Lords Sitting of 7 May 1953

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

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES BILL
3.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Bill which is before your Lordships this afternoon has three main objects: to encourage the rebuilding of our white fish and herring fleets; to provide for the white fish subsidy; and to make further grants to the Herring Industry Board. The fishing fleets may be divided into four parts: the distant water, near and middle water and inshore fleets—all of which fish for white fish—and the herring fleet. The distant water fleet is fully up to date, and the Bill is not concerned with it. I think I might say a few words about each of the others in turn.
The near and middle water fleet consists of the smaller vessels of between 70 and 140 ft. in length which fish off the Faroes, in the North Sea and in the waters nearer home. It is these vessels, together with the inshore fleet, which bring home the greater part of our prime and flat fish. Most of the vessels in this fleet are very old and need replacing. There are at present about 750 near and middle water trawlers, but of these only about 10 per cent. can be called reasonably modern, while 75 per cent. are more than thirty years old. In fact, most of them date back to the First World War. Many of these vessels are rapidly becoming unfit for service; and the strength of the fleet has been steadily declining for many years. In the last year or so the situation has worsened. During 1952, 65 vessels went out of commission, and in the first two months of 1953 the fleet has lost 16 more vessels. To offset these losses, only 10 new vessels were brought
324
into commission last year, and at the present time 13 are on the stocks. Your Lordships will appreciate that, if this rate of replacement is not increased, within a few years the fleet will fall to a dangerously low level.
The trouble is that, for those prepared to invest capital in the fishing industry, the distant water fleet at present offers a surer return than the near and middle water sections of the industry. This is due largely to the over fishing of the North Sea, upon which the near and middle water vessels depend. The cost of building these vessels has very greatly increased and, with falling yields, their prospects are not good enough to induce owners to replace obsolete vessels. As your Lordships will know, the International Over fishing Convention of 1946 has now finally been ratified and the Permanent Commission, which is to be set up under the terms of the Convention, is in fact meeting in London at the present time. I am sure we all hope that those measures already agreed upon in the Convention, together with any other measures which may be adopted on the recommendation of the Permanent Commission, will be effective in restoring the stocks of the North Sea.
But, in the meantime, something must be done to encourage the building of vessels for the near and middle water fleets, upon which, as I have said, we must rely for most of our supplies of the better kinds of fish. It was with this object that the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951,provided for loans to be made by the White Fish Authority towards the cost of building new ships. Loans were offered to cover up to 60 per cent. of the cost of the vessels, but I regret to say that the response was very disappointing. The Government have, therefore, decided to provide for grants—in addition to loans—towards the cost of building near and middle water vessels, and we hope that these grants will be enough to encourage owners to replace the obsolete ships. The present Bill provides up to a total of £9 million for grants towards the cost of building new vessels for the white fish industry, and of this amount rather more than £8 million is intended for near and middle water vessels. This is covered by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which provide for grants up to 25 per cent. of the cost of building.

325
The inshore fleet consists of about 670 small vessels. Its contribution to white fish supplies is relatively small, but of high quality; and the inshore fisherman himself is a fine type of man, whose independence and self-reliance we should encourage. The inshore fleet is in better shape than the near and middle water fleet, largely because grants have been paid on new boats under the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945, which expired in 1952. Even so, 30 to 40 per cent. of the boats are over thirty years old and need replacing. About £750,000 of the £9 million provided for in Clause 1 will be used for this purpose. In the case of owners who are working fishermen, we think it right that grants should be provided at a rather higher rate, and the Bill provides for grants to be paid to them up to a total of 30 per cent. up to a limit of £5,000, after which the grant will be paid at the rate of 25 per cent. For working fishermen, we are also proposing to offer grants up to 30 per cent. of the cost of new engines up to a limit of £1,250. This is because the diesel or petrol engines with which these small boats are equipped last only about half the lifetime of the vessel, and without these grants otherwise seaworthy vessels would be laid up.
The third part of the industry, the herring fleet, is in much the same case as the inshore fleet, Of 660 drifters, about 30 per cent. need replacing. Like the inshore fleet, the herring fleet has in part been rebuilt by grants under an earlier measure, the Herring Industry Act, 1944, which also expired last year, but there is still some way to go. Clause 6 sets aside £750,000 for this purpose. Most herring boats are, as your Lordships will know, worked by their owners, and like the inshore fishermen, the owners will mostly get grants at the rate of 30 per cent. We intend that these grants for new vessels shall be supplemented by loans made under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, and the Herring Industry Scheme, 1951, and that both loans and grants shall be made by the White Fish Authority, or, in the case of herring boats, by the Herring Industry Board. These bodies will need additional power to finance loans by borrowing, and Clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill increase the borrowing power of the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board by £10 million and £1,500,000
326
respectively, for a period of ten years. The grants are to be made in accordance with a scheme to be drawn up by Ministers, which will be subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I have dealt at some length with the question of new vessels because this constitutes the main object of the Bill and forms the substance of the first three Clauses and Clauses 6, 7 and 11. I will now mention more briefly the other principal proposals of this Bill
The first of these concerns the white fish subsidy which we are now proposing to put on a statutory basis. This subsidy was originally introduced in 1950 as a short-term measure for six months only, and has subsequently been renewed at, roughly, six-monthly intervals. It has been paid under the general authority of the Appropriation Acts, and it has cost. on an average, about £1,600,000 a year. Its object is to help the inshore, near and middle-water fleets over the economic difficulties into which they have fallen, largely because of the over fishing of the North Sea. We think that it will be a few years yet before we can dispense with this subsidy, and for this reason we feel that it ought to be given specific statutory authority. Clause 5 of this Bill accordingly gives Ministers discretion to pay a subsidy during the period ending in March, 1958, up to a maximum of £7,500,000, with power to increase this sum up to £10 million by Order, subject to Affirmative Resolution in another place. The subsidy payments are required to be made in accordance with a scheme subject to Affirmative Resolution in both. Houses.
Finally, I come to the grants to the Herring Industry Board. In Clause 8 we seek power to make grants of a further £1,500,000 to the Board during the next ten years. The greater part of this sum is needed for financing the Board's scheme for converting surplus herring to oil and meal. Under this scheme the Board pay a guaranteed price to the herring fishermen for herring for which no other market can be found, and arrange for its conversion to oil, mainly for margarine production, and. meal for use as an animal feeding-stuff. The price offered though well below the price fetched in other markets, is invaluable to the fishermen in assuring him a minimum return on his catch, and by doing so encourages

327
him to go all out for maximum production, instead of hedging against bad markets by laying up his boat from time to time, or indeed, by dumping part of his catch. This scheme at present runs at a loss and the grants have been used mainly to underwrite the losses. The losses are largely due to the need to spend heavily on transporting the herring to conversion factories which are far away from the ports. Our idea is that the scheme will become self-supporting when the Board have erected their own plants at the herring ports, with the help of grants from the same source. The Board already have three factories working but their programme is not yet complete; and until it is, grants will be needed to complete it and bear the losses on operating the scheme meanwhile.
The remaining clauses deal with matters of detail and I need not detain your Lordships with an account of them, though I shall be glad to answer questions on any points which may not be clear.
This Bill carries a stage further the work which was begun earlier under the Herring and Sea Fish Industry Acts. Perhaps it is on a modest scale, but I feel justified in claiming that it is fundamentally important to the fishing industry. It is in essence a rescue operation but if, in combination with the earlier measures, it is successful it will restore the home water fleets to their former greatness. The Bill, I may add, had a good reception in another place, where it passed through all its stages with only one Division, on a minor point. I trust that your Lordships will show the same unanimity in welcoming what I regard as a highly desirable and useful Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this is not a contentious Bill but, as the noble Lord opposite has just said, it is a Bill of fundamental importance, because on its provisions will depend the livelihood of the many people at present engaged in our fishing industry. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the full account which he gave of the contents of the Bill and the
328
reasons why the Government have promoted it. It is not contentious, because it is one of the examples, with which we are now familiar, of continuity of policy over a long period of years and at times when different Parties have been in power There is, I am glad to say, continuity of policy in regard to the fishing industry. When my Party were in office, we found it esential to give financial assistance to the herring fleet, and also to the other parts of our fishing fleets which work off our coast and in adjacent waters, because we realised as clearly as noble Lords opposite that these sections of our fishing industry could not be kept going on purely commercial lines. Therefore, when we were in power we passed legislation to authorise assistance from public funds. The present Bill simply carries on this work. It proposes to provide more money by way of grants or loans for the same purposes.
I should like to say a word about the broad policy behind this measure. Although some noble Lords may disagree, my feeling is that it is not possible to justify the subsidising of the white fish industry on the ground of the requirements of our food supply. I do not think that is in itself a sufficient reason. Most of the fish consumed in this country comes from distant waters. The loss of the better quality fish which we get from adjacent waters would be small in quantity, and I cannot imagine that we should not manage to import at least as much food with the money which will be paid out in the form of a subsidy. We all like sole, turbot, halibut and so on, but these are luxuries and not part of the ordinary diet of our population. Surely the real justification for a Bill of this kind, with the very considerable expenditure of public money which it involves, is on defence, social and humanitarian grounds. Our fishing fleets are the reserves of the Royal Navy, and everyone remembers the splendid and hazardous work which the men who man these vessels did in two world wars. A serious reduction in the number of our fishermen or of their vessels would weaken the defences of our coastal waters. Of course, conversely, the better equipped our fishing fleets become—as we hope they will become, under the provisions of this Bill—the more effective they will be in the event of another war.

329
The humanitarian or social reason for this measure is that without it many villages on the coast of England and Scotland would, in the course of time, lose the best part of their population. In most of these fishing villages there is no alternative employment, and if the able-bodied men were not able to go out in their trawlers and bring in fish the inhabitants would simply drift away into the towns in search of work. I hope, therefore, that if the need for subsidising this large section of the fishing industry continues, as it may well do, for some time, we shall continue to support it on the grounds which I have given, regardless of Party and without looking for a commercial return. I think it is important for the stability of this industry and the security of the men who work in it that they should know that this support will continue, whatever Party may be in power.
There are two matters of rather special importance arising out of this Bill to which I would draw your Lordships' attention, and about which I should like to ask questions. And perhaps the noble Lord may be in a position to reply when he winds up. I believe that we shall all agree that if these near and middle sections of our fishing industry are ever to become self-supporting—and we all hope that we shall not have to continue to subsidise them indefinitely—we must stop the over-fishing which is at present depleting the stock of fish in these adjacent waters. Over-fishing is the real source of our difficulties. I realise that the main problem here has been to get international agreement, and here I should like the noble Lord to give me some information. I believe that there is no general agreement yet about the introduction of a minimum size of mesh for nets. I do not know whether that point is covered by the North Sea Convention, to which the noble Lord referred, and I should like to know whether it is. I should also like to know whether agreement has been reached about this vital measure of prescribing the minimum size for the mesh of nets, and, if not, when such agreement is likely. I hope that if general agreement is not reached with the other countries concerned with fishing in these waters we shall set an example by obliging our fishing fleets to stop this destruction of immature fish.
330
If, as a result of the passing of this Bill, we get a large number of much more efficient fishing trawlers, and this destruction of immature fish continues, the depletion of the stock of fish in these waters will become even worse.
The other matter about which I feel some doubt, and about which I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite, is whether we shall have sufficient control over the spending of these large sums of public money involved under the provisions of this Bill. It appears to me, from the terms of the Bill, that once a grant or loan has been made to a fishing company by a public authority which advances or gives the money, this public authority has no further say in its use. I wonder whether the Government would consider the desirability of the White Fish Authority, for example, being able to take shares as a condition of making a grant of money. I am not suggesting that the Authority should acquire a controlling interest—I do not think that is in the least desirable—but it might at least have a representative on the boards of some of the larger fishing companies. This would enable the White Fish Authority to be fully informed and to exercise some influence, at least over the expenditure of the money it advances. I believe that a procedure is required—not necessarily, of course, the procedure I have suggested—that would give public authorities more say in this partnership, which in itself is quite admirable, between public and private enterprise in the fishing industry. I hope that we may succeed in expediting this Bill and that it will receive here the common consent which it received in another place.
3.27 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Earl who has just spoken welcome this Bill and ask for it to be expedited. I would add my voice to that plea. I welcome the Bill very warmly and hope that it will pass through all its stages in this House, and become law, as quickly as possible. I do so for a specific reason. The Bill is retrospective to July 31, 1952, and a number of boats have already been laid down and are in building in expectation of this Bill. If the Bill is rapidly passed through its stages, it will release a good deal of capital for the fishing season which is just commencing.

