undertaken not only in the interests of Singapore and the United Kingdom but above all in the interests of both the Commonwealth and, not least, the Federation of Malaya.

I also should like to welcome the Bill and wish Singapore and its people every happiness and prosperity in the future.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and other speakers have referred to that great pioneer Sir Stamford Raffles and others whose work and wisdom have contributed towards making Singapore what it is today. I think that we should pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose personality—and that is very important—sympathetic understanding and wide vision have helped to guide the fortunes of Singapore along the right lines. I believe that when the history of our times is written it will be seen that my right hon. Friend holds an honoured place in the annals of colonial development within the British Commonwealth.

I am indeed grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) for his very generous words. I must apologise to him for not rising at once, but I really was greatly moved by his words. It is one of those nice things to hear, particularly when many difficult problems have to be faced. Sometimes one's actions are not interpreted as they have been by my hon. Friend. I very much value what he said.

This has been an exceedingly cheerful send-off for the new status of the State of Singapore. I know that the united good wishes of this House—and I am sure the same will apply in another place—will be of the greatest encouragement to our friends in Singapore and to the forces of law and order there. The people of Singapore can take encouragement from the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) and Tavistock, and from the knowledge that we recognise their difficulties and are anxious to help. The fact that we trust them to face the future in a realistic way will be of the greatest importance.

The right hon. Member for Wakefield made a point which, when I was in Opposition, I used to think had a good deal of merit. I recognise that it is exceedingly difficult without the machinery of Whitehall behind one always to be able to discover precisely what the inevitable legal language of Bills may mean. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, a White Paper was published which gave the result of my talks with the Singapore delegation. There have been other occasions when the shape of the Constitution was made fairly clear to the House as a whole.

Difficulty arises from what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, as I think he would realise, but I will certainly give sympathetic consideration on a future occasion to the possibility of the publication of a White Paper giving in outline the form, or possibly even a draft, of the Order in Council. Judging from the knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman showed in his speech, it did not appear that he wanted any more help in arriving at what the matter was all about than was already provided.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to a recent Press statement about Port Swettenham, and asked whether it had any significance. Under the local defence arrangements which were arrived at after the war, the Federation of Malaya assumed responsibility for the land forces, while Singapore assumed responsibility for the naval forces. The naval force was the Royal Malayan Navy, whose responsibility was the local inshore defence of the Federation and of Singapore, the Peninsula. Now that the Federation is independent it is no longer appropriate for Singapore to finance the naval defence of the Federation. The Federation rightly desires to assume that responsibility itself. Therefore, the Royal Malayan Navy is being transferred to the Federation, but the Royal Navy in Singapore is in no way affected. I hope that that clears up the point that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.

The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East referred to the relationship between Singapore and the neighbouring territories. Of course, it is our hope that there will be close friendship between Singapore and the Federation. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not close any door on an even closer relationship. We hope also that there will be close friendship with the Colonies of Sarawak and North Borneo, and with the territory of His Highness the Sultan of Brunei, with which we are closely associated. As to the form which the organisation may take in the distant future, I think that crystal gazing, on my part anyhow, would be a little unprofitable.

The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by expressing the hope that the City Council in Singapore will recognise the great responsibility that it has to ensure that historical justice is done and that the proprieties of public life and national gratitude are observed. I entirely endorse what he said. In all probability there would not be anybody in Singapore had it not been for the foresight and brilliant work of Sir Stamford Raffles. His memory should be held in honour not only here but in Singapore as well, and I hope that nothing will be done to make that less sure. I know that the House will have heard with great interest from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East that it was his father who unveiled Sir Stamford Raffles' statue, which I think gives him a particular right to intervene in our discussion today. Both he, who had some grim years in Singapore and Siam, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport who had a most dramatic and honourable link with Singapore, speak with very great personal knowledge of Singapore.

I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport in complimenting the people of Singapore, not only on their courage and faith during the war, and in our ultimate victory, but on the astonishing recovery they have made, which augurs very well for their future. I share with her the hope that all who live there will tend more and more to regard it as their home, and as the centre of their loyalties. Indeed, this is one of the main purposes behind the Citizenship Bill, and I think that we can take some encouragement from the success already attending efforts to bring about just that state of mind.

