Lords Sitting of 12 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I think, for the general convenience of your Lordships I should make a short statement on business before we proceed with the Orders of the Day. As your Lordships are aware, it is proposed to sit on Monday next, December 16, when we shall ask the House to take as first business a debate upon India, on a notice by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in place of the Motion of Lord Altrincham on Palestine which has been postponed till after the Christmas Recess. A Motion will appear on the Paper on Monday in the Leader's name asking that the India business shall be taken as first Order. I am sure the House will be glad to learn that we shall be able to meet next week on Monday and on Thursday at 2.30 p.m. instead of at 4 p.m. as the House will not be meeting for judicial business on those afternoons.
  On Tuesday, the principal business will be the Second Reading of the Companies Bill while there are also Motions on river pollution which we shall hope to reach that day. On Wednesday there is a Motion on the expansion of the Civil Service, as well as other business. On Thursday, as I have already informed your Lordships, we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. when we shall take the Second Reading of the Air Navigation Bill, and after that, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, on the problem of displaced persons in Europe. A Royal Commission is expected that afternoon to give assent to various Bills. We hope that business will enable the House to adjourn on Thursday evening for the Christmas Recess, until 2.30 on Tuesday afternoon, the 21st January next.

  ARBROATH GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Considered on Report (according to Order).
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered on Report (according to Order).

  FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  Forestry dedication covenants and enforcement thereof.
  1.—(1) In this Act the expression "forestry dedication covenant" means a covenant entered into with the Forestry Commissioners (in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners") to the effect that land shall not, except with the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners, be used otherwise than for the growing of timber in accordance with the rules or practice of good forestry or for purposes connected therewith, being a covenant not containing any expression of intention contrary to the application of Section seventy-nine of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which provides that, unless a contrary intention is expressed, a covenant relating to any land of a covenantor or capable of being bound by him shall be deemed to be made by the covenantor on behalf of himself or his successors in title and the persons deriving title under him or them).
  (3) Section eighty-four of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which confers power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants) shall not apply to a forestry dedication covenant.
  (4) This section shall not extend to Scotland.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON) moved, in subsection (I), after "timber," to insert "(within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was raised, I

  855
  think, by the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, in order to clarify the definition of the word "timber." We want to insert "within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919." The word "timber" has a narrow meaning in Common Law; that is to say, it refers to oak, ash and elm. We want, in this Bill, to give it the wider meaning, that is the meaning ascribed to it by the 1919 Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 11, after ("timber") insert ("(within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919)").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.6 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
  "Provided that a forestry dedication covenant shall, notwithstanding any express condition to the contrary, be deemed to be subject to a proviso that the consent of the Commissioners hereinbefore referred to shall not be withheld where the Authority for the purposes of Section eighty-four of the Law of Property Act, 1925, determines, on an application made by the covenantor in accordance with the rules made under subsection (4) of the said section, that, having regard to the national and local interests and requirements and the private interests affected and any other considerations, the continued use of the land for the growing of timber or for purposes connected therewith would be unreasonable.
  Where the Authority determines as aforesaid, the determination shall provide for the repayment to the Forestry Commission of such advances by way of grant as have been made by the Commissioners in relation to the land affected by such determination, together with interest on each such advance for the period beginning with the date on which it was made, and ending with the date on which the land ceases to be used for the purposes of the growing of timber or for purposes connected therewith at the rate of three pounds per cent. per annum."
  The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to render it possible to terminate a covenant if the circumstances have changed. As I understand the matter, once a covenant is entered into it is as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Of course, I speak subject to correction on that point, because none of us, except the noble Earl, have seen the Covenant, but as it has been presented to woodland owners the importance of continuity in forestry policy has been stressed, and quite rightly so.
  856
  I would not suggest for a moment that these covenants ought to be lightly disturbed. Once you have embarked on a forestry plan, that plan should be, if possible, pursued for the full eighty years, or whatever it is, until your crop is finally gathered. It is indeed probably longer than that because the crop is a succeeding one.
  But circumstances may change. I recently had the privilege of being shown over some of the Alice Holt plantations of the Forestry Commission, and I then learnt that during the comparatively short period during which the Forestry Commission have been responsible for these ancient woods, which is some thirty or forty years, the plan of forestry has been changed no less than three times and each time for very good reasons. I think that if an owner agrees a plan with the Forestry Commission and, on the understanding that that plan is to be pursued, enters into a covenant of dedication, if the plan is to be changed the owner ought to have the right of saying: "Well, this would not suit my estate. It might be the right policy from the forestry point of view looked at from the national angle, but it would not fit in with the economy of this particular estate."
  We all know that woodlands cannot be considered in vacuo. They form part of the estate and the by-products if not the chief products of the woodland, such things as hurdle rods, thatching sticks, fencing posts and the like, form a very important part of the estate economy. Therefore, the land-owner has to consider aspects in his local problem which are distinct from the problems of national forestry which the Forestry Commission have in mind. All I am saying is that I think if the forestry plan were changed by the Commission, the land-owner ought to have the opportunity of terminating the covenant, and if there were a difference of opinion between the land-owner and the Commission, then clearly the matter should be subject to arbitration.
  But there may be other eventualities. It is quite impossible to forsee what the fixture will be during the next twenty, thirty or more years. New crops may be discovered for which that particular piece of land would be eminently suitable, new crops which might bring in a much greater economic return than forestry. In our own lifetime we have seen a number of

  857
  new crops of varying kinds introduced into the agriculture of this country—sugar beet, asparagus, sunflowers, and a great many more. Not only that, but a crop well known to the economy of some counties may, at any given time, be discovered to be suitable to a part of the country where it has not previously been grown. I can give your Lordships a good instance of that. I myself have grubbed over fifty acres of woodland in order to plant fruit. Thirty years ago nobody was growing top fruit commercially in East Hampshire, but it is now a progressive industry in that county. If my father had been asked thirty or forty years ago to dedicate land it would never have entered his head that fruit could be successfully grown in that particular area. It has now been proved that fruit can be grown under exceptionally favourable conditions, and it is much more profitable to employ the land in that direction than it is in forestry. It pays to go to the very heavy expense of grubbing land in order to grow fruit because the area on which fruit can be grown is strictly limited on account of frost conditions and the like.
  I merely give that as an instance of my point that it is impossible to foresee thirty or forty or more years in advance what would be the right policy for a particular bit of land. The landowner is bound to consider not merely the national problem of forestry, but the part that that piece of land should play in the economy of the estate and the surrounding farms. Therefore, I think that if the circumstances change, from whatever cause, there ought to be some machinery by which the deed of covenant could be reconsidered.
  I would point this out. We are all anxious that as many land-owners as possible should enter into these deeds of covenant. If it is possible for the Commissioners or His Majesty's Government to tell landowners that they are not tying their hands and the hands of their successors irrevocably, but if conditions and circumstances do charge there will be an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, then surely you are likely to get far more landowners to enter into covenants than you would do otherwise. I think it would be a very imprudent action for any landowner to enter into a covenant that did not have some machinery for reconsideration if the circumstances warranted
  858
  it. Of course, if the noble Earl can tell us that the Government are going to provide for that in the covenant then my point falls to the ground. But I think this point should be raised at this stage of the Bill in order that the House could have it in mind. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said proviso—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to stress that the motive behind the Bill before the House is one to conserve the supplies of timber. We want to get people to plant their woods, and once those woods have been dedicated and planted, we want that timber to stand until it is ready to be felled. In other words, the motive is to ensure a national supply of timber. Therefore, I think your Lordships will agree that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that we should ever want to do away with or rescind these covenants. Circumstances may arise, however, and I would point out to your Lordships that the Forestry Commissioners have, under the Bill itself, the right to terminate agreements with the consent of the covenantor. In other words, if the covenantor who has dedicated his trees gives a good reason why his scheme should be altered, there is nothing to stop the Commissioners from altering that scheme.
  LORD O'HAGAN: The noble Lord has said the power is in The Bill to effect something on the lines of my noble friend's Amendment, but I do not see it in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If the noble Lord will turn to page 1, Clause 1, line 9, he will see the words:
  "to the effect that land shall not, except with the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners, be used otherwise than for the growing of timber."
  So that, if you get the consent of the Commissioners in writing, the covenant could be altered or abrogated. In effect, if the landowner puts up a case for altering the scheme, there is nothing to stop the Commissioners altering that scheme and agreeing to his case. On the other hand, you might argue that the Forestry Commissioners may not agree, and might be unreasonable in not agreeing. I think that is really the noble Earl's point. The

  859
  question at issue is whether, in the event of disagreement, it should be decided by an outside arbiter or, as at present, by the Forestry Commission, subject to the criticism of Parliament. Obviously, if the Commission were unreasonable in withholding their consent or insisting upon an agreement where it was in the public interest or obviously to general local interest that the covenant should be altered, then it would be the duty of someone like the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—and I am sure he would fulfil it—to criticize the Commission in Parliament and demand that this wrong should be righted. I do submit, with regard to this Amendment, that it is better to leave the final decision in the hands of Parliament rather than to an outside arbiter. I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his Motion.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: This is a legal point of some difficulty, and I am not competent to say that there is not great weight on both sides, but I think I am in a position to say that Clause 1 of the Bill is not quite as satisfactory as the noble Earl who represents the Government seems to imagine. All that the Commissioners can do under Clause 1 of the Bill is to consent to the land being used otherwise than for the growing of timber. What they can do under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, on which my noble friend Lord Selborne is making his Motion, is, by order, wholly or partially to discharge or modify any such restrictions, subject or not to the payment of compensation, and so on, on being satisfied of certain things. As I understand it, if the Amendment were accepted the result would be that the dedication covenant could be completely annulled, leaving the land-owner to apply his land as he thought fit, but all that can be done, if he manages to satisfy the Commissioners, under the Bill as it stands, is that he can get their consent in writing to use the land otherwise than for the growing of timber.
  That is a very unsatisfactory position in which to be left because it might be temporary and then it would be from time to time necessary for the owner to go back to the Commissioners. He never could use his land for his own benefit or the benefit of the locality in such a way as entirely to put an end to the covenant with which we are now dealing—the forestry dedication covenant. Accordingly,
  860
  I suggest to the noble Earl that there should be some modification of the existing clause. I would like to add that I think there may be cases in which the Commissioners ought not to be the final parties to determine whether or not the conditions have so altered that the covenant should be brought to an end. A land-owner has the interests of himself and his locality very much more at heart than the Commissioners, who are really going to lose very little if they stick firmly to the covenant. Therefore I would urge the noble Earl to consider whether some reasonable compromise should not be entered into with my noble friend Lord Selborne in this matter.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot say that I am satisfied by the reply of the noble Earl. Apart from the reasons which have been given by my noble and learned friend who has just spoken, it does not seem to be right or satisfactory that the decision in this matter should rest with the Forestry Commissioners. The noble Earl says that if the Forestry Commissioners agree then there are means of terminating the covenant, and I admit that. But it is of the cases in which there is disagreement that I am thinking. Even Forestry Commissioners are human and all human beings are subject to liability to error of judgment. It I may venture to say so, I think that errors of judgment are particularly liable to occur where there is enthusiasm. If any on is an enthusiast on any subject he may attach a value to his particular enthusiasm which is really exaggerated.
  I am far from minimizing, in any way, the vital importance of the development of forestry in this country. Two wars have taught us—where one ought to have been sufficient—that it is of the utmost importance that our forests should be developed and extended enormously. But acquisition of land on which to grow forests is not the problem. The Forestry Commission have been able to obtain, at very cheap prices, thousands of acres of land which they have never been able to plant. Therefore, that is not really the problem. I agree that it is most desirable to get land-owners to dedicate wherever you can. My point is that I think a land-owner would be very ill-advised to the himself and his successors in perpetuity, in view of what I dealt with just now—the possibility that circumstances may radically alter. And I do not think it is

