Lords Sitting of 20 June 1950

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Lord Shuttleworth—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Bridport—Took the Oath.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1938, and certain other enactments relating to shops; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1937, and certain other enactments relating to diseases of animals; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

OVERSEAS VISITORS AND PURCHASE TAX
2.36 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the need to encourage visitors from North America, and to reduce irritation caused by formalities at present required, they will consider simplification of procedure for purchase of apparel free of purchase tax.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, of the facilities now open to North American visitors for making purchases free of tax, the two following are the most important. Under an experimental arrangement, visitors holding a United States or Canadian passport, when exchanging dollars into sterling at a bank, may obtain coupons to buy goods free of purchase tax for immediate delivery. Five coupons, each valid for tax-free purchase of £1 worth of goods are issued for every £15 worth of dollars exchanged, subject to a maximum of 180 coupons in any one year. The visitor must sign the coupons and, on making a purchase, show his passport and sign an undertaking that the goods will be used up or exported within three months. The alternative arrangement entitles him, on showing his passport, to have goods to a value of £5 or more delivered free of tax to the ship or aircraft in which he is leaving the country merely by signing a statement that he has paid the amount in question, and that he is a bona fide visitor. These arrangements have recently been improved and are continually reviewed, but the Government consider that the formalities involved are the minimum necessary to prevent abuse. That these arrangements are reasonable and adequately publicised is indicated by the increasing use which tourists are making of them.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that answer—and with the understanding of the House that by reason of the intricacy of the arrangement, the large amount of exchange necessary to obtain coupons and the many formalities which, according to the noble Lord's explanation, have to be observed, the arrangement stands self-condemned—may I ask if it would not be possible to arrange that the procedure for visitors from North-America should be limited to the formal presentation of passport and payment for the goods upon which it would be permissible for the goods to be taken away?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, with great respect, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that an arrangement such as I have described, which is being used increasingly, stands self-condemned. At any rate, it is not condemned by the persons who are chiefly concerned. I concede to the noble Lord, who has been

801
good enough to give me notice of his supplementary question, that the suggestion which he makes would have the minimum of formality, but I consider that it would open the way to considerable and, indeed, serious abuse. Two difficulties might arise: first, the retailer would be reclaiming tax on little more than the strength of his own word that he had sold goods to an American visitor; and, secondly, there would exist the temptation to visitors to buy more than they required for their own purposes. As the noble Lord is aware, a passport by itself is no evidence that its owner is a visitor, or that he is bringing dollars into the country. For this reason, it would be difficult to prevent, as would be necessary, an American or Canadian resident here from buying goods free of purchase tax for himself or his friends.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I remark that it is not very convincing to suggest that the main objection to my suggestion would be that any visitor from North America might buy too much in this country? What we want is that people will bring money over here and spend it. I beg the noble Lord to take the matter up again with the Treasury, in view of the wide dissatisfaction which exists among visitors from North America in respect of this matter.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will gladly take up with my right honourable friend any matter which the noble Lord raises. I think, however, that when he reads my reply in Hansard he will see that he has misunderstood the main point of my answer to his supplementary question.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS ON TRAINS
2.42 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if they can make any statement on fire precautions in railway carriages having particularly in mind the recent accident at Beattock in which five persons lost their lives through the rapid spread of fire.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, the accident at Beattock on June 8 is under formal inquiry by an Inspecting Officer of Railways, who is, during the course of his investigation, considering the general question of fire precautions in railway carriages. The noble Lord will appreciate that until the Inspecting Officer's report is received I am not in a position to make any statement. I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord for providing me with this opportunity of expressing, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the deepest sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this unfortunate accident.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that this is not the only accident which has taken, place on British railways in recent months? There have been six fires since the beginning of May. This was, of course, much the more serious accident. Does this not point to some highly inflammable substance being used on trains? Will the noble Lord use every endeavour to allay public anxiety on this point?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that it would be highly improper for me to make any observation until all the facts of this accident and all the facts regarding fire precautions in general have been investigated. I shall be only too happy to keep the noble Lord informed about progress and, at the appropriate time, to give your Lordships all the information I may have on the matter.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if investigation is proceeding, could it not include investigation into sleeping cars, both first class and third class? It is impossible to open the sleeping car windows wide enough to enable occupants to get out in the event of fire occurring at one or other end of the carriage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Earl will read the answer to the original question, he will see that all the facts in connection with fire precautions are being considered by the Inspector conducting the inquiry into

803
this accident. Doubtless he will take into consideration the point the noble Earl has raised.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: Would the noble Lord like me to put down another Question later on, or will the facts be made fully public without Parliamentary Question?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the Inspector's Report, when received, will be published. The noble Lord should then use his own discretion as to whether he thinks another question is required.

COAL-MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I am certain that few of your Lordships will doubt the necessity for this Bill. It may be criticised from various points of view, and for what it leaves undone, but I think it will be welcomed for what it does. The problem of subsidence has been the subject of discussion ever since I was a boy, and that is quite a time ago. It has caused much discomfort and uneasiness in the mining districts, and perhaps the miner and his family have suffered more than any other section of the population from this trouble. I think that by this time, however, we have seen enough of the situation in the mining areas, and heard enough stories of what subsidence has meant, to make it unnecessary for me to spend your Lordships' time in saying much on this point.
I spent over fifty years of my life just outside Wigan, and I question whether any district in the United Kingdom has shown the effects of mining in general, and mining subsidence in particular, more than the south side of Wigan. The whole landscape has changed since I was a boy. To-day, with the immense pit heaps rising like pyramids to the heavens, caused by the material brought out of the earth, and the great lakes, caused by subsidence, the Wigan district is becoming more and more like a miniature Lake District. There may be those who say it cannot be as attractive, but with the pit heaps and the great sheets of water—and, of course,
804
the world-famous Wigan pier—Wigan is fast becoming a counter-attraction to the Lake District.
When the Bill was discussed in another place, Mr. Tom Brown, who succeeded me as Member of Parliament for that area, gave a number of instances of what could be done, and sometimes done very suddenly, by mining subsidence. I well remember as a boy going to work at a colliery in the neighbourhood and seeing a number of miners and their wives outside a long row of houses, all very disturbed because during the night there had been some movement of the earth. Returning home that very day, I saw that the two middle houses of this row of seventeen houses were almost completely wrecked. That gives some idea of how suddenly subsidence can affect houses.
It was in 1923 when the father of one of the noble Lords opposite signed the Order setting up a Commission to inquire into mining subsidence and its effects. I had the good fortune to have a personal friend on that Commission, and he and I discussed how to approach the matter. That Commission did not serve any very useful purpose, because although it made many recommendations not one has been passed into law. The Commission had a difficult task. The ownership of minerals was then in one set of hands and the working of them in a different set of hands, which made the problem difficult for any Government. In 1947, another good friend of mine, Mr. Theodore Turner, K.C., was made Chairman of a Committee of Inquiry that was set up. This Committee had a much easier task, in so far as by that time legislation had been put on the Statute Book placing the ownership of the minerals in the hands of those who were also responsible for working the mines. The Turner Committee made a large number of recommendations. I know that I shall hear, before this debate has gone very far, that the majority of those recommendations have been left out of this Bill. I agree. I had hoped that the provisions of the Bill would have had reference to many of the recommendations of the Turner Committee.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I compare the terms of reference of the 1923 Commission with those of the 1947 Committee. I notice that they are

805
different, and the difference is significant. The terms of reference of the 1923 Commission were as follows:
"To consider the operation of the law relating to the support of the surface of the land, and of buildings or works on or under the surface, by underlying or adjacent minerals; to inquire into the extent and gravity of the damage caused by subsidence owing to the extraction of minerals and the incidence of the resulting liability; and to report what steps should be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to remedy, equitably to all persons concerned, any defects or hardship that may be found to arise in existing conditions."
The terms of reference of the Committee of 1947 were:
"To examine the law of support and the problem of damage caused by mining subsidence in the light of the nationalisation of coal and the coal mining industry and to make recommendations."
The differences between those two sets of terms of reference are significant. I would say that the Turner Committee had a much easier task than the Commission of 1923.
This Bill confines itself to only one aspect of the problem, and the reason for that is financial and nothing more. Two aspects of the Bill which I feel sure will be criticised to-day, were also criticised in another place, and it would not surprise me if at a later stage Amendments were put down on these matters. It is not my intention—nor, I feel sure, is it the desire of your Lordships—to examine this Bill clause by clause. That we can do at a later stage if it is considered desirable. However, I want to emphasise that the decision to limit payments to damage done after January 1,1947, was taken only after long consultation and with due regard to the finance involved. It will be noticed in the Bill that we have shared the cost for the time being between the National Coal Board and the National Exchequer, the National Coal Board being made responsible for payment of compensation, half of which will be refunded from the National Exchequer over a period of years. I know that in discussions on previous mining Bills your Lordships have emphasised the need for the National Coal Board to pay their way. I agree with that, and so we must be careful how many burdens we place on the Board. The burden placed on the National Coal Board by this Bill is not a heavy one, and I think they may be able to arrange their affairs in such a way
806
as to shoulder it. But had we carried out the recommendations of the Turner Committee the story would have been vastly different.
There is a limitation in the Bill with regard to the rateable value, of buildings to which the concession applies—again solely for financial reasons. The figure for England and Wales is £32, and for Scotland it is £52. Perhaps I ought to say a word on the difference between the figure of £52 for Scotland and the £32 for England and Wales. No one will be surprised that Scotland gets more than England and Wales—she usually does! The figure of £52 has been specified for Scotland in order to bring within the scope of the bill all "small dwelling-houses," including small dwellinghouses built by local authorities in Scottish mining areas, some of which have a rateable value of £52. The rateable values of small dwellinghouses in Scotland are generally higher than those in England and Wales: first, because in arriving at the ratable value of such properties in England and Wales there are statutory deductions from the Rating and Valuation Acts of 1925 and 1928 from the gross annual value, which may amount to as much as 40 per cent., whereas in Scotland the rateable value of small dwellinghouses is the same as the gross annual value. Secondly, Scottish rents include an element in respect of owners' rates (which do not exist in England and Wales) and the rents paid or (in the case of owner-occupied properties) assumed are normally taken as the rateable value. I trust that the non-Scottish members of your Lordships' House will be satisfied that the Scottish section is not being unduly generously treated, in view of the facts that I have stated. However, that matter may well be raised later in the debate.
There are one or two other matters in the Bill to which I should make brief reference. I notice that provision is made (this is rather an important point) for many of the householders, and especially owner-occupiers, where the cost of repairs would exceed the depreciation in the value of the property which has suffered the damage. In such circumstances the Board may make a cash payment equal to that depreciation in lieu of carrying out the repairs. This will relieve the Board from the obligation to rebuild old and dilapidated houses which in any

807
case would be due for demolition in a few years, and will avoid the waste of building resources, both labour and materials, on properties which are really beyond repair. There is a provision in Clause 5 which caused much discussion in another place—namely, the date at which notice should be given. At the end of the discussion my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power gave an undertaking that he would consider inserting a later date in the Bill. I am not in a position to state what that later date will be, but I can state that the Minister has agreed that a later date will be moved, and can be discussed during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
A further matter to which I should refer is a new clause, which I know will win the approval of your Lordships, dealing with the onus of proof as to the cause of damage. This new clause affirms that in any legal proceedings under the Act, in which there arises the question of whatever structural damage to a dwellinghouse or any part of a building comprising a dwellinghouse coming within the Act is subsidence damage, and it is shown by the owner or other persons concerned that the circumstances warrant the inference that the cause may be subsidence damage, the onus is on the Board to show that the damage is not subsidence damage.
The most ardent supporter of this Bill will not claim that it is anything more than a small Bill. However, it is a small Bill dealing with a most important matter, in the coal industry in particular. As I have already said, it will relieve hardship amongst those least able to bear it, many of whom are engaged in the coal industry. I need not tell your Lordships that this industry has served the country well in the years gone by, and I am sure that it is one which will continue to serve the interests of our island home. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have read this Bill carefully and fully appreciate what has been said by the noble Lord who has introduced it. However, I still fail to understand why His Majesty's Government have produced such an in-
808
adequate Bill when they have had before them the excellent Report of the Turner Committee who, as your Lordships know, went into the case very thoroughly indeed. I suggest that the reason is not entirely financial, as I will endeavour to make clear to your Lordships in a few moments. In the first place, it is essential that we should bear in mind the real financial aspect of damage from subsidence. I think it is true to say that the total damage from subsidence in the country amounts to something like £3,000,000 per annum. Under this Bill some £500,000 is to be made available, as the noble Lord has said, half by the Treasury and the other half by the National Coal Board. This sum is just about equivalent to that lost by His Majesty's Government recently in their purchase and sale of rabbits.
I do not suggest that in these days of financial stringency it would be possible or even right to deal with the whole burden of subsidence, but I do not think it is generally realised that if the limit of £32 rateable value for claims was swept away the increased cost would amount only to less than 10 per cent. of the £500,000 which is the figure appearing in the Bill. If such a small sum is involved, surely it would have been fairer to compensate owners of all classes of dwellinghouses, instead of only those of a rateable value not exceeding £32. With this limit of rateable value I feel sure that all kinds of court cases will arise, such as whether a part of a house is used as a shop or otherwise. Of course, it will be a wonderful thing for the legal profession.
I am still not at all clear why the rateable value was fixed at £32. The noble Lord said that it was solely for financial reasons. I would remind your Lordships, however, that in the Report of the Royal Commission in 1927, when, of course, money had a far greater value than it has to-day, the annual value was to be fixed at £40. There is no attempt in this Bill to do anything for shops or for any commercial or agricultural property, and no protection is given to factories. But it does apply to municipal houses. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government have put forward this Bill as an interim measure. The Minister in another place indicated that one reason for not bringing in a more complete Bill was that it would

