I wish to draw the attention of the House to the suppression of political rights in Aden. I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak and I shall try to be as brief as possible. The situation in Aden has grown steadily worse since 1960. Since 1956, the Aden trade union movement has developed strongly and since that date it has been affiliated to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. It has always been in the interests of the West that developing trade union movements should be affiliated to this body rather than to the World Federation of Trade Unions and this in itself is a matter for encouragement.

Nevertheless, after a considerable number of strikes, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, was passed in Aden which provides for compulsory arbitration and, in effect, makes strikes illegal. Any person who is guilty of encouraging a strike is liable to be sentenced to six months imprisonment and any person who takes part in a strike is liable to three month's imprisonment. I do not deny that difficulties have existed and that the number of strikes was very large. I do not deny that the Aden Trades Union Congress has not forsworn politics. In fact, it regards political and economic questions as being very much intertwined. Its fight has been as much concerned with constitutional advancement as with industrial matters.

However, two facts stand out. The first is that the right to withdraw labour, which is fundamental to any trade union movement, has been denied; and secondly, that a report from the commission of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions which visited Aden and also a report from the International Labour Office have been strongly critical of the existing industrial legislation in Aden. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has reported that, in its view, the Aden trade union movement is one of the most mature and certainly the most encouraging in the Arab world.

The root cause behind the unrest and the eventual legislation which has been passed has undoubtedly been political. Since the announcement of the Government's policy of the merger of Aden with the South Arabian Federation, the position has become much worse.

Early in September this year, processions and public meetings were banned and it was for taking part in a demonstration that the Aden trade unionists who were later flogged found themselves in gaol. Also, since then Al Amel, which is the trade union newspaper, has had its licence withdrawn. So that the trade union movement cannot strike, it cannot organise processions or public protests and it has no newspaper to express its views.

A week or so ago, the trade union leader Asnag was gaoled for twelve months for sedition. As the matter is under appeal, I cannot comment on the case, much as I should like to do so. I ask the Government, however, to look carefully at this case and to ask themselves whether in the particular circumstances of Aden and the special position which Asnag holds, the prosecution in this case was advisable.

Many nationalist leaders who have ultimately turned out to be responsible leaders have spent unnecessary years in gaol. Although the Parliamentary delegation which recently visited Aden did not see Asnag, most people seem to report that he is far from being an entirely irresponsible trade union leader. Even the Governor seemed to regard him as not altogether unreasonable and by no means the worst trade union leader, or nationalist leader for that matter, the Government may have to deal with.

I saw him in jail on behalf of myself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), and I can assure the hon. Member that he is a perfectly moderate man who wants to co-operate with Britain and the Government.

The hon. Member has confirmed the general opinion which seems to have been expressed by others.

At present, the position threatens to become even worse since a new ordinance is due to come into law, the Societies Bill, to which I want to draw the particular attention of this House. The overall effect of the Bill is to make the continued legality of political organisations and political parties dependent on the discretion of a registrar. The Bill provides for the registration of all societies, with a number of exemptions, but certainly for the registration of all political societies. If societies are not registered they become illegal. The officers of such a society would be subject to one year's term of imprisonment, in effect, and members of that society would be subject to six months' imprisonment.

I want to read out first of all Clause 6 (5) of the new Bill, which reads as follows:

"The Registrar may refuse to register a local society where he is satisfied that such society is a branch of or affiliated to or connected with any organisation or group of a political nature established outside the Colony."

It would, perhaps, be understandable that if a local society were a branch of a political party outside it might be regarded as being undesirable, but, for example, it would seem that the registration and therefore the legality of a local branch of the Fabian Society could be refused.

Then it goes on "if it is affiliated to". This is a much wider term. This may well affect the Trade Union Congress, which I shall refer to later; it may well affect the People's Socialist Party, which is the political wing of the trade union movement, if this should be affiliated to the Socialist International as is, for example, the British Labour Party. Then this would become subject to the discretion of the registrar and registration may well be refused and its existence may become illegal. Again, if the Arabian League were affiliated to a wider Arab organisation then its registration could be refused.

Thirdly, the subsection says registration may be refused if the local society "is connected with" any outside political organisation. This surely is a term which could hardly be wider. It establishes some sort of guilt by association. It means that if there are friendly relations with, or if observers are sent or delegates are sent to, an outside conference, it would be impossible to say there was not some sort of connection with the outside body. These are cases where the registrar may refuse registration.

Subsection (6) deals with cases where he must refuse to register. I will read the subsection, which is particularly important:

"The Registrar shall refuse to register a local society where it appears to him"—

so he has a discretion—

"that such society has amongst its objects or is likely to pursue or to be used for, any unlawful purpose or any purpose prejudicial to or incompatible with peace, welfare or good order of the Colony or that the interests of peace, welfare or good order in the Colony would otherwise be likely to suffer prejudice by reason of the registration of such society; or (b) it appears to him that the terms of the constitution, rules … of such society are in any respect repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of any law for the time being in force in the Colony".

This means, particularly in a situation where strikes are outlawed, newspapers are suppressed, processions have been declared illegal, that it might be very hard to argue that Opposition parties determined to end the ban might not if they are registered be prejudicial to good order in the Colony. If some sort of demonstration may result, or it appears to the registrar that some sort of demonstration may result, he may refuse to register that society; also if such society "may be used for any purpose which is prejudicial to the interests of good order." There could hardly be a wider phrase giving the widest possible discretion to refuse registration.

If the object of one of the societies may be to oppose a merger between Aden and the Federation, a merger which is fundamentally unpopular in the Colony under the present terms at any rate, it may be that such terms in the constitution would be deemed inconsistent with some law in the Colony. Therefore the registrar has the widest and vaguest powers and in fact the legality of political organisations depends upon his discretion. I do not know what sort of figure he will be. If he is not a political figure it means Civil Service controls extends to political parties. If he is a political figure it gives full control to the Government. If this Bill becomes law there will, in effect, be no further safeguards for democratic opposition left in Aden.

I said I would refer to the position of the Trades Union Congress. Trade unions are specifically exempted from local societies and therefore from registration, but first of all it is questionable whether the Trades Union Congress itself is already registered under the Trades Union Ordinance and even if it is registered under that Ordinance it seems that by Clause 7 of this Bill:

"The Registrar may with the prior approval of the Governor in Council, rescind at any time any exemption from the registration granted under the provisions of this Ordinance".

So that in effect the registrar and the Governor have power to make the Trades Union Congress registrable. But if it has affiliation with the I.C.F.T.U. its position could well be challenged and this could be well regarded as a political organisation.

I would ask the Minister to look at this Bill very carefully. Why are the powers given so extraordinarily wide and vague? If it is said that the powers will not be used, why insert them? If they may be used, it is intolerable that some such threat will hang over the continued existence of political Opposition parties in Aden.

It may be said that, because of the intimidation which was referred to in a previous debate, this Bill may be necessary. It may be that there has been intimidation, but I think it is significant that Mr. Luqman, the father of the member of the Executive Council whom I spoke to when I was in Aden, and whose political objects are quite different from those of the Trades Union Congress or the People's Socialist Party, denied that any intimidation had taken place except on the part of the Government. However, having been there in effect only one day, I should not like to say there was not any intimidation. But I do know that intimidation has often in the past been the excuse for suppressing the rights of democratic liberties and that it becomes inevitable if constitutional ways of expressing opposition are suppressed.

I suggest to the Government that there is a substantial case for an independent inquiry, rather like the Devlin Corn-mission, to inquire into the whole political unrest in Aden and to inquire whether there was intimidation. The trade union leaders I spoke to would welcome such an independent Commission of inquiry. Certainly the Devlin Commission, which reported on intimidation and on the massacre plot, which it investigated, was the basis for the political development which has taken place there since, and I do not think that anyone at this moment could deny that the outlook for Nyasaland is profoundly hopeful and encouraging.

I warn the Government that, unless there is a change of policy, Aden in the next few years will be the first trouble spot of the Commonwealth—with the possible exception of Southern Rhodesia. It is extremely likely that we shall find the greatest unrest and violence and difficulties there.

If the policy of the merger is pressed on, which would have the effect of making the future development of Aden itself dependent on the decisions of the feudal rulers of the Protectorates, and if, at the same time that this unpopular Measure is passed, all political opposition is effectually suppressed, there is bound at some stage to be an explosion. We have often failed to anticipate trouble in the past. Let us not make the same mistake again. I profoundly hope that the Minister will press by every means he can for a change in the present policy, and for relaxation of these oppressive laws.

I should like to say that I think the balanced speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) is one which should commend itself to the Front Bench and to the country. Some of my colleagues in the Government think that we have been obstructive, or that we have not been helpful, in our visit to Aden in examining the problem of civil liberties and other matters there. They must be assured that we as back bench Members of this House do not expect obstruction by authorities trying to dissuade us from carrying out what we consider to be our duty to this House.

I am sure that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), if he intervenes during this debate, will agree that we were investigating the problem of civil difficulties and the political problem in Aden, and that we were surprised to receive official letters encouraging us not to carry out our duties to this House. I can assure the Government that, in the future, whenever I hear that I should not examine problems, both of a political and administrative nature. I shall on all future occasions decide and make the judgment for myself.

There is a very short time in which to go into the problem of the political situation which has arisen in Aden and examine why it is necessary even to contemplate the suppression of political liberties and political expression. This honourable House and this country has taught the people the world over to express themselves, to run a democratic Opposition and to run constructive governments. To enforce, or to attempt to enforce, orders such as this, to which the hon. Member for Lincoln has drawn attention, is asking for trouble by inflaming that area, with all the attendant dangers to our oil interests, and, even now, while the United States anticipates the problem in that part of the world and does not want to see civil liberties suppressed, we are going ahead in this way.

We are responsible for Aden. Aden is our duty. I want to warn the Government today that unless they change their policy there is going to be some serious trouble. Who will pay? Who will foot the bill in the end? The British taxpayer. This is Cyprus all over again, with the suppression of political liberties. This House should not stand for it, and the country should not stand for it, either. There may be doubt why it has been thought necessary to bring about suppression of political liberties. Why is it necessary to suppress the trade unions and the P.S.P.? I will tell the House why. I will quote what the Minister said on 13th November in refer- ence to the General Election which is to take place in Aden:

"If the P.S.P. won, it would at once start agitating for Aden to merge with the Yemen. That outcome would be totally unacceptable both to the Protectorate and to Her Majesty's Government.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 327.]

There is wide suppression of liberty in Aden because Her Majesty's Government, unlike the Government of their ally the United States, which has got more sense, do not choose to recognise that the problems of Aden and the Yemen are inseparable. For somebody to start writing about civil liberties in The Times suggesting that the present Yemeni Government is working with the Russians and Chinese is quite fantastic. Do we imagine that the United States has recognised the Yemen because the Russians and Chinese are working with the present Yemen Government? It is absurd.

We must get on good terms with the Government of the Yemen. Why has all this trouble arisen? It goes back to the problem of the P.S.P., who according to the British Government, is a party supported by President Nasser. Why not be honest and say to the world that we believe that, because of the close link which the P.S.P. really has with President Nasser, that we should suppress it as a party for all time. That was the reason.

I give the Minister warning. The B.B.C. the other night chose to refer to the head of the foreign State, according to the reported comment, as a "dog", and to the head of a country which the United States has recognised as a "donkey". What would this House and this country feel about its goad manners and its courtesy if Cairo television permitted reported comments on our Sovereign in anything approaching these terms. Good gracious, there would be uproar in the country. The B.B.C. lost its manners. As for the Minister, he failed to send a message to the B.B.C., as I requested yesterday, to ask the B.B.C., in view of the Panorama broadcast on 17th December, to eschew the reporting of abusive comments about the heads of foreign States with whom Her Majesty's Government have diplomatic relations. What did he answer? "No."

Quite right.

Does that mean that the B.B.C. is permitted to use abusive remarks about the heads of other States? I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) if he wishes to reply. The hon. Gentleman does not answer; he has not got the courage. I wonder why? Here we are, a country renowned for our manners, and the Minister is not prepared to stop the B.B.C. using abusive comments on the heads of other States.

We are going into a tragedy over Aden. I can see Cyprus all over again, and unless the Government can somehow change their line of policy, and if the Government do not change their policy, the British people will in the end find out, and the consequences for those responsible for these policies will become known and world-wide, and it will be the end of the Government.

There is so little time for this debate that it is difficult to know what to say, but I should like, in the first place, to say how much I agree with my hon. Friend, if I may be allowed to call him that, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) in what he has said about the Yemen.

I think it is quite extraordinary that our Government should not in this case follow the United State's. They follow them in so very many matters of which we do not altogether approve, but in this case they have not. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the statement he made in this House was somewhat disingenuous. All he said in an answer to a question which I put to him a few days ago, was that there might be Press reports when he must have known already about United States recognition of the Yemen. He did not care to say so but sheltered behind time, and the announcement came about half on hour afterwards. It is strange that our Government should not realise that it is much better to recognise a Government supported by President Nasser than to allow the Russians or indeed the Chinese to take over control of that country by supporting a new and relatively demo- cratic régime which, according to Colonel Baidani, the Foreign Minister of the Yemen, is no more Socialist than the present Conservative Government in this country, and I do not think that is saying very much.

I turn now to Aden and I want to say a word about the prisoners. This matter was not referred to in detail in the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). What is the situation? The prisoners went on hunger strike to help a friend of theirs in the prison—not a political prisoner who was anxious to see his own dentist—no more than that—but who was not allowed to see him for reasons which the superintendent thought good. I will not take that point any further. Because of what the prisoners did, they were, on the instructions of the superintendent of the prison, ordered to be caned, and they were caned not just lightly but very seriously indeed, and the effects have remained ever since.

Who is responsible for this? In the first place, obviously, the superintendent of the prison. I am glad of at any rate one thing. The superintendent of the prison was not an Englishman, because the English governor of the prison was away and so his position, I understand, had been taken by an Arab Adenese. But the governor cannot escape responsibility. He heard on the radio, if he did not hear in any other way, that half the prisoners had been caned, but he did nothing at all for twenty-four hours and allowed the caning of the others to take place. I want to know what is to happen to the superintendent and the governor.

All the way along the governor showed a most extraordinary attitude towards our delegation. First of all, he did not want the delegation to go there at all. He asked the Secretary of State if he would request us not to go, but he was told that one could not stop Members of Parliament going there. When we arrived he certainly received us most courteously, but at first he refused to allow us to go to see the prisoners. At last he gave me permission to go, but none of the other members of the delegation. He said that I could go personally and see them, but he said it so late that I was unable to go. Later, he allowed the hon. Member for the Wrekin to go instead of me and he said that at that time the prisoners were being well treated. I was very glad to hear that.

The governor's attitude the Whole time was one of deep suspicion. He was afraid that if we went to Aden there would be a riot. I have never caused a riot anywhere so far, and I do not think any of us have, but I said that we would not sneak there. We did not cause a riot. When we arrived the governor said, "If you co to the prison, you may cause a disturbance there." All the time his attitude was one of suspicion of Members of Parliament who were attending to their duties in a part of the world for which Britain is responsible.

I should like the Under-Secretary to tell me whether the Governor has been reminded of his duties—I will not say more than that—let alone whether any worse consequences have happened to him. I should like to know also, what has happened to the superintendent of the prison. Is he going on to be superintendent of a still higher prison where he can get even more people punished, or not? Will he suffer for this in any way? The attitude of the superintendent and the governor has been most reprehensible. This should be said in public in the House of Commons, and I hope the message will go back to Aden. I hope that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he went there—I know he was engaged upon much more important matters in connection with China and India—found time to look into this question, and that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us something about it so that justice may be done.

The right hon. Gentleman must be fair. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations went to the prison and himself examined the prisoners.

The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) is a little unfair about the Governor. The conditions in Aden are rather special, as they are in any colony. Aden has perhaps a specially volatile population, about half of them being Yemenis—foreigners—who are not in a position to be trusted, and it is very necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman will know because he has visited Aden, that Aden should be entirely quiet, because conditions under which a campaign of murder and violence could break out would be very serious for our people there, especially the families.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman, because of his great experience, will appreciate what a very nerve-racking job it is to keep the population both quiet and on our side. Incidentally, the immoderate and hysterical speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) will have done nothing in this regard to help.

Aden is in a special position because of the foreigners there, because it is entirely dependent on Western trade, over which it has absolutely no control, and also because of the defence installations which are there. Therefore, I think the Government of Aden are entitled, first, to take precautions against disorder on the part of the Yemenis there; secondly, to ensure that the prosperity of the colony continues by keeping the port open and working properly, as other ports in the neighbourhood would be only too willing to take over its trade; and, thirdly, for defence reasons, both to keep order and to keep a friendly population the whole time.

To depict, as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) did in his very reasoned and excellent speech, the trade union movement in Aden is struggling against great adversity is not to give a true picture. After all, the democratic institutions which are starting in Aden represent today an island in a sea of primitive and despotic countries. It is the only place round there where any political progress of this sort is being made.

We all know what the objective is. It is the colonial objective at any time—namely, self-government in due course. We have responsibility to ourselves, to the local population and to the whole Arabian peninsula to make sure that the movement of progress does not break down, that we have orderly progress over the years and not a sudden conflagration such as might easily destroy our position and the future of the population there.

The House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) for raising this matter and, in particular,for explaining the enormity of the new ordinance which is now being proposed. It merely proves that we were right in the case which we pressed on the Government in recent debates. We told the Government that if they went ahead on this course of imposing federation against the consent of the people of Aden and without first obtaining their co-operation, inevitably, as they found out by their bitter experience in Central Africa, they would be forced further and further along the road of repression.

First of all, there was an ordinance in effect making strikes illegal. Now there is one which is equally intent on imposing a similar type of ban on freedom of political association. I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will send the ordinance back and say that the Governor must reconsider the advice which he has given to his Ministers about this matter.

I merely want to bring up one further point, which has not yet been raised, about the policies of repression which are now being pursued. I refer to the threat that the Government of Aden are now making to the Aden T.U.C., that if it does not desist altogether from participation in political purposes, it will have its premises closed down. I have had correspondence with the Minister about this, and I am sure he will not mind my putting on record the answer that he gave on behalf of the Government:

"As there is ample evidence that the premises have recently been used for political purposes, the Governor of Aden issued a warning to the A.T.U.C. on 16th November, reminding them that the existing arrangements would be terminated, if they continued to use the premises for improper purposes."

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln said, the Aden T.U.C. has also been closely associated with the political activities arising out of the problems there. This threat to the Aden T.U.C. is utter folly on the part of the British Government and reflects on the reputation of this country with its traditions of democratic freedom. Here we have, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) said, a relatively enlightened area of political advance in that part of the Middle East, with a trade union movement which is following the same sort of historical development and traditions as Western trade union movements. It should be encouraged, conciliated and helped rather than have these repeated efforts to restrict its activities.

I hope that the Government, in the light of what is happening in the Yemen and American recognition of the new Republican Government there, will decide seriously to change their policies in Aden. It is on the basis of friendship for the new regime in the Yemen that the Government should turn to policies of conciliation in Aden rather than those of repression. They must try even at this stage, for I do not think that it is too late, to start a new and happier chapter of progress and advance in that part of the world.

For a relatively short Adjournment debate, this one has ranged fairly widely over a large number of different subjects. I hope I shall be able to answer adequately at least the most important of the matters brought out by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) dealt mainly with the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the Societies Bill, and I will try to cover these two issues first before coming to the other points which have been made.

As the hon. Member knows, the background to the Ordinance is the misuse—I think that I am entitled to use that word—of the strike weapon, which caused the Aden Government to introduce legislation in 1960 restricting the right to strike. I might remind the House that this was done on the specific advice of Mr. T. E. Fallows, special adviser on industrial relations and formerly a British trade union official of long standing. He went out to Aden and made a lengthy investigation.

It is true that the Ordinance prohibits strikes and lock-outs under certain circumstances and provides for unresolved disputes to be settled by the compulsory arbitration of an industrial court. I make it clear that the prohibition of strikes in any particular industry can be removed by the President of the Industrial Court, as the hon. Member knows, if he finds that there is a satisfactory collective agreement between management and men. In fact, ten such agreements involving nearly all the major unions are now in operation.

If the unions were prepared to work this Ordinance instead of boycotting it, they could secure the exemption of their members from its provisions without great difficulty. This point was fully covered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air last May when he held my present job and was replying to an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards). I have not sufficient time to go into it in detail now, but hon. Members who wish to follow the matter up will find it covered in more detail in that debate, which is worth reading.

Negotiations with employers under the collective agreements have resulted in substantial improvements in wages and working conditions over the past two years. I do not think that the Ordinance is suppressing and stifling union activity. Nevertheless, it is now possible that the purpose for which it was originally designed—promoting the more peaceful settlement of disputes and reducing the number of strikes—has been achieved. I am able to say, gladly, that the Aden Government have informed the Aden T.U.C. that they are willing to consider suspending the Ordinance as soon as local conditions permit.

Hear, hear.

The Aden Government have also invited employers and the Aden T.U.C. to serve on a joint consultative council which is now being established and which will review the Ordinance. I hope very much that the Aden T.U.C. will accept the invitation, for I consider it to be a constructive move forward which could lead to the result which the hon. Member has in mind.

Now I turn to the Societies Bill, which the hon. Member also criticised. There is no connection between this Bill and the proposed merger between the Colony and the Federation. It was first considered by the Executive Council in Aden as long ago as January and was finally approved by the Council on 11th June. As far as I know, there is no intention to introduce the Bill immediately. The general objectives of the Bill are quite proper ones, such as ensuring that societies publish their accounts, elect their officers in a proper manner, and generally conduct their affairs responsibly. The Bill is modelled on exactly similar legislation in a great many other Colonies, including Kenya and Hong Kong, and there is nothing sinister about it. It is not unusually wide in character. It is the same model as is used everywhere else.