  861
  satisfactory to leave the decision as to whether or not it is the right policy to continue a given piece of land in forestry to the Forestry Commission.
  I do not think that it is fair to expect the Forestry Commission to look at the problem from a dispassionate angle. Their object their business, their enthusiasm is to increase the amount of forest in this country. That is their job, that is what they are there for. The landowner has to look at it from a different aspect. He has also to consider the economy of the farm and the welfare of the locality, and as I have said such questions as new crops, new discoveries, changed economic circumstances may make what was the right policy one year the wrong policy forty or fifty years later.
  If may refer once again to the case of my own farm where I have utilized a certain limited acreage for growing fruit trees instead of woodlands: I ventured to consult a high forestry expert about my woodlands. I asked him to go over them and make a report. Later I happened to see a letter which he wrote to a third party. The letter started: "Forestry seems to be sacrificed on this estate to fruit growing." The writer obviously thoroughly disapproved of what I am doing—and I am not surprised. He knew nothing whatever about fruit, he did not appreciate that fruit was more profitable on that particular soil than forestry. Forestry not fruit growing is his interest. This gentleman is not a Forestry Commissioner though he is very well qualified to be one, for he is one of the highest experts in the country. If he had had to make the decision on the matter he would with perfect sincerity have said: "It is quite wrong to change over from forestry to fruit here, and we will not agree to it." Therefore, I do not think it is satisfactory to leave the decision in the hands of the Forestry Commission.
  We have in the past always been very jealous of decisions of that sort by bureaucrats. I do not wish to be rude, but the Forestry Commission do come in the category of bureaucrats. They may be most excellent, necessary and desirable bureaucrats, but if I may say so with all respect to my noble friend it is really no answer to say that I, or other members of your Lordships' House, can raise this matter in Parliament. That is no answer. Not all the woodlands of this country are
  862
  owned by members of the two Houses of Parliament. I am thinking of people who have no access to your Lordships' House or to another place except through their Parliamentary representative. It is not right to impose an obligation of that sort on the ordinary citizen. If there is a simple question of this nature which is of really great importance to the economy of the farm or village, while it is a comparatively small matter in the great forestry problem with which the Forestry Commission have to deal, if there is really a difference of opinion between the landowner and the Forestry Commission it ought to be decided, I suggest, by some independent and competent arbitrator.
  VISCOUTNT SWINTON: I would appeal to the Government to meet us on this. I believe it would be genuinely in their own interests to do so. I can understand the Forestry Commission saying that so long as land is going to be continued to be devoted to forestry they ought to be the judges as to whether the work of forestry is being well carried out on the land or not. They are the supervisors and it is their task to see that forestry is well conducted in this country. That is their jurisdiction and within that it is not reasonable that there should be an appeal from them. That is not the issue here. Here the issue is whether land should no longer be devoted to forestry. The noble Earl himself has said that the Forestry Commission are to absorb as much land as possible permanently as forest. That being the trust which they have to discharge, how can the Commission be the right judges of whether the land should continue as forestry, or whether it should be susceptible to a change? The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said to us, happily, that he is extremely anxious that the subject should have the same rights against the Crown as he holds against private bodies. This is a case where an equitable decision is needed as to what is the right thing. Landlords everywhere have this right. The national interest also comes into the question. Surely, it is reasonable that both landlords and the Forestry Commission should submit themselves to an independent judge. I sincerely believe that if the noble Earl will give way upon that he is much more likely to achieve a satisfactory solution of the problem.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to say something on this matter because forestry has been an interest of mine for many years. I think my noble friend would be well advised to consent to look into this matter. At the same time, may I say this? In these discussions your Lordships appear rather to have overlooked the fact that the Forestry Commissioners have now been placed under the Agricultural Ministers. That was done in the time of the last Government. I confess that I was always very doubtful about it, and was frightened that forestry might be given second place. But, for better or for worse, that has been decided. Now I think we see the wisdom of that decision because, after all, although the Forestry Commission may be described as bureaucrats—I do not quite know about that—at least they are very enthusiastic about growing timber, and I think that we ought all to become more forestry-minded.
  But the Minister of Agriculture is in a very neutral position. He is also interested in the growing of fruit, and let us remember that the Forestry Commission now act under the two Agricultural Ministers, although in the day-to-day working of this business they do nothing; and if they are wise they will certainly leave the Forestry Commission to get on with their work and will carry on with their own. If any question of this sort does arise, and there is a conflict in the hypothetical case put, by reason of developments which we cannot see now, between the new agricultural user and the existing user for forestry, that is typically the sort of matter which I think the Agricultural Ministers might look at. Therefore, although I must not be taken as assenting to the proposition that the case is made out, for the reasons I have given I think His Majesty's Government would be well advised to look into the matter, and see whether there is a case to be made for the noble Earl's proposition. I would, therefore, suggest that he might withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that we will look into it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I certainly withdraw on that understanding, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for promising to look into the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  4.34 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert the following new clause:
  Arbitration.
  Any question or difference arising between the Commissioners and the owner of any land in respect of which such owner is required or invited to enter into a forestry dedication covenant in regard to the suitability of such land or of any part thereof for the growing of timber, or for purposes connected therewith shall, in default of agreement, be decided by a person nominated by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
  The noble Earl said: The second Amendment which stands in my name deals with a different point. This is the question whether any given woodland shall be dedicated or not. I would very much welcome an elucidation from my noble friend as to exactly what is going to happen in regard to the so-called small woodlands. To start with, nobody I have yet met has been able to define what is a small woodland, and so far as I am aware it is quite indefinite whether any given wood is regarded as a fit subject for dedication or not. From unofficial inquiries that I have made, I gather—and my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the real criterion is to be whether the Forestry Commission think they can conveniently administer a particular woodland or not. There might be a wood of 20 acres in Surrey which the Forestry Commission would feel they could administer because it happened to be close to their other centres. There might be a wood of a similar size in Cumberland which they would not want to administer because, for administrative reasons, it would be inconvenient for them to do so.
  I can quite understand that, and no doubt there is a good deal of force in such an attitude. As I understand the matter, however, if the owner of a large wood (let us say, for the sake of argument) says: "No, I will not dedicate this wood; I am going to manage it myself," then in the last resort the Forestry Commission have power to force him to dedicate, or to acquire the wood themselves. That may be quite reasonable, and it may be the right policy in the case of some important woodland area. The matter has to be treated from the national point of view, and not from the personal or local point of view. There is, however, quite clearly that indeterminate number of woodlands, each of between say 20 and 30 acres, scattered about the country,

  865
  where it is a moot point whether or not they should be dedicated.
  You may have the case where a landowner, for his own reasons, prefers not to dedicate, and the Forestry Commission may say: "You shall dedicate." The object of this Amendment is to submit cases of this sort to arbitration. If the noble Earl can assure me that it is unnecessary, I shall be quite satisfied; but I think it is important to raise the point, because I do not believe that the Forestry Commission ought to be able arbitrarily to select woods and say: "We will manage this wood, but not that"—looking at the question purely or, shall I say, largely from the angle of convenient and efficient administration. The landowner has to consider other aspects of the problem besides forestry. He has to consider the agricultural aspect. Therefore if there is a difference of opinion as to whether the wood should be dedicated or not, then in my view the matter ought to be subject to arbitration and should not be left purely to the decision of the Forestry Commission.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I would like to support the noble Earl in this Amendment, because in Scotland we have what are known as shelter belts, which are really vital to agriculture. Take my own case, for example. My own land goes straight up from the sea, 400 feet up and if I did not have these shelter belts I could not properly use that land for purposes of agriculture. These belts help to keep out the north-east wind which occasionally blows in that part of the country. As I see it, without this Amendment, the Forestry Commission could come along and require a shelter belt to be dedicated. I believe that that is so. The wording is that you can be either "required or invited to enter into a forestry dedication." For the sake of agriculture, these belts cannot be cut down.
  Take the case of a farmer with 40 or 50 acres which include part of this belt. He cannot cut down that belt and replant it elsewhere. That is the only place where he can have it, to shelter his land. Admittedly the timber may be past its cutting value. The value of that timber, however, is not its cutting value but its shelter value. The Lord Chancellor made
  866
  reference to the fact that the Forestry Commissioners are under the Minister of Agriculture. In Scotland, of course, both are under the same hat, if I may say so—namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland. There again, if you have access to this House or to another place, as the noble Earl has suggested, you do have a chance of putting your case. But the small man has very little chance of putting his case. He may have a Member of Parliament who is not in the slightest degree interested in agriculture. I say, with due respect, that the farmer's vote is one vote in many thousand of votes in the Member of Parliament's constituency. I am not saying that the Member of Parliament will not put forward the case to the best of his ability; but he is tied, he is very much occupied with other matters in his constituency. As we say in Scotland, he may not be "seized" of what is required, and this land gets passed over, the trees are cut down and the land is ruined. I would strongly urge the Government to accept this Amendment in the name of my noble friend.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, in what he has said with regard to the question of shelter belts. In the south it is not so fully appreciated what an important factor they are in sheep-farming in the north. In fact, we could not do without them. Many of us have large areas of land entirely given over to sheep at present. We have to have these shelter belts in order to keep the sheep there. In fact, we could not keep the sheep unless we had them. We should like to have it made clear how the Forestry Commission will view this question. As the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has said, it is true that in the case of Scotland the power to decide these matters is with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think this factor should be taken into consideration and I hope that the noble Earl will do so if he possibly can.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I respect fully suggest to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment that it is really founded on a misconception of the powers and intention of this Bill and of the Forestry Commission. It is true that under the 1945 Act the Forestry Commission have powers to acquire land compulsorily for the growing of trees but the powers taken under that Act have not been used, This