I agree with her, also, on the necessity for people of all races to be able to live in absolute freedom and security there, and I recognise, as she does, the invaluable contribution made by the British commercial community, and by commercial representatives of other firms as well. Here, perhaps, I may say something that I have not actually mentioned before. So often in the work of my office, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, one meets people who say that we live in a sort of ivory castle in the Colonial Office, or in Whitehall in general, divorced from the harsh realities and difficulties of business life overseas, and that we are, perhaps, inclined to disregard their difficulties. People come to us from time to time and say, "If only the commercial community were brought more into the picture how much more sensible your decisions would be."

Both in Singapore and in the Federation there has been nothing but enlightened support by the commercial community for developments of the kind that this Bill represents. They recognise that in the present state of the world and in South-East Asia, progress on these lines is not only morally right but is a good economic business proposition as well. I am most grateful to them for the foresight that they have shown, and for the strong backing they have given to the policy of realistic liberalism.

I join also with the hon. Lady in her tribute to the police and to the great courage shown by them under great provocation. They deserve all our congratulations. It is, of course, true, that because of the resolution shown by the Government of Singapore and by the police themselves, those who are anxious to make trouble have had to think again about it, and there has been a welcome change in the local security situation.

She also asked me about what she called the short-term expatriates"—the contract officers. Although I am sure that she has it, I would direct her to the statement of policy on Malayanisation, issued by the Singapore Government. In page 5, the hon. Lady will see this undertaking:

"Officers on normal contracts are not eligible for compensation, and their terms of service will continue to be governed by their conditions of contract. The Government will fulfil its obligations to them under their existing terms of service, and they are given an assurance that, subject to satisfactory service, and subject always, of course, to the right of the Government to abolish any post that is no longer necessary, there is no intention of terminating their contracts before the term fixed in the agreement."

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East, also asked questions about Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. The provisions for these, and for the security of their future, which I mentioned in my opening speech, will be enshrined in the Constitution, or by Order in Council, and I think that my hon. Friend will find them satisfactory. He also asked how long the subversive ban would continue. It is, of course, a ban on those people to whom it applies in regard to elections to the first Assembly in Singapore. The Dentention of Persons Ordinance is a Singapore Government ordinance, and Mr. Lim Yew Hock's Government have announced that it is their intention to renew it. The ban itself will, as I say, apply to elections to the first assembly.

I hope that I have answered the points raised. I should like again to thank the House as a whole for the sympathy it has shown; and the happy note of confidence that we are able to transmit to our friends and colleagues in Singapore.

This afternoon, having rather more time than I would have had in the normal way, I am raising this matter of the use of the nuclear power stations which are to be constructed under the civil programme by the Central Electricity Generating Board for the production of military plutonium in several cases.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I dislike this decision, but at the same time I am not raising the issue today, as I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power will understand, in any unduly controversial spirit. I am anxious mainly to obtain information, and I think there may be others of my hon. Friends, unfortunately absent at the moment, who will be interested, as I am, in the answer that is obtained.

I do not think it can be doubted that this decision to use the civil nuclear power stations in this way is a serious departure from the original intention. I have here in my possession the White Paper of 1955 entitled "A Programme of Nuclear Power", Cmd. 9389, which announced the important decision to launch this civil nuclear power programme. The Government stated in the first paragraph of that White Paper:

"The military programme continues to be of great importance but the peaceful applications of nuclear energy now demand attention. Nuclear energy is the energy of the future. Although we are still only at the edge of knowledge of its peaceful uses, we know enough to assess some of its possibilities."

The words that I want to emphasise are

"The military programme continues to be of great importance …"

The trend of the argument here was that a distinction was to be drawn between a military programme and a civil programme, a civil programme being something quite different.

The first intention undoubtedly was to construct these nuclear power stations of the future on a civil, commercial and competitive basis, and that they were to compete with power stations making electricity but fired by coal. Also—and I shall return to this point in a moment—it was argued that a constructional programme of this kind would be of great value to our home energy needs and at the same time be of equal value in training our manufacturers to compete in export markets in the sale of nuclear power stations to other countries.

For that reason, the original White Paper of 1955 used certain arguments about operating costs and, since this is important, I will quote, for the refreshment of the memory of the Parliamentary Secretary, what was said on page 5 of the 1955 White Paper. Paragraph 20 states:

"These estimates assume that all the Plutonium is used for civil purposes, as would be most desirable. No allowance has been made for any military credits."