It is true, however, that some Clauses have been criticised in Aden as well as in this debate, and there may well be something in the criticisms. For instance, the right of appeal under the Bill is to the governor. This also follows other colonial precedents, but it might be that the right of appeal should be to the courts. That could certainly be looked at.

The provision for the registration of political parties again merely follows precedent in other Colonial Territories, including Kenya, Hong Kong and Northern Rhodesia. It may be thought, too, that the powers of the police to obtain information about societies is too wide and I am quite happy to suggest to the Aden Government that this point should be examined there in the light of the suggestions that have been made. I believe that the registrar will be the Chief Registrar of Aden, who could, I think, be described as a civil servant.

Then there is the question of the Aden T.U.C. As the hon. Member knows, individual unions are not affected by this Bill because their registration is covered by a separate Ordinance. But the T.U.C. will be affected. It will have to be registered under the Bill. There is something to be said for this. It may be thought that the T.U.C. should publish its accounts and that member-unions deserve protection in respect of their contributions to it. Whatever the merits, I know that it is intended to include the Aden T.U.C. in the Bill.

I am advised, however, that its inclusion will not make its affiliation to international trade union organisations unlawful. That is definite. I am also advised that the Bill is consistent with Article 11 of the Declaration of Human Rights, and I am having the Bill further examined to see whether it contravenes any other international conventions to which we adhere. I do not believe that this is the case, but if it proves to be so it will certainly be brought at once to the attention of the Aden Government.

I will certainly draw the attention of the Aden Ministers to the views expressed in the debate. But I must say that the Bill has been drafted and approved by the lawful Executive Council in Aden which is, in effect, the Government. We have a Ministerial system there and to deny Ministers the right to bring this Bill in would be to fetter their rights in an unprecedented way.

Does not the hon. Member agree that it is not a fully and properly elected body which rules Aden?

It is a Ministerial system. It is very near to internal self-government. I know that we have not yet reached that point there, but the Colony is moving towards it. These Ministers have a right to bring in Bills in the Executive Council. To deny them that would fetter their rights in a most unusual way.

Would it not be expedient to have prior consultation with the Colonial Office before Bills of this kind are drafted? There is obviously consultation afterwards, and now a difficult situation is arising as to whether instructions or advice have to be given after the event by the Colonial Office. Is it not desirable to have prior consultation?

I will have a look at that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether there was any prior consultation; I think probably not, in the light of the queries which are now being raised, but I will go into that.

Is it just coincidence that without consultation these elected Ministers in Aden have produced an ordinance identical with that of Hong Kong, Northern Rhodesia and Kenya?

This is why I qualified my reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not know. But it is perfectly normal that if they wished to bring in a Bill of this sort they would naturally consult the precedents—certainly they would be advised to do so—which exist in other Colonies. I do not think that there is a great deal in that point. This an accord with the sort of legislation which exists in other and comparable colonial territories and with the Ministerial system which today exists in Aden.

Comments were made about the newspapers. Three licences have been withdrawn, but there are still six newspapers being published some of which are quite critical of the Government of Aden.

I do not think that I can go into the question of the arrest and conviction of Al Asnag in much detail because there is still time for him to lodge an appeal and the matter is therefore sub judice, but I have noted the comments about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) raised the question of B.B.C. broadcasts. As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with my Department, but my hon. Friend the Assistant-Postmaster-General was here and no doubt she noted the point. The comment was addressed really to her.

May I turn to some of the other points which have been raised? The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dug-dale) referred to the visit of Members of Parliament to Aden, as did my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. I do not want to labour the point, but I remind the House that the Governor is responsible ultimately for internal security. I do not comment on it, but in his judgment at that time he thought that the visit of Members of Parliament might be unhelpful and might possibly provoke deputations, disturbances and so on. Of course it did not do so; we know that it did not. But it is fair to point out that the man responsible in this sort of post at a politically difficult time—as it was—should be allowed to express an opinion whether such a visit would involve a security risk or not. This was the advice which he received from his chief security people in Aden. He may have erred on the side of caution, but I believe that personally he received hon. Members courteously, and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin visited the prison and the right hon. Member for West Bromwich and other members of the delegation could have done so had they been able to stay a little longer.

The reason I mention this in defence of the Governor, quite apart from the conventional reasons for which one defends a Governor, is that there was a near-riot situation when the hon. Member for Bilston visited Aden earlier this year. I remember that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) was there. I am not criticising him, but the hon. Member for Bilston made speeches there which created a very tense atmosphere, and in the light of this background the Governor was anxious about further visits of Members of Parliament.

I was part of that visit. In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), who is not in the House, I would say that that remark by the Minister is a most astonishing remark to make about an hon. Member and his activities in a territory for which we are responsible. We spent a week there. We saw as many people on every side as we could, and at the end of the visit in a final session with the acting governor he assured me, on my asking him, that out visit had been nothing but helpful.

That is not the information which I have received from anybody out there. I have no criticism of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. He would never do anything irresponsible. This we all know. But the interventions of the hon. Member for Bilston in the Colony of Aden during his visit were moist unhelpful to the Ministers, to the Government, to the governor and to everybody else. They created a situation which was very nearly a security situation. This I have no hesistation in saying, because I have been told it again and again from Aden.

If I may say so, the question of the recognition of the Yemen does not seem to have very much to do with this debate on Aden. At any rate, it has nothing to do with the Colonial Office. It is obviously a matter for the Foreign Office, and it should certainly not be dealt with by me as an Under-Secretary in a Christmas Adjournment debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous if I do not follow that point, although naturally I noted his views.

Surely the policy of the Colonial Office in Aden is to work in the long term for good relations between Aden, for which my hon. Friend is responsible, and the new Government of Yemen, because Aden is full of Yemenis.

Of course it is, but we do not know what the Government of Yemen is going to be. Our policy—and it has always been the policy of British Governments—is perfectly clear and it is to give recognition when a particular Government have established complete control, or very nearly complete control, in the country concerned. It is not our information at this time that the republican Government have complete control over the Yemen. It is very much disputed. They probably have control over—I do not know—50 or 60 per cent. of it, but not by any means the whole country. That is the criterion, and we shall not depart from it.

My hon. Friend does not know who is in control.

Nor does my hon. Friend know.

It is because of the doubt in the matter as to who is in control in the Yemen that we are adhering to our well-known policy of recognising only when we see that a Government, one or the other, has control.

If possible a reactionary one.

That was a totally irrelevant intervention.

I do not pretend to be on quite such firm ground on the subject of the Aden canings as on some other points. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had already drawn the attention of the Aden Government to the fact that their prison regulations were not in our view satisfactory or in line with British practice. Those regulations have been altered, as my right hon. Friend has announced to the House, and they now conform to our own regulations here. I have never attempted to minimise this matter and I express my regret to the House that the changes in the Aden regulations were not made before this incident occurred. In fact, had they been made beforehand, the incident would not have occurred.

But at the same time we should not fall into the error of exaggerating the gravity of this occurrence. The incident arose in this way, if I may correct the right hon. Gentleman, although it is a minor point: one of the prisoners asked to go to the dentist, and permission was granted. When he got there—this was outside the prison—he refused treatment. He said, "I will not have it done".

rose—

These are the facts which I am reporting to the House. Many of us have felt like that. But he was in fact adjudged to be a malingerer and as such was sentenced to four days penal diet. As a protest, his friends in prison refused food and work. These are the facts given to me as a result of an inquiry into the matter. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman interviewed all these people. Does he wish to intervene?

I have interviewed some of them. The facts are that they said that he could see the prison dentist, and he wanted to see his own private dentist because he did not think that the prison dentist was any good.

I said that he wanted to go to a dentist outside the prison, that he went to a dentist, and that he then refused treatment. We are not in dispute, it appears. He was then adjudged a malingerer on that account. That is the information which has been given to me. He was sent to a dentist for treatment, sent outside to a dentist, and he refused treatment. I will check it again although I have checked it already, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will check his source of information, too, if there is a dispute on facts.

These were a comparatively sophisticated group of prisoners, and they were engaged in a concerted attempt to subvert discipline in the prison. Both the prison superintendent and the Governor have been the subject of criticism for ordering and allowing, respectively, these canings, but as the rules then stood, the superintendent, Mr. Chowdery, was acting within them, with the sole exception, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week, that the provision requiring a delay of 24 hours between the award of the punishment and carrying it out was not observed. There was, moreover, the possibility of a break-clown of order in the prison. This was quite a posibility. The superintendent thought it necessary to sound the siren in the prison and to summon the armed police from the nearby barracks. It may be that by acting quickly in this way in relation to these prisoners more serious consequences were avoided. There was in any case no alternative to this form of punishment, because there are no facilities in Aden prison for solitary confinement—I shall say a word about Aden prison later, if I have time—nor could he deprive the prisoners of their entitlement to remission, because some had already forfeited that and others were not entitled to it anyway.

There is no evidence to show that the superintendent lost either his head or his temper. In fact he gave every opportunity to the prisoners to withdraw from the position which they had taken up and he released without punishment one of them who did withdraw. After the canings the prison returned to order and there were no further incidents. The superintendent is a long service prison officer with a perfectly good record and is the first Adeni to hold the post of superintendent, which he has held for two years.

The hon. Gentleman said that there was no alternative to this punishment then. Is there an alternative under the new Regulations, or does the same situation apply?

Under the new Regulations the award of the punishment is given only under very limited conditions. The whole situation has changed as a result of amending the Regulations. We are now in line with the practice here in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State outlined last week what the new Regulations were, so I do not think this problem would ever be likely to arise again. In so far as it is still true that there is no facility in Aden prison at the moment for the solitary confinement of any large number of prisoners for any length of time, I regret it, and I shall say a word about Aden prison later because I think it is important.

I want to stress that, in ordering the canings, the superintendent was carrying out the rules as they then stood. He was fully responsible, and it would have been most unusual for a higher authority to intervene. It has now been established—I want to be perfectly frank about it—that the responsible Aden Minister, and also the Governor, knew that the first canings had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman raised this matter last week. The Minister decided not to intervene because the Superintendent was, under the rules at that time, the responsible officer.

The question whether or not the superintendent acted correctly has been the subject of an inquiry. Both the Governor of Aden and my right hon. Friend visited the prison and questioned the Superintendent personally. They are both satisfied that no further action should be taken.

Naturally.

In reply to this debate, not having been to Aden myself and not having personally investigated the matter, I do not think that I could possibly agree to reopen this aspect of it. I do not think the House would expect me to do so. I should be doing something in deliberate defiance of the ruling already given by my own Secretary of State.

I was going to say something about the medical side of the story, but I think I am trespassing on the time of the next debate and perhaps I ought to leave that. They were not physically unfit at the time. This was the point of the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram), who wondered why the four people who were caned on the second day were said to be unfit for caning on the first day and then miraculously were fit twenty-four hours later when they had not had any food in the meantime. I was a little puzzled about that myself, but the doctor's explanation was that they were not physically unfit on the first day. They were in "an excitable and nervous condition"—these are the words he used—and this had corrected itself on the second day.

In any case, the great point made by the hon. Member for East Ham, South last week was that they had fasted in between. I find that this is not so. Two of the four men took food on 12th November, after they were sentenced, and all four of them took food the following day, the 13th, before they were caned. I do not think that there is very much in the argument that they fasted and there- fore had to be necessarily in a worse state physically on the second day than they had been in on the first. I do not think that is correct. The doctor examined all the prisoners before and after the canings and himself witnessed the canings.

Lastly, I want to say a word about the Aden prison, because I am not at all happy about this. I really am not. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin was there—he told me about it and I was very shocked—and saw the sane and the lunatics in what I gather is very close proximity in this prison. My right hon. Friend saw that too, and he did not at all like what he say there.

The truth is that there is at present no mental hospital in Aden. This is a serious position. A new prison is being built at once. I believe that the building has already begun. At any rate, it is urgently in hand. Provision has also been made under C.D. and W. plans for a mental hospital to be built.

About time, too.

I agree. I say that without any hesitation. But until these are completed, which cannot be for some months, gather, the position is far from satisfactory. Both buildings are now being given top priority.

In a way these things justify the House of Commons when points of this sort are raised and made much of in the House of Commons. This spotlights deficiencies which exist in colonial territories, I am sure, but which do not readily come to the attention of hon. Members until an incident occurs. It has this good effect, that it hustles things on which would perhaps have been done in a rather leisurely way in the Colony concerned.

I cannot say more than I have done today, but I personally am obliged to the hon. Member for Lincoln and to all the other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for raising these matters this morning, because I think that it has enabled me to amplify some of the points which were not fully covered in the Aden debate.

Has the governor's resignation been called for?

Not at all. I hope that nothing I have said reflects in any way on the governor. My right hon. Friend has the greatest confidence in him, and I was most careful to point out that in the circumstances we did not attach any blame whatever to him. I do not take that point.

I think that the debate has been useful. I am sorry to have strayed, Mr. Speaker, a little over the time and I am sorry also that I have not replied fully to all the points which were raised, but there were many of them.

I desire to call the attention of the House to the decision of the Government to build a supersonic airliner, but, first, I should like to welcome the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to his new appointment. I am sure that I speak not only for myself but for hon. Members on both sides when I say that we wish him well and wish him success. He has come to aviation at a very critical period indeed, as I am sure he is well aware. In the interests of the nation at least, and not merely in his interests, we all hope that he will acquit himself well in a difficult situation.

The decision to build a supersonic airliner has been welcomed on this side of the House, but that does not mean that we are satisfied with the rather scanty information provided by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister when he announced, a short time ago, that the construction of the prototype was to be proceeded with. For many months members of the Opposition have urged the Minister to commit himself to this project. Now that the decision has been finally taken we feel that too much valuable time was lost. It may well be too late, and there could now be other priorities. If this view be wrong, it is the Parliamentary Secretary's bounden duty at this stage to show me today why and where I am wrong.

May I pose a simple question? What is the purpose of air travel? Is it not to move between places comfortably, cheaply, and at a speed which will not challenge safety in the physical sense, nor imperil health through facing hazards which are still imperfectly understood.

This project is the biggest and most expensive that aviation has attempted on this side of the Atlantic. The plan is attractive and it will contribute, if successful, to good relations with France and it could bind the aviation industries of Britain and France more closely together because the skill of each is needed, and both are well-equipped and strong, for this project.

The bulk of the cost of the development must be borne by the taxpayer and his liability in Britain will be not less than £75 million. In this connection, may I make a plea for Scotland? I do so not in any nationalistic spirit, but because we shall be required to meet our share of the financial burden. There is a growing feeling that this new industry is not sufficiently represented on the productive side in the part of the country from which I come. I hope that, in view of the need of Scotland today for this type of industry, we will have a share of the airframe construction. Although, on the engine side, we could have a little more, we shall not make a point of that; but we are appealing for a much larger share of the airframe construction.

The figure I gave represents the minimum amount of money which will need to be invested, but it is already being suggested that we will require to think of another 25 per cent. beyond that minimum for what are being called contingencies. "When one looks into the matter one realises that even this additional percentage may be insufficient. Considering our experiences with Blue Streak, Blue Steel and the recent tangle over Skybolt, I should like to be assured that the financial funk into which those earlier disasters precipitated us has no chance of emerging with this new project.

We should be told that the financial estimate is soundly based and that the knowledge derived from flying jet fighters and, in some instances, bombers can profitably be built into this civil aircraft. However, that knowledge is not everything. There is a vast difference between the handling of fare-paying passengers and trained Service men, so that there are still many questions which need to be asked by those who, in the end, must foot the bill for this venture.

One such question suggests itself immediately. How many additional people will want to use this method of travel in an aluminium shell, the outer surface of which will be raised to a temperature of 284 degrees Fahrenheit, 72 degrees above the temperature of boiling water? That tremendous increase in heat is due to thermal friction between the air and the airframe of the flying aircraft. That fact prompts a further question. Will the residual heat create any special problems after the quick descent of the aircraft?

I recall that R. L. Stevenson wrote in his "Child's Garden of Verse":

"I hove a little shadow that goes in an out with me."

So has the supersonic. The subsonic boom. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say a word about that. In particular, he might tell us what its effect on other aircraft may be.

Let me consider for a little while the passengers who will be inside the proposed new machine. How will the cabin pressures be maintained and what will they be? How will the cabin and cockpit get adequate fresh air and oxygen'? How will the passengers and crew survive if the pressurisation and conditioning systems fail at maximum altitude? Is there any risk of the tyres exploding or losing pressure during flight? The answers to these queries may be known. Indeed, all the answers to all the questions posed and not yet posed may be known. But they must be widely advertised among those who are not versed in the science and technology of aviation because we will want passengers and they must be given complete confidence in the integrity of the aircraft.

Will that integrity be impaired structurally from a high dose of radiation and will this have any effect on the passengers and crew? What, for example, would be the effect on the efficiency of radar by the rain, hail and ice crystals which are met with at supersonic speeds? If there are any such effects, can special protective steps be taken?

It can be said that no aircraft of this kind would ever be allowed to fly without being equipped with every kind of safety device. Nevertheless, we must still put the questions. And we must get the answers, particularly to this question. Has the Mach 2 conception of flight any features which will make it safer than subsonic flight? But, we must first catch our goose before we cook it. So I turn to the development of the prototype. There is the question of cost. The period of amortisation and the possible impact of the Mach 3 supersonic on the fortunes of the Mach 2. Let me glance, also, at potential customers, and other matters which derive from those considerations.

If the project is to thrive the aircraft must sell. Therefore, the price must not exceed £3 million. That is a bit more than the amount paid for the big jets, which sell for £2·2 million. We must not think that everyone is just itching to go supersonic, and is ready to buy at any price. Some will undoubtedly wait to see what happens about the Mach 3 because across the Atlantic the supersonic programmes are planned on the basis of steel aircraft. These may start at Mach 2, but they can evolve to Mach 3 since, with the steel frame, limits on operating speeds can be removed without altering the basic structure of the machine. This cannot be done with our light alloy supersonic so that our lead over the Americans becomes important.

I wonder whether the hon. Member could give us any guidance on this. Does he think that it will be five years, or are the Government working on a longer period? The length of the period will be a factor in fixing the selling price. What is to be done about wiping out the debt created? The French Government, I am told, will pay their full share of development. Will the British Government do the same? If they are not proposing to do so, will the hon. Member now tell the industry clearly what sum is expected from it?

If there is only a five-year period to work in, and our industry has to pay some of the development charges, the cost of the machine could be too high. I know that this would be modified by the number of machines sold, but when one looks around, outside Britain, Australia and France, one finds that fewer potential customers are evident at the moment, and fewer will be forthcoming if the price goes above the £2½ million to £3 million mark.

For France, the problem is easier of solution than it is for us. Air France will fly the aircraft ordered by the Government, who automatically recoups the airline for its losses. It is to be hoped that pressure will not be exerted on British Overseas Airways Corporation to fly a supersonic airliner at a price which it might believe to be uneconomic, and afterwards criticise the Corporation for its consequent losses.

There is another aspect of the economics of the supersonic aircraft. It will presumably serve New York, London, Paris and the Far East. Between the first two airports it will fly at supersonic speed. Between London and Paris, however, the flight will be subsonic, and dreadfully uneconomic. Therefore, the shape of the aircraft must be variable to overcome this handicap.

It is at that point that an idea born in this country—I believe at Vickers Armstrong—may revolutionise supersonic design, namely, the geared wings devised by Dr. Barnes Wallis; so providing a possible solution to our economic problem. It may be some years before this invention is a working proposition, but with the knowledge of its existence prospective buyers may not want a supersonic aircraft without it. This fact could be another element in making the price of the Mach 2 too high. In those circumstances, I strongly urge the Government to make themselves wholly responsible for the cost of development. I hope that the hon. Member will impress that view on his right hon. Friend, and assure him that I am far from being the only person who holds it.

I turn to the arrangements for the apportionment of work which is involved in this development. We get two-thirds of the engine construction and two-fifths of the airframe construction. When the right hon. Gentleman answered questions after making his announcement about the aircraft, he regarded this proportion as a fair disposal of the total work, but it has been reckoned that 14 million man-hours will be expended in the development of this project.

The French industry has a total labour force of 85,000 and ours a total of 290,000. It would seem that any just allocation of the work to be expended on the prototype must have regard to the numbers employed in both countries. On that basis, the arrangement accepted by the right hon. Gentleman is likely to benefit the French industry much more than ours, despite the fact that we share the financial burden on an equal basis.

Let me briefly examine another aspect of this matter. The Government are finding a large sum of money; but if it is spread over the period of its use and if the industry contributes to the development then the amount involved from year to year will not cause anyone to gasp. Nevertheless, I must ask whether we are putting the money to its best purpose. I do not think that we are. First, I believe that this venture will be a vast gamble unless the Minister has another purpose in mind for his project, namely, a military one. I presume that the supersonic aircraft could be adapted for such service, so that if it does not succeed commercially it need not be written off as a dead loss.

But there are other things to be done in civil transport. For a long time I have emphasised the need to persuade increasing numbers of people to use the air as their mode of travel. But fares are too high—and they are soon to go even higher. In that case, why should we not turn our research towards the design of an aircraft which is planned not merely for speed but for comfort and safety in travel; and able to be operated at low and stable fares, with low landing speed and light wing loading?

Fifteen years ago in this House, in a debate of this kind, I urged that point. Since then, on the route along which I fly we have had six different types of aircraft. I suppose that is one of the benefits of competition—a testimony to progress—but the price is borne on the ticket. Fares have now become too high for the ordinary person to face, with the result that only 2 per cent. of our travelling public goes by air.

There may be a case for investing millions of pounds in conveying a small and privileged group by air at fantastic speeds and fares, but that policy alone will not feed the thousands who work regularly in the aviation industry; or keep them in it in such numbers as would be sustained by a policy that brings ordinary persons, in their tens of thousands, to travel in aircraft of stabilised design at low and steady fares.

