Lords Sitting of 16 November 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD
  Roger Plumpton, Lord Bishop of Wakefield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER
Robert Cecil, Lord Bishop of Exeter—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Craigmyle—Took the Oath.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (LOANS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

GROWTH OF DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGE
2.48 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT rose to move to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that it is necessary to declare that the number of persons entitled to diplomatic or kindred privileges has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name, which to many of your Lordships will have a somewhat familiar ring. The language, of course, is borrowed from George Dunning's great Motion of 1780 which, according to Lecky, was the most serious blow that Lord North's Government had sustained and led to the fall of that Government. I can assure your Lordships at the outset that I do not intend, even if I could, to use this Motion as a vehicle to bring about any sort of disaster to her Majesty's present advisers.
I notice on the list of speakers that everyone save myself has had, or has, some connection with the Foreign Office. I therefore need all the support I can get from those of your Lordships who are
564
not, and have not been, members of the Foreign Office, and in that connection I am delighted to see such an ample supply of the Spiritual Peers present; I shall certainly need their prayers in carrying out my task. As I have said, there is no sort of attack on the Government involved in this Motion; indeed, I am not seeking to make any Party point at all. If the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, ought to stand in the dock, then it is assuredly true that I ought to stand there, too—indeed, I am just as guilty as he is about this matter. But I think it is desirable to take an opportunity of considering the whole problem quite calmly and dispassionately in this context, divorced from any particular Order in Council which we are asked to approve.
As your Lordships know, when we have an Order in Council before us we are asked to pass an Affirmative Resolution. But the circumstances in which we are asked to pass that Affirmative Resolution are that an agreement has been entered by Her Majesty's Government to grant this immunity. The Order then comes to your Lordships' House, and it is exceedingly difficult for your Lordships to say "No," because, even if the position has not been prejudged, yet it has at least been considered, and it would seem perhaps ungracious for us to refuse the Order to some worthy institution whereas we have granted similar immunities to other institutions. I think we have to consider in this context the same question of diplomatic privilege.
I need hardly say that I am not at all opposed to diplomatic privilege. Diplomatic privilege is an ancient tradition which is part of our Common Law, and the Act, which I think was an Act of 1708, was merely declaratory of the Common Law. It is a concession which has always been, and I hope always will be, observed between civilised nations, and it is a tribute to the importance which any representative of a foreign country receives and always will receive in our country. The only question is, to what extent diplomatic privilege has gone. The number of persons entitled to it has increased very remarkably. That is undoubted. That it is increasing, I think, is undoubted too; and, judging from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place the other day, he thinks

565
there ought to be what he called an improvement in this matter—and, by "improvement" he meant a diminution in the numbers. I respectfully agree with him in thinking that the list has now grown too large, too cumbrous (I will give your Lordships the figures presently), and that there ought to be some diminution of numbers entitled to the privilege.
Not only have we to consider diplomatic privilege as such, but we have to consider the new system which has arisen under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation whereby there are a large number of organisations—I think the number now extends to about twenty-one—whose members are given diplomatic privilege in this country. It is impossible, of course, to say how many people are affected. I will investigate that in a moment, because what is contemplated is that conferences of these bodies may be called over here, and there may be large numbers of people attending those conferences. When they come to these conferences every one of the people attending them enjoys, to a lesser or greater extent, diplomatic privilege. I fully realise that there are two sides to this question. On the one hand, I am most anxious to say nothing to indicate that I do not desire to support the organisations of the United Nations, just as I hope I have said nothing against the diplomats who come to this country.
Here again, however, we have to consider whether there is not a danger that this concession may be distributed too far and too wide, because, after all, it is obvious that a privilege granted to one man means a diminution of rights of somebody else. If a privilege is granted to a diplomat and he cannot be proceeded against in our courts, it means that one of the lieges is in a worse position than he otherwise would have been.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): It is true of an immunity more than of a privilege.
EARL JOWITT: Immunity—I quite agree. Therefore, the position has to be considered from both points of view. I am not foolish enough to say that I should withdraw privileges or immunities which have already been granted. But I do say that in this matter we ought to try to hold a balanced point of view. We ought
566
not to broadcast this immunity or grant it indiscriminately. We ought to realise the point of view of those people who are adversely affected by the granting of the immunity. In short it comes to this—and I hope the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, when he comes to reply, will be able to accept this view: that the Government must realise that this is a serious matter; that it calls for anxious consideration, and that it is a question of drawing a balance between two lines. Speaking for myself, I think in the past we have been inclined to go rather too far in this matter. I am happy to say that I said this when I was Lord Chancellor, so I am being perfectly consistent in this point of view.
First of all, with regard to the number of persons who are entitled to what is called diplomatic privilege in the ordinary way, I wrote to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and he knew, of course, that I was going to use his figures for the purpose of this debate, and I take it that he does not mind my quoting the figures he gave me. It is interesting, I suggest, to go back to the year before the First World War. Let us look at the year 1913—those bad old days or good old days, whichever you like to consider them. In those days, there were 39 foreign diplomatic missions, 9 of them embassies and 30 of them legations. The staffs of those missions amounted to 543 persons, who were officially regarded as being entitled to diplomatic immunity. If my arithmetic is right, with 39 missions and 543 persons entitled to the immunity, the average number of persons in each mission would have been about 14. That was the situation before the Kaiser's war. Now pass on, if you will, to consider the position before the Hitler war. I take the year 1938. The number of missions had increased from 39 to 54–16 embassies and 38 legations. The number of the entitled staff had doubled, or nearly doubled: there were now 1,084, as opposed to 543. Again if my arithmetic is right, the average number of people in each of those 54 missions to whom diplomatic immunity was granted was 20, as opposed to 14.
Now come to the present time. We have in London to-day 72 foreign missions—55 embassies and 17 legations. The staffs amount to 2,532 persons. If I am right again in my arithmetic, that is an average of 35, so that the average

567
per mission has moved up from 14 to 20, and now to 35; and, of course, there are a larger number of missions. In addition to that, I suppose I am right in saying that there are, if I may so call them, ancillaries—the staffs, their wives and their children. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not suppose that the figures he has given me include the families or domestic servants. They also, I believe, in the case of an envoy, enjoy diplomatic immunity. I do not suppose they are included in the 2,500, and there may in that way be a whole cloud of people, in addition to the 2,500, who are entitled to diplomatic immunity.
We have also to consider the question of the High Commissioners who are, of course, quite rightly, conceded corresponding rights. I must say that the figures here are startling. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his letter reminded me of the existence to-day of the seven High Commissioners of the Commonwealth countries and the Embassy of the Irish Republic, which have between them staffs totalling 1,517. That is an average, if my figures are right, of 190 per mission. So that, if you add the 2,500 to the 1,500, you get a total of 4,000. Then you have to consider, of course, all the extra people, the servants, the wives and the children, all of whom are entitled to diplomatic immunity. So that the 4,000 is expanded—I cannot tell your Lordships to what extent, but manifestly to a very considerable extent: I suppose it might well be doubled. All those people are entitled to diplomatic immunity.
I should be the first to say that I think that, thanks to the standard which the Corps Diplomatique have laid down in this country, we have an exceedingly fine body of people whom we are privileged to receive here. It would be a completely fallacious attitude to suggest that they are a lot of gangsters or thieves, or anything of that sort; of course they are not. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a statement in another place recently in which he gave some figures about this subject. He said that the total number of the Diplomatic Corps (he was dealing with the 2,500 persons) who had got into trouble with regard to minor offences—motoring
568
offences, for instance, such as exceeding the speed limit and so on—was 105. That is 4 per cent. of the 2,500. That seems to me a pretty fair proportion.
I believe that the Automobile Association, with whom I have been in communication, say that their members do not break the law to anything like that extent. The number of people who get into trouble to do with parking, speeding or anything of that sort represents less than 2 per cent. of their membership. They are, of course, a very select body of persons—their President is in front of me—but then, equally, the Corps Diplomatique is a very select body of persons. I think they are roughly comparable. I confess that 4 per cent. seems to me a goodly proportion, but it is for your Lordships to judge. We are only told about these minor offences and I can well believe, from what I know of these people, that there were no more serious offences at all in the course of that year.
Then there is the problem of civil cases and debt, because those holding diplomatic immunity cannot be sued in the courts for their debts. We were told that, of these 2,500, there were 35 cases in which a problem was reported to the Foreign Office. That is only 1½ per cent. Added to the 4 per cent., it gives a total of 5½ per cent. Those are cases actually referred to the Foreign Office, and a good many cases in which trouble arises are not referred to the Foreign Office. The last thing I want to do is to make an attack on the integrity of the Corps Diplomatique—I do not—but I give those facts to show that there are two sides to this question. I suggest that if we can limit the number, and, to use the Under-Secretary's phrase, "improve the position," we should try to do so. I recognise that, by a Bill introduced recently, the Government are trying to improve the position. I wish them all success in so doing.
We come now to the various organisations. I do not for a moment want to take an insular point of view. I will give my belief about this matter very simply. I believe that unless in the course of the next fifty or hundred years we can evolve some system of world government, or something like it, we shall have an absolute disaster. I do not see much chance of a system of world government at the present moment, but I hope to goodness

569
that minds will change and that it will come. But if it ever does come, and if it is to be controlled by a lot of bureaucrats, bureaucrats in the unpleasant sense of the word (that is to say, people who regard themselves as superior to the ordinary lieges and who can ride roughshod over them) then it will surely fail. From that point of view, I do not think the grant of diplomatic privilege or diplomatic immunity is at all a desirable thing for those people who, if that happy event of a form of world government ever comes about, will control our destinies. I should very much rather they were like you and me and the rest of us, subject to the law in all that they do and, I might add, in all that they say.
I remember the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, asking me, when I was Lord Chancellor, about a shocking case of a gross libel published by some paper called Tass, and we could do nothing about it. Let us always remember that, as I have said before, it is a question of balancing the risks. If you give these people absolute privilege in the way of libel then, whatever they say about a man, it is said and published—it is just too bad, but he can do nothing whatever about it. It is no good his saying that what was published was untrue and was published in malice; that the man who published it knew there was no truth in it. It does not matter. It is the same privilege which is inevitably accorded to the judges of the highest courts of this land. The public convenience is that they should be able to do these things and the corollary is that there is no redress. That is a very serious matter.
Some of these organisations are plainly entitled to diplomatic immunity. That the Secretary-General of the United Nations and those working immediately under him should be entitled to diplomatic immunity seems to me to be plain. I certainly do not raise any question at all about that. All I would say is this: let us look carefully at these things, realising what is involved. In the year (I think it was) 1950, when I was Lord Chancellor, my noble friend Lord Henderson, who was then at the Foreign Office, proposed that immunity should be accorded to the Postal Union. The Postal Union is an admirable body of people. They meet from time to time, generally I think at Berne, but they can meet elsewhere and I
570
hope that one day they will meet in this country. They meet together and decide about letters: what proportion of postage fees shall go to this country and what proportion to the country of destination; what proportion to the country through which the letter has to travel. They have conducted this business with great success ever since the year 1874 and no one ever suggested that the Postal Union or the officials of the Postal Union should have any diplomatic immunity. They got on exceedingly well without it.
But in 1950 a proposal came before the House that they should be granted diplomatic immunity. Lord Henderson proposed the Motion, and the text of it was quite simple: it conferred a complete immunity on the high officials of the Union, and a limited immunity on not only everybody who was attending a conference, but their advisers, their technical experts and the secretary to the delegations. Those people had this privilege conferred upon them.
"Whilst exercising their functions as such and during their journeys to and from the place of meeting, immunity from personal arrest or detention and seizure of their personal baggage …"
I draw attention particularly to the words
"immunity from personal arrest or detention."
I was Lord Chancellor at the time and I remember Lord Simon expressed a forceful view on the matter. As, unhappily, he cannot he here to say this himself, I will quote the words he used. After all, Lord Simon was not only a great lawyer but had been Foreign Secretary, and therefore was a man who was able to look at this matter from both points of view. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 160, col. 558]:
"Suppose you have a foreign gentleman passing through this country on his way to a meeting of the Universal Postal Union at Berne. He lands, it may be, at Liverpool; he is on his way to Dover and is going across the Channel to travel by train to Switzerland. The effect of this provision, as it will be if we approve it, is that if that gentleman, in his high-powered motor car, chooses to drive across England in the course of his journey to Berne, and by criminal negligence runs over and injures or kills a citizen in this country, he is by our own act assured of, and has, complete immunity from personal arrest or detention."
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who was sitting opposite to me said that he could recollect occasions in his ministerial career upon which he had often gone

571
abroad on missions. He said that he had never had diplomatic immunity and that he did not want diplomatic immunity. I myself, when I was Lord Chancellor, remember being sent by Mr. Bevin on two occasions on foreign missions. I had the good fortune to go to France. My host is present in this House to-day and he looked after me most admirably. But if I had kicked over the traces and had been minded to go out and make a fool of myself at a night club—I do not think it was very likely; I cannot imagine it—I had no diplomatic immunity. Many of your Lordships sitting opposite have gone on similar missions. Lord Reading travels all over the world. I am glad to see him here from time to time. He has no immunity; if he got into trouble at a night club nothing could save him—I will give him that warning straight away. So on that occasion Lord Swinton said that he certainly would not support this measure.
Then I, as Lord Chancellor, rose and said that it was quite true that I had not known about this matter beforehand. In those days the Government had to be very careful about the way they behaved in your Lordships' House—we were here rather on sufferance. I said I thought we had better withdraw the Motion and think again. I hope I am not being indiscreet, but I strongly suspect (I put it no higher than that) that when that Motion came before this House for granting diplomatic immunity to the members of the Universal Postal Union, it had never been considered by Ministers at all; it was simply introduced as a matter of routine, as part of a kind of settled policy to which the Foreign Office were committed.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: When it originally came before the House.
EARL JOWITT: When it originally came before the House.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That may be so.
EARL JOWITT: And I do not think the Foreign Secretary of the day had ever considered this precise question, as to whether or not this diplomatic immunity should be extended to the Universal Postal Union, which had been carrying on ever since 1874 without it.
A sequel, so far as I was concerned, was this. A distinguished chief constable
572
came to see me and asked me certain questions. He asked me, "If this Motion is passed, what am I to do in the following circumstances? Supposing (if you can imagine such a thing) there has been a meeting of the Postal Union and it has been a dull meeting, and one of the experts or technical advisers goes out whilst the meeting is on and has what I think is called 'a quick one.' Supposing he did that several times—the meeting being still rather a dull meeting—and at the end of the meeting, when he is on his way home, he is seen to get into his car and to start driving his car; and the car is seen wandering about from this side to that side of the road." He asked me to tell him what he was to do. He said to me: "I cannot detain him; I cannot stop him. Am I to let him go on home, hoping to goodness he does not kill anybody on the way? And if he does kill somebody on the way, what is going to be my position? I shall be asked, 'Didn't you know that this man was unfit to drive a car?' And I shall have to answer 'Yes'." My Lords, that may be a fanciful case, but I warn Her Majesty's Government that if such a case ever happened it would not be regarded as at all fanciful by the people who suffered as a result. I merely say that this is rather a serious matter, and it is much better to consider it before anything happens rather than to deplore it after it has happened.
The net result of that debate here was that I decided to withdraw that particular Motion from the House. It was withdrawn and it was, as I hoped, forgotten. Four years passed and we heard no more about the Universal Postal Union; and they got on perfectly well without diplomatic immunity. Then one day Lord Reading came to this House and asked us to approve diplomatic immunity for the Universal Postal Union, which, as I say, was established in 1874, the International Telecommunications Union, which had been going perfectly happily ever since 1860, the Customs Co-operation Council, the World Meteorological Organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Payments Union and the International Sugar Council. No doubt some of those organisations are perfectly worthy of this concession. But is there any reason why the Universal Postal Union or the International Telecommunications Union or the