331
With one point which the noble Earl made I do not agree. I regard this Bill as of great importance, because the food which we get out of the sea that lies at our door saves our importing from overseas other foods which cost dollars. Therefore, quite apart from the social consequences, which I entirely endorse, there is an economic reason for supporting the fishing industry. At the same time, there is one point which I hope will be particularly cared for in the administration of this Bill; and it is this. Towards the end of the period of office of the late Government and the commencement of this Government, the funds at the disposal of the Herring Board appear to have been exhausted. As a result, a great many fishermen who had been away serving their country during the war, who had come back and resumed fishing with their own old vessels, and who wished to get them renewed, were unable to get grants from the Herring Board, although other fishermen who had remained to carry on the business of fishing during the war had succeeded in getting grants. That led to a considerable amount of feeling amongst the men who had been refused grants: they felt that they had had rather hard measure, though no doubt it was dictated entirely by the financial stringency of the situation facing the Government. I do plead that war service should never be disregarded in the case of competent fishermen who are seeking assistance in building their boats.
There are one or two points in the Bill about which I should like to ask my noble friend and to which I should draw his attention. One is in connection with the provision of engines, dealt with in Clauses 1 and 6. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the fixing of a period of time for the life of these engines before a grant for replacement is made. If something of this sort is not done, it is quite possible that fishermen who are careless of their engines will be subsidised at the expense of the rest. Then there is the question of working owners. There are many small associations which have been formed for working these vessels—and, I think, in some cases small limited companies also. It is not clear whether the Bill provides for these small companies
332
and associations to qualify as "working owners." I should be glad of some explanation on that point from my noble friend. It is quite common to have partnerships, but there are these small companies which also are a kind of partnership.
Then, I ought to express a fear which has been indicated to me from the trade on the question of the White Fish Marketing Fund. Under the Bill, that Fund is to be wound up in ten years' time, and some sections of the trade would appreciate more information on this point. They are afraid that the system will be so embedded in the administration that the termination of the scheme in ten years' time will be impossible. There is a small point which I should like to mention, and that is the question of the mackerel fishermen. They are not a very large body of men but they are fishermen, and we do not know whether they are included as herring fishermen or as white fishermen. I am sure that they themselves do not know and they would like the point clarified.
In conclusion, I thoroughly endorse what has been said about over-fishing. I want to point out that the cure is two-fold: first, by increasing the number of fish, and secondly by not fishing them so heavily. I remember the condition of things which existed on our coast more than sixty years ago—or, at any rate, I have heard of it—and I am quite convinced, from facts that have come to my personal observation, that the breeding and feeding grounds of our fish are becoming much reduced. This is a matter which will be of the greatest possible concern to the country in the future, because, as it becomes more and more difficult to secure certain supplies of food from overseas, so the fisheries of our coast will be of more importance to our population. In particular connection with that, I would say that I think it is a scandal that foreign trawlers can come and fish the Moray Firth as they do. The Moray Firth is one of the best feeding and breeding grounds for fish on all our coasts, and in my opinion steps ought to be taken to safeguard the Moray Firth as a breeding and feeding ground for fish. If other countries are able to secure the fisheries off their coasts we ought to be prepared to do the same. The three mile limit has already gone by the board. The

333
feeding of our grandchildren may depend very much on our taking time by the forelock. With those few words I should like to welcome the Bill very warmly and to wish it a speedy passage into law.
3.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for the way in which they have received this Bill. I am most grateful to them for the helpful remarks they have made. I think the noble Earl rather underestimated the importance of our food supplies from middle water and near water fishing fleets. It accounts for 30 per cent. of the fish we consume. I do not think that that can be written off as of no great importance to our supplies of food. The noble Earl asked two questions. One was whether we had reached agreement with other member nations of the North Sea Convention on the size of mesh. We have done so: we have all agreed upon this; but it will not come into force until next year or until such time as the fishing gear winch is being used is out of action. Otherwise, all this new kit would be wasted. The noble Earl also asked about the control of the spending of grants under this Bill. The answer is that this Bill is only the framework under which schemes are going to be made; there will, of course, be conditions upon which these grants will be given. I think the noble Earl will find that the conditions will be such that the White Fish Authority will be able to keep control over the money granted by them. I do not think it would be a good idea for us to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion for controlling these grants. The White Fish Authority would not wish in any way to interfere in the management of private companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun seemed a little worried about the grants of up to £1,250 for engines. He thought they might be misused; that some fishermen were careless about their engines and that those who were thus careless would get more benefit than those who were thrifty. The White Fish Authority will have a discretion to refuse or grant sums of money for new engines; and I think that on the whole it is better to leave it to their discretion rather than to put such a provision in the Bill. After all, all engines are not alike; some wear out
334
more quickly than others; some fishermen use their boats more than others, and the engine, therefore, wears out more quickly. It is therefore difficult to put the matter in the Bill and limit it.
LORD SALTOUN: That is what I wanted to hear. None of that has been said. That is exactly what is required.
LORD CARRINGTON: We are both pleased with ourselves. The noble Lord asked me about the question of working owners and whether it would be possible to extend the term "working owners" to cover small limited companies. The reason we have given working owners a rather higher percentage of grant is that they not only take the business risk entirely themselves but also share in the danger of the job. They are in a particular category and we think should be encouraged. It would be difficult to draw an exact definition; many of these owners, large and small, are not doing very well at present, and they might feel a little badly done by if we divide them into two classes. I think it is better to leave it simply as "working fishermen." The noble Lord also asked about the White Fish Marketing Fund. I think that that is rather a misleading title. The Fund is not, in point of fact, what it sounds like; it is really an accounting device employed by the White Fish Authority to draw their working capital. It will not necessarily be used for marketing. It is the working capital fund of the White Fish Authority.
The noble Lord suggested that help should be given to the export trade by advertising and things of that kind. He may have noticed that the White Fish Authority are in fact advertising fish in the country at the present time. Probably some of your Lordships have seen the advertisements. The Authority are now considering whether any similar action is needed overseas. I have not heard that the fish exporters have had any difficulty in obtaining credit for their businesses through the ordinary banking channels, but the White Fish Authority have the power, if necessary, to enable them to provide credit for fish exporters, and at the same time exporters will, of course, have the benefit of the facilities afforded by the Export Credits Guarantees Department. I think those are the only questions my noble friend asked me.
LORD SALTOUN: There was the question of the mackerel fishermen.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, the mackerel fishermen. By definition, a mackerel is a white fish and not a herring.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (REAR LIGHTS) BILL
3.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which does not deal with herrings, whether white or red, but with red rear lights on motor vehicles. Before dealing with what is in the Bill, perhaps I may say a sentence or two briefly with regard to the background. We had a very welcome reduction of road accidents during the course of last year. Unfortunately, that reduction in the rate of road accidents is not being maintained, and the figures for January, February and March of this year were all worse than for the respective months of last year, and I am told that April is coming out just as badly. The toll on the roads of people killed and injured each year is really quite appalling, although by now we seem to be getting far too used to it and not treating it as the frightful problem which it really is. In my submission to your Lordships, therefore, any step, especially if it is an agreed step, that Parliament can take to help solve this problem, in whole or even in part, should be welcomed by all.
The steps which the Bill seeks to take have been agreed to in another place. I have read the whole of the proceedings of what took place there, and there was not a single Division upon this Bill. On the other hand, this Bill, as indeed would be expected in the case of a Private Member's Bill, attempts to deal with only a small part of the road accident problem. Those of us who take an interest in accident prevention all hope that in the Government programme of legislation for next Session time may be found for a larger and more comprehensive Bill dealing with these matters. This Bill
336
does not attempt to do that—it would not be fitting if a Private Member's Bill did, and if any private Member had attempted a comprehensive Bill in another place it would probably not have reached here. But when I tell your Lordships that research has shown that some 3,400 casualties a year are caused, in whole or in part, by inadequate tail lights or rear lighting of road vehicles, your Lordships may think it right to give your support to a measure which I do not say will eliminate all these accidents but certainly will tend to decrease them.
To come now to the Bill: what the clauses attempt to do is as follows. Clause 1 will require "two unobscured and efficient" red rear reflectors to be carried on all road vehicles which are what I may term of two-wheel width. In this, I except tricycles—there are not very many of them, and it is often an exception that makes the rule—but all motorcars, motor lorries and motor buses will have to carry these two red reflectors, and motorcycles without sidecar and pedal cycles will have to carry one. This will operate as from October 1, 1954, which will give ample time for owners to have the extra fittings added. At the same time, that part of the Road Transport Lighting (Cycles) Act, 1945, which requires pedal cycles and tricycles to have a white surface on their mudguards is to be repealed. The comparatively small areas of white surface involved now appear, after experiment, not to give any effective extra safeguard, and I am told that the technical advisers of the Ministry have come to the conclusion that that is an unnecessary provision. If it gives a false sense pf security, it is better repealed rather than that people should be put to the trouble of painting these surfaces white when, in effect, they do no good.
The main reason for providing for two red rear reflectors on motorcars and lorries, and one reflector on motorcycles and pedal cycles, is to provide a useful safeguard when the lights fail. This compulsory provision of two reflectors has been recommended by the Standing Joint Committee of the R.A.C., the A.A., and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club, and was laid down by the International Convention on Road Traffic of 1949. I myself inquired why it was necessary to have two reflectors as well as two red lights. It may occur to some noble

337
Lords that it is rather like the man who holds his trousers up not only with a pair of braces but with a belt as well. I am told it is because of the International Convention of 1949. Any cars used internationally—that is, in more than one country; and this applies to lorries too—on going abroad may be subject to the provisions to which the late Government agreed when they signed that Convention, which I am told it is thought soon to ratify. If we sign a Convention, it is just as well that we should do something about it. That is the reason why, between the time when this Bill was originally introduced in another place and its coming here, the Ministry draftsmen have taken a hand and this extra provision has been Put in. In regard to the reflector on pedal cycles and tricycles, Parliament agreed in the Act of 1945 dealing with this problem that every bicycle and tricycle should have such a reflector from such time as the Minister of Transport, by Order, brought that provision into force. It has not been brought into force by Order in Council. I think that these reflectors and other materials were in short supply then. But if this Bill is passed into law in this form, it will take the matter out of the hands of the Minister and set a definite date when every bicycle and tricycle has to be so equipped.
Clause 2 requires all vehicles, except pedal cycles, tricycles and solo motor cycles, to carry two red rear lamps, in a clean and efficient condition. Motor cycles with sidecars will have to carry two also: at present the whole of this category need carry only one. Here, it is left to the Minister to say from what date this clause shall be effective, and he can make the timing different for various classes of vehicle. It will obviously take longer to bring this provision into effect because there is more work involved than in merely putting on reflectors; but I believe it is contemplated—as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry said in another place—that it will be made operative as from January 1, 1954, for new vehicles, and from October 1, 1957, for those already on the roads.
Clause 3 requires that loads projecting to the rear of a vehicle shall be indicated at night by a red rear lamp within three feet six inches of the rearmost part of the overhanging load. Up
338
till now the distance has been six feet, but of course the nearer to the end the lamp is placed the less likelihood there is of an accident. This clause also provides that loads which overhang the sides by more than a distance to be laid down by the Minister have to be indicated by a red lamp, carried in a position which will also be prescribed. Under Section 7 of the 1927 Act laterally projecting loads of more than twelve inches beyond the centre of the nearest front side lamp have already to carry an extra or substituted white light pointing to the front. Of course, it is just as important to have an extra indication to the rear for approaching cars, and that is provided for by the clause with which I am now dealing. This is a new provision, but it follows a recommendation of a Working Party on the construction of road vehicles which met recently in Geneva, under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe.
Clause 4 legalises the use of white reversing lights to such an extent as may be specified by the Minister. Under Clause 2 (2) of the 1927 Act, it has previously been illegal for one to show a white light at the rear of a motor car, except in the exceptional cases which are allowed on passenger vehicles, such as buses, of a light indicating the destination of the bus. I am glad to think that this clause will become law—at least I hope it will—because I am one of those who try to observe the law, and I must frankly admit that since I bought my last car every time I have reversed at night on a public highway I have apparently been committing an offence, because the light automatically comes on as one goes into reverse. That is very convenient, and it is a great safeguard when one is backing, but at the present moment it is illegal to use it. I imagine that some of my colleagues in this House who have been able to buy new cars since these devices have been fitted have also been guilty of a technical offence, and I shall be glad if this Bill restores them as well as myself to the category of completely law-abiding citizens. Clause 5 is the normal clause providing for Negative Resolutions of each House. Clause 6 is purely formal.
Let me conclude by saying that this Bill has the backing of motor manufacturers as well as of other sections of the

