Lords Sitting of 21 January 1947

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  VISCOUNT JOWITT.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that His Majesty has been pleased to create the Right Honourable William Allen Baron Jowitt, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, a Viscount of the United Kingdom in the name, style and title of the Viscount Jowitt of Stevenage in the County of Hertford.
  The Lord Chancellor, having retired to robe—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

PALESTINE.
2.40 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, the question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have
2
any statement to make on the situation in Palestine.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I regret to have to inform your Lordships that the situation in Palestine is still bedevilled by crimes of violence committed by the extremist terrorist groups. After a brief period of comparative calm extending over the Zionist Congress at Basle in December, the new year saw a recrudescence of bomb outrages, culminating in an explosion at police headquarters in Haifa on January 12 when five members of the Palestine Police lost their lives and over fifty were more or less seriously wounded. Following on the flogging of a British officer and N.C.O.'s, carried out as a reprisal for the execution of a sentence of eighteen strokes on a Jewish youth of seventeen convicted of taking part in armed robbery, searches for terrorists were intensified by the police and military. In these operations, which lasted for over a week, more than thirty wanted persons suspected of being members of terrorist groups were arrested. The representative leaders of the Jewish community have denounced terrorism in the strongest terms and it is to be hoped that realization by the Jewish community in Palestine of the damage to their own cause, which inevitably results from the action of irresponsible extremists in their midst, will lead to closer and more fruitful co-operation with the authorities responsible for law and order.
I am sure your Lordships will join me in assuring the police and troops in Palestine of our whole-hearted support in the trials and dangers with which they are

3
faced and our admiration for their courage and fine discipline often under great provocation. A tribute is also due to the officials of the Civil Administration, who, despite many difficulties, have maintained at a remarkably high level the ordinary day to day government of the country. On the security side, close co-operation exists between the civil and military authorities, and all possible steps are taken to minimize the risk to British lives and property and to safeguard the interests of law-abiding citizens.
Your Lordships will not expect me to make any statement on long-term policy at this time. The Palestine Conference is about to resume, and on this occasion, in addition to representatives from the Arab States, a delegation representing the Palestine Arabs will take part in the discussions. I regret to say that, as a result of a decision reached at the Zionist Congress at Basle, representatives of the Jewish Agency are not prepared to join the Conference in present circumstances. Advantage has been taken of the recent visit to London of the High Commissioner for Palestine to discuss with him the whole range of outstanding political and administrative problems affecting the country, including questions of long-term policy. A full examination of the difficulties facing His Majesty's Government in Palestine has been carried out, and it is our earnest hope that as a result of the forthcoming discussions we shall see a final solution to this long outstanding problem.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, for his reply. We on this side of the House would particularly like to associate ourselves with the tribute which he paid to all ranks of the Services in Palestine and all ranks of the Civil Administration. I am sure that I represent the strong feeling in all parts of the House when I say that they have shown a devotion to duty, discipline and forbearance of which we can all be proud. I agree with the noble Viscount that the time for discussing the solution of the Palestine question has not yet come. A Conference is about to meet, and there is a Motion on the Order Paper for discussion later on. But, before I sit down, I would like to associate myself with the appeal which the noble Viscount made to the Jewish Agency and to the Jews to
4
do all that they can to put an end to terrorism in Palestine. I believe that their co-operation is absolutely essential, and that it is in the interests not only of peace in Palestine but of Jewry throughout the world.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches I wish to say that we associate ourselves with the tribute which has been paid to the Palestine Administration for the manner in which they are carrying out their very difficult tasks. We also, whether we are Zionists or not, share most strongly in the detestation of terrorism which has been expressed. I sincerely hope that the forthcoming negotiations may lead to a successful solution of this most thorny problem.

EXCHANGE CONTROL BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Forestry dedication covenants (England).
(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 (within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919) 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).
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

5
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: My Lords, this Amendment is very similar to one that I moved on the Committee stage. It is drafted in legal language, which makes it rather confusing for the layman to read, but the object of the Amendment is to enable a dedication covenant to be terminated if the circumstances under which that covenant was entered into have changed to a material extent. I would remind your Lordships that a land owner, say fifty years hence, may be 'confronted with a situation entirely different from that in which a dedication covenant was entered into by perhaps his father or his grandfather, and I am suggesting that, in such circumstances, the land owner ought to have the right to have the matter reconsidered. I raised this matter on the Committee stage, and the spokesman for His Majesty's Government was good enough to say they would look into the subject; but I am 'afraid that the result of that examination—which I am sure they gave—is not reflected in any Amendment that my noble friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, has put down. Therefore I would like formally to move my Amendment without repeating what I said before. I shall be very grateful if the noble Earl can now tell us why His Majesty's Government, who first looked rather kindly on this Amendment, are now unwilling to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Seaborne.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, We
6
have considered the noble Earl's amendment very carefully, but I am afraid that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept it. The whole purpose of this Bill is to try and get woodlands dedicated permanently as woodlands. That is the essence of it: to try to get various parts of this country growing timber for our national needs. The suggestion of the noble Earl is that it might be expedient in certain circumstances to alter the use of the woodlands, but I should like to remind him that, as I sail on the Committee stage, this can be done with the consent of the Forestry Commission. Above the Forestry Commission there are the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that if any really vital need arises for the woodland to be changed—either on grounds of national importance or for other obvious reasons—I do not think it is likely that the Forestry Commission or the Ministers would refuse.
We do not want, however, to have various land owners or owners of forests continually putting up cases that they wish to de-dedicate their woods, for the purpose of growing, it may be, fruit, or possibly for some other purpose, which would be decided by an outside arbitrator. After all, this would be putting upon an arbitrator, who is responsible to no one but himself, a responsibility for deciding forestry policy and whether it would be wise that certain areas of land should continue to grow certain forms of timber. In the view of His Majesty's 'Government this would be decidedly undesirable. Forestry policy must be carried
out by the Forestry Commission, subject to the final arbitration of the Ministers concerned. I can assure the noble Earl that we have considered his, point, but I hope that in view of what I have said he will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment: because I think the cases which would occur would be comparatively rare, but I cannot help expressing grave disappointment with my noble friend's reply. It is really most unsatisfactory and smells of bureaucracy. What are the reasons my noble friend gives? The Forestry Commissioners do not want to be bothered with applications made by land owners for the dedication covenant to be reconsidered. That was the first thing. But one would not be

