Lords Sitting of 3 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  THE SERJEANT AT ARMS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I have to inform the House that His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to appoint Air Vice Marshal Sir Paul Maltby to be Serjeant at Arms in your Lordships' House in place of Admiral Sir Herbert Meade-Fetherstonehaugh, who has retired after more than seven years' service.

  SHEFFIELD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1946.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1946.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1946.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the other Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord PethickLawrence, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name.
  Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 21st of November last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
  LORD AMNION: My Lords, I beg to move the other Motion standing in the name of my noble friend.
  Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 21st of November last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
  2.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, one of the major problems facing the people of this country is the very serious shortage of timber. Not only does the shortage threaten our building programme, but it affects other industries in a hundred different ways. During the last two wars enormous inroads were made into our forests, and this sacrifice of wood has not been made good. Indeed, so far as we can see, it will be many years before we have a chance of curing this shortage.
  520
  The position would become very much more serious if this country were ever threatened with a crisis or war. If our supply from abroad were cut off our position in regard to timber would be truly desperate.
  For these reasons, apart from the programme of reafforestation envisaged by the Forestry Commission, His Majesty's Government have accepted the scheme of dedication which was published in the Supplementary Report of the Forestry Commissioners. In the past private owners of woodlands have contributed an enormous amount of timber for this country's needs, and I should like now to acknowledge the very great debt that we owe to them. Encouraged by this experience we are again hoping that owners of private woodlands will replant their woodlands so that we shall have a reserve of timber in this country. But I do not think that we can expect them to go forward with a programme on this scale without getting some assistance from the State. The scheme of dedication is designed for this special purpose. It is to enable a private owner of woodlands to dedicate his forest for the growing of timber, and in return, to receive from the State assistance both in the form of advice and in grants. This scheme has been set out very fully in the Supplementary Report of the Forestry Commissioners, and I am sure that all the noble Lords who are interested in this subject will be familiar with this Report.
  The Bill before your Lordships for Second Reading is for the purpose of enabling these private owners to enter voluntarily into an agreement with the Forestry Commission so that they can obtain the necessary grants. The owner can choose between two forms of financial assistance. Under Basis I he would receive 25 per cent. of the approved net annual expenditure on the dedicated woodlands. This payment would stop when the woodlands were self-supporting. Under Basis 2 he would receive £10 per acre for every acre planted or replanted, whether with hardwoods or softwoods. This rate of grant for planting would come up for reconsideration in five years' time, according to the conditions then obtaining. In addition, under Basis 2 there would be a maintenance grant for fifteen years for new plantations. This would be at the rate of 3s. 4d. per acre per annum

  521
  for five years from now, and it would be reconsidered in the light of the circumstances then obtaining. Further, a similar maintenance grant will be payable from the date of dedication in respect of all productive woodlands other than new plantations already mentioned. For these schemes, of replanting a plan of operation would be drawn up by the owner and would be approved, if suitable, by the Forestry Commission. These plans would, of course, have to be followed. Loans can be made available on both bases up to an amount to be fixed with reference to individual circumstances. Each loan, with compound interest at 3 per cent. per annum, would be repayable by annual instalments over a fixed period.
  The first thing that this Bill ensures is that once the land has been dedicated it shall remain so whether it changes hands or not. In other words, it provides that the dedication should "run with the land." This is obviously essential as the Government could not contribute sums of money unless they were certain that the object for which the money was given would be achieved. The growing of trees is a long-term business. There is, of course, a precedent for this in both the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, Section 3 (4), and in the more recent Water Act of 1945, Section 15. Secondly, it is proposed in this Bill that certain classes of limited owners—tenants for life and statutory bodies such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England and Wales, and in Scotland trustees and life-renters and heirs of entail—should be empowered to enter into dedication schemes which would be binding upon their successors.
  Now to come to the Bill itself. Clause 1 defines the nature of the restrictive covenant which owners of land may enter into with the Forestry Commissioners: and subsection (2) of this clause enables the Forestry Commissioners to enforce the covenant not only against the covenantor himself but against all subsequent owners of the same land. Clause 2 allows tenants for life or trustees to enter into dedication covenants, and also universities and colleges. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for precisely the same needs in Scotland, where the difference of the law has necessitated rather different wording and arrangement of the clauses. Clause 5 provides that where the Forestry Commission
  522
  exercise their powers of compulsory purchase under the Forestry Act of 1945 deductions shall be made from any compensation payable equal to the amount of the grants which have been advanced, plus interest at 3 per cent. This also applies where grants have been made within the twelve months before the passing of this Act. Clause 6 authorizes officers of the Forestry Commission to sign documents on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This has been found necessary as an administrative convenience.
  Finally, I should like to emphasize again the importance of the voluntary principle—that is, the voluntary nature of these schemes of dedication, in which the owner is entirely free to enter into an agreement with the Forestry Commissioners, and that once he has entered into this agreement and received grants, he must clearly be bound to carry out his side of the agreement and do his best to see that the woods are properly managed. The final result will be an addition to the woodlands of this country. For the scheme to work, this Bill is necessary. I understand that the interested parties have been consulted and have agreed to the general principle of the scheme; therefore I hope that your Lordships, in considering this Bill, will appreciate the necessity for it, will agree that it is a non-controversial measure, and will give it a speedy Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  2.43 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like, very briefly, to congratulate the noble Earl on the way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill and to commend the principle of the Bill to the House. I expect that all of us would wish that we might have a little more legislation from that side of the House commended to us by Ministers as being entirely voluntary. I think that everyone who has studied the question of forestry will agree that this Bill is founded on a sound principle, and any comments that I venture to make I hope the noble Lord will take as being made in an attempt to improve the Bill. There certainly are a few points that I think concern certain noble Lords who sit on this side of the House. I hope that the noble Earl will

  523
  take good note of the views expressed, because, as he is aware, many noble Lords in this House really have studied this subject most deeply, and also because the Bill is founded on the principle of voluntaryism. I am afraid that the use of the dedication principle, which is now being put before us, will be only on a limited basis unless the Bill commands, in its details, the general confidence of those who are being asked to dedicate their woods.
  There are only two main points which I would like to mention, though I believe there are many others that other noble Lords would wish to deal with. First, as far as I can see there is no right of appeal provided for in the Bill. That means that an owner might dedicate his land, and a few years later the Forestry Commission might say that he was not running his woods according to the rules of good husbandry and that, therefore, they were going to take them over. I can see no machinery laid down at all for an appeal to be made in such a case or for arbitration between the parties as to whether, in fact, the woods have been mismanaged. Nor is there any provision for arbitration to interpret the words "breach of the covenant". I should like to ask the noble Earl if he will give his mind to that particular point.
  Then I think that perhaps there is even greater concern about a clause which the noble Lord passed over rather rapidly—Clause 5. As I read Clause 5, referring back, as it does, to the compulsory purchase powers under the Act of 1945, it appears at once that compulsory purchase is not limited to badly-managed woods. It is a quite general power of compulsory purchase. When that power is used, the owner, as the noble Earl has already told us, has not only to repay the grant that fie bas received but he has to do so with interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. As the noble Earl has truly said, forestry is a long-term business, and it may well be that the sum in question will have mounted to almost more than the value of the plantations concerned, particularly if the plantation has not done well, if and when a time of repayment comes.
  As I read it, it is rather worse than that because if the woods are not under Schedule D this grant will have been
  524
  subject to Income Tax or Super Tax. Therefore, assuming that there is a profit on the woods it may well be that an owner having received something like £100 in grants, of which he may have paid £75 in Income Tax or Super Tax, will be called upon later to repay the £100. I admit that that is an extreme case. Perhaps I have exaggerated my figures, but I think it is best to do that in order to make clear the principle which I have in mind. I feel that I must give notice to the noble Earl that not only I but many other noble Lords also will want to deal with that question when the time comes for discussing this Bill in Committee. Those are the only two points which I would venture to raise now. I am quite sure that many other noble Lords in other parts of the House will seek a promise from the noble Earl of full consideration for these and other points which may be raised in the Committee stage, and I venture to commend this Bill as being certainly a Bill the principles of which your Lordships can approve.
  2.48 p.m.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, this is a very short Bill and one which is restricted in its scope; nevertheless, it is one that is necessary if we are to prevent delaying the implementation of the replanting policy of the Forestry Commission. Looking around the countryside, one finds large areas where the trees which once grew were felled as far back as during the period of the First World War, and which have remained unplanted to this day, the reason being—I think it will generally be admitted—that the owners in many cases had not the money to lay out in accordance with what has been rightly termed to-day a long-term policy. Under this policy, it may be necessary to wait for twenty years, forty years or even sixty years for a final crop of timber. Many owners, too, have been unable to replant, in the past, owing to the great cost involved. To-day it is a very different story, for I think that thanks to the policy that has been worked out by the Forestry Commission, finally accepted by the Government, and recommended to both Houses, substantial assistance and encouragement are being offered to landowners of this country to replant suitable timber-growing areas. These areas include thousands, even millions, of acres of waste land that ought to be an asset to the nation instead of being, as

  525
  they are, a standing disgrace in that they are growing nothing and are employing no labour. This little Bill is going to aid the private landowner to replant some of those large areas that would have been planted but for the fact of the exceptionally long periods that he has to wait before he can get a return on his outlay.
  This Bill, I consider, ought to be very warmly welcomed. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships may fear certain of the powers which the Commission are seeking in this Bill, but I do not think there is any great reason for anyone to entertain such fears because I think it is true to say that, although the Forestry Commission have for many years possessed powers of compulsory purchase, they have never yet found it necessary to exercise them for afforestation. There seems to me to have been, on the part not only of the landowners but of the Commission and its servants, great common sense, patience, good will and co-operation. As a consequence, all the land that has been purchased and is now in the possession of the Commission, has been obtained by co-operative discussion and in a voluntary way between the landowner and the Commission. That good will has helped us on, until we are now in possession of something like 1,250,000 acres. I do not think, therefore, that there is any great fear so far as that side of the picture is concerned. Indeed, I think that we have been pretty generous in our planting grants. If—as some may fear—officers may call for a higher standard as a result of the grants, then that will be all to the good. Some of the private forests—not all—can well be improved, if we are not to fail lamentably.
  So far as the grants are concerned, we have supported them on the ground that they make for better husbandry. If the grants which we are proposing to make under this little Bill do not achieve a higher standard, then to that extent we shall have failed. I hope everyone will realize that after two devastating wars, in which woodlands have been devastated to an extent none of us ever dreamt of, we must make a maximum contribution from these areas towards re-afforestation. There are millions of acres of land lying idle, which at present grow nothing but rabbits and rubbish. We want productive labour employed in replanting. It has been said before that we have something
  526
  like 300,000,000 trees to be planted. We have the trees; we have the skill in the directors and officers of the Forestry Commission; we have the land. What we want is the labour, and the passage of this little Bill as quickly as possible through this House, so that the Commission may be able to get on with the job of replanting the Waste lands of this country.
  There is one other point I should like to mention. I am very sorry I am not a lawyer—his is a far more lucrative job than that of a bricklayer. The Minister referred to Clause 1, subsection (2) of the Bill. Being an ordinary bricklayer, I am rather puzzled by the language of this clause. If I wanted someone to read a clause and not to understand it, I think that this is the language I should adopt. We are asking the ordinary man to dedicate his lands; but permit me to say that when one reads this subsection he finds that if confusion were ever confounded it is in the language of this subsection (2). The subsection says:
  "As regards the enforcement of a forestry dedication covenant against persons other than the covenantor the Commissioners shall have the like rights—"
  what they are, I do not know—
  "as if they had at all material times been the absolute owners in possession of ascertained land adjacent to the land in respect of which the covenant is sought to be enforced and capable of being benefited by the covenant, and the covenant had been expressed to be for the benefit of that adjacent land."
  For heaven's sake, will someone get up and explain what that means, for I can make neither my head nor my elbow of it? The more I read it, the more confused I am about it. I would be very delighted if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would tell us, some time during the debate, what this means, so that I may go to some of those landowners who are asking me what this means. It ought not to be beyond the wit of some of the legal gentlemen of this House to find words that would express the meaning of the subsection in a little more plain and understandable language. I support this measure.
  2.56 p.m.
  LORD COURTHOPE: My Lords, I had not expected to speak in this debate quite so soon, but the noble Lord who should have followed is not in his place, so perhaps I may be allowed to speak

  527
  now. Before saying what I have to say, I must admit to your Lordships that I am one of the Forestry Commissioners and, consequently, am not an impartial person in dealing with this Bill. I may have to share in the duty of administering it when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Having said that, I want to emphasize that I am addressing your Lordships' House today not so much as a Commissioner, but as a woodland owner. For nearly forty years one of my principal interests has been the sylviculture of my own woods, having studied them pretty carefully, though not by any means extravagantly, nor, I think, with anything like the success of some of your Lordships. (I see the noble Duke beside me, whose woods are famous and whose management is famous.) I cannot claim anything like that distinction, but I can assure your Lordships—particularly those who are woodland owners—that there is nothing to be afraid of in this scheme of dedication.
  I would emphasize and support the words of my noble friend who has just spoken, that it is very desirable that anything difficult of interpretation should be cleared up. I think I know what Clause 1 (2) means, but I am not going to try to explain it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will do that before the debate comes to an end, because we do not want anything left in doubt.
  There is one point I want to make at once. This Bill—I think successfully—deals with the permanent dedication, or the power to dedicate permanently, in the case of tenants for life, and other limited owners, in England and Scotland; with one exception. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading specifically mentioned that the Bill covers the Ecclesiastical Commission. I believe that it does, but the Ecclesiastical Commission are satisfied that it does not cover glebe, and that it does not cover ecclesiastical corporations, such as the Deans and Chapters who, in some cases—not many—own woodlands which might be, and I think ought to be, subject to dedication. I mention this, because I was present at a meeting of the Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commission last Thursday, and we were very surprised to find that the clause which had been drawn to deal
  528
  with glebe and ecclesiastical corporations, which I understood had been agreed and submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, had not been printed in the Bill. I am not making a criticism now but I ask the noble Earl if that may be looked into, because if it is an omission which should be looked into I am sure that he would wish to deal with it.
  Having mentioned that one particular point, I should like to touch on one or two others which I think need looking into. There is some doubt as to the operation of Clause 5. The noble Earl who spoke first from these Benches mentioned it. Again I think that I can interpret Clause 5, but some people are in doubt about it. Is the value at which the planted land is to be taken over, in the case of failure of a dedication scheme, to be the 1939 value, or is it to be cost or the current market value? It makes a great deal of difference. If, for instance, it is the full market value of the day, I do not see that there is any particular hardship in the proposal to take into account interest on the advances that were made, but, if it is the 1939 value, or cost, it would be sheer robbery. Those are points which I think want looking into and made quite clear. I hope that I have made my meaning clear to the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I would admit at once—and I think everybody would—that all the appropriate expenditure, whether in the case of a subsidy or grant, or whatever it is, should be taken into account, and I personally should think the Bill would be very much better if the clause were drawn in such a way as to say it should be taken into account, rather than to lay down definitely that a rate of interest had got to be recovered and repaid as far as the dedicating owner is concerned on all the grant and maintenance payments which have been made in the past.
  Another point which I have had brought to my notice is that some people are in doubt as to whether the word "timber," which is used in two clauses, has in this Bill the limited application or definition which used to be common in the old Statute laws, or whether it has the wider and more modern meaning which it holds, I believe, in the other Forestry Bills. I have, myself, little doubt it has the more modern meaning, but that is a doubt that is felt in some Quarters, and it is one