339
motoring industry. Of course, the Bill will impose some small new obligations on those who own any type of motor vehicle and on those who own pedal cycles and tricycles. But when one considers that all and every one of these people may cause damage to others by the lack of these appliances on their vehicles, and that all and every one of them may themselves find that they are among the casualties because of inadequate rear lighting on their vehicles, I cannot think that there will be much objection to taking these small additional safety precautions. In any case, I am sure that all your Lordships will be glad to help in taking this extra step towards road safety, and I hope will help this measure through. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,—(Lord Llewellin.)
3.59 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, any Bill that comes before your Lordships' House and which in any way tends to mitigate the dreadful tragedy of road accidents will receive the support of every noble Lord in this House. And when a Bill comes before your Lordships' House with the august god-parentage of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I am sure that it commands the greatest possible respect. Speaking, as Lord Llewellin does, from his eminent position as the President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, I think the sponsor of this Bill in another place is fortunate to have the noble Lord as his advocate here. I am very conscious of the difficulties that beset private Members in producing Bills. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will not mind if I ask him a few questions as I proceed to make a somewhat critical examination of the Bill. First and foremost, this Bill is just a mass of words. It is legislation by reference, legislation by delegation. I have spent some time trying to unravel the cross-references, the references to all the other multiplicity of Acts which concern the user of a motor-vehicle to-day, but I am afraid I have been lost in the maze.
Before I address myself to this Bill, I must say that I share with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, the apprehension
340
and, in fact, the dismay that is felt by everybody who has the slightest interest in what I have always considered to be the greatest social problem we have to-day—that is the death and injury accident rate on the roads—at the fact that, just when we felt we were making progress, we have had a setback. I am forced to the conclusion that one of the principal reasons for that setback is that the enforcement of the existing law has not, in recent months, been what it was some time ago. The Bill which the noble Lord has presented deals with a very great problem, but I cannot help thinking, supporter as I am of the measure—and noble Lords on this side of the House are going to support this Bill—that before we proceed to clutter up the Statute Book with more laws we should at least see that those now in existence are reasonably well enforced.
One of the laws of this country that has fallen into contempt, almost as much as the 20 miles an hour limit on commercial vehicles, is that relating to rear lighting, particularly as it applies to some of the older vehicles on the roads of this country. I will hazard a guess that if the present law were enforced more rigidly the diminution of the accident rate—and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has quoted the figures—would be substantial. One has only to travel on the main trunk routes of this country at night time to see some of these old, dilapidated commercial vehicles, of pre-war vintage, with practically no rear lights at all. I stopped at a certain place in this country only a month ago, after I had been following a commercial vehicle that had no rear lights at all. I stopped at the same country town where this vehicle had pulled up in the market place, and I went up and examined its rear lamp. I could see that the connection of that rear lamp had not been in operation for months. It was coated with mud and rust and the wire was hanging down like a piece of string.
I know what great difficulties the police have to contend with at the present time: they have my admiration as well as my sympathy—and here my sympathies go out also to the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who has to answer for the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry have no authority in this matter. They can take steps which result in the Statute Book being cluttered up with more laws and more regulations, but

341
they have no power to enforce them. If the existing law were enforced to a greater degree, I do not think it would be necessary to add so greatly to the multiplicity of Acts and regulations governing the lighting of road vehicles. I mist also say that if there is one piece of legislation that is quite out of date it is the Road Traffic Act, 1934. And while I commend the assiduity of the private Member in another place who brought this Bill forward, in my view, it is only piecemeal legislation, and piecemeal legislation by reference and by delegation. What is wanted is a comprehensive survey and re-enactment of the legislation which controls the use of vehicles on the roads of this country.
As I have said, this Bill will receive the support of noble Lords on this side of the House. But I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us why the whole of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Lighting of Vehicles, and the Standing Committee of the R.A.C. and the Convention he mentioned have not been accepted. Good though this Bill is, it touches only the fringe of the problem. The Bill, as originally presented in another place, while it provided that motor cars had to carry two rear lights, did not provide that they were to carry two red reflectors. During the passage of the Bill through another place, that clause was taken out and a new clause put in. I understand from the noble Lord that the modern motor car will now have to carry two rear lights and two red reflectors. Far be it from me to criticise the manufacturer of the modern motor vehicle, or those who make its lighting equipment; but when we go along the roads of this country at night, motor cars with their multiplicity of lights wink at us and blink at us. They pass us, and they pull up; and the present design of motor cars being what it is, when anyone gets out it is like someone emerging from the belly of a whale—like Jonah, as it were, getting out by a side exit. The modern car has lights on the front and lights on the back. We shall soon get into a condition of things so that when driving along the Great West Road the dazzle of lights from the rear of motor cars will be almost as had as the dazzle of white lights from the front of them.
342
If I read this Bill correctly—the noble Lord must forgive me if I have got lost in the maze—the very vehicles which have been a positive danger on the road at night seem to escape. Would the noble Lord tell your Lordships how and where the two rear lights and the two red reflectors are to be fitted on a timber-carrying vehicle, where the trunks of the timber stretch out for perhaps 10 or 12 feet beyond the end of the vehicle? If that vehicle turns a corner the swing of the overhang demands—if this problem is going to be solved—not only rear reflectors but side reflectors as well. The noble Lord from his own experience, and his experience as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, knows that in the case of these trailers it is not enough to have rear lighting and rear reflectors within 3 feet 6 inches of the end of the load. But if there is a showman's vehicle with two trailers, 20-odd feet behind the propelling vehicle, it reeds red reflectors studded all along the sides of these vehicles. I understand that a Standing Committee of the R.A.C. and the A.A. made recommendations on this matter, but they have not been included in the Bill. The Committee also recommended that there should be reflectors at the top of abnormally high loads.
I hope that I shall not be accused of damning this measure by faint praise. So far as it goes, it is good. But, if we are going to make a serious attempt to legislate for the rear lighting of vehicles, I suggest to the Government that it is no part of the duty of a private Member to introduce such legislation: it is the duty of the Minister of Transport to bring before Parliament comprehensive legislation, dealing not only with the rear lighting of vehicles but with the front lighting as well. I hope that will be done in the, not too distant future. I notice that the, noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that we are to have new legislation in the next Session.
LORD LLEWELLIN: No, my Lords, I did not say that. I said that many of us are hopeful that we shall have legislation. It is not for me to say what the Government's programme will be.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I would suggest that it is not for the noble Lord to say whether the Government will ever have another Session.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not mind saying that with a great deal of confidence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is an arguable point.
I am glad to see, if we can believe the Press, that the Ministry of Transport are at last to introduce legislation to control the pedestrian. I commend their courage. In season and out, over a number of years, I have said that we shall never effectively tackle this question of road accidents until we control the pedestrian and, also, the cyclist. I have been waiting for a Government to have sufficient courage to do so. No Government in the history of this country over the last thirty years have treated the question of road accidents seriously. There is no question of political Party about this—noble Lords opposite need not laugh: their record is as bad as that of any other Government. I have been waiting for the Government to put money second to human life, and to show courage in place of political expediency. Only when they have the courage to court political disfavour, by regulating all those who use the roads shall we cease to have such disappointments as the noble Lord and I have to-day, the disappointment of seeing, after all the efforts that have been made, that road accidents are beating us. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider whether or not on Committee stage we should try to give the Bill a few more "teeth." I am perfectly prepared to accept his advice on this matter. As it is, the Bill is good; but it is good only in a very minor way. I should like to say, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, that we shall support the Motion for Second Reading.
4.15 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords in rising to support this Bill I should like to say that is it very necessary, especially the obligation in Clause 2 that vehicles should have a second rear light. There are one or two points that I should like to ask my noble friend. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 says:
"The Minister may by regulations prescribe the conditions to be complied with by lamps carried on vehicles…"
I hope one of the conditions laid down will be that the second rear lamp is suffi-
344
ciently big. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, one of the dangers to-day is that under present regulations these lamps are extremely small. I should like to see, as in America and on the Continent, rear lamps of a much larger minimum size. I hope that it will also be possible to lay down that the second light should be wired on a separate circuit. That is very important, because it may cause trouble if it is wired in the same circuit as the other lamps.
One danger in travelling at night is the fact that timber lorries have to use only one small light at the end of a big tree which they may be dragging along. I hope that it will also be made compulsory for these timber lorries to carry two rear lights at the end of their load. I know that these are Committee points, but I should like my noble friend Lord Llewellin to consider them before Committee stage. He may be able to get some assurance from the Minister that these matters will be included in any regulations that he makes. I strongly support the Bill because it is legislation which is long overdue in this country and will make the roads much safer.
4.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, when I arrived at the House this afternoon my noble friend Lord Llewellin was somewhat in despair, because there seemed to be only two of us to take part in this debate. It looked like turning into a duet. If so, it would have been one less tuneful than the famous duet of Melba and Caruso, though our relations would undoubtedly have been more harmonious. But at last the deus ex machina came, in the stately figure of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has added a certain verve to our discussion. In my opinion, he made a specially petulant speech in which he appeared to say that, as the old regulations had not been observed, it was foolish to make new ones. He went on to say that we were touching only the fringe of the problem. But it was made perfectly plain by my noble friend Lord Llewellin that this Bill does not seek to deal with the whole of the outstanding matters regarding the lighting of vehicles. As I think I told the noble Lord before the debate, when we were discussing this matter, the Government have very much

345
in mind this ghastly problem of headlight dazzle, which is worse in its destructive effects, I imagine, than bad rear lighting. The Government have under consideration a report on this subject from the Road Research Laboratory, and hope to be in a position to proceed with legislation and the other outstanding matters connected with vehicle lighting as soon as a convenient opportunity occurs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, attacked us because, apparently, we take no interest in road accidents and then, by some fantastic contradiction, said that his Party have not done so, either. I should like to know why it was, when the noble Lord was in a prominent position in the Ministry, his own Party, according to his own account, were so hopelessly inept as he makes out.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Earl wants a reply—for exactly the same reason that the noble Earl's Party were completely inept before.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Ineptitude appears to be rife in that respect. When the noble Lord was in a position to do so, why did he not correct that situation? That is what this Bill is intended to do. As your Lordships know, the Bill before the House requires both red lights and red reflectors to be carried at the rear of road vehicles. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there has been a great deal of chaos in our road legislation, but that seems to me to be no reason for not trying to improve it. That is what we are now attempting to do. With regard to obligatory reflectors, it is the Minister's intention to lay down conditions requiring a much better performance than is called for under the existing regulations, which have been in force for many years. In respect of these rear lamps the Bill proposes to give the Minister, for the first time, powers to lay down conditions with which such lamps must comply. In this case, also, the Minister proposes to prescribe conditions requiring a standard of performance considerably better than that achieved by many of the rear lights at present in use. The nature of the conditions to be prescribed for both reflectors and rear lights in relation to character, performance and positioning is at present under active consideration, and the
346
Minister hopes that such regulations will be ready before the present Bill is enacted.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have referred to the slaughter on the roads. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that it was one of the worst of our social evils. I wholeheartedly agree with that. Furthermore, I should like—I think for the second time, but one cannot say it too often—to remind your Lordships of a truly grim statistic, which I have reason to believe to be approximately true—namely, that during the last war there were more people killed on the roads of Great Britain than in the whole of the Royal Navy. That is why we feel that this measure, imperfect as it may be, is at least a step forward.
4.22 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should like to thank the House for the reception they have given to this Bill. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, came along to take part in the debate. I did not feel so much that his speech was a petulant one, but I thought he showed considerable courage, having occupied the position in the Ministry of Transport that he did, in saying that he had been waiting years for a Government which had the courage to tackle the traffic problem. There are many noble Lords in the House who might have said that, but it struck me as slightly odd, coming from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord will not have lost sight of the fact that he was my predecessor.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was not there so long; nor was I there at a time when it was so easy to get things done. We had a good deal more to do in 1941, and a great deal of attention at that time was focused on winning the war, rather than on these problems, which are essentially problems of peace. Certainly it was less easy in those days to draw attention to road problems than in days of peace. The noble Lord seemed rather to deplore that we were doing anything before all existing regulations and laws were enforced. There is one good reason why we should do something about these road reflectors now. It is that the Government in 1949, of which I believe the noble