In conclusion, let me sum up: The Mach 2 supersonic aircraft is not a new idea; it marks the end of a journey—a journey strewn with same terrible disasters. And so the safety aspect of flying must still command our thoughts and our attention. We cannot develop the Mach 2 machine further without weakening its structure. Indeed, the high outside temperature of the airframe may do that as it is. In this development we must be careful not to risk a repetition of what happened with the Comet.

On the other hand, the Mach 3 is basically a new project; it begins something. In my view, it would be a tragic day if a Minister of Aviation ever rose in his place and told us that the Government of the day had decided to abandon this project; for the simple reason that it had been started too late. If, when the hon. Member replies today, he can put our doubts and fears to flight lie will have done a signal service to his Government.

I, also, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment and wish him well in what I am sure he thinks is a fascinating post in the Government. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) was (mite right to pose the questions he did to the Government, because I think that they are all in the minds of many of us. My information is that the Government have done a great deal of research in the last two or three years. No doubt we shall be told about it.

While I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member sand, I thought that he was not his normal, progressive self in his thinking today and that he contradicted himself slightly. At one point he was suggesting that we should go for safety at perhaps lower speeds, or at least maintaining existing speeds, Whilst later he was making a strong case for the Mach 2 aircraft of steel construction. Research has been done and I am satisfied that on the advice available from Farnborough and the British aircraft industry the Minister is well justified in taking the steps which he has taken.

As for costs, it is difficult with any scientific project of this nature to have an accurate estimate. We see in the Public Accounts Committee almost as every month goes by how far estimates are out. No doubt this project will cost more. Projects of this kind certainly never cost less than estimated. The cost might be about £4 million for each aircraft which was about the sum that the "Queen Mary" cost us in the early 1930s. It is staggering to think that £4 million might be spent to carry 100 passengers, but the turnover and utilisation is tremendous in the course of the year.

I think that my right hon. Friend was right to grasp the opportunity when he did. Had he done so earlier, the aircraft might have been available before the airlines were ready for it and before they had amortised the existing fleets. The timing is just right and the country is ready to get into the supersonic business. We have learned enough during the last few weeks, in various quarters of the world, not to depend too much on our friends, but am happy that this association is with the French. Their aircraft industry has always been good and has improved enormously in the last few years. This is an excellent collaboration and I am very pleased about it.

The Concord Mach 2·2 is of light alloys of existing materials. All the information shows that it will be a safe aeroplane at that speed and will have a life of not less than ten years, which is a good deal more than that of aircraft constructed in recent years. I am sorry that the Economist published an article a few weeks ago saying that the future development of the aircraft will be nil. All aircraft when they are being developed are improved in some respect, and particularly from the point of view of safety. I do not know how many people would want to fly in the American type if the Americans go ahead with it. It will have no windows and passengers will feel caged in. If the two aeroplanes were running together I think I know which would be preferred.

Here the British and the French have an excellent start for B.O.A.C., but the Corporation is not to be pushed into this. It will evaluate the aircraft itself. Incidentally, I hope that it will do the evaluation rather better than some past evaluations which have been done for the corporations. Airlines like Israeli Airlines will probably each buy one or two of the aircraft and they will get off to a splendid start in paying off initial costs.

I agree with the hon. Member for Govan about Dr. Barnes Wallis's jointed wings. This great man, who is British, should have his ideas exploited. He is getting on in years, but I am told that his brain is as good as ever. If we do not get busy with his ideas no doubt the Americans will do so. When two countries enter upon a project of this kind it is difficult to share the work absolutely equally, but it will be a case of doing about half of the work each.

We will probably do most of the work on the engine. We have a start with the super Olympus engine which is already flying in the Vulcan on tests. This should give us a chance to get the engine right before the plane is constructed. The Concord will fly to New York in about 3½ hours. If the American aircraft is developed it might save 30 minutes on the trip. I do not know that this is very important. I spent 1½ hours in a train at Euston before it moved out of the station when I was going to my constituency recently. I do not think that one would want to save 1½ hours on a 13-hour journey between London and Australia.

Landing and take-off speeds must be developed. There is the example of the Boeing and DC8. I was told by a well-known technical man in British aviation that if possible he avoids flying in a Boeing. It is difficult to avoid it, because all the major airlines have Boeings. It is a difficult aeroplane to handle in taking off and landing and it averages one crash a month though, fortunately, there are not always fatalities. There was a crash recently near Paris. Unfortunately, I have to fly in one across the Atlantic on 12th January.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the take-off and landing speeds of the SST will be the same as those of the Boeings?

Yes, but the hon. Member is confused about my remarks. The trouble is the wing construction of the Boeing and the engine pods hanging underneath. It is not a clean aeroplane. If one is flying an aircraft like the Boeing in hilly country over a marker beacon one has to position the aeroplane and one finds that it is a bag of tricks. A clean, well-designed aeroplane works far better. There is an old tag in aviation that if an aeroplane looks well, it works well. That goes for the latest Comet, which is a remarkable piece of engineering.

To delay this proposed project now would mean handing over the advantage to the United States. I have a great respect for what the Americans do, but most of the things they do the Europeans can do better. It is time that we realised that this is a great project which will help us to get all our resources together and make the maximum use of them. We tend to try to do too much in this country very often, but it should always be remembered that jet aeroplanes were developed entirely by us. How many Americans realise that we gave licences to the United States for their construction? We gave licences for the construction of the Pratt and Whitney Mark 2 and the Packard Mark I. Not one American in ten realises that those engines were designed in this country. We do not say enough about these things.

The Concord will be a good investment and well worth while. Even if the aeroplane does not fulfil all expectations it will provide training for many thousands of our engineers in this form of engineering and when the aircraft is finished it may well have a military use, though I hope that that will not be necessary. A bonus will also be passed on to British and French engineering industries in the way of the by-products of hydraulics and metals. All these things that go with the construction of a new plane are of tremendous value.

I am glad that the French are our partners in these matters. We are next door to each other. The British Aircraft Corporation and the Hawker-Siddeley Group are first-class organisations. Since the streamlining took place there has been a different approach to all these problems. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative he has shown in acting so quickly and grasping this nettle when he did.

Obviously, there are many questions in the minds of hon. Members about this project and I intend to put a few new ones to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am by no means against progress, but I think it quite extraordinary that the Government should have announced a decision to spend £75 million to £85 million of the taxpayers' money on this aeroplane without giving the full facts to the House and the country. I hope some of these facts will come out when the Parliamentary Secretary replies.

There are a great many unknowns, even to those of us who have taken the trouble to read the published accounts and statements of the manufacturers in the Press and, of course, the statements of the Minister himself. The journalists who write on these subjects themselves do not know.

In The Aeroplane and Commercial Aviation News of August this year Robert Beaufort wrote an article headed, "Market Research—or Crystal Ball?" He said:

"The British part of the Anglo-French supersonic venture has all the appearances of being a disastrous exercise. At the very best it is the less commercially inviting part of the enterprise."

An editorial in the same magazine on 29th November called the decision an "act of faith" and The Times of 30th November bluntly referred to the decision as "a gamble." Lord Brabazon of Tara has told us that if we proceed now with the SST we shall ruin civil aviation for ever.

I am not saying that these are accurate representations of the situation, but at least they reinforce the demand that the decision has got to be justified with much better facts than any we have been given so far.

The question whether this aircraft is to be profitable to operate or not depends on how much it will cost to develop. We have been told that the British share of the development costs is between £75 million and £85 million. In another place, Lord Chesham said that it was between £80 million and £85 million. That difference is not large in comparison with the overall amount involved, but it shows how difficult it is to be accurate when we are talking about a venture of this kind, which is moving into what is a substantially uncharted territory.

Past experience shows that the development of new aircraft invariably costs more than the figure which is given at the beginning. I am prepared to bet a monkey to a mousetrap that future Ministers wild have to come to the House and ask for a lot more money before the prototype even gets off the ground.

The initial cost of this aircraft will obviously depend heavily on the number which are sold. We have to depend on the Press for our information on this subject, because the Minister has given us very little to go on. The Times of 30th November this year said that there might be 300 to 400 supersonic aircraft in the early 1970s and that it would be necessary to sell 130 of the Anglo-French model for the project to break even. According to The Aeroplane and Commercial Aviation News" of 29th November, fewer than 20 supersonic transports of Mach 2.2 would be needed to carry all the North Atlantic passengers who travelled on these routes last year. The Minister has given us a different figure. He says that the number would be 35, assuming a 60 per cent. load factor. I should like to be assured that his figure has been properly checked and that he disagrees with the figure which was given by this magazine.

Even if the traffic on the North Atlantic route were doubled by 1970—and that is rather an optimistic rate of growth to assume in the light of what has been happening in the past year—that would mean that we would have to sell 60 aircraft for operations on other routes, assuming—again, this is a large assumption—that the whole of the traffic on the North Atlantic routes would be carried by the SST.

But suppose we could sell only 80 of these aircraft instead of the 130 which we are told would be necessary to sell in order to break even. That would mean that the initial cost would have to be increased by no less than £750,000 in order to recover the development charges. I think that the Government's intention is not to recover these development charges at all. I think that they will write off this expenditure of £75 million to £85 million, and I should like to know the answer.

If what the hon. Gentleman says about the first cost being £4 million is correct, that would be a very serious matter for the economics of the SST, because depreciation and insurance are proportional to first cost. It would mean, according to some calculations that I did on estimates which were given by Dr. Russell, that the operating cast per hour would be increased by 7½ per cent. if this aircraft were to cost as much as £4 million.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said, if, by 1966, when the prototype is flying it becomes clear that the Americans will have a Mach 3 airliner in service by 1972, the obvious result will be that all the airlines would hold off from buying. The only customers in that case would be Air France and B.O.A.C. The Minister said on 29th November that the market would depend on a number of factors. He went on to say:

"If we have the only supersonic aircraft in the field at the time, the market will be a fairly large one …"

I should like to know what that means, because "fairly large" could be anything between 100 and 500. The Minister also said:

"If there were rivals in or near the field, of course, the position would be different"— [OFFICIAL s REPORT, 29th November, 1962; Vol. 668, cc. 673–4.]

Does he think, or does the Parliamentary Secretary think, that the Americans will sit back and let us sweep the board? If so that would be wishful thinking. It is unrealistic not to appreciate that we shall face very formidable competition from the Americans, bearing in mind the experience that they will accumulate over the next few years in supersonic military flying. We shall not have that advantage. At least, I would say that this competition which we might expect from the Americans could be formidable, provided that the technical problems of flying at these speeds can be solved at all.

About the operating, costs of the SST, Mr. Robert Beaufort said in the same article to Which I have referred:

"In the United Kingdom important design studies were completed following the Supersonic Committee report"—

that is, the Ministry of Supply committee, which reported in March, 1959—

"and it was generally agreed that the 100 seater narrow-delta aircraft had direct operating costs 10–15 per cent. higher than the subsonic jets, even when a most favourable view was taken of the market potential of the aircraft and the research and development costs were distributed over military and civil versions of the project."

As far as we know, there are no military versions of the Concord, and if the Minister had any such applications in mind no doubt he would have informed us so that we might have realised that these development charges would be more widely spread.

I should like to consider some figures given by Dr. A. E. Russell, the Chief Engineer of Bristol Aircraft Ltd., in reply to Mr. Beaufort in the 30th September issue of The Aeroplane and Commercial Aviation News. Dr. Russell gives the direct cost per passenger mile as 1·12d. for the SST and 1·25d. for the subsonic jet. But the direct cost per passenger mile of the VC10, according to the official figures of the British Aircraft Corporation, published in its brochure, is less than 1·5 cents. a passenger mile on all stage lengths of over 1,000 miles, and on stage lengths of 3,000 miles the figure is 1·25 cents., or 1·07d. per passenger mile.

Mr. Godfrey Lee, deputy chief engineer of Handley Page, gives the direct operating cost of a present day subsonic jet as 1·1d. per passenger mile, while he puts the supersonic delta at 1·4d. Furthermore, Dr. Russell dismisses the possibility that further reductions in the operating costs of subsonic jets may be secured by means of technical improvements, and he thinks these may be more than outweighed by increases in the selling price of the aircraft.

I think that that must be an entirely spurious argument, because if the selling costs of subsonic aircraft increased, exactly the same thing would happen with the supersonic aircraft. I believe that I am right also in saying that the price of the second generation subsonic jets is not substantially in excess of that of the first generation.

Bo Lundberg estimates that the operating costs of subsonic jets could be reduced to 20 per cent. below their present levels by 1970, and he says this in an article entitled "Is supersonic aviation compatible with the sound development of civil aviation?" He further points out that the estimates of operating costs for SSTs are based on the unlikely assumption that they might enjoy the same utilisation as the present day jets—that is, between 3,000 and 3,500 hours.

If that is to be done it means that the SST has to make twice as many trips in each 24 hours and that, in turn, means that passengers will have to arrive and depart at very peculiar hours. So, either we shall have to accept the reduced utilisation which will invalidate the comparison, or passengers will have to be attracted to travel at difficult hours by means of reduced fares.

Bo Lundberg shows that with a one hour turn round, to get four single flights between New York and Paris into the day, it would be necessary for a service to start from New York at 7 a.m. and for another to arrive in Paris at midnight. Obviously, these two flights would not be very popular. I do not know how much consideration has been given by B.O.A.C. to these problems of scheduling, but it is something to be taken into account if we are to assume that the utilisation of SST is to be equal to that of subsonic jets.

I hope that we shall not be given a lot of "sales talk" about the cost being "in line with the best subsonic jets of the present time". We want to see cal—culations—at least, I want to see them— and I should like to emphasise that the cost must not be in line with present-day subsonic jets, but with jets which will be flying in 1970. That has been made quite clear by Sir Matthew Slattery.

The effect of the introduction of the SST on the value of subsonic aircraft in service at this time should be considered. We have only just allowed B.O.A.C. to write off over £30 million on the Comets and Britannias which was necessary because of the introduction of the big American jets which made it impossible for them to compete with older aircraft on the North Atlantic routes. If the supersonic project is successful, it seems to me that the situation may be repeated exactly in 1970, because at that time the VC 10s will have been in service for a maximum of six years, and the Minister will be coming to the House and asking us to slice millions of pounds off their value.

I wish now to refer to technical problems and, first, to noise. This has been a matter of concern to a great many people who live near airports and who, probably, have never been in an aircraft in their lives. It is a matter of importance to the airlines because they recognise that any increase over existing noise levels wil make them extremely unpopular.

In the I.A.T.A. requirements for the SST, which were published at the end of July, it was laid down that no increase in engine noise level could be tolerated. The Minister, in a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), on 3rd December, said that the noise level would be higher, but that it would not matter, because the aircraft would climb away at a steeper angle from take-off. I wonder whether I.A.T.A. or, indeed, the people of Twickenham will be satisfied with that explanation.

I am informed by people who live near London Airport that the Boeing 707s are the noisiest aircraft which they have had to put up with as yet and it will not have escaped their attention that the Concord, having a smaller number of seats than the Boeing, will have to do a greater number of crossings to carry the same traffic; and, therefore, even if the Minister is right in saying that the racket will be no worse, it will inevitably be more frequent because of the smaller number of seats on the aircraft and the growth of traffic.

Bo Lundberg says in a paper presented at the third International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, in August, 1962:

"It is not only the maximum noise levels caused by the take-off that caused annoyances and complaints. The number of occurrences … contribute to the total noise disturbance."

The second problem relates to cosmic radiation. According to the knowledge available at present the crew of an SST could receive a radiation dose of as much as half the maximum permitted for radiation workers. If this be true, the crew would have to be classified as radiation workers and radiation protection officers would have to be appointed. The crews would have to wear radiation sensitive badges and would have to be taken off flying duties if they received more than the permitted maxima. Radiation detection equipment would have to be installed both on the ground and in the aircraft, so that solar flares can be avoided. The aircraft would have to carry very large reserves of fuel so that it could complete a flight at lower altitudes if a solar flare suddenly erupted after take-off. The economic implications of all these factors hardly need to be stressed, but I do not know whether they have been taken into account in the cost calculations.

I do not know whether the crews have been informed that they will be treated as radiation workers. Bo Lundberg says that solar flares of sufficient intensity to affect supersonic flights would occur, on average, once a month. I should have thought that this would impose very severe restrictions on the operations particularly considering that false alarms could happen even more often than once a month. Bo Lundberg points out that it appeared that for supersonic aviation to be justified to encroach upon the radiation limits recommended by I.C.R.P. it would have to be of an importance to man comparable with that of atomic power or medical procedures. I think that this may be questioned.

I should have liked to enter into a discussion on many other technical features had there been sufficient time to do so. In conclusion, I wish to say that there are so many problems which have not been resolved that I think the Government should publish an account of all the facts in a White Paper and, also, that they should consider having a full-scale debate at an early date so that we can discuss the many things which have been left unresolved in this debate.

I fully support the move which has been made on this project, which I consider imaginative, realistic and progressive. I am a bad air passenger and after listening to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) had to say about supersonic friction outside the new airliner and what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said about the Boeing, I am more frightened than ever.

I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance that the sonic bang from this new airliner will not be heard over the Greater London area in addition to the immediate area of London Airport. My constituency is situated in the Greater London area and the residents have suffered greatly from aircraft noise over the years. This has created a tremendous problem. There has been a good deal of co-operation from the Ministry in the past and I think that there has been much improvement in the situation following the new regulations relating to the glide paths.

I support this move for the new supersonic airliner, but please do not let us have any further trouble or any regression on the question of aircraft noise due to the introduction of such an airliner. That would be a very bad thing should the situation deteriorate, because it is quite definite that old people and young children are frightened by excessive aircraft noise. That has happened in the past, particularly during the summer months, and, if we have a situation in which the introduction of a supersonic airliner results in sonic bangs anywhere in the London area, it would become a very contentious issue overnight.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance that we shall not be affected by sonic bangs because, as was said by the Minister in a recent Parliamentary Answer, the actual noise of the supersonic airliner should not exceed that of the Boeing 707 on take-off.

I should like to add that I consider that the hon. Member for Govan has done a service by 'bringing this matter forward for debate today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for having raised this subject. I wish to put some points to the Parliamentary Secretary which are much in line with what has been said by 'the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) concerning the market research which has been carried out on this project.

My hon. Friend will recall that when the Minister made his announcement my hon. Friend the Member for Malden (Mr. B. Harrison) asked whether a White Paper would be produced on the subject and whether the result of the market research would be made available to the House. I appreciate that there may be sound commercial reasons why detailed information about market research cannot be made available, but I should like to have an assurance on general points which I think it would he well within the competence of the Ministry to provide without infringing commercial prudence.

I should like to know whether there will be a demand for this kind of supersonic airliner and whether inquiries have been made among the airlines to discover whether they are anxious to take up this type of airliner by the time the Ministry expect it to be available. I understand that some North American airlines are writing off their jet aircraft in fourteen years. At least there is some reason to believe that it would not be till the mid-1970s that there will be a real demand to go supersonic and it could well be that one might find the unhappy story of the Comet retold in relation to this aircraft. I hope that this will not be the case, but I should like an assurance on that point.

In particular, I should like to know from my hon. Friend what airlines are showing interest in this matter. My attention was drawn to a report in the Financial Times which suggested that K.L.M. had no interest in going supersonic, can my hon. Friend also say whether Qantas has shown any interest in this development? The other point comes back to the extent to which this airliner would fly subsonic. Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that the B.O.A.C. route from New York to Chicago will be covered supersonic or subsonic? I should have thought that it would be subsonic, and that if that were so it would add materially to the cost.

All this can be summarised in one question put by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who hoped that there would be enough orders to pay for the development costs of the aircraft. I should be very interested to know whether that is the Ministry's point of view, or whether it thinks that the development costs would not be recovered.

I should first like to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to his new appoint- ment. I fear that in the nature of things, from the electoral point of view, it will not necessarily be a long-term appointment, but I am sure that during the time he fills it he will do so with great distinction. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are very glad to see him in that office.

I think that we ought to express our congratulations to the scientific workers of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, and the scientific workers of the aircraft firms involved in the very excellent work which has been done to make this project possible. I have been to Farnborough and seen some of the research work on the supersonic aircraft there, and, so far as I was able to understand it, it seemed of very high quality. I think that we should also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on raising this very important question, and it is a pity that we have not had time for a more full and formal debate. I should also like to express thanks to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffin) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) for the commendably brief way in which they have put their very helpful and valuable points.

The Opposition has so far expressed concurrence for the supersonic airliner project. but this must inevitably to some extent be conditional concurrence. First, we have nothing like the mass of highly-skilled technical advice which is available to the Minister, so we are left very much to our own limited technical resources in assessing this very complex situation. Secondly, there are the mass of questions which require answer, some of them asked on both sides of the House today, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan. Our acceptance of this plan must be, therefore, with considerable reservations. The Parliamentary Secretary need not look worried; I am hoping that he will be able to produce excellent answers. I must emphasise, however, that our acceptance of this project must be of a conditional nature at this stage.

It is obviously a difficult question whether we should have supersonic transport. It is not a clear-cut issue. One thing which strikes one as inevitable is that if we do not build a supersonic aircraft the French, the Americans, and the Russians will. Unless we build a supersonic airliner or contribute to building one we shall have to contract out of future long distance aircraft technology of the highest quality.

These are the questions with which we are faced. Clearly also this supersonic airliner would have a very desirable effect on unemployment which is such a grave feature in our country's affairs at present. It would have the effect of stimulating industry in many ways—the electrical industry, the electronics industry, the metal industry, the hydraulics industry and the fuel industry. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that some of the work that may be involved in this will be directed to areas of high unemployment. It would obviously be very valuable if he could give us that assurance. It is also quite clear that one of the most important by-products of this airliner will be a widespread defusion of greater technical knowledge throughout British industry and technology. With these remarks as to the desirability of this supersonic airliner I must come to what must be some of the reservations in our minds and on what I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to help us.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Govan mentioned, the paramount consideration must be safety. I do not think the fact that an airliner can travel at very high speed makes it less safe. My own personal experience of a few weeks ago gave me no confidence at all that a slow moving aircraft is necessarily a safe one. There are many other questions of safety to be taken into consideration with regard to this new airliner. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan has referred to the possibility of failure of refrigeration, the danger of pressurisation failure and the danger of differential pressures on the tyres. It is also very important indeed that the maximum attention should be given to guaranteeing the systems and structural reliability of this aircraft. This will require an immense amount of research work and of very careful technical thinking.