573
World Meteorological Organisation should be lifted above the ranks of the ordinary people and given diplomatic immunity? I say that a little more paring would be useful in this matter.
The answer we always get, however—this is the dilemma is: "Well, you know, you have given this immunity to the Universal Postal Union. We are a union to consider (what shall I say?) "the influence of rabbits on agriculture, and we are going to have a big meeting in London. We are just as important as the Universal Postal Union, and if you give them that privilege, why should you withhold it from us?" It becomes a matter of prestige, and if one agency have not got it they think they are being ill-treated because some other agency have had it granted to them. I would warn your Lordships that we shall get this system gradually extending until the time conies when there is a conference of these bodies in London; and when that time does come we had all better be very careful how we travel along the roads.
We can stop this development only by raising a Motion of this sort, for when Her Majesty's Government are committed and an agreement has been made, and the Government come to this House and say, "Please pass this," it is too late for anything to be done. I have grave doubts whether other nations understand the point we have in mind. I do not think that those in the United Nations who press for this immunity realise what a double-edged sword it is. I wish they would think of it not merely as a grant of diplomatic immunity but as a deprivation of privilege. I do not suppose that what is said in this House will get as far as the United Nations, but it will at any rate reach the Foreign Office. I wish that we could get into the minds of those at the Foreign Office, if I may say so most respectfully, this proposition: that when they go to these conferences and are asked to give way and agree to this almost common form clause they should say, "Do not ask us to do that, for we shall have great difficulty when the matter gets to the House of Lords who care greatly about the rights and privileges of ordinary people." I am fairly certain that, if that were done, they would get their concessions, and whatever was needed, without this offending clause.
That is my case, my Lords, and that is why I want this matter considered now,
574
when we have no particular case in mind. I quite realise that in the modern world one must have immunities, just as one must have a large diplomatic staff. But I urge the Government: please try to improve matters by limiting the diplomatic staff and by refraining from extending this immunity to all these organisations almost as a matter of course. If the question is considered from both these points of view I hope that it may be possible to resist the temptation, which undoubtedly will be laid before your people, to grant this privilege in almost every case. That is the position I beg to raise before your Lordships. I believe that I have made my proposition and established that the number of persons involved has increased (of that there can be no doubt) and is increasing; and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that it ought to be diminished. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is the opinion of this House that it is necessary to declare that the number of persons entitled to diplomatic or kindred privileges has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.—(Earl Jowitt.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, this debate has started with what I believe is called, in boxing parlance, "a straight lead from the Left." If I read the list of speakers aright it will later develop into an affray on the Cross Benches, and I shall therefore detain your Lordships for only a brief period. In supporting the noble and learned Earl, I must put in a plea for the position of the Party to which I have the privilege to belong, whose function for generations has been to safeguard civilians from positions which arise out of over-privilege and too much power in wrong places. It is perfectly obvious that there must be a considerable breadth of privilege in the diplomatic field in order that that field may work properly. I merely ask the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to note, as I am sure he does, that there is a general feeling in the country that, unless we are very careful, this practice is likely to enlarge itself, rather than contract as I believe most people would wish.
I should like to put one small practical point to the noble Marquess for consideration and I would ask his forgiveness for not having sent it to him in writing. The noble and learned Earl made the point that privilege in one

575
quarter means deprivation in another. I believe there is in this country a feeling that a citizen who has suffered damage and, because of this diplomatic immunity, has no remedy, is in a very unfair position. I suggest that there should be some arrangement, a Treasury fund or some reciprocal arrangement with other States, through which a civilian who has suffered damage should not be at a personal disadvantage because the other person concerned has the great privilege necessary to his career and position. With those few words I would express my support for the Resolution moved by the noble and learned Earl. I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships.
3.25 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am glad that this Motion has been brought, because if there are prides of lions there can be proliferations of privileges. We must remember that diplomatic privilege was meant for diplomatists, and I can well remember the days when it was only grudgingly extended to consuls. That was much too narrow. Now I believe we have gone too far in the other direction. As the noble and learned Earl has said, these privileges are now extended to some twenty organisations, some of which are only very dimly connected with diplomacy, and some not at all. During his speech the noble and learned Earl referred to the good or bad old days before the First World War. I might carry that thought a little further. In the Chancelleries of our foreign missions abroad there hung a complete list of all personnel everywhere, as one of my colleagues the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, may well remember. At the great embassies there was an ambassador, a counsellor and four or five secretaries. We gradually tapered off to a minister with one or two secretaries and ended with a minister with a clerk and nothing more. It was our earnest prayer that we should not finish up in such a place ourselves. Of course those days are now far gone and none would think of returning to them. No doubt a vast expansion has been necessary; but if we want to measure this growth we must look at our own practice.
I have just finished reading a most admirable book edited by my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Strang. Therein are recorded the name and work of some
576
10,000 people of all grades and departments now engaged in the foreign service. They may be indispensable, but we must take care lest the Diplomatic Corps should turn into an army corps. This army has already captured the heights of Carlton House Terrace and I hear, on the worst possible authority, that reconnoitring parties have been sighted further afield. I hope they will stop, for I believe we have reached saturation point. Similarly, in our great embassies abroad, such as those at Paris and Washington, the total personnel (again including all grades and departments), runs into hundreds. It may be argued that they are indispensable. But our mission to Moscow, for example, costs us £1 million a year. Is that really necessary?
To-day marks the close of another conference at Geneva which has ended in failure. I take advantage of that to ask whether we cannot now edge a little away from the extravagances of diplomacy by conference, with all its concomitant apparatus, and get back a little nearer to diplomacy pure and simple, which I assure your Lordships is far cheaper and can be worked with a smaller personnel. That, at least, is worth remembering. Though some of your Lordships may disagree with me, I take this opportunity of affirming that the Geneva spirit is "hooch" and if one drinks too much of it one goes blind. I suggest, as a modest beginning, that we might reduce a little our missions behind the Iron Curtain. That would certainly save the public a great deal of money and I do not believe that there would be any failure of performance by a smaller body. It has to be remembered that other people have been doing what we have been doing—"and then some."
I could multiply examples very easily, but I will give your Lordships just one out of hundreds. Going back again to those old days, how many of our embassy missions had a military and a naval attaché? I notice that on the current list of the Soviet Embassy there are twelve Service attachés. That, I think, is really beyond reason. It is also a wide open secret that some members of these inflated staffs indulge in activities which are not only unrelated to diplomacy but are directly contrary to diplomacy. I have brought this matter up several times in this House, and have drawn attention

577
to the fact that some of these people are often occupied in bullying refugees—I have a stack of evidence about it. If there is no amendment in it (certainly I received a very satisfactory answer from the Government the other day), if some of these missions do not mend their ways in this respect, I shall have to bring up the matter again in your Lordships' House. I hope—indeed I am confident—that all your Lordships would agree that it is really too bad that these inflated staffs should first claim diplomatic privilege and then break every rule and canon of diplomacy. That is altogether wrong. If we could reduce their numbers this should help. Their numbers, I consider, are in certain cases very much an abuse, and some of their functions are an abuse too. If we could reduce the first, then we could reduce the second v ith very great benefit.
May I give an example of what is going on under the very noses of the West? As your Lordships remember, Dr. Adenauer was persuaded to exchange diplomatic representatives with Moscow. It was part of a bargain, and so far Dr. Adenauer has been swindled on the bargain; but that is not my point to-day. Having got thus far, the Soviet Government then committed a great breach of diplomatic courtesy. They appointed to Bonn a man called Zorin. I do not know whether he has been accepted or not—I wish they would not take him. Zorin was ambassador in Prague in 1948, and he had a considerable hand in engineering the coup which deprived Czechoslovakia of her liberties. Again, that is not my point. My point is that this man is now asked to go to Bonn, not with a modest staff, not even one of 100, but with hundreds of people, and everyone in Western Germany knows what those agents are for. I understand that the people there are objecting. I hope very much that they will continue their objections. It would be an excellent thing if Western Germany would put her foot down and reject these tainted and tainting hordes. It would be a lesson in sound common sense, I think, to the West. And the West is really in need of some such lesson. We all recognise that diplomatic privilege is a necessity and that it must be infinitely wider now than it was in our young days. But I think and hope that there will be general agreement that it has already gone too far, or, as a minimum, that it should go no further.
3.35 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH: My Lords, having spent a number of years—and that until fairly recently—at the receiving end of these privileges, which seem to be so unpopular, I feel it is my duty to attest that they do bring real benefit to our own people who are serving abroad, whether they are in the regular Foreign Service, are representatives of other Government Departments, attached to embassies abroad, are members of the various international bodies, or are attending conferences. I am sure that real inconvenience, if not hardship, would occur if they were deprived of these privileges. Your Lordships must remember that these officers and officials are often sent abroad for a short time. There is a lot of coming and going, and it is, therefore, difficult to fit them into normal conditions as if they were spending their lives, or at any rate a substantially long time, in the countries concerned. So exemption from the legal processes and the various administrative requirements really saves great inconvenience in the case of officials, and it saves a good deal of their public time. If they had not those privileges, I think it would be to the detriment of the public service.
I do not believe that there is very serious abuse. I think matters work very much the same in all countries. Cases of infractions of regulations or offences by diplomats are brought by the police authorities—the home authorities—to the attention of the Foreign Office in the country concerned. The ambassador of the mission in question is sent for, and the case is put to him that one of his staff has misbehaved. It is then for him to put the matter right. And I should have thought that in most cases the right thing is done—certainly it is done in the case of the self-respecting countries.
Naturally, I can well understand the concern of the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition at the length of the list and the lengthening of the list of those to whom the privileges apply. But I think—as indeed the noble and learned Earl has mentioned—that we must remember the increase in the number of States which exist officially since the war, and also the increase in the number of international organisations. It may be a pity, but there are now some

579
seventy-odd States. There really is not anything to be done about it. We must recognise them as separate States and, in consequence, accord them all the privileges and rights which are usually accorded to independent States. And, of course, all the missions, as the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has said, have very much increased their staffs since the war. That applies to ourselves just as much as to the other countries. It is not the occasion now to go into the question of whether it is possible to reduce them, but I understand it is much more difficult to start reducing staff than one might think. When I was in Paris I did my best to prune and reduce, but it was difficult. It was not the case that the members of my staff were idle: they were fully exercised, and the work on which they were engaged was work which apparently was required.
In addition to the new States there are also these new international bodies like N.A.T.O., a very extensive organisation covering all services, and the Western European Union, a union which has agencies in various countries. There are the different bodies of U.N.O., and these bodies all over the world represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government. To support them, therefore, we must allow them such privileges as seem conducive to the conduct of their business. It might be possible to reduce some of the categories who are engaged in those different missions—some of the lower categories, perhaps—and certain conferences such as those which the noble and learned Earl mentioned might be excluded. I do not know. But certainly it is very important that no action should be taken on a unilateral basis. Any agreement which is sought should be on a bilateral basis or, at any rate, arrived at by means of general agreement.
EARL WINTERTON: May I ask the noble Lord a question which I am sure noble Lords would like to hear answered? Arising out of his very great experience, could he tell us whether he agrees with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who also speaks from great experience, about the activities of some members of these missions? Does he not think that there are some cases in which members of these swollen staffs of the missions of other countries are put there, not for the purpose of
580
carrying out diplomatic work, but for very sinister reasons, and have there not been public examples of that in recent years in Australia and elsewhere?
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH: No doubt what Lord Vansittart has said is quite true. I do not exactly know what is to be done about it. We can have an arbitrary cut in the numbers of missions. Then, of course, similar missions of ours in the countries concerned would be reduced.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH: I can understand that that would be very popular, but I think it would be difficult, though it is not for me to say. I am sure that it would be a mistake for us to act alone. Nor do I think it would be necessarily bad in some countries to have a wider exemption—for instance, in countries where the administration and the law works as well and as smoothly as it does in this country. Again I think we can make a distinction between countries, apart from categories; but this is also a matter of bilateral action. I can assure the noble and learned Earl that when he paid me the honour of visiting Paris in his official capacity, had he got into difficulty, he would have enjoyed diplomatic privilege, as he came as Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Government. However, it was not required to exercise that privilege.
EARL JOWITT: It is just as well that I did not know that.
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH: Apart from countries like France, in other countries, such as the Iron Curtain countries, it would be a very serious matter to abandon these privileges and I think we should be careful not to expose subordinate or humbler staff to national treatment. I think that would lead only to real hardship, friction, and a great deal of frustration.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact that at present we do not get reciprocity in this matter? More people from the Iron Curtain countries enjoy diplomatic immunity here than people of our staff in those countries. I remember bringing this point up in your Lordships' House.
LORD HARVEY OF TASBURGH: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. Perhaps the noble Marquess will be able to do so. I strongly urge that no action should be taken without careful reflection, and then only by agreement and not unilaterally. I think it would be a mistake to lose sight of the relatively small proportions of the problem. I do not know the exact total of those who enjoy diplomatic privileges, but I understand it must run into some thousands, and the number of cases of complaint which the noble and learned Earl mentioned runs to some 200. I do not feel that that is really an excessive number so far. I think the whole thing has a nuisance value out of proportion to its real value. I believe there is a very real danger that if we act precipitately, we may do ourselves and our own people more harm than any good we gain.
3.44 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, contrary to what I understand to be the view of my noble friend and ex-colleague who has just spoken, I rise to support strongly the Resolution moved by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I should have thought that there was no question of any precipitate action, as Lord Harvey of Tasburgh seemed to fear; Heaven knows! it is all the other way. That is one of the reasons why we are having this debate to-day. May I return to the actual words of the Resolution:
"that the number of persons entitled to diplomatic or kindred privileges has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished"—
It has been shown conclusively to-day that they have increased and are increasing. That has been established by the figures which we have not only had to-day but which were also given during the debate in another place on October 25, when the startling figure was revealed that since 1938 the number of persons covered by this immunity has risen from 1,000 to 2,500. That is conclusive proof that the first two postulates of the Resolution are fully established. That leaves the last one, that the number "ought to be diminished." I feel strongly that they should be diminished. It is a matter of individual opinion, but I should have thought that the case put to the House by the noble and learned Earl was extremely convincing, and it was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who
582
has a very long experience of this question.
During the Recess, I spent some time digging up some facts about this question. The origins of diplomatic immunity go back many centuries. Nobody quite knows how it started and grew, but the practice of immunity for heads of missions has certainly been established for many centuries and I do not think anybody would contest that that practice is perfectly right. It is not the practice that we are talking about to-night, but the abuse of that practice. Further, it is not so much the abuse of this privilege by members of what I might call accredited missions, though that is a point, as the extension of these immunities to bodies which not only did not exist but had not been dreamt of when this system of diplomatic immunity was established. The very term "diplomatic immunity" in regard to these international bodies is indeed misleading. It is a pity that we cannot differentiate and get some other term to cover that class of body as opposed to regular diplomats.
While I was reading about this matter during the Recess, I found in a learned paper read before the University of Geneva in 1949 by an American jurist these words:
"The question has become acute since the establishment of the League of Nations and the scope of the activities of international organisations to-day ranges from the standardisation of road signs to atomic energy."
Since then, the number has gone on increasing. And here I should like to ask one point of the noble Marquess who is to reply: whether the figure given of an increase from 1,000 in 1935 to 2,500 covers what I might call "regular diplomats" only or whether it covers also these other bodies as well.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Regular diplomats.
LORD KILLEARN: So it is not an "all in" figure by any means. That emphasises my point. May I concentrate then on the other bodies. On July 13, in response to an invitation from the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, I put down a Question and received a very full printed Answer. I should like to draw attention to these organisations which enjoy diplomatic immunity, though it may be