347
Lord was a member—if not, he was at the Ministry of Transport—agreed to an international Convention to have these two red reflectors. Somebody on behalf of the then Government put their name to this Convention, and I think it is good of us, as private Members, to bring forward a measure to give effect to what the late Government, of which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was so effective a member, did in this matter in their time.
There may well be some criticism that this Bill does not go further. It does not attempt to. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, about timber lorries, this Bill does make the position a little better. It means that there cannot now be a 6-foot overhang of the log of timber, as there used to be; there will have to be a lamp within 3 feet 6 inches of the end, which at any rate will make the load much safer. It is difficult to provide exactly for the timber lorry turning round a corner, when for a moment the light gets obscured. But I should have thought that it is not beyond the wit of man to have a kind of semi-circular light, so that some of it is visible, even when the vehicle goes round a corner.
I am afraid that I cannot answer the other two questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton. I do not know what the intention of the Minister will be in regard to these regulations, but I have not the slightest doubt—the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, can no doubt confirm this—that the Ministry and the Minister will look into the two points raised. I am reluctant to "fall for" the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to put a few more "teeth"(as he called it) into this Bill. There is limited time in another place for this Bill to be reconsidered, and I do not think we should be justified in extending it beyond its title. Of course, if there are Amendments which have the effect of improving the Bill, naturally they will be considered, and we can work them out between us. But overall, I suppose it may be said that—although we did not think we were doing it—we put a few more "teeth" into the last Transport Bill that came before us. It had the effect of ensuring that those "teeth" were pretty well ground in another place when the Bill was returned
348
to them. Therefore I should be reluctant to put more "teeth" into this measure. I am grateful for the way your Lordships have accepted the Bill, and I hope that we shall be able to give speedy decisions on all stages of the Bill so that, although we are not being comprehensive, and do not pretend comprehensively to be dealing with all road matters, we may at any rate effectively deal with one of them.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORLD FEDERATION
4.29 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government to support and strengthen the United Nations, and to seek its development into a World Federation open to all nations, with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation and enforcement of world law. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. With your Lordships' permission, I will begin with a quotation from The Times of January 21 last. This is a despatch from Hong Kong, which says:
"Mr. O'Brien has been living for more than four months in a ship ferrying between Hong Kong and Macao. He has been refused permission to land until he can prove his nationality. This he is apparently unable to do. He claims to be an American."
I may say that, so far as I know, that unfortunate man is still on the ferry plying his daily way between the two places; I have not heard that either side has yet given way in this matter. I quote that little anecdote, because it seems to prove that there is something wrong in this world to-day—and that, I feel, would generally be agreed to be an understatement. The next point I should like to emphasise is that this stupidity—because, surely, it is nothing else—does not concern any country on the other side of the Iron Curtain; it concerns solely countries which have professed for centuries to be friends and allies—namely, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. One of those, it seems to me, will inevitably have to give way.

349
This man's only crime is that he cannot prove his nationality. The time will come when none of us will have to prove our nationality.
If I am right about this, there is something very wrong with the world situation to-day, and it may possibly justify some such Motion as this. This Motion, which I claim to be carefully worded, is really in two parts, and I apprehend that the first part will not create any serious opposition. Let me say, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, that I am a wholehearted supporter of the United Nations. I do not say it is the best organisation that we could have; I do not even say it is good. I do not deny that it has glaring faults and defects, but I do seriously say that it very much better than nothing, and I sincerely hope that not only Her Majesty's Government but all other Governments will do everything they can to support it arid strengthen it. Its defects are obviously many. One of them, in my humble opinion, is that it is not a Federation, and the question is going to arise very soon: Can the United Nations be improved? I say that, because in two years' time the Charter has to be renewed and maybe revised. I hope very much indeed that it will be revised as well as renewed. Surely it is not too early to ask what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government and of this country in relation to the revision of the Charter in 1955. What are we going to put forward as our proposition for the improvement of the Charter? Shall we try to make it into a Federation? Whether we do or not, I hope that the resulting machinery will make it possible for there to be, if not one World Federation, then any number of minor Federations within the United Nations.
I turn to the second part of this Resolution. There may be a little more controversy about this. The words to which I draw attention first are these:
"…to seek its development into a World Federation."
I think that the words "development into" are the most important words in the whole of the Resolution, because I want to emphasise that I certainly do not think that it is going to be made perfect in a day, or even a year, or even a decade. It certainly is not. But if we are on a long journey, the best thing to do is to
350
start the journey, and nothing will be gained by putting it off. I believe that this will be a very gradual process taking a long time, but the important and the immediate thing is that in 1955 the necessary machinery shall be set up—I do not even say "set in motion," but I say "created."
There must also be created a favourable climate of opinion for a World Federation, if we are to have one, and again I say that if it is no: for the whole world, then let it be in part or parts of the world within the framework of the United Nations. I do not think it matters very much where we start, so long as we do start. There are many possibilities. Obvious ones are, first, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. Would it not be better if they were federated? Argument would seem to be superfluous this afternoon, but I have no doubt in my mind that it would be much better for them and for the world if they were. What about the British Commonwealth? The British Commonwealth now contains at least three Federations and, I hope, will contain shortly two further Federations. That will make five, and there may be more. But the Commonwealth is not itself a Federation. What about setting up a Commonwealth Federation as an example to the rest of the world? Then again, Europe, Europe is the most natural of all Federations for us to join because we happen to be nearer to it than to any other, and I should like to see us joining a European Federation. It seems to be natural because it is within sight.
Next are the words, "open to all nations." Whatever international body is set up, it should surely be open to every civilised nation who desires to join it. What is the present position? There are a large number who are not allowed to join the United Nations. I know that is not our fault; I know it is not the fault of the Government. But it is somebody's fault, and it must surely be remedied, because it is absurd. It must be open to everybody to enter though not, of course, to leave voluntarily and without permission. I would remind your Lordships that in our own Commonwealth we have that condition already, because Western Australia—am I not right?—desired to leave the Australian Commonwealth and did not succeed in doing so. Next, it must have defined and limited powers—in other

351
words, there must be a written Constitution. It is too much, unfortunately, to hope that any such Federation could have, as we enjoy, an unwritten Constitution. The question arises, should the Constitution be written before the membership is secured, or should the members be gathered together first and then asked what Constitution they require? I do not think it matters very much which of those two courses is adopted, so long as one of them is adopted first and the second afterwards. I see little, if any, difficulty in framing a Constitution for a World Federation to which countries could, from time to time, themselves adhere. After all, we are practised in these things, I hope, and we shall be drafting a Constitution shortly for a Central African Federation.
My Motion goes on to say that there are three essential functions, all of which must be present if this is to succeed. The first word embodied in the Motion is "enactment." There must, of course, be a Federal Parliament given limited powers to legislate. It must surely be able to legislate, and yet its powers to do so must be restricted, otherwise nobody will join it. Its legislation must be binding on all its members, and it must be strictly within the framework of the United Nations Constitution. Expressing a personal view, I would say that in the long run election to the World Assembly, or whatever it may be called, will be directly by the peoples of the world; its membership will not be comprised of delegates appointed by other Parliaments or the Foreign Offices of the world. I believe that that will be a great improvement on the present system.
"Interpretation" is the next word. That of course, refers to a court of law—another of the essentials. We have now an International Court at The Hague, an institution for which I have nothing but admiration. But are not its powers limited and its usefulness restricted by the fact that if one party to a dispute so chooses they need not he bound by its decision? In other words, recourse to The Hague Court is voluntary and not compulsory, and that simply will not do. It is no use having an international court unless its decisions are binding on all the members of the federated body of which it is a part.
Then comes "enforcement," and this is the most important of the three essentials. Nothing can be done without enforcement, and this is where I come, I am afraid, into direct collision with the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, who addressed your Lordships yesterday. I have a great respect for the noble Earl but I cannot for a moment agree with his method of achieving the same result as I am out to achieve. I do not believe it will work. I believe that we shall never get world peace until we have a federated world, with enforcement of peace by a world police force. Hence the words
"…adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression."
This force, if it is to be any good whatsoever, must be overwhelming, and there must be no possible doubt about it. Does not history show that wherever a single country has attempted to set up an overwhelming force—even if it has been with the object of keeping the peace of the world—it has not ultimately succeeded? On the other hand, if an international body were to try that very thing it would succeed just because it was an international body.
Eventually—here again I give a personal opinion—I feel sure that the membership of the world force will be strictly individual and will not be based on a series of national contingents as it is now—for we have world forces now in Korea and we have had them in other places. If there is any doubt in our minds about the necessity for an overwhelming world force, let us consider what happened about the Treaty of Locarno or the Kellogg Pact. Your Lordships will remember how everybody rejoiced when these were signed, and how honours were given to those who had played a part in bringing them about; and we all looked hopefully towards living happily ever after. But what happened? We all know why the Treaties were ineffective: it was because there was no body with sufficient force to enforce the Treaties. The same thing will happen to Treaties made to-day unless there is some overriding authority which can put them into force and compel both parties—not only one—to keep them. Only the other day the United States and Japan entered into a Treaty of Friendship for ten years. In passing, may one ask, why only ten