There are other ancillary aspects in connection with the flying of this aircraft. There must be a big advance in flight control, navigational aids and meterological knowledge to cope with the operation of this aircraft. To give only a small illustration, I understand that the turning circle of this aircraft is over 60 miles. We have not weather radar which can give warning of ice crystal clouds which are dangerous to aircraft flying within this distance. This is only one technical aspect which involves the question of the safety of the aircraft. There are many others and we have only about seven years to learn the necessary know-how to cope with these points.

Other matters which have been referred to are the effects of solar radiation. I understand that the effect on passengers is very small, but one has also to consider the effect on crews when subjected to flying for a long period, and also what may happen if there is a solar flare and therefore a large increase in solar radiation. This aircraft which will be subjected to unique environmental hazards and systems will have to be very carefully investigated from the point of view of safety.

I come to the question of cost. We have heard that our contribution will be £85 million. I am afraid that the Ministry of Aviation has not a happy record in budgeting, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. My recollection is that we have been faced with ultimate costs of missiles many times the original estimate. It seems to me very doubtful whether we shall be able to escape with a cost of £85 million for development. This figure presumably assumes that all will go well and that there will be no difficulties. I shall be glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a reserve in the figures to deal with contingencies which may arise. I shall be very surprised if our share of the development costs only £85 million.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate whether he is satisfied that these aircraft will be operational by 1970. One cannot pretend that we in this country have a good record in delivering aircraft on time. I think that that date must be a little speculative. I personally have some doubts whether we shall have these aircraft completely operational by 1970. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure us on that.

The next important question is what market will be available for these aircraft. I understand that, on the present basis, less than twenty of these Mach 2·2 airliners would be sufficient to deal with the whole of the North Atlantic traffic. General Puget, who is in charge of this matter on the French side, has given the figure of 130 aircraft as the break-even number to sell, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to develop this question of a market for these aircraft. It seems to me that it will depend on many factors. The first will be the first cost of the aircraft. We are given to understand that this will be not much more than the present Boeing 707 or DC8. Is this really so? Another very important factor will he the operating costs about which I feel a little disquiet.

These aircraft hold only 100 passengers. The Boeing 707 and DC8 hold 175 passengers. It needs only a little elementary mental arithmetic to work out that, if these aircraft are to have roughly the same operating costs as the Boeing, for every pound per mile it costs to run the Boeing 707, these aircraft will have to cost only 12s. to be comparable on the same passenger basis. I wonder whether the size of these aircraft will be adequate; or are the Government hoping that there will be a particularly high load factor in these aircraft. Again, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to help us.

The most serious aspect from the point of view of marketability is the arrival of a rival supersonic airliner. The President of the United States is awaiting a report from the Federal Aviation Agency, which, in turn, is awaiting a report from its Supersonic Transport Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of General Orval R. Cook. This report is expected in the next few weeks. But Mr. Hlolaby, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, has in the last few weeks given a Press conference in Los Angeles at which he expressed the view that the Mach 3 airliner would be more efficient, that it would cost about £270 million to develop and that it would be available to the United States in nine to ten years. If what he says is correct, the Concord will be faced with a very formidable rival very shortly after it comes into production. This is certainly a factor to which we must pay very close attention in considering the market for it.

I should like to know the Minister's views about the effect that this project will have on B.O.A.C. One effect, of course, will be that there will be only five years in which to write off the capital value of the VC l0s compared with the companies which have used for some time Boeing 707s and which will have several years longer. I should like to know what B.O.A.C.'s views have been about purchasing these aircraft. In referring to its assessment of this aircraft, B.O.A.C. says in its statement—and I am quoting from page 931 of Flight of 13th December, 1962—

"In making this assessment, the Corporation will have to be assured that Anglo-French supersonic aircraft will be economically operable and competitive for a period equal to that currently used in accounting practice."

That means that the Corporation wishes to be assured that the aircraft will not have any serious competition for about seven years, the normal accounting period. In the face of the American threat, this seems to me to be a rather doubtful and ambiguous statement. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will clear it up.

There are many other questions which I feel it would be my duty to put if there were time—such as whether we are having a fair share of the production as well as of the development in this country, whether the French financial contribution will be satisfactory throughout the period of development and particularly whether the French will contribute to the research aircraft that we produce, the HP115, the Bristol 221, the Fairey Delta 2, and the Bristol T118. We want to know much more about noise and the effect that it will have on people over whom this aircraft passes and the surface damage which might arise, and whether there is the possibility of damage to aircraft which may be flying at a lower altitude than this aircraft when it has reached its maximum height.

There are numerous points which require careful investigation and very careful answers, but, subject to these reservations and to these conditions, we welcome the project. My right hon. Friends and hon. Friends and I therefore wish the firms concerned godspeed in this exciting and forward-looking venture.

It is a coincidence that I find myself face to face with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), because I should have been in that ill-fated helicopter with him. I wish officially to congratulate him on his survival.

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and other hon. Members for their kind remarks on my assumption of this junior Ministerial post. I am extremely honoured to have been appointed to work with my right hon. Friend in a very far-ranging Department. I also congratulte the hon. Member for Govan on bringing forward this Motion. We all know of the hon. Gentleman's long and sustained interest in aviation matters. On 24th February, 1947, which is going back almost fifteen years, he initiated an Adjournment debate on safety in connection with the jet aircraft then coming into service.

In spite of the hon. Gentleman's great interest, I think that he and everyone would agree that we in this House speak as laymen on this highly technical subject. However, a layman can appreciate the benefit of this supersonic aircraft from the simple example of a businessman leaving London Airport at 10.15 in the morning and reaching New York at 8.15, New York time, in the morning. He would do his work in New York, would then have, I hope, an agreeable lunch hour and would leave Idlewild at 2.30 in the afternoon and be back in London at 10.30 in the evening. That is a concrete example of what, in essence, we are talking about.

I recognise that some of the problems —such as sonic boom, cosmic radiation, and noise—are subjects of continuing research, but we are satisfied that the Government's decision to embark on the development of this aircraft is not only justified but is an imaginative and progressive project which is the result—and the House must recognise this—of an intensive programme of applied research going right back to 1956.

It is, as has been said, a logical development of the aircraft which now fly at the present-day very high speeds. Among the British aircraft, there are the English Electric Lightning and the Bristol 188, while our French partners in this venture have the Mirage 3 and 4. I regard the project as a logical development and as having nothing essentially new about it.

I will deal, first, with the economic points which have been raised in the debate and then the technical points. As to the broad economic problem, there must inevitably be a good deal of uncertainty in any forecast which is made at this early stage in the development of a project concerning its operating economics. Naturally, we have made our own calculations of operating costs on all the evidence that is available. These show that on ranges in excess of 1,500 miles, the aircraft should be comparable with current subsonic jets. I do not propose to quote the figures, because it must be remembered that this is an aircraft which the British Aircraft Corporation plans to sell commercially in the markets of the world. The House will perceive the correctness of that attitude. I know that hon. Members would like to have more information but we live in a commercial world.

In making comparisons, however, the amortisation of development costs is a rather separate matter. For example, it is known that the civil Boeing 707 has benefited greatly from the large orders for military conversions of the aircraft, which have enabled the development costs to be widely spread. In the case of the proposed Anglo-French supersonic aircraft, the extent to which we can seek to amortise the development costs must be determined in the light of events depending, in particular, upon the way that the market shapes and the emergence of any competitors.

It is certainly intended that the Government should participate in the proceeds of sales by virtue of their investment in the project. The extent to which we plan to recover money and our success in doing so much, however, depend entirely upon how the market develops. When making his statement in the House last month, my right hon. Friend said that it was not possible to quantify the share to be borne by the industry and by the Government. I believe that that is accepted.

Mention has been made of the development cost and the estimating of it. The estimated total development cost is £150 million to £170 million, to be divided equally between the two countries. In our estimating, we have tried to be completely realistic and to take account of the experience of other major projects. Any estimates which are produced at this stage, however thoroughly prepared, can be only provisional. We have certainly provided a margin, not specifically in reserve, as the hon. Member for Loughborough mentioned, but a margin in our estimates for unforeseen problems and the consequent tendency for initial cost estimates to be exceeded.

It would be premature to quote the estimated production cost of an aircraft which will not be on offer commercially for some years. It would be wrong to do so. However, some of the wilder estimates which have been canvassed—and they have been canvassed also in another place—may be dismissed out of hand. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this is a smaller aircraft than current subsonic jets and will be made of conventional material.

We are negotiating with both the British Aircraft Corporation and Bristol Siddeley Engines arrangements for a contribution by them towards the launching costs of the project. It is too early to go into details at this stage. In addition, the firms will be tying up their capital and their main power resources to the project and will be deeply committed on production.

The fares structure on aircraft operation depends ultimately on the operating costs of the aircraft employed. One can only say that we expect the operating costs of this aircraft on ranges in excess of 1.500 miles to be comparable with those of current subsonic jets. One cannot say more until we have had more experience with the aircraft.

As the House knows, B.O.A.C. has been keenly interested in the project since its inception. Before the agreement with the French was signed, the Ministry of Aviation came to an understanding with the Corporation about the basis of its participation in the project. This agreement will ensure the close and timely participation of B.O.A.C. in the project while, at the same time, allowing the Corporation full commercial freedom up to a reasonable stage, as is fair, to decide whether to adopt the aircraft.

The hon. Member for Govan also raised the question of short-stage lengths. It is true that this aircraft, like any long-range aircraft, will not be at its most economic on short flights. Nevertheless, short-stage lengths are often useful in helping to filter in and to fill aircraft with passengers for the longer flights such as an Atlantic crossing. Most airlines have a varied pattern of operation and they select aircraft types which are the most economic over the bulk of their routes.

Scheduling difficulties is another point which is being carefully studied, and I have no doubt that it will be dealt with satisfactorily. Not all the aircraft will be engaged on shuttle services across the Atlantic. Many people speak simply of the Atlantic crossing, but the aircraft will not be limited to this. Many of these aircraft, no doubt, will be employed on through services. Indications at present are that satisfactory utilisation figures will be achievable without involving unacceptable departure and arrival times.

In reply to the question whether the Americans will capture the market, admittedly the Americans have greater resources, but we think that they have not yet decided whether to build such an aircraft or settled the basic design to be adopted. The Anglo-French proposals have reached a much clearer stage of precision and we believe that Britain and France have a clear lead over any potential competitor. I should have liked to have dealt with this aspect at greater length, but time does not allow.

The hon. Member for Loughborough asked about the delivery date and whether I expected that it would be in 1970. The answer is that I think and hope that it will be. The first flight of the aircraft is expected to be in 1966 and it should be ready for airline service in 1970.

Several hon. Members have asked about markets. Clearly, we hope to sell some of these aircraft to the Americans and, apart from them, widely over the rest of the world. A number of European operators, including K.L.M. and S.A.S. —in spite of the Financial Times—have long-range routes and as many as 18 airlines fly across the Atlantic. Commonwealth operators are interested. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked specifically whether Qantas was interested. Qantas has shown a keen interest in the project.

Following on from the commercial use of the aircraft, questions have been asked about whether there would be a defence market for this aircraft. At the moment, there is no immediate military requirement for a supersonic transport, but I believe that it will develop in that way. It is bound to do so for the quick movement of our forces strategically. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Govan concerning employment in Scotland. The short answer is that it is impossible at this stage to say, but I will certainly bear the point in mind, particularly after the hon. Member's most courteous speech today.

I now turn, very briefly, to one or two of the technical points which have been raised on cosmic radiation which, I know, is a serious subject for many people. The figure of 2·5 rems, the possible total which crews may receive in a year was based, I must say to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), upon extreme conditions and the most pessimistic assumptions. It is, in any case, well below the level of dosage, as he rightly said, of radiation workers. The records for aircrews—I can give this assurance—will be very closely watched, and we do not expect that there will be any need to vary the normal pattern of operations on this count.

Mention was made of solar flares. This is a particular problem. We are satisfied that warning controls will be devised which will enable evasive action to be taken.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how that evasive action affects the economic aspect of operations?

I know that is an extra problem about fuel consumption. It is a point that is being carefully watched in development of the aircraft. We are giving the most careful attention to this most important subject.

Then there is sonic boom, which has been mentioned around this Chamber today. We are carrying out research work into the effect of sonic boom and are in close touch with the programmes taking place in the United States and in France. There are ways, as the House knows, of minimising the effect of boom, for example, by adopting operating techniques not allowing supersonic boom below certain levels. The evidence so far is that it can be kept at levels which are not objectionable.

I can assure the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) that I have only fairly recently moved from Roehampton and that I am with him on the problem of aircraft noise. Because aircraft climb away very steeply from the airfield the noise at the check point will be less than that made by current jets.

As to the temperature in flying, and the necessity to ensure windows should not break, very considerable engineering efforts will be devoted to this problem to ensure complete safety in this respect. We are absolutely confident that when the aircraft is produced it will be possible to rely on the integrity of the structure as a whole. In the same way as when one flies in an aeroplane today, if one decides to do so one does not think about whether a wing will fall off, or whether a window will blow in or out, as the case may be.

Considerable engineering efforts will be devoted to ensuring that air conditioning is fool-proof and components will be duplicated if there is any doubt. Ice crystals are being investigated with the assistance of meteorological experts and methods are being devised of detecting and of avoiding concentrations of crystals which might be dangerous. The distribution of heat when the aircraft is on the ground, is, too, an engineering problem which is being studied and will be overcome.

It is perfectly clear about the external airframe, but there is a feeling that the 285 degrees Fahrenheit to which I referred is a critical temperature and it is at that point that the structure of the airframe begins to be effective. Will the hon. Gentleman say something about that?

Well, I do not want to get involved in too technical points about structure. It is an engineering problem basic to the whole conception of the development of this aircraft.

As to vertical take-off, the feeling was that we should go ahead with this more simple version rather than get involved in complications and the same applies to movable wings.

I think that we must recognise that all countries possessing a major aircraft industry have been carrying out extensive studies into supersonic air transport and that if we fail to go ahead our industry could slip back from the front rank of aircraft constructors and that would have serious effects on the economy of this country. On the other hand, if Government Departments do embark on this transport it will mean that our industry will remain in the forefront and, I believe, increase its share in the world market for transport aircraft. It will also greatly contribute to our technological advances in the fields of metals, fluids, electronics.

It is particularly in this field of sophisticated production that the future of Britain, in part, lies. After all, we produced the first turbo-jet, we produced the first turbo-prop in use in commercial airlines, and I believe that, here again, in conjunction with our French friends, we shall produce the first supersonic civil transport for airlines. I believe that we must grab this opportunity with both hands and dash away with the prize. In so doing, we must not forget to pay our tribute to those in both industry and Government who have pioneered this exciting project.

I am glad that the House will have the opportunity to look at the numbers of mathematics and science teachers before the House goes into Recess. Quite obviously, this is one of the principal factors which will determine whether Britain in the second half of the twentieth century will be able to face the technological challenge before us. I say this in two senses. The narrower sense is that one naturally hopes that Britain will be able to maintain her status and standards in comparison with those of other nations; the other and wider sense is that Britain will be able to be in the van of scientific progress and discovery in which she so often led in the past. Many of us today feel she is capable of doing it again in the future.

We start our examination against a somewhat dismal background in relation to the universities. We all know the desperate shortage of places in the universities, a shortage affecting practically all departments. It continues to exist despite repeated warnings over the past decade. We recall, of course, that at the beginning of the year to try to improve the proportion of our population going to universities, as compared with the proportion going to universities in many other countries—I do not want to go into the details of those comparisons, because they have been drawn before and are very well known—and to obtain the trained skill we need, the Government announced with a considerable flourish a university expansion plan to increase the number of places to 150,000 by 1966-–67 and 170,000 by 1973–74. It is true that even in spite of that programme the Sunday Times said on 13th May this year that the programme was

"quite inadequate and the target ought to be 200,000 by 1970"

but at any rate, if one had been able to ensure an increase of places to 150,000 by 1966, from the present 111,000, it would have been a satisfactory start.

Hardly had those concerned been gearing their minds to the now possibilities when the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to the House of Commons and said that universities could finance the expansion with less costs. What an extraordinary thing it is that the present Home Secretary seems always connected with disappointment. This is true for universities as in other connections. The reverberations of that statement, although the universities had since received more cash for building, are still going on. I noticed that only last night a distinguished officer of the University Grants Committee has resigned, and according to the Evening Standard—though I would not take all information as absolutely reliable from that source—his resignation is not unconnected with general satisfaction with the Government and their handling of and meanness to university finance. At any rate, this lead to an extremely serious situation, and that is the background to our examination now. I would like to cite these three pieces of evidence as to the result.

The Association of University Teachers has just published a survey based on an examination of 1,362 grammar schools which shows that from them there were 5,289 qualified sixth-formers who were unable to find a place in a university because of the shortage of places. This is a deplorable figure when, clearly, we are in a period of crisis over skilled personnel. Here are qualified pupils which the country needs who are unable to find places this year, though they may hope to find them later, because of the present shortage of places.

I noticed that a little earlier, on 21st November, the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University, Sir Charles Morris, speaking to the half-yearly meeting of the Court of Governors, said:

"Unless some clear gesture is made to show that the nation really wants able young men and women to teach, the future of university education in Britain was seriously at risk."

He went on to say:

"Unless more money was made available there was a danger that the universities—particularly the six big northern ones of Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Birmingham, which were bearing the brunt of the plans to increase student numbers to 150.000 by 1956—would be unable to fulfil their programmes. Oxford, Cambridge and London were hardly expanding."

Then there was a heading which appeared in The Times of 6th October, which said:

"Austerity year for Oxford University. Teaching may have to be cut."

It is really extraordinary, after all the warnings given over the last ten years, that we are in this crisis, and while I am not one of those people who pretend that Britain ought not to play her part in Western defence, because I certainly believe in that, I wonder what could have boon done if only a fraction of the money we seem to be wasting upon some things like Blue Streak could have been invested for this essential educational need.

I do not say any more about the university background to the subject of specialist mathematics and science teachers, except to say that not only do we face acute shortage of places, but we still know that our universities are to some extent geared to conditions which have now passed away, and are still producing far too many historians and far too few mathematicians and scientists in relation to arts graduates. I do not want to say that there should be fewer arts teachers or historians, but we do need and must have more scientists and mathematicians.

I should like to confine my remarks to the teaching of mathematics, because I am certain that my hon. Friends, if they succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, will want to deal with the teaching of science and the position in the training colleges. As one looks at this question one starts with the knowledge that teachers of mathematics are the key factor in the training and education of those who are to become scientists, and with the fact that we shall not get the scientists we need in the future, either for teaching or for industry, unless we secure the necessary number of mathematicians in the schools now.

Again, the Government have had adequate warning of the increasing seriousness of this shortage of teachers of mathematics. In 1955, the Appleton Committee, Which was the Committee concerned with conditions in Scotland, said that the shortage was

"so grave a national danger that if not solved our economy, even our safety, will be endangered."

This was said seven years ago by that very distinguished Committee. Then, there was a sensational lecture delivered by Professor Thwaites in May, 1961. I have previously quoted from his findings when I wound up in the science debate shortly afterwards, and I do not want to travel over all that I said on that occasion, but there are one or two points I should like to make, as they still seem to me from the evidence which I have that they are absolutely relevant.

Professor Thwaites, during the course of his remarks, said:

"Mathematics may already in May, 1961, have passed the point of no return, the point beyond which there will be a steady and irretrievable decline, on the average, in the quality of students coming into the universities, in the proportionate number of adequately qualified teachers both in schools and universities, and in the overall prestige and standing of mathematics as an academic displine."

Such evidence as I have obtained since, unfortunately, leads me to believe that there is a great deal of truth in that statement. I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will today be able somewhat to assuage me on this point. This was said at the time just after his inquiry into some 800 grammar schools which showed that, in the year of the inquiry, there had been, on the average, a turnover of mathematical staff amounting to nearly 50 per cent. in some of these 800 grammar schools.

That was the situation then. What is the position today? It has been authoritatively stated that to provide adequate teaching facilities in the schools we need about 10.000 teachers of mathematics. I do not know whether that figure is accurate, but it must be something of that order. I have since been assured that Professor Thwaites and others subsequently have said that we have only about 5,000. If this is really the gap, and it is a gap which appears to be increasing, then the prospect is alarming. I hope that we shall get some positive answer on this point which is rather more precise than the one I received two years ago.

It has peen said that we ought to have coming into the schools every year between 250 and 300 new qualified mathematicians. That proportion would be about half the mathematics graduates coming out of the universities at present. I am quite certain that we are not getting anything like that proportion in the schools. Some estimates have been made of the requirements of industry, and I believe that industry alone could take the entire product of mathematics graduates, and this is one of the reasons why I think the universities and the Government have been so slow. One of the revolutions of the last few years is that the new electronic processes require absolutely first-class mathematicians in industry and commerce, and industry can afford to pay salaries which are at present undreamed of in academic circles, even in the universities, far less in the schools.

It is an extremely grave position. When I raised this matter specifically in an Adjournment debate on 9th May two years ago I drew attention—I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) will develop this point—to the fact that at that time 25 out of 75 of the women's training colleges had no mathematics lecturers at all. We have since had various statements showing that only 4 per cent. of the women trainees for teaching are studying mathemtics. I should very much like to know what is the position now.

After an interesting speech the then Parliamentary Secretary wound up with these high-sounding phrases:

"… we recognise both the nature and the extent of the problem."

This was specifically on the shortage of mathematics teachers.

"I very much hope that the House will feel that this matter, which is not yet solved, is, at any rate, engaging our urgent attention."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 9th May, 1960; Vol. 623, c. 169–7.]