7
asking an enormous amount of the Forestry Commissioners if, after the lapse of a certain number of years, they were asked to review the circumstances in which a deed of covenant had been entered into. But my noble friend gives it as his first reason that they do not want land owners to be continually asking for these covenants to be reconsidered. I should like to protest against the first reason my noble friend had on his brief.
The second reason is even more strange—that the Government will not agree to forestry policy being dictated by an outsider. It is not a question of forestry policy, because, ex hypothesi, the whole case is whether a particular piece of land is best used in the national interests under forestry or under some other use. The argument which I gave to your Lordships on the
Committee stage was that the circumstances might entirely change. A new crop might be discovered for which the land was eminently suitable, and under that crop the land would be much more remunerative. A new crop has been discovered in my own experience in Hampshire. The land owner ought, at any rate, to have the opportunity of submitting the matter to arbitration. My noble friend says he will not agree to questions of forestry policy being decided by anybody except the Forestry Commission. My fear is that the Forestry Commission, who are forestry enthusiasts and who, quite rightly, think first and last about forestry, are going to be made judges of matters which do not merely concern forestry but also concern agriculture, local amenities and other things. It is most unfortunate that the attitude of the Government is so rigid that they are not prepared even to make a concession on a point of this sort; a point which, I admit, will only occur on comparatively rare occasions. I do not wish to make too much of it, but I do think it is unfortunate the Government should adopt such an attitude towards a request that is eminently reasonable.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of my noble friend's Amendment. What I found so unsatisfactory in the Minister's reply was that everything had to go through the sieve of the Forestry Commission. I have the highest respect for
8
the Forestry Commission; they know their job and they are eminently high-minded, respectable, and patriotic people; but they are forestry people, and if any land owner has to pass his request through them before it goes to any other Ministry, he is very liable to get a biased decision. If the Minister had said that in the case of an appeal by a landlord it would be considered by an inter-departmental committee composed of the various Ministries concerned, such as the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, I think that would have been a more satisfactory method. To use this sifting process before the landowner can get to anybody else is a singularly ineffective piece of machinery.
After all, there might be other Government Departments concerned. The Minister of Town and Country Planning might wish to set up a satellite town, but I take it he would not have to apply to the Forestry Commission for permission. I do not see why there should be one set of regulations for a Minister and another set of regulations for the citizens of this country. We are not unreasonable about this at all; we are trying to improve the Bill and to get the maximum justice for all concerned. I would like to think it possible for the Minister to consider this matter a little further before the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I will add only one word to what my Leader has said, because on the last occasion when this was pressed the Lord Chancellor felt there was a good deal of reason in the appeal which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and I made to him. I will not repeat the argument which the Leader of the Opposition has used, but may I advance another one? The Minister has said it would be impossible to do this because the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland are the people concerned with agricultural policy, and the ultimate decision must rest with them on whether a thing is a matter of good forestry or not. I would reinforce what was said by my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition: why should they be judges in their own cause? The Minister, with the best will in the world, will naturally tend to support the Forestry Commission

9
through whom this comes, and who indeed, as the Minister said last time, have the absolute duty to get trees grown wherever they can.
May I suggest that in another Bill, which is very similar, the Minister concerned—namely, the Minister of Agriculture—has, I think I am right in saving, granted an independent inquiry? Am I not right in thinking that under the Agriculture Bill, if there is a discussion as to whether a tenant has farmed properly or not, and if he is put out from his home, there may be an independent inquiry? There is no Party politics with regard to this matter, because I remember that the Conservative Minister of Agriculture, when we were a National Government, stood out Very strongly in regard to this being a mater, in the final resort, for the Minister of Agriculture, and thought there ought not to be an appeal to an independent tribunal. Is it not a fact that under the Agriculture Bill which the Minister has now introduced, if there is an argument as to whether or not land has been sufficiently badly farmed, before 'a tenant may be evicted there can be an appeal to an independent tribunal? I think I am right in that.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If I may correct the noble Lord with regard to this particular Amendment, it is not a question of bad husbandry. As I understand it, it is a question of the land owner wishing to change the use of his land.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect to the noble Earl, I am perfectly well aware what the Amendment is. This is an Amendment by which a land owner who has dedicated his land and is growing timber upon it, says: "It would be a much more economical proposition, and it would be more in the national interest (and surely the building up of wealth and of lucrative crops in this country is a very important thing) if I grew, shall we say, apple trees instead of oak trees upon this property." That is the issue. That is a much stronger question for arbitration than the one given in the Agriculture Bill. It is not even said that the man is a bad forester. He is a good forester—as my noble friend is—and he says "I will be a letter forester. In fact, it is better in the interests of the country if I grow apple trees instead of oak."
Now the Government have allowed an independent tribunal where it is alleged
10
that a man is a bad farmer and ought to be sacked. He has an independent tribunal to which he can appeal. That is a matter of good husbandry, just as much as what kind of trees should be grown is a matter of good forestry. The whole point is this: is the man doing the best for his land? The Government, through the Minister of Agriculture, have granted a right of appeal to an independent tribunal under the Agriculture Bill. As regards every farm in England, the Minister has given a right of appeal to an independent tribunal before a tenant is turned out on the grounds that he is not farming properly. I really do suggest it is not unreasonable, or derogatory to the Minister, or an assault upon this principle of good forestry and good husbandry, to give a right of appeal to an-independent tribunal where a perfectly good forest landowner says: "I shall be doing better for myself and for the country if I grow fruit trees instead of forest trees." There is no Party politics in this, and I hope on the argument of consistency alone, in addition to the merits, that the noble Earl will look at this matter again before we come to the Third Reading.
3.12 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will be firm on this matter. It seems to me that the first essential in a forestry policy is stability. Any tendency to chop and change must necessarily lead to a position of instability With great respect, I do not follow the points of either the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, or the noble Viscount who has just sat down. I do not think that the parallels which they drew were really justifiable. They seem to me to involve two quite different situations. Moreover, may I suggest there is another matter which will enter into this question. When a land owner dedicates his forests, he becomes entitled to certain grants. He will have received those grants. The mover of this Amendment is suggesting 'that a subsequent land owner, having inherited the land which has been dedicated by his father, or maybe his grandfather, may decide that it is more profitable to change the use of the land and request that the dedication should be annulled. During the time that this forest has been dedicated very considerable sums of money may have been paid

11
to that land owner in order to develop the forests in the interests of the country as a whole. It is the object of this Bill, and I am sure the object of all your Lordships in this House in dealing with this Bill, to improve the forestry situation in the country. Considerable sums may, under the dedication, have been paid to the previous owners of those forests in order that they should be forests. I am somewhat puzzled as to what the situation would be supposing it were possible to de-dedicate without the consent of the Forestry Commission, or by arbitration, as is suggested, because it would seem that certain monies become repayable, and I think it would be an extremely difficult matter to adjust.
A great deal has been said about the need to go to arbitration. I suggest that
the Forestry Commission is, as it were, answered for in this House by my noble friend the Minister. I have no doubt that if the alternative use of the land was one which was required by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, the Minister of Agriculture would be approached and the Forestry Commission would have their attention drawn, probably somewhat forcibly, to the alternative use for the land; and I have no doubt that if in fact the alternative use of the land were deemed to be desirable in the national interest or in the interest of a particular community, permission would be granted. That is perfectly possible and it would have to be done departmentally. I do not think, frankly, that that is the argument, but I do think that, if it were for agricultural use, in view of the fact that the Forestry Commission and matters pertaining to agriculture of this country come under the same Minister, there would be little doubt that consideration would be given to the alternative use. I hope His Majesty's Government will be firm on this Amendment, which I feel would weaken, perhaps very seriously in a certain respect, the force of the Bill and the consistency of forestry policy.
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am afraid I do not share the sentiments of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I think that he has forgotten the terms of the Amendment itself. The Amendment states:
"…that, having regard to the national and local interests and requirements and the
12
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…"
Now the consideration is really far wider than the suggestion made by the noble Lord. I earnestly hope that His Majesty's Government will reconsider this point, and for a rather different reason from any yet given. The whole policy of His Majesty's Government is to persuade land owners to dedicate their land. I am quite certain that, if that is the policy, it would be much better effected by the acceptance of this Amendment. A certain number of land owners would dedicate their land if this Amendment were accepted, but I am sure that there will be some who will not do so if the Amendment does not go through. Therefore I earnestly hope that His Majesty's Government will reconsider this matter.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I speak as a Forestry Commissioner. I hope that noble Lords will not, for that reason, consider that I think only in terms of forestry. There is a considerable amount of misconception about the Bill and the effect of this Amendment on it. If I might give the point of view of the Forestry Commission and of one who was, to some extent, responsible for launching the dedication scheme upon the world, I would say that the point we had in mind, and which is the background of the whole scheme which is outlined in the White Paper of 1943, is that during two wars the woodlands of this country had been very seriously devastated.
It is therefore necessary, in the public interest, not only that they should be rehabilitated as soon as possible and as efficiently as possible, but that there should be some certainty that these woodlands will continue to go on being useful as woodlands in order to provide timber for the purposes of this country. I think we want to bear that in mind throughout any arguments on the Amendments which are on the Paper. As to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that would create a breach in the dedication scheme. It is true that it may be a small one, but breaches of that nature have a habit of becoming very much larger, and if it got very much larger there is no doubt that the whole basis of the dedication scheme would be destroyed, and the whole desire to rehabilitate our