That is the basis on which this programme was launched.

The 1955 White Paper therefore discussed the provisional nuclear programme, estimated cost of electricity likely to be turned out and other assumptions justifying the vast capital expenditure involved. The extent of the first programme as given in 1955 was to consist of the construction of, I believe, twelve nuclear power stations over a period of ten years, and the total capacity of those stations in the first programme was to be between 1,500 and 2,000 megawatts.

In March, 1957, we were all delighted when the representative of the Ministry of Power told us in this House, as did his noble Friend in another place, that the programme was to be greatly enlarged. Many had thought that it might be twice the size, but in fact the enlargement turned out to be three times the original size. The revised programme, therefore—and I believe it is still intended to carry it through—is to the extent of 6,000 megawatts.

From my memory, and from what I have been able to read, there was no suggestion at all then that this programme was to be used for other than civil purposes or other than on a strictly commercial competitive basis. I know that the situation has changed a lot since 1957, but there is, if anything, a surplus of small coal in this country which can be burned successfully in conventional-type power stations, and the capital cost of conventional power stations tends to come down relatively to general costs. Therefore, if the nuclear programme is to continue to be justified, surely it must be on a commercial and a genuinely economic basis. Certainly, in 1957, as in 1955, there was no suggestion that the reactors connected with those proposed civil nuclear power stations were to be used for the production of military plutonium.

Hence to those of us who are interested in this subject it came somewhat as a surprise and a shock when last month the Ministry of Defence—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that it was the Ministry of Defence and not his own Ministry which made this announcement—announced the decision to which I am referring and to which in principle I object.

I have here the report in The Times of the statement:

"Ministry of Defence issued the following statement last night: 'In order to provide insurance against future defence needs, certain of the civil nuclear power reactors now in the early construction or design stage are being modified so that the plutonium produced as a by-product is suitable for use, if the need arises, for military purposes'."

I will not read the rest of it. Considering everything, it is not entirely respectable that the Ministry of Defence should have made that announcement. I do not wish to weary the House in trying to convince the Parliamentary Secretary, but when we find that the Ministry of Defence interests itself not only in the use of these reactors for military purposes but makes comment about the operating costs of power stations, it is rather curious. Why did they give the news at all? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend was asleep on that occasion. One could understand that, in pre-1914 Prussia, the Ministry of Defence there might make announcements on civil matters, but it is a curious thing to happen in the democratic and constitutional Britain of today. However, I will let that pass.

The justification of the decision, as I understand it, is that, in short, this way of obtaining military plutonium is the cheapest and most convenient. In order to avoid putting down special reactors for the purpose at enormous capital cost, it is useful to take hold of the civil reactors which are coming along, adapting them a little and using them instead.

If this be so, it would appear—it is a pity that no one from the Ministry of Defence is present—that the country's need for military plutonium has increased enormously in the last two years. I base that view on common sense and, if I am wrong in what I say, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me. In 1956, we had just the two reactors at Windscale for the production of military plutonium, and they had been in use virtually since the last war. There was the operating disaster at Windscale, and it was stated that, as a result, the use of one of the piles was lost to us. I believe that it is pretty well a total loss and is not likely to be used again, so that one of them certainly has gone out of action.

However, in addition to the Windscale installation, there are now the Calder Hall reactors under the Atomic Energy Authority, both designed for the production of military plutonium, Calder Hall A and Calder Hall B, which is very nearly in commission if it is not already. There is the Chapel Cross plant, again an Atomic Energy Authority plant, which will be coming along very soon. It seems, therefore, that at quite an early date the country will have at least eight reactors suitable for the production of military plutonium, under the Atomic Energy Authority, whereas there were only two two years ago.

Unless, as I say, defence needs have multiplied enormously, I am at a loss to understand why we must now bring into service the reactors of the Central Electricity Generating Board yet to be constructed. If the statement made by the Ministry of Defence, which has since been reinforced by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General in the House is correct, then the Hunterston nuclear power station yet to be constructed and the Hinkley Point nuclear power station are to be modified for the production of military plutonium. In addition, two other stations further down the line of the construction programme are also to be made suitable for the purpose.