  529
  that ought to be cleared up in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  Further, questions have been raised by a number of people which, as a Forestry Commissioner, I have not been able to answer, and which I think I ought to be able to answer. These questions relate to the liability to Income Tax of the planting grants. So far as I can understand the law myself, I think if the woods are assessed under Schedule B, the planting grant will have a capital effect and not in any case be subject to Income Tax; but if the woods are assessed under Schedule D, the amount of the planting grant will come in either for assessment for Income Tax if the total amount, the Schedule D amount, shows a profit, or as a diminution, a claim for rebate, of Income Tax if the Schedule D amount shows a loss. I ask the noble Earl to be so good, in the general interest of his Bill, and of those of us who will have to administer it, to get that point cleared up before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, because there is grave doubt about it.
  May I revert to the point which I mentioned first—namely, my contention that the woodland owner need have no fear of dedication. The Forestry Commission, and, of course, the Ministries behind them, have no desire to do anything but help. The Commissioners will have their hands more than full in dealing with the estate plantings. I would recall to your Lordships' minds the fact that the scheme which has been adopted for postwar planning places an obligation upon the Commissioners to add three million acres of bare land to the forest area in a period of time. That is a very big undertaking indeed, and I think that those of us who have got to struggle with that great problem must, in order to succeed in carrying it out, not be embarrassed by a lot of dedicated land coming into our hands, or of dedication failing. The last thing we want is to have land which has been dedicated, or ought to be dedicated, to be taken over by us to be planted by the effort of the Forestry Commission and their staff. It would be a very serious embarrassment, and I hope that the woodland owners will remember that. What the Forestry Commission want to do is to make it easy for them, the woodland owners, to produce a reasonable crop on their woodland area so as not to
  530
  compel the Commissioners to step in and take the area over themselves.
  There is only one other point which I want to raise. Some people have been frightened by the condition of dedication that the land dedicated must be maintained for the production of timber. That is the main purpose. It is not the least inconsistent with sporting rights or the maintenance of game. Before the war a good deal of importance and a good deal of value were attached to sporting rights, and I can only quote my own experience as a small example. Since I started nearly forty years ago trying to put my woodlands—which were in very bad condition indeed—into a proper sylvicultural condition, I have enormously increased their carrying capacity for pheasants. I do not know whether I can expect His Majesty's Government to attach very great importance to that, but the sporting rights have become a very material point in the value of my property, and that was not diminished but was very greatly augmented by the fact that woods were properly planted out and properly maintained. There is nothing in sound sylviculture which is inconsistent either with sport or with amenity if they are properly handled. I hope that fear will not deter anybody.
  Some people, too, may think they do not know what a working plan is. I wonder how many landowners do know what a working plan is. I did not. Although I did not, as a Forestry Commissioner, almost since the beginning, I have been running my woodlands on what I hoped was a sound principle. All I had to do was this. I wrote down on paper the methods upon which I ran my woodlands and submitted the statement which was accepted without demur. It is a working plan, although I did not know it. I am certain that all of us who are woodland owners are doing our best and have been doing our best to produce timber and to run our woods on sound sylvicultural lines. I believe all they will have to do is to put their plans on paper and submit them. With a little advice and a little friendly amendment I think they will find no particular difficulty in satisfying the Commissioners and their officers on that subject. The same thing applies to the very simple accounts which will be required.
  There is one other point which I ought to have mentioned sooner, but which I

  531
  forgot. I was talking about Clause 5, and the point that slipped my memory was with regard to the possible claim not only for repayment of grants but of interest at 3 per cent. It has been pointed out that there would be a special unfairness in that point, because the owner who is having to pay it would have had no opportunity to bring it into his accounts as a relief from Income Tax in the past. In effect, he would have paid Income Tax already on the amount of money that was claimed from him as the 3 per cent. interest on the grants which he is called upon to repay. I hope I have made that point clear. I do not want your Lordships to think that I have raised all these points contumatiously. They are points about which I have been asked by a great many people who are interested in forestry, and I have mentioned them now in the hope that, so far as they exist, they may be cleared up before the Bill reaches the Statute Book so as to give it the best possible chance of rendering the service which we all hope it will render.
  3.12 p.m.
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, as a considerable woodland owner on the Welsh border I would like to say a word or two on this Bill. One naturally welcomes it as freeing one legally to take advantage or not of the dedication scheme, which is one of the methods whereby the Government seek to reafforest the devastated woodland areas of this country. Undoubtedly the position of tenants for life, various corporations, trustees and the like—in fact our whole system of land law and land legislation of the past is out of date. In so far as the Bill alters that, and enables the tenant for life to enter into long-term commitments, I think it is wholly to be welcomed. But I am faced with the fact that my seat is on property where a great deal of forestry has been carried out, at any rate for the last two years, continuously by successive owners on the same property.
  Whether this Act will succeed in reafforesting areas that have been cut down during this war is not merely a legal arrangement, not merely a permissive thing, but also a very practical problem. I am earnestly in doubt as to whether the dedication scheme will in effect do it, or at any rate do it now, for quite practical
  532
  reasons. A large number of my woodlands were cut down early in the war, having been requisitioned by the Ministry of Supply. During the war there has not been the labour, the young trees or the wire to keep the vermin and the rabbits out or to prevent every kind of weed, bramble and scrub growing up. And the way they were cut down by the Canadians and others left great stumps everywhere.
  I am in doubt as to whether as an economic or as a practical proposition it is possible to go in for the dedication scheme covered by this Bill unless the Government can assure us that we shall be given the same priority as the Forestry Commission will get themselves for the necessary materials. These materials, as I see it, are threefold. The first thing is the fencing, because during the war most of us have abolished gamekeepers; there are no more gamekeepers and there will not be game-rearing again. The farmers in the farm areas have done their best to keep down the rabbits, and organizations have got busy there; but in these derelict woodlands on the hillsides the rabbit menace is worse now than it ever was, and on top of that we have got an increasing number of grey squirrels. If you are going to plant conifers, which I believe is what the Forestry Commission want, then the grey squirrel prefers the young conifers, and the leading shoots of the young conifers, which is the important thing. Who is going to deal with the animal pests? Are we going to get the wire? At present you have to fill up endless forms and permits and invariably other people get the priority. The Government will get the first priority, and the dedicating woodland owner will probably come off second, third, fourth or fifth best.
  Then there are the young trees to be planted. I have been endeavouring to get some young trees. We had a nursery before the war, but that nursery was given up. It was put under potatoes and all the things which the Ministry of Food rightly wanted, and there are no more young trees. Am I to start up a new nursery? Shall I get the stock? The noble Lord who has just spoken runs an admirable organization from which I bought trees in the past. I applied last year for a few thousand larch and other trees, and there was a long queue waiting.

  533
  Much the most serious thing is the labour. Really the bottle-neck with labour for forestry, agriculture and everything else is housing. We shall not get the woods tidied up and replanted, and still less new areas planted, unless we have the labour. My property straddles King Offa's Dyke and lies between 1,400 feet at the top and 300 feet above sea level. It is ideal for growing timber and it has in the past grown magnificent timber. But such cottages as are there are now, because of the war, still occupied by refugees from the bombed cities and by people who work in the towns, and one cannot turn them out. When we come to try to get labour to work in the upland areas where the much needed conifers are wanted, we find there are no houses. What chance have we, if we go in for a dedication scheme, of getting any new foresters' cottages built? We shall have to go to the local authority and we shall have to get a permit from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Works, and the Ministry of Education. And we shall have to apply not to London, where one knows there are human beings, but to the Regional Offices of these people!
  The biggest snag of all in this matter of rural housing is the Ministry of Education. I can only give you my most recent experience. It does not relate to my own building, although I am most anxious to build agricultural labourers' cottages not only to cope with the increase in arable land and the increase in agricultural production (which at present depends entirely for its continuance upon prisoner-of-war labour), but also to help to put my devastated woodland areas in order. What is our recent experience? The local rural district council made an assessment of the area where there was the greatest urgency for new farm labour and they fixed upon a site for a group of cottages which was conveniently situated with regard to the most progressive and developing farms.
  It was an ideal site; it was on a bus route and everything was perfect. The Ministry of Health approved, the Minister of Agriculture approved—in fact nearly everybody approved. But then came down the Ministry of Education, who said, "Oh, this group of cottages"—the only one planned by the rural district council in that part of the area—"is too
  534
  far from the school." The result was that they scrapped it, and now there is no scheme for building rural cottages. What has happened since? There has been a review under the new Education Act, and under that review the county authorities have said, quite rightly, that the school in that particular area cannot be added to. It is in a bad site, it is remote from the bulk of the population, it is an old school built before 1870, and it must be scrapped. They have selected for the new school they are going to put up—the only one they recognize—the site on which the local rural district council wanted to build these cottages! That sort of thing is happening up and down the country. That is only one example of the number of cooks who are endeavouring to cook this rural housing pudding.
  The local representative of the Forestry Commission came to see me quite recently about my woodlands, about an upland area not hitherto planted and which will be under the 999 years' scheme. I said to him: "Your difficulty will be labour and housing," but he replied: "That does not worry us because we have not got to go to the local authority, or to the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education. We, the Forestry Commission, have merely got to tell the Office of Works where we want our cottages and they will put them up for us." That is being done by the State for the State forests but what hope, under the dedication scheme, has the private landlord got of getting new cottages for new forest labour? I can see no hope for him until he has freedom to build, and to build where he likes. By all means let us maintain and improve the standards, but even when you have agreed upon the standards, what are you up against? I have got two cottages which were started under the old Act, and which are completed up to the roof; the roof timbers and all the rest of it are erected. We were told to design them for local slates, because we are in a slate country. The walls were standing, the waterpipes are in and the drains are finished. I am told I must not have slates from North Wales, and that I must apply to South Wales, but they have not got any slates for me. I am told I must apply to Cornwall, but Cornwall has not any slates for me. The last suggestion is that I should apply to Sweden to get the slates to finish these houses which are finished but for the

  535
  slates. And this when we have slate quarries near by! There are endless forms and endless correspondence.
  What hope is there, if we adopt the dedication scheme, of getting our woods cleared, wired and replanted unless we can get the necessary housing in the appropriate areas? It is quite hopeless. I am sure this is not because of ill will on the part of the Government; they do not mean it. They want to see the woodlands cleared, cleaned, and afforested; they want to see the rabbits exterminated—and so do we. But at every turn we are clogged by the control of this and the control of that, and by the vast number of officials of the various Ministries. You get a thing back, you write to Whitehall, you get an acknowledgment from the Private Secretary to a Minister, the matter goes to the Region, and an inspector comes down. We are being clogged; we are prevented from doing anything—and in the meantime the woods get worse, the vermin gets worse and nothing gets planted.
  When we come to dedication and the working out of the policy of this Bill, I hope that the Forestry Commissioners will decentralize from London more effectively than they did before the war. I think that is most important. After all, this is, geologically and climatically, a most varied country. A policy for East Anglia, for the Thetford area, will not apply in Wales. A North Welsh policy may be suitable for the Conway Valley, where the Forestry Commission have done magnificent work, but it will not necessarily apply on the Border or elsewhere. My property is not large, but across it there run from the north-east to the south-west three geological formations, with utterly different soils, utterly different rock formations and utterly different conditions. You can see that in the timber and in the varieties of timber that succeed.
  Along most of the Welsh border the country is, of course, typical oak country. From Hawarden to the Valley of the Wye the finest oaks in Britain, or indeed in Europe, have grown for centuries. The Welsh border country is the ideal country for growing oak. The oak, however, is a slow-growing tree. I believe the great Powis Castle oaks near me are at least a thousand years old, and they are flourishing till this day. They are the finest trees, not merely in
  536
  Britain but in the world. I have, on my own property, oaks, without a dead branch on them, that are certainly five hundred years old. But we want conifers; that is agreed. By experiment we have found out the very limited range of conifers which will succeed, particularly on the old silurian system with high rainfall and heavy clay. Therefore it is absolutely vital that there should be effective co-operation between those of us who have had experience of this matter and the Forestry Commissioners as to what you should, or should not, plant.
  My forebears made experiments with Japanese larch, but we find the old Alpine larch does very much better. We find that the Douglass grows magnificently, but under our particular conditions the number that do not have their heads lopped off in the winter gales is few and far between. The Sitka would seem a more reliable tree as far as our conditions are concerned. All that kind of thing is what we have found by experience. If, under the dedication scheme, all that experience is going to be collected and adapted to the various regions, well and good, but if the whole business is going to be run by saying, "Oh, no, we want x standards of this particular variety of tree or timber," then there will be economic loss and economic failure. The only thing is constant adaptation to circumstances.
  May I put in one more plea as against the short view? I agree we want pit props, and I agree we want soft woods, but do let us, in the interests of our countryside and tradition, have some deciduous timber. Of course it is a much longer range, it is a 200-year rotation as opposed to 80- or 100-year rotation, but it does make the whole difference to the tradition and aspect of our countryside, particularly on the Welsh border with our magnificent deciduous timber. I do not want to see the whole area like one Black Forest. Who knows whether in two hundred years' time oak will not be as much wanted as soft woods? I do appeal to those who are going to carry out this Act under the dedication scheme, with the control that it gives to the State—and nowadays the State inevitably has got to take control to a very large extent; it has got to pay part of the business and therefore it has a right of control—to take the long view. Do let us bear that in mind and take the long view.