13
woodlands in the national interest might easily be destroyed. That is the main point that I want to make.
As to the question of the user of the land, I quite agree with the previous speaker that this is not on all fours at all with the question of dispossession of a farmer for farming his land badly. The dispossession of a farmer is not a question of the user of the land in the technical sense of the term; it is the way in which he is exercising that user that matters—whether he is doing it well or badly. If he is considered to be doing it badly, he can appeal under the Bill that is shortly to be brought before another place. In this case it is a question of whether the land should be used for forestry or whether it should be used for some other purpose. I cannot see those Ministries which require land for building purposes allowing the Minister of Agriculture or the Forestry Commission to stand in their way if they really want it. I would therefore discard from consideration any development other than an alternative agricultural use included in that forestry; that is to say, to use the suggestion which the noble Viscount in front of me used, forestry or the growing of apple trees.
The Minister of Agriculture is now responsible for the operations of the Forestry Commission. I do not anticipate that if the question of whether the land should be used for the growing of oak trees or of apple trees came before the Forestry Commission as it is constituted today, the Forestry Commission would hesitate to allow apple trees to be grown. It is possible, however, that a Forestry Commission in the future might easily say: "No, you can have nothing but oak trees on that land." But I cannot conceive of any Minister of Agriculture no matter what his political complexion, whether he be Conservative, whether he be Socialist, whether he be Communist or whether he be Fascist, giving preference to the growing of trees as against the growing of food where it can be proved to him without a shadow of doubt that the growing of food is a more useful way of utilizing that piece of land. I do hope, therefore, that the noble Earl, bearing in mind the background to the whole dedication scheme and with the realization that the Minister of Agriculture is going to be responsible and is responsible today for the work of the Forestry Commission, will
14
appreciate that, while the dangers which he says he envisages and which are admittedly not very large at the moment may never eventuate, the danger of that breach in our dedication scheme widening in the future is very real and might easily destroy the whole of the forestry scheme.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am disappointed that the noble Lord is unable to accept this Amendment or to give a more sympathetic answer, but as I have admitted that I do not think it is of very great importance I would like to withdraw it. I would, however, like to say that I thoroughly agree with the noble Earl who said that rejection by the Government of this Amendment is going to make it more difficult to get land owners to dedicate their lands. With that protest, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, after Clause r, to insert the following new clause:
Arbitration.
" . Any question or difference between the Commissioners and the owner of any land as to whether such land or any part thereof is suitable or necessary for timber production or for purposes connected therewith or as to the desirability or otherwise of the execution in respect thereof of a forestry dedication covenant shall, in default of agreement, be decided by a person having experience of agriculture and forestry nominated by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a new clause which to my mind raises a much more important point than the one we have just been discussing. As the Bill now stands, taken in conjunction with the 1945 Act, the following situation may arise. The Forestry Commission may require a land owner to dedicate woodlands, and the land owner may say: 'No, I do not propose to dedicate these woodlands. I am not going to use them for forestry at all, but I am going to use them for purposes ancillary to agriculture," or for any other purpose. The Forestry Commission may then use the power which they have under the 1945 Act of acquiring those woodlands. I would remind your Lordships that that is the announced policy of the Forestry Commission. If you read their Supplementary Report of 1944 you will find these words in paragraph 7:

15
"The basis of our proposal is that all woodlands judged to be suitable and necessary for timber production should either be dedicated to that purpose by the owner or acquired by the State."
The question then arises as to who is to judge whether woodlands are suitable for dedication or not. That is a matter on which I have, in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, pressed the Forestry Commission for a definition and have been quite unable to find one. No criterion is suggested. It is not as if the Forestry Commission were entering into an obligation to manage all the woodlands of the country, or all the woodlands over a certain acreage, or all the woodlands in a certain part of the country. As the matter now stands it is left entirely to the Forestry Commission to say whether they will accept dedication or require dedication in respect of any particular woodlands. We all know that the Forestry Commission have let it be known, at any rate, that while they are anxious that owners of big woodlands should dedicate, they do not want to be bothered with a lot of small woodlands.
But the bother that any given wood is to the Forestry Commission depends upon a number of other factors as well as its size. It depends very largely upon how close it happens to be to one of the administrative centres of the Commission. Therefore under the powers proposed, it would be quite open to the Commission to say: "We will administer woods within a ten or twenty miles radius of the following administrative centres because we can administer them quite conveniently with our present staff." As the Bill reads, taking it in conjunction with the 1945 Act, they could say to the owners of all woodlands within those areas: "We require dedication because we can administer these woodlands. It is necessary"—as my noble friend Lord Radnor has just said in your Lordships' hearing—"that as much timber should be grown as possible. Therefore we require the dedication of these woodlands." That, however, might be a distastrous thing to certain localities, certain villages and certain farms, and indeed to agriculture generally.
I am not prepared to accept the very engaging argument of my noble friend that because everything is under the hand of the Minister of Agriculture, therefore agriculture is in no jeopardy by reason
16
of the ambitions of the Forestry Commission. If I were Minister of Agriculture I think I might very likely be much relieved if I were able to refer a question of this sort to an impartial arbitrator who, as my Amendment says, had knowledge of agriculture as well as of forestry. The point which, so far as I can make out, does not seem to enter into the consideration of the Forestry Commission at all is that there are very important and perfectly legitimate uses to which woodlands can be put but which are not forestry in the ordinary sense of the term. The woodlands on our farms are part of the farm, and the farmer depends upon them for a number of articles which he requires to use, such as hurdles, fencing stakes, timber for estate repairs, fruit stakes and a host of other articles. I believe that once upon a time a great acreage of woodland was kept as permanent underwood, with no high forest in it at all, and that that was done for very good agricultural reasons. If a land owner has an estate on which there are, let us say, large farms but very little woodland area, it might quite well be the proper use of the entire acreage of woodland to provide these ancillary articles for agriculture. It all depends on the nature of the farms. If the farmers in the neighbourhood are growing fruit or hops, then they require a tremendous amount of this stuff, and this might quite well be the proper use for that wood.
My complaint about the Forestry Commission (a body which I greatly admire in their own sphere) is that they want to dictate to land owners, who are charged with the responsibility of estate management, how they shall manage their estates. Estate management is a different thing from forestry. Forestry is one thing, but a man who is responsible for the management of an estate has to take into account other things besides forestry. I suggest to your Lordships that it puts him in an unfair position, and that it is not in the best interests of the State if a question of this sort, which ought to be decided after having taken every factor into consideration, is in the last resort decided by people whose job is to think only of forestry, who do in fact think only of forestry, and who regard the re-afforestation of this country as so important that other interests, including agriculture, must be pushed aside. It is the unwillingness of the