We want something more than that.

That was two years ago. I hope that on this occasion we shall get not only pleasant phrases—I am sure we shall—and a courteous speech from the Parliamentary Secretary but some positive facts in answer to the points raised. It is very difficult for hon. Members on this side of the House to know precisely what the position is. There is a very considerable time lag in the statistics. Another distinguished predecessor of the hon. Gentleman said that reading the Ministry's own statistics was like looking up a train in last year's Bradshaw. Unfortunately, the facts emerging from the statistics may mean that the position is much worse than I believe it and not better. If it is better than I am expecting it to be, I shall be delighted, but I am fairly certain that it is not.

Even this year, two years after our discussion in the House, I read these words about the shortage of mathematics teachers:

"… if national disaster is to be avoided, direction of labour will have to be introduced in order to make good the shortage in the number of mathematics teachers in our schools."

This very extreme phrase was not by some Marxist but by the headmaster of Battersea Grammar School, formerly president of the Incorporated Association of Head Masters and a previous president of the Mathematical Association. Headmasters of grammar schools are not usually used to talking this kind of melodramatic language. Usually, their phrasing is rather tepid, and the significance of it has to be seen by examination afterwards.

But that was the view of this very distinguished teacher earlier this year. Therefore, I hope that we shall get from the Parliamentary Secretary some answers to the following questions relating purely to mathematics teachers. I should very much like to know what proportion of the teacher-training colleges for both males and females today are without mathematics teachers, and what proportion of the students, male and female, are now studying mathematics, and how that compares with the position when I raised the matter in May, 1960. I should also like to have some estimate of the shortage of mathematics teachers in these schools, given in figures from the Ministry from its point of view. This is essential if we are not only to try to understand the significance of the problem but also to consider what sort of measures ought to be taken.

I should also be very glad to know what is being done to try to increase the product of mathematics graduates from the universities. Is the total product in the region of 700 or 800 a year? A good deal of criticism has been directed at the universities—I know that this is a matter not entirely for the Minister but also for the universities—in that they sometimes concentrate on producing a smaller number of extremely highly qualified mathematicians. No one wants in any way to debase standards, but if we do not get some mathematics taught lower down there will not be any eminent mathematicians later on, and this is a prospect which the nation cannot face.

I believe that the decisions taken in these critical three or four years about both science and mathematics will in the long run be even more important for the nation than whether or not we join the Common Market. This is something over which we have some control. It is a question of deciding priorities and devoting resources. It is a matter far more within our own competence and power than some of the enterprises in which the Government engage from time to time. I believe that the nation will pay a terrible price if those who have been responsible in this matter have failed in their duties.

I welcome the opportunity of making what hon. Gentlemen opposite will be glad to learn will be a very short contribution to the debate. I wish to express the gratitude which I think we all feel to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for having raised this very important subject. How right he is that the whole future of our country depends on our being far more scientific in our outlook and that we should pay far more heed to the need for science graduates, people trained in technology and people trained in mathematics.

But the picture, as I understand it, is not an entirely black one. Much has been achieved over recent years. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will in due course tell the House in specific terms what has been done. There is no doubt that it is a very great deal. I will quote two examples which are of a hopeful character. There are two statistics which I picked out slightly at random; they seem to me somewhat more hopeful than some of the trends to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

First, it is encouraging to note that the number of A-level passes in mathematics rose from 26,800 to 29,700 over the short space of one year from 1960 to 1961. Thus, it would appear that more children are taking their A-levels and passing in mathematics, and for that, I, as an extraordinarily bad mathematician, pay them tribute. They mill go on, and some will become teachers and some will be absorbed in industry. This is a statistic which struck me as being encouraging.

Carrying on the theme of the hon. Gentleman as to the need these days to have an increasingly large proportion of our graduates studying science and mathematics as opposed to the Arts—no hon. Member would want to cut out the arts at all but it is interesting to note that the estimate of the University Grants Committee is that between 1961–62 and 1966–67 there will be an increase of about 40 per cent. in the students taking pure science courses, an increase of 60 per cent in the students taking applied science courses and an increase of only 18 per cent. in the number taking arts courses. Thus, an enormous effort is being made by the universities.

It will always be suggested that the effort should be greater. On all sides we should like to see more money being spent. But we must keep things in perspective, because there are many calls on the taxpayers' money. It is encouraging to notice that a very large proportion of the vast sums which are to be devoted to new university places will go to the people who will be taking science, pure or applied, courses. This is encouraging, and the position is, therefore, by no means entirely black.

To mention one further aspect, it is important that we should have more teachers of science and mathematics, but it is equally important that we should use the teachers of science and mathematics that we have at the moment to the very best effect. The first point on this which I wish to mention is the provision of equipment. From a large amount of what I have read about this, I am by no means convinced that sufficient laboratory and scientific equipment is available. It is true that many of the county councils and education authorities are much more aware of the problem than they were, but there is always the Treasury behind any consideration of this issue.

I have seen it stated that there is not a single scientist at the Treasury. If that is true, it is something which might well be righted. That there should not be a single scientist at the Treasury would seem surprising. Presumably the Treasury has mathematicians, but it appears to have no scientists. There would be a better appreciation of the need for scientific equipment in schools and universities if there were a few well-placed scientists at the Treasury.

We should not pass this matter by without paying tribute to what industry has done. I would mention the Industrial Fund for the Advancement of Scientific Education in the Schools, to which Industry has contributed generously and which has been of considerable help in furthering scientific education.

Would the hon. Gentleman use his influence to persuade the Industrial Fund to give some benefits to the State schools as well as the private schools?

Yes. If I had the influence I might be encouraged to use it in that direction after hearing from the hon. Member what he has in mind. But as a humble member of the Bar, my influence in industry is somewhat limited.

Then there is the actual use of their time by the teachers themselves. Here my attention was struck by an article in the house magazine Esso recently by Mr. J. L. Lewis, senior mathematics master at Malvern College, who has investigated teaching methods in science in Russia, America and on the Continent. He is, a course, highly familiar with our own methods as well. He suggested that we could draw some lessons from what is done in Russia. He wrote:

"The Russians are teaching as much science in less time than we are by giving the teacher a lot more guidance and far more aids to his teaching. If we too had the means of teaching our subjects more efficiently, the English schoolmaster might not have to say the same thing over and over again. We might achieve as much in fewer periods and the shortage of teachers would not be so acute.

In Russia there are research institutes for the devising of school experiments and the design of apparatus. In England this is usually done by the busy schoolmaster in any spare moments he may have. We cannot really afford to continue in this amateurish way. Not only is the Russian teacher provided with a complete set of demonstration apparatus for his course, but he is well supplied with films on precisely the subjects being taught. All this does much to help the teacher; it does not impede the good teacher from developing his own ideas, but it does enable the indifferent teacher to achieve a minimum standard, to teach with a minimum of efficiency."

That is an interesting comment by a person who has made a deep study of the subject. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will comment on it, because it appears that there is much to be learnt from what is suggested there. One would also like to see more use being made of experiments in teaching, such as ordinary television, closed circuit television and films.

We must make science fashionable. Far too many people still think that it is "smart to do art" or rather the arts and spurn scientific and mathematical subjects. Far more people like myself, with training in history and the law, should take an interest in scientific matters. We in this House should also devote more time to them. It is absolutely vital to our survival that we make science fashionable and get more children wishing to take it up.

I have sat through several science debates in this House. On one occasion I sat here for seven hours trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. One of the things we ought to mention is the enormous contribution—and I say this with all humility—which is already being made by the Duke of Edinburgh. I am surprised that no tribute has been paid to his work in previous debates. The Government and the House should follow up his work by thinking more about modern scientific and mathematical subjects. We should think scientifically and make science fashionable.

I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) that there is need to publicise scientific education and for developing interest in it. But I blame the Ministry of Education particularly for not uncovering the nature and extent of the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) said. It is about that aspect that I wish mainly to speak. After the Adjournment debate on 3rd August, I had a most interesting letter on this subject. This read:

"Your experience in endeavouring to obtain statistics from the Minister appears to be much the same as mine. That there is a shortage of mathematicians and scientists has been common knowledge for 15 years or more, yet the Ministry professes an, albeit highly rationalised, ignorance of the extent of this shortage. Your own indication to the House of the simple arithmetic necessary to approximate the shortage suggests that the problem can be defined. Until it is defined, however, it can hardly be solved."

I would prefer to call the ignorance of the Ministry "sophisticated." I have a feeling that it does not wish to uncover the full facts because of fear of political odium.

indicated dissent.

I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I hope that he will follow up the suggestion of making a full survey of the problem involved. The latest set of statistics—I call it the "Red Book"—is a great advance in relation to the G.C.E. statistics. I have been one of those con- stantly badgering the Ministry to improve its statistics. I am glad that it is taking that advice.

One of the arguments which Lord Eccles always put forward about increasing expenditure on education was that one could not carry the public too far—that the public, as it were, dragged the Ministry back. In considering the shortage of science teachers and lecturers in training colleges, a good example has been set by a number of professional bodies. For instance, the Science Masters Association and the A.U.T., referred to by my hon. Friend, have done very good surveys recently about students not getting into universities, while the College of Preceptors has surveyed the reaction to the Crowther Report. The clearing house has a very good system now for taking account of the subjects studied by students making application for training college places.

The moment is ripe—the professional people are very interested—for taking the matter a great deal further and setting out in simple language, well documented, the nature of the problem and what the Ministry expects the various parts of the educational system to do. The Ministry's function is that of coordinator and stimulator, and that is a job which no one else can do. However good outside surveys might be, they cannot match the resources of the Ministry. Above all, outside bodies lack the opportunity to co-ordinate the various efforts.

If one can make a general criticism of the way in which the Government as a whole have proceeded in relation to education over the years, it is that they have appointed a committee to deal with each particular problem they wish to investigate. We have had the Crowther Committee, the Robbins Committee and the Albemarle Committee. Each took its subject in isolation. Yet what was needed was not so much separate inquiries into these aspects, but continuing Statistics, information and action over the whole problem of education.

Rumour has it, according to the "bush telegraph" in this House, that the Minister is now about to embark on an inquiry into primary education. But the research department of the Ministry should already have the statistics to help the Minister in his task of making a plan, which need not necessarily be cast iron, but which could indicate to people the way they should go and their r÷le in the system. It should be able to fit people more economically and efficiently into their places in the system and get the maximum results.

Even the problem of manpower is dealt with unscientifically by the Ministry, although the approach to the problem of buildings and equipment has been very much improved over the years. There is room for improvement in relation to the scientific assessment of these problems. But in the problem of coordination and of getting people to fit together, it seems to me that the Ministry are extremely deficient. On the side of public relations, too, there is nothing like the application to the problem which is required.

I was reading over, as I often do—it is almost my bible—the Plowden Committee on the Control of Public Expenditure, and there are a couple of quotations from it which are appropriate on the production of information in the Ministry of Education. This is what the Plowden Committee said about public interest:

"Unless the issues of long-term expenditure priorities and policies can be discussed in Parliament and become the subject of public controversy, it will be difficult for Governments to carry public opinion with them."

My criticism of Lord Eccles was precisely this—not relating to public expenditure in particular, but relating to public information about the expenditure and about the sort of thing which the Ministry of Education wants the local authorities and the schools to do. It is just as necessary to have public discussion here about the problem of scientific education and finding sufficient training college lecturers, and to have the facts and figures available, as it is to discuss the expenditure of money.

Another quotation which is apposite is this:

"Our proposals are designed to lead gradually to greater public interest in the priorities of expenditure"

—I would say "in the priorities of information"—

"to the stimulation of academic thought about it, and to a greater awareness of the implications and choices involved in policies as they come forward."

It is not only a matter of expenditure, but also a matter of public information, and I very much agree with the hon. Member for Colchester about this. Very few people dispute—and I should be interested to see whether the Parliamentary Secretary does—that the talent for the training of lecturers in training colleges and masters and mistresses in schools in mathematics and science is available.

I will quote the final words of Sir Ronald Gould, on 11th March, 1961, at a very good conference of many people concerned with scientific information—the Association of Scientific Workers, the Association of Technical Teachers, the A.U.T., the N.U.T. and the Assistant Masters Association. He said:

"The one assumption which has gone through the whole of our discussion is that there is enough human potential if we only use it adequately. No one has questioned that."

This is surely the major role which only the Ministry of Education can play. The material is there.

I give the Ministry credit for some advance. The figures show that for boys and girls in physics and chemistry the material is there, but what is lacking is the Ministry's consideration in getting everybody together to produce the maximum result. Perhaps I may be specific on this matter, as I rather like to be constructive in these debates. There are a number of problems which I am sure need to be considered and to be more in evidence in the statistical data which the Ministry produces.

For example, what are the steps which are being taken to deal with this dreadful way in which the sons and daughters of semi-skilled and unskilled people fall through the educational net? Looking through the "Red Book" I have picked out some figures. Among children from all schools, taking three A levels in the last G.C.E., the professional and managerial group account for 8,000 boys and the semi-skilled and unskilled groups for 790. Among the daughters of professional men the figure was 4,350 and in the semi-skilled and unskilled categories, 330.

If we look at the independent school figures we find that they are a disgrace. There are no girls in the independent schools from unskilled or semi-skilled backgrounds getting three A-levels, and there are no boys, and there are only 150 from the skilled occupations. This means that the public schools are less public than they have ever been.

Even in the Middle Ages they were much more representative of the people than they are today. I imagine that all those 150 boys came from Christ's Hospital, but, certainly, it means that there are no girls at all in these categories. If the public schools want to justify their place they have to do what was suggested in the Guardian, by Mr. Peterson, two days ago—come to some degree of co-operation and sharing of their staff, particularly in science.

Another specific problem, in the same way, in which I think it is highly desirable that the Ministry should give evidence of studying problems of operational research as well as of education is the deplorable failing of part-time students in further education. Again quoting the "Red Book", in 1961, in mathematics the number of entries for G.C.E. A-level among evening class men was 750, and the passes were 170. Among women it was 100 entries and 30 passes. These were part-time evening students. For the part-time day students, the entries in mathematics were 1,120 men, with 390 passes, and 190 women, with only 70 passes. In the full-time classes the passes are just over the half-mark. I could give the same sort of figuers for chemistry and physics.

This is an organisational problem for the Ministry of Education—how to ensure that, with grants and time off and that sort of thing, these people, who are among the most serious groups of students in the whole educational world, are given a reasonable chance to pass their examinations and to receive the necessary sections of full-time education to do so.

Another very intractable problem on which we need much more information is what progress is being made in girls' science education, because upon this depends our success in the training colleges. The figures for the last advance level G.C.E. seem to demonstrate once and for all that the mathematical and scientific ability of girls, if properly cultivated, is as good as that of boys. In the last results, for all the mathematical examinations—that is, all the A-mathematics groups together—4,298 girls passed, which was a 68–9 per cent. pass rate, compared with 27,000-odd boys with a 65 per cent. pass rate. It is fairly obvious that the mathematical teaching in the girls' schools is at a reasonable level, because I suppose there is bound to be one reasonably good mathematician on the staff of every school.

But when we come to physics and chemistry, where we know from our personal experience that a considerable number of schools have no physics or chemistry teacher, we find that the girls show up very much worse. In physics, for example, 5 per cent. fewer girls pass than boys and in chemistry it is 6 per cent. fewer.

I urge the Ministry of Education to pay particular attention to these black spots and to set out statistically and by argument and in the Annual Report the nature of the problem and what the Ministry is doing and wants other people to do. In scientific education and mathematics there is a great need for a new attitude to teaching in this country—particularly in mathematics. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has seen the shadow of the Common Market, but a book "New Thinking in School Mathematics", issued by O.E.C.D. is a very good document which ought to be in the hands of everybody who has anything to do with educational administration.

I put forward three ideas which seem to me to be most important. We ought at once to devise a better curriculum on mathematics, we ought to make all our mathematics courses more interesting throughout the educational system and we ought to do what I suggested in the debate of 3rd August—then I thought that I had got something, but, obviously, it was not very much—which is to do much more to ensure that bright teachers in schools have opportunities to go to universities full time on grant. They ought also to be given part-time day opportunities at university for refreshers in mathematics. The O.E.C.D. document suggests that teachers going to universities for part-time refreshers in mathematics, chemistry and physics ought to be in contact with university professors by correspondence and so on. The O.E.C.D. document says:

"In every field of activity the difficulty nowadays is by and large inertia."

This is a very big task which the Ministry has. It has a task to make plain the facts, and to publicise them, and it has a task to overcome inertia.

My hon. Friends have concentrated on the problems of universities and training colleges. I focus attention on the school problem. First, I must frankly confess to the Parliamentary Secretary that I do not care to offer him, with confiedence, any figures on the current shortage of science teachers in schools. It is sufficient to say that in 1959 only 34 per cent. of the secondary modern schools felt themselves to be adequately staffed in science.

On more certain ground, there is the calculation that we need 14,000 more graduates in science if we introduce the following assumptions—that sixth forms are doubled; that the numbers for classes are reduced to the 30 statutory pupils; that the school-leaving age is raised to 16; and that practical work is to be done at a suitable ratio of teacher to pupil. If 14,000 are needed, let the Parliamentary Secretary also bear in mind that the current net rate of increase is 500 science graduates for teaching each year.

Add to this the further complication of the birth rate. In 1955 live births numbered 668,000. In 1957 the figure was 723,000. In 1959 the figure was 749,000. In 1961 the figure was 804,000. This year one gathers that it is at the rate of 820,000. Has the Ministry taken into consideration these statistics and the new bulge with which it will be faced?

Rather than throwing numbers at the Parliamentary Secretary, there is something which disturbs me a good deal more. That is the decline in the numbers of those with first class honours in teaching. Over the years 1959 to 1961 the number of firsts was between 10 and 11 per cent., but in the training colleges the overall total of firsts in mathematics was 3 per cent., and for men only 2·6 per cent. Considering the real totals, I think that hon. Members will appreciate the seriousness of this decline in really high quality honours graduates in schools.

It is not only a question of those with first class honours, because I appreciate that pupils under 16 may not necessarily be best taught by those with firsts. May I quote a Scottish figure? One sees no reason to suppose that the ratios are different in England. Those teachers between 25 and 29 years of age with honours degrees in mathematics number 29. Those between 50 and 54 with similar qualifications number 115. I repeat that perhaps this is not critical for those under 16, because after all by someone who has some scientific training they can be taught how to study, how to get the facts, and how to go about a problem, which is as much as one would ask at that stage. Those over 16 must have teachers who have a profound understanding of scientific methods and the knowledge to do it, particularly in mathematics, where one year before 25 is worth five years afterwards. Because the mathematician, involving intuition rather than judgment, matures so much younger, it is more important than in any other subject to have those who are really profoundly educated in their own expertise.

Again, there is the serious situation north of the Border. About half the posts which should go to honours graduates in 1972 will in fact be filled, according to the calculation of the Educational Institute of Scotland, by those with an Article 39 qualification.

There is again the serious problem of age distribution. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that 60 per cent. of those teachers with honours degrees in mathematics are over 50 years of age. This is again the Scottish figure. It could be different in England. Forty per cent. of those qualified in mathematics are over 50 years of age. In order to teach advanced mathematics—this is almost tautology, but it is important—there must be teachers who understand this highly complicated subject.

I am concerned now to try to be constructive and put forward various ways of increasing teaching power, although I admit that there is no overall panacea. How many teachers are being recruited from the colleges of advanced technology, because some figures which I would offer with very little confidence show that there is remarkably poor recruitment from colleges of advanced technology? Perhaps the Minister would make some comment.

There is again the question of refresher course's. Particularly is this necessary in physics. Instead of teaching a series of unrelated topics, what is the Minister doing to encourage the idea whereby physics should be treated from the point of view of energy? What is he doing to make this possible, both with equipment, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), and also from the point of view of re-training present teachers of physics? If it is taught as an ordered body of knowledge rather than as unrelated topics, this country would get more better physicists. I am not one to countenance taunts of "bachelors of outmoded science" which are so often thrown at our more senior and elderly science teachers. One must ask, however, whether refresher courses, however desirable, are really realistic. Can one ask those who have been doing a job for fifteen or twenty years to go back and change their methods? My senior colleagues involved would, with the best will in the world, find it extremely difficult, and I certainly am not sneering at them or criticising them.

It is at this point that one has to introduce the question of television. I shall confine my remarks very shortly on this, because my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) wishes to speak about this. He is a great expert on this. Would the Minister consider the introduction into Britain of the sort of physics and perhaps chemistry teaching which is being done through television in the United States by the 162 half-hour lessons of Dr. Hervey White? What happened was that the President of the United States said, "Who is the best science teacher in America?" Eventually they alighted on Dr. Hervey White of the University of California, who, with the aid of seven Nobel Prize winners, put together 162 really relevant lessons of fundamental physics. It seems to have been a tremendous success.

Perhaps the importance here is that it cuts out much of the most difficult stuff which happens, in the light of the frontiers of knowledge now, to be irrelevant. We should not assume for one moment that the hardest stuff pupils have to learn is the most relevant, because it is not. Therefore, by giving some sort of short cut they have alighted on a most important educational idea.

Perhaps the Minister also would look carefully at the experiments which are being done at the Durham Colleges in connection with Tyne Tees Television preparing pupils for G.C.E. O-level. This is particularly useful in those schools where there is a shortage of science teachers. Perhaps the Minister will also consider the interesting experiment which is being done at the Kidbrooke Comprehensive School which is linked with the Avery Hill Training College. Could more finance be made available for this sort of idea? Television can stimulate the interests and activities of younger children in the direction of science. In this connection, I would like to draw on a personal experience. I used to teach twelve and thirteen year-olds from and with the aid of Professor Dennis Bullough's programmes on evolution. Professor Bullough could tell them about coelecanth and explain the topic in full by showing one of them. He had one and I did not and, therefore, his programmes were extremely effective. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East is an expert on this subject.

Really?