On this basis, we can take it that the potential defence needs of the country for plutonium have increased to a quite fantastic extent. How is all this plutonium, as it comes from the reactors, to be processed? As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not complete in itself and has to pass through very elaborate processing. From what knowledge I have on the subject, processing can be done at Capenhurst and Windscale, but, beyond that, is it proposed to put down further processing plant? It seems difficult to understand how all this plutonium could be handled if all these piles, both present and future, are to be modified for military purposes. It may be that the hon. Gentleman will say that it is outside the province of his Department. It may be that the United States will help us in processing, but the question I put is an obvious one which any intelligent layman following these matters is bound to ask.

I am inclined to think that this is another case of the old story; of the Ministry of Defence becoming rather scared about military plutonium resources and following the good Service practice of grabbing all it can "just in case".

There are several serious objections to this course of action. First of all, there is the principle itself. It was the proud boast of this country until recently that we were the first, indeed the only, country in the world to develop nuclear power, with all its potentialities for good or ill, for peaceful applications. In the world of ideas, that was something much to our credit which probably stood us morally in very good stead. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not brush that objection aside too lightly. We live in a world dominated very much by material considerations, as we know very often to our cost, yet I should have thought that ideas and mental attitudes counted for as much in the world today as ever they did in the past. I count it as a blow to our prestige as a trading, commercial, industrial and scientific nation that we should have had to take this step. There must be very serious arguments in its favour as yet unknown to us to justify the change being made. But if we move away from the argument of principle, that it is not a good thing, as a matter of prestige, to mix civil and military nuclear requirements, let us look at another serious objection.

I have tried to put this point in some Questions I have addressed to the hon. Gentleman. I believe it will cause much confusion in the matter of operating costs of the future nuclear power stations but first a word on the capital cost. It has been stated that the capital cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of making the modification is relatively small, and that not only is it small but the cost in the end will be met from Government funds and will not have to be met from the commercial trading funds of the electricity industry. I must accept that statement.

I noted that the hon. Gentleman said in the House, in answer to a Question put down by one of my hon. Friends, that the additional operating cost would be very small. I do not know on what he bases that opinion, because I am given to understand from discussions with technical and engineering friends that the additional operating cost of working power stations, with this modification made, will be between £12 million and £15 million a year per station. If that is not the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say so, but it does not seem to merit his view that the additional operating cost will be small.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me if I say that before he was on the Front Bench he was an economist in the darkest sense, and in those days he would not have described £12 million or £15 million a year as a very small addition. It may be that change of position makes a difference to Parliamentary ideas of size in matters of finance, but it would be interesting to have confirmation that the additional operating cost will be indeed very small, since I understand that it will be of the order I have mentioned.

There is another serious objection. It will now be difficult to obtain the true operating costs of the future nuclear power stations. I will not weary myself and others with the uranium changes that come about in nuclear energy processes—the business of the U.235, U.238 the U.240 and the rest. To put it simply, if a reactor is to be used for the production of military plutonium, it must be of a relatively high grade, and it really means that the uranium fuel elements must be taken from the reactor at a much earlier stage than they would have been taken had the station been used purely for the production of heat and electricity. In short, the fuel elements in the piles will have to be changed far more often.

Therefore, it will not be too easy to say to any potential buyer of a British nuclear power plant, when he looks at an installation in this country, "This is the true operating cost". He will immediately ask, "What is the assumption? For how long will the rods remain in? You have taken them out too soon because of your defence programme and, therefore, the figures you are giving are not correct. You cannot say they are correct. Indeed, you are no longer in a position to obtain the true figures."

That fact may have an unfortunate effect on our export trade possibilities. I am not alone in that assumption, because I have here the Electrical Review, which is an independent trade paper, having no bias in politics either for or against Her Majesty's present advisers. Its leading article on 27th June reads:

"But it must still he the case that stations employed for the dual purpose of power and plutonium producion are likely to have lower overall efficiencies and it will be very difficult to assess how much of the reduction is attributable to their secondary function. This may prove a serious handicap when it comes to quoting for stations overseas, although of course, the Bradwell and Berkeley plants will be able to provide 'pure' power statistics."

It is kind of the Electrical Review to make that qualification, namely that the Brad-well and Berkeley plants will be able to give us some correct figures.