17
Forestry Commission and the Government to accept arbitration in these cases which really arouses my fears, because if they have a good case they ought not to fear arbitration. It is this attitude of bureaucratic authority—" We are the Forestry Commission; we say that these woods must be dedicated and must be grown in a certain way "—which troubles me. I ask that in the last resort the question of whether any given woodland should be dedicated and devoted to scientific forestry or to some other purpose should not be decided solely by the Forestry Commission.
May I read from the Explanatory Note which was recently issued by the Forestry Commission in regard to the dedication of woodland? It reads:
"The fundamental principles underlying the scheme are as follows: (r) The rehabilitation of the woodlands must proceed with both certainty and rapidity, and all planting and natural regeneration acceptable instead of replanting must be properly looked after up to the stage of satisfactory establishment. In every case the owner must reach an early decision as to whether he is prepared to proceed with the work of rehabilitation. If an owner is so prepared and can give satisfactory assurances, he is deserving of financial assistance from the State. Where no satisfactory assurances are forthcoming within a stated period, the State should acquire the land."
That is admirable so long as it is kept in its proper perspective, but it does not take into account the other considerations which are important besides those of forestry, and I submit that the Forestry Commission are not the proper people to be made the last judges in matters of this sort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
At the end of Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, it might be convenient to your Lordships if I were to say something at this stage. I do not propose to accept this Amendment, which I frankly think has very little to commend it. I do not think that the noble Earl who moved it can have made himself acquainted with the provisions of the Act of 1945. I do not think he has any idea of how a compulsory acquisition is made, for he seemed to think, and he said so several times, that the last word rested with the Forestry Commission. That, of course, is a complete misapprehension;
18
the last word rests with Parliament. May I say something to remove a misapprehension which was, I believe, created by something I said on the last occasion? Your Lordships know that this Bill we are now discussing is a purely voluntary Bill; it has nothing compulsory in it at all. As a noble Lord said on the last occasion, there is, of course, always this danger: that if a land owner refuses to dedicate, it may be said against him: "Well, if you refuse to dedicate, then we shall exercise our compulsory powers under the Act of 1945." And that is undoubtedly so. Do not let anybody think that anything I have ever said casts the slightest doubt upon that. If a land owner refuses to dedicate his land, and the land is allowed to be unproductive, it is wholly right that the compulsory powers of acquisition should be used. We have now learned in two wars the extreme danger of not having any adequate supply of home grown timber, and I do hope the lesson will really be learned.
I quite agree that there is a danger, of course, that if you run anything to excess, if you disregard agriculture and have too much regard for forestry, you are making a mistake in that direction. Being keen on forestry, as I am, I admit quite frankly that I was apprehensive about the present set-up of the Forestry Commission, because the Minister in charge of the Forestry Commission is the Minister of Agriculture, and the agricultural pull inevitably tends to be much greater than the forestry pull. Quite frankly, I was apprehensive lest too much be given to agriculture and too little to forestry, which has always in the past been the Cinderella of the party.
That is the position, and I do tell your Lordships this. The difficulties this country is confronting are very great, and I, at any rate, have never belittled them, either now or before the last election. I believe we have got to exploit our resources at home to the utmost degree possible. One of those resources is land which is at the present moment lying unproductive. Your Lordships have been about this country, and you have all seen acre after acre of land which was cut down after the 1914–1918 war and which has never been replanted. You all know it. That state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. It is of the utmost importance in the public interest—and I believe there

19
is no Party question about this at all—that land which can be usefully used for growing timber should be so used, and the Forestry Commission would be doing less than their duty if they did not take over all such land which the owner was not prepared to deal with himself under a dedication scheme or some other scheme.
If they take over land under the 1945 Act, it is not because the owner has not dedicated, but because the land is left to lie unproductive. He may prefer it not to be tied up with dedication and he may prefer to develop his own land on his own lines and find the money himself. Well, good luck to him if he will. We cannot tolerate land which ought to be devoted to forestry being left lying fallow, and something has got to be done soon. Before land which is planted to-day is going to be of any use, apart from a small cutting of props and that sort of thing, it is going to be a period of something like fifty years. We cannot wait and dally with this thing. It has got to be done soon, and it has got to be done properly.
What then is the position? I ask your Lordships to consider with me for a moment what are the provisions under the Act of 1945, which is the only Act which contains any compulsory powers. If the Minister of Agriculture—and I stress the words "the Minister of Agriculture," because he is the person who has to act—wants to acquire any such land, he has to go through the machinery of Part II of the First Schedule. That is to say, if he wants the compulsory acquisition he has to publish notices in the local paper, he has to specify the confines of the land, and if the owner objects there has to be a Public Inquiry.
After the Public Inquiry, the Minister has to consider all the objections made, and if, on consideration of the objections which have been adduced at the Public Inquiry, the Minister still comes to the conclusion that the land ought to be taken over, what has he to do? He makes an Order, but that Order is provisional only, and has no validity unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament under the powers of Section 4 (3) of the Act of 1945. I will read the words. They are as follows:
"…Provided that, if an objection to any such order is duly made in accordance with the said Part II and is not withdrawn before the order is made, the order"—
20
that, of course, is the Order of the Minister after hearing the Inquiry—
"shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until it is confirmed by Parliament, and the said Part III shall not apply to the order."
Therefore, you have here a very elaborate code set up. I confess that I thought the code was too elaborate to enable us to act quickly, but that is the code you have. You have this elaborate machinery of a Public Inquiry and you have the Minister deciding upon the objections which have been raised. The Minister-makes his Order, but that Order is only provisional until it is confirmed by Parliament.
I ask your Lordships to say, with the very greatest respect to the noble Earl, that it is really ridiculous to say that in those circumstances the persons who have the last word are the Forestry Commission. The persons who have the last word are His Majesty's High Court of Parliament, and in a matter of this sort I would far rather have that machinery than I would have the machinery suggested in this clause. That, of course, is alternative: that you should have the matter decided by a person having experience of agriculture and forestry, nominated by the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. My experience teaches me that there are very few people who have experience of agriculture and forestry and who keep an even balance in this matter. They are either in one camp or another, but the vast majority are in agriculture. I would far rather trust to the machinery of an Inquiry and a provisional Order being made, than I would to such machinery as is suggested here. I should have thought that any land owner would have agreed with me that with this arbitration imposed by the 1945 Act—which is the alternative to the other scheme; you cannot have both—he had far greater protection than he would have under the suggested arbitration.
I therefore ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, and I conclude by saying this. There are three classes of woods. There is first of all a large acreage which is lying derelict to-day, in many cases not having been planted since 1918, when it was cut down. With regard to that, it is the bounden duty of the Forestry Commission to take it over and see that it is planted at once, unless the landlord is willing to do it himself, either by a dedication scheme or by himself finding the