I believe that there should be television sets not only in every secondary school but in every primary school and while this might be considered a tall order, I would like to see a television set in every single classroom. This would partly avoid the time involved in taking pupils to the communal television room—and I refer to the physical time spent moving from one room to another—but it would partly assist by being able to use a television programme not just once but twice, which is particularly effective in science teaching. It is much better that pupils should see a programme once, spend some time discussing it and then see it a second time. If there is only one television set in a school difficulties are created. Besides, in every school that has a TV set, there are clashes of timetable between classes.

Without finding myself out of order in talking about finance, I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to two early day Motions on the television industry. Before the 625 line system is introduced in April, 1964, this industry will be going through a serious economic crisis. If these sort of steps are taken the under-utilised resources of the unemployed makers of television components in my constituency and other parts of the North-East and Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland, would be assisted. I realise that it assumes a certain amount of financial expenditure when one claims that every classroom should have a television set. This would certainly help the industry to tide over lack of sales until April, 1964. It may be thought that one is relying far too much on television of schoolchildren receive a lot of television teaching. Perhaps they would look less willingly at television in the evenings if this were done; and the Minister can choose which is the better for pupils.

I would like to suggest the setting up of centres of science so that pupils in the cities can attend them, and I must confess to have been influenced to a certain extent by the palaces of pioneers which one sees in Russia. While it might be unrealistic to ask that extremely expensive equipment should be provided in every school, such science centres could have this expensive equipment and the sixteen to eighteen year olds who so badly need this form of study could attend these centres. This suggestion could take in various types of clubs, centres of geology, perhaps astronomy and even solid state physics. Students could approach these subjects with much more enthusiasm than they can do in the compulsory sense inside the normal school framework.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) would, I am sure, discover that girls would make a great deal of use of these centres. It is a serious thing that of the physics graduates in our schools with degrees in physics 2,012 are men and only 316 are women. The interest which science centres would provide could do a lot to encourage a solution of the problem which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland spoke about.

I must be brief because a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. I had intended to deal with a number of other points but I will merely commend to the Parliamentary Secretary the document "Science Teaching in Secondary Modern Schools "published by the Science-masters' Association in 1959. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give this his urgent consideration.

Because of the time factor I shall have to condense what would have been a twenty-minute speech into one lasting for not more than three minutes. I wish, firstly, to reinforce some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and specifically to ask the Minister to recognise that in science and mathematics the shortage of teachers, which has been exposed today, reveals that these two subjects are preeminently suited to tuition by television. This has been clearly brought out by recent reports on this subject.

If we are to make the best use of the teachers who are available, we must give them the largest possible audiences we can. Television can provide the answer to this. The Government have taken a thoroughly obscurantist and unirnaginative attitude towards this subject. Recently the Minister of Education told me that he was opposed to the conception of an educational television channel, but I think that there is a misunderstanding here as to the purpose of such a channel. Its purpose would be as a teaching device and not to show general cultural programmes like "Carmen" which we saw yesterday or the Greek play which was screened by I.T.V. the other week. It would, as I say, be a specifically teaching channel for schools, universities and colleges of technology. It would give instruction in science, mathematics, history, geography and the like.

It is clear that neither the B.B.C. nor the I.T.V. have any intention of performing the function of such a channel. The fourth teaching channel should and need create no difference whatever in the programmes of the other channels. They would continue as now with their education and cultural work. It would be a purely educational channel and it could be opened immediately. The Minister himself has experience in television. Like me, he had considerable experience (f it before vanishing into the obscurity of the House of Commons. He might make a personal effort along these lines.

It should be done via super-high frequency; not on the ultra-high frequency but on the v.h.f. network. There is one available and it could be done on 405 lines as a crash programme for science, mathematics and other teaching. We know about all the old objections to a fourth channel for (this purpose but they do not hold water. I do not have the time to go into the pros and cons of this matter but I urge the Minister to look into it as an immediate practical advice for remedying what is an appalling position.

I, too, must be brief in my remarks, but I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to be realistic about the subject we have been discussing. I can assure him that we require figures showing the advance that has been made this year compared with last, for we are very concerned about the pace of that advance. We are following a debate on supersonic aircraft. While the speeds at which aircraft travel are increasing all the time—to the extent of the proposed production of a supersonic aeroplane—it certainly cannot be said that we are advancing sufficiently fast enough in education compared with the progress that has been made in other countries.

It is a sheer waste of time to talk about advance as an absolute, for we are concerned solely with the pace of the advance. Many hon. Members are depressed when it appears that the advance we are making generally, and particularly in education, is by no means fast enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) mentioned Mr. Petersen. I remember an essay of his which pointed out that in China there is a bias towards the sciences of 8 to 1. I am not saying that that is necessarily desirable but it shows what can be done by a country in a dramatic way to bring itself into line with the first-rate powers.

We know that a precedent was set by the Soviet Union, which thirty or so years ago put its money, as the previous Minister of Education, Lord Eccles, said, "on their red shirts" on education. That country has devoted enormous resources to education and we in Britain must be prepared to do the same. We are today discussing science and mathematics teachers and it must be said that the pace of advance has slackened. The reason for this has been explained by previous Ministers of Education as being something to do with the call-up. We cannot accept that as an adequate answer and it is disturbing that the pace of advance has been slackening considerably.

Professor Thwaites has been mentioned. He said that, as an absolute priority, we have to double the entry of mathematics students this year. Have we done it? That is the target that he has set us. The hon. Member mentioned the Industrial Fund. I am not criticising it; it has done an enormous amount of good work for independent schools, but it has caused a disparity between the equipment provided in the independent schools and that provided in the State schools. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us Whether this disparity has decreased over the past twelve months? These are questions to which we want answers from the hon. Gentleman.

Training colleges have been referred to. I am appalled at the difficulty of getting elementary information about them. I have been trying to obtain information on subjects such as science and mathematics in relation to the increase of students attending training colleges, and I was appalled to learn from the Ministry that it does not know. All it can give me is information about the qualifications on first appointments in the schools. This is an appallingly unscientific attitude towards education.

I want to know what the present position in the training colleges is with regard to science and mathematics teaching. We know that by a diktat, or decree, the Minister has laid it down that 80 per cent. of all those in training colleges have to receive training for primary education. It seems hopelessly unscientific to imagine that, just by decree, we can do this without upsetting the whole system of education in the training colleges.

I sympathise with the hon. Member. I know the pressure of the various priorities. But we simply must meet them all. We cannot wantonly sacrifice the priority that we are now discussing simply because the Ministry did not think sufficiently early about the increase in the birthrate over the past four or five years.

Finally—and because I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is also in difficulty about the time, and we do not want to take up too much time of the following debate—

The times laid down are only provisional. In fact, I think I have slightly over-estimated the time that will be required for the next debate.

I am greatly encouraged by that, Mr. Speaker, but having said what I have I do not want to trespass unduly upon the Parliamentary Secretary's time.

I want to deal with the question of equipment. There is an enormous difference between the equipment provided in Russian and West German schools, and schools in this country. In view of the acute shortage of science and mathematics teachers, one would have thought that the bias would have been the other way. What has been done about this? This matter demands a good deal of research. It demands the same sort of approach that the Ministry has taken with regard to school buildings. This does not involve an enormous expenditure. My hon. Friend has mentioned the figures. I believe that we can provide all the equipment that needs to he provided for about £500. What is being done about this? Are we having an examination of the matter? Are we going, to have the equipment provided? If not, I agree with my hon. Friend that we shall be at a serious disadvantage compared with other countries in regard to physics teaching.

It has been suggested that there is a lot of equipment in Government stores which could be used, but because we have no scientists at the Treasury this equipment has to go through the orthodox machinery for the disposal of Government surplus stores. Television has demonstrably been proved to be a short cut. Why are we not taking advantage of it? Let us have this sort of approach to the very difficult problem which will prejudice us irretrievably in the next generation unless we tackle it.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not evade the issue by saying that we are better than we were last year. We have to be as much better as we can possibly be. Are we making the utmost use of our teaching resources? Has Professor Thwaites' target been attained this year? What is the position of the training colleges? We are concerned here not only with the grammar schools. This is the mistake which the Minister often makes. The figures that we get assume that science and mathematics are taught only in grammar schools. There is a woeful lack of science teachers in secondary schools. We must adopt an entirely different attitude to the problem.

It is for this reason that science teaching in primary schools is important. I do not say that we can go very far in the primary schools, but we could at least go far enough to encourage a climate which will create a much better response to scientific education than is apparent at the moment.

I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science is here. That shows a joint interest. I am sure that he will impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary —as Lord Hailsham once impressed upon us —that if we get education right, we can get the rest right, but that if we do not get education right there is no possibility of getting the rest right.

I am sure that the House is very grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for raising this issue. I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), that the more such matters as this can be aired in the House of Commons the greater the benefit likely to be derived from an increased knowledge of the position throughout the education service.

We are talking about one of the great problems which the education service now faces. I do not seek to hide that fact for a second. The overall shortage of teachers will, for some years, have its worst effect at two points in the educational system—in the staffing of primary and especially infants schools, and in the supply of specialist teachers of mathematics and science.

As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) suggested, there may be a conflict of priorities here. It is no good suddenly switching one's attention to one problem without having regard to the other. The hon. Member suggested that the Government have concentrated on the possible shortage of primary teachers at the expense of providing mathematicians and scientists. I shall refer to that point shortly, and I hope to be able to show that that is not the case.

This aspect of the shortage is mainly attributable to social trends, which, unfortunately for the staffing of the schools, has the effect of increasing the demand and diminishing the supply. We all know that social trends have had that effect in primary schools. The shortage of mathematics and science teachers is the result of an increasingly scientific and technological bias of society, which leads to a growing demand for education in mathematics and science at all levels. The bias also reduces the supply of qualified people, because it increases the competition that education must meet from industry.

I have been asked for specific figures, but I have been discouraged by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North from giving too many figures—or perhaps from giving figures of which he does not approve. First, I want to try to put the essential facts before hon. Members and, in the process, particularly to answer a number of questions which have been put by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The growth in the numbers of mathematics and science graduates entering the maintained schools has been quite encouraging.

In March, 1961, there were 7,321 mathematics graduates and 12,734 science graduates in employment in all grant-aided schools and establishments. Compared with the position two years before, these figures represent an increase of nearly 10 per cent. for mathematics graduates and nearly 15 per cent. for science graduates. In the maintained secondary schools the numbers were 5,077, an increase of 7·8 per cent. over 1959 for mathematics graduates and 8,528, an increase of 13·2 per cent. for science graduates. This is an advance and a percentage increase of some importance.

I would quote one other set of figures at this stage. This is for the numbers of mathematics and science graduates entering university departments of education to train as teachers. These have risen from 715 in 1957–58 to 965 in 1961–62 and 1,110 in 1962–63. This is a cause for some satisfaction and my right hon. Friend hopes that these figures will show a further increase, because these training courses can be of great value to graduates and perhaps particularly to 'those with degrees in mathematics and science. They help the graduates to understand the different needs and abilities of their pupils and to see their subject as part of the whole curriculum rather than in isolation.

I would offer one or two comments on the picture that these figures reveal. The growth in numbers entering the schools has kept pace with the general increase in the graduate teaching force. Therefore, in relation to the general graduate teaching course we have held our own in this respect. Recruitment has been rather better than the figures of growth suggest because, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said, men teachers have been leaving the schools more rapidly than we would expect to be the normal ease in the last year or two as a consequence of the ending of deferment under National Service. Further education and the training colleges have been gradually increasing their demands for mathematics and science graduates as part of their expansion programmes, and it is the schools which will eventually feel the benefit of this.

Over the last few years additional teachers have been absorbed in dealing in the secondary schools with the steadily growing school rolls. Now that the school rolls have begun to decline, a further increase in the staff should bring more apparent benefits and should mean better standards. The increase in the number of mathematics and science graduates training before entering teaching is another welcome factor.

There has been a growth in the number of pupils in secondary schools taking A level, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said. In confirming this, I do not want to suggest other than that this constitutes a great achievement by the teachers, because there is no question that many science and mathematics teachers are facing great difficulties at the moment. That they have been able to increase the numbers taking A levels, and taking them successfully in the quite substantial number to which reference has been made, is a great achievement on their part.

These are all moves in the right direction, but nobody, and least of all my right hon. Friend, will deny that a grave shortage persists. It is not uniform. In science, physics teachers are far harder to come by than teachers of biology, and the general situation for girls is worse than that for boys. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) demanded better statistics. He was kind enough to say a good word or two for the publication Statistics in Education and for the improvement in statistics from the Ministry. I get the impression that there has been a quite dramatic improvement in recent years. But when I am asked for reliable estimates of the shortage of mathematics and science teachers I must say that they are not available. We cannot give really reliable estimates of the needs of the schools.

Hon. Members may be surprised to see the difficulties that are involved in the accurate calculation of shortages of particular subject teachers within the schools. It is not a straight-forward exercise in any way. The available statistics do not show how teachers are occupied by subjects throughout the educational system. One can assume that graduates teach the subjects in which they graduated. That is broadly true, but it is much more risky to make the same assumptions about non-graduate teachers of mathematics and science. Non-graduates, moreover, are of widely varying qualifications and there is a need to analyse those qualifications before it is possible to say to what extent posts in schools are satisfactorily filled. During the shortage of mathematics and science teachers it is likely that both the schools' curricula and their estimates of teaching vacancies are conditioned by that shortage and hence underestimate what is really required.

Most important of all, one cannot assess the demand for individual subjects considered in isolation. In the past, we have collected figures showing the schools' demand for individual subjects, but we have come to think that this information is of very little use if it is not set in the context of the rest of the curriculum. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that the final total one arrives at by adding together the numbers of teachers required in individual subjects tends to be a very arbitrary one indeed.

We have, therefore, to establish typical curricula patterns for schools of different types and while giving teacher-shortage subjects priority consideration relate the demand for teachers of particular subjects to the supply as a whole. The Ministry of Education Curriculum Study Group has embarked on a study of these complex questions and it is hoped that it will before long devise some working assumptions on which to base rough interim estimates, but some time will be needed to accumulate the basic data and to devise techniques for producing more sophisticated results.

Is the Minister of Education working in conjunction with the Zuckerman findings? Do the Minister for Science and the Minister for Education try to do an exercise to determine what would be the desirable number of people flowing through in mathematics, chemistry, and so on? Would that not be a method of determining the numbers required in the schools?

I am told that there is a report coming out in January on newly qualified scientific manpower, which will bear upon this problem. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

The gravity of the shortages has to be accepted, and I think that the House will want to know what are the prospects of improvement. The supply of mathematics and science graduates is inevitably part of the general problem of recruiting more graduates, and university expansion gives us grounds for hope, especially since that expansion is to be predominantly on the science side. Two-thirds of the places supplied at the new universities are to be for scientists.

Some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington are not for me. They are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in so far as our fortunes in this respect are bound up with the output of the universities we intend to use every effort to bring home to graduates the advantages and attractions of a career in teaching.

Closer links will be formed with the university appointments officers. Recruitment publicity has been improved and will certainly be maintained. Talks are given to students by young teachers who have already obtained posts of special responsibility in the schools. We have already tried this out with some success at one university. Arrangements will be made for students to visit schools to see for themselves current standards of accommodation and equipment.

The salaries and career prospects for graduate teachers in mathematics and science have been greatly enhanced and their working conditions have been steadily improved both by the provision of better equipment, to which my right hon. Friend attaches considerable importance, and by the increase in auxiliary help in laboratories.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1959 there were only 45 secondary modern schools in the whole of the United Kingdom with laboratory assistants? Would he quote figures for laboratory assistants now?

I cannot give the hon. Member those figures at the moment, but I will certainly send them to him if he wishes.

One very promising development is the establishment of a small steering committee on the supply of mathematics teachers bringing together schools, universities and the Ministry. It has long been a puzzle to us why so few people with good mathematics qualifications at school go on to read mathematics at the university. Now that the demand for mathematics graduates is increasing so fast outside education as well as inside —for one reason because of the use of computers in industry—it is essential to tackle this problem, and a steering committee is much better equipped to do so than either the schools or the universities in isolation.

I have spoken of graduates. I will now say a word about the supply of science and mathematics teachers who are non-graduates. The three-year course, coupled with the greatly increased demand for admission, which allows colleges to choose highly-qualified candidates, has given the training colleges an opportunity to broaden and deepen the training that they give to non-graduate mathematics and science teachers, and so equip them to play their part in the teaching of these subjects in both primary and secondary schools.

I was asked for the figures of scientists and mathematicians at the teacher train- ing colleges. With the permission of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, I think that since they are rather lengthy I had better give them to him privately.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested that there are many teacher training colleges without lecturers in these subjects. I must tell him that for mathematics there are about 240 lecturers, an average of two per general college teaching full time. Another 60 are teaching mathematics either part-time or in combination with another subject. There is no indication of a shortage of lecturers in mathematics in the training colleges, although there may be one or two temporary vacancies. Of course, the teaching of science tends to be more concentrated in a few colleges and, therefore, the lecturers are found in about 45 colleges, and it may, therefore, seem that the supply of lecturers in the colleges is not so satisfactory.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the subject of television, which is one—

Before the hon. Gentleman comes to the subject of television will he tell the House whether he is saying that in 60 training colleges there are no science teachers at all?

I am saying that there are lecturers in physics and chemistry in about 45 colleges. Many remaining colleges have lecturers in other science subjects—for example, biology—which are more appropriate for girls intending to work in primary schools. Only one college is known to have a vacancy for a lecturer in physics and chemistry.

Incidentally, the numbers of scientists and mathematicians in training colleges for this year and for last year are substantially higher than the intake for 1960–61, which was the year when the training colleges were asked to devote 80 per cent. of their capacity to those training for junior work. I think that that fully answers the accusation so often made that that resulted in a reduction in places for scientists and mathematicians.

It is not the case that my right hon. Friend is committed in principle against the introduction of a special television channel at any time. It is, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, will know, the policy of the Government that there should be no special education channel at the moment. He will know, as well as I do, the arguments for that proposition which were advanced, among others, by the Pilkington Committee.

There is an encouraging expansion of teaching on television going on at present. An agreement has been reached between the B.B.C., the I.T.A. and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on the subject of adult education and the expansion of hours; and I know from recent conversations with the B.B.C. that, in addition to the mathematics courses which have been run, they are considering how best to increase science teaching on television.

Is not it a mockery to regard the Government's proposals for the expansion of education as a means of increasing the hours of television which means that these programmes will be shown after eleven o'clock? That is all that the White Paper on the future of television has to offer regarding educational television—programmes out of existing hours; that is to say, after eleven o'clock. Is not that burning the midnight oil in the most literal sense? Why should not science and mathematics instruction be available for different age groups at different times of the day and integrated with other educational programmes?

This is a large subject, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and the proposition that he has made would make no sense except in relation to a special education channel.

It makes sense in any channel which is used in the public interest instead of in the private interest of a few people.

If the hon. Gentleman is so insensitive to the opinions of the majority of viewers that he would put on a television lecture on biology or chemistry at eight o'clock in the evening, when there are only two mass media channels, not only is he a very brave man but he would be guilty of misusing a mass medium of communication—

indicated assent.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, who has much experience of television, agrees with me.

I have not been able to give all the statistics for which I have been asked in this debate. But my right hon. Friend and I attach considerable importance to the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and by other hon. Members, that it is essential that the talents of the science and mathematics teachers which we have are used to the maximum advantage in our schools.

Evidently, in-service training is of importance in this respect, and the equipment and facilities which are available to teachers. There is still a shortage. The gravity of that shortage is not underestimated. I hope that I have given some indication of the many ways in which my right hon. Friend is intent upon increasing the supply of scientists and mathematicians to our schools. I can assure the House that these efforts will not be relaxed until the present admittedly serious shortage is greatly alleviated.

The hon. Gentleman's statement that the Minister of Education was not, in principle, opposed to a separate educational channel is encouraging. Can he assure the House that this is being studied by the Minister?

It is not often that the Chair intervenes in these matters. But this particular topic has already had 25 minutes more than the time allotted and we should allow some finality to sitting down.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, when we discussed the question of the improvement of the constitution and the amenities of the British Museum, and I much welcome the opportunity today to raise the question of the amenities in our parks and public buildings controlled by the Minister of Public Building and Works.

In doing so, I think it right to say that with the Christmas spirit in the air-and Christmas approaching, it is delightful to have the opportunity to consider the pleasures of leisure. Indeed, the subject that I raise today is entirely the subject of our pleasures.

One thing that is quite clear is that in recent years there have been rapid changes in our holiday behaviour. The pattern of holidays has changed. Methods of transport, types of accommodation and entertainment, expenditure and personal tastes have changed. Action is now called for to satisfy the demands created by these changing habits. There are far wider recreational pastimes and opportunities today. They involve camping, caravanning, riding, sailing, tennis, cricket, walking tours and various changes in the recreational pattern of our habits throughout the United Kingdom.

I hope that we shall have a lead in certain of these directions from the Ministry of Public Building and Works in presenting a plan, which may require greater co-ordination with the local authorities, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade, which will assist holiday makers not only in this country, but from overseas, to enjoy pleasures which hitherto have not been readily available to them. The difficulty is that these areas present a real problem.

Whether it is the Royal Parks, in London, or the National Parks, one has the problem that in each case they are areas of great natural scenic beauty, yet it is necessary, if that beauty is to be enjoyed, that there should be facilities both for entertainment and enjoyment of those pleasures. To be able to achieve the task of providing such entertainment and pastimes we must have a true plan which will ensure that it does not destroy the beauty of those areas.

I turn, first, to the Royal Parks. I understand that in the forthcoming year the contracts for catering and similar matters come up for review. I therefore wish to make a number of suggestions which I hope will appeal to the Government and, indeed, to the public in our own great City of London. I refer, in particular, to Hyde Park, St. James's Park, Regent's Park and also Hampton Court and Greenwich. Battersea, of course, is under the control of the L.C.C., but I hope that it will follow suit if a lead is given by a good policy in respect of the parks controlled by the Ministry.