  537
  I conclude by saying that the success of this Bill we are dealing with today depends upon administration. Nothing else matters, whatever is in the Act of Parliament. Whether the scheme is operated successfully or not, whether by the Forestry Commission or by woodland owners, depends upon the practical working out of the scheme, the provision of methods of keeping out and destroying vermin, the provision of labour, the education of labour and, above all, the housing of labour in the forest areas. It is quite useless to say that your forester shall live in the town and cycle out or go by a bus to his forest areas—it is quite impossible. He has got to live on the job, watching for protection against fire, keeping down the pests and really getting to know his job on the spot. We in Wales have not lived in towns and in villages but have always lived scattered. If the policy of the Government housing scheme, that they have got to live in satellite towns and not be scattered in the country or else be concentrated in growing villages, is carried out, I am quite sure the only result will be that you will get bad woodlands, derelict woodlands. You will not get the job done as it ought to be done; and the job wants doing very badly.
  3.34 p.m.
  LORD GLENTANAR: My Lords, we have heard most eloquent and interesting speeches from members of your Lordships' House from England and Wales, and I will now try to put some points before your Lordships which are particularly relevant to Scotland. As a member of one of the Regional Advisory Committees appointed by the Forestry Commission, I am constantly being asked questions about the dedication scheme. I am sure we are all very sympathetic with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill in his endeavour, and in the Government's endeavour, to set going a scheme along the lines proposed in order to get the much-needed afforestation carried out. I believe that it is hoped by the Forestry Commissioners that some forty per cent. of the total area to be re-afforested may be carried out by means of this scheme. I must say that I am a little disappointed by some of the terms of this Bill, because I feel that if this dedication scheme is to be adopted it must be sufficiently attractive and, above all, it must get over the fears which are in the minds of many
  538
  owners as regards the possible repercussions in the future.
  I sometimes feel that the Forestry Commission do not altogether appreciate what effects there may be in such a long-term policy as is envisaged. The noble Earl has made it clear that it is intended, once this scheme is adopted, that there shall be no getting out of it. Now I think many owners and many trustee feel that in a contract of this kind—and this is a contract between the landowner and his successors and the Commissioners, who are the Government representatives, and their successors—which is a contract for perpetuity, there should be a method of contracting out, possibly for both parties. The only method of contracting out which exists, as far as I can see, is by the Minister or Commissioners carrying out a compulsory purchase of the land. I do not know if it would be possible at this stage, but I am quite sure that if the Bill could be adjusted so that either party could, in suitable circumstances, contract out, that would remove a great many fears which now exist. Naturally, it would have to be very carefully controlled. It might be only after a certain period of years, or it might be dependent upon a succession from one owner to another.
  But if such a scheme could be worked out it might be on the basis that an independent assessor would take into consideration what both parties had spent in operating the scheme up to the point at which the contract was ended. He would also take into consideration the value of the woodlands at the time the contract was ended as compared with the time the contract was entered upon. And from that an equitable financial adjustment could be made. Both parties would then be free, and if the Forestry Commissioners or the Minister then wished to acquire the land compulsorily all the adjustments would be made. It occurs to me that it is possible that the Forestry Commissioners would not want always to acquire compulsorily in such circumstances. It is possible that, should there be a break-down in the scheme for one reason or another, they may be confronted with having to buy an enormous amount of property, some of which they might not wish to acquire. I think it would not impair the prospects of the scheme if the scheme could be made in such a way that either party could contract out, providing sufficient safeguards were introduced. At

  539
  the same time great apprehension would be removed.
  I would like to support all that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said about the importance of an independent arbiter. It seems to me quite wrong that in any contract between two parties one of the contracting parties should be the judge as to what is right and what is wrong. It is against the whole principle of contract, and if an independent arbiter were provided I think that would increase the popularity of the scheme. If we follow this point which I am trying to make of the necessity of equality of obligation and of opportunity, we must consider whether, under a likely future or in any circumstances, it is possible for succeeding owners to continue and implement their part of the bargain. Much timber has been felled during the war, and the capital which has been realized by these fellings ought to be used for replanting. I feel sure that the Forestry Commissioners and His Majesty's Government would like to ensure that it is used for the purpose of reafforestation.
  We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who pointed out that for soft woods one must give a period of rotation of eighty to one hundred years, and in cases of hard woods one must give double that time. During that period it is likely there will be two, or possibly more, deaths among the landowners, and that money will be subject to Estate Duty. By the time the third owner comes and tries to do his part of the bargain he will not have my money with which to do it. I would ask my noble friend who is occupied with this Bill if it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to consider the issue of a special series of bonds which would be available to dedicators under this scheme, these bonds to be free of Estate Duty and issued at a very low rate of interest. They would be redeemable in exact proportion to the grants made under the scheme, and they would be limited to the size of the scheme approved by the Forestry Commission. Such provisions would prevent the possibility of these bonds being used in any other way except for the purposes of carrying on this dedication scheme, but the bonds would have the two-fold effect of ensuring, firstly, that the landowner, looking to the future, would know that he had a certain amount of money ready to carry out his part of
  540
  the bargain over a long period, and, conversely, the Government would know that, in respect of that dedication, failure through lack of funds could be ruled out. I would ask my noble friend who is promoting this Bill if he will turn his mind to such a possibility.
  Might I just say a word about Clause 5? Clause 5 as it stands will frighten a great many people because, although one would never imagine that the Forestry Commissioners would wish to put this clause to any nefarious purpose, it could be used for a measure of buccaneering. If compulsory purchase by the Forestry Commission is not limited to cases where the scheme is being badly carried out and where reafforestation is being badly done, it is possible for the Commissioners to take over after sixty years, shall we say, and to get the very nearly matured timber at its full worth and, at the same time, get their part of the contribution back again. This would be unfair.
  I have only one small matter I would like to bring to the notice of my noble friend in connexion with the Scottish Clauses. On first reading Clause 4, subsection (1), a certain amount of apprehension was felt, even by legal authorities, as to the possibility that the word "liferenter" might cover all liferenters. Some of your Lordships will be aware of the fact that in Scotland we have two kinds of liferenters. There is what is known as the proper liferenter, and there is the beneficiary liferenter. The proper liferenter is one who is not under any trust and who is virtually the owner of the land. I believe this clause refers to him, and not to the beneficiary liferenter. I believe that the governing words are the words "in possession of any land." The beneficiary liferenter, being under a trust, is never in possession of any land, but I should be glad if my noble friend could make it quite clear that the words in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) refer to what is known in Scotland as the proper liferenter.
  I am afraid that I have been wearying your Lordships with some rather trying matter, but I would assure you that I, for one, hope to see this scheme properly launched and taken full advantage of. It is purely because of my desire that there may be no apprehensions in the minds of those who are now considering this scheme that I would strongly urge

  541
  that all the points which are being brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government by your Lordships to-day should be very carefully weighed. So far as possible, every step should be taken to remove apprehensions which are very rightly and properly felt by those who have to think not only of their position and interests, but of those who will come after them, and who may not be in such a good position to carry on the scheme as they themselves now are.
  3.52 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the success of these proposals will depend almost more than anything else upon the spirit in which they are administered. The Minister responsible for forestry and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in another place, made a tremendous appeal for co-operation by the owners of woodlands, and also gave an assurance of generous co-operation on the part of the Government. I feel sure that the noble Lord who represents the Government here, in this matter, will be ready to give a similar assurance. I am sure that it will also be agreed that this subject of forestry should be kept as far as possible out of politics, and I think credit is due to the Government for bringing forward a measure calculated to be as free from controversy as possible.
  I would like to support what my noble friend Lord Courthope said to the effect that owners entering into dedication ought not to be alarmed. But I feel also that it should be clearly understood that a very serious obligation is being placed on any who do dedicate. It does mean that the management of woodlands, from start to finish, must be very efficient and, generally speaking, of a high order. Also it means that very high costs will be involved, to ensure that the standard which will be necessary is reached. It is important that this should be understood on the Governmental and Parliamentary side generally. It is also important to try to express this without, at the same time, alarming growers of timber and giving them the impression that their task is too great. The task before them is not insuperable, but it is a very big one, and in return, and in consideration of what is to be done by them, the reward is not likely to be very great, nor is the assistance which is to be given really very much. On the economic side, it will be a very good bargain for the State, just as it was during the war
  542
  when very large supplies of home-grown timber were made available to the Government at moderate prices, and when, at the same time, they recovered millions of pounds in taxation on timber converted by timber merchants.
  I think it would surprise noble Lords and the members of the Government to know how very small, really, the total cost in grants towards the growing of timber under private enterprise has been in this country during the twenty-six years which have elapsed since the grants first started, and how great, in contrast, has been the amount which the Government have obtained in taxation. These proposals were discussed and agreement was reached in 1943. Since that time, the expenses of afforestation have risen very steeply. But it should be borne in mind that timber prices—maximum controlled prices for standing timber—are still at the 1939 level. The Government are wise to increase the planting grant to £10 per acre and the annual maintenance grant to 3s. 4d. per acre. If they are successful in getting a large acreage of well grown timber at that price, it will be a very good bargain for them.
  There is one point about the grant which I might perhaps mention. I do not intend, by anything I say, not to give full credit for what has been done. I feel it right on behalf of tree-growers to thank the Government and the Commission for the grant of £10 per acre and the 3s. 4d. maintenance grant. But I think all those who are concerned would like to know when the maintenance grant comes into operation. It was discussed in 1943, and I suggest that it should come into operation in 1946, or, at the very latest, in 1947. I hope that information will soon be forthcoming about that. I think it is not unfair to say that while the maintenance grant of 3s. 4d. is welcome, a figure higher than that was advocated by the industry. The present figure is not an agreed figure and I think it must have been by accident that it was stated that it was, in another place.
  The terms of the actual dedication agreement are not yet known. Until they are known it is very difficult to say whether the proposals in the agreement are acceptable. The cause of the delay is unavoidable—I understand that it is due mainly to the Forestry Commission's shortage of staff. That is quite understandable, especially as the Commission have to send

  543
  so many of their best men to Germany. I do feel that a cautionary note should be sounded in regard to the rate of progress that can be anticipated during the first few years. My noble friend Lord Harlech has put before us, very ably, the difficulties relating to labour, plants, and housing. I would like to ask the Minister to express his recognition of the fact that slow progress will be unavoidable on many woodland estates during the first few years. It is absolutely clear that that must be the case. I hope that he will recognize that many woodland owners are not only worried about it, but that, in consequence, they may feel obliged to decline to enter into dedication, simply because at present no ways are visible of implementing it.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, in another place, urged the vital necessity for replanting cleared, felled areas as soon as possible. I think there will be general agreement that this should be done without any delay and before taking fresh areas which may have to be cleared of stock. If this is to be done, the closest possible combination between the Forestry Commission and their officers and the owners of private woodlands will be called for, especially in the case of the smaller woodland owners. It is satisfactory that, in principle, the Forestry Commission do allow the use, when convenient, of their staffs for replanting, and I hope that whenever it is convenient, where there are these small areas urgently needing replanting, they will be as sympathetic as possible.
  Housing has been mentioned, and I would like to ask the Government—and in particular the Minister responsible for forestry and the Secretary of State for Scotland—to use their influence about housing, in order to secure that there is at least equal priority for rural employees, for the rural population, and (in this particular case) for woodmen. Unless that influence is used, the situation for some years must be very serious. It is bad enough for the Forestry Commission, but it is far worse for others. As the noble Earl realizes—and as is well known—the Forestry Commission are at present arranging to build large numbers of tied houses. That is recognized by the Government as being a fact, and it cannot be contradicted. In view of this, I hope
  544
  that the Government will make some concession on principle about tied houses, and will realize that it is necessary for private enterprise—as it is for the Government—to have woodmen in houses on the spot. May I add one further word? I would repeat again, that I am confident that if the good relationship now existing between the Forestry Commission and the private woodland owners is continued—as I am sure it will be—and if the proposals are administered in a practical, sympathetic and proper spirit, we shall be successful as a result of this Bill.
  4.02 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I intend to detain you for only a very few minutes, but being the chairman of a Regional Advisory Committee in Scotland I am naturally brought into contact with a variety of woodland owners, and I hope that you will bear with the few remarks which I wish to make. I have no criticisms of this Bill, which I think is an excellent Bill. It merely provides machinery, I understand, for carrying out the proposals of the previous Foresty Act, and as such it will have, I hope, the full support of your Lordships' House. I wish to remain as relevant as I possibly can to the terms of this Bill, which are concerned purely with the dedication of woodland, but I would like to say that in Scotland—with which I am concerned—I believe that we have always been forestry-minded. I think that we are becoming more forestry-minded every day; we realize the vital importance of conserving and augmenting our timber resources. When you remember that one acre of woodland can produce one hundred tons of timber, then its vital importance to our security, in the unhappy event of another war taking place, is clearly demonstrated.
  Much of the initial apprehension which existed concerning the dedication of the woodlands has, I think, been allayed, and I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, say the same thing. We now understand that provided a woodland owner will carry out the four obligations which are inherent in dedication—to devote his land to the production of timber, to work according to plan, to provide proper supervision for his woodlands, and to maintain adequate accounts—then he will find the minimum of interference from Forestry Commission officials. It is very gratifying to know