21
necessary money and remaining in complete dominance of the situation. Secondly, there are the very small woods. With regard to those, it would be quite impracticable for the Forestry Commission to take them over. Added together they might make quite a valuable contribution to our timber supply. I am now talking of woods of two or three acres, and there could be no question of taking those over compulsorily. Between the two there is the intermediate class of woods of fifteen to twenty acres. That is the matter we were talking about on the last occasion, and that is more arbitrary. I finish with this consideration. If the Forestry Commission want to take over this land, they can do it only by the available authorities of a very elaborate code provided by the Act of 1945. In my submission, that method is much more likely to arrive at the right conclusion, if somebody is experienced in forestry and agriculture, than is this kind of arbitration. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
THE EARL OF, SELBORNE: I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount will not accept this Amendment, and no doubt when he says that the last word in regard to the acquisition of land rests with Parliament and not with the Forestry Commission he is correct, and I must qualify my remarks in that respect. But I do submit, my Lords, that Parliament is not much of a safeguard to the small land owner or small farmer in cases of this sort. Parliament has other matters to think about. But if an acquisition Order is made, what is the procedure? Presumably a number of such cases would all be covered by the same Order. I think I am right in saying that there is nothing to prevent one Order dealing with a number of different cases. You would have a number of different cases in the same Order, and the Minister of Agriculture would stand up in Parliament and say: "All these matters have been gone into, there has been a Public Inquiry and I must ask the House -to approve the Order." What sort of chance has one man, who thinks he has not had proper consideration, in a case of that sort?
I venture to suggest that my Amendment, which would refer the question in the first instance to an arbitrator having experience of agriculture and forestry, nominated by an outside authority, would
22
have been a simpler and more satisfactory method of dealing with the problem. I think, also, that it would have given a better safeguard than the machinery which the noble and learned Viscount mentioned, and which might be described as steam-roller machinery. There is a Public Inquiry, but the man who holds the Public Inquiry has no power to give a decision; he merely advises the Minister. The noble and learned Viscount has told us that no man who has knowledge of agriculture and forestry can be impartial as between the two. It is to be hoped, however, that we shall have some Ministers of Agriculture who have knowledge of both agriculture and forestry. I also suggest that we may quite well get officials in Whitehall who are enthusiasts and who do not take an entirely impartial attitude in these matters. Therefore I am not particularly impressed with the machinery for arbitration which the noble and learned Viscount mentioned. It is a sort of shop window machinery, and I cannot see a small man having his case considered so dispassionately and so fairly as by the procedure which I have suggested. But as the Government are not prepared to accept it, and the noble and learned Viscount has honoured me with a very full and carefully prepared reply, I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I would ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEhad given notice that he would move to insert, after Clause r, the following new clause:
"Nothing in any forestry dedication covenant shall be deemed to prevent the owner of any land from growing timber of such type as he may think fit thereon, provided that such land is used and managed for the growing thereon, in accordance with the provisions and the conditions of a plan of operations approved by the Commissioners."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have an apology to make because of an omission in the Amendment. I do not think that it is the fault of the official printers, but it is due to a mistake in the manuscript I handed in. After the word "thereon" in the sixth line of the Amendment, the words "of such timber" should be included. They have been inadvertently left: out. The new Clause should therefore read:
"Nothing in any forestry dedication covenant shall be deemed to prevent the

23
owner of any land from growing timber of such type as he may think fit thereon, provided that such land is used and managed for the growing thereon of such timber, in accordance with the provisions and the conditions of a plan of operations approved by the Commissioners."
Now, my Lords, is it too much to hope that I shall get some concession from His Majesty's Government on this Amendment, because it is really a very simple one and, if I may say so, a very small one? I am not going to suggest that this Amendment is of great national importance, but it does enable weight to be given to the question of amenities. The land owner may say: "On my land I want to grow oak, or ash, or beech"—hardwoods—and the Forestry Commission may say: "We want you to grow softwoods." I venture to suggest that so long as a land owner is following the rules of good forestry and growing trees properly, he ought at any rate to be allowed to choose which type of tree should be grown.
Again, the question that I have had so much in mind enters into this. He may wish to grow, let us say, hazel, because he wants a good deal of hurdling on his estate. You cannot grow hazel if you are to grow softwoods—not if you grow softwoods according to the canons of good forestry. Therefore, if the land owner wants to have a crop of underwood, he has to grow hardwoods. There are also the amenities of these woods. After all, these woods are part of the homes of the people who live in the locality—not only of the man who owns the land but of all the people who live in the village. That wood is part of their home, and I do suggest that so long as the land owner is prepared to follow the rules of good forestry, he ought to be allowed to decide whether hardwoods or softwoods should be grown in that particular wood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
3.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am sorry that we have not been able to consent to the noble Earl's Amendments which he has pressed so eloquently. In regard to this Amendment, I would like to point out to the noble Earl that the land owner or forest owner can to an extent grow the wood
24
he wants, because what would happen would be that he would approach the Forestry Commission and say: "I wish to dedicate such and such woods." The Forestry Commission would say: "Well, which woods are they? Let us have a look at them. What do you intend to do with them?" In other words, they would ask: "What is your plan of operations?" Obviously, it is up to the owner of the woods to put down in his plan of operations what he wishes to do and what he thinks best. But if, in the opinion of the Forestry Commission, he suggested an utterly unsuitable arrangement, while they could not stop him growing the trees, they would refuse to accept the dedication. They would refuse to give a grant, and their argument would be, I think, that they would not be justified in giving grants for amenity purposes.
The noble Earl has stressed that this is mostly for amenity purposes, and although I have great sympathy with the case for growing hardwoods, which, I think, are very important, and also with the necessity for amenities and their consideration, I must confess that I do not think the Commission would be justified in giving considerable grants for these trees. At the same time, I consider that they would willingly accept for dedication any reasonable scheme of growing hardwoods which went in well with the estate. But I do not think it would be fair to tie their hands, saying in effect: "You must accept this land for dedication if the owner agrees to grow whatever he thinks right according to the rules of good husbandry." I do not think that that would be either fair or suitable. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his Amendment on those grounds.
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon this. I think that there is a certain misunderstanding on the part of the noble Earl opposite. I am quite certain that my noble friend, the Earl of Selborne, never for a moment meant to suggest that public funds should be used merely for planting trees for amenity purposes. It never came into his speech, and it never, I am sure, entered his mind. Certainly it never entered my mind. If the Amendment meant that, I think that argument would be conclusive. But it means something quite different. I think that the Government are a little unwise to be too rigid about this forestry