  867
  Bill is not in any way conceived as a sort of threat to make owners dedicate their woodlands. This scheme is something quite different. It is a voluntary scheme which will allow owners, if they wish, to obtain grants. That is really the object of it. It is not in the nature of a big stick to enable the Forestry Commissioners to say to the owner, "Either you dedicate your woodlands or else we will come in and take them over." The object is simply to allow the private owner to dedicate his woodlands if he wishes and to obtain grants. Therefore, in the case of shelter belts, which have been mentioned—and this is a very pertinent question—there is no reason why an owner should dedicate his woodlands. In fact, I think myself he would be much wiser not to dedicate his shelter belts, and it is quite obvious that the Forestry Commission would not come along and say, "We want the timber from these trees." If, however, your Lordships take the view that there may be that danger, then I suggest that the procedure would be to amend the 1945 Act, not this Bill, which, as I have said, is a purely voluntary Bill allowing for grants to be made.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: May I ask a question with regard to the shelter belts? Is it not a fact that if you do not dedicate your shelter belts you cannot get the grant?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, that is perfectly true. But I would suggest another alternative. First there is no obligation to dedicate shelter belts. On the other hand, if noble Lords wish to dedicate shelter belts simply to obtain the grant, there is no reason why there should not be drawn up a plan of operations in which it could be said that certain woods will be grown with soft woods, certain woods with hard woods and certain woods which would be shelter belts only. Although I cannot undertake that in this case they would be given the normal grants, I think they probably would. I will look into the question. On the general issue, after what I have said, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I have understood my noble friend rightly, his point is that I ought to have moved this Amendment last year when we were
  868
  dealing with the 1945 Act. Well, there is a proverb, "Better late than never." I think that perhaps this matter was overlooked in 1945. After all, we had other things to think of in 1945. The 1945 Act passed through Parliament very rapidly with very little discussion. It was at the time of the Armistice, and I think the point was overlooked. It seems to me that, if this Amendment were passed, it would prevent that of which I am afraid, and to that point, if I may say so with great respect, my noble friend has not really addressed himself. He has rather suggested that the Amendment is not appropriate to this Bill, but we have the whole question of dedication and of forestry before us in this Bill. Subject to correction, it seems to me that the point was overlooked in the 1945 Act and we now have an opportunity of correcting it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: As the person responsible for passing the 1945 Act through this House, I wonder if I might interrupt the noble Earl. As far as my recollection goes as to the wording at the time, I distinctly said that this was an enabling Act which we had to have for various reasons, and I promised, so far as I was able to promise, that it would be followed by another Act which is the present one, and which, naturally, I was not able to produce, but which the present Government have produced. When I promised that there would be another Bill to follow the 1945 Act, it never entered my head that it meant that, because the 1945 Act was passed, that was a method of getting out of anything in this Bill. That was the last thing we intended.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I thank my noble friend for that information. I do suggest that this is a point which has not been dealt with, and with which, with great respect, I think your Lordships ought to deal. There ought to be some machinery to determine these doubtful cases as to whether a wood should be dedicated or not. The number of cases is, necessarily, not very great. There would probably be no dispute at all that, save in exceptional cases, great woodlands should be dedicated. There would probably be no dispute at all that the small and scattered woodlands should not be dedicated. But there will be an indeterminate class with regard to which there may well be a difference of opinion,

  869
  and it seems to me, when there is a difference of opinion, it is wrong that that difference of opinion should in fact be settled by one of the parties, in this case the Forestry Commission, who are bound only to have the interests of national forestry at heart, whereas, as I have said before, the landowner must bear in mind other interests such as those to which the noble Earl has referred. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to meet us in this matter, because I think it is going to smooth the wheels very much if people are going to feel that these questions are to be dealt with in an impartial and fair way, and that they are not going to be ridden over roughshod by this great Commission.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships will allow me to intervene, I think there is a complete misapprehension about this matter. There will, undoubtedly, be some large woods which will be taken over or dedicated by mutual consent. There will be some small ones that quite obviously everybody would agree should be out of it, and there will be an intermediate class. The noble Earl who has just spoken seems to me to be under the impression that the Forestry Commission will have the right to decide with regard to these matters. That is not so at all. It all depends on their being in agreement. If the landlord does not want to dedicate this indeterminate class it will not be dedicated.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, am I not right in thinking that in such a case the Forestry Commission have the power to say: "If you will not dedicate, we will acquire your land"?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They had the power to do that under the 1945 Act for all the land in the country. It is not in the least the intention of the Forestry Commission to blackmail owners by using this possibility of making an agreement and saying: "If you do not make an agreement we shall exercise the powers which we have under the 1945 Act." The whole idea of this Bill is based on agreement. We want to get the voluntary help and co-operation of the landowners. I can imagine nothing more foolish than to start blackmailing landowners in that sort of way. So far as this Bill is concerned, it is simply and
  870
  solely a Bill based on agreement, and if the landowner does not want to dedicate his land, then the simple course he can adopt is not to dedicate his land. So far as this indeterminate class is concerned, it is not a question of the Forestry Commission having to decide in invitum of the landlord: it is simply a question of whether the landlord will make a covenant. Incidentally, the landlord is also free to read through the covenant and to see what is in it, and he can say that he will not sign it unless this or that Clause is put in.
  When the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery referred to the phrase "required or in vited" to enter into a forestry agreement he was reading not part of the Bill but the Amendment. There is no question of those words being in this Bill at all. This is purely a Bill to enable the landlord, if he is so minded, to dedicate his land, and not to make him enter into an agreement if he is not so minded. If he does enter into an agreement he can get certain benefits from it, but he can make up his own mind whether he does so or not. I can assure your Lordships that he will not be blackmailed. He could not be blackmailed under the powers of this Bill. There is not the slightest intention of using undesirable pressure of that sort to get landowners to enter into agreements. We want this to be an enabling Bill to get the landowners to do it if they want to, and unless we make that plain I am sure we shall not get the co-operation of the land-owners which is what we desire.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. It would be entirely satisfactory to me if I knew that it was binding on all future Ministers of Agriculture and on all future Forestry Commissioners. If the Acts were administered in the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord has spoken I do not think any trouble would arise. With your Lordships' permission, I would beg leave to withdraw my Amendment at this stage, reserving the right to bring the matter up again on the Report stage, because there is one point on which I am not entirely satisfied. It does still seem to me possible for the Forestry Commission, under their powers in the 1945 Act and using the machinery of both Acts to bring pressure to bear on a landowner in a way which the noble and learned Lord has described as "blackmail."

  871
  I am not suggesting that any existing Forestry Commissioner would do such thing, but in legislation we have to beware of the strong use of power by enthusiasts. You see it happening time and again, men thinking they are doing perfectly good and right actions when really they are taking most arbitrary steps against the liberty of the individual. I think it is important that no landowner should be put in the position of having this pistol put at his head: "Either you dedicate or we acquire." I do not think that is a point that ought to be decided without independent arbitration. I would ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw my Amendment at this stage, on the understanding that if my noble friend—perhaps I may have some conversations with my noble friend in the meantime—cannot convince me that it is quite unnecessary (and I am not entirely convinced yet) I shall be at liberty to raise the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2:
  Power of tenants for life, etc., to enter into forestry dedication covenants.
  (2) A university or college to which the Universities and Colleges Estates Act, 1925, applies may, with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, enter into a forestry dedication covenant relating to any land belonging to it either for consideration or gratuitously, and that Act shall apply as if the power conferred by this subsection had been conferred by that Act.
  (3) This section shall not extend to Scotland.
  4.58 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is merely to leave out the words "with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries," which, it has been pointed out, are unnecessary. Under the Universities and College Estates Act, 1925, power is given to dedicate without the consent of the Minister. This Amendment will make the clause correspond to the provisions of the Act of 1925, and will not make any difference to the working of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("may") to ("enter") in line 31.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DARYNGTON LORD DARYNGTON moved, at the end of Clause 2, to insert:
  "—Where land is glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice, the incumbent of the benefice, and where land is part of the endowment of any other ecclesiastical corporation the ecclesiastical corporation, may with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners enter into a forestry dedication covenant relating to the land either for consideration or gratuitously, and the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts shall apply as if the power conferred by this subsection had been conferred by those Acts, except that the consent of the patron of an ecclesiastical benefice shall not be requisite."
  The noble Lord said: This is a very simple matter. Unless special powers are granted to them incumbents and other ecclesiastical corporations sole or aggregate will be incapable of entering into a forestry dedication covenant, as the powers of the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts only extend to leases, sales, exchanges, and other similar transactions. Under the Leasing Acts the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are consenting parties in order that they may see that any transaction proposed is for the benefit of the living or of the ecclesiastical corporation concerned. They have accordingly been introduced in the proposed Amendment as consenting parties. The consent of the patron is also necessary in transactions under the Leasing Acts when they relate to glebe of a benefice. It is not considered that the patron's consent need be required to a dedication covenant as to glebe, and it has accordingly been excluded. I beg to move—
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 36, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Daryington.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We are very pleased to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Forestry dedication agreements and enforcement thereof]:
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This Amendment is consequential on the one already made in Clause 1.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 1, after ("timber") insert ("(within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919)").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Power of liferenters, etc., to enter into forestry dedication agreements.
  4.—(1) Any person being

  (a) the liferenter, or

  (b) the heir of entail,

  in possession of any land shall have power to enter into forestry dedication agreements relating to the land or any part thereof.
  (2) The Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, shall have effect as if among the powers conferred on trustees by Section four thereof (which relates to the general powers of trustees) there were included a power to enter into forestry dedication agreements relating to the trust estate or any part thereof.
  (3) This section shall extend to Scotland only.
  5.3 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and the words "in possession of any land" and insert:

  "(a) the proper liferenter

  (b) the heir of entail

  (c) with the consent of the owner the lessee in right of any lease for a period of thirty-one years or for any greater number of years or