Speaking from memory, I think the hon. Gentleman himself used that argument in answer to a question I put to him on an earlier occasion. The truth is that the stations which will now be left to us for getting at the true operating costs are the stations that very soon will be the first to be out of date, because under this proposal the most modern, up-to-date experience in the operation of nuclear power stations will be lost, perhaps for ever.

I could instance Hinkley Point station, which is included in the military plutonium programme now and is one of the stations affected. That will be a model plant, far more modern that either Brad-well or Berkeley. It will also he a much larger station, of the enormous size of 500,000 kilowatts, which is as large as any of the conventional power plants we see on the river in London. Certainly it is a plant which is likely to be capable of giving us electricity at less than ·5d., if it is free to operate as a power station and not as a military explosives plant. If, however, it is to be used for the production of military plutonium, it is doubtful if anyone could say honestly that we are able to produce electricity from a nuclear plant at less than ·5d. Therefore, the argument that we shall have left to us some of the nuclear power stations unaffected by this change really means that we shall have left to us not the latest and most modern plants, not those which will be in real competition with foreign manufacturers, but just the out of date plants.

In addition to losing the valuable data we might possess on operating costs, we shall in addition lose a great deal of valuable technical experience for our engineers and scientists. We know that with the development of nuclear power and nuclear energy a great deal of research has been done which reflects great credit on the scientists of our country. Some of it was done during the last war, a great deal since. It is a continuing process. If it had not been for this early research we would not be in the advanced stage we are now. In addition to research there has been a great deal of engineering development. However, what is still wanted is practical operating experience.

As yet that is an unknown factor. We want some years of experience in the operation of nuclear power plants under conditions of commercial loading—day and night operation. It is the only way in which engineers can check the behaviour of components and remedy the weaknesses which will inevitably arise, and it is the only way in which they can check the potential life of the fuel element.

Unless there is a true test under commercial conditions and not conditions exaggerated by military needs where the elements are not run for a period which corresponds to their maximum possible life, the results will be artificial and misleading. It will be a great loss to the engineers engaged in the nuclear power stations if the reactors are to be prematurely shut down from time to time according not to technical needs but to a schedule of military production.

I think these are serious considerations which it was necessary to put before the House, but I am not in any sense against the defence programme as such. A defence programme must be one which is realistic and corresponds to military possibilities and requirements. At the same time, it is surely necessary that we should keep a sense of balance and perspective. Defence is intended to safeguard our existence as a nation, including as a trading and commercial nation. I should have thought that in times of peace defence must always be subordinated to our normal national life. If, instead, defence becomes the master, do we not in the long run risk the danger of finding ourselves left with very little normal life to protect?

I have outlined the objection in principle, and I have outlined some of the practical difficulties which are now bound to arise particularly in respect of nuclear station operating costs and engineering experience. I believe the decision is probably a mistaken one and likely to make our nuclear power stations, as potential exports, far less competitive than they would have been. Already we have failed to secure certain contracts for the construction of nuclear power stations in Western Europe. These have gone to the Americans instead, and if we persist in the kind of thing we shall find ourselves losing other valuable contracts.

The policy is shortsighted. I cannot believe that we really need all this military plutonium, but that it is the result of scare on the part of our military advisers. I should be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman will answer the points which I have made.

The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has been making very heavy weather. As a result, I am afraid that some of his comments may easily be unfortunate from the national point of view. It has already been made plain, but I feel that I must start by reminding him, that all we are concerned with here is an insurance. It is not to be taken that any of the slugs in any of the reactors which are to be modified or which do not require modification, like Hunterston, will stay in the piles for a length of time different from that under the original programme.

Nevertheless, with a vast programme of reactors such as this country has in hand—ahead of the rest of the world—I should have thought it was evident that if it be possible at this early stage at very small cost to provide ourselves with a possiblity of very greatly increased supplies of a vital factor in modern defence, the Government would rightly have been subject to criticism, criticism when it might have been too late, if they had not considered the situation. Already two of the piles, at Berkeley and Brad-well, cannot be modified, and it just happens—it arises out of decisions taken irrelevantly to all this—that one of the other stations will not require modification. Hinkley Point will, and it is anticipated that two further ones will. If at a very small premium, as it were, we can put ourselves in possession of a very valuable insurance, it seems to the Government that it would be wise so to do.