25
scheme. After all, they want land owners to dedicate; they are very anxious for them to do so. And land owners, while they are not unwilling to respond, are a little shy. They do not know exactly what is 'involved. The tighter the Government make this scheme, the more they pin the land owners down, the more doubtful the land owners become and the more the scheme is prejudiced.
The Government under existing legislation cannot make the owners dedicate nor, according to my understanding of the Lord Chancellor's speech on the last Amendment, can they take away their woodlands if they dc not dedicate, unless their woods are unproductive. They could not take them away simply because the owner insisted on planting them in a different way from that which the Government thought desirable. Therefore, I suggest that this is a scheme which should be launched with good will and agreement on all sides. I do not think that this Amendment really asks very much of the Government. In view of all the woodlands which are just going to be planted and are going to be of value to the country, I do not think it is unnatural that there should be a certain diversity of opinion as between various land owners. And it is not necessarily harmful that there should be this diversity.
In the past we have known even such experts as; the members of the Forestry Commission take what might be called a fashionable view as to a certain type of planting being desirable. Twenty-five years later it becomes unfashionable, and everybody is told that what was favoured before was wrong. Then it is that the independent owner comes into his own. He is the chap of whom it is said that he looked ahead, saw what would be useful, took his own line and was justified in the result. I do not think that we want to destroy the liberty of the individual in this connexion. I would have thought that, in order to get an efficient and comprehensive scheme into which people concerned would willingly enter, it would be worth while for the Government to make a concession of this kind. I do not pretend that this is vital to the Bill, but I think that as a means of helping to get willing co-operation and to make the scheme effective, this Amendment would be of value. From that point of view I ask the Government to give it their acceptance.
4.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the point raised by this Amendment is a very small one indeed. Under present arrangements the question of what shall be grown on land for dedication is to be freely negotiated between the Forestry Commission and the land owner concerned. The Amendment seeks to give to the land owner concerned the right to say what trees he is going to grow. That is to say, he is to go into the negotiations free and unfettered, and the Forestry Commission are to go in with one hand tied behind their backs. I do not know that the Forestry Commission would mind that very much, because, generally speaking, I think that our view is that the owner of the laid is most likely to know what will grow on it. All the same, it does rather unbalance things. I would further-say this. The retention of some power of saying what is to be grown on the land places the owner of forest land under no worse disability than the mart who is farming land and who has to do it (it is proposed to continue this power of compulsion) subject to orders as to what he-has to grow. After all, one of the basic principles in connexion with land policy to-day is that the land should grow what is best for the country.
May I reassure the noble Earl, in view of some remarks which he made on the previous Amendment, that it is not in the minds of the Forestry Commission that timber is solely confined to forest trees and certain suitably grown underwood? The growing of hazel and chestnut for hurdles and the like comes quite equally within their purview as a suitable use of forest land. I would also remind him that the terms of the dedication covenant and the arrangements under the White Paper have been agreed with the representatives of the land owners in England, Wales and Scotland, and with the representatives of the Forestry Societies in England and in Scotland. To that extent, if I may suggest it, in this pleading by him in your Lordships' House he is rather a lone voice as compared with the general body of land owners and woodland owners. Equally with others who have spoken, I do not pretend that this is an Amendment which will destroy the forestry scheme, but I think that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is under some misapprehension as to how the scheme will work when it gets going.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, this again is a very small point, and if I cannot convince the Government I do not propose to press it. I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on compulsory acquisition of certain land.
".—(1) Nothing in Section four of the Forestry Act, 1945, shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of any land as to which a forestry dedication covenant or agreement is in force and which is being used and managed in accordance with the provisions and conditions of a plan of operations approved by the Commissioners.
(2)Any question arising under this section whether there has been a breach of any of the provisions and conditions of a plan of operations shall be referred to the determination of an arbitrator appointed by the President for the time being of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and such a breach shall not be treated as having occurred by virtue of any act or omission capable of remedy unless there has been default in remedying it within a reasonable time after notice given by the Commissioners requiring the remedy thereof.
(3)In the application of this section to Scotland there shall be substituted, for the reference to an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a reference to an arbiter appointed by the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the said Institution."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill an Amendment was moved by the noble Earl of Warwick on behalf of the noble Earl of Portsmouth, and although I could not accept the Amendment at the time I promised to consider it and see if we could not find wording which would both be agreeable to the noble Earl and would satisfy us, having regard to the general policy on which we have embarked. I have now introduced this wording. The whole crux of the matter, the principle behind it, is that woods which have been dedicated by the owner should not be liable for compulsory acquisition, and I think that this new clause will achieve that purpose. There might, of course, be a difference of opinion as to whether these woods had been properly managed between the woodlands owner and the Forestry Commission. In order to cover that and to provide for any eventuality, we have introduced a second section which
28
provides for arbitration. In view of that, I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied and that your Lordships will agree that this Amendment should be carried. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I should like very much to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for the new clause which he has introduced to meet my Amendment. It does meet thoroughly the situation which I had envisaged. We have the satisfaction of knowing that at least in this Bill, and in this particular part of the procedure, there will be no Naboth's vineyard complex affecting the Forestry Commission.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Deduction of grants from compensation.
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 HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to leave out "twelve months" and insert "two years". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very small Amendment which has been inserted by the Government only in view of the length of time which it may take to make this Bill an Act. It is merely to enable us to go back to cover grants which have been made two years before, instead of the twelve months which we envisaged originally. It is a very small technical point, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("two years").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to leave out from "thereof" to the beginning of the proviso and to insert:
"the advances, other than any made more than thirty years before the date of service of notice to treat in exercise of that power, shell become repayable by the person entitled to the compensation for the compulsory purchase, together with compound interest on each advance repayable, calculated from the date of the making thereof to the date on which the compensation is paid at the rate -of three pounds per cent. per annum with yearly rests, and shall be recoverable by deduction from the compensation and not otherwise:"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question was asked on the Committee stage of this Bill, how would Income Tax be affected by the grant given for the dedication of woodlands? I gave an assurance that His Majesty's Government would look into the question and that we would try to table an Amendment which would cover the points raised by noble Lords. The first point with which we have dealt is the one of the period of time under which grants would be repayable in the event of the woodlands being taken over by the Commission. That is to say, if, for some reason such as bad husbandry, the Forestry Commission actually acquired the land, normally the grant plus compound interest would be deducted from the compensation given to the owner. Under this Amendment this would be only for a period of thirty years. After a period of thirty years had elapsed from the time the grant was paid then there would be no recovery; neither the grant nor the interest would be deducted from the compensation. That is the first point that is covered by this Amendment.
The second point which was raised—I think by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery—was the question of Income Tax. The case was put that an owner would, during the course of years, be liable for tax even if his land was taken over under the thirty years. He would then be liable to have the grant and the compound interest at 3 per cent, deducted from the amount of compensation. Now, I am pleased to say the Inland Revenue are prepared to concede that Income Tax should be taken into consideration, and the amount of interest repaid can be set off as an allowance against the owners' tax at the end of the period.
A NOBLE LORD: Super-tax also?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Surtax or super-tax. I hope this will satisfy your
30
Lordships that the two points that have been raised have been covered by the Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("thereof") to the end of line 13, and insert the said new words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the next is only a consequential alteration to the Amendment which has just been agreed to. I hope noble Lords will agree to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out line 16 and insert ("amount repayable shall be a part only of the advances and interest").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is also consequential, and is to snake -clear that -actually the interest is the purchased interest. I hope your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("that") and insert ("the purchased").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL.
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I think everybody will agree that it is necessary to bring about as early as possible a redistribution of seats in the House of Commons. For that purpose an Act was passed in the days of the Coalition Government providing that Commissioners should be set up—this, of course, followed upon a Speaker's Conference, as is the usual practice—to devise new boundaries, and that Act set out certain definite rules. Those rules concerned themselves in particular with two matters. One was with regard to the mere question of numbers. Obviously it is very undesirable that one constituency should have an electorate very much larger than another constituency. Fifty thousand is the normal number, and it is very undesirable to have some constituencies with 25,000 and