  (d) a trustee or body of trustees

  being in all cases in possession of the land and also in the case of a trustee or body of trustees infeft or entitled to be infeft in the land".
  The noble Earl said: In moving the Amendment that stands in my name, may I say that it is entirely a Scottish Amend-merit? Some of the phraseology may be foreign to the noble Earl who will reply for the Government, but I have no doubt that he has made himself acquainted with what exactly it means. In brief, the objects of this Amendment are to limit "liferenter" to the proper liferenter and to give tenants under a long lease power to enter into dedication agreements. Under Scottish law there are two types of liferenter. There is, first of all, the proper liferenter, who has all the rights of ownership in the land except that he cannot sell otherwise than with the consent of the Court. The other type of liferenter is the beneficiary liferenter, who is the liferenter under trustees. This second class of
  874
  liferenter is only entitled to the free revenue of the trust estate. The timber on the estate belongs to the trustees with the exception of windfalls and annual cuttings of copse wood.
  With regard to the tenant under a long lease, in Scotland it is the practice in some cases for proprietors to let their woodlands under a long lease of probably over thirty-one years in duration. Under the terms of such a lease the tenant would be responsible for growing timber and would be in a position to exercise most of the powers of ownership. It is considered desirable, therefore, that the long leaseholder should be given power to dedicate; otherwise difficulties in practice may arise. In cases where woodlands are let under a long lease the grants for planting, etc., should be payable to the tenant and not to the owner. Under the Bill as drafted it would seem that the grants would require to go to the owner. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("being") to ("land") in line 25 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is the same point as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentanar, on the Second Reading of the Bill. The expression "liferenter" is sometimes used in a loose and popular sense to describe a beneficiary who, as the noble Earl said, has a right under a will to ocuppy for the period of his life-time property which is vested in trustees. Such a person has no feudal title himself to the property, which is vested in the trustees. The word "liferenter" is a technical term, and we submit that it must receive in the Bill, as in other Acts on the Statute Book, its technical meaning, which is, the person in whom the feudal title to the property is vested for the period of his life. Such a person is authorized by the clause to enter into a dedication agreement. Where the title to the property is vested in trustees, they alone, and not any person who under the terms of the trust is entitled to occupy the property for his life-time, can enter into such an agreement. It is therefore unnecessary to refer to "proper liferenters."
  The right of trustees to enter into forestry dedication agreements is conferred by subsection (2) and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to them in subsection (1).
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I did not hear that.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Subsection (2) gives the power to trustees to enter into any dedication agreement. Therefore it is, I submit, unnecessary to mention them in subsection (1). I hope I have made that clear, and that the noble Earl will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I presume that the noble Earl has consulted lawyers on this point. I do not know if he has consulted Scottish lawyers, but I am told that it is necessary to put in "the proper liferenter." I am no more a lawyer than the noble Earl opposite is, but I am told that "the proper liferenter" ought to be put in because there are these two liferenters.
  It does seem right that where woodlands are let under a long lease, the grants for planting should be payable to the tenant and not to the owner. I do not think the noble Earl commented on that point. If you have let your woods for thirty, forty or fifty years it does seem equitable that the grants for planting, etc., should be paid direct to the man who is responsible for the planting and for the woods. I may not have made myself very clear. As I say, I am not a lawyer and this is a Scottish legal point which may be of considerable importance, but it does seem to me to be a matter of equity, and a point we can all understand, that the man who has got to do the work should get the money for doing it. That roughly is what I mean by this Amendment.
  Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to raise this matter, if necessary, at a later stage, and in the meantime to attempt to come to some understanding with him. I feel that the Bill as it stands does not fulfil the proper requirements of the man who has a long lease of woods.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to point out to the noble Earl on this question of the lessee, that if the lessee and the owner agree—and only in the event of agreement—there is nothing to prevent them entering into a joint agreement with the Forestry Commissioners who can allow grants to be made either to the owner or the lessee, whichever is decided. It is purely voluntary,
  876
  but if the noble Earl would like to raise the matter again I will see whether a more legal term can be found. I should be grateful if he could see his way to withdraw the Amendment now.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am much obliged to the noble Earl, but I would like to point out that if a man has leased woods for fifty years, or his father has leased them and he has inherited them, he may not agree with legislation. Not everybody agrees with legislation, and he may be a cantankerous man and say, "I will not dedicate this". I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: "and as if executors dative were included in the class of persons empowered to enter into forestry dedication agreements". The noble Lord said: When I looked into the Trusts (Scotland) Act to see the meaning of subsection (2), I noticed that while executors nominate are included in that Act executors dative are not, and I therefore put down this Amendment. I do not know the answer because I am not a lawyer any more than my noble friend, but I presume it may be because the powers of the executors dative are properly defined by the Courts which appoint them. But it seems to me unnecessary, in a case of this kind which might come up during the ordinary administration, for the executor to go back to the Court. It seems to me worth looking into to see whether executors dative should not be given the same powers. I am quite ready to accept the noble Earl's decision on this matter, but it opens the door to another matter which I should like to know if he has looked into. That refers to the whole question of minors. As most of your Lordships know, in Scotland minors can cut down contracts in respect of inheritable property after they are twenty-five. I do not know what the remedy is, and it may be only damages, but in any case it would be affected by this Bill. A minority may go on for a very long time. A girl minor can have a child and then die before the age of twenty-five, which would prolong that minority. I would like to ask the noble Earl if he has looked into this question and whether he has come to some conclusion upon it.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think I can inform the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment why the executor dative was not included. In law the executor dative is a person appointed by the Court to administer movable property. He is not appointed to administer land and therefore it is thought inappropriate to give him the right to dedicate or have anything to do with dedication. In regard to his second point, which is not included in the Amendment, I understand the same rules would apply as apply to English minors, excepting the fact of the extension of the years. However, I will look into that point before the Third Reading.
  LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  5.14 p.m.
  THE EARL OF WARWICK THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 4:
  "Amendment in regard to compulsory acquisition of certain land.
  Subsection (I) of Section five of the Forestry Act, 1945, shall have effect as if the following paragraph were inserted therein:—
  (d) any land in respect of which a forestry dedication covenant has been entered into, excepting where there has been a substantial breach of such covenant by the covenantor and, where the breach is one which is capable of remedy, the covenantor has failed, within a reasonable time after being required so to do by the Commissioners, to remedy the breach".
  The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord. Portsmouth, I beg leave to introduce his Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is similar to others which have already been discussed this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. It is intended to try to rectify this problem of the big bad wolf. All through the arguments we have heard this afternoon it has been said that the Forestry Commissioners of to-day, and indeed all the members of either House of Parliament who sit now, are the most respectable people. We are all aware of that, and if we were sure that the noble Earl and the Forestry Commissioners would continue in that way, we should not want to raise these points. But it does seem to me that there is not a great deal of protection should there ever be a case
  878
  of the Forestry Commissioners trying to exercise undue powers, either from enthusiasm or from other motives. Therefore, my noble friend has put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Warwick.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is a big concession which is being asked by the noble Earl, but in principle we are prepared to accept it. There are, however, certain difficulties in regard to the wording but we will look into it between now and the Report stage. For instance, the legal wording of Scotland and England is very different, as we have seen. We do, however, accept his Amendment in principle. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WARWICK: I know I am speaking for my noble friend in thanking the noble Earl very much for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5:
  Deduction of grants from compensation.
  5. If the power of compulsory purchase conferred by subsection (2) of Section four of the Forestry Act, 1945, falls to be exercised in relation to land in respect of which advances by way of grant have been made by the Commissioners after the passing of this Act or within twelve months before the passing thereof, a deduction shall be made from the compensation for the compulsory purchase, of an amount equal to the aggregate of the advances, together with interest on each advance for the period beginning with the date on which it was made, and ending with the date on which the compensation is paid, at the rate of three pounds per cent. per annum:
  Provided that, in the case of compensation for the compulsory purchase of one of several interests in such land, the deduction shall be by reference to a part of the advances proportionate to the value of that interest as compared with the value of the land.
  THE EARL OF WARWICK THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to leave out the words "an amount equal to the" and insert "such amount not exceeding the." The noble Earl said: Again in the absence of my noble friend Lord Portsmouth, I beg leave to move his Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is quite clear. Clause 5 says:
  "…a deduction shall be made from the compensation for the compulsory purchase,

  879
  of an amount equal to the aggregate of the advances, together with interest on each advance…."
  What my noble friend intended was that the words should be altered so that the owner should not be penalized in any way. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("of") to end of line, and insert ("such amount not exceeding the").—(The Earl of Warwick.)
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I have been considering this Amendment with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I intend between now and the Report stage of the Bill to table Amendments which I have every hope will meet the wishes both of the noble Earl and other noble Lords who have put down Amendments on this clause. Actually, I have two points in view. The first is to limit the total period in respect of which claims for a payment of grants and interests shall subsist, and secondly, to introduce words to meet as far as possible this point of Income Tax raised by the noble Earl. In view of this assurance I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WARWICK: I thank the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SALTOUN, who had given Notice of an Amendment after "of" ["of three pounds"] to insert "not more than," said: The noble Earl's assurance is quite sufficient for me on this Amendment. The only thing I would like to ask is whether he will remember Surtax and any incidence of Estate or Succession Duties as well as Income Tax.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Certainly.
  LORD SALTOUN: I shall not move my Amendment now.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYhad put down an Amendment, after "annum," immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "less an amount equivalent to the amount of Income Tax on such interest calculated at the standard rate or rates in force during the said period." The noble Earl said: I take it my Amendment is
  880
  covered by the assurance of the noble Earl, and therefore I shall not move now.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE BILL.
  5.22 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time, and, in doing so, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity to deal with the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on the Committee stage of the Bill. He raised the question as to whether the words "as a whole" in the last line of the first clause limited in any way the power of the Minister of Defence to deal with the Services, where, for example, all three Services were not involved in any particular issue. I referred that to the Parliamentary draftsmen and to the legal advisers, and I am advised that the words "as a whole" really are intended to make it clear, and that they do in fact make it clear, that the business of the Minister of Defence is to deal with defence as a whole, rather than the administrative responsibility over the individual Services.
  I am advised that the clause as drafted does, in fact, enable the Minister to discharge to the full the functions set out in the White Paper, and certainly will enable him, if I may use the words of the noble Viscount, to deal with any matter which affected one Service only, but which has a direct bearing on defence generally. That is the interpretation which, I am

  881
  advised, is the correct one, and, therefore, no such limitation as the noble Viscount might reasonably and properly apprehend, does arise. Although one Service might be concerned in any particular decision, the Minister's authority would extend to it because it would concern defence generally. I am advised that the words are right, and that it would be better that they should remain in the clause.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Addison.)
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Leader of the House for going into this so fully. Far be it from me to quarrel with the interpretation put upon it by the draftsmen, however different that may appear to be from the English that "he who runs may read." I am extremely glad we have had this clarification because it is now abundantly clear that what was our intention—that the Minister should be able to deal with any general defence problem—can be realized. We have had it on high legal authority; I think there is no doubt about it, and I fully accept it.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  CARE OF CHILDREN.
  5.25 p.m.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the Interim and Final Reports of the Care of Children Committee (Cmd. 6760 and 6922); and to ask His Majesty's Government what action has been taken or is proposed on the recommendations of the Committee. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the public have every reason to be extremely grateful to the members of the Curtis Committee They accomplished in seventeen months a vast bulk of work, and they not only surveyed the field of child care extremely thoroughly but also surveyed it very quickly indeed. It is evident that the members of the Curtis Committee were inspired with a great sense of the urgency of their task. That is not surprising when one recalls that they were appointed in consequence of the shocking revelations made in the O'Neill case. I am not quite satisfied that His Majesty's Government feel a terrible sense of the urgency of the problem of the deprived child. I hope,
  882
  however, that by the end of this debate and when we have listened to the Government reply, the House will be more reassured on that point.
  I draw attention in the first place to the Interim Report of the Curtis Committee. Perhaps I should explain to your Lordships what that Interim Report is. Very early in their deliberations the Curtis Committee came to the conclusion that many children were suffering quite unnecessarily because the adults responsible for their upbringing in the various homes and institutions were untrained. There was a most serious lack of trained child workers, and the Curtis Committee therefore established a sub-committee to investigate the whole matter of training. This committee reported, and its report was adopted by the main Committee. There are three recommendations in the Interim Report which appear to have a particular urgency. In the first place, there is the recommendation for the appointment of a Central Training Council of qualified persons representing various bodies engaged in the field of child care. The function of that Central Training Council was to survey the whole field of training, and to establish such facilities as they considered needful. Then there was a recommendation which has a very obvious degree of urgency—the arrangement of courses for teachers. The Curtis Committee estimated that between 300 and 400 new entrants into the child welfare profession would be required every year, and it goes without saying that if we are to train 300 to 400 young women and young men next year, we must make a start this year in arranging classes for tutors who should be responsible for training them.
  The third recommendation to which I wish to call attention is described in the Interim Report itself as "a matter of great importance and urgency." It is that steps should be taken to attract trainees from among the men and women leaving His Majesty's Forces. The Interim Report was signed on January 4, 1946. It is the usual practice of committees to send advance copies of their Reports to the Ministers concerned, and I have very little doubt that that practice was followed in this case. If that was done, I calculate that the Ministers have had the Interim Report in their hands for no less a period than eleven months, and I am very hopeful that the noble Earl who is to reply