The hon. Member will appreciate that as this touches defence matters there are a number of points which it would not be in the public interest to discuss, and in any case they are irrelevant to his main point that we are prejudicing the civil stations. Therefore, all the questions of how and where and the cost of processing slugs and so on are not relevant. In any case, I could not go into them very far.

I ought to say a few words to get into perspective what is actually happening. There is a good deal of misunderstanding. People talk about high-grade plutonium and so on. It may be worth while to say a word or two about the scientific background. All the slugs which go into a pile will be exactly the same as they would have been in any case.

While uranium 238 is subject to large neutron flux, some of it, as the hon. Member knows, is transformed into plutonium, but plutonium, like uranium has several isotopes. Plutonium has four isotopes, but we are concerned with only two. The first of those, plutonium 239, is a fissile isotope and is valuable for weapons. After a time, an increasing proportion of this is turned into another higher isotope, plutonium 240 which is not fissile. That has other uses. It is expected to be of value in different types of more advanced reactors, but it is not suitable for weapons.

Therefore, the whole point at issue here is simply, if we are to make it possible in cases where it is felt to be desirable to use the plutonium out of the civil reactors, whether it is worth while making arrangements to be able to handle a greater number of slugs and take them out more quickly. From the point of view of the civil programme, only two financial elements are concerned, and, in the broad sense, there are no technical issues. The reactor starts off in exactly the same way and goes through exactly the same set of operations. To put it crudely, it is only that the changes take place rather more frequently.

The first of the two financial elements, without going into details, is that the machinery to handle these things more frequently must be provided and that involves a capital cost. However, that is proportionately small, less than 1 per cent. of the cost of the station. On the whole, that will be met straight away and will not be a charge on the civil programme.

Then there will be certain small costs, because of the mere fact of handling the slugs more frequently—although they will not be substantial—and there will be certain other changes in the operating costs. I cannot be taken to accept or deny the figures the hon. Member mentioned, but he may have slightly misunderstood the situation. There is no substantial change in the pile itself and the operating expenses are, therefore, simply the difference between the initial cost of the slugs and the price at which the Atomic Energy Authority buys them back from the Central Electricity Generating Board.

It is therefore plain that the whole of the capital costs will be met, so that that factor does not arise, but the price at which the Atomic Energy Authority buys back the irradiated slugs from the Board will be so adjusted as to ensure that there is no additional operating cost to the Authority.

Supposing that this matter of military plutonium had never arisen; the slugs would still have to be sold and bought back and those costs are therefore a matter of agreement. All that will be done is to adjust the price at which they are bought back from the Board, and, so far as is humanly possible, to equate exactly any increase in operating costs to the Board. It is the clear intention that neither on capital account nor on revenue account will there be any change in the financial position of the Board.

I knew already that the Government would meet the costs which the Generating Board would incur, both capital and operating costs. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not ride away from this too easily, but the point is that the rods will now have to be left in for a much shorter time instead of in order that the engineers who operate the station can get the maximum use from them. That makes a great deal of difference to the actual operating costs of the station.

Secondly, the figures I have given are not figures which I have simply dreamed up. They are the figures of engineering experts, and there are many engineering experts outside the Ministry of Power.

I do not intend to enter a slanging match with the hon. Gentleman on whether my information is right or wrong. He must assume that I am giving him the best information I have, and accept it as such. I repeat that it is the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board, in fixing the prices at which the rods will be bought back, to take account of any additional operating costs so as to neutralise them.

There remains only one objection which the hon. Member has raised. Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the operating costs of the Generating Board are not affected. The hon. Member says that the fact that the piles are being operated in a different way will affect, and may seriously affect, the knowledge obtained from them. That is a very important matter with which I will deal.

A vital part of the economic calculations of the competitive position of a nuclear station depends upon the number of megawatt-days per ton of uranium obtained from a slug. To put the hon. Member's objection in a specific form, he said that if the newer stations were not used to find out whether the figures were correct, the knowledge obtained might be endangered.

The information would also help us with exports.

Apart from exports, we want to know those figures. Indeed, the hon. Member referred to competition with conventional stations now that we have a surplus of small coal. Calculations of the competitive efficiency of a nuclear station are concerned not with the plutonium factor—which, for reasons with which I need not deal, has already fallen to such a low figure that, although important, it is of much less importance than it was a few years ago—but with the correctness or otherwise of the megawatt-days per ton of uranium.