31
other constituencies with 100,000, each returning one Member and having one vote.
There is also another aspect of the matter: you should not have regard too much to mere numbers, you should also have regard to not splitting up a group of people such as a city or a borough who have been associated together in history and ideas and all that sort of thing. The rules as they were originally propounded made that latter consideration subservient to the former. In short, they stressed too much the question of numbers and not sufficiently the question of local association. I think we would all agree that both factors ought to be considered, and neither the one nor the other should be subservient. Of course, you should aim at getting, as nearly as you can, constituencies of equal size numerically, but you should also avoid, so far as you can, splitting up old historic associations and groups. The effect of the Schedule under the Act—I think it was passed in 1944—has now become apparent. The Commissioners have not to present a report to Parliament through the Home Secretary until they have finished their labours, but as they went about the country making more or less provisional conclusions and discussing these matters with people on the spot it became obvious that there were very considerable heart burnings. The heart burnings were felt just as much on the Opposition side as on the Government side—in fact, rather more on the Opposition side. There were complaints which began in an informal way to find their way to the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary took what I think was the right course. He went to the Speaker, who was the Chairman of the Conference, and, with the Speaker's approval, and with the very strong approval of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Commissioners—who stated, by the way, that they had not been subject to the least political pressure—the Home Secretary told the House that he proposed to amend these existing rules by doing away with the principle under which the one rule was subservient to the other, and have two rules of equal strength and validity. He made this announcement, and for a time it looked as though it were going to be a
32
highly controversial matter because on the announcement being made it was immediately asserted by the Leader of the Opposition that this was a most flagrant and shameful gerrymandering, apparently to avoid the Prime Minister's seat being mixed up with some other. If it really had been flagrant and shameful gerrymandering, it would be a most grievous blow to our democratic system. I will content myself by merely saying that I do not know whether to be more surprised that the suggestion was made or that the suggestion, when the facts were revealed, was never withdrawn. The facts were as I have stated them. When they were revealed, this alteration was approved by every Party in the House.
The Committee and Third Reading stages occupied about half a column of Hansard, there having been no opposition at all. So short were they, in fact, as I shall point out on the Committee stage, that there is a clerical error in this Bill, which your Lordships will have to amend and which shows, if any one of us were inclined to deny it, what great value and merit there is in having a revising Chamber, and that, even on a matter dealing with the constitution of the House of Commons, the Members there failed to observe something which I shall point out to your Lordships and which we shall have to put right for them. Subject to that, I commend this Bill to your Lordships. It is, of course, a matter which deals very directly with the constitution of the House of Commons. It is, therefore, a matter primarily for Members of another place, and although we have full rights in the matter we should always be very slow to interfere in any Bill concerning the constitution of the House of Commons which commends itself to all Parties. I am perfectly certain that those of your Lordships who have read the Bill will say that it commends itself to you. Accordingly, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I would ask leave to say a few words in support of the Bill, first of all because it gives me an opportunity of saying that, as usual, it has been explained to the House very clearly by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I have a further excuse

33
in that I introduced and endeavoured to explain the Bill of 1944. I do not feel sure that the Lord Chancellor has emphasized what I should have thought was the most important and interesting fact about this legislation. Hitherto, the redistribution of seats has been done spasmodically. You have had a Redistribution Bill perhaps once in a generation, but in the meantime the population shifted, and before you had another Redistribution Bill things became very lopsided indeed. They are much more lopsided than the Lord Chancellor suggested just now. At the present moment there are two constituencies in the House of Commons which contain more than 200,000 electors, whereas—to go to the other extreme—I think there is another constituency which contains only 29,000.
But the big thing which has been achieved, and achieved by all Parties together, in the main Bill—and preserved in this Amendment—is that we now have a Boundary Commission which is more or less continuous. Thus, that Commission, after its original arrangements have been considered and, if Parliament thinks fit, approved, will not cease to exist, but. Will at suitable intervals make a fresh survey and present new proposals which, in turn, Parliament may adopt by agreeing to the draft Order in Council. You will thus have a more or less continuous re-arrangement of constituencies and will avoid these quite abnormal differences which have hitherto existed. I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor that mere arithmetical calculation is not the most important matter. The most important matter, so long as you get constituencies that are reasonably like one another in size, is that you should respect and preserve the natural unity of a city, town or other area which is accustomed to be represented by its own member, whoever that member may be.
The Act of 1944, for which I had some responsibility, indeed allowed for that, because the Boundary Commission was directed not to stick to strict arithmetic.
It was left at liberty to carve out constituencies which differed by as much as 25 per cent from the normal, either up or down. But that has been found to be not quite enough, and more latitude is provided in this Bill. There was, or there is said to have been, in ancient Greece a gangster—I suppose one of the first of the gangsters—named Procrustes. He
34
had the unpleasant habit, when people passed his way, of adjusting their size to the length of his own bed. If you were an abnormally small roan he stretched you sufficiently to fit exactly into his bed; if, as sometimes happened, you were unusually tall, he chopped off as much of your legs as was necessary to secure that he achieved complete mathematical uniformity. That is not the way in which you can wisely redistribute the electorate.
I also agree with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that it is not primarily for this House to go into these details. There was, of course, a famous occasion in 1884, when Mr. Glad-stone's Government introduced a very valuable Reform Bill which gave the vote to the agricultural labourer, when the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House announced that the House would not allow the Bill to proceed until they had also viewed and approved the scheme for redistribution. That was more than sixty years ago, and I think the extent to which this House claims to revise arrangements agreed to in another place in these matters has been very considerably curtailed. Still, the Bill is a Bill that is enacted by the King's Lords and Commons, and it is right that we should take an interest in it.
There are two facts about this new Bill which have interested me. In the first place, and not for the first time, Scotland and Wales get proportionately more members than they are entitled to, from the point of view of population and electorate. Whether that is because they are farther off, and therefore perhaps are thought to be more difficult to exert influence in Westminster, or whether ii is that Scotland and Wales before now have obtained rather more than Englishmen, I do not propose to inquire into. The other thing which is of very great interest to those of us who are concerned with the form of Acts of
Parliament is that the Schedule to the Bill is in a form which is almost novel. It has to some extent been adopted from time to time before, but it is quite a new idea and I think it is well worth observing.
The Schedule to the Bill contains amendments which it is found necessary to make in the rules of the earlier Act, amendments-by way of addition and also amendments by way of omission. In order to make it intelligible to the Legislature