583
tautological in a sense, in that some have been mentioned before to-day:
"The International Labour Organisation"—
probably there is a case for that—
"The International Civil Aviation Organisation,
The International Refugee Organisation,
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation,
The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation,
The European Payments Union,
The Council of Europe"—
there may also be a case for that—
"The Universal Postal Union,
The International Telecommunications Union"—
(I hope I do not bore your Lordships by reading this list, but it is rather a telling point)—
"The Customs Co-operation Council,
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation"—
I think there is a case for that—
"The International Sugar Council,
The International Monetary Fund."
Passing on a little, we get:
"The United Nations Information Centre,
The United Nations Postal Administration,
The United Nations Children's Fund,
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency."
Can we really persuade ourselves that these bodies, or many of them, could not discharge their functions properly without having these immunities accorded to them? I, for one, cannot believe it. Therefore, to get down to my point—and I approach this general question from this moment from the point of view of these international bodies—if we could somehow get away from this habit of the more or less automatic grant of immunities to whatever international body is sprung upon us, that would indeed be something. That is really how this whole question arose, so far as I personally am concerned. I happened to be present at a debate here in this House on one of the German or Austrian Agreements, the question arose and I made bold to intrude in the debate to ask for this list, which I got. This large number I think proves my point.
As regards the other question, of what I may call properly accredited diplomatic agents, we all realise—and this has been generally accepted as a canon of International Law—that in order to discharge their functions properly heads of
584
diplomatic missions must have protection and must be placed in a position where they can act independently and without let or hindrance. Nobody would challenge that right. But whether their staffs have not become a little swollen is another matter—certainly from the figures quoted here to-day one is apt to suspect that they have. Also, in certain cases, it may be well to consider from other angles whether the staff is altogether healthy from our point of view.
To conclude what I have to say, I feel that, so far as regular diplomats are concerned, nobody can take legitimate exception to their having full diplomatic immunity, but that this immunity should be strictly limited to the head of the mission and those members of his selected staff who are essential to him for the proper discharge of his representational duties. As regards the international organisations, I feel it is a great pity, and has caused much confusion, that this phrase "diplomatic immunity" was ever extended to cover them, because they are in fact not diplomats at all and it was never contemplated that diplomatic immunity proper should be given to such organisations. I do not know how we can get away from that difficulty; I admit it is a bit late now.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is not "diplomatic immunity"; it is "immunity."
LORD KILLEARN: Immunity and privileges, I believe.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes.
LORD KILLEARN: I stand corrected. That is really all I have to say, but I hope that the final words of this Resolution, "and ought to be diminished," will be accepted by this House.
3.54 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I am not sure that the Motion which the noble and learned Earl has moved with such cogency of argument, and so persuasively, is of the same order of importance as that which was dealt with in the earlier Resolution, raised also in another place by another eminent lawyer, and I very much doubt whether the subject of the present Motion adequately fills the rather imposing frame which has been chosen for it. What is at issue in this matter? The subject is rather a complex one, and if your Lordships will

585
bear with me for a moment or two I should like to return to first principles and try, if I can, to simplify the subject by reducing it to three propositions.
The first proposition is this. Diplomatic envoys, as representatives of foreign States, are granted privileges by the States which receive them in order to secure for them the independence and inviolability prescribed by International Law. These privileges are accorded to them because it is universally recognised that they could not perform their duties perfectly if they did not possess them. What are these privileges which the envoys enjoy? They are various, but the main ones are exemption from criminal and civil jurisdiction, and exemption from taxes and the like. Let me take the case of immunity from civil suit. That does not mean, for example, that an envoy need not pay his debts; but it does mean that he is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts. However, it should be noted that it is the normal practice for envoys, in the case of a civil suit, to agree to sonic method of settlement, such as the submission of the case to arbitration; and if no such remedy is offered the person concerned can be informed that he can no longer be received in a diplomatic capacity. Experience shows—and this is vouched for by the best authorities and by our own courts—that this immunity from civil suit does not, in practice, give rise to serious abuses resulting in widespread denial of legitimate legal remedies.
The second proposition is an extension of the first. The immunities I have mentioned are accorded not only to the envoy himself, but also to what is called his retinue; that is to say, to his staff, to his private servants and to the members of his family. It is a generally recognised rule of International Law that these members of the retinue are entitled, broadly speaking, to the same immunities as the envoy himself. I say broadly speaking, because there is some difference of practice in the various capitals in regard to immunity from legal process in the case of clerical and similar subordinate staff, and a considerable difference of practice as regards personal servants. But here again, the envoy or his Government is expected either to waive immunity of his retinue or to agree to some method of settlement, such as arbitration, if a case
586
arises—and on the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Tasburgh, that is what is usually done. And again, if it is not done, the person concerned can be declared to be no longer accepted as a person possessing diplomatic status.
Those are, in brief, the requirements of International Law as regards diplomatic missions, and they are, as we have been told, embodied in the law of the land. It is true that the relevant Act of Parliament was passed in the reign of Queen Anne, but the principles on which that Act was based are not dead; they are living principles. And they are not founded merely on old and hoary precedent, but have been stated and re-stated by international lawyers of the highest standing down to our own day, in the light of new developments in our changing world. As evidence of this, I would point to the Report of a distinguished Committee which was set up in 1949 under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Somervell of Harrow (as he now is). The report of that Committee was published in 1952 (Crud. 8460). One of the questions put to the Committee was whether the law or practice of the United Kingdom afforded to persons possessing diplomatic immunity an immunity wider than was desirable or was strictly required by the principles of public International Law. The reply which the Committee gave was that the immunities at present granted were either certainly or probably required by International Law; and they recommended no change except a minor one, with which I will not detain your Lordships. They also made one other recommendation, which is, I understand, to be made the subject of legislation. But the point I should like to emphasise here is that as late as 1951 this highly qualified Committee were satisfied that no change was necessary.
LORD KILLEARN: May I just interrupt the noble Lord? I do not think there is any difference between us as regards the theory, but what about the numbers? The Committee was set up in 1949, was it not?
LORD STRANG: It was in 1949.
LORD KILLEARN: It is now 1955, and the numbers have grown.
LORD STRANG: As I develop my argument perhaps that point may come up.

587
May I now pass to the third proposition? It is that similar immunities are granted to international organisations and their staffs. This is based not so much on international custom as on universally accepted international agreement. But it is, none the less, good International Law. It was laid down by the Covenant of the League of Nations that officials of the League, when engaged on the business of the League, should enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. The word "diplomatic" is there. Similarly, under the Charter of the United Nations, officials of the Organisation are to enjoy such privileges and immunities—this time the word "diplomatic" is not there—as are necessary for the independent exercise of their official functions. These privileges and immunities are similar to those enjoyed by envoys and their retinues, and they are subject to the same kind of safeguards. They are laid down in detail in a convention accepted by all members of the United Nations.
As regards the range of the immunities, some distinction is made as between—
LORD KILLEARN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he is referring to the general convention which he says was universally accepted. Was there not a general Convention of the United Nations Privileges?—I forget the exact title.
A NOBLE LORD: Speak up!
LORD KILLEARN: The point I wanted to raise is about the list of adhesions to that document, because in the copy as printed there are certain omissions—gaps, shall we say. For instance, the United States is not down as adhering to that document.
LORD STRANG: The convention I had in mind is precisely the one which was to give effect to the provision in the Charter. I cannot carry my mind back exactly, but it is quite certain that the United States does observe the Charter, because the headquarters of the United Nations is situated in New York, and if the United States did not accept the obligations that would not have been so.
LORD KILLEARN: This is the Paper. It is the General Convention on the Privileges—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I will deal with that.
LORD KILLEARN: The noble Marquess said that he could not hear. In the list of adhesions at the end, for example, the United States is not included. That is the point.
LORD STRANG: As I was saying, as regards the range of immunities (I am now talking about the United Nations and similar organisations), some distinction is made as between senior and subordinate staff. The latter enjoy official immunity only, and not personal immunity. Here again, I think this point is important: express provision is made for the waiver of immunity by the Secretary General, or for some other means of settlement in all proper cases. In the same way, the constitutions of various international organisations set up by agreement since the war contain provisions regulating immunities for the organisations and their officials.
What is the total extent of all these various exemptions? The figures have been quoted. It was stated in another place by the Under-Secretary that the total number of persons enjoying diplomatic immunity was 2,500, and we have now had a further figure of 1,500 or so in respect of the staffs of High Commissions. In the case of international organisations, the number of persons resident in this country—and I am talking of people resident, and not about people who come here for a conference—who will enjoy privileges will be about 160. Of course, the numbers have increased, and it is perfectly natural that they should do so. The number of independent States has increased greatly, and with them the number of diplomatic missions. In the second place, Governments have come to concern themselves more and more directly, and more and more intimately, with the management of internal affairs. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is a fact. So the volume of business which Governments have to transact with each other has grown, and with it the staff required to do the work of international negotiation has also grown. It is a perfectly logical consequence of the way the world is going. Thirdly, international co-operation on a regional basis or a world basis for a multiplicity of purposes has increased and is increasing.

589
That may or may not be a good thing—that could be argued—but those who think it is a good thing ought not to complain if it means that the number of international civil servants will grow.
It is sometimes said that diplomatic staffs and international civil servants, in the world as it is to-day, no longer require these privileges and immunities. That is not the view of the eminent jurists who declare the present state of International Law. We ought to remember that diplomats and international officials are prominent and vulnerable people, and their lives could, and might well be, made most disagreeable by vexatious actions or pressures if they were not protected.
We cannot tell what is going to happen in the world in future. It is only a brief ten years since the Nazi régime was destroyed, and such régimes may arise again in the future. Would it, I wonder, have been thought tolerable if a member of a diplomatic mission or a representative of an international agency in Berlin—even of the Universal Postal Union—who happened to be of Jewish descent had been amenable in all respects to the Nazi law? And even in the world as it is to-day, there are certainly capitals where this measure of protection is quite essential. Even in the most enlightened countries the question may still be asked whether it would be wise to weaken the protection afforded to Governmental and international representatives. Would it be right, for example, if all members of the international staff of the United Nations and related agencies in New York were made subject in all respects to the immigration and security regulations of the United States Government? If that were so there would, I am sure, be immediate protest.
In this matter, I do not think it is possible to draw a valid distinction between one properly constituted public international organisation—and that is what we are talking about now—and another: between, shall we say, the United Nations and its specialised agencies, on the one hand, and, say, the Universal Postal Union, or those which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, as stated in the Answer given to his question, on the other. We should, I think, be careful not to get out of step with the rest of the world. If we decline to concede the customary immunities to the officials of inter-
590
national organisations established here, we can be certain that these organisations will not maintain their headquarters in London, and we shall to that extent cut ourselves off from the international community.
In conclusion, I would say this. These privileges and immunities are an integral part of the fabric of International Law. They are a branch of International Law which is firmly established and strictly observed, and it is in the interest of all Governments that it should be observed. The rule of law in international affairs is, at best, precarious enough, and this is not the time, I should have thought, to nibble away at one part of the fabric which is firmly knit. We should be wise, I think, to let well alone.
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I do not want to "nibble away" at the fabric at all. I entirely agree with the noble Lord. All I want to "nibble away" is the number who enjoy the fabric.
LORD STRANG: I still think we should do well to let well alone. It is said that the public resent these privileges. That may well be so, but in this country we are becoming more and more prone to say that, if we cannot have this or that ourselves, then no one else shall. But these inequalities are a small price to pay for the untrammelled conduct of international relations and for the smooth development of international co-operation. If there are privileges, there are also, as I think I have shown, adequate limitations and safeguards. It should be a matter of national self-esteem that we use these honoured guests after our own honour and dignity. On grounds of International Law and in the name of international courtesy, I regret that I am not able to support the Resolution so persuasively and cogently moved by the noble and learned Earl.
4.12 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this is a question which the House, as the noble and learned Earl said, has so far discussed only piecemeal in connection with various Orders, when a relevant Bill or Order in Council has been the subject of debate. On those occasions, whether it was under a Labour or under a Conservative Government, it has become apparent that many of your Lordships look upon these privileges and