  545
  that, and I feel that it will greatly allay any fear which there has been with regard to the dedication scheme. I think the original committees will be able to help more and more in this respect as soon as the actual covenant of dedication becomes known. I would very much press the noble Earl who is to reply to tell us when this covenant—the actual document of dedication—is to be made available. Surely, it is in the interests of both the Forestry Commission, who want to know which woods are to be dedicated and which are not, and of the woodland owners themselves, to have this information as soon as possible. Might I also put one other question to the noble Earl? That is, on the subject of the loans. I am glad that he has announced the percentage of the loans—three per cent., I think he said. Are they to be made available as soon as the land is dedicated, and as soon as the deed of covenant is signed? I should be grateful if in his reply the noble Earl would answer that question.
  As regards dedication, the case of the large woodland owner does not cause me very much concern, because I feel that his case is pretty well cut and dried. When he has studied the matter, he will decide whether he can afford to dedicate or not. If he does not, I presume that his woodlands will be taken over by the State. It is the small woodland owner for whom I am concerned. Many of these woods are not suitable for dedication. They are too small, or they are scattered about the country in little groups, and the Forestry Commission do not want them. The Commission will not be able to acquire small blocks—perhaps twenty acres, or 100 acres, or 200 acres—which are far from their own forests. The Commission would be unable to manage them. What is to happen to these small woodland owners? Let me remind your Lordships of the importance of the small woodlands. Out of 3,000,000 acres of afforested woodlands in this country in 1944, 1,000,000 acres or one-third—consisted of small woodlands. And do not forget that some of the very best timber in the country comes from the small woodlands, because these woods are often planted in good agricultural country. The trees are growing in good soil, and they produced the finest hardwood timber ever felled during the war. They provide shelter for man and beast, and are therefore of infinite value to the farmer.
  546
  Finally, let us not forget the æsthetic contribution which these small woodlands make to the countryside. For that reason I think the small woodlands deserve the maximum of consideration from His Majesty's Government. Remember, too, that these owners are in great difficulties, because in many cases, they are farmers, with little knowledge of woodland practice. It is not their business; their business is farming. They will not know what species to plant. They will not know at what distance apart to plant their trees. They will want advice. That is where I would ask if the Forestry Commissioners can help as much as possible by giving sympathy, advice and assistance. If they can do that, I am sure that it will be very much appreciated.
  4.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said. The small woodland owner is very much given the "go-by." He is in a much more difficult position than the man with, say, ten thousand or twenty thousand acres of forest with which to deal, which is an easy thing for the Government to take over. It is extremely difficult for a man with small areas of, say, twenty, thirty or forty acres to undertake the necessary expense, to acquire the labour or even to employ a proper forester. I hope that the Government will give consideration to what the noble Earl has said.
  4.11 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for very long. The one major point on which I wish to lay a certain amount of stress, and to which emphasis has been given in the speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, is that in this country, particularly in the more thickly populated parts of the country, woodlands are small and scattered. It is essential in the interests of the nation that these small and scattered woodlands, and in fact all woodlands, should be maintained in their full productive use as forest land. To do that, it is absolutely essential to get the good will of the owners of these forest lands. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has already given your Lordships certain figures about these small woodlands. I have no means of checking his figures, but

  547
  undoubtedly the area is very considerable. The whole forestry scheme will fall down, and the nation will suffer very seriously, if these woodlands are not brought into, or maintained in, full production so far as is reasonable and possible. It is quite impossible, as has been said (and I speak as a Forestry Commissioner) for the Forestry Commission to deal with all these small areas. In hardly any case are they suitable for anything in the nature of State afforestation. Not only that, but, speaking as an agriculturist, I say that it would be disastrous from the point of view of the countryside if these small woodlands were divorced from the agriculture alongside them.
  This debate, as sometimes happens in your Lordships' House, has strayed a little wide of the rather narrow terms of the Bill under discussion. The point that I wish to make is that even regarding the terms of the Bill now before the House, certain doubts and possible criticisms have been expressed, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able as far as possible to meet these doubts and these criticisms either by clarifying the Bill or by altering the Bill by agreement at a later stage, in order to assure woodland owners that their interests are being looked after by His Majesty's Government, and that their co-operation is really being sought. It would be worth a great deal to the Government, and to the Forestry Commission, if we carry woodland owners with us all the way. We had their agreement to the principle of dedication. We want now to get their full and hearty agreement with the details, of which this particular Bill is perhaps a small and rather technical instalment.
  There are two other points to which I should like to refer. The first is the question of the right of appeal, which has been mentioned by more than one noble Lord. I think I am right when I say that, so far as the dedication proposals are concerned, there is provision in the 1945 Act for arbitration over the terms and the administration of the dedication, but in any case those provisions will be re-enacted in the dedication deeds so as to make quite certain that there is, and will be, arbitration in cases of doubt or controversy over actions by the present Forestry Commission or the future
  548
  Forestry Commission. Might I say, in passing, that I hope that His Majesty's Government will not fall back on an argument which I have heard used over legislation, that "surely you believe the Ministry is reasonable" or, as in this case, "the Forestry Commission are reasonable." I am prepared to believe that the present Ministry or the present Forestry Commission are reasonable, but I will not accept that all Forestry Commissions or all Ministries are likely to be reasonable until the end of time.
  The only other point I want to mention is a small detail. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, seemed to indicate that in Wales an official of the Forestry Commission had assured him that, so far as the Commission was concerned, it was quite easy for them to get houses built by the local authority and they did not care—
  LORD HARLECH: By the Office of Works, not by the local authority.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: Well, the Office of Works—I am sorry; that the Office of Works could build houses for the Forestry Commission, and the implication was that the Forestry Commission were going to get houses without a great deal of difficulty, and did not much care what happened to the private landowner. May I assure him, first of all, that the Commission do care a great deal about what happens to the private landowner? They appreciate the difficulty that the private landowner has in getting the necessary housing, and they appreciate that houses are the key to increased afforestation. They do have their own very grave difficulties about getting houses for themselves, whether they be tied or otherwise, and to feel that the Forestry Commission are better off than the private landowner is perhaps rather an exaggerated point of view. I have not said all that I might have said, because I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, can reply to the other points. Once more I express the hope that His Majesty's Government will meet all reasonable requests for clarification or simplification of legislation which affects the private landowner, and I hope, too, that every private woodland owner will realize the truth of what my noble friend Lord Courthope has already said, which is that the man who manages his woodlands properly need have nothing to fear from any dedication scheme or anything done by the Forestry Commission.
  4.15 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for the Forestry Commission, I should like to say I am very glad that this debate has been conducted in such a friendly atmosphere, and that, on the whole, this Bill has been received by your Lordships in the spirit in which it was intended. As it has been pointed out, it is a voluntary measure. It lays emphasis on the voluntary principle, and its whole object is to allow owners to enter into agreements under which they will get compensation from the State. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has pointed out, the debate has ranged over rather a wide field and covered a great deal of ground which perhaps is not absolutely relevant to the Bill.
  I will try to answer one or two of the questions which noble Lords have raised and to satisfy them as to the intention which lies behind the Bill. In the first place I should like to assure the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, that certainly both the Forestry Commissioners and His Majesty's Government will do all they can to co-operate with the private owner. It is not at all our idea to get him out of the way. We want him to replant and build up his woodlands, and any help and advice we can give will obviously be forthcoming. Several questions were raised by noble Lords on the subject of arbitration or appeal, and I would like to reinforce the noble Earl, Lord Radnor's remarks, that in the actual dedication deed provision is made for arbitration on the question when the Forestry Commission might acquire woodlands compulsorily. I am sorry that these deeds are not yet available, but I do assure the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, that they will shortly be ready; and I hope that they will meet all the different points that have been raised about them.
  The second question which seemed to exercise the minds of many of your Lordships concerned Clause 5, dealing with the compulsory taking over of land. I should like to say very clearly, in case it has been misunderstood, that this compulsory acquisition of land is in no way meant to be a sanction, or a method of trying to force the woodland owner into dedicating his land; in fact, I think the Forestry Commission would be extremely reluctant to take over these small wood-
  550
  lands, since they have more than enough on their hands. In the event of land being taken over which has been dedicated it would only be in cases where the owner had neglected his woodlands to a very considerable extent; and it is considered only fair that in such cases grants should be deducted from the compensation paid for the land, plus, as your Lordships notice, 3 per cent. interest. That has given rise to rather complicated issues regarding Income Tax. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, and other noble Lords who raised this point, that this will be seriously considered before the Committee stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord did ask the question, I would say that under Schedule B these grants would not be subject to tax; but under Schedule D they would. On the other hand, of course, under Schedule D the owner would be entitled to charge expenses against Income Tax. But these are difficult points which will need further consideration. The other point the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, raised was that of the Ecclesiastical Corporations. There is a clause under discussion in this respect and it will be inserted in the Bill if agreement is reached and it is satisfactory. With regard to the meaning of "timber," this has the meaning defined in the Act of 1919.
  The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, seemed to find some difficulty in the interpretation of Clause 1, subsection (2), and I think other noble Lords sympathized with him in his difficulty. Not being a learned Lord, I should hesitate to go deeply into it, but as the noble Lord asked me the question, the purpose of the clause is, of course, to give the Commissioners the right to sue against the heir or successor of the covenantor. That is the purpose of this particular subsection, but I do not propose at this stage to explain the legal terminology. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, brought up various subjects, but one point on which I agree with him very much is the importance of planting hardwood and deciduous trees. I think both the Forestry Commission and the Government do now realize the necessity for planting hardwoods as well as conifers, although conifers are in greatest demand and are the most important from the immediate point of view.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentanar, raised some very interesting points. With regard to the question of the bond, he will not

  551
  I think expect me to give him an answer immediately, as it will need a good deal of consideration. I should like to say, however, in regard to his proposal about contracting-out that that would obviously go against the purpose of the Bill. What we are trying to establish are permanent woodlands, and if we allowed people to contract out of their obligation, we might lose a good deal of woodland to our grave disadvantage. Another question asked was when would loans become available. As soon as the dedication covenant was entered into this question could be raised and considered. It would not be a certain amount of so much per acre; the loan would vary according to individual circumstances.
  I should like to say that I was very pleased with the extremely helpful speech of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who explained many things, particularly the position of the small woodland owners. That is a very difficult point. Obviously I would like to be helpful and to give them every consideration, but there are masses of small woodlands which it would be difficult for the Forestry Commission to deal with satisfactorily. I would, however, like to point out that there is available for the small woodland owner, even with woods which are not suitable for dedication, a £10 per acre grant. There is not, however, any grant for maintenance. We have been able to concede that particular point which I hope will be a help to the small woodland owner.
  I think I have dealt with most of the questions, but there is the question relating to the Scottish liferenter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentanar. This is a very technical point, but if the question is whether the term "liferenter" includes a beneficiary who enjoys for the period of his life the occupation of property vested in trustees as well as the person to whom property is conveyed directly without the interposition of a trust for a period of his life, the answer is that it does not. "Liferenter" in its proper and technical sense means only the latter person, that is the one who has a feudal life-rent: he has a title to the property, albeit only for his life-time. In the case of the beneficiary, the title to the property is vested in the trustees and they alone would have the right
  552
  under Clause 4 (2) to enter into a dedication agreement.
  I do not want to keep your Lordships any longer. I do hope, in view of the intention of the Government to be as helpful as they possibly can to the private woodland owner, that your Lordships will recognize that this Bill allows him to obtain grants for that purpose, and you will give it a speedy Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  GERMAN ZONES: ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENT.
  4.30 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, perhaps I might intervene for a moment to make a statement to your Lordships. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Mr. Byrnes, the American Secretary of State, have signed an Agreement which will be available a, a White Paper in the Printed Paper Office this afternoon. This Agreement provides for the economic fusion of the British and American zones as from January 1, 1947, with the aim of making the combined area self-supporting by the end of 1949. There will be a joint Anglo-American Agency, which will deal with the imports and exports of the combined area, in which shall be established a common standard of living, including food rations. The imports will include necessary raw materials to enable the area to recover and to produce an export income.
  In so far as exports from the combined area fall short of imports, the deficit will be met, subject to some minor adjustments relating to past transactions, by his Majesty's Government and the United States Government in equal shares. The costs incurred by the two Governments for their separate zones up to January 1, 1947, and for the combined zone thereafter, shall be recovered from future German exports in the shortest practicable time consistent with the rebuilding of the

  553
  German economy on healthy, but non-aggressive, lines. Barriers in the way of German export trade will be removed as rapidly as world conditions permit. The joint Anglo-American Agency will be responsible for determining German import requirements. They will be procured from the most economical sources of supply, subject to so selecting these sources as to economize the dollar cost to the United Kingdom. The food ration of 1,550 calories for the normal German consumer must be accepted for the present, but will be raised to 1,800 calories as soon as conditions of world supply permit. The two Governments intend that this arrangement shall operate pending an agreement for the treatment of Germany as an economic unit or until amended by mutual agreement, but it shall be subject to review at yearly intervals.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House for the very important statement he has made to us today. I think that we must in all parts of the House recognize the very great efforts which the Government have made to find a solution of this extremely thorny question. The statement, as I listened to it, is certainly full of meat and it will require very careful consideration. I am sure that neither the Leader of the House nor other noble Lords will expect me to make any detailed comment on it now. I should, however, like to ask the Leader of the House one question, and it is this. What precautions have His Majesty's Government taken to safeguard our position if our dollar resources run low?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to congratulate the Government on having succeeded in arriving at this agreement with the United States which is obviously the first essential preliminary to the rehabilitation of Germany and, consequent upon that, let us hope, further economies in the interests of the British taxpayer.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for what they have said. Of course, I recognize that time will be required for a careful study of the document. With regard to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, may I say that the agreement provides for its amendment by mutual consent? It also provides for revision
  554
  annually. If our dollar resources made it impossible for us to find the dollars required under the agreement we should need that to be taken into account when reviewing the matter so that steps should be taken to meet the new situation. The United States Government have been informed in this sense.