It may be asked how the calculations can be checked if the rods are pulled out long before that figure is known. That is important. The answer to that is twofold. The first I have already given, and it is that it just happens that two of these stations cannot be modified, so that Berkeley and Bradwell will have their slugs running to the full length.

The hon. Member has admitted that, but has pointed out that those stations are already beginning to become out of date, such is the speed of advance in these matters. He said that it was a pity that the work could not be done at Hinkley Point, but he has omitted to observe that—apart from the fact that the whole of this is an insurance and not what will happen—there is nothing to prevent even a station like Hinkley Point being turned almost completely into a plutonium factory and some of the slugs being kept in for as long as one likes.

As the hon. Member probably knows, an immense amount of work is being done. We cannot wait for what is happening at Hinkley Point, which is not yet in operation, with work on high irradiation. I do not think there is anything in that. But taking the Generating Board's stations themselves, as far as knowledge goes there is nothing to prevent certain of the elements being left in in order to see whether they can be burnt to the length that we desire.

I want to make one point about the export trade. In any attempt to obtain a contract abroad it is of the essence that all these elements have to be sent back here for processing. Therefore, in any such contract, when the purchaser is considering whether it would be economical or not, he is asking, in effect—indeed this is now done quite regularly in Italian and Japanese cases—"At what price will you deliver the slug, and at what price will you buy it back?" That price must be quoted to him in any case, and it is really of no economic interest to him why it is taken back after any particular period, if he is prepared to let it come back after that period. All he is concerned with is the question of the price at which we will sell it and the price at which we will buy it back.

In the present state of knowledge, so far from it being an advantage, to leave slugs for a great length of time—and this is reaching out into the realms of scientific knowledge where none of us pretends to have the final answers—there are grave possibilities of difficulty with a higher length of irradiation. I should have thought that purchasers abroad would think it an advantage to get rid of their slugs at a short rate of irradiation rather than the other way round. The economic question is simply at what price the slugs will be sold and at what price they will be bought back. That price must be settled as a part of the contract. Therefore, whether foreign countries decide to buy power stations from this country rather than from America, or decide to have ordinary coal-burning stations, these calculations must be made.

The hon. Member is making rather heavy weather of this. Whether or not it is improper for a great industry to be put into a position where it can help the defence effort, I do not know. Many chemical and other materials are of vast military interest. I do not follow the hon. Member's argument on that point. But if we felt that this would be a serious hindrance to the development of the civil nuclear programme the hon. Member can take it that the Ministry of Power would be very much concerned. I can assure him that this fairly cheap insurance should not have any serious repercussions upon the nuclear programme.

The hon. Member said that he cannot follow my argument, and he makes a comparison with the supply of explosive chemicals by the chemical industry. There is a vast difference. The chemical industry makes manufactured chemical products but the Central Electricity Generating Board is a public utility, whose primary purpose is to make electricity.

I am sorry, but that is just not so. We cannot produce these reactors without making plutonium. That is one of the facts of life; indeed, it is one of the problems which led to the construction of Dounreay. The problem was what should be done with the plutonium if we did not get rid of it in a nuclear war. We cannot make a reactor of the Calder Hall type without making plutonium, and that plutonium must be handed over to the A.E.A. All we are discussing is the question whether, under those circumstances, it might not be a wise thing to ensure that instead of having an enormously expensive way of obtaining extra plutonium 239 we do not stop making some plutonium 240. It is as simple as that.

I honestly think that the hon. Member is making rather heavy weather of it, but I hope that because of his suspicion of the Defence Departments he will not carry out a campaign which might seriously hinder the development of this most promising and vital British civil nuclear programme. I assure him that the changes involved are marginal; the economics are of no importance to the Board, and they should have no effect at all upon our chances of exporting stations. The costs on the defence side—and they will be considerable—are no concern of the Atomic Energy Authority.

They would necessarily have been incurred anyway, and they would have otherwise been very much higher. Assuming that our defence programme is right—and that is not my business—this is the cheapest way of providing this insurance, and I should be most sorry if any suggestion got abroad that we are making fundamental changes in these reactors which would make them hybrids, and no longer a perfectly genuine and economic way of producing electricity in the new age. Any suggestion of that sort would be most unfortunate.