809
take a long time to draft and would be very complicated. That may well be; but may not the real reason be that His Majesty's Government are anxious to bring in something quickly from which they may receive support for themselves in the near future? Or is it perhaps gratitude for past services?
I should like to ask the noble Lord why it has been deemed necessary to include municipal houses. It will mean that probably half the total amount of money involved in this Bill will not be for the benefit of the small people but for the benefit of local authorities. If it is a question of money, surely it would have been far better to have cut out the local authorities and increase or sweep away the limit of rateable value on the house owner, and perhaps even give some assistance to small shopkeepers and others who have suffered and are suffering grievously from subsidence. Can it be that the inclusion of municipal houses may have something to do with the Government's target for housing, and is at the expense of many other claims in the mining communities themselves?
The problem of subsidence is, of course, a very complicated one, and I would say that it is not primarily a financial one. It really is the question of reconciling two conflicting interests—the interests of those concerned with getting the coal, and those concerned with the use of the surface above the coal. I am very surprised to see that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has not been brought into this Bill. I should have thought that he would have been. Surely, it is the duty of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to synchronise the operations of the Coal Board, in mining coal, and the erection of buildings, and so on, on the surface. I had also hoped that it would have been possible to include in this Bill in some small way agricultural land which has suffered grievously from subsidence. I do not think it is generally realised that there are many acres of good agricultural land which are at present waterlogged or derelict as a result of subsidence. I hope it will be possible, in the interests of the community as a whole, to deal with this matter at an early stage. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can give the number of acres of agricultural land which are now in this condition, due to subsidence. I realise, of course,
810
that it may be somewhat difficult for 1dm to give the answer to-day, but perhaps he will be able to mike the information available at a later date.
We support this Bill, as far as it goes, but we regret that it does not go further and give more broad justice to the mining community as a whole. I suggest that all this Bill is going to do is to provide for one small section of the mining community—and not necessarily those suffering the greatest hardship—and compensate local authorities at the expense of others. I cannot help feeling that it would hive been far better to wait a little longer and bring in a more comprehensive and adequate Bill.
3.5 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I welcome this measure this afternoon as one who has, like my noble friend who introduced the Bill, seen something of the results of subsidence, and one who has felt that deep wrong has been done to many people, most of them men of a thrifty nature who had to work and necessarily live in the area. I recognise that there are abundant criticisms, such as the noble Lord has mentioned, which could be made about the shortcomings of this Bill. But to one who has for long watched this problem, the fact that it is now to be legally recognised that from a certain date and under certain conditions people—comparatively poor men—will be able to get compensation, is a great step forward. To one who has watched that problem and known the families affected, I must say that the great benefits the Bill bestows far outweigh its disadvantages.
The subject of subsidence was dealt with in another place, and I was very pleased indeed to read of a hint that probably we were on the verge of discovering some method of dealing fairly effectively with it. If that were possible, it would be difficult to imagine a greater benefit which could be bestowed upon certain coal areas in this country. I think it is possible that something can be done in that direction. Methods of working have a good deal to do with the matter. Sometimes it is the rotation in which seams are worked. I have known of a seam worked in a higher level which had a bad effect upon the seam we were working below. Methods of working by partial extractions of a seam under an

811
old hand-picked working used to have a bad effect upon seams which were near the surface, and affected subsidence. It may be that seam-working by machines, whereby the seam is worked with something like greater regularity, will have some effect upon this question of subsidence.
Whether that is so or not, the fact that from this date—and I too am sorry that the date is fixed so that there cannot be consideration of cases which I have known in years gone by—people coming within the £32 limit will receive something is not a small matter to those who have been putting their little savings into the building of houses. The average person in this country who lives outside these heavy industrial areas would hardly believe his eyes if he saw some of the effects of this subsidence upon the homes of people. If I may dare to quote what I said in my maiden speech, I pointed out then that industry, and particularly heavy industry, is a world within a world, a world of its own. It would be a striking experience for many people to see what damage can be done by the undermining of the surface and the undermining of the homes of the people. I am sure that people outside these areas, as well as those inside them—the nation generally—will be very pleased to learn that, within limited financial conditions, we have by this Bill begun to right a great wrong. I can only hope that, as we develop the broader and more regular system of working that is possible since royalties went and the mines were nationalised, there may one day be even more generous consideration of this problem, so that there are fewer limitations.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that there is a danger that there may be a multiplicity of cases going to the courts as the result of the limitations, but I believe that there will be a better chance of justice for these people who have been dumb and helpless in the face of this problem in the years gone by. Many years ago I was living in an area in which the company were responsible for dealing with the effects of subsidence. There came a day when the
812
company bought the whole of the land, and inserted in the agreement a prohibitive clause against any compensation for damage to a house caused by subsidence. In such cases as that, the poorer classes of people have gone on for long years without any hope of compensation. It may be, of course, that many such cases will be ruled out now by the date limitation. We regret this limitation, and the various other limitations, but it is a great blessing for many people in this country that the Government have introduced this Bill.
3.12 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, there is not much for me to do except to thank noble Lords for the warm welcome which they have extended to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, referred to some surprise he had, but I certainly had three surprises from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. In the first place he compared the £40 mentioned in the Commission's Report with the £32 mentioned in the Bill. I think the noble Lord must have overlooked the fact that the £40 was the annual value, whereas the £32 is the rateable value. I am informed that the £32 is advantageous against the £40. The second surprise was that the noble Lord should suspect that this Bill was designed to catch votes for the Labour Party in the mining areas. Every mining area in this country so far has returned a Labour Member, and if this Bill did have any such effect as the noble Lord suggested, that effect could be only to increase the Labour majority in those areas. The third surprise was that the noble Lord should suggest that ownership of houses could be considered when deciding the terms of a Bill of this kind. Local authorities are not the only owners of houses, apart from individuals; some of the big insurance companies also own houses. I do not think it is desirable to consider ownership in deciding who is to secure the benefits of a Bill of this kind. However, I am grateful for the warm welcome which has been given by your Lordships to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOOD AND DRUGS (MILK, DAIRIES AND ARTIFICIAL CREAM) BILL [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to milk, dairies, and artificial cream. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PUBLIC UTILITIES STREET WORKS BILL
3.15 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The LORD TERRTNGTON in the Chair]
Clauses 29 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Application to London]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH) moved, after "London" to insert:
"and to the Metropolitan and the City of London police districts."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one on the Marshalled List are closely connected. They are drafting Amendments consequential on the proposed Amendments to Paragraph 7 of the Seventh Schedule. That Paragraph, as amended, will refer to the Metropolitan police district and the City of London police district, which areas together go beyond the administrative county of London. The Seventh Schedule, apart from Paragraph 7 as amended, applies only to the administrative county of London and, in consequence of the Amendments to Paragraph 7, it is necessary in Clause 34 to refer expressly to the Metropolitan and City police districts and to define the expression "London". These two Amendments do that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 31, after ("London") insert ("and to the Metropolitan and the City of London police districts").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This, like the previous Amendment, is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 32, at end insert—
("() In this Act 'London' means the administrative county of London, and 'the City of London police district' means the City of London as defined for the purposes of the Acts relating to the City police").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended agreed to.
Clause 35 [Interpretation]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Noble Lords will remember that when the House was last in Committee I moved an Amendment to Clause 19, to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on the question of damage being taken as including obstruction. Now that the term "damage" in Clause 19 is extended to include obstruction it is no longer necessary to say so in the interpretation clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, leave out line 13.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Of course, "damage" normally does not include obstruction and I think it would be straining words to have these words in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the definition of "emergency works" to leave out "limited time" and insert "time fixed by or under the enactment. "The noble Lord said: This is an effort to tighten up Clause 28. At the present time we define "emergency works" to include work done in satisfaction of a statutory obligation to afford a supply within a limited time. This would in some circumstances include works necessary to supply a service within a reasonable but not specific time. In view of that, we think we should define it as a "specified time." So far as we know, there is only one sort of case in which an authority has the statutory obligation to give a service in a specified time. This is usually in the interests of public health. An example is the Water

815
Act of 1945, which in Paragraph 42, subparagraph (2) of the Third Schedule, says:
"If the undertakers fail to carry out the said work within fourteen days after the person by whom the notice was given has laid a supply pipe in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing section, they shall, unless they show that the failure was due to unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day on which the default continues after the expiration of the said fourteen days."
This Amendment rules out all cases which can be brought in on the grounds that the obligation to do them within a reasonable time is a question of emergency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 23, leave out ("limited time") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. I think it is of great importance. I felt that this clause was much too wide. It deals with emergency works, and its provisions torpedo the whole of the code of regulated works. Instances which amount to emergencies should be very limited. It deals with such things as the "interruption of a supply or service." As the clause stood, it seemed to me to be very wide. I am still not quite convinced that it is as tight as it could be. If it refers only to the Water Act of 1945, would it not be simpler to say that, because all it says here is
"fixed by or under the enactment."
There may be many things fixed. The noble Lord says that there is nothing else. If he is convinced of that, well and good, but I submit that the mere fact of fixing a time-table docs not necessarily mean that if there is an emergency, you can ride roughshod through Sections 3, 4 or 5. It does not seem to me of itself to justify putting those sections all to one side. I should like to have the noble Lord's assurance that there are no other cases and, if there are none would it not be possible to confine it specifically to the Act which is mentioned?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his observation. I will certainly look into it. I do not think there are any others but, now that the noble Earl has planted
816
a doubt in my mind, I will undertake to look into it and, as our desire is to make this clause as tight as the noble Earl wishes it to be, if we are not satisfied we will do something about it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before we pass from this, on the verbal part of the Amendment, I think it ought not to be "within a time fixed by or under the enactment," but "within the time," and so on. Before Report stage, perhaps the noble Lord will look into that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will look into that point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the definition of "road purposes," to insert
"the provision of a cattle-grid in a road and works ancillary thereto."
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Earl for not moving his Amendment, because the Amendment I now propose exactly covers his point. It extends the definition of "road purposes" to include the installation of a cattle-grid, a subject upon which I will have to bother your Lordships later on this week. The definition of "road purposes" in this clause was intended to cover all the lawful operations of the highway authorities in the course of maintaining and improving their roads. Highway authorities are being given new powers by the Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids) Bill to install cattle-grids on roads. These are works for road purposes of the kind which this definition must include. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I have your Lordships' permission to deal with the two Amendments at page 48, lines 18 and 22, together? This clause applies the Bill to Scotland. These are two drafting Amendments consequential upon the Amendments which I moved previously to Clause 19, page 27, lines 28