591
immunities, anyhow at their present scale, with some apprehension but also, I would venture to say, with some misapprehension as well. If I may say so respectfully to the House, I think it possible that at least some of your Lordships have in your minds rather exaggerated ideas of the scope and the consequences of the present state of affairs and that the problem has to some extent got out of focus, though I do not seek to deny for a moment that it is one which requires vigilant attention. It is, therefore, all to the good that we should discuss to-day fully a Resolution which is directed exclusively this time to this topic, and I share with the House the welcome which the Resolution moved by the noble and learned Earl has received.
I think it is convenient that I should attempt to deal with this matter of diplomatic privilege and immunity under the two separate headings under which the debate has rather fallen so far: the first, its application to members of the actual Diplomatic Corps; and the second, its extension to include members of a number of international organisations. If, in the course of what I am afraid may not be a very brief speech, I travel again over some of the ground which has been covered by noble Lords who have been opposed to the Resolution, I hope the House will forgive me, but I think it is necessary to include them if I am to produce a consecutive argument for your Lordships' consideration.
As regards the first part, the actual question of diplomatic immunity, the custom of granting diplomatic privilege and immunity to ambassadors and their retinues is, as has already been said, of very considerable antiquity. Those who desire further to investigate its origin and development in some detail cannot, I suggest, do better than pursue their quest in Sir Harold Nicolson's Evolution of Diplomatic Method. I do not propose to-day to expatiate on the historical approach beyond saying this: that the doctrine of immunity, though known to, and with occasional rather drastic exceptions observed by, the Greeks and Romans, was reinforced by the creation in Byzantium of a school of professional diplomats and by the invention on the part of the Venetians of the first organised system of diplomacy on a model
592
which they, in their turn, learned from the Byzantines.
Sir Harold Nicolson is again my authority for stating that the first resident embassy in the modern sense was that accredited to Cosimo dei Medici in Florence by the Duke of Milan in 1451. It was at one time, I think, the opinion amongst jurists that privileges and immunities were one facet of the doctrine of extra-territoriality, but modern international lawyers appear to be of the almost unanimous view that they should rather be regarded as inseparable and essential attributes of the status of a diplomatic envoy, since in order freely to be able to perform his duties such a person must be independent of the jurisdiction and control of the State to which he is accredited. Otherwise, he would be largely dependent upon the good will (or, indeed, maybe the ill will) of the Government of that State. For similar reasons, the privileges and immunities which were thus granted were extended to the envoy's family and to his retinue, as forming together his family residing with him and, as such, entitled to a similar, if not necessarily an identical, degree of protection. Failing that extension to the family and staff, the envoy himself would, of course, be exposed to possible pressure exercised upon him through his family and his staff.
If I may follow the historical thread only a little further, without appearing, I hope, to lecture the House on the subject, I would say that it is not perhaps without interest that, as has been mentioned, the first statutory provision regulating these matters in this country is to be found in an Act of 1708, of the reign of Queen Anne, to which the noble and learned Earl referred,
"for preserving the privileges and immunities of Ambassadors and other Public Ministers of Foreign Princes and States."
It may not be without interest, or indeed relevance, just to read the Preamble to that Act to your Lordships. It reads as follows:
"Whereas several turbulent and disorderly persons having in a most outragious manner insulted the person of his excellency Andrew Artemonowitz Matueof ambassador extraordinary of his Czarish Majesty Emperor of Great Russia her Majesties good friend and ally by arresting him and taking him by violence out of his coach in the publick street and detaining him in custody for several hours in contempt of the protection granted by her Majesty contrary to the law of nations and in

593
prejudice of the rights and privileges which ambassadors and other publick ministers authorized and received as such have at all times been thereby possessed of and ought to be kept sacred and inviolable. …"
Apart from the facts of the particular case which produced this Act, the statement of the general principles set out in the Preamble as long ago as 1708 are not without interest and applicability to the matter we are discussing. I do not know exactly how many ambassadors there were in London at that time, but I doubt whether it could have been more than five or six; and, of course, as the figures given by the noble and learned Earl in his opening speech showed, that number has increased enormously over a period of years. I am not sure that the figures I originally gave him in a letter were exactly correct, because actually I told him 72 missions, which seems to have been an over-statement; it ought to be 69. The embassies are 55 and the legations 14, instead of 17, as I originally told him. But I do not think that that affects the principle we are discussing. Then, of course, there are also the High Commissioners. Not only has the number of missions increased—
EARL JOWITT: That struck me as a remarkable figure for the High Commissioners. There are only eight of them in all and the average figure of the people concerned is 190.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It is a large figure, but there are a large number of points of contact between them and a large number of affairs of quite differing character over which we deal with them—more than in the case of the embassy of a foreign country. My Lords, I certainly do not propose to recapitulate the figures, but when people say that the number of missions has greatly increased in the course of years, looking back to the period taken by the noble and learned Earl of 1913, I would point out that, to take the Middle East alone, one is perhaps apt to forget the transformation that has come over that part of the world in the last thirty years: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, the Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Israel are all newcomers in that part of the world. If one turns to South East Asia one has to consider Pakistan, India, Ceylon, Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, all of which again have now acquired a changed status from that which they occupied only ten years
594
ago. So one has to bear in mind, when one is looking at what at first sight looks rather inflated figures, that, for various reasons, and largely as the results, immediate or indirect, of two wars, the number of countries has itself increased on a marked scale.
Moreover, diplomatic missions are to-day called upon to undertake duties which their predecessors of only half a century ago would have regarded with what the lawyers call "hatred, ridicule and contempt." I suppose it would have been unthinkable t hat a Victorian ambassador should so demean himself as to go closely into matters of trade—still worse, matters of labour or the Press. Yet to-day many of our missions and those of other countries include as a matter of course a commercial section and very often a labour section and a Press section, and other sections as well. Then there are air attaches, in addition to their naval and military colleagues, and in some cases a civil air attaché is also required.
The reason for these increases is really manifest. As life in general has become more complex and many sided—no one is likely to dispute that—-so have the points of international contact themselves multiplied. And as the technical achievements of modern times have developed, so have specialists entered the international field in order to handle them. But I would agree that the total of persons in this country who are receiving various degrees of diplomatic privilege and immunity is certainly both absolutely and relatively large. The scale of privileges and immunities granted by different countries has had some minor variations, but over the whole field it is substantially constant. I agree that as far as possible it should be reciprocal, and there is at this moment in another place a Bill to which some reference has been made, the purpose of which is to empower Her Majesty's Government to apply reciprocally to foreign missions here such restrictions as are imposed upon Her Majesty's representatives in the countries which these missions represent in London.
That Bill, if it be approved in another place, will in due course find its way to your Lordships' House. Knowing something of the prevailing opinion in your Lordships' House, I have recently considered with my advisers—I admit rather

595
as a theoretical and propitiatory exercise, for I did not from the first believe it to be a practical operation—whether I was in a position to suggest to your Lordships that it might be possible to lay down some arbitrary scale of representation, something in the nature of what the Services call an "Establishment" for each mission here and insist upon its strict observance. The suggestion has been made, but even if such an expedient were in accordance with International Law or custom, I can think of no method better calculated to make the worst possible blood between the Foreign Office and the foreign missions with whom we deal. Who is to fix the scale, and on what basis? What are to be the penalties for exceeding it? And how are they to be enforced? I can see nothing but endless friction and perpetual incidents arising from such a scheme, and it would surely inevitably lead to retaliatory action against our own missions abroad, which might well have the most disruptive effect upon their activities.
Another suggestion that has been made is: are we to draw a line at some point in the list of members of a foreign mission and insist that those above the line shall be given privilege and immunity and those below the line shall not? But here again, unless there is a fixed "establishment," which is in my view impossible, there is nothing to prevent a Government from up-grading the staff of a mission and describing all the clerical staff as third secretaries for this purpose, thereby effectively defeating the whole object of the manœuvre. It is also important that those who even in a clerical capacity have access to secret documents should be protected against arrest.
Frankly, there seems to me only one possible method of approach to the problem of reduction, and that is by negotiation and ultimate agreement. That method I am prepared to try. I should like to consider whether the approach should be individually to certain selected countries, or whether it should be, if that course appeared more advantageous, raised in some suitable international body—whichever seems to be likely to be the more fruitful. But it is only right that I should warn your Lordships that I should not expect such an approach to have far-reaching results. I think it is true to say that the great majority of countries
596
attach high importance to these privileges and, since they desire to receive them abroad, are correspondingly willing to extend them to members of foreign missions in their own countries.
Some people who have discussed this matter with me have condemned the scale and the scope of the privileges as being simply based on prestige. I do not contest for a moment the fact that prestige is involved, but it is prestige designed not to inflate the ego of a particular ambassador and his staff, but to demonstrate the standing of the particular country which they represent abroad; and it is not likely to be readily abandoned. Nor can I conceive that your Lordships would wish Her Majesty's Government's representatives in foreign countries to be degraded to a lower level of diplomatic status than their colleagues. In the Bill to which I have already referred, which is before another place, provision is made to put into force a further recommendation of the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Somervell of Harrow, to the effect that in future any local nationals holding a position in a foreign embassy—which includes domestic servants—shall not enjoy personal diplomatic immunity. Here I may answer the question which the noble and learned Earl raised on figures which he was quoting. Those figures do include domestic servants but do not include wives and children.
Having dealt to some extent with the general question of diplomatic immunity, I hope acceptably to your Lordships, I now turn to the other aspect—the position of international organisations. The noble and learned Earl, in introducing this Motion, said he looked forward to the time when there would be a World Government, and that that possibility should not be frustrated by the presence of a bureaucracy. But the way to achieve a World Government, if it is to be achieved, is surely by an ever-increasing measure of international co-operation. That will not be secured unless one accepts the responsibilities and terms offered by the remaining countries involved in a matter of this kind and unless one undertakes, in turn, responsibilities which they are prepared to undertake. The extension of privileges and immunities to members of international bodies, is not a novel practice, though that appears to be the view of some people

597
who have spoken to me on the matter. It is not a practice introduced since the end of the last war, for as long ago as 1899 The Hague Convention included a stipulation that diplomatic privilege, specified as such, should he extended to the arbitrators; and similar provisions found a place in the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1920. Perhaps those examples are a little apart. The first instance of what may be called international civil servants being brought within the scope of diplomatic privileges and immunities is also to be found some time ago. It goes back to Article 7 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
During the Second World War, the Government of a number of the countries allied with Great Britain and overrun by Germany took refuge in the United Kingdom and established themselves there for the period of the war. By the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1941, certain privileges and immunities were extended to members and high officials of those Governments. In order to get the historical sequence, it is necessary to go into what is, perhaps, a rather tedious list. That Act was followed by the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944, which was passed under the war-time Coalition Government. That Act made provision for privileges and immunities for international organisations of which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and foreign Governments were members. It conferred privileges and immunities on the staffs of such organisations and representatives of member Governments. It also clarified the position of representatives of foreign Powers, and their staffs, attending international conferences in the United Kingdom; so that this question of international conferences was not a new thought within the last few years, but goes back as far as 1944.
The next step was the inclusion in the Charter of the United Nations of Article 105, which provides that officials of the United Nations, as well as representatives of members of the United Nations, shall enjoy such privileges as are considered necessary for the independent exercise of their functions, although the Charter does not stipulate for diplomatic privileges and immunities. This matter was discussed at the First General Assembly of the United Nations, in February, 1946, when
598
an international convention on the subject was adopted. As a result, the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1946, was enacted, its purpose being to amend the 1944 Act so as to bring it into line with the new United Nations Convention. Then, in November, 1947, as the result of an earlier resolution, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted another international convention, which provided for the unification, so far as possible, of the privileges and immunities to he enjoyed by the various Specialised Agencies.
Then came the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, and the 1944 Act, passed here, was further amended by the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1950. Later, in 1950 (and this is the period to which we normally go back), the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension.) Acts, 1944 to 1950, were repealed and replaced by the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, a Consolidation Act to which we have had frequent reference. The next and only remaining step was the Act of 1952, the purpose of which was to extend immunity from suit and legal process, and inviolability of residence and other things, to representatives of Commonwealth countries and the Irish Republic.
In considering the situation it should not be overlooked that the privileges and immunities contained in the 1950 Act, which was passed under the Labour Government, represent the maximum privileges and immunities that can be accorded to these international bodies and that, in practice, that maximum has never been reached with any single organisation. A real effort has been made in every case not to widen the range of privilege accorded to a particular organisation beyond what was thought to be genuinely required by that organisation after the circumstances were considered. As a result, the scale varies from the very considerable privileges and immunities which are extended to the Western European Union (though even those fall well short of the statutory limit) down to the Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa, which receives no more than conferment upon it of the legal status and capacity of a body corporate. In the great majority of these cases (and I am trying to put the whole question