If one is fortunate enough to go to the Bois de Boulogne, in France, one will find first-class restaurants and catering arrangements in the parks. The first necessity is that there should be a high standard of catering so that people are encouraged to go into the Royal Parks for the pleasure of being able to eat extremely well in first-class restaurants and pleasant surroundings. That means that there will have to be the cheaper type of restaurant for those who cannot afford the more expensive type and the very best type of restaurant where the finest food and wine may be enjoyed.

That involves building. I hope that certain sites will be developed and built on so as to provide first-class entertainment. That entertainment may not necessarily be only good food and wine, but should be in surroundings where people can engage in pleasures such as dancing. I should like consideration to be given to the possibility of open-air film theatres such as those that we have heard about in America. It seems to me that there is plenty of room in the different parks for suitable sites on which may be built attractive buildings in the best surroundings in order to enable people to make full use of the parks for their pleasure.

I do not: think that we make sufficient use in London, or, indeed, elsewhere, of effective floodlighting at might. I think that certain aspects of beauty in the parks should be more widely floodlit than they have been hitherto.

This raises the question of games. In some parks there are clearly opportunities for the provision of tennis courts and in certain of them even for the provision of cricket pitches. This would enable full and effective use to be made of the parks for their real purpose, namely, to provide recreation for the public.

If these ideas appeal to the Minister, as I hope they do, I hope that in the year ahead, when consideration is being given to the question of who may be willing to provide such facilities, care will be taken to ensure that the tenders go to the widest range of people who can provide them. I should not wish only one or two of the well-known contractors to be concerned with the provision of such arrangements. There should be wide competition in the provision of novelty and entertainment of the widest kind to enable everyone to enjoy the Royal Parks to the full.

I think that a keen look should be taken at the existing regulations. If a fair is held in a Royal Park, it is extremely difficult to get a programme, because the organisers of it are not allowed to sell programmes under the existing regulations. It is not always easy to understand these regulations. Regulations should not be of a restrictive nature so that anyone holding a fair or other entertainment is unduly restricted. I am sure that the Ministry will hold to the view that there should certainly not be any undue advertising. I do not think that that would appeal to the people who live in this great City.

I turn now to the National Parks. I appreciate that this does not come under the Ministry of Public Building and Works, but, none the less, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to ensure in future that his Ministry forms a co-ordinating committee with the other Ministries and interests involved. In this respect, I am happy to note that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is chairman of a committee concerned with the presentation of historic buildings and ancient monuments, about which I will say a few words in a moment.

I hope that if an example is set in the Royal Parks and in the parks under the control of the Ministry at Hampton Court and elsewhere, the National Parks will try to get a plan. That plan must provide, first, for camping in suitable sites within the parks and caravanning. It must certainly ensure that there is far better signposting than there is now to enable people to find where they are going. Likewise it must provide catering facilities and I hope that there would be motels.

I also hope that active encouragement will be given to those who want to engage in sports, not only walking tours, but riding in the National Parks. It is pointless for us to have these large National Parks unless recreational arrangements are made so that people may enjoy and be entertained when they visit these parks. Thus, families would start to become keenly interested in the scenic beauty of the country.

I turn now to the position of the historic buildings. I want mainly in this context to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for a detailed report on the work which has obtained during the past year. It was twelve months ago when I last raised this question. That period having elapsed, I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to tell us something of the work that has been done and of the plans for the future.

For example, there was raised on the last occasion the question of son et lumière for the ancient monuments and leading historic buildings. The Minister will know that there was a successful son et lumière this year at Canterbury Cathedral and, prior to that, at Norwich. Son et lumière and adequate and proper floodlighting of historic buildings gives real pleasure and assists the tourist industry in its widest context.

Then there is the question of publicity. I should like to know what has been done to encourage group tours and to encourage the fact that foreign travel agents are able to make adequate arrangements and know where they can send their tours, and that these arrangements have been improved. Likewise, with regard to historic buildings, sign-posting is essential so that people can find the place they seek.

Last year, the question of Stonehenge was raised. This is, perhaps, the most difficult of all the examples of where the very nature of what is presented is loneliness and yet, if people go to Stonehenge, they must have somewhere to be able to eat and to be entertained. It is most difficult, on the one hand, to preserve scenic beauty and, on the other, to provide the requisite facilities. I hope that in arriving at proper facilities at Stonehenge, the Minister may have something to tell us of what his Committee has been doing to try to ensure that there is the best presentation not only on the site but to the public of the buildings, which are in the care of the Ministry.

It has been a pleasure to have this opportunity today to raise this subject. It is always worth reminding the House that we now have nearly 2 million visitors from overseas during the year. I hope that next year the figure will be more than 2 million. The tourist industry is our fourth largest exporting industry. In addition, amongst the youth of the country a real opportunity is arising for greater recreation and pleasure than hitherto. In those circumstances, it is only right that we should look closely at these problems and be able to say that it is a pleasure to have had this chance to do so this afternoon.

I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) upon having raised this subject, which is not very often discussed in this House, and, secondly, for having compressed an enormous amount into a very short time. I am sure he will understand that in the short time available to me I shall not be able to answer all the points which he has raised. I will do my best to write to him to answer those which I am not able to cover in my remarks. I hope, however, that I shall be able in my speech to cover a great many of the points which he has raised.

I should like first of all to say just a word or two about the role of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, as it is now known, in this field which we are discussing this afternoon. What I have to say applies equally to the parks for which we have responsibility and to the ancient monuments and historic buildings. It really falls into two parts which are not always compatible. First, it is our task, I believe—I put this first—to preserve and to retain the parks and monuments for which we are responsible in, as far as possible, the condition in which they are at the moment, and secondly, it is to enable as many people as possible to see and enjoy these treasures which we have in conditions of reasonable comfort. That part of the matter, which my hon. Friend raised particularly, I shall refer to later.

I think it is fair to say, too, that a very large proportion of the population of this island and visitors from abroad do in one way or another enjoy the parks and buildings for which we have responsibility, and we do find that the interest, particularly in the treasures which we have, is growing, and growing quite considerably. Last year, in 1961, some 7¼ million people paid to visit the ancient monuments for which we charge admission, as compared to only 6 million in 1957. We have introduced a season ticket, which is going extremely well. In 1962 we have sold 20,000, enabling people to visit ancient monuments which we have in our care, compared with only 63 in 1959, the first year we introduced it. Of course, the many millions of people I have mentioned who enjoy these things do not include the many other millions who enjoy the Royal Parks which we have under our care.

Before I turn to the enjoyment side I should like to say one or two words to the House about this question of preservation, and particularly in view of the remarks which my hon. Friend made about same of the alterations which he would like to see in the Royal Parks. I am not at all sure myself that improvement is always the right thing, whore improvement clashes with preservation. I think it is sometimes very important that the setting in which a particular thing is, a Royal Park or even a monument—my hon. Friend referred to Stonehenge—should be preserved, and sometimes it is not passible to give the facilities which one would like for visitors if one is going to preserve the setting in which the object is. This consideration particularly applies to Stonehenge whose setting is one of an isolated character. What one does not want to do there, I myself think, is to have a great restaurant or something of that sort on the site. It would spoil it enormously, although a lot of people complain that when they go there in the middle of the heath they are not able to get anything to eat.

As for the London Parks, my own feeling is that they are something absolutely unique. We do not have parks like these in the centre of any other city in the world. We spend upwards of £1 million a year in trying to keep the Parks as they are. We spend that on normal maintenance, and the planting of trees so as to maintain the woodland character of the Parks, and on the flowers for which the London Parks have become famous throughout the world.

Also, of course, one of our main tasks is the preservation—and very often the rescue from decay—of ancient monuments and historic buildings for which we have responsibility. This year we are spending some £900,000 on the preservation of these buildings and monuments, as compared with £350,000 which we spent in 1953–54.

In addition, we pay out £500,000 in the form of grants to owners of historic houses and buildings to help them to preserve buildings which are historically important. One does not often have the opportunity of acknowledging the help and advice which we get from the Historic Buildings Councils of England, Scotland and Wales. I feel that sometimes the preservation part of our work, particularly that of the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments and the devoted team of experts who assist him, is not sufficiently recognised.

I turn to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend, in particular the facilities we provide for visitors. I wish to say something first about the catering facilities in the Royal Parks. I know that there have been criticisms in various quarters about facilities for refreshment in the parks themselves. When we examine the problem we find it is very much more difficult to know exactly what is wanted by way of improvement of the cafés and restaurants in the parks. Everyone to whom we talk seems to have completely different ideas about what he himself would like.

Some people think it would be a good idea to convert the existing pavilions in the parks into something like the high class restaurants in the Bois de Boulogne. Then we meet the exactly opposite view of people who are much more concerned about the price and the quality of a cup of tea and who want something to supplement the sandwiches which a great many London people take with them for lunch in the park. What we want to do now that we have the opportunity as the contracts are running out, is to encourage caterers to provide what the public wants, but at the same time it is most important to preserve the character of the parks as they are.

Some of the difficulties which have hindered caterers in the past have been the following. First, there is the short run of contracts. The contracts let by the Ministry in the past have been for comparatively short terms. Secondly, one of the difficulties has been the out-of-date buildings in which caterers have to try to operate. During the past months we have been trying to get the help and advice of the catering trade to see what improvements we can make in conditions and standards of service.

We have told the trade that we are prepared to consider longer contracts. We have suggested contracts of up to ten years, compared with the normal three years. We advertised our proposals in the trade journals and we have written to those firms which are interested asking them to let us have their ideas about how the buildings might be improved. We have suggested that they might like to carry out improvements in accordance with their own plans under licence. We have asked them to put forward to us their ideas both as to contracts and to financial arrangements which might be made.

To summarise what we have done; we have asked the trade and those who know the business to try to help us to find the right answer. We have had some replies, but I realise the difficulties there are in putting forward on paper complicated ideas covering design, standards and finance. I should like it to be known that we are very ready indeed to consider any ideas coming forward from the trade, or anyone else, which they would like to put to us. I emphasise that the time is very short. If we are to get anything done, even in time for the 1964 season, we shall have to have ideas pretty clear by the first few months of next year. I hope that those firms which are interested will not hesitate to come forward and discuss their ideas with officials of my Ministry.

Would that also cover those who might want to have music, in addition to food, in their restaurants? Would there by any objection to those who are interested in that coming forward?

We are certainly prepared to discuss any ideas of that kind provided that they would not be contrary to the general character of the parks as they are at present. We certainly would not contemplate changing the character of the parks.

My hon. Friend also referred to the facilities which we provide for visitors to the monuments and buildings that we have under our care. He referred to the Presentation Committee, of which I am Chairman, and which has responsibility for this aspect. There are in many cases very real difficulties about providing facilities for visitors to these monuments. Very often the monuments are in isolated positions, and it is not possible to provide the kind of facilities one might need without spoiling the character of the monument itself.

My hon. Friend asked what we had done. We have made some progress in the last year. We have provided new cafes at Scarborough Castle, Whitby Abbey and Osborne House. Facilities are now available at the Tudor Barn, Kenilworth Castle, and there are improved arrangements at Dover Castle and Audley End. I would also mention the Roman villa at Lullingstone, Kent, where we have done a big operation. We have put a cover over it which is a work of architecture in itself. We have provided a car park there, and also new sales and display arrangements. It will be open to the public in the spring. We shall be announcing the date of it as soon as we are able.

We have also increased the number of popular guides to all the monuments that we have under our care, and also the card guides. I would particularly draw the attention of my hon. Friend to Professor Atkinson's popular guide on Stonehenge, which is in a class by itself and may well form a model for other guides of that kind which we are producing. We have increased the sales of our guides and publications from £65,000 in 1959 to £105,000 in 1961.

Another matter we are considering which I might mention is the possibility of having commentaries on some of the bigger monuments on tape so that visitors can carry portable tape recorders round with them. This has been very successful where tried out in some places in the United States. We are looking into this idea at the present time.

There were a great many other points in my hon. Friend's speech which I should have liked to cover, but I see that I have already, I am afraid, exceeded the time allotted for this debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I cover the other points by writing to him.

It is only right that I should begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works for their courtesy in shortening the previous debate to allow time for the later subjects.

I should also like to say how pleased I am to see on the Treasury Bench the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, because he has come from the hurly-burly of the market place where he has greatly distinguished himself as an innovator. I hope that he will bring to his new honourable post the same qualities of innovation and determination which made his life in the City so successful.

In speaking of the plight of the holders of Greek bonds in this country, I make it clear that I am not one of them and that, as far as I have information, no company in which I have investments is a bond holder. I have made no exhaustive inquiries about this, however, for the very good reason that if anything I have to say is to be discounted or brushed aside as coming from an interested party then no statement of disinterestedness on my part, however elaborate, will carry conviction to those who are determined in advance not to accept it.

I prefer to rely on the standing practice of the House, which recognises that hon. Members with specialised knowledge of particular matters can be of value and use to the House in bringing these things to its notice, provided that they make frank disclosures of any interests they hold. I am a director of the subsidiary company of the bank which acts as the paying agency for the Greek Government, but these matters could by no means fall within the purview of the bank in which I work.

I believe that my interest in this matter is shared by all members of the British public. It is to try to ensure that, as far as it is in our power to do so, the Greek Government come to an equitable settlement with the bondholders, with consequent benefit to our balance of payments.

In raising the matter of the Greek Government's failure to come to terms with the bondholders, I do not want it to be thought that I am antagonistic in any way to Greece. One of my heroes has always been Lord Byron—I was at the same school—and I remember with appreciation the Greek Government's part in the commemoration in this country of his heroic death in the struggle for Greek independence in 1824.

Nor do I forget that the Greeks were the most heroic of allies in Hitler's war, nor the great and successful efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who saved Greece after the liberation from the thrall of Communism, an operation in which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department played so distinguished a part.

We have recently had the dispute over Cyprus, but now that that is happily settled there is no valid reason to postpone talks between Greece and her creditors, as is proved by the visit to these shores of Mr. Nikolas Gaziz, of the National Bank of Greece, who came to discuss the Greek Government's external sterling debt. These talks were abortive, as was evidenced by the curt communique at their conclusion.

If there was no political reason for the failure of the talks, can the blame be laid on the present economic position of Greece? I doubt it—and here I pray in aid a four page advertising supplement to the New York Times international edition of the 1st November. This was headed "Today, Green for Greece." It went on to say that this special advertisement had been paid for by the Commercial Bank of Greece and the Ionian and Popular Bank. It added:

"The implementation of the Treaty of Athens "—

which brought Greece into association with the Six—

"will stimulate the Greek economy in a number of ways. Specifically, the inflow of capital, technological know-how and business-minded- ness will provide a welcome injection to Greek industry."

A further article was called, "Greece attracts foreign tourists." From this we learn that the Greek income from tourism in 1962 may be in the neighbourhood of 70 million dollars. It mentions the inflow of foreign capital, which, between 1953 and 1961, was over 53 million dollars.

There is also a long article about the ample incentives for foreign investors, with the sub-heading "Greece protects foreign capital." There are a number of provisions with which I do not need to weary the House as time is short, but it can be seen that Greece is determined to make herself as attractive as possible to foreign investment.

It may be summed up in words which are used in the supplement—that between 1959 and 1961 the net national income of Greece rose by 10 billion drachmae, an annual increase of 7½ per cent. The article says:

"The production and investment performance of the economy in the first two years of the plan, the remarkable stability of the currency, the expansion of bank deposits, the satisfactory level of foreign exchange reserves and the slight improvement in the current account of the balance of payments indicate that the prospects for the Greek economy are very bright."

Many of us would be pleased if we could truthfully say the same of this country.

From another source I take the information that a very large number of ships which formerly sailed under flags of convenience have returned to the Greek fold. The Greek merchant fleet now represents 4·2 per cent. of the world total and Greek revenue from shipping remittances in 1960 was £28½ million. This is adequate proof, all from Greek sources, of the prosperous state of the Greek economy.

What is the debt in question? There is still outstanding an amount of about £60 million expressed in sterling, of £13 million expressed in dollars and of just over £2 million expressed in French francs. The annual interest on the former will amount to just over £3 million, on the dollars £750,000 and on the French franc loan much less. There are arrears of interest in each case amounting to about the total of the nominal debt outstanding.

In addition, the Greeks have a responsibility for a share of the Ottoman debt; for under the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, the successor States of the Ottoman Empire undertook to take their share. With the exception of Greece, all the others, Turkey, Syria, Palestine and Jordan, have, come to satisfactory and far from exigent terms with the Ottoman Debt Council, but negotiations with Greece have never been finalised. After being partially in default on some of their loans, the Greeks went into complete default in 1932. In the years between then and 1939 there was a series of negotiated temporary agreements. Under these temporary agreements, current interest gradually rose to about 43½ per cent. of the contractual interest, but sinking fund provisions remained in suspense.

The Council was not prepared to make a permanent agreement until the annual interest reached a higher percentage. The Greeks were not prepared to increase their annual remittances to do this, and the Council was not prepared to see a sinking fund established at the expense of their interest remittances.

The Greeks went on paying during the early part of the war, but, not unnaturally, defaulted after the German invasion of Greece. After the war creditor representatives fully recognised the effects of the war and of the subsequent civil war and were extremely patient in not pressing for a debt settlement, but in the early 1950s it was felt that Greece ought to be able to do something for her bond holders and the Council began pressing hard for negotiations. The Greeks finally agreed to multilateral negotiations with the Americans, the French and ourselves in Paris in September. 1954, but their representatives had no power to negotiate and the offers they put forward were so ludicrously inadequate that the talks broke down at once.

Since then, the Council has made continual efforts to get them to resume discussions. The long delay in their coming to meet the Council can only partially be excusable by their political difficulty in negotiating with us during the time of the Cyprus troubles. When the Greek representative came to London during the week of 26th November the Council had three sessions with him and, as a result, published a brief notice, with his agreement, to the effect that the discussions had not resulted in agreement. He was not prepared to authorise us to say anything about the possibility of a resumption of talks.

The World Bank has steadily refused to consider any loan applications from Greece until a satisfactory settlement of the pre-war debt has been made, but the European Investment Bank, on the other hand, one of the instruments of the E.E.C., has been less unyielding and has made loans to Greece for political reasons without receiving any undertaking whatever from the Greek Government. The Foreign Bondholders Protective Council, in New York, has negotiated a settlement with the Greek Government which provides for a virtual write-off of the arrears of interest, payment of one-third of the coupon rate of interest in 1963, rising to one-half in 1957, with a tiny sinking fund which might theoretically take 200 years to complete its task. These terms have met much criticism and whether the Foreign Bondholders Protective Council, which, incidentally, receives a handsome commission for its services, will succeed in persuading the American bondholders to accept must be open to question.

The most concise summing up of the recent London negotiations comes from The Times, of 4th December. In a leading article headed, "Unacceptable Greek Terms", The Times says:

"The Greek attitude at last week's London debt talks is not easy to excuse. The least that Greece should have offered was the miserable terms that the United States Foreign Bondholders Protective Council recently accepted on behalf of American bondholders. In fact at the time of the American settlement authoritative sources in Athens stated that an offer based on the American settlement' would be made to United Kingdom holders of Greek bonds. The American terms, inadequate though they were, would probably have been considered a basis on which to start discussions. But apparently the Greeks did not offer even those terms to all holders of their sterling loans (except in the case of some of the latest loans). As it is a cardinal principle that all bona fide bondholders must be treated alike, this offer offended all sense of justice. Moreover, the Greeks were not prepared to recognise any currency option in spite of the fact that the 6 per cent. Public Works loan, 1931, has a clause which specifically states that both the principal and interest of this bond will be paid in sterling or at the option of the holder in Dutch florins, Swedish kronor, or Swiss francs.

Long-suffering British holders of Greek bonds must, therefore, exercise still more patience. Anything less than the American terms for all bondholders and the recognition of the currency clause should not be considered. The American terms themselves are meeting criticism not only in this country but also across the Atlantic. To persuade the Protective Council the Greeks had to plead poverty—and they did so just at a time when Greece was proclaiming that her economic prospects were bright."

It seems to me that the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to interest themselves directly in these negotiations, or rather lack of negotiations. We ought not to forget that in addition to the factors I have detailed Greece has received from the United States of America alone since 1945 grants amounting to 1,400 million dollars and loans of 138 million dollars. Though I understand that these sums were not available for debt repayment, their effect on the rebuilding of the Greek economy must have been of crucial importance.

Moreover, due to the depressed state of the Greek bond market I believe it is correct that more than half of the Greek sterling debt still outstanding has been purchased by Greek nationals and repatriated and the Council of Foreign Bondholders has, in my opinion perfectly rightly, refused the invitation of the Greek authorities to discriminate between classes of bondholders by nationality. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear from what I have said that to service its foreign debt in full would have only a negligible effect on the presently buoyant Greek balance of payments and Greece ought to take this decision if she wants to keep her good name.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, whose intimate and special relationship with Greece goes back over so many years and which is now making such valiant and successful efforts to expand her foreign trade, ought not to be too proud to try and collect her previous loans made to Greece to help tide her over some of the most difficult periods in her history, and I do ask my hon. Friend to give this most important matter his earnest consideration.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the whole servicing of the loan would cost roughly £160 million and that Greece has adequate resources to pay it? Secondly, now that she is a member of the European Community she ought to treat her debts in a slightly more honourable way. Thirdly, though they are private debts affecting private citizens in this country, nevertheless Her Majesty's Government should take an interest because it affects not only our balance but it also should affect any money advanced to Greece at a future time. The Government should at least put pressure on our allies to make sure that no money is advanced until these outstanding debts are clear.

I should like to declare that I have a very small personal interest and thus, probably like my hon. Friend, know a certain amount of the background of these long drawn out negotiations.

The servicing of the loan will in fact cost only about £3 million a year, but the total capital outstanding and the arrears of interest are as my hon. Friend said.