817
and 30. These Amendments are necessary to make the wording in lines 18 and 22 of page 48 fit the amended wording of Clause 19 (4). It is really to bring the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1940, into line with the application of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, in Clause 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 18, after ("1935") insert ("and to damage within the meaning of that Act.")— (Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg to move this Amendment, to which I have already referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 22, after ("1940") insert ("and to loss or damage within the meaning of that Act.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (7) to insert:
("(8) Section thirty-three of this Act shall have effect as if 'New Year's Day' were included as one of the days to be excluded under paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of that section.")
The noble Earl said: I am moving this Amendment so as not to disappoint the noble Lord into thinking that we work on New Year's Day in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not intend that the Scots should work on this day. The Scots determined the issue themselves in 1871, and Homer has indeed nodded when the noble Earl who moved this Amendment failed to realise that the Bank Holiday Act, 1871, declares New Year's Day to be a Bank Holiday in Scotland. Therefore this Amendment is not necessary. I hope the noble Earl will not press it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is it not a fact that, apart from what may be laid down in Statute law, a large number of people in Scotland so celebrate New Year's Day that no work is done?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (14) "or in controlled
818
land." The noble Earl said: This, I understand, is a question of the liability which may be incurred through loss or damage for which any local authorities might be liable on account of an undertaker's works. Subsection (14) of Clause 36 says that the loss, injury or damage may arise "in any street." I have suggested the addition "or in controlled land." I think it is clear that there should be no greater liability in streets than there is in controlled land. In fact, encouragement should be given to local authorities to use controlled land so far as it is possible to do so. There may be other instances in which it would be desirable to add "or in controlled land" in this context. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 19, at end insert ("or in controlled land").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Your Lordships will understand that we are still dealing with the clause that applies this Bill to Scotland. In Scotland, unlike England, highway authorities are liable for "nonfeasance": that is, they are liable for damages caused to persons by failure to keep roads in proper repair. Subsection (14) relieves them of the liability in respect of disrepair of roads as a result of undertakers' works—that is, if undertakers fail to restore a road properly after they have opened it, and someone is injured because of this, the highway authority is absolved from liability. The Amendment seeks to extend this to controlled land. That is how I read it. But this is not necessary. Highway authorities in Scotland are not liable for the repair or disrepair of controlled land where undertakers open it, and it is unnecessary to provide express relief to highway authorities in this respect. That is my advice on the legal aspect of this point, and with that assurance perhaps the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. If a statutory undertaker or somebody else opens up a trench in some controlled land which is still in the occupation of a farmer, and does not fence it, and a cow falls in and breaks its leg, who is responsible for leaving that trap for the cow?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As the noble Lord is a lawyer and I am not—
LORD LLEWELLIN: I mean in Scotland.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not even a Scottish lawyer, and I am certainly not going to be drawn into a legal argument. If the noble Lord is serious in his point I will take advice from my legal advisers, but otherwise perhaps he will not press the point.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, which I am glad to accept.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
First Schedule:
1.—(1) In this Act the expression "controlled land" means land abutting on a street which is a maintainable highway or is prospectively a maintainable highway (in whatsoever use the land is for the time being, not excepting use as or as part of a garden or pleasure ground or the curtilage of a building), being land which either—
(a) belongs to the street authority and is for the time being held by them, or capable of being immediately appropriated by them, for road purposes; or
4. Before giving an authorisation under this Schedule the street authority shall give to every person being an owner, lessee or occupier of the controlled land or of any part thereof, not being only a tenant for a year or from year to year or for any less interest, notice of their intention to give the authorisation, and a person to whom a notice is given under this paragraph shall not be entitled to question the power of the authority to give the authorisation, or the validity of the authorisation when given, in any proceedings commenced later than the expiration of one month from the date on which the notice was given to him.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1:
"or
(d) in Scotland is subject to a servitude right of use as part of a maintainable highway or a prospective maintainable highway."
The noble Earl said: This is an addendum to the First Schedule. It refers to controlled land, land which belongs to a local authority, land which is designated, and land which lies between the "boundary of the street and an improvement line. In Scotland certain lands are used by the local authority for
820
highways which do not belong to the local authority at all. They have what is called servitude over it, which enables the authority to use it as a road. "Servitude" is normally translated as "an easement." In those circumstances, where there is this type of controlled land which does not fall into the categories (a), (b) or (c), I think, it is desirable to add my Amendment (d) in the terms stated on the Marshalled List. I am informed that there are, in fact, a large number of roads in different places which come into this category. I suppose for various reasons it has proved the easier way for the local authority to get use of the land in the way they want it. I suggest that this is a necessary addition in the circumstances, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not quite understand what the noble Earl is trying to do. As I understand it, the effect of his Amendment is to include within the definition of controlled land any land in Scotland which may be physically part of a maintainable highway but which is not really part of the highway in the legal sense. As the noble Earl has pointed out, here is land running alongside a road which does not belong to the highway authority, but through the use to which it is put it is recognised as part of the highway, as he called it, in servitude. I should have thought that there was nothing to prevent the local authority designating that as controlled land for the purpose of street works. That would have covered the point. I do not think there is anything we can do on the lines the noble Earl suggests. If they have no right to lay pipes there they can be given that right only if it is controlled land and becomes designated as a prospective part of the highway, which I should have thought would have been a more simple matter. I hope I understand the noble Earl correctly in what he is trying to do. Perhaps he will tell me whether his point concerns the right to lay pipes there without designating it as controlled land.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Lord is probably right in saying that this land could be designated, but in many cases it has not been designated because it has been unnecessary. I am

821
suggesting that it should continue to be unnecessary—that is to say, that there can be a strip in which the local authority have the right of working above or under ground as a servitude but without designating the land. They may not want to designate the land because they are quite content with the rights they already have. In those circumstances, I suggest it should be included in the global description of what is controlled land. It is true that it is possible to force the local authority by this Bill to go further, and designate it, but they do not want to and they do not see any need to. May I suggest that we accept the situation that exists, which is satisfactory and include this under controlled land? That is the point I am seeking to make.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It appears that the difference between us is whether this is the best way of doing it, or whether it would not be better for the local authority to designate that land and bring it under control. If the noble Earl would for the time being withdraw his Amendment, perhaps he and I could discuss this matter and see what is the best arrangement. I see his point. But when he says that local authorities in Scotland do not see any need to bring this land in as controlled land, I would ask why they see any need to have this Amendment to the Bill. I think that is the point at issue, and perhaps we can discuss it. There may be more in what the noble Earl says than I can see now, and, on reflection, perhaps he will see that there is more in my point than he can see at the present moment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The reason for bringing it into the Bill is because the Bill says:
"…the expression 'controlled land' means land"—
and so forth. In certain circumstances, whether after consultation or not, it may be decided to put works in this land, and it seems to me, therefore, that it should be included in the general description. I think it is an abuse of the word "designation" to make a local authority designate land that it is not necessary to designate. It is not a proper purpose of the Town and Country Planning Act. If they have their control and authority already, they may not wish to have more. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter
822
with the noble Lord. There may not be much in it, and in the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in Paragraph 4, to leave out from "shall" (where that word first occurs) to "be," and insert:
"publish in a newspaper circulating in the locality a notice of their intention to give the authorisation, and shall, not later than the day on which the notice is published, serve a like notice on every person being an owner, lessee or occupier of the controlled land or of any part thereof and having the interest of a tenant for a year or from year to year or any greater interest, and no person shall".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on Second Reading, and also to remedy a defect in drafting. The noble Lord will recollect that on Second Reading he said:
"In regard to Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, something may have to be done so that notice is given to those who have tenancies from year to year. Although they have security of tenure under the Agricultural Acts, a large number of farmers exist in law as yearly tenants. If we are going to lay drains or cables on land just outside the road which is still in private occupation, although designated for the road, we must give a farmer sufficient notice to enable him to object if he wishes to do so."
The main effect of this Amendment is to extend the class of people who are entitled, under Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, to be notified by a highway authority of their intention to issue an authorisation in respect of controlled land, so as to include yearly tenants. The Amendment also remedies a defect in Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule as at present drawn, in that although persons receiving a notice about the issue of an authorisation are prevented from challenging its validity unless they start litigation within one month from receipt of such notice, other people are not so barred and could presumably bring an action at any time. It is necessary that having afforded reasonable opportunity to all concerned to challenge the validity of an authorisation at the time it is issued, no person should be able, if he fails to take this opportunity, to go to law about the question later after undertakers' pipes are laid and, perhaps, have been in use for a considerable period. The Amendment therefore provides that highway

823
authorities, in addition to giving notice to the persons specified in Paragraph 4, shall publish the notice and that no person shall bring legal action to challenge the validity of the authorisation after one month from the publication of that notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 22, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for meeting my point in regards to tenants from year to year. They may be the people peculiarly concerned with works done on land on which their stock is pastured and which is in daily use by them. I think it is only right that when other people are given notice they should be given it as well. I also think that, by and large, it is right to apply this limitation of time for action to every one whether he has had a notice or not. I must confess, though, that I am a little doubtful how many people read these publications in local newspapers. I have not the slightest doubt that the farmer who, as reported in to-day's newspapers, ploughed up some ancient barrow and scattered the bones over the countryside (thereby, I understand, making himself liable to a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment) probably never knew that the Ministry of Works had scheduled that barrow as an ancient monument. It is true, I gather, that the Ministry published the fact in the London Gazette or elsewhere, but of course the effective way to obtain the result required is to give notice directly to the individual concerned, the man who is actually farming the land in that particular neighbourhood. It may or may not be that the farmer to whom I have referred had notice, but I rather gather from what I have read in the newspaper that he had not. It seems to me that the right thing is to give people individual notice, as will be given in this particular case, and let the general public know by means of more general publication. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This next Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 26, leave out ("given to him") and insert ("published").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:
(2) A notice of such an election shall be given without any avoidable delay on the part of the authority or managers after they know of the intention of the undertakers to execute the code-regulated works, and—
(a) where those works are executed after settlement of a plan and section thereof under section four of this Act if the works are in a street or under section five thereof if they are in controlled land, notice given after the expiration of eight days from the date on which the plan and section were settled shall not be effective; and
3.45 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (1) to insert:
"(2) A notice of such an election shall be deemed to have been duly given if the code-regulated works are in a street or controlled land as to which the authority or managers had given to the undertakers notice of their desire that the provisions of this Schedule should have effect in the case of all code-regulated works executed by the undertakers therein or in the case of all such works of a class specified in the notice within which the works in question fall. In any other case."
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will see that in Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule, it is provided that where street authorities or managers elect to reinstate roads themselves—as we are giving them the right to do—they shall in every case within the period specified give notice to the undertakers concerned of this election to do these works. It may, and I expect it will, often happen that highway authorities on a number of occasions will make it their settled policy to reinstate roads themselves after undertakers' street works in their particular area. They will in all cases elect to resurface and restore the roads themselves. This allows them to do that without being forced to give separate notice time after time. They can serve a general notice. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible Amendment, its purpose being to do away with time, trouble, and waste of paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 17, at beginning insert the said new sub-paragraph.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think this Amendment is a proper one. Paper work has grown apace during the régimes of the present Government and their immediate predecessors. I am glad to think that here is one instance in which the Government have seen the light of day, and I am also grateful that the noble Lord in explaining the Amendment to us has not said that it is "an experiment in freedom."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subparagraph (2) (a) of Paragraph 1 to omit "eight" [days] and to insert "fifteen". The noble Earl said: This Amendment substitutes fifteen for eight days in the case of the notice to be given to undertakers by authorities if they elect to do this work. The position is that twenty-eight days are given for settling the plan and, once the plan is settled, within the period stated here—that is eight days—the local authority must state whether they elect to repair the streets themselves. I am suggesting that the period should be fifteen days. The reason I do this is that I personally think it is desirable that local authorities should assume as wide a responsibility as possible for repairing their own streets. Eight days' notice may be adequate for an urban area, but county councils are also concerned in this, and they have a considerably wider administrative responsibility. I think that the longer period of fifteen days is a reasonable one for them to have to make this election. It is not likely to hold up anything because work will not be started. There will be few works of this character which will be likely to reach the reinstatement stage in anything like fifteen days—or indeed in a considerably longer period. I think that this is a reasonable relaxation, particularly so far as county councils are concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 25, leave our ("eight") and insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was hoping that the noble Earl would be so greatly moved by my previous Amendment, or if not by that by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin,
826
on my previous Amendment, that he would not press this Amendment. Surely, practically all the county councils, being highway authorities, will elect to do the restoration themselves and will give a general instruction that they intend in future to reinstate themselves all their roads broken up by undertakers. Because of the few remaining cases which there may be, surely we do not want to disturb the balance of agreement by altering eight days to fifteen. This was the subject of agreement between highway authorities and the undertakers. I think that we have provided the highway authorities with a really splendid Amendment in my previous one, and I have no doubt they will take advantage of it. I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment for I do not think it is necessary to meet the few cases which might possibly arise.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I accept what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.49 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment provides that where a highway authority elects to restore a road broken up by undertakers, the obligation to fence, guard and light the excavation shall pass from the undertakers to the highway authority at the expiry of eight or four days (as the case may be) from the time that the undertakers notify the highway authority that they have finished their works and the excavation is ready to be filled in, or from the time that the highway authority starts to do the reinstatement—whichever is the earlier. As the clause is at present drawn the obligations of guarding, watching and lighting the excavation do not pass to the electing authority until the expiry of the eight or four days, as the case may be. It will often happen that the highway authority will start and finish the restoration before the expiration of this period, and it is clearly necessary that if they do so start restoration they shall from that time, be subject to the appropriate obligations instead of the undertakers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 48, after ("Schedule") insert (", or after the time of their actually beginning