599
into narrow compass, for in practice it is a narrow compass), only one or two people are given privileges and immunities on anything like a par with those enjoyed by the head of an ordinary diplomatic mission.
The position of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations is regulated by an international convention to which we in the United Kingdom are, of necessity a signatory. We could not have stood out from that convention. We are, so to speak, "members of the club," and in submitting ourselves for election we are surely bound to agree to observe its rules.
LORD KILLEARN: Might I just ask, for information, whether the list of adhesions to this convention is complete?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: There are forty-four.
LORD KILLEARN: Out of how many?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Out of a total number of members of something over sixty.
LORD KILLEARN: There are quite a few not there.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, I think that is right. The Act of 1950—again, I am not saying this in a Party spirit—was the work of the then Labour Government, and when the noble and learned Earl complains of the number of organisations to which it is now extended I think I am entitled to say this: the tendency in international affairs being not only what it is now but what it was in 1950, he and his colleagues must have realised that there was likely to be before long an increasing number of organisations of this kind, and that there was every probability that the list would continue to expand. That was the whole trend of feeling in the world. After all, such organisations do not come into existence overnight. They demand long discussion and preparation before even the preliminaries can be cleared out of the way. Surely, in passing this Act the Government of that time must have contemplated a situation in which the number of organisations to which it might immediately be applied was obviously going to be very substantially expanded.
600
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, once more took exception to the extension of the privileges to the Universal Postal Union and to the International Telecommunications Union and one or two others. We have argued all that, certainly once and—I am not sure—probably more than once. But the position I think is plain. They had gone on without being accorded privileges or immunities during a substantial number of years. At the same time, when other bodies of a very similar character came into existence, and when, under the conventions which brought them into existence, their members were described as being entitled to privileges and immunities, it seems to me not in any way unnatural that the Universal Postal Union and other bodies of that kind, which had existed in the past before these other bodies came into existence, should say, on seeing these other bodies given privileges and immunities, "You are giving these privileges and immunities to these other bodies; though we have not had them in the past, since the practice is now being changed, we feel that we are entitled to them." I do not know what happened when the Order was first prepared in the Foreign Office. I do know that it was considered before the present Government introduced it to your Lordships' House, and we came to the conclusion that, though the privileges and immunities had not been given up to that date, the time had come when the immunities and privileges extended to other bodies should be extended to those which I have mentioned.
As regards these international bodies, it must be remembered that it is only when an organisation has its headquarters in London that the number of people involved is at all large. And very few organisations do, in fact, have their headquarters in London. I gave the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, the figures to which he has referred some time ago—in July. That figure was confined—in accordance with the Question he asked—to members of the organisations specified who were, for the purposes of their work, resident in the United Kingdom. Certainly, there are other people enjoying the same status as those who are resident in this country—for instance, visitors who from time to time attend meetings. But although that figure rose to quite a substantial number,

601
something over 1,200, in 1953, it was, of course, only for a very brief period, and the rise was occasioned merely by the fact that certain important and numerously attended conferences took place in this country.
EARL JOWITT: Will the noble Marquess forgive my interrupting him at this point? Take the case of the Universal Postal Union. Its headquarters are at Berne. There is no reason why it should not have its meetings in London, in which case there might be 300 to 400 people coming to London to attend that meeting, all of whom would get this rather limited immunity.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is right; but we have to decide a question of principle. As a question of principle, do we want to discourage the holding of meetings of this kind in London? They have their value, and it is not entirely prestige value, for they bring in a certain amount of foreign currency.
LORD KILLEARN: Does the noble Marquess feel that these people would not come unless they were given these immunities?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Yes, I do. These organizations—rightly or wrongly—are accustomed to receive these privileges and I do not think they would come here if we were the only country—as we should be—withholding privileges, which they could well obtain again by going to any other suitable city elsewhere. The figure I gave for 1953 was about 1,200. It has now fallen to between 400 and 500 in each year, of whom about half are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Our forecast, so far as we can tell with regard to such meetings, which have so far been fixed for the years to come, is that the figure is unlikely to be exceeded in the years up to 1958. We cannot see much further ahead than that. I hope that these figures may give some assurance to noble Lords—the fact that these immunities and privileges extend to only about 160 persons who are resident here, and the fact that the number of persons coming here under the wider application of privilege and immunity to conferences is likely to be only between 400 and 500. Your Lordships will not have forgotten that the conventions establishing these various
602
bodies normally contain express provision for the granting of the appropriate privileges and immunities. This is an age in which international bodies abound, and I do not imagine that your Lordships would like to see this country abstaining from joining a body, membership of which would otherwise be advantageous to our interests, merely because by so doing we should be binding ourselves to add to the total of bodies and persons receiving special treatment. It really would be out of focus to view the problem in that way.
It is perhaps right that having—as I think we all have done—used the words "privileges and immunities" in juxtaposition in this discussion I should briefly point out that there is a distinction between them, and what that distinction is. Immunity is a quality that, by the common consent of States, attaches to the diplomatic officer by virtue of his office and functions. It may be defined as non-subjection to process of law within the frontiers of the country where the entitled person resides for the purpose of performing his official duties. It is effective in both civil and criminal matters. It covers also freedom from arrest and inviolability of residence. The privileges, on the other hand, are certain positive advantages which the diplomatic officer enjoys over the ordinary citizen of the country of his residence. They are largely fiscal in character and include such things as exemption from income tax; from payment of customs duties on articles imported for personal or family use; from payment for motor car licences and from payment of rates levied in respect of municipal services from which the diplomatic officers are not deemed to derive benefit, such as education. They are also free from such restrictions as might otherwise be imposed upon them as aliens.
It has been said by a number of noble Lords that to confer special rights on a certain class automatically involves a derogation of the rights of the rest of the community. I do not think that applies to the privilege aspect. It is on the immunity side that that criticism can most forcefully be raised, and it is the immunity aspect, particularly the immunity from ordinary legal process, which chiefly troubles your Lordships. I recall that it was to that aspect that

603
the late Lord Simon devoted the speech to which the noble and learned Earl has referred, which undoubtedly caused a considerable disturbance in the minds of noble Lords and which, I think, has coloured much of the thinking on this subject ever since.
The picture that the noble and learned Viscount presented was certainly an alarming one, but at the same time there are certain considerations which must be taken into account before final appraisal. One can work out all sorts of hypothetical cases in which this or that most unfortunate accident occurred, and it is very difficult to guard against every kind of hypothesis and to say that in no conceivable circumstance could that particular conjunction of circumstances come about with the result which has been feared. As one would expect, there is no evidence that members of the Diplomatic Corps in London are reckless, inexpert or inconsiderate motorists. The noble and learned Earl has mentioned 105 motoring offences among 4,000 people; but these were for minor offences, for parking and speeding. I do not think we can base on them any charge of general recklessness against the Diplomatic Corps—and the noble and learned Earl did not attempt to do so.
So far as we know, there was no serious charge of any kind made against a member of the Diplomatic Corps over the same period. Nor, may I add, has any case come to the notice of the Foreign Office in which a British subject has failed to receive compensation for injuries caused by the motor car of a member of the Diplomatic Corps, though, of course, I cannot state with absolute certainty that no such case has ever occurred. What I can and do say is that no such case has come to the notice of the Foreign Office, and I have no doubt that if such a case had arisen somebody would have made it his business to bring it to the attention of the Foreign Office. It must be remembered, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, said, that the head of a mission has power, if he thinks fit, to waive the immunity in relation either to himself or to any member of his staff. I personally should hope that in a matter of any importance he would exercise that power, unless in a criminal matter the alleged offence seemed to have been committed on the Embassy premises and the
604
accused person could more suitably be tried in his own country.
Noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular—have suggested that there should be some sort of fund. It may be some assurance to your Lordships to know (for I think many of your Lordships may not be aware of this fact) that a good many years ago an agreement was reached between the Foreign Office and the insurance companies about claims arising from motor accidents in which members of the Diplomatic Corps were involved. Under this agreement the companies recognised that when they granted a policy to a member of the Diplomatic Corps, it would be inequitable for them to plead their client's privileged position by way of defence in order to escape their full obligation under the policy. They also agreed not to call upon such of their clients as are immune, as members of the Diplomatic Corps, from civil process, to refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court in connection with any claim made against them.
Members of the Diplomatic Corps who own motor cars, though under a legal obligation to insure themselves against third party risks, cannot be compelled by law to do so but, in fact, since the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, all members of the Diplomatic Corps have been urged to follow English law in this respect and to take out the appropriate policies of insurance. And I have every reason to believe that this advice is generally followed. I hope that that is some reassurance that the sort of case that has been in the mind of a number of noble Lords, of members of the Diplomatic Corps careering promiscuously over the country, and spreading in their wake death and disaster for which there is no compensation payable to Her Majesty's lieges, is not one which stands the test of practice and experience. Not only is there this arrangement with the insurance companies, but there is also the fact that over the past years, so far as I know, nothing of this kind has actually taken place.
In the course of the debate various other matters were raised and I hope that I have dealt with most of them. We were urged to say that Her Majesty's Government would go into the question of whether some sort of line of demarcation could be made between those organisations to whom privileges and immunities

605
were granted and those to whom they were not. I think that would be an exceedingly difficult exercise to carry out when matters have reached their present stage. It would mean we should have to say to any new organisations that might come into being: "Up to such-and-such a date all other organisations have had these privileges. We gave them because we thought it was right for them. Your organisation is of exactly the same type as they are, but since you have come into existence only since December 11, 1955" (or whatever date it might be), "you are not going to have them." That would be a very difficult line to take. It is very difficult to draw a distinction between organisations which receive a degree of immunity and privilege; but, as I have said before, it is important, and we do try hard, not to apply them to an excessive degree beyond the circumstances which each case requires.
I confess that I do not think that if we went to other countries for some international meeting of the United Nations, where one of these new conventions was being entered into which contained a provision that the members should receive some appropriate degree of privilege and immunity, and threw ourselves on the mercy of the other countries present and said: "You must realise that if you insist upon having privileges and immunities which you consider necessary, we shall get into trouble with the House of Lords," that would carry great conviction to the other countries; or whether, all things being equal, it would induce them to withdraw from a position which they had taken up because they appreciated it and because they thought it was necessary for these various bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, if I may say so with respect, seemed to me to go off at an occasional tangent from the exact terms of this Resolution, but he did, I thought, in passing, rather paint a picture which seemed to indicate that the members of the Foreign Service were going up. I believe that to be contrary to the fact, and (I say this without having checked it) if the noble Lord will look at the statement which was issued by the Foreign Office in reply to certain criticisms, I think last year, by the Public Accounts Committee, he will find that the tendency of the figures is, in fact, to go not up, but down.
LORD VANSITTART: I did not think it had actually gone up recently; I merely thought it was too high, anyhow.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: We may perhaps go back to the time when the noble Lord had more active responsibility than he has to-day for the conduct of the Foreign Office and inquire into the state of the figures then. But a good deal has happened since then, and I have tried to give some indication of why the figures have in the interval gone up. The noble Lord also complained, in passing, that our mission in Moscow cost £1 million. I am not sure of the exact figure, but he must remember that that figure, if it be accurate, has an importance in respect not so much of the number of people involved, but of the rate of exchange in roubles which we have to pay in Moscow to keep a mission there at all. If he is going to suggest that we should withdraw the mission on that account, then I would profoundly disagree.
LORD VANSITTART: I never suggested that we should withdraw the mission on that account. I do not want to be misrepresented to that extent. I do not mind being misrepresented, but not monotonously. I suggested that the mission might be reduced—I did not suggest that it should be shut up, which is quite a different thing—and I suggested the same thing for other missions behind the Iron Curtain.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not desire to misrepresent the noble Lord. He has complained to us that this was a very expensive mission, and I was trying to give some explanation of why it was expensive. He says that he only wants it reduced; but, at the same time, the noble Lord will understand with his great experience anti his intimate knowledge of what goes on behind the Iron Curtain, that it is important to us to have adequately staffed missions in those countries. I think, on the whole, that we must be the judge of whether in any particular case a mission, in an Iron Curtain country or anywhere else, is excessive. It is, of course, something that the Foreign Office continue to watch, and increases in staff are certainly not freely or rashly made. The whole tendency is to try and effect a reduction wherever possible.
May I sum up what I have been trying to say? I think there is, on the part of

607
noble Lords who are interested in this matter, a feeling that we can do nothing to restrict the actual scope and character of diplomatic privilege and immunity as such; but whether we can reduce the number of persons to whom it applies is another matter.
LORD KILLEARN: That is the whole point.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Did the noble Lord wish to say anything?
LORD KILLEARN: I merely said that that is the whole point.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is perhaps rather an exaggerated statement: it is one of the points, and perhaps the main point, but I do not think it is the whole point. On that, I have said to the House—and I shall carry it out, of course—that I will see what, if anything, can be done by way of direct negotiation, either with other suitable countries or raising the matter in some international body. But I did think it right to say, and I repeat it, that I should not be very hopeful of any large, if indeed of any, success as the result of those endeavours. However, that will be done.
As regards the international organisations, they have in these last few years, with the coming into being of this new spirit of international co-operation which was built up after the last war, and with the number of new directions in which international co-operation is necessary, become fairly numerous. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that some of them which came into being on a sort of temporary basis after the war have now disappeared, and the Orders which granted privilege to them have been annulled. So there are assets and liabilities in the matter; the number goes down as well as up. There was this rush in the years after the war, and although I am not for a moment going to give any sort of assurance that there will not be further international bodies of this kind, or that if there are we shall find it possible to stand out alone against the other countries who are signatories to the convention establishing them, I think it is reasonable to take the view that the first spate of these bodies has now probably, to a large extent, decreased and that such
608
additions as there are will be less in volume.
There again, as I said before, the other countries do attach importance to these matters: they like this clause to be put in the conventions which establish the bodies; and if we are of opinion that we ought for every other reason to join in these conventions and establish these bodies, surely it is out of all proportion to say that, because we do not like this business of immunity and privilege, therefore we shall refrain from deriving from those organisations the other benefits which membership of them may give. I am conscious of the problem—and not only I, but the Foreign Office, as a whole. We watch it, both from the point of view of reducing the numbers of our own staff and the staffs of other nations, and also from the point of view of the growth of international organisations. But for the reasons which I have given to your Lordships, I think still there has perhaps been a somewhat exaggerated view taken of the possible evil consequences of what has been done. I believe it would now be extremely difficut to retrace any steps as regards the principles applicable to these international bodies; but as regards the individual missions, it may be possible—though I say so without any deep-seated optimism—to make some step towards diminution. That is the most I can say, and I hope I have, to that extent at least, satisfied the noble and learned Earl who moved the Resolution which has given us the opportunity to discuss this by no means unimportant matter.
5.10 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess who has just spoken for the most careful, most exhaustive—and I say "exhaustive" and not "exhausting"—reply which he has made to this debate. It has not gone quite so far as I had hoped, but it has gone some way. So far as diplomatic missions are concerned, let me say frankly that the only point I was concerned with was numbers. I do not doubt that the fabric, which is a very ancient fabric, must be maintained. I do not doubt that as a matter of importance it should be maintained, and I should not wish to dispute that for one moment. The question is a very simple one. I maintain that the staffs have grown too large. I may be prejudiced. Once in my political life I was in charge of a large office with