353
years? Why are they not always going to be friends? But that is incidental. The point I want to make is this: who is to enforce this Treaty between the United States and Japan? What body is there having the requisite force to make sure that the Treaty is not broken by either party?
That really is the Motion which I move to-day. But I must ask, what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this matter? I do not mind disclosing that I have been reacting what was said in another place on this very subject—there was a short debate on it there recently. I hope I am in order in quoting this statement made during that debate:
"…there is not at the present time a sufficient degree of international co-operation in the world to make this possible."
That is true; but, with great respect, I suggest that it was irrelevant to say that. What I should like to ask to-day is where that co-operation exists in the world. Does it exist in Britain? Is there in this country the requisite understanding to make this project possible? Will this country lead the world towards the goal which most people want? Or, on the other hand, am I right—are quite a number of us right—in suspecting that in this matter we are, to a small extent at least, dragging our feet? Is it not noticeable that our political Parties are more enthusiastic about this project when they are in Opposition than when they are in power? One may say that exactly the reverse seems to be the case in the matter of African Federation as opposed to all other Federations.
The mere passing of this Motion, I suggest, is capable of bringing some, though a small, degree of international feeling and co-operation. If this Motion were passed, there would be, even if it were only infinitesimal, some improvement in the international temperature. I ask Her Majesty's Government to say to the world, "We will do this if you will do that." To come to one detail of federation, why should we not have a Federation of Europe, with the United Kingdom joining with her neighbours? Will your Lordships consider for a moment two comparable areas of the world? First, consider Europe, without Russia—I say "without Russia" only because I want that particular area; secondly, consider
354
the United States. These areas are, I believe, comparable in size, in population, in resources, and in variety of races—or at any rate roughly so. Which of those two areas is the more successful—the more wealthy, the more powerful, or the more peaceful? The answer, of course, is clear—it is the United States. But why is the answer so clear? It is because the United States is federated and Europe is not. I humbly and sincerely believe that if Europe were federated it could be as successful and as powerful as the United States. So I ask again: will Britain join if others do?
Here, my Lords, is the crux of the matter. Joining a federation undeniably means the surrender of national sovereignty. That is a fact which is formidable, and inescapable. Will Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of this country, consent, under proper terms and proper safeguards, to surrender a sufficient degree of national sovereignty to make this federation a success and thus ensure peace? It is interesting to speculate looking back over history, which Governments of the past have been the greatest. I will not venture to mention any; but I prophesy that the British Government which surrenders the necessary instalment of national British sovereignty will be the one that will be regarded as immortal. May I, in conclusion, quote from some words of the noble Marquess who now leads this House, spoken on December 13, 1933? The noble Marquess, when he was a Member of another place, said this:
"No one who has considered the subject can deny that the world is becoming internationalised and that it is being welded closer and closer together. If we go a long way back in history, we find that this country of England was originally seven little kingdoms. In time they were combined into one kingdom, with one force to maintain law and order. Later there were added the countries of Scotland and Wales, and if we pass further on we find that these three became one unit in a vast confederation of the British Empire. Nor is there any reason to suppose that that process, which has been going on throughout history, is going to stop now. On the contrary, the increasing communications of various kinds are going to accelerate the process and, perhaps sooner than we imagine, all nations may become parts of one vast world confederation."
I respectfully invoke the words of the noble Marquess in support of this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved to Resolve, That in the opinion of this House it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government to support and strengthen the United Nations, and to seek its development into a World Federation open to all nations with defined and limited powers adequate to preserve peace and prevent aggression through the enactment, interpretation, and enforcement of world law.—(Lord Merthyr.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, some noble Lords will doubtless remember a former Member of this House, the late Lord Davies, a man for whom I and many others had very high affection and respect. He was the founder of an organisation known as the New Commonwealth Society. It was formed soon after the First World War, and became an international organisation. The present Prime Minister was its President and I was among its humble members, a member of the British Executive. The Society had for its purpose two main objects: first, the creation of an international tribunal where disputes between nations might be settled; and, second, the setting up of an international police force. I believe that if those objectives could have been carried into effect it might well have been possible to avoid the Second World War. Unfortunately, they were not carried into effect, although a great many people supported the idea.
A few days ago we in this House were considering the Prevention of Crime Bill, a Bill which made it unlawful for individuals to carry offensive weapons. Noble Lords who took part in the discussion may remember that an attempt was made to make it permissible for individuals to carry offensive weapons in self-defence; but no one was more horrified at the suggestion that the individual should look after his own defence than the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and his predecessor who leads the Opposition. It was regarded as utterly unthinkable that individuals should walk about, armed to the teeth, defending themselves, when there was in existence a police force whose object it was to do that very thing. It was further held that the very fact of people walking about armed, even if only in self-defence, would itself create a considerable amount of
356
violence. That view was upheld by the whole House, and I think that every citizen of this country would accept the fact that it is quite wrong for individuals to walk about armed, to be judges in their cause and to settle their own disputes by means of force.
When it comes to the international field, however, that is the very way in which we do settle our disputes. Every country, almost from time immemorial, has created its own armed forces for the purpose, so-called, of defence. No country has ever admitted that its armed forces existed for the purpose of offence. Every nation in the world is armed for the purpose of defence; and again, as in the case of the individual, the very existence of these armed forces, each nation competing in strength with the other, each desirous of getting sufficiently strong so that it may be immune from attack, creates a greater danger of the very thing that the nations are trying to avoid. In the lifetime of many of us, we have had two examples of arms races, contests between different countries, each one trying to become stronger than the other; and they eventually led to two of the greatest wars in the history of the world. To-day, we are engaged in a third arms race, and although at the present moment the atmosphere seems less tense, because, it is alleged, we are becoming stronger as compared with our opponents, the position may well become graver again if it should turn out that our opponents are stronger than we are. Once again, there is no one in this House who would suggest that the danger of an even more terrible third world war is in any way non-existent.
What is the answer? Are we to go inevitably along the same lines as we have gone in the past, merely becoming stronger and stronger, in order that we may come on a par with our opponents, with the ultimate end, possibly, of having another war? I am not arguing against the policy of armament at all. In present conditions and in the present state of organisation of the world, I think it is inevitable. That is not my point. But I want to put before the House that there is an alternative, that the world ought not to go on in the present way to what may well be an inevitable third world war and one which, by general consent, would

357
be far more terrible and far more devastating of civilisation than anything we have ever had before.
Is a third world war really inevitable? Must we really go on as we are? In present conditions of armament, it is not merely, as it has been in the past, a question of diverting a certain amount of our efforts towards creating arms; it is a question of diverting a very large proportion of our efforts to this useless and pernicious purpose. Our standard of living is in danger of declining drastically because so much of our effort is diverted to rearmament. There are enormous sections of the world which are living in conditions of famine or semi-famine, semi-starvation, which could be helped and could be assisting in the provision of more consumable goods if they were given some assistance in capital goods, but which cannot be given that assistance because we are consuming so much of our efforts in creating arms. I imagine that up to this point I shall have general agreement. The question is: what is the course that can be taken to prevent this? Some of us feel that we could do a great deal by determining now that we will use the opportunity which will be afforded to us in two years' time of so revising the Charter of the United Nations that "teeth" will be put into that organisation, and that it will be provided with powers to secure a world police force, an international police force.
Let us examine for a moment the position that arose when South Korea was attacked by North Korea. There was no organisation in existence for dealing with aggression. Something had to be done, if it was to be done at all, in a hurried manner, without any kind of preparation; and, in effect, in actual practice, to the extent of perhaps 90 to 95 per cent., action has been taken by one nation. In Korea it is virtually a question of one nation, although there are a large number of nations represented and taking part. To that extent, it is, of course, a United Nations force, but if one left out the one nation that is putting the major part of its resources into Korea, the remainder would be quite ineffective for the purpose of dealing with what occurred there. If, however, there had been an international police force available for the purpose of dealing with
358
just such a contingency as this, it is quite likely that aggression would never have occurred; and it would have been a sufficient deterrent to prevent such aggression.
The purpose of an international organisation of the kind that I have in mind, and that I think is visualised by the noble Lord who moved this Motion, is not merely one where there will be a police force, but one which will regulate and control the amount of force which will be available for each individual nation. Obviously, it would be useless to have an international police force under the control of the United Nations unless at the same time there were control of the armed forces of the different member countries; to that extent the member countries would be required to surrender a certain amount of their sovereignty, and to refrain from being prepared to act as judges in their own cause.
There again, if they are not to act as judges in their own cause, and are not to settle differences with other countries by force, there must be an adequate machinery for dealing with international disputes. I submit that to-day there is no adequate and satisfactory machinery for dealing with these disputes. We at home have only to note the difficulties that exist with Persia and with Egypt to realise that there is no such effective machinery. We have had serious disputes with both these countries, and there is no effective machinery to deal with them. In the case of Persia there was a decision that the tribunal to which we referred had no powers; the United Nations was not prepared to deal with it; and, in effect, there has never been any decision as to whether we are right or wrong in our dispute with Persia. Persia has just taken the law into her own hands. Perhaps a century ago we might have done the same thing. We might have invaded Persia, and that would have been the way to settle it. To-day, there is not even that course. So there must be an effective international court to which disputes between nations can be referred. That is the second part of the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has moved.
Then, if there is to be an international court, there is, of course, the need to have international enactments, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, called them—that is, there must be a tribunal

359
which is capable of making laws as between nations. There will be a certain amount of administration. If, in fact, there is to be an international tribunal which can control the amount of armament which will be available for the different countries—of course, it will always be necessary to have a certain amount of arms, in order to maintain internal peace—there must be some kind of enactment as to the measure of the arms that each country is to have. There must be a certain amount of supervision to ensure that no nation departs from what has been laid down, and the organisation must have funds. Therefore, this international organisation must have legislative powers. To that extent, therefore, there must be a sacrifice of sovereignty. But it is never contemplated that, beyond that, nations should not be able to lead their own lives in their own way, according to their own lights, or that there should be any interference with the normal internal functions of the different countries.
Some of us who are members of the World Government Movement (as I have been, ever since its inception) believe that all this can be achieved through the machinery of the United Nations Organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said, the Organisation comes up for review in two years' time. Article 109 of the Constitution actually provides for a review. It is essential that one of the member nations, at any rate, should be prepared to sponsor something of this kind. Unless it is sponsored by one of the nations, then it is very unlikely that it will even receive consideration. As I understand it, it is not the purpose of this Motion to commit this country finally and irrevocably to world federation. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said that the first thing to do was to start on the journey. With great respect, I should have thought that the first thing to do was to find out where you are going. Before you start you want to know what is your destination.
All this is somewhat vague and indeterminate, but it would be sufficient for our purpose if we were prepared favourably to discuss—and I do not ask more—the idea of setting up an international police force, an organisation which would control the amount of arms available for
360
each nation, which would supervise and inspect the armed forces of the different countries, which could legislate on international law, and which would be in a position to raise funds. If only one nation would be prepared to take the lead in putting forward and sponsoring this idea at the United Nations Assembly when the time comes for review of the Organisation, I think that we should have made great progress towards securing a real peace. I believe that we shall never have peace in the world unless we have a supra-national control over the arms of the individual nations, and I believe that that is not very different from the views which have been expressed from time to time by this country and by the United States of America at the Disarmament Conference. There the participating nations are asking for disarmament they are asking for effective supervision and control, but they are not asking for an international police force which will be available to deal with cases of aggression of this kind.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will to-day be able to give some encouragement to this idea. It is not good enough to say that it is visionary, idealistic and impossible of achievement. I do not think it is. But the alternative is even worse. I think it is better to fail in an attempt of this kind than to do nothing and to go to an almost inevitable doom. I believe that the setting up of an international force, on the lines that I have suggested, constitutes one of the last chances for the preservation of our civilisation. It is for that reason that I hope we shall receive this afternoon some encouragement for this idea.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords. I think that possibly the most effective way in which I can support the noble Lord's Resolution is in a somewhat personal approach, attempting to say a few words about the kind of thoughts which passed through my mind when, two years ago, I first came to be interested in an obscure movement called World Government—in a spirit. I may say, of curiosity, rather than of idealism. I suppose that if we were to go out and tap the shoulder of the man in the street and ask him what his reactions were to a supra-national effective world authority,

361
we should get neither a very encouraging nor even, perhaps, a very polite reply. If he could summon his thoughts they might be expressed in some such way as, "What about Russia?" For that indeed was my own first personal reaction. It was not until I had the opportunity to study the matter and its implications considerably more than I had done that I came to the conclusion that here was no quack remedy for the world's ills, but rather an indispensable element in human and international affairs.
I suggest that for Englishmen there are two questions which have to be answered within this context. The first may be expressed, in a world that is rigidly divided between two rival ideologies—two ideologies which, in fact, the experts state are completely irreconcilable—in the following terms: Is it any use to think, let alone to plan, in terms of effective central world authority? We have undoubtedly to face the fact—as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr has pointed out—that a real abandonment of national sovereignty is involved. And we ask ourselves, with the example before us of the Russian approach to such a matter as the international inspection of atomic energy plant, whether Russia will ever be prepared to make that initial surrender. We have to face, too, the fear that perhaps an effective world authority might be the means by which the Communists could further encroach upon the free world. Those, I suggest, are the kinds of paint which are in the minds of the man in the street when he asks quite bluntly, but not unnaturally, "What about Russia?"
The second question which perplexed me, and which clearly must be of concern to many Englishmen, is: To what extent does a world authority seek to undermine the purpose and the structure of our British Empire and Commonwealth? Some of us, in the international hazards and uncertainties of to-day, feel that the British Commonwealth is the one great instrument for progress and for stability; and that if, indeed, a new order is to represent in any way a challenge to that concept, perhaps it were best in international interests, leaving aside our own sentiments in the matter, that world government be left just where it is; which is as not much more than a kind of
362
academic mental exercise for a few experts and idealists.
The particular aspect which would be of interest to us, perhaps, would be the relationship of our Colonial territories to a world authority. Would there be any tendency for a repetition of the replacement of the authority of one with some experience by the authority of some sixty, many of whom have no experience whatever? If so, I think that, quite rightly, we should not have much interest in that particular aspect of world government. Let us be certain of one condition, therefore: that the relationship of Colonial territories with a central world authority must come after, rather than before, Great Britain has had the opportunity to lead these territories forward to their day of choice, that day of choice which was before India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma, in 1947 and 1948. I emphasise that point because already, before the revision of the Charter of the United Nations has come up for serious consideration, we have seen determined attempts to eject us from our responsibilities. So far from there being a challenge to our British Commonwealth, some of us within the Parliamentary Group for World Government have seen in the situation the idea that international constitution-makers might come in and attempt to frame a future world structure around our Commonwealth, taking its more exportable elements for adaptation in the wider international field. I say "more exportable elements" because so much of the pattern of that strange family relationship—the silken cords to which Burke referred as
"binding more closely than iron chains"—
is associated with 500 years of a very individual type of history, and as such could not be regarded as exportable. But that all would he welcome to come in and study the British Commonwealth, and to adopt our principles and methods in the wider international sphere, I could regard only as a happy development in international affairs.
I have spoken of a "constitution" and "constitution-makers." Here, we come to a vital aspect in this matter and one upon which we in the Parliamentary Group for World Government have had keen discussion. There are those who, turning to the British Commonwealth again, would define only the bare minimum of statu-