827
reinstatement and making good pursuant to such an election if they begin it earlier,").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
2.
(2) In the case of a road alteration, if it appears to any such undertakers that a plan and section of the authority's works or any of them ought to be furnished to them, they shall, as early as practicable and not later than the expiration of twenty-nine days from the date of the giving to them of the authority's notice under the preceding sub-paragraph give notice to the authority requiring them to furnish a plan and section thereof.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in Paragraph 2 (2) to leave out "twenty-nine" and insert "eight." The noble Earl said: This is a point of negotiation between an authority and an undertaking in deciding whether or not an alteration in any road will affect the undertaking. I am perhaps more on the noble Lord's side when I say that it is reasonable for an undertaker to give notice in shorter time. My Amendment provides that the period in which the undertakers shall give notice that they want a plan should be reduced from twenty-nine to eight days. The paragraph says:
"as early as practicable and not later than the expiration of twenty-nine days."
"As early as practicable" does not seem to me to be a close definition of twenty-nine days. If work is going ahead and this is merely a notice requesting a plan, the undertaker could easily have it in a shorter time. Presumably until that is done other things cannot be proceeded with. I know the noble Lord opposite may say that this is a balanced agreement and that the Government cannot change anything, but I think it is fair that if anything is likely to be held up, we should examine and justify each stage of the balance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 46, leave out ("twenty-nine") and insert ("eight").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Earl has a good point here and I am prepared to accept his Amendment in principle. Perhaps he will allow us to look at it and put down a
828
Government Amendment at the next stage to cover the principle he has raised.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Powers for Consequential Modification of Special Enactments and Agreements, and as to Certain Existing protections]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Part II. to insert as a new Part III:

PART III

  POWERS AS TO REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN CONSENTS
  4. The Minister may by order provide for saving, notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section seventeen of this Act, any requirement of consent imposed by a special enactment or by a public general enactment as incorporated or applied in or by a special enactment with any modification, either as regards all works to which the requirement extends or as regards any class of such works.
  5. The Minister may by order provide for authorising, notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section seventeen of this Act, the imposition of such conditions as are therein mentioned on the giving of a consent."
  The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading I said that we had removed all paramount consents for underground apparatus in the area in which an undertaker has a statutory duty to supply. We thought at that time that the code in the Bill sufficiently protected highway authorities, and that paramount consent of highway authorities to undertakers' doing such works in maintainable highways was not necessary. But my notice has been drawn to the fact that there may be difficulties in such cases as the Black-wall Tunnel, where it is important to have a strict control over the laying of apparatus if dire consequences are not to follow. In this Amendment we propose to give the Minister power in special cases to preserve by order paramount consents which would otherwise be swept away by Clause 17 (1). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 69, line 24, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I think this Amendment is right. There are some cases where exceptional powers ought to be preserved. There is the case of the Birkenhead Tunnel and other tunnels where, because a tunnel has been built under a river and has become a highway, the authority must not think it has a right to put any sort of works down the tunnel.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential on the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 19, at end, insert—
  ("In the case of an order under paragraph 4 or 5 of this Schedule—
  On each of the parties on whom service would have been required under head (ii) of this Table if the order had been one under paragraph 1 for the modification of an enactment as regards the obtaining of the consent.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Seventh Schedule [Application to London]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is to meet the special case of the London County Council. Paragraph 3 of the Seventh Schedule obliges undertakers, when submitting plans and sections of proposed street works to a highway authority in London, to include an extra copy to be sent on to the London County Council if the street concerned is a classified road. The London County Council point out that there will be cases where an unclassified road may be included in a major road scheme and in that case they would like to have plans and sections of proposed works. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 37, leave out ("which is a classified road") and insert ("to which this paragraph applies").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 71, line 46, at end, insert—
  "This paragraph applies to a highway which is a classified road, and to any other highway
  830
  as to which the London County Council had, before the submission of the plan and section, given to the Common Council or to the metropolitan borough council, as the case may be, and to the undertakers, notice of the desire of the London County Council that this paragraph should have effect in the case of all code-regulated works executed by the undertakers therein."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved in Paragraph 5 (b) to leave out from the second "the" to the end of line 14, and insert "appropriate local authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment also seeks to meet a special case. When a street is declared under the Second Schedule to be "prospectively a maintainable highway," the declaration has to be entered in the register of local land charges. In London, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the Common Council of the City of London all keep registers of local land charges, and it was considered administratively preferable to provide for declarations under the Second Schedule for streets in Metropolitan Boroughs to be entered in the London County Council registers. The Metropolitan Borough Councils have pointed out that this will in fact cause more work than it will save, and that they should make entries in their own registers. This Amendment provides accordingly. I hope that it will receive the cordial support of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, because it follows the dictum he has just laid down, and which he will be able to have carried into effect a second time in one afternoon—that we should save labour, paper and time.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 9, leave out from the second ("the") to the end of line 14, and insert ("appropriate local authority.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in Paragraph 7 (1) to leave out "London" and insert "the Metropolitan or the City of London police district." The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will deal also with the Amendments at line 38 and line 40, as they all affect the same point. They are intended to remove a defect in Paragraph 7. The intention of this paragraph is to provide that whenever undertakers

  831
  are about to carry out street works in the Metropolitan police district or in the City of London which will entail the closing to traffic of more than one-third of the carriageway of important roads the police authorities will be notified so that they can make the necessary arrangements to deal with traffic. The Metropolitan police district goes substantially beyond the administrative county of London, but as the paragraph is drawn at present it applies only to roads within the administrative county, and roads in the Metropolitan police district which are outside the administrative county would not be covered. This Amendment extends the paragraph to cover such roads.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 29, leave out ("London") and insert ("the Metropolitan or the City of London police district").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 58, leave out from the first ("of") to ("or") in line 39 and insert ("City of London police in the case of a highway in the City of London police district").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 40, leave out ("elsewhere in London") and insert ("in the Metropolitan police district").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  REORGANISATION OF HUMAN SOCIETY
  4.0 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DARNLEY THE EARL OF DARNLEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take initial steps towards the reorganisation of human society now in danger of collapse, to secure its survival; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it appears to me that it is a true saying that human society has
  832
  now arrived at the crossroads and has to make up its mind whether it will continue to try and obtain its ideals in the future by war and bloodshed, which will assuredly end it, or whether it will try and find new methods of gaining those ideals. This may have been said many times before, but now the incidence of scientific invention has made it a certainty. I do not want to make this Motion a cry of panic, or in any way a lecture, or an ethical debate, but merely to make an honest and serious attempt to find some method of moving human society into a better position from the complete mess, muddle and misery it endures at the moment. The only people I venture to criticise are those who do not recognise this position, or those who think they can ameliorate it by an intensification of the methods that have caused it.
  I recollect one day in July, 1946, when I brought a Motion before your Lordships in somewhat similar terms, concerning the making of Peace Treaties with recently defeated enemies; and that Motion, after being accepted by the noble Viscount who leads the House, Lord Addison, was afterwards objected to by various noble Lords and eventually was withdrawn. I realise that there are certain pitfalls in a Motion of this kind, and to-day I will try to avoid them. The first pitfall was brought about by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye (who I am sorry to see is not in his place to-day, although I gave him notice), who said that the blameworthy could expect only treatment in kind. For the purpose of a Motion such as this, if you are going to talk about "blame" you have either to level it out over five hundred years, or abolish it. Nobody believes he is blameworthy, and so, for the purpose of a Motion which is supposed to be going to reconcile human society, it has, at any rate, to be disaccentuated. This I will call an accusation of an inferiority.
  Conversely, the noble Lord, Lord Cal-verley (whom I see sitting beside me), said that other nations would consider a "religious essay", as he called my speech, hypercritical and dogmatic. That I call an accusation of a superiority. However, I have drawn the Motion wider to-day, and I hope to avoid both those accusations. The third pitfall was reflected by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, who

  833
  roughly put forward the theory that, everything in the world was pretty good, and if it was not, mere words—"verbiage" as the noble Lord called it—would not improve matters, as they had failed on previous occasions. The noble Viscount gave an example of an Emperor of Russia, Alexander I, I think, who made a very bold pronouncement in favour of the settlement of war by Christian methods, and then dropped it altogether. He obviously had not learned that old adage:
  "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again."
  That is a mistake which we must not make. Outside the debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has often told me that this House of Lords is a judicial assembly—
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: A legislative assembly.
  THE EARL OF DARNLEY: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, a legislative assembly—and not an ethical debating society. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury (I am sorry he is not in his place, and we all deeply regret the reason why he is kept away) and I are both gardeners, and if we saw our garden in the same state that the world is in to-day, we should know it would be no good sacking the gardeners, or even having a battle with them with hoes. We must have new principles, and new principles are what are wanted to-day. I will try to put them forward without superiority or inferiority, without seeming to give a lecture or making your Lordships' House into a debating society. There is, however, one point I want to make. A request for new principles does not imply criticism of any action by any group of parties in the past. If I may say so, politicians are apt to think that if they consent to considering something new, it means the confession of failure in something old. The point is that, whatever wrong or good has been done in the past, new principles must be adopted or the end of humanity will appear on the horizon. I appeal most earnestly that your Lordships will reconsider this subject with unbiased minds, in view of the serious situation that exists.
  To reorganise human society is, to say the least of it, a tall order; but if it is going to risk its total disappearance if it remains as at present, it is a tall order that must be attacked, whatever its height.
  834
  Let us look at it and examine its need. Humanity is having a brief respite between two eras of destruction and misery, the second of which appears at the moment to be inevitable and must inevitably finish it off; it will certainly be worse than the first, and the first was bad enough, in all conscience. After six years of unlimited gallantry and self-sacrifice, there is hardly a soul alive who is not bereaved, hopeless, reactionary and self-seeking. Horrible death has torn large holes in nearly every family, not only of their gallant combatant sons, but of their helpless women, old men and children. Displacement and torture have accounted for many millions more. Communism, which is a reactionary process born of misery, is in charge of half the globe; and crime, as your Lordships know from a recent debate, has increased enormously even among juveniles. Those left alive and well, and supposed to be basking in the air of freedom, are inhibited by taxes and restrictions of all kinds due to shortages of all the necessities of life.
  It is impossible in a short speech to recount all the miseries from which humanity is suffering, and to indicate the despair to which those miseries have reduced mankind, but a glimpse at any morning paper shows quite plainly, without any comment from me, that the human race has by its own efforts reduced itself very low in the scale of created forms of life. No other form of created life (this is true, although it does not sound right for a human being to say it) except man has varied at all from its optimum, and man has varied so far that he is threatened with self-immolation. It makes one wonder what the many forms of efficient and beautiful created things would say of the human race if they could only speak. This is not an optimistic thought, but it is a true one.
  With your Lordships' permission, I should like, in support of this somewhat airy statement, to read a small part of a letter I saw in the Sunday Times on May 14. These are the lines:
  "But what really amuses us is that we birds should be called 'backward, primitive and disgusting' by a member of the human race. When the day comes on which we are cumbered about with ration and identity cards; when our more energetic members must purchase passports for their migratory flights: when we kill for the sake of pebbles, and tear

  835
  up the surface of the good earth in pursuit of what you men term 'wealth', then we may be termed 'backward.' Until that day, we rest secure upon our ordered lives, showing our great wisdom in having no worries."
  Is that true or is it not? What is the great "Why" of all this? The great "Why" is surely this: that the human race will continue to believe that it can right wrongs and abolish wrongdoers— there are plenty of both—and achieve peaceful solutions by murder and battle. These solutions have been proved not to have the value of one tortured child's life, and now it is absolutely proved that they cannot effect such solutions. If right was always entirely 100 per cent. right, and wrong 100 per cent. wrong, nothing beneficial could be achieved if, in the course of trial by force, the existences of these right and wrong were both completely ruined. But as such a condition is never a fact, and as, conversely, all sides believe themselves to be completely right, how much more fatuously is it now proved that all that a trial by force can produce in the future is a debilitated and crime-ridden human race, destroyed by the incidence of revenge and rivalry generated by war, and so likely to flare up with all the frightful new scientific inventions of horror owned by the rival combatants!
  Is it not time that a new basis was organised to ensure human society's survival? Is this not the one and only and last possible moment? I realise that action for peace without battle is apt to be suspect, but I hope to be able to prove to your Lordships this time, quite concisely, that action for peaceful solutions does not imply an admiration for aggressors and their policies, nor dislike for one's country, nor desire to lie down and be conquered, but springs from a firm conviction that wars should not arise, nor aggressors, and if they do it is a position to which everybody has contributed. The point to aim at is one in which they cannot exist, and in which the so-called necessity for war terminates. If there is any truth in the old adage that it takes two to make a quarrel, then everybody is, unconsciously perhaps, responsible for every war in history. For wars are man made, and not created by providence to plague poor humanity.
  Therefore, with the greatest respect, I would suggest a basis for the reorganisation of human society in the following
  836
  way, and I hope that a short dive below the surface may be forgiven, as it is necessary. Everything that exists, including the human race, is part of existence, the eternal plan, or anything else which, in complete ignorance of its composition, we like to call it. But the human race are the only part of existence with sufficient intelligence to think that they are soloists and can plan their actions ad libitum, according to their limited knowledge, not realising that without the aid of eternity they cannot even get out of bed, put on their trousers and eat their breakfast. The rest live attached by instinct to eternity, and therefore manage to protect themselves by obeying its rules, and remain much the same throughout all the confusion that humanity devises for itself. But the human race have had prophets and wise men who have told them the rules of eternity, and as they profess to believe in them absolutely it follows as surely as night follows day that if they had followed those rules they would have protected not only the numbered hairs of their heads, but themselves as well, from wars and aggressors and the necessity of turning civilisation upside down to deal with them.
  The initial step necessary to save human society is for some nation—preferably this one—to start the world on its new role as carriers-out of the orders of eternity. I have not given notice of this, but I would most respectfully suggest that the Church might give a good lead in this. This body has definite orders from its Originator that the taking of human life is forbidden. Would its members therefore consider expressing willingness—not, of course, unilaterally, but in agreement with the other sections of their belief—to scrap Article 37, which allows believers to go to war, and be honest about this particular order which was certainly never given them by their Founder?
  If they would only agree to do this, then could the politicians and people duly follow their lead, and something could be done in place of the universal negative discussions which we hear, not only in this House but in every house where things are discussed—"failure discussions" as someone described them to me, such as how to make bricks without straw, which I think is the subject