609
an enormous staff, and at a later stage I was in charge of a small office with a very small staff. The noble Viscount on the Woolsack has had exactly the same experience. Speaking for myself, I am all in favour of a small office; and I believe better work would be done that way. I do not believe that business would suffer if our own staff abroad and the staffs of some of our friends over here became rather smaller. I agree that the noble Marquess can do no more than try, by negotiation and agreement, to make an approach. He is going to give it individual attention. He agrees that the staffs are relatively large, and, so far as that is concerned, I am perfectly content with that part of the reply.
I confess that. I am not so happy about the reply relating to these specialised agencies. Of course, they are regulated by international convention; but if a new convention comes along there is no reason why we should have this clause in it. The noble Marquess said: "If an official of the Foreign Office goes out and says that the House of Lords do not like this, they would not be much interested." I can well understand that; but he could say: "Let us realise that this grant of immunity is also a deprivation of rights to somebody else; do not let us grow into a lot of bureaucrats who are going to ride roughshod over everybody. I can tell you that at home people are getting rather disturbed about it." I want to know whether that particular point of view has been put forward. Do these international conventions ever hear the point of view which I think is agreed to on all sides of the House? If they hear that point of view forcibly expressed, they may say, "We understand that is your point of view. It is a funny, old-fashioned point of view; but, notwithstanding that, we must have this immunity." Then the dilemma arises; we have either to dis-
610
agree to a convention with this clause in it or not. I hope the point will be put, because, after all, most of the people who negotiate these conventions, from whatever country they come, can well realise that point of view and would desire to give effect to it.
There is one other point upon which I did not agree with what the noble Marquess said. He said that if they do not get this immunity they will never have their conferences in London. Is that really so? Nobody has put it to the test. Take the Postal Union. Suppose they were going to have a conference in London. At the present moment they have immunity. Suppose they did not have it: you would then have to say to them: "Remember that if, by any chance, when you are driving you car, you are the worse for liquor, you will get into trouble if you do not have this immunity." Would they rise in a body and say, "If that is so, we shall hot come to London"? I have a much better opinion of them than that, and I do not believe they would say that for a moment. If you told them, "If you are going to or from your place of meeting you must behave like the ordinary citizens, in a decent way," they of course will behave in a decent way, because they are a decent, sensible set of people. They do not want that sort of immunity any more than any of us would, and I wish that point could be tested. I believe if you put forward the argument that we in this country are disturbed about this immunity and do not like it—and it really does not mean much to them—you would find that, if the weather was nice and there was a comfortable hotel, they would still like to come to London. I am most grateful to the noble Marquess and all those who have taken part in the debate, and, with your Lordships' permission, I desire to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FORESTRY EXTENSION PROGRAMME
5.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD rose to draw attention to the present position of the forestry extension programme; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that I have left the terms of my Motion somewhat vague. That was done intentionally, in order that none of your Lordships should be prevented from taking part in the debate because the terms were too narrowly drawn. At the same time, I think I should begin by making it clear that most of my remarks will be directed towards the extension programme for Scotland, with particular reference to the Highlands. Furthermore, although towards the end of my speech I shall allude for a short time to the position of the private forester, on the whole my main topic will be the problems of the Forestry Commission and how they can best be met.
I think it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I made clear at the outset the reasons why I put down this Motion, by reading certain short extracts from the first page of the Report of the Forestry Commissioners for the year ended September 30 last. The Report appeared during the summer. After alluding to the fact that their total acreage planted had reached the record and very satisfactory figure of 70,400 acres, the Commissioners went on to say this:
"In the last few years the yearly increase has been maintained only by materially reducing the reserves of land awaiting planting proportionate to the area actually planted. In 1947 the reserve stood at 13·6 times the annual planting programme; the figure for 1955 is only 4·6 times, and the reserve is not at all evenly distributed. So the point has been reached where the Commissioners have been forced to accept the unpalatable fact that after 1954 the annual planting programme will not only stop increasing, but will in fact fall.…The reason for the future downward trend of planting programmes is a shortage of land. Since 1951, it is only in the present year that the area of plantable land acquired has exceeded the area planted, and that by only 6,700 acres, and an expanding planting programme cannot be maintained without a considerable reserve and a steady intake of suitably distributed plantable land."
As your Lordships are aware, after the war it was decided that it was absolutely necessary that depleted areas of woodland should be not merely restored to their
612
former figure but raised to some approximately 5 million acres throughout the country, which figure would still leave us, as regards the area under timber, far behind most of the countries of Europe. I cannot be certain of the figure to-day, but a few years ago France had something like 18 to 20 per cent. of her land under timber; Germany 28 per cent.; Sweden 56 per cent.; Finland 70 per cent.; while even Holland, usually regarded as a somewhat treeless country, had a greater proportion of her land under timber than we have. The position, therefore, is serious, especially since this programme of rehabilitation and eventual expansion will be slowed down considerably by shortage of plantable land. The reason for this shortage of land is not specifically given by the Commission in the Report, but my investigations tend to show that it comes from three different sources which I would ask your Lordships to consider in rising standards of importance.
In the first place it has been represented to me that the Commission do not always take into account the changed values of money and the period of inflation in which we now live; and are, therefore, unwilling to offer the present value of the land which they wish to acquire. It is difficult to get exact information, because most of these transactions are confidential; but where I have been able to get at least approximate figures it would appear that there is an element of truth in this suggestion, although I do not think it happens in a great many cases. In two cases at least where the land proposed to be acquired already had on it a considerable quantity of standing timber, the figure offered for that standing timber was, I know for a fact, far below the figure at which it had been valued for felling purposes by timber merchants. The second cause, I am informed by friends in the estate agency business, is that the methods pursued by the Forestry Commission when they wish to acquire a property are apt to be somewhat dilatory, with the result usually that someone else has stepped in and bought the property in question before the Forestry Commission have made a firm offer. Whether or not that is entirely true I cannot say, but certainly in some instances there would appear to be some truth in it.
The third most important and most controversial cause is the unfortunate differences of opinion that arise over the varying claims of sheep and forestry. The forestry "lobby," unfortunately, is a very weak one, while the sheep-farming "lobby" is extremely strong. There appears to be little doubt that in all too many cases a sheep "lobby" succeeds in persuading the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to issue orders that the Forestry Commission may not acquire the land which they wish to buy. There was a somewhat amusing instance of this not long ago, when, I believe, the Commission had actually acquired a property in Scotland but were prevented from planting it by a decision of the Department of Agriculture. The land was therefore of no more use to them, and it was sold. It was bought by a landlord who had the resources for further planting but no land of his own on which to plant; and since the Department: of Agriculture are unable to take any steps to prevent a private owner from planting his own land, the land was duly put under timber, to the vast annoyance of the Department of Agriculture and the almost unconcealed mirth of the Forestry Commission, even though they themselves were not able to plant the land.
It is in this question of disputes between sheep interests and forestry interests that we need to make a rather careful investigation. As your Lordships are aware, the position in the Highlands of Scotland as regards the maintenance, let alone the increase, of the local population is a serious one, and I, for one, am convinced that, however much we may improve our agriculture in the Highlands, we can do little more than maintain our present rural population there; we can do very little to increase it, so far as agricultural progress is concerned. But when it comes to a question of timber the position is at once very different. A few weeks ago, the Scottish Landowners' Federation had a conference at Oban, and during that conference we visited a number of estates, two being of particular interest. In one, a progressive and able landowner, himself a West Highlander, was developing his property along the most modern lines and had improved it out of all recognition. The other property was the well-known Great Glen cattle ranch, where the experiments which have succeeded in turning heathery moor into
614
excellent pasture are well worth studying. Yet despite the fact that both these properties, in their different ways, have been improved out of all recognition, the painful fact was at once apparent, when one inquired into the labour forces employed: it is most unlikely, no matter what further improvements are made, that at any time in the future those properties will be able economically to employ more than about one man for every 1,000 acres. If one takes the normal sheep farm (the Great Glen ranch being, of course, purely a cattle ranch), the figures are not very different; in fact, from the employment point of view they are rather worse.
Without wishing to bore your Lordships too much with rather technical details, one can take it that it is only on the very best sheep ground that one is able to employ one shepherd per 1,000 acres. The proportion is much more likely to be one per 1,500, or even 2,000, acres. If, however, that land is put under timber, on the assumption that 50 per cent. of the ground is found to be plantable (that is a figure which the Forestry Commission have been able to maintain up to the present, although I think that another 5 per cent. might well be achieved) the employment given when the woods are in full production amounts to one man employed actually in the woodlands, and four others employed in ancillary occupations connected with the timber trade, for every 100 acres. That is to say, where, on an area of 10,000 acres, one would have been lucky to have work for about eight men in the past, one would now, on the basis of planting half that 10,000 acres, have direct employment for fifty and indirect employment for anything up to another 200. The result is that, so far as employment is concerned—and employment in the future is our main concern in the Highlands—the scales are tipped heavily in favour of timber as against sheep. I hope, therefore, that something can be done to make the attitude of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland rather more favourable to timber and rather less subservient to sheep.
It has to be admitted that the position is somewhat different in the South of Scotland. There, the Forestry Commission have, on occasion, made mistakes; they have taken over and planted land which is really too good for timber. Many of

615
the hill farms in the southern uplands are among the best sheep country in Britain. It is quite wrong that they should all be planted. At the same time, it is not always realised by the sheep interests how much most sheep farms could be improved by the planting of shelter belts, not the ordinary miserable little belts a few yards wide which are commonly seen, but large belts anything from 50 to 200 yards wide. I would suggest that, instead of acquiring and planting out in toto these excellent sheep farms, the Forestry Commission should take merely an area that might be anything from 5 to 25 per cent. of the farms and plant large shelter belts. By so doing, not only would they increase our much-needed timber reserves in the country but they would also do a great deal of good to the sheep farmers, probably making it possible for them to carry, on reduced acreage, at least as many sheep as they used to carry before planting came into operation at all.
If this much-desired timber expansion would bring with it this great increase in employment, what then are the real disadvantages?—for disadvantages certainly exist. One is that it would do away with a number of sheep farmers and a still larger number of shepherds; and shepherds everywhere, particularly Scottish shepherds, are among the finest specimens of our rural communities. It would add also to the economic difficulties. It is, unfortunately, necessary that the great majority of the new plantings should be carried out by the Forestry Commission, which means that a great deal of land would have to be transferred from private ownership to that of the State. I have no hesitation in declaring to your Lordships that I dislike—indeed, detest—all forms of State ownership and State administration. However, one is bound to lay on one side what are now known as one's ideological prejudices, in view of the advantages so far as extra employment is concerned, of which I have already told your Lordships.
As regards the position of the private forestry owner, I am glad to say that relations between the private owner and the Forestry Commission are now much better than they have been in the past. I must say frankly (although I know that the statement will meet with the disagreement, possibly the disapproval, of
616
some of your Lordships) that those relations have been considerably improved since the death of the late Lord Robinson. I do not wish to be misunderstood. Lord Robinson was a great public servant, a man of learning, great ability, vast energy and unquestioned integrity. But unfortunately he had little time for private forestry; and the fact that private forestry was almost at a standstill in the years immediately following the war may be attributed largely to the attitude that he took up at a meeting shortly after the inauguration of the Dedication Scheme. This meeting was held in London and was attended by ten representatives (of whom I was one) of the principal landowning and forestry bodies in Great Britain. For two whole days, morning and afternoon, we argued with the then Sir Roy Robinson, and at the end of the second day we all left feeling extremely depressed. The reports that the delegates were obliged to make to their constituent bodies were such that a great many landowners were permanently discouraged from engaging in policies of reafforestation which they had hitherto been contemplating.
Forestry, of course, is a long-term project. Those of us who plant can seldom expect ever to reap the fruits of our planting—just as the timber that we cut during our lifetime was not of our making but that of our ancestors, sometimes of a good many generations ago. Under present taxation conditions, when the landowner is hit at both ends with high income tax and sur-tax, and with the crushingly heavy burden of death duties, he needs to be assured of some reasonable prospect that his descendants, if not he himself, will get something out of the sacrifices that he is making at the present time before he can reasonably be expected to plant on a large scale. Some of us have had a faith in the future that we can see but darkly, and have gone on planting; but many whose resources are extremely strained have not done so. They cannot be blamed for it. The Dedication Scheme, which I supported from the beginning, was, in its original idea, excellent; but it was for long bedevilled by the extremely onerous conditions with which the then Sir Roy Robinson saw fit to hedge it around. It has been since much improved, and we now find a better spirit and more confidence among landowners with (as the

617
Commission Report shows) a consequent rise in the areas that are planted every year.
There is one point on which the interests of both the Commission and the private landowner are completely identical—namely, we want some assurance that the trees we are planting will, eventually, he thinned and, finally, clear-felled, and that they will yield a reasonable profit. Whilst I cannot expect any definite answer on that point from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to-day, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider the question of giving some guarantees in the future, both to the Commission and to the private owner, that there will be a market at reasonable prices for all British-grown timber. It should not be a difficult matter when one bears in mind that in the past we have had to import no less than 96 per cent. of our softwood requirements, usually at a cost of many millions of dollars per year—I will not worry your Lordships with the exact figures.
My Lords, I have one final point, particularly in regard to this question of the acquisition of land by the Forestry Commission. As I have stated, to-day relations between them and the private landowner are excellent, but the Commission are greatly in need of land. Ever since their inception, the Commission have had, I believe, powers of compulsory acquisition which they have never used. But it is obvious that if the Commission are going to have to slow down their programme, it will not only be lamentable from the point of view of expansion but will also lead to direct loss to the taxpayer, because of the number of young trees which will be wasted. It may not be generally realised that when seeds are sown in a forest nursery usually 3½ to 4 years elapse before they are planted out. If, then, the Forestry Commission programme is slowed down sharply, it is obvious that many millions of trees must be wasted in nurseries, because once the trees pass the age of four, or at most five, years they cannot be kept any longer—they are useless for planting out. In that case, the Forestry Commission will be almost bound to attempt t) acquire compulsorily the land that they need, in order to avoid this loss to the taxpayer and the slowing down of their programme. Inevitably, that must result in a great worsening of
618
the relations, which are now so cordial, between the Commission and the private owner.
There must he something wrong in this question of acquisition. Week after week one sees in the publications in which such advertisements usually appear—particularly the Field and Country Life—properties offered for sale, of which it is obvious that a considerable portion must be suitable for planting; in fact, quite often it is specifically so stated in the advertisements. If the Commission are unable at the present time to acquire these properties freely, offered in the market, then, as I stated at tile beginning of my remarks, there must be something wrong with their methods of acquisition. It is for this purpose that I have to-day brought forward this Motion, being an enthusiast in forestry, and believing that in it lies the greatest hope for the regeneration of the Highlands of Scotland. I trust, therefore, that in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to indicate some way in which the difficulties apparently facing the Commission at the moment can be met, to the satisfaction of all concerned. I beg to move for Papers.
5.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, it is inevitable that the Motion which the noble Earl has brought forward this evening should be largely concerned with the old argument of land use—sheep versus trees, After all, the acquisition by the Commission of land depends almost entirely upon that factor. I take no sides here. I am one of those who believe that in a country like Great Britain, unlike the Continental countries, the Scandinavian countries and Canada, there are no sides, for forestry and farming must be complementary, one, so far as is economically possible, dovetailing into the other. I have frequently heard it suggested that there should be a national survey of land use. That would be quite impracticable and also undesirable, for one cannot plan these things on paper on such a national scale. Questions of land use must be settled locally and on a local basis.
I yield to none in my admiration for the Forestry Commission. Their job is to produce as much timber as quickly as possible, and ever since they were con-