  883
  on behalf of His Majesty's Government will be able to tell us what has been done in those eleven months.
  I have made such private inquiries as are open to me, and, so far as I can discover, the Central Training Council has not yet been appointed. I shall be delighted to be told that I am wrong. The noble Earl indicates assent to what I have said—the Central Training Council then, has not been appointed. That is surely a very strange position. Then, I suppose, nothing has been done in the matter of arranging courses for tutors who will next year, one would hope, be responsible for the education of trainees. Nothing again. I have not seen any propaganda aimed at inducing young men and young women from the Forces or from any other walks of life to enter into this profession, and so it would appear that the recommendation which the Committee, according to the Interim Report, themselves regarded as a matter of great importance and urgency has been neglected.
  In this connexion, the recruitment of workers is a fundamental and vitally important matter. I would ask whether any attention has been paid to the offer made by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to lend their own trained workers to local authorities to deal with the deprived children. Certainly, the recruitment of trainees is not going to be an easy matter. In these days, as your Lordships know, there are a great number of attractive and well-paid careers open to young women, and it will not be at all an easy matter, unless very special steps are taken, to recruit young women for this type of work. I believe, however, that it is a type of work that will appeal to generous-hearted young people, if the claims of the deprived children are put before them in a sufficiently strong manner. But there is a need for types of workers other than those who are to become professionals. There is a great need, for example, for more foster parents. The Curtis Committee have the highest opinion of boarding-out as an expedient for dealing with deprived children, but they point out that there is a great lack in this connexion. That is also the experience of voluntary societies and of everyone else who is
  884
  engaged in this work in any way. There is a great lack of volunteers for foster parenthood.
  Again, there is a need for people to act as visitors to institutions and to boarded-out children. There is a need for ordinary members of the public to come forward and offer to be "uncles" and "aunts" to children in institutions. It seems to me that there would have been much to be said for an appeal to the nation by the Prime Minister himself—and no one is better qualified than the Prime Minister to appeal to the spirit of social service, which is not dead in our people—or by some other member of the Government, for a flow of volunteers to come forward to improve the lot of the children. That opportunity has not been taken. What a chance has been missed there!
  I turn next to the Final Report. We now know that copies of the Final Report of the Curtis Committee reached Ministers on September 13—that is two months before the opening of the present session of Parliament. There was, however, as we know, no hint of legislation in this connexion in the gracious Speech. I very much hope that His Majesty's Government will now be able to give us some indication as to when legislation is to be introduced. They have not, I believe, banged and bolted the door on the chance of legislation being introduced in the present Session. It is not yet certain that the Curtis Report will be transferred to that melancholy little list with which we are getting so familiar in this House—the "Next Year Perhaps" list. There are many Bills on that list, as we know—the Actions Against the Crown Bill, the Poor Litigants Bill, the Penal Reform Bill and I have no doubt, other measures as well. I greatly hope that it will not be the fate of the Curtis Committee's Report to jostle those urgently needed reforms upon the "Next Year Perhaps" List.
  I will give the Government credit very willingly for what has been done. There has been the appointment of extra inspectors to a number of Departments. Inspectors are certainly very much needed. I am glad to see, and it is reassuring to know, that the Curtis Committee are, on the whole, satisfied with the quality of the inspectors' reports. The trouble is that these excellent reports by inspectors are again and again pigeon-holed by local authorities and, no doubt,

  885
  by others too. No action is taken upon these reports year after year, when they are made. At least, however, the inspectors, by bringing a breath of fresh air into these institutions, are doing an immediately useful task. Then a circular has been issued to local authorities by the three Departments principally concerned with the matter. The three Ministerial mountains, having been in labour for something over two months, produced a circular dated November 23. I would not say anything opprobrious about this circular, but it does appear to be a little belated. Surely it was not necessary to wait until November 23 to call the attention of the local authorities officially to a Report which was issued in September and to which immense attention had been devoted, both in the Press and in Parliament.
  The circular assures the authorities that the Ministers have the Report under what is called "active consideration"—a splendid phrase, to which we are very welt accustomed. The Ministers have the Report under "active consideration," and have asked—very mildly, very gently and very politely—that the authorities also should take some notice of the Report. They make only one practical suggestion to the authorities. That is, that they should take into consultation, it they choose, those inspectors whose reports they have so frequently disregarded. I suppose that even this very mild and timid little circular will do some good, and that Ministers of the Crown have to be exceedingly polite in addressing local authorities. Had I been in their position, I think I should have been tempted to be a little more peremptory in tone. I should have been inclined to call for reports from the local authorities, and to have given a date by which such reports should be received. As it is, I understand that the results of the deliberations of the local authorities, officially not begun until November 23, will in most cases not be ready until the end of February.
  If I am too impatient with local authorities, it is not without reason. Criticisms made by the Curtis Report are very painful, and the revelations are shocking. It it one of the most distressing features of the local authorities' administration of Poor Law children that very often they are kept in workhouses not for six weeks
  886
  —which I believe is the legal period—but for months and months and months. I do not think that I should be doing my duty if I do not read to your Lordships one brief description of the conditions that prevail in these workhouses. One paragraph in the Report says:
  "The smell in this room was dreadful. A premature baby lay in an opposite ward alone. This ward was very large and cold. The healthy children were housed in the ground floor corrugated hutment which had been once the old union casual ward The dayroom was large and bare and empty of all toys. The children fed, played and used their pots in this room. They ate from cracked enamel plates, using the same mug for milk and soup. They slept in another corrugated hutment in old broken black iron cots some of which had their sides tied up with cord. The mattresses were fouled and stained. On inquiry there did not appear to be any available stocks of clothes to draw on and it was said by one of the assistant nurses that 'everything was at the laundry and did not come back.' The children wore ankle length calico or flannelette frocks and petticoats and had no knickers. Their clothes were not clean. Most of them had lost their shoes; those who possessed shoes had either taken them off to play with or were wearing them tied to their feet with dirty string. Their faces were clean; their bodies in some cases were unwashed and stained."
  LORD AMMON: Would the noble Earl give a reference for his quotation?
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: The reference is to the Curtis Report, paragraph 144. There are other descriptions, not quite so bad. I agree that I have picked the very worst. There were other similar institutions in which children are kept, not for a short time but for considerable periods. The children are removed from these institutions to local authority homes, and in a number of cases those local authority homes are well run. There are, however, a great number of unsatisfactory local authority homes, staffed very often by people with no understanding of, or sympathy with, the needs of children—homes in which there are no lockers for the children to keep their little treasures, and only bare, bleak, cold rooms. This maladministration of the actual children's homes which occurs not infrequently with local authorities is paralleled at the administrative centres by a vast amount of bureaucratic inefficiency and the worst type of departmentalism. We were prepared for these revelations by the Report on the O'Neill case. Your Lordships may remember that case, and may be familiar

  887
  with the little bits of grit that got into the bureaucratic machines of the two local authorities concerned with the child O'Neill—the letters which should have been sent and were not sent; the papers that were not brought forward at the right moment; the visits by a person who was not really qualified to visit the child; all these little mistakes that culminated in the tragedy of Dennis O'Neill's death. It is a very frightening thought, my Lords, the extent to which the happiness of deprived children is confided to not very competent little clerks and minor officials, who are often over-worked, who are not specialists in their subject, and whose horizon is bounded by very petty departmental considerations.
  The Curtis Committee propose as their main reform the substitution of ad hoc children's statutory committees in local authorities, and the entrusting of deprived children in local authority hands to these committees. They are to employ their own children's officers who will be specialists in their subjects. That reform will need legislation, of course—very thorough and comprehensive legislation—and I realize perfectly that it cannot be enacted in a hurry. It must take time. I would only suggest for the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and as a matter which they might pass on to the local authorities that, pending legislation, interim committees might be formed. I understand that something of the kind was done in the case of tuberculosis before the 1914–18 war. Pending tuberculosis legislation, interim tuberculosis committees were established by local authorities, and they did the work which was subsequently entrusted to statutory committees. I venture to put forward that suggestion as one that might conceivably prove fertile. But, whatever reforms we may make in administrative machinery, there will be a continuing need of public vigilance and interest in the cause of the children. It would be a very serious delusion if we were to suppose that by any legislative or administrative Act of ours we can set things so right that they will not go wrong again.
  There is already on the Statute Book much excellent legislation relating to children. I am sure that when the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, brought in his great Children Acts he and his advisers were filled with a great sense of hope and
  888
  perhaps they anticipated that they had dismissed Mr. Bumble from the service of the public. I remember when I was entering public life some nineteen years ago we had just abolished the Guardians and substituted for them the Public Assistance Committees. There again we heard much eloquence on the subject of the demise of Mr. Bumble. It is pretty clear from the Curtis Report that Mr. Bumble, or someone very like Mr. Bumble, is to-day alive and active, and we must be careful to make sure that, when the children's officers are appointed, Mr. Bumble does not get the job. The wards of the State, as these children are sometimes called, need the protection of the vigilance of the public if their lives are to be even tolerable. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that we must be completely satisfied as to the conditions under which these children are being brought up before we even consider the suggestions that have been made in some quarters that all children ought to be made wards of the State.
  That brings me to the voluntary societies. I am glad to say that many of the voluntary societies have earned a substantial measure of praise from the Curtis Committee. That is especially true of what is called "The Big Three"—the three larger and richer voluntary societies. The Curtis Committee, in paragraph 227 of their Report, say:
  "Although often hampered by large buildings, which made difficult the individual relationships so necessary to the full effectiveness of their work, there was no indication that as a group the voluntary homes fell below the general level of child care now obtaining throughout the country. In many instances they were well above it."
  That, to some extent, is satisfactory to your Lordships.
  With regard to the buildings which are unfavourably mentioned in the Curtis Report, I have made some inquiries and I find that the real difficulty is that many of these buildings, which were described as gaunt and barrack-like, were erected in the days of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board specified that all homes in which children were kept should have dormitories eighteen feet wide. It did not matter in the least how long the dormitories were, how bleak they were, or how bare; they had to be eighteen feet wide. Well, that type of specification is responsible for