  837
  which is being raised to-morrow. There is another favourite debate—How to make straw without bricks—which no doubt will be coming on shortly. There are many other debates of this kind. There is Defence and the heavy costs, and there are Power Pacts and the like, not to mention the denunciation and smelling out of criminals rather after the fashion of the African witch doctors. However well they may be executed, we might hear positively, for a change, that the hand of some nation has been stretched out in friendship—and by friendship I mean real friendship, which neither doubts nor fears—to other nations, especially supposedly hostile ones. If the orders of eternity are true and right, then these hostile nations would have to follow suit and in this way the abolition of Article 37 would be justifiably promulgated.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said that my ideas were mere verbiage, and I am glad to put forward a definite proposition for his assimilation. The chief bugbear of the Western world is now Communism under the ægis of Russia. I do not believe that the Russians are either all devils, as some speakers try to make out, or all angels, as other people go to great pains to make us believe, but merely human beings who, in consequence of great suffering and misery over a very long period, have adopted a hostile ideology, but who are nevertheless equally amenable to the orders of eternity like everyone else. I suggest that this country should send an invitation to the leaders of the Russian nation—get the President if you can, and if not his plenipotentiaries—and also to the plenipotentiaries of the United States, getting the President if he will come. Get them to come and stay here, and when here try and persuade them that they should stop sending each other rude notes but see that, though they may not like each other or approve each other, they should nevertheless get together and formulate some plan of peaceful co-existence in order that the peace-loving human beings of the world may regain their hope and security.
  I assure you that every soul in the world, whether black, white or yellow, whether good, bad or indifferent, is craving for this at the moment. By such a happening as this the prosperity of both sections of the world could be increased.
  838
  It would be in keeping with the orders of eternity and certainly would reconcile the protagonists of future strife. Of course, it must be carried into realisation against many refusals and difficulties, and be entirely unlike the efforts of the Emperor Alexander the First. I am sure the noble Viscount would agree that an action like this is better than sitting still waiting for the final disaster, and even arming and preparing for it. But if your Lordships do not approve of this, then in your wisdom and experience perhaps you can think of something else which does realise the seriousness of the situation, and perhaps devise some other plan based on the same principles. There have been encouraging signs lately. There have been resolutions in both Houses of Congress in the United States aimed at stopping the armaments race and ensuring a just peace; and there, have been the journeys of Mr. Trygve Lie and his resulting statement. I think that the comment with which this was received, which runs as follows:
  "There is no magic with which either Mr. Lie or anyone else can remove suddenly the tensions that now exist."
  speaks only of the human limitation and not of the power of infinity.
  If I may say a word or two to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, I hope he will treat this Motion with the seriousness that it deserves, and that he will not fob me off and thereby risk the suicide of the human race by directing at me any of the old slogans or humdrum unilateral arguments which have been used in the past to bolster up participants in strife. I am sure he will not do that. This time there is not going to be any creditable aftermath for anybody; and it is no good raising hopes, especially false ones that nations will recoil from superior strength. That is a very great mistake. If nations are hostile they never recoil from superior strength; and nowadays science has given a weapon which in half an hour can completely defeat superior strength. I should like to give noble Lords an example of the sort of slogan which I have in mind. I took it from a letter in a Sunday paper last Sunday. This is how it reads:
  "The only possible answer to the bully nation is for all the rest to get together and declare their whole-hearted intention of fighting to the last ditch."

  839
  This may be a very fine and brave sentiment, but it does not bear the light of reason. Who is going to say who is the bully nation? Everybody thinks that everybody else is the bully nation. And fighting in the last ditch is going to involve everybody as well as the bully nation. We want the view from the first eminence, and not the myopia from the final cesspool.
  I should like to say to the noble Lord that a good many of the terms used in international politics in the past will eventually become obsolete and redundant. I refer to such expressions as "Power pacts," "Power politics," "defensive treaties," "bad and good leaders and nations" and many others. They will all have to be merged in a co-operative scheme for the good of human society as a whole, to save it from being blown to pieces by atomic and other horrific methods. I repeat, the human race, human society, are enjoying, so to speak, a brief respite between two periods of destruction and misery, the second of which may annihilate them. They are spending this respite under a cloud of repressions, taxes and shortages of all necessities of life, due to the spending of world savings on war. They know full well that any prosperity they may possess at the moment is bolstered up on bankruptcy and that any peace rests upon the possibility of more horrific slaughter and scientific death. By bankruptcy I do not, of course, refer to the financial manœuvres of any group of parties but merely to the fact that the world, after spending £100,000,000 a day on non-productive war material for six years, must be now reduced to a position of extreme danger in maintaining its finances. The people of the world are sick to death of it all. They are bloody-minded and reactionary; and it is now or never for some to come forward with a new plan after the orders of their highest and greatest wisdom to restore human hope and morale and make the people really worthy of their assumed name of sapiens—not in order to produce Utopia but to make life a positive and pleasant struggle rather than an intolerable and negative one.
  May I say these few words in conclusion? There is something badly needed to-day in the affairs of mankind.
  840
  It is something that the hosts of philosophers and wise men never succeeded in obtaining or bringing to realisation, although their many volumes litter our shelves. The reason is that they have never discovered that the knowledge lies in the acceptance of being and in following its simple rules; something that no gallant warrior, with his guns and swords and bombs, can ever achieve, nor any politician with his Power pacts and Power politics. Because force will never find it: something that is as ununderstandable as but no less miraculous than the emergence of the oak tree from the acorn; something from the want of which all humanity is suffering and without which it cannot give its best and live its best. There is only one word that I can find, and that is security; perhaps there is another, and that is sense of continuity. Whatever it is, it is outside human ken though not outside human credibility. It may be a vast and incredibly difficult achievement to reinstate or even make a start at reinstating such security; but it has got to be done before final disaster comes; and some country has to make the start. I beg to move for Papers.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, on having ventured to raise such a very wide and deep issue. In raising such a matter, there is, of course, always a danger of incurring the charge of vagueness. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me if my particular kind of "vagueness" is different from his. In any event I shall avoid, as he has, falling into the trap. I do not quite follow the noble Lord in understanding the orders of eternity and such things, but at the same time I fully support the religious attitude towards the problems of the world to-day; and, in particular, I am sure everyone realises that some understanding should be reached between East and West.
  The angle from which I wish to approach this subject is that of what might be called the land basis of society. Everyone seems to be "going to town" at any rate in most of the nations of the British Commonwealth, and there seems also to be a desire on the part of a good many other nations to go to town. I should like to know whether many of our problems are not in fact tied up

  841
  with a complete unbalance between town and country interests and with a lack of awareness of the land. I know that it is an old question whether or not people in this country were happier before the Industrial Revolution. I am sure that the land basis of life is an extremely important one, and I suggest that one of the ways in which society could be saved from likely collapse is by the creation of a better balance between agriculture and industry. I know this is not an issue on the highest level of ideas; but I believe that we are very much influenced by our surroundings; and, as part of our contribution to the re-building up of society, it looks to me as if the question of population arises. Let us imagine for a moment that there was now no further danger of war in the world. Should we consider that our community was right as regards our population, our nature, our attitude and many other things? In my view, it certainly is not right. If we were all to have gardens of our own, a town like London would, in fact, reach more or less to Southampton. And what of the agricultural land? Many might say that agricultural land does not matter; that the overseas communities can provide us with food. We have had a recent example of insistence on this attitude when a certain Member of another place raised the whole question of farming costs and the needs of our people, the assumption being that all our people would remain in their present surroundings.
  I do not myself feel that the present surroundings of the majority of people are such as to make for peace, even if peace, from the military point of view, were now completely secure. I do not think that a peaceful frame of mind— and, after all, individual peace is involved in this question of collapse—is encouraged by the sort of community in which we live. I know that it is not a question of going back; I think it is a question of going forward and of trying to distribute more evenly the population of the British Commonwealth. I do not want to follow that up in detail, but in relation to this subject, for I think it is relevant. I sometimes contemplate the very early history of Westminster. In a way, most probably, the inhabitants were very primitive people indeed who fished for salmon
  842
  and shot wild duck round about this House. But they had a certain clear looking and a certain individuality. I think those are very important things which we are rapidly losing, in the interests, apparently, of progress. A sentence of Dean Inge seems to be very true in this respect. He says:
  "If it is progress to turn the fields and woods of Essex into East and West Ham, we may be thankful that progress is a sporadic and transient phenomenon in history."
  It is a bad thing that we should run ourselves down. We have obviously made a very great contribution to the society of the world by the Industrial Revolution, but that very Revolution has created many problems which tie up with the imminent or possible collapse of society. Indeed, the noble Earl in moving this Motion indicated that we have created new horrors of war through, big industry. Now, of course, if we are interested in more open country we are: forced to go at least fifteen to twenty miles from this House to come into contact with these wild and natural things, and even cultivated things in terms of fields. We should look at it under the eye of history, which possibly has some relation to the "orders of eternity." Those are rather dangerous phrases but I think they can be meaningful. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, for raising this particular matter in philosophical terms.
  An author who appeals to me very much is Richard Jefferies, who was essentially a country man but who also had a great feeling for London. I myself live on the edge of this town, roughly where town and country meet, and I can see the sort of conflict that exists. We are very much under the influence of cities. There is something I should like to quote from Jefferies' Nature Near London, which I think is to the point. He says:
  "The strong influence of the vast city magnetised me, and I felt it under the calm oaks. The something wanting in the fields was the absolute quiet, peace and rest which dwells in the meadows and under the trees and on the hilltops in the country. Under its power the mind gradually yields itself to the green earth, the wind among the trees, the song of birds, and comes to have an understanding with them all. For this it is still necessary to seek the far-away glades and hollow coombes, or to sit alone beside the sea."

  843
  I think we are needing a natural awareness of natural things. There are inherent qualities in the country. The whole defence of British agriculture at this rather doubtful and critical moment is not, to my mind, just an economic one. I think we should beware of trying to defend agriculture entirely on the question of costs in relation to other places. We should realise that any community in the world must for the sake of its health have a strong agricultural element, an equal balance between town and country; and that, in our case, is what we have so very considerably lost. Many countries in the world which are particularly troubled by this question of peace are countries which have done exactly the same thing. It is rather curious, but what might seem to many of us best for England might not, in fact, be so militarily. There is a very big conflict there with which I do not feel competent to deal. I realise the sort of England we want, and the arrival of that greener and pleasanter country is dependent on exactly the situation and the approach which the noble Earl so vividly demands.
  As to what this Government or any Government can do, I think it must be fairly clear from my attitude that I believe a much bigger solving of our difficulties is necessary. We must be more aware of the country, and more determined that we shall not have a highly preponderant urban nation. Any Government will in fact reflect a trend in that direction, and one useful part of that trend of realisation would be a further move out from here to other parts of the Commonwealth. I do not wish to speak further. I would, finally, put in a plea for individualism as the most important possible aspect of peace. I believe that the sort of mass that is created by overweaning industry is not conducive to clear, quiet or peaceful thinking. I should like to suggest that in order to get a healthier attitude towards peace, and towards all the problems that this debate raises, we must achieve new land-awareness. I am certain that this country will not fail in appreciating where its true interest in this respect lies.
  4.39 p.m.
  LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I am looking at this Motion again:
  844
  "To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will take initial steps towards the reorganisation of human society now in danger of collapse, to secure its survival."
  That is an order without dimension. It is giving my noble friend who is to reply a big job. Certainly, I should have been frightened at the prospect of taking part in this debate had it not been for the fact that I understood that the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, had been looking up a speech of mine, made four years or so ago, and mentioned that I used a certain word. I have tried to find the report, and I think the word must have been used during the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who pointed out very pungently, and I think truthfully, that the Resolution as it was then introduced might be misunderstood by other nations, who might think that the House of Lords was a glorified lecture society. I had the misfortune to interpose the word "humbugs" If there is one thing of which we have to fight shy it is that either the Americans or the Russians should think that we are a self-righteous nation—a "more holy than thou" class of people.
  I am all the more puzzled after listening to the speech of the noble Lord opposite, and if I had the courage I would at once resume my seat, because if his conception of the Resolution is as he states it, then I have got the wrong idea altogether. If my noble friend Lord Pakenham has to reply seriatim about what His Majesty's Government have done to save the countryside, he could go back to the noble Lord's own father and also to subsequent Ministers of Agriculture, including the Minister who occupied the post during the National Government, and he could point to the fact that the countryside is not in danger of collapse.
  LORD NOEL-BUXTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I was not suggesting for a moment that it was; indeed, I suggested rather the opposite. But I am suggesting that a society that remains like ours, so predominantly of the town, will never give a fair showing to that virility of the countryside.
  LORD CALVERLEY: I am certain there is a lot of truth in what the noble Lord is saying, and I agree with much that he has said. But I take it that the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, is asking this House to discuss a state of things which