363
tory obligations. Then there are those who would have all the "i's" dotted and the "t's" crossed, and who would establish an effective Legislature of two Houses on an elective basis, a court of justice, a court of equity, an international budget and, above all, an international police force. I think that the former view would base its approach on the assumption that once this issue between the Soviet and the Western world is solved, there will be no need for armies, and hence no need for constitutions. Solve this problem which has haunted us all for the last seven years, and armies and their purposes would fade away. Why? Because no two nations are ever going to war again through what one might term the conventional issues of history. We have had our lesson and we have learnt.
Now, my Lords, it is true that in a perfect world in which all men behave as angels there would be no need for the policeman. I have often tried to think out what happens in Utopia to such a thing as institutional religion. But we have only to put this matter against the background of human affairs, and in its correct perspective of realism, to know that men are not going to react as angels. Consequently, through the faults and the failures of the men who lead them, nations are always going to go astray. Of one thing I am therefore certain; that is, that there will always be the problem child in the world. If we solve this problem of the clash of two ideologies, we shall still need the international rule of law. There will be the problem child in the family of nations, just as there is the problem child within the family of individuals. The family of nations will need the policeman just as much as do the citizens of London. Since the policeman needs to be paid, we need to have an international budget. One thing leads to another, and it seems to me to be quite illogical to suppose that you can have an international budget and an effective international police force unless they are equally supported by a Legislature, supported, in turn, by a full constitution. Furthermore, while we in this country may regard ourselves as capable of rising above the petty restrictions of the written word, it does not in the least follow that that is how it is going to be approached in other countries. Indeed, our somewhat lofty attitude in this matter may be regarded in some
364
quarters abroad with suspicion, as savouring of some kind of slick international diplomacy.
In facing up to this problem of framing a constitution, we are faced with two broad courses which are open to us: either we can go ahead with setting up a constitution-making body under the ægis of the United Nations, let that body work out its own constitution and then face us all with a fait accompli; or we can call in the experts, a few experts only, and let them, over the next two years, work out the blueprint of a constitution and then place it before the citizens of the world for their study, their criticisms, or acceptance or rejection. Either of these two approaches obviously involves certain risks. In the first case, we run the risk of forcing a system of government on millions before they are psychologically prepared for its acceptance, of leading whole communities down the garden path, with consequent stresses and strains and eventual breakdown. In the second case we run the risk most certainly of world opinion understanding well enough the issues but, through that understanding, being hesitant to take the plunge, being fearful of the abandonment of their national sovereignty. Already we are a long way from the day when an Englishman will accept a law framed in Europe on British soil. And yet it is in that second, more deliberate, approach that I see the seeds of eventual success, in facing the citizen of the world with the blueprint of a plan, in letting him understand its implications, and having its acceptance by common consent, with no risk whatever of all of us waking up one day to discover that we are subject to an international dispensation which we had neither sanctioned nor understood.
What are the difficulties of framing a constitution? There is the obvious difficulty of working out a fair system of representation. Obviously we must resist a system based on a mere counting of heads, a system which would give to 400 million Chinese ten times the representation of 40 million people within these islands, a system that would reduce twelve Rhodes Scholars to the level of twelve men from the jungle, armed with bows and arrows. These difficulties are not insurmountable. They can be overcome. Already, Professor Hanbury, of All Souls, has produced a perfectly simple

365
workable constitution which has been set out in that excellent brief statement of Mr. Lionel Curtis, The Open Road to Freedom. By manipulating the relations of the two Houses of the Legislature, by relating representation to economic capacity—more particularly to (he economic contribution that a nation makes to the international budget—a fair and equitable system of representation in a World Parliament can be worked out.
We speak of federation. It is not for me to define its scope or general character, but I should like to reassure your Lordships on this point: that, as we understand it within the Parliamentary Group for World Government, this is no movement to reduce all nations to a common denominator. In all reverence, I say, God forbid that we should all of us think, talk and act alike! The differences and divergencies between men and nations are surely the fount and inspiration of all the creative instinct in man. That applies in the spheres of art and technical knowledge, and it must certainly apply in the sphere of international political relationships. In contemplating the powers of federation, my own reaction is that we should be wise to make small surrenders in the initial stages, moving forward to greater surrenders as world opinion becomes educated to the real meaning of international co-operation. Of the necessity for one surrender, I am perfectly convinced, and both noble Lords who spoke before me also share my conviction—that is, the need to surrender enough sovereignty to create a really effective international police force. I can think of many cases since the end of the war when a small force would have rescued the situation. It need not: be a big force: one needs a small force only to crush the seed; we need a far greater force to prevent the plant from growing once the seed has taken root. On one occasion a small force would have saved the life of a gallant, sincere and fearless servant of the United Nations; on another occasion it could have enforced an international decision taken in the case of Jerusalem, a decision which the United Nations has been powerless to implement: in fact could have done the work of a policeman in enforcing the law.
366
I started by posing two questions. One of them, I know, is certainly not answered—the question relating to the clash of two ideologies in the world. I suggest that if we can avoid the third world war, the time will come when leaders behind the Iron Curtain will be prepared to negotiate on terms of democracy as we understand it, not necessarily to agree with us, but at least to negotiate on terms which we and they can understand. When that day comes, they, and indeed leaders all over the world, may turn to the people who have been working on this kind of movement, for the clear outline of the blueprint of a plan. Will they not then turn to us and say," What have you got to replace our Communist ideology?" That is our hope. That is the goal we seek, a goal surely based on that most neglected of St. Paul's three virtues—hope.
Finally, may I say a word on the frame of mind in which we approach this problem. If I remember aright, the Foreign Secretary, when defining policy before the United Nations, in Paris about two years ago, took the view that we should be thankful for small mercies. We should consolidate a situation here and a situation there, make advances here and advances there, and be thankful for them, in a practical way. In my view, that is entirely the right and practical approach. The other approach is that of the idealist, who says: "We can lift up our eyes to the hills and keep our vision on the peaks, in the belief that we shall at least be able to cross the intervening valley." It is in a synthesis of both these approaches that I see the future evolution of the family of all nations. I recall the words of a great servant of the Empire and Commonwealth, when pondering rather wistfully over what he might have considered our lost position in the world. He said:
"No longer are we creators, only acceptors."
I suggest that perhaps the greatest day of our creation is ahead. It would be on that day when we could claim that British initiative had won the world over to the acceptance of a scheme for human affairs which, while being entirely practical, is yet worthy of the highest idealism.
5.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just addressed your Lordships' House has done so for the first time, and I am sure your Lordships

367
would wish me to congratulate him on your behalf on a most admirable speech. The noble Lord's interest in matters of international affairs is well known and I am sure that we are all sorry we have had to wait so long before hearing him. Having heard his speech this afternoon, that sorrow is accentuated, because he has brought a most refreshing and personal approach to this important problem, in the use of his own experience, of a kind which always commends itself to your Lordships' House. Therefore, when I express the hope that we may have many further opportunities of hearing him, I am sure that I am voicing the feeling of all noble Lords.
We are grateful, also, to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon of discussing this important matter. The history of our time has largely consisted of a number of attempts—unfortunately, vain attempts—to secure peace. The problem, of course, is to change a system which has been called one of international anarchy into one of international order, a problem easy to pose but much more difficult to solve. I think that an analysis of this history, and of the world situation to-day, indicates that the main reason why we have failed to solve this problem is one which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, emphasised in his speech, and which has been alluded to by each of the subsequent speakers—namely, the claim which every State makes to complete sovereignty. Undoubtedly—at any rate, this, I submit, is the correct view—the unwillingness of nations to give up one jot or tittle of their sovereign powers was the main element in the failure of the old League of Nations, and is proving the main factor in the comparative want of success of the United Nations Organisation. When the delegates from all the Powers met at San Francisco at the end of the last war, there was great hope in the world that the new Organisation would be much more effective than the old one, for the reason that it appeared that the nations were preparing to abandon at any rate some part of their claim to complete sovereignty. But that has not, in fact, proved to be so.
One of the most superficially curious elements in the situation has been that the Soviet Power has been the worst offender in that respect and has insisted
368
on what has appeared from time to time to be almost a medieval conception of sovereignty. The reason for that is not difficult to discover, because early in the history of the United Nations Organisation it became fairly clear that the different member States were going to line up into two teams, and as the team of which the Russians found themselves at the head was the weaker of the two, a rather rigid and artificial insistence on sovereignty appeared to be a good line of defending their point of view. Indeed, it has enabled them on many occasions to bog down the proceedings of the Organisation.
It is, undoubtedly, an extraordinarily difficult thing to persuade sovereign nation States to abandon part of their sovereignty. In the past it has been secured only by strong nations conquering and absorbing weaker nations. Indeed, as we know, many of the large viable modern States have been built up on conquest or on an alternative which was quite successful in the past and really much more successful than conquest—namely, dynastic marriage. Your Lordships will remember the old tag about the Austrian Empire, which had a long existence and which came into being as a result of a number of successful marriages—bella gerunt alii tu felix Austria nube.
The dynastic marriage is completely out of date, and the method of conquest is really out of date, too. It was not a satisfactory method in the past. It led, even in our own small Island territories, to some of the worst political problems with which we have ever had to deal—I refer, of course, to the Irish problem. The conquest and the division of Poland was for a long time one of the running sores of Europe. Even Wales, which this country thought it had successfully conquered, has been showing, quite naturally, a wishfulness for independence. The tremendous growth in the feeling of nationality, which was not there in the past and therefore enabled these conquests to be successful, up to a point, has now completely barred the road to that method of getting rid of sovereignty; in the modern world it simply does not work. The attempts of the French, for example, in Cambodia, Laos and elsewhere in the Far East are proving that that is so. All sorts of peoples who did