619
stituted as a Commission they have performed that task extremely well and are doing so to-day. The Commission particularly encourage an extremely fine type of officer into their service, and we private owners should be extremely grateful for all the help that they give us in managing our woodlands. The literature they issue—bulletins dealing with not only forestry matters but wild life and other subjects of interest to woodland lovers—are excellent publications and we are most grateful for that side of their work. I greatly sympathise with their inability to acquire sufficient land to reach their target, but it may be necessary for them, to some extent, to reduce that target. We must bear in mind that since they established their target the Hill Farming Act and the Act relating to the rearing of livestock have come into force. As a result, less land is available for forestry than there was before those Acts were on the Statute Book.
It is only natural that the Forestry Commission should seek to acquire their land in large tracts, for it is much cheaper to plant land in big blocks than in small ones; for, rabbits or no rabbits, woods in almost all the Forestry Commission areas have to be fenced against stock and very often against rodents. But the large areas are running out. Almost all have been acquired and most are nearly planted up. I believe the Commission realise this, for it has been noticeable that, over the last few years, they have adopted a different system and are building up units based on a central wood with satellite woods surrounding. They must look for land in smaller lots. There is still a great deal of derelict woodland left in Scotland and, I believe, all over Britain to-day, though not as much as there used to be. When the last census of woodlands was made, I believe in 1947, something like 50 per cent. of the woodland in Scotland was in a derelict condition. Of course, great strides have been made since. The Dedication Scheme has come into force. Looking at the figures in the Forestry Commission Report, I am proud to note that Scotland is some 20,000 acres ahead of England in the area of woodland which has been dedicated.
One further point: a certain amount of this derelict land is now grazed by
620
cattle, because the cattle subsidy is available and the more cattle an owner puts on cut woodlands the larger is the subsidy he gets. It means that still more land is lost to forestry. But there are thousands of acres of upland grazing which would be much the better for planting up with shelter. The noble Earl has referred to this matter particularly. I would only emphasise his remarks by trying to point out the great value of shelter to grazing. Shelter advances the growth of the grass, very often by a fortnight to three weeks. In the uplands of Wales and Scotland, I have seen how very much better—earlier, greener and more lush—is the grass where it is protected by shelter from trees; and trees protect stock in winter from heavy snowfalls. Often when walking across the hills one finds the white bones of sheep that have perished in the snow only because the shepherd has been unable to reach them. Shelter saves labour and lives and allows sheep to be gathered in nearer the farm.
There is much bad grassland which is now useless. There is much bracken land, particularly in Scotland, which would be far better under trees than used as grass. It is a curious fact that the more one puts stock on bracken land, the more one increases the bracken. It might be expected that the stock would eat the bracken away so that it would gradually disappear, but in fact it works in exactly the opposite way. The stock grazes the grass and allows more room for the bracken to seed and encroach on the hillside, and this bracken question is a very serious one in Scotland. There seems to be some prejudice among farmers against planting trees, though I do not quite know why. It is true, as the noble Earl has said, that one has to wait a long time before seeing any result of one's labour. You do not plant for yourself or the next generation but for three or four generations ahead. But that does not apply to shelter. A man who plants shelter can derive benefit from it in a very short time. Within fifteen years shelter will be doing his farm no end of good.
The Forestry Commissioners are themselves landlords, owning vast areas of hill land. It is curious, but, looking through the Forestry Commissioners' Report for the year, in the Appendix I see details of some of these big forests which have a

621
vast amount of unplantable and agricultural land. They are given in the last column of Appendix 13 to the Report. Of course, a great deal of that land is farmed—it is used for agricultural purposes. Take, for example, a forest like Glentrool in Kirkcudbrightshire. It is upwards of 55,000 acres in total. Out of that, over 35,000 acres—far more than half the total—are listed as agricultural and unplantable land. If only one-tenth of that were given over to trees, intelligently planted in shelter blocks, not only would a large contribution be made to the nation's timber supply but the pasture would he vastly improved. The Forestry Commission have power, under the Forestry Act, to resume control for forestry purposes of this land. I do not think any of us would like to see action taken on those lines. Far better would it be if the matter could be arranged by peaceful negotiation. I think that the two Departments should be able to settle these matters amicably, and there should, I feel, be far more liaison between them than there is at present. Indeed, I would go further, and suggest that on every agricultural committee there should be an expert on forestry matters, if one could be found, to advise the farmers how they should plant up their hillsides for shelter.
My Lords, I do not think I have much more to say. I would add only this: that, apart from the question of growing the timber, how very much nicer a well-treed country is to live in. It brings more interests, also, into that part of the country, and therefore brings more people into the district. The benefit of trees in a country is incalculable. It is one of those things that just cannot be valued in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. It is quite unthinkable that we should ever live in a treeless country, and the Forestry Commission, I am glad to see, are making such a state of things quite impossible. I think we should be very grateful to them for that.
5.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, confined his remarks chiefly to Scotland. I would venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the very considerable areas of unplanted felled woodlands and waste areas in England. Certainly, owners are loth to start on long-term policies because of the outlook for the future and the great
622
fall which has taken place in the value of timber, when everything else is going up. We have great hopes that our doubts may be resolved by the departmental committee now sitting. Be that as it may, the land is there, and it needs to be planted. I think that nearly all of us would prefer to see these areas planted by the owners, but if, for various reasons, they are unable to do so, we should wish them to be planted by the Forestry Commission. There is no provision in the 1951 Forestry Act to compel replanting of woodlands felled prior to the passing of that Act. There are, of course, compulsory powers to buy land. I would suggest, however, that that should be the last method to be used if it can possibly be avoided, because, just when the nation is becoming belatedly interested in forestry, it would tend to make forestry in general. and the Commission in particular, unpopular, the more so as there is a feeling amongst uninformed people that the Forestry Commissioner is a sort of bogy man, whereas those of us who know him find him the most helpful and human of mortals.
I wonder whether the nation as a whole has any idea that there is a shortage of land for planting, or that it is of the least moment. I believe that a survey is being made—certainly in some conservancies—of these waste areas, and, when it is ready, I would propose an intensified campaign of education to explain the importance of getting these areas planted. If this failed, after a decent interval and if there was no valid reason why the land should not be planted—and I think there would be very few areas which would not be planted by the owners—I consider it would be fair that public opinion should be invoked and that all waste and plant-able areas of over ten acres should be made known. It could be said, I suppose, that an area of ten acres would be very small beer to the Forestry Commission. Of course it would, and the Commission would prefer blocks of thousands of acres. But beggars cannot be choosers. They want land, and, in any case, we live in an age of mechanical transport.
5.58 p.m.
LORD FIERCY: My Lords, I intervene in this discussion not in any degree as an expert but because I feel that there should be a voice raised from these Benches as well in support of the plea

623
of the noble Earl who opened the debate that the acquisition of land by the Forestry Commission should be facilitated. As we all know, the perspective, so to speak, of the Commission at the moment is perilously low. The available land, at any rate in the North of England, at the current rate of planting will be used up in a very short time. I have already said that I am not an expert in this matter, and I do not wish to go in detail into the acquisition of land, but I will say this: I think that anyone who has travelled around the country will be convinced that in parts of these islands there is still plenty of land available, if there were the good will and the imagination which would facilitate, instead of, in many subtle ways, obstructing, the acquisition of suitable land by the Forestry Commission. My impression of their works and ways is that they are today very careful in the choice of the land that they endeavour to acquire, and where they have acquired large tracts of land they have taken care to pay due regard to the interests of sheep farming and cattle rearing on that land. It by no means follows that if they get an area of land they must plant up the whole of it. So I support the noble Earl in his plea.
As a non-expert, I should like to put forward a few general arguments in favour of this great work of afforestation. In my opinion—and I think it must be the opinion of anybody who has visited these great forests—the afforestation that has taken place during the last twenty or thirty years is the finest public work done in this country in our generation. The advantages of this great public work are threefold. I would mention, first, the sociological, which was mentioned by the noble Earl who opened the discussion. Afforestation brings population back to the lonely spaces of the country—one can see that in the North of England and in Scotland. The Forestry Commissioners have shown themselves to be extremely enlightened landlords. I venture to think that the new forestry villages are some of the finest examples of community planning in the decade since the war ended. Moreover, to reinforce my tribute to the quality of the Commissioners as good landlords, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that they do not shut down farms and buildings,
624
or even inns, on the property they acquire. On the contrary, they re-edify them and we see a new countryside emerging where the Forestry Commissioners are at work. If you meet the dwellers in these villages, workers and officers of the Forestry Commissioners, you will see that the Commissioners have provided a way back to the country and to country occupations for a good many people who were misfits in towns. So much for the sociological advantages.
Secondly, afforestation has an advantage from the point of view of national well being and defence. I have seen it stated that during the war 100 million trees were cut down in this country. That is a staggering figure. I have consulted one or two forestry experts to see whether such a figure is conceivable, and I am told that it is extremely likely that that calculation is approximately correct. At any rate, I think your Lordships will agree that the consumption of timber during a period of national emergency is great. In ordinary times we rely upon imports of timber, but in war time that would be bulky cargo, carried in slow ships, and this country could fail for lack of timber. It might be said that if we could cut down 100 million trees during the last war, we must have had some timber resources. Yes, we had, but on a sporadic scale and on the whole, perhaps, not very well cared for. But under this head I am only concerned to make the point that an ample supply of timber is a national necessity, and we are only part of the way to restoring the timber supply which we used up during the war.
The third advantage is that which arises from the point of view of the balance of payments, which is the critical question of our time and upon which all our prosperity may ultimately hang. From the point of view of the balance of payments, it is extremely important that we should have, and be able to exploit, our own home supplies of timber. Imported timber is by no means a cheap commodity. I have not in my head the total value of the annual import, but it has risen immensely in cost since before the war. I can remember the time when one could buy Archangel timber for £12 to £14 a standard. Now I notice, from stray glances at the prices, that it costs something like £90, £100 or £110 a standard; and timber from the North American continent is more expensive still.

625
On balance of payment grounds alone, therefore, we ought to try to eliminate this expensive import. I believe that that is a very important consideration.
That leads up to the general concept of what the Forestry Commissioners are doing and to some questions of technique. For instance, there is the question of whether we should plant in large blocks or limit ourselves to shelter belts. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, for supporting the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on that subject, but peppering the country with shelter belts is not a forestry policy: we must plant in large, well-designed forests. I speak as a layman, but I think I am right in saying that we cannot really bring about general forest conditions, with self-regeneration, unless we plant in considerable areas.
There is another and more important reason for large-scale planting. Why has it happened that the importing of foreign timber has become so much the practice in this country and that between the wars, and before the First World War, the English timber business was a dim and feeble affair? Of course, that raises questions of the species that can be grown in this country and so on, but I would tell your Lordships one reason. Unless you have fairly homogeneous blocks of timber, so that you can exploit its felling and its conversion by regular procedures year after year, and offer to the market well-known sizes and dimensions, you cannot have a healthy, prospering, large-scale timber industry. It is because the Swedes, the Norwegians, the Russians and the Finns exploited their forests in that way that they gained the market in this country, because it is so much easier and more convenient to buy imported timber of known sizes and grades, than to mess about with miscellaneous English timber. That was all right for a bit of fencing or joinery in the country, but the timber trade was lost to English forestry because it was not worked in that way.
In the eighteenth century it was worked that way, in a more primitive fashion. There are areas in the Cairngorms where one can still see the relics of the arrangements for floating at that time. The forests at Rothiemurchus were worked systematically and the timber was sold widely. The water pipes in use in London in the eighteenth century were made
626
from trunks of trees brought down from Rothiemurchus. That is an argument for the methods of afforestation and of designing and working forests which have been so successfully inaugurated by the Forestry Commissioners. As these forests begin to come to maturity, already we can see that they are being worked in a systematic way. Give them another ten or fifteen years and we shall find that a properly organised timber trade will have grown up and all the modern industries that go with it, like pulp and paper and board. I think that that makes an irresistible case for the Forestry Commission. It makes a case for their working in the way they have, and for their being given the utmost assistance in acquiring adequate quantities of land. Therefore I feel that the motion of the noble Earl ought to have the support of us all.
I should like to say a word or two on private forestry. I have a small interest as trustee in some woodlands. There we have an example of ancient woods which are lovely but dilapidated, and of little use from a commercial point of view. But there are also sonic woods in the same estate, in the middle of Sussex, which were properly planted and thinned and which bid fair to be a commercial proposition. From common observation it is clear that some proportion of our private woodlands (I do not claim to be an expert on their history), for one reason or another, fell into a stage when they were little more than ornamental; not properly looked after, thinned, felled and generally promoted. We all know that that is not universally true, and we need not go into causes, except that one must agree, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, that the incidence of taxation has made the future seem rather dim to most people, and planting, at any rate, is a long-term policy.
As regards exploiting these English woodlands and getting something out of them, it was difficult because of the competition of the better organised timber industries overseas. I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, say—and I believe it to be true—that in recent times, partly because of a change in attitude on the part of the Forestry Commission, the relations between the private owners and the Forestry Commission have become much easier and helpful to both; and I should think things are