  845
  may bring about a world collapse, and he then says to my noble friend Lord Pakenham, "Now, what about it? Give us your answer." I think even my noble friend Lord Pakenham, with all his great talent, is going to be "stumped" with a conundrum of that sort.
  Last Tuesday a gentleman, not an Englishman, was going out of this House with me and he pointed to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, and said, "The last time I saw Lord Cecil of Chelwood was in Geneva, when he was the first Minister of the Crown to go there officially to represent this country at the League of Nations." This gentleman heard the noble Viscount speak. Many of us have great faults, and I know that the noble Viscount does not need a certificate of character from me. Whatever faults the noble Viscount has, he has spent his life in trying to convince the world that unless we have certain ideals in our own hearts there will be a collapse of society.
  If one goes into the country, either the industrial side or the agricultural side, one finds there is not that sense of awareness that we are in danger of collapse; indeed there is too much complacency. In fairness to the common man and woman, it must be said that if they examine the position as it is to-day, they, are horrified because they are called upon to raise £800,000,000 in taxation for defence; but then they say, either aloud or in their hearts, "We can do nothing else." Then they say, "But £800,000,000 is mere 'chicken feed' compared with £7,500,000,000 which is the budget for the next year or two of the U.S.S.R." It is an absolute libel to say that the ordinary people in the street are warmongers. But that is what we are told. That is the technique, at any rate of one type of Government. They go on repeating that we are warmongers, and the foolish bellwethers in this country reecho what is said in Moscow until they believe it. On the other hand, we have the other type, the extreme type in the United States of America. Let us take Colonel McCormick of Chicago. According to him, it is impossible for a mere Englishman to do anything that is right. So we are "between the devil and the deep." The average Englishman does not care two hoots about that; he simply carries on without being panic-stricken.
  846
  I have come to the conclusion that we need a greater sense of awareness in spiritual and ethical values. We need that in this country without preaching it to anybody else, and we have got to have it. On the other hand the average man and woman in a villags or town are kind-hearted folks who detest war; and I say to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, that this is one of the few countries in the world where no Government, whatever its colour or complexion, dare go into a war of aggression. At any rate, that can be counted in our favour as righteousness. But I do not want us to be self-righteous. Last week I was with a German father whose son had just returned from being a prisoner in Soviet Russia. The war has been over five years, and that man told me through his son, who spoke English, "My son has been working with the Russians on the countryside". I agree with the noble Earl that the countryside has a great humanising influence. This man went on to say, "The people in the countryside treated my son with great kindliness and he has not a wrong word to say or criticism to make of them." But he said that he had had to watch his step with the police, or he would have made that trek which tens of thousands have made before him, and which is called, I believe, the trek to Siberia.
  But let us get back to the Motion. We are, I am sure, unanimously in favour of it, in so far as it expresses the desire and the need for peace on earth in order to save civilisation from utter collapse. But I say to the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, that the common man and the common woman, not only in this country but in every country in which I have talked to them, are not "bloody-minded"—to use the noble Earl's own phrase. We cannot achieve what is desired even by having a mission for the 800-odd members of the House of Lords, unless we can induce them to go into the countryside to endeavour to convert others. It comes down to this: we have to get back to a state of greater spiritual idealism. That sounds a bit like preaching, I am afraid.
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to give this one personal recollection before I finish. I remember that during the lifetime of the 1929–31 Parliament—it was in 1929 I believe—a German journalist came to me and said that he had been making a canvass of the 193

  847
  Labour members of the House of Commons. He had been making inquiries as to their background, he told me, and he said: "The background of 90 per cent. of your colleagues—the Labour men in the House of Commons—is a Sunday School background." I said: "I have the same background, and I wish we could get back to some of the simple truths for ourselves, and then try to spread them a little more abroad." But that, again, is a task which we shall have to leave to another generation to accomplish. I found that on my side of the House of Commons the great majority of the Members were lay preachers or something of the sort. I made inquiries on the other side, and I am happy to say that I found as great a measure of spiritual truth in the mass of my political opponents. I would not for a moment suggest that we were more holy than they.
  I am greatly interested in this Motion, and I particularly want to hear the answer of Lord Pakenham to the conundrum which is contained in it. Can he give us a solution of this problem here? If he can, then he deserves a monument or, ultimately, a stained-glass window, because as this Motion is drawn he has a tall order to fulfil. The Motion rather suggests that the Government should regiment the nation. We are not going to have that, I am sure, so long as Lord Hawke is in possession of a seat on the Back Benches opposite. And the nation as a whole would not stand for it. I really cannot imagine what Lord Pakenham is going to say; I will therefore resume my seat all the more quickly in order that I may he able to hear it.
  4.54 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords I do not rise to take part in this debate at any considerable length, but since the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, and the noble Lord who has just spoken have both been good enough to refer to me by name, I should like to make three or four observations in order that it may be clear how far I am in agreement with them. First, let me say that I find myself in a very large measure of agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, in his description of the extreme danger in which civilisation stands at the present time. I think it is true that there is this extreme danger and it seems to me that
  848
  it is a melancholy fact which we have to admit. I agree, also, with the noble Earl that force, by itself, is no remedy. That is not an original observation of my own, as noble Lords know quite well, but I think it is true. I believe that the only use of force is just to prevent complete disaster which might otherwise fall upon this country, and for that reason I am unable to believe that unilateral disarmament by Great Britain would promote peace or promote safety in this country. In my view—I am not going to argue this, but I think it is right to say it, definitely—there is only one remedy for the state of things into which the world has fallen. That is conversion. I am satisfied that the Russian prescription of dialectical materialism is perfectly useless, very dangerous and pernicious. Beyond that I do not think this is the place nor am I the person to proceed.
  4.57 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, during the three years which I have had the honour to be a member of your Lordships' House and, indeed, during the much longer time when I was interested in political affairs in another place, I do not ever remember to have seen on the Order Paper a Motion of such scope as this one. It calls upon the Government to take steps for the reorganisation of the whole of human society. One would have expected that there would be a debate extending over two or three days and that large numbers of your Lordships would be anxious to air your views on this gigantic question. It is not surprising that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has called back from the air, for the moment, one of his brightest lights to wind up this debate. It is a well known practice of the noble Viscount when matters before the House are at all complex to call upon either the Lord Chancellor or Lord Pakenham to deal with them—either the "big bear" or "Brumas."
  I have never heard a speech of such gloom as that delivered by my noble friend Lord Darnley. He really takes a most despairing view of humanity, and his words are calculated to move us all to tears. But while, at the same time, we respect the high idealism which impregnated the whole of his speech, it seems to me that all he really preached was Christian pacifism. Indeed, in the able speeches we have heard from all four

  849
  noble Lords who have already spoken, only one suggestion has been made as to the initial step which the Government might take towards the re-organisation of human society, and that was Lord Darnley's suggestion that the Government should invite Premier Stalin and President Truman to come and stay at Claridge's in London and have a talk over the table with the Cabinet. That was the suggestion which the noble Earl made, but it is a suggestion which has been made time and time again without evoking any response. The noble Earl talked about holding out again the hand of friendship to Russia. But is not our right arm drooping with the fatigue of holding its hand outstretched for so long? Time and again, we have asked Russia to come to the conference table and be friends. Time and again in the United Nations Assembly Russia has said, "No, No, No" to every proposition. This is unfortunately not a practical suggestion, because we know beforehand that the Russians will not play. It only makes us look foolish to carry the policy of appeasement too far.
  I am not altogether against the policy of appeasement. All nations use that policy. I have always thought Mr. Neville Chamberlain was dealt with very unfairly for the policy he pursued at Munich. Indeed, all individuals use appeasement when it is of service to them. I myself use it. Whenever I am reported by a police officer for a motoring offence, an occurrence which must from time to time happen to all of us who drive about a great deal, my first action is to write a letter of apology to the superintendent of police, saying how much I regret my stupid carelessness, how right his officer was to apprehend me and how tactfully he handled the matter; and finally, how sad it would be if the purity of my licence were to be sullied by a conviction on this trivial charge. I must say that on three out of four occasions on which this occurred, that worked like a charm. Therefore, I am not entirely against the policy of appeasement. But I submit that we have done our utmost in that direction vis-à-vis Russia. Therefore, if I were to be asked what practical step the Government could take to prevent the collapse of society, I would answer that it is to take care that the portion of society for which the Government are responsible is safeguarded against collapse
  850
  by all the means which lie in the Government's power.
  There are various forms of collapse which may in the end bring about the total collapse of the world. One is economic collapse. That is a subject in which I am particularly interested. I do not think the Government do as much as they might to prevent possible economic collapse. I think they spend a great deal too much money and levy much too high taxation; and I think that that process, carried on sufficiently long, would induce a condition bordering on economic collapse. I made a speech a few weeks ago in the economic debate in your Lordships' House and I do not wish to repeat myself in any way. That speech gave rise to some little correspondence, but I had only one abusive letter, and that was from a Scotsman, a gentleman who prefaced his remarks by saying that he had a family of twelve. He was evidently a man of expansive tastes—unlike his golfing compatriot who picked up a caddy and asked him, "Are you good at finding balls in the rough?" The caddy replied, "Yes," whereupon the golfer instructed him, "Go out and find one, and then we can begin." The method by which I think the Government should avoid economic collapse is by reducing expenditure and taxation.
  There is moral collapse. Here I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, who hinted that the Church of England might do more than it is doing. I take this very seriously, because I think the influence of the Church of England has diminished and ought to be very much increased. As Christianity is absolutely the antithesis of Communism, this is obviously extremely important. I remember that during the war my mother had through her hands about twenty-four children, refugees from one of the big seaports. They were all little girls, ranging in age from about seven Jo eleven. Out of these twenty-four little girls, only four had ever gone to church, or had any conception of religion at all. When they were made to put on their best clothes and taken to church and people sat behind them, found their places in the Prayer Book and put a penny in their hands for the collection, all took a great interest in it; and during the months, and even years, which some of them stayed, a great change was made in their

  851
  dispositions. The point I would make is that when they came only four out of twenty-four had ever been to church or knew anything about it. Surely these conditions are very bad, and for them the Church of England must take some blame. I suggest that the Church ought to do a great deal more than it is now doing to prevent young people growing up in a state of paganism.
  Another form of collapse is possibly family collapse. The strength of family life is the whole basis of the nation, and it is a great bulwark against Communism, which the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, fears, and which all of us abhor. I doubt whether family life is as strong to-day as it was thirty or forty years ago. I do not say that any political Party is to blame for that, tout somehow a condition of mind is growing upon us which is epitomised in the phrase, "the Welfare State." I do not know what effect that slogan, which is now becoming so popular, has upon your Lordships' minds, but on my mind it has the effect of saying, "Sit back. The State will look after all of us. There is going to be welfare from the cradle to the grave. No accent on work." I submit that that is the very reverse of the attitude which we ought to adopt in order to safeguard our community from the dangers of collapse which the noble Earl envisages. The qualities we should encourage are self-reliance, enterprise, initiative, and willingness to take responsibility. Somehow I doubt whether the trend of legislation, the fatherly attitude adopted by both Parties—I draw very little distinction between one Party and another in this connection—the present trend of grandmotherly legislation, encourages those qualities which seem to me so necessary in the competitive world of to-day.
  These are a few little suggestions I venture to throw out. This is the first speech I have dared to make in your Lordships' House without careful thought beforehand, but I put my name down without having the slightest idea of what I was going to say in order to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, would make of the gigantic question he has raised. I think we should be grateful to him for the high idealism, though total impracticability, of the speech he was good enough to address to us.
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, it is almost four years since the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, addressed this House on the subject of the recasting of human society with a view to making sure of its survival. He properly thinks the time has come for further agitation on the subject. I certainly agree with him. I wonder whether the United Nations Organisation have justified the millions of pounds, dollars and francs which they have expended. I wondered that particularly when only ten days ago I read of a young captain in the Scots Guards being assassinated in Malaya, and when I read what is going on in China, and even of European economic reconstruction, which today appears to be going further and further towards leaving this Island Kingdom well out of the picture. I consider that we have moved slowly in the United Nations. Incidentally, Professor Fridtjof Nansen, who was President of the League of Nations, was a Norwegian, just as is Trygve Lie. Trygve Lie is a practical and sound philosopher. He ought to be: he has had plenty of variety. Variety is the secret of efficiency, and Trygve Lie has been Minister of Justice, he is now the Secretary General to the United Nations, he has been a good tennis player and all-in wrestler, he has lived in Russia, Canada, the United States and Great Britain, and is a man of many parts. I feel sure that he will welcome this agitation brought about by the noble Earl to have some kind of getting together between Russia, the United States and ourselves, amongst other nations. I do not know that at present, with the restrictions in food and freedom that we are undergoing, the Russians would welcome coming to this country, and they would not agree to go to the United States: but Paris, if you pay for it, is not a bad place.
  I agree largely with what the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, and Lord Blackford have said on the subject of religion. But I feel that we might make religion more attractive and have, for example, more snappy prayers. If I were to quote one, I should say:
  "God give me sympathy and sense,
  And help me hold my courage high;
  God give me calm and confidence.
  And, please, a twinkle in my eye."
  There is a great lack of humour associated with religion. Lord Calverley has