  889
  what exists in the older buildings of the voluntary societies. They are, to the best of their capacity, endeavouring to improve these buildings and to erect more modern ones of the cottage type in their place. Some of the voluntary societies are handicapped by lack of funds and by public support. In that connexion, I would mention that I find it a little hard to understand why it is that the voluntary societies are not entitled to draw family allowances on behalf of all their children. There seems to be a case in justice for that concession, and I regret that it has not been made.
  I am not denying, of course, that there are some exceedingly bad voluntary homes. There has been a great deal of publicity about those homes, and I am glad of that publicity. For example, your Lordships will have seen some publicity devoted to a very shocking convent laundry where the children are grossly overworked and underpaid. There is an extraordinary institution where the children have to rise at six o'clock, do an hour's housework and half an hour's spiritual meditation before breakfast; and there are many other extraordinary examples of old-fashioned, ill-run, voluntary homes, sometimes very small in size, run by untrained people and quite out of touch with modern ideas. I believe that the remedy for these had voluntary homes is inspection. The present law, unfortunately, does not provide for the inspection of endowed children's homes and institutions. Only those which appeal for public funds can be inspected. That appears to me—and I hope it will appear to your Lordships—to be a bad gap in the law. I would plead with His Majesty's Government, even in advance of comprehensive legislation on the whole subject, to introduce a Bill that will permit of inspection of all homes and institutions in which children are kept, whether they be endowed or not, and I urge that when these homes are brought within the ambit of inspection, powers of the State to act on adverse reports shall be vigorously used. The exemplary closing of even a few of the worst of the institutions would, I believe, have a great effect in raising the standard of the rest. But of course that is a reform that cannot be put into operation until there are sufficient trained workers to take over the children.
  There are very many other recommendations in the Curtis Report that require
  890
  attention, but at this late hour I certainly shall not weary your Lordships by speaking any further. I repeat that I am very anxious indeed to hear the reply that will be made on behalf of the Government. I have, with full responsibility, brought a charge of apathy against the Government on this matter, especially with regard to the Interim Report. I shall be delighted if at the end of this debate I am able to feel that that charge has been answered.
  6 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I should like to support both the question and the plea of the noble Lord who has just spoken. This Report has been awaited with great interest and, I believe, read with wide approbation by those who are concerned with the care of children. Its main recommendations also command wide assent—such recommendations, for example, as the extension of the scope of all public care, the setting up of trained children's officers, the reduction of the many departments concerned and the setting up of one co-ordinating authority, the better training of workers and visitors throughout this whole field, and, as the last speaker has said, the general oversight and inspection of all homes and, with discretion, of those who have care of adopted children.
  There is agreement (is there not?) that some of the present confusion is due to the fact that several departments are both locally and centrally concerned with this particular problem. I hope one is not being cynical if one says that it would be a major miracle in Whitehall if those departments became one merely by the method of departmental conference. I think we have got to admit that a good deal of the poor quality of the work done in homes and, I suppose, sometimes in inspections, is due to the lack of trained workers and, up till now, the lack of any provision for adequate training. This is a matter which is admirably worked out in the Interim Report, and one only hopes that action will be taken along those lines as quickly as possible. Quite obviously a great deal is going to depend upon the quality of the people termed "children's officers" and the various visitors. It would be most unfortunate if existing school attendance officers or other officials were given a new name and set a new job. What we want are workers of a new type with a specialized and thorough training

  891
  and, I would add, a sound philosophy on life. Therefore I feel that one of the most important things in the two Reports is the recurring emphasis on the importance of training in this field of social activity.
  I should like to express the hope that the churches should be able to make their contribution in this special field. I might put it this way. If piety is no substitute for sanitation, neither is sanitation a substitute for wholesome and cheerful piety. I would like to call the attention of your Lordships to the observation on religious care, and also to the further note on page 183 of the Report, because I think those two passages reflect fairly accurately the views of the Christian communities, indeed the religious communities of this country. We agree that general inspection is most desirable. I know from experience that many of the homes and shelters for which my own communion has been and is responsible have benefited greatly by the advice of the inspectorate of the Home Office, and I have no doubt that if that whole method of inspection can be extended we shall benefit still more in the future. A good home has nothing to fear from a good inspector, and a bad home ought not to exist.
  At the same time, I would agree personally with the general recommendation of the Report that institutions are a second best. Nevertheless, as things are, there is an urgent need for more small homes of various kinds. There is one type of home which, as far as I have read, is not mentioned or asked for in the Report, which some of us do believe to be necessary. I refer to the home for unmarried mothers, with nursery accommodation attached to it, where an unmarried mother can live and go out to work and still keep her baby. We have in the Church of England a certain number of homes for unmarried mothers and their babies at the earliest stage, and one of the most distressing things in those homes is the case of the unmarried mother who wants to keep her baby—and she ought to be encouraged to keep her baby—being forced by economic pressure, or else by unsympathetic parents, to allow the child to be adopted. Workers in this particular field feel that if there was a larger provision of hostels for unmarried
  892
  mothers, with nurseries attached, it would obviate that loss and hardship and the community would benefit.
  As time is pressing I want to confine myself to asking a fundamental question: Can we be satisfied that 125,000 children are deprived of normal home life in this country, especially when we remember that that is not the whole tale? There are also a very considerable number of children living with parents who are vicious or mentally deficient, under conditions of bestial squalor which are quite shocking. We had this matter raised in the House nearly two years ago, and figures to-day are no better than they were then. In the last three years in one district of the West Riding there have been on an average 1,650 cases dealt with by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and last year 45 cases were brought into court and convictions obtained, which is the highest number on record. What happens then? The parents go to prison for a few months, and apparently in prison they get no sort of treatment of a psychiatric kind and no sort of education in parentcraft. The children in the meantime are lodged in the Poor Law Institution or somewhere, and when that little episode is over they go back to the previous conditions unchanged. That is a deplorable state of affairs, due very likely to the lack of homes at the present time.
  As I say, although institutions are a second best, institutions are still necessary. I think the Report would have gained in strength had it strayed just a little from its terms of reference and drawn the attention of the public and the Government to the existence of a very large number of children living under those shocking conditions. Large numbers of children are being in fact deprived of anything like a normal home life. I would, therefore, press upon His Majesty's Government the urgency of this whole question. Whether we think in terms of the setting up of homes or the training of workers and children's officers for the prevention of the fundamental causes of this particular evil, legislation as well as vigorous administrative action is needed.
  In conclusion, may I say that I share, at least to some extent, the feeling of criticism expressed by the first speaker? Some of us who are not Party people expected the present Government, whatever

  893
  they did or did not do, to be peculiarly sensitive to the claims of humanity in general and in particular. We are a little disappointed sometimes that, owing to choice in some cases and pressure of circumstances in others, economic and political issues have inevitably had priority. We hope that in the days to come questions like the one of which we are now thinking may have the urgent and full attention of His Majesty's Government. It is at least arguable whether the nationalization of transport will bring unmixed blessings to the country, and I have no doubt that that will be argued to the full in your Lordships' House before long; but in any community which keeps its soul it surely is beyond argument that it is right that we should care, and care constructively, for the reform of evil-doers and, in particular, for the true welfare of children deprived of normal home life, so that they may be, in the old phrase, Christianly and virtuously brought up in as near an equivalent to a good home as the community can provide.
  6.12 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not want to detain you for very long at this late hour, but there is one matter about which I am not very happy. In paragraph 440 of the Curtis Report it is suggested that these so-called "deprived" children should be cared for by a special children's committee and that this committee should act through a special children's officer. When we look at one of the other recommendations, that contained in paragraph 431, we find it is stated quite emphatically that the children should be the subject of constant local interest and that they should be absorbed to the greatest possible extent in the life of the neighbourhood. Surely the proposal to appoint a special Children's committee, with a special children's officer, will tend to increase the separation from the other children in the neighbourhood to which these deprived children are subject. Their welfare will be the responsibility of various other committees, such as the maternity and child welfare committee and some branch of the public health committee. If we are to achieve what we think is best for these chidlren, surely they should be the responsibility of the committee which has the care of all the other children in that particular part of the country. If we
  894
  make a divorce between various bodies looking after the various types of children, we shall take away from the new committees for the care of children a good deal of the valuable information and experience which the maternity and child welfare committees have acquired.
  Another very important argument in favour of keeping these children under the care of the health departments of the local authorities is that in dealing with young children it is their medical care which is really the most important consideration of all. Anyone who has worked in this field will, I think, agree that a community of young children is particularly susceptible to infection and various outbreaks of infectious disease. Very simply and very unexpectedly a number of deaths can occur from quite unsuspected causes when children are together in that sort of way. Surely, therefore, the really logical person under whom these children should be put is the local medical officer of health, because he has the entire responsibility for their care in his part of the world. It may be said that it is perfectly simple for a children's committee to work in very close conjunction with the public health committee and its medical staff. I do not doubt for a moment that that would be a suitable arrangement in normal times, but it means that when a crisis occurs there is no one person to take the responsibility or to come to any kind of a decision. It is at those moments that a tragedy can occur. The recommendation that special children's officers should be appointed to deal with the children is, I think, a perfectly sound one, but I would much prefer that the children's officer should be on the staff of the medical officer of health and be somebody in the nature of a health visitor. These people are women of great experience; they are trained as nurses, they do a good deal of extra training in public health and they would, I think, be far and away the best type of person to visit and inspect children's communities.
  If that view of the local responsibility for children were accepted, it would mean that the central department in charge would be the Ministry of Health. I think that is really the best department to deal with them, because it has at the present time a large number of very well-trained men and women inspectors and a trained medical staff. There is one further fact which I think would be an advantage,

  895
  and that is that the Ministry of Health has no penal powers; it is purely an advisory Ministry. Some people say it might be better if it were given some kind of penal powers, but I rather doubt that myself. The alternative bodies are not quite as satisfactory. One is the Ministry of Education. The job of the Ministry of Education is primarily to deal with education. Furthermore, if you are going to put these unfortunate deprived children in the care of that Ministry it will again separate them from the normal children in the community. The other Ministry might be the Home Office, but there again the same question of dividing the children applies. Although the Home Office will do, and already does, an enormous amount of good and kind work for the people under its care, in the public view it is still connected with crime and prison.
  6.20 p.m.
  LORD HOLDEN: My Lords, I would not venture to encroach upon your Lordships' time at this late hour had not the Curtis Report contained certain remarks about the delinquent child, which is a subject in which I have been interested for many years. Therefore I hope your Lordships will allow me to make one or two remarks about it. I propose to confine my remarks to the hostel service, where boys and girls are placed under probation. I certainly do not understand the legal side of it, but I think a certain amount can be done to improve this service without legislation. As your Lordships know, the hostels are run either by the local authorities or by voluntary organizations. In the Curtis Report it is said—and this interested me somewhat—that the homes which are run by the voluntary organizations are better than those run by the local authorities. That gave me some pleasure, because I have attempted to run one myself. They said, of course, that they varied from one organization to another.
  I would like, if I may, to endorse in general what the noble Earl opposite said with regard to inspection of these organizations. I do know, by personal contact, that conditions in some are shocking, and I think not only is it right for the children that they should be inspected, but it is right for the organizations themselves. We want inspection. We try and help in
  896
  our small way, in voluntary organizations, by having one annual inspection, and we beg the authorities to carry out inspection.
  The noble Earl opposite referred to every aspect of this problem, and I would like to endorse all that he said about hostels. May I turn for a moment to the internal economy of a hostel which is registered? As your Lordships know, every registered hostel is inspected, and to be registered, of course, you have to appeal for public funds. The finances have been greatly improved since June 1 of this year, when the maximum contribution which a hostel gets was increased to £2. That is to say, the probationer pays 10s. and the maximum amount payable from public funds is 30s. I will not go into technicalities, but I would like to suggest that that is an improvement and I am very glad of it. I cannot help referring to the question of clothing. In these voluntary hostels—and I am sure this applies both to boys and girls—when boys come into our hostels every single stitch of clothing they have on has to be burnt, and we get only £12 to refit them. That is not enough. If any of us started to redress ourselves from scratch, so to speak, on £12, we should find the task impossible. Before the war we appealed for clothes and we got them but to-day I think many noble Lords would share my unwillingness to part with clothes. With that £12 you have to buy everything, and I do suggest that it is a thing for which an increase could be given.
  Your Lordships might ask how we get coupons. The other day the voluntary society to which I belong asked the Board of Trade for 1,500 coupons for our boys on probation. They replied, "Certainly you can have them, but when you ask for coupons next time we want these 1,500 coupons back." I wrote to them that that would be perfectly impossible. When boys come up before the court they very rarely have any coupons; I regret to say their coupons are constantly taken by their parents. That was the reply I gave to the Board of Trade. I would like to say that they understood my point of view and I would take this opportunity of thanking the humane and common-sense officials for what they did.
  There is one other point I would like to mention, and that is with regard to the payment of wardens. I think this