627
beating up now to an altogether better climate, as we often say, in regard to private woodlands. Anything more that can be done in that way, both in the rules and regulations, and by concrete assistance, ought to be done, because we need those woodlands as well as anything that the Forestry Commission can plant for us. Perhaps I have taken an undue amount of time at this stage of the evening, but I feel that some views should be expressed from this side of the House to support the noble Earl's timely Motion.
6.13 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like just to ask the noble Lord who is to reply a question. Can he make some observation on the matter of forestry in Wales, and particularly in North Wales, a country with which I am familiar and which I remember as a very bleak country—I am thinking of the Caernarvon range and Snowdon, with no trees at all. Is anything being done about that area? On a brief visit a short time ago, when I admit I did not carry out any great exploration, I found nothing there. I hope that in this non-political debate the noble Lord may be able to give some hope of considerable planting in Wales, and particularly North Wales.
6.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will join with me in welcoming this opportunity of discussing once more the important subject of forestry. It is a subject which I believe always commands the interest of your Lordships' House, and it is one on which, as we have heard this afternoon, many of your Lordships speak with great authority as woodland owners. During the course of the debate I have found myself in agreement on many points which have been made by noble Lords who have taken part; so much so that I think if I were to speak at length 1 should only be reinforcing the points they have made, and that might be somewhat tedious to your Lordships. There is no question at all but that an increase in the area of well-managed and maintained plantations is highly desirable. As has been said during the debate, we have a smaller proportion of land devoted to timber production than have such great agricultural countries as
628
Denmark and Holland, yet at the same time we rank high as one of the great consuming timber countries, and we import more than any other country in the world. The great heritage that we had of mature timber—which I may remind your Lordships was almost entirely privately owned—has largely disappeared as the result of the two world wars.
It was against that background that a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of the late Lord Robinson to consider the question of what should be the post-war forest policy of the country. At this point I think I should say, in view of what I gathered from a remark by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that my information is somewhat contrary to his. My information is that the late Lord Robinson was most keen that private forestry should contribute as much as it possibly could to the whole forestry effort of the country; in fact I think it can be discovered from the records that he went to great lengths to do all possible to assist private owners both by way of advice and also by means of financial grants.
The Committee over which the late Lord Robinson presided recommended that the post-war forest policy of the country should amount to 5 million acres, 3 million to come from new afforestation and 2 million from existing woodlands, and that that programme should be completed by the end of the present century. The rate at which that was to be achieved was far from excessive when it was considered against the background of the country's need, to which reference has been made, but it turned out to be too optimistic when one took into consideration the competing claims during these post-war years in relation to capital, labour and equipment, and also for land. Nevertheless, I can assure your Lordships that it remains a valid estimate of what we ought to aim at, and Her Majesty's Government accept it as such. It is still possible, and still necessary, to complete the programme which was laid down in the White Paper (Cmd. 6447) of June, 1943, but it is not, I fear, likely to be possible to achieve it at quite as rapid a rate as was intended. I would not, however, agree with any suggestion that the aim of post-war policy had been abandoned as being impracticable; all that has happened is that it will not be achieved quite so quickly as had been hoped. I do not want to give your Lordships the

629
impression that either the Government or the Forestry Commission are in any way complacent: the situation does give us cause for considerable concern.
The noble Earl in opening the debate referred to the reserves of plantable land, and your Lordships might like to know that in Scotland the reserve of plantable land has now fallen to 148,000 acres, in England it is 107,000 acres and in Wales 55,000 acres. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, asked me a question. If he cares to look at the report of the Forestry Commission he will find a great deal of information about what is being done in Wales—perhaps he will forgive me if I do not go into the figures at this point. The figures I have mentioned give us a total of 310,000 acres. In Scotland the planting rate reached 34,000 acres in 1954 and everyone hoped that that acreage would increase. But the Commission, having reviewed this situation in 1953, and in particular having estimated the amount of land which, having regard to existing policy they might expect to be able to acquire, came to the conclusion that the annual planting programme would have to be reduced. I think they were very prudent to do so, for the reserve we now have would have represented just over four years' planting. Your Lordships would agree I am sure that that is far too little to permit planting to proceed in an orderly and efficient manner without bringing about peaks and troughs of employment.
It has thus been necessary to reduce the planting programme throughout Great Britain. For Scotland it will be about 30,000 acres a year. The estimate for the whole country for 1956 is approximately 63,000 acres. In fact the area planted during the forest year which ended on September 30 last shows a small drop from the peak year of 1954. I am quite certain that all your Lordships accept the economic, strategic and social importance of forestry, because it provides increased employment in those very areas, the hill lands of our country, where the flight from the countryside has been most marked. The Government accept with some concern the Commission's decision to reduce the planting rate, and I can assure your Lordships that efforts are continually devoted to finding some means of improving the rate at which the Commission can acquire land.
630
I should like to refer to the fear of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that the reduction in the planting programme would mean a waste of plants. In regard to that matter I am assured by the Forestry Commission that the scale of reduction, which in any case has been foreseen, is not such as to give rise to any great difficulty. Annually there is a substantial demand from the nursery trade for any surpluses that the Commission may have available. My noble friend who opened the debate also drew attention to the unfortunate situation in which adequate areas of plantable land cannot be obtained by the Commission. There are those who are of the opinion that the Commission should plant more of the land that they at present have available, and it is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, said, that only about half of the total land at the disposal of the Commissioners is in fact planted. Apart from the better quality agricultural land which will not be planted, much of the land is by any standards completely unplantable. For example, it may consist of lochs, bogs or hare rock or land well over the height at which trees can be expected to grow. But a great deal has been done by the Commission to plant land which even a short time ago would have been regarded as completely unplantable.
Improvements in technique and the provision of new and specialised equipment have enabled the Commission to extend the planting line at higher and higher altitudes in recent years and in fact to plant land which even so short a time ago as 1945 would have been regarded as quite incapable of producing any reasonable crop. I think the Commission in these respects deserve our congratulations on the initiative that they have shown. Some people think they have gone too far. There is a school of thought, I am told, which suggests that they are sometimes too optimistic in establishing plantations on land which gives no guarantee whatsoever that in fifty or sixty years' time there will be an economic crop.
My noble friend, Lord Mansfield, also suggested that the Commission could get more land by paying more for it. Of course that is true up to a point, but I do not think it follows that it would be either wise or right for the Commission to start paying more than a fair market

631
value for the land they want. It certainly would not be fair to the taxpayer and I do not know that in the long run it would be fair either to the landowner or to the farmer. After all we do not want to tempt owners or the Commission to grow trees on land that would be better employed in the national interest in producing food, and that would be inevitable if the Commission embarked on a policy of artificially inflating the prices they are prepared to pay. But I would repeat that it is the Commission's policy to pay no more and no less than the fair market price for their land—a price which is arrived at by a process of negotiation between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The noble Earl who opened the debate gave us an example of a negotiation for an area of land for planting on which there was standing timber, and said that in his opinion the price was much too low. I understand that where land is being acquired with standing timber on it, that timber can be reserved for felling by the owner himself, so that one should not really have much difficulty in a case of that kind.
The question and possibility of compulsion as a means of securing for the Commission the land they need was raised. On that subject I do not think I could do better than refer to the comments which were made by my noble friend, Lord Home, when this subject was debated in February of this year. The Government do not rule out the use of compulsion in any individual case where the economic and social circumstances justify it—in other words, where it is the only alternative to the waste of land which everyone is agreed should be used for forestry. But it is indeed our earnest wish that the Commission will not find it necessary, save in exceptional circumstances, to use compulsion for the purchase of land for afforestation. I may say that neither the Commissioners nor the Government regard compulsion as the cure to the troubles arising from a shortage of land. It has also been said during the debate that perhaps we should pay less attention to the objections of the farming community. I do not know that I would go all the way with noble Lords who have mentioned these matters. After all, the farming community, like any other, is entitled to a patient hearing of
632
its views, and moreover it is very rarely that there is no need to make a choice between the often competing needs of food production and forestry. A choice has often to be made, and it seems to me that the claims of each should certainly have equal consideration.
A good deal was said during the course of the debate as to the competition between sheep and timber. Undoubtedly from experience it is known that timber will employ many more men than sheep or even agriculture. I believe the figure given by the noble Earl of one man to 100 acres of timber is fairly accurate. I may say that during a tour I made of the north-west of Scotland during this present summer it was found that where forestry had been started men were actually coming back to a district which they had left a few years before. In fact, employment was being provided for them. The question that arises so often with the farming community is the provision of shelter belts. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, quite appreciates what is meant by shelter belts in this connection. It is not the belt running along the side of a field that one often sees, perhaps forty to fifty feet broad, but rather a very considerable area of irregular shape, planted on a hillside to enable sheep to get shelter under all conditions of wind and weather. It is something very much larger than people usually visualise when speaking about shelter belts. I am glad to say that nowadays there is a greater acceptance among farmers generally of the need for more forestry and of the great possibilities which can derive from integration of the two activities. It is perfectly true, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, that there is a considerable improvement to be seen where shelter belts have been erected.
So far, I have dealt mainly, and indeed almost entirely, with the problems of the Forestry Commission. I do not ignore the very serious problems of private owners. As noble Lords have said, it is not much use encouraging owners to plant more land—and the private owners (this is an answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, said) have come nearer to achieving the objective set for them in the White Paper than have the Commission themselves, which is satisfactory and something to be proud of—if, when they come to thin or fell their woodlands, they

633
can get no market for their produce or a price which does not recoup their costs.
That leads me to refer to the setting up of building board factories and pulp mills. We all greatly welcome the initiative shown by industrialists in setting up a chipboard factory at Annan in Dumfriesshire, providing a greatly increased market, especially for small-sized thinnings, for owners of woodlands in the Lowlands as well as for the Commission in the considerable area around the factory. Over and above that, the Commission are actively investigating with industrialists the possibility of setting up factories, to use woodland produce, in other parts of the country. I hope that that will be helpful to the North East of England, to Wales and also to Norfolk. It is a most welcome development. It will not, of course, solve all the marketing problems of private owners, and on this subject I would only say that a Departmental Committee is closely engaged at this moment in investigating the problem. In those circumstances, perhaps your Lordships will not expect me to anticipate their Report. which is expected early next year.
It was suggested that there might be an increase in the maintenance grants. It has been suggested, both here and elsewhere, that loans might be provided for private owners. My understanding is that the United Kingdom Forestry Committee intend to make proposals for increases in the type and amount of grant now available. Your Lordships will note that it is the Committee, not the Commission.
LORD PIERCY: May I intervene with a sentence on that point? Something which has surprised me very much in recent years is that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation seem to give no assistance in the way of loans for the financing and planting of forests. Perhaps that is a quarter where some amelioration of the present arrangements might help forestry.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The noble Lord is referring to loans?
LORD PIERCY: Yes.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I will come to that matter in a moment. What the United Kingdom Forestry Committee hope to do, as I understand it, is to make proposals for increases in the type and
634
amount of grant now available, but as we have not yet had their Report perhaps I had better not say more now on the subject. In any case, it may be that the Marketing Committee, to which I referred a moment or two ago, will touch on this subject; and we had better await their Report. In relation to loans, I would say to the noble Lord that the owner of any woodland which is either dedicated or managed according to a plan approved by the Commissioners may now obtain a loan, usually on the security of the woodlands. So that source of finance is open to those who dedicate their land under an approved plan. I would end, as I began, by saying that I, and I am sure all your Lordships, welcome this debate. It has been most constructive and helpful. I thank the noble Lords who have taken Fart in it. It has demonstrated again that forestry is a cause which commands great sympathy in your Lordships' House, and is a subject on which there is a considerable measure of sincere agreement.
6.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, while I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the fullness of his reply, I am afraid that the Forestry Commission cannot take very much satisfaction from it, as I cannot see any concrete suggestion for remedying this difficulty over the acquisition of land. May I respectfully point out to the noble Lord that I never suggested that the Forestry Commission should pay more for the land which they acquire than its actual value. What I said was that in several cases they have not been willing to pay the present-day value and, therefore, seemed to be living in the past. As regards the reservation of timber, that is all right if the owner is in a position to cut, but in the particular cases that I had in mind, if the owners had reserved the timber, which was of a sufficiently immature nature, they would never have been granted a permit to fell it. That is why they were faced with great difficulty when the Commission offered them for the timber considerably below its value as growing timber.
The hour is late and I do not wish to do much more Iran thank the noble Earls, Lord Haddington and Lord Yarborough, for their support, but I feel that I must

635
make a mild rebuke to the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, for his apparently sweeping condemnation of the private woodland owner. To judge from his remarks, one would have thought there was no properly administered private woodland in the country—which is far from being the case. Even before the Forestry Commission had ever been thought of, there were hundreds of thousands of acres of excellently managed woodland. I would remind the noble Lord that every single bit of timber that was used in the First World War, and all except a very few thinnings used in the Second World War, were there solely as a result of the enterprise of our ancestors.
The noble Lord spoke of timber from Archangel. That is one reason why there were certain neglected woodlands. In the early days of this century my father planted a number of plantations, with the idea of providing pits with pitprops. Those plantations were well looked after and properly thinned; but they were never cut for pitprops. They stood long after that stage, until they were felled during the last war as sawn timber, the reason being that almost up to the outbreak of the last war it was cheaper for the trade to import timber from Archangel by sea than to bring the pitprops from Perthshire by road. That is why it is essential that all Governments in the future should undertake that there will be a market at reasonable prices—we ask no more—for timber produced in this country.
I should like to say one last word about extra employment given by timber. The late Duke of Westminster had a large property in Sutherland, and on that property there were employed, whole-time, one stalker and, part-time, two ghillies. The noble Duke, with the laudable idea of providing employment, put a large amount of the land under forestry
636
and I am assured that at present well over a hundred men have permanent employment there. That may be an extreme case, but I repeat that, where in the Highlands the interests of sheep and forestry clash, it is much to the benefit of the Highlands that forestry should prevail. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.