  853
  endeavoured to foster the helping of youth movements, and religion in youth movements is somewhat neglected. If only we would take less highbrow literature, and fall back on such things as Æsops Fables, we should learn more general philosphy from a tiny volume than from many of the long-winded magazines with which the market is flooded to-day. I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl. I have known him for fifteen years. On his last Motion four years ago I said that there was too much verbiage, and that is true. We have talked a good deal to-day, judging by the clock, so I will sit down.
  5.13 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I rise to speak for only a few minutes in consequence of something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who I felt in one passage of his speech attributed some small measure of blame to the Church of England for many of the matters which we all deplore to-day. Lord Blackford's interest in this matter was manifested by what he told us about those twenty-four children, only four of whom had been to church. But I am sure on reflection the noble Lord would wish to modify anything he said in the way of imputing blame to the clergy of the Church of England. I really do not know what more they could do than they do at the present moment. Whether they do it in the right way is a matter of argument into which I shall net enter, but I do not think there can be any doubt that they do their work most devotedly according to their lights. They work to-day in most discouraging circumstances of poverty, difficulties about housing and the upkeep of their church, and, above all, amid difficulties due to lack of encouragement from people who should encourage them in their work but who, unfortunately, all too often fail to do so. Efforts made by the Church include the Mission to London, conducted by the Bishop of London, and the Mission to the holidaymakers at Blackpool, carried out by the Church of England; and, if I may quote a personal instance, when the parson in my church gives out the list of notices of what is to be done during the coming week, I am astonished by the activities which are going on and in which he gives a lead. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, whose interest in this matter I fully recognise, I feel that many
  854
  of your Lordships would agree with me in saying that it would be unfortunate if blame were attached to the Church of England alone in this matter. We recognise the most devoted work which they perform.
  5.16 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, if, as a Roman Catholic, I may do so without impertinence, I should like to join sincerely in the tribute the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has just paid to the Church of England, and in particular to the work that is being done by parsons up and down the country in a thousand different ways. I always remember—if this is still not an impertinence—a rather curious and impressive tribute paid by Professor Joad in one of his books to the average Church of England parson. He described, if I remember rightly—and I hope I do not do him an injustice—with some complacency the kind of intellectual victories he found himself able to win over the average parson (I do not know of what denomination), but he came back to the point that, when all was said and done, he always found that the average parson in this country was a much better man than he was. That has seemed to me a tribute which reflected great credit to Professor Joad for paying it, and to all the clergy concerned. I freely admit that whenever I meet a parson in this country I share the view of Professor Joad—I mean, not merely that the parson is a better fellow than Professor Joad, but that he is better than I am.
  We have had a far-reaching debate. I take it seriously, as all the speakers and, I think, those who have listened to the discussion have taken it. There has been some slight preliminary barrage of scepticism, as it were, as to whether we should spend the afternoon profitably in a discussion of this kind. There has been some suggestion in certain quarters of the Press that this would be a field day for cranks, and I feel flattered that I have been selected to round oft the performance in that connection. I do not take that view of things at all. We have heard speakers, each one of whom has delivered himself from the heart, and in some cases we have heard a personal philosophy expressed, sometimes with real pain but always with very deep feeling. The House will perhaps forgive me if I

  855
  do not attempt to express the considered view of His Majesty's Government on all the issues which have been raised. I will pass on to my noble friend Lord Huntingdon, for the purposes of the next agricultural debate, the interesting observations which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton. I think we all agree with his general sentiments, but I hope he will agree—and I do not think he dissents—with what Lord Huntingdon would say: that it is many, many years since agriculture was flourishing to the extent it is flourishing in this country at the present time.
  The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has left us, after expressing an almost passionate desire to hear me speak, so I suppose he managed to overcome that when the moment arrived. I was going to discuss with him for a moment the question of whether we are or are not a better nation to-day than we were twenty-five years or fifty years ago. I am bound to say, whether as an individual or as a Minister, that I feel that is a question upon which a pronouncement is impossible. I would just offer two views. If we may postpone for a moment the main discussion of the afternoon—the international discussion—and ignore the very real dangers of war which have been stressed so eloquently, I would say that I myself see no danger of collapse in the domestic life of this country. I should still say that if I found myself opposite and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was standing where I am standing at this moment. I myself believe that, whatever Party is in power, it is absolute nonsense to talk as though we were in danger of an ultimate and final collapse in the domestic life of Britain. I should find it hard to accept the view that family life has declined in the last twenty-five years. It is very hard to prove that point one way or another, but I will certainly say that in our public thinking the family is given a much higher position at the present time than it was when I myself grew up. If I may speak personally—and I do not often allude to this curious fact in the House—there was a time twenty-five years ago when it would have been considered a joke to have a large family—a family, shall we say, for the sake of example, of eight children. It is still considered a joke to-day, but the
  856
  difference is that twenty-five years ago it would have been considered a bad joke and now, I venture to suggest, it is considered a good joke. That is surely a sign of real progress in the attitude of the country towards family life.
  I will not say more, although the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has returned, about the general progress of morals in this country. Speaking for the Government, or even as an amateur sociologist, I cannot accept that there is a general decline of morals. Surely we all agree that there is far less drunkenness than there was many years ago—the sort of drunkenness described by Mr. Winston Churchill in connection with a certain city which I think had better be nameless, but a city in Scotland. I doubt whether any city now would deserve the kind of criticism which Mr. Churchill applied to the famous city he once represented, and to which he referred very frankly in one of his most brilliant essays. I venture to suggest that to-day we are just as resolute, just as hardworking and just as honest as ever we were, and that we are rather more gentle in our manner, a good deal more sober and, on the whole, better educated. I would simply suggest those general conclusions, and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will dissent if he thinks it necessary to do so.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On the contrary, I say "Hear, hear."
  LORD PAKENHAM: I was anxious to elicit that particular comment for the purpose of Hansard. Let us come to the main theme of this afternoon's debate, this tremendous Motion—I cannot describe it otherwise—of the noble Earl, Lord Darnley. We all respect the noble Earl's motives; we all sympathise very deeply, because we are all just as much involved as he is, with his most earnest desire to avert another world war. We all share his hatred of war, and I venture to add that that hatred of war has been shared throughout our history by all the greatest men who have been Foreign Secretaries or managed our foreign affairs. In my own experience it is a hatred which one finds amongst all the most distinguished soldiers and, indeed, throughout the rank and file of the military profession.

  857
  I do not wish to detain the House, but I cannot help reading one very brief passage, suggesting that noble Lords may prefer to read the whole thing for themselves on another occasion. Some of your Lordships will remember Mr. Harold Nicolson's life of his father, Lord Carnock, and this story is to be found on page 422. It is also to be found in Professor Trevelyan's Life of Sir Edward Grey. After Sir Edward Grey's speech—considered, I believe, the most persuasive speech of the century, which he made on August 3, 1914—in Mr. Harold Nicolson's words:
  "An hour later Sit Edward Grey returned to the Foreign Office. Nicolson went upstairs to see him. The Secretary of State was leaning gloomily by the window. Nicolson congratulated him on the success of his speech. Sir Edward did not answer. He moved to the centre of the room and raised his hands with clenched fists above his head. He brought his fists with a crash upon the table. 'I hate war,' he groaned, 'I hate war'."
  That was the attitude of Sir Edward Grey and, I venture to say, the attitude of those responsible, whatever their Party, for managing our foreign affairs during the many epochs which have passed and, indeed, throughout all the period of our recent history.
  The noble Earl, Lord Darnley, urges us, if I understand him aright, to follow the "orders of eternity". Again if I follow him aright—and I know he will believe that I am not trying to make game about expressions of this kind—these orders of eternity are to be found in the minds of the wisest and best among the prophets and religious teachers, as distinct from the speeches of diplomats and statemen who have, in his view, produced so many wars between them. In particular, the noble Earl calls on His Majesty's Government to take a fresh initiative in reconciling the United States and Russia. May I deal first with the second and more mundane part of his argument? We do not consider that the world at the moment is divided by a dispute between Russia and the United States, but between the Communists and the non-Communists, between the materialists and those who follow, however imperfectly, a spiritual ideal. I would suggest that if the outlook and interests of the United States were not only analogous, as they are, to those of this country, but were in fact identical, this tragic gulf between the Russians and their satellites, on the one hand, and the
  858
  Western community and those who think like them, on the other, would still remain in all its depressing starkness.
  Therefore, if I may say so with respect, if a dispute exists let us not begin by climbing on our high horse and pretending that we are outside or above it. Let us face the fact that we are on one side of the gulf which exists between the non-Communist world and the Communist world. No sane person in this country supposes that His Majesty's Government are not regretful at the emergence and persistence of the cold war and the iron curtain. Sometimes we are taunted with having been too optimistic before we came to power about the possibilities of friendship with Russia. It may be so—I am not arguing the point in detail—though in that case we certainly erred in distinguished company; but if it be so I would rather we were blamed for too much faith than for too much suspicion, for joining too slowly rather than too fast in a quarrel that had been forced upon us. Let us agree, however, that the tragic divergence which has occurred was never premeditated, or planned; nor was it desired, by any responsible person in this country. On the contrary, we have made every possible effort—and here there has been no difference between the main Parties—to bridge that tragic gulf.
  The House will not expect me to traverse the last five years of the deteriorating relations with Russia. Can anyone accuse the present Government, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, of being unduly quick to wrath or lack of patience with the Soviets? No one, surely, who knows the facts, and very few who have even the dimmest appreciation of them. There are many faults, no doubt, which will be imputed to us as a Government by the historian, but that charge at least, I venture to say, will find no support. But whatever the Communists' motive, whatever the psychological or other explanation for their conduct, it is an ineluctable fact that the Soviet Government have persistently refused to show any real desire for understanding with our Government and our people and, indeed, with any of the Western nations, since the end of the War. If the noble Earl, or indeed anyone, here or elsewhere, can offer the slightest suggestion as to how the mental hostility of the Comnunists—and here

  859
  I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said about conversion—and their obsessional suspicion can be broken down or modified in any degree, I can assure him that his suggestion will be studied with the deepest sincerity. But I cannot pretend that I have myself detected a practical clue for this purpose in the moving because heartfelt observations of the noble Earl this afternoon. That does not mean that it will not be my duty to place everything he has said before those who are handling our foreign affairs at the present time.
  My I turn to the noble Earl's first and widest point. He believes that the religious teachers might help us where the statesmen have failed. My Lords, none of us can afford to decline to listen to an appeal of that kind or to return again and yet again to a study of the New Testament, above all other writings. It would be a profound mistake to ignore the devout Christianity that animated some of the greatest men who have handled our international affairs. There will be no disposition here to talk of them as though they were hard-faced, calculating, inhuman diplomats or self-seeking politicians. I do not think we are likely to look at our Foreign Secretaries of the past in that light. We have only to think of two or three in various Parties—Mr. Arthur Henderson in the Labour Party, Lord Salisbury in the Conservative Party, or Mr. Gladstone in the Liberal Party—to realise that in them you have three great Christians; and I could add innumerable names to that list. I venture to say at this point that I am sorry that Lord Cecil has had to leave us, for I am sure he would have confirmed that. All the greatest men, the greatest Foreign Secretaries of the past, would have been ready to admit that new ages bring new dangers, but that they bring also new opportunities. I believe these statesmen would have been most active, as Lord Grey was so active, in prosecuting the ideal of the League of Nations that emerged after the First World War, or that of the United Nations whose principles we in this country have been so ready to apply since 1945.
  Let me repeat that in the League of Nations and in the United Nations some countries at least, including our own among the foremost, have striven to out-
  860
  law war, and to advance on all previous conceptions—all pre-1914 conceptions—of international statesmanship. It may be said that we did not do enough as a country for the League of Nations between the wars—though we did as much as many, and far more than most. But no one has any right to cast any ston at our fidelity to the United Nations since the last war ended. Everyone knows that one country, and one country alone, has stultified the United Nations at every turn, has destroyed much (though not all) of its usefulness hitherto, has prevented by unilateral action an agreement on atomic energy and, since January of this year, has refused to participate in almost all its committees and activities.
  I do not wish to approach my conclusion on that note. In the Sermon on the Mount we are set a standard of infinite virtue.
  "Be ye perfect."
  we are told,
  "as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
  Later in the Gospel of St. Matthew we are told to forgive our brother, not seventy times but seventy times seven. No Christian, therefore, no member of a Christian Government, has any right to become impatient at the moral challenge presented by the noble Earl, Lord Darnley. He does well, if I may say so, to insist that our Government and all others who claim to assert public influence make doubly sure on all occasions that no element of rancour or exasperation affects their attitude to the human instruments of this terrible ideology called Communism. I can assure the noble Earl that he need have no fears that we shall fail to make our contribution—and I am speaking solemnly for the Government—if ever and whenever the Communists show any serious desire for relations of normal friendliness or mutual good faith, or show any signs of abandoning their present deliberate purpose of undermining ourselves and our Allies wherever they meet us in the world. That change of heart on their part is not visible at the present time. I am afraid, therefore, that that is not the situation we are discussing at the moment. As things are, it would be dishonest and misleading to give rise to the idea that in the eyes of His Majesty's Government a Christian policy means a policy of absolute pacifism. Pacific, yes; pacifist, no.