369
not feel themselves nations until the present century are now doing so, and it is no good trying to override those national feelings. That phase of world history has to be lived through. One of the great difficulties we are undoubtedly up against is the persuading of quite small nationalities of that kind to be content to take a certain instalment of sovereignty, and not to demand a whole 100 per cent.
This problem was worked out in a most interesting way by the late Josef Stalin when he was quite a young man, in a famous paper he wrote in relation to the position of small units, like the Ukraine, in the larger unit which the Communists were hoping to build up. It is an interesting thing that the Russians themselves, so far as we can see, have not succeeded in solving that problem completely, because as soon as there was a situation of some fluidity in the Soviet area during the last war, the nationalistic aspirations of the Ukrainians at once began to make themselves evident. My impression is that that is a problem which has not been altogether successfully dealt with in that part of the world.
The spate of nationality is so strong that it is really impervious to reason. We are seeing a good example of it at present in connection with Egypt and the Suez Canal. For a time Egypt was under the suzerainty of this country, but it is now many years since Egypt was given complete independence and treated as one of the world's free nations. However, because of the fact that British troops are still in the Suez Canal Zone the Egyptians cannot bring themselves to believe that they are a free and equal nation in that sense. That is undoubtedly one of the great sore points in the world at the present time. I mention these historical examples, some of them of great present-day relevance, because I am persuaded of the enormous importance of this problem of sovereignty. We have to induce the nation States of the world by methods of persuasion to give up some of their sovereignty. It is much easier to knock people on the head than to persuade them: to take away their sovereignty by armed force than to persuade them to give up some of the elements of it. Even at the last moment when the enemy is before the gate or when the terrible possibility of the Third World War is loom-
370
ing into the middle distance, people will still not be prepared to give up enough sovereignty to provide, for example, an international police force.
The important element in this matter is lack of trust in international justice, and the realisation that there is no sanction to enforce the awards of the international court or of decisions that may be given by some supra-national judicial tribunal of that kind. I believe this is the main reason why all nations cling to their sovereignty in this way. Fortunately, sovereignty is not a monistic conception, so to speak, but can be broken up. It is a bundle which can be broken up into its separate elements, and it is quite possible for a surrender of certain elements of sovereignty to take place and for a nation to be left, as has been pointed out this afternoon, with a substantial amount of sovereignty which enables it to live its own full national life. That does open up the possibility of progress.
When the nations are satisfied that there is a supra-national authority in existence which is independent of the power groupings among the nation States, then I think there will be confidence. But it is an. essential condition that the supra-national authority shall be independent of the power groupings among the national States, and this, of course, is emphatically not the case at the present time. The delegates who represent the different nation States on the Security Council and in the Assembly are there just to further the power interests of their respective countries. That is so in 99 cases out of 100. So long as that situation exists there will not be the confidence which will persuade nations to give up their sovereign rights. They cling to them as a kind of refuge—it is a completely illusory refuge, but they cling to them for that psychological reason. A world authority must therefore, I submit, be established, which does not just carry out the orders of Washington or Moscow, or whatever State is in a position to secure the most votes on the Security Council or in the Assembly at the particular moment.
It may be that the present time seems inauspicious for such a development, when there is so much suspicion on each side of the Iron Curtain. I freely admit that this is so. But a more peaceful

371
atmosphere may prevail. There are signs that it is coming, and I hope they may be borne out. In any event, I think we must get ready to make use of a better atmosphere. The situation cannot go on. It must either deteriorate to a state when we actually have a war, or it must begin to improve. When it begins to improve, as I hope and trust will be the case, then we must be prepared to take advantage of that situation. To many of us—indeed, I think to most people in this country—this idea of the World Parliament and the World Government is the only really practical way to get out of the impasse. I know that to many people the whole idea will appear to be completely visionary, but to many more unless there is such a vision to strive for the world appears to be a completely bleak place and our civilisation almost past praying for.
Peace has always been one of the great, if not the greatest, visions of human kind. The project of world government as a method of securing world peace, however, is not anything like so old. Of course, I am not claiming that it is a new one. Most of your Lordships will remember that Tennyson, as long ago as when he wrote Locksley Hall,
"…dipt into the future, far as human eye could see."
Most of us who have spoken on League of Nations platforms in the past have used his famous couplet:
"Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world."
That is just what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is asking for this afternoon. But I think we should remember also that Tennyson, in that same poem, foresaw the war in the air. A rather less frequently quoted couplet from the same poem reads:
"Heard the Heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew
From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;"
Even in the 1830s when that poem was written the prophecy was rather a remarkable one. Of course, what he did not foresee was atom bombs and hydrogen bombs. They have made the situation even more desperate, and it means that the amount of time which is left to our familiar world to put its house in order
372
can be measured in a handful of years. Now are these few years going to be used to good purpose? That is really the question the noble Lord is asking and which is involved in his Resolution, and that is indeed the question mark which is written across the face of the universe at the present time.
5.48 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I believe that the world is being compelled by the forces of the organisation of commerce, of shipping and of air travel—by means of which one part of the world very rapidly learns to know about another part—into unity; and we must legislate for that. I do not mean in this Parliament—I mean, of course, in the United Nations. Take for instance, commerce and shipping. Shipping is now very much more rapid than it was, but one may pass from that to air travel. Air travel by various forms of 'plane is, practically speaking, universal over the whole habitable world; men and women move about in a way they never did before. You can start to-day and be in Washington in a very short time, or in India. Those of us who have travelled in that way—and I have no doubt that many noble Lords in this House have done so—realise what difference it makes to one's views when one arrives in this country from India in a matter of a few days instead of weeks. And shortly, probably, it will be reckoned in terms of hours, rather than of days. Then I believe that radio and television, which have not been mentioned in this debate, have had a tremendous influence on men's minds. I do not mean the minds only of men in what I call civilised countries, but in other countries as well. All the continents and all the world are waking up.
I remember with very great interest the fact that I went with a number of colleagues (I was then a Member of another place) to visit Nigeria, the Gold Coast and other African Colonies on the West Coast in the months immediately preceding the war. We conducted a very definite and carefully-contrived investigation into the methods of life and administration in Nigeria and in the Gold Coast—I will mention only those two at the moment. We found different tribes of the Negro peoples very active, leading their own lives. We made copious notes, which

373
we presented afterwards in a printed Report. The interesting point is that at that time, although those of us who went were experienced, in the sense that we had been a great many years in Parliament, there was no suggestion in any of those Colonies of West Africa of the ideas of independence which are now such a marked feature in Nigeria and the Gold Coast, though independence in a certain sense there has been. Incidentally, it is interesting to notice that many of the people who are now the leaders in these countries were people whom we actually interviewed, visited, and talked with.
Take the question of Egypt and of Persia. How rapidly the situation in those countries has changed! I will not detail these developments. But what vast developments there have been in the last few years in the United States, and even more in Canada! The developments have been simply immense. There have been, and there are going to be, also, tremendous developments in South America. There have also been vast developments in Russia since the Revolution in 1917. I remember well that when I went there in 1920—I was the secretary of the first Labour delegation that had ever been there—we took elaborate notes. We were able to travel freely up and down the Volga. We were not by any means confined by restrictions, except those which we imposed upon ourselves. At that time there was no considerable organised industrial life east of the frontier between Russia and the Eastern countries. There is now an immense development in all those Eastern countries, and a growth of industrial civilisation. There have been tremendous changes in the world, and all these are exerting pressure on the world to make it change its formation and to make its people alter their habits.
How are we to get an organisation appropriate to this rapidly changing situation? I confess that I have been surprised this afternoon not to hear any reference to the elaborate organisations which already exist in connection with the United Nations. The United Nations have, among other things, an International Labour Organisation, a Food and Agriculture Organisation, an Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, an International Civil Aviation
374
Organisation, an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, an International Monetary Fund—and, I may say, these financial institutions have been functioning to some considerable effect—a Universal Postal Union, a World Health Organisation, an International Refugee Organisation, an International Telecommunications Union, a World Meteorological Organisation, an Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation and an International Trade Organisation.
There are other organisations, but it seems that we have there what amounts to a series of world ministries which are functioning at the present time; and they are very useful and effective bodies. If we are going to develop from present conditions into a World Government, these are the organisations on which to base it. Many of them have long experience. Some of them are quite old: the Universal Postal Union, the oldest of them all, was originally founded in 1875. If we are to have a really good development of a world organisation, we shall have to build on that kind of basis, not on merely theoretical ideas or statements of rights and duties. Those would be very good, but I think that we in this country believe more in the practical effect of an organisation which is already in existence, whose workings you can study. The International Bank has an authorised capital of 10,000 million dollars and has given grants to Australia, Belgium, Brazil and other countries.
I could tell your Lordships a great deal about the work of the World Health Organisation in many countries, by which the highest possible level of health is being brought about. I have been talking this afternoon to a doctor who comes from Bangkok—he has been listening to the debate—and he has been telling me about the work which he is doing at the present time. It covers the whole field of health protection and service that we have in this country and that exists in other Western European and American countries. He is applying these ideas to the protection of health in Bangkok.
Many of these things date directly from the Conference in San Francisco in 1945, and these specialized organisations are de facto departments of a begin Fling of world government. More important work could be done. It is in

375
the power of mankind at the present time to lay the foundations of a world community. The meeting of the United Nations which is to take place in two years' time can certainly be made the occasion of a considerable approach to a world constitution. But does any member of your Lordships' House seriously believe that we can devise a world constitution in a period of two years, when it has taken this country centuries to build up a Constitution? I think it is asking too much. I do not myself suspect the Russians of wanting to dominate us more than we have in the past wanted to dominate others. I think that they will be amenable to reason if they can see that what we are building up—and what they will be helping to build up if they come in, as I think they will—is a new world of a new kind, in which all mankind will be able to live on terms of equality. But the form which should be imposed, and the obligations, duties, sanctions, and constitution of what I have called the ministries set up already under the new world organisation, are things which I think one must leave to the future—and not to the immediate future. That should not, however, in the least degree prevent our present organisation from going on and improving greatly.
What are the alternatives to this? A long period of hesitation and indecision?—we do not want that. The outbreak of a world war?—no one, certainly, can want that. No sensible human being, no one who knows about modern weapons, whether he is on the Russian or the non-Russian side of the world frontier, can possibly wish for these weapons to be used. Thirdly, there is the determination of the nations of the world, expressed at the United Nations, to keep the world at peace and to find the means for the growth, development and use of the enormous powers that the sciences are now pouring out into men's hands. I do not know whether it is generally realised that it is only within the last ten or fifteen years that major contributions to man's power over nature have been made by the sciences pouring out this knowledge, a great deal of which is quite new. In fifty years since the early days of the century, the world has been revolutionised; and since then the speed
376
of that revolution has been increasing. Special agencies have already been created to deal with some of the very important functions of a world government. The time has now come to decide that we will make the United Nations Organisation and its special agencies the basis of a permanent form of peaceful world government for the whole of mankind.
6.3 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, this debate, as the debate yesterday, has been characterised by a number of speeches of great sincerity and eloquence and, if I may say so respectfully, at times on a somewhat ethereal plane. The opportunity falls to me in winding up this debate to add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, on his maiden speech. I do it with all the more warmth and pleasure because a good many years ago my father and his were closely associated in the conduct of Indian affairs.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, as he said at the beginning, falls into two parts. He assumed at the outset, and rightly assumed, that as to the first part of his Motion, that dealing with support of the United Nations, there is no divergence of view between us. It is, of course, and it will no doubt remain, a fundamental object of our foreign policy to support and strengthen the United Nations. I do not think it will be seriously disputed by anybody that during the period of its existence up till now we have given it all possible support. As regards strengthening it, noble Lords will remember that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said on more than one occasion that he would welcome an expansion of the existing situation in order to admit more countries. But, whether you are going to do what is rather suggested, merely fling the door open and say, "Here is a welcome for all, whatever their status in the world," is rather a different matter.
The noble Lord said, for instance, that he would invite all civilised States. Immediately, you begin an argument as to what is a civilised State. That is an argument which has been going on for some time. As the noble Lord knows, there are