May I, first, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) for his very courteous and generous references to myself, which I very greatly appreciated. He has raised an important and complex matter. I will reply as rapidly as I can under three headings: first, the fact and history about the Greek external debt; secondly, the recent negotiations with the bondholders; and, thirdly, Her Majesty's Government's position. I will, of course, endeavour to answer as many as I can of the specific questions which my hon. Friend raised. Indeed I will try to comment also on the point, put, deliberately very shortly, as I know, by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn).

There are 14 sterling loans issued between 1881 and 1931. There are three dollar loans issued between 1924 and 1928. There are various other smaller loans issued in other currencies, and in addition there is a Greek liability in respect of the former Ottoman debt. The capital is the equivalent of about £75 million, of which about £60 million. in other words, 80 per cent., is denominated in sterling. Arrears of contractual interest are more than tile outstanding capital amount.

Service on the debt was suspended as from April, 1941, when the Germans invaded Greece. The Greek Government assured the bondholders representatives, however, that it would negotiate with them as soon as possible after the liberation of Greece and the establishment of a measure of recovery in her economic life, in order to reach a just and equitable settlement.

In 1954 the Greek Government invited representatives of all its external bonded creditors to negotiations in Paris. The proposals made for a settlement of the external debt were, however, unacceptable to the creditors, and discussions were suspended to enable the Greek Government to reconsider the position.

The Greek Government did not find themselves able to enter into negotiations with the Council of Foreign Bondholders and the League Loans Committee on the sterling debt between 1954 and 28th November of this year, despite requests both from the Council and from Her Majesty's Government.

From time to time, however, the Greeks negotiated informally with representatives of the American Bondholders: the dollar bonds, of course, represent less than a fifth of the outstanding bonds by value. In October this year it was announced that the Greek Government had reached agreement with the Foreign Bondholders Protective Council. Inc., New York. This is initially a temporary arrangement for the years 1963–67. I understand that the main provisions of the offer which is to be made to holders of the dollar bonds are that interest will be resumed in 1963 at one-third of contractual rates, and will rise generally to one-half in 1967. A portion of interest arrears is to be funded, and sinking funds—of ½ per cent., and in one case 1 per cent—will operate during the five year period.

The sterling loans were issued at different times from the dollar loans, and the contractual terms differ fundamentally in some cases. My hon. Friend quoted from The Times to the effect that the American terms should not necessarily be a precedent for that 80 per cent. of the external debt which is denominated in sterling.

Following the U.S. settlement, the Greek Government opened negotiations on 28th November with the Council of Foreign Bondholders on the sterling debts. I am sorry to say that these were not successful.

It is not for me to give details of the negotiations, which were carried out by the Bondholders representatives. I will, however, make one comment. There have been reports that the negotiations broke down largely because our bondholders representatives asked tor substantially better terms than the Greeks are offering the Americans. My understanding however is that they were not offered such good terms.

I would like to comment on the more general aspects of the question. Firstly, I would say that we have great sympathy with the holders of Greek sterling loans, who have waited long and patiently for the resumption of service on their bonds. Secondly, we naturally attach importance to a successful settlement of this issue. These 14 loans were issued on the London market as a result of loan agreements which were freely entered into by the Greek Government. It is of importance for the proper functioning of international lending and borrowing institutions that contracts freely entered into should be honoured, or amended only by mutual agreement. This is in the interest not only of the reputation of London as a financial centre but especially of those who wish to have access to the market.

Her Majesty's Government, therefore, share the concern of the Council of Foreign Bondholders that a satisfactory settlement should be reached. Like all such settlements this must take account of all the circumstances, including the debtor's capacity to pay. We have confidence in the Council who we believe will negotiate well and fairly on behalf of the bondholders.

We also have the greatest sympathy for Greece's sufferings during and after the war. The German occupation caused not only distress and privation for the people of Greece but also widespread damage to her economy. We must not forget that while we and our other allies were setting about the task of post-war reconstruction our Greek allies were faced with one of the bitterest struggles in their long and proud history, the struggle against a blatant Communist take-over bid. No one who remembers our cultural debt to Greece, no one who remembers the close ties between our two countries from the War of Independence down over the years to N.A.T.O., can fail to be moved by what Greece has suffered. The links which we have forged are strong and lasting ones.

The product of them is not merely sympathy but a determination to continue in a spirit of cooperation in every regard, now and in the future.

It has been urged in some quarters that Her Majesty's Government should give more practical expression to our sympathy towards the bondholders by bringing pressure to bear on the Greek Government in support of particular claims by the C.F.B. As I have already said, the substance of the negotiations is not our affair but that of the C.F.B. We are concerned that there should be genuine negotiations between the Greek Government and the bondholders' representatives, and the Greek Government are fully aware that this is our view. We have repeatedly made this clear to them.

The question has been asked why Her Majesty's Government do not give practical expression to their sympathy towards Greece by bringing pressure to bear on the C.F.B. to abate their claims. What is at question here is private money. As I have said, Her Majesty's Government's concern is that there should be genuine negotiations.

At this point I should perhaps say a few words on our attitude towards economic aid for Greece. We are always ready to give such economic aid to our friends as we can afford, judged in the context of the many urgent calls on our economic resources, which, alas, are all too slender —as my hon. Friend also pointed out—to fulfil the many urgent claims made upon us. We must take all—and I repeat "all"—the relevant factors into account.

It may well be—although there is no means of knowing—that a proportion of the bonds are held by Greeks. This is a complicating factor, but so far as we are concerned it cannot and does not affect the principle that foreign holders of the bonds should be equitably treated.

To sum up, our role has been to try to get the two parties together. I believe that a just and honourable settlement is possible. Greece cannot be blamed for her original default. But now that Greece, though still faced with economic difficulties, is on the economic upgrade, I very much hope that a settlement can be reached.

I want to say one thing more. In these days when there is a tendency all over the world to forget about obligations when they become inconvenient, it is well to remember that recognition of contractual rights and obligations is essential for the rule of law, whether it be in international political or financial affairs. I repeat the words, "recognition of rights and obligations". Given that, there is often room for modification of contraotual rights and obligations during the course of genuine negotiations between the parties concerned. On that basis I am confident that a settlement is possible. We very much hope to see such a settlement.

I am most grateful to those hon. Members who have been so quick in making their speeches. At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) said that, when people wished to distrust, no assurances of disinterest in this world have any value. That is true. I can equally assure him that some hon. Members need say nothing, and they will still be trusted. He is among that number. We should not for one moment suspect him of having a personal interest.

I would further say this about the case that the hon. Member made: I have travelled in Greece. I have revelled in its beauties, and I have also seen its appalling poverty. If I were a member of the Greek Government, and I had to choose between the poverty around me and the interests of pre-war foreign bondholders, I would choose my own poor.

I now turn to the problem which I wish to raise today. I assume that the other Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) will be here. He has had long and personal notice that he would be under personal attack. I presume that he will be with us. The Joint Under-Secretary of State indicates that he does not know. If the hon. Member is not to be here, I can only say that this will be yet another expression of his indifference to the interests of his constituents and his duties to the House which he seems to have displayed throughout the incident that I am about to recount.

It began as follows. A Mrs. Cross wrote to him on 27th December, nearly a year ago:

"I would be most grateful if you would assist me in the following matter. On 26th June, 1961, my home was burgled by Anthony Eric Christopher Patrick Cross"—

I may say, incidentally, that the names are a pure coincidence. There is no relationship of any kind other than the name between the Mrs. Cross who was burgled and the Mr. Cross who was the burglar.

"The sum of £86 was taken, of which £33 15s. 6½d. was recovered. I have been given to understand that a sum of the money taken was paid into Oxford Court in payment of fines for previous offences. I have been in touch with the Oxford Magistrates' Clerk who, on 7th September, 1961, informed me that the matter had been placed with the Home Office. Having made repeated inquiries at the Town Hall without any result I would be glad if you would look into the matter for me. As I am a widow I am not in a position to bear the loss of more than I should."

The Clerk at the Oxford Town Hall, having received this money, passed it, as was his duty, to the Home Office. The hon. Member for Oxford then passed Mrs. Cross's letter to the Home Office and he received the following reply from the Under-Secretary:

"You sent me on 3rd January the enclosed letter from Mrs. Lilian Cross.… As Mrs. Cross says, the Clerk to the Oxford City Justices wrote to the Home Office about this. A sum of £10 is involved. I am afraid, however, that we are not able to assist him very greatly. We have advised the Clerk that the question must turn on whether Mrs. Cross was by law entitled to recover the money which had been stolen and that on this he must form his own view. I am sorry not to be able to be more helpful. I sympathise with Mrs. Cross, but the question is essentially one of law, and the Home Secretary has no authority to authorise the return of the money."

It will be seen, therefore, that at that point the Home Office is saying that it is for the Town Clerk at Oxford to say whether this was Mrs. Cross's money.

In the circumstances, I think that most ordinary people who find themselves receivers of stolen goods display some anxiety to discover the position and to return these ill-gotten gains, if, indeed, that should prove to be the case. The Home Office might have asked the Town Clerk or the thief, who, after all, was in its hands, but the Home Office did no such thing. That answer was acceptable to the hon. Member for Oxford. He sent it: on to Mrs. Cross with the comment:

"I very much regret that it is not possible to be more helpful."

Mrs. Cross was not so easily satisfied. She did what one would have thought the Home Office might have done and what one would have thought her Member of Parliament would have done. She got in touch with the Town Clerk and at her request he wrote on 25th January last to the hon. Member for Oxford in these terms:

"At the time Cross"—

that is, the burglar—

"owed me £10 in respect of unpaid fines and after the burglary he paid them out of the proceeds of the burglary. Mrs. Cross, naturally, feels that this money should be returned to her and to try to help her I wrote to the Home Office on the matter as long ago as last September. I eventually received a reply in the following terms:

'We think that the answer to your question turns entirely on whether the person from whom the money was stolen is by law entitled to recover. This would be for you to decide in your capacity as justices' clerk. It does not seem to us, however, that there is any way by which the money could properly be returned, unless perhaps the actual notes or coins could be identified'."

Pausing there, it seems clear that the Home Office got precisely the answer they asked for. The Clerk did decide to tell them that this was Mrs. Cross's money, and that if they wanted to know whether these were the actual notes the simplest plan in the world was to ask the burglar who was in their gaol. They did not. however, do so.

I continue the Clerk's letter:

"Quite frankly, I find this reply even less helpful than the one which you received from Mr. Fletcher-Cooke dated the 15th instant and of which I have a copy. In the first place, I am not Mrs. Cross's adviser. Secondly, I have to bank all money which I receive daily, and, therefore, it is obviously impossible for the money which Cross paid over to be traced, and, thirdly, I am required every quarter to pay over all money received during the quarter to the Home Office and the £10 is, therefore, in their hands."

Of course, the question is not whether the actual notes went to the Home Office. The question is whether the actual notes which were converted went to the town clerk. We have his evidence, and, if the Home Office had wanted it, we also have the thief's evidence, that the actual notes taken from Mrs. Cross's box were the actual notes which went to the town clerk. They never even attempted to seek to find this.

The letter continued:

"I know that Mr. Fletcher-Cooke says in his letter to you that the Home Secretary has no authority to authorise the return of the money, but I am wondering whether you would approach him to see if he would reconsider this decision. It seems to Mrs. Cross that it is manifestly unjust that a man can burgle her house, with the proceeds pay fines for which he might otherwise have gone to prison and then the Government Department to which these ill-gotten gains are paid refuses to hand them over to her. I must say that I agree with her."

So do I.

The letter continues:

"I do not know any other instance like this where the Home Secretary has returned money obtained under these circumstances, but I do know that one justices' clerk who was overpaid a considerable sum of maintenance money sent it to the Home Office in accordance with statutory procedure and was able to recover it from the Home Office when the claimant came forward.…"

That letter was sent to the hon. Member for Oxford with the following covering letter:

"I have received your letter of January 18th, 1962, together with the enclosure from the Home Office regarding the theft of money from my home in June of last year. The onus, it seems, is put on the shoulders of the Clerk to the Oxford Justices. To me, this is a classic example of passing the buck'."

I agree.

"What sort of justice is this which permits a Government Department to consider that in addition to my home being burgled it is right and proper that a gift of i10 of my money should be made to a hoodlum to pay fines for previous offences? I have been in touch with Mr. E. White, Clerk to the Oxford Justices, who assures me that he considers that I am fully entitled to the return of this money which has been admitted to have been stolen. As the Member for Oxford City I must ask you to pursue this matter as I consider that as the matter stands there is one law for the State and another for me, a monstrous state of affairs."

The answer which she got from her hon. Member was this:

"I write to acknowledge your letter of January 27th. I have also heard from the Clerk to the Justices, and with the help of his letter I have reopened the matter with the Home Office. I will let you know as soon as I have any further news. In the meantime, may I suggest that you would be well advised not to write offensive letters to those that are trying to help you, and, in particular, I hope you will not communicate with the Home Office in the same terms as the last letter to myself."

I do not know what would so cow the burgesses of Oxford that they would take this from their Member. I am extremely sorry that after he had been given notice the hon. Gentleman is not present this afternoon, because then I would have told him that he needs a larger personality than he has in order to get away with that sort of offensive arrogance.

The letter was forwarded to the Home Office and it took from June to May for the Home Office even to answer it. When an answer was given we get the following—I will omit the first paragraph:

"We have given it a good deal of thought, since one naturally sympathises with Mrs. Cross "—

I should think so—

"but I am afraid my conclusion is that I can only repeat that the Home Office has no power to direct that the money should be returned to her. While the Home Secretary has no authority to determine a question of law, it appears to us that Mrs. Cross has no legal claim to the money."

Then they talk about an ex gratia payment. This again, is accepted by the hon. Member for Oxford, who writes:

"I much regret not being able to send you a more encouraging reply."

At that point the matter came to me. A Socialist town councillor wrote to me about it. I read the correspondence, and, in all innocence, I wrote to the hon. Member for Oxford pointing out my view, as a lawyer, that this was a plain case of conversion; that from the evidence of the thief it was perfectly simple to identify the actual notes as having been passed. I suggested, therefore, that the matter might be taken up again. I say that I wrote in all innocence because I am afraid that at that time I was unaware of the promotion of the hon. Member for Oxford. But I got an answer from him on Home Office notepaper, the effect of which—I will read it if necessary—was, "I am now a Minister and I agree with my predecessor's decision".

So far as I can see, this is a very clear case. I have done what the Home Office might have done. I have seen, from the evidence of the criminal, the evidence of the burglar, that it would have been quite easy to find out what happened, because it is in his statement to the police. It is in the possession of the Home Office and it would have been quite easy to elaborate what he says

"With the money I took I paid the fines".

That is sufficient identification. Does the Home Office seriously want this lady to sue the Town Clerk for conversion, to which he will have no answer and to get judgment against him and to get the evidence of the thief? To pursue this will cost this widow more than the amount of the money she desires to get back and which we know is hers. The Home Office has the money and if the Home Office is saying that it has not the power to return to this lady what is her own. I assure the officials of the Home Office that I will help them.

I will introduce a Private Member's Bill which will give them the power, so that they will have an opportunity to do so; and a fuller House will have the opportunity to hear again all about this conduct on the part of the Home Office and the conduct of the hon. Member for Oxford, who is now a Minister at the Home Office.

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has seen fit, in the most offensive terms, to read to my colleague the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) a lecture on how to behave to his constituents. I do not propose to cross swords with him on that matter. It was as ill-placed as his lecture on law was inaccurate.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to mention this matter earlier in the Session to my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Oxford, who, as he says, had himself, on behalf of Mrs. Cross, previously brought it to notice, at a time when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, not, of course, on the Floor of the House, which he could not have done, but by correspondence. The fact that he was satisfied by the answer and the hon. and learned Gentleman was not does not mean to say that the hon. and learned Member was right and my colleague was wrong.

I have to explain to the hon. and learned Member the role of the Home Office in relation to fines, because this is much more restricted than I think he imagines. First, we do not impose them and, more important, we do not keep them. On the elementary rules relating to tracing, one could not get a case like this on its feet, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, unless it could be shown that we had somehow got this money, which I think I can show we have not.

All the Home Office does is to receive bulk remittances from justices' clerks and redistribute the money so received as directed in. Section 27 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. That is to say we pay nearly half to the local authorities generally towards the cost of the courts; we pay nearly half, representing most road traffic fines, to the Ministry of Transport in aid of the vote for roads, and since the fines in this respect were, I think, for motoring offences, it is safe to assume that we have in fact parted with the bulk funds for this period already some time ago to the Minister of Transport, but what he will have done with the money by now I simply do not know.

The Home Office is the Ministry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has chosen to attack, and he might at least have found out what happened to the fines before he chose to attack it. The Home Office is therefore in the position not of a creditor but rather of a temporary banker. I emphasise this to make clear that there is no question of the Home Office knowing from its records at the time that the fine had been paid by Anthony Cross or how much was paid. I am not denying, and I do not wish to imply that I am contesting, the truth of the facts put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am merely saying that all the Home Office records show, or can show, is that for the quarter ended 30th June, 1961, £4,912 2s. 4d. was paid by the justices' clerk at Oxford in respect of road traffic fines and £2,935 16s. 7d. in respect of fines applicable towards the cost of the courts. It may be deduced that any sums paid by Anthony Cross were included in these totals, and I suggest that it was probably in the first one, as this was a driving offence.

As I understand the account given to us, Anthony Cross was fined £10 by the Oxford Magistrates' Court and subsequently paid the fine. Sometime previously, according to our information it was earlier on the same day, Mrs. Cross's house had been broken into and a sum of money amounting to about £86 stolen. Anthony Cross was later apprehended, tried and convicted for this house breaking. It is asserted, first, that some of the money he stole was used to pay the lines and from what the hon. and learned Gentleman says I accept that, and secondly, which I do not accept, that if that is so the Home Office is under an obligation to pay the money received by Mrs. Cross. I had assumed that it was not claimed that Mrs. Cross had a right in law to be given this money back because if she has I cannot think why she does not exercise her right in law.

Oh.

I cannot think why not. If she has not the ability to go to law, she has the advantages of the legal aid service, as the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well.

In the county court?

In the county court. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be out of date about that. We have extended legal aid to the county courts.

Of course, the defendant in this matter would not be the Home Office—or, at least, the lady would be very ill-advised to sue the Home Office. It would be the justice's clerk if she had any case and it would be for the justice's clerk, who is not our servant, to decide whether to defend it. Since he has not returned the money, I presume that he must be of opinion that Mrs. Cross does not have a valid claim at law, and I agree with that view. Nor can it be asserted that Mrs. Cross has a claim in law against the Home Office.

The hon. and learned Member drew an analogy with stolen goods, but the Home Office—or, if the hon. and learned Gentleman prefers it, the State—does not have, and never has had, the actual notes or coin that were used to pay the fine. No doubt they were banked in Oxford long ago. They may be anywhere by now. They cannot be traced by us. In any event, the essential feature of money is that it is negotiable and that it cannot be recovered from a person receiving it in good faith, as the justice's clerk undoubtedly did.

If it is conceded that Mrs. Cross has no legal right—I gather that it is not conceded—to be recompensed this sum, the case must be that she has so strong a moral right that an ex gratia payment should be made to her. I say "so strong a moral right" because I imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not expect the Home Office simply to act in relief of the distress or loss which every victim of a theft suffers.

I have said before—if I have not, then I say it now—that the circumstances of this case obviously excite sympathy. A widow who can ill afford the loss sees part of the proceeds of the theft paid to public authorities which, she may well think, can bear the loss. But if it is to be the practice, or even the law, that a third party must make compensation in a case of this kind, I do not see where this liability is to end. It may be that the hon. and learned Member would apply the doctrine only to a public authority. But are the revenue authorities to refund taxes paid by a thief? If the thief used some of his own money and some of the stolen money to pay the debt to the Revenue Commissioners, I do not know who is to determine which was which.

I do not know whether it would make any difference that the thief had enough money of his own to pay but chose to use the bank notes which he had stolen to discharge the debt. Is everybody through whose hands the money passes to be liable to the original loser? If so, what are to be their liabilities to each other? It is the very difficulty of these questions that makes the nature of currency what it is and makes it a fundamental law that currency is so negotiable that unless the coin can be traced it is irrecoverable.

If it is accepted as a principle—and however much we try to isolate the facts of this case, a principle of wide application is involved—that compensation is to be paid in a case of this nature, the greatest uncertainty must surely arise in even the smallest monetary transaction.

When Cross was arrested, he made a statement in which he indicated what he had done with the £86 he had stolen from Mrs. Cross. He said that he paid £16 in fines. This is curious, because the fines imposed amounted to only £10 and the police have no record of costs being given. Therefore, perhaps this is a mistake. With the rest of the money, he took a taxi to London at a cost of £10. Is it the hon. and learned Member's plea that the taxi driver should be obliged to return that £10? He spent £6 on shoes and a shirt. Should the vendor of the shoes and shirt be obliged to surrender that £6 to the widow? He paid £3 to a landlady. Is she to surrender that £3 to the widow? He spent £1 5s. on a railway fare. Perhaps the railway is obliged to bear that loss because it is in a public position. Perhaps that is the distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman would make.

Cross moved his girl friend to other lodgings and spent a good deal at a London club. Is it expected that the widow should he reimbursed from the purchases of drinks and other things which he made? When arrested, he bad £28 15s. 9½d., which was later paid over to Mrs. Cross, and quite rightly.

However, in respect of the money he has spent and money that has gone through so many hands, as this £10 has, and which the Home Office does not have and never has had in the form of notes or specie, the claim is really fantastic. If it were allowed, it would open up the most enormous consequences far beyond the issue of this £10. If the widow feels that she has a legal claim, it must be against the clerk, who is not our servant.

In the minute that remains, may I say that that was a most deplorable performance by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has tried to cover himself by a whole mass of irrelevant and pedantic technicalities. The facts are that this £10 belonging to this poor woman passed into the hands of the town clerk and then into the hands of the Home Office and elementary justice—