  897
  is the most important point I wish to make to your Lordships. There is no payment whatsoever from public funds for wardens. You get your payments to help the probationer, but you get nothing for the man who runs the show. The result—and I notice the Curtis Report points this out—is that the wardens are often bad. I know of one warden who only gets £75 a year, and the result is that that man has to work outside to make up his income, which is another unfortunate result. You get adolescent young men who should be under masculine control, but who are under feminine control. I think if you want a good man you have got to pay for him, and public funds should be used for that purpose. We want our wardens to be leaders of youth in the best sense of the word.
  In conclusion, I would like to say that at the end of the Report there is a reservation by certain members of the Committee on religious matters. Actually, it only refers to children boarded out, but it would also cover those who are in hostels. I personally attach immense importance to that. I do not think any of us who take any part in the welfare of children in this country believe that by hitting any boys or girls you can make them better citizens. I know of no probation officer in this country who approves of corporal punishment—not a single one. There is also this point. What is the use of telling a boy or girl that if they thieve, if they disobey, or if they set a rick on fire, they are anti-social? How can you tell them that when they know nothing about such matters? There is only one answer to that—although I realize it is not always possible—and it is that they should have a sound religious background both in the home and also whenever possible in the hostels as well.
  6.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, but I should not like to sit through this debate and not say from this Bench how sincerely we share the feelings which have been expressed here, and how anxious we are that the Government should undertake as soon as possible a really satisfactory legislative handling of these difficulties. I have had occasion to complain, rightly or wrongly, about one or two other matters which have not already been dealt with by legislation which the
  898
  Government have introduced. I think it would be quite unfair to use that in reference to the Curtis Report. It is inevitable that there should be a very considerable time occupied in considering how such legislation should be framed, and I do not make any reproach on that score at all.
  Indeed, when you read the Curtis Report—and it is a very interesting document to read—the first thing that strikes you is that so many Government Departments are concerned. There are three major Departments, and sometimes another one or two. It is quite true, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said just now, that it takes a little time, in those circumstances, to get an agreed policy. It would be quite impossible to produce a comprehensive Bill in the course of a month or so. What I am anxious about, in common with the noble Earl who opened this discussion, is to receive some reassurance on two points. I should like to be assured that there are members of the Government, high in office, who are really dealing with it. This is a matter which calls for first-class attention and legislation. If there were some member of this Government who was able to vow that he would make himself responsible for a new Child Act, one that would really meet some of these terrible things, he would deserve a higher place in the gallery of prominent politicians, than some others who will, no doubt, do their conscientious best in other directions. You cannot read this document without seeing that we are living in the presence of an amount of cruelty towards and misunderstanding and frustration of young children that is truly horrible.
  The other point on which I should like to be assured is that the Government are now really doing all they can. I know all about the circular that was sent out—it appeared at the moment when there was a little criticism—and I do not say that circulars are not valuable things. It is not really difficult to send out a circular, but a circular is not the course called for by this Report. I am not reproaching anybody, but although I have a question that appears on the Order Paper for today, I feel bound to make these remarks which represent my deep feeling in this matter. Al the same time, I want to say, quite frankly, that I do not for a moment reproach the Government for not having

  899
  yet introduced legislation. I am sure it will be a very difficult and complicated matter to get the legislation in the correct form. I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Amulree; I do not think the whole interest of these children is connected with health. Health is important, but there are many other things equally important. I do not wish to say any more for I want to save time, but I did not like to remain entirely silent on a subject which deeply affects our young generation, and which is one of the most serious interests of many of us, particularly those of us who have had responsibility in what I may call the "homes" department of the State.
  5.32 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Earl opposite for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of the main points he intended to raise. I shall try to reward him by giving a fuller answer than I should otherwise have been in a position to do. I should also like to thank the noble Earl—and I am sure I am speaking for the whole House—for the opportunity of discussing a subject of very great public importance. It is a very good thing for us in this House to be reminded occasionally of our joint responsibility with another place for the welfare of many thousands of homeless children. I can assure the noble Lord that it is a real help to the Government and to the Departments concerned, particularly while policy is still in the fluid stage, to have the views of noble Lords who have made a special study of this question from their particular angle. I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken for their extremely urgent desire to help. I must also apologize because I shall not be in a position to answer all their points, but I hope they will blame the clock for that rather than blame me.
  May I say how grateful I am for the intervention of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, a former Home Secretary, who speaks with the experience of one who has spent several years in the actual Department responsible for a number of these homeless children. I can immediately answer his first question. He asked whether any Ministers of high rank are making themselves personally
  900
  responsible for giving attention to me recommendations of the Curtis Report. I can tell the noble Viscount that the Minister of Health, the Home Secretary, and the Minister of Education have given, and are giving, their personal time to the consideration of the recommendations of that Report. I should like, on behalf of the Government, to thank the Chairman and members of the Curtis Committee for the time and thought they have given to this inquiry, which was a public service of outstanding importance and usefulness. They were all busy people and, like most of us, with many other interests and occupations; nevertheless they gave up many of their working days for about 18 months to the business of this Committee. The full Committee met on sixty-four days, during which it examined 229 witnesses. As they were not satisfied with second-hand evidence of the way homeless children are cared for, the members of the Committee themselves visited no less than 451 institutions, and many foster homes, in different parts of the country.
  This Report to which the noble Earl has directed our attention is a landmark in the history of collective care of children, because it is the outcome of the first public inquiry wide enough in scope to cover every type and class of homeless child. It is safe to say that many of these children will owe an even greater debt of gratitude than we do to the humane and public-spirited authors of this Report. I am glad that they have had the satisfaction of producing a Report that has stirred the public conscience, and also a Report that, far from sharing the fate of many other Reports that languished indefinitely in pigeon-holes, has already set in motion the administrative machinery of Government Departments and local authorities. I do not think anyone could read through this Report without painful emotion. Certain passages conjure up a picture of neglected and unhappy children that no one who has read them is likely to forget.
  The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, read the House a passage about the deplorable conditions in one public assistance institution visited by members of the Committee, but he did not report the footnote at the bottom of the same page. I think it will reassure the House to hear what that footnote actually said. It said:
  "The attention of the local authority was drawn immediately to the state of these children, and they have now been removed to a separate nursery."

  901
  It is also reassuring to know that bad cases have been rare, and that, in the words of the Report,
  "By far the greater number of homes were, within the limits of their staffing, accommodation, and administrative arrangements, reasonably well-run from the standpoint of physical care, and in other ways the child has inure material advantages than could have been given to him in the average poor family."
  But, of course, people are not satisfied to-day that a child is properly looked after if it is clothed and fed. The public conscience demands a much higher standard of child care than it did some thirty or forty years ago, when private philanthropy and the Poor Law were regarded as good enough for children without a family. The criterion of child care in the Report is that the unlucky child without a home has exactly the same rights, and deserves exactly the same consideration, as the lucky child with a home. It takes for granted that we all recognize that in the absence of parents or guardian it is our business, collectively, to stand in loco parentis and to provide those children who have lost the usual family background with the best possible substitute for a real home. I think that both these views are entirely in accordance with average opinion to-day.
  But we are sometimes in danger of forgetting that our existing system of providing for the homeless child developed its institutions and practices in response to a very different climate of public opinion. It is not surprising that the Report finds a wide gap between the standard of child care upheld by the members of the Committee of Inquiry and the standard actually applied at the present, time, and over a period of many years, by a majority of public and private agencies. The main quality it found lacking in most of these substitute homes was what the normal parent gives the normal child almost without knowing it—a strong and constant flow of personal affection and a sense of security that comes from long and habitual experience of the same familiar faces in the same familiar surroundings.
  No child lacking this sort of relationship with a grown-up person can hope to have a full and happy childhood. The substitute homes should, therefore, compensate to the greatest possible extent for the psychological, as well as the material, advantages that the normal child derives
  902
  from a family background. I think everyone accepts as the principal aim of policy, present and future, the provision of these elementary features of the ordinary pattern of home life. But I think it is also accepted that existing administrative machinery, both central and local, is quite unequal in present circumstances to this enormous and novel task. The authorities and agencies now responsible for homeless children have grown up in an entirely haphazard and sporadic fashion. They have been formed to meet the particular needs of particular types of children, or according to the particular direction of philanthropic endeavour at particular times and places, or as a result of the independent decisions of a multitude of local authorities, in towns and country districts, and of a number of different Government Departments. We agree entirely with the Committee that this unplanned growth has led to much confusion and waste of effort and to serious lack of co-ordination both at the centre and locally. The jungle of Committees and agencies was, undoubtedly, one reason for many of the present defects in arrangements for the care of these homeless children. It follows from this, as the Committee said, that what is needed is co-ordination and simplification in accordance with a national plan covering every type of homeless child. This would also mean concentrating administrative responsibilities, that are at present widely dispersed, both at the centre and locally.
  Here I would like to say in reply to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, that we do accept the recommendation of the Curtis Committee that one Government Department should be responsible for all homeless children, whether they are temporarily or permanently homeless, and whatever may be the cause or origin of the lack of a home. To make all the necessary alterations in powers and functions would, of course, mean legislation, and I will explain in a moment why we are not ready for legislation yet. I was very glad to hear from the noble Viscount opposite, speaking as he did with the advantage of his long administrative experience, that he understood some of our difficulties. I cannot, I am afraid, accept the noble Earl's suggestion about an interim Children's Committee to take the place, pending legislation, of the ad hoc Children's Committee recommended in the

  903
  Report, because I am not yet certain that such an ad hoc Committee is, in every case, the most suitable instrument of local government. This, I think, follows from the idea of developing more unification among the local authorities responsible for these children. I should like to remind the noble Earl that the joint circular issued on November 23 mentioned "lack of co-ordination between different Departments of the same authority," as one of the faults that need to be remedied. And I am glad to be able to tell him that as a result of this encouragement—the encouragement given by the circular—many local authorities have already taken the initial steps towards what the noble Earl desires.
  We do accept the view that legislation will be necessary, but I am afraid that I cannot forecast, at the moment, what the form of the Bill will be, or when it will be introduced. That does not mean, as some noble Lords might suppose, that another useful Bill has been elbowed out of our legislative programme by doctrinaire Socialist measures. The reason—if I may give it—is simply this: that we have not yet had time to work out a satisfactory scheme. It is the time factor that counts. May I remind the House that the Report only appeared this autumn, that it contains 62 recommendations, a number of which will require legislation, and furthermore, that these recommendations, and any alterations that on consideration may seem preferable, must be considered not only by the Government but by the representative bodies of local authorities and voluntary agencies engaged in the work of looking after these homeless children.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, who as an independent Member of Parliament cannot be suspected of any tenderness towards the present Government, put this argument very neatly in a debate which took place in another place. He then said: "I would much sooner have the right thing done a little later than have hasty legislation now." Of course, Mr. Kenneth Lindsay has had experience at the Ministry of Education, so he was speaking with a background of real knowledge. Hasty legislation, as noble Lords are aware, often means errors that take years to rectify, and I am sure it would be a mistake, when dealing with a matter of this importance, not to allow enough time to
  904
  do the job thoroughly and to do it once and for all. Until we know just how much can be achieved by the quicker and more satisfactory administrative method, it is impossible to say what the contents of the Bill will be. But let me add, in reply to the question asked by the noble Earl opposite, that we have not ruled out the introduction of a Bill this Session.
  There is one question which I hope noble Lords will ask themselves. Is this a problem that can be solved by legislation? Can any Statute, however carefully framed, give the homeless child the sort of substitute home and substitute parents we all desire? What the Curtis Report recommends, as the nearest approach to normal family life, is either boarding out children with foster parents, or, if public residential care is indispensable, the setting up of separate homes for groups of not more than twelve children to one adult, each of which will be something like, and have something of the atmosphere of a large family.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: Surely the Curtis Committee's Report does not recommend the extinction of the great voluntary services which, indeed, they most strongly commend?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount. I was going to make a qualification. This should no exclude the use of larger residential homes of up to thirty children—that, it is said, is the ideal maximum—for certain types of children, unstable or "problem" children. Legislation can certainly improve the administrative machinery used for these purposes but it cannot possibly provide the much larger number of substitute homes and substitute parents which is the primary requirement. Large orphanages and similar institutions are bound to wait for a sufficient supply of small houses and cottages before they can disperse their inmates, and noble Lords will appreciate that shortage of accommodation is a cause of delay, and a handicap to progress, that legislation cannot overcome. But, in spite of the limiting factor of bricks and mortar, there is much that can be done immediately or in the near future, and, certainly, without waiting for statutory changes, by administrative decisions taken either in Whitehall or locally.
  I should like to tell your Lordships what we have done already, and what