377
twenty-one nations waiting at the door at the present moment, and the only hopeful thing that can be said about that situation, without going into unnecessary detail, is that a Committee has now been appointed by the United Nations itself, of which Committee the United Kingdom is a member, to consider the deadlock which has arisen about the admission of further countries and, if possible, to resolve it in a way favourable to their admission. Unfortunately, the U.S.S.R., which has not been entirely unresponsible for the failure to admit these other countries, refused to accept membership of that Committee. That is most regrettable, if the Committee is going to arrive at a reasonable and acceptable solution. None the less, we must hope that it will do so.
As regards the second half of the noble Lord's Motion, we enter, as I think he will agree, a somewhat more controversial and, I am afraid, at the same time a more visionary field. The second part of his Motion calls for the development of the present United Nations Organisation into a World Federation fortified by a system of world law. That is, of course, a captivating and inspiring vision in many ways, and this country has always attached the greatest importance to the rule of law in the affairs of the world. But it is no good barking the fact that no such system can be forced upon nations; it can come into being only with their co-operation and consent, and unfortunately there is at the moment only too little evidence of any such universal collaboration coming about. If the noble Lord who moved this Motion were to sit for a day in my chair in the Foreign Office—I think the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will agree with me—and read the incoming and outgoing telegrams over the space of perhaps twenty-four hours, he would reluctantly be driven to the conclusion that at the present moment there is not in the world that harmony between nations which is likely to produce any immediate response to a project of this kind.
Only yesterday, the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, in his Motion appealing for an epoch of fifty years' peace without bloodshed, said that those nations which were not willing to assent to that proposition must be made to comply. The moment you begin to make a nation comply,
378
where do you get to? As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, said in a debate on international affairs only the other day, the one thing that you cannot do is to make a nation take a step which it does not want to take, unless you are prepared to enforce your desires upon that nation with all the panoply of force, which is exactly the thing which this Motion is desirous of avoiding as the ultimate exchange between nations. It may be very unfortunate that that is the position, but it is indeed, I am afraid, useless to pretend that it is not so. There is at the present moment no discernible tendency in the world for the lion to go through the unusual operation of lying down with the lamb. In fact, lions are extremely unwilling to lie down with lions, or lambs with lambs, and in too many countries an uncompromising and exclusive nationalism flourishes which must be the arch-enemy of any such project of a global union as is contemplated by this Motion.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, dealing with the position of the United Nations as it stands to-day, cited as one of its defects that it was not a Federation. When we begin getting into that area we are getting into very mixed territory. He said that we ought to try to make it into a Federation, and he then went on to contemplate a situation in which there should perhaps be not one United Nations Federation, but a series of groups of local Federations spread about all over the world. N.A.T.O. was one of his subjects for federation, Europe was another, the Commonwealth was a third. Then Her Majesty's Government of the day have to ask themselves, "To which Federation do we belong? Do we belong to the European Federation; do we belong to the N.A.T.O. Federation or do we belong to the British Commonwealth Federation? "You cannot do as people do in Who's Who: put down the names of four or five clubs to which they belong. You have to make up your mind to which of these Federations you belong, and then adhere to that one.
Let us be very careful before we commit ourselves to a plunge into any scheme of federation on this sort of scale or on these lines. The strength of the Commonwealth has been that it is not a Federation, and what has been done has been done by consultation and by co-operation

379
on a voluntary basis. As the noble Lord admitted, the moment you go off into federation you begin the necessity of building up some sort of a written, rigid Constitution. I confess that nothing surprised me more in his speech than when at one moment he said, I think, that there would be little difficulty in framing such a Constitution. Well, there are in the world international lawyers and constitution-makers of great eminence. But you have to produce not merely a paper Constitution; you have to produce a paper Constitution which is going to commend itself to all the nations of the world. It is when you get to that stage that your troubles begin. It may be quite possible in the study or in the common room to work out an admirable blue print, but when each country comes along with its own particular predilections, its own particular ideas and objections, the process of producing a universally acceptable Constitution from all that procedure takes on a very different aspect.
To a certain extent the same is true when the noble Lord talks about the introduction of a system of law which can be enforced, and of legislation and of a tribunal. You have countries with different systems and different traditions of law. Up to a point, it is quite true that many of them submit cases to the present international tribunal. But the next stage in the present scheme is that having passed your law, you proceed then to the enforcement of it, and you enforce it apparently by arms or the threat of force of arms. It is said that if you have a small force, that small force will always be able to quash at the outset any signs of unrest or insurgence in any part of the world, and that big forces will never be needed. My Lords, let us look back for a moment to a stage in the years between 1933 and 1939. Would the small police force have walked into Germany and taken action? It could have done that presumably only with the assent of the full body of the United Nations. Would there have been agreement as to what was the moment for action? There was not agreement amongst the countries—the far fewer countries—which had to deal with the situation when it arose. Now we have to get the agreement of all these countries to send in a police force.
380
What size is the police force to be? What regulates the establishment of this force which is to be set up? Is it to be the European Federation'? It is said that you limit the number of men in the various national armies. But suppose there is a European Federation and a Federation for, let us say, the Middle East, which combine together against the rest of the world. What strength is your police force to be in order to cope with the combined armies? The United Nations countries are going to have to keep a force which is greater than the aggregate of the separate forces in the different countries. One noble Lord spoke about the necessity for an international Budget. To maintain such a force is going to be a pretty expensive undertaking.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said that in his view the great advantage that the United States had over this country was that it was federated, and therein lay its strength. My Lords, that is not the beginning and end of the matter. The United States consists of a considerable number of states, but it also happens to have no national frontiers between those various states, it has the same language running throughout the country, and it started to build itself up from nothing. In this Motion you start with an organisation which is already in being, with all the traditions—the prejudices, if you like—which have grown up over the years, and you have to break those down and persuade these countries virtually to amalgamate at least a portion of their sovereignty in their joint interest. It all may be very desirable; it all may come about; we may all hope that it will come about. All I am saying is that there is still a long way to go.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, in saying that there is a much more hopeful and practical way than sitting down to sketch out blueprints for some future Constitution and some future international court. It is by gradually getting the nations accustomed to the process of co-operation, as they do become accustomed in these various United Nations bodies, some of which I have had the advantage of seeing at work. The same thing applies not only to United Nations bodies, but, within what I may call local limits, to such bodies as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and

381
O.E.E.C. Indeed, we have already reached the stage where, in one or two instances, we have either got to or are very near to getting a partial surrender of sovereignty. There is the Coal and Steel Community, the European Defence Community, and at the same time deliberations are going on in regard to the possibility of creating a European Political Community.
I hope that those who believe profoundly and sincerely in this scheme of ultimate world federation will see that in regard to those organisations which have come into being on a small scale—if you will, on a relatively local scale—with the assent of the various countries concerned, the right way is to let them develop, to materialise, and in the course of time, if history so develops and opportunity so offers, let them proceed forward to the stage at which they can become something in the nature of a world organisation. But do not try to start with a complete whole at the beginning; let the pieces form themselves and than, gradually, by process of time, amalgamate into a whole. It will be done only by the consent of the various pieces concerned.
It may be that these organisations like the European Defence Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the others, may prove to be the first embryonic stage of the kind of state of affairs that the noble Lord wants to see. I am bound to say that, at the present moment, my view agrees with that which my right honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary has expressed in another place on more than one occasion—that setting up a World Government can only follow and not precede such a degree of international understanding as, unhappily, does not exist to-day. That, I am afraid, is the view which I must express on the general aspect of this Motion. It is surely premature to concern ourselves at this stage with attempts to devise the requisite institutions in any form other than the broadest possible outlines To do otherwise would be to undertake a process which I may perhaps be allowed to call, "putting the chart before the course." I agree that it is prudent to provide yourself with an accurate chart before you start out on a voyage. But it is even more important to know what your
382
destination is, and how you are going to get there. That, at the present moment, I do not think, from anything that has been said to-day, is really clear at the present stage of development. Even accepting the noble Lord's definition of the ultimate aim, we cannot, surely, lay down with any precision the means which ought to be adopted in order to attain that ultimate aim.
There is the Charter, and it may well be that inside the terms of the Charter as it is to-day—it is possible (I do not make any prophecy) that it may be revised after 1955—the elements of the machinery required already exist, if the countries who are members of the Organisation choose to use what is already under their hands. But I feel that in the end the stimulus must come, and can only come, from a common impulse of those countries who are members of the United Nations. In the world as it is now—and, as I said in the course of yesterday's debate, it is too often a rather tough and truculent world—it is not likely that any such manifestation of desire is going to be a thing of to-morrow or the next day. And this, I think, is important—to launch any such scheme at a moment when the world is not ripe for it, before the mass of the peoples of the world are receptive to it, would be not only to achieve immediate failure but to compromise for a very long time any future prospect of success.
I do not want to seem unduly discouraging to the noble Lord, but I hope he will agree to withdraw the Motion which is before us. And perhaps I may say this. We should welcome a situation, if it developed, in which this project seemed reasonably attainable, and I can assure the noble Lord that we will not neglect suitable opportunities to create an atmosphere favourable to its ultimate realisation. But we cannot anticipate the millennium. All we can do, and should do, is to keep our eyes fixed upon it as, unhappily, perhaps a rather distant goal, and in the meantime do our best to prepare for it by striving in every way to remove the hatreds, the rivalries and the dissensions of the world which now serve to make the millennium more nebulous and more remote.
6.26 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I say that I think your Lordships will all agree that we were very fortunate to

383
hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, this afternoon, and that we shall add his name to the list of those of your Lordships whom we look forward to hearing on further occasions in the future. Another personal note I should like to strike is this. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned the name of the late Lord Davies, whom I knew very well at one time before the war. Lord Davies was considered to be a visionary, as no doubt he was; but I never think there is anything to be ashamed of in being called a visionary, and the time will come when the noble Lord will be proved to have been right.
With regard to the speech of the noble Marquess, I should like to be allowed to make one or two observations. First, I want to make it abundantly clear that nothing that fell from my lips, I hope, was to the effect that any nation should be forced into federation. If I said that, I certainly did not intend to say it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: May I be allowed to make clear what I actually did say? I did not say the noble Lord had suggested that any nation should be forced into federation, but I said that inevitably the result of what he was advocating was that the only way federation would be achieved was, in some cases, by force. I did not accuse him of advocating force.
LORD MERTHYR: I am obliged to the noble Marquess for that explanation, but I cannot quite accept the resultant theory that this cannot be done without force. After all, as I have said before to-day, we already have a number of Federations. We have at least three in our own Commonwealth, to say nothing of others. That being so, surely it is not impossible to have more than three. I am disappointed at the Government reply; there is no purpose in concealing the fact. I am disappointed because if every nation were to say, "We will make no effort to co-operate because no one else will make an effort," we should not get very far. The noble Marquess asked: "How are you going to do this with a small police force?" One of the things I want to emphasise is that I am convinced that the police force has got to be, in its early stages, not a small one but a big one. It has got to be much
384
bigger than any other force in the world. Later, I am sure, when reason descends upon the world, it can be very substantially reduced. In the meantime, it has got to be far greater than the aggregate of all others.
The noble Marquess, not unnaturally perhaps, took me up on what I said about the United States. He said that federation was much easier for the United States than for Europe, and he gave as one of his reasons the fact that the United States had no national frontiers. Exactly, I entirely agree. That is why the United States is a successful federation. But why must Europe have national frontiers? Can anyone deny that the national frontiers of Europe could be removed tomorrow if the peoples had the will to do it? That is my very point, and I respectfully agree with the noble Marquess that that is the main reason why the United States is successful. Talking about the United States, I am reminded of the famous statement of the Dean of Gloucester in the eighteenth century. I am sorry that I have not the actual words, but it was a remarkable statement. The Dean of Gloucester allowed himself to say that a Federation of the United States was a sheer impossibility. Within twelve months it was accomplished. That shows that things can be done, although people say that they are impossible.
In the course of his argument, the noble Marquess said that certain progress had been made, and I agree. Amongst achievements which he mentioned was the setting up of the Coal and Steel Community in Europe. He gave that as an example of the progress. But as the words fell from his lips this thought struck me: the United Kingdom is not amongst those countries. That is the point I want to make. The United Kingdom could be one of those countries: it is not. The noble Marquess urged, "Let the present institutions develop." I agree; but we must be one of them. It is no good saying, "Let everyone else do this, but not us." I hope that I have not overstated the point, but all I am asking is that this country will say, "We will do this, if you will do this." It cannot be said that we are the first, because clearly we are not. The noble Marquess said that the thing must eventually come by putting together a series of pieces. Again I agree: but shall we be one of the

385
pieces? That is the question I should like to ask.
I have said enough, perhaps too much. I do not want to trouble the House any more this afternoon. I am obliged to the speakers and to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I feel that to have a Division with such a small number in the House would serve no purpose to anybody, and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAGDALEN (COLCHESTER) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMA TION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOSPITAL OF THE BLESSED TRINITY (GUILDFORD) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
6.33 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to take this opportunity of informing your Lordships that we hope to be able to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess after the close of Business on Thursday, May 21, unless it should be necessary for the House to meet on the following morning, Friday, May 22, for a Royal Commission. Parliament will reassemble on Tuesday, June 9.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before seven o'clock.