  861
  The noble Earl did not make completely plain his attitude on the question of disarmament. I think most of us felt that he was in favour of unilateral disarmament—the noble Earl shakes his head, so I understand that that is not his position. He seemed to suggest that if we were to show a completely friendly spirit, hostile nations would have to follow suit. That, I think, was his expression. I am afraid that our experience is that there has been no disposition on the part of these nations to follow suit when we have shown a friendly spirit throughout the last five years. The hand has often been outstretched; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, was absolutely right in what he said on that subject. So it is impossible, holding our responsibilities, to assume that there will be or can be, in the light of recent history, that kind of automatic response postulated by something deep and personal in the heart of the noble Earl.
  When vast forces of evil are menacing the world and seeking to intimidate the free nations by the threat of force, we owe it as a duty to our own people, to other free peoples and to the millions who keep alive hope in their heart under the Communist tyranny, to see that the balance of strength lies everywhere (and particularly in the key situations) in the hands of those who loathe war and aggression, as we do, and would never make use of force except for defensive ends. There is much more that I should have liked to add. The Government are entirely at one with all who argue that Communism thrives on starved bodies and stunted minds, and that those who have power and strength and great resources must redouble their efforts to improve the conditions of life in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa. We must do everything we can to remove material obstacles to spiritual progress to win final victory over the materialist creed. That is our duty towards all to whom we have any responsibility, as we clearly recognise. But, alas! a huge portion of the world is to-day outside the control of the free nations. We must pray for all those in bondage; we must pray alike for the victims and for those who are oppressing them. We must be ceaselessly vigilant in seeking to preserve and extend where possible the area of freedom. We must struggle unremittingly towards the even-
  862
  tual goal—the only goal of any satisfaction to Christians—a single world whose barriers have been torn down, a world where the Communists are ready to cooperate with the Christians and the Christians have corns forward to give them all the help in their power.
  I would end by thanking the noble Earl for the candour of his expression and for the deep feeling which he has laid before the House. Frankly, to say more would be misleading and would give rise to the idea that what he has suggested this afternoon is something which the Government consider it practicable to follow. We do not. We think the noble Earl is completely impractical at present, but we do feel that nothing but good can come from the existence in this country of outstanding idealists like the noble Earl who will come to this House and tell us what they think, who are ready to listen to us, to our criticisms and to replies of Ministers and other members of the House. I am very grateful to the noble Earl.
  5.43 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DARNLEY: My Lords first of all I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood (I omitted referring to him in my speech) for his great kindness in coming to-day, and to express the appreciation which I always feel for all that he has done for this country and for the good of the world. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said so charmingly, politely and kindly to me, I feel that he and I and the other speakers, whom I also thank very much for their support, are slightly at cross-purposes. My speech was taken to be a kind of pacifist condemnation of the people of this country, but it was really intended to be nothing of the sort. It was meant to prove the difference between what we can do with our limited human minds, and what we can do if we trust in minds which are far superior to ours, which I have called Infinity or Eternity. That point of view was brought forward by several speakers.
  The noble Lord, Lord Calverley, confined it to this country. I did not attempt to confine it to this country at all. He objected to my calling people miserable. Look at the newspapers and see whether the people are miserable. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, talked about being

  863
  tired of offering the right hand to Russia. You have got to go on supporting the right hand with the left until they are both worn out before you give up something like that. The evils from which Russia is suffering, and which she is inflicting upon the world because of that fact, are things that have all been brought about by human action, and therefore by human action ought to be unwound like the spring of a watch. That is an ordinary argument which may be applied to any evil-doer and any evil nation. That is the difficulty between the noble Lord who answered for the Government and myself: he believes in human limitation: I do not. I think that human limitation has brought us into this ghastly mess and we have got to believe in something else to help us out. Until we do, we shall stay in this filthy mess. I thank the noble Lord for the courteous way in which he has received my Motion. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in favour, and sometimes doubtfully in favour. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  MIGRANTS' FUNDS
  5.47 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and of replies made to Questions, they are able to announce relaxation in restrictions applying to transfer of funds to Canada in favour of migrants to that Dominion. The noble Lord said: The subject of this Question is one with which I am satisfied there is widespread sympathy. Moreover, there can be no doubt about the harshness that it aims to correct. It is a matter which has been frequently referred to in your Lordships' House, both in the course of the debates in the last two or three years and by Questions, all of which, alas, since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office, have ceased arousing any apparent sympathy and certainly have brought no relief in actuality. It is for that reason—that it has been so frequently referred to—that there is little need to go in great detail
  864
  into the arguments which urge a revision of the present practice or of the particular position of Canada. Since this Question was put down, however, the matter has been raised in connection with migration through a debate on Supply in another place. Those who care to read the report of that debate in Hansard will see how strong is the feeling in support of the argument which it is my purpose to make this evening, in the hope that there may be some encouragement of redress. I speak, not with any great hope or expectation, but in the knowledge that it is only by a question being raised sufficiently often that correction can come about.
  I want, first of all, to refer to a speech by my noble friend, Lord Tweedsmuir, in this House in the course of the recent debate on migration in general. He there set out the particular and peculiar hardships which followed from the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Canada, so I will not repeat them. I see that my noble friend the Leader of the House is in his place. I assume he is to reply and, therefore, there is little purpose in my going over matters with which he is so familiar and which I have raised so often myself, to the weariness of your Lordships' House. I would pass to the debate which took place in another place. There support was given and reference made to a letter recently published in The Times from a Member of the House of Commons. It suggested a very practical way, and it brought into the minds of everybody something that had been referred to in both Houses.
  I now pass to the statement of the Minister, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in which he tried to give grounds why it was not possible for the Government to agree to the suggestion that had been put forward. He said:
  "In 1949 the amount going to Canada in migrants' funds was £8,500,000 sterling."
  He added, however, that the figures were not exact and that they included Canada and the United States. In view of the meticulous correctness always followed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I think it is very regrettable that in another place there should have been this latitude in a manner which is so misleading. I hope the noble Viscount may be able to clear up that point, if he cares

  865
  to refer to it at all to-day. To save your Lordships' time, I will merely emphasise a great deal of what has been said already in both Houses. The plain fact of the matter is that it is suggested that it is not possible to release a larger sum of money to migrants who seek to go to our great Dominioa of Canada. Surely that is very paltry. Considering the great scale of generous assistance given to us by Canada, it would seem reasonable that greater effort could be made to correct these hardships.
  I believe the immediate position is still that a migrant may take out a maximum of £1,000, released over a period of four years. That is the same amount as was allowed before sterling was devalued. What an astonishing suggestion by the Chancellor, that he cannot at least make up the amount to what was originally intended before sterling was devalued! Apart from that, however, so paltry an amount as that cannot give any encouragement to migration to Canada. There is no need to comment upon that fact because it is so obvious. How can an intending migrant be expected to sell up in this country and face a future in Canada, with wife and family, upon so meagre an amount? This sum is released only to a married man, regardless of family, and I ask the noble Viscount whether it would not be possible for it to be regarded as a per capita amount, and for the amount now allowed to migrating families to be raised, first, by the difference brought about by devaluation, and secondly, by an extension of the same amount to a married man and his wife, plus (if not the whole amount) at least £100 per child.
  My Lords, I have spent a good deal of time in Canada. By reason of being in business there, I have had occasion to hear at first hand how deep is the desire for migrants from this country to Canada. It cannot be expected that Canada can get the flow of technicians that is required to man her expanding business except from this country, and she will not get them under the present limitations. May I interpolate here that the present arrangements contemplate a substantial immigration into Canada of people of origins other than the United Kingdom, such as displaced persons from Europe; and, by devious means, much better consideration in the way of getting
  866
  funds is given to people of other origins than is given to people from the United Kingdom.
  In conclusion, I would just remind your Lordships of the brilliant future that is progressively developing for Canada, with its bounteous discoveries of oil, and the unearthing of deposits of iron ore and other metals. That must require an industrial development in the secondary industries of Canada. We want to get more technicians to hold key positions in Canada, so that purchases in the future of essential replacements and supplies of machinery of all kinds will come from this country and not from other countries. The policy of His Majesty's Government is deliberately hampering the kind of uplift to our export which has been proved so clearly in the past. The noble Viscount will be well aware that generous treatment is now accorded by the Treasury to the provision of funds for new businesses starting in Canada, where, of course, there is a prospect of complying with the conditions imposed, and this has been set against the interest-free level. Surely, when the shortage of dollars is not an impediment it would not be unreasonable to say that there should be included within this arrangement some redress in respect of the past on those impounded funds, and an encouragement to the future by a more generous release to intending migrants.
  5.59 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to say how much I appreciate his great interest in this matter and how sympathetic a chord he is always likely to strike in the breast of the Government when he discusses these Empire questions. He will understand that I am bound fairly closely to my prepared statement, but any new points that he has brought up this afternoon will be laid most conscientiously before my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Before coming to what I want to say in detail, I should just like to tell the noble Lord that it is not quite such an easy matter as he supposes to throw these funds open to those who wish to migrate. The simple fact is, of course, that increases in concessions in respect of emigration to Canada and the United States have to be balanced against a

  867
  number of other relaxations which are also desirable—for example, for extra timber and extra imports of food. That is the balance which has to be struck by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I feel sure the noble Lord will appreciate. It is certainly not from any wish to stunt Empire migration or to impede purposes which the Government and the noble Lord have in common that restrictions in one form or another have been introduced and are maintained.
  I am afraid that I must make it plain that we are not yet in a position to increase the total amount of money which emigrants may transfer to hard-currency countries. But my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is announcing in another place this afternoon that all emigrants who can make out a good case will, in future, be permitted to draw in the first year such sums up to the total for four years as they require. The noble Lord, I am sure, appreciates the concession. The amount to be anticipated in this way will be determined in each case on its merits upon application by the emigrant. This is the relaxation which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations promised to discuss with the Chancellor. The practice which ruled before the emigration concessions were generally reduced in April, 1948, was that emigrants who showed good reason why they should be allowed to do so, were permitted to take out at once up to 50 per cent. of the total; the other 50 per cent, was spread over the last three of their first four years abroad. We are now going to allow this again and, in fact, to go further, since we shall not limit the initial amount to 50 per cent. where good reason is shown that more is needed. As I have said, they will be permitted in future to draw in the first year such sums up to the total for four years as they require. When the emigration concessions were reduced, this facility had to be withdrawn, because of the need to reduce immediately the number of dollars going out of the country. It is hoped that, now that we can afford to re-introduce it, this facility will go far to help those who emigrate, particularly to Canada and the United States, to meet their settling-in expenses and to make a good start in their new world.
  868
  I hope that the noble Lord will feel that some progress has been made. I have taken special pains to ascertain what more I can say to him, and I can assure him that the question is kept continually under review by my two right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who fully realise the importance of the issue and are always anxious to find ways of helping emigrants. I am specially authorised to say that to the noble Lord this afternoon. On that note I hope he will allow me to close with just a further word of thanks to him for raising this issue in the way he has done.
  6.4 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, may I express my apologies to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, for having failed to realise that as he is no longer Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs he would not be replying to my question?

LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL,
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.