  ORGANIZATION OF WESTERN EUROPE.
  4.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART moved to resolve, That every encouragement should be given to the development of close political and economic relations between the countries of Western Europe, since the promotion of political and economic relations between the European States must contribute generally to the effective operation of the United Nations. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is perhaps a good omen that I have been prefaced by some discourse on forestry because on the subject of my Motion there may be some who do not see the wood for the trees. If any of your Lordships should remember that I spoke at some length on this subject a year ago, I hope it will also be remembered that obstinacy in a bad cause is perseverance in a good one. Of course I shall not go over all the old ground again, but I must briefly recapitulate. Regional agreements are not only approved by the Charter; they are encouraged and invited. Without them the Charter might not work in cases of emergency. The position briefly is that regional agreements are fully justified if the Charter works and doubly justified if it does not. Without a Western regional agreement we should not be able adequately to fulfil our defence obligations. The alternative is the initial chaos to which we have already twice nearly succumbed.
  It follows, therefore, as a matter of experience and common sense, that the defences of the West should be co-ordinated. If we had done so before we should probably have prevented both these world wars. If we had even co-ordinated our manufacturing resources, that might have deterred the Germans. As it is, of course, we know what has happened. Above all from, the economic point of view, this Western co-ordination is the necessary substitute for the present crazy pavement of

  555
  our map. It is necessary also for the future prosperity—and indeed probably for the very survival—of that part of the earth which has made by far the largest contribution to the cultural heritage of mankind. Of that Western civilization we are all products, and to it we and the world owe an immense debt. Now it asks something of us in return, for failing this co-ordination the West will decline as surely as the sun sets there, and that decline will be in no one's interest. On any long economic view it will be against the interests both of the United States and of Russia. This Western co-ordination is directed against no one, but since it has pleased the Russians to pretend that integration is progressive in the East and reactionary in the West, when I first spoke I quoted a long list of wise men of the West—men of the Left, men of good will and men of peace—who have all blessed this noble and useful ideal.
  In the West we need nothing that threatens; what we do need is the greatest possible degree of free trade in the widest available area, for that is the basis of large-scale production and it is already definitely enjoyed by both the United States and Russia. We need the lowering of tariff barriers, the regulation of exchanges and the avoidance of wasteful competition. For that a series of inter-locking conventions will be necessary. What could be more harmless or more reasonable? I repeat that nothing contemplated in the West even remotely approaches the degree of rigid integration already reached in the East. When I spoke a year ago Eastern Europe was already criss-crossed with military agreements, which have since been extended and intensified; they provide not only similarity but very frequently identity of arms and training, particularly in the matter of officers. Moreover, those regions are bound together by exclusive economic arrangements and by the denial of free intercourse with the rest of the world.
  Nothing of that sort enters into the Western mind. During the past twelve months these Eastern identities have been increased. Look at the Paris Peace Conference and remember the outcry there was against the very idea of such an ancient and accredited simplicity as the free navigation of the Danube. Or look again at the mode of procedure. The Eastern satellites think, vote and speak
  556
  in one piece. I mention that in no controversial spirit but because these are the people who lecture, and sometimes indeed hector, us for desiring some reasonable degree of unity in the West. I can assure them that we contemplate no kind of unity such as theirs. Any Western participant would have the full use of his soul and his tongue. Moreover, there would be no question of the predominence of any one Power. In a word, there is in the East a bloc in every sense of the word. We need nothing of the sort in the West, and the sooner we get rid of that silly word from our vocabulary the better—it is not even English.
  I cannot leave this subject without mentioning that there is at the present moment an apparent attempt to coerce non-Slav Greece into that bloc. I am not going to say more about that to-day because the matter may be brought up before the United Nations. I would only make the obvious comment that nothing in the nature of compulsion enters into our scheme of things. When I spoke a year ago, I mentioned that Field-Marshal Smuts had indicated the necessity of a Western regional organization before the San Francisco Charter was even drafted. Much has happened since then to confirm that point of view. Speaking at The Hague on October the Field-Marshal urged His Majesty's Government to take the lead in forming a United States of Europe, and he urged the small States to press us if we hesitated. To-day I am pressing His Majesty's Government for something much more immediately practical. I feel, moreover, that one ought to say that in the absence of such a lead the position of the smaller States might become precarious and even unendurable. Look again at the Paris Conference. What need have we of any further witness? The small States so far have not had a fair say in the destinies of the world and, therefore, not in their own, and I think they would need ample opportunity in any reforming of Western Europe.
  The Field-Marshal went on to say something even more germane to this Motion. He said that regional organizations are better qualified than a world organization to watch particular situations in their own area. I think that is eminently true. He proceeded to say that if no one will take the lead in pressing for this regional political union, let us at least begin on the economic plane as recommended by a

  557
  Committee of the Social and Economic Commission of the United Nations. He instanced as a beginning the extension of the Customs union between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. He then said something even more cogent, that at present Europe is split up into a large number of small national units which in peace often mutually frustrate each other and in war make their own security more doubtful. That I think is incontestable, but I would not confine that remark to the smaller Powers. Heaven knows that the greater Powers have also in the past made their own security more doubtful. After all, the British Army was nearly cut off in 1914, and the French and British Armies were cut off in 1940. Here, however, there is a large identity of view.
  In only one respect would I venture to differ from what the Field-Marshal said. He affirmed that France had refused the offer to take the lead in what he termed "this most important matter of common European interests." He was referring, of course, to the French reception of Mr. Churchill's speech at Zurich. It is true that the French refused any suggestion for an association or partnership with Germany. At the present juncture who would not? I will deal with that later. But on the general issue France did not refuse. She hesitated, and that also is extremely natural, because at present, to speak plainly, the most numerous Party in France is the Communist Party, and, like Communist Parties elsewhere, most unfortunately and through no fault of ours it is anti-British, for all the honeyed words that M. Thorez has recently sought to insert in the British Press. But that only makes it all the more essential that we should give a strong lead to our sorely tried and, to me, still dear French friends.
  After all, we can hardly expect them to stand up against the daily deluge of Moscow's Anglophobia unless we give them something to hold on to. So far we have given them nothing adequate, despite one tentative overture on their part. That lead should not be hard to give. We have had our difficulties and differences with the French, but on the whole we come very favourably out of any comparison with the Russians. The French and the Russians have had an alliance for two years, and we have not had that with the French. What has been the result? So far, on the major issues,
  558
  where there has been a clash of interests between the French and the Germans, the Russians have given the preference to the Germans, most notably in the Russian policy of pressing for the reconstitution of another centralized and unified Reich which might be presenting the Fourth Republic with a fourth death warrant. In all of this there is nothing to deter the French from closer association with old friends and closer neighbours. Indeed, I think that there are many wise Frenchmen who realize now that France will not easily become a great Power unless she combines with us to make Western Europe a great Power.
  In rebutting the absurd charge that co-ordination means reaction, when I first spoke I confined myself to quoting Left Wing support. It is now time to turn to the Right. Nine days after Field-Marshal Smuts had spoken, Mr. Eden spoke in Brussels. He said that the Western, European family must grow even more closely together. He urged a strong community of thought, of economic interest and political practice. The purpose of this collaboration would be the preventing of a repetition of the events of 1914 and 1940. On the basis of these regional organizations the wider world organization might be buttressed, and a closer understanding in one area might lead to a wider understanding. Those last sentences, to which I draw your Lordships' special attention, are the essence of the matter. Like the fear of God, they are the beginning, but not the end, of wisdom.
  Now I come in rather more detail to Mr. Churchill's speech at Zurich. It would be difficult to expect anyone in Europe at present to envisage any form of association or partnership with Germany. The material and spiritual future of Germany are still wrapped in far too grave an obscurity, and on the moral side the emotions are not favourable. When Herr Schumacher told us four days ago of the regrowth of German nationalism he was telling us nothing that we did not know already and, if I may say so, I hardly think that our prospects for the future are enhanced by a growing tendency in this country to speak as if the Germans were the only suffering people, and as if we alone were responsible for them. Canards of that kind come home to roost before many days, and we might have learnt that from previous experience. After the last war we went to hell by three

  559
  stages. We began by pity for the Germans, which merged very naturally into sympathy with them, and turned equally naturally into Germanophilia. I am as humane a man as any in this House, although I do sometimes think of other people besides the Germans. I have no objection whatever to the first two stages, provided they do not turn into the third before there is any warrant. I think there might not be any such warrant for a generation.
  Nothing in all that, however, has effected the economic and geographical fact that the industries of Western Germany are an integral, although not an exclusive, part of the life of Western Europe, and must have their appropriate place in it. The emphasis must be upon the word "appropriate." The political future of Germany is a very different matter. That must depend upon the political structure of Germany and we do not yet know what that structure is going to be. Only one solution can give us an innocuous Germany, and that is the federal one, but we do not know whether we are going to get it. We do not know, even if we do get it, whether it will be the right kind of federalism. In this case there are two kinds, the good and the worthless. The worthless is the method from on high. You set up your Central Government in Berlin—and what a place to choose after all these warnings!—and Berlin then ordains that certain functions shall appertain to the Provincial Governments. Now that form of federalism is worthless, because what is given from on high can lye revoked from on high. The only form that is any good is that which proceeds from the circumference to the centre. In other words the Provincial Governments, first and firmly established, ordain that certain functions such as Custom and Excise and Communications shall appertain to the Central Government, and then if the Central Government abuses its position, as is so often shown by past history, it is up to the Provincial Governments to revoke their consent.
  I am not going any further into that to-day, beyond making the obvious point that a federalized Germany will obviously fit more easily than a centralized one into any future European Federation. We may not be able to federalize all Germany, but we could at least federalize the south and the west. In that case such
  560
  a reliable element will harmonize more easily within any Western European Federation. But to-day I am not talking about any Western European Federation. That may be the second or the third stage. To-day I am talking about nothing but the rock-bottom common sense of co-ordination. I think it will be apparent from that that no partnership or association is at present possible between Germany or France or, indeed, Germany and anyone. That is just not practical politics now, nor as a matter of fact, is a United States of Europe practical politics now. It is an aspiration and a noble ideal to which we can all pay heartfelt homage; our grandchildren or our children perhaps may see them, if our world meanwhile has not been totally destroyed by some fresh attempt to force upon it another totalitarianism. But how, for the present, could you integrate all Europe when Eastern Europe devotes all the resources of its propaganda to rejecting Western Europe with contumely? Look at the frauds that do duty for elections in that part of the world. How rightly, and how vainly, we have tried to correct them. The Government was condemning them only yesterday.
  I see that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has a Motion down on to-morrow's Paper pressing for the better treatment of minorities. Of course, I do not anticipate him, but I would merely say what, in any circumstances, I would have said to-day—I fear that it may be rather behind the galloping times. Minority treaties were the good intention after the First World War; what we need to-day are not minority treaties but majority treaties—treaties for the better treatment of majorities. All over Eastern Europe tiny and tyrannical minorities are in front and they rule with a rod of iron. How would you integrate that with this vision? If we made an advance they would have none of us.
  If you want to convince yourself how hopeless at the present moment any United States of Europe are, you have only to remember the reception given in Eastern Europe to Mr. Churchill's speech. They condemned as reactionary a policy whose failing is that it is too progressive for our times. They dubbed "incendiary" one of man's most abiding and elusive visions of peace. It may well be

  561
  that the United States of Europe are part of the vision with which Tennyson in his In Memoriam said:
  "…. one far-off divine event
  To which the whole creation moves."
  But note well, he said, "far-off." Even before that, he had written in Locksley Hall" the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world". That was over a hundred years ago. How far have we moved since then? Not very far. And why? Perhaps it was too general, perhaps we were asking too much and too soon, in contrast with our usual habit of too little and too late.
  He was succeeded by more practical visionaries. Take, for example, the opinion of Henry Sedgwick, who died in 1900. After his death was published his book The Development of European Policy in which he most explicitly predicted the integration of the States of Western Europe. And he added: "This new political aggregate will be formed on the basis of federal quality." That was fifty years ago, and how far have we moved since then? Again, not very far. And why? I think for that there is little explanation or excuse. We have tried one very noble experiment, the League of Nations, and perhaps that also was too general. If, to use Mr. Eden's words, it had been buttressed upon a Western Regional Organization its fate would have been very different, and we ourselves would never have undergone that second Pentecost of calamity.
  I mention these cases to show that for a century men have been talking much and achieving little towards the realization of their own ideals. It is not necessary to say that we have done nothing because we would have everything. The French reply that the "better is the enemy of the good"; and so I ask what are we doing and what are we going to do in this sphere where progress is possible? I know that there have been fruitful conversations between British officials and French officials looking towards an increase in the general volume of trade and to a better exchange of books and films and tourism. Excellent but not enough. Where is the Anglo-French Alliance? For two years the French have had their alliance with the Soviet Government. Where is the Anglo-French counterpart? We must realize the responsibility for the time lag here. If it is we who are hanging back, why not press forward?
  562
  If the French still hesitate, why haven't we drawn closer to Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, as already suggested? Surely we are false to ourselves if, being unable to have forthwith "the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world," we do nothing to create that which we could have without further delay. Surely it is a dereliction of our duty merely to mark time when one practical step forward—le premier pas qui coute. and to our French friends I would say: qui coute si peu—might carry us foward to the full realization of our highest hopes and firmest forms of security.
  I have not only great respect but, if I may say so, great affection for this House. It has always endured me with courtesy. I believe that it still has a great part to play in the affairs of man by giving a moral lead where one is most required. I submit that the call is on us to-day. If anyone has any qualms on the subject I beg him to travel with me no further than the Albert Memorial—if he can bear it. You all know the ancient Greek legend of how the god Zeus, disguised as a bull, raped Europa. On one corner of the Memorial you will see the unruffled figure of Europa seated, side-saddle and all proper, upon a bull which shows no sign of that Mediterranean temperament. From this you may judge what our Victorian ancestors preferred to think of those foreign goings on, in so far as it was good form to talk about them at all. And then consider the Europe not of myth but of history, the Europe that you and I have known, torn and I tousled and bloody and raped by bull after bull, each one calling himself a god. I beg that to-day, my Lords, you will do what in us lies at least to preserve the virtue of Western Europe, for it is great. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That every encouragement should be given to the development of close political and economic relations between the countries of Western Europe, since the promotion of political and economic relations between the European States must contribute generally to the effective operation of the United Nations.—(Lord Vansittart.)
  5.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who has spoken so brilliantly to your Lordships