  905
  we intend to do, to implement the recommendations of the Curtis Report in this way. The noble Earl has already referred to the joint circular which was issued on November 23, with copies of the Report, to all local authorities concerned, asking them to review their present arrangements in the light of the recommendations and criticisms in the Final Report, and to take whatever action they considered practicable and appropriate. The advice that was given in this circular was received by the local authorities promptly and cordially, and we know that they are acting upon it. This initial step was followed by the strengthening of the central inspectorate, which supervises and advises both public and voluntary agencies. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on November 28 that a number of additional inspectors, both men and women, had been engaged by the Home Office and the Ministry of Health.
  The recruitment and training of the right sort of people to staff these homes is really more important than anything else, for it is to them that the children naturally look for an equivalent of the parental relationship. The Interim Report, to which the noble Earl has referred, pointed out that the usual assumption that a good character and a little domestic experience are sufficient qualifications for a house-mother is now challenged by most of the officers in charge of homes. There is general agreement that systematic training in the physical and mental well-being of children is absolutely essential as a supplement to good personal qualifications—of which I suppose the most valuable (and also the most rare) is a sense of vocation as a foster mother. The bringing up of homeless children is, in fact, a profession like teaching or medicine, and requires a similar background of trained professional skill.
  As soon as we received the Interim Report we realized that instruction in child care would mean a number of carefully organized courses in practical and theoretical subjects. We started immediately with our preparations, and we were well advanced with our plans for the training of these house-mothers and senior staff on the lines recommended by the Committee, when the Final Report was published. The launching of the training scheme was postponed to take account of any fresh recommendations that might affect or improve it, but our progress has
  906
  been so satisfactory that we expect a decision to be taken and announced in the very near future. Let me add that this training scheme will include the appointment of a Central Council on Training in Child Care. That, of course, can be done without waiting for legislation.
  Even though these improved training facilities may soon be ready and available, we are not deluding ourselves into the belief that it will be a simple or an easy matter to attract the large number of young trainees whom we require if these homeless children are to have more personal attention than they have hitherto had. There is acute competition for young women in professions such as teaching or nursing, which also offer contact with children, and it is not surprising that many of them prefer to go where they find the easiest and most pleasant conditions of work. The Central Training Council will have to consider urgently how time career of child care can be made more attractive to potential recruits than it is at present. I am sure it would help recruitment if it were more widely known that almost all homes for children are now suffering from staff shortages, and that there is urgent need for the help of many more suitable women, both young and middle-aged, who are willing to take up the good work of mothering the motherless child.
  I am glad to be able to tell the noble Earl that since the publication of the Final Report many warm-hearted people have volunteered to befriend these homeless chidren. All offers of voluntary assistance received by Government Departments are sent to local authorities or voluntary homes in the locality from which they come. I can assure the noble Earl that no good will is wasted, and I need hardly say how much those who run residential homes would welcome more visits to the children they look after, followed by letters and presents on birthdays and at Christmas. The really kind deed is to give one of these children a short holiday by the sea, or elsewhere, with other children of a similar age. I should have thought that many families would wish to take at least one homeless child for a holiday once a year. In some cases the holiday expenses can be met.
  Of course, easily the greatest voluntary service is rendered by foster parents. There is a grave shortage of people who

  907
  are willing to open their homes to these children, and we cannot extend the boarding-out system until volunteers with a genius for home-making come forward in much larger numbers. We should welcome whatever publicity women's organizations in town and country—such as the Women's Institutes and the Towns-women's Guilds—can give to the paramount need of homeless children for kind and conscientious full time foster parents. In the past, there has been almost everywhere a strong prejudice against boarding out children in the homes of professional people, and that has resulted in foster homes in this country being limited almost entirely to weekly wage earners. A child will certainly benefit from the wider resources of such a professional home, and what he or she does in later life is surely an irrelevant consideration. If only this old-fashioned prejudice can be removed, many more foster homes of first-class quality are likely to become available.
  I am glad to be able to inform the noble Earl that further administrative action being taken this week, and I have in front of me now copies of four documents that will be issued to-night by the Home Office and the Ministry of Health to county councils and county borough authorities. Their aim is to encourage and help local authorities with the boarding-out of children to foster parents. As noble Lords will remember, the Curtis Committee recommended this as the ideal method in the great majority of cases. There are two sets of rules about boarding-out, drawn up mainly for the protection of the child, and they have been amended and assimilated in accordance with views expressed in the Report. They will come into force on January 1, 1947. There is a covering Memorandum on the Boarding Out of Children and Young Persons, which gives these authorities detailed directions and guidance about the right method of boarding-out, and again follows closely the lines of the Report. Finally, there is a joint circular from these two Departments which, among other immediate administrative improvements, suggests placing responsibility for finding homes and supervizing the boarded-out children in the hands of a single officer. This is a first step towards the type of local organization in charge of a children's officer so strongly recommended in the Curtis Report. I hope this will please the noble
  908
  Lord, Lord Amulree, who stressed the importance of the children's officer.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Will the noble Earl ensure that copies of these circulars are sent to voluntary societies as a matter of interest?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will see that the nobe Earl's request is transmitted to the two Departments concerned, and I do not think there will be any difficulty about that. In conclusion, I should like to ask noble Lords to do all they can, individually, in whatever part of the country they may live, to draw attention to what the public can do to help the authorities responsible for children in their neighbourhood. I feel that if there is this great co-operative effort between the public and the people directly responsible the conditions that we all wish to see improved will improve with the greatest possible speed.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, and I thank him for the courtesy with which he answered all the numerous questions.

  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SHOW AREA.
  6.59 p.m.
  EARL HOWEhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, whether paragraph 93 of the recommendations of the Alness Committee has as yet received consideration, and if so, whether any decision has been arrived at. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me for just a moment if I explain the purpose of my question. The recommendation of the Alness Committee to which I refer says:
  "The Committee consider that it would be of advantage if the Ministry of Transport would select and subsidize a representative district as a show area. The extra expense of this experiment should not fall on the local rates. In that area everything of the best that is known should be introduced with regard to road surfaces, footpaths, pedestrian crossings, cycle tracks, traffic lights, general lighting, road signs, the treatment of acute bends and corners, and the elimination of crossings by constructing roundabouts flyover bridges or tunnels. It would be of assistance to all those concerned with road improvement if they were enabled to inspect and study such an area."
  I have put this question down because the Minister of Town and Country Planning has announced that he is going to

  909
  start new satellite towns at Crawley and Stevenage. Both these satellite towns will straddle communications. The one at Crawley will straddle communications to the south, both rail and road, and the one at Stevenage communications to the north, both rail and road. Both satellite towns will have a lot of traffic ancillary to them, and that will complicate the enormous amount of through traffic which there is bound to be. Therefore, it seemed to me it was urgently necessary that, if possible, these new satellite towns should be laid out on the most modern lines. It seemed to me it would be a good idea if these areas were selected as show or sample areas to illustrate exactly what can be done by really proper planning and the use of adequate forethought in the lay-out of our towns.
  7.2 p.m.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, in reply to the very reasonable and simple question which the noble Earl had on the Order Paper, I had prepared a very brief and clear answer. I was not aware that he was going to make suggestions about new towns. However, I will endeavour to deal with the whole point as briefly as I can at this late hour. The answer to the question on the Paper is that the recommendation made in paragraph 93 of the Report of the Alness Committee, that the Ministry of Transport should select and subsidize a representative district as a model traffic area, is under consideration by the Committee on Road Safety and will, no doubt, be dealt with in their next Report, which is expected in the not very distant future. I might add that in their Interim Report of December, 1944, the Committee on Road Safety made certain recommendations on the principles to be observed in the lay-out and use of roads in relation to road safety, and they suggested that highway and planning authorities should have regard to those principles. The Committee's recommendations have been adopted in principle as a part of long-term road planning policy.
  A revised memorandum on the lay-out and construction of roads was issued by the Ministry of Transport in 1943. A Departmental Committee set up by the Minister of Transport to consider the design and lay-out of roads in built-up areas reported this year, and their report has been printed. The Department's
  910
  technical officers maintain the closest touch with highway authorities on both the planning and execution of road schemes. It is clear, therefore, that adequate advice on the lay-out and construction of roads is already available to highway authorities, and while these authorities might welcome the adoption of the recommendation in paragraph 93 of the Alness Committee's Report, it seems doubtful whether the expense and difficulties which such an undertaking would involve could be justified in present circumstances. A definite decision on the recommendation should, however, it is suggested, be deferred until the Final Report of the Committee on Road Safety is available.
  That is as far as I can go at the moment, but I can certainly add, with regard to the planning, lay-out and construction of new towns which are, of course, not yet in existence, that every regard will be paid by the Minister of Transport, who is directly concerned, to all the advice that has been given. The trunk roads which the noble Earl has mentioned are, of course, national roads. The Minister will be concerned to see that everything possible is done to institute and provide for all the safety arrangements that have been recommended, or which, in many cases exist in practice. I cannot go beyond that at the present time.
  EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

  IMPORT OF PLUMAGE.
  VISCOUNT SIMONhad the following question on the Order Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government what efforts are being made to put into force the Plumage Act of 1921 which prohibits the import of plumage such as that of Birds of Paradise and Egrets, in an effort to prevent or discourage the cruelties perpetrated on these beautiful birds in the collection of such adornments; what instructions are given to the Customs Authorities on the subject, and what is the number of prosecutions and convictions under the Act in recent years.
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to say to those of your Lordships who have been good enough to wait, in some cases on account

  911
  of my question, that, in view of the hour, I think it would be better to postpone this question. I propose to put it down for Tuesday, January 28 next.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for consulting the convenience of the House and also the convenience of the Government in deferring this question until a more convenient time next month.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.