35
the additions are printed in thick black type, and I think that is the most sensible way of making the thing plain. As far as the omissions are concerned, for instance, what used to be Rule 3 (1)—which is going to be omitted—is represented by a 3 followed by five dots. That happens again, I think, at the top of page 4. Possibly the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, can tell us how this will work out when we look at it on the Statute Book. I do not think that the Statute Book has ever gone in for emphasizing passages by thicker type, and I have no doubt that when it is put in the Statute Book it will all be in the same type. I am rather more puzzled to know how the Schedule will read when one sees on page 3, line 20: "3.—(1) ….." I wonder how much of that will appear in the Statute Book when it is finally printed.
I warmly approve of this novel practice. It seems to me to be so helpful to the Legislature when we are trying to understand what are the changes and what is old matter. I am not asking this question with any idea of prejudice, but it seems to me that it would be rather convenient if at some stage we might be told how far this is simply to assist us when we are considering the Bill, and whether when it enters upon the Statute Book these dots—I will not qualify them by any preliminary epithet—will appear.
4.32 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, after the exhaustive description of this Bill which has been given by the two noble Viscounts who have preceded me, there is little that remains for me to say. On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I would say that we welcome this Bill as an obvious necessity to remedy something which I think it is agreed was a blunder in the Act of 1944. We welcomed that Act of 1944 as, at any rate, an instalment to the reforms that we think necessary in order to constitute a really democratic Parliament, but we only accept this as something on account. I am aware as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, that we must tread delicately in dealing with the affairs of the other place; hut, after all, a good many of us have spent a large part of our Parliamentary lives in that other place, and we may perhaps be allowed to have a sufficiently paternal interest to offer a few remarks which it is hoped will be helpful.
36
I do want to make it clear, as one who had the honour of sitting on the Speaker's Conference, that that Conference never had in mind to tie the Commissioners down as closely as the Act has done. I hope that the Commissioners will take advantage of this amending Act to take a wider view. I also want to impress upon the Commissioners, if I may, the importance of having regard to local sentiment. Perhaps in the absence of my noble friend Lord Jessel I may be allowed to refer once more to what he called my King Charles' head, and to say that if only we were allowed to introduce a system of proportional representation in the Constitution these difficulties would not arise. But, taking things as they are, I think we are all agreed that something has to be done and that the late plan has got to be scratched, because it exasperated not only all Parties but very nearly all areas in the country. Therefore I want to suggest that the Commissioners should take a broader view on that ground of population, and I want particularly to suggest also that they might be a little more elastic in considering the number of constituencies. There is nothing sacred in the number of 615 seats in the other place.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It is more than that now.
LORD REA: It is more, but only slightly more.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It is 640 now.
LORD REA: Yes. But when the noble Viscount and I were young members of the other place, some forty years ago, we had 670 members. I am not aware that we found any particular inconvenience, although I am inclined to think that in our youthful enthusiasm we paid closer attention to the debates than Members nowadays find it possible to do, with the admittedly greater responsibilities which fall upon them from outside.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Is my noble friend allowing for the fact that at present in the other place no Members sit from the greater part of Ireland?
LORD REA: Yes, I am aware of that. That is, however, no reason why we should not take advantage of that physical fact and unduly cramp the representation of constituencies in this country. I remember that when we sat on the

37
Speaker's Conference—and here I may refer to an allusion by my noble friend—in considering Scotland, we felt that because of the distance and the sparse population they were entitled to rather more than their proportion, although we realized that that did cut down the representation of England. I see no reason, therefore, why we' should not take advantage of the fact that the Irish no longer sit in such large numbers to enlarge the number of representatives from England. I want to urge upon the Commissioners that they should not, as they appear to have done in the last Act, take a very rigid view of the obligation laid upon them. I urge that they should expand the number a little beyond what is actually laid down in the Schedule to the Bill which we are now considering. Taking it as a whole, I desire to welcome this Bill, and I hope that the greater elasticity that is to be found will lead to the setting up of a much more representative House of Commons than was possible under the earlier Act.
4.36 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I should also like to say a word of special welcome to this Bill, because I came to know well the defects of the original Bill in connexion with my old constituency, which was divided into two and, because of the fact of balancing up, was divided in a way which was inconvenient from the point of view of local government. I hop that when the Boundary Commission gets to work again it may be able to consider not merely the existing boundaries of local government, which obviously have to be respected as far as possible, but the future boundaries of local government, because certain amalgamations are bound to come. I welcome this Bill most warmly and congratulate the Government on introducing it.
4.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I may say in answer to the nobly Viscount that I feel quite certain that the Schedule will be printed all in one type. He has rightly said that the object of having thick type is to direct our attention to certain matters at the present time. What will be done about these dots I do not at present know, but I will find out.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, the need for this Bill arises from a scheme of constitutional development recently carried out for bringing the Governor of the Isle of Man into closer touch with the Boards of Tynwald which administer various local government services in the island, and enabling him to appoint the Chairmen of the Boards as members of a non-statutory Executive Council to advise him generally in the Government of the island. To do this it was necessary to modify the constitutions of the Boards so that their Chairmen should be appointed by Tynwald after informal consultation with the Governor instead of, as heretofore, being chosen in most cases by the Boards themselves. This has been done by Act of Tynwald for all Boards except the Harbour Board—or Harbour Commissioners as they are more properly called—whose constitution is fixed by the Isle of Man Harbours Act, 1872. That was an of the United Kingdom Parliament and cannot, therefore, be altered except by legislation at Westminster. The present Bill, which has been agreed with the Isle of Man authorities, will leave Tynwald free to legislate and to bring the constitution of the Harbour Commissioners into line with that of the other Boards.
Under the Act of 1872 His Majesty's Receiver General in the island is ex officio Chairman of the Harbour Board, and when the Board is reconstituted by Act of Tynwald it is contemplated that the Chairman of the Board should be appointed by Tynwald, as in the case of the other Boards. This office of Receiver General in the Isle of Man, of which the functions, property, rights and liabilities may be transferred to the new Harbour Board under the powers conferred by the Bill, is one of very ancient date, and its holder is appointed by Royal Warrant. The office was at one time of considerable importance, but its duties and emoluments have been gradually reduced, and over a long period the Receiver General has been no more than the Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners and has been unpaid.

39
It was recognized some years ago that some change would have to be made in the constitution of the Harbour Commissioners, and the present Receiver General accepted the office on the understanding that he would retire if and when the change was made. It is accordingly proposed that the present holder should retire when the new arrangements come into force and the office will then become obsolete. As for the members of the Harbour Board, who are at present appointed by the Governor after consultation with Tynwald, it is proposed that they should in fact be appointed by Tynwald, like the members of the other Boards. This little Bill enables the finishing touch to be put to a scheme of constitutional development which is of considerable importance to the Isle of Man and which will enable the Islanders, through their elected representatives, to take a fuller share in their own government. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Cheshire and Lancashire County Councils (Runcorn-Widnes Bridge, &c.).

Commercial Gas.

Cotton Industry War Memorial Trust.

Dudley Corporation.

Felixstowe Pier.

Felixstowe Urban District Council.

Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council.

Helston and Porthleven Water.

40

Hove Corporation.

London and North Eastern Railway.

London County Council (General Powers).

London, Midland and Scottish Railway.

London Passenger Transport Board.

Nazeing Wood or Park.

Nottingham Corporation.

Preston Corporation.

South Metropolitan Gas.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation.

Southern Railway.

South-West Middlesex Crematorium.

Sunderland Corporation.

Swindon Corporation.

Tendring Hundred Water and Gas.

Tynemouth Corporation.

Also the Certificate That the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction.
Also a Special Report in respect of the following Bill:
City of London (Tithes).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

County Borough of Bolton;

Borough of Stockton-on-Tees;

Borough of Worksop:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before the House adjourns, may I remind your Lordships that the House meets to-morrow at two o'clock, as there are some introductions?
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before five o'clock.