  563
  this afternoon, devoted some considerable part of his speech to the future position of Germany in relation to Western Europe. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him there. What I rise to do is to give very warm, personal support to the broad case for closer association between the nations of Western Europe which he has urged with such force. I think that the House should certainly be most grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter again, for it is one which to most of us is of the greatest urgency. I do not suppose that there is anyone who can, to-day, look at the Continent of Europe without grave anxiety. Often in past centuries Europe has been rent by great wars. But, I think that until lately the essential unity of the Continent has never been destroyed. During the eighteenth century—at least until the Napoleonic wars—it was never even seriously threatened.
  War, as your Lordships all know, was regarded in those days mainly as an affair of soldiers and sailors. I do not say that the civil population did not suffer. Of course they did in certain cases, but except in the battle areas the ordinary citizens in the countries that were at war—certainly this applies to the people of Britain—were, for the most part, relatively little affected by the conflict. Indeed, as one can read from the memoirs of that time, civilians used to pass to and fro across the borders of the warring States and very often through the zones of the armies themselves without let or hindrance. The fundamental unity of European society was so strong and so stable that it was, as I say, relatively unaffected by temporary conflicts. How great and deplorable a change has come about as the result of the events of the last thirty years. Lord Vansittart, in his speech, said that we had not moved very far in the right direction. I think that that is a classic understatement. We have moved a very long way and in the wrong direction. We, the nations of Europe, are becoming more and more like medieval fortresses with their garrisons looking out upon a hostile world. It is almost impossible, nowadays, for one to pay a visit to a neighbouring country without passports, without permits and licences innumerable, which are themselves the fruit of over developed national suspicions. It is a strange paradox that
  564
  at this time, when the means of transportation are more rapid and more efficient than ever before, human intercourse between the peoples of Europe and the exchange of goods and services are becoming increasingly more difficult.
  What must be the inevitable end of this deplorable tendency? Personally, I feel most profoundly that were this situation allowed to continue to deteriorate, as it has deteriorated in the last thirty years, we should soon be back at something very near the Dark Ages. It seems to me that some means must be found of recreating the unity of Europe, or Europe, and all that is meant by European civilization will perish. As Lord Vansittart has said, that was the theme of the very remarkable and far-sighted speech made not very many weeks ago by Mr. Churchill at Zurich, followed by another equally impressive speech by Field-Marshal Smuts at The Hague. Mr. Churchill, it will be remembered, took as his text the necessity, if European civilization is to survive, of the constitution of a United States of Europe. Who will quarrel with his conception of that as an ultimate objective of European policy? I can think of no one. We have only got to look at the United States of America, happy, united and prosperous, and then turn our eyes to tortured, distracted Europe to draw our own conclusions.
  But it would be idle to imagine—and I do not suppose that either Mr. Churchill or Field-Marshal Smuts would ever suggest it—that the progress of the European Continent towards federation or even confederation will be easy or rapid. The wounds of the past are too deep and too painful. Distrust and suspicion are too deeply rooted to be easily or quickly eliminated. Let us indeed keep the United States of Europe before us as an ultimate aim for ourselves, or our children, or our children's children. But do not let us fall into the error of imagining that it can be approached except by very gradual stages. Indeed Field-Marshal Smuts clearly recognized this both in his speech at The Hague and the subsequent speech which he delivered at Brussels, in which he advocated more restricted groupings, economic, I think, or political, if the greater aim of the United States was not immediately attainable. As I understand it, it is to the purpose of defining that first essential stage on this long journey towards European unity and to urging His

  565
  Majesty's Government to take the first step on that road, that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has devoted his remarks to-day. He has pleaded that immediate action should be taken to inaugurate closer association between the countries of Western Europe. Personally—and I have no doubt that I speak for many other noble Lords—I believe that to be an essential preliminary to any further progress towards wider European unity.
  Such a closer connexion would not be directed against any other country. When, not long ago, the United States of America negotiated the terms of the Treaty of Chualtepec that was not regarded—so far as I am aware—as offensive action against anybody else. Nor have we in this country made the slightest complaint against the arrangements which Russia has made with her neighbours in Eastern Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, reminded us this afternoon that the Charter of the United Nations blesses such arrangements—I will quote the words of the Charter—so long as they are consistent with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. All we and our neighbours at the west end of this continent would be doing would be strictly in harmony with the principles of the Charter. We should indeed be actively buttressing and strengthening the United Nations by re-creating that unity of spirit by which alone international co-operation can be given reality.
  We, the nations of Western Europe, are the trustees of a long tradition, of a civilization free and tolerant, of all that we comprehend by the word Christendom. On the firm foundation that we have provided, the greatness of the nations of the new world is based. It would be tragic if Western Europe, which has given so much to the World, were to crumble into disunity and chaos. Yet I believe that is a very real danger to-day. Moreover, as I took the liberty to point out to your Lordships the last time I spoke on this subject—and I hope you will forgive me for reverting to the subject to-day—there are far greater advantages to be gained by such an association than merely European ones. The nations of Western Europe include the great Colonial Powers—France, Holland, Belgium and Portugal. Throughout Africa and the Far East their interests, and the interests of the British Commonwealth, are closely interwoven. In many areas of Western and Central
  566
  Africa—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, knows better than anyone—the territories of those countries and our own form—or should form—closely integrated economic units. On questions of communications, of health, of labour policy and on a hundred other aspects of current policy, close and constant consultation between these countries and ourselves and the other Empire countries, is not only desirable but necessary, if the best results are to be obtained. In this aspect of the policy which I am urging, the interests of ourselves and of our Dominions are identical.
  The European aspect of the Western Pact is not by any means the only one which makes it so desirable. It could equally be recommended for the imperial advantages which it gives to the nations concerned. I personally wish that it could have been brought to fruition earlier in the war, when the French; Belgian and Dutch Governments were still in London, and in daily touch with His Majesty's Government. I believe that a valuable opportunity was missed. But at that time the preoccupations of war held all our main attention, and it was understandably difficult to look far into the future. In any case, it is not too late now. But in my belief there is no time to be lost.
  I understand that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is to reply, and I feel sure that there will be no opposition from the Government to this Motion. The advantages of the policy which it urges must be just as obvious to the Government as they are to us. But there seems to be some reason, which I have never been properly able to understand; why the Government cannot go ahead with practical negotiations. Possibly the explanation is to be found in the natural preoccupations of the Foreign Secretary with his negotiations with the Big Five and the United Nations Organization. He has so herculean a task that it seems unfair that those who have not the same responsibility should press him too hard in this matter. But vital time is passing, and what is practicable now may well not be practicable later on. There is no sphere where it is so true as it is in foreign affairs, that it is essential to strike while the iron is hot. Otherwise new combinations of circumstances arise, and then, too late, it is found that a golden and irrecoverable opportunity has been lost.

  567
  I would, therefore, ask the Government to-day to tell us, if they can, where is this hold-up? Is it in our own country? Is it in one of the other countries? We have never been told, and there must be many, like myself, who are beginning to be increasingly bewildered and disturbed at this continued delay. I know how difficult it is to talk very freely, in public, on these questions, especially when some progress is, as I hope, taking place. But I hope it will be possible for the Government spokesman to tell us not only that he sympathizes with the policy that is the subject of the Motion, but that definite steps are being taken—or are about to be taken—to give effect to it. I am sure such an announcement would be warmly welcomed by every thinking man and woman in this country, irrespective of his or her Party. I do beg His Majesty's Government to give us some encouragement on this vital question, for I believe most profoundly, that the achievement of some closer relationship between the nations of Western Europe is of transcendent importance for the future not only of this country and of the British Empire, but also of Western Europe itself and, indeed, of the world.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, in rising to associate my noble friends on this Bench with what has been said and, in particular, with the Resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, I do not wish to follow either the noble Lord or the noble Viscount who has just sat down into the details of ways and means. Nor will I follow them into discussing the ultimate objective of a United States of Europe, believing, as I do, that that may be premature, and that to hold that out as one's goal is perhaps to commit the error (to which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, referred) of seeking for the best and neglecting immediate progress. If we look back over the last twelve or eighteen months, how apparent it is that so far from there having been closer co-operation and greater integration in Western Europe, in point of fact the opposite has taken place. In my view a great deal of that is undoubtedly due to what has been done, or not been done, or what is arising out of what has been done in Germany, because I cannot see how there can be integration or co-operation between the western nations in Europe, let alone between
  568
  the nations of Europe as a whole, if Germany is eliminated from that group.
  It is surely impossible for anyone to conceive of the removal of 60,000,000 producers and consumers from a European economy, or even from a world economy, without foreseeing also the shattering consequences which we have witnessed in the last twelve months. Therefore, it is with gratitude and satisfaction that we welcome the announcement made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, on the fusion of at least two of the zones in Germany into an economic unit—or into what we hope will become an economic unit—even if that fusion does not apparently cover government and political development there. That that fusion has taken place is, perhaps, due to the results that we have witnessed in the opposite direction over the last twelve months—results for which His Majesty's Government, in this country, as well as other Governments, have their share of responsibility.
  At any rate, one of the points that I must regret, without wishing to criticize what has been done, is that that disintegration, which has now in part been repaired, was ever allowed to happen when the war with Germany ceased. Naturally, it will fall to many of your Lordships to ask if, in this fusion which has taken place by the agreement, which has been announced, the third element in Western Germany—the French zone—is to be brought in. The importance of that zone and the importance of the fusion of the two zones in Germany, if not in the context of this Motion, is clearly a question of the future of Germany itself. It is a fundamental issue in what is to happen to the economy of Western Europe, and it does not require imagination, statistics, or information to see why. Unless the productivity of Western Germany is re-integrated into Europe, no economic regional organization is possible either in France, in Belgium, in Holland or in Luxembourg. We have hoped to see, in what may generally be called the Lowlands some "getting together," some unity of economic and social policy which, if my information is right, is in process of happening to some extent. Public opinion in Holland and Belgium certainly appears to be verging in that direction. I believe myself that there cannot be a fait accompli until a solution has been found for Western Germany and the

  569
  economy of Western Germany, which is so intimately tied up with these Lowland countries.
  Having raised that question, I feel that I must rather unwillingly touch on one other point about Germany as a whole. No doubt we would all wish to see Germany treated as a whole, treated, at any rate, as one single problem, treated as an economic entity. It may be that what has happened over the last twelve months has now made that, if not impossible, at any rate, extremely difficult, and so we are driven inevitably to accept the position as we find it, which is that there is a dividing line between Eastern and Western Germany and Eastern and Western Europe, a point which I beg leave to come back to in a minute. But within what it is in our power to do, I suggest that hitherto we have been remiss in not doing as much as we should have done, not only there, but also in those other countries to which the two noble Lords who have preceded me have referred. I think perhaps I can find an explanation of the delay which was referred to by the noble Lord who has just sat down; for delay there has been.
  Your Lordships will recall that on March 7, my noble friend the Earl of Perth said that we could not allow our foreign policy to suffer because of lack of co-operation on the Russian side. He was speaking in the context of closer foreign relations with France. To that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who spoke for His Majesty's Government, said that His Majesty's Government welcomed M. Gouin's statement of January 29, which tentatively, as your Lordships know, proposed a closer relationship with France. M. Gouin's statement was made on January 29, and the statement of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was made in your Lordships' House on March 7. Nothing had been done by that time, and, so far as I am aware, nothing has been done since. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack went on to say—and this perhaps was the clue or the explanation—
  "But now we have dealt with the various matters connected with the United Nations Organization, we shall certainly take it up. We desire, as a fundamental matter, to have the closest possible friendship and relations with France."
  Again on July 29, he went further and said:
  570
  "I cannot believe that there could be anyone who could see in an alliance between this country and France any danger to others or threat to the peace of the world."
  That was in July. Since then again nothing has been done. I should like to come back to that in a minute.
  The relations which His Majesty's Government have had with various other countries on economic and social issues—I take the example, if I may, of Scandinavia—have been dealt with in each case as several problems. Our issues with Denmark have been one problem; those with Norway another; those with Sweden another. Again, on economic issues with Belgium, with Holland and with France—they have all been dealt with severally. If there were a desire to integrate Western Europe, to group the nations of Western Europe, at any rate, with economic regions, without necessarily entering into defensive or other commitments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, referred, why are all those relations with these various countries always treated as several problems instead of being taken in groups? Why do we have to deal with the three Scandinavian countries all separately, not consistently very often with what they are trying to do among themselves, and failing in this particular case to take a lead, and a very eminent lead, which was given by Sweden in the contribution which Sweden has made to the reconstruction of Europe, and integrate that with what we are trying to do? So far as I am aware, no sort of attempt has been made in that direction at all.
  So we have drifted on. We have drifted on, in the case of the French, for over twelve months, in spite of the spokesman for His Majesty's Government having agreed that the move was right and ought to have been taken, and indeed could now be taken, as the noble Lord said. Still nothing has been done. That catalogue could be extended possibly to include inconsistencies in expressed views about Austria, Italy and other countries. But I do not wish to weary your Lordships with a catalogue of what might appear to be criticisms. May I here interject that, so far as I personally am concerned—and I am sure I speak for the noble Lords on these Benches—no sort of criticism whatsoever is intended of what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has sought to do and has achieved in the last twelve months. His courage,

  571
  his patience above all things, and his single-mindedness, have earned the praise and support of, I think, everyone in your Lordships' House and, I should say, with a few exceptions perhaps, of the whole of the country. So if what I have said may appear to be critical, it is not intended as such. It is intended to express wonder why this other side has not been taken up. I should like in a minute to suggest my explanation for it, and, if that is right, it is one which can be remedied.
  In view of the disintegration of Europe, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has referred, the matter is clearly urgent, because we are drifting to what may well be the dark ages of modern Europe. I do not know whether the method of historical analogy or history really can teach us anything in these circumstances in which we find ourselves. But there is to me, at least, one extremely striking period in history where some analogy may be found to what we are now faced with. Many of your Lordships will be aware that in 800, 1,100 years ago, Charlemagne was crowned in Rome as the Holy Roman Emperor. Out of that grew the Holy Roman Empire. That was the first attempt in Europe, so far as I know, of closer integration among several and separate nations who, by and large, thought the same, and of probably the greatest of all contributions to modern history until we come down to modern times of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter. It is a very curious and strange fact that that event took place when Charlemagne had found it necessary to establish a line, not a closely fortified line but a line of demarcation, which was first called the Limes Sorabicus and then became known as the Limes Carolingius, which ran, strangely enough, from the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Lubeck, west of Magdeburg, west of Leipzig, cut through Vienna, followed the line of the Julian Alps and ended up at Trieste. What lay west of that became Western Europe and the civilization that we know.
  What made that possible was a community of ideas. It was at that time the Christianity and the Christian ethic against the paganism in the East. It is strange that that ideological boundary between east and west of those days is precisely the ideological boundary to
  572
  which other speakers have alluded in your Lordships' House before now, and which is the one which faces us now. If that boundary cannot be transgressed, through no fault of ours, we can at least do on our western side of that boundary what Charlemagne and his successors did a thousand years ago. It is that which His Majesty's Government have in this and in so many other places been constantly urged to do, and in regard to which three of us, at any rate, this evening have found it in us to regret that further progress has not been made up to date.
  I said earlier on that I would try to find an explanation, and if the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in his reply were to record in his mind the possible explanation against future use it might perhaps be a suggestion which would cure the difficulties that we see. When some eighteen months ago your Lordships discussed the then recent birth of the United Nations I had cause to complain of how much emphasis had been put on security and the Security Council and how little reference had been made anywhere, even in your Lordships' House, save for one brief reference by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to the Social and Economic Council. Has what has been happening not been a perhaps undue pursuit of security from fear of war, from fear for our own security, which has blinded, or at any rate dazzled, His Majesty's Government and others into not giving that same weight and attention to the social and economic aspect of the United Nations? Had that been done there could have been no criticism of what may come out of the regional association, because that is specifically provided for and implicit in all economic arrangements envisaged under U.N.O.
  Is this not an example possibly of the result of fear? We have chased after the ideal of security for fear of what the consequences might be and have forgotten too much the every-day things that matter to us to keep alive. And what have been the consequences? The economy of Europe is dying. If there is therefore criticism of the Foreign Minister, and perhaps others, is it not that there has been a chasing after security born out of fear instead of seeking to reconstruct and mend where it is possible? I do not say that the united nations of the world which will produce security is not the right aim of His Majesty's Government

  573
  as for any other Government, but I do say that that aim and that alone should not be the sole guiding spirit of our foreign policy, and that those gaps which I see, and which I believe others of your Lordships will have seen, to which reference has been made to-day, come from the dazzling ideal of world government and from the fear for our own security to the neglect of more ordinary and in some ways, perhaps, simpler things. If I may relapse into a colloquialism: Are His Majesty's Government perhaps not, and have they not been for the last twelve months, seeking to anchor the rainbow, the rainbow which is the symbol of peace; and in the process of doing that have they forgotten to get their umbrella mended, left their goloshes at home and gone out without a mackintosh? If that is the explanation of these gaps that we find in our foreign policy they are remediable, but they must be remedied before we get pneumonia.
  5.39 p.m.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has said what was so much in my mind to say that I hope I may be shorter than I feared I might be. Let me begin by saying that I do not think anybody, if he were regarding this problem as a general problem, could deny its importance. It is quite clear, is it not, that it is worth everything to the world to preserve the individual cultures of the relations of Western Europe and that they must not be absorbed by any one all-embracing State. But is it not equally clear that in this modern world in which we live for certain purposes they are inevitably too small? It is clear that we need economic organizations in Europe which must go beyond the bounds of the small States, and unless we somehow correct that the whole economy of Europe will go to pieces. I do not know how far noble Lords will remember that in the war we had a good deal of evidence that people in Europe felt that, for all Hitler's evil, he promised one good thing—the economic unification of Europe; and to some extent he did it. People felt that if that were turned in the right direction and done by decent statesmen instead of by thieves it would be of great benefit. I think there are signs in Europe of a feeling that the present cutting up of Europe into these small isolated entities is a very heavy price to pay for liberation.
  574
  Part of our difficulty in regarding this question of the association of Western Europe is that it may mean, I think, two different things. Some of the people who press for it are concerned primarily with questions of security and of power. They think, with a good deal of justice, that the smaller States of Western Europe are too small minnows to swim in the same pond as—I do not think they will be offended by this—such lusty trout as Russia and the United States. Trout are beautiful fish, but it is not good to put them, large as they are, with very small fish, and the small fish are sometimes disturbed about it. When you think in those terms you think primarily in terms of common armaments and common power. I think there might come a day when you will have to think about that very hard, and not only to think about it but to act; but surely we can see the dangers which that project is bound to produce at the present time in the atmosphere of distrust which exists in Europe and which is bound to exist for some time.
  I do not think the same thing can possibly hold good when you consider the question of economic reconstruction. But the moment you talk about economic things you come up against the question, which I was going to ask of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, but I think he made it clear in his speech: Where does Western Europe end on the east? Does it end on the Rhine, or on the Elbe or on the Oder? I gather he thought on the Rhine, but I may be doing him an injustice. I agree with him—I do not very often do that—that at the present time it would be foolish to talk of a political association of Western Europe which was to include Germany. As Germany stands at this moment you could not conceivably do it. You would have to know what the future of Germany was going to be and you would have to face, if you did it now, the problem of dividing Germany and of deciding where you were going to divide it. It may be that, patient though we are, we may have reluctantly to give it up as a bad job; we may have to fall back on Lord Rennell's and Charlemagne's line. But we must surely not give up quite so soon the notion of there being a chance—and I put it this way—that Germany could possibly be a bridge in Europe and not a gulf.
  I think that if we say we should associate at once, and as closely as we can, the

  575
  nations of Western Europe, and if we say that the Eastern frontier of Europe is the Rhine and that Germany is excluded, apart from the frightful economic consequences which would ensue we should give up the notion that Germany, or even the Rhineland, could possibly be a bridge. We should create a yawning gulf between the two sides, which would be in that sense empty and invite attack from both sides. The real danger at the moment, as far as I can gather—and I have heard a good deal from people who have been talking to the German young—is that when the Germans get bitter (and there are causes for bitterness) those in the West think they are going to lead a crusade of the West against Russia and that we should be only too pleased to join it. Whether they say the correspondingly opposite thing east of the Elbe I do not know, but I should have thought it was at any rate conceivable. If you leave Germany alone and say you cannot grapple with it, that is going to happen. Therefore it seems to me that it is right to say that we hope there will be political association between the nations of Western Europe, but I think the practical things to do now and at once lie far more in the economic and to some extent in the cultural sphere. It is surely obvious that Europe cannot do without industrial Germany; it cannot do without the Ruhr and it will have to have far more than the Ruhr. Unless therefore we devote ourselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has said, to dealing with the question of industrial Germany, the whole situation will get worse and worse.
  I always think, if I may be allowed to say so to him, that the noble Lord who moved this Motion is so terribly concerned about anybody ever thinking too much about the Germans that he will not ever look at his own, perhaps I may be allowed to call it, sentimentalism. Would he mind being a little more realistic about it and asking himself what makes people nationalist and Nazi? It is not just the evil character of the Germans; it is being treated in a wrong way, feeling a certain amount of despair and frustration and thinking that nothing could conceivably be worse than present conditions. I think there is every evidence to show that that kind of thing is breeding in the German youth, and if I were a German young man it would breed in me. That
  576
  is the way people feel. I do not mean to say that as a result of that you should do nothing politically at the moment about Germany, but I do think you must do something economically.
  May I make a further point? I want to know how you are to do it. We have listened this afternoon, I am sure with welcome, to the announcement of the union of these two zones. Yet I saw in the Press a statement by someone who had anticipated this, deploring the thought that the American zone and the British zone were going to be united, on the ground that our views on how to run an industrial community and those of the Americans were very different. I hope that the Americans will teach us, and will themselves adopt, what they learnt in their great experiments like that of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It seems to me that America has seen that a far-reaching and wide economic plan can be separated from politics and developed on its own. This is my further point. Is not the only way to separate it from politics to try somehow or other to get the economic reconstruction of Germany and the integration of German economy in Europe done not by Russia, England, America and France, but by the United Nations or by some Committee of that Organization? That may not be possible, but I think it would be immensely preferable that that responsibility should be laid upon the United Nations and not, as it is now, upon Powers which are partly engaged in this ideological struggle. It may not be possible, but it would be preferable if you could get it done by the United Nations, as was hinted in the last words of the noble Lord's Motion.
  I do not think he meant exactly that but he chose happy words for my purpose even if you had to bring in the whole of Europe. If you had as partners not only France, and the conquering Powers—America, Russia and this country—I should also like to name Sweden. I should like to bring in those Powers which are interested—Belgium and, above all, Holland, who are concerned about the effect of the whole Ruhr and German industry upon the prosperity of Europe. I think you must do that. I think if you stop at a line and say: "Not any further," you are just asking for trouble.
  There is one thing more I want to say, which is a smaller thing and yet, I

  577
  think, important. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, pointed out what a very little way we had gone, not just in political relations but in simpler things which we may roughly call the process of getting together. Would it not be possible to take up very strongly and actively the whole business about the regulations which make travel so difficult, visas and all the rest of it? I should like the British Council or some authority to see that that is done, and I am sure it would pay to finance people to go all over Western Europe. Above all, I would like them to believe in the young. I do not think anything will unite Europe like abundant intercourse between the young. After the last war the most healing influence was work done by young men working for the International Students Service. Whilst the elder statesmen were talking, wondering and saying, "Yes, but at the same time you must remember this, and you must remember that," the young men went and did it. They cannot do it now because they are not allowed to. There are already reports which I have read of an International Students Conference held by the French, with the Germans, Americans and French talking together. That will do more to unify Europe than anything. But I think it must occur freely, easily and on a large scale. It cannot be done now because the difficulties are so great, and therefore I hope that the Government will not forget the cultural side.
  The poverty of books is frightful, not only in Germany but in France, Holland, Belgium, and the Scandinavian countries. It is worth anything that we should produce far more paper and get the books printed and over there, and you could begin to produce again a common culture in Europe. I do not think, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that the Holy Roman Empire was such an achievement as he affirmed. He said it was a beautiful conception but it did not do anything very practical. But what medieval Europe did have was a common culture, and people understood one another. That was the beginning. Now, however, the books are not there, the newspapers do not get about easily and people travel only with difficulty. That sounds a small thing, but I think it is more important than people sometimes realize. I think if we said, "This must be done, and the other things must wait," it would excite no suspicion. It is easily
  578
  done, but do it with energy, enthusiasm and determination, and then the people will find out the right way in which to produce the association of the countries of Western Europe. Because I do not think we know yet what that way ought to be. I think we ought to get together, and I suggest very strongly that the two ways in which we can get together and prepare for the tasks ahead which are quite appreciable—and this should be our final goal—are the economic way and the cultural way.
  5.55 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, to say that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, strikes at what is quite obviously the main problem of the day, is a mere banality. I should like to make a slightly less diplomatic approach to it, and suggest that it is quite useless to avoid the main issue. It is a question of the struggle which has broken out on a wide front between the iron curtain and unfettered man. We have this battle in its minor form being fought in Europe itself and in its major form in the world as a whole, represented by the sharply contrasted natures of the Russian and American conceptions of existence. For the prevalence of this problem in its present exacerbated form, we have, it is clear, only the Russians to thank, for without this new kind of war of nerves that she has declared the difficulty of reconciling the two modes of life could, there is no doubt, quite well be solved over a longer or shorter period of years by the evolutionary methods of which we are, I think, the oldest and best exponents.
  At the same time, there are certain new elements in this war or, shall we say, in this calculated antithesis, which have recently appeared on the scene and which ought not to pass unobserved. One is the reaction of the Eastern European countries to the Russian hold on them, and the other, much less easily calculable and visible, is the reaction of the Russians themselves to Europe consequent on their displacement from their own country. I was informed on good authority only the other day in Paris that when it is a question of the inhabitants of certain Balkan countries circulating between their own territory and Western Europe, the authorities not only do what they have been doing for some time—namely, refuse to

  579
  issue exit visas for those who have re-entered the country—but refuse even to issue re-entry visas for those who have left it. If this attitude does not indicate a heightened fear of contamination by Western ideas, then I do not know what it does indicate. Then again, a lecturer at Chatham House informed us not long ago that were it not for the tight hold of the secret police in Poland the whole country would be in a state of chaos, so violent is the renewed prejudice against domination of a foreign element, a prejudice, to use a mild word, which takes us back to the days of the Great Catherine and the Grand Duke Constantine.
  The point I wish to make is that these reactions may end by being strong enough in ten, twenty or thirty years time for the raison d'êre of the noble Lord's Motion to be a great deal less valid than it is to-day. I imagine that there are none of us who do not deplore its necessity, and who do not feel that in an age when Europe's world importance is so much diminished, and when Europe is more than ever a promontory of Asia, a united and if possible federalized Europe has become a plain and unescapable necessity, if its importance is not to disappear altogether. But since this is certainly not likely to take place in the near future, I feel that the noble Lord's Motion remains a timely and a justifiable one, and deserves our support. I suggest that His Majesty's Government owe us, in any case, a good deal more information than we have hitherto received on the progress made towards creating at least an economic unity in the West, if only because the obscurity of Russian designs and occasional spurts of unreasonableness on the part of the United States with regard to any imperialism but their own and to world markets, create a situation in which economic ties between countries like ours and like France, Belgium and Holland, which have behind them still territories containing undeveloped populations and large stocks of raw materials, could be the beginning of an entity powerful for good, since Western ideas on social reform are evolving on parallel lines, and useful as a resistance ground against aggression. This is a point which Lord Cranborne has admirably stressed.
  The political aspect is more obscure; there is the perennial problem of Spain, and—I think here I disagree with
  580
  my noble friend Lord Rennell—at least one Scandinavian country is likely to continue to sit on the fence; there is the frightful problem of Germany, where Potsdam and our own muddles, recently the subject of much trenchant comment and deservedly so, have combined to produce a state of affairs wherein, as pointed out not long ago in a highly significant article in Time and Tide, Germans who have no desire to live under Russian control are drifting, mentally and physically, in that direction through sheer exasperation. But if an approach can be made on the economic plane to something resembling a Western unity, the flag, by a reversal of the usual process, may well follow trade. In this case the flag is an all-important one—namely, that of European civilization, a flag that may, if we let the present opportunity pass, end by being furled altogether. No one but England can take the initiative in these matters, England, from whom so much is still expected in spite of our new weaknesses. As Mr. Stephen Spender, who attended the other day a conference of European writers at Geneva, has recently written, "We have reached a time when, if we cannot save Europe, Europe will sink us."
  6.04 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, by way of commencement on this very important Motion I should like, if you would allow me, to support every word uttered by my noble Leader. But I want to refer to one particular point in which I think His Majesty's Government might give an earnest of good intentions. I am rather like that very much under-rated gentleman, Mr. Squeers; I believe it is a very good thing to find something and do it. I think it would be a help in the present situation. I heard it announced on the wireless the other day that His Majesty's Government had supported a proposal to bring before the United Nations a discussion on how the present Government in Spain could be altered. I am bound to say that I heard that with great regret. For about 300 years Spain has been the cause of numerous wars in Europe, not so much by her own aggression as by reason of the preoccupation of the other European nations as to what was going on on the other side of the Pyrenees. I suggest the time has come when that bad habit should cease. After all, we have been authoritatively informed by the

  581
  United Nations that Spain is not a danger to European peace. That is, I think, as far as we are entitled to go.
  I do not want to go far back in history, but I would remind your Lordships that a year ago most of us who have taken an interest in Spain had very good hopes, and I think they were well founded hopes, that a change of Government and probably a peaceful revolution might take place in Spain. Unfortunately, the other nations of Europe and His Majesty's Government began to say that the internal government of Spain was a matter of concern to them. I drew the attention of your Lordships to that in March last, and to its probable consequences. These consequences have taken place. I saw the other day in an article in The Times that it was estimated that a year ago only 25 per cent. of the people in Spain were supporters of General Franco's Government and that to-day, owing to outside interference, 75 per cent. of the people of Spain were supporters of General Franco's Government. That is only to be expected. At the moment His Majesty's Government of this country is not very popular with a large section of their countrymen, but if any outside person of any kind, private or national, were to attempt to interfere with His Majesty's Government or to dictate to us how we should be governed, we should be the very first to rally round them. They know it, and it is the strength of their position. I do not see why we should think that Spaniards are any less patriotic than we are ourselves.
  If your Lordships will not accept figures from a newspaper article, you have only to consider the tone of what I might call the revolutionary Government outside Spain. You will have noticed how that group of gentlemen have lowered their tone very considerably owing to the increasing support for General Franco in Spain. On the previous occasion I was very glad to get an assurance from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that however earnestly we desired a change of Government in Spain it would not be set up by force of arms by His Majesty's Government. But if this is brought before the United Nations, how is it going to be effected? It seems to me there are only three ways. One is to stir up a civil war in Spain; the second is to exercise a blockade; and the third, which I hardly venture to mention in your Lordships' House, is assassination. I can see
  582
  no other way than these three. Which of these three would it be best for the United Nations to adopt? Spain has had enough and to spare of civil war in the last 150 years, and it would be an unthinkable crime that we, who have just come through a war of the kind that has been fought in Europe without any real personal suffering ourselves, should, from our safety, try to bring these sufferings to any other part of Europe. I think that is unthinkable. With regard to a blockade, on this I would like to quote what was said by the Minister of State on October 14 in another place. He pointed out, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, how a blockade must bring unthinkable suffering on the Spanish people themselves.
  It would certainly remove some obstacles for the integration of Europe if, for a short time, any mention of Spain could be dropped. Interference will only strengthen the present régime. Worse than that, because, after all, what is the United Nations? It is an organization for world peace. The 1914–1918 war was a war to end war. The last war, as far as I can see, was to end civilization. The next war will be a war to end Man, and if we want to avoid a war to end Man we must have an organization whose job is, in the words of St. Paul, "to seek peace and to ensue it," and not to stir up war in places where it does not at present exist. I only put that forward as a good example of what can be done to bring peace back to this distracted Western Europe, and if sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government do think along the lines of the Motion that has been moved to-day.
  6.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we have had, as we always do have in this House on these subjects, an exceedingly well-informed discussion, and I would like to say at the outset that, so far as the form of the Motion moved by Lord Vansittart is concerned, we have no objection to it; in fact we think it emphasizes a very vital necessity, that it points to some possibility of immediate progress and should therefore be given effect to so far as that is possible. I feel that, before I come to the immediate elements in the noble Lord's Motion, it is right to say something of the background of these matters at the moment, something which is in the minds of all of us. Whilst we recognize fully that greater co-operation

  583
  between adjacent States can but be for the good, not only of themselves, but of their neighbours, and is therefore by all means to be fostered, we cannot lose sight of the fact that, at the present moment in human history, there seems to be a sort of race between the development of international co-operation on the one side and the application of the inventions of science to wholesale destruction on the other. That is in the background of what is happening at the present time.
  History has shown us over and over again how slow nations are to modify their habits, to adjust their practices to new emergencies—and that is precisely one of the great dangers of the present time. It appears that the inventions of science race ahead much more quickly than man moves in his readjustment to new forms of association which would be a safeguard against the dangers with which science is threatening us. It is no use hiding from ourselves the fact that as a result of this, shall I say, race of science towards the development of destructive power, it may be possible to place in the hands of quite a few people agencies for spreading destruction wholesale and for inaugurating a world-wide catastrophe. I feel that, behind all this, the world is looking with strained anxiety to the efforts that are being made to evolve some international organization which will help us to co-operate on a wider scale than we have ever done before, and will provide security for the people. In fact, there is no reason at all why national differences, national characteristics, should not, themselves, be retained and even developed and become valuable elements in a greater unity than has ever been known before.
  The noble Lord's Motion, at all events to my mind, calls up something of our own past history. But the lesson of our own history is not altogether encouraging at this moment. It took us, in this island, hundreds of years to forget our internal feuds and to act in common. But that has not meant diminution of the value of the national differences of the Scot or the Englishman: in the results they have contributed to a greater unity. The British Commonwealth of Nations is another wonderful illustration of individuality developed and flourishing as part of a greater association. The noble Lord's
  584
  Motion points to other associations which should be developed. He mentioned some of them, and they are obvious to us. There are the common interests of the Scandinavian States and the common interests of the States mentioned by my noble friend who sits behind me—Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and others. There is every reason why closer and closer association between neighbouring States should be fostered.
  I am glad that your Lordships gave a welcome to the small advance—and it is only a small advance—that is signified an the statement that I made to-day about the decision to work in common for economic and other purposes the American and British zones in Germany. In answer to the noble Viscount opposite, I will only say at the moment that I hope it is the beginning of a wider association, but he knows, as well as anybody in this House or outside it, how difficult and tedious is the task of bringing about some of these developments. But, at any rate, this is a welcome beginning, and the point I wish to make is that increased consultation between the active community of interests in Western Europe does not mean any hostility whatever to a wider association. We have got to keep that in our minds all the time or we shall be heading for trouble. Elsewhere in the world you see the same disposition. You see a great movement amongst the Arab countries, for example, for increased consultation. Well, increased consultation, either forced or otherwise, in the Slav regions of the world, is going on before our eyes. It has been referred to more than once today. What we have to do is to make sure that, while we do everything we can to foster ever closer international associations between neighbours, we do not do anything that will divide Europe into East and West as opposing entities; otherwise the end, I am quite sure, must inevitably be disaster. At the same time, we cannot, I think, imagine that the world can continue with national ambitions and national aspirations as they have been in the immediate past or as they are now. The noble Lord spoke of the declension that had taken place in Europe in that respect. It is manifest that national aspirations national characteristics and ideals, must be merged in common efforts with other nations.
  My noble friend behind me said that he hoped that the efforts made to foster

  585
  better neighbourly relations and associations, particularly on economic lines, would make progress. Let me say on that, that nobody is keener than my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on getting rid of all the nuisances of visas, and so on, to which the noble Viscount referred. If this were a one-sided affair, I can tell him with complete confidence, half the bother would have been done away with a long time ago. Unfortunately, it is not a one-sided affair. We on our side are most anxious to promote better travel facilities and increased movement of students, university representatives, and others, between ourselves and our neighbours. And vitally important it is.
  We cannot, however, think in terms of the old lines of the maps. Take the case of Germany, which is a problem that the United Nations have not yet begun to consider. Whilst Germany must have, and ought to have, on its Western side, an integration—if you like to use the term without too formal a sense—with Luxembourg, Belgium and France, for economic and a hundred other reasons, you cannot have an Eastern Germany without similar associations and needs for a community with Poland. This sort of association is just as urgent on one side as on the other. In other words, if we are going to ask for a future scheme of peace in the world, we cannot contemplate the hard and fast division of Europe into East and West, do whatever we may to foster associations on either side. Therefore, while His Majesty's Government are sympathetic and active in seeking to bring about those closer neighbourly associations in economic matters, and in other matters which lie within the noble Lord's Motion (with which we are in hearty sympathy), we are at the same time possessed with the necessity of securing that we do not foster developments which will divide the world once more into opposing camps of East and West.
  We are all disappointed with what has been happening in the United Nations Organization during the last twelve months, but still the Organization has made some progress. During the last few weeks, some tantalizing differences have been accommodated, and I would suggest that whilst we do everything we can to foster closer neighbourly relations, and to improve economic co-operation between
  586
  neighbours in the west of Europe—wherever feasible, and particularly where there are kindred civilizations—we must never lose sight of the necessity of doing everything we can to help the United Nations to come together sufficiently to establish a machinery which will enable national differences, openly and fairly, to be discussed in public, and which will gradually help to remove the essential causes of strife. We must not, and we will not, with infinite patience and despite an infinity of setbacks, lose sight of the need to do everything we can to foster the development of a healthy and strong United Nations Organization. I wish to say that very emphatically. We must try to build around this Organization the machinery for dealing with the misery in the world, for fostering development in backward countries, and for a hundred other purposes, and gradually to attach to this agency much that will promote human well-being and happiness.
  Therefore, whilst I agree that increased neighbourliness among neighbours in practical working fashion is to be encouraged everywhere in the world, in our view the only hope for civilization is to, build up a United Nations Organization which will step by step and ultimately become effective, both in securing world peace and in helping to deal with the economic inequalities among nations. Having said that, as I feel it is my duty to say it, lest it should be thought that we are committing ourselves to any narrower projects, I have deep pleasure, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, in accepting the noble Lord's Motion. I think that it embodies practical politics in a very terse way. It is a guide to all of us, and I believe that the result of what he has said, and of the acquiescence of all your Lordships in his Motion, will give great encouragement outside.
  6.28 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, when a Motion and a debate have come to this happy ending, there is little left for the mover to do, especially at this late hour, except to give thanks. I do very sincerely thank all those who have supported this Motion, particularly the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Lord, the spokesman of the Liberal Party. In particular, I would endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said about the need for action and speed,

  587
  for a great deal of time has already elapsed, and time is a commodity that does not return. I would thank the noble Viscount, particularly, for imputing to me, in one passage in his speech, not only an under-statement but "a classic under-statement." I may say that that is rather a rare experience in my existence, and it only shows that I must be rather careful in future!
  On the other hand, I rather gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, that he thought I was approximating to my previous reputation for being a little too hard on the Germans. I should like to make it quite clear that my stand over that matter is that I do not want us to repeat the mistakes which we made after the First World War. We should be chary of giving our confidence until we are quite sure it is justified. This is a case where I think we must follow a course of vigilance, and indeed scepticism, until we are sure of something better. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, also asked me for my definition of the term "Western Europe," which is rather a large question. As he did so, however, I should like to say at once that my definition of Western Europe is a good deal wider than any of the countries I happened to mention in my speech. It would certainly include Scandinavia, Switzerland, even Italy. I see that the subject of Spain was introduced. Naturally, geographically the Iberian Peninsula is in Western Europe, but there is nothing more to be said on that subject unless and until Spain adopts a democratic mode of government. I think at that we may leave it.
  I pass then to the remarks of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. He said that we must be careful not to divide Europe into two. I am sure that would be against the wishes of us all, but the fact remains that division has already gone a very long way, through no fault of ours, and I am very deeply convinced that by co-ordinating Western Europe you will tend not to accentuate but to diminish that division. That was why I laid such special stress on these words of Mr. Eden: "From a close understanding in one area a wider understanding may grow." I can assure your Lordships that if you live with a totalitarian country you will find they will respect you the more as they deem you worthy of respect, and although
  588
  a great deal of abuse has been showered from Eastern quarters on the idea of any integration in the West, you will find, when you have integrated that, that abuse will die down 90 per cent.
  For the rest, I should like to thank the Government very sincerely for their welcome and statesmanlike acceptance of this Motion and of this policy. I wish to God that we had had this policy all my life. If we had had it, we would have had a happier and a better world. It is not too late to have that happier and better world even now, if we pursue this policy with resolution. I hope, and many in Europe will be led to believe, that this day's debate marks the beginning of a new phase in British foreign policy. I hope we shall live up to that expectation. It would be fatal for all to agree and then to do nothing, and it will now be for the Foreign Office to push ahead with the necessary negotiations. There is one other thing I should like to say in the few minutes that remain. To-day's proceedings will have given new hope and comfort to all those in Europe who have long looked to us for the lead now given. I therefore hope that this new phase of British foreign policy will be supported with the same virility and unanimity outside the House as inside it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  TRAFALGAR ESTATES BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  CARMARTHEN GAS ORDER, 1946.
  Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Carmarthen Gas Company:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
  Urban District of Malvern;
  Urban District of Wantage;
  Rural District of